2013 Favs: Real Men Don’t Kill Their Children

“It’s surprising how human they look.”

My many dealings with pro-abortion liberal males has convinced me over and again that they are at heart unreconstructed misogynists.

I knew this long before I was converted to the pro life viewpoint. I knew it when I was the Oklahoma Director for NARAL. I knew it back when I was killing pro life bills as a young pro choice legislator.

All you have to do is hang out with them for a while, listen to their self-congratulatory talk about how they are the only men on the planet who “support women’s rights” (abortion.) Couple that with the contempt for women, the personal mistreatment they mete out to the women in their lives, the misogynist, sexualizing way they subtly degrade women and support the degradation of women in everything from porn to prostitution to rent-a-womb pregnancy surrogates.

Put the self-proclaimed “feminism” of these men alongside their actual behavior, and what you see is a hypocritical lie. They are misogynists who have been empowered by a corrupted feminist movement that has devolved down to nothing more than a pro abortion movement.

Abortion is the cad’s best friend in his treatment of women. Abortion allows misogynist men to pick and chose which of their children they will cherish and which they will encourage their women to kill. Abortion helps the rapist hide, and encourages the lothario to dump the woman he’s involved with at one of the most vulnerable times in her life; when she is pregnant with his child.

I ran across a video essay on NBCNEWS by Toure Neblett, in which he declaims proudly, “Thank God for abortion.” His reason? Abortion on demand allowed him, along with a woman he describes as “just not the right one,” to kill his first child. Abortion relieved him of the monstrous responsibility of fatherhood at “the wrong time.”

He tells us that he “would not be the person” he is today without this freeing experience of putting his baby to death. You get the feeling that he believes that this would be a loss of incomparable proportions for all humanity.

He goes on to admit that “family building is society building” and claims that the death of his first child has allowed him to go on later with “the right” woman to have “the right” child. He recounts how he accompanied her on her doctor’s appointments and felt a little distressed by the sight of this wanted baby on the ultrasound, by “how human they look.”

But he bounces back from this momentary lapse into something bordering conscience with assurances that it would be “misogynist” for him to regret the fact that he helped murder his own baby.

Watching this video saddens me. This unashamed and absolute lack of empathy by one human being for another human being is mind boggling. This is a man telling us with no doubt or regret that he helped kill his own child and that killing his child was the moral and right thing to do. Why? Because killing the child was the “best thing” for him, his career and his future.

I think he is right when he says that he wouldn’t be the man he is today if he had chosen differently. A man who choses to inconvenience himself by accepting the responsibilities of fatherhood, who actually loves all his children and not just the one who fits the self-indulgent, self-centered, self-deifying game plan he has worked out for his life, would not even resemble the man Toure is today.

“Thank God for abortion,” Toure tells us.

All I can say is Thank God for real men, like my husband and my father, who wanted and loved their children from the moment they began to exist. Thank God for men who do not choose to kill one child and cherish another, but who love, support and raise every child that God gives them.

Maybe I should just shorten that down to the actual point.

Thank God for real men.

If you want to see Toure’s essay, go here.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    Amen and AMEN! God help me, I know it is wrong, but in my weaker moments, I dream of a hit squad, perhaps composed of albino Opus Dei assassins (lol), that would go and literally beat some sense into “men” like this. What a waste of a life. But, then, it may not be his fault. Our culture encourages this sort of thinking. We are a nation of narcissists. :-(

  • SteveP

    May Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us, with our murdered children, nieces, nephews, grandsons, and granddaughters, to everlasting life.

  • Bill S

    “My many dealings with pro-abortion liberal males has convinced me over and again that they are at heart unreconstructed misogynists.”

    That is a strong statement with much evidence to the contrary. Abortion is a woman’s right, plain and simple. Those who seek to make it illegal are looking to take that right away. They may have their reasons for trying to take that right away, but those reasons do not take precedence over the rights of the woman. It’s not really that complicated.

    • SteveP

      BillS.: You are correct it is not complicated: “no” means no. “Yes” means “I’ll accept a child as a consequence of this action.” No need to manufacture “rights” talk.

      • Bill S

        So, you seek to deny a woman her rights by saying: No need to manufacture “rights” talk.
        That’s an interesting approach.

        • SteveP

          BillS.: This is 2013 which sees, let us say, the 90th year of compulsory education in the United States. Let us also estimate public education has included the subject of sexual reproduction in humans for the last 30 years: anyone who consents to copulation and does not know coitus leads to a child is lying. “Denying a woman her right” is not even a sophisticated lie.

        • Oregon Catholic

          Actually Bill, we are just supporting the pro-choice position. She made her (1st) choice to do what we all know can result in a baby and so now we’ll help her stand by the initial choice she made by making abortion illegal (snark).

          Why is it that pro-choice men and women never want to talk about that ‘other’ choice they exercise, hmmmm?

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Bill, I’ve already told you once: when will you learn to argue? Your bald assertions are meaningless, pointless wastes of time. You do no honour even to your execrable cause. For Heaven’s sake get it through your head that nobody died and made you God, that you don’t have the right to proclaim things as if they were obviously true just because you say so, that you have to argue and try to find points to make. Otherwise you just waste everyone’s time, but most of all yours.

      • Bill S

        It is my opinion that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy. Anyone who says she doesn’t is just stating an opposing opinion. There is no need to say that it is an opinion every time one is stated. This whole blog is about opinions. I’m just stating my opinion.

        • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

          You simply don’t understand. Most people on this blog, including the occasional opponent, make arguments. An argument is something that says: “because A is so and so, and B is so and so, it follows that C must be so and so. On the other hand, if C were not so and so…” and so on. It moves from one point to another, tries to prove its points, does not just dump down a bald statement in the manner of God Almighty. That kind of thing may suit God (“Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal” – PERIOD), but it is wholly unsuited to an ordinary human being. You are actually taking a gun to your own views, because if you say “it is my opinion, etc – anyone else is just stating an opposing opinion”, you are clearly implying that your opinion is worth neither more nor less than the other guy’s. And as the two opinions contradict each other, that leaves you with no argument to say that yours is better or more worth holding than the other guy’s. That is why we always try to present an argument.

        • Subsistent

          A commenter here says: “It is my opinion that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.” Actually, most pro-lifers agree that a woman sometimes does have a right to terminate a pregnancy, even if the child dies as a result, as long as a person does not aim at killing the child expressly, and does not intend the child’s death either as an end or as a means to some other end.

    • Lily

      @ BillS: A woman’s right to privacy/autonomy are NOT greater than another person’s right to life. One class cannot claim a right that no other has (This has happened before: Known as the “right to cut down”, Samurai at one time were allowed to kill non-samurai with impunity. No other classes in Japan had such a right.) Quite simply, no one has the right to deliberately kill an innocent human being. Science tells us that fetuses are alive and human and are not part of the human body, so any reasonable person can conclude that a fetus is a human being. No one, man or woman, has the right to take such a life

      • pagansister

        Tell me, Lily, would that embryo/fetus survive if it were not inside the woman, who is it’s sole source of food and shelter? No. Yes, it’s very life depends on the woman, much like a parasite depends on it’s host plant or animal. Women have the right to do as they wish with their bodies, which includes whether to continue to be the host.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    “Abortion is a woman’s right, plain and simple. Those who seek to make it illegal are looking to take that right away.”

    It’s not a woman’s right, or anyone else’s right, to kill another human being. One human beings right to life quite obviously trumps another human beings right to self-determination. What is astonishing is the abdication of responsibility you and these people show. They freely choose to participate in an act that is known to create new life, and then act like spoiled brats and demand the right to KILL when it actually happens. Narcissists to the extreme.

    • Bill S

      “It’s not a woman’s right, or anyone else’s right, to kill another human being.”

      except under certain conditions including self-defense and abortion. The governments of most advanced nations agree with this. To say it isn’t a woman’s right is to just pose an opposing argument. At this point in time, most of society has accepted abortion as a woman’s right.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        well, at least you don’t take issue with the fact that it’s killing another human being. When you say “most of society”, you mean “most of the decaying corpse of Western Civilization.” Oh, yeah, and Communist China. They’re big on abortion too.

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        “At this point, most of society has accepted abortion as a woman’s right.”
        South Carolina, 1830:
        “At this point, most of society has accepted slavery as the white man’s right.”

        In other words, what “most of society” seems to be accepting at one point or another means precisely zero.

      • Subsistent

        Even self-defense doesn’t give someone a right to kill his attacker expressly, only a right to forcibly STOP his attacker, not intending the attacker’s death — if it results in fact — either as an end or as a means to some end.

      • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

        Just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or moral. All that matters is what God says about abortion, and we are called to obey.

        • pagansister

          In your belief and opinion, Ginny, “All that matters is what God says about abortion, and we are called to obey”.

    • Will

      First of all, the government has paid me to kill literally hundreds of people with your tax money, so don’t talk to me about how it’s never permissible to kill. It’s not only permissible, it’s outright encouraged in some contexts. The efficiency with which I performed my task of killing people was directly recorded and remarked upon during my officer evaluations, albeit not in those words. Your assertion that I did not have the right to kill human beings is specifically contradicted by my experience and my evaluations.

      Second, the crux of the argument isn’t whether or not killing is allowable (which, obviously, it is.) The actual question is whether a human fetus is entitled to the same rights as a human infant, which I would argue it is not. I know that the author thinks I’m a horrible misogynist for being conservative enough that I don’t want the government to interfere with reproductive medical care, but I’m willing to bear that burden out of principle.

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        The government paid you to kill “hundreds”? And your efficiency was recorded and noted? Either you are talking about warfare, or you and yours are criminal. Either way the parallel does not apply to abortion. Your argument is that of a Nazi or Soviet jail guard.

        • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

          Yeah, that’s basically the only retreat of the pro-abort. Eventually, it comes down to, “it’s legal so that means it’s OK.” Never mind that this line of thinking has been proven to be catastrophically wrong in plenty of historical examples.

          “The actual question is whether a human fetus is entitled to the same rights as a human infant”

          You are at least right about this. And why would it not be? The stage of the life cycle a human being is in shouldn’t matter. It’s the same human being, regardless of the stage of life. In fact, logically, it seems to me that, if anything, it would be a greater crime to wipe out someone’s life at the very beginning than towards the end.

        • Subsistent

          My own take on the comment here by “Will” is that it’s actually a parody written by someone who’s both pro-life and either a pacifist or an adherent of the Magisterium’s just-war teaching, which has led recent popes to deplore the U.S. government’s drone attacks, etc. in the Middle East.

      • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

        Unborn babies are hardly our enemies, although that is how pro-abortion activists view them. They do totally rearrange our lives to put them first, necessarily requiring us to sacrifice our narcissistic plans on their behalf. The most vulnerable and defenseless among us deserve our protection from being violently ripped from what God created to be their safest, nurturing haven on earth. Since you have apparently chosen to forget what the term fetus means, it means little one. Our little ones cannot speak for themselves, nor can they defend themselves against big bullies seeking to destroy any trace of them on the altar of narcissism.

  • mary I

    Thank God for REAL men like my husband who not only is a truly good husband to the children we had together, but also chose life for our niece,(now our daughter) to adopt my sisters baby!!

    Real men choose life.. every time.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      “Real men choose life.. every time.”
      True.

      • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

        A year or two ago, the famous soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo (of Portugal) found out that a one-night stand he’d had in the US had resulted in a pregnancy. Ronaldo promised that he would recognize the child and do his duty as a father. The man can certainly afford it, and I can’t say I approve of his having one-night stands, but on the other hand, in accepting not just the financial responsibility but his personal role as a father, he has proved that he is a man. I don’t want to know how many of his colleagues never did.

  • mary I

    *Truly good father(and husband) I meant to write.:)

  • Rebecca Hamilton

    Try to discuss this without attacking one another. The subject of what role government should take in helping the poor is a contentious one in our society. I firmly believe that both sides of the argument have valid points, and both sides tend to go too far in being absolute.

    • SteveP

      Rebecca: Apparently, in some of the more populous cities, there are slogans in the public byways along the lines of: “Don’t believe in gay marriage? Don’t get gay married!”
      .
      Can you imagine the outcry if a parallel slogan read: “Not ready for a child? Don’t copulate!”
      .
      My apology for being blunt and crude; I do not think the problem is providing for the poor but a false “right” to inseminate or be inseminated.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        I agree.

      • Sus

        May be blunt and crude but my words to my kids are quite similar to ““Not ready for a child? Don’t copulate!”

        While I don’t use the words “punish”, I have made it clear to my kids that an unintended pregnancy changes everything. Their plans and dreams move way down the list because the baby is now #1.

        • SteveP

          Sus — May I commend you? The path you’ve picked is hard as pop culture is against you; the image of female-male relationships is ludicrously simplified to the erotic. I hope your children internalize your discipline.

          • Sus

            Thank you Steve. I hope they are internalizing it too. It seems like they are but only time will tell.

        • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

          Sadly, our president said he doesn’t want his daughters to be punished with a baby. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jszkPtsFH-k

          • Sus

            Obama did say a baby was punishment. It was a good line to say for pro-choice voters.

            My parents raised me with the view that having an unintended pregnancy was a punishment on the BABY. Killing the baby is further punishment.

    • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

      Is it only my impression that this is in the wrong column?

  • http://fpb.livejournal.com/ Fabio P.Barbieri

    Another point about abortion, which struck me forcibly time after time in argument. Abortion is the ultimate in moral cowardice. Any time that I brought up adoption as an alternative (with some problems, because I have some serious issues concerning adoption and am rather worried by how many pro-lifers treat it as an automatic answer), the response was: “So you want to PUNISH women!” At first I flatly failed to see what the opponent meant; then it became clear that the idea was that, while aborting a child in the womb, without ever seeing it, would have been tolerable to them, having to look it in the face and then give it away would have been intolerable. In other words, they wanted it dead secretly, hiding the reality of the deed even from themselves, rather than see it alive and then lose it. I call this cowardice, and one of my personal principles is that cowardice should not be a principle.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Very true. They just don’t want to “feel bad”, never mind the facts.

      • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

        Exactly, they don’t want to feel guilt or the shame and pain that comes along with facing one’s own sin. They don’t want accountability, and they certainly do not want to live for God and others.

        • pagansister

          The women I have known who felt it necessary to end their pregnancy (early) did not feel shame, guilt or pain. It was necessary and fortunately legal and safe. None had any reason to worry about what a god would think of it.

          • Rebecca Hamilton

            Actually, I doubt if that’s as true as you think. I know many women who have had an abortion. I do not know one who is not troubled by it. I do, however, know women who pretend not to be troubled, often because they feel that’s necessary to defend keeping it legal. Only with their closest and most trusted do the real feelings come out.

            Abortion always means killing a living child. People call the baby a “fetus,” which is a technical, medical term, to deny this reality. Women are, by our deepest nature, protective of our young. Abortion has been used as an answer to the injustices and cruelties of misogyny. But what it does in reality is allow those injustices and cruelties to continue in other ways while forcing this terrible “choice” on women.

            Abortion is a terrible thing, pagansister. I think I understand your passion. But you are not helping women by supporting abortion. What you need to do is direct that passion at the evil of misogyny, instead.

            • pagansister

              Rebecca H. Those women were family members—one by marriage, 2 by blood. I do know their feelings. I most certainly wish that abortions were not done but I have lived long enough to realize that there are times it is, in the minds of the women involved, necessary. Abortions have been happening since time began. Some women are not open to options when those are presented. And to say I support “abortion” is a term I find is a method used by those opposed to any and all abortions, to try and make pro-choice people change their minds. I support CHOICE –there is a huge difference. I support birth control, sex education (for girls AND boys) and would most certainly hope the lessons work. I disagree that abortion is killing an innocent child. Many times here and other sites, I have stated I believe women should terminate EARLY—latest— 3 months. Mother Nature uses that time frame for a miscarriages. Again, it is still up to the woman involved. Also, in many, many cases no one is forcing a woman to terminate. You state that women are in their deepest nature, protective of their young. Not always true. IMO, some women do not under any circumstances, wish to have a child. (I have a married niece who is one of those women–18 years later she hasn’t.) A question, if I may—you are “pro-life”. Does that include no death penalty, killing in war time (just or unjust wars) etc.? I understand your passion also, and appreciate that you understand (but disagree) with mine. Am not sure where this post will end up in the list here. I hit some button and lost the “reply” box!

  • http://www.brutallyhonest.org Rick

    Nicely done… let’s hope your piece will be picked up and passed along by your Catholic Pathos neighbors… I suspect the graphic image may scare them off… I hope not, this needs to go viral.

    I’ll link to it from my little corner of the innernet later tonight.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you Rick.

  • http://jessicahof.wordpress.com/ JessicaHof

    So, the argument is really about whether someone is willing to go through to term in a pregnancy or not? There are plenty of people willing to adopt, so it isn’t even as though parents who don’t want a child are going to be ‘punished’ (c. BH Obama) by having to keep the baby. But given a choice between going to term and killing the child, many see the last as the best way – really? As for the men concerned – they should keep it in their pants.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      “As for the men concerned – they should keep it in their pants.”

      Yeah, they should. It takes two to tango, though.

  • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

    Well, I’m late here but I’ll summarize,

    “The first duty of the strong is to protect the weak”

    What weaker than an unborn child?

    Any man that doesn’t, is not a man where I come from.

  • FW Ken

    The argument from popular opinion had been thoroughly debunked. No need to give it three time of day. Barbaric behavior is common, and often popular.

  • http://www.patheos.com Deacon Tom

    Neblett’s disgusting and cowardly video fits right in with this view of abortion as a “blessing.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/01/is-abortion-a-tragedy.html

  • http://ashesfromburntroses.blogspot.com/ Manny

    It can’t be re-iterated enough:
    “Real men choose life.. every time.”

    Thank you Mary and Rebecca.

  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

    This blog post and the (as of when I started composing my response) 39 responses so far trouble me. It all troubles me, in no small part, due to my own impulses/instincts. When I first saw the post, I was very tempted to join in the “rah, rah” cheering section about how we are all so righteous and they are all so evil. But something gave me pause…

    Something still gives me pause and I must admit I very much don’t want to write this response. I very much want to agree that the other side is evil and let it go at that. Rhetorically, I want to “stone the sinners”. But it’s too easy. It’s too facile. Worse, I believe it is morally, spiritually, and politically counterproductive.

    (Lord, help me write well enough to be a channel of your grace.)

    “Hate the sin but love the sinner”. It’s such an easy slogan to state – so hard to live. Abortion is evil. Approving and justifying abortion is evil. The actions are evil and no amount of rhetorical sleight of hand can make them anything other than evil. But the people who engage in the actions are still children of God. Some of the people engage in the actions because they have sold their birthright and become children of the devil. Many more have been fooled by the devil and believe they are righteous themselves. How do we reach them? How do we touch the hearts of their humanity and bring them back to the side of life?

    We begin by understanding. To be clear, we do NOT begin by excusing or rationalizing. We cannot excuse or rationalize evil. But we can understand how some become twisted and broken and wounded by it.

    Again, I hate the continued torture and killing of innocent children so vehemently that, that…well, that the “rhetorical stoning” can be a real temptation…

    But then I remember people I have known…

    I remember Danny (name changed/story true). Danny was such a lively giving soul when I first knew him. He helped me through a rough patch when I was being emotionally tortured by Alicia (name also changed). Later and unbeknownst to me, Danny got his them girlfriend pregnant. He gave in to pressure from both of their families to “take care of the problem”. I didn’t learn about it until too late. I didn’t learn about it until Danny broke down crying in the middle of the street lamenting, “I killed my baby!” I hated what he had done. I wished he had let me know and intervene before the fact. I understood later when he became suicidal and when I talked him out of yet another cowardly act. Through it all I still loved him. Through it all God still loved Him. We both knew that he was precious and redeemable even after having enabled and allowed such utter barbarity.

    I also remember Carl (name changed). From what little I knew, Carl seemed to be a basically decent guy and was a mutual friend of many of my friends. Somehow and briefly Carl got mixed up with Alicia after she was done torturing my psyche. For whatever reason Alicia decided to hate and torture Carl in a way I would never have allowed and had never made possible. Knowing what it would do to him, she purposely got pregnant and then aborted their child. I had never been all that close to Carl and we ended up losing touch with each other over the years. Eventually, we reconnected via facebook. The effect of that trauma all those years ago was still evident in the most frightful way. He had been twisted into an angry, spiteful fellow who was rabidly atheistic and pro-abortion. Under the surface, I could sometimes spot signs of his lingering humor and decency and humanity. I tried to reach out, to talk, to reconnect with the human and the divine still within him. I failed. I had to cut ties. His influence had become far too negative.

    I also remember clients I have seen in my work. I especially remember one geriatric woman who had aborted one of her children decades before in her youth. I remember her being absolutely convinced God hated her and that she was already condemned to hell. I remember her achieving some semblance of peace as we talked about the trap of despair and the absolute certainty that God still loved her, recognized her remorse, and was desperate to have her let Him back into her heart.

    I also remember the broken, grieving souls I encountered when working a Rachael’s Vineyard retreat one weekend. I remember the joy of watching them fully own what they had done while also fully embracing God’s love, mercy and forgiveness.

    I also remember Rita (name changed). I loved Rita with all my heart and tried to make our relationship work; but, it was doomed from the start. She was liberal and I was conservative. She was Jewish and I was Catholic. She was pro-choice and I was pro-life. I well remember struggling to find ways to honor her through all our differences. I particularly remember her going to counter-protest the march for life in Washington one year. Obviously, I was deeply torn. I called her that morning and told her that even though I didn’t believe in what she was doing, I still believed in her. It was the very outer edge of the furthest I could go. From her perspective, I wasn’t nearly far enough and she was furious. She let me know that “If I didn’t believe in what [she was] doing; then, I didn’t really believe in [her].” A weaker man, desperately in love and wanting to share his life with such a woman might have caved. It may not be as dramatic and as obvious, but I am sure that similar interactions are part of the explanation for a lot of “liberal pro-choice men”. I couldn’t and didn’t go there and that was the beginning of the end of our relationship.

    Finally, I remember our own “Bill S”. I won’t repeat his story; but, he has shared it before and it helps me understand him better. I still hate what he does here. But I think it helps me better understand why. I pray that he finally finds peace and has a more positive outcome than “Carl” and some others I have known.

    At the end of the day, people are not only their behaviors. We can and must condemn certain of their behaviors without having to condemn them. It is a lazy debater who assumes that their opposition could only disagree with them because their opposition is okay with embracing evil.

    I have seen the tactic applied against me often:

    Some people argue for gun control because they believe it will save children’s lives. When I disagree it “has to be” because I just don’t care for the children.

    Some people argue for government largess because they believe that is the essence of living out the gospel call to care for the poor. When I disagree it “has to be” because I am rich and out of touch and insensitive to the plight of the poor.

    Some people argue for gay marriage because they see it as an issue of simple justice and equality. When I disagree it “has to be” because of my “religious bigotry” and “homophobia”.

    Some people argue for what they call “reproductive choice and/or healthcare” because they actually have been convinced it’s for the best. When I disagree it “has to be” because of my hatred of women and my “fetus fetish”.

    Again, I hate, Hate, HATE abortion. That doesn’t mean I have to hate those who support abortion. That doesn’t mean I have to think they are all demons, ogres, misogynists, whatever. I think many are deeply wounded and believe that buying into the pro-abortion lies is the only way to healing. We convert them by showing that true peace and healing is on our side of the argument and in the arms of God. We don’t convert them by demonizing them.

    I will give no quarter to their arguments. Their arguments advance killing and death and evil and the empire of the demonic.

    But they are not all demons. Many of them are victims, too (maybe even Toure).

    • Manny

      Doctor, I had to comment, even with my internet down. I’m doing it off my phone, so excuse any typos. This was possibly the best comment I have ever seen on the internet. You have expressed so much that I have wanted to express. Love thode you disagree with. Don’t challenge their moral standing but disagree and be charitable. I can’t always live up to that but you have established the bar of internet decency. I wish all commentors could read this. I wish all bloggers could read this. Sir, you have earnerd my infinite respect.

      • Dr. Peter John Resweber

        Re: “I can’t always live up to that but…”

        Trust me, Manny, there are many who could attest that I rarely live up to it either. :(

        But we gotta keep trying.

        Thanks for the compliment. :)

  • Daniel Lafave

    Didn’t the Father kill his Son? It was at least part of his plan. That’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says at least.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

    It makes you wonder about a religion that makes carrying out a plan to kill your son is part of salvation.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      See atheist crank post here. The evidence keeps piling up.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Actually, if you actually read and understood the page you linked you would see that it clearly teaches that you and I and “all sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion”.

      You would also read “We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins.”

      As well as “And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.”

      Yet even as you continue to deny and torment Him, still He stands ready to love and forgive you.

      Crazy isn’t it? Indeed. Totally “crazy”.

      That’s how the REAL endless love operates.

  • pagansister

    As a pro-choice woman of advanced age, I would certainly hope that no woman would choose to terminate a pregnancy at 22 weeks—as in the picture that is supposed to shock. IF it is necessary at that advanced stage, then only for life of mother being in danger or that of fetus. Any terminations, IMO, should be done before the 3rd month, 12 weeks, is complete. Just my opinion. Obviously if one is having sexual intercourse, using condoms or other BC is preferable, but should those fail, then the 2 people involved should decide what to do—if indeed that male wishes to be part of the decision. Many do and many don’t, I’m sure. Also, IMO, the ultimate decision is the woman’s—-as she is the carrier. Making clean, safe terminations illegal will only drive it underground again. There have been methods for centuries to enable abortions—rightly or wrongly. Accidental pregnancies happen—to married and single women. Just commenting that if you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex is a very naive attitude on the subject. (for both men and women).

    • SteveP

      “Just commenting that if you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex is a very naive attitude on the subject. (for both men and women).”

      What you have stated is similar to stating that “eating less and exercising more” is a naive way to approach habits of obesity.

      Unfortunately, the contemporary, progressive message is that one cannot not engage in coitus or some other orgasm seeking behavior. That is the sum of “born that way” – we have adolescents and adults who have no practical experience in self-control and no role models to emulate.

      • pagansister

        To engage in sexual activity is ALWAYS a choice for males and females. As much as some think that “in the old days, when people always waited until marriage to have intercourse” is also naive. Having sex before marriage is not a new thing, it’s just more out in the open, if you will, now. No longer are unmarried pregnant teens “sent away” ASAP until after they delivered (of course after they put the baby up for adoption) or unmarried women hiding when they become pregnant. Many women were also pregnant when they married. I had an older neighbor (in her 80′s) who was raised Catholic— got pregnant and since the church wouldn’t marry them, knowing she was pregnant, she and her husband to be left that faith, married in another church. She never returned, and they raised 4 children in a different faith. The “contemporary, progressive message is that one cannot not engage in coitus or some other orgasm seeking behavior”? Really? I disagree. ( BTW would that other behavior be masturbation—as that is soooo bad! :-) ) Born that way? We have adolescents and adults that who aren’t thinking for themselves. No role models? I thought various religions were responsible for taking care of that. As mentioned above, education helps, no matter whether school or churches. Our 2 children had a very comprehensive sex ed. class in our church. Well done. Sex ed. was taught in the Catholic elementary school I used to teach in but even with that a couple of the girls who had graduated from the school , brought the children they had had while in the Catholic high school back to show them off—no, they weren’t married to the sperm donor. All in all, free will will win out. And I stick with what I said above—-when people comment that if you don’t want to become pregnant don’t have sex is a naive attitude.

        • SteveP

          Thank you for the response, pagansister. If I may, I’d summarize it as: attempting celibacy without also learning your mental, emotional, and physical responses and desires is difficult. Is that an accurate summary?

          My pet theory is that, as the majority of the population has been rural (huge urban populations are a recent phenomenon) for most of history, the rural gave opportunity for direct observation of the birds and the bees. Milk, eggs, honey, all came from sexual reproduction or the need to support those reproduced. Reproduction was not so mysterious, an activity confined to a bedroom behind a closed door. Thus is my opinion that our ancestors were, perhaps, a bit more circumspect and sober when approaching copulation not to mention the mood-killer of thinking of death in childbirth.

          The second beef I have is with the post-Freudian (Massey?) elevation of erotic activity to a need the same as oxygen or water. Popular media is rife with people who can only be intimate via engagement of eros. Or, on the other hand, we have celebrity columnists trumpeting that erotic engagement of another is the highest form of intimacy.

          Both, I think, are instable foundations for youth to build upon.

          • pagansister

            Yes, Steve P., I can accept your summary with no problem. :-) I can’t disagree with the rest of your post. Yes, lots of exposure to sex etc.. There will always be those that do not “wait” and there will be those that do. I think we only hear of those that “don’t” wait to engage in sex. All that to say, I still believe that Roe V. Wade shouldn’t be withdrawn.

            • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

              How barbaric we are as a so-called enlightened nation to have sent 55 million of our unborn to Death ROE!

              • pagansister

                IMO barbaric might be reserved for those countries that allow infanticide (after birth killing of the infant, in case you don’t know) or those countries that force the 1 child policy. In this country a woman has a choice—key word–CHOICE. I do not consider this country barbaric.

    • SteveP

      And I must applaud you on “Accidental pregnancies happen—to married and single women.” That is a hilarious image – a female accidentally encountering a free-range semen swarm.

      She: “Honest officer I did not see them in the twilight. They were on the edge of the road and jumped out in front of me. I swerved to avoid them but could not as you can see from the front-end of the vehicle. When I got out to see if they were okay some slipped down my pants.”

      Police: “I understand ma’m – you been accidentally impregnated. You had no choice in the matter – we’ll get you to the hospital where you can now choose between Plan B and a D&C.”

      • pagansister

        Glad you enjoyed it! You image is outstanding—-as is the story line. :-)

  • Dave

    “Just commenting that if you don’t want to become pregnant, don’t have sex is a very naive attitude on the subject. ”

    Uhhhh…why? Abstract for a minute from the issue of abortion. It’s a pretty good general statement that “if action X is known to cause event Y, and you don’t want event Y to happen, then don’t do action X.” And I’d add that if one goes ahead and does action X anyway, then don’t expect me to listen to whining that event Y happened. Where is the logical fallacy in that statement?

    And, regarding abortion, I’d add even further that TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING because event Y happened, even though it was fully known that action X causes event Y, but one doesn’t want to take responsibility for it, then that is basically the height of narcissism and viciousness.

  • pagansister

    You certainly make a simple statement complex. Those who seem to think that telling someone just don’t “do it” will keep someone from engaging in sexual intercourse is naive. Hopefully if they do engage in it, they will use birth control. Yes, if pregnancy occurs, no whining —deal with it. How is dealt with is up to mostly the woman. And I’m sure you won’t be surprised to have me say that I disagree that an early termination is killing a human being. Repeating, IMO, it should be done within the first 3 months—others wise complete the pregnancy. 3 months is plenty of time to decide since now a pregnancy can be detected much earlier than “the old days”.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      “And I’m sure you won’t be surprised to have me say that I disagree that an early termination is killing a human being.”

      Actually, I am surprised since modern biology is quite clear that it is a human being….just like what grows in a panda womb is a panda, etc. Not exactly rocket science.

  • pagansister

    Sorry, still disagree. There is potential for a full grown human being, it is not there yet. Are you basically saying then that as soon as conception, that human being (though no bigger than a pin point) should be able to vote etc., right?

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Seriously? Your arguments don’t make any sense. I didn’t say it was a “full grown human being”. I said it was a “human being” Are you suggesting that a not-fully-grown human being is any less of a human than those of us that are fully grown? We don’t let 3 year olds vote because they are not capable of the level of thought necessary to make an informed choice (never mind that probably 80% of adults don’t seem to be capable of the level of thought necessary to vote either), but 3 year olds are still just as human as 30 year olds.

      It’s a scientific question. If a scientist is given a 3 week old embryo, a 30 week old fetus, a 3 month old child, a 3 year old child or a 30 year old adult and asked what type of being this is (or if you prefer, what species), a scientist could determine that with certainty. It’s a human being.

      • pagansister

        The opinion of “human being” can differ as much as the question of “when does life begin”, IMO. I agree, a scientist will call a 3 week old embryo a human—also the other ages you mentioned. I’m not a scientist. Can that 3 week old embryo live outside the host?

    • http://ourgirlsclub.blogspot.com/ Ginny Bain Allen

      Two weeks after the moment of conception, the unborn baby has a discernible heartbeat. The heart circulates blood within the embryo that is not the mother’s blood, but blood the unborn baby has produced. At forty-three days, the unborn baby has detectable brain waves. All the organs of the body are functional by the end of the twelfth week, and the baby can cry. In adults, heartbeat and brain waves are commonly referred to as “vital” signs. When both brain waves and the heartbeat cease for a period of time, a patient may be declared legally dead. Vital signs are a demonstration of life. When such signs are clearly present in the developing embryo, why are people so reluctant to speak of prenatal life? We use this expression: “If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it probably is a duck.” In the case of human fetuses, we are definitely not talking about ducks. The fetus looks like a living human person. It acts like a human person. The embryo has the genetic structure of a human person. It has the vital signs of a living human person. The fetus has sexuality and movement. Often, it sucks its thumb, reacts to music, and kicks its legs. With this cumulative evidence, it would seemingly require powerful evidence to the contrary to conclude that a prenatal baby is not a living human person. Why do people resist this conclusion? The answer is prejudice. If we regard the embryo or fetus as a living human person, then the moral implications of destroying that person prior to birth are enormous. As long as we can convince ourselves that a fetus is not human until birth, we are relieved of those difficulties.

      • pagansister

        Thanks, Ginny for all that medical information—but I already know all those details. That doesn’t alter the fact that women can and should have the legal right to terminate if they wish. Won’t go into my thought again and I have mentioned this all before—IMO that procedure should be made in the first 12 weeks/3 months.

  • Bill S

    Catholics have to be reasonable and not demonize any abortion at any stage of development. Unless and until they can do that, no one in the position to stop abortions will ever listen to them. A woman can be convinced not to have an abortion, but a government shouldn’t be convinced to make it illegal.

    • pagansister

      Well said.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      I have to disagree, Bill S.

      We shouldn’t demonize those tempted by (or even involved in) abortion.

      As I noted above, any person is more than simply the sum of their acts.

      But we should definitely recognize the actual abortion as a demonic act.

      If the violent destruction of the most defenseless and innocent human life is NOT demonic, what is?

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Postscript and re: “A woman can be convinced not to have an abortion, but a government shouldn’t be convinced to make it illegal.”

      It’s not an either/or proposition.

      Convincing people not to resort to abortion requires changing hearts and minds.

      Convincing people to work to make abortion illegal also requires changing hearts and minds.

      Somewhere at the edges some people think “if it’s legal it must be okay”.

      Changing the law, therefore, helps change hearts and minds.

      It also helps save lives.

      • Bill S

        I don’t think anyone goes through life thinking that if something is legal, it must be okay. No one wants to live under a government that tries to prohibit everything that is not okay.

        The thing about abortion is that it is not okay at any time during a whole nine month period to some people. Reasonable people will agree that that is ridiculous. As to at what point along the pregnancy it could be considered okay is a matter of dispute that will never be settled.

        Some people see this as a black and white issue with no shades of gray. Those people are just unreasonable and the government is under no obligation to listen to them. I have my own number of weeks beyond which abortion is not okay. But it is only my own personal opinion and I don’t expect the government to adopt it and set it as a limit. Therefore, the government should leave the decision to the mother.

        • pagansister

          Well said, Bill S.

        • Dr. Peter John Resweber

          Re: “I don’t think anyone goes through life thinking that if something is legal, it must be okay.”

          “ANYONE”? Really?
          Do you really want to stand by a statement so contrary to experience and reason?

          Re: “No one wants to live under a government that tries to prohibit everything that is not okay.”

          Fair enough (and I never argued for such); but, limiting ourselves to prohibiting violence against innocent victims wouldn’t quite get to the extreme to which you allude.

          Re: (the rest)

          Unless I misread, the rest of your argument (taken to its logical conclusion) essentially posits that we shouldn’t pass laws without universal consent. If so, that is a ridiculous argument on its face. If not, perhaps you could clarify your logic.

          • Bill S

            I say “anyone” in the sense that whether something is okay or not is taught to humans way before they are aware of the legislative process. So everyone has a sense of right and wrong that is entirely independent of laws and regulations.

            “violence against innocent victims” – Even if you want to call it that, you still have to decide which is the greater evil: depriving a woman of here rights or committing violence against innocent victims. It’s not as cut and dry as you think. There are religious implications and not everyone has the same religious beliefs. Those with those beliefs insist that everyone should feel the same as them. But it is obvious that that is not the case.

            As for the concept of universal consent, we elect our legislators who make the laws. We elect our President who sometimes makes his own rules (granted) and who selects judges for approval by the legislature. So it is not exactly universal consent so much as majority rules.

            • Dr. Peter John Resweber

              Re: I say “anyone” in the sense that whether something is okay or not is taught to humans way before they are aware of the legislative process. So everyone has a sense of right and wrong that is entirely independent of laws and regulations.

              In fairness and before I proceed, you’re not a shrink. People often have areas of expertise and areas of what seems elementary knowledge (to them) that are not elementary to others. Lawyers, electricians or mechanics could each make me “seem the fool” by focusing on their area of specialized knowledge.

              In this case, you apparently are unaware of how moral reasoning develops. Generally, there is a stage of development such that the reasoning is as simple as “What’s right is what mommy and daddy says is right.” That is not a “bad” stage; it is just a relatively immature stage. However, there is some substantial minority of people who never really advance beyond that stage. Instead, the reasoning remains consistent while they substitute new authority figures (such as school teachers/principles, bosses at work, policeman, government, or majority rule).

              Re: “violence against innocent victims” – Even if you want to call it that, you still have to decide which is the greater evil: depriving a woman of here rights or committing violence against innocent victims. It’s not as cut and dry as you think. There are religious implications and not everyone has the same religious beliefs. Those with those beliefs insist that everyone should feel the same as them. But it is obvious that that is not the case.

              You appear to be advancing at least a few unsupportable arguments here.

              First, there is the apparent argument that if a certain idea can be shown to be tied to religious implications/beliefs then that idea must be ignored. That is simply base bigotry.

              Second is the idea that people like me are somehow “insist[ing] that everyone should feel the same as them”. Wrong. I cannot compel anyone to feel or think in any particular way. In certain cases, however, I can compel them to act (or fail to act) in a certain way. Within this context, I am reminded of the words of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. when he said, “It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also.” (As an aside, I wonder if you would have dismissed his calls for the end of racial discrimination due to those calls being tied to his religious beliefs.)

              Third is the implied idea that arguments against abortion are exclusively based on religious beliefs. Such an idea ignores the observation that people of many different faiths and even of no faith are united in opposition to abortion. It also ignores biological fact. From conception, the child is a distinct and unique member of the human race. That is simple biological fact. It is your side of the argument that must engage in various forms of obfuscation to distract from this simple fact.
              Re: As for the concept of universal consent, we elect our legislators who make the laws. We elect our President who sometimes makes his own rules (granted) and who selects judges for approval by the legislature. So it is not exactly universal consent so much as majority rules.

              Ultimately, arguing that something is right because “majority rules” would indicate a moral development not far advanced beyond “What’s right is what mommy and daddy says is right”.

              • Bill S

                Okay. I accept your analyses as you have presented them. Where does that leave us? Do you want the makeup of the Supreme Court to be changed and Roe v. Wade reversed? Or do you want to discourage women from using their freedom of choice to commit violence against innocent victims?

                Would it make a difference whether it were a fertilized egg or a fully formed fetus? Would there be any exceptions? What would your response be to the women who oppose the change, or better still to a woman seeking an abortion?

                We may not be as far apart on this issue as you think. Or maybe we are.

                • Dr. Peter John Resweber

                  Re: Okay. I accept your analyses as you have presented them.

                  Cool. Is that progress? Let’s see.

                  Re: Where does that leave us?

                  Abortion is the killing of a human being at the earliest stages of development. Decisions and actions proceed from that basic fact.

                  Re: Do you want the makeup of the Supreme Court to be changed and Roe v. Wade reversed?

                  Yes.

                  Re: Or do you want to discourage women from using their freedom of choice to commit violence against innocent victims?

                  Yes.

                  …for what it’s worth and whether by intent or oversight, you seem to have rehtorically loaded that question with the inclusion of the first word “Or” and then the later words “their freedom of choice”.

                  Regarding the “or”:
                  I don’t see any inconsistency in working to change the court and the law while simultaneously working to change hearts and minds.

                  Regarding the “their freedom of choice”:
                  In this case the “freedom of choice” is a morally illegitimate one. I would also have no problem working to discourage (by persuasion and by law) someone’s freedom to choose to murder, to pillage, to rape, etcetera.

                  Re: Would it make a difference whether it were a fertilized egg or a fully formed fetus?

                  A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. – Shakespeare
                  A person’s a person no matter how small. – Seuss

                  Re: Would there be any exceptions?

                  Yes.
                  I would apply similar reasoning to the exceptions for killing of any other human being. For example, actions taken in self-defense provide an obvious exception to the prohibition against killing of a full grown human. In somewhat (though not fully) similar manner, I would neither prosecute nor persecute someone for engaging in actions done only to save the life of the mother (even if such actions must necessarily involve the death of the child).

                  Re: What would your response be to the women who oppose the change, or better still to a woman seeking an abortion?

                  Love.

                  Re: We may not be as far apart on this issue as you think. Or maybe we are.

                  Time will tell.

                  • Dr. Peter John Resweber

                    Damn Typo Gremlins!!!

                    >:(

                    By “rehtorically” I obviously meant “rhetorically”.

                    :/

  • Pingback: Women in Combat and What Real Men Don’t Do « Speaking 4 Life

  • Bill S

    Re: Would it make a difference whether it were a fertilized egg or a fully formed fetus?

    A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. – Shakespeare
    A person’s a person no matter how small. – Seuss

    I can narrow my disagreement with you to this issue. That was a reasonability test. You flunked.

    There’s no way an early term abortion compares to a late term one. A mousetrap is crueler than an early term abortion. Much more so. At some point, you need to apply some science to make a moral decision. A potential person is not the same as a person.

    And I would include rape and incest in the exceptions. Not that I need exceptions.

    Have we discussed this before? I’m getting déjà vu.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Re: “I can narrow my disagreement with you to this issue. That was a reasonability test. You flunked.”

      I would suggest that perhaps you are reasoning from emotion. Reasoning from emotion is unreliable. As I often explain to my clients, “If reasoning from emotion was valid, then, every five year old in a superman cape could fly.”

      I will readily grant you that it “seems” or “feels” more “wrong” or even “icky” as the child develops further and appears more as we expect a child to appear.

      But feelings, emotions and “ickiness” aren’t the standard for behavior or for truth.

      Truth is truth.

      Truthfully, you have no scientific or logical basis for your distinctions.

      I may have flunked your subjective “reasonability” test.

      Can you pass my (hopefully more objective) logic and truth test?

      Here it is:
      Where and how can you logically/scientifically draw the lines you seek to draw which make it okay to kill the child earlier in development but not later?

  • Bill S

    It would depend on the development of the brain and nervous system as to when the child would experience pain. That’s the best answer I can give since I am not against abortion for any other reason. Yes. It would be an emotional response to a certain extent.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Re: “It would depend on the development of the brain and nervous system as to when the child would experience pain.”

      a) The experience of pain does not determine humanity.

      b) If I am not mistaken, there are certain neurological disorders which block the ability of full grown adults to experience pain. Should we say it’s okay to kill them?

      c) For that matter, would it be okay for you to kill me (as long as you made sure I was sufficiently anesthetized first)?

      Re: “Yes. It would be an emotional response to a certain extent.”

      Exactly.

      Keep in mind that at certain points in time people (even majorities of people) have “felt okay” about truly atrocious behavior.

      We you have time think further about the question:
      What logical/scientific rationale justifies abortion?

  • Bill S

    Did we have a discussion where I told you that my girlfriend had an abortion?

    We didn’t get much further then and my only point is that it is the woman’s call.

    • Dr. Peter John Resweber

      Re: Did we have a discussion where I told you that my girlfriend had an abortion?

      Yes.

      Re: We didn’t get much further then and my only point is that it is the woman’s call.

      Actually, that was when we discussed forgiving yourself (instead of trying to dismiss the reality of what had happened like when the sarcastic shrink said “so you got a girl pregnant. And you did this all by yourself”). I believe you are still running away from the reality and the pain of your experience. I believe it isn’t working. You will not find peace without the truth.

      As for “my only point is that it is the woman’s call” – that is a responsibility dodge.

      Something immoral does not become moral because we make it someone else’s “call”. We would never (for example) argue that “rape is heinous; but, it’s the rapists call” or “whatever your personal morality, you can’t decide for the slave master whether his actions or just – it’s his call”

      • Bill S

        Dr. Resweber,

        I’m sorry that I forgot our earlier conversation. I missed some of your posts but I got to read them and was amazed at what you said about the effect that abortion had on Danny and Carl. I guess I am more like Carl than Danny.

        This blog is like therapy for me. I really get to let out my feelings about the Catholic Church. I hope that no one looses their faith over anything I say. As far as getting people annoyed or upset at what I say, I’m perfectly OK with that. I think it actually strengthens their faith by thinking out a response.

        So. You really believe what you are saying. You surely have checked out the arguments against the existence of God, the supernatural, etc. and you have decided on Catholicism. Wow. That seems amazing to me.

        Thank you for your comments. They are of great value to me.

        • Dr. Peter John Resweber

          Don’t give up, buddy. :)

          You know I don’t. ;)

  • Pingback: Why Do Photos of Aborted Babies Upset Pro Choice Advocates?

  • Amy Kuppusamy

    here is the bottom line: the rights of an existing human being have to outweigh the rights of a hypothetical one. the woman feels fear, is self aware, think, cries, she is alive. the fetus is not even self aware and has no consciousness. however slight it is, the rights of an existing person outweighs the right of a hypothetical one, no matter how slight.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I can’t let this slide by.

      An unborn child is not hypothetical. Her or she is a living human being with an identifiably unique biology. You can see unborn children on ultrasounds from the earliest days of their existence. You can hear their hearts beat. After the first trimester their mother can feel them move, and if she is paying attention and has more than one child, she will discern that each of her babies behaves differently from the other(s), even in the womb. The assertion that an unborn child cannot feel is also not true. They withdraw from pain and, again, a pregnant woman can actually get them to move by pushing on them from the outside. Ultrasounds of babies trying to flee the surgeon’s instruments during abortions give every appearance of panic and terror on the part of the baby.

      They definitely react to sounds and stimuli such as someone invading their space with surgical instruments.

      When these babies are born early, even very early, such as late second trimester, they can obviously feel pain and respond to touch. To say they can’t think or are not self-aware is an assertion without proof. It also sounds as if you are basing a person’s humanity and right to live on their consciousness or cognitive abilities. That’s not only a slippery slope, it’s steep one that leads straight down into the pit.

      None of the things I’ve mentioned apply to a hypothetical, which is by definition an intellectual construct. An unborn baby is anything but a hypothetical.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X