Abortion Is a Blood Sacrifice Unto Satan!

Here’s a deranged priest that performs exorcisms who calls abortion a “demonic industry.” Listen to this guy. He’s nuts:

“Abortion is a demonic industry,” he told The Bulletin. “Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil. The clinics are like temples, the doctors are like priests, the medical table is like their altar. It’s a ritualized sacrifice. They have a dogma called choice, a hierarchy called Planned Parenthood, and guardian angels in the form of police guards that will arrest you if you try to stop them.”

Now that’s some loaded language. He’s trying to make abortion look like a satanic religion, when really it’s just a medical procedure.

He said that there have been abortionists who have called abortion “their sacrament.”

As Wikipedia would say, “citation needed.” Perhaps someone said this, but if they did, they were joking. But he doesn’t sound like the kind of guy who would get a joke.

“Abortion is a spiritual evil,” he said. “If we are to beat it, we can’t just fight it in the political realm. It derives its power from below. To confront a force this strong, you need a massive amount of prayer.”

If God has such a problem with abortion, why doesn’t he do away with it? God allows or causes millions of miscarriages each year from natural causes. He told the Israelites to kill innocent children. He even killed King David’s son for David’s sin. The God of the Bible doesn’t seem to have any problem with killing children. So I wouldn’t expect his help in these matters.

But he can pray all he wants, because it’ll keep him busy and away from little boys. Okay, that was uncalled for. I repent.

Anyway, this crazy priest goes on about exorcisms and demonic influence. He says:

I’m very set against Harry Potter, it’s pumping into our children’s minds the language and imagery of the occult. It’s extremely spiritually dangerous….

The number of soft-core occultism in the form of things like Harry Potter, Wicca and the New Age is on the increase. These are the gateways to the hardcore stuff. Ask any inner-city police department if they’re seeing evidence of Satanism. They’re organizing whole task forces to deal with crimes having to do with these things.

What’s astounding is this nutjob actually believes magic exists! And who knows where he gets the idea that police are seeing evidence of Satanism and creating task forces against it. Probably from an email forward.

Again, citation needed.

(via)

Romance at Mars Hill
Atheists in the Evangelical Mind
Where the Fire Comes From
Meet The Wife
  • http://endemoniada.org Martin

    Haha, this is hilarious! I take it this man hasn’t heard George Carlin explain this ridiculous obsession with unborn fetuses.

    Sure, save some unborn, unwanted children at the expense of the hundreds of thousands who die of AIDS all over the world because condoms are “of the devil!”. Makes perfect sense.

  • dr.R.

    Don’t forget to check out the comments – it gives an interesting insight into the world view of some people.

    Come to think of it, some christians actually believe that the pope is the antichrist, so maybe this priest can also be called “satanic”? Talking about “ritualized sacrifice” …

  • Jabster

    Well besides the general nutjobiness I think the main thing to say about Harry Potter is if you don’t believe in him why are you so angry with him?

  • sidhe

    I’m sitting here with my jaw on the floor…wow…

  • Wytwolf

    Perfect example of how much god cares for the little children:

    2 Kings
    2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

  • http://strawdog.wordpress.com/ strawdog

    Just ask Prolifers if they think that abortion is murder. And then ask them what how it should be punished …

    And see cognitive dissonance setting in :)

  • sandysays1

    Is there a site for political humor?

  • http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com Alphonsus

    @strawdog This guy is flakey enough that he probably *would* have an answer as to that question. Lock them up. Stone them. Ostracize them and send them into the woods.

    Makes me think. If super-size is really big, is ostracize even bigger? Ostriches are HUGE birds, after all

    I guess that only goes to prove that thinking really IS dangerous.

  • trj

    It’s an interesting question why God allows so many spontaneous abortions. I’ve never heard any believer give a good explanation for this.

    But I’m sure it’s somehow connected to us being sinful creatures. That’s the only explanation that makes sense. That, and God’s mysterious ways, of course.

  • Barry

    “Now that’s some loaded language. He’s trying to make abortion look like a satanic religion, when really it’s just a medical procedure.”

    Medical procedures to some, murder to others. Kevorkian was simply providing a medical procedure as well in his own mind, though others disagreed.

    The guy seems crazy for sure, but to call it simply a medical procedure is direct assumption of the right to choice. It would be the same as someone stopping a beating of a slave, and the owner saying he was only “fixing” his “equipment”. The logic is bit circular.

  • Jonathon

    Ahhh, Satanism. The old canard, the red herring. Nothing scares the $hit out of the fundies like Old Nick.

    I have yet to see any police department declare an emergency or a problem with “Satanism” or “Satanists”. Quite honestly, I think that the whole concept is simply a figment of the imagination of the fundies. I mean, who loves Satan more than a fundamentalist? What a useful scapegoat he is!

    Really, the only people who devoutly believe in Satan are fundamentalists. So, in an odd way, it is THEY who are the Satanists.

  • Jonathon

    Barry, abortion is a medical procedure, plain and simple. You can play semantics all you want, but it won’t change anything.

    Your slave analogy is false on its premise. Ditto for the shot against Dr. Kervorkian.

    Abortion is not murder. An embryo has no legal standing.

    All this concern about the “sanctity of life”. Funny, but it seems like anti-abortionists are only concerned about the life of the fetus until birth, and care little for the life of the child afterwards.

  • http://thebeattitude.com theBEattitude

    Daniel–
    I knew you’d enjoy that article. I couldn’t believe it when I stumbled onto it.

    I’m absolutely amazed that these obviously insane practices are condoned by the Catholic church. Of course the Bible backs them up when Jesus cured a boy’s seizures by casting out demons. (Matthew 17:15-21)

    Today we use antiepileptic drugs to cast out demons.

  • http://www.adamus.nl Adamus

    On the Harry Potter thing, devout Christians in my direct environment also believe Harry Potter is evil and should not be shown to children, lest they be tempted into the ways of occultism and witchcraft. And that is the realm of demons.

    Seriously, I wonder where they come up with these delusions. Did someone back in the ’70 have a bad LSD trip while playing Dungeons & Dragons and has since converted to fundamentalist nutticism Christianity?

  • latsot

    “To confront a force this strong, you need a massive amount of prayer.”

    I’m not sure I understand why some things require more prayer than others. Is it the number of prayers that’s important or the quality? Or does it depend what you’re asking for? The first seems arbitrary, the second capricious and the third demands the question of why there’d be any need to pray in the first place.

  • Elemenope

    Abortion is not murder. An embryo has no legal standing.

    Are you seriously going to situate moral realism with the state of the law? The law says something, and therefore it is so?

    Your argument is equivalent to saying that when slavery was legal in America, since black people had no legal standing that they could morally be treated as property instead of people, simply because it was *legally* legitimate.

    There is no necessity attached to the law; whatever the law is, it could just as easily (and has been in the past and possibly will be in the future) something altogether different. This is why resorting to law in moral argumentation always fails.

  • Val

    If this wacko-job isn’t getting contraceptives and vasectomies to people to *prevent* these horrible abortions, then, he is letting the pregnancies happen and that makes him an accessory to Satanic crime!

  • latsot

    “Are you seriously going to situate moral realism with the state of the law?”

    No…the comment just said abortion wasn’t murder. Murder and abortion both have legal definitions. This isn’t the same as the related moral issues, but the comment didn’t say it was.

  • Ty

    Yeah, El, you jumped a bit soon there.

  • Elemenope

    No…the comment just said abortion wasn’t murder. Murder and abortion both have legal definitions. This isn’t the same as the related moral issues, but the comment didn’t say it was.

    Oh come on. Look at the context of the comment.
    Especially here:

    Barry, abortion is a medical procedure, plain and simple. You can play semantics all you want, but it won’t change anything.

    The most reasonable reading of the phrase in bold is that he is arguing for abortion as a mere technical procedure, i.e. an adiaphoron (the short short version: something which has no moral consequence or content.) And he used an argument from law to support this, by pointing out that abortion is not legally murder.

    The only other reasonable interpretation of the above quoted sentence is that he is literally pointing out the trivially true fact that abortion is a medical procedure, i.e., that doctors perform it. I prefer to think that he is not wasting time pointing out something which is true by definition and that nobody in the conversation would ever deny, namely, that an abortion is something the doctors do (and is, therefore, a medical procedure, by definition).

    For a similar example, one could easily and reasonably say the trivially true statement that lobotomy is a medical procedure. That is, it is a surgical procedure, performed by doctors. However, nobody in a discussion about lobotomy as a moral/ethical practice would throw a “plain and simple” after that unless they were attempting to claim something further (i.e. that the act of drilling holes into someone’s brain and removing pieces of it is morally neutral).

    Since the wider frame of this discussion is some priest making (imho pretty wild and ridiculous) moral claims about abortion, like when he claims, “Abortion is a spiritual evil“, the proper level of analysis is *moral* not *legal*. A person who takes legal definitions and inserts them into a discussion about ethics is quite literally playing “word games”.

  • sistercoyote

    He probably got the idea that the police are investigating satanism (which I always typo as “statinism” which clearly has something to do with anti-cholesterol drugs) because they have been. Have you read Michael Stackpole’s the Pulling Report? He discusses in this article some of the ways in which the “satanic panic” was propagated with regard to D&D in the 1980s, including in police forces.

    And don’t forget the Police Dynamics Institute while we’re at it.

  • http://digitaldame.wordpress.com Digital Dame

    Old Nick… Saint Nick… Hmmm…. ;)

    Carl Sagan devoted I think a whole chapter in his book “The Demon-Haunted World” to debunking the urban myth of police task forces chasing Satanic cults.

  • latsot

    Elemenope:

    Perhaps you didn’t read the last part of Jonathon’s post:

    “All this concern about the “sanctity of life”. Funny, but it seems like anti-abortionists are only concerned about the life of the fetus until birth, and care little for the life of the child afterwards.”

    That seems to put the earlier part of his post in the correct context. Barry seems to be the one confusing morality and legality and seemed to exploit this sloppy distinction to make abortion sound particularly bad “oh no! it’s murder and therefore bad!”

    Far be it for me to argue with you about what the only possible reasonable interpretations of someone else’s post might be, but it seems that Jonathon’s point was that morality *is* the important thing and lots of anti-abortionists hide behind emotive language like ‘murder’ rather than caring about what is the best way to reduce human suffering.

  • latsot

    “For a similar example, one could easily and reasonably say the trivially true statement that lobotomy is a medical procedure. That is, it is a surgical procedure, performed by doctors. However, nobody in a discussion about lobotomy as a moral/ethical practice would throw a “plain and simple” after that unless they were attempting to claim something further (i.e. that the act of drilling holes into someone’s brain and removing pieces of it is morally neutral).”

    Or unless someone else was claiming that it was necessarily morally wrong or tantamount to murder. In that context, I would certainly say that lobotomy is a medical procedure, plain and simple, without the moralistic baggage that some random person has decided to attach to it.

  • Elemenope

    latsot –

    What complicates this discussion is that murder is a moral as well as a legal concept, and the two senses do not necessarily converge.

    Barry’s quote seems to use it explicitly in the moral sense: “Medical procedures to some, murder to others. Kevorkian was simply providing a medical procedure as well in his own mind, though others disagreed.” The example from Kevorkian is important because it reinforces that the point is about personal disagreement of valuation. That those valuations sometimes are later enshrined in the law is almost besides the point.

    But then Jonathon read Barry’s “Murder” in the legal, rather than moral sense, in order to exploit an amphibology in usage to insert an argument into Barry’s comment that isn’t there.

  • latsot

    Barry:

    “Kevorkian was simply providing a medical procedure as well in his own mind, though others disagreed. ”

    And some others agreed, both that it was a medical procedure and that it was morally sound. If my life becomes torture to me, I would very much hope I could go to the vets and get an injection, just like we do with our dogs and cats.

  • latsot

    “What complicates this discussion is that murder is a moral as well as a legal concept, and the two senses do not necessarily converge. ”

    Well yes, that is largely what I’m saying. Frankly, I think you read too much into Jonathon’s comment and overreacted. That’s all I was objecting to.

  • http://www.rationalitynow.com Dan Gilbert

    I, for one, would be delighted if the anti-abortion coalition would resort to “massive amounts of prayer” to the exclusion of all else. Then maybe we could get some peace and quiet out of it and could get on with our lives. ;-)

  • Elemenope

    Or unless someone else was claiming that it was necessarily morally wrong or tantamount to murder. In that context, I would certainly say that lobotomy is a medical procedure, plain and simple, without the moralistic baggage that some random person has decided to attach to it.

    Doesn’t it strike you as sort of odd that the competing claims must be either “abortion is tantamount to murder” or “abortion has absolutely no moral valence whatsoever”. Personally I find both claims pretty absurd, but this is what the debate has been reduced to, primarily because of its politicization.

    Drilling holes in a person’s head or scooping out a fetus are acts that can have moral weight even if that weight isn’t equal to or even approaching that of murder, don’t you think? I mean, we evaluate all other sorts of acts on a continuum (i.e. stealing is not as bad as murder, but is worse than littering; lying to your friend is worse than lying to a person trying to kill you, but perhaps not as bad as lying to your mom), why not this one?

  • Elemenope

    Well yes, that is largely what I’m saying. Frankly, I think you read too much into Jonathon’s comment and overreacted. That’s all I was objecting to.

    Fair enough. Hopefully Jonathon and/or Barry will clarify what they respectively meant.

  • latsot

    “But then Jonathon read Barry’s “Murder” in the legal, rather than moral sense, in order to exploit an amphibology in usage to insert an argument into Barry’s comment that isn’t there.”

    Funny, I read the situation almost exactly the other way around.

    Of course, we are both idiots for defending people who are clearly perfectly capable of defending themselves.

  • Sock

    I am pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. There’s a significant difference. If people are going to have an abortion, that is their choice, and they will have to live with the consequences.

    If the anti-choice people are so against giving women this option, and their argument is because “that child deserves to live”, then I would suggest instead that ANYONE who feels strongly enough about this subject to stand in protest, or to sign bills or petition congressmen or anything else… that they be forced to take the child and raise it themselves. If they are truly pro-life, then prove it.

    Stuff happens. Methods to prevent pregnancies aren’t guaranteed. Rape is a reality. The woman may not be equipped to be a mother–she may be a child herself, or unable to support herself let alone a child.

  • latsot

    “Doesn’t it strike you as sort of odd that the competing claims must be either “abortion is tantamount to murder” or “abortion has absolutely no moral valence whatsoever””

    No, because I don’t see how they MUST be THE competing claims. And claims to what, exactly? It is a really bizarre statement.

    “Drilling holes in a person’s head or scooping out a fetus are acts that can have moral weight even if that weight isn’t equal to or even approaching that of murder, don’t you think?”

    Of course, and I never claimed or implied otherwise. I’m not the one dealing in absolutes – moral or otherwise – here. I’m not the one constructing bizarre polarised strawmen to defend a point that isn’t even very coherent.

  • Elemenope

    Of course, and I never claimed or implied otherwise.

    Not so fast. You wrote “In that context, I would certainly say that lobotomy is a medical procedure, plain and simple, without the moralistic baggage that some random person has decided to attach to it.” In order words, in the face of a negative moral claim, you propose it proper to strip the moral element from the object of the claim as a counterargument?

    Of course, we are both idiots for defending people who are clearly perfectly capable of defending themselves.

    Perhaps. But aren’t all arguments of this sort at best sort of second- or third-hand? The framing argument is about interpreting the claims of some (kinda wacky) priest. We can only work with what we’re given; in order to understand and participate in such a conversation, we all need to make interpretive choices about what the priest means by his words, what Jonathon means, what Barry means, etc. ad nauseam. And absent a forthcoming clarification, we should be free to speculate about the constraints and possible meanings that their texts provide when they are unclear.

    That’s not “idiocy”. That’s *analysis*. :)

  • Aor

    Is abortion is a medical procedure, yes or no.

    The reasons for the abortion are not part of this question. The morals behind the decision are not part of the question. The right or lack of right to have an abortion are not relevant to the question. Semantic games should have no part in this.

    A gynecology exam is a medical procedure. A blood transfusion is a medical procedure, no matter what Jehovah’s Witnesses may believe about the consequences of that transfusion. Setting a broken leg is a medical procedure. Injecting poisons as part of an execution is a medical procedure. Abortion is a medical procedure.

    Abortion to some, medical procedure to others? No. It is a medical procedure to everyone, and moral or immoral, legal or illegal, right or wrong are entirely separate from the simple fact the the actual abortion is a medical procedure.

  • latsot

    “Not so fast. You wrote “In that context, I would certainly say that lobotomy is a medical procedure, plain and simple, without the moralistic baggage that some random person has decided to attach to it.” In order words, in the face of a negative moral claim, you propose it proper to strip the moral element from the object of the claim as a counterargument?”

    No I don’t. I simply offer my opinion on a specific subject.

  • Jeff Eyges

    The knife in the photo looks like an OXO Professional Series Chef’s knife. That’s absolutely the wrong knife for the procedure! An obvious smear attempt on the part of the Christian Right . On behalf of fetus-sacrificing devil worshipers everywhere, I am outraged!

  • http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Johnny Johnny

    I find it slightly humorous that christianity either disregards or has forgotten that their origins have a very blood thirsty god; he demanded animal and human sacrifice and instructed his followers to mercilessly slaughter all who he perceived as a threat.

    @Adamus: Most of the “devil worship” ideas came from the catholic church. It was the demonization of non-christian religions. “Paganism = Witchcraft = Devil-worship.” But that was a long time ago; more recently (the last few decades) misconceptions created by Hollywood have brought prevalence to devil worship. Can’t find the source at the moment but I read an article by a historian that claimed anything the police find today that resembles devil worship is a copy of something they saw from television or movies. Also if I recall, Dan Brown uses some of this thought line in Da Vinci Code.

  • Confused

    I thought abortion was supported by scripture?

    “Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place in our world: I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them; the oppressors have great power, and the victims are helpless. So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living; and the most fortunate of all are those who were never born, for they have never seen all the evil that is done in our world.”

    Ecclesiastes Ch4 vv 1-3.

    Show me a passage that condemns it as strongly as this one condones it.

  • Elemenope

    Is abortion is a medical procedure, yes or no.

    The reasons for the abortion are not part of this question.

    Trees, meet forest. I mean, come on, when you pull an argument to a different level of analysis, you can justify pretty much anything.

    But you’re arguing here, by asking whether or not abortion is a medical procedure, with nobody at all. So far as I know, nobody on any side of the argument claims that, in a technical sense, abortions are not procedures performed by doctors.

    The issues surrounding abortion are not whether it is “a medical procedure” but whether the performing of that medical procedure has moral consequences, and whether those moral consequences have implications for what society should or should not allow to occur.

  • Keviefriend

    Two things:
    1) If this guy is in fact male, in posession of a penis and not a uterus, then Abortion is NONE OF HIS FUCKING BUSINESS pure and simple. I have a penis, a rather nice one, and I know that Abortion has NOTHING to do with me. Less than nothing, in fact, because I also don’t have sex with women, so MY “child” will never be in contention.
    2) A quote: “You can choose not to decide but still have made a choice”-Rush (excellent band, not drug-addled gasbag).
    Kev :)

  • http://deusexeverriculum.wordpress.com/ Postman

    Look for “Law & Order: Satanic Crimes Unit” coming this Fall!

  • Ty

    Wow, a gay Rush fan who brags about his penis in his very first post.

    You, sir, are not boring.

    Welcome!

  • John C

    Abortion is a sick and gruesome evil that ends in…death. Death is not a medical ‘procedure’. A lethal injection (while tragic) as an instrument of criminal justice within a society is a far-removed concept from that of at-will abortion as a self-assumed right of entitlement.

    Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Isaiah 5:20

    The shadow is already looming and cast over the land. Soon we will all be ‘in the dark’ if a cry for righteousness does not take root in our collective hearts and minds. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach. Prov 14:34.

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Ps 33:12

    The fear (great reverence for Him & His ways over our own) of the Lord is the beginning (but only the beginning) of wisdom Prov 1:7. If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then the love of the Lord is the end-product of wisdom. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength…Mark 12:28 If we will not love and honor God than we would be well served to at least fear Him so as to avoid the consequences of evil doings.

    Not much longer will we continue to be the beneficiaries of the blessings of previous, God-fearing generations if we do not awaken and shake off the slow but certain acclimating of our hearts toward evil. We are akin to the proverbial frog in the boiling water. The heat (evil) is continually increased until we acclimate to its temperature.

    In the Lord’s prayer, we hear Him say…keep us from evil. Many think this means from becoming victims, but truly it means to keep us from DOING evil. We hear Jabez in the OT request that God…keep him from doing evil that it may not “grieve” him. Evil always grieves…us in the end. Obedience portends to peace, disobedience to

    Rarely have I worded such a strong and declarative post. Mock, scorn, ridicule if you must but right will always be right and wrong, wrong. Thankfully we can not escape the eternal realities of a holy God.

    No other topic is such a lightning rod as this, and Daniel knows it is sure to make for a long and heated thread.

    WAKE UP I SAY, awaken to righteousness.

    JC

  • Ty

    “Rarely have I worded such a strong and declarative post. Mock, scorn, ridicule if you must but right will always be right and wrong, wrong. Thankfully we can not escape the eternal realities of a holy God.”

    Really? What about all those things in the bible that used to be right, but are now considered wrong?

    Oh, right, that just means we aren’t reading it right.

    Even when you are being strong and declarative, you’re boring.

  • latsot

    Thanks, John C.

    I was undecided on the issue until you quoted scripture at me. I’ve turned my life around now.

    Sadly, I’ve rolled my eyes clean out of my head.

  • Ty

    Fortunately, my eye sockets are built with irony absorbing crumple zones.

  • http://www.opusdiaboli.info Julian Karswell

    The worrying thing about your deranged cleric’s post is that he perceives the police force (who are just upholding the democratically constituted laws of the land) as being inconvenient goons, that might get in the way of his cross hairs when he’s on the roof opposite the abortion clinic with his deer rifle. You do wonder what kind of world he would have us living in – a Christian Taleban state.

    Abortion is not a Satanic rite – as a Satanist I can assure you that Satanism does not require any kind of sacrificial practice or ‘offering’. The word ‘sacrifice’ – which means to make holy – should be a big tip-off there!

    The obsession with sacrificing children is deeply embedded in Judeo-Christian thought: This is an extract from my forthcoming book:

    Ideas of sacrifice probably predate known religions. They date back to hunter-gatherer cultures: when hunters made a kill or when the harvest was gathered, a part of that bounty, would be given as tribute the leader or chieftan. The gods, who were capricious also had to have their share, or else they may blight the wheat next year, or lead the game away from the spears.
    Judaism made a cult of the idea of sacrifice, using burnt offerings of food. The sacrifice of humans was not unknown.

    The sacrifice of children is a thread running through the whole of Judeo-Christian thought. The killing of the first born of the Egyptians, and Jehovah ‘testing’ Abraham by telling him to make a burnt offering of Isaac are all examples of this. Christianity has it that Jehovah then sacrificed his own child. The idea that something precious has to be given up to propitiate an angry god, to take away the threat of punishment for sin, or to gain a favour, runs through all Christian thought.

    Human sacrifice and the Blood Libel
    The Romans, when their own religion was being supplanted by Christianity made reference to the idea of the blood sacrifice, hinting that they killed children for their rituals. Later in the 12th century, the same lie was applied by Christians against the Jews.

    Later, during the witch-hunts that took place beween the 15th and 17th centuries, Christians used slurs of infanticide and of cannibalism against hedge witches and Satanists indiscriminately. While there is some evidence that some witches procured abortions, and some Satanists may have used aborted foetuses in rituals of blasphemy and desecration. statistically, the proof against those who murder in the name of Christ or Mohammed compared with the paltry few deluded teenagers and lunatics who have killed to ingratiate themselves with Satan, makes the practice of Satanic human sacrifice a negligible contingency.

    Regards

    Julian Karswell

  • Ty

    “Christians used slurs of infanticide and of cannibalism against hedge witches and Satanists indiscriminately. ”

    My understanding is that the vast majority of those persecuted as witches and satanists were neither. Since the accusation was so easy to make, and so difficult to refute, it became a convenient way to attack anyone on your shit list.

  • John C

    @2-D,

    The ‘guidance’ is intended to be the inner light of Christ, within your very being. There is no need to reference abortion (specifically) to appreciate it as an inherent evil when Light indwells.

    The true offer/message is not one of religion, that being endless, pointless rule-keeping devoid of the motive of love, but a new nature (His) imparted and residing within.

    So, if Truth is not a philosophy but rather a Person (indwelling) and Truth is always…liberating and makes us free men (and women) then freedom (not religion) resides internally always testifying of liberties and opposing various and binding practices of darkness (evil).

    Duality is a cause for much internal war’ing and strife. Pride is a divisive element within. This man (of pride) must be overcome. Oneness is where liberty and light reside. In the spirit realm there is no duality, no potential for both evil & good, only good.

    For where the spirit of the Lord is there is…liberty.

  • Ty

    “For where the spirit of the Lord is there is…liberty.”

    Just not for your womb, apparently.

  • Elemenope

    There is no need to reference abortion (specifically) to appreciate it as an inherent evil when Light indwells.

    If it were such an important thing, it would stand to reason that God would have mentioned it, you know, at least once. It’s not like he was working under a word limit.

    The actual history of Christian thought betrays whether it is an obvious “evil”. Both Augustine and T. Aquinas thought abortion to be permissible under certain (fairly broad) circumstances. Jews, who know the OT better than any Christian (for fairly obvious reasons), still allow abortion under similar circumstances to those articulated by those aforementioned church fathers.

  • Roger

    John C., meet my mental killfile.

    Seriously. From the moment I saw the first lines of godbottery, I scrolled faster than Hussain Bolt.

    In terms of the dreaded “a” word, I too am a gay man who isn’t in any present danger of contributing to overpopulation, so abortion tis’nt my affair.

  • John C

    Roger-

    The age old question remains…are we our brother’s keeper? Are we? And what does this really mean anyway?

    If we are not then we certainly have no brother at all.

    Does this make any sense to you Roger?

  • Roger

    No, John C., your mental ejaculations do not make any sense. Please rephrase. And please avoid any appeals to pity/emotion.

  • Margaret

    “Abortion is blood sacrifice of innocent blood to the devil.”

    So, this guy worships a god who makes blood sacrifice to the devil (in the 50% or so of cases of spontaneous abortion). I think he’s the one who’s a satanist.

  • http://mylifeintheblender.wordpress.com lauradee24

    hahaha, Harry Potter! My parents were in that whole “gasp! It’s witchcraft!” group, and when I finally saw a Harry Potter movie in college, I was completely dumbfounded as to what the big deal was. It was no worse than the Chronicles of Narnia, which they loved! Amazing what people believe about media they have never checked out for themselves.

  • Roger

    No, no, no, Margaret…if Invisible Sky Friend wants, say, Mary to get pregnant and then, because ISF’s ways are inscrutable and PERFECT, decides that Mary shouldn’t have the baby, ISF will cause a miraculous and blessed miscarriage. How dare you question ISF’s will!

  • boomSLANG

    John C: “Abortion is a sick and gruesome evil that ends in…death.”

    Are not the “individuals” who suffer this “sick and gruesome evil” better off being “defaulted” into an eternal bliss?…you know, serving the “Lord your God, Jesus Christ” in “Heaven”?… as opposed to being born, and thus, taking an enormous risk that they will not be “Saved”, due to one or more of the myriad possible factors that contribute to so many human beings who are non-Christian? For instance, being born into a Muslim household…. or say, being influenced by “Satan” on a blog such as this(?)

    I’m curious about this.(although, I have a sneaky feeling I’ll likely regret asking)

    Continues….”WAKE UP I SAY, awaken to righteousness.”

    Hey, you forgot, “self”…..awaken to SELF-righteousness.

  • Margaret

    Roger,

    So if a person aborts a fetus it’s a sacrifice to Satan, but if ISF aborts a fetus it’s not a sacrifice to Satan? I’m confused. Think I’ll stick with the FSM. Mmmm. Is spinach pasta blasphemy?

  • Ty

    Completely off topic, but Lauradee, I love your hair.

  • Keviefriend

    Ty, thank you :)
    I’ve been trying for years not to be boring. As for Rush “Fan”, idk, I know know a few songs, but the ones I know have been stuck in my head for several years….

    Kev :)

  • John C

    @Boomslang-

    Have you considered the real tragedy in abortion? You think ‘religious’ things like judgment, etc but that’s not it.

    When a life is aborted, the great tragedy is that God is kept from eternally rewarding that one for his or her (highest) worship of a life lived out..for and in Him. The talents, gifts have all been aborted along with the one.

    What about the contributions to mankind that have been obviated by the abortion of that…one. How many Einstein’s and Mother Teresa’s have we…aborted? How many John C’s or Boomslang’s? Have you ever looked at things in this way?

    So again God is thinking of us, but we see God through a distorted, harsh, religious lens.

    We need a lens cleaning.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    John C,

    “Rarely have I worded such a strong and declarative post. Mock, scorn, ridicule if you must but right will always be right and wrong, wrong. Thankfully we can not escape the eternal realities of a holy God.”

    But you’re not religious…right???

    “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. Isaiah 5:20

    The shadow is already looming and cast over the land. Soon we will all be ‘in the dark’ if a cry for righteousness does not take root in our collective hearts and minds. Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach. Prov 14:34.

    Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Ps 33:12

    The fear (great reverence for Him & His ways over our own) of the Lord is the beginning (but only the beginning) of wisdom Prov 1:7. If the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, then the love of the Lord is the end-product of wisdom. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and strength…Mark 12:28 If we will not love and honor God than we would be well served to at least fear Him so as to avoid the consequences of evil doings.”

    Actually, John C has just proved once and for all that he is, in fact, religious; he is a Christian.

    Let the pathetic word-game end decisively once and for all.

    You reference scripture, you reference teachings, and you invoke a certain kind of theology.

    If it smells like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck…

  • Ty

    If you think it’s a duck, you’re not reading it right.

  • John C

    @Tele-

    Certain times call for strong words. I feel that is the case now, where we are at as a people, a nation. We are about to incur the penalty for our many wrongs…if we do not forsake our ways.

    If my departure from softer, less harsh wording has taken you by surprise, thats ok this time. You would not whisper to your neighbor that his house was burning down while he…slept. We are asleep as a nation, a people who’s senses have become dull of hearing, acclimated to the present culture. We need a rebel spirit to awaken us before our house is…no more.

    AWAKE, shout it…LOUD in love.

  • Barry

    @ latsot, Jonathan

    Here I am to clarify, though I didn’t think I needed too. Elemenope understood perfectly and as usual has defended my premise much better than I ever could. My exact point was to disentangle the moral and legal implications of what we deem to be “immoral”. Was it legal for a slave owner to beat his slave, yes, but I’m assuming you would still say it was immoral for him to do so. Just because abortion is legal “medical procedure” doesn’t divorce it from the premise that many consider it to be an immoral action.

    I don’t even need to be a theist to take this position either. I could defend the immorality of abortion on some sort of utilitarian basis, so absolutes wouldn’t even have to come in to play. Had I brought God into the picture or scripture then you could have made the conclusions that you did. Instead you jumped, and Elemenope heard pull, and scored a bullseye.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    A lobotomy is a medical procedure. I disagree with how it was done in many cases throughout modern history — however, that doesn’t mean it’s not a medical procedure.

    The same is true for abortion. You don’t have to agree with it in order to describe it as what it is: a medical procedure.

  • Ty

    There are also people who, to not die, have to have half their brain removed.

    Context is everything.

    Statements like, “abortion is murder” or “abortion is immoral” are utterly without context. Under the right circumstances, so is hacking out half of a person’s brain.

  • John C

    Just because a doctor (usually) performs the “procedure” doesn’t make it any less…gruesome.

    You can change your socks but unless you wash your feet…

    Anyone ever witnessed one of these “procedures’ in person?

  • Elemenope

    Just because a doctor (usually) performs the “procedure” doesn’t make it any less…gruesome.

    Brain surgery is usually pretty gruesome. Ever seen a bowel surgery up close?

    The ick factor has little to do either with definition or with morality.

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    @John C: No, I haven’t. Neither have I witnessed a lobotomy, which I’m sure is just as horrible. Amputations are horrible, and I wouldn’t want to be present for one of those, either. Hell, most anything involving doctors and knives aren’t my idea of a holiday.

    None of us claim the procedure is not gruesome. All we’re saying is it is, like it or not, a medical procedure.

  • Ty

    But this is a relevant line of discussion, because it seems to me that a great many religious taboos are based on a visceral reaction.

    “That thing makes me feel icky, therefore god doesn’t like it.”

  • Elemenope

    But this is a relevant line of discussion, because it seems to me that a great many religious taboos are based on a visceral reaction.

    Certainly. I just didn’t want to confuse “is an interesting line of inquiry” with “lends credence to the notion that ick *ought* to play a role in moral valuations” which seemed to be where John C was going.

  • John C

    Today…abortion is accepted, normal, routine, medical procedure…tomorrow…what? What’s next once our conscience’s are so seered

    Where do you draw the line? Is there one in the sand that you wont cross? At some point it becomes harder and harder as we become…harder and harder.

    Right and wrong, wrong and right, which is which? Dark and light. We’ve gotten to the point we can no longer tell can we? Some say its ok, others shout desperate plea’s of warning…who’s right? Which is it…really?

    What would a young child think if he or she witnessed an abortion? Sick thought huh? Out of the mouth of babes…

    Metanoi

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    I draw the line at a child outside a mother’s womb. Until then it is the mother’s decision. There is no slippery slope, John.

    What would a child think if he or she witnessed an amputation? Does that make it wrong?

  • John C

    @Elemenope-

    Yes, I have seen countless surgeries, trauma, blood & guts, autopsy’s, dead & dying, invasive procedures, etc as daily aspects of my work. As a consequence blood and guts dont bother me, abortion has nothing to do with the “ick” factor, rather it is the taking of a life. There is a big difference between a surgical intervention as a medical treatment in the name of good health and an abortion, in the name of death.

    Its a detestable thing…it will never be anything else.

  • John C

    @Daniel…

    The difference is obvious. A medically required BKA can not be viewed in the same light as an abortion? A child viewing a BKA would be grossed out for sure but not a witness to the taking of a life. And yes, I have been in the surgical suite numerous times during an amputation. I’ve even carried the diseased leg out, seen it all…abortion is far worse, its killing for convenience. Its selfish, its sad.

    But again, we are all grown up.

  • Elemenope

    Today…abortion is accepted, normal, routine, medical procedure…tomorrow…what? What’s next once our conscience’s are so seared…

    All slippery slope arguments are good for is arguing stasis for its own sake. “If we do this today, then what [barely, metaphorically] related thing will be allowed tomorrow?!”

    In order to even make them *kinda* valid, you have to show that the thing you are worried about tomorrow (and, seriously, come up with something; this “well, I’m sure they’ll be something I know not what” is pretty useless) is literally dependent upon the thing being done today. So, what is it that so scares you about tomorrow, John C, that abortion today will make possible?

  • John C

    @Elemenope-

    It’s not so much a future procedure, or allowance rather the deteriorating condition of man(kinds) heart that should be, at least somewhat concerning.

    It has long been held that how a society regards their very young and their very old (with dignity, respect or otherwise) largely determines their overall (spiritual) health. I think you know what I mean by that term.

  • marcion

    I believe abortion is murder. Yet I don’t see any good reason to stop Democrats from killing their children. Less of them in the world equals a better world. Let ‘em take themselves out of the gene pool. Its their problem for following their own stupid death worshiping ideology. Better they kill their children than kill us, right?

  • marcion

    And euthanasia was just passed as part of Obama’s “stimulus” bill. It creates a new government bureaucracy that has the power to say “Bob is too old at 80 to have heart surgery: its not cost effective for medicate and social security systems — let him die.” That’s what will be happening, at least by 2012 if not 2010. Too bad his momma didn’t abort him.

  • John C

    @Marcion…

    Be careful there…you know the old saying…two wrongs dont make a right.

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “I believe abortion is murder. Yet I don’t see any good reason to stop Democrats from killing their children. Less of them in the world equals a better world. Let ‘em take themselves out of the gene pool. Its their problem for following their own stupid death worshiping ideology. Better they kill their children than kill us, right?”

    So Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc…, none of them have abortions? Only Democrats?

  • lra364

    So abortion is a blood sacrifice?

    An odd analogy coming from a church in which the following is demanded:

    Genesis 22: Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son, Isaac.

    Deuteronomy 12: You must offer flesh offerings to God.

    Exodus 22: You must offer your first born to God.

    New Testament: Jesus is called the “lamb of god.” He is sacrificed on the cross for sin.

    According to this, a blood sacrifice is a GOOD thing!

    So what exactly is this guy complaining about?

    For the rest of us SANE people,

    The right to chose is an integral part of living in a civilized society.

    In a civilized society, people realize when they aren’t ready to be parents. They wait until they have some decent success to bring children into this world.

    They consider that children are a gift and not a right!

    They realize that they need to be in a position to give to them before having them!

    What has the church done for children?

    It allows them to starve to death, be victims of war, be subjected to unfathomable suffering (even for an adult), be sexually abused, be sold into slavery AS CHILDREN because that is god’s WILL (for them to ‘live’).

    IT IS RIDICULOUS!!

    For you religious people, what have you done for the suffering children of this world?

    Lemme guess….. NOTHING!

    Birth control is not only a right, it is a RESPONSIBILITY!!!! If you can’t afford to give your children all the basics in life (including love, attention, health care, good food, etc) THEN DON’T HAVE THEM!!!

  • lra364

    John C

    What are you doing to raise the children of people who are failing as parents?

    Lemme guess…. NOTHING!

    You are WRONG!

  • lra364

    Marcion-

    Same question!

  • John C

    @Ira364…

    What have I done?

    I’ve been to the slums of Nuevo Laredo and brought clean water and food to those living in abject poverty and hopelessness.

    What have I done?

    I’ve taken the homeless and hungry families and children into my home and fed and housed them many times for long periods of time.

    What have I done?

    I’ve given faithfully to an international aid service for orphans and poverty stricken less fortunate children.

    What have I done?

    I’ve adopted unwanted, mixed-race, out of wedlock children who were deemed worthless and disposable.

    Your right, doing nothing is unacceptable, killing them even worse.

  • lra364

    John C

    And yet, children continue to suffer and die because churches won’t teach responsible sex education.

    Let me tell you what I’ve done.

    I am a special education teacher. I don’t like the idea of aborting children because of genetic deficiencies, yet I respect the right of a woman (and a man IF he is even involved) to choose what is right for them.

    As I said, having children is a GIFT, not a RIGHT, but religion teaches that pregnancy must be continued no matter what.

    My moral position is that children should NOT be made to suffer at the hands of IGNORANT and ABUSIVE parents who never wanted them to begin with.

    I know because I was one of those children.

    BIRTH CONTROL IS MERCIFUL!

  • Elemenope

    It’s not so much a future procedure, or allowance rather the deteriorating condition of man(kinds) heart that should be, at least somewhat concerning.

    That’s a little vague to be basing policy on.

    It has long been held that how a society regards their very young and their very old (with dignity, respect or otherwise) largely determines their overall (spiritual) health. I think you know what I mean by that term.

    I know what you mean by the term. I’d say that a society’s moral health is very much determined in part by how it treats those who are disempowered (the young, the old, the infirm, prisoners, minorities of whatever stripe), but it is *also* measured primarily by its tolerance for the flowering of human freedom of action, despite the desire (even the partially justified ones) to curtail it in the name of “safety” or “purity”. Human freedom starts and ends with human physical self-possession, the notion that one’s body is one’s own (as both prison and prize).

    So, in the end, what it comes down to is the definition of a person. I have a real hard time admitting that anything which doesn’t have a nervous system (much less a functioning brain) is in any significant sense human. I also have a hard time weighing the moral rights of a mother against any creature, human or not, which cannot survive but for the voluntary largesse of the mother. In the end, while there is grey area for me at the late stages of pregnancy, for the most part I can’t bring myself to consider a fetus to have the considerations due to a human being.

  • lra364

    ps John C

    I assume you are a christian, but you never responded to my bible verses.

    Why not?

  • John C

    Abortion is not birth control Ira…to consider and employ it as such is a great injustice.

    I am sorry to hear of your personal pain…you are right, no child should have to come in the world unwanted, its very sad.

  • lra364

    Plus, John C

    What are you doing to make sure that unfit parents don’t continue to procreate (and since you brought up Mexico, which is catholic) even against the church which tells them to go forth and multiply, even if it is creating unnecessary suffering for children that parents simply can’t afford? Are you advocating birth control or are you advocating misery?

  • lra364

    Well John C, let me tell you a little more…

    In the book of Matthew, it says:

    “No one who prefers their son or daughter to me is worthy of me.”

    After the physical abuse was over, this was the verse my father used to excuse abandoning me.

    Christians are very evil in their ignorant and unthinking ways.

    Abortion IS birth control. Birth control SHOULD be advocated for people who can’t take care of children.

    Crime would greatly be reduced. The earth’s resources would be much less taxed. Much misery and suffering would be eliminated.

    Wake UP!

  • John C

    Ira…

    The verses you quote, you do not understand…respectfully speaking. Do you know what it means (OT is rich in symbolism) to…offer your first born to God? What is your first born Ira? Do you know? Why is the natural first and the spiritual second? And yet why will the first born (natural man) serve the second (spiritual man) when this runs counter to OT tradition?

    Why did Jesus speak in parables so often? Why is their a natural (physical) birth and second (spiritual) birth?

    Why did Christ say that which is of the flesh is flesh and that which is of the spirit…spirit? What do these things mean?

    Answer me these and I will answer you in full…sir.

  • Seanchai-peg

    The notion of abortion as a sacrament could have been gleaned from a great quote by Gloria Steinem:

    If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

    To my knowledge, Steinem is not an abortionist, so it’s a bit of a stretch.

  • John C

    Ira-

    Im sorry your Dad misused scripture to justify abuse. God didnt do that to you, your Dad did Ira. That is not a reflection of the Father’s heart toward you, or anyone.

  • lra364

    John C

    Please read my other posts. Answer me about those concerns.

    And I’m not a sir, I’m a girl.

    As far as Jesus’ message against the flesh, check out the ancient Greeks. They came up with that message 400 years before Jesus. Jesus copied them. It’s a crappy message.

    And one more thing, Jesus himself said that parables were a diversionary tactic to keep secret knowledge from undeserving people. How can you place ANY value in cryptic words from a bible that claims to be the inerrant, literal word of god?

  • lra364

    Concerning my dad… what exactly is the misuse here? He followed the word precisely! He didn’t misuse it. He followed it to the letter.

  • John C

    Ira…cuz you have to know the (true) heart of the Author…Ma’am.

  • lra364

    Well how can we know the *true* heart of an ambiguous author who talks of genocide and blood sacrifice, including his first born and only son?

    BTW I’m my father’s first born and my brother is his only son. As far as I’m concerned, it is RELIGION that turned my father into a total bastard, not the abuse (which could have been forgiven, except that he now believes that he has ‘put it on Jesus’ and feels NO need to reconcile himself to US who ACTUALLY COUNT!

  • Michele

    John C.

    Yes, I’ve seen many abortions. And I ‘ve seen the remains of many, many more. Prior to 12 weeks it looks like undifferentiated tissue. After 12 weeks you can make out body parts, usually limbs. All the more reason for abortion to be legal during the time frame where there is not a visible human present. Very few of the decisions to abort are made lightly or easily. Most of the women have small children (usually less than a year old) at home to care for. Some who make this decision make it because the pregnancy would kill them. Why is abandoning the children already born such a noble aspiration for a woman who has small children to raise? Are they really worth so little that their mother should die carrying another child that will end her life?

  • lra364

    Sorry, John C, but the case for Jesus weakens by the minute…

    just READ the bible!

  • lra364

    Michele-

    I am a 100% supporter of choice, but I doubt your claim on the life of the mother.

    It is very rare now days with all the medical advances for a woman to die in child birth (it is practically unheard of).

    You are not helping our case…

  • Michele

    Ira364
    I’m not talking about women who die in childbirth. I’m talking about women who chose to abort rather than do so.

  • John C

    Ira-

    “religion” is not what Christ came to bring, not the true message or offer. This is an important distinction.

    Unfortunately, you have witnessed (and expereienced) the ugly effects of “religion” on a personal basis…so you associate “jesus” with this religious mess.

  • lra364

    John C

    You said:

    “What have I done?

    I’ve been to the slums of Nuevo Laredo and brought clean water and food to those living in abject poverty and hopelessness.”

    Why so they can grow up to produce 10 more starving children? Where is your SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE charity? You are actually INCREASING misery NOT decreasing it!

    “What have I done?

    I’ve taken the homeless and hungry families and children into my home and fed and housed them many times for long periods of time.”

    DITTO

    “What have I done?

    I’ve given faithfully to an international aid service for orphans and poverty stricken less fortunate children.”

    Once again, DITTO

    “What have I done?

    I’ve adopted unwanted, mixed-race, out of wedlock children who were deemed worthless and disposable.”

    Well there you might be on to something. Be sure to teach them NOT to PROCREATE unless they can offer a GOOD life to their children!!!

  • lra364

    Michele-

    Same difference.

  • lra364

    John C

    As opposed to what? Is there any way to access the supposed *true* message of a guy who died 2000+ years ago?

    Really?

    So it’s not Jesus, it is the vehicle that passes him along? Really?

  • lra364

    *crickets*

  • Sunny Day

    Re posting here something that another person said but can sum up my thoughts on the morality of abortion.

    1. Life began shortly after the earth cooled. It is continuous. Ova are alive. That doesn’t make them people.

    2. Aborting an embryo will be equivalent to killing a person when failing to build a house is equivalent to demolishing it. You don’t live in a blueprint, do you? Turning a blueprint into a house takes time, materials and work. So, too, turning a fertilized ovum into a full-term fetus, ready to be born.

    3. Abortion is “icky.” Abortion is regrettable. You think that it’s unethical. Other people do not. So let’s say that it’s debatable.

    4. If it’s debatable, or could be regretted, then the person most affected by the decision should be the one making it. Students should finish their education, but we don’t chain them to their desks. And we don’t say, “You failed physics so you’re condemned to being a janitor for the next ten years.”

    5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.

    6. It is not a solution to say, “Women should have the baby and give it up for adoption.” Once again, you’re telling her what to do. And childbirth forms a connection mediated by hormones, that condemns a woman to search the crowd for the rest of her life, wondering if she is seeing her child.

    6b.Also, Having a baby is physically demanding and somewhat risky. The people who make much of the risks of abortion fail to mention that childbirth is 13 times more likely to kill you. Thus, four women who die of abortions represent fifty women who had abortions instead of dying in childbirth. Need I point out that, except for conscripting soldiers, we don’t force people to take risks against their will? That’s a strong ethical argument against denying women abortions because you think it’s unethical.

    7. As Gloria Steinem pointed out, the basis of the “abortion debate” is denying women the status of ethical beings and legal adults who can make up their own minds about important personal decisions.

    8. And, no, I’m not speaking up for “the child.” The man on the street has no right to use my body against my will. Neither does an embryo. Even if it were in there reading the New York Times and thinking about which bank to knock off first when it developed hands and feet. (The second qualifier reminds us that its much-touted “innocence” is the innocence of incapacity, not ethical choice.)

    9. The “special connection” between mother and zygote is physical dependency. You take that to mean that there should be an emotional connection as well. That’s an assumption on your part which assumes your conclusion: that she should want to keep it. Like the assumption that women are “more moral” than men, it imposes a different standard on women than on the rest of us and expects them to act in a less self-interested way. Then they get less praise for being unselfish and more condemnation for acting in their own interests.

    10. Finally, Since one can kill a deer or a lamb or a bat, all of which have more brain function and feeling than an embryo, the “it could turn into a person if you supply enough blood circulation, food, care, and pain” argument is, in my opinion, proxy for “But it has a soul! It’s people to God! You’re denying Him another worshiper!” Like “Allow academic freedom and let students question evolution,” it’s an argument that is, at bottom, religiously based. It assumes the presence of a deity and an immaterial, unprovable soul. Consequently, enshrining laws against abortion based on these assumptions is breaching the separation of Church and State that is mandated in the U.S. constitution. If you are in the U.S., that should mean something to you.

    10b. Opposition to abortion on the grounds that “This is a person” is also an artificial inflation of the value of an embryo. For a reality check, consider that families don’t mean an early miscarriage or late period (spontaneous abortion) as they would the death of a child or a baby or even a stillbirth or late miscarriage.

  • lra364

    You go, Sunny Day!

  • lra364

    As I said before…

    Birth control is not only a right, it is a RESPONSIBILITY!!!! If you can’t afford to give your children all the basics in life (including love, attention, health care, good food, etc)

    THEN DON’T HAVE THEM!!!

  • Elemenope

    5. Unfortunately, a lot of the anti-choice rhetoric seems based in a desire to punish women. “She had sex so let her bear the consequences.” The intended consequences were fun, not child-rearing. That’s like saying that people fly airplanes in order to crash. Or banning skiers from medical care after a tumble because “they knew they were taking a risk.” It’s both small-minded and short-sighted. The person who is really punished by forcing an unwilling mother to give birth is the child.

    What’s particularly interesting about this one is that they seek to visit the “consequences” of the woman having sex on everyone else in society (who presumably had nothing tro do with the decision of the woman to have sex), since bringing a child from birth to maturity is very much a social, as well as personal, cost. One more desk at school, etc..

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Ira…cuz you have to know the (true) heart of the Author…Ma’am.

    Someone who knows that the true heart of the author is the sadistic, violent bully portrayed in the OT is going to interpret the whole bible through that lens.

    John C knows that the true heart of the author is loving kindness, so he has to pretend that all the times he demanded that babies be killed for his glory are a secret code for, I don’t know, giving people hugs.

    If the author’s actual intent can’t be discerned from the actual text, then he’s an incompetent author. Why would you believe that an omnipotent, omniscient being would eb incapable of making himself understood? Why do you have to decide what he’s going to say before you start reading, and torture the text to meet your preconceptions? And how does that mean that your preconceptions are more accurate than anyone else’s?

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    It is very rare now days with all the medical advances for a woman to die in child birth (it is practically unheard of).

    Yeah, because if it’s a serious risk, most mothers have an abortion.

  • http://whyareyousofat.wordpress.com McBloggenstein

    “..all the times he demanded that babies be killed for his glory are a secret code for, I don’t know, giving people hugs.”

    lol

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    McBlog:

    Seriously, it’s like reading Lord of the Rings, but before you begin, deciding that it’s going to be a gritty, noir detective story set in downtown Los Angeles, and that everything that apparently deviates from that concept must be coded, or allegorical, or otherwise not what it appears to say. And that you know that your reading is right, because you know that’s the type of story Tolkien was trying to tell. And your interpretation is entirely consistent with itself, so that proves that you accurately know Tolkien’s heart, right?

  • Roger

    And if you don’t believe that that’s what Tolkien intended, you’ll burn in hellfire for all eternity. Yay, Tolkien!

  • latsot

    wintermute: very good.

  • boomSLANG

    John C., @Boomslang……

    “Have you considered the real tragedy in abortion?”

    Yes. I concede that there are viable alternatives to abortion. At the same time, I’m of the position that each case should be taken on an individual basis.

    If you and your superstitious constituents believe that “souls” are injected into embryos at a specific term in a pregnancy, then perhaps you all should rally to have social security #’s issued to these embryos, as well, as to not rob these “children” of their government benefits. Also, maybe pregnant women who consume alcohol and/or drugs should be issued jail time for “contributing to a minor”. Yes? Oh, and here’s one you’ll probably like—pregnant women who travel by airline should get half-off on their second ticket, instead of paying for two adult tickets. ‘Fair?

    In other words, if you truly believe a fertilized egg is a “human being”, then damn it—be consistant in pushing for these “children’s” rights, would you?

    Continues…..”You think ‘religious’ things like judgment, etc but that’s not it.”

    As I’ve told you…..oh, perhaps a dozen times, now……the minute you start pimping your personal, subjective beliefs(however “unconventional”) onto others, it falls into the realm of “religion”. BTW, you are clearly judging others, which is why your attempts at distancing yourself from “judgement” is out-and-out, laughable.

    Continues….”When a life is aborted, the great tragedy is that God is kept from eternally rewarding that one for his or her (highest) worship of a life lived out..for and in Him.”

    You totally circumvent the point of my previous syllogism.(shocker). You simply assume that the “child” who is born will live their life “for and in Him[biblegod]“. You fail to acknowledge the possibility that they might *not* come to be a “Christian” at all, thus, being un-Saved, thus, spending an eternity in “hell”….or, an eternity being “separated” from your biblegod….or whatever-the-heck it is you believe about those who are not “Saved”.

    BTW, that reminds me—I’m still waiting on that information. Tell me about “hell”, John C, and how it relates to your biblegod, who you insist is “all-loving”. ‘Waiting.

    Continues….”The talents, gifts have all been aborted along with the one.”

    and…

    “What about the contributions to mankind that have been obviated by the abortion of that…one. How many Einstein’s and Mother Teresa’s have we…aborted? How many John C’s or Boomslang’s? Have you ever looked at things in this way?”

    If you want me to look at things that way; if you are going to use “potential” for an argument, then I can simply say “aborting” eliminates the potential for more Jeffrey Dahmers and Charlies Mansons in the world.

    Continues….”So again God is thinking of us…”

    So again, *existential fallacy*.

    Continues….”… but we see God through a distorted, harsh, religious lens.”

    No, I don’t “see” a “God” at all. That’s the problem, ad nauseam.

    Continues….”We need a lens cleaning.”

    No—we need a superstition cleaning.

  • Elemenope

    Oh, and here’s one you’ll probably like—pregnant women who travel by airline should get half-off on their second ticket, instead of paying for two adult tickets. ‘Fair?

    Not for nothing but people flying in an airplane are being charged for the number of *seats* they use. So far as I know, a pregnant woman usually only occupies one seat, no matter how many buns are in the oven.

    My thing is, if some Christians believe that ensoulment of the fetus occurs *at fertilization*, doesn’t this mean that identical twins literally only have half a soul? Let’s not even ask about triplets…

  • Aor

    @Elemenope

    I made simple points, yet again, using the actual definitions of words.

    But you’re arguing here, by asking whether or not abortion is a medical procedure, with nobody at all.

    No.
    Someone mentioned loaded language, Barry said “Medical procedures to some, abortion to others” and “The guy seems crazy for sure, but to call it simply a medical procedure is direct assumption of the right to choice” and I made the simple and irrefutable point that abortion is a medical procedure, period. Moral considerations are completely outside of the meaning of the word abortion in exactly the same way that moral considerations are outside of the definition of injecting someone with a needle (does the needle contain glucose, or poison? Doesn’t matter. Its still injecting a needle.) I stripped the loaded language out of the meaning of abortion being a medical procedure. I corrected an obvious problem.

    Trees, meet forest. I mean, come on, when you pull an argument to a different level of analysis, you can justify pretty much anything.

    I have no idea where you get the idea that using the actual meaning of words is justifying anything. Please, adjust your thinking. I have the impression that you want to disagree with me simply because I said it. I notice that you said nothing when Daniel made the same point later on. The ability to separate the argument from the person making the argument is a key part of rational discussion.

    When people using a word try to sneak extra meanings into it (hidden moral agendas) then skeptical people should be at work stripping those hidden agendas out of words. Definitions are important, and not allowing people to sneak in their own meanings unnoticed is important as well.

    The issues surrounding abortion are not whether it is “a medical procedure” but whether the performing of that medical procedure has moral consequences, and whether those moral consequences have implications for what society should or should not allow to occur.

    I am well aware of that. In fact, you may have noticed that I mentioned specifically that those moral considerations are not part of the definition of abortion.

    Clear definitions promote clear thinking. Unclear definitions promote unclear thinking. I won’t sit idly by and let someone misdefine abortion, and you shouldn’t either.

  • Elemenope

    Aor,

    With all apologies to you, at the point when I wrote that I hadn’t seen the comment (one of John C’s) that confirmed there is actually a person crazy enough to deny the simple technical definition of “medical procedure” as it applies to abortion.

    But it was fairly clear from Barry’s comment that he was getting at something different. Your fetish for “Clear definitions” really sometimes seems like a commitment to linguistic literalism, when just about *nobody* actually uses any language that way.

    And, no, the criticism wasn’t personal.

  • http://whostolemyurl.wordpress.com/ sungirltan

    i think its interesting – the comparisom between lobotomy and abortion. unless i’m mistaken they are few if not no christian groups campaigning manically against lobotomy. (if there are then granted i am wrong) is the life on an undeveloped fetus more valuable than a person who is already alive? or are mental health service users not worthy of your protection?

    furthermore – this harry potter business is hilarious! if you guys are so confident of the existence of god why are you worried about the influence of a childrens book!? i mean how paranoid!!

  • Elemenope

    unless i’m mistaken they are few if not no christian groups campaigning manically against lobotomy. (if there are then granted i am wrong) is the life on an undeveloped fetus more valuable than a person who is already alive? or are mental health service users not worthy of your protection?

    Certainly part of it is that there are far fewer lobotomies than abortions. Of course, that’s never stood in the way of a really good flash moral panic (D&D, anyone?) but really doesn’t help to sustain a long-term legal and social campaign, such as that against legalized abortion.

    Also, babies are cute, and crazy people tend to make folk nervous. We care about people clubbing baby seals but not about hacking cows to pieces, cause baby seals are just so much cuter (and probably don’t taste as good). Often, a cause’s viability depends upon how likable the “victims” are.

  • boomSLANG

    “So far as I know, a pregnant woman usually only occupies one seat, no matter how many buns are in the oven.”

    Perhaps, but the “child” is eating the airline food, which is probably incorporated into the ticket price. And yes, I know……”airline food” is an oxymoron, but that’s besides the point.

  • Val

    Ira364 and Sunny Day: You Go!

    Instead of adding to what you say, for now I’ll say this:

    People should read your posts again!

    (Of course, many shall remain clueless, even unto their twelve times twelfth reading.)

    It’s good stuff. Keep it up.

  • Elemenope

    Perhaps, but the “child” is eating the airline food, which is probably incorporated into the ticket price. And yes, I know……”airline food” is an oxymoron, but that’s besides the point.

    Baby hunger FTW.

  • Jabster

    @sungirltan

    Would a more valid comparison be between euthanasia and abortion both of which may be considered to taking a life. In this area the religious lobby are certainly active. Take a look at the recent case in Italy of Eluana Englaro and her parents’ fight to let her die.

  • John C

    When love is the dominant aspect of our being, of our lives, we will think and act differently, out of love.

    Btw…Love is a Person.

    Love is a way of life, is life itself.

  • Jabster

    @elemenope/boomSLANG

    You’ve got to check the religion of the person first as Muslim scholars have decided that the soul doesn’t appear until 120 days. That would a tricky moral choice for a Christian — is it worse to lie and say you’re a Muslim or an atheist?

  • Jabster

    @elemenope

    “Also, babies are cute, and crazy people tend to make folk nervous. We care about people clubbing baby seals but not about hacking cows to pieces, cause baby seals are just so much cuter (and probably don’t taste as good). Often, a cause’s viability depends upon how likable the “victims” are.”

    There is an element of the cuter they are the more sympathy they get — although hedgehogs seems to break all the rules — but the spilt may also been seen to be it’s ok to kill something to eat it but not to wear it or simply cull it. Here in the UK we now a great debate over whether it’s correct to cull grey squirrels to protect the native red squirrel and in case you wondering yes red squirrels are as cute as a button!

  • Elemenope

    although hedgehogs seems to break all the rules

    You don’t think hedgehogs are cute?!

    …but the split may also been seen to be it’s ok to kill something to eat it but not to wear it or simply cull it.

    Good point.

  • http://whyareyousofat.wordpress.com McBloggenstein

    “Also, babies are cute”

    mm.. Not all babies.

    @Jabster

    Muslims say it enters the body at 120 days?
    I wish Christians would agree on that. At least then their postition would be more specific, and then if one disagreed it would be simpler to debate such a topic.

  • boomSLANG

    John C: “Btw…Love is a Person.”

    No it isn’t. Let’s review: “Love”….. is love.

    Moreover, “love” is not just an noun, but also a verb(action). We generally don’t show “love” towards other human beings by….

    - remaining invisible to them

    - testing them

    - asking them to accept our existence on “faith”.

    - making them beg for what we already know they need

    - talking to them in “code”(your word)

    - teaching them that human suffering is sometimes virtuous

    - torturing them if they don’t reciprocate our “love”

    All of which this “Person” you insist is “Love”, does.

    Tell us about “hell”, John C.

  • John C

    @Mcblog-

    Re: your “soul” comments…see C.S. Lewis quote:

    “You dont HAVE a soul, you HAVE a body, you ARE a soul”

    I like it…which of course means you will loathe it…lol

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    John C:

    Everyone knows that love is a chocolate cake. Clearly you’re not very good at reading the secret code in the Bible. But don’t worry, once you know the true heart of the author, it’ll all make sense.

  • John C

    @Boomslang-

    Dude, you’re obsessed about hell…why all the focus on what is NOT in the offer??

    You will not ascribe the good, but insist God is to blame for ALL the bad…makes no sense Boomslang…??

    Is there any chance, even the slightest that you are…wrong, or at least not fully informed?

    How ’bout a positive dialogue, you seem to quickly digress to a negative platform…from the get go…

    Yes, God is love.

  • Jabster

    @elemenope

    Hedgehogs are dammed cute but …

    Big eyes — beady little eyes
    Button Nose — large thin snout
    Furry — spines

    @McBloggenstein

    Who knows who comes up with this sort of stuff — why was it 120 days, sounds like a made up number me; how do you know when the 120 days are up?

  • John C

    @Winter-

    Good to hear from you winter…but I’m allergic to chocolate.

  • Jabster

    @boomSLANG

    Has anyone made a joke about how you’ve just described marriage?

  • John C

    @Winter-

    God “entrusts” us (spiritual Jews) with His “oracles”. Romans 3:2

    Also…he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but inwardly. Romans 2:28

    In these truth’s is the “secret code” that you mock me about.

    Want to know more??

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ john C

    “You will not ascribe the good, but insist God is to blame for ALL the bad…makes no sense Boomslang…??

    mark: I have been wondering for a while now, why does the all power, divine and eternal god get credit for all of the good things that happen, but inspite of the fact that he is control of everything, created everthing including evil and satan, god recieves no blame for all of the evil in the word.

    “Is there any chance, even the slightest that you are…wrong, or at least not fully informed?”

    mark: My question to you is the same, especially considering the fact that god is always hiding from those who love and are trying to find him. Also why isnt your god more clear about what he wants.

    Yes, God is love.”

    mark: What exactly does this statement mean. Is it love to give instructions on how to sell ones daughter into slavery? Please list some reason why you consider god love if you will.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ John C

    “In these truth’s is the “secret code” that you mock me about.

    Want to know more??”

    mark: Exactly why does god have secret codes? Why would a god who wants people to know him and his word send his messages in secret codes?

    Yes john I would love to know more.

  • John C

    @Markbey

    In the OT, what is the symbolism for the female aspect of our being? Do you know?

    Why did Jesus speak in parables?

    ———————————————————————–

    As far as ascribing to God all the evils, you incorrectly suppose He is “in control of everything”. He gave us dominion to rule and reign and says “ye are god’s, children of the most High God” Ps 82:6.

    Who is it that rapes, murder’s, steals Markbey, is it God or do we find man commiting such attrocities??

    Man (devoid of the love of God in which he was originally created to live out of) is responsible for the evil we see today, the evils of the past and yes, even the evils of religion.

    Consider these things Markbey…please

  • boomSLANG

    Jabster, @boomSLANG…..

    “Has anyone made a joke about how you’ve just described marriage?”

    No. But this certainly explains why I’ve employed my free will to be single.

  • John C

    @Marbey-

    Jesus said “you search the scriptures that you might find me (eternal life), but you refuse to come to me to receive it”

    The bible is not a book in the way that a book is…a mere book. It is not so much that the bible is written in “code” but rather it is written in the spirit of our original (but forgotten) language. When we departed from the Father’s bosom in the original, paradaisical life we lost our heavenly, spiritual perception and essentially morphed into the lower, physical state that we find ourselves bound to today. This is why Jesus said that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit. There are two realms, one being spirit, the other flesh. The true offer and message of Jesus is to restore back to us our true spiritual nature which free’s us from the confines of fleshy living.

    This is why I say that religion is not what Christ offers, but rather a spiritual life.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ john C

    ” As far as ascribing to God all the evils, you incorrectly suppose He is “in control of everything”.”

    mark: If god is eternal and good. If god created everything in the universe then wouldnt that mean that god also created evil.

    If god didnt create evil then exactly where did evil come from?

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ john c

    “The bible is not a book in the way that a book is…a mere book. It is not so much that the bible is written in “code” but rather it is written in the spirit of our original (but forgotten) language. ”

    mark: First of all you choose the word code not me. Also god could give us the ability to understand his language any time he decides to.

    Also if the word of god is what we need to get closer to god. If god wants us to know his word and to follow it, then why would he inspire it to be written in a language that we can understand?

    Also exactly what forgotten language are you talking about?

  • John C

    Pride…rebellion, the “apart from” God life naturally arouses the latent potential to manifest evil. More of a by-product of living outside of God, desiring to be ‘like’ God that meaning possessing the knowledge of good & evil as opposed to our original, created condition of innocence.

    Some will quote a verse in Isaiah…I think its out of context in mho.

    We (man living outside his original matrix for lack of a better term) is why evil is so prevalent today. That’s why only a change of nature, an internal exchange of heart can remedy man’s plight…Christ IN you, as you is the answer.

  • John C

    @Markbey-

    I am saying this…that the flesh realm does not understand the language of the spirit…heavenly realm. This is why Paul admonishes us to…walk (live) in the spirit (realm) and then we wont live out of our lower, flesh nature we inherited from our first father…Adam, the one that rebelled and lived ‘apart’ from God.

    Christ restores in us the heavenly, spiritual aspect of our (original) being so we can then hear, perceive the things of the spirit realm….again like we did before pride entered our being.

  • John C

    @Markbey-

    I gotta run out for a while, I appreciate the high quality discussion, would be happy to pick it back up later if you are interested…take care markbey…

    JC

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ john

    ” Pride…rebellion, the “apart from” God life naturally arouses the latent potential to manifest evil. More of a by-product of living outside of God, desiring to be ‘like’ God that meaning possessing the knowledge of good & evil as opposed to our original, created condition of innocence.”

    mark: John your statement assumes that evil already existed at the time of adam and eve, so once more where exactly did evil come from?

    If god created everthing and before god thier was nothing then dosent that mean god created evil?

    Also is god good? If yes then what exactly makes god good? Was god being good when he gave instructions on selling ones daughter into slavery

    “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.”
    (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

    P.S John please dont evade my questions please answer my questions and Ill answer whatever questions you may want answered.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    @ wintermute

    The cake is a lie.

  • Elemenope

    Hedgehogs are dammed cute but …

    Big eyes — beady little eyes
    Button Nose — large thin snout
    Furry — spines

    Oh, those rules! Yeah, they are an anomaly. I think it comes from a combination of size (tiny), gait (wobbly), body structure (roly-poly), and the fact that the spines contrast with a cute soft underbelly.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    John C said:

    “Pride…rebellion, the “apart from” God life naturally arouses the latent potential to manifest evil. More of a by-product of living outside of God, desiring to be ‘like’ God that meaning possessing the knowledge of good & evil as opposed to our original, created condition of innocence.”

    Not really. By statistical measure, you are wrong. How can the least religious states in the US have some of the lowest crime rates? How can some of the world’s least religious nations also have some of the lowest crime rates, if being “apart from” god “arouses the latent potential to manifest evil”.

    You are wrong — the evidence shows it. Those who are “living outside” of religion are just as moral as those who share your beliefs.

    “We (man living outside his original matrix for lack of a better term) is why evil is so prevalent today. That’s why only a change of nature, an internal exchange of heart can remedy man’s plight…Christ IN you, as you is the answer.”

    No. Again, ask yourself: why aren’t less demographically Christian areas home to more criminal activity? If “evil is so prevalent” because of “man living outside his original matrix” why aren’t those who are more Christian living in better societies?

    Your perception of morality is flawed. People don’t need your beliefs to be moral. People who share your beliefs are not significantly more moral than agnostics and atheists.

    You are wrong.

  • boomSLANG

    John C., @Boomslang-

    “Dude, you’re obsessed about hell…”

    Dude, I am “obsessed about hell”, only to the extent that you are obsessed with hanging out here and being deliberately deceptive when it comes to portraying your subjective, Theistic philosophy(ies) on life, and on the subject of epistemology.

    Continues….”…why all the focus on what is NOT in the offer??”

    For the record—is this your unequivocal admission that there are no reprecussions/penalties for my rejecting this “offer”…..specifically, that there is no such thing as a “hell”? Yes, or no?

    Continues….”You will not ascribe the good, but insist God is to blame for ALL the bad…makes no sense Boomslang…??”

    Once more, I am not “blaming” your biblegod, because, *again*, I don’t harbor a belief in said being, nor any other invisible, conscious beings. I am simply trying to get you, the Theist, to be consistant in portraying your Theistic philosophy, that is, if you are going hang around and represent it as the Absolute Truth that you insist it is.

    Now that that went in one ear and out the other—-let me add, it is sometimes necessary to argue under the pretense that the biblegod that you pretend to worship actually exists, and that it carries all the attributes that you say/imply it does…i.e….Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Omnibenevolence, etc…..and what seems to be your personal favorite….”Love is a Person”.

    Continues….”Is there any chance, even the slightest that you are…wrong, or at least not fully informed?”

    Yes!..absolutely! Show me some objective evidence that this “Person”/deity has a referent in reality, and I will reconsider my position. If you don’t have any such evidence, but instead, what you *do* have is nothing more than bare assertions(as is the case), then you’ll need to at least make those assertions coherent, reasonable, and uncontradictory. Thus far, you have failed at all, IMO.

    Before we move on—will you get honest and answer your own question? Will you, John C., admit that there’s a possiblity that you’ve been misinformed?….that you could be…wr…wrr…wrrrr….wrong? Yes or no?

    John C: “How ’bout a positive dialogue, you seem to quickly digress to a negative platform…from the get go…”
    What “dialogue”?

    A “dialogue” is where people listen to one another. So far, it’s simply been, and continues to be, John C. asserting that his views are Truth, while showing zero sign of even entertaining any POV that disagrees with(or is skeptical of) his own.

    Continues…”Yes, God is love.”

    Praise El!!!

    Shalom!

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ john c

    “I am saying this…that the flesh realm does not understand the language of the spirit…heavenly realm.”

    mark: Once again god could cut through all of that since god set up the rules of the game in the first place. If god truly wants us to understand his word why wouldnt he simplify his word or make humans a little smarter?

  • Elemenope

    No. Again, ask yourself: why aren’t less demographically Christian areas home to more criminal activity? If “evil is so prevalent” because of “man living outside his original matrix” why aren’t those who are more Christian living in better societies?

    Your perception of morality is flawed. People don’t need your beliefs to be moral. People who share your beliefs are not significantly more moral than agnostics and atheists.

    Devil’s Advocate for a second: legal is not isomorphic with moral, so crime statistics tell you very little about the moral character of any given group.

    For example, if (some) Christians had their way, and those things they consider immoral (like abortion, pornography, blasphemy, sodomy, etc..) were actually illegal, the criminal statistics would undoubtedly change, and possibly unevenly towards making us in the heathen-ish states more ‘criminal’, statistically speaking. On the other token, the “criminal statistics” in, say, Ancient Rome, would not conform well to what our modern secular sense of morality would be (with men being able to legally rape their wives, kill their children and slaves, etc.), and so would be equally useless for us today in trying to compare the relative morality of different segments of Roman society.

  • http://progressatallcost.blogspot.com/ markbey

    @ enope

    “Devil’s Advocate for a second: legal is not isomorphic with moral, so crime statistics tell you very little about the moral character of any given group.”

    mark: Dude, stop playing games it is what it is. I have seen no evidence at all that the behavior of christians is any more moral than any elses generally speaking.

    What you just said is non sense. The point that bslang made was completely legitimate.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    @ Elemenope

    That’s a perfectly valid argument right up until you begin to examine the occurences and rates of pornography, abortion, teenage pregancy, etc. in the individual states and nations, and realize that Bible Belt areas have higher or relatively high rates of these things, too.

    Those standards would still just make the “heathen” states less criminal, too.

    About all the way around, John C is wrong on morality.

  • cello

    @ elemenope

    For example, if (some) Christians had their way, and those things they consider immoral (like abortion, pornography, blasphemy, sodomy, etc..) were actually illegal, the criminal statistics would undoubtedly change, and possibly unevenly towards making us in the heathen-ish states more ‘criminal’, statistically speaking.

    I agree with your broader point about morals versus law but I would question the details above. Divorce, for example, has statistically proven higher in the most religiously conservative states. And the one sin Christian men will often admit to is viewing pornography. And of the laws we are talking about – theft and violent crime – I’m pretty sure Christians would still consider those immoral acts and has been demonstrated – their states lead in those particular crimes.

  • cello

    @ teleprompter – This is OT and I should probably just post this on your blog but I really enjoyed your Unconditional Love Sermon.

    This “fire and brimstone” theology, however, is doomed to fail, because it is counter-intuitive to the best human definitions of love.

    This was a great line.

  • Elemenope

    Divorce, for example, has statistically proven higher in the most religiously conservative states. And the one sin Christian men will often admit to is viewing pornography.

    That’s why I threw in the “possibly”. :) Some of the “sin” crimes are more prevalent in areas of higher religiosity, though controlling for confounding factors (esp. confirmation bias) would be tough. What I wonder is whether religiosity actually is a positive predictor of these behaviors if you control for other more obvious factors (like poverty, cultural difference, etc.); that would be a really cool study, no matter how it came out.

    And of the laws we are talking about – theft and violent crime – I’m pretty sure Christians would still consider those immoral acts and has been demonstrated – their states lead in those particular crimes.

    That’s probably true except on the outliers. Some very few Christians (mostly, the Dominionists) would argue that killing is OK to help usher in the Kingdom of God, or to prevent a ‘greater Holocaust’ (er…abortion).

    What I’m saying is that even the obvious ones are somewhat confounded. “Murder” is easy to measure, unless you consider abortion to be murder…in which case we get a whole different map. You’re probably right that the theft one would be a better predictor. Not much disagreement on the definition of that across religious boundaries in the US at least.

  • Elemenope

    Also, I’m pretty sure that one area that the religious states do *not* lead in is number of abortions per capita. So while the Jesus belt beats everyone in divorce, teenage pregnancy, etc., the abortion question could still tilt the map.

  • cello

    Crikey. What’s going on in DC? Double the rate of New York.

    Well to throw another layer on to the discussion, I think abortion access would have to be factored in. Someone told me a an astoundingly low number of abortion providers are available in most US states – like in some states there is only 1 provider for the whole state – but I haven’t verified that.

  • John C

    @Tele-

    What in the world does “religion” have to do with what I said?? You are still assuming that just because someone attends church, professes to be a “christian” that makes them “in God”. This is not the case…but its your only reference point for God so its your natural conclusion.

    It does not surprise me in the least that less ‘religious’ societies boast a lower crime rate. Religion (endless rule keeping devoid of love as the motivating principle) engenders a ‘boomerang’ effect, ex…this forum’s founder. His religious experience was such a turn off, not what his heart was looking for, not free’ing rather quite the opposite so the result is…UF.

    After all our discussions, I thought we were further along than this in our mutual understanding, I will take the blame.

    Once again…religion is NOT what Christ offers.

  • Elemenope

    Well to throw another layer on to the discussion, I think abortion access would have to be factored in. Someone told me a an astoundingly low number of abortion providers are available in most US states – like in some states there is only 1 provider for the whole state – but I haven’t verified that.

    Definitely that would have a profound effect on the stats. And yes, I’ve heard similar things, some from fairly credible (though not uninterested) parties.

  • Elemenope

    Once again…religion is NOT what Christ offers.

    Religion comes from the Latin word “religare”, the verb “to tie back, to tie again”, and in the spiritual context the meaning is that “religion” is the act or process of “reconnecting” or “retying oneself to God”.

    Seeing how Jesus was all about the reconnecting with God thing, how can you say “religion” is not what he was about?

  • John C

    @Boomslang-

    Yes, I could be wrong about certain positions within context, but I dont spend my time war’ing with myself, I abide in Him, in joy, in peace and let Him reign, live His life through me…that’s the gospel. If I was so inclined I could get into endless, pointless ‘discussions’ with academic christians about various doctrines, etc…but that would only be self-defeating, not life-giving.

    Why do you think I hang around here? I sincerely enjoy the various discussions and since I have no reputation of my own to preserve, I am not offended by the responses because you can’t offend a dead man…or did you not know that I died w/Christ, that is my old Self and now my (real) life is hidden in Christ w/God? There is such liberty in appropriating the deeper truths in our inner man.

    Since no one believes me anyway and thinks I’m nuts, I pose no danger…right?

    I appreciate you Boomslang

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    @ John C

    When you quote scripture at people, as you did earlier in this very thread, you are being religious.

    When you invoke the name of a specific, particular kind of “god”, as you did earlier in this very thread, you are being religious.

    When you reference a certain kind of religious tradition, and a specific kind of teaching, as you did earlier in this thread, you are being religious.

    Your “spiritual but not religious” claim is not merited.

    If it isn’t merited, then you have done a very poor job of communicating, because you keep “tying back” to religion time and time again, yet you continue to insist that you stand distinctly apart from it.

  • Elemenope

    John C –

    So here’s your conundrum. How do you construct a spiritual path that avoids being “such a turn off, not what [a person's] heart was looking for, etc.” while still telling women that, no, they can’t control their own bodies.

    Seems like a real problem, if you ask me.

  • John C

    @Elemeno-

    Excellent question, thx…when I employ the term ‘religion’ I am referring to the rigid, historical, institutional church (IC) perception that claims to represent ‘God’ to the masses. This is an external, political organization with no true internal change of nature, that being a ‘partaker of the divine’ nature which is what Christ truly offers in the restoration you referenced. Most of the forum here uses the word religion assuming what they have witnessed in the world through the IC is what Christ came to bring.

    Religion…external…full of pretense….oppressive
    Christ…internal…a new nature (His)…within, liberating

  • Elemenope

    Uh, but John C, didn’t Jesus himself say to Peter to be the rock on which his church shall be built? And then Peter (with Paul) set up many of the structures and rules you here are complaining about?

    I would think if that’s not what Jesus wanted, he’d have been a teensy bit clearer about it, if not to us, than at least to Peter.

  • cello

    @ John C -

    Do you think that the “ChristChange” has to literally involve the name of Jesus? I mean, could someone experience the life changing love of Christ without actually knowing Jesus’ name?

    Billy Graham actually modified his views in his later life and said he believed some people were saved with out the literal profession of Jesus as Savior – but that God found a way to work in their hearts anyway. What is your opinion on this?

  • John C

    @Elemenope-

    No, He did not. Read it again please…He asked Peter a question, and Peter, by revelation from the Father answered Jesus…it was Peter’s answer that Jesus said He would build His church (ecclesia…meaning called out ones…we are all called, whether we respond is another matter altogether) on, not Peter himself.

  • John C

    @Cello-

    I appreciate the discussion. I am not aware of any such revision in his ministry, but admittedly am not a big follower of said ministry, not that I have anything against it. I think it is somewhat incomplete, a minimal start if you will on the spiritual path. So many who make a “profession of faith” get caught up in erroneous church doctrines, religious mess and never fully enter into the spiritual realm.

    Keep in mind the name “Jesus” has been so denegrated, so demeaned that it automatically assumes a negative connotation…scripture is clear that…”there is no other name under heaven by which we are made whole, saved”.

    JC

  • cello

    @ John C

    Thanks.

    scripture is clear that…”there is no other name under heaven by which we are made whole, saved”.

    Okay, I have to give you a little ribbing here. Why could this not be………code?!

    Actually, that is a serious question. Maybe this is code meaning that there is no other method to be saved except by the method that Jesus taught (love God above all else and love your neighbor like yourself)?

  • John C

    @Cello-

    What does the saying mean…in the name of Jesus? Surely you have heard that term many times right? Most professing believers hardly understand it. It means literally in His stead, as Him. Sp, what/who was/is He then? Son of God. What does that make us then? Sons of God. His disciples asked Him to teach them to pray right? He starts our with…”Our Father which is in heaven”. So what does that make us? We had so lost our identities, our original paternity, spiritual lineage that He had to come and remind us who Daddy really is.

    The scripture you referenced was in response to a question…what is the most important commandment? His response? Love God with all your heart, soul and strength and your neighbor as yourself…like you said.

    I’m telling you with all my heart that the true message Jesus brought was not one of religion…but of life, a change of nature from the old, corruptedm inherited one to His…residing in us. He said “I will be IN you and you will be IN me”….sorry, I’m getting a little long-winded…err worded now and off our original discussion point.

    Btw…I define religion as endless, pointless rule-keeping devoid of the motivation of love. Its not rule-keeping that God wants, but our love. When we love Him we will naturally want to honor, please Him and it brings such peace.

    Sorry so long…thx

  • John C

    So we hear words like…”as many as believed on His name (God in the flesh) He gave the right to become children of God…again. John 1:12

  • John C

    I loathe religion as much as the rest of the forum…its such a bondage, thats why Jesus had such a problem with the religious leaders of the day…He was not one of them. And neither should we be…its so oppressive, confining. Truth is always liberating…He whom the Son sets free is free indeed…you shall know the Truth (truth is a Person) and Truth shall MAKE you free…does that sound like…religion?

  • Elemenope

    …it was Peter’s answer that Jesus said He would build His church (ecclesia…meaning called out ones…we are all called, whether we respond is another matter altogether) on, not Peter himself.

    Uh, no.

    And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

    Jesus is definitely talking about the guy, not the admission of Christ; “on this rock” clearly refers to the antecedent “you”. Even “Peter” means “rock”, literally; Jesus is just having a little fun with the name.

  • John C

    @Elemeno…

    You are reasonable…please hear me. Lets go back…Jesus asked His disciples (Peter being among them) this question…”who do men say that I am”. Some (not Peter) answered saying…some say that you are elijah, or john or one of the prophets (meaning, they didnt really know) and then Peter said “you are the Christ, the son of the living God” and Jesus responded saying “you’re right, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you but my Father in heaven did.. Now Peter got the revelation of who Jesus really is from Father God, spiritually deduced, not humanly revealed (and so must we).

    Now go back to the original question…who do men say that I am?? Peter gets it righ by revelation from the Father and now Jesus responds and says…and you are Peter…upon this rock I will build my church…what’s the rock? Knowing by revelation one another’s true identity. Thats our problem, we dont know who we really are, where we come from, our spiritual paternity.

    Who do men say that I am…thou are the Christ, the son of the living God…yes…you are right and you are Peter…upon this (understanding) rock I will build my church…not on Peter…but on revelation knowledge that Jesus is the saving one, the messiah…God in the flesh and we are invited into His family.

  • John C

    Or maybe a better way to say it…I know you and you know me…intimate knowing, relationship is the rock, not Peter himself.

    Right, thats my real identity…and you are Peter…and upon this rock (I know you and you know me) I will build our relationship…after all, its all about relationship.

  • Elemenope

    You are reasonable…

    Thanks. :)

    …please hear me.

    Oh, I hear you. Doesn’t mean I can bring myself to agree. I’m sorry, John C, but that’s quite a stretch from the text from what I can see. The far clearer reading is that Peter became qualified to be the rock of the church by getting the revelation from the Father about the identity of Jesus, and that Peter (the “you” that is continuously referenced in following passages) is thus the founder of the church. Otherwise you have a passage with a bunch of explicit “yous” broken (in a manner that doesn’t match natural speech/writing patterns in Greek, much less English) in the middle by a barely related metaphorical meaning.

  • John C

    @Elemeno-

    Ok…why did Jesus say…call no man on earth your Father?

    The catholic church (IC) is lays claim to this erroneous teaching…they call the Pope…Father???

    I promise you Elemeno…its the mutual recoginition (intimate knowing) that is the rock (the solid relational base) of His (true) church…called out ones. I’m 25 years into this intimate “knowing”…Peter himself is not “the rock”, but we all must have a “Peter” revelation experience if we want to enter in.

  • John C

    Peter is not here anymore anyway…how could he (himself) be a rock to anyone?? In that case it would be a very “dead” church…which it really…is.

  • Elemenope

    Ok…why did Jesus say…call no man on earth your Father?

    Not for nothing, but what did you call the guy who donated half his genetic to you?

    I suspect that Jesus was being all metaphorical with that one.

    Peter is not here anymore anyway…how could he (himself) be a rock to anyone?? In that case it would be a very “dead” church…which it really…is.

    Uh, “on this rock I will build my church”, as in, the rock is the foundation of the church, much as bedrock serves as the actual foundation of large buildings. The things he did (establishing the contours and structure of the church) was the “foundation”. He doesn’t have to be alive in order for him to be the foundation of the church that emerged from his decisions and teachings and interpretations of Jesus’ words.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com/ wintermute

    John C:

    Uh, yeah. The fact that the name “Peter” literally means “rock” pretty much precludes the tortured reading you’re insisting on. Jesus explicitly named Peter as the head of his Church on Earth, and founder of his religion.

    To say that “you, person-who-is-called-’rock’, are the rock on which I build my church” actually means “that idea that you you just had, that is the rock on which I build… well, a personal relationship, I suppose” is quite a stretch. Are you sure you don’t see it?

    Ok…why did Jesus say…call no man on earth your Father?

    The catholic church (IC) is lays claim to this erroneous teaching…they call the Pope…Father???

    Is there no-one you call “father”? Like, maybe your male parent? Do you forbid your children to call you “father”?

    Peter is not here anymore anyway…how could he (himself) be a rock to anyone?? In that case it would be a very “dead” church…which it really…is.

    Yeah, that’s why he passed the torch on to someone less dead. According to the Catholic Church, that has happened continuously ever since. According to the Orthodox Church, too, but I think they disagree on the exact details of the line of succession after 1054 or thereabouts.

  • John C

    When Jesus said…call no man on earth your Father what did He mean by that? Seems kinda silly huh?

    It means that we should not assume our lineage from a human descent…for….(once we are spiritually regenerated) we are not born of the flesh, nor the will of man, but of the will of God…John 1:13.

    Jesus was saying “do not say you are OF man”, you are OF God.

    Peter is not the rock…you need to appreciate that each one of Jesus’ disciples are “steps”, phases we go through in our spiritual development…what does John represent…Nathaniel??

    There is so much more than what meets the eye.

  • marcion

    “So Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc…, none of them have abortions? Only Democrats?”

    Exactly. And Rhinos too.

  • John C

    @Marcion…

    What are you talking about man? I mean…I’ve got the corner on being the forum nutjob you know…but everything has its price…I mean this thing is “golden”, I’m not just gonna give it away…but it could be your’s for say…$500k??

    LOL

  • chris

    If he’s a nutjob, why dose he bother you this much? You wrote a whole blog about it.

  • Elemenope

    And Rhinos too.

    I imagine you meant “RINOs”.

  • John C

    Cuz I’m the resident nutjob….lol

    I was joking, you…joke??

  • John C

    Sorry…typo…I meant….you know, joke?

  • lra364

    Thanks Val! I appreciate the support.

    I’m curious to know how many posters on this blog who are against abortion are actually FEMALE?

    It seems to me that MEN argue against abortion because, you know, they have NO CHANCE of facing pregnancy themselves.

    Men who declare what women should do with their bodies for religious reasons are OPRESSORS! If they actually had to deal with the realities of possible pregnancy, I’m pretty sure they’d sing a different tune!

    That is not to say that there aren’t plenty of women who buy into their own oppression. Sad really. These are women who also would agree that wives should submit to their husbands.

    People against abortion never consider what happens to the child after it is born. They never consider the immesaurable suffering that many of these children go through. They never consider that broken children become broken adults who they demand spend time in cruel prisons for their “sins” (of course the ultimate prison is hell).

    Christianity is supposed to be about god’s love, but ultimately it ends up being about god’s wrath. It is completely inhumane and I have trouble understanding why any RATIONAL person would ever be a christian!

  • John C

    I’m not sure you’ve ever met a real Christian…lover of God. You have to admit Ira, your own tragic experience w/religion has jaded (and rightly so) your viewpoints, no?

    You’ll know when you’ve met one…cuz the love will be all you remember.

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    @ John C,

    I know when I’ve met decent, kind, loving, supportive people.

    Atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc. And you know what?

    They all acted pretty much the same.

    And the jerks that I met? Whether atheist, Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational…they acted the same way, too.

    I fully realize the limits of anecdotal evidence, but I cannot let you make that claim when my experience has shown it to not be fully accurate.

    Though one or both of us could easily be wrong due to the usually poor nature of anecdotal evidence, I admit, I must reply that I have experienced what you mention with many types of people, and I have also experienced disappointment and frustration with many types of people.

  • John C

    You shall know them by their fruits. Pure, sacrificial love is hard to deny when you see it. I’m talking Tele about the kind that can only originate from God, that is not inherent in man.

    Keep your eyes open…the journey is not over my friend.

  • Elemenope

    You shall know them by their fruits. Pure, sacrificial love is hard to deny when you see it. I’m talking Tele about the kind that can only originate from God, that is not inherent in man.

    This tendency, here, to give God credit for the rare times that humans manage to be good, seems to me to be the worst part about believing in God. It radically devalues the worth of human beings.

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    You shall know them by their fruits. Pure, sacrificial love is hard to deny when you see it. I’m talking Tele about the kind that can only originate from God, that is not inherent in man.

    Was Gandhi a Christian? What about the Buddha? Or is “the kind [of sacrificial love] that can only originate from God” beyond even what they demonstrated? Can you think of anyone alive who embodies such love?

  • http://billpost.blogspot.com/ Bill

    “I’m not sure you’ve ever met a real Christian…lover of God.”

    Phone call for Mr. Scottsman . . Mr. True Scottsman?

  • latsot

    Does anyone really take seriously the suggestion that men are by definition unable to comment on abortion? Ploddingly, I don’t understand what disqualifies me from having an opinion on this just because I’m the possessor of a marvelous penis*.

    In any given pregnancy, I’d personally agree that those who have to do all the work ought to have the casting vote , but I think I’d also be justified in being upset if someone aborted my baby without consulting me. Why does one trump the other?

    * WARNING: may not be marvelous

  • http://wmute.livejournal.com wintermute

    Does anyone really take seriously the suggestion that men are by definition unable to comment on abortion? Ploddingly, I don’t understand what disqualifies me from having an opinion on this just because I’m the possessor of a marvelous penis*.

    Well, I don’t think that we men get no vote on the matter. I do think that the person most likely to face serious medical problems, possibly up to and including death, should have the final say, no matter what her significant other’s opinion is. But, like all major decisions that affect couples, it should be made jointly, and they should come to mutual agreement. Anything else will just destroy the relationship.

    On the other hand, unrelated men (such as the woman’s pastor, congressman, or someone who likes writing letters to the editor) really shouldn’t get a vote on this matter. But then, nor should unrelated women.

  • Val

    Ira364,

    I think a lot of the anti-choicers are female.

    The underlying true motive is hatred of women. Or, for the females, hatred of other women.

    The long debate over whether an embryo is a human life, and wack-jobs saying abortion is Satanic (the original subject here), and especially “how should women who have an abortion be punished”, are all laid to waste when you cut through to the underlying motives.

    Note that an entire forum here is about anti-choicers want to – note the two words – PUNISH. WOMEN.

    First, they almost never mention punishing the men who did the impregnating.

    Second, notice that their focus is on punishment. They are punitive.

    Third, ask them what they have done to provide contraception, sterilizations, and vasectomies to PREVENT abortions. Tell them if they PREVENT all unwanted pregnancies, there will be no abortions for them to PUNISH.

    Tell them that the more they believe a conception is a human life that deserves protection, the more they would be out there making vasectomies and contraception easily available to everyone.

    Then you find out that they pretend to be concerned about *stopping* abortion – but NOT *preventing* it. Therefore, they must want abortions around as something they can punish.

    If you press this logic on them, someone eventually says, “Women have a choice – if they don’t want a pregnancy, they can abstain from sex!”

    There is their true motive. They want women to be sexless, or if they have sex, they must be mothers. They want women to be punished for sex by being either (1) undergoing forced birth, or (2) punished for having an abortion.

    It is either men wanting to control women, or women who have jealousy and hatred toward other women. For having sex without being tied to fear of pregnancy.

    There is no other logical explanation for the contradiction between their claimed beliefs and their (lack of) actions.

    If they deny it, tell them to get out there and provide the contraception and sterilization. They will attack you, but they will not do this simple thing.

    Grade-school biology backs the logic of doing it, but they refuse.

  • Elemenope

    Well, I don’t think that we men get no vote on the matter. I do think that the person most likely to face serious medical problems, possibly up to and including death, should have the final say, no matter what her significant other’s opinion is. But, like all major decisions that affect couples, it should be made jointly, and they should come to mutual agreement. Anything else will just destroy the relationship.

    On the other hand, unrelated men (such as the woman’s pastor, congressman, or someone who likes writing letters to the editor) really shouldn’t get a vote on this matter. But then, nor should unrelated women.

    I really like the way you put that.

    Phone call for Mr. Scottsman . . Mr. True Scottsman?

    LOL!

  • latsot

    “On the other hand, unrelated men (such as the woman’s pastor, congressman, or someone who likes writing letters to the editor) really shouldn’t get a vote on this matter. But then, nor should unrelated women.”

    Not on individual cases, no. But on how society deals with abortion in general, yes.

  • John C

    @Winter-

    Here’s one for your musing pleasure….

    There’s a Self in us and a Christ in us…and neither can be improved upon.

    Signed,

    Nutjob

  • http://avertyoureye.blogspot.com/ Teleprompter

    @ latsot

    “Does anyone really take seriously the suggestion that men are by definition unable to comment on abortion?”

    I agree that men should have the right to comment on abortion, though I also agree with what has already been stated by wintermute.

  • lra364

    Men,

    Comment if you like. But please don’t tell ME what to do with MY body!!!

  • http://unreasonablefaith.com Daniel Florien

    @lra364: Am I allowed to tell you that you should try and be healthy? Or is that crossing the line? ;)

    * * *

    And it’s a strange world when “John C” signs his own comment as “nutjob”!

  • lra364

    Daniel,

    Wouldn’t it be great if people took care of themselves? Wouldn’t it be great if people got educations that included genuine sex ed. with scientifically backed facts about our bodies? I wonder how Sarah Palin’s abstinence only program in Alaska public schools worked out for her? Hmm, maybe we should see how her children turned out. ;)

    Wouldn’t it be great if the church stopped telling us sex was dirty and started telling us to wait to parent until we had the moral maturity to do so? (After all, we have many methods of controlling whether or not we procreate).

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people had to obtain a license to parent? After all driving badly can hurt people, not following building codes can hurt people. Doesn’t bad parenting hurt people too?

  • lra364

    Just to get a jump start on possible responses,

    NO a little ball of cells doesn’t count as “people.”

  • Ty

    “Wouldn’t it be great if the church stopped telling us sex was dirty and started telling us to wait to parent until we had the moral maturity to do so?”

    This is why I don’t have kids. I’ll just never be mature enough.

  • John C

    Ira-

    So let me get this straight…you don’t appreciate anyone (much less society as a whole) telling you what to do with your body…but think a “parenting license” is a good idea?

    And just who would provide the oversight for said license?Maybe the “planned parenthood bureau” state office to be “licensed” parents?

    Hey, if we showed up already “with child” and then failed the parenting exam they could take care of business right there on the spot huh?

    You’re advocating socialism my dear…I suppose your a big Obama fan huh??

  • John C

    @Daniel…

    Was feelin kinda nutty…plus one of your readers gave me the name some time back…surprised you even noticed! ha

    NJ

  • lra364

    John C-

    There’s nothing wrong with people taking classes to learn how to parent. In fact it’s a good thing. Too many people have kids who shouldn’t.

    No, I don’t want to be *forced* to become a parent, but I DO want people who want to become parents to LEARN how to do so (or at least take a test to prove that they already know how to do so).

    I’m sure it would be a logistical nightmare, but one can dream, right?

    BTW Obama is not a socialist. He’s quite centrist.

  • lra364

    You know, now that I think of it…

    An oversight agency to prevent crappy parenting might actually create jobs! Think of all the psychology majors who could find work!

    :)

  • John C

    Ira…

    No Ma’am, you want people to parent from your worldview…just like I want people to consider a very different worldview. Kingdoms in conflict…that’s why there are forums like this one…cuz regardless of your or my opinion there will always be someone who holds another and perceives it as superior…which is right? Time will tell.

    Obama? Centrist? That’s another word for sissy. He needs to get off the fence or we’ll all have butt blisters before long.

    NJ

  • Ty

    Radical extremists are more you taste, eh JC? That doesn’t surprise me.

    “No Ma’am, you want people to parent from your worldview…just like I want people to consider a very different worldview. Kingdoms in conflict…that’s why there are forums like this one…cuz regardless of your or my opinion there will always be someone who holds another and perceives it as superior…which is right? Time will tell.”

    My kingdom includes rules like “don’t stick your baby in the microwave, or throw boiling water on them, or forget to feed them, or leave them in a dirty diaper until they get bedsores, or leave your abusive boyfriend alone with them.”

    How about rules like that?

  • lra364

    No, JC-

    I want people to realize that a baby cant sit in a pee pee diaper for 24 hours at a time.

    I want people to realize that hitting your kids teaches them violence.

    I want people to realize that kids need to get 10-12 hours of sleep every day (depending of course on age) and that keeping them up until midnight is not ok.

    I want people to realize that leaving 12 year olds and under alone all night long while you work is not ok.

    I could keep going…

    It has little to do with “worldview” and much to do with common sense about kids that actually doesn’t seem to be that common.

    Too many parents allow their kids to languish while they wallow in ignorance and selfishness.

    It is a pervasive problem in this country that costs money to tackle. Money that some (republicans?) would rather keep in multi million dollar accounts while they buy a new yacht as the economy tanks. IMHO.

  • John C

    Pretty goofy stuff there TY…not my kinda rules…but I’ll go along with it for fun if it makes ya feel better…lol

  • Ty

    “not my kinda rules”

    You’re more of a microwave and boiling water kinda guy?

    I have no idea how to parse about 80% of what you say.

  • lra364

    BTW, I worked for 2 years as a teacher to children with severe/profound mental retardation. Pretty much all of the parents I came into contact with were soooo great with their kids. Guess what? They had free access to education (from MHMR) about raising kids with special needs, and because they love their children, many took advantage of that.

    There was one mom who wasn’t so great. She had an IQ of 70 (borderline mentally retarded). She had 9 kids, three with severe conditions. They lived in a single wide trailer. Her son came to my class EVERY DAY wearing the diaper I put on him the afternoon BEFORE. He had lice constantly. Of course there was a social worker, but when social work budgets are as low as they are in this country, only the very severe cases get children removed from home (read: when it’s life threatening, never mind the long term damage). When I left my job (to go back to school), she was pregnant AGAIN!

    Yes, parent licensing is a GREAT idea!

  • Ty

    She was just filling her quiver with gifts from god.

  • lra364

    Ty-

    I’d laugh if it weren’t so very very sad.

  • John C

    Ira…

    You are obviously well meaning and passionate about your beliefs…that’s very admirable. I’m sure you have done much good for many kids.

    Child abuse is a real hot button for me. I have personally witnessed the horrors. Once, when I was a young X-ray tech working ER trauma they brought a 9 month old little girl into my room. She had died from physical abuse. I had to perform a complete skeletal series of exams for legal reasons, autopsy, etc. The irony is that I had a 9 month old little girl myself at the time and it was all I could do to perform my duties. It was just me and her little lifeless body in the room for a long time. I would shoot a film, cry, shoot a film, cry…by the time it was over my tears had turned to righteous indignation…I wanted to tear the guy’s head off who did this horrible thing, how could he?

    In all candor, it seems we actually have more in common than we might think.

    Tell you what…you go on loving and helping the best way you know how and I’ll do the same…how’s that for a start? Both doing our best, with passion…can’t ask for much more than that.

  • lra364

    Well, JC, you’re probably right.

    Abuse is a hot button issue for me because as I already told you, I lived it. I don’t think it’s enough to have opinions about it. I think real, widespread action should be taken. As I said earlier, I’m sure it would be a logistical nightmare, but one can dream!
    After all, if the IRS can deal with people’s taxes every year, then why can’t something more be done to prevent bad parenting?

    Or better yet! Sex ed based on scientific facts about our bodies and advocacy (or enforcement) of waiting to become parents until one can give the basics to a child.

  • Val

    @John C:
    “Ira…No Ma’am, you want people to parent from your worldview…”

    @John C:
    “Child abuse is a real hot button for me.”

    The Catholics have a concept called the “sin of omission”. It is failing to do something when you could have acted to do good.

    Have Thomas Euteneuer (the other nutjob with the website on Satanist abortion, remember?) or John C ever stepped away from the computer, stepped away from the demonstrations,protests and debates, given their mouths and keyboards and debate a rest, gotten off their asses, and done something useful, compassionate and helpful toward providing inexpensive, safe, easily available vasectomies and contraception to prevent pregnancies?

  • Val

    I vote for my above question as the new “How to Stump Anti-abortionists With a Single Question”.

    You’ll note that it doesn’t stop them – from verbally attacking anyone who asks it, and attempting to distract you and obfuscate the subject by changing the subject.

    They will blather about people (almost exclusively only women) having to be sexually responsible, and how if they are not, they should be “penalized” and “punished” by being forced to be breeders.

    Which shows their true colors, but they will deny being punitive. And they will never answer the question specifically with what they’ve done to help with contraception and vasectomies, because they never want to do this obvious preventive thing.

  • Christopher

    Typical of evil – justify it under the facade of law when history shows time and again that the rule of law is not always just. As for the imbecile that suggested taking the baby and raising it because we disagree with destroying it, I would advise you that most of us on the pro-life movement would take the child versus seeing it destroyed by the “mother” (a term I would rather refer to as the agent of birth only). Ever try to adopt a child? It is a long and laborious process most likely made that way by liberal lawyers to discourage and prevent loving homes from accepting these children. Yet another one of the lazy and cruel champions of the ever-diminishing ethics of society. Instead of being real parents and stepping up to the plate the easy way out is to kill my “unborn” child. Satan always endorses and presents the easy-out. We are most vulnerable when challenged. Make no mistake – this is true evil and is most likely perpetuated by those wishing to corrupt the souls of women and young girls. infanticide is the true name of this “procedure”. To defeat evil you must call it by its true name. In the words of Christ get thee behind me Satan! Stop corrupting our people with suggestions that the slaughter of the innocent is a right and a just cause. Abortion practitioners actually race to kill the child before the head shows because then it would be murder, but as long as we don’t have to see the child’s face or hear its first cry then it is just another medical procedure. As for pro-choice why not choose to protect life? Satan’s most prolific lie is to convince us he does not exist and that appears to describe the bulk of the comments left here. I pray that you all will see the light and undo this evil before it is too late. Be protectors and guardians of life, not the willful destroyers of it. Do not be pulled down the dark path that leads to damnation. The righteous road is always rocky and hard, but that is why so few of us travel it.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X