I am No Longer Pro-life/ **I need to update this post

I am No Longer Pro-life/ **I need to update this post May 12, 2016



** I don’t know why Patheos is running this blog post today when it’s so old and I’ve written a lot of other things since I wrote this, including a lot of posts about my son and grieving the loss of his life by suicide. But they are. I need to edit and clarify some points on this post and I haven’t done so because my son’s suicide derailed my life. I will get to that ASAP though. I just wanted everyone reading this today to know that there are updated thoughts on this post. Also, if you go to the next one where I voted for Hillary, just know that I regret that choice. If I could go back to the voting booth I would have voted third party.

My first grandchild.
My first grandchild.

I used to be really involved in the Pro-life movement; I even worked in a Crisis Pregnancy Center where I worked with an amazing pro-life doctor and one of the holiest women that I know. It was a great job and I loved every minute that I spent talking to women who were scared that they couldn’t mother the children growing in their wombs. I loved seeing all that fear melt away when they saw the baby on the monitor during their sonogram. I loved seeing them feel cared for by a good doctor even though they had nothing to pay with. They were seen as valuable simply because they existed, not for any other reason.

I know a lot of wonderful people in the pro-life movement. People who give of their time, money and prayers to help women who feel like they aren’t strong enough to give their children a good life and who work night and day to save the lives of the unborn. I’ve seen the power of love in a sonogram room more times than I can count. Those moments gave me life as a person. I have no doubt in my mind that I am meant to help women in crisis pregnancies. I got pregnant at 16 and then was pregnant twice by a man who I knew was a drug addict while I was trying to support the children that I already had. My children are wonderful but also drive me bonkers on the regular, so I know that motherhood isn’t all sunshine and rainbows either.

But I’m not involved in the pro-life movement anymore. I feel amazingly thankful to Donald Trump for proving what I’ve thought for a while now: the pro-life movement is often objectified by the GOP as their own superPAC. There is an ugly side being in the pro-life movement. I never have liked Republicans, I’m Hispanic, it doesn’t’ really work out well for me when I’m told by people of a certain party to go back where I came from (that has happened multiple times in my life). I have also spent a lot of my life on food stamps and three of my four kids were born on Medicaid. If it had not been for that, they would not have been born because there was no way that I could afford health insurance. So when I began to get involved in laws that reduce abortion I automatically would get hives when I was surrounded by people saying I had to vote for Republicans or I would go to hell because I didn’t see anything fully pro-life in the Republican party. The first time that I saw Ted Cruz speak was a pro-life banquet and I couldn’t even stand to talk to him for 3 minutes because he was so fake.  The way that I have heard Republican politicians talk about illegal immigrants, even children, has made me want to rip my hair out, but I kept my mouth shut because I really felt like I could be a part of change.

I gave up that idea when I walked into the Texas State Capital during Wendy Davis’ filibuster and was basically shunned by every pro-lifer in the seats around me because me and one of the pro-life celebrities don’t get along. Nobody wearing a blue shirt would really talk to me so I ended up talking to a pro-choice lady sitting next to me. It turned out to be a really great conversation.

That was the beginning of the end for me. I had personal issues going on in my family, but also I didn’t really like what I was seeing around me. I saw people who could do no wrong and if anyone questioned them then those people were shunned by everyone else. I saw people who had crowds bowing at their feet. I saw stories of crisis pregnancies exaggerated for the sake of a good story that would raise money. The first time that I saw that I thought maybe I was wrong but then the second time that I saw it; I realized that I wasn’t, and that really pissed me off, but I was too worried about what people would think about me if I asked, plus I wasn’t convinced that anyone would care.

Thanks to Donald Trump though, I no longer have to pretend that Republican is the only way to be pro-life. Because it’s not, and abortion is not the only pro-life issue that we should be concerned with.

I feel completely free from an obligation to go along with things that I disagree with. I don’t agree that just being against abortion makes a person pro-life. I don’t agree that someone who gets gleeful about the idea of bombing towns until they light up knowing that means dead women and children is pro-life. I don’t think that people who think it’s ok to put children in detention centers like cattle are pro-life. I don’t believe that not caring about jobs, the economy, the environment, the effects of war on human beings who back home alive but riddled with PTSD is being pro-life. I am no longer calling myself pro-life, I am Catholic.

* Mary has a great post that I completely agree with over at Steel Magnificat.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mary

    Well, you clearly are pro-life, you just don’t fit into the Pro-Life Movement (the same way most people today actually are feminists but don’t fit in with the Feminist Movement). Why not just call yourself a pro-life independent? That’s what I’ve called myself all of my adult life, and no one has ever batted an eye about it. Saying you are Catholic but NOT pro-life can cause scandal if you aren’t able to explain to the person you are speaking with exactly what you mean.

  • I agree with a lot of what you said, but I prefer to identify myself as a pro-life independent or pro-life moderate rather than abandon the pro-life title all together just because it has ties to a lot of Republican values that I do not hold. As Catholics I believe we should work to reform the Pro-Life Movement from within and make it genuinely pro-life in all meanings of the phrase, not just give up on it all together.

  • captcrisis

    Courageous post.

    It was a lot easier for me than for you, but arrived from the other direction. I was pro-choice for years but finally had to face up to what abortion is. Now I think it should be eradicated to the extent possible, but criminalizing it is not the way to do it. We should eliminate the factors that lead women to this unacceptable choice (factors you’ve ably discussed in other posts). Abortion will not be eradicated entirely, but minimized, and in the process we will also have a healthier, happier and better society.

  • Marty Johnson

    Soooooo a loser on Medicaid popping out babies. Sounds like the Democrat base. No wonder she doesn’t like Republicans; they actually work at real jobs and support their kids themselves. It’s an American thing, she wouldn’t understand.

  • Kathryn Coe

    No, just no. Loser? really? I also am disgusted with the Republican party. My father was a legal immigrant. Until my son was born, I held a job for 20 years. I am all for legal immigration and people being employed. I also think abortion is murder. However, the party has done very little to fight against abortion and very much to support business/govt interests. Bank bailouts, anyone? Executives who run a company into the ground, then take a bonus as they ask workers to take a pay cut (Hostess). Ms. Adams is right to be disillusioned. If you don’t agree, put forth an example of where she is wrong. Name calling is not helpful. This sort of personal attack instead of discourse only adds to the disgust people feel for a party that has increasingly become a caricature of itself.

  • Fabio

    I’m a little bit confused: what you expressed in your post IS the pro-choice position; if it wasn’t your position previously, what was it? “Let’s all women of any age, education, social status have all the indiscriminate, uninformed, unprotected sex they want and then, WHEN they get pregnant, they can chose if have the baby or not, over and over again”?

  • carrie anne

    Marty, Shame on you for your name-calling! Are you Catholic? Is that what the Church in all her wisdom says to do? Call people losers? Is that what Mother Teresa did? So what do you do when a Democrat is “pro-life” and the Republican candidate isn’t? Mmmmm…..a quandary, no?

    I usually vote Republican AND I am offended when Republicans say (or make comments behind a computer) the kind of stuff you are saying. “…work at real jobs..”? What is a “real” job to you? I am blessed because I have family/friends that helped my husband and four kids out when I was out of full-time work for FOUR years during the recession and I have a degree from the University of Michigan. We were lucky because we had good credit and were able to put almost $40k on our credit cards during that time just to get by. If we didn’t have that luxury, I don’t know where we would be now.

    “….American thing.” So YOU define what an American thing is? I can tell from your rhetoric who you will be voting for in the election.

  • Sue Mansur

    Abortion is a conscience issue.

  • sharon

    Here here Leticia,
    Courageous post. I worked in the pro-life work at a diocese for 7 years. I learned to recognize that some people really aren’t pro-life – they are anti abortion. They really did not believe the fullness of being pro-life. I also was/am disheartening by the political realm of the pro-life movement. being pro-life does NOT equal the Republican party. Their are a few pro-choice democrats out there that I think most closely represent the Catholic understanding of Pro-life… but they are few and far between. I don’t think anyone really believes that Donald Trump is pro-life and I really wonder in his heart of hearts if Joe Biden is pro-choice or are both of them just following political lines so they can get the endorsements from their party. It is ugly politically out there but I love your writing, courage and frankness!

  • Edward Hara

    The GOP has been using the pro-life people in this country as suckers for quite a while now. The reality of this slapped me in the face several years ago when our supposedly “pro-life” senator, Rick Santorum, publicly came out in support of Arlen Specter, who was running against a real pro-life candidate in Pat Toomey. Not only that, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported that it was the TV ads done by Santorum and then President Bush that pushed Specter over the top for a narrow win.

    I turned in my Rethuglican voter’s registration after than and whenever I get a fund raising message from them, they get a red-hot response from me in which I let them know clearly what I think of their duplicity and lies.

    Politicians will use whatever they can to get in power, stay in power, and defeat the other party to retain that power. They don’t give a rat’s rear end about people. Fact.

  • Edward Hara

    You are a great example of why I don’t wish to be called either Rethuglican or Conservative anymore. Narrow-minded, selfish, bigoted, thinking that every problem on earth can be solved by the application of more Capitalism, more cutting of help to people, and more wars.

    And you call Leticia a loser? Go look in a mirror if you want to see what a loser (and a poor excuse for a human being) looks like.

  • Marty Johnson

    Who CARES what you think? She sucks off the teat of government and enablers like you support her. Whatever happened to good old self-sufficiency? And common decency? Earn you own way. Don’t depend on the government stealing from others and giving to you because you don’t have a job, or a husband who earns enough to support his family.

  • Marty Johnson

    Whiiiiiine. I was out of work. How in God’s name can somebody be out of work for four years? Either you have zero skills, or you have zero work ethic, or you are brain dead. Go clean some rich person’s house. Wash cars. Deliver pizza. NOBODY who is looking hard and barely competent can go four years without finding a job unless they are trying not to get a job. I know, because I have had a job all my life. And I have taken jobs “beneath me” many times.

  • Marty Johnson

    Democrats want to give you stuff. Go vote for them. Republicans want people to obey the law, not come here illegally. What part of law and order do you not get? I am ALL for LEGAL immigration. Obey the law. It is no different than driving the speed limit, and not disobeying any other law. Wanting the law to be followed, instead of ignored, does not mean Republicans are anti-immigrants. If you are too stupid, or too blind, to see that distinction, you probably are Democrat base material.

  • Zelda

    So have you changed your mind about abortion being murder?

  • Xeni

    This kind of disgusting sentiment is the embodiment of a culture of death. Shame on you, Marty, not that you have any shame to give.

  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    It is a shame that many in the Democratic Party shun people if they are pro-life. http://democratsforlife.org

  • Kevin William O’Bryan
  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    http://democratsforlife.org You can be pro-life and a dem

  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    This can help the pro-life issue. http://democratsforlife.org

  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    How you can still support the pro-life cause if you don’t like the republicans. http://democratsforlife.org

  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    This is a group that may help. http://democratsforlife.org

  • carrie anne

    A classic example of not reading what a person writes. I never said I did not work. I said I didn’t have a full-time job. I had many contract jobs, some lasting up to 9 months, during that time as well as volunteered at my parish, school and community. Plus, in case you didn’t read everything, I had 4 school-age kids at the time and my husband did have a decent job. I have, and will again, pray for you because you seem to be a very angry man.

  • Peter LeFleure

    <3 The pro choice crowd welcomes you with open arms. We may disagree when it comes to abortion, but why let that stop us from working together on the 99% of issues we agree on?

  • Adam “Giauz” Birkholtz

    I’m sorry you have had to deal with those experiences , and I am glad that although you still seem to not be pro-choice you didn’t demonize those of us who are.

  • Aaron King

    Don’t feed the trolls.

  • jrb16915

    What prevents someone from claiming every issue is a conscience issue. I will start: Cocaine and Heroin use are conscience issues!

  • Aaron King

    Don’t feed the trolls. Please

  • Your doctor should not need to be holy, your doctor should just be able to be a fucking doctor.

  • No it isn’t.

  • Aaron King

    Yeah… I really appreciate the article, but the headline comes off as click-bait. I grew up poor (on and off) and have never liked the Republicans… I consider myself conservative but do not see anything conservative about the Republican party (they mostly sicken me). I am not sure that I feel the same way about the Pro-Life movement, because I think most of those people are just so desperate to have SOMEONE listen to them (or at least pretend to) that they allow themselves to get suckered.

    I see most of the people you describe (even the hateful nasty ones, like Marty Johnson up there) as deluded victims. They have crossed a threshold from being Catholic Republicans to being Republican Catholics and the Republican party has always been very Calvinist in its understanding of economics and justice… there is nothing Catholic there.

    Sadly, the Democrats are so bad at everything else that you end up voting for the Republicans just to maintain the few protections on a moral society that they courts have allowed us. Thankfully, this year I don’t have to hold my nose and vote Republican, because I don’t even have faith that Trump would name a decent Supreme Court candidate… there is virtually nothing about him that does not repulse me (same as Ted Cruz and most of the other ones).

    We live in terrifying times and human life is increasingly devalued. I hope and pray that you do not allow the deluded and ignorant of the Pro-Life movement to turn you from protecting, and fighting for, the unborn. I also hope you can find some people who are truly pro-life and support life in ways other than being anti-abortion… but I really hope that you are not saying that you might become Pro-Choice.


  • Opinions dont change that it isnt.

  • jrb16915

    I don’t like republicans, so abortion must be moral, seems to be the authors point.

  • Sarah

    She never says abortion is moral.

  • Barry Coleman

    She did not say that. She said in the end:
    ” I am no longer calling myself pro-life, I am Catholic.”

    The problem with so-called pro-lifers is that they are not pro-lifers at all. Sure they are against abortion, but they also support war, death penalty, they do NOT support a fair healthcare system, etc…

    Being TRULY pro-life means to care about a person from conception to grave, not just end abortion.

  • Barry Coleman

    your comment is as meaningless as Trump’s speeches. In medicine attitude, bedside manners and indeed ETHICS weight a lot. Sure a doctor should also be very competent in his field, but that’s not enough.

  • Barry Coleman

    You are a disgusting person.
    1- You make judgements about people you don’t know
    2- Most republicans are trailer park hicks… guess what they are probably on wellfare (but that’s ok as long as they are GOP I guess)
    3- A good government supports the weak as well.
    4- You cannot be prolife if you think that just ending abortion is ok and not giving a shit about anything else.
    5- You represent all that is wrong with this world: ignorance, greed and selfishness

  • Barry Coleman

    You are right. People without a job should be sent to labor camps or shot.

  • Very well said! I’m an ex-pro lifer too. I’m still opposed to abortion and birth control as per the teachings of the Church, but I’m very much in favor of expanding the social safety net, abolishing the death penalty, and ending these unjust wars in the Middle East. These are things that benefit everyone, not just a select segment of the population. You are not alone!


  • JamieHaman

    Smh. Reading and comprehension skills really are a must.
    She never says anything like abortion must be moral, she does say she’s had her eyes opened to a bit of reality. As in expanding the social safety net. You know, things like feeding, educating, and real medical treatment for kids. Not just them being born.
    Born unloved, unwanted, and unwelcomed.
    Big difference. Too bad you can’t seem to see it.

  • JamieHaman

    A Doctor puts the life of his/her living, breathing patient first.
    It’s not the doctor’s job to decide how you should live, but to help you live.
    Not put his “morals” or “conscience” above a patient’s life, not judge his patient for doing differently from himself, not be an ass.
    A doctor treats patients with a little dignity, a little respect, and a clear idea of how to return a person to health.
    That’s a doctors’ job. Being “holy” isn’t anywhere on the list.

  • JamieHaman

    Nah, sounds to me like she expanded the hell out of her definition of pro life. It’s not just about abortion, it is about a whole lot more.
    Feeding, educating, providing medical treatment, and helping born people to not live under a damned bridge.

  • sergiomarcano

    Sadly, she meant that. Patheos an anti-catholic pro-social engendering website desguissed as “plural”

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Genocide remains genocide, prenatal or otherwise. If you are abandoning the children because the women make you feel uncomfortable, then it was never about the children in the first place. It was all about you.

    You’re not a bad person. Just a Good German. Alas.

  • I’m not for war or the death penalty. We do need a fair healthcare system for all. The insurance companies are scum of the earth. It all needs to be re-hauled. BTW – I’m pro-life.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    Would that she could be so generous with her own money.

    But then she’d be on the right.

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    “- You make judgements about people you don’t know
    2- Most republicans are trailer park hicks.”

    Oh, sweet irony…..

  • Kenneth James Abbott

    Because that’s EXACTLY the point he made, right?

  • Hilary

    Thanks for this. I am pro choice because I think it is up to the woman in question to decide for herself what her health, options, and resources are to continue a pregnancy. There is no way a blanket law could cover every contingency that comes up in pregnancy. But I agree with everything else you said.

  • Anna

    Well, you’re a blunt kind of blogger, so I’ll be blunt: the point of your piece seems to be “some pro-life people are jerks, so I’m not going to call myself pro-life lest I be seen as one of those jerks.” But then you can’t have the last line of this piece either, because, as you’ve noted in the past, there are plenty of Catholic jerks. Better just to keep being pro-life and Catholic and living so as not to be one of the jerks, rather than confusing people into thinking Catholics for a Free Choice is a thing.

  • MamaK

    I just call myself a faithful Catholic. That should may it clear to anyone. If you asked your average Joe or Jane on the street if the Catholic Church was against abortion or contraception, I think you’d get a “yes”. It’s not secret news. What is this with Americans always identifying themselves by political party? Are politics a substitute for religion in the US?

  • Sarah B.

    Wrong wrong wrong. Patheos is a host website. The opinions of various blogs on various channels are numerous and vastly different from each other. And you are completely reading her wrong. She is anti-abortion. Try again.

  • William R. Mosby

    No, she is saying in a more detailed and thoughtful way that for Republicans, the right to life ends with birth, unless you have the financial means to obtain all of life’s necessities throughout all your years with no help. Because your chances of getting help from Republicans is slim to none.

  • Ms JT

    don’t call people hicks or mock those in trailer parks. its just mean.

  • RPlavo .

    Leticia, I’m sure you know about DFLA, and everybody should know by now, that it is “pro-life” Republicans who refuse to fund anti Zika health efforts; refuse to curtail methane emissions; refuse to adequately fund Homeland security, refuse to fund careful monitoring of our air and water systems, the list could go on, and then they have the audacity to say that government doesn’t work……that’s an interesting point you make about the pro-life movement being a PAC for the Republicans, yes, I believe it

  • RPlavo .

    Yes, it is, and been for such a long time already……look up DFLA

  • Andy

    For many the label democrat or republican, liberal or conservative has replaced being a Catholic. We view the world through a lens that says everyone wants to be like us and that our labels and our understandings are the reality for the rest of the world.
    By the way I agree totally with the author and have moved away from pro-life to being whole-life.

  • Sarah B.

    Where did she say that doctors NEED to be holy? She just made a nice comment about the one. You are the one generalizing.

  • Sarah B.

    You don’t get to make that call about her motivations. You are not her. You are not inside her head. Who said women made her uncomfortable? You could have asked a question instead of making a personal judgement, since you are not God and do not know.

  • gregcamacho8

    1. This is such a minor detail, and a misread one at that (see Sarah B’s point), that its kind of amazing that y’all are arguing about it.

    2. Your argument only makes sense if the words “holy,” “morals” and “conscience” don’t mean what they actually mean.

    A bad doctor, who didn’t put his patient first and didn’t treat them with dignity, would be immoral and unethical. Being ethical has nothing necessarily to do with judging another person or being an ass.

    A religious person could also call a good doctor “holy” for treating his patients with dignity and great attention. “He counts every hair…”–although Leti didn’t say why, because again, minor detail.

  • I think this is a bit silly. So you’re no longer pro-life, because you’re pro-life? I am also Catholic, and while faithful Catholics have long said that abortion is most certainly not the only pro-life issue, it is-in a sense- a litmus test for all the others, at least in my opinion (and Mother Teresa’s ;) ). So you’re an advocate for the poor but you think the children of the poor should be able to be murdered for the sake of finances? Sorry, not buying it. (Not saying YOU, but this is how I feel towards any political candidate who claims to be “pro-life” in these other areas while advocating for abortion “rights”).

    No political party perfectly embodies a truly pro-life stance, which is why I think it’s even more important to be a witness to what it actually means to be pro-life…and actually call yourself pro-life while doing so ;) Republican certainly isn’t the only way to be pro-life, but it’s pretty hard to be pro-life in a party (or by voting for a party) that advocates for Roe v Wade.

  • Zelda

    It doesn’t sound like that to me. It sounds like she said very clearly that she is “no longer pro-life.” The reasons are hazy, but seem to hinge on pro-lifers being big old meanie pants and universal healthcare and illegal immigration taking priority over abortion.

  • Artevelde

    I don’t associate with big old meanie pants either. Sounds like good enough a reason in itself.

  • Always depends on the Republican. I can take you to churches filled with Democrats (or Libertarians or Independents) who help no one, look askance at anyone different, treat those who are not like them as pariahs. Then I can take you to churches filled with Republicans who actually help everyone they can and ask for nothing in return. Of course, there are Republicans who help no one and Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who freely help.

    Not loving our neighbours is a fallen human thing. It’s not a political party thing.

  • Artevelde

    You caught that bit as well, I see. I’m quite baffled at the marching hordes of ‘free men and women’ getting in line so eagerly.

  • Artevelde

    About half of the things you mention were relegated to the realm of the unrepentant heathens the moment Christ gave his life for us. That’s what happened.

  • Artevelde

    Good to see you again, Andy.

  • jrb16915

    Did you read the articles headline. If she stopped being prolife she is either saying abortion is moral or that she doesn’t care if it is immoral. Pick your choice. You need to work on your comprehension.

  • wineinthewater

    That doesn’t make you an ex-pro-lifer. That makes you *actually* a pro-lifer. Maybe it makes you an ex-anti-abortion-er, or an ex-faux-lifer, but not an ex-pro-lifer.

    I understand the sentiment in this piece, but totally disagree with the rhetorical tack. The Cruz’s and Trumps of the world do not define what it means to be pro-life. Being pro-life isn’t just being Republican under a different name. It means to work to protect all life, especially the most vulnerable.

    The Republican Party has not been the prolife party in years, if ever. Their only real claim has been the less-pro-death party. We need to reclaim the name and the movement, make the name mean what it says. We can’t abandon it, especially when we are facing an opposition that already accuses us of not really being pro-life.

  • wineinthewater

    No, she’s still actually pro-life. But she is allowing the failures of the Republican party and its toxic impact on the pro-life movement to drive her out of the movement instead of reclaiming it.

  • wineinthewater

    If you read more than just the headline, she is still against abortion but has so lost faith in the prolife movement that she refuses to use the name anymore.

    She’s wrong in that decision I think but right in her actual stance on abortion.

  • Shawn Rain Chapman

    Thank you for saying this, Leticia. I understand this completely. Democrats for Life has a way of saying “Whole Life” instead that I thought was an interesting solution. I have had some similar feelings as you have, and I believe strongly in the “Seamless Garment” ethic of Life. I am Catholic. All the way across and all the way through. I don’t fit in anywhere. Except for Everywhere. I love reading what you have to say. I often identify with it. Go you. :)

  • jrb16915

    I don’t know this woman personally, so this comment doesn’t apply to her directly. But in my personal experience i know a lot of people who believe their financial and other self-interests are best served by the pro-abortion candidate, so they find excuses to vote for that person and try to pretend away the importance of the sanctity of life. For what in matters in Pa. where I live the pro-life candidate is often a democrat and the pro-abortion candidate is sometimes a republican, so it is not a partisan thing.

  • Cheryl Brigid

    Thank you for this. I recently changed my party affiliation and after hearing years of horrible things said about the democrats by my former party, I would have never guessed that such an organization existed. My goodness, maybe I was brainwashed for many years.

  • Cheryl Brigid

    Word. Well said.

  • Patrick

    If you say that it sounds that you are pro abortion now.
    Otherwise both you and the writer of this article didnt choose their wording right.
    Being Catholic doesnt automatically make you pro life or anti death, there are many Catholics that are pro choice or rather pro death.

  • BuckeyeRob

    Sarah B., Richard was not making a call about her motivations; he was stating a conditional argument: “IF you are abandoning the children because the women make you feel uncomfortable, THEN it was never about the children in the first place. It was all about you.” Richard is positing a LOGICAL argument, not passing judgment.

    He would be passing judgment if he had left off the IF and said, “You are abandoning the children because the women make you feel uncomfortable, so it was never about the children in the first place.” That is judgment. By not understanding the logic of argument, you have inadvertently unjustly passed judgment – you are the one making a personal judgment.

    Richard’s LOGICAL statement is one that makes all of us QUESTION our motivation for being Pro-Life…it does not JUDGE our reasons for being Pro-Life

  • BuckeyeRob

    Exactly!! And it is our responsibility to have a CORRECTLY TRAINED CONSCIENCE. Too often people define CONSCIENCE as an equating of what is their OPINION. The two are in-congruent!

  • christine

    How did people ever have babies and raise their families without help from the democrats?
    Must government now ‘insure all of life’s necessities throughout all your years’? That is communism.

  • christine

    Sr Joan Chittister is a dissident nun.
    If we want to treat children well- well fed, well housed, and I would add cared for after they are born, it is only logical to treat them well before they are born- fed, cared for, while ‘housed’ in the womb. Does that need government funding?

  • Elizabeth Slough-Mills

    Congratulations, you have made the first step. Now, study biology (real biology, the product of unbiased scientific research, to be found in textbooks and medical journals, not opinion pieces by people with an agenda) to learn what constitutes sentient human life. Then, study law and investigate the concept of bodily autonomy, which holds that even a corpse’s organs can’t be harvested unless the sentient mind that once lived in the body has given permission. Then you will realize that abortion isn’t a topic for religion or politics to adjudicate, and you will see that to be truly pro-life, one must be pro-woman. And that means accepting the fact that every woman on this planet has the right to full and unhampered control of her own body. Good luck on your journey to enlightenment.

  • Jeff

    Being “pro-life” really isn’t, for the reasons laid out in this piece, such as pro-life people supporting war and not supporting the poor or disadvantaged, it’s very selective. But, also about eating meat and having kids that then require more resources that are taken from wildlife.

    Meat is murder, we don’t need it to sustain life or health, but we eat it because we feel entitled to it, as we’re exalted to a level above our victims. We’ve developed religions around entitlement to abuse those that are now for our use, this is evil be definition. Also, pumping out kids that create pressure to destroy wildlife and its habitat for our use is an evil. That we consider ourselves moral creates obligations to all sentient living things that we simply choose to ignore because we simply don’t care about our victims.

    Being pro-life requires consideration of our effects on others and requires one to be concerned with their well being. Most people don’t do that, but for their sake we must start.

  • nursecathy123cat

    I understand completely! I call myself (for right now) a Bleeding Heart Conservative. Maybe it should be BH Moderate. But there are a lot of us who don’t fit in the lines drawn by various parties or movements. It’s important to think it through.

  • samnigromd

    It is “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” in that order. And “Life” means the right to a NATURAL death…or it is meaningless. It is the commonest form of the Trinity:THE TRINITY—metaphorically understood and visible
    By Samuel A. Nigro, MD December 2013…February 2016

    Messi, Neymar, Jr., Suarez.Groucho, Chico, Harpo (and Karl too).Improvise, adapt, overcome.Uniqueness, infinity, unity.Sickness, poverty, imprisoned.Living, dead, saved.Complain, criticize, compare.Courage, fear, chutzpah.Truth, sincerity, integrity.Mercy, forgiveness, justice.Forward, backward, immobile.Height, width, depth.Light, dark, clear.Devils, Demons, Journalists.Nazis, Soviets, Journalists.Army, Navy, Marines.Medicine, Law, Divinity.Mother, father, children.Gold, frankincense, myrrh.Tragedy, comedy, boredom.Ego, superego, id.Male, female, asexual. Matter, Truth, Good—Male.Identity, Oneness, Beauty—Female.Water, Wine, Blood .Food, Bread, Body.Body, Blood, Spirit.Bread, Water, Wine.Love, Sacrifice, Freedom.Matter, Form, Being.Life, Fire, Love.Matter, fire, water.Solid, Liquid, Gas.Faith, Hope, Charity.One Lord, One Faith, &One Baptism.Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Transcendentals (nee’ Happiness). Big Bang (creation), Big Bust (Adam&Eve), Big Bailout (Jesus).The Three Magi–the Three Kings–Melchior, Caspar, Balthazar.Heaven, Hell, & Purgatory.Scripture, Tradition, & Magisterium.Jesus, Mary, & Joseph. Creator, Savior, & Sanctifier.Father, Son, & Holy Spirit.

  • Therese

    1. First of all, when we cast a vote, it is for a party platform no matter what we try to tell ourselves. A politician can get nothing done without the support of his party.
    2. Many confuse LIFE ISSUES with QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES. Life issues: abortion, euthanasia, unjust war have 2 solutions only – kill the problem or recognize that to do such is intrinsically evil.
    3. Quality of life issues: immigration, healthcare, living wage, education, housing, etc, etc, etc, can have many and varied solutions on which decent compassionate people in any political party can disagree. These are prudential judgments, not sinful choices.
    4. I submit that you cannot be Catholic and still choose to muddy the two sets of issues based on how different proposed solutions make you FEEL.

  • onlein

    Thanks for your comments. It does seem that for most or almost all Republicans pro-life means anti-welfare. They are more anti-welfare than pro-life. How else to explain their being for even more welfare cuts, like SNAP and WIC and Medicaid, all of which are life saving for women and children including women-with-children? The welfare cuts of 1996 resulted in more abortions for women left without necessary supports for carrying, nourishing self and new life within, without seeing a way forward to giving birth and raising a child. Now the economically disadvantaged women formerly covered by pre-1996 welfare programs are the group of women with the highest abortion rate. Those 1996 lawmakers, in effect, chose more abortions over “welfare babies.” That is clearly anti-welfare and not pro-life.
    I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there were two Republican lawmakers and one prominent Catholic cardinal who spoke out in 1995 against the cuts, saying they were cruel and misguided and not pro-life; they would lead to more abortions. These three did not carry the day, but they spoke the truth, the Gospel.

  • Chris

    It is pretty rude to assume that your conclusions represent “enlightenment” while those of others do not. Some other perspectives: children can be aborted legally when they are older than those who can survive outside the womb. My own son was born at 15.5 weeks, too young to survive, but perfect and beautiful. The hospital kindly took pictures and created other mementos of his short life; it is hard to imagine looking at him and denying his humanity. There’s also an anthropological/sociological perspective that is fiercely pro-woman, recognizing that abortion is a violent response to a deeply embedded patriarchal system in which women are told that there is something wrong with our bodies and that in order to succeed, we should become more like men. As a pro-life feminist, I believe that if women were truly free, killing our own children would be unthinkable, that the insistence upon violence as a means to controlling one’s body is driven by desperation that is anti-woman and that these elements need to be rooted out of our culture by carefully examining our systems and the misogynistic assumptions that inform them.

  • onlein

    For many women, yes.

  • McJakome

    Truth is the first casualty when people turn away from humanitarian concerns to political orthodoxy.

  • bicfj

    A crisis pregnancy center is not a branch of planned parenthood.
    A crisis pregnancy center promotes carrying all pregnancies to term to live birth.
    A crisis pregnancy center does not provide abortion services.
    A crisis pregnancy center does not provide professional health services to pregnant women.
    This entire article is a fraud.

  • McJakome

    Hitler [Roman Catholic] and Stalin [seminarian] have a far higher casualty rate. That is without even going back to the Inquisition, The crusades [especially the 4th in which the Roman Catholics killed many Greek Catholics] and the Albigensian Crusade.

    Did you really have to go there, oh thou Hypocrite? Why do you worry about the mote in your neighbor’s eye when there is a beam in your own?
    Matthew 7: 3-5, Luke 6: 42

  • mdell27

    I don’t think you read the article.

  • Therese

    Who”s the hypocrite?? There were 57,762,169 documented abortions in the United States as of last year, since 1973. That is 57 million. None of your casualty examples ADDED TOGETHER come close to that.
    Additionally, none of your examples are sponsored and promoted by the Democratic party of the United States. Abortion is their reason for being: “God Bless Planned Parenthood” Barack Obama.

  • a r tompkins

    I have asked people of the anti-choice crowd if the fetus has a “soul”, and when does it acquire said soul. the answer is usually something like “at the point of conception.” then I ask what happens to the soul of the aborted fetus. since their god theory posits compassionate gods, the usual answer is the little soul will be with god, in heaven, etc. so now the question is, why aren’t those who choose/provide abortion venerated as great heroes? after all, they are sending souls to heaven at a rate of 100%. this is a much better outcome than letting the soul be born and achieve “the age of accountability”, where the rate of admission is supposedly much much lower. see what happens when you try to develop a coherent world view on a foundation of superstition?

  • a r tompkins

    here’s another problem with the pro-life political stance: it is really a power play of the rich and cynical over the poor and powerless. those politicians and their supporters with money and connections can pay lip service to the shrill “pro-life” crowd, because they well know they will always have access to abortion services. they can always afford to buy the services of a sympathetic doctor for themselves, their wives, daughters, girlfriends, mistresses, etc. or, how about a nice little weekend trip to Canada, Europe, South America? Or will there be a day when among the many other fine services provided by TSA, will they provide mandatory pregnancy testing for women who appear to be of child-bearing age? and if you leave the US pregnant, you had better return pregnant? is that really the US you want to live in? this is different from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc, how?

  • What is really tragic is that pro-life and pro-choice have become totally politicized into opposing camps. Nobody loves abortion. My guess is that if we could ever get beyond the politicization, with its accompanying need to think the worst of those individuals in the other “camp,” there is at least an 80% middle ground of people who would be very supportive of broad-range policies and programs designed to radically reduce the circumstances women endure in which abortion is the best option available to them. But one side is offended by any articulation of a stated goal of radical abortion reduction for programs and policies, while the other side demand a priori immediate criminalization of all abortions, regardless of circumstances and without regard to the individual woman involved in the decision. But again, my suspicion is that this continued impasse is being driven by the fringe 10% on both sides. This makes for poison politics and an increasingly polarized society. Ask yourself this before passing along established invectives toward those on the “other side,” Cui bono?

  • Jon Altman

    What she means is that she is no longer anti-abortion.

  • christine

    Democrats= party of death.
    Pitts & Stupak were the last pro-life Dems I can remember and they folded on the phony no fed $ for abortion rider to Obamacare that soon disappeared. And so did they.
    Euthanasia, abortion, late term abortion, killing born alive abortion victims, fetal stem cell research, harvesting and commerce of fetal tissue and parts, and exporting all the above to third world countries through extortion. Such do-gooders!

  • onlein

    One thing the Roe v. Wade decision has done is document abortions. According to historians’ estimates, there were higher rates of abortion in the 1890s and 1930s (economically depressed times), and probably more abortions with much smaller overall populations, than now. One truth is that poor economic conditions lead to more abortions. Always have, even though there was little or no documentation in the past.

  • onlein

    Too true, unfortunately.

  • Lynn

    This was an inspirational story that I think middle of the road rational pro-life and pro-choice people can get behind. Maybe we should call it the whole life movement. Count me in.

  • Hanneke Geers

    No she does not mean that Jon. And you know!!! Why do you this???

  • Jon Altman

    There is abundant evidence in the piece that she is pro-life. she simply is not longer a part of the aniti-abortion movement.

  • SMcG

    I also worked in the pro-life movement and saw all that you describe, and frankly, much worse. I have seen the same in the Catholic Church. So, the fact that there is rot in the Republican party is …well, *yawwwwwn* It’s the human condition and I’m not scandalized by it. Truth snd ideals are worth fighting for, no matter with whom you work alongside.

    What you describe as the faults of the Republican party are Democrat caricatures which Trump does personify. He’s being voted for by Republicans who also think the Party stands for what the Democrats say. Experience with individual Republicans is not going to enlighten you with regard to the whys and wherefores of policy. But you may be assured that there are Republicans and conservatives who in all truth adopt these policies because they know the poor are ultimately better helped by them.

  • a r tompkins

    calling fetuses “children” obfuscates and biases the issue. Nice try.
    moreover, since something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriages/spontaneous abortions, then isn’t God the hands down greatest genocidal maniac in the universe? God is a “Good German” too I suppose? Of course, what else would you expect for a being that drowns every human and “creature that crawleth upon the earth” (save a boatload) as retribution for the sins of a few?

  • Thank you for all the comments. Ya’ll might want to read my follow up post.


  • Alonzo

    Then by claiming you are no longer pro-life and blaming others for taking an opposing view suggests your core values were never there. Republicanism does not equal pro-life. Cruz is not the definition of pro-life. They are not the authorities for pro-life. You have your arguments turned in the wrong direction for a pro-life stance.

  • bicfj

    Crisis pregnancy centers were established in states where anti-abortion laws have been passed and planned parenthood facilities have been effectively shut down. Texas is one such state.

    Crisis pregnancy centers were built to look like women’s health care facilities, much like planned parenthood centers.

    They are far from being substitutes for planned parenthood.

    But crisis pregnancy centers were not staffed with medical professionals. Instead they were staffed with religious oriented people who discourage everything except carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.

  • mdell27

    The article never said the crisis pregnancy centers were anything but anti abortion places.

  • bicfj

    OK you are right. I wrote my response before I read the article.
    The article is NOT A FRAUD.

  • Therese

    You are going to have to give legitimate documentation for your wishful thinking on abortion statistics. What you put forth is simply not true. It falls under that category of “If you say something often enough. people will think it’s true.”

    And it is another red herring in the discussion about the platform of the democratic party which is to promote this killing of the innocent. It’s the same party that fought against Lincoln so vigorously on abolishing slavery, remember?

  • Maya Bohnhoff

    I’m not a member of any political party, so I have no dog in the hunt, as they say. To say the Democrats reason for being is abortion seems both superficial and false. It creates a polarity that does not need to exist and that helps no one—least of all unborn children. Some say the Republican party’s reason for being is to drive the poor, the sick and the “other” into their graves and to disenfranchise as many people who disagree with them as they can.

    I think that is just as false a statement. Both parties, while the partisan nature of their politics is destructive and ungodly, have a wide array of social goals of which family planning is a part. You also conflated family planning with abortion. If people have access to temporary birth control means, then abortion becomes less practiced. Statistics support this—countries with harsh abortion laws have a higher rate of abortion than those with legalized abortion and access to birth control.

    My observation about the parties is that Republicans seem focused generally on protecting their constituent’s material means. The Democrats seem more focused on making sure that more people have access to stuff both material and intellectual.

  • Nathan Guerra

    I really wish “nobody loves abortion” were true, but there are plenty of worldviews being engraved in the culture that undermine any value in an unborn child. The love of abortion for the benefits it can provide individually and corporately definitely exists in the world.

  • Based upon your own confession you show a lack of sound judgement so it is not surprising that your positions can be swayed by charismatic individuals. Your own life choices shows a lack of a solid foundation upon which to build a stable and prosperous life. It is apparent that your lack of self is what drives you to feel like you need to “make a difference” or gain some sense of self-importance. You would do well to embrace more conservative values in your personal life rather then running after progressive ideologies, which promise to make your angst easier to bear but bear it you must. Conservatism seeks to rid you of the angst completely but let’s face it we like having our pet peeves something that we can blame for our own failures rather then facing up to the facts that we are who we are based on what we believe.

    I am saddened to see that you do not value your own life enough to make better life choices.

  • Indie voter here who worked for the GOP in the 2012 election: more power to you! And please, as one hot mess to another, hang in there. I’ve been an activist for most of my adult life and my hair has gone gray – not from working with abortion advocates, but from working with other pro-lifers. The world, beginning with the people who have turned you off, needs YOUR witness. Go for it. I hope I can meet you someday and tell you so, face to face.

  • gregcamacho8

    I know Leticia personally. She still sees abortion as an unjust violence. She still opposes it. She’s simply done with the pro-life label.

  • Edward Hara

    Another classless and crass Conservative chimes in, whining about the fact that some people need help to get through their lives. People could be self-sufficient if the government would stop throwing obstacles in their way and letting businesses run off to Mexico and China. There are no jobs to be had, or hasn’t that filtered down to you in your isolated little world of Capitalist usury.

  • Andy

    It is good to see a familiar face and name again – I hope that all is well with you.

  • onlein

    Fair enough. I will do a little online digging, and try to provide the best historical documentation available. In the meantime, I suggest searching online for the New York Times article, “O’Conner Links Cuts in Welfare to More Abortions.” It’s from March 2, 1995. In addition to Cardinal O’Connor, Henry Hyde is quoted therein.

  • Mark Buzard

    so you’re going to associate with the democrats then, the party that has killing babies part of their very platform?? I am weary of the republicans too, but they are the pro-life party so far.

    And I am not advocating violence, but if these were babies out of the womb being ripped apart, we’d do all we could to stop it….even violence and civil disobedience… and if you Catholics had done what they should have and voted as they should have, abortion would not be legal.

    And you totally lost me giving Donald Trump praise

  • ty/wins

    I do not think Hitler was a Roman Catholic individual…nor Josef Stalin a Seminarian…if they were…atrocities would not have occurred…so who is more of a hypocrite…

  • The Republicans can in no way be considered a pro-life party. At most, we could say that they are marginally anti-abortion, but given their policies of oppressing the poor at every chance they get, even that is called into question. What good is it to on one hand, cry out against abortion, but on the other, to give poor families financial incentives to choose abortion? Even if abortion became illegal tomorrow, all abortions would not disappear.

    Further, to be pro life means defending the right to life of all people from the moment of conception to the time of natural death. No Republican politician, except for Congressman Ron Paul, believes or votes that way. If you don’t believe this, ask the Republican caucus of the US Congress what they believe about the right to life of peasants in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria. They don’t care two cents about the right to life of anyone who is in the way of the greater glory of the American Empire and its eternal greed for oil and minerals.

    Voting Republican will not end abortion. That has been demonstrably true for 40 years. We had a Republican president and a Republican Congress (both houses) for eight years and still we have abortion. The political platform of the Republican Party gives poor people financial incentives to kill their children. The Democrats are no better. Both are guilty of material cooperation with the objective evil of the murder of the innocent.

  • Tanya Bridgewater

    The world population is over 7 billion. It can’t handle much more. This is a big reason I’m pro-choice. Then of course most pro-life people only care about a child until they’re born; if they’re born into a poor family then to hell with them, it’s their own fault for being poor.

  • jimoppenheimer

    Mean people suck.

  • Sorry Nathan, I think you are wrong there. My spouse recently had a brain tumor removed. Am I glad we live in a world where such tumor can be removed? Yes. Am I thankful that medical science has given us options for us in such circumstances? Yes. Do I LOVE brain tumor operations and would look forward to another one? Hardly. In the same way, I have known many women who have had abortions. Most of them remain glad that this option was available to them in their circumstance of need. But I have never heard any of them speak about abortion as anything that should be avoided if at all possible and a really last option choice. It is not a question of world view but a question of the actual experience of it. That goes not only for the few who had complications, but also for the large majority who say all when smoothly. They want abortion to be legal, medically safe as possible, and increasingly RARE. That is the common ground on which the 80% middle could build constructive policies and programs if we could ever get beyond the politicized bifurcation of all or nothing on this issue.

  • Marty Johnson

    Bwahahaha. No jobs. You little drunken Irish bum. Jorge will work while you are too hung over

  • This is such a cock and bull story it is pathetic. “Pro-life” is simply an idea to control a woman’s life and thereby limit her freedom. Another extension of religion. Completely despicable.

  • Rights for Unborn Women

    No, actually, it’s not. “Pro-life” is the belief that all life is precious, and that therefore everybody should be given the opportunity to live a full life–it isn’t all about abortion, which doesn’t only limit the unborn baby’s freedom, but it completely takes away the baby’s freedom. The mother loses one right, the baby loses them all.

  • Why don’t Republicans take their own advice? When the three richest guys in Oklahoma, all card carrying Republicans, decided to steal the Sonics from Seattle to transform them into the OKC Thunder, the Mayor of Okie City, himself a Republican, didn’t say, “Great idea, I’ll support you all the way as you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.” No, he said, “how much taxpayer money do you want in that welfare check, boys” and wrote a $120 million check to them. And the City and state continue to lavishly subsidize their jock sports hobby all the while lecturing the poor about the dangers of transgenerational welfare dependency.

  • I certainly know that many Pro-Choicers believe this. And in a way I think it’s true.

    Laws limit freedom. Being “Pro-Life” on infanticide is controlling adults life and limiting the freedom many societies gave to parents. Abandoning newborns to the forest or mountaintops was a tradition in many places until Christianity led to that to change. In post-pagan society if a woman doesn’t know she was pregnant, and gives birth (rare but it happens), she doesn’t have the option to simply throw the baby in the river or over a cliff. Not even if the child is of a gender or genetic condition she wouldn’t want for a child. Instead she has to deal with its life, by raising it or giving it away to someone.

    Being “Pro-Life”, granted, goes further. It both restricts a woman’s right to destroy healthy organs for any, or no, reason and restricts the parents right to “abandon to die” which is a long established right in pre-Christian societies. (In fairness I see many Pro-Choicers now affirming the right to self-mutilate in varied and unusual ways.)

    If you believe in any laws you believe in restriction. Do you want pregnant woman to be able to take thalidomide? Inject heroin? Do you favor people being allowed to chew tobacco, which I don’t think has second-hand effects, just anywhere? Or drink enormous sodas? If you say “no” on any of these then you’re not entirely Pro-Choice either. Because no one is. Because most societies recognize we do have to have laws and not complete anarchy on the body.

  • Zelda

    Not to me. If abortion is murder, I’m not going to change my mind just because some mean old pro-lifers don’t want to sit with me at the lunch table. Good heavens.

  • Jerry Ginsburg

    Excellent statement! Right on the money.

  • Yes. Life extends beyond birth. You can’t be pro-war and pro-life, for example. So I think the term is grossly misused. Being anti-abortion is not enough to be pro-life. I don’t support most groups who call themselves “pro-life.” But there are groups which are really pro-life, like Consistent Life – http://www.consistentlife.org.

  • christine

    That’s not fair. Both especially persecuted Roman Catholic priests. Stalin had special places in the gulags for priests and Hitler had the Priests Barracks in Dachau….and don’t forget ‘Kirchenkampf’ squashing churches & shutting down Catholic German press.
    Stalin was enrolled in a Greek Orthodox priest school- but declared himself an atheist.
    If anything- these horrible creatures, along with the Castro bros, Che, Mao & others- show what evil a man is capable of who does not acknowledge God.
    And stop with the Inquisition and Black Legend. The Crusades were defensive wars afters hundreds of years of attacks and invasions by Moslems and massacres of pilgrims going to the Hoy Land. Completely justified and unfortunately necessary to stop the constant onslaught of Islam. Whose side are you on anyway?
    The Albigensians were an unfortunate chapter I can’t defend.

  • Mary

    I know plenty of people who say they are faithful Catholics, but then profess beliefs contrary to Church teaching; hence the scandal. And I don’t define myself by politics, but since the author brought up the Republican party, that ball was in play, so I decided to address it.

  • Hanneke Geers

    And so I understand her. It is not honest and christian to change the meaning of her words.

  • Bruno

    Can’t handle much more? Says who? Oh, it cant handle much more as a consumerist world. Yes, that it cant.
    But I’ll take babies over ipads anytime.

  • calhou

    So….your feelings are hurt. You blame Republicans and now you are going to hang out with liberals……who champion the slaughter of the unborn. There are many causes and issues that we face. The right to life is only one…..but it is an important one. The willful slaughter of innocents cannot be tolerated – regardless of the other ills facing the world. One battle at a time.

  • Hitler [Roman Catholic] – Non-practicing, part of forming the Protestant Reich Church, and essentially rejected the Old Testament. Criticized by the Pope in Mit Brennender Sorge.

    and Stalin [seminarian]- Eastern Orthodox and left relatively early I believe. Ruled as a Marxist who persecuted Catholics.

    There was a fairly anti-Catholic ex-Catholic monk who placed the Catholic death toll as like 3 million. (I’m blanking on the name, but I think Chesterton wrote about him.) So let’s have that as a potential “high end.”

    The Sudanese Civil War itself killed maybe 1 to 2 million and had much to do with Radical Islam. Taiping form of Christianity killed like 20 million in maybe a 20 year or so period. Marxism and Marxism derived movements, tens of millions in fifteen decades. Nationalism and Nationalist are likely also well over 3 million in the last fifteen decades.

    The only place Catholics may have been similar to some of what you mean is that I heard witch hunts in Catholic Liechtenstein killed 10% of the population.

  • And 100% of people eventually die. But we usually make some distinction between natural death and “throw you off a lifeboat so I have more rations” death.

    Still I suppose “child” can dennote a later stage in development than relevant. Fetus, an etymology being “offspring” or “young in the womb”, is not that much of a problem to me. A fetus is a woman’s offspring, a young human being who is not yet born.

    But whether some, or many of them, die naturally isn’t that relevant to anything.

  • There’s an ugly side to the other side too. Look up Sandra Cano, Hans Harmsen of the IPPF, and Alan Guttmacher.


  • a r tompkins

    it’s all part of Jehovah’s Great Plan no doubt. you can always say that, no matter what happens.

  • It’s not a pro-life movement; it’s really just a pro-birth movement. Adherents don’t care for or about the child after birth. There is no offer of a check for $304k (the inflation rated estimate from the USDA for raising a child to 18) or to offset the wages lost to the woman.

    Instead the pro-birth movement aligns itself with the political factions that is constantly cutting or restricting benefits for the poorest of families and the most vulnerable children.

    And they ignore the fact that abortions have become so rare in America that they’ve had to redefine abortions to include IUDs, just to keep the numbers up (and without recognizing that IUDs are the safest long-term option for diabetics).

    And you certainly don’t seen them lining up to adopt. Sure, healthy pink babies get adopted pretty quick. But brown babies, fetal alcohol syndrome babies, crack babies, AIDS babies, and those with birth defects languish in State systems for decades.

    In reality, the pro-birth movement is really about controlling women’s bodies and punishing them for having sex.

  • So you’re just here to snark? Okay.

  • a r tompkins

    depends what you mean by “die naturally”? if you’re a believer in magic creators, then nothing is “natural” – it’s all part of the myth. If you believe that, then a miscarriage is a deliberate act of gods, making the gods the most prolific of genocidal baby killers. If you are like me, and believe it’s a random universe, which, if you look around a little, is the only thing that fits the evidence, then natural means just that – it’s one random event after another after another after another. certainly there are brief chains of events where one event is the direct cause of another, but it doesn’t take long to arrive at a place where chaos rules. no gods evident.

    just pray that god’s will be done – then your bases are covered no matter what random thing happens.

  • billwald

    First, God’s Law defines abortion as a property crime.
    Second, God aborts at least half of all conceptions without human health.
    Third, why would God create a soul for a fetus he was planning to abort?
    Fourth, at what age does the aborted person appear in Heaven?
    Fifth, most right wing Christian anti-abortionists also vote against child support and other forms of child welfare. Trying to grow a low wage servant class?

  • billwald

    Civilized industrial nations all over the world have a shrinking birthrate. If not for immigrants, the US population would be shrinking. It is the people who westerners want to “save” (pun intended) in Africa, India, and South America . . . who are messing up this world.

  • Zelda

    Don’t you people ever get tired of these ancient cliches? You don’t know anything about adoptions. You aren’t aware of how state governments and agencies won’t allow brown babies to be adopted by white parents. The problem isn’t that people don’t want to adopt brown babies. It’s that brown people don’t want to adopt brown babies. You DO see people lining up to adopt. You don’t even know the hurdles people have to go through to adopt any baby – even ones with the issues that you insist make them unadoptable.

    But at their fundamental core, pro-life people don’t think unborn babies should be killed. They may be horrible people who are mean to you at Wendy Davis rallies, but they don’t think babies should be killed. That makes them better humans than pro-abortionists any day. If you were honest with yourself, it wouldn’t matter whether every baby was guaranteed cradle to grave welfare. You’d still support abortion because those babies would be a burden to you.

    Nothing in life is guaranteed, but at the very least, your life should be. That’s where we start.

  • Zelda

    That’s nonsense. I’m pro-war in certain circumstances because I am pro-life. I don’t believe polishing your halo and watching dictators murder and oppress innocents is pro-life. I think it’s sanctimonious and hypocritical.

  • Zelda

    That isn’t a problem with the “pro-life political stance.” That’s a problem with politicians in general.

  • Zelda

    Who cares? You don’t have to believe in a soul in order to believe taking a life is wrong. It’s an irrelevant question.

  • Zelda

    Sister Joan Chittister is a hypocrite and a moron. If you can’t respect the lives of children from the beginning, why should you give a shit at any other time? Why should any child be fed or clothed or educated when they should have just been aborted?

  • Ranina

    Thank you! I am encouraged to know that intelligent Christians are finally THINKING in addition to BELIEVING. They find women like you frightening – but stay strong. You have courageously spoken out. WE are the ones who are Pro-Life. I wish I could hug you.

  • bdlaacmm

    I for one am 100% anti-abortion, but I have long believed that the Pro-life movement has for decades now been following the absolute wrong strategy for ending it. We should NEVER have been so obsessed with laws, but should have from the very start been focused like a laser beam on evangelization, education, and changing hearts. We wouldn’t need to ban abortion if no one wanted one. THAT’S where the Pro-life movement’s energies ought to have been directed for the past 50 years. We would have won by now!

  • Let me rephrase then.

    So you really are just here to snark. Wash our heads at us with your metaphysical naturalism and feeling of intellectual superiority.

    On the matter itself why do many of you atheists and metaphysical naturalists go to the Catholic or Christians sections to do this? I know many of you these days, it wasn’t like this when I first went online, are basically evangelicals spreading the Truth as you see it or castigating “error” at least. (Like the Society of St. Pius X.) But is your evangelical fervor really that strong?

    Granted this doesn’t feel particularly evangelizing. It seems more like wanting to emphasize your superiority. But do you really need that jolt of feeling intellectually superior? Why?

    Sure I’ve gone to the atheist section on occasion, but I usually feel at least awkward about it. And if I’ve insulted any of you and made it seem like I know what you think I’m sorry. I know what atheism seems to me, but you’re not even bothering with “it seems to me that you believe X and therefore Y.” You’re just acting like you know what you’re talking about.

    So I’m not dealing much with the content of what you say much, because it’s just being snarky and ignorant like that. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and don’t seem to much care either, so trying to engage with that is probably a waste of time. When you actually know what you’re saying I’ll respond to that. Maybe.

  • Tiffany

    Gah! Thank you. Principles before personalities comes to mind here. Leticia, I hope you’ll still ‘counsel the doubtful’, as we say! Your voice matters and probably has more depth where it’s needed and welcome than among the chattering classes anyway.

  • Isn’t there an ugly side to the mass extermination of defenceless unborn children whose right to life is denied them by people who, when they were unborn children, were not subjected to such barbaric treatment?

  • Artevelde

    Why does being against abortion make someone by default a better person than a pro-abort? that doesn’t even follow from your own statement that at the very least our life should be guaranteed.

  • Well yes, but a Pro-Choice person is unlikely to respond to that. The issue of the women in Roe and especially Doe possibly being used and lied to, plus the Pro-Choice movements links to enforced sterilization, might be something they could acknowledge. Not saying they would, indeed they usually will not, but they could.

    Although in fairness I’ve seen a few Pro-Choice indicate, or be open to, a bit of disquiet with those people who want abortion to be cheap to “help the poor” but who aren’t necessarily enthusiastic about making birth or daycare cheaper. Abortion is already much cheaper than birth. I think out-of-pocket costs for birth are usually like 5 to 7 times that of an abortion and that’s not counting the amount of financial setbacks pregnancy can cause. From Guttmacher to my day the Pro-Choice movement has an element of just disliking the poor having children or seeing eliminating, or if they prefer “avoiding the existence”, of poor people as a way to deal with poverty. And I’d think some on the Left could at least wonder if that’s really that pro-poor or pro-woman a solution or just ignoring social injustices. Would this mean anything to them? I doubt it. But to talk about “the extermination of defenseless unborn children” is something I know they even have less likelihood to listen to even if I believe that too.

  • Donna

    Zelda, if you want to complain about cliches take a look at your own. There are absolutely no unborn babies being killed. Your movement has to tell a lie every time they use the cliche about abortions killing unborn babies. And don’t tell me a lie and say that a fertilized egg, or an embryo are the same thing as a baby. They are not. You know that, yet you can’t make your argument stick with people unless you use the term baby…..so you lie. You should beware of any position that can only be promoted with lies.

    I don’t see forced birthers like yourself marching around saying embryos will be killed or zygotes will be killed. Doesn’t have the same cache. However it is a fact that every single one of you would be a liar if you told me you could not see the difference between a walnut and walnut tree and you would be a liar if you claimed that there was no difference between eating that walnut and eating a walnut sapling. The same applies here. That walnut has the complete genetic material that the full grown tree possesses. All of the chromosomes and genes. Yet there is the same huge difference between it and the tree, just as there is a huge difference between a fetus and a baby. Be honest for once and say so.

    I am not arguing for you to change your beliefs. I am arguing for forced birthers to become more honest and acknowledge that they might not be right. This holier-than-thou my view is the only right view is pure bullshit. The way you act as though the mother’s body doesn’t count, and that how she lives the rest of her life doesn’t count or matter, definitely bothers me. It is an immoral point of view. The way you are willing to make sure every pregnant woman is forced to complete each and any pregnancy when it is against her will to do, means you have no respect for her having any rights over her own body. She may as well just belong to you, You get to be the Decider Yay!….not to herself, when she is forced to respond to her pregnancy according to your wishes, not hers. I get that you have a right to your religious beliefs but each woman has a right to their beliefs, religious or otherwise, and to live their lives accordingly. I want a world where my daughters and granddaughters get to decide what happens to their own bodies. I want a world where holier than thou Christians step back and remember that the bible’s only reference to the beginning of life is the “breath” of life. I want a country that honors a woman’s right to control their own body and future, and not act as though a fetus is the same as a born baby when it most definitely is not, and also remember that this country is for all faith’s and not just yours.

  • Zelda

    People who think innocent lives should be saved are morally superior to those who don’t care about it. It all starts in one’s head.

    Now the turnaround argument is that pro-abortionists think all babies should be guaranteed a decent chance at life and if it looks iffy, it’s better if they aren’t born. Then you all go on to preen about how you support cradle to grave welfare. But it’s cheap to feed dead babies and that kind of posturing is morally meaningless when you support abortion. If all children deserve a decent chance at life, then they deserve their lives. Now ask yourself if there were cradle to grave welfare, whether you would continue to support abortion.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Republicans appear to be Pro-Life only until the moment of birth. Once the baby is born, they don’t care about it. They are also Pro-Capital Punishment…. hardly in keeping with being Pro-Life.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Sixth, while saying nothing against abortion, the bible does have some passages that can only be interpreted as being pro-abortion.

    Hosea 13:16 “…….. their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    2 Kings 15:16 “………… and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

  • Zelda

    You do understand that “baby” isn’t a scientific term, right? Just tell me you at least understand that. And if you’re clear on that, then you will understand that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to any pre-adolescent human being as a baby or a child or a kid or whatever term of endearment you prefer.

    What you are attempting is to deny the humanity of babies before they’re born. You use scientific terms like “fertilized egg” and “embryo” completely outside of their scientific context in a most unethical and unscientific attempt to dehumanize them. But just because a human being is in an embryonic stage doesn’t mean they aren’t human. We go through stages of development our whole lives. One is not superior to another. And those stages of development begin when our father’s sperm meets our mother’s egg. Immediately, we are different human beings from either of them. So your argument makes no scientific, ethical, or moral sense. If an embryo were not a living human being, there would be no point in aborting it, right? Because there is no magical moment where an embryo becomes a living human. It’s always human, and most sane, moral people believe that innocent human beings should be protected.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    If you believe the Bible, no one is innocent until & unless they accept Jesus as their saviour they won’t be saved.

    Using the Bible’s teachings, keeping a fetus from being aborted is not saving an innocent life.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Isn’t there an ugly side to the mass extermination of defenceless unborn children whose right to life is denied them by men who masturbate & ( as the Bible says) “spill their seed upon the ground”?

    ( this is the Bible that has it’s god punishing Onan for not getting his brother’s wife pregnant)

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Sure, life extends beyond birth. But does it exist before birth?

  • “And they ignore the fact that abortions have become so rare in America that they’ve had to redefine abortions to include IUDs,”

    Do you have anything to support this odd statement? I don’t know that I’ve heard anyone equate IUD with abortion and the US abortion ratio, though it’s gone down, is probably either high or average for the developed world. And though only 6.9% of our abortions occur after the 13th week that’s likely high, globally, as much of Europe places greater restrictions on second trimester abortion than we do.

    I say “probably” because California stopped giving its information on the practice several years ago. So the stats we have for the US are incomplete.

  • A sperm doesn’t have a separate DNA pattern, a developing nervous system, or arms. This really isn’t difficult.

  • Yes, of course. Kind of a dumb question, I’ll explain why.

    James Elgin Gill was born at about 22 weeks gestation. Churchill and Kepler were said to be born at 7 months gestation. In Britain “From 24 weeks babies should be offered full intensive care and support from birth.” Few Pro-Choicers favor abortion of viable offspring, or fetus if you prefer medical terminology for “offspring”, after the 24th week. As most babies are born after the 24th week we can say that life extends before birth, at least that far.

    If you want to use some neural-interconnectivity test you could push it up to 34 weeks, or one to a few months after birth, but most don’t go that far. Still even a fair number of babies aren’t born at 34 weeks so those pre-borns are alive from a perspective that wouldn’t effect hardly any abortions.

    This is why, even from maybe a Pro-Choice perspective, it’s maybe a dumb question. For them life, usually, begins at viability. After that you may euthanize your offspring if it has a terminal condition. To say “life doesn’t extend before birth” is kind of to be willfully ignorant.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    But at what point is it classified as a human being rather than a fetus, zygote, etc?

    ” To say “life doesn’t extend before birth” is kind of to be willfully ignorant.”

    Not according to the courts. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer isn’t charged with two homicides.

  • And rich Pro-Choicers know they can always get nannies or daycare if they need it. That they’re not likely to be in a “If I don’t have this abortion I could lose the job I need to buy food or my boyfriend will kick me out of our apartment.”

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Sperm has it’s own DNA pattern.

    At what point is an abortion not killing a human being?

  • That depends on the state.

    As to when it’s classified as a human being it’s a separate human being by either conception or implantation. Many of the debates now are as to when it’s a person, not to when it’s a human being. We know a human fetus, as in the offspring in the fetal stage, is a human being. That’s not seriously debated, I don’t think.

    Anyway it’s pretty much universally agreed to be so at the 34th week of gestation. I admit I think most though would likely put it somewhere in between “conception and the 34th week.” Going by international standards maybe the 12th to 14th week of gestation. US and UK standard tends to be 24th week to 28th at the outside. (Also Canada’s, I think.)

  • Donna

    You are a true forced birther. You deny the humanity of the women involved all at the expense of being able to say that “just because someone is in an embryonic stage doesn’t mean they aren’t human.” Being human isn’t at question here. My uterus is human. My finger is human. My brain is human. They are alive too. Getting to call the embryo human does not lead any credence or moral authority to your argument…it is a pretty stupid point. If you want to talk science and ethics you have no higher ground. What you are doing is equating the humanity of a fetus with the humanity of a woman. They are not equal. You seem to believe simply being human is all that counts. That is bogus. You choose to tell the falsehood that “we are different human beings” when in actuality the fetus is completely connected and not individuated from the mother’s body. It is the mother’s part of body. Not yours. Then later you state that “People who think innocent lives should be saved are morally superior to those who don’t care about it”. Well go ahead and keep patting yourself on the back. You and other forced-birthers are not one ounce more morally superior than I and others who believe the choice should be left up to the woman.

    Innocent lives. What do you mean by innocent? That they have no power or control over what happens to their life….sort of like the woman who would have no power or control over the rest of her life when she lets you be the decider? Or do you mean innocent in that they have had no thought, experience, or consciousness to do good or evil so that they need you to speak up for them?…..which makes positing that they should have the same rights, nay….actually more rights …than a full grown woman even more ridiculous and obscene. You want the when the “father’s sperm meets our mother’s egg” zygote to have a human right that you are not willing to give to a mother – to control another human’s choices and future. How you cannot see the hypocrisy in your position is astounding. There are so many holes in your moral superiority argument it would take ages to point them out to you.

  • Really? My DNA is the same as my Dad’s sperm from back when? That’s just false. And sperm doesn’t have arms or organs.

    Like I said THIS REALLY ISN’T DIFFICULT. You’re wanting it to be won’t make it so.

  • “My finger is human. My brain is human.”

    And tell me when a doctor will let you remove your finger or parts of your brain for reasons other than medical necessity.

    “when in actuality the fetus is completely connected and not individuated from the mother’s body.”

    And a conjoined twin is connected to another body. So?

    “sort of like the woman who would have no power or control over the rest of her life when she lets you be the decider?”

    Balderdash. She can put it up for adoption. Or she can raise it in various ways she chooses.

    “control another human’s choices and future.”

    The world has laws. The world also has parents. Others peoples lives, and bodies, are restricted in various ways. There are laws on motorcycle helmets, heroin, and prostitution. To name just three things.

    We don’t live in some kind of anarchy. The notion of some kind of absolute control over our destinies, or even bodies, is a philosophical notion not a reality.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “My DNA is the same as my Dad’s sperm from back when? That’s just false. ”

    Who said your DNA is the same as your father’s DNA? I never did, and if you think that you’re sadly mistaken.

    I said “sperm has it’s own DNA pattern”.

    So a fetus becomes a human being when it has arms & legs? What does that make a baby born with no limbs? What does that make a person who has lost their limbs in an accident?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Like I said THIS REALLY ISN’T DIFFICULT. You’re wanting it to be won’t make it so.”

    What’s difficult is you don’t seem to have a clear definition in your mind for when the zygote becomes a human being.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    In other words, there is no accepted consensus on the issue. The religious fundamentalists no doubt claim that the moment of conception is when it becomes a person.

  • There isn’t universal agreement, but that it’s after sperm and before birth is pretty widely agreed to. Just breathe and think a bit.

  • You’re kind of just playing games here.

    It’s either when it has the DNA pattern it will have for life or when it has some level of brain. It’s not when it’s a sperm. You might want a ridiculous analogy to mean something, but it doesn’t.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “You might want a ridiculous analogy to mean something, but it doesn’t.”

    No analogy here, I am just pointing out that your statement “A sperm doesn’t have a separate DNA pattern,” is mistaken.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    My point is the claim that the religious group’s argument that “life begins at conception” is flawed.

    And if they believe the Bible, the Bible doesn’t even make that claim & the Bible endorses abortion in more than one passage.

  • Artevelde

    ‘you’ is not the accurate term when talking to me.I don’t support abortion. You on the other hand turn being anti-abortion into a license for every heinous crime you can imagine. Genghiz Khan himself is a veritable saint in your eyes, as long as he carries your badge of moral cleanliness. Do not hide behind the wellfare argument. Abortion is worse than not paying taxes. Carpet bombing the innocent isn’t.

  • Fine. The point is it’s not a genetically distinct human.

    Also this is kind of a waste of time so I’m done here.

  • Martha Arenas

    Seventh, did you even read the article?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    ” The point is it’s not a genetically distinct human.”

    As far as i know, no one has said that it is.

    “Also this is kind of a waste of time so I’m done here.”

    So you think having your erroneous comments pointed out is a waste of time. Maybe you should try to avoid making erroneous comments in public forums.

  • Martha Arenas

    That depends on the state

  • I think I meant correcting you is a waste of time and that you’re obsessed with little pedantic asides just proves the point. Goodbye.

  • Donna

    It is not balderdash that you want to take away the woman’s power and control over the rest of her life and let you be the decider. You are wanting to force the birth of the baby. If that is not her choice, then yes you are taking away the woman’s power and control over the rest of her life and you are being the decider. That is exactly what you are demanding, so own up to it.

    And then you want to discuss laws. That discussion does not help your argument but does help mine. Right now if you died in a car accident and your heart could save your child’s life who was in the car accident with you, guess what? If you had not somehow foreseen that your heart should be removed to save that child, …and given prior permission for that to happen, your body would not be able to be co-opted and controlled by others for that purpose, because your dead body has more rights than that, even though a born human child would be saved. Your absolutely dead body would be given a choice – before dying, and once dead those choices and only those choices will be acted upon, which is more rights than what you want to provide to a live woman. Even when to save the life of a real live sentient child.

    And for those implying that once an egg is fertilized the option to end the pregnancy is immoral, you have a very weird sense of morality. So you claim that even a two celled entity has more control over the woman’s body than she does? Seriously? Is this because you think there is some God mandate that there is a soul there that automatically deems it needs a chance at life? Even though many such zygotes are spontaneously aborted ——we are supposed to give them more consideration than God does? And this zygote has control over what the human carrying it does with their life, and not the other way around?

    Whether you like it to be pointed out or not, your position requires for the rights of women to be taken away in order for you to confer rights upon a fetus. A woman is much more than just an incubator once she gets pregnant, and she has every right to decide whether or not she wishes to perform incubation.

  • “It is not balderdash that you want to take away the woman’s power and control over the rest of her life and let you be the decider.”

    Okay we have anger and you repeating what you said. Thanks?

    “Your absolutely dead body would be given a choice – before dying, and once dead those choices and only those choices will be acted upon, which is more rights than what you want to provide to a live woman.”

    This is an interesting point, but the situation is different. The embryo or fetus is already dependent on the woman. Not aborting is doing something, not removing the heart is simply allowing it’s existing state. If I fail to save a drowning baby in my care that’s considered different, I believe, than if I throw it in a lake.

    Also there is no other alternative for the fetus than the woman. In the case of heart patients there may or may not be another choice. Lastly a person who would say “Even if I die, I don’t want my heart to go to my sick child” would be hated.

    If you want to argue abortion should be legal, but those who perform it be social pariahs, I might be open to that. But I’m guessing you’re not.

    “And for those implying that once an egg is fertilized the option to end the pregnancy is immoral, you have a very weird sense of morality.”

    Generally speaking abandoning a separate human being to die is immoral yeah. That’s not hard to figure out. Although I admit that early in the pregnancy I can see why laws maybe couldn’t get involved or even why there might be debate.

    “Whether you like it to be pointed out or not, your position requires for the rights of women to be taken away in order for you to confer rights upon a fetus.”

    I don’t mind saying that part. Rights are sometimes restricted for others all the time. We restrict people’s rights to smoke in buildings. We restrict rights of mothers to neglect their infants so badly they starve. We live in a society. Being a woman doesn’t mean you have no responsibilities to others or to any offspring you create.

    “A woman is much more than just an incubator once she gets pregnant”

    Of course, but she is also that. Just like a woman with an infant is many things in addition to being a mother.

    But if you dump an infant into a trashcan that’s seen as wrong. If you even just leave the baby in a car on a hot day, refuse to use your body to carry it with you or elsewhere, that can get you in trouble. Expelling an embryo or fetus to certain death is wrong. (If there were a way to transfer it to a living host willing surrogate, sorry for the uncomfortable initial wording, or put it on an alternative life support it would be different. That’s not the situation we’re in.)

    But it’s almost more than that. Your way gives an embryo or fetus less protection than even a tonsil may have. My brother could not get his tonsils remove despite occasional flair ups. Doctors are now leery to remove things unless necessary. But healthy kidneys, lungs, etc can be removed because they aren’t developed enough as they’re in a pre-born body. I guess this can “make sense” if you see the fetus or embryo as a parasitic organism, as some Pro-Choicers do, instead of as what you or I once were.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    To recap: you think my pointing out an error in your comment is correcting me?

  • You pointed out one error and it was barely an error.

  • Donna

    Still, your way gives a woman less protection than that dead body has from others deciding what to do with her body. Saying a fertilized egg is the same thing as a separate human being is dishonest by leaving out inconvenient differences. Same in some ways? Yes. Same in all ways. No. And you know that, yet require that we all act like it is a baby. That is the dishonesty I will continue to point out. Your point that “We restrict rights of mothers to neglect their infants”….A fetus or a zygote are not an infant. You know that. That point has no relevance to the argument. Yet you constantly refer back to the deceit of talking about infants and babies.

    I find it interesting that you have no qualms with women automatically being assigned a secondary level of citizenship because of their ability to bear children. Perhaps in your zeal to establish person-hood rights to a zygote you will also be sure they are counted in our census, and at the same time specify that women should be counted as 3/5 of a person—to reflect the underlying reality you are choosing to enforce.

    Forced birthers are advocating that a woman with a system-wide strep infection be forced to remain pregnant, even though she may very well die as a result, and they know that the fetus will not be viable. Forced birthers are advocating that women who know their children will be born without brain function be forced to continue their pregnancies. Forced birthers are advocating that rape victims continue their pregnancies – they have no choice over their own body. Forced birthers are willing for women to endure painful, medically dangerous miscarriages rather than induce birth of a non-viable fetus. Forced birthers want women not to be able to use an IUD to prevent pregnancy because that fertilized egg has to have the right to implant, dammit!

    You are forced birth. You are not Pro Life.

  • “A fetus or a zygote are not an infant.”

    True. And an infant isn’t a child and a child isn’t an adult. We don’t let five years old vote. We don’t require newborns go to school.

    But you’re not doing a sliding scale of “less rights” you’re arguing for “no rights at all.” You also ignore the differences between the dead body scenario and a pregnant woman as well as the issue of how people would see someone who says they would rather their child die than mar their dead body.

    “I find it interesting that you have no qualms with women automatically being assigned a secondary level of citizenship because of their ability to bear children.”

    I find it interesting you see it that way. I don’t recall saying I think men can abandon fetuses they don’t want either. And I was clear I think laws can relate to men’s bodies. There might be forms of male genital mutilation, like castration, that should be heavily restricted if allowed at all. Even the removal of a single testicle I think might require you have a medical reason. Around 70% of abortions are primarily not for medical reasons.

    “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). ” Guttmacher

    “Forced birthers are advocating that a woman with a system-wide strep infection be forced to remain pregnant, even though she may very well die as a result, and they know that the fetus will not be viable.”

    I didn’t really say I want to ban all abortion from conception without exception. Maybe I was a bit unclear about what I meant. (Maybe not that unclear. I said “Although I admit that early in the pregnancy I can see why laws maybe couldn’t get involved or even why there might be debate.” As this is a Catholic site I was hesitant on going further. As there might be debate reasonably I’ve accepted laws likely can’t get involved in early enough cases.) Realistically what I’d want would leave up to 93% of abortions essentially unaffected. True I think a second-trimester fetus has the same legal rights as your finger or the eggs of some species. I might even give the embryo the rights of protection a tonsil has if I’m to go “extreme enough.” But I didn’t say abortion is equivalent to first degree murder or that embryos having voting rights or something.

    Unfortunately that quote starts when you went into a litany, with buzz phrases even. And dealing with cases that represent the minority of abortions. Therefore I’m guessing, from past experiences like this, you may not even want a response then.

  • duke winnamucca

    It’s much simpler than this story makes it out to be. Is there or, isn’t there life in the womb? Look at the ultrasound pictured above. Nuff said.

  • Zelda

    Have you lost your mind? There is no badge of moral cleanliness that includes murdering children. Genghis Kahn included. Nothing you are saying makes any sense.

  • Zelda

    Women aren’t the ones being aborted, so their humanity isn’t in question. I understand that you are trying to deflect from the fact that you are dehumanizing unborn babies, but women aren’t the ones being killed for merely existing. And if force was any kind of issue, we wouldn’t force fathers to pay child support for babies they don’t want. But we have correctly decided that the right of children to be protected from poverty are infinitely more important than the rights of fathers to disown their own offspring.

    And your bodily appendages aren’t comparable to embryos. But you raise an interesting point. What would you think of a mother who decided to cut off her baby’s arm in utero but otherwise carry it to term. Pretend she’s rich and eccentric and wants to have a baby with a missing limb. Is that her right?

    “You choose to tell the falsehood that “we are different human beings” when in actuality the fetus is completely connected and not individuated from the mother’s body.”

    Why would a woman have an abortion if an embryo was completely connected and not individuated from her body? Why wouldn’t she just leave it alone like her arm or her leg? You clearly haven’t thought this through.

    And the term “innocent” should be obvious, but it seems you need a lot of things explained to you. An innocent is someone who is incapable of committing a malicious act. Unborn babies are the essence of innocence. They don’t even exist by their own actions, much less any malicious intent. If you think the lives of innocents are expendable, then your morality is severely flawed and terrifyingly inferior.

  • Zelda

    That’s not even close to what it says in the bible, and it’s irrelevant anyway. An unborn baby does not have the capability of committing a malicious act, not even in self-defense. They are the essence of innocence by any definition. To take their life is a cruelty by any standard, Christian or secular.

  • lady_black

    And if they focused on preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place through education and contraception being universally available, there wouldn’t be so many abortions.

  • Donna

    You ask and state “Why would a woman have an abortion if an embryo was completely connected
    and not individuated from her body? Why wouldn’t she just leave it
    alone like her arm or her leg? You clearly haven’t thought this through.” You are the one not thinking. Perhaps she is already struggling to take care of the children she already has….a huge proportion of the women seeking abortions are already supporting their families. Regardless of reason, she would have the abortion to control her body and her life. Duh. And no, that embryo is not a person like she is. Saying it is, over and over, doesn’t make it so.

    Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Nature has no problem with that. God has no problem with that. Nature and God gave women domain over their own bodies and women can replicate what occurs naturally if they choose to do so. This is not for you to decide, or anyone else. Women can decide many things. It is called free will.

    As women have become more and more able to detect their pregnancies earlier and earlier, the forced birther movement has ratcheted up the call to control these women and their decisions even more than they did before. Blood tests can now detect pregnancy from about 6 to 8 days after ovulation. Your desire to tie women to their pregnancies…..even at this early stage of development (!) is obscene. It makes it obvious that the true issue is about controlling women and their bodies, not about “innocent lives”.

    A zygote is obviously not a person compared to a woman “but it seems you need a lot of things explained to you” (using your own patronizingly smug language). So many forced birthers are afraid that if person-hood status isn’t granted to zygotes that they will then have lost their argument against all abortions. They are not willing to see any nuances anywhere. Protect the Zygotes!

    And you really do think you are superior don’t you? And I bet you think that there is a heaven that exists just for people like you – with your beliefs only – and no one else, and it never occurs to you how morally inferior an idea that is. Sigh.

  • lady_black

    Yes, states DO let white couples adopt brown and black babies.

  • lady_black

    Yes, they’re human. So are tumors. ‘Human being’ is really pushing it, until it can survive without the body of a woman.

  • lady_black

    There ARE no “rights” to the body of another that you can assert. And if YOU can’t assert those rights, neither can a fetus.
    Men certainly CAN desert a fetus with impunity. A fetus has nothing to do with a man, and has no economic needs. Nor does a man have any parental rights until live birth.

  • lady_black

    Nothing is guaranteed.

  • lady_black

    No children are being murdered in an abortion.

  • lady_black

    An act need not be malicious to warrant self-defense.

  • lady_black

    Nobody has a “right to life” that requires the use of any part of the body of another.

  • lady_black

    Developing is not the same thing as developed.

  • lady_black

    You know who also has a separate DNA identity? I DO. And I owe NO PART of my body to anyone else.

  • There aren’t many other scenarios where a body needs another body, that it’s already attached to, to live. Conjoined twins is all I can think of. And I don’t think the higher IQ one gets to remove the other without its consent. (Or even if a mad scientist attached a monkey to a man. I imagine some animal-rights activists would be uncomfortable removing it, if doing so kills it and it could be safely removed in nine months.)

    And yes men can abandon their pregnant girlfriends. If you’re arguing simply on legality many of you have a point. Many selfish and irresponsible things are, or have to be, legal. But I feel like “I see the idea it’s selfish behavior that denies someone life, but forbidding abortion is worse” is not what you’re wanting to say.

    If I’m wrong on that, and many of you are saying “it’s selfish and wrong, but it’s your right”, okay then. That’s a different kettle of fish in some ways.

  • Artevelde

    Not to you, no. You live in a mental landscape where the only thing you can possibly have against Genghiz Khan is that he wouldn’t hesitate to abort babies. Is that the only moral concern you have? Is it the result of a particular political affiliation to end up in a manichaean boxing ring with abortionists and their defenders in one corner and those free of evil in the other?

  • lady_black

    That it’s attached doesn’t matter. It can be unattached, just as I can pull the catheter out of my arm if I change my mind about donating blood via direct transfusion.
    The use of someone else’s body requires continuing consent. Conjoined twins are not using the body of another. They are two persons with two bodies that are joined congenitally, and have the right to pursue separate lives. This would be more like a vestigial parasitic twin that has no mind, and no right to continue to piggyback on the body of the host. I think that’s a “type” of conjoined twin, but it’s not a person.

  • Zelda

    A straw man argument would be too objective and logical a term for these mutterings. How about you leave Genghis Khan out of it until you can at least spell the name correctly?

  • Zelda

    And what act are we talking about here?

  • Zelda

    Yes they are. Denial doesn’t change the fact.

  • Zelda

    Tumors are not human. Have mercy on yourself and spare yourself the embarrassment of that argument. Born babies can’t survive without the bodies of their mothers or another caregiver. They are utterly dependent on the bodies of others for their survival. Now let’s hear you justify their murders.

  • Zelda

    Eventually, but not until every effort is made to find them a brown or black family – a process that wastes precious bonding time with their adoptive families.

  • Zelda

    You haven’t answered the question. If an unborn baby is no different from an arm or a leg, why wouldn’t a mother leave it alone and not kill it? She wouldn’t cut off her arm or her leg, so if an unborn child is just a part of her body, why would she cut it off? Why wouldn’t she just leave it alone like her stomach or her finger?

  • Ron Ricci

    OMG, no one can you all justify abortion unless you are like God and we all know what happened to the last being who believed that. Oh yeah, that would be Lucifer. You all would give up your souls because you don’t like Republicans? Really!

  • Artevelde

    I’m a conservative, not a lefty like you. Free men and women don’t socialize transcription.

  • Korou

    And a fetus doesn’t have the ability to think, feel or experience; essentially, it isn’t yet a person.

  • Zelda

    Do you think you are making sense? I’m just morbidly curious at this point.

  • a r tompkins

    Thank you – that’s precisely my point. Stop making up this weird thing called “soul”, and respect life itself. Otherwise you find yourself in this ugly Christian (and others) conundrum where the goal of life is to get to heaven, and since the human fertilized egg has a “soul”, then the surest way to get that soul into heaven is to abort the life before it has a chance to mess it up. Which, as is indicated in religious texts, most will mess it up. religiosity is ridiculousness itself. and dangerous. look around the world/national news today. some poor mentally confused parent will no doubt murder their children to ensure the children’s afterlife with god before these children have a chance to be misled by a wicked world. happens all the time.

  • a r tompkins

    the problem goes far beyond the politicians in general. it extends to all of those who support these politicians knowing full well efforts to shut down reproductive services designed primarily to help the disenfranchised will not seriously curtail their own options. as I said, any connected, well-off person will be able to get a birth control or abortions for themselves or their family members (or sex partners, whatever). and they do.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “To take their life is a cruelty by any standard, Christian or secular.”

    And yet the Bible condones it and in some cases commands it.

    Hosea 13:16 “…. their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

    2 Kings 15:16 “…. and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling,….”

    Psalm 136:10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy endureth for ever:

    ( some mercy!!!!)

    Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “That’s not even close to what it says in the bible”

    That’s EXACTLY what it says in the Bible.

    Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

    Psalm 58:3 “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies.”

    Romans 51:2 “just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned”

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Make up your mind, did I point out one error or was it not an error?

    Either it is an error or it isn’t.

  • Artevelde

    I don’t think that’s a honest statement. You are not at all curious. What I think, apart from me being amused, is this: if this truly was about abortion, you would let the case rest. You would be barking up the wrong tree. Bar a few minor details perhaps, we would agree on the topic of abortion. I am (almost) quite sure you are honest and firm in your stance against abortion. So am I. But this is not about abortion.
    I’ll give it one more try: are you suggesting that people who are against abortion are morally superior to those who do support it – regardless of what else those against abortion do or support?

  • lady_black

    They are dependent upon NOBODY’S bodies. They are dependent upon caregiving by an adult. That’s as silly as saying while I was in the hospital having a C-section, I was dependent upon someone else’s “body.” Or when my grandmother was in a nursing home, she was dependent upon someone else’s “body.”
    I’ve been a nurse for 30 years. Nobody I was giving care to was EVER dependent upon my body. They were still breathing, digesting and eliminating. If they couldn’t do that on their own, they died.
    And yes, human tumors are human.

  • lady_black

    Children have already been born.

  • lady_black

    Any act that threatens another.

  • Zelda

    What act are we talking about here?

  • Zelda

    Children are just as dependent ex utero as in. Your criteria is inconsistent.

  • Zelda

    Caregiving requires your body. You can’t care for someone while you’re sitting on your sofa thinking nice thoughts. When you’re having a C-section, you are dependent on the body of the doctor performing as required to deliver you safely. Once born, an infant is entirely dependent on the bodies of others to care for them. This isn’t difficult.

    And tumors aren’t human. You sound like a moron.

  • lady_black

    That’s NOT “depending on someone else’s body.”

  • Zelda

    You’re right. I’m really not curious. And this is about abortion. That is where it starts. You can’t sanctimoniously claim that all children should be fed and cared for, peace and love and lentils, while legal abortion insulates you from the actual real world consequences of your moral preening. It’s like standing on a hill overlooking a burning pile of dead bodies, demanding that everyone be given a stipend, then walking away, smugly polishing your halo.

  • lady_black

    No they aren’t. PLEASE. If my children needed me to breathe for them, they would have died long ago.

  • lady_black

    Rape, for instance.

  • Zelda

    It may require government funding. But at the fundamental level, it requires people to understand the consequences of their actions and accept them.

  • Zelda

    And the hyper focus on “reproductive services” ignores every other health aspect of humanity. It’s as if you think women are only represented by their reproductive capabilities. And I’ve always thought it funny that those clinics providing “reproductive services” never manage to include infertility treatment. Why do you think that is?

  • wineinthewater

    Unfortunately, the blue dog democrat is going extinct while the pro-abortion republican is showing early signs of a population explosion.

    And while I do not doubt that some people go Democrat out of self-interest, a very large number go Democrat because they have become fed up with supposedly pro-life politicians who often do more harm to the pro-life cause than they do to limit or eliminate abortion. When you consider how little headway has been made against abortion, even when we had a completely Republican government under part of Bush’s time in office, you can see how people will start to buy the reasoning that at least by voting Democrat they might help reduce the root causes of abortion since the other party isn’t doing anything of substance to reduce abortion legislatively.

    It’s easy to understand how people begin to feel like the pro-life movement is just a Republican superPAC, and how they can get fed up with that. I’m fed up with it. I do a lot of third party voting because I don’t believe that the Democrat social agenda can do nearly as much to reduce abortion as it does to increase the root causes of abortion anyway and I am quite convinced that the Republican party wants to eliminate abortion even less than the Democrats since it has been such a successful rallying cry.

  • Zelda

    How do you not notice that none of your biblical quotes match your actual statement? And if Jesus wouldn’t allow a woman to be stoned to death for adultery, then why would he allow an unborn child to be murdered for existing?

    And what is it about irrelevant that you don’t understand? You can acknowledge life without acknowledging a soul, and you should. This is one of the tenants of secular humanism such as it is.

  • Zelda

    So context is beyond your intellect. Good to know your starting point. Why don’t you tell me your feelings about the death penalty and then quote me some bible verses?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “And if Jesus wouldn’t allow a woman to be stoned to death for adultery,”

    Where does the Bible say Jesus wouldn’t allow a woman to be stoned to death for adultery? He had no problem with her being stoned to death, he just asked that the person without sin throw the first stone.

    As it happened ( according to the Bible), no one in that particular crowd was without sin so she wasn’t stoned to death.

    Jesus also says more than once that all the old laws are still in place & cannot be changed one bit until the Earth has passed away.

    “You can acknowledge life without acknowledging a soul, and you should. ”

    Of course I can. Can you show some evidence that a soul exists?

    You should clearly define what this soul is first.

    Fungus is alive, does it have a soul? Do trees have a soul, does bacteria?They are also alive.

  • Zelda

    Nonsense. Children are aborted in the cause of left-wing, Marxist notions of sexual equality, and extremely outdated progressive eugenist philosophies, not because of the distorted theologies of the mentally ill.

  • a r tompkins

    Um, women (and men), who have insurance, can get a flu shot, or get a few stitches for a cut, at their regular doctor. Reproductive services for the uninsured would be harder to get access to.

    “why do I think that is?” simple. supply and demand. the vast majority of women and couples, insured or not, need help NOT getting pregnant.

    Or they could remain chaste, like you I suppose, and Bristol Palin.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “So context is beyond your intellect”

    Can you explain the context where it is right & moral to rip the unborn from the wombs of their mothers?

    Where it is right & moral to slay infants suckling at their mother’s breasts?

    To slaughter the first born of other people for the actions of the pharaoh…. AFTER removing pharaoh’s free will & hardening his heart ( several times) so he wouldn’t release the slaves?

    Where it is right & moral ( and will make you happy) to dash little children to death against stones?

    Bringing up the death penalty is a very clumsy attempt to change the subject.

  • Artevelde

    I know. You believe morality is suspended until legal abortion has disappeared. Now, while this has been fun and before my mouth fills with bile, farewell.

  • gabeysmom

    Wrong. The failure rate of contraception is a big part of what keeps abortion going. Education, however, is definitely key.

  • Zelda

    Your brain is filled with bile. And lies. Go ahead and feed those dead babies. Pretty cheap, isn’t it?

  • lady_black

    LOL. NONSENSE, lady. I had my tubes tied when I was 26. No failures. My daughter is using Mirena. Again… no failures. You’re doing what way too many pro-lifers do. Assuming that the failure of contraception is a huge part of why abortions happen.
    Abortions happen for many reasons. Some health reasons, some economic or educational reasons, some because of rape, and some because of lack of outside support. In the end, most happen because women can’t see a way to make it work.
    Access to reliable, gold standard contraception is a big part of addressing the issue. The pregnancy that never ends in abortion is the one that doesn’t happen. This has been verified. When disadvantaged women have access to IUDs, implants and other goof-proof birth control, the rates of unplanned pregnancy and abortion are substantially reduced.

  • Zelda

    Metaphors. Fundamentalists like yourself have much trouble with them. And the teachings of Jesus have not yet entered into your literalist ranting. I wonder why that is?

    But if you disagree with your fundamentalist biblical interpretation, that it is not right or moral to rip babies from their mothers’ wombs, then you have lost your argument in the most disgustingly hilarious way possible.

  • Zelda

    Oh shut up. Birth control is ubiquitous and the most commonly and cheaply available prescription there is. Flu shots are more expensive. Blood tests are more expensive. Asthma and allergy treatments are more expensive. But let’s not worry about that. Let’s spend 10 times the community health care budget on making women infertile. It seems to be going well.

  • Zelda

    That’s a intellectually larval interpretation. And yet it’s still irrelevant to the argument as to whether it’s okay to kill an unborn baby. Biblically or otherwise.

  • Zelda

    Babies don’t rape anyone.

  • lady_black

    But an adult with the mental capacity of, say, a toddler… could be defended against, even with lethal force.

  • Zelda

    Yes. Because infants only require someone to breathe for them in order to live. Guess they shouldn’t have arrested that woman and her boyfriend for not feeding their children. Guess if you’re ever on a ventilator, the hospital should just abort you especially if you can’t pay.

  • yllas

    you can’t read very well, can you?

  • lady_black

    No, dear… infants do NOT require someone to breathe for them to live. An infant is biologically independent. This is getting tedious.
    A ventilator is a machine. It doesn’t create lungs where they don’t exist. It only pushes air into lungs. If the lungs cannot function as they should, a ventilator is not going to help.

  • Zelda

    Yes it is. Your hands are your body and they are indispensable in feeding and caring for children. They will die without the care made possible by a body. And if you refuse to grasp the difference between a fetus and a uterus, surely you can grasp the similarities between a uterus and a hand. Both are part of your body. Your child isn’t whether in utero or ex and logic will never twist itself to conform with your dehumanizing arguments.

  • lady_black

    But see, we don’t force women to parent. That doesn’t work out well.

  • a r tompkins

    it’s not about price, it’s about access. All of the flu shots I’ve received in the past 5 or 10 years have been free.
    contraception is ubiquitous BECAUSE of Planned Parenthood and similar agencies! there was a day, not long ago, when access to contraception was a real big problem. we’re much better off with easy access to contraception than without it. to think otherwise is positively primitive. Perhaps you’d enjoy living in a theocracy where women’s health services and access to birth control are non-existent. Move to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, or any other fine country where god and government rule together. sounds like you’ll love it.

  • Zelda

    Utter nonsense. There are so many more community health clinics and doctors offices and they run on a fraction of PP budgets. They also don’t make money off of abortions and you can get birth control at any of them. What you can’t necessarily get are abortions so they are overlooked by the pro-abortion politicians in favor of PP. PP doesn’t offer services for anything outside of pregnancy prevention and limited reproductive health services. They don’t even offer discount abortions. This is a purely money-making operation, and they still get an outsized portion of healthcare dollars even though their focus is myopic. I’m beyond sick of hearing about how I don’t support healthcare because I don’t support PP.

  • Zelda

    We also don’t slaughter infants, although there are some in the pro-choice movement who look to that as the next logical step and if you’re denying the humanity of embryos, it pretty much is.

  • gabeysmom

    You are quite lucky. In addition to the information included in most contraceptives that reference real world failure rates, I also know personally many children who were conceived while the parents were using ever form of birth control available, including Depo and sterilization. And my college friend who lost her uterus to Mirena perforation wishes she had been better educated as well.

  • lady_black

    No, you don’t know many children who were conceived by sterilized parents. If you know any at all, it’s because the guy was sterilized, and they didn’t follow directions.

  • lady_black


  • Zelda

    Infants are not biologically independent from the bodies of others. This is indisputable. They can’t walk, they can’t verbally communicate, they aren’t self aware, they have no coordination to feed or hydrate themselves, they are utterly and completely dependent on the bodies of others for their survival. And somehow, in a quantum leap of logic to other dimensional delusion, being dependent on a uterus makes you the moral equivalent of a hand, and being dependent on hands doesn’t. Breathtakingly irrational.

  • gabeysmom

    Hahaha! I will make sure to tell Peyton, Gary and Alissa that some lady on the internet said they’re fake because she has an ax to grind against someone who is unabashedly pro-life, from womb to tomb. Have a great day!

  • Zelda

    Sure. But unborn babies aren’t committing any acts of aggression from which to defend. Being is not an action. It’s a completely innocent state.

  • lady_black

    So what?

  • lady_black

    I have no axe to grind against anyone who is pro-life. Spewing unscientific nonsense is another matter. Depo-Provera isn’t a particularly good contraceptive. And three kids are not “many.”

  • Zelda

    So, they’re innocent and non-aggressive and to murder them is an atrocity.

  • lady_black

    Yes, they are.
    Biologically independent means they carry out their own biological functions. In other words, they breathe, digest, and eliminate.

  • Zelda
  • lady_black

    There have always been people who advocated killing infants. This is not new.

  • lady_black

    They aren’t moral agents, and can be neither “guilty” nor “innocent.” That requires mindfulness.
    That’s like saying an avalanche is “innocent.”

  • lady_black

    Like in the Bible? Or will they presumably be using more humane methods?

  • a r tompkins

    oh Zelda, you live in some kind of bubble. I used PP. Virtually all of my friends used PP. My mom used PP. My kids used PP. Without PP there would be SO MANY MORE abortions it boggles one’s mind. Sorry – that’s reality for you. As mentioned, sounds like you’d be much happier in a holy-book-based theocracy where suspected fornicators get stoned to death down in the public square. now THAT’s birth control!

  • Zelda

    You used PP because you didn’t bother to look for anything else. You wouldn’t have gone there if you needed blood work or a flu shot or a tetanus shot or stitches or anything else that affects far more people on any given day. You pro-abortionists are so myopic. Everything is about your stupid ovaries. And I don’t give a shit about fornicators. Fornicate your brains out. Do it in the road. I could not care less. Just don’t kill your babies.

  • Zelda

    What’s the difference? A dead baby is a dead baby.

  • Zelda

    Wrong. Innocence is the state of being blameless of any wrongdoing. Innocence requires no moral agency, but moral agency doesn’t preclude innocence. Unborn babies have committed no act of which they can be blamed in any way. The only act of maliciousness would be their careless creation and placement in a hostile environment – an act in which they had no part. They are the ones who need defending, yet they aren’t even capable of that. That is the very essence of innocence.

  • Zelda

    Ok. But their argument is exactly the same as the one you use to dehumanize fetuses and justify abortion and they make their case clearly. I’m not sure how you’d argue with them.

  • Zelda

    You don’t get to cherry pick biological functions. Eating is a biological function and infants can’t eat on their own. And if they can’t eat on their own, then they can’t digest and eliminate on their own. Therefore, they are biologically dependent on other humans, as they are entitled to be. You’re trying to shoehorn your pro-abortion argument into a narrative that doesn’t match reality.

  • barney59

    Wow, you are truly a ghoul.

    May God have mercy on your soul…

  • barney59

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder, you are proof of this…

  • lady_black

    OF COURSE an infant can eat on his own. I’ve had three of them.

  • lady_black

    “Their” argument? You mean like in the Bible?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    it’s still irrelevant to the argument as to whether it’s okay to kill an unborn baby. Biblically or otherwise.”

    What do you interpret this Bible verses to be describing?

    Hosea 13:16 ” ………. and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

    2 Kings 15:16 ” … and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    Numbers 5:11-21 ~~ These verses explain how to induce a miscarriage in a woman suspected of adultery.

    The Bible also has many passages condoning ( in some cases commanding) killing children.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Fundamentalists like yourself have much trouble with them”

    Actually, I am an atheist. What I’m doing here is pointing out the hypocrisy of believers who use the Bible but ignore any passages they don’t like & in many cases aren’t aware of…. it often appears that atheists are more familiar with the Bible than the believers.

    “. And the teachings of Jesus have not yet entered into your literalist ranting. I wonder why that is?”

    According to the Bible, the teachings of Jesus include the following passages:

    “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19)

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

    I don’t know about heaven, but Earth has not passed away so according to Jesus all the old testament laws are still in effect.

    And the teachings of Jesus stating the old laws are still in effect have not yet entered into your ranting. I wonder why that is?

  • Zelda

    You’re atheism is obvious, but your interpreting the bible literally for whatever purpose, makes you a fundamentalist. Your refusal to look for any kind of a bigger picture makes you a bigoted propagandist.

    And nothing you are saying supports a secular, atheist argument for abortion, so your point is lost entirely.

  • Zelda

    I’m an atheist and I see no reason to argue the bible with you. Murder is still wrong.

  • Zelda

    No. Like in the terribly misnamed Journal of Medical Ethics.

  • Zelda

    Hahaha! Really? That must have been a very relaxing postpartum experience, watching them produce their own milk and forage.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Murder is still wrong.”


    But by definition abortion isn’t murder.

    Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

    Since the law permits abortion, abortion by definition isn’t murder.

    Whether it is moral or immoral is a separate issue.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “And nothing you are saying supports a secular, atheist argument for abortion, so your point is lost entirely.”

    Since I haven’t stated what my position on abortion is, I have no need to present any argument, pro or con.

  • lady_black

    Probably, if her arm or leg was a threat to her health, she would have it cut off.

  • lady_black

    Look, I understand your emotional attachment to a potential. It just isn’t particularly COMPELLING.

  • lady_black

    I didn’t say an infant can obtain food on his own. I’m saying he can EAT on his own, and he certainly has no need of his mother’s body to digest for him.

  • lady_black

    Those are stories, you know.

  • lady_black

    What the Bible says a soul is, is conveniently located in the first book of the Bible. Therein, “god” forms a man out of dirt. Call him Dirt Adam. He’s mindless, and not yet living.
    Then “god” proceeds to breathe into his nostrils, and he stops being Dirt Adam, and becomes Adam the living soul. The Hebrew word used is nephesh, and refers to breathing. Therefore a “soul” is 1) a material body, plus 2) breathing. All air-breathing animals have nephesh, including humans. Fetuses, not so much.
    This is also reflected in the penalty in Deuteronomy for killing a fetus. A fine is owed to the husbandly owner of the woman, presumably variable according to the stage of gestation, and reflecting the husband’s property interests. If the woman herself is killed or otherwise harmed, it’s an eye for an eye, a life for a life.
    Yahweh didn’t have much interest in fetuses. Abortion was prescribed for an unfaithful wife, to be performed by the priest. Yahweh ordered the Israelites to slash open pregnant women, and just to be sure they don’t miss any fetuses, only virgin females could be kept as sex slaves. Any woman who has “known a man” is to be killed. Yahweh is a “pro-abort.”
    If anything changed, surely Jesus didn’t mention anything about it. That’s a strange silence on something you deem to be very important, don’t you think?

  • lady_black

    Your daffynition of murder is of absolutely no legal basis, nor even a moral basis.

  • lady_black

    On that, I stand with the Catholics. The death penalty is wrong.

  • lady_black

    Jesus is silent on abortion. As a Jew, he would have approved of it under the prescribed circumstances.

  • barney59

    let me help you with this simple and scientific fact. Life ends when you kill a living being. Life begins at conception. Abortion Kills a human being. Murder is the killing of a human. Abortion is murder.

    Liberals constantly assuage their guilt by all sorts of intellectual twists and turns but you can’t avoid the sheer reality of ending a life is murder.

  • lady_black

    Boo-hoo. Life began eons ago and has been on a continuum ever since then. Murder is not “the killing of a human.” Murder is the unlawful killing of a person with malice, or depraved indifference. But you also need to bear in mind, that in the United States, even when abortion was illegal, it was NEVER “murder.” That’s just too big a leap.
    I have no “guilt” . Only medical knowledge. There is NOTHING at “conception” (actually fertilization) but a single, free-floating cell that has FAR more potential to end up in the toilet than it has to ever be born and become a person. It doesn’t even announce it’s presence until there is ANY chance (however far from guaranteed) of ending up as a human being.
    Human reproduction is a big funnel. Far more ovum and sperm are created than zygotes. Far more zygotes are created than will ever become fetuses, and there are far more fetuses than will ever be born as infants. If you believe as I do, that’s just part of our nature as humans, and we’re far from alone in that nature. If you believe in a supreme being, then you accept that this is how we were created. Take your pick. But remember, regardless of which you choose, nothing changes.

  • Zelda

    Don’t be ridiculous. Jesus’ ministry is summed up in two basic commandments: “Love God above all things, and love all people as you love yourself.” Killing an innocent human isn’t love. Maybe you should stick with trying to argue how a fetus is just like an arm.

  • Zelda


  • Zelda

    Nonsense. The definition of murder is the premeditated killing of one human being by another. The scientific and moral evidence that an unborn baby is a human being is indisputable. Ask any embryologist when human life begins. Even the infanticide proponents in the Medical Journal of ethics acknowledge it. And since abortion is premeditated, it’s murder.

  • Zelda

    Who cares? We’re talking about lives not souls. Unborn babies are alive. If they weren’t alive, there would be no reason to abort them.

  • Zelda

    He can’t eat on his own. You literally have to put the food source in his mouth. With your body. He can swallow in utero. He can swallow ex utero. But he can’t eat on his own as an infant. And why should you be forced to obtain food for an infant with your body? It’s your body. Why should you have to maintain an infant with it?

  • Zelda

    But not after doing everything possible to keep them. We tend to want to keep our limbs. So if an unborn baby is the same as a limb, why wouldn’t you want to keep it? You’ve backed yourself into a pretty hilarious corner.

  • Zelda

    Ok good. So stop gibbering about the bible and move on.

  • Zelda

    That’s one definition only convenient to your purposes. But it ignores the legal murders committed when human beings are not acknowledged by the law. Killing a black man is murder whether the law acknowledges his humanity or not. Nazis murdered Jews by legally denying them humanity. In places where there is no law, murder is the premeditated killing of one human by another, and the law can never be a shield for murder.

  • barney59

    I’m not crying, you fool. I’m amazed at your brazen lack of emotion (where it truly counts) for the most innocent and helpless…

    The concentration camp guards and support personnel were convinced that Jews were not human, so they were able to put them to death without remorse… the Democrats of today are no better.

    Put that in your smug, liberal pipe and smoke it…

  • lady_black

    Yeah, that heavy-handed Godwin-ing has nothing to do with what I posted. And if you’re expecting me to get all misty-eyed about all the pwecious, oh-so-innocent zygotes that wind up in the waste can or flushed into the sewer pipes, you’re definitely barking up the wrong tree. I have enough real people to get misty-eyed about.

  • lady_black

    You realize you are dishonoring the very real suffering of holocaust survivors, victims and their families, by comparing them to brainless embryos, right? That disgusts me.

  • lady_black

    Because embryos and fetuses aren’t as valuable as arms. And whether to do “everything possible” to keep either an arm or a fetus (or even life itself) is NOT MY DECISION, nor is it my business, so long as it isn’t mine.
    I felt zero sorrow over my hysterectomy, didn’t wish to do anything at all to keep my uterus, nor was anyone going to change my mind.
    Cancer is such an ugly thing, and my uterus just didn’t serve much purpose anymore. I was just as happy to be done with it.

  • barney59

    I will pray for your soul, you need it… “God Forgive her for she knows not what she does”

  • lady_black

    I’m NOT forced to obtain food for an infant. What’s your point?

  • lady_black

    You were talking about souls. And if a fetus isn’t alive, that’s an excellent reason to abort. Medically speaking.

  • barney59

    If I am nothing more than an utterer of nonsense and superstitions… why spend so much trouble trying to defend the indefensible?

    The Truth is life begins at conception. You deny this and are dogged by it…

    It’s in your head now. I’m at peace, it’s people like you who think in corrupt ways who have the most to lose.

  • lady_black

    Actually no. In self-defense, or an act of war, I can kill someone, even intentionally (as in, intending to kill the person) and it’s not “murder.” Human life began millions of years ago. Life doesn’t arise out of something dead. The ovum and sperm are themselves, human and living. That’s not the point, whether it’s “human” and “alive.”
    There are lots of zygotes that, for whatever reason, are not human enough to survive AS a human. The same thing can be said of a miscarried human fetus. Number one, is capable of independent respiration. That’s the reason miscarried fetuses die to prematurity. They don’t have lungs sufficiently developed to survive as humans.

  • lady_black

    Because we aren’t that good to get it right every time. Because it’s permanent, unlike jailing someone.

  • lady_black

    Like an arm, I’m under no obligation to keep it attached.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “That’s one definition only convenient to your purposes.”

    It’s the dictionary definition.

    ” But it ignores the legal murders committed when human beings are not acknowledged by the law.”

    Legal murders? Such as?

    “Nazis murdered Jews by legally denying them humanity.”

    And they faced the consequences of their action.

    “In places where there is no law, murder is the premeditated killing of one human by another, and the law can never be a shield for murder.”

    It isn’t a shield for murder, it’s a shield for killing.

    You can kill someone in self defense, you can’t murder someone in self defense.

  • lady_black

    I have nothing to lose.

  • lady_black

    That’s the best way I know to do nothing, while convincing yourself you are doing something.

  • Kevin William O’Bryan

    All the more reason for the pro-life movement to increase our efforts in congressional districts that are very strongly in the democrats hands. Perhaps in those districts we can change some minds. Christ hung out with the sinners to convince them to repent!!

  • Tiffany

    YOUR WORDS: “There ARE no “rights” to the body of another that you can assert.” Please think that through as you advocate destruction of one…

  • lady_black

    What are you TALKING about?

  • The Happy Atheist

    Uuuhhhh…what? My wife and I, who are both white, adopted an adorable 4-day-old brown baby six years ago. It took a few months. In SAVANNAH, GA, no less, which is pretty close to the heart of the racist South. It sounds very much like you are the one who doesn’t know much about adoption.

  • John Stevens

    “LOL. NONSENSE, lady. I had my tubes tied when I was 26.”

    That’s “sterilization”, not “contraception.” Gabeysmom was talking about contraception.

    Even sterilization has a failure rate, albeit a much lower one than for contraception, but Gabeysmom is correct: the statistics indicate that increased access to contraception does increase both teen pregnancy and abortion rates.

    Those rates only began to fall when the next generation started being more chaste; more careful about when and with whom they had sex.

    “In the end, most [abortions] happen because women can’t see a way to make it work.”

    Hence the need for crisis pregnancy centers.

  • John Stevens

    Contraception is also evil. I take it you are not Catholic?

  • lady_black

    Of course not. I’m not that gullible. Contraception is evil? What orifice did you pull that from?

  • lady_black

    Sterilization is a method of contraception.

  • John Stevens

    “Republicans appear to be Pro-Life only until the moment of birth.”

    Republican’s are pro-life, but also pro-liberty. If you believe in sacrificing everything, including your liberty and your rights in exchange for a false sense of security and safety, then Republican’s won’t fit your definition of “pro-life”, that is true.

    Republicans believe that charity is a good, but that statism is inherently evil. So if you view people solely as political actors, then Republicans will appear to stop being pro-life when a child is born, but if you view them as complete persons, you will realize that most Republicans are pro-life at every stage of life. They just advocate different solutions than you do.

    Not every problem demands a government solution, and indeed, many problems will be exacerbated by government solutions.

  • John Stevens

    “Contraception is evil?”

    Yes. The justification for this is well documented in various encyclicals of the Church, and is covered in some books written for the meanest understanding. See: Theology of the Body.

    A Catholic recognizes reality, and that the human person has a physical body.

  • John Stevens

    “Sterilization is a method of contraception.”

    Yes, just as a baseball is a kind of ball. That doesn’t make a baseball a basketball.

    For example: suicide could also be described as a method of contraception.

    The categorical discrimination between sterilization and contraception is based in intent and permanence. One uses contraception to withhold one’s fertility from one’s partner for a single act of sex, while one uses sterilization to permanently withhold one’s fertility. IOW: one removes fertility, the other only temporarily damages it.

    Abortion is often used where contraception fails. Education can mitigate the number of failures somewhat, but not eliminate them.

  • John Stevens

    “Thank you! I am encouraged to know that intelligent Christians are finally THINKING in addition to BELIEVING.”

    As a group, we always have. See: Summa Theologica and Augustine’s Confessions.

    Individuals have different talents and gifts. Not every Christian needs to be a St. Thomas, and for some, belief in authority will give better results in their lives than attempting to recreate everything from first principles. This is one of the advantages of tradition and authority: the ability to act rationally when the individual is not competent to work out the rational response on their own.

    “They find women like you frightening”

    Nope. Not at all frightening, just kind of sad that someone would fail to recognize that people of good will can disagree on policy.

  • John Stevens

    Misrepresenting the Bible to make it say what it does not is a form of lying . . . something that you will have to answer to God for.

    See: Sin of Scandal.

  • lady_black

    Yeah, yeah… but listen up. Humans are supposed to have higher intelligence than a cow or a goat. Yet your (unmarried, “celibate”, childless) priests, bishops and popes tell you that you should be just like a cow or a goat, and have sex only for procreation.
    Now let’s just put aside for a few seconds that these people have no idea what they’re talking about. They do not marry, they aren’t supposed to have sex (but they do), and they don’t raise children. That’s like asking your garbage man for investment advice, or your mechanic for medical advice. You might get a hit, but you’re more likely to get a miss.
    Humans (unlike cows and goats) don’t experience estrus. When otherwise healthy, humans remain sexually interested 24/7 for life, from puberty until death, regardless of fertility. There’s no doubt in my mind that sex within marriage is best, but that’s as far as I’m willing to go in your direction. Asking that every marital act be open to pregnancy goes down too many rabbit holes. For instance, what about sex DURING pregnancy. Or post-hysterectomy. Or post menopause. Or sex that doesn’t involve penis/vagina contact.

  • John Stevens

    “It’s not a pro-life movement; it’s really just a pro-birth movement.”

    Not true. The political aspect of being pro-life need only cover the right to life. Supplying the needs of the poor, however, does not require a political answer.

    It is unwise to judge a person solely as a political actor. The same person who is opposed to government welfare systems may very well be volunteering at the local soup kitchen.

    “Adherents don’t care for or about the child after birth.”

    Also, not true. That the way in which they express this care differs from yours does not make that care non-existent.

    “Instead the pro-birth movement aligns itself with the political factions that is constantly cutting or restricting benefits for the poorest of families and the most vulnerable children.”

    Thanks for demonstrating my point. Your premise is that this is the only way that poverty can be addressed, thus, anyone who opposes such programs does not care about the poor. That’s wrong. The social science is now settled: government programs are about the worst way to address poverty one can think of.

    A Republican, especially one who is a Catholic, adheres to the entirety of the Church’s doctrine on Social Justice, which includes the good of work and the principle of subsidiarity.

    A Republican who opposes government poverty programs is not expressing a lack of care for the poor. Just the opposite. He cares enough about the poor to keep from doing further harm to them with government programs.

    If such a person lacks charity, then your judgement is more just. But since charity is a private concern, you may not be able to determine this, so you lack the information to judge justly. Have you considered that perhaps you should suspend judgement, in such cases?

  • lady_black

    Oh shut up. You just admitted that sterilization is contraception. It’s not “every method of contraception” and nobody would say it is. Suicide is NOT a method of contraception, and only a fool would say that.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    If I believed a god existed, and I believed it is the god of the Bible and I believed the Bible was an accurate account, your veiled threat might worry me.

    How have I misrepresented what the Bible says?

    How do you interpret these lines:

    “their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

  • John Stevens

    “Yeah, yeah… but listen up.”

    Child, stop being rude and disrespectful. I have offered no offense to you, there is no call to be this way.

    “Humans are supposed to have higher intelligence than a cow or a goat.”

    Indeed. The highest good is obtained by maximizing the good of the whole person. Contraception damages the good, it does not aid it.

    “Yet your (unmarried, “celibate”, childless) priests, bishops and popes tell you that you should be just like a cow or a goat, and have sex only for procreation.”

    That is incorrect. You admit to not being Catholic, then attempt to school me, a Catholic, in what the Church teaches? Would you like to rethink that stance?

    If you have a question about what the Church teaches, just ask. I’d be happy to answer it, if I can.

    “Now let’s just put aside for a few seconds that these people have no idea what they’re talking about.”

    By “these people” can I take it to mean “priests?” It is quite a stretch to assume that. A priest is also a confessor, has a mother and a father, sisters and brothers, and can study the biology as well as any other person can. A priest, lacking any “skin in the game” is more likely to be rational and reasonable about this than someone who is trying to rationalize their desires and/or bad behavior. Combine that with their intimate knowledge of the lives of their flock, and I’d say that a parish priest has a better understanding of human sexuality than the average person, even better than your average counselor.

    “That’s like asking your garbage man for investment advice, or your mechanic for medical advice.”

    Invalid analogy. A garbage man who has studied finance in detail, who listens to investors talk honestly about what they do and why, but who lacks the temptation to recommend or oppose an investment (since he has made none) is likely to be quite a good financial counselor.

    You confuse experiencing a thing, with expertise in a thing. Is a Doctor who has studied oncology to be ignored in favor of a garbage man’s recommendations, simply because the Doctor has never had cancer, but the garbage man has?

    “Humans (unlike cows and goats) don’t experience estrus.”

    Certainly not to the extent that some animals do, but talk to any practicing Catholic who is being true to the teachings of the Church and using NFP, and you will learn a great deal about this. Women experience a much greater degree of interest in sex during their most fertile times (how else: God is perfect), and these women will lament this fact because that is the time they most desire their husbands, but must refrain.

    “There’s no doubt in my mind that sex within marriage is best”

    Good, we’ve found at least one point of agreement. In that regard, at least, you are “Catholic.”

  • I see. You worship the Supply-Side Jesus. No reasoning with you. The real problem in America is that there are no good jobs and getting fewer all the time. In less than 20 years it is projected “drivers” will be replaced in most taxi and OTR trucking jobs. That’s another 3.5 million people knocked off of the ladder (since driving has been a traditional route for immigrants, and the poorly educated).

    It’s one reason we’ve got the largest jailed population in the world (only two countries are greater per cap). We’ve jailed the excess workers who got kicked off of the ladder and replaced by the displaced middle class workers at McDonalds and Wal-Mart (and WalMart using public assistance programs to keep their revenues high).

    And while I like this Pope, the stingy Catholic church hasn’t done much to help the oppressed, the poor, the refugees of the world. In fact, all of Christianity has failed them. As have the Judaic and Muslim religions.

    If private charity worked on a large scale, I’d be inclined to agree. But the evidence is that it’s often spotty, sporadic, and most often doesn’t make it to the less seen areas of the nation, particularly rural America and deep inner city America.

    It also frequently comes with “tests” of morality, religiosity, or right behavior as a condition. It’s often just a tool to control people.

    But back to abortion:

    In the end, it is the judgment of the woman whether or not she can afford to be pregnant at any given time. Her physical state, her emotional state, if a pregnancy would take food or attention or both away from other children. Maybe she wants to be in a better educational position before she has a child. Or a better work position. Or perhaps her relationship is unstable and she can’t afford to have a child and the father walk out the door.

    But a child is a burden (whether you carry it willingly or reluctantly) for 18 years, financially, emotionally, physically. The timing has to be right.

    What happens to a woman’s body is between her, her doctor, and her god. It’s nobody else’s business.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    ” If you believe in sacrificing everything, including your liberty and your rights in exchange for a false sense of security and safety, then Republican’s won’t fit your definition of “pro-life”, that is true.”

    Not sure whether your comment is a strawman argument or a non sequiter, or both, but it’s a moot point.

  • Tweck

    Republicans are not anti-state. They’re pro state. They just prefer using it to blow up women and children in third world countries, which is anti-life.

  • John Stevens

    “Oh shut up. You just admitted that sterilization is contraception.”

    No, I did not. If the difference between the two escapes you, then perhaps I did not explain it well enough. That a thing shares an abstract classifier with another thing does not make those things equal. A plane is a form of transportation. A car is a form of transportation. A car it not a plane, though both are forms of transportation. Sterilization is not contraception, in more ways than one.

    “Suicide is NOT a method of contraception, and only a fool would say that.”

    Really? So you can still get pregnant after you’re dead? Suicide is most definitely a contraceptive technique, as you have defined it. A form of sterilization, yes?

    Church teaching is holistic, taking into account the whole of the human person, throughout all their life. This can make understanding of the teachings of the Church difficult for those who have not learned to think that way.

  • lady_black

    I am not a child, and I would appreciate you not addressing me in that manner. I am a grandmother. I was raised Catholic. I don’t need any information on what the church teaches. I’ve taught it myself.
    Second: Mule muffins. No priest has any idea what it’s like to be married. He’s never BEEN married. His expertise at growing up in a family as a child is for crap. That doesn’t make anyone a marriage expert. We all grew up in a family.
    You might try reading my post before replying to it. I already said one *might* get sound investment advice from a garbage man, be let’s be realistic here. Probably NOT. The doctor and the cancer patient scenario is invalid. The cancer patient could, OF COURSE, tell you what being treated for cancer is like, better than the oncologist who has never had cancer. But the cancer patient knows nothing about how to best TREAT cancer, because he has never been to medical school. Let’s not conflate the two things, shall we?
    As far as sexual interest and it’s relation to fertility, I’m not buying it. There are many factors in humans for sexual interest, and most of them are mental, and NONE of them are related in any way to fertility. We are not dogs and cats, for whom sexual activity outside of estrus isn’t even thought of. In humans, it’s so more complicated than so much of this hormone and so much of that hormone, and bingo-bango, sexual desire. You’re thinking with your cow-brain again. Try thinking with your primate brain, We have sex for fun. Consult real science if you have any doubts. And you won’t find much of that at church. Have a super evening!

  • John Stevens

    “Republicans are not anti-state.”

    I didn’t say they were. I said they recognize that government competency is limited, and that there are many things that government is not the right tool for.

    “They’re pro state.”

    They are not that, either, at least not as you’ve used the term. They are pro-state, where the “state” is the best institution to address a particular need or problem. They are anti-state where the state is not the right institution.

    “They just prefer using it to blow up women and children in third world countries, which is anti-life.”

    Now that is just a base canard, unworthy of a someone who wishes to be seen as a just and reasonable person.

    “Republicanism is not Catholic”

    “Republicanism is not Catholicism”, that is true, just as the Free Market is not Socialism. But if you meant that a Republican cannot be a Catholic, you are in error.

    “Catholicism is not Republicanism.”

    Catholicism is more Republican than Socialist, as the Church has declared socialism and communism to be inherently evil systems.

    “Donald Trump is not fully pro-life”

    I agree.

    “nor is he against state power.”

    Again, you overstate the case. A Republican is neither for nor against state power, but instead, supports the proper and correct use of state power where state power is right and just to use.

    What is interesting is that you are trying to school someone who is an expert in this. Are you claiming to be a Republican, with deep and in depth knowledge of the party, its platform, its policies and philosophy?

  • John Stevens

    “Not sure whether your comment is a strawman argument or a non sequiter, or both, but it’s a moot point.”

    Non sequitur is the proper spelling.

    It is neither a straw man nor a non sequitur, as we are discussing the limits and proper use of the institution of government.

    By all means, make an argument for your beliefs. What parts of your life should the government not have any say over, or do you believe that government has the right to manage every part of your life, if the majority deems it necessary?

    The liberal model of a free civil society is one of “multiple, independent, separate, co-equal institutions, of which government is just one.”

    What’s your model of government?

  • John Stevens

    “If I believed a god existed, and I believed it is the god of the Bible and I believed the Bible was an accurate account, your veiled threat might worry me.”

    Not a threat. A warning.

    “How have I misrepresented what the Bible says?”

    Are you seriously seeking lessons in the proper hermeneutic of Biblical exegesis? If so, I’d be happy to answer, but if not, please let me know.

    How much do you know about formal linguistics?

  • lady_black

    The difference is, there is no difference. The various contraceptive methods are all contraceptives. They don’t act alike. Some are very temporary. Some are somewhat temporary. Some are semi-permanent. Some are permanent. None of your gobbledygook changes the fact that they are ALL contraceptives. Not having sex (permanently) is a method of contraception that is permanently effective. Just stop embarrassing yourself.

  • John Stevens

    “I see. You worship the Supply-Side Jesus.”

    Nope. I’m Catholic. Since the rest of your reply rests on that error, I will not waste your time with a point by point refutation of your errors.

    Except for this one:

    “And while I like this Pope, the stingy Catholic church hasn’t done much to help the oppressed, the poor, the refugees of the world.”

    The Catholic Church is the largest and most effective charitable organization on the planet. It has done more for human kind than any other institution in human history.

    “What happens to a woman’s body is between her, her doctor, and her god. It’s nobody else’s business.”

    You forgot two if the human beings intimately involved in this: the baby and the father. Editing people out of the equation when they are inconvenient does not befit a person who claims the moral high ground. You quite literally dismiss the right to life of a human being and the rights of the father, then deem it right and just to judge others. The hypocrisy in that is just mind boggling.

  • John Stevens

    “The difference is, there is no difference. The various contraceptive methods are all contraceptives. They don’t act alike.”

    All forms of transportation are transportation. They don’t work alike, but they all transport things and/or people.

    By your reasoning, there is no difference between a car, and a plane. This is the fallacy of false equivalence: that since two things share some attribute, that these things are equal.

    “Not having sex (permanently) is a method of contraception that is permanently effective.”

    So, you and I are using using contraception with each other? After all, we aren’t having sex, and by your definition, that is contraception.

    Contraception enables the act of sterile sex. Not having sex is not having sex. These two things are mutually exclusive.

  • John Stevens

    “Yes, they’re human. So are tumors.”

    No, a human being is not a tumor. A tumor consists of damaged human tissue, but is not a human being. You have a lot of problems with proper categorization. I can recommend reading Aristotle’s Categories as a cure for that.

    “‘Human being’ is really pushing it, until it can survive without the body of a woman.”

    Not at all. What is the woman carrying, if not a human being? Is it a cat, a dog, an elephant?

    The desire to categorize a human being as “not a human being” is a historically common fallacy, one committed by slavers, eugenicists, those who executed attempted genocides and those who waged “total war”, and has been an intermittent aspect of human evil since the birth of recorded history.

    The attempt to redefine a human being as not a human being is proof positive of evil.

  • lady_black

    Of course there’s a difference between a car and a plane. Having a tubal ligation is contraception and a condom is contraception. The difference is, tubal ligation is contraception whether you have sex or not. Unless you’re making expensive water balloons with them, condoms have no use outside of sex.
    You defeat your own argument by being Catholic. If “natural family planning” is a contraceptive method that involves… wait for it… NOT HAVING SEX, then I guess abstinence IS a contraceptive method. Thank you.
    This is why I don’t “get” you people. you make these deep distinctions, based on nothing. If “not having sex on your fertile days” (periodic abstinence) is contraception, then not having sex, EVER (permanent abstinence) is also contraception. You are guaranteed never to have offspring that way! But here’s the thing about abstinence… it’s only effective for the person using it. And it’s only effective as long as you’re abstinent.

  • Zelda

    I actually know a great deal about adoption. Ironically, interracial adoptions are easier in the South. The North is where it is more important to find an ethnically compatible family than it is to find a loving family. You’d think that wouldn’t be the case, but it is. There is also more demand for babies of any color in the North.

  • John Stevens

    “They are dependent upon NOBODY’S bodies.”

    Let’s perform that thought experiment, since to actually do it would be evil.

    Take a new born. Lay them on the ground. Walk away. In a few hours, a day at most, they die.

    Before birth, a baby takes nourishment from its mother’s body through the umbilical cord. After birth, it takes nourishment from its mother’s body through the breast. Is the child at the breast human, while the child still attached the umbilical cord not?

    The proper care of a child requires that someone use their body to do so. As a society, we deem the life of a child of sufficient value to create orphanages, child welfare systems, adoption agencies, etc. and etc. All of which require people to use their bodies to care for those children.

    Yet a child is about the most immediately useless thing one can imagine. The error, then, lies in viewing the child as property, or as something of use. One should not view human beings that way, yes?

  • lady_black

    Uh, NO. No breast is necessary.

  • Zelda

    Giving up on Jesus now?

    So no. You aren’t legally obligated to keep your arm. But we haven’t severed 50 million arms since 1973 (why do you think that is?) so it would be a huge improvement if we wanted to keep our babies the same way we wanted to keep our arms. And you are obligated to care for your babies whether you delegate that care or not. If you can’t delegate it for whatever reason, they are still your responsibility because you made them. In utero or ex utero, parents are morally responsible for the well being of their children until they can delegate it to someone else if there is someone else. Murdering them isn’t a moral option.

  • lady_black

    A pre-viable fetus is also human tissue. And you would enslave women to it.

  • Zelda

    Perfectly acceptable answer. Now why wouldn’t you apply it to unborn children? They haven’t even had a trial.

  • lady_black

    Because nobody is obliged to use their organs to sustain the life of another. EVER.

  • lady_black

    Arms are useful.

  • lady_black

    And yes, no woman is obliged to care for a baby because “she made it.” She doesn’t even have to look at it if she doesn’t want to.

  • John Stevens

    “Of course there’s a difference between a car and a plane.”

    Good. Now we are starting to communicate.

    “Having a tubal ligation is contraception and a condom is contraception.”

    No. A sterilization has as a contraceptive effect as a secondary consequence, but contraception is not sterilization. It might be easier to understand if you think not of a single aspect (whether or not pregnancy is likely to occur), but the intent and scope of the act. Every form of artificial contraception tries to retain fertility, while damaging it solely for those acts of sex where said artificial contraception is being used.

    Sterilization is the destruction of fertility altogether. It is the difference between covering one’s eyes with a blindfold, versus removing them altogether. In either case, you will be blind, that is true, but those two things are not the same, yes?

    Clearly, the risk of “peeking” is greater when one simply wears a blind fold, than when one’s eyes are removed. Thus it is with artificial contraception, and sterilization.

    To return to the point at hand – you were responding to what your original correspondent had said with a non sequitur: she was talking about contraception, you over generalized, then responded with data specific to sterilization, not to artificial contraception.

    “You defeat your own argument by being Catholic.”

    No, I don’t. Again, you admit to not being a Catholic, yet claim to understand Catholicism better than I do. I recommend you acknowledge that fact, as you yourself have argued that greater knowledge gives greater authority.

    “If “natural family planning” is a contraceptive method”

    It’s not. Natural family planning is not a contraceptive technique. In natural family planning, one chooses to retain the gift of fertility and offer it unconditionally to their partner, and they respond in kind within the sacrament of marriage. Choosing to NOT have sex is mutually exclusive with choosing TO have sex while using an artificial means to damage your fertility.

    Having sex is mutually exclusive with not having sex. One can only be contracepting when one is having sex.

    “I guess abstinence IS a contraceptive method.”

    No. Abstinence is not a contraceptive method. A celibate priest is abstinent. They are not using contraception, yes? Contraception, to be a valid term, implies that the conditions exist for there to be something to contracept; that you be having sex. This is not the case when one is NOT having sex.

    “This is why I don’t “get” you people. you make these deep distinctions, based on nothing.”

    That there is a deep meaning you don’t perceive, let alone understand, does not make this meaning “nothing.” I acknowledge that you do not perceive it. Can you acknowledge the possibility that it exists, but that you do not see it?

    One of the joys of being Catholic and living it out is just how much it expands and clarifies one’s thinking. Before I converted, I felt like I was wearing a blindfold with only a tiny pinprick to let in the light. Now, I understand so much more, and have a much deeper, much better understanding of reality and my fellow man.

    I asked God for inspiration and understanding. He gave me truck loads of it, much more often than I expected.

  • Zelda

    “And they faced the consequences of their action.”

    So according to you, if the Nazis won the war and kept their dehumanizing laws in place, they wouldn’t be murderers. Fascinatingly horrible argument.

  • Zelda

    Killing someone before they pose a threat to you isn’t self-defense. It’s murder.

    And sperm and eggs aren’t human beings. If you kill them, you aren’t killing yourself or anyone else because they are part of your body. No one cares whether you destroy them. But when they meet, a new being is created. That being does not have the same DNA as your ovum or your partner’s sperm. It is separate and distinct and every person, without exception, came into being in that way. You destroy that being, and you are not destroying yourself, you are destroying someone else. This is simple biology, not rocket science.

    And “breathing on one’s own” is not the criteria for humanity. You can be on a ventilator permanently and you are still human. And a ventilator doesn’t act under it’s own power, just remember that.

  • The Happy Atheist

    I have never heard of the racial matching thing being a big problem. I know that lots of people are skittish about adopting babies who are born into bad circumstances – ours was definitely one of them. Three other couples passed him up because his birth mother was a sex worker with a long history of drug abuse. He was born positive for crack cocaine. I can understand the reticence, but it was their loss! He’s a big, healthy, happy, smart seven-year-old now with four siblings who love him.

  • Zelda

    I never once mentioned souls.

    And if fetuses weren’t alive, no one would abort them. They’d just stay inside your body like a benign esophagus that you probably wouldn’t remove even if you aren’t morally obligated to keep it.

  • Zelda

    That a case for abortion is a case for infanticide.

  • Zelda

    “Because embryos and fetuses aren’t as valuable as arms.”

    We don’t assign humanity based on value. What a terrible, Nazi-esque idea!

    And by all means, get rid of your cancerous uterus. I’m glad you were able to and I’m glad that it doesn’t bother you. But as you sometimes point out when it suits you, a fetus is not a uterus, cancerous or otherwise.

  • Zelda

    I’m very happy you were able to adopt him. Good for you. I’m sure it will bring you no end of joy. His life is most precious and it was before he was your son.

  • Zelda

    Nonsense. If there is no one else, she is obliged. Or are you arguing for infanticide now?

  • Zelda

    We don’t assign humanity based on usefulness.

  • Zelda

    Yes. They. Are. Or we wouldn’t arrest people who neglect their children.

  • Churches? When they start tearing down cathedrals to feed the poor and worship instead under tents, I might be convinced to change my mind. As for the catholic church, given its vast wealth and holdings, it could do considerably more.

    If a man want’s a child, he needs to be clear and upfront with that desire and have an understanding with the woman and negotiate that issue of pregnancy and care.

    A man can walk out of the picture anytime he wants. A woman’s options narrow considerably with each passing month.

    It is the intent of the couple to have a child that is the issue. Otherwise a man can bind a woman with up to 18 yrs of involuntary servitude without her permission. May ruin her health without her consent. May jeopardize the care and well-being of existing children by adding another mouth the woman can’t feed.

    I never claimed the moral high ground. I claim the right of women to make their own life decisions.

  • Essentially ithisis what the entire Hobby Lobby case was about in the Supreme Court. They didn’t object to paying for all contraception, only IUDs, which they considered “abortion.”

    You can google hobby lobby and IUD and find any number of articles on the matter.


    That’s because science has advanced. At first people claimed that conception happened when the sperm and the egg united. And IUDs were alright.

    However, we now know that many times it takes several days for the zygot to actually implant into the side of the uterus (and many times they’re expelled before they have a chance to attach or they attach in the wrong place and are spontaneously aborted (miscarried) or create a medical emergency (tubal pregnancy).

    Therefore, since the purpose of an IUD is to stop the implantation, of the zygot, Hobby Lobby considers this as their participating in abortion.

    However, they also overlook the case that IUDs are the absolutely safest form of long-term contraception for diabetic women (The Pill, generally fools with hormones and therefore blood sugars quite a bit).

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Clumsy attempt at a strawman argument. My point was that the Nazis may have declared Jews weren’t human & so could do what they wanted to them. The rest of the world ( those parts that were not allies of Germany) disagreed with Germany’s position & dealt with Germany.

  • glancing over the other comments, you are, of course, in error.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Are you seriously seeking lessons in the proper hermeneutic of Biblical exegesis?”

    I am asking you how I ( as you have claimed) “misrepresented what the Bible says”.

    I quoted the Bible directly.

    Here are two of the passages:

    “their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    What do you think those passages are describing?

  • actually, most tumors are just out of control cell growth. Very similar to a zygote in the early weeks.

  • lady_black

    Nobody EVER gets arrested for not giving their child an organ, blood, bone marrow or any other body part. People take on the care of a child VOLUNTARILY. And yes, if you decide to parent, you must parent. If you neglect a pet, you’ll be arrested for that, too.

  • lady_black

    I don’t care HOW “human” you think you are, that doesn’t entitle you to any of my body parts. Now bug off.

  • lady_black

    There’s ALWAYS someone else. When there isn’t someone else, that means society has broken down, and it’s every man for himself. In that kind of scenario, “obligation” really isn’t going to matter, is it?

  • lady_black

    Nor is it anything I need concern myself with. Remember the old question about the burning fertility clinic, and the two year old? Which are you going to save? The two year old, or the freezer full of embryos (which are “real people for sure” remember?). If you give any other answer than “the two year old” not only are you crazy, but you’re a liar, too.
    That’s the difference in value. One two year old is worth more than 100 embryos in a freezer. Why? Because he’s already here. For 100 frozen embryos, it would take 100 women to produce human beings from them. That’s a hefty investment compared to a two year old. Where embryos are concerned, we know how to make more.

  • lady_black


  • lady_black

    A fetus is not “benign.” Pregnancy KILLS.

  • lady_black

    I don’t think so.

  • lady_black

    I disagree. I had my sterilization done with contraception in mind as a PRIMARY and ONLY effect. Most people do have that in mind. If that’s a “secondary” effect, what’s the primary effect? ROFL@you.

  • Zelda

    Oh please. What if the two year old was a crack baby no one wanted and the embryos were bred with genius IQs so they could cure cancer or discover cold fusion? Value does not equal humanity. Being in a temporary state of uselessness doesn’t render you inhuman. You can’t grade human life on a value scale. It doesn’t end well.

  • Zelda

    Nope, what? You just said you’re not forced to obtain food for an infant. But you are. You are forced to obtain either food or someone who can provide him food. You can’t leave him in a dumpster to starve. That’s immoral and still illegal.

  • Zelda

    Abortion kills. Every single time.

  • Zelda

    Because you don’t think. You want a certain thing to be so in spite of all contradicting evidence.

  • Zelda

    Yes. I know what happened. I’m going to repeat what I said. Read it slowly.

    According to you, if the Nazis won the war and implemented their dehumanizing laws, they wouldn’t be murderers.

    That is still a fascinatingly horrible argument.

  • Zelda

    And pregnant women don’t give their children an organ, blood, bone marrow, or other body part. They retain it all during and after pregnancy. All that is required is that they house their child until arrangements can be made for someone else to do it if that’s what they want. But someone has to. A mother or father can’t just throw their child in a dumpster if no one will adopt it.

  • Zelda

    The only people who are entitled to your body are the humans you create of your own free will. Not me, not your husband, not anyone else. Just your children. They are entitled because of your decisions, not theirs.

  • barney59

    Just your eternal soul…

  • Zelda

    “There’s ALWAYS someone else.”

    BINGO. Now stop immorally dehumanizing unborn babies.

  • lady_black

    Nobody needs to risk death for a fetus.

  • lady_black

    Whatever, Bob. I don’t have an immortal soul.

  • lady_black

    Nope. I owe my children BUPKISS.

  • lady_black

    Nothing is “required.” That’s VOLUNTARY.

  • lady_black

    That’s why I wouldn’t have an infant. My childbearing years are past, for a long time now.

  • lady_black

    The two year old. ALWAYS. Under any circumstances. There’s no such thing as a “crack baby.” That’s a MYTH.

  • barney59

    Tell me what happened to you as a child that was so traumatic you gave up on your spirit and God?

  • lady_black

    I grew up.

  • Rights for Unborn Women

    You were a fetus. So if someone’s pointing a gun at your head someday and I have an opportunity to die to save your life, remind me not to bother with it.

  • barney59

    So it was something?

  • lady_black

    Yes. Growing up is “something.”

  • barney59

    You seem to act flip rather than answer the question…

  • lady_black

    I AM answering the question. Grown-ups don’t believe in magic.

  • a r tompkins

    May I ask what is to you if I get contraceptive services from the local PP or the doctor’s office across town? so I should buy a bicycle at the Walmart across town instead of the local bike shop that specializes in bicycles? are you anti-competitive, anti-free enterprise too? I really think you would be happier under some theocratic, totalitarian government somewhere. For the record, I consider myself personally anti-abortion, and have lived my life accordingly. Reading between the lines – I was “intimately” involved in an unplanned pregnancy, so we married, and raised three beautiful kids. but I can’t make that decision for every person, nor should you.
    I submit that it is YOU who is pro-abortion; defunding or otherwise driving PP out of business will lead to a skyrocketing demand for abortion. the best way to prevent abortion is to prevent pregnancy. if you don’t recognize that, you’re dense beyond hope. people have sex. i didn’t invent that system. your god did. If I had been consulted, I’d have recommended against the two-sex system. causes more problems than it solves in my opinion, but, that’s what we got. thanks, God.

    what is it with you God people and fornication, anyway? obsessed or what? think about something else for pete’s sake.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “I’m going to repeat what I said. Read it slowly.”

    No, you are not. You are going to take what I said & interpret it however you want in your mind then you are going to mistakenly tell me I said something else ( or you are just lying).

    Here is what you said ( note the ” marks to denote I am quoting you directly):

    “Nazis murdered Jews by legally denying them humanity.”

    Here is EXACTLY what I said:

    And they faced the consequences of their action.

    If you want to interpret

    “And they faced the consequences of their action.”

    to be saying:

    “if the Nazis won the war and implemented their dehumanizing laws, they wouldn’t be murderers.”

    I can’t stop you. But posting your interpretation here on a public forum makes you appear to either have very poor reading comprehension or to be dishonest ( a liar).

  • Zelda

    I don’t care if you go to PP. Go. Please. Pump yourself full of artificial hormones and fornicate your brains out. Just don’t kill any accidental babies and don’t make me pay for it. And if my taxes must go to a discount clinic, I’d rather them go to a clinic that serves the community as a whole, not just fertile women. But it’s all about you in college, isn’t it? No one else has any health issues that they might need financial help for.

    And I’m an atheist, but I see no difference between a theocratic totalitarian government forcing me to subsidize someone’s ultra-conservative, religious lifestyle, and a leftwing government that forces me to subsidize a promiscuous college student’s. Don’t kill your babies and I’ll have nothing to say about fornication. But if children are being killed and I’m being forced to subsidize the actions that bring them into existence, you bet I’m going to going to say something. Every single time.

  • Zelda

    “Crack baby” isn’t my term. And maybe you should tell all the pro-abortionists who think all the crack babies should be aborted that it’s a myth. They’re the ones who assign value to humans based on that myth.

  • Zelda

    Wrong. You are required to take care of your children if you haven’t found anyone else to do it. Morally AND legally. If you have a baby, you can’t just proclaim to the universe: “I give it up for adoption!” and just let him starve to death. You have to actually use your body to go find another body to take care of the baby. It’s embarrassing to watch you pretend to be this stupid just because you’re pro-abortion.

  • Zelda

    Because the whole world revolves around you.

  • Zelda

    “Kill the fetus so no one dies!” That’s the spirit.

  • a r tompkins

    wow, are you histrionic! you’ve never heard of the Hyde Amendment then? your tax dollars that support PP cannot be used for abortion. And who said anything about killing babies? we’re talking about PREVENTING babies. that’s the primary mission of PP. “Planning” “Parenthood”. I typed that very slowly so maybe it will sink in. It’s about PREVENTING abortion. so why is that objectionable to you? doesn’t make sense.
    oh – and feel free to fund any other clinics you want to your heart’s content. enjoy living in a free country.
    ps – it’s been a LONG time since I’ve been in college, and I was a non-traditional student at that. That is, I didn’t start college until after military and marriage and kids. you assume much. Seems to go with your M.O.

  • Zelda

    Who cares? This isn’t about you personally. ‘You’ can also be used generally, but apparently not if you’re pro-abortion. The whole world revolves around you and your reproductive system.

  • Anya Silver

    I’m not going to get into the hot mess that is the discussion below except to say that this is a thoughtful and thought-provoking essay, and that it suggests that there are and should be different and larger ways to be pro-life, and that the pro-life movement, like most movements, is often taken hostage by politics in unhelpful ways.

  • But the hysteria and uncertainty were real, particularly in the 80’s. And “crack babies” were not considered by adopting parents. They were allowed to languish in “the system” until they were emancipated.

  • Well, time to invoke Godwin’s law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

  • lady_black

    No, it doesn’t! But neither do I owe it parts of my body, because someone else “needs it.” Do as you wish with your own.

  • lady_black

    You can drop it off at the hospital or fire station. Or just not take it home in the first place.

  • Frank

    It’s always quite pitiful when someone quotes something they don’t believe in and don’t understand to make an unsupportive assertion.

  • Frank

    Have you torn down your house, sold all your possessions to feed the poor?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Then explain what you think these passages are describing:

    “their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    It’s always quite pitiful when someone makes comments on a public forum but can’t back up their assertions.

  • Frank

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Nothing to do with abortion.

    So embarrassing for you.

  • stlhdsal

    Sadly, it appears Ms. Adams can’t separate the moral issue of life vs. abortion from the people fighting the good fight. Accept it, Ms. Adams; people are broken, faulted, and ignorant. As a Canadian pro-lifer, I find your connection to Donald Trump specious at best. Do you really take him seriously? Or those who follow him? Can you imagine disciples of Christ giving up because of the faults of the Apostles? No, the real ones stayed focussed on Jesus. Your essay doesn’t help in the fight for life. Hold your nose and fight on, that’s what a real soldier does.

  • The fact that you decided to turn your back on truth and harm your grandchildren with a lack of truth, does not change reality.

  • Mary Johnson

    You don’t understand conservatism at all!

  • lady_black

    Cry me a river.

  • lady_black

    I was, you know, kind of hoping for a scriptural basis. Got one?

  • Listen, there’s plenty of scriptural basis in it. Not that I’d expect an ex-Catholic to accept either scripture or science.

  • Argumentem ad absurdum

    Thank you. I was an unwed mother at 19. I never went to college – but I did have a strong work ethic. I worked hard and today I own a successful business. I mentor children through Big Brother/Sister and yes I raised my beautiful daughter. I am offended by this column particularly the attack on Ted Cruz. I was a Cruz supporter, I am a proud conservative and a Republican. I am also a devout Catholic.

  • Argumentem ad absurdum


  • mkeller51762

    This is a sad commentary not on the pro-life issue but on the lack of understanding of one person and her beliefs about pro-life and the terms Republican, conservatism, and Donald Trump. Some how she has equated all these very different terms to be the same! Please Ms. Adams do some basic homework on the differences of all these terms you use – they are all different terms with different meaning and you can’t seem to understand that.

  • Argumentem ad absurdum

    You lost the argument. Get over it

  • Argumentem ad absurdum

    Way to go – my you are a bright one aren’t you? You don’t have the intellect to debate with John Stevens so you resort to name calling and aggression. Go away. You are making a fool of yourself.

  • Argumentem ad absurdum

    No she doesn’t.

  • lady_black

    Yeah. How dare I take him at his word? What WAS I thinking?

  • lady_black

    Nope. I didn’t lose the argument. Tubal ligation is a contraceptive method.

  • lady_black

    Then POST some!

  • lady_black

    There’s no “scientific” argument against contraception, either.

  • I did. I posted Fulton Sheen ‘ s talk on the topic. Nothing has changed since then

  • lady_black

    Fulton Sheen is not scripture. Do you understand what I’m asking for?

  • Edward Hara

    Calling names and personal attacks. You must be a Demoncrap because that is how they respond when they have nothing to say.

  • Which means you failed to listen, since he quotes from scripture in the talk. But it doesn’t matter, because you are the type who rejected scripture and science when you rejected apostolic authority.

  • lady_black

    No, I want something written. Not a homily. How would I know if he’s quoting from scripture? Because he’s flapping his gums?

  • Ann_NV

    Those are pretty harsh words .being pro life is so much more than politics. Being pro life is a personal feeling coming from your heart. And praying for those whom you seem to hate so much.

  • I suppose that you’re deaf and dumb, that you cannot listen to an MP3 or pay attention to a talk?

    Here is the written, since you are so handicapped. But I don’t expect it to do any good since your type has rejected both scripture and science along with apostolic authority in favor of “having fun” while destroying families.


  • lady_black

    Talk. Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear. No, flapping gums do not impress me. OK, just admit it. There’s nothing in the Bible that says contraception is evil. It’s OK. It doesn’t need to be evil.

  • Except of course Genesis 38 and hundreds of other verses praising procreation, but of course, you didn’t read the tract I linked to either because you hate the Bible.

  • lady_black

    Oh, and here’s the thing about the Onan story. You aren’t reading between the lines. If Onan knew that “pulling out” worked, that means it was common knowledge. Yet we don’t hear about anyone else being struck dead for pulling out.
    Therefore, you have to think for yourself about what precise sin Onan committed. Onan didn’t want to face the social penalty for failing to raise an heir to his dead brother. And if you read the scripture *in context*, you’ll see that Onan’s major maladjustment was that HE KNEW that the child born to his brother’s widow would not be his legal issue. So what was the sin of Onan? GREED. No heir for his brother means a bigger slice of the pie for Onan. And that’s the problem of religion in general. Nobody thinks for himself, or from what you posted, even bothers to read the story and understand what’s really going on here.
    The story says NOTHING about “the natural order.” Absolutely nothing.

  • Lancelot Blackeburne

    Self absorbed drivel. This woman dislikes Donald Trump and Republicans and so therefore she cannot be pro-life? Clearly she cannot see the bigger picture here.

  • lady_black

    Oh yeah, I did. And I answered your tract. Here’s the thing… YES, there are lots of scriptures praising procreation. But none REQUIRING procreation. It’s referred to as a “reward.” But there’s nothing that says it cannot be avoided, or that avoiding procreation is “evil.” You’re adding that, which I think your scripture says is a big no-no.

  • Who cares about inventing stuff to read between the lines? Of course contraception is about greed. It’s always about greed. It’s about not sharing your resources with the next generation- for whatever reason. It’s about not reducing your standard of living so that the next generation can have a bigger standard of living.

    All contraception is about greed.

  • I’m not adding anything. The greed of contraception is evil. And contraception is *ALWAYS* about greed. Just as you leaving Christ behind in the Catholic Church to follow your own way was also about greed.

  • lady_black

    No, contraception is NOT about greed. It’s about responsibility.

  • jb3g

    I found that her descriptions were very congruent with my own observations and those of several family members who have been high level staff for members of Congress.

  • Responsibility would be to refrain from sex and fun when not indending to procreate. Contraception is about trying to have the fun *without* taking responsibility for one’s actions, and is thus about greed. Which you would have known if you had paid the slightest attention to authority instead of being irresponsibile and protesting all the time.

  • jb3g

    Yes, and there’s just as valuable a life outside the womb. The author’s point is that the Republican commitment does not continue once the umbilical cord is cut. Especially if it’s a child of undocumented parents….

  • Wow. What a refreshing article–thanks for this.

    What amazes me is many anti-abortion people seeking their goal in a completely backwards way. The imagine that if abortion were illegal, there would be very few abortions. Not so. They imagine that shutting down abortion providers is the best way to reduce abortions. Not so–There are much more effective ways.

  • The last thing that the GOP wants is no more abortions. They need to have a reason to play Chicken Little and wring their hands about how the sky is falling.

  • lady_black

    Let’s see… how does that work, exactly? How is contraception about “not sharing your resources with the next generation?” How is it about “reducing your standard of living, *so that the next generation can have a bigger standard of living?*
    You DO realize that the “next generation” shares in the same lowered living standards that you do, RIGHT? Do you even HAVE any kids, Theodore?
    Or are you implying that I should wear rags so my kids can wear Baby Dior? Or cook myself turnips for dinner so my kids can eat caviar and Filet Mignon? That’s not the way it works in most families, Theodore. Poverty affects the ENTIRE family, not just the breeders-in-chief. That doesn’t even make any damn sense.That’s why I need to say “Thank you. But, no thank you.” I gave my kids things I never had. And that’s going to need to be GOOD ENOUGH.

  • Then let’s work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies. With none of them, there would be no abortions.

  • Or, turn it around as Sister Joan did: why get in a panic about abortions when you don’t give a shit about helping them be fed, clothed, and educated once they’re born?

  • Yes, I have kids. But what I’m implying is that you forgo that 2nd car. That you actually understand that poverty can breed prosperity. That large families are in fact much more wealthy than small families.

    But you don’t want to hear any of that, because you’re selfish and greedy.

  • onlein

    Also not being anti-welfare would be a good pro-life step. Why are so many Republican Catholics against welfare, including food and medical care for pregnant women and the life in their womb and for their newborn and their babies and young children?

    Most, maybe almost all, Republican Catholics seem more anti-abortion than pro-life. And they are anti-abortion by legal means, not by charitable means like by maintaining an adequate safety net. I was surprised, though, to learn of a few prominent Catholics (including two Republican politicians) speaking out in 1995 against the welfare cuts that were eventually enacted by Congress and signed by Pres. Clinton in 1996.

    Speaking out in 1995 against welfare cuts were John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and of the Hyde Amendment and Rep. Jim Bunn of Oregon.

    Bunn said: “As a pro-life member of Congress, I thought it was quite inconsistent to tell someone with a crisis pregnancy to have her babies but refuse to help her.” Hyde sent a letter to other House members maintaining that proposed reductions in Federal welfare assistance are “likely to produce dire consequences for innocent unborn Children.” They did. These changes resulted in more abortions within the demographic of women formerly covered by the old welfare program, the demographic now with the highest abortion rate.

    Sadly, Cardinal O’Connor’s prophetic words were not heeded. He said that the proposed legislation for welfare cuts in the Republican Party’s Contract With America was “immoral in its virtually inevitable consequences.”

  • lady_black

    I AM taking responsibility. That’s what the tubal ligation was for. And yes, I like sex. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have married.
    Authority is for children. Adults don’t need “authority” lorded over them by other fallible people who aren’t any smarter or less flawed than they are. You be a slave, or an idiot, if that’s what floats your boat. I have a brain. I’m expected use it.

  • “I AM taking responsibility. That’s what the tubal ligation was for. ”

    That’s not taking responsibility. That is maiming yourself to avoid responsibility.

    “And yes, I like sex. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have married.”

    Taking responsibility is about doing what we don’t like, not what we do like.

    “Authority is for children. Adults don’t need “authority” lorded over them by other fallible people who aren’t any smarter or less flawed than they are. ”

    Your generation are not adults. You flower children never bothered to grow up or take real responsibility, which is why the world you left us is so incredibly screwed up.

    “You be a slave, or an idiot, if that’s what floats your boat. I have a brain. I’m expected use it.”

    You clearly burned out your brain on drugs a long time ago. Pity.

  • lady_black

    There’s a second car, because there’s a second JOB, buddy-boy. Without that, I’d be guilty of shitting away my talent, while simultaneously depriving my children of the economic support they wouldn’t otherwise have.
    As far as “poverty breeding prosperity” NONSENSE. Poverty breeds poverty. managed to raise three lovely children, who never had to work as teenagers like I did (with the exception of the one who *wanted* to). They are all now grown, with car families of their own. They are happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults who have never been deprived of anything they needed while growing up. So stick your snotty attitude about my “greed” someplace.

  • lady_black

    Yes, it IS taking responsibility. People who have so many kids they can’t do well by them are the irresponsible ones. Even if that number is ONE kid. Not everyone is parent material. I had three. I did my part, AND I did right by the kids I had. No further procreating was needed, nor was it desirable for anyone involved.

  • lady_black

    Oh, and I wasn’t a “flower child.” That was before my time. WAY before time.

  • Your “talent” is secondary to raising children.

    There are plenty of examples in history of poverty breeding prosperity- of the habits learned as a poor child creating wealth in the next generation. They never had to work as teenagers, so they never learned to work

  • lady_black

    My patients would disagree with you. My children were raised by their parents. BOTH of them. I have EVERY RIGHT to a life that goes beyond motherhood.
    And you claiming my kids “never learned to work” is LAUGHABLE. Two of them are career military. The girl is a store manager who worked her way up from associate. Yes, quite. They could work circles around you, then go home and take care of their children. And they DO.

  • Sue Joan

    I don’t think you can blame the pro life movement for either the GOP or Trump. I call myself independent but cannot in moral conscience vote Democratic… Abortion is one of the five non negotiable sins for Catholics so yes, it IS the primary issue…seeing as how it kills 1.3 million humans a year.

  • Career military is the closest thing that America has to communism. Bet the girl is the one who “wanted” to work.

  • lady_black

    You guessed wrong. And your gratitude for those who defend this country is underwhelming. Piss off.

  • The army is no longer about defending this country. The army is about spreading the gospel of homosexuality and transgenderism.

    And gratitude is why the military is communistic. Those who serve their country deserve to be rewarded for that effort. But it isn’t the same as earning your bread with your own risk and at your own risk.

  • lady_black

    My sons aren’t in the army, and they DAMN sure aren’t spreading any “gospels.” As far as homosexuals, they have always served with honor. And how do you figure they aren’t “earning their bread with their own risk and at their own risk,” idiot? Sure, as submariners, they’re relatively safe, as compared to infantry (just as an example). But they aren’t doing jobs that are free of risk. You try living underwater, six months at a time, in a nuclear reactor, fool. See how it suits you.

  • mkeller51762

    Her descriptions were feelings and emotions. The entire article was a mess. You say you understand her but you miss the entire central theme of the subject matter. Pro-life and the issue of why be pro-life. It isn’t a decision based on politics it is a decision based on the nature of life and God. She says she is no longer pro-life but Catholic. Due to a political view? What about God and the view that Catholics have toward life? If she is a Catholic and believes in the Catechism then she should be pro-life. Religion and God and Catholic are on a level 10Xs more important than a political affiliation. And having an affiliation of a political nature or philosophy such as Conservative, Republican, Libertarian does not mean every one agrees 100% with that particular party. There is too much to say regarding her misunderstanding AND her misinterpretation of pro-life and every term she uses.

  • Navy. Yeah, that isn’t the most homosexual branch ever, even before the current commander in chief changed the mission from serving the Stars and Stripes to serving the Rainbow.

    And I’ve been thinking about building my own and leaving for Kiribarti. Or maybe if I could find a Catholic nation….Africa?

  • lady_black

    Can I help you pack? You sure don’t belong in any civilized country.

  • 58 million dead says that the United States is not civilized, and instead is an economic system based on human sacrifice.

  • lady_black

    Like your religion isn’t, you mean??

  • Would that be the religion that is against contraception, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, and racism?

  • lady_black

    And based on human sacrifice. Oops.

  • Based on a single God/human sacrifice, which did away with the need for all further human sacrifice including abortion

  • lady_black

    Abortion isn’t a “sacrifice” numbnuts. It’s a medical procedure.

  • frostysnowman

    Can we get a link to an article that proves that statistic?

  • Medical procedures save lives rather than take them. Human sacrifice takes a life. Abortion takes a life, thus it is not a medical procedure.

    You lost your humanity over the worship of death, as well as your ability to maintain objectivity.

  • lady_black

    No, it’s a medical procedure. I’ve had quite a few medical procedures that didn’t save any lives. But no abortions.

  • Abortion actively takes life away. Its purpose is human sacrifice, and it is medically unneccessary in all situations.

  • lady_black

    My mom’s abortion wasn’t.

  • There are other options always.

  • lady_black

    Yep. She could have bled to death. Not much of an option, if you ask me. You’re always free to choose that for yourself.

  • Plenty of women have given birth without bleeding to death. We have artificial coagulents now. There is no reason left for abortion.

  • Ask and you will receive. Of course I suspect you do not believe the 1st. website, so the second one is from your Master- Big Government. Although it is a voluntary reporting which may be under the actual number.
    Of course these numbers assume the baby in the womb is considered a “human”.
    Abortions year to date-
    5/20/16 is day 141 of a 365 day year.
    141/365= 0.3863
    Projected abortions in the US this year- 1,089,457

    2012 CDC Data- Abortions in the US- 699,202


  • By your logic the following is also true-
    All humans die therefore what is the problem with those that murder other humans now.
    You place yourself at the top of the power pyramid- I know everything and people who disagree with me are “idiots”. I don’t view you as an idiot as much one that has been deceived. Much in the same way “Eve” was deceived in the Garden.

    “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    I choose to follow the following point of view:
    “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

    Idiotic in your view but consider to each his own. God will decide whether you like it or not.

  • Do you lock your doors at your primary residence or vacation home? Why don’t you simply accommodate those that need to use all those “possessions”? After all “You didn’t make them”. hypocrite try casting out the beam in your own eye before you comment on another with a mote in their eye.

  • Thank you for being a worker bee that contributes more than they consume instead of a drone that only consumes and whines like the author.

  • No, but then I’m not running a tax-free semi-private club that amasses a fortune, spends lavishly on itself, corrupts the public election system, ignores the constitution (while simitaneously hiding behind it), and doing so little about any of the issues Christ preached in the Sermon on the Mount that it’s laughable.

  • lady_black

    Given “birth?” She was 11 weeks pregnant! You’re an idiot! One does not TAKE anti-coagulants during pregnancy. One is ALREADY at many times the normal risk of developing a thrombus, which can become an embolus, and kill or disable a person.

  • And clearly you still can’t read. Or give enough information to make a difference. There are *always* options to abortion.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    I see you can’t explain what you think those passages are describing.

    Maybe there were too many big words.

    So embarrassing for you.

  • lady_black

    Nope. There AREN’T always options to abortion. That’s why you aren’t a doctor. Or, really, any kind of medical professional

  • Neither is any doctor who will take one life to save another. No doctor who murders is a medical professional of any sort.

  • lady_black

    No, idiot. It’s more like you CAN’T save one “life”, but you CAN save the other.

  • Frank

    Thanks for confirming your ignorance of those passages and how they have nothing to do with abortion.. And thanks for mimicking. It’s a sign you have nothing else.

  • Frank

    Oh so it’s something others should do but not you. Got it.

  • You’re being intentionally obtuse, confusing the duties of individuals with those of organizations, particularly religious organizations.

    My charter is not doing God’s work, following the life of Jesus by example, spreading the word of God, or tax exempt.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    And once again you won’t ( or maybe you can’t) tell me what you think those passages are describing.

    Thanks for playing, but maybe when we adults are talking you should remain silent instead of embarrassing yourself.

  • Frank

    So you admit what everyone else knows? That they have nothing to do with abortion? Or will you continues to embarrass yourself?

    You know Hosea describes the consequences of war that results in their rejection of God and Gods protection right?

    And Kings verse is the result of people rejecting God and becoming their own kings right?

    Surely you get that right?

  • Frank

    No you are expecting a standard for others that you refuse to hold yourself to. That’s kinda pitiful.

  • I’ll let the readers decide.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    LOL. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about… or you have severe reading comprehension issues.

    Let’s recap. The discussion is about abortion, not rejecting god.

    The passages I quoted directly from the Bible state:

    “and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    I contend that these passages are describing abortions.

    You, on the other hand, say I am wrong, but rather than telling me what you think the passages are describing, you simply state that I have misrepresented the Bible, and that I am misinterpreting the Bible.

    But you are incapable of explaining what you think the passages are describing.

  • Frank

    Don’t blame me because you don’t know the context of what those verses are describing. So embarrassing for you. Yikes.

  • Frank

    We have. You won’t do yourself what you expect from others. We got it.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    And once again you hide under the blanket & can’t explain what you think the verses refer to.

  • Frank

    I did. Nothing to do with abortion. You really aren’t that dense are you? I am hoping you are just so set on your bias that you are blind to reality. I really hope that’s the case.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “I did. Nothing to do with abortion. You really aren’t that dense are you?”

    You once again can’t explain what you think the verses refer to.

    Telling me what you think they don’t refer to is NOT an explanation of what you think they DO refer to.

    Try again.

    Don’t tell me what the passages I quoted DON’T refer to.

    Tell me what the passages I quoted DO refer to.

  • John Stevens

    “You think dismissively referring to someone as a child isn’t rude or disrespectful?”

    No. Correction, politely and lovingly given, is a gift.

    “You’re a moron and so are your religious beliefs.”

    Yet, my beliefs have a solid foundation in empirical data and rational thought. Your reply is a logical fallacy.

    Who, precisely, is being moronic?

  • John Stevens

    “I am not a child, and I would appreciate you not addressing me in that manner.”

    You were childishly rude and disrespectful to me with no cause, and I gently pointed this out and admonished you by referring to you as a child.

    Can we move forward with respect and civility now?

  • lady_black

    I wasn’t rude to you. Inconvenient, perhaps. But not rude.

  • John Stevens

    I wasn’t rude to you, then, either. I was simply addressing you honestly.

  • lady_black

    You were rude. Saying “Listen up” isn’t rude. Calling an adult “child” is rude.

  • John Stevens

    “I don’t need any information on what the church teaches.”

    From the evidence of your postings, you do. You’ve made repeated errors about Church teaching.

    Being raised Catholic does not make you knowledgeable about Catholicism, any more than being raised by a Doctor confers upon you a medical degree. Sitting through the Mass, even if you do so repeatedly, does not guarantee you will learn even one iota of theology.

    “No priest has any idea what it’s like to be married.”

    Yes, he does, by observation, administering the sacrament of confession, by teaching marriage preparation courses, by counseling the married, and living within a marriage and among married people. Not all priests have experienced marriage (some have, you know) but again, experience is not expertise. If experience were expertise, then no married person would ever need to go to a marriage counselor, and marriage counselors would be required by law to be married.

    “His expertise at growing up in a family as a child is for crap.”

    Child, you’re being rude and disrespectful again.

    I’m sorry, but the social science on this is settled: a child learns a great deal about how to be married from being raised in a marriage. Some aspects of marital life are private, of course, and the newly married have to work those parts out with the guidance of the Church, not by observing their parents, but a marriage consists of far more than just the bedroom.

    “We all grew up in a family.”

    Yes. Not all families are healthy, or provide the best example. Divorce breeds divorce, for instance.

    “The cancer patient could, OF COURSE, tell you what being treated for cancer is like, better than the oncologist who has never had cancer. But the cancer patient knows nothing about how to best TREAT cancer, because he has never been to medical school. Let’s not conflate the two things, shall we?”

    You do realize you just agreed that I was right, right?

    You just admitted that experience is not expertise. Which was my contention, and which goes against your argument. A priest can be a “doctor” by study alone, and be an expert in the field, he doesn’t have to be a “patient” to have expertise.

    “As far as sexual interest and it’s relation to fertility, I’m not buying it.”

    The science is settled on this, too. A woman is more interested in sex during her fertile period.

  • John Stevens

    You were rude and disrespectful, and continue to be. Yes, saying “Listen up” is rude, in exactly the same way as addressing someone as “child” is.

    Which is why I did it, to try to get you to realize that your hate is damaging your reason, and preventing rational discourse.

  • John Stevens

    Thought experiment:

    A sixteen year old girl comes to a Doctor requesting contraception.

    Sitting on the desk is in front of the Doctor is one red pill, one blue pill. The red pill causes permanent and irreversible sterility, the blue pill prevents ovulation for one month.

    According to you, it does not matter which pill the Doctor gives to the girl.

    My argument is that the Doctor must counsel the girl against using contraception at all, and that she should remain chaste as that is the highest good for her as a whole person. If she insists, he might choose to give her the blue pill, or refuse to accept her as a patient.

    To give her the red pill would be a violent assault against her person, to say nothing about the medical malpractice suit.

    That a car is white, and that swan is also the same shade of white, does not make the swan a car. You conflate an aspect of a thing with the whole of a thing, and therein lies your error.

  • lady_black

    “According to you, it does not matter which pill the Doctor gives to the girl.”
    It matters very much which pill he/she gives her. He/she needs to speak with the patient, and together with her, he/she determines which pill meets her needs according to the doctor’s medical knowledge.
    If a doctor’s advice to me was to “remain chaste” then I would be looking for a new doctor, pronto. This is not medical advice.

  • John Stevens

    “Thank you. I was an unwed mother at 19.”

    May God bless you and keep you, rewarding you abundantly.

    You are a co-creator with God in the future.

    “I worked hard and today I own a successful business.”

    Congratulations! And you have a child as well!

    I was a Rubio supporter first, then a Cruz supporter, and now I’m struggling to find a Party that opposes abortion. Constitution Party, I think. I’ll come back to the Republican party when they get their act straightened out.

    “I am also a devout Catholic.”

    I’m a convert. Easter, 2015. Spent thirty years wandering from religion to religion, then finally found home. In the very last place I expected to find it, but at least I finally did. God can turn every evil into good, and one of the blessings of my wandering is that I have studied this stuff extensively.

  • lady_black

    No, it’s NOT rude. I’m addressing a peer, not my Daddy.

  • John Stevens

    Jeremiah 5:21

  • New Study:

    I’m not sure why I’m re-entering this mess. But I wanted to point out a new study from the Lancet that’s just been published:

    Lancet worldwide study of abortion:

    1. Where abortion is illegal don’t have lower rates,
    2. Married women have more abortions than unmarried,
    3. Abortion rates are high in undeveloped countries,
    4. What helps are not laws but widespread availability of BC methods,

    Abortion rates in North America and Europe are now at 30-year lows


    The study, methodology, charts and such are available for free from the Lancet in PDF form. (registration required).

    Also, abortions are at a 30 year low thanks to the IUD (which was at the center of the Hobby Lobby case. http://www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11148108/unplanned-pregnancy-larc-iud

    Just passing it on.

  • lady_black

    I haven’t made any errors, because you have not corrected any errors. Your tactic is to tone-police, which is not the correction of errors.
    I’m done with your nonsense. Most children grow up in families. That doesn’t make them an expert on families. Confessions are phony baloney and cannot be counted upon to be factual. All the priest knows is what he is being told. It may or may not be true.
    And the biggest sex organ is the human brain. Not all women HAVE “fertile periods.” I think what you mean is “ovulation.” Ovulating is the result of hormonal fluctuations and is not necessarily synonymous with fertility. Women who have had hysterectomies continue to ovulate until natural menopause, but they are still infertile.

  • lady_black

    Nope. Care to try again? That has nothing to do with contraception.

  • Frank

    I did. Anyone can do a little research and get commentary.

    So embarrassing for you. Truly.

  • Zelda

    Oh please. Abortion was supposed to eliminate the need for others to feed, clothe, and educate anyone. 50 million dead babies later, it appears that they weren’t actually the cause of poverty and ignorance. So let’s start with their lives. Clothes, food, shelter, and education are always possible, but you can never give someone their life back.

  • Zelda

    But you have to USE YOUR BODY to take it to the hospital or fire station. And then it’s not the hospital or the fire station who will care for them. It is the human nurses, doctors, and firefighters who will. WITH THEIR BODIES.

  • Zelda

    You don’t owe the world shit. You owe your children their lives. It’s your fault they’re here and they shouldn’t have to pay for your selfishness.

  • Zelda

    No. It isn’t. Not when you’re talking about actual genocide. Not hypothetical genocide, not hunting animals in Africa, but actual murder of human beings because they have been deemed to be less than human. The Nazis provided the metric.

  • Zelda

    Terrible. And still not a reason to abort.

  • This is a minor element of this article, but I’m going to highlight it anyways: It’s rather sick and disgusting that it’s becoming more and more common, even ‘normal’, for Hispanic-Americans to be subject to calls of “Go back home”, “Get back”, and the like when they’re absolute, solid Americans who were born here and are citizens just as much as the loons screaming those slogans.

    This kind of ethnic profiling or whatever you want to call it is horrible. I very much hope that things in this country change.

  • Zelda

    Oh please. That’s like saying, “I’m giving your tax money to a gun manufacturer, but it’s only going to the section that makes the safeties.”

    And I don’t care about your college life or anything else. I don’t even care that you went to PP for birth control. I’m only saying that you went there because you didn’t think to go anywhere else, so you don’t know how cheap it is at other clinics. Your personal details are irrelevant and don’t contradict anything I’ve said.

    As for prevention, it’s not my responsibility to prevent anyone’s pregnancies except my own. It’s not my responsibility to subsidize anyone else’s irresponsibility. If I am forced to, you bet I’m going to have something to say about it. But my greatest objection is being forced to accept the murder of innocents. I am happy to leave you alone to screw in peace. I don’t care how much birth control you use, and I don’t care how many kids you have if you can support them. Just don’t murder them. That’s the first step.

  • Zelda

    Let’s try simplifying this for you. Answer one question. It’s yes or no.

    If the Nazis had won the war and implemented their dehumanizing laws across the globe and killed every Jew on earth, would they still be murderers?

  • bobfrank

    “I never have liked Republicans” Lady, you should be more sensitive than most of applying a label like that to everyone who happens to subscribe to a particular political party. That is as biased and bigoted as saying “I never have liked Hispanics.” That is the stupidity of the world now. Paint everyone with the same brush within a particular category, and if they doesn’t agree with your position, they are all “haters and bigots.” Then huddle around you own campfire with the other muggles. It’s a good way to avoid thinking and articulating what you really subscribe to.

  • Don’t bother “giving them their life back” if that life will suck (which is usually the motivation of the mother).

    If your goal is to reduce abortions (with some pro-life people, I wonder), I suggest reading this article. It outlines a very plausible approach to reducing abortions by 90%.


  • Zelda

    See, this is why having states makes things interesting. Almost everything on that list exists in NY. Their abortion rates are sky high. More black babies are aborted there than born. That’s shameful by any metric, but they were the original targets of the birth control and abortion industry. For abortions to be reduced, its racist and eugenist underpinnings must be acknowledged. It was never meant to empower women. It was meant to empower doctors to remove the unfit from society.

  • It’s all racism? Wow–and here I thought it was simply women planning what’s best for themselves, their children, and their families. Who knew? Well … you, of course, but I mean besides you, who knew?

    Assuming you want abortion illegal, that seems like it’ll hurt not only the racists who are running everything behind the scenes but actual, y’know, women who want control of their lives.

    You’re saying that everything outlined in the article I linked to exists in NY state? I’d be interested to hear more. If that plan doesn’t work, I’ll stop telling people that it would.

  • lady_black

    My fault they’re here, huh? Well, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to BE “here.”

  • lady_black

    Nope. You’re already at the hospital.

  • John Stevens

    It wasn’t intended to address your question about contraception, it was intended as a comment about how you approach this matter.

    Posting the relevant scripture would not matter, as you wouldn’t accept it, no matter what. Thus: Jeremiah 5:21.

  • lady_black

    There isn’t any relevant scripture. Otherwise you would have posted one. Good bye!

  • John Stevens

    “I haven’t made any errors, because you have not corrected any errors.”

    You have, repeatedly. That you cannot see this, or possibly that you are too proud to admit it, is why I replied with Jeremiah 5:21.

    “Your tactic is to tone-police, which is not the correction of errors.”

    I did some of that, yes. I also pointed out the errors in your reasoning.

    “I’m done with your nonsense.”

    Jeremiah 5:21.

    “Confessions are phony baloney and cannot be counted upon to be factual.”

    That wasn’t the whole of my argument, and your simply stating this doesn’t make it fact. Those who would lie are not motivated to go to the sacrament of reconciliation. Those who do go, are honest, as to do otherwise invalidates the sacrament. But perhaps this kind of thinking is one of the reasons that you are no longer Catholic.

    After a while, a priest knows when a person is being dishonest, or withholding. They wouldn’t be very good at their vocation, if they didn’t. A good confessor will encourage and lead one to full and honest disclosure, a great one will listen to the Spirit and guide the penitent on the path they need to go.

    “Ovulating is the result of hormonal fluctuations and is not necessarily synonymous with fertility.”

    True, but nit picking. Absent the accidents you mention, the woman would be fertile.

  • John Stevens

    “It matters very much which pill he/she gives her.”

    Good. You admit that sterilization is not contraception.

    I’ll let you have the last word, as no doubt you will be more comfortable that way.

  • John Stevens

    Child, you need exactly what you reject: the healing and peace that the Church offers.

  • lady_black

    Infant, I stopped believing in Santa Claus at about age 8.

  • John Stevens


    Lots of references there, including guidance, reasoned argument, and of course references.

    See also:


    The error you seem to be making is in assuming your interpretation of scripture is authoritative. See: formal linguistics, specifically semiotics, for an explanation of that error.

    Pace tua, I’m done.

  • lady_black

    They’re both contraception. Maybe she wants permanent contraception. Maybe she wants contraception that lasts 10 years. Or five years. Or six months. That’s HER decision. Not yours.

  • lady_black

    Sure priests know when they’re being lied to. It’s MAGIC. Flapping gums = 100% full honesty.
    If I made errors of theology, you would have corrected them. Telling me “that’s wrong” is NOT a correction. That’s an assertion. Tell me why they are wrong. So far, you’re batting zero.

  • 800k killed in Rowanda in 6 months, probably 2milkon in Iraq & Afghanistan, 2 million killed by Polpot. Rtf-Ers didn’t lift a finger to help.

  • As if AIDS babies, Fetal alcohol syndrome babies dsdnt still exist.

  • lady_black

    My interpretation of scripture? Oh, by that, you mean the plain meaning? Like, are the words intelligible? Why YES, I believe they ARE intelligible. There’s no symbolism involved here.
    Does the Bible praise procreation? Yes, it does. Does the Bible require procreation? No, it does not. Does the Bible prohibit family planning? No it does not. And neither does the Catholic church. The only quibble they have is in the mechanics of how it’s done.
    And as already determined by logic, it doesn’t MATTER how it’s done. The results are the same. So we’re talking magical legalism here, with no scriptural basis.

  • Zelda

    Stop looking at death as the solution.

  • Zelda

    Good argument. Let’s kill more babies.

  • Zelda

    Or you’re not. Or you’ve taken the baby home and decided you don’t want it. Or you’ve given birth in your high school bathroom. Why would you be able to drop the baby off at a fire station if you were always at the hospital? And how does this mean infants aren’t dependent on the bodies of others after they’re born?

  • Zelda

    Because it’s aaaaaaall about you.

  • lady_black

    If you give birth in a high school restroom, an ambulance will be called. You don’t have to go to the hospital. They will take the baby.

  • Alex

    Hopefully you’ll feel more at home in the party that sponsors the Culture of Death, supporting not only abortion – including partial birth abortion – , but also forcing nuns to provide contraception in violation of their conscience, and of course the party that supported and homosexual “marriage”, that in the past fought to preserve slavery and segregation. I think you’re gonna like being a fellow soldier in the War on the Family. Yea, good Catholic you.

  • Zelda

    Men and women can plan what’s best for themselves without murdering their kids. That’s not proving to be a very good solution. Literally none of the promised benefits to society made by abortion advocates have come to fruition.

    This has always been about getting rid of ‘undesirable’ children. Margaret Sanger made it abundantly clear what her agenda was. Dr. Bernard Nathanson formerly of NARAL discussed the collaboration to disguise the agenda with feminist propaganda. Their main goal was to deflect any discussion of the unborn baby’s life.

    And NY is as close as you will ever get to implementing your list. To implement it fully would take a government far more intrusive and controlling than any pro-lifer, but the state and the city are run by radical progressives and there is no one to stop them. Why isn’t it working?

  • Anon y’Mous

    People these days who keep trying to redefine “pro-life”… *eyeroll*

    It means what it means. Don’t get up on a snooty high horse about it. That just makes you irritating and causes loss of all credibility.

  • a r tompkins

    Zelda, Zelda! Wow! If you care so little about my sexual escapades, why do you keep bringing them up? Weird. Tell you what…. You don’t bring up my prolific promiscuity, my absolutely fantastic fucking sex-life, and I won’t bring up the fact that you don’t have one. Sound fair? Good. It has nothing to do with the article that kicked off this whole thread anyway, does it?
    Here’s the thing, Zelda. We are basically in agreement. We think abortion is a pretty serious, and pretty bad thing. It’s not a good option, and people considering one are going through much. If they weren’t going through a lot, if it wasn’t an emotionally difficult thing, are you sure you’d want them to be a parent in the first place? So, that’s where Planned Parenthood comes in. Their primary mission, and once again I am typing this as slowly as I can so you can keep up, is to KEEP PEOPLE FROM GETTING PREGNANT. Remember – people have sex. (well, I mean except for you (oops! I said I wasn’t going to bring that up! Darn!)) There’s nothing you can do about that. If you have a problem with that, bring it up with god. That’s why there are so many people. They screw. A lot. There’s nothing we can do to fix that. But what we can do is get the modern miracle of contraception into as many of their hands as possible. And that REDUCES, VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, pregnancies. Read that all again, OK? Planned Parenthood curtails demand for abortion. So, this is going to shatter your evolving brain, but Planned Parenthood is YOUR FRIEND. So, if you defund PP, you’re going to see more abortion. That’s reality. I’m sorry you are having such a hard time with that, and I didn’t create reality. I am merely trying to effectively deal with it. I hope you can too. So far, I would say there’s scant evidence that you are.

  • a r tompkins

    your point being?

  • Men and women can plan what’s best for themselves without murdering their kids.

    Kids? A single cell isn’t a “kid.”

    Literally none of the promised benefits to society made by abortion advocates have come to fruition.

    No? I thought they all did. Women unburdened with unwanted children and unwanted children growing up in poor conditions becoming criminals seem both to have come to pass.

    Margaret Sanger made it abundantly clear what her agenda was.

    Whatever. Discuss it with her.

    Their main goal was to deflect any discussion of the unborn baby’s life.

    Yeah, see, it’s not a baby. Rule of thumb: if you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a baby.

    And NY is as close as you will ever get to implementing your list.

    Which doesn’t make your point. If NY is the closest, that’s nice, but we’re trying to find a culture that has those points in place to test the hypothesis.

    Why isn’t it working?

    Why isn’t what working? Show me a situation where the plan is in place, and I’ll be eager to hear how the experiment is going.

  • I think the title is kind of “click-baity.” Basically she’s still Pro-Life and may not even have become a Democratic.

    It might be a bit like when an atheist says, “I still don’t believe in God, but I’m not calling myself an atheist because I think Dawkins is a jerk and I have Christian friends who are fun to talk to.” Basically “My beliefs are roughly the same as they were before this announcement, but the messaging is different” kind of statement.

  • These studies tend to be misleading. Yes you have to be pregnant to have an abortion. So countries where people get pregnant more often will have more abortions.

    But the abortion ratio, the percent of pregnancies that end in abortion, is actually lower going by what I recall of Guttmacher.

    They also are intentionally not comparing like to like in other ways to get the result they want. Like they usually don’t compare developed countries by abortion laws to other developed countries with laxer laws. They also are often ignoring countries that restrict second-trimester versus countries that don’t.

    So “A group of scientists, who are mostly Pro-Choice or Pro-Choice advocates, find the Pro-Choice position is right. It’s amazing!”

    Yeah, not really.

    Oh and a Guttmacher study, Guttmacher being the man who basically said the poor should breed less, says IUD’s are a big part of abortion declines. Shocking!

  • Jim Dailey

    I love it when somebody reads statistical propaganda and points out the inconsistencies.
    Figures lie and liars figure.

  • Jim Dailey

    I understand where this blogger is coming from, but I can’t agree with her conclusion.
    That is, there are a lot of creepy, judgmental, nasty prolife republicans. No doubt about it.
    But I still think they are preferable to cheerful, attractive, inclusive murderers.

    As I watch this election season unfold, I thank God once again that I am both a lousy Republican (I can’t help it, I happen to like Mexicans and I think most poverty and hunger in the US is caused by an inefficient allocation of the fruits of capitalism) and a lousy Democrat (baby-murdering control freaks who are convicted they can legislate good behavior).
    Like the blogger, I am Catholic, and find myself avoiding all news outlets, preferring to understand what is going on in life by talking to my fellow parishioners.

  • If you’d have bothered to read the study (or even the captions under the graphs) you’d see the rates are per capita (per 1000 pregnancies). So they are comparable.

    And your point about comparing severity of abortion laws was one of the focuses of the study. As was access to contraception.

    If you want to lower pregnancy rates & therefore the abortion rate the proven methods are not laws but 1. Educate women & 2. Provide access to contraception.

  • Tweck

    “Catholicism is more Republican than Socialist, as the Church has declared socialism and communism to be inherently evil systems.”

    That’s not true. The Church condemns both unbridled capitalism and unbridled socialism. One is idolatry of the individual, the other is idolatry of the state.

    The Church condemned Soviet-style Socialism because it was atheistic, violent, oppressive and idolized state power, and in fact Benedict XVI had some good things to say about Democratic Socialism (this thing that most Republicans try to pretend is Soviet-era Socialism, but is in fact a completely different ideology).

    Both capitalism and socialism are equally contrary to the faith when they get in the way of God and human dignity. The current capitalist environment in the united states is idolatrous.

  • Tweck

    I am not attempting to school anyone – I appear to be having a debate with someone who is a Republican, though, and believes that Republicanism is good.

  • Oh, I feel quite comfortable in the party that supported applying the civil contract of marriage to all citizens, as well as their right to enter into the rights and responsibilities such contracts pertain to. (The court has no say in any churches Rite of Marriage. No one, no church, no sect is required to perform the Rite of Marrage against their will or conscience. You’re not even required to recognize any marriage).

    Of course, all the racest fled the Democratic party for the GOP after it changed position on race segregation enforced the SCOTUS school seg ruling, & passed the VRA & civil rights act back in 1968. And we knew what we were doing, “We’ll lose the South for a generation,” was understood.

    This is the party that believes what happens to woman’s body is between herself, her Doctor, & her God.

    The Little Sisters Nun case revolves around them being to required to fill out a form so that their “civilian” employees at the 30 nursing homes run by the order can get 3rd party contraceptive services. The American Coalition of American Nuns filed an amicus brief in support of the ACA saying, “We support women as moral agents able to make the right choices for their own. bodies.”

    We live in a culture of death, all Americans. Abortion, gun violence, death penalty, ignoring one foreign genocide after another, striking a match when we invaded Iraq that has grown into a conflaguration we can no longer control, consuming friends and foes alike, and then turning our backs on the fire and the refugees we created by our own actions.

    No party holds the moral high ground on death.

  • Good point. I can only imagine that “white panic” will only increase in the future as we loose more and more control. After all, Majority-Minority America entered elementary school two years ago. The crossover date is 2043. However, the % of mixed race individuals is growing even faster.

    There is a theory that the Americas were discovered as a brown continent and that it will return to being a brown continent.

    I grew up in South Texas, doesn’t bother me at all. And I too am annoyed at America’s general ignorance about people of other skin colors anyway. Just the other day another Sikh was beaten by some white kids who were calling him a Muslim.

    I’m afraid white panic is going to get worse before it gets better.

  • Huh. Usually the abortion rate means something different than the abortion ratio. The Lancet site itself says at one point “We estimated that 35 abortions (90% uncertainty interval [UI] 33 to 44) occurred annually per 1000 women aged 15–44 years worldwide” not abortion per pregnancy.

    And it’s likely not comparing like to like from what I read. We’re comparing poor countries, that might not even have NFP very well or much in the way of women’s rights, to developed ones. These studies aren’t usually comparing say Chile to Uruguay or Malta to Denmark or whatever. It’s like saying death penalty countries are more violent. Might be true on the whole, but it might be because they are often poorer or have high income equality. Japan has the death penalty and is not high in murder. So even a correlation doesn’t show causation or what must be. And the study I’d read from Guttmacher on the matter made me skeptical. (Additionally many of the more restrictive states in the US do have lower abortion rates.)

    Finally the study makes it somewhat clear it’s estimating for many developing countries and is advocating for lax abortion laws.

    Finally the idea that the problem with abortion is that it means there was an unplanned pregnancy is not one I think most Pro-Lifers could totally support. Even ones who emphasize contraception want those unintended pregnancies that do happen to not be aborted or for that choice to be the more supported one. (I might tolerate it being the equally supported one. As the Pro-Choice position comes close to “the financial advantage of abortions as is is not enough, we need abortion to be even cheaper compared to live birth for unwanted pregnanies.”) The anti-pregnancy logic still tends to indicate unwanted pregnancies can or even should end in abortion.

    (I will begrudgingly concede that laws against abortion often seem to lead to a black market on abortion drugs. It might be possible that restricting abortion drugs doesn’t entirely work. Not real happy on that realization, but I think they can only be used early in the pregnancy so there’s that.)

  • Zelda

    What are you gibbering about? Your sex life is of absolutely no interest to me which is why I have no interest in funding it. I don’t give a shit if you use birth control, I don’t give a shit if you go to PP. I don’t want to be involved, and if you don’t want me to be involved, don’t make me pay for it. Let me know if there is some way I can make this clearer.

    But if you think Planned Parenthood reduces abortions, you are not informed. Read Abby Johnson. She used to work there. She was a regional manager and even assisted in abortions. She makes it very clear that Planned Parenthood has no interest in reducing the number of abortions. Their business plan revolves around abortion. It’s the highest percentage of their income – even more than government funding. Did you know PP workers get bonuses for reaching quotas?

    So if you want to find out if birth control clinics will reduce the number of abortions, they can’t actually SELL abortions. If abortion isn’t an option, I guarantee you birth control will be a lot more effective.

  • Zelda

    You don’t have the right to harm a single cell on my body, whether my body is made up of that single cell or millions.

    “No? I thought they all did. Women unburdened with unwanted children and unwanted children growing up in poor conditions becoming criminals seem both to have come to pass.”

    What kind of fairy land are you living in? You think there are no more unwanted children growing up in poor conditions? You know the poverty rate is absolutely unchanged, right? You know single parenthood – the single largest indicator of poverty – has skyrocketed, right? Abortion was supposed to change all of that. I didn’t.

    “Whatever. Discuss it with her.”

    She’s dead. But you still carry her racist torch.

    “Yeah, see, it’s not a baby. Rule of thumb: if you need a microscope to see it, it’s not a baby.”

    “Baby” isn’t a scientific term. Unborn children have been consistently referred to as unborn babies. Their size and location doesn’t change their innate humanity no matter how much you want it to.

    “If NY is the closest, that’s nice, but we’re trying to find a culture that has those points in place to test the hypothesis.”

    Nonsense. Everything on that list would require governmental intrusion that hasn’t yet been seen except maybe North Korea. But of course they don’t mind abortions. They’re very progressive.

    But if it were going to work, we’d see some evidence in progressive states that have implemented all of them to the extent they can be, like NY. They have free birth control. Their sex education programs are comprehensive and devoid of all religious scruples beginning in at the latest in 6th grade. You can’t go to any clinic as a fertile woman and not be given birth control and family planning information in the most simple and direct terms. The abortion rate hasn’t changed.

    I tell you this for sure, though. All of that would work a lot better to reduce abortions if we decided to recognize the humanity of the unborn and make abortion illegal.

  • Zelda

    Who will call the ambulance? How will they know to call the ambulance? Do you actually possess the ability to think linearly? There is no point in the life of a baby, where his mother’s physical contribution will not be morally or legally required. You’re tying yourself into knots trying to contradict an indisputable fact.

  • “Additionally many of the more restrictive states in the US do have lower abortion rates.)”

    But state by state as well as country by country in the WEIRD-Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic nations are not good because travel is mostly unregulated (talking about the US & EU mostly).

    When I was a kid in S. Texas, weekend vacations to Mexican Clinics were common. In HS & college pregnancy was referred to as the Mexcan Disease and a trip to Monterrey was referred to as the Mexican Cure or a Mexican Road Trip.

    After Texas passed (what was that? something HB2) New Mexico clinics reported a 440% increase in visits for all purposes. Over all, abortions of NM residents fell, but out of state women coming to NM for an abortion specifically, rose 20%.

    The purpose of the report, which was up in the PDF, was to get some sort of picture of abortions worldwide. To create some foundation to work from. You can’t fix a problem if you can’t measure it.

    I don’t want to get into a gun debate, but it’s like #BLM claims. For some reason we do not a historical statistical snapshot of how many people are killed by LEO each year and under what circumstances.

    The problem with both sides of the Abortion Debate is that it’s really more of an industry now. If the abortion issue was every settled, it would be a disaster for both sides of the industry (which is why I found the Hobby Lobby case so disturbing. It’s clear that with abortion on a steep decline in the US they’ve moved the goalpost to include IUDs now, expanding the definition of abortion into new (and I’d hoped settled) territory. Thus, prolonging a resolution of any kind, But it does keep the industry alive and money rolling in).

  • lady_black

    I would think the heavy bleeding just might clue them in. Women don’t give birth in a painless puff of smoke, without harm to their bodies, you know.

  • a r tompkins

    first of all, i’d like to thank you so much for funding my awesome, truly fantastic sex life. i couldn’t “do it” without support from folks like you, so please accept my sincere thanks! but please, can you talk about something else – you’re embarrassing me! second, after thinking about it, I conclude you are indeed correct, and that must be why every time I go down to PP to get my pills, they say “no, no, no. we want you to come back when you’re good and pregnant. wait as long as you can – there’s a lot of $$$ in those baby parts.” and of course i have absolutely no sense of responsibility or sensibility, so i am only too happy to oblige (all I can think about is sex, sex, SEX!!). Better than reading Abby Johnson, about whose agenda I really have no knowledge, I actually know REAL PEOPLE, who work at Planned Parenthood, and sure enough, it’s all about selling those baby parts.
    you got it figured out, Zelda. no one can fool you.

  • Christian

    abortion is not “between herself, her Doctor, & her God.” What a terrible sense of morality that has no consideration for the unborn!

  • And what a terrible society that cares about the unborn…right up until the moment of delivery & then cuts every program to help the family or the child.

    It still cost $270k to raise a child from birth to 18. All you’re really doing is enslaving the mother to YOU’RE sense of morality without stepping up and providing for her or the child’s needs.

    Only the woman can make the judgement that she & her circumstances will support an 18 year commitment. Or even a 9 month pregnancy.

    If you were really concerned about the child, you’d support & raise it. Anything else is really about punishing a woman for having sex.

  • Talking about adoption.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    You once again can’t explain what you think the verses refer to.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Of course they would.

    They may have ( as you put it) “murdered Jews by legally denying them humanity.”.

    But them ( or anyone else ) saying they are not humans doesn’t make them not humans.

    As Abraham Lincoln supposedly said “How many legs does a dog have if you call his tail a leg? Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”.

    But none of this changes the fact that you misrepresented what I posted as saying:

    “According to you, if the Nazis won the war and implemented their dehumanizing laws, they wouldn’t be murderers.”

  • “Of course, all the racest fled the Democratic party for the GOP after it
    changed position on race segregation enforced the SCOTUS school seg
    ruling, & passed the VRA & civil rights act back in 1968.”

    Yeah, this is one of those popularly believed things that’s exaggerated. Many of the segregationists Democrats stayed Democratic their whole life. Whitten is the name coming to my mind, but there are others. Clinton won two of the states Wallace won while Hillary Clinton vs Obama saw something like 20% of her voters in West Virginia’s primary say Obama’s race was a factor.

    Plenty of people are perfectly capable of being in labor unions, disliking the rich, and not wanting “brown people” in their neighborhood. You don’t have to make much effort to find them.

    True Republicans have a higher percent of racists now, but many Southern racists stayed Democratic on a local level. And a great many of the old Dixiecrats are dead.

    “This is the party that believes what happens to woman’s body is between herself, her Doctor, & her God.”

    That’s not how society works. Even if I were to see it as “what’s in her body” not every procedure a woman can do to her body is allowed or seen as irrelevant to anyone else. I mean if a woman wants to undergo female genital mutilation do you see that as “between herself, her Doctor, & her God”? Or removing a rib based on some odd beauty notion? Or taking non-approved diet drugs?

  • Although it may not happen in theory Hispanics, or at least a portion of them, could ultimately end up being deemed as “white” the way some other European descended groups ended up being deemed as white or quasi-white.

    Feels a little far-fetched to me, but I think Italians really were seen as non-white by many until fairly late eras.

  • Ben Franklin said some terribly harsh things about the Germans & Dutch around PA. Signs were bilingual, they wouldn’t learn English, there were German language newspapers. (Stop me if this sounds familiar).

    Geo. Washington couldn’t communicate directly with over half his troops at Valley Forge, they were German speaking.

    Philadelphia had Bible riots where many Catholic Churches & schools were burned over the apocrypha.

    Second rising of the KKK out of Indiana had more to with Italians, Catholics, & Eastern European immigration than Blacks.

    White Bread, a loaf untouched by hands, was a reaction of the grubby, untrainable, southern & Eastern Europeans that did most of the baking.

    The Conquistadores & their sexual conquests required Spain to come up with 16 classifications of race, mostly to protect the inheritance & land back home.

    But, geneticists now tell us that race is just a social construction. There are more genetic variations between individuals of the same perceived race than there are between people of different perceived races. It’s because humans are such a young species, only 23k years old. Over time we will have the same genetic “leveling” as other species.

    The fastest growing racial classification in America is “mixed.” No amount of white panic is going to change that.

  • “That’s not how society works. Even if I were to see it as “what’s in her body” not every procedure a woman can do to her body is allowed or seen as irrelevant to anyone else. I mean if a woman wants to undergo female genital mutilation do you see that as “between herself, her Doctor, & her God”? Or removing a rib based on some odd beauty notion? Or taking non-approved diet drugs?”

    Actually, that is exactly the way society works. People mutilate their bodies all the time in America, including surgical implants & excises. Women have shortened their toes so high heels are more comfortable. There are unapproved diet drugs on every health food store shelf.

    The difference is: nobody forced them to do it. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy based on some religious or moral belief that she does not hold is just as wrong as forced genital mutilation.

    Actually, the GOP has made tremendous inroads at the state & local level in the South.

  • All depends on who gets to write the history books:

    If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.
    General Curtis LeMay

    Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/author/8601-Curtis_LeMay

  • mikehorn

    That wasn’t close to her point. She says that supporting Medicaid and food stamps are pro-life. Being kind to Hispanics is pro-life. Thinking military action isn’t a trifling matter, that bombs kill women and children, is pro life.

    Then she said that questioning pro-lifers that focus only on abortion and ignore other pro-life issues gets you shunned. She said the pro-life movement is merely anti-abortion and a facade for GOP anti-life measures. To say so gets you shunned.

    Please read what she wrote.

  • mikehorn

    Category error. Republicans choose to be republicans. Hispanics are Hispanics from birth and no partisan affiliation changes that.

    The GOP has been demonstrably racist since at least 1968, with the first deliberate use of the dog whistle “southern strategy”. Policy issues that negatively affect minorities like Hispanics and Blacks far out of proportion to anyone else is practically racist even if not consciously so.

    There is a reason Hispanics and blacks so overwhelmingly support anyone not republican. Often it isn’t economic or culture war policy. Hispanic Catholics and evangelical blacks might even agree on some GOP policies. They oppose republicans over demonstrated racism.

  • Hm. Okay, but see in the reality I live in it doesn’t work that way. In the reality I live in there are diet drugs that are banned substances and FGM is illegal or illegal in many states.


    In the reality I live in there is apparently a state that prohibits tattooing “within an inch of the eye socket” and one that requires a guardian’s consent if you’re under 21.


    And I know doctors are reluctant to do tonsilectomies unless they feel it’s absolutely necessary.

    I’m not sure how you ended up in a different reality than me, but I seem to find this on occasion online.

  • “I’m not sure how you ended up in a different reality than me, but I seem to find this on occasion online.”

    Because the opposite of every one of your points is also true. It all depends on where you look. Some places get open carry, others not. Some places have noise ordinances, others not.

    Reality is not the same for all people.

  • Jim Dailey

    I thought I summed it up nicely when I said there were undoubtedly many nasty creepy pro-life Republicans.
    However, to paint ALL Republicans with that brush is wrong, and leads to bad decisions.
    Just as it is wrong to associate with the cheerful “kind” inclusive murderers supporting Clinton and Sanders, simply because you agree with them on a couple of issues.
    Please stop trying to be divisive. You can count yourself as one of the reasons we have to choose between Trump and Clinton, and all the horror either choice holds.

  • Zelda

    I didn’t misinterpret what you said. I refer you to your own post verbatim:

    “Murder is still wrong.”


    But by definition abortion isn’t murder.

    Murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

    Since the law permits abortion, abortion by definition isn’t murder.

    Whether it is moral or immoral is a separate issue.”

    I said that your belief, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Nazis weren’t murderers because they didn’t define the Jews as human beings.

    But I’m glad you think the Nazis’ murder of Jews was murder even if it does make you inconsistent.

    And now that we have established that Nazis were murderers, regardless of their laws, if unborn babies are human beings (and they indisputably are) killing them is murder regardless of what the law says.

  • Zelda

    Talking about abortion. The struggles of the mythological crack baby were used by pro-abortionists to justify the abortions of said crack babies.

  • mikehorn

    I happen to think the republicans and the “pro-life” movement don’t really care about ending abortion. They just want to condemn people for it. As time goes and there are fewer or no moderate republicans, it becomes increasingly fair to paint the whole party with that brush. Ideas are being supplanted by unquestionable dogma, ideologues, demagogues.

    I’m glad you aren’t fully on the GOP bandwagon. Some of your ilk still exist. People able to think through issues for themselves are needed now more than ever.

    On the pro life side, which is more pro life, trying to make bad situations illegal, and criminal? Or trying to address the underlying problems? If the problem is the cost of pre and post natal healthcare, then care should be provided, if the intention is truly to see that baby born and grow up. Wages, more.

  • Zelda

    Your sarcasm is wasted. If PP’s benevolent birth control program was successful, they’d be doing fewer abortions. But they aren’t. They’re doing more abortions by design. Abby Johnson has no reason to lie. Go read what she says. It’s important.

    You’re not responsible for thinking PP is a benevolent organization that wants to help women. They have a very slick marketing campaign, paid for by tax dollars. But you are responsible for remaining ignorant when you are directly pointed to contradictory information. Go read Abby Johnson. She gave up so much in order to be true to her conscience.

  • Zelda

    Oh please. Women have given birth in all kinds of circumstances. And babies have died in dumpsters and toilets with no one aware that anyone has given birth until it’s too late. The Baby Moses laws are in place precisely because that has happened. So at some point, indisputably, the mother has the legal and moral responsibility to use her own body and get help for her baby. And if there is no one around, she is legally and morally obligated to care for that baby until someone is. Just acknowledge this and quit while you’re behind.

  • Jim Dailey

    Mike – I seriously think you re buying into the media-generated crap about fanaticism. I recall that at various times Rubio, Cruz, etc. etc. were all painted as “fanatics” for announcing opposition to abortion. Do you understand that anyone who dares utter opposition to abortion is painted as a fanatic – is shunned? That the media and the “progressives” and their ilk (thanks for using that word) hate for us to think for ourselves?
    That is why Trump is so popular – he is calling these people on their bullshit and is unapologetic about it.

    I assume and hope that you are as lousy at being a Democrat as I am at being a Republican. Do you really think that people opposed to 3rd trimester abortions are also for bombing innocent women and children?

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Refusing to call them children makes YOU, a r tompkins, a direct aider and abetter of prenatal genocide. As for God, He makes all life, He takes all life. If you think you can judge Him, knock yourself out. Which you will.

  • Richard_L_Kent

    But you can stick a vacuum cleaner into a baby skull and suck it out and throw its nameless corpse into a dumpster, because choice.


  • a r tompkins

    and calling an acorn an “oak tree” or an egg a “chicken” makes you certifiably detached from reality. further, threatening me with your imaginery bully gods makes you a potentially violent nutcase. i bet you have a gun too, right Richard_L_Kent? are you on your way down to the clinic right now to kill a couple “child killers”?

    As for your God, if It takes all life, then what’s there to worry about? the “prenatal genocide” must be part of Its Great Plan then, no?

  • bkc81

    This Catholic will almost always vote democratic. They are better on most life issues AND abortions go down under democratic presidents

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “I said that your belief, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Nazis weren’t murderers because they didn’t define the Jews as human beings.”

    And a fetus also isn’t defined as a human being.

    Comparing the terminating of a fetus ( something that is not a human being) with declaring a human being is not a human being & killing the human being is disingenuous.

  • gigi4747

    I have distanced myself from the prolife movement, too. I have never been entirely comfortable around prolifers or the prolife movement for a variety of reasons. I think what really kind of did it for me, though, is that it has been my observation, repeatedly, that out of wedlock births are unhealthy, both for mother and baby and for the wider culture. This does not mean that abortion is preferable; of course it is not. I have volunteered for, and still occasionally donate to, a homeless shelter for pregnant woman and their children that is run by prolifers. But I guess I would challenge anyone to demonstrate why I should think illegitimacy is on par with married, committed people having families. (The owner of this blog will most likely disagree or be angered by my saying all this. I get that and my point is not to offend.)

    The current strain of thought in the prolife movement it seems is that we all must accept any type of family configuration in order to be prolife. I have been told by prolifers that my “mentality” is why abortions happen. I disagree and think that the more we accept childbirth divorced from marriage, the more abortions will happen.

    I disagree with this blogger on many things, I think, but I guess I am glad to know I am not the only one who has moved away from the prolife movement because of other prolifers. That gives me mixed feelings. The specifically *anti-abortion* movement is really important (anything that is life affirming is “prolife,” imo.) Part of me feels guilty for letting other people keep me away.

    I am wondering though which prolife celeb the blogger does not get along with. Hmm Texas…Could it be Abby Johnson? Abby Johnson deleted a bunch of my posts on her Facebook page because I (politely) disagreed with something she did and she had no response other than nonsense. :) She said that “maybe my ministry isn’t for you.” She got that one right.

  • Alex

    Well, you obviously don’t know Sen. Robert Byrd, who was a former KKK leader and recruiter, was elected President pro tempur by the Democrat Senate. Before his death he wrote an autobiography (2002 i believe) in which he said everyone he met in the KKK was a “fine, upstanding citizen.” He never renounced the Klan nor condemned its membership. When one looks at the Democrat Party’s modern day plantations, known as our inner cities, where generation after generation of Blacks are trapped in an endless cycle of poverty, where Democrats forever stand against school vouchers that might allow those people to improve their schools because they want the payback from the teacher’s union, it’s hard to argue it isn’t still the party of slavery and segregation – it’s just that the modern version of slavery looks different.

    It is absolutely impossible to reconcile homosexual marriage with any Christian thought. Since you think it is there is no point in talking to you. God created marriage for a particular purpose, which is entirely turned upside down and thwarted by such relationships. Homosexuals should be treated with compassion and coaxed out of their sin, and not encouraged or lied to and told it’s all good.

    You have chosen to embrace and promote evil, that is always and forever your choice, but don’t tell us you’re Catholic or even some other brand of Christian. You really shouldn’t even have a blog on this website from which to promote your heresies.

  • Frank

    I did. Better read more carefully.

  • Zelda

    A fetus IS a human being! What else could they possibly be? Abortion was illegal when we recognized this fact, but we decided to rescind their rights just like the Nazi’s did to the Jews.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Nope, a fetus is a potential human being.

    Just as an acorn is not an oak tree, it is only a potential oak tree.

    Or are you going to argue that an acorn is an oak tree?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    You are either lying to yourself, lying to me, or you are just wrong.

    Explain what these passages are referring to:

    “and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

  • Frank

    Violence of war. Nothing to do with abortion.

  • C_Alan_Nault


    If it was referring to the violence of war, it would talk about running a sword through everyone.

    But it doesn’t.

    It specifically states that women with child (pregnant women) are to have their unborn babies ripped out of them.

    That’s a forced abortion, and is part of the god of the Bible’s command.

  • Frank

    No that’s murder and violence in war.

    Abortion is a willful choice by the woman to kill their child because they don’t want it.

  • Why did you have this as a response to me? I’m not a Democratic and I identify as Pro-Life or Anti-Choice in some cases. (As in I think the laws do have to restrict some choices. The “choice” of a woman to abandon her infant to “the elements” is not allowed, for example. Even the “choice” to drive on your motorcycle without a helmet can cause fines.)

    On same-sex marriage I don’t believe in it, though I do recognize that civil marriage is not really based in Christian ideal already.


    this article is so wrong on so many levels i don’t know where to begin. I am voting Donald Trump also but precisely because it was the one hurdle he had to pass. Is he pro life? The answer was yes. I had to be sure. Cruz is also pro life but i discovered what a fraud he was and how often he lied;so i couldn’t trust him to be as pro life as he claimed to be. I was a Democrat as a youth-but the Democrat party moved so far out into the dark and i was moving closer to Catholicism at the time that the 2 roads intersected. I could no longer be in the Democrat party.Yes,you can be pro life and Democrat but the chances of that meaning anything at all are slim to none. They booed God at their last convention. Surely,that should have been a sign to Catholics to run out the door. I’m not saying being Republican makes one a good Catholic but we have to participate in our government and it’s been on the right side of the social issues for a long time. It’s not limited to abortion either. There is also the matter of same sex marriage and euthanasia ; which the Democrat party also supports. Sorry folks,but that’s diabolical.The Church states clearly they are INTRINSIC evils. We can debate all day long over how best to help the poor,what to do about illegal immigration etc but there is no debate over the intrinsic evils. PERIOD.


    not all of us are creepy and judgmental. Run into a liberal Democrat and you will find out that the media paints conservatives as nasty and creepy. The ones who are LEAST tolerant and most nasty ARE liberal Democrats.


    Catholics are free to debate how best to serve the poor. They cannot debate the intrinsic evils of abortion,same sex marriage and euthanasia. We can be wrong about how to care for people;it is always immoral to murder the unborn, put old people to death or promote same sex marriage. Debate over.BTW There are many programs to help people in dire straits or in a difficult situation. We are a generous people regardless of party. It’s totally unfair to paint the Republicans/Conservatives as being stingy,greedy and not compassionate. Total nonsense. Sure some are-but that’s true of all people regardless of party.

  • Studentenviro

    You’re not a woman, so it’s really not your business, is it? You’re just a guy and a freak.

  • Zelda

    You have your analogy completely wrong. You are confusing a stage of development with the inherent nature of the thing. An acorn is no less of an oak than a tree, just as a baby is no less of a human than an adult. There is no such thing as a potential human. There is only a potential adult.

  • bobfrank

    Mikehorn: You don’t know your history, pal. You’ve either never read any books on the subject of racism, or you have allowed people with an agenda to dictate what you should accept as “history.” Read several books available about LBJ and his view of why the Dems needed to push for racial balance…for votes, FOR VOTES.! Read about Robert Kennedy and what his rationale was. Read about Abraham Lincoln, who by the way was a Republican, who pushed through the Emancipation Proclamation abolishing slavery, not in all states, but only the states who declared themselves separated from the control of Washington. The rationale was to destroy an economy predicated on slavery. The slaves in the North were not freed by the Proclamation.

    The bottom line: there is plenty of ‘racism’ in the world and the US. It boils down to either greed or the need for feeling superior to others (be they black, etc. or just someone that is easy to bully) Racism isn’t confined to a political party, In it’s various forms, that smugness and the need to feel superior to others is rampant across the human race.

  • mikehorn

    Look again at Cruz. That guy is more frightening than Trump. Just as or more extreme, except a ton smarter. Rubio I think was just staking positions he thought would win votes, not positive of his true positions. But cynically choosing extremism isn’t any better. I didn’t think a single GOP candidate was worthy this time. It was a clown car of horror show crazy.

    About Trump… He is more a schoolyard bully than a truth teller. Just because he speaks his mind doesn’t mean he is right or ethical.

    Abortion dogma: what is the purpose of opposing abortion? To condemn it? Or stop it? If condemning it is your thing, then be prepared for it to continue. That sort of emotion and fervor is great at raising money and getting voters to the polls. Why would a politician give up that cash cow and power base? If you want to stop it, look at why women choose it. Legal or not, women will choose abortions. I’ve read (pew survey maybe?) that 60% of abortions are women who already have kids. They usually cite economic or job reasons for not wanting another child. If we addressed the needs of that 60%, would that be pro life or not? Questioning church rules against abortion isn’t the issue. Questioning what is an effective deterrent against abortion is.

    Liberal politicians can be pro life and still be pro choice. The goal of providing a viable choice to have the baby does more good than all the condemning protestors combined.

  • Alex

    It was a response to Rhkennerly, who i think is the author of this phony article. I don’t believe any of what she wrote. I don’t think she was ever pro-life or is even Hispanic. I think she’s a northeaster white liberal and just wanted to write a rant against Donald Trump.

  • Jim Dailey

    Ha ha. You mean Bull Mahr is actually a tool of an overreaching, controlling, “the man knows best” mentality?

  • Jim Dailey

    Fine. So you think the murderer Hilkary, or Bolshevik Bernie is a better choice?
    I hate doing this. Clearly you are about dividing people, not unifying them.

  • Jim Dailey

    And by the way, Bull Clinton cut far more out of the welfare budget than any Republican did. He “worked with” several butt- hole Republicans in Cingress to cut payments to the neediest.
    Please do not think one party or the other is pro life. They are all, singly and collectively, pro-themselves.

  • Mike Blackadder

    The author IS pro-life. And I agree that Donald Trump makes it easy to part ways with the Republican Party who otherwise champion the pro-life cause. Whatever choice we make in politics there is a need to move the chosen party away from one form of evil or another.

    I still can’t bring myself to support the Democrat party, even against Trump, but there is a lot of room for difference of opinion in my view.

  • Or…you could just do a little bit of research on her. Maybe start here:

    Gesh, a conspiracy nut in every box.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “You are confusing a stage of development with the inherent nature of the thing.”

    Nope. I am pointing out that at different stages of development you have different things.

    “An acorn is no less of an oak than a tree, ”

    Go ahead & build things out of acorns then, rather than lumber cut from an oak tree. I think you will notice a difference.

    “just as a baby is no less of a human than an adult. ”

    Yes, a BABY is no less of a human than an adult.

    But I did NOT say a baby isn’t a human being.

    I said a fetus is a potential human being.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Abortion is a willful choice by the woman to kill their child because they don’t want it.”

    Wrong. Here’s the dictionary definition of the word abortion:

    Abortion (noun):
    1. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
    2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.

    The Bible passages are describing the forcible nonconsensual removal of a fetus. Whether it is happening during a war is not relevant.

  • Zelda

    You are a bit out of your intellectual depth. Potentiality denotes possibility, not actual existence. A potential human is one that doesn’t exist yet. However, a fetus already exists and is no longer a possibility, but an actuality. Now you have to prove that the unborn baby isn’t human when he or she absolutely is. There is no metric you can apply to an unborn baby that you couldn’t apply to an infant that wouldn’t deny their humanity as well. And I don’t think the pro-abortion movement is quite ready to do that yet. But the potential is there.

  • Frank

    Stay clueless and irrelevant. Works for me.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “A potential human is one that doesn’t exist yet.”


    ” However, a fetus already exists and is no longer a possibility, but an actuality.”

    It is an actual fetus.

    ‘ Now you have to prove that the unborn baby isn’t human when he or she absolutely is. ”

    Very clumsy attempt to change what was being discussed.

    While discussing a fetus ( you state “a fetus already exists “), you suddenly substitute the word baby for the word fetus.

    If you don’t want to appear intellectually dishonest, your sentence SHOULD have been :

    “Now you have to prove that the unborn FETUS isn’t human”.

    “There is no metric you can apply to an unborn baby that you couldn’t apply to an infant that wouldn’t deny their humanity as well.”

    Again you substitute words when it suits you. Why are you saying “unborn baby” when the discussion was a fetus?

  • C_Alan_Nault


    So when you FINALLY state what you think the passages are referring to & I point out that your definition of abortion is wrong, you resort to insults.

    I guess you have no problem with abortions being done against the woman’s will as long as it is done during a war.

  • Frank

    No one confuses abortion with those passages except you. How embarrassing for you.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    You must be about 12 years old. You have no arguments to support your position & you constantly say the same inane nonsense over & over.

  • Frank

    Oh the irony.

    You might ignore the context of those verses but anyone both scholar and laymen alike obviously know they are not about abortion.

    It’s quite pitiful that your argument is based on something that’s not relevant to the discussion. It only proves the absolute bankruptcy of your argument.

    Keep up the great work!

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “You might ignore the context of those verses ”

    I’m not interested in the CONTEXT of the verses.

    I am asking what the verses

    “and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    are describing.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “It’s quite pitiful that your argument is based on something that’s not relevant to the discussion. It only proves the absolute bankruptcy of your argument.”

    Hilarious. Unable to clearly answer my question, you attempt to change tactics & lie to yourself & say my points are not relevant.

  • Frank

    Stay clueless. It works in my favor. Thank you so much!

  • Frank

    Ummm you understand how interpretations are arrived at right?

    So embarrassing for you, truly.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    And once again you demonstrate that you can’t ( or won’t) say what you think the passages are referring to.

    Thanks for playing, but maybe when we adults are speaking you should remain silent.

  • Frank

    Just gets worse and worse for you. It’s so hard to watch.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    And once again you demonstrate that you can’t ( or won’t) say what you think the passages are referring to.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Ummm you understand how interpretations are arrived at right?”

    Ummm you understand that I asked you a very simple question, right?

    This is what the passages say:

    “and their women with child shall be ripped up.”.

    ” and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    What do you think the passages are describing?

  • Frank

    I have. Nothing to do with abortion just violence in war.

    You can have the last word. I cannot in good conscience participate in your trainwreck any longer. It’s just not fair.

  • Zelda

    “Baby” isn’t a scientific term and you can use it to describe any small child, born or unborn. There’s no semantic rule. “Fetus” is a more scientific term describing a human being – or any vertebrate – at a specific stage of development. You are using the term in an attempt to dehumanize the unborn baby, but that’s not scientifically or etymologically accurate because the term only describes a stage of development, not the essence of a thing. The Latin meaning is “offspring” or “young one” neither of which indicate a lack of humanity when the fetus in question has human parents. Fetuses are also not interchangeable. A lion fetus cannot be a human fetus or a swan fetus.

    But fine. Go ahead and prove a human fetus isn’t human. Let’s see how you manage.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    So if I go up to a woman who is pregnant ( with child) & rip her up I am committing an act of war, I am not forcibly aborting her unborn child?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Go ahead and prove a human fetus isn’t human.”

    A fetus is a potential human being, just as a seed is a potential flower or an acorn is a potential oak tree or an egg is a potential bird.

    To paraphrase you, “go ahead and prove an acorn is an oak tree, or that an egg is a bird”.”.

    Whether it is moral or immoral to abort a fetus is a separate issue.

  • Zelda

    Ignorance of basic life science isn’t working in your favor.

    Let’s simplify again. One yes or no question:

    Is there a difference between an adult human and an adult lion?

  • LFM

    This American tendency to equate the pro-life movement in its entirety with libertarian economics is nonsense. There are many nations in the world in which abortion is far more restricted than it is in the United States, where the welfare state supports people essentially from the cradle to the grave. Furthermore, the *major* force behind the pro-life movement in the US is and always has been the Catholic Church, which has never subscribed to laissez-faire social and economic policies. In any case, there is a rather large constituency of pro-choice Americans that does not particularly approve of welfare-state spending.

  • Mike Blackadder

    According to this logic any law that forbids you murdering your 6 month old baby is a form of slavery to the parents. It’s probably also slavery that we have neighbors and that people have to wipe their own arses after they take a crap. How can there possibly be 3 people who up voted this comment?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    It’s an irrelevant question, since the discussion was about the unborn & the different stages of development, not adults.

    But I can play your game too.

    Ignorance of basic life science isn’t working in your favor.

    Let’s simplify again. One yes or no question:

    Is there a difference between an acorn and an oak tree?

  • That may make it clear to some people – but not the couple handfuls of people with “Catholics for Choice!” bumper stickers at my church.

  • Zelda


    Now answer this question. Is there a difference between an infant and adult?

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Human beings are not oak trees. You are adopting Nazi terminology, ar Tompkins, by inferring they are “untermenschen.” And your bully gods are your own selves.

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Have you gone to a clinic to kill one of your own children?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Yes. That’s why we have two different words.

    But why did you move the discussion from a developing zygote or fetus to an infant ( a fully formed & born human)?

  • Zelda

    Because I’m trying to help you think linearly, which you are hilariously trying to avoid. So we’ll play it your way for a bit.

    Now this isn’t a yes or no question, so you might have to think a little. What is the difference between an infant and an adult? One or two sentences will do.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Because I’m trying to help you think linearly, which you are hilariously trying to avoid”

    No, you are trying to move the discussion from abortion & the unborn,which you are hilariously trying to avoid.

    What is the difference between a zygote or fetus and an adult?

  • Sven2547

    It’s neither a strawman nor a non-sequitur.
    Take Ted Cruz for example. He’s “pro-life”… while being an outspoken supporter of the death penalty and carpet-bombing Syrians. Go figure.

  • Ron Turner

    Want some cheese to go with that whine?

  • Zelda

    I’m trying to start with humans as YOU define them. If you can grasp that the difference between an infant and an adult is far greater than an infant and a zygote, maybe you’ll begin to recognize the humanity of unborn babies. That is the ultimate point which you seem very eager to avoid. Infants are utterly dependent on the bodies of other people for their care. Without it they would die. Their parents have a moral and legal obligation to care for them or find someone who can. If no one can be found, they are still obligated to take care of them with their own bodies. The differences between a fetus and an infant are so minor that to deny humanity at one stage and not the other reeks of arbitrariness and illogic.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “If you can grasp that the difference between an infant and an adult is far greater than an infant and a zygote, maybe you’ll begin to recognize the humanity of unborn babies. ”

    Nonsense. If shown pictures of them, no one would call a zygote or a sperm or an egg a human being.

    Yes, these are parts of the development of a human being, but they are not human beings yet.

    “That is the ultimate point which you seem very eager to avoid. ”

    Avoid? A zygote or fetus is not yet a human being ( though it may become one) any more than a seed is a tree ( though it may become one).

    “Infants are utterly dependent on the bodies of other people for their care. Without it they would die. Their parents have a moral and legal obligation to care for them or find someone who can. If no one can be found, they are still obligated to take care of them with their own bodies.”

    Sure. But a non-fully developed and unborn fetus is not an infant. Conflating the terms & interchanging them as you please doesn’t change that fact.

    “The differences between a fetus and an infant are so minor that to deny humanity at one stage and not the other reeks of arbitrariness and illogic.”

    The differences depends on what stage of fetal development you look at. The differences can be major, and to imply that the fetus at every stage the difference between an infant and a fetus reeks of arbitrariness and illogic.

  • Zelda

    “The differences depends on what stage of fetal development you look at. The differences can be major, and to imply that the fetus at every stage the difference between an infant and a fetus reeks of arbitrariness and illogic.”

    I don’t want to assume I know what you’re talking about because this is pure gibberish, but if you want to discuss major differences between an unborn baby and a newborn, then why wouldn’t you want to discuss the far more major differences between a newborn and an adult? Why does a difference in appearance and functionality indicate a lack of humanity on one end, but none on the other?

    And since when do we decide humanity based on looks? Functionally, there is very little difference between a helpless zygote and a helpless newborn. They are both human just as an acorn and a sapling are both oaks. The only difference is in their location and their ability to breathe air outside the womb. And a fetus can have that capability any time after 6 or 7 months.

    The truth is that there is no magic moment post conception when humanity is conferred. It can’t be birth when a 7 month old fetus possesses all the capabilities of a newborn except a mother or doctor’s unwillingness for them to live. And if one unborn child is protected, the only thing endangering the others is their age, which is, you know, morally abhorrent.

    The problem is that all the criteria used to dehumanize the unborn can be used to dehumanize anyone else.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    ” Why does a difference in appearance and functionality indicate a lack of humanity on one end, but none on the other?”

    Is a sperm cell a human? Is a human egg a human?

    Is a zygote ( a human egg fertilized by a human sperm) an human?

    What are you choosing as the cutoff point for when cells are suddenly deemed to be humans by you?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “The truth is that there is no magic moment post conception when humanity is conferred. ”

    So you think the moment a sperm & egg combine to become a zygote the zygote is a human being?

  • a r tompkins

    Hey there Captain Kent! Struggling to understand your gods theory. On the one hand this god or gods, according to your very own words, “makes all life and takes all life”. So, if these gods are in complete control of making/taking life, aren’t the abortion providers doing the will of the gods? please explain.
    Also, is a human sperm or egg cell a human being? half a human being? at what point in the development of a fertilized human ovum is it a child? you must have answers to these questions – else what good is all of your biblical “wisdom”? Looking forward to your answers.

    Answering your question, no I have not gone to a clinic to kill my own children.

  • a r tompkins

    Hey Zelda – sorry I was away at PP sex camp for the week! who knew making babies could be so fun! Thank you taxpayers!

    Now where were we… Oh yeah: Sarcasm?!? What sarcasm? That’s the PP business model according to your own words! Abortion Good, Preventing Pregnancy Bad. I’m saying you got it figured out! Don’t know how you got in on the secret, but PP is all about making and selling baby body parts. Never mind that fine exposes such as those by the so-called “Center for Medical Progress” were found to be completely fraudulent to the point where the producers of videos were themselves charged with felonious misconduct – in ultra-pro-life Texas no less! No, no, no – we won’t let facts like those get in the way of we just know to be true, will we?

  • Alex

    I guess you can be anything you please but you cannot classify a fetus as a sub-human and still be Catholic.

    This is just another snare where they will lead you in, sing you a pretty song while convincing you it is just fine to abandon your core beliefs, but in the end you will be thrown under the bus just like all the other groups they have exploited over the decades, and it will be their values that prevail, not yours. Don’t fall for it.

  • Zelda

    Projection and gibberish is not a very good defense. The metric is simple. If PP had any interest in reducing abortions, they wouldn’t be doing more of them, which they are by their own numbers. What you want them to do and their business model are two different things.

  • Zelda

    Yes. The science is indisputable. Until that moment there is only potential.

  • Zelda

    A sperm is not human. An egg is not human. They belong to the parents individually and they only represent potential humanity. Conception is the realization of that potential. Comingling the reproductive cells of two separate individuals is the only way new human beings come into existence. Once joined, they are no longer the separate cells of the individual parents, but a new human with new DNA. This is basic biology.

  • a r tompkins

    A. what numbers? cite sources please.
    B. If abortions are up, please prove that it is because this is some sort of sinister plan by PP directorship to become wealthy rather than dealing with the preposterous RR efforts to mandate ineffective “abstinence only” and similarly stupid ideas (poster child: Bristol Palin, anyone?) across the US.

    Birth control needs to be easy to get for everyone that needs it to reduce the demand for abortion. Now THAT’s simple. Or is the meaning of the adage “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” too hard for you to understand?

  • anna lisa

    I agree with what you wrote, but the title of the post seems like click bait. Just because we aren’t fooled by creeps who call themselves “pro-life” doesn’t mean we should identify with creeps who sell the heads, eyeballs, hearts and limbs of defenseless human beings.

  • Richard_L_Kent

    Don’t worry. You WILL understand ALL OF IT.

  • a r tompkins

    i’m not worried, air capitan! and I understand it just fine. but I’m asking how YOU understand things. you’re so … black and white, on and off, right or wrong, good or bad, righteous or evil, binary. no nuance, no shades of grey, no comprehension, no empathy…

    i imagine you think you and your religion have it all figured out, and yet you can’t answer even the most basic questions about what constitutes a human being. you need a new religion, dude, cuz yours has totally failed you.

  • Zelda

    A. http://www.lifenews.com/2015/06/24/report-planned-parenthood-now-does-33-of-all-u-s-abortions-abandons-womens-health/

    B. http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/23/planned-parenthood-plans-to-expand-abortion-services-nationwide/

    “Birth control needs to be easy to get for everyone that needs it to reduce the demand for abortion.

    People keep saying this, but it IS easy. Almost every woman in the country has been on it at one point or another. At some point, someone is going to have to acknowledge that it isn’t working the way it’s supposed to – that it doesn’t reduce unplanned pregnancies or poverty, and that maybe children aren’t the ones to blame for these problems, so abortion isn’t really a solution. Now I don’t care if you want to use birth control. As long as you are aware of the health risks, it’s none of my business. But clinics like Planned Parenthood aren’t proving your point when the percentage of abortions they are performing is increasing. Why is their cut-rate birth control leading to more abortions at their clinics? Clinics that only provide abortions are seeing abortion rates fall. Why are PP’s increasing?

  • Richard_L_Kent

    I’ve got plenty of sympathy, empathy, and care. But I know evil. And the shit you’re pushing is pure quill evil.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Once joined, they are no longer the separate cells of the individual parents, but a new human with new DNA. ”

    No, once joined they are a zygote.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    No, at that point the potential is still unrealized.

  • Zelda

    Unrealized potential is still nonexistent. Zygotes exist. Embryos exist. Fetuses exist. A sperm by itself does nothing. An egg by itself does nothing. They hold the potential for life, but it is not realized until they are joined. Then there is a new being created, undoubtedly alive, and undoubtedly human.

  • Zelda

    A zygote created by two human parents is a human zygote, just as a zygote created by lion parents is a lion zygote. A zygote only denotes a stage of development, not whether he or she is human or lion or anything else. This is very basic biology. Your determined ignorance has no chance whatsoever of changing that.

  • a r tompkins

    dude, I ain’t pushing any shit, and I ain’t evil. that’s a rotten thing to say to someone. i just asked you a very simple questions as a follow-up to your assertion that god “gives all life/takes all life”. so if after years of following your religion you can’t answer simple basic questions from an amateur skeptic like myself, then your religion has failed you. can’t you see that? just because you’ve believed nonsense your whole life does not make that nonsense true. lots of people believe lots of weird shit. just like you do. they can’t all be right, but they can all be wrong.
    back to the original post which started this whole thing, the poster is not saying she’s not pro-life – just that she was disillusioned with the Pro-Life Movement. and you instantly inferred that she was a Nazi. maybe you’re the evil one here.

  • a r tompkins

    really – your “proof” that PP is doing more abortions is that stupid chart shown by Jason Chaffetz, generated by an anti-abortion group, with which he tried quite unsuccessfully to ensnare Cecile Richards? That chart is deliberately misleading, and would fail a fifth-grade science project. It was a source of embarrassment for Chaffetz and his cause, and Chaffetz was later forced to admit that their congressional investigation found no wrongdoing by PP. So like wtf is your problem? I would have expected better of you, zelda. See this link for a more complete and fair discussion of PP services and the relative proportion of abortions they provide if you really are interested in educating yourself: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/01/jason-chaffetz/chart-shown-planned-parenthood-hearing-misleading-/ . Notice how completely different the figures look when shown in correct scale.
    “Clinics … are seeing abortion rates fall…” cite sources please, and indicate how you know that this is NOT because of contraceptives provided by PP and similar agencies. this proves my point exactly – contraceptives UP, abortions DOWN. PP is actually accomplishing what the pro-life groups only talk about doing – reducing the demand for abortion.

  • a r tompkins

    look, no normal thoughtful person is “pro-abortion”, or goes out of their way to commit abortion. (and if there were such people, would you want them to be a parent?) referring to abortion as “murder” is a completely unfair oversimplification of a very complex issue. Besides, isn’t that god you’re so quick to thank for your apolitical leanings (the same god, btw, that commits abortion in the form of miscarriage in absolutely huge numbers) going to take fine care of those “murdered” souls anyway?

  • Zelda

    Your politifact article huffed and puffed, and then went ahead and documented that the numbers of cancer screenings are falling, and abortions are increasing.


    Read what Abby Johnson says. Look at the chart. It’s their own chart. It’s about profits as well as numbers.

    “…cite sources please, and indicate how you know that this is NOT because of contraceptives provided by PP and similar agencies.”


    It’s not because of PP’s ubiquitous birth control if their abortion numbers are increasing. What is rarely explored is the idea that people are having less sex.


    Amazingly, less sex might actually = less babies, born or unborn.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “A zygote created by two human parents is a human zygote”

    Yes, and a human sperm cell is a human sperm cell. It isn’t a human being.

    The human hand removed from a medical school cadaver for a medical school anatomy class is a human hand, not a human being.

    A human zygote is not a human being. This is very basic biology. Your determined ignorance has no chance whatsoever of changing that.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “Zygotes exist. Embryos exist. Fetuses exist. A sperm by itself does nothing. An egg by itself does nothing. They hold the potential for life, but it is not realized until they are joined. ”

    And none of the things you listed is a human being yet.

    “Then there is a new being created, undoubtedly alive, and undoubtedly human.”

    It may be alive, but it isn’t a human being yet.

  • Zelda

    Nonsense. If it is alive, it is a being. And it is unquestionably human. The beings created by humans are human because they can’t possibly be anything else. This is simple logic and simple biology.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    “The beings created by humans are human because they can’t possibly be anything else.”

    Sure. But the zygote created when the sperm & egg combine isn’t a human being yet.

  • Zelda

    A zygote is a human being. It is a living, metabolizing, existent thing, distinct from either parent. Sperm cells don’t grow and they only contain your DNA. Same with hands. They are a part of you. A zygote is completely different. It is a new being. It has already become a new being upon conception. This is rudimentary embryology. There is no moment when an unborn baby becomes a human being after conception. Development is a continuum, not a linear spectrum. Humanity is never conferred by an outside opinion.

    But seriously, if you can’t tell the difference between a sperm, a hand, and an unborn child, you are an embarrassment to humanity.

  • Zelda

    That’s your opinion only and it defies logic, science, morality, common sense, and reeks of moral relativism.

  • a r tompkins

    that “huffing and puffing” is a cogent, in-depth discussion of the data that was deceptively manipulated by the anti-abortion group that produced the nonsensical chart with which Chaffetz was only too eager to embarrass himself. but meaningful analysis and presentation of data is wasted on you no doubt. You just want to see an unlabelled chart with one big arrow going up and the other going down. that’s about your speed I guess.
    I read somewhere that eleven or twelve (red) states have been very busy spending oodles of taxpayer money to dig up any possible wrongdoing by PP. so far, no charges. In fact the only relevant charges to date are against an agency that unlawfully and unethically attempted to frame PP. what does that tell you?
    less sex, more sex, contraception, sex education, teens having sex… what’s it to you whether they get their contraceptives from PP or anywhere else? are you sexually obsessed or something? the idea of abortion makes me sick. but abortions will happen, and after we have made reasonable attempts to reduce or eliminate their need, abortions will need to be provided in a safe, legal manner. these are the facts, and you should get to know them.

  • Jim Dailey

    I think someone like you would consider Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood as “thoughtful”. Did you know she was a virulent racist and started the organization to excise the population of “undesirable” people?

    I think of that as murder, yes.

  • a r tompkins

    gee that’s amazing! did you know many of the people we consider as the founders of the great United States actually bought and sold persons of African descent as though they were cattle, yet still thought they were human enough to impregnate? Women couldn’t vote in America until 1920? Did you know blacks were systematically kept out of American baseball until about 1947? Did you know interracial marriage was illegal in the southern US until 1967?!?

    did you know something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage or spontaneous “natural” abortion? does that make your gods murderers?

    How about an IUD which prevents pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg cell from anchoring to the uterine wall? are the companies that make these things, the doctors that implement them, and the women who depend on them all accessories to murder?

  • Zelda

    If you’re not even going to read your own sources, why did you bother to ask for mine? PP’s propaganda has made an indelible impression on your mind, and it is clearly sealed. Sorry I wasted my time and yours.

  • a r tompkins

    but I did read my own sources! why would ask me that? now you’re simply being diversionary. guess that’s what one does when their arguments are exposed as empty. Of what is PP guilty?

  • LM

    Exactly so! Thank you. It’s a rare voice which acknowledges that in these morally-troubled times.

  • LM

    Murder is murder, and it is very simple; there is nothing complex about it. It is what it is, the taking of an innocent life by the one person entrusted with that life – the mother who carries it under her heart. If mothers can kill their own children, there is no hope to stay the hand of any killer, and we have seen this mentality in this morally bankrupt age of ours, that there is little value to Life. One or more murders in the news does not quite shock any longer; it’s the proverbial par for the course. Life and its value, Life which was given to us by God, to be protected and sustained, garners a collective yawn today with mere lip service to “How terrible!!” Murder either stops no matter where it is happening, beginning with abortion, or murder on all fronts will and does continue. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, and there is no debating that truth.

    Who will “take fine care of these murdered souls”? (scare quotes around the word murdered do not apply, as its adjectival use is correct). Adoption has always been an option if a mother cannot take care of her child, or, if she does not want to. Placing a baby up for adoption is merciful. Killing the baby is not.

    It is a blasphemy upon God to say that He ‘commits abortions through miscarriage’. You mock Him. There are varied reasons for the spontaneous ending of a pregnancy, but God is not arbitrarily deciding which fetus lives and which fetus dies. There are things that are complete mysteries to our mortal understanding. If we have faith in God and trust in him absolutely, we will know the answers in God’s own time and by His will, if we are fortunate to attain eternal life with Him.

  • a r tompkins

    wow, where does one begin? “murder is murder … it’s simple”? then i take it you haven’t supported a single action taken by your country’s military, or any country’s military, where anyone may have died, let alone any innocents. and please no BS about “just wars” etc – there are no just wars, and innocent civilians – many of them children – die in any war or military action.
    if your god takes care of the souls of these fetuses (you incorrectly refer to a fetus as a “baby” – this is very murky territory, but a fetus, in general is not a baby anymore than a baby is a full-grown adult.), then what’s it to you? isn’t the soul of the fetus on its way to god anyway, maybe a little earlier than some others, but what is the goal of the christian life? to get to eternal heaven, of course! or might it be that you secretly don’t believe – secret even to yourself – that these souls aren’t really headin’ to heaven after all?
    look, i have seen no evidence for this god of yours (and neither have you). in fact, from what i’ve seen, there doesn’t appear to be any gods – at least none that give a shit about the lives of the creatures on this planet. it is actually you that mocks your own concept of god, by first making it all good and all powerful, yet permitting it to let suffering continue, unabated, enmass, literally all over creation. in the meantime, all you can come up with are bromides such as “mysterious ways” and “His own time”. gee, that’s awful weak.

  • a r tompkins

    by believing there is a god that orchestrates the strings of the universe so as to answer any prayers of yours and your like-minded thinkers, while at the same time showing at best indifference to a world full of unnecessary suffering, it is you that mocks the gods.

  • Zelda

    PP is guilty of capitalizing on the failure of birth control to prevent pregnancies and increasing the number of abortions they perform and consequently their abortion profits.

  • a r tompkins

    birth control doesn’t work?!!? wow! why are you telling ME that?! you need to publish your findings in JAMA or something. always seemed to work for me. this is shocking! who knew?!?
    Um, I think abortions, under the correct conditions and supervision, are actually legal. so I’m not sure if you can be guilty, in a legal sense, of doing something that’s legal. You need to publish your findings in some law journal somewhere. this might turn the legal industry on its head! why waste your brilliant, revolutionary findings on little discussions like this?

  • Zelda

    I’m not telling you. The CDC is telling you if you’d care to actually examine the links you asked for.

    52% of abortions are the result of birth control failure. If the abortion rate and the rate of teenagers having sex are down, which the CDC confirms, but abortions at PP are going up, which PP’s own numbers confirm, then there is a link between birth control (which PP makes a loud noise about trafficking in) and unintended pregnancies, which PP is capitalizing on as they state in their own agenda.

    You’re making the mistake of reading all the commentary instead of just looking at the numbers. What is shocking is people putting out the numbers and then lying about what they are and what they mean. But anyone with even the minimal ability to think critically will understand that if birth control minimized the number of abortions, PP would be seeing their numbers fall, and they aren’t. But when the overall number of teenagers (and adults) having sex falls – which takes BC out of the equation – the overall abortion rate falls.

  • sarah5775

    Wow. So people treated you badly. So you decide to leave the prolife movement and let 3500 babies die a day and do nothing. It’s not about YOU its about saving lives. Sometimes being prolife sucks. We aren’t in it for ourselves. If you lived in Germany in the 1940s and wanted to save the lives of Jewish people, you would have a hell of a lot more to worry about than people being mean

    If not feeling comfortable in the movement is a good enough reason to let children die without trying to save them, I doubt you would have been anything but a Nazi supporter in Germany .

  • gigi4747

    I would have been a nazi supporter? And I have nothing to save children from abortion? You know nothing about me, dear. So perfect – I say that I have distanced myself from the prolife movement because of jerks and you show up and act like one. Well done. And you support redefining marriage, evidently, which is a lie and leads to other lies, eg, that children do not need, or are not entitled to, a mother and a father. So stop braying about what a champion of children you are.

  • sarah5775

    You have completely missed my point.

    Either you want to save helpless lives or you don’t.

    You don’t.

    You choose not to. And you blame others for your choice. The reason you are not prolife is not because of me or others. The reason you are prolife is that you are willing to let children die without doing anything about it.

  • Jasper

    ah, the seamless garment nonsense.

  • Shawn Rain Chapman

    Yes, I would call it the seamless garment consistency. Or maybe the Gospel. :)

  • D. Horrell

    When is the language with which this conversation goes on and on and on going to be corrected once and for all? The term is not pro-life, it is pro-birth. To be pro-life encompasses far, far more than making certain a child is born – then all care and concern ends there. Pro-life involves intentional planning and creation of a society and cultural that respects life from birth to death. This does not mean a “cradle to grave” support system as is so vehemently slandered and bantered about by some as in incessant whipping post, but rather a holistic valuing of human worth, and that which truly sustains us all, on all levels that is then administered conclusively in both private and public spheres to that end for all – for ALL. When I see people of any political ilk espousing these principals and ideals then I will call them pro-life. That is the difference, all the difference in the world. Get the language correct, then come back and we’ll try again. Otherwise, your article is heartfelt, honest and kept in the first person experience, which I greatly appreciate. I can relate for more reasons than I can share here and in that we have common ground. And common ground is where the healing can be realized and decisiveness can be abated. It is a beginning. And that is where all great challenges to humankind have started, at the beginning. Let us begin again with open minds, open hearts and with the true celebration of life as our core value. In that I can guarantee we are in agreement.

  • D. Horrell

    “Yes,you can be pro life and Democrat but the chances of that meaning
    anything at all are slim to none.”

    CPANDF, your broad sweep of casting all persons within a group as write-offs is the “all or none” thinking that has brought our nation to the brink. To broadly assume no good person that is pro-birth can coexist within the Democrats is appalling and I encourage you to reconsider your thinking, or in the least your choice of words. But perhaps your intent was to cast a broad shadow over millions and millions of people.

    “They booed God at their last convention.”

    CPANDF, I challenge you to prove this by providing a link to direct footage of the convention. I am not sworn to any party, I listen to all and make the best possible choice given the field. So at no time did I hear God being booed during the Democratic convention. In fact, I heard the exact opposite in the words and the audience’s reaction to the enlightening words of Rev. Dr. William Barber. Please watch this video:


  • C_Alan_Nault

    A person can choose to support a woman’s right to get an abortion or oppose a woman’s right to get an abortion.

    But if the person is going to use their religious beliefs as the reason to oppose a woman’s right to get an abortion, their reason can be dismissed as meaningless until they prove their deity exists & then prove what that deity’s laws are.

  • The reason she had two children by a drug addict is because she was pro-life. Since she is Hispanic, she must also be Catholic and did not use artificial birth control methods. Don’t blame political parties or any one else. If you want to blame someone, blame the Catholic Church.

  • DAVE

    Leticia – never go with politics or politicians or political parties when you’re deciding “life” issues – they all have their own beliefs, and can’t be relied on to be your guide, or your conscience

  • billwald

    My objection to the movement is that the right wing faction also want to eliminate ADC and most support for single mothers. If they can own slaves the can breed de facto serfs e.g. low wage workers with a minimum “work skill” education.

  • Charles Winter

    The leaders of the anti-choice movement know that laws will not stop abortions; there were years before the Roe decision that there were more abortions than in the years after.

    The leaders of the anti-choice movement also know that the Roe court was majority Republican, as has been every Supreme Court since. They also know that, from 2003 through 2006, the GOP controlled both houses of Congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court; yet not one bill to outlaw abortion was even introduced, much less passed.

    So what is the motivation of the anti-choice movement? We got our answer last year when they succeeded in electing Donald Trump, a man who stands against all Christian values; their motivation is purely for raw political power. They will soon demand the impeachment of Trump so that they can install their true candidate, Mike Pence.

  • Charles Winter

    Nobody, and no organization, has been accused of selling human body parts. Planned Parenthood did not sell any parts from aborted fetuses. So, what are you talking about?

  • Charles Winter

    LBJ stated explicitly that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would cost the Democratic Party the votes of the southern states for another generation. He did not support that act in order to gain votes.

  • Charles Winter

    What does the Bible say about abortion? Not one word. The Torah is very specific about the qualifications for priesthood–prohibiting men with crushed testicles, and about the purity of women and their periods; but not a word about abortion, whether in the Old Testament or the New.

    The neighboring state of Assyria prohibited abortion, but neither Israel nor Judah ever did.

  • ADG

    Transactions were made for money, that I believe is called “selling”. Also the law clearly prohibited changing the conduct of an abortion for the retrieval of organs. But investigations recorded PP officials saying that they would “crush here, not there” to allow organs to be removed intact.

  • F.Nazar

    Proverbs 6:16-19Douay-Rheims
    1899 American Edition (DRA)

    16 Six things there are, which the Lord hateth, and the seventh his
    soul detesteth:

    17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood,

    18 A heart that deviseth wicked plots, feet that are swift to run
    into mischief,

    19 A deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth
    discord among brethren.

  • F.Nazar
  • F.Nazar
  • pmmg

    We should not tie ourselves to any political party, but we should encourage and support those who hold office and are pro-life. With that said, there is no way I could stand with democrats since they have in their platform the total support of all abortions. Those who defend life tend to be a part of the republican party.

  • Donna L

    Dear Mr. Winter – you are indeed generalizing and certainly NOT speaking for me. May I ask you some questions?
    1. What stats do you have to proved MORE women terminated their children BEFORE the Roe v Wade case? (Bernard Nathanson, “father of NARAL”, admitted that he and his people lied in court when this case was being heard… Read his book, Touched by God, Nathanson.)
    2. When you spout “anti-choice” what do you really mean??
    Tthe word “choice” was hijacked as a euphemism to replace “abortion” because it sounded “nicer”. So I am for choice in life. The government has no right to tell me who to worship, where to live, what to wear, who do date. So let’s change the word “choice” to “abortion” like it originally was. So YES Now I am against “abortion” of an innocent child who did NOT ask to be here on earth, but regardless of HOW this child arrived on earth, the parents must be “responsible” for their product of conception.

    From the streets I hear all reasons why people want to get rid of their unborn child…most common statement is “I’m not ready to be a mother, father”.
    3. When are the young adults going to be held responsible for their actions? (I am in no way referring to victims of sex abuse!) But then again, does the perp go free and the child die? Why? We have laws to prosecute the perp, not the innocent.
    Our behavior comes with consequences. (By the way, contraception fails, and that’s why there is a movement to push it so much…when it fails women are coerced to abort in many many circumstances. More money for the industry.)
    4. Have you considered the PTSD/PAS (Post abortion syndrome) that effects the families and overall society ripple effect?
    Abortion goes against the very natural maternal instinct to protect our young. I speak with fathers who want the baby but the woman won’t choose life. I speak with women who want their children but the parents are coercing her to abort or be kicked out. I speak with women and men who regret their abortion every day and feel nothing else in life is as bad as what they did to their child. I speak with former abortion clininc directors who talk about the overwhelming sadness and pain in the clinic, and the abuse by the “doctor” who does the abortion toward the patient. I hear the cries of the families that mourn the loss of their grandchild, brother, sister, aunt, niece….
    I’ve talked with those who were addicts and substance abusers because they wanted to commit suicide. One woman had been forced by her father to abort her child at 16. She hated him for it. She hated her mom for not protecting her.
    5. This to me is NOT a political issue. It’s a matter of life and death …not just for the unborn children, not just for the parents of this child, but for society as a whole. A society that accepts killing innocent children as a norm Is a doomed society.

    When voting, I looked at party platform. I thought our choices, though many, were intellectually, ethically, morally and spiritually challenged.
    I know what the DEM platform is…anti-family, anti-life, anti-spiritual, and supports everything I stand for as a Christian. I looked at Hillary’s record and could not find one thing she did to better society morally. I saw a woman who would rip off the head of anyone who got in her way to power.

    I saw Donald as a womanizer in his youth, someone who seems to be superficial, and who could’ve had more money if he invested it better. I’ve never been a fan of his flip flopping and still don’t trust him.
    So I took what I knew to be totally 100% against my values, namely Hillary, and I had to go with the choice that gave me possible hope for protecting the sanctity of marriage, faith, and life and the pursuit of happiness. Trump was the only chance this country had and apparently the majority of states reflected that.

    So when you make your generalized statements, with your euphemisms, realize you don’t speak for the silent majority.

  • DanH

    Republicans defend birth not life once the baby is born it like it’s mother are on their own to die from lack of health care or suffer from lack of food,education and other necessities.

  • bobfrank

    He also said “Well we will have to give the Negras the right to vote, and they damn well better be voting for us.”

  • mrc628

    Sorry, but you most certainly would have been able to have your children without health insurance. No public hospital can turn you away. They would have admitted you as a charity patient.

  • Adriana Ansaldi

    Sorry but if she had followed Catholic doctrine she wouldn’t have children out of wedlock or sex before marriage for that matters and she wouldn’t screw her life. That’s the whole point, Catholics shouldn’t go for all that trouble, following the rules protect women of all misery, the problem is the society doesn’t want to addressed the white elephant in the room, kids are educated in the belief that they have to experiment sexuality so they will not commit mistakes in choosing a partner or that “sexuality” is healthy, etc, the true is totally different. The pro-choice movement doesn’t give power to women, to the contrary and take out responsabilty from men, so that is terrible stupid, I understand men who are pro-choice, probably it was a man behind the idea first, women bought it. This particular ideology brought terrible changes to society, men are not naturally monogamous, monogamy is very important for the stability of a society based in family restructure, there’s not so much appealing in to get married, men don’t see the need of any permanent partnership because women are doing their own thing, if they want to get pregnant they can go to a sperm bank and take the father out of the picture totally. So, yes, the pro-choice movement is the bigger scam in history again women. Regarding the women who complain about not having access to health insurance that cover their responsibilities, that also is part of pro-choice, you did have a choice, but still you got pregnant, why the rest of us has to pay for that choice? Let the father of the kid take that check for you? (It’s true some men do and happy to get ride of the problem because basically it isn’t there body who is going under surgery). Educate humans in abstinence nowadays isn’t because you don’t have support of the society but many religions do it, for instance, orthodox Jewish, Muslims, I know Asians in general don’t like their daughters to full around, Amish, Mormons and Christians, some, Catholics should educate the children with these premises, or at least inculcate all the benefits of abstinence and self control, so if they cannot fight this back, still they will know the risks they are getting into, speak openly and with the true, and this doesn’t has to be a religious thing neither, it’s a good and practical advice for every human, common sense, minimise the risks, look for a permanent partnership and exercise self control. As the anthropologist Lewis Strauss concluded after study different societies around the globe, one of the pillars of a well adjusted society is the repression of the sexuality, and if you think about, how many issues would be eliminated with just exercising abstinence, we will not be talking about this. Also, in the Bible, it doesn’t exist the concept of a single Mom, single and mother are not together, so probably it isn’t a good idea to have children by yourself, by choice. Just ma y things to meditate, abortion has always existed, it isn’t a “modern” thing, what’s a modern thing it’s the perception of meaninglessness, and seriousness, and the imposition, and a pushing agenda of that’s the right answer to a more deep issue. Look at the movies, media, tv shows, teenagers that are pregnants, nobody investigated for whom, and why, or what this girl was thinking and be sure that this girl understand that this is serious matter. It’s obvious to me that’s an agenda to destroy everything that is sacred. It used to be subtle, not any longer, the other day I watched a movie called “Grandmother”, I met horrible mothers, never a horrible grandma, we associate grannies with sweetness and love and all good things, always generally speaking, but in this movie , granny was taking her granddaughter to have an abortion, and really I was rooting for her to change her mind, because her own life was a mess, for the same kind of mentality that she was trying to push in a confused 16 years old, so sad, but it is what we are living now, all these social problems, that “supposedly” we will not have if we give sex-Ed classes in the schools, to the contrary, kids have the pressure to be sexually active since early age when neither their bodies had finished their grow. When I was at the HS we learned what we have to learn about our bodies in a Biology class and that’s all, we weren’t exposed to all the sexual practices and behaviors as it’s in many American and Canadian schools. We need really to follow up the consequences of the “sexual revolution” that started in the 60’s and rectified our course, that it’s what women should be doing instead of fighting for the right to kill more humans beings, for the sake of our daughters, and the humanity in general.

  • pmmg

    Sorry, you are spouting back liberal, pro-abortion supporters arguments. You are obviously unaware of all the non-government backed, volunteer organizations working everyday to help women in unplanned pregnancies not just with having their babies, but with needs afterwards. We take no government dollars and depend totally on the generosity of our donors.

  • mmac1

    Republican may not be the only way to be pro-life, but if you are a democrat you are operationally pro-abortion

  • mmac1

    no PP accepted “donations” for body parts to cover”expenses”- kind of like Al Capone had no income

  • mmac1

    Catholics don’t rely solely on the Bible to understand their faith- there are other documents like the Didache that clearly show the very early Church prohibited abortion (starting around 100 AD). Even the Scripture states that many things not were not recorded within.

  • mmac1
  • TheMarsCydonia

    Some prefer the term “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice”.

    Then there are those who prefer the term “forced birth” to “pro-life”.

    Is there anyone that is pro-choice that deliberately gets pregnant in order to get an abortion or encourages other to do so? If they don’t, how is that “pro-abortion”?

    Then, is there anyone “pro-life” that argues for the abolition of the death penalty for the states who still have it? Who marches so that health insurance is provided to every american rather than repeal the ACA? Campaign for adequate sex education and affordable if not free contraception so there are less unwanted pregnancies? If they don’t, how is that anything but “forced birth”?

  • tt

    My cousin is a single mother of three who currently lives with her 8 year old child in a motel room because as she has struggled through the years to make ends meet, she has never been able to build a good credit rating. You can’t rent housing in large cities anymore without a good credit rating. You can’t get a mortgage without a good credit rating. She worked her butt off to get to a point where she makes enough money to get out of the system and her reward in being next to homeless with her child. I don’t see any pro-life people stepping up to co-sign her lease. And no pro-life people were there to help when her middle child was getting in trouble, either. Now he is 19 and in prison. When he was in trouble as a middle schooler, there were good church people around to protest their children having to sit in a Sunday school class with him, but no one was around to step in and be a mentor to him or to help his mother handle him.

    All the pro-life organizations who are “working everyday” to help women even “with needs afterwards” are long gone by the time those children are out of diapers.

  • Andy Brown

    Of course making abortion illegal will likely have little effect on the abortion rate according to several studies. If that is the case, and it seems to be at least partially true, then it begs the question. Is it better to have legal abortion where one person is destroyed and little risk to the woman or is it better to have illegal abortion where one is destroyed and there is a much higher risk of a 2nd being destroyed or seriously damaged as well?

  • pmmg

    And did you do anything to help your cousin? There is always an expectation for the government to help when families should do their fair share.

  • Edward Hara

    Charlie! Are you off your meds again? Bad boy!!!

  • Edward Hara

    Don’t do that to poor ole Charlie. You know very well that Liberals can’t handle facts!!! How mean of you to tell the truth!

  • Edward Hara

    The Bible also doesn’t specifically mention anything about putting Jews in ovens in Germany.

  • Tracy Caraker

    So many CAPS, so little time.

  • Tracy Caraker

    Wrong century

  • Tracy Caraker

    I wonder where they get all this fiction from?

  • Tracy Caraker

    They may have prohibited it. But there were other ways those poor nuns got rid of those unwanted babies.

  • i can assure you that no one is “pro abortion,” my friend. Being Pro Choice is just that, choice. It is the choice to be able to take contraceptives, or contraceptive devices, such as the IUD, implants or sterilization. It is the choice to terminate a pregnancy or to have the pregnancy go to term, have the baby, and either keep the baby or relinquish him or her to be adopted. It is choice, my friend and we all should have these choices.
    Making abortion illegal never stopped abortions from occurring. Making abortion illegal only stopped safe abortions for poor or middle class women. Wealthy women always had access to a safe abortions whether they were illegal or legal.

  • billwald

    Theologically, I am no longer “pro life” because there is no agreement as to the origin or timing of the human soul. We now know that well over 60% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted. If God has created a soul for every collection of undifferentiated cells that he aborts . . . .

    Politically, because most pro-life believers (Catholics excepted) seem to also reject every form of transfer payments e.g. welfare and ADC for single mothers and their children whom 90% (?) will spend the next 20 years living hand to mouth. “If we can’t own slaves, contract for indentured servants . . . we can foster low income workers?”

  • billwald

    That stalls a life of poverty for how many days?

  • This post is not about not being Pro-Life; it is about not being Republican.

  • Alex

    and then the bill comes…

  • Ray Smith

    When I was a child, I loved baseball. I played all the time.

    But I went to a professional game once and the fans were loud and unruly. The umpires often make bad calls. The players make too much money. So I’ve decided to have nothing to do with baseball.

    What a ridiculous argument!

  • Zoe Ambrosine

    Ridiculous arguments go hand in hand with whenever someone mentions the mere phrase “pro-life,” so I wouldn’t be too surprised.

    George Carlin had it right: these pro-brood mare individuals are not actually “pro-life” (nor are they ever pro-science), they’re anti-woman.

  • Zoe Ambrosine

    Way to prove tt right, so quickly. It’s almost ironic.

  • And yet you did nothing to help but expect total strangers to come forward.

  • What’s so ridiculous about making sure a woman about to abort her baby to watch her sonogram before going on with the procedure? An overwhelming majority of them change their minds. And why is that anti woman??

  • Katherine Harms

    In other words, even though you have been reading and hearing Biblical truth all your life, the sinful human nature on display in some people who are pro-life is all it takes to make you move to the other side. In other wirds, you were never pro-life. You were always pro nice people who were pro life, and those nice people could not sustain you when you felt hurt by bad people who were pro life. It is not necessary for the people who support any viewpoint to be perfect in order to be right in their views. I deplore the behavior of the people who upset you. They upset me, too, but their behavior does not change the truth that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being. Right is still right, and wrong is still wrong, no matter who advocates it.

  • I agree the conservatives have totally missed it on the immigration issue especially with pro-life Catholic Mexicans and Central Americans. It is too bad that they are losing pro-life supporters because of their asinine views, focusing on the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law when it comes to immigrants. They have compassion on the unborn but none for the immigrant.

    This is in part why I supported Rubio and none of the hyper conservatives. I also supported John Kasich, but there is little taste for moderation in today’s GOP as with today’s Democratic Party

  • Kimberly Briana Wehr

    Did you miss the part where she said going along with the Republican party wasn’t the only way to be Pro-Life? It’s the Pro-Life movement, as a political entity that she can no longer support, ergo she no longer calls herself Pro-life. The point of the article is not that she abandoned all morals and became pro-choice, rather that she abandoned towing the party line. Rather than be pressed at this woman for noticing a problem and deciding not to just blindly follow behind republicanism, why don’t you focus some of that aggression on fixing the leadership in the party, if you really do abhor their behavior as much as you say.

  • JonathanJennings

    So, I’m confused by the article. Leticia, if you could help me out on two points: Are you pro-choice now? Are you voting for Democrats exclusively?

  • Beth Rogers

    Edward, you attack Marty for name calling and personal attacks, then proceed to call him names and make personal attacks. Odd, when two posts up you called him a crass Conservative. Which is he, a “demoncrap” or a crass Conservative?

  • chezami

    Bravo. Your embrace of a Catholic consistent ethic of life is perfectly sensible and only baffling to people who need to learn to think with the Church.

  • Mark

    blah blah blah nobody is pro-life except me blah blah blah look how virtuous i am blah blah blah

  • She didn’t say any of that. You’re being rude and dismissive. Someone was driven from the pro-life movement due to racism. You think the right thing to do is get defensive?

  • Using the political definition, Pro-Life often requires being republican. One can be pro-life without touching legislation by using voluntary one-on-one approaches rather than one-size fits all government policy. But that’s not what it means politically to be Pro-Life (capitals letters).

  • The Church values the definition of personhood that begins at conception.
    But what does this make identical twins? Half-people? Their personhood obviously begins later than conception, but the Church can’t say when – there is no neat categorical designation for personhood’s beginning after the meeting of sperm and egg. And it is scientifically possible to create a clone – genetically equivalent to an identical twin – out of any cell in the human body, during any stage of that human’s development. The magic of life, if anywhere, is in gestation.

    I’m pro-choice because, even though I accept that an unborn is a human being, I recognize that in the normal course of pregnancy and childbirth a woman endures grievous bodily injury and risks her life. This is so of EVERY pregnancy – hence why women give birth in hospitals. No one should compel a woman to give birth or gestate against her will. That’s a herculean act of strength, will, and love. You can’t righteously mandate heroism. You can only encourage it with due humility.

  • Sorry, but your response lacks real concern for others. You’re arguing a blithe hypothetical that poverty would be no reason for a woman to avoid childbirth (making no mention of her incredible, actual courage in giving birth after several crisis pregnancies), but you take it on faith that legal security translates into medical access. It doesn’t always.

    I have witnessed a hospital turn away a child of 17 who was experiencing intense chest pains and crying because of it. It wasn’t directly a money thing; her mother had kicked her out of the house when she came out as gay and she didn’t have parental permission to receive treatment. Was this correct legally? No, but guess what? You can’t make doctors follow the law in an emergency, and if you’re poor and young and non-white, doctors might see you as a liability. Good luck finding the time or resources to pursue justice after the fact. There is a reason infant mortality rates are so much higher for American women of color than they are for America’s white women. It’s racism.

  • You have no idea what the circumstances of her life or her choices were, but way to demonstrate your willingness to judge, dismiss and use low-key racism against an individual who doesn’t conform to your institutional ideals.

    The reason she had crisis pregnancies is because America hates women, people of color and poor people. Since you assume Catholics follow the church’s teachings on birth control, you must have been raised atheist, white and privileged. Blame yourself for judging and leaving her chronically alone in crisis. Or don’t blame anyone, stop making this about your political views, and hear what she has to say, as a person.

  • Want some attention to go with that entitlement?

  • Paul Hoffer

    With all due respect, all I see in your article is a lack of critical thinking that is replaced with vapid, politically correct, pharisaic claptrap. I read your article about why you are eschewing the pro-life movement and I must wonder, what exactly is your complaint? You do not like Messrs. Trump and Cruz, so what? I do not like everything they say either but that doesn’t cause me to stop being pro-life. Are you telling us that there is not a single thing that they have said or advocated that can be reconciled or is not contrary to what the Church teaches? If you were truly being consistent with the ethic of life as some claim, then it would have been better to say something along the line of, “I agree with the following positions of Messrs. Trump and Cruz that concur witht he pro-life teachings of the Church but this is how these gentlemen could be more pro-life… or how their positions fall short of Catholic teaching… .” Are you suggesting here that the statements of Trump and Cruz on health care and illegal immigration are so repugnant and antithetical to Catholic teaching that no Catholic in good faith could in any circumstance support them or vote for them? Or that Catholics who do are less pro-life than you? To paraphrase Pope Francis, “Who are you to judge?” Or like so many bigots on the left, is it okay to judge and be less tolerant of others when they happen to disagree with your worldview?

    If so, please share with us why you believe what they say is inconsistent with what the Catholic Church teaches. Or better yet, why not tell us what they actually said that has caused you to eschew the label of “pro-life” so we can determine the validity for ourselves of your opinion. There sure is nothing like a quote or two to provide context so we weigh your claims and form our own opinions accordingly or are we supposed to accept your opinion because you got the imprimatur of Mark Shea? Frankly, your article reads more a letter to the editor than an actual argument.

    Here is a novel thought~why not present a genuine argument to persuade us that your position is something more than your opinion. How about a citation to a magisterial document or to the Catechism to show that you actually have a valid argument ?

    Example: health care. CCC 2288 states” Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.” This teaching follows what Pope Leo XIII said in Rerum Novarum and Pope Saint John XXII said in Pacem in Terris and the American Bishops themselves state their pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All” (1986): nn. 86, 90, 103, 191, 212, 230, 247, and 286.
    As Bishop Murphy wrote elsewhere: “The Catholic bishops continue to work for health care that is accessible, affordable and respects the life and dignity of every human being from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.”

    As Catholics, we all agree with these ideals and teachings. Where people of good faith can disagree is how such ideals and teachings be put into practice. If I believe that AHCA might better achieve those ideals than the ACA that is currently in place, should I be excoriated and called names by the likes of Mark Shea or would it be more charitable and appropriate for you to give an explanation on what you think is better and why what Mr. Trump or Cruz or anyone else believes is less in line than with Catholic teaching than Obamacare? You made this big proclamation that you are no longer “pro-life” and point fingers at folks but you do not bother to provide the details what it is exactly that is so off-putting. I guess we are supposed to assume that because Trump uttered it or Cruz said it, it is automatically evil and anyone who agrees with them must be bad and denounced. And we never hear from Nellie naysayers such as yourself what exactly you find fault with. Since you and folks like Mr. Shea are so much smarter than the rest of us “fake” Catholics, why not pontificate from your throne on high and share with us what your government-run health insurance plan would look like, how you propose that we as a society should pay for it, and how and how you propose to compel people to abide by it that is constitutional, so we all can bask in your luminosity and marvel at your supernatural wisdom? Or if you don’t want to share, at least write your congreeman and tell them. And since you are picking on Republicans exclusively here, do you really believe that Obama’s ACA isthe only way to implement Catholic teaching or is it possible that after seeing the ACA fail so badly by making health care less accessible, less affordable and forces people to pay for abortions and contraceptives and other procedures that are not necessary healthcare, that folks think that the AHCA better achieves Catholic teaching by letting people make their own choices what they want their health care to be? If so, why? I would suggest to you that in our entitlement society, the notion of what constitutes a “right” is far different than the natural law notion of what a right is. It has been my experience as an attorney for 34 years that a “civil right” is no right at all because such are premised not on God given rights that respec the life and dignity of the individual or family, but a license that the government can arbitrarily define to fit whatever ideology that is the flavor of the day in Washington or other centers of power.

    Example: immigration. Do enlighten us poor, deluded peons who actually believe that abortion is more evil than deporting illegal aliens who rape, murder and sell drugs are wrong headed in our thinking. Tell us what your immigration plan would look like? How do you propose to make the system better? You do realize that Mr. Trump has only ever suggested that we actually follow the laws that are on the books as opposed to picking and choosing what parts of the law one likes, right? Here is a modest proposal: Instead of breaking our laws or selectively and arbitrarily enforce them, why not ask your legislators to change it Why be an antinomian? For that matter, has it ever occurred to you that the only reason that many in the Democrat party want open borders immigration is because they need to replace the 53,000,000 unborn voters they have slaughtered on the altar of Moloch? Why do you think they want to give citizenship to illegal immigrants when less than a decade ago they were just adamantly opposed to illegal immigration as Republicans?

    And since this is Patheos and is supposed to discuss CAtholic teaching, here is the what the Catholic Church teaches on immigration:

    CCC 2241

    “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

    Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”
    In light of the above, please enlighten us how you think that Trump or Cruz’ positions on immigration are any less moral than Obama’s or the Democrat’s policies? Could our laws that are one the books (which is all that Trump and Cruz are actually advocating be enforced) be made better? I am sure that they could and I have advocated for such myself. Are you seriously suggesting that the positions of Trump and Cruz on immigration (do you even know what they are or are you only going by what someone told you they are?) so intrinsically evil or immoral that such should cause one to turn their back on being “pro-life?”
    My bottom line is this: I acknowledge that your opinions, are just that, opinions unsupported by reasoned argument or evidence. Implying that people aren’t pro-life if they support any policy positions advanced by Trump or the Republican party is not an argument at all; it is defamation. And more importantly here, it does not persuade nor does it convince me to change any of my views or beliefs. Your opinion is nothing more than another voice lost in the cacophony of chattering monkeys throwing poo at others rather than engaging in real discourse.

  • Laura

    You’ve identified where a lot of people are moving: a consistent life ethic. The pro-life movement began as an anti-abortion movement, and those are not synonymous. Some still cling to that mindset. But I am so heartened to see more people embracing this whole-life approach (which is completely Catholic, though the ethical positions are also embraced by some of our atheist and secular counterparts). I AM pro-life, but I am pro all lives, not just the preborn. I don’t expect anyone to believe my position unless I live that out. I’m sorry you’ve seen some nastiness, Leticia, sadly every movement has that. But I’m glad to know we share the same Catholic pro all life perspective. Thanks for putting it to words!

  • Ethan

    Triggered much? At least pretend to repsect people you disagree with. Your response is flagrantly uncharitable and unchristian. You owe her an apology.

  • Tom G

    Boring comment Paul. And totally unconvincing. Got anything original to say?

  • Tom G

    What evidence from the article leads you to believe that Ms. Adams is pro-choice now? What leads you to believe that she is voting for Democrats exclusively?

  • Paul Hoffer

    Tom G., Thank you for interacting with my comment. While you claim that it was boring, apparently you found it interesting enough to interact with it. That is saying something.

    You stated that the comment was totally unconvincing, but you didn’t indicate why. I appreciate constructive criticism so I hope you will share. After all, that was my principal complaint about the author’s article.

    You asked me if I have anything original to say. If your complaint is that my criticism about the author’s article was not original in that others said the same thing, then I would suggest that the problem is not with my comment, but with the author’s article, that it would cause a variety of people to interact with it in a similar manner. If you are suggesting that the manner of my argumentation was not original. I am guilty. Aristotle and lots of other folks invented dialectic argument long before I came into this world. I merely used it to point out flaws in the author’s rendering of her grievance with folks in the pro-life movement. Since the aim of my argument was to inquiry, there is little wonder you found it to be unconvincing since that was not my aim of argument. Believe me, if the aim of my argument was to convince, I would have attacked the apparent enthymematic premise of her opinion piece, that many conservative folks’ do not deserve to be called pro-life because they do not share or vocalize the same priorities espoused in the progressive interpretation of the seamless garment view of the Catholic teaching on consistent ethic on life. BTW, I reject the progressive view of what the seamless garment should look like because the liberal view only takes into account the warp and weft of the garment, and not the fact that folks are free in the Catholic tradition to choose to have their garment woven in different styles and colors as well. While Catholics must accept and practice a consistent ethic of life in how we live, we are not at all required to accept that there there is only a certain way to achieve such or that people are not permitted to vocalize or emphasize certain aspects of living that ethic. As Cardinal Bernardin stated in a speech given in St. Louis:

    “A consistent ethic of life does not equate the problem of taking life (e.g., through abortion and in war) with the problem of promoting human dignity (through humane programs of nutrition, health care, and housing). But a consistent ethic identifies both the protection of life and its promotion as moral questions. It argues for a continuum of life which must be sustained in the face of diverse and distinct threats.

    A consistent ethic does not say everyone in the Church must do all things, but it does say that as individuals and groups pursue one issue, whether it is opposing abortion or capital punishment, the way we oppose one threat should be related to support for a systemic vision of life. It is not necessary or possible for every person to engage in each issue, but it is both possible and necessary for the Church as a whole to cultivate a conscious explicit connection among the several issues. And it is very necessary for preserving a systemic vision that individuals and groups who seek to witness to life at one point of the spectrum of life not be seen as insensitive to or even opposed to other moral claims on the overall spectrum of life. Consistency does rule out contradictory moral positions about the unique value of human life. No one is called to do everything, but each of us can do something. And we can strive not to stand against each other when the protection and the promotion of life are at stake.” See, http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bernardinwade.html .


  • JonathanJennings

    Snarky response: See article’s title.

    Actual response: Her article suggests that she has foresworn the Republican party, which narrows things down a bit. Given that the vast majority of non-Repubs are Democrat and pro-choice, it’s a plausible conclusion. However, I did not say that she definitely is voting / acting in these ways, because the article only *suggests* as much, which is why I was hoping the OP would chime in with a follow up to help my confusion.

  • sancho

    Leticia, you actually are pro-life, it’s the Republicans you left behind who aren’t. Viva Nuestra Virgen de Guadalupe! Viva Cristo Rey!

  • chezami

    The voice of the anti-abortion-but-not-prolife right wing culture warrior when his political commitments are exposed as more important than the unborn or the Faith.

  • Mark

    The voice of the privileged self-righteous hipster who thinks his leftist political views are synonymous with the Catholic faith and anyone who disagrees in any way is an apostate.

  • Tom G

    Meh. My response wasn’t really long enough to actually contradict my claim that your comment was also boring. And since you’ve admitted that your goal was not to convince anyone of anything, the obvious conclusion to be drawn is that you are little more than a troll.

  • Tom G

    Snarky response: The title was, to quote Mark Shea, “mildly paradoxical language”.

    Actual response: Upon reading the article in its entirety, you should come away with the answers to your questions. The fact that you still have the questions you ask means you either didn’t read the entire article or you kinda want her to come back to the bull-crap definition of “pro-life” that others are still suckers for.

  • Tom G

    Stop your crying you big baby. If a bishop hasn’t declared you an apostate, then you have nothing to cry about. Quit your whining.

  • JonathanJennings

    Snarky response: There’s the elitism I’ve come to expect at Patheos. Was beginning to feel like we might have a real conversation.

    Actual response: I get that she’s Catholic as identity instead of ‘Pro-Life’ in some cookie-cutter sense. The question is one of practicality. It’s nice to talk about being Catholic in an abstract sense, but eventually you have to *do things*, like vote. Does this mean she is going to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if said candidate is good on immigration & the death penalty?
    I’ll put it to you Tom: what would you do in that situation? How do you weigh the balance of life issues? Are some more important than others in your voting, your charitable giving of time/money, your willingness to wade into the debate?

  • Paul Hoffer

    Name calling is not discourse. A troll is someone who merely seeks to cause discord through making inflammatory remarks or making irrelevant comments, much like yours. I asked the author to provide an explanation for her opinion so I could understand her reasoning why she believed the way she did and pointed out why I thought her reasoning was not sufficient. There are more than one aim of argument and I explained to you that the aim of my original comment was not to convince but to inquire. Not only is your meh and name calling more in line with trollish behavior that you accused me of (which is hypocritical), it is uncharitable. If you are going to comment on a Catholic blog, at least you should act accordingly.

  • Tom G

    Your feelings are also not discourse. When Christ referred to the Pharisees as “whited sepulchers”, was what He said ok because He wasn’t engaged in “discourse” at the time? Stop crying about your feelings. I’m as Catholic as you are; I’ll act as I believe I should. If you have some Church teaching to point to that makes it clear my comments are “uncharitable”, then I will consider them.

    If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. Otherwise, stop whining. Your feelings are not the issue here.

  • Tom G

    I’m not the one who opened the door to “snarky response[s]” though, am I Jonathan? That was your move. And now your crying “elitism”? C’mon now. Don’t project.

    Does this mean she is going to vote for a pro-abortion candidate if said candidate is good on immigration & the death penalty? I’ll put it to you Tom: what would you do in that situation?

    Pope Benedict XVI (while a cardinal) stated the following: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

    I would not share your hypothetical candidate’s stand on abortion; thus if I did vote for your hypothetical candidate, it would be “remote material cooperation” (at least according to then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger). Since we are currently facing the greatest displacement of peoples on Earth since World War II, a more welcoming immigration policy (as well as opposition to the death penalty) is a proportionate reason to vote for your hypothetical candidate.

    There is more present in the OP, though, than your voting questions. The pro-life movement has become monomaniacal. Opposition to welfare is what that “movement” spends most of its energy on now, so it’s ok to describe oneself as “no longer pro-life”.

  • Mark

    Someone’s triggered. Last I checked this is the same website where people are anathematized for thinking that the Paris climate agreement isn’t dogma.

  • Tom G

    Haha nah man, I’m fine :-D You’re saying people have been declared cursed for thinking that the Paris climate agreement isn’t dogma? Where did this blogger say that?

  • Mark

    Not here specifically, but this sort of crap is all over Patheos and the self-appointed magisteriums in the comments.

  • Tom G

    Bear your burden of proof then. As the accuser, it’s your job to demonstrate the guilt of those you accuse. Show me where, and I’ll consider it.

  • JonathanJennings

    So it’s cool to murder babies if it means being more welcoming to immigrants? That’s a good trade?

  • Tom G

    So you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI? You consider him incorrect in his stated principle?

    And who is saying “it’s cool to murder babies”?

  • JonathanJennings

    “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

    The key phrase here is, “in the presence of proportionate reasons.” Not sure we agree that helping immigrants is proportionate enough to justify electing someone who will block pro-life legislation, nominate pro-choice judges (not just supremes), and generally allow the murderous status quo. Benedict XVI is correct in his stated principle; your application of the principle is erroneous.

    I firmly believe that 100 years from now, the history books will judge us harshly for our insane and horrific decision to allow abortion. Our immigration policies? Not so much.

  • Tom G

    That’s fine to firmly believe that. I’m not saying we agree. But your reasoning is (obviously) that abortion trumps all other considerations. You apply the principle as “abortion trumps all things – no immigration issue could possibly outweigh abortion being made illegal through supreme court and other appellate court appointments”. I’d love to hear how you think that “application of the principle is” not erroneous.

    But Christ doesn’t discount immigration like you do. Not welcoming the stranger is cause for an eternal sentence the same as not feeding the hungry.

    Reasonable people can disagree. But those who are “pro-life” only insofar as they oppose abortion while supporting other monstrous policies are unreasonable on their face and, as others have stated, monomaniacal.

  • JonathanJennings

    I want you to understand something about me and my family: we welcome the immigrant. Me and my extended family have been helping immigrant families for years and it is a call we take seriously. Your last paragraph there doesn’t get us at all; far from monomaniacally opposing abortion, we oppose abortion in line with the bigger call of the Gospel, not the other way ’round.

    All that being stated, what I’m really getting at is a question of how we engage politically *over and above* how we live the Gospel call. In that light, there is no bigger issue than abortion, period. It’s the equivalent of the Holocaust several times over. No other social issue can hold a candle to it politically, and if I have to put my limited efforts somewhere when it comes to politics, that’s where I’ll put it. My first choice is always direct action in my limited sphere, but when politics asks me to make hard choices about the larger sphere of American public life, and I have to choose between candidates who don’t espouse all of the Gospel of Life, ending abortion wins.

  • Tom G

    What is “the other way ’round” of “oppos[ing] abortion in line with the bigger call of the Gospel”? I don’t follow how to read that claim “the other way ’round”. You support the bigger call of the Gospel, but oppose abortion? I don’t understand what you’re talking about here.

    Let us imagine a world where I take you at your word that “[you] and [your] family…welcome the immigrant.” Fine. Let us consider an entirely hypothetical candidate who (1) claims to oppose abortion, (2) promises to appoint only anti-abortion justices, (3) promises to support religious freedom, (4) promises to oppose encroachment upon the religious freedoms of business people, (5) paints immigrants from particular countries and/or religious traditions as terrorists and rapists, (6) promises to build a wall along one border, (7) promises to eliminate a law (a) mandating health coverage for all, (b) prohibiting non-coverage for pre-existing conditions, and (c) mandating that all health insurance plans cover certain necessary procedures and preventative cares, (8) promises to cut government social safety nets for the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and children, (9) mocks disabled people, (10) refers to his sexual conquests while on deferment from the draft as his “personal Vietnam”, (11) is on his third marriage, and (12) promises to make our nation’s laws (both via enforcement and legislation) less welcoming to the stranger.

    Since “abortion wins” whenever every candidate doesn’t espouse all of the Gospel of Life, you must always vote for the above-described hypothetical candidate, yes? And despite all of the above potentially “proportionate reasons”, abortion is the Holocaust and therefore you must always vote for the candidate who asserts that he or she is anti-abortion. Correct?

    Under the logic of your reasoning, there are never proportionate reasons to vote for a “pro-choice” candidate over an anti-abortion candidate, even where one rejects the “pro-choice” candidate’s stance on abortion.

    You say the question turns on “the presence of proportional reasons”, but the logic of your own position is that no proportional reasons could ever exist to justify voting for the “pro-choice” candidate.

    Essentially, you disagree with Pope Benedict XVI, do you not?

  • JonathanJennings

    Nah. I agree with Pope Benedict. I just think you’re in error regarding proportionate reasons. They exist, but yours aren’t proportionate.

    Relax dude.

  • Tom G

    Lol ok dude. Considering I’m being told to relax by the guy who said I was cool with murdering babies in exchange for welcoming immigrants, I’ll take that with a grain of salt.

    Truly you have a dizzying intellect. You might be one of the smartest people I’ve ever encountered ever.

    What proportionate reasons exist? Give me some examples.

  • JonathanJennings

    From Google Dictionary:

    Proportionate: “corresponding in size or amount to something else.”

    If abortion is a small factor in a country, and immigration is a crisis on a huge scale, that would be proportionate. Just as an example: you’ve got legal abortion, but we’re talking hundreds or thousands of abortions a year. Simultaneously, let’s say you have a million people dying each year in a civil war, right over your border, but the law refuses to let in refugees. Definitely an example of proportionate reasons. An extreme example, but it gets the point across.

    We currently abort more children per year in the US than all the deaths in the Syrian Civil War has produced since 2011.

    Not proportionate.

  • Tom G

    So it’s a mathematical equation. Got it. I disagree. By your logic, we should only focus on letting in refugees over and above monomaniacally insisting on SCOTUS nominees if the refugees are coming from a place where more people are being murdered than people being aborted.

    Nonsense. And the Church doesn’t think that way either. The Church does not reduce it to a math problem like you do. And illegality does not eliminate abortion. By their fruits you shall know them. The GOP is rife with wicked policies and contempt for the poor (whom Christ favors). The vast majority of women who seek abortions are poor, abused, or both. Illegality will not free such women from the bonds of poverty and abuse they face. Should abortion be illegal? Yes. Will focus on SCOTUS nominees accomplish that? Hasn’t so far. Republicans have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House many times over. Nothing.

    And you disagree with Pope Francis, yes? His focus has unquestionably been on migration, not abortion (although he of course refers to abortion as an evil).

  • JonathanJennings

    It’s not just math, but math does play a role, hence the use of the world ‘proportionate’. BXVI chooses his words carefully and intentionally; it’s one of the things he’s known for.

    You could also conceive of proportionate as meaning the gravity of the potential evil to be carried out. Again, raw numbers aside, abortion would trump the suffering of immigrants. Not saying that to be mean, it’s just that I think we can agree the murdering of an unborn child is one of the most evil things we humans can do (and not just to the child, but to the mother and father of the child as well).

    I don’t disagree with Francis, either. He focuses on immigration, but saying that he speaks more on immigration isn’t an argument for it being a graver moral issue. It’s just what the Holy Spirit has called him to talk about; he answers that call, which is awesome.

  • Tom G

    I added more. Sorry.

  • Tom G

    Abortion does not trump the suffering of migrants. Murdering an unborn child is one of the most evil things a human can do, but according to Christ, failing to welcome the stranger is worthy of eternal damnation too, so your argument doesn’t hold under Our Lord’s own words.

    In a vacuum, immigration isn’t a graver moral issue than abortion. But in our current time, it’s worth more consideration than the word of a con-man who suddenly claims to be pro-life. “Proportionate reasons” can also include the obvious dishonesty of the “pro-life” candidate. Once that’s included in the calculus, immigration and opposition to the death penalty obviously are proportionately more important than your precious SCOTUS nominees (who have never delivered the goods).

  • JonathanJennings

    “…failing to welcome the stranger is worthy of eternal damnation too, so your argument doesn’t hold under Our Lord’s own words.” That’s why my family has worked hard to welcome the stranger. (We also help and support crisis pregnancy centers, lest you ask that as a follow-up.) However, *politically speaking*, it is more important to end abortion than to change immigration laws.

    It’s not just about SCOTUS btw. That’s a small, almost insignificant piece in a much bigger puzzle, at least at this stage. Honestly, most of the work to end abortion isn’t done by laws and judges; it’s local centers that drive out abortion clinics by offering real, better options to families. Dry up the demand and supply diminishes. The best way to support such work, politically, is to prevent the creation of laws that hamstring them or make an already unfair fight worse (ie, funding planned parenthood). There’s no magic unicorn politician that is going to end abortion, but the pieces of the puzzle needed to end it need our political support. Read up on the work and political life of William Wilberforce for good examples of why this is so.

    We can do both by the way – welcome the immigrant and work to end abortion. Let’s stay focused on that.

  • Tom G

    I’m not discussing your family. I’m talking about the Original Post, which was about someone no longer considering themselves “pro-life”. And I don’t agree that “*politically speaking*, it is more important to end abortion than to change immigration laws.”

    Working to end abortion does not stop with drying up demand only via local centers (I assume you mean “crisis pregnancy centers”). Government-sponsored social safety nets play a huge role in reducing abortion demand. Since the “pro-life” GOP holds no quarter for government-sponsored social safety nets, the idea that they are actually “pro-life” is an obviously untrue one. If SCOTUS is a “small, almost insignificant piece in a much bigger puzzle”, then you should be abandoning the GOP completely. Because that is the only sense in which their party even comes close to overlapping the concept of “pro-life”, let alone being worthy of the descriptor.

  • JonathanJennings

    Politically speaking, abortion trumps immigration from a moral perspective. Maybe not from a pragmatic perspective, but certainly from a moral one.

    Government benefits probably don’t reduce abortion like you think they do. There are unintended consequences to larger public safety nets. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383417/would-more-generous-welfare-benefits-reduce-abortion-rate-michael-j-new


    That being said, I am hugely in favor of private safety nets that actually accompany women in a real and fruitful way, offering love and support in addition to real financial/material assistance.

    I think you are mistaken as to the role of government and what can be accomplished. It’s important to keep the two pillars of Catholic Social Teaching, subsidiarity and solidarity, in balance with each other, even though solidarity has most the stronger emotional claims on us.

  • It’s funny in a sad way how you both simultaneously claim to be morally offended by the article and yet at the same time lace things with meaningless personal attacks to the author– “chattering monkeys”, “bigot”, “throwing poo”, etc.

  • JonathanJennings

    Politically speaking, ending the murder of unborn children is pretty much the issue of our time. It’s legalization and promotion through government causes more death than slavery, than civil rights, than immigration and refugee issues in all their forms. How could this not be the key political issue of the day?

    Also, this – “Government-sponsored social safety nets play a huge role in reducing abortion demand.” – is false. https://www.hli.org/resources/does-welfare-reduce-abortion/

    I’m going to assume you have voted in the past for pro-choice candidates. Is this true? Just trying to understand your perspective.

  • Tom G

    “Politically” and “pragmatically” are not practically distinct.

    “Probably don’t reduce abortion” is not enough to convince me. And it shouldn’t be enough to convince you. In addition, the referenced National Review article is entitled Would More Generous Welfare Benefits Reduce the Abortion Rate, which is a title that purports to predict the future. The HLI article is badly written, with specious reasoning throughout. Do you have actual data? If so, I’ll consider it. The articles you cited aren’t even correlational.

    Government social safety nets do accompany women in a real and fruitful way, and they offer love and support in addition to real financial/material assistance. Government is run by people. It’s not a robot.

    There is a plethora of obvious Catholic Social Teaching in support of government benefits. I’m very familiar with “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” as pillars or otherwise. The US doesn’t have a subsidiarity problem. We have a solidarity problem. The concept is almost completely ignored by the so-called “pro-lifers” of our time. There isn’t any “balance”. Solidarity is ignored by America’s “pro-lifers”.

  • JonathanJennings

    Weird, the comments are getting out of order for me. It didn’t show an earlier comment, but now it shows the 1st and 2nd versions (tried to remember what I had said.) Well, we can move on from here I think.

  • Tom G

    HLI is a bad source. And the article you cite here is totally specious. Reduced abortion in the 1990s can’t be connected to government benefits because of 1996 welfare reform? Awful reasoning, barely supported.

    You first paragraph is nothing but conclusory statements. Sure, legalization and government promotion leads to some use of abortion. But it isn’t the sole cause. And I don’t think it’s the root cause. Should abortion be illegal? Yes. But I’m not going to only chase after making it illegal. Sounds like you wish to. I shan’t join you.

    What does knowing my voting history have to do with “trying to understand [my] perspective”?

  • JonathanJennings

    Solidarity is not ignored by pro-lifers. You’re using a ‘reverse no true scotsman’ logical fallacy; maybe a straw man? The people I know are committed to solidarity, especially solidarity with the most vulnerable.

    Maybe you’re misunderstanding me: I think we should do everything we can to help welcome the stranger. I just don’t think it’s so important that we can push aside *the* pro-life issue of our day. We’re Catholic: both/and, not either/or.

    Maybe you’re disillusioned by the broken promises of pro-life groups? Their lack of progress? Sure, that’s more than fair. I’m just not going to give up on the babies b/c the adults are stupid.

  • JonathanJennings

    How you vote tells me what you believe is worth standing behind.

    I’m not chasing its illegality, but it’s worth fighting for politically. Mostly I’m in favor of ‘pro-life’ candidates because, thouse most of them lack the spine to abolish abortion, they stay out of the way of groups that will end it through subsidiary local work. It’s a matter of perspective on what can be accomplished.

    If you try to eat the elephant in one bite, you’ll choke. But I at least want politicians that will let us chomp away at it, one bite at a time.

  • Tom G

    You first. Tell me your entire voting history.

  • JonathanJennings

    Sure, I tend to vote for conservatives/Republicans (not always the same thing), mixing in local and national Democrats who share my values.

  • Tom G

    Examples of each.

  • JonathanJennings

    Your turn.

  • Tom G

    I decline. Your claim does not ring true in the least.

  • JonathanJennings

    Yeah, knew that’s where this was going. You were never going to share your voting record, even in the abstract.

  • Tom G

    Yeah, because you’re trying to use it as some sort of bullshit diagnostic tool. Your claim to vote for both parties rings false. Unless you can give me specifics. We’ll diagnose you first. Then perhaps we can diagnose me.

  • JonathanJennings

    It rings false because you don’t believe I exist; or rather, don’t want to believe that I do. I’m not going to give you specifics b/c it would reveal where I live. We’re talking state senators, but also local mayoral and school board candidates. If that’s a deal-breaker for you continuing, that’s fine.

    Maybe we can make it more general: did you vote Hillary, Trump, third party, or abstain?

  • Nate Winchester

    Given your general mistakes and falsehoods, it would seem “think with the Church” is more an excuse to not think at all.

  • Tom G

    You first. And your diagnosis is already wrong. I don’t care where you live or whether you’re real or not.

  • JonathanJennings

    Well you’re not very nice! Rather a sourpuss really. Have a kitten, you’ll feel better as you contemplate your riposte. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cd3936e7d9bd9e3e6a39fc979accef34fe4b6f7ae353c4cc5742ba9926f532cf.jpg

  • Tom G

    Meh. Lame.

  • Jasper

    u frequent mark shea’s blog. don’t talk about uncharitable and unchristian

  • Clayton Gafne Jaymes

    No there is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘good life’ outside of the only true God whose name is Jehovah. (Psalm 83:18)

    The whole of what is ‘good’ outside of God being the Sovereign Moral Law giver is a matter of personal opinion and personal value. As it is, ppl like Joseph Stalin (the atheist ruler of communist Russia) and Adolf Hitler (atheist though some like to deny this truth) both lived a wicked life are (responsible for the deaths of multiple millions of lives) as most would say. But to them, do you think they thought they were living a wicked or good life without God?

    many of you already know the darkness of your own heart. Have you truly considered how much that actually influences ou of the ‘bad’ and you mistake for good by the false reasoning and justifications you make perhaps because of other ones listening to the darkness of their own hearts who think they are doing what is good?
    The rest of you who aren’t aware of the darkness of the heart wihin you are definitely deceived and should take the tie to do some deep inner self reflection.

  • bUnni0n

    Wow, what a fine response Tom.

  • onlein

    There is pro-life and there is pro-life. The first is for law change, legal measures to control or force a women into carrying a pregnancy through to delivery no matter what–even in situations where both the woman and the unborn will die if nothing is done and the woman would be saved if the pregnancy is terminated. The second is to support and encourage the woman so that she feels able to bring a child into the world. The first is Caesar’s way. The second is Jesus’ way. The first is also for cutting government programs designed to help a woman carry a pregnancy through to delivery. The second is for increasing these programs, following the example of Jesus’ immediate followers who pooled their resources, even selling their homes to do so, to meet needs of the unfortunate before satisfying their own wants.
    I am pro-life of the second kind, pro-life and pro-choice.

  • sfgreg

    Leticia, you make a false equivalency between intrinsic evil and prudential issues for which there can be disagreement. Also, if you support a party or candidate that advocates an intrinsic evil, you are formally complicit in that evil. I will pray for you as your soul is in peril.

  • Donny J

    I am so sick of people playing the poor me Hispanic card. Sorry but people aren’t buying it anymore, decades and decades of corrupt hispanic leaders and the people flee to white countries to make a life. The pro life movement has nothing to do with Trump.

  • Martha Arenas

    “To focus on the evil of deliberate killing in abortion and euthanasia is not to ignore the many other urgent conditions that demean human dignity and threaten human rights. Opposing abortion and euthanasia ‘does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care’ (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23). We pray that Catholics will be advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all these areas. “But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community” (Living the Gospel of Life, no. 23). From the USCCB website

  • Clint Couch

    Perhaps I misread the subtext of Leticia’s article but I did not gather that she is now pro-abortion. I don’t even see where she is now a Democrat. It seems that she is only saying (very eloquently) that she no longer supports the Republican’s version of “Pro-Life” because that cause is fraudulent. She supports the protection and nurturing of all life from conception to natural death. God bless her!

  • You cannot be Catholic or a Christian of any kind if you are not against the murder of the most innocent and helpless of society. Eternity is a long time to spend separated from God’s grace.

  • Helen Westover

    Since you “No longer pro-life” shows that you were Never pro-life. You now embrace the flabby and cowardly “Seamless garment” approach. it is clear that you never have been. the SG position is flabby, cowardly way to join the “in crowd” who call themselves pro-life but don’t give a damn about the dismemberment and slaughter of our people..
    It sure gives y0u great cover, so you won’t be numbered as one of “those people”.
    Welcome to the PC “in Crowd”!

  • I have a hard time understanding a pro-life person who’s focused on Roe v. Wade rather than on the actual problem: unwanted pregnancies.

    My suggestion: work with the pro-choice crowd to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Find out why US statistics on unwanted pregnancies and abortions are so high compared to other countries and let’s adopt the policies of those countries who are doing it so much better.

  • louisquinze

    And who are you to decide for G-D? Don’t you think G-D is capable of making that decision? Do stop being so —– self-righteous.

  • You mean accept the murder of the innocent, the voiceless, and the powerless? That’s making a deal with the devil. Never. The Republican Party may not be perfect but they have reduced the means to abortions, the means to the slaughter.

    You want to know why your argument is full of crap? Because Europe has way more entitlements and their abortion rate is the same. Women abort not because there isn’t public assistance. They abort because they don’t want their lives altered by a baby.

  • Here’s why the whole seamless garment argument is a complete fraud.

  • I’m telling you how to reduce abortions. Isn’t that your goal?

    Tip: the status quo isn’t the way. Reduce abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies. Here’s how to reduce abortions by 90%:

  • Phil

    What I don’t get is that only 25% of conceptions make it to birth. Your god is aborting the rest. That is over one million a day worldwide. Shouldn’t you be venting your spleen on your god to stop this slaughter of babies. Or is your god really got a deal with the devil as you put it?

  • Phil

    Only 25% of conceptions make it to birth. Your god is aborting the rest. That is over one million a day worldwide. Shouldn’t you be venting your spleen on your god to stop this slaughter of babies.

  • Phil

    Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.

    Adolph Hitler, 26 April 1933.
    Speech to mark the concordat between
    the Third Reich and the Vatican

  • Yeah and 100% of people die. First of all I don’t even know that to be true but even if it is it’s irrelvant. That comment is so idiotic it just shows the level of religious education. God has loving plans for all human beings.

  • We have free birth control and entitlements up the gazoo and still there are a million abortions per year. Like I said above Europe has even more and still they have the same abortions. Women mostly have abortions because they don’t want their lives to change. Birth controls have only made abortions more prevalent.

    But let’s entertain your thought, reducing abortions. What would you think if Hitler said this year I’m going to reduce the number of Jews I’m going to kill? Would that be acceptable? I would hope you would say no. The killing of one fetus is murder, a grave sin, and unacceptable. It just goes to show you don’t see the human being inside the womb. To objective is not to reduce but to stop completely.

  • Why bring up the subject of money and entitlements?

    But let’s entertain your thought, reducing abortions.

    Uh … isn’t reducing abortions your goal? I thought you were saying that abortions are very, very bad and that we should reduce them.

    So how should we do that? We’ve tried abstinence-only, and it doesn’t work. The incidence in the US is 2 times higher (Netherlands, Finland) or even 3 times higher (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany) than some countries in Western Europe, so whatever we’re doing isn’t the best approach. If you care about reducing abortions, shouldn’t we improve our policy so that we do?

  • I had a feeling you would bring that up. You are deceived by incomplete statistics. Those countries allow abortions only up to 20 weeks. In fact a few of those countries allow abortion only up to 12 weeks. The US is only one of seven countries in the entire world that allows abortions for the full nine months. For the same length of gestation, the abortion rates are roughly the same.

    And no, the objective is to END this heinous slaughter. As I said would you accept Hitker proclaiming we will reduce the killing of Jews this year. You fail to answer.

  • “unsubscribe”

  • the objective is to END this heinous slaughter.

    Oh? And how do you propose to do that? So far, it looks like you’re failing.

    And I’m still wondering why you didn’t pursue the approach that claims to be able to reduce abortion by 90%. The status quo sure ain’t getting you there. Y’know, it’s almost like abortion is just a political rallying point, and conservative leaders don’t actually want to make progress on it. I’m at a loss to find another explanation for the persistent use of failed methods.

  • If you think there is a way to reduce abortions by 90% without making abortions illegal, then you’re either naive or delusional. Make any doctor who performs an abortion subject to murder under the law and maybe you reduce abortions by 90%. Would you agree to that?

    Again you refuse to answer the question. Would it have been a positive if Hitler declared he was reducing the number of Jews he was killing in any particular year?

  • One other thing as to the politics. It’s a rallying cry for Republicans and not for Democrats? Are you kidding me? There are more pro-abortion Republicans than Pro-life Democrats. You are practically thrown out of the party if you’re pro-life Democrat. Your political outrage is highly selective. What’s getting your goat today is that pro-lifers finally have the political advantage. And so you whine.

  • BTW, let me just toss out that Christian love just oozes from your comments. Thanks—that does make discussing a difficult topic easier.

    If you think there is a way to reduce abortions by 90% without making abortions illegal, then you’re either naive or delusional.

    If you think that making abortion illegal will reduce abortions by 90% or more, then you’re either naïve or delusional. Though stats are hard to come by, the per capita rate of abortion before Roe was arguably greater than it is today. Additionally, if you look at countries where abortion is illegal today, you find that their per capita rate is also greater than in the US.

    Make any doctor who performs an abortion subject to murder under the law and maybe you reduce abortions by 90%. Would you agree to that?


    As an aside, you do realize that close to half of abortions in the US are chemical, not surgical, right?

    Again you refuse to answer the question.

    Because it’s off topic.

    Would it have been a positive if Hitler declared he was reducing the number of Jews he was killing in any particular year?

    So an adult Jew is equal to a single fertilized egg cell? If you want to make that equivalence, go ahead. I don’t, and I’d rather you didn’t impose your belief on me by law.

  • You’re right–it’s a rallying point on the left as well as the right.

    But just a comment on the implied symmetry: you can do whatever you want in a pro-choice world. You think that it’s a baby at day 1? Sure–knock yourself out. No one cares. But you’re constrained in a pro-life world. Not the same.

  • They are both human beings at varying stages of development.

  • I have no idea what that means. You want rationalize your side go ahead. This conversation is over.

  • Phil

    So tell me why it is idiotic? “Yeah and 100% of people die” is idiotic as it has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you should know what you are talking about before you pass judgement. 75% of fertilised eggs do not make it to birth. They are naturally aborted or killed by your god, however you want to interpret it. Extrapolate by worldwide birth rates and you get your god killing one million ‘babies’ a day. But I guess facts get trumped by ‘god’s master plan’, how convenient for your brain.

  • Phil

    I am a human being and real. And it is you that is speaking for your god by deciding an egg is human being. I am just pointing out the hypocrisy.

  • Because natural death is not murder. Nothing personal, but you’re really challenged.

  • Deacon Pat Maher

    It takes a lot of courage and faith to look into oneself. You have done this with this post. Thank you for you thoughts and feelings. Most people hold it in, not allow themselves to step out side of the shell we place ourselves in. You need to have support for who you are at this time. Life can be a cell of confinement that does not release the shackles that bind one to reaching out for God’s help within our trusted circle. God is always present, even though we don’t feel His presence. Many inmates that I correspond with find themselves not only confined within their cells but within their souls. Your faith is your foundation and never forget this basic fact. You are strong if you so will God in your life. His grace is present and reach out to Him at the foot of the Cross. Peace Deacon Patrick Maher

  • Phil

    So god slaughtering babies is ok in your book? Nothing personal but you’re really challenged.

  • Glad2BGodless

    Like a balanced federal budget, Republican passion for this issue is inversely related to their actual opportunity to pass legislation.

  • Glad2BGodless

    I’m a human at varying stages of development. Can I have your organs?

  • Glad2BGodless

    I’m against murder. I’m not a Catholic, nor a Christian of any kind. Nor am I concerned about spending eternity separated from any god.

  • Glad2BGodless

    You dropped these:


  • No because you’re an atheist. :-p. Wisenheimer.

  • Glad2BGodless

    So are fetuses.


  • Republican politicians are the last group who want the abortion question resolved. They encourage it as an ongoing problem because they get to play Chicken Little, cry that the sky is falling, and declare that only by voting for them can the problem be resolved.

    And then they don’t resolve it so that they can appeal to it next election.

  • louisquinze


  • Glad2BGodless

    You seem like a pretty good egg. Maybe you can help me understand why it’s G-D and not -O-. Why does this particular god hate vowels?

  • Glad2BGodless

    Never a shortage of believers ready to tell someone else how urgently they need to get that mote out of their eye.

  • Glad2BGodless

    Lucky thing you are not made like other men, or you could be at risk of being deceived by the darkness of your own heart. Woo, close call!

  • Glad2BGodless

    Like 18:11, in case I was being too subtle.

  • swbarnes2

    According to you, God had plans for fetuses killed by pollution in the water in Flint Michigan. Why haven’t “prolife” people promised to vote out every politician responsible? At least show evidence that “prolife” groups gave out more water filters than Planned Parenthood. Surely it should be easy to show that the diocese in Flint did that, so just link to evidence of that. They have far more money, reach far more people, surely you can easily show they gave out thousands and thousands

    Show evidence that “prolife” people are angry enough about the needless deaths of wanted fetuses to organize to vote everyone responsible out. It should be easy for you to show this is “prolife” people really care about dead fetuses. “Prolife” people are willing to murder doctors, so there should be no issue for them to name names to merely vote against.

  • The Church has always sought concordats with her enemies. Her friends she generally trusts to do right by her.

    As for the fella you’re quoting, he violated that concordat consistently, and I think it’s safe to say he didn’t have any faith in what he was saying, especially given the regularity with which Catholic clergy went to death camps. There was no friendliness between Germany’s National Socialists and the Church.

    Check out this map, showing where the National Socialists got their votes in 1934 (darker districts had higher rates of votes for them)


    Here’s where the 1932 census found Catholics (again, darker indicates a higher density):


    Here’s the book where they were published: http://mises.org/resources/3082

  • Phil

    They look like eggs and this god hates eggs.

  • Glad2BGodless

    The yolks on him!

  • Glad2BGodless

    Eggs are almost as bad as fig trees.

  • Fine, then you will certainly get your wish.

  • I do as you suggest, thanks. Murder is evil whether it is an infant or anyone else.

  • Glad2BGodless

    When did you first begin thinking you have the power to grant wishes?

  • Phil

    So what? The point is, one atheist bad = all atheists bad. Stupid. So with Torquemada = all Xians bad.

  • As long as you recognize the failures of logic inherent in your last post, what cause have I to complain?

  • Phil

    Really? I made no assertion that required analyzing for inherent logic?

  • I’m not the one making blanket generalizations along the lines of “all atheists are Hitler” (though Mao was far worse) or “All Christians are Torquemada”. My goal in this discussion has been to throw some light and actual historical evidence on the breezy and false insinuations that Papa Pio XII and Adolf Hitler were best buds, or even allies of convenience, or that the NSDAP regarded the Catholic Church as anything but an enemy.

  • Phil

    “No there is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘good life’ outside of the only true God whose name is Jehovah” is an unsubstantiated assertion. How can you possibly know this to be true?

  • That is QUITE the subject change. I don’t think I’ve made that assertion recently, if ever. Still, I don’t keep my posts or disqus profile private, so finding out shouldn’t take too long. If I may, what’s the source of this quote? Be sure to link.

    As a corollary to your question, and to make sure you understand the statement you’re attempting to refute, I have some questions for you. How can you know that anyone has ever loved you? What are the physical properties and characteristics of love? How do you define love? (I have my own definition, but I’d like to see yours before we go into that.)

  • Phil Baldwin

    Nope you said lyou don’t make blanket generalisations. I just showed you do. And you answer questions with qustions.

  • Indeed, I do answer questions with questions. I have learned that it is often prudent to ensure that, when I am speaking with somebody whose worldview differs vastly from my own, we agree on certain definitions. It is pointless to try to discuss things with somebody for whom a word means precisely what he intends it to mean at that moment, regardless of either generally accepted usage or even how he’d meant it previously.

    eta: So, if I’m going to take on your claim that “here is no such thing as ‘good’ or ‘good life’ outside of the only true God whose name is Jehovah” is an unsubstantiated assertion, I have to look for some unsubstantiated assertions of your own. For example, “Only things with physical characteristics exist.” I’m trying to determine ifyou believe that things without physical characteristics, e.g., numbers, geometrical lines and points, love, or illusionary beliefs, exist.