Cardinal Rigali, Republican Lobbyist


Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia believes that our national and global cultures are hostile to children, as Catholic Online, via LifeSiteNews, reports.

Now that contraception and abortion are safe and legal in many (though by no means all) places, we see children as troublesome inconveniences, says the Cardinal, who is Chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ah yes, back when children could legally toil in coal mines and mills—that was when we truly respected our young. 

Rigali was responding to what he perceives as the “funding of abortion” in all current health care reform proposals. He says,

“It should not be surprising that the neglect, and even the death, of some people are offered as a solution to rising health care costs. Population control advocates have long espoused aborting children in the developing world as a misguided means for reducing poverty.”

And it should not be surprising that Rigali sends the discussion careening towards population control when we were supposed to be talking about health care for Americans. The “neglect, and even the death of some people” is not on the horizon, as Cardinal Rigali supposes—it’s already happened. People have experienced dehumanizing neglect and, yes, people have died because they don’t have health coverage.

Cardinal Rigali also encourages Americans to fix our economy by having more children. As this argument is full of holes, he doesn’t lean on it too heavily, portraying himself, instead, as a crusader against death:

"Death is not a solution to life’s problems. Only those who are blind to the transcendent reality and meaning of human life could support killing human beings to mitigate economic, social or environmental problems."

I wonder, is Cardinal Rigali a crusader against the death penalty? You’ll find his name nestled up against “pro-life” plenty of times, but defending the lives of assumed criminals doesn’t seem to be a high priority for him. He did mention the death penalty in a statement in 2004, which discussed a Catholic’s civic duty—that is, to think as a Catholic and to vote as a Catholic. He says, “The role of Catholics in politics. . .is to have a voice on policies that reflect the truths of the natural law.”

 

Fair enough. Cardinal Rigali sets forth some of the policy issues in which the Church is most interested, including abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, the death penalty, gay marriage, poverty, workers’ rights, peace, and the environment. And then he gets to his point:

Not all these issues are of equal gravity. Prudent judgments made by thoughtful Catholics can lead to different legitimate approaches to solving the problems of poverty, immigration, healthcare and acceptable military force. Some issues, however, because they lie at the foundation of society and address fundamental aspects of what it means to be human, must be considered first and foremost.

As Catholics we revere life and find the destruction of innocent human life abhorrent. Abortion is an act evil in itself because a fetus in the womb is a complete human being in the process of development. The person is innocent and defenseless from attack. Since abortion destroys this life, it is intrinsically evil. In a similar way embryonic stem cell research by its nature destroys a fertilized egg – an embryo – that would otherwise mature until birth. Regardless of putative benefits to medical science, the cost is the destruction of innocent human life.

Let’s be clear. It may be confusing to you to vote “as a Catholic,” because “Catholic” positions on abortion, contraception, embryonic issues and gay marriage are usually found in one party, while the “Catholic” line on war, poverty, and health care is inconveniently reflected in the other party. But listen: those other issues—war, poverty, whatever—are not that important.

And what about the death penalty? In the statement, Rigali claims (italics his),

As Catholics, we hold in highest priority the right to life and our duty to defend innocent human life. This principle applies directly to the protection of unborn children as well as to the Church ’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

He goes on (italics mine),

On a different level, we also vigorously oppose the death penalty. Although it does not involve the taking of innocent human life, we consider it cruel and unnecessary for the defense of society, an affront to human dignity.

Not innocent—in whose eyes? For a man who purportedly believes that God is our only judge, Cardinal Rigali is unexpectedly deferential to the judgment of the state and to its power to kill.

 

In a way, I admire Rigali for being so honest about his priorities. High-ranking Catholics often claim to care about the death penalty, when it’s clear that their sympathies lie with fetuses over purported murderers. But Rigali is as clear as he can be without directly defying Church teaching: "People on death row are guilty. I’m not going to say they deserve what’s coming to them, but you catch my drift.” Abortion is “abhorrent”; the death penalty—murder—is only “unnecessary.” Prevention of assisted suicide is more important than the prevention of heart disease, HIV, or diabetes, and fighting gay marriage is more crucial than fighting poverty.

I’m sure you’ve guessed by now that this statement was released the week before the 2004 election. Cardinal Rigali’s manipulation of Catholic morality to bring it perfectly in line with Republican policy was disgusting and embarrassing five years ago, and it’s just as repugnant today, when our country is finally making strides on something the Catholic Church has long advocated for: health care as a right, not a privilege.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • elm

    First I wish to apologize for the length of this post. There are so many inconsistencies and falsehoods in the article that I would like to hopefully fill in the facts.

     

    The number of inmates on death rows across the nation is 3,297, a decrease from 3,309 reported on January 1, 2008.

     

    http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf

     

    Number of executions in the federal prisons in 2009: 39

     

    Number of children executed at the abortion mills in the US: 1,500,000 per year.

     

    “I wonder, is Cardinal Rigali a crusader against the death penalty?”

    The people who are executed by the U.S. Government have been found guilty by a jury of their peers, several times if you count appeals. This is a legal sentencing and is justifiable by law, both natural and penal. It is for sure that some are not guilty. It is for sure that with our current ability to keep these guilty persons out of the general population and keep society safe from these criminals ever being released to do more harm makes the need for the death penalty all but go away.

     

    This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the death penalty is needed only rarely if at all.

     

     

    “Not all these issues are of equal gravity.”

    If you do not have LIFE, all the economics in the world are useless.
    On the other hand, the number of children executed since 1973 in the wombs of their mothers now number in the 50,000,000 range .

     

    Let’s look at the facts: 1600 executed on death row, give or take a few, or 50 million, more than have died fighting to defend this country in all the wars since the founding of this great nation. These children are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sort of like the two young men who were slaughtered by gangs in Chicago this week. Children understand when their lives are considered cheap and burdensome, aka punishment for the mothers.

     

    How many women died per year from “back-alley” abortions before Roe v Wade? The idea that the majority of women suffered from botched abortions using rusty coat hangers at the hands of “back alley butchers” is an attempt to induce an emotional response, not to clearly present the facts.

    There are no statistics, no numbers anywhere to report. No one knows! Therefore, if anyone tells you that there were X numbers of illegal abortions somewhere in a certain time, they are guessing.

    Look at the statistics from the National Center for Health Statistics from 1980 at this link:

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_27.asp

    Or this paper:

    http://www.cedarville.edu/academics/sciencemath/sullivan/cedarethics/papers/2007/vandenberg.pdf

     

    The answer, if you believe the facts, appear to be less than 40. And in 1973, how many of these < 40 women, if they had family or societal support, would have aborted?

     

    How many women die per year from “safe” abortions now? At least half of the children aborted are female. Women in the beginning of life. And more than half of them are an ethnicity that is not Caucasian. Talk about ethnic cleansing, and racism. But this is what will probably keep men and women off of death row, since most are from a minority race. Just kill them before they are born. Great economic sense.

     

    “It may be confusing to you to vote “as a Catholic,” because “Catholic” positions on abortion, contraception, embryonic issues and gay marriage are usually found in one party, while the “Catholic” line on war, poverty, and health care is inconveniently reflected in the other party. But listen: those other issues—war, poverty, whatever—are not that important.”

     

    There are right now 183 Democrats in the House who are against abortion being included in the healthcare bill.

     

    Do you even understand what the Church teaches about war, poverty, and WHAT EVER? Please if you are going to study mathematics, do not do it using the dictionary. If you are going to criticize those who fight for the life of all human beings, check out the owner’s manual first to see what they are really speaking about.

     

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

     

    Facts don’t lie. You are not entitled to your own personal facts.

     

    The Catholic Church is the largest charitable institution in the world. They have lifted more out of poverty than any other organization. War is only moral when defending ourselves.

    Cardinal Regali is a Catholic first and foremost; a teacher and a shepherd. He has every right to speak to Catholics about their faith and as a US citizen, to the world about natural law. Somewhere on the bottom of the list he might consider himself a Republican. Who knows? Maybe he voted Independent or Constitutional. Was there any proof that he received money from the Republican party doing the work of a lobbyist?

    I believe as he believes and I don’t ever remember signing up to be a Republican.

     

    Abortion is not health care. Women deserve better than abortion.

     

    If abortion is sought because of rape or incest, the woman is raped twice: Once by a man, once again by an abortionist’s appliance.

     

    I was born, before artificial contraception was widely used, to a large family, whose father was the town drunk. I was never sent to the coal mines or the cotton mills. We always had food on the table, sometimes because of the good graces of the neighbors, sometimes it came from the Catholic Church, most of the time because my mother was resourceful. Even though there were many to house and feed, we were still shown the respect and dignity that children are a gift and not a hindrance, or as the O says, “a punishment”. My sibs are well educated, thanks to the Catholic Church and there are a few PHDs among us.

     

    “Rigali sends the discussion careening towards population control when we were supposed to be talking about health care for Americans”.

    But there is such a clear relationship to population control and health care. Those below age 17 and above 60 according to O’s czars, are not considered needing as rigorous regimen of health care, because the former does not have enough time invested in them and they are not productive and the later has lived out their usefulness and are taking up too much oxygen.

     

    The dehumanizing has come from not respecting life in all situations and locations. The dehumanizing began when we began to see children as a punishment and granny as a drain on our finances and time.

     

    “Cardinal Rigali also encourages Americans to fix our economy by having more children”.

    Has a democracy, a republic, ever fallen because there are too many children? Have nations languished because they have not enough workers to support those who do not/can not work? Just look at the former USSR where 75% of babies are aborted.

     

     

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • invalid-0

    What we need is much better and a more organized/planned birth control/prevention system. This way only the people who are actually able to raise children properly and give them what they need to become healthy, productive, and happy people would be the ones raising children.
    Instead of people of all ages and abilities all of a sudden having their life completely changed and finding themselves having to raise another human being, whether they have the ability and education to do so or not.

    This would also pretty much completely end both abortion as well as population issues.

    Also, if you ever need fast+free image sharing/editing this site is really good imagethenet.com :)

  • paul-bradford

    There certainly is the danger, or at least the suspicion, that some in the Church hierarchy are more interested in advancing Republican doctrine than in advancing Church doctrine.  Forty years ago there was suspicion that some Church leaders were more Democrat than Catholic.  Every Catholic is tempted by one distraction or another.  The voter who faithfully follows Church teachings on Life issues is going to part company with both Democrats and Republicans — that’s because neither party is fully committed to life.

     

    Instead of ‘taking sides’ we ought to be ‘engaging sides’.  The strength of the Church is not in forming a powerful political faction.  It comes from her ability to speak frankly about human issues to people of any political persuasion.  You needn’t appeal to someone to be a ‘good Democrat’ or a ‘good Republican’.  You need only appeal to someone to be on the side of human life.

     

    Let’s lower the number of people killed in abortion.  Let’s lower the number of people killed on death row.  Let’s lower the number of people left to die because they’re uninsured.  Let’s lower the number of people killed in war.  Let’s lower the number of people killed because they’re poor.  Let’s lower the number human blastocysts and embryos misused in the name of science.  Let’s lower the number of people without care at the end of their lives.  Let’s lower the number of women who die in childbirth.  Let’s uphold the entirety of the Church’s teachings on Life. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • jgbeam

    Kathleen, you say:

    “Cardinal Rigali’s manipulation of Catholic morality to bring it perfectly in line with Republican policy was disgusting and embarrassing five years ago, and it’s just as repugnant today, when our country is finally making strides on something the Catholic Church has long advocated for: health care as a right, not a privilege. ”

    Far from manipulating Catholic morality, there is no American clergyman more representative of true Catholic morality than Cardinal Rigali. To state that he is influencing Catholics to align with Republicans is simply ridiculous. Your entire article is a desparate attempt to create nuances of interpretation of the Cardinal’s words to suit your pro-choice agenda.

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • jgbeam

    Thank you, elm, for correcting Kathleen’s seriously misinformed essay on one of the Catholic Church’s greatest proponents of life.   

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • jjt

    Kathleen Your"Bio"below from your blog is interesting,yet the dearth of writing credentials is more telling.

    About Me

    Kathleen Reeves loves books, music, and thinking about reproductive rights. She recently had the thrill of working as a field organizer in Iowa for the Obama campaign. She’s written about HIV/AIDS for POZ Magazine, but this is her first time writing specifically about reproductive rights, and she’s very pleased to be doing it. Kathleen also likes writing fiction.

    Given most of the feedback on your post about Cardinal Rigali and the Catholic Church I respectfully suggest you stick to writing fiction.

  • minorswing

    Elm, I find it rich that you say that "back-alley abortion" is an attempt to provoke an emotional response. You’re attempting to provoke an emotional response by saying things like "executing" or "murder" and calling fetuses "children".
    You are not entitled to your own personal facts either, and the fact is that the procedure is called abortion and the developing organism is called a fetus (or whatever stage of development it is in), end of story. Your language is too loaded for you to reasonably point fingers at anyone.

  • colleen

    Far from manipulating Catholic morality, there is no American clergyman more representative of true Catholic morality than Cardinal Rigali.

    I’m inclined to agree, his priorities and reflexive dishonesty seem all too typical of what passes for morality in the Catholic church.
    Take, for instance, Cardinal Rigali’s ‘leadership’ in Philadelphia’s recent Grand Jury investigation of the sexual abuse of children by clergy. http://www.philadelphiadistrictattorney.com/pages/1/index.htm
    Cardinal Rigali was the individual who penned a response ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/21/AR2005092102548.html) so appalling and dishonest that the DA’s office was compelled to write
    a reply (see Examination of the Philadelphia Archdiocese’s Response to the Grand Jury Report at the Philly DA site)

    While you’re at it, download the rest of the report.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • colleen

    It is for sure that some are not guilty. It is for sure that with our current ability to keep these guilty persons out of the general population and keep society safe from these criminals ever being released to do more harm makes the need for the death penalty all but go away.

    You’re kidding. Your argument for tolerating the DP is that a.) it’s legal and b.) we don’t use it often enough for it to really matter? And why didn’t you choose a year that has already ended?
    And even after you acknowledge that some of those executed are factually innocent?

    This is the teaching of the Catholic Church, that the death penalty is needed only rarely if at all.

    Are you saying that the US is in line with the teachings of the Catholic church when it comes to the DP?

    On the other hand, the number of children executed since 1973 in the wombs of their mothers now number in the 50,000,000 range .

    You should add a couple of digits to that (at least) if you’re going to count the precious little innocent zygotes that heartless, lustful women slough off during menstruation. It’s a holocaust.

    After all, it was St Augustine who said:
    “Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders …””

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • kathleen-reeves

    Jim, did you read the Cardinal’s 2004 pre-election statement that I referenced in my post?

     

    http://www.archdiocese-phl.org/rigali/cardstat/election.htm

     

    The Cardinal clearly states – and italicizes this point – that "As Catholics, we hold in highest priority the right to life and our duty to defend innocent human life. This principle applies directly to the protection of unborn children as well as to the Church ’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, cloning, assisted suicide and euthanasia."

     

    This principle does NOT, as he states, apply to the death penalty. He addresses the death penalty in the next paragraph, claiming that the Church’s opposition to it is "On a different level."

     

    The entire conclusion of his piece emphasizes abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage, all of which the Republican party has traditionally opposed. When he mentions the other (in my eyes, very important) Catholic issues of "poverty, immigration, healthcare and acceptable military force," he dismisses them as follows:

    Some issues, however, because they lie at the foundation of society and address fundamental aspects of what it means to be human, must be considered first and foremost.

    These issues, he goes on to explain, are abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia, and he tells Catholic voters that they must be considered "first and foremost," that is, ahead of other social issues like poverty and health care.

     

    I didn’t have to create "nuances of interpretation," Jim; the Cardinal is quite clear. When he wrote this piece, five days before the 2004 election, he didn’t wish to be subtle.

  • amie-newman

    is honored to publish the work of Kathleen Reeves. Your comment is truly ill-intentioned and of absolutely no help to the discussion.

    When you fall back on personal criticism, you seriously detract from your own, personal argument on the matter. 

    Kathleen’s article and her follow-up comment are first and foremost factual, authentic and written extraordinarily well with total clarity. 

    Your comments are your own, personal truth. You are free to live that and no one is taking that from you. Please do refrain from commenting that does not further respectful dialogue. 

    Thank you!

    Amie Newman

    Managing Editor, RH Reality Check

  • elm

    Dear Colleen said: You’re kidding. Your argument for tolerating the DP is that a.) it’s legal and b.) we don’t use it often enough for it to really matter? And why didn’t you choose a year that has already ended?

     

    I chose this year because it shows how many deaths on death row have occurred this year. Last year, 2008 … was 38.

     

    And even after you acknowledge that some of those executed are factually innocent?

    Aborted children are always innocent to the tune of 1,500,00+ per year

     

    Are you saying that the US is in line with the teachings of the Catholic church when it comes to the DP?

     

    As a matter of fact it is, not just by coincidence but because the need is rare if ever. This is a matter of justice for which the Church is a really big proponent. And hopefully the republic for which we stand is also.

     

    You should add a couple of digits to that (at least) if you’re going to count the precious little innocent zygotes that heartless, lustful women slough off during menstruation.

     

    Typically a woman menstruates because she is not pregnant, or her hormonal level will not support the pregnancy.
    Death is inevitable for all of us, the problem is who decides who lives and who dies. Miscarriages are a sign of how vulnerable life can be. It is God, according to the Catholic Church, Who is the Great Decider.

     

    After all, it was St Augustine who said:
    "Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders …""

     

    You talk about the distant between the Church and the Taliban, the distance between Augustine and modern science is even a larger chasm.

     

    The reason Roe v Wade is such bad law, among other reasons, is because we now have a window into the womb. There is no denying that the resident in the womb is a human being. Any other description of the resident is just bad science.

     

    Augustine, was a bit of a womanizer, it may be showing in that quote you pulled. He may not have understood that women do not become pregnant every month or even with every act of intercourse. He was a theologian, not a physician.

     

     

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • elm

    MonorSwing stated:
    You are not entitled to your own personal facts either, and the fact is that the procedure is called abortion and the developing organism is called a fetus (or whatever stage of development it is in), end of story.

     

    Do you call the death of a criminal on death row just a procedure or do you consider it murder?

     

    It’s not end of story, it’s the end of a unique individual.

    An unborn human offspring at that stage of development

    And the fact is that this “organism” has a beating heart and it’s own DNA.

     


    Your language is too loaded for you to reasonably point fingers at anyone.

     


    Is a human for all intents and purposes a developing organism? The meaning of such is an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent a living being.

     

    I have yet to be invited to a fetus shower.

     

    Pregnant moms love to tell about their babies; how much they weigh, how long they are, what kind of delivery they hope to have. They love to show off their ultrasounds, sometimes being able to watch the baby suck his thumb or smile.

     

    How this is loaded language is beyond reason. How can one woman be carrying a baby and the other an organism? Sounds like semantics, not reality.

     

    When I read that you stated that this is loaded language, it reminded me of children who plug up their ears and sing while saying, “I can’t hear you.”

     

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • paul-bradford

    Since we’re going to use this thread to discuss ‘Catholic issues’, you’ll all have a chance you wouldn’t have had if you went to Mass yesterday. Yesterday’s reading (shown below) was given to a billion Catholics around the world (minus those who unexpectedly missed Mass). We all heard it, and some of us heard sermons by priests who used the text to outline their own misogynistic or homophobic worldview.  We shouldn’t let them have the last word!  Even if you’re a non-believer, I’ll bet you’re somewhat familiar the story:

     

    The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a suitable partner for him."  So the LORD God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all wild animals; but none proved to be the suitable partner for the man.

     

    So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.  The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had taken from the man.  When he brought her to the man, the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called ‘woman’, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."  That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh.

    Gn 2, 18-24 

     

    Well, are you up for the challenge?  What do you have to say about the reading?  Are you willing to write your own sermon? It seems to me that this passage should provide particularly good ‘fodder’ for many of the people who like to opine on this ‘site.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • katwa

    Abortion is not health care. Women deserve better than abortion.

    You might think forced birth is better than abortion, but each woman is entitled to her own feelings and what she decides is best for her.

    If abortion is sought because of rape or incest, the woman is raped twice: Once by a man, once again by an abortionist’s appliance.

    Wha??? Wow. So do you consider pap smears rape too? Tampons? All PIV sex?

  • katwa

    I’ve always liked the first creation story better (where God creates both man and woman at the same time). The one you quoted is more popular though, probably because it can be used to excuse patriarchial behavior. In fact, I’ve encountered a number of christians who didn’t even KNOW there was another creation story in their bible!

  • crowepps

    A charming little story, except of course that the end doesn’t make any sense.

    this one shall be called ‘woman’, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken.”

    You are aware that the original version of this story was in Hebrew? “Woman” in Hebrew is “ee-SHAH” and “Man” in Hebrew is “Adam”. The word woman on the other hand originated in Old English from the original ‘wifman’ (with its opposite being ‘werman’ for males) with the word ‘man’ meaning both sexes of ‘human being’.

    late O.E. wimman (pl. wimmen), lit. “woman-man,” alteration of wifman (pl. wifmen), a compound of wif “woman” (see wife) + man “human being” (in O.E. used in ref. to both sexes; see man).
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=woman
    O.E. used wer and wif to distinguish the sexes, but wer began to disappear late 13c. and was replaced by man.
    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man

    It’s a charming little fable, and certainly gives the clear impression that God designed things to make it clear that women were around as “suitable helpers” for manly men, but unfortunately the vocabularies just won’t fit.

  • crowepps

    <blockquote>Has a democracy, a republic, ever fallen because there are too many children? Have nations languished because they have not enough workers to support those who do not/can not work?</blockquote>

     

    Historically, democracies are a pretty rare form of government.  There just haven’t been all that many around except within the last 200 years and certainly 200 years isn’t much of a testing period.  Democracies with low birthrates tend to be attractive to immigrants so their population continues to increase even without a high rate of native-born children.  Problems of "too many children" have historically been solved by widespread famine, an efficient but not particularly pleasant solution.  The problem of ‘having enough workers to support those who do not/cannot work’ is also a fairly modern one.  Historically, those who did not/could not work tended to die pretty promptly by either execution, starvation or old age.  The concept of ‘retirement’ for the general public is definitely less than a hundred years old.

  • ahunt

    Shorter Catholic interpretation…

     

    Women owe men a rib…for eternity.

  • ahunt

    Actually Katwa, the majority of US abortions performed today are chemically induced via a pill or three. Elm propably considers this "oral rape."

  • ahunt

    Oh, would that others could distance themselves from Augustine so adroitly, Elm.

  • elm

    How many morning after pills can you take a month without completly compromising your reproductive future?

     

    Has anyone ever died from this drug regimine?

     

    How safe are they for teens who have never had children?

     

    How many years can a young women take these "super" pills without causing harm to her breasts and uterus? Would a 15 year old know to not take these pills more than recommended? How often are they recommended?

     

    Did you see the woman on national tv last week that had, what was it, 16 or so abortions? How many abortions are too many?

     

    Is not the one of the leading causes of breast cancer the putting off of childbearing till later in life?

     

    How late in life can you delay having children and not increase the chance of breast cancer?

     

    What effect does taking the pill for a decade or two and not having children have on being able to conceive and being breast and uterus healthy?

     

     

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • ahunt

    I’m sure you can research the site for accurate answers, Elm.

  • elm

    Paul Bradford wrote:

    <i>So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man,
    and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place
    with flesh.  The LORD God then built up into a woman the rib that he had
    taken from the man.  When he brought her to the man, the man said:
    "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one
    shall be called ‘woman’, for out of ‘her man’ this one has been taken."
    That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife,
    and the two of them become one flesh.<i>

     

    I always enjoy this
    reading; it gives the Church a good opportunity outside of weddings to once
    again explain what marriage is. The rib came out of man’s side, not his back,
    so his helpmate is to always walk beside him. To have a spouse that treats you
    as his own flesh, to love you as Christ loves his Church, is heaven on earth.
    My spouse definitely left his mother and father and cleaved to me. We two have
    become one flesh six times. Those six have become one flesh with their spouses
    12 times. Children are a blessing from the Lord. They are a gift for the future
    and for the world. Grandchildren are the joy of living long. To see them carry
    on in the tradition of Catholicism is indescribable. Hope is a virtue that
    lives on in our progeny. Hope does not fail.

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • colleen

    Well, are you up for the challenge?

    wow Paul, it’s as if you want to change the subject so we won’t notice that conservative Catholics (such as yourself) care only about an invented class of humans located in petrie dishes or (better yet) inside the body of a woman they don’t know but derive enjoyment and a sense of smug satisfaction out of bullying, demeaning and condemning.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • elm

    "


    Abortion is not health care. Women deserve better than abortion.


    You might think forced birth is better than abortion, but each woman
    is entitled to her own feelings and what she decides is best for
    her."

     

     

    This sentence sounds like she is picking out a dress not stopping a beating heart. What is best for someone beyond herself? What about the life that is living within her?

     

    To remove diseased tissue or prevent staining clothing is quite a bit different from stopping a beating heart. Conjugal sex is not rape. But to take a child from his/her mother is to rend the heart as well as the body. What is left  of a woman after she has asked someone to remove her progeny from her womb? Are there no reprecusions to this action? Why are there so many walking, wounded angry women?

     

    It is a shame that one child has to die so we can live as we want.

  • jayn

    "What is left  of a woman after she has asked someone to remove her
    progeny from her womb? Are there no reprecusions to this action? Why
    are there so many walking, wounded angry women?"

     

    Wow.  Just….wow.  This is one of the most offensive things I’ve ever read.  So a woman is less than she was if she has an abortion.  Because that’s all women are, baby-makers, and to deny that is to deny who we are as women.  Because we don’t matter if there’s someone else we can sacrifice ourselves for.  That’s our job.  To make babies and sacrifice ourselves for the good of others.  We have no intrinsic worth–we’re just here to facilitate the lives of others.

     

    (Sorry if the coherency is a bit off.  I’m too stunned right now to even be angry.)

  • jgbeam

    What’s your problem in understanding this statement by the Cardinal?  It is, as you say, quite clear. He puts the death penalty on another level from abortion because of the sheer numbers involved.  1,300,000 abortions per year vs. dozens (?) of executions.  He doesn’t "dismiss" poverty, immigration, etc., either.  ALL these issues are important, but the MOST important are the life issues.  Not subtle at all.

     

    Jim Grant, Pro-lifer

  • paul-bradford

    conservative Catholics (such as yourself) care only about an invented class of humans located in petrie dishes or (better yet) inside the body of a woman they don’t know but derive enjoyment and a sense of smug satisfaction out of bullying, demeaning and condemning.

     

    That’s right, colleen.  I don’t care about fighting for rights for immigrants, or for an end to war, or for women’s education around the world, or for an end to the death penalty, or for economic justice, or for environmental concerns, or for universal health care, or for homelessness, or for anything other than an end to abortion and stem cell research.  I’ve decided to stop caring about all the things I actually care about so I can fit myself into the narrow little caricature of a Pro-Life Catholic that you carry around in your head.

     

    Oh, since I brought up abortion (which is, as I noted above, all I care about) I’ve decided to suppress my natural skepticism against attempting to restrict access to the procedure or for ridiculing those who’ve made choices based upon faulty information.  I’m going to start advocating these ineffective ways of trying to end abortion and stop doing what I’ve always done which is to encourage everyone (male or female, old or young, religious or secular) to recognize that the very young are sisters and brothers in the human family.

     

    I’m going to do all these things, colleen, so that you can be spared the trouble of being surprised by the reality of an actual, thinking, caring individual.  Why should you be bothered by those who are looking to engage you with respect and curiosity when it’s so much easier to throw rocks at idiots?

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    The one you quoted is more popular though, probably because it can be used to excuse patriarchial behavior.

     

    Hi KatWA,

     

    Did the story provoke patriarchal behavior, or did millennia of patriarchal behavior cause us to interpret the story as we do?

     

    If you’re interested in my take on the story, you can read all about it here

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    Time and time and time again, you demonstrate that you’re an extremely flexible thinker informed by a wealth of diverse reading.

     

    Didn’t anyone ever explain to you that girls are supposed to be flighty and foolish?

     

    BTW, what sort of job do you do when you’re not posting to RHReality Check? 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    I suppose the ‘concrete thinkers’ zero in on the idea that women are indebted for the original loan, but that’s a fairly benign take on the tale.  I get worried when people use the text as "evidence" that God has decreed that the "right" sort of relationship always involves one man and one woman.

     

    That’s like reading the story of the Tortoise and the Hare and declaring that we all need to carry shells on our back. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

    To see them carry on in the tradition of Catholicism is indescribable.

     

    My mother has thirteen grandchildren.  They’re all ‘carrying on’ the faith tradition.  People are hungry for God’s love — that’s why you should be generous in sharing it.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • crowepps

    Conjugal sex is not rape.

    That depends entirely on whether the woman in question is willing to have sex. If she is not willing, even if she is a wife, it is still rape.

  • crowepps

    Didn’t anyone ever explain to you that girls are supposed to be flighty and foolish?

    Certainly, my mother explained to me at quite a young age that women are ‘supposed to be’ flighty and foolish so that men’s egos can be falsely inflated by the illusion that they are more serious and more intelligent. She further explained that promoting that illusion makes it easy to manipulate men. I always felt that was not only contemptuous of men but pretty dishonest. Frankly, I wouldn’t have any respect for a man who was dumb enough to want a flighty and foolish wife.

    As I have mentioned a number of times in my posts, I have been a court reporter taking testimony outside court and transcribing court proceedings for almost 30 years. That may be why our views of human nature are so different – what you see as cynicism I see as accepting reality.

  • colleen

    I’ve decided to stop caring about all the things I actually care about so I can fit myself into the narrow little caricature of a Pro-Life Catholic that you carry around in your head.

    Remember the poll clarifying the beliefs of religious activists you never read? It can be found here (http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=237)

    Here are some of the findings about issues priorities

    “Conservative and progressive religious activists have strikingly different issue priorities. A majority of conservative religious activists gave priority to abortion and same-sex marriage, while progressive religious activists gave priority to a number if issues, including economic justice, the environment, and peace. Conservative religious activists overwhelmingly identify abortion (83%) and same-sex marriage (65%) as most important priorities among a set of eight issue areas. Fewer than 10% of progressive religious activists call those “most important” issues. Highest priorities for progressive activists are poverty (74%), health care (67%), environment (56%), jobs/economy (48%), and the Iraq war (45%).”

    Far from being a “narrow little caricature” your issue related posts here (and there have been many) are almost exclusively (like 90+%) about abortion and related issues and it’s absolutely fair and accurate for me to point out that your priorities are very conservative. Indeed when it comes to the person hood of zygotes you’re hanging far out there on the religious right limb of public opinion. The only relatively significant difference of opinion you have with your fellow conservatives is one of strategy, not ends and that difference of opinion will not matter one bit when push comes to shove. Your church will continue to declare ‘the liberation of women’ a societal evil and oppose all effective contraception methods no matter what you say or do.
    You may indeed place a higher priority on, say, poverty issues or health care but I have seen no evidence of that here. Quite the contrary.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • crowepps

    If you are aware of the answers to these questions, it would be better to just go ahead and post the information.  If you’re not aware of the answers, what’s your opposition to the use of birth control based on?  Certainly when the side-effects of using birth control are compared to the side-effects of being pregnant, the use of birth control has far fewer risks.  Or are these just pretty much ‘have you stopped beating your wife’ questions? 

  • jmtbw

    Dear Jayn, do YOU think there are no repercussions for ripping a baby out of a mother’s womb?  That dead baby does not make her less of a mother, it makes her a mother of a dead baby.  You use the word "intrinsic."  Our intrinsic worth comes from God and we are totally human and alive if we seek to be what God has made us to be.  We are all on this earth to serve in one capacity or another.  Anyone who lives strictly for self is the most pitiable of all.  If you choose to serve by remaining single and you spend your life in service that way, you will be blessed.  If you choose to marry and offer you life to serve your husband and children, you will be blessed in this.   Men are called to lay down their lives for their wives and children.  This is the way God intends.  It is so terribly bad that weak and sinful human beings have destroyed God’s design for the human family.  This is how my life is lived and I am at peace.  Hope you find the peace that God wants for you too.

  • jmtbw

    Enough said!! Abortion kills a living, growing human baby. End of argument.
    Are you o.k. with this?? Or do you have to defend it because you have had one and, of course, you cannot be wrong, can you?

    Healing and forgiveness is available from any priest, pastor, or pro-lifer. We love you and want what is best for you, your baby, and our society.

    We are all going down the tubes together because of abortion, contraception, etc. Open your eyes to what is going on in our world

  • paul-bradford

    what you see as cynicism I see as accepting reality.

     

    Do you use the word ‘cynicism’ in the sense of ‘hopelessness’?  One of the requirements of my job is to maintain an ongoing sense of hope.  I use this word differently than I use the word ‘optimism’.  From my experience hope, in its own way, involves "accepting reality". 

     

    I continue to hope that people at both ends of the Choice/Life divide will start to notice the humanity of the other side.  Passions are strong because people on both sides are moved by forces that are more powerful than mere self-interest.  Neither side will ever ‘vanquish’ the other because both sides uphold fundamental human interests.

     

    What’s lacking, from my point of view, is trust.  Someone from my side notices how hard it is to get people to trust that there’s enough justice in the world for both the very young and their mothers to be treated fairly.  A lot of people have trouble trusting me to be concerned about the personal autonomy of women faced with an abortion decision.

     

    The ‘hopeless’ point of view is that all of this human energy will remain forever in conflict.  I’m sure that we have to ‘accept the reality’ of what is, but there’s no need to believe that ‘what is’ has to be ‘what will be’. 

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • bj-survivor

    Enough said!! Abortion kills a living, growing human baby. End of argument.

    Abortion stops a pregnancy, which is a process in which a woman’s body creates a baby. I know you misogynist troglodytes simply cannot stand the fact that lowly, disgusting women have the power to create life, but you’ll just have to get over yourselves. Women’s bodies are not community property. Women’s bodies belong to themselves. They have every right to decide when or whether to create children.

    We love you and want what is best for you, your baby, and our society.
    We are all going down the tubes together because of abortion, contraception, etc. Open your eyes to what is going on in our world

    I know you and your misogynist, god-blathering ilk like to pretend that there was no abortion prior to Roe v. Wade or Griswold v. Connecticut, but then facts and reality have never been a pro-life-until-birther strong suit. Many people, including very religious people, do not believe that either society, families, children, or individuals are best served by forcing unwilling women to create unwanted children, or to create children that they are incapable of caring for. There is more to life than being born. And there is far more to parenthood than birthing a child (if you are female) or shooting your wad into a woman (if you are male).

    Contraception and safe, legal abortion have vastly improved the lives of women, children, and even men. Most men and women prefer to not have to worry about pregnancy each time they have sex. Sexual pleasure is a beautiful thing – it bonds couples, increases happiness and reduces stress. Why on earth should any consenting adult give this up so as not to offend some panty-sniffing religiotards who think that women should suffer for daring to be sexual beings? Not *this woman*. And not *this woman’s* husband, either.

    And why on earth should I, or anyone else, be forced to live by your puerile superstitions? In case you’ve forgotten, we do not live in a theocracy.

  • paul-bradford

     

    1. In your judgment, how important was the 2008 election to the future of the country? Very Important

     

    2. Overall, what impact do you think the results of the 2008 election will have on American society? Very Positive

     

    3. Regarding expressions of religious faith and prayer by political leaders in 2008 was there: Too Much

     

    4. In your opinion, how much influence did the following groups have on the 2008 election results? They all had some influence

     

    5. In your opinion, what is the most important thing religious conservatives should do to maintain or increase their influence in national politics?Pray, and engage in respectful dialogue

     

    6. Some leaders have argued that religious people should withdraw from politics and re-dedicate themselves to non-political pursuits. What is your view on this matter? Need to do both

     

    7. Some leaders have argued that religious people should shift their focus to new issues, such as the environment and poverty rather than focus on social issues, such as abortion and marriage. What is your view on this matter? We need to be a presence on all social justice issues

     

    8. What should be the main goal for religious people when they engage in politics? Notice the godliness in their adversaries

     

    9. Which of the following statements comes closest to your views? Political action by religious people will do little to restore traditional morality in America

     

    10. Overall, what worries you more: Public officials who are too close to religious leaders

     

    11. How important is it for religious people to focus on the following issues? All important issues

     

    12. Which of these statements comes closest to your view of the proper legal status of marriage? The law should define marriage as a union between two people regardless of their gender

     

    13. Which of the following statements best describes your view on abortion? Legal in most cases

     

    14 Which of the following statements comes closest to your view on the war in Iraq? It was completely unjustified

     

    15. Which of these statements comes closest to your view? The U.S. should keep its troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized

     

    16 Do you think the use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information is: Never justified

     

    17 Who do you think is most responsible for the current economic crisis? Government that neglected its duty and allowed unethical business practices

     

    18. Where do you stand on government spending and services? (5) Provide more services and increase spending

     

    19. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? We can’t afford tax cuts

     

    20. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view?  Large tax cuts are bad for the economy because they cause budget deficits and prevent necessary government spending

     

    22.a. The federal government should spend more to reduce poverty and hunger in the U.S. even if it means raising taxes on the middle class Strongly agree

     

    22.c Homosexuals should have all the same rights and privileges as other Americans Strongly Agree

     

    22. d The U.S. should support Israel over the Palestinians in the Middle East Strongly Disagree

     

    22.g. More environmental protection is needed even if it raises prices or costs jobs Strongly Agree

     

    22.h. The government should ban all scientific research involving stem cells from human embryos Strongly Agree

     

    22. i. The U.S. should have comprehensive national health insurance even if it means fewer choices for patients Agree

     

    22.l. Given the threat of terrorism, the U.S. must be able to take preemptive military action against other countries Strongly, Strongly, Strongly, Strongly disagree

     

    23. Overall, how would you describe your views on political issues? Moderate

     

    24. How would you describe your political partisanship? Nominally Democrat

     

    25. I tend to strongly support my party: n/a

     

    26. Who was your first choice for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination? McCain

     

    27. Who was your first choice for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination? Obama

     

    28. Who did you vote for in the 2008 presidential election? Obama

     

    29. Which of the following statements best describes the relationship of your religious faith to your voting decision in 2008? My faith was more important to my voting decision than other factors

     

    30. Which of the following statements comes closest to your view? America was a Christian nation in the past, but it is not now

     

    31. How involved were you in the following political campaigns in 2008? Somewhat/Very Active

     

    32. Did you engage in any of these political activities in the 2008 or 2004 elections? Door-to-door, donation, fundraising, made calls, wrote letter, attende3d rally, signed petition,

     

    33. In 2008 campaign season, did you do any of the following things? Please check all that apply. e-mail candidate, on-line petition, blog, podcast, received e-mails, online donation, online video,

     

    34. In what year did you first become actively involved in politics? 1960-1969

     

    36. Do you consider yourself to be part of the conservative Christian movement? No (but colleen sure does!)

     

    37. Do you belong to a pro-family, pro-life, or Christian conservative organization?Yes :-)

     

    how did you come to join this organization?Founded it

     

    43. How do you feel about the following statements?

    a. The main causeof America’s problems is moral decay.Agree

    b. We should tolerate diverse views on morality. Disagree

    d. The main cause of America’s problems is poverty and discriminationAgree

    e. Social justice is at the heart of all authentic religious valuesStrongly Agree

    f. Clergy and congregations should stay out of politics.Disagree

    h. We should encourage ethnic, racial, and religious diversity in societyStrongly Agree

    k. If enough people were brought to Christ, social ills would take care of themselvesDisagree

    l. The U.S. has prospered when it has obeyed GodTry it, and let’s see

    m. We must maintain a strict separation of church and state.Strongly Agree

    n. Religious people should cooperate in politics even if they disagree on religious questionsStrongly Agree

    o. It is necessary to believe in God in order to be a moral person.Strongly Disagree

     

    45. Religious affiliation (please be specific as possible) Roman Catholic

     

    45a. My church or religious community should: Strive to preserve its traditional beliefs and practices

     

    47. How important is religion in your life? Extremely

     

    48. Aside from weddings and funerals, how often do you attend worship services? More than once a week

     

    49. Which comes closest to your view of the Scriptures? The inspired Word of God, but not to be taken literally on all points

     

    50. Gender: Male

     

    51. State of residence:Massachusetts

     

    52. Size of place:Suburbs of major city

     

    53. Age: 55

     

    54. Marital Status: Married

     

    55. Do you have school-aged children? Just graduated this year

     

    56. If YES, do your children attend: Public School

     

    57. Race: White

     

    58. Education: College graduate

     

    59. Occupation Current

     

    60. Approximate 2008 family income:$100,000-$149,999

     

     

    Paul Bradford 

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • paul-bradford

     

    That dead baby does not make her less of a mother, it makes her a mother of a dead baby.

     

    This is true, but it doesn’t mean she will see it that way.  Many women believe that aborting a fetus isn’t any more morally problematic than getting a cyst removed.  The unborn are more discriminated against than anyone — because so many deny that they are even people!

     

    What do you think about a woman who gets an abortion and doesn’t think anything of it, until one day it finally dawns on her that she was once a fetus herself and that a fetus has as much right to live as she does?  My opinion is that such women (and many men in the same situation) require a great deal of compassion.  Women don’t get abortions because they’re heartless and irresponsible.  Women get abortions because they’ve been told that what is being aborted isn’t an actual person.

     

    Imagine how much courage it takes for her to change her mind!

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • ahunt

    Indeed…myths have power, for good and ill.

  • ahunt

    "We two have
    become one flesh"

     

    Hmmm…got thirty years in…and my take is a bit different. We didn’t become "one." We became a unit of two…doubled, if you will, in the sense of "having more than one decidedly dissimilar aspects or qualities." Works well.

     

     

  • colleen

    Paul,

    For this discussion I believe question 11 was the relevant and most interesting one. Rather than actually answer it you wrote dismissively “all important issues”. Had you answered that poverty/homelessness, abortion, the Iraq War, the environment, health care, immigration, same-sex marriage and jobs and the economy were all of equal importance to you I would not have believed you because, outside of your personal issues, in your posts here only one of those issues is frequently a subject of discussion.

    I mention the poll and continue this discussion only because I wanted to explain why I doubt your claims of being progressive, not because I carry around a “narrow little caricature” but because all my available evidence points to the fact that abortion and what you folks call ‘life’ issues is/are indeed the primary focus of your political activism. You are, after all, the guy who told me that abortion wasn’t about women.
    Honestly I believe you come here for the same reason elm does: to proselytize a conservative and patriarchal religious doctrine.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • paul-bradford

    Honestly I believe you come here for the same reason elm does: to proselytize a conservative and patriarchal religious doctrine.

     

    colleen,

     

    I got to hand it to you, you are one tough cookie to convince!

     

    Had you answered that poverty/homelessness, abortion, the Iraq War, the environment, health care, immigration, same-sex marriage and jobs and the economy were all of equal importance to you I would not have believed you

     

    Opposition to the Iraq war is undoubtedly the most important issue on that list.  That was the ‘single issue’ that prompted me to support Obama over Clinton (I frankly didn’t see a bit of difference between them on the abortion issue).  I suppose same sex marriage isn’t that big a deal to me because I live in Massachusetts and it’s a settled issue here.  Gays have been getting married for some time and it hasn’t caused a problem. 

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

  • jayn

    First, the post I replied to said ‘what is left of a woman…?’.  The implication I got wasn’t that she was less of a mother (I’m not touching that issue), but that she was less of a woman.  Of course, the poster in question can correct me if I’m wrong, but this language comes uncomfortably close to the idea that women are good for nothing but bearing children, and that having a child ‘completes’ her.

     

    Secondly, we’re not all Christian.  You have a right to your own beliefs, but they’re not a convincing argument for those who do not share them (or even for everyone who does).

     

    Thirdly, where did you get the idea that we should live only for ourselves?  There’s a term for that–sociopath.  At the same time, though, we all have to be somewhat selfish for our own good.  If we don’t take care of ourselves, we can’t possibly take care of others.  We can’t live strictly for what we can do for those around us.

  • crowepps

    The unborn are more discriminated against than anyone — because so many deny that they are even people!

    They may eventually manage to develop into people but they certainly aren’t there yet at the point where most abortions occur. Many of them haven’t even reabsorbed their gill-slits.

    Imagine how much courage it takes for her to change her mind!

    Why would it take ‘courage’ to change her mind when the person who is propagandizing her to do so, to believe the fetus ‘had the same right to live as she does’, also offers her instant absolution (so long as she expresses sufficient ‘anguish’ to satisfy them)? It seems to me it would take far more courage to continue consistently in her own feelings and to refuse to pick up that burden of unnecessary guilt in order to satisfy those who prefer to keep women wallowing endlessly in emotionalism and guilt about not being sufficiently ‘selfless’.

  • crowepps

    We are all going down the tubes together because of abortion, contraception, etc. Open your eyes to what is going on in our world

    Funny, looking around at the world, it seems to be pretty obvious that the countries where contraception is most widely available are in the best shape, and the more backward and under developed countries are those where contraception is banned. Certainly most of the grease on the tubes seems to be attributable to overpopulation, pollution and massive waste.

  • crowepps

    I don’t consider my views cynicism at all, but your reactions to my statements of what I see as reality around me seems to imply that you believe statements of the way things actually exist means ‘hopelessness’. I think you are mistaken, however, about what the word ‘hope’ entails – hope is a desire which there is some reason to believe may be obtained. I’m sure you would agree that it goes far beyond hope and into delusion to believe that flapping the arms hard enough will enable one to fly or that wishing hard enough will enable one to win the lottery without buying a ticket.

     

    One of the reasons that people ‘have trouble trusting’ you is that you have over and over again revealed a pretty troubling lack of knowledge about the biological process of reproduction in the fetus and the pregnant woman, the physical consequences of that process for the pregnant woman when things go wrong (ever heard of choriocarcinoma?), the psychological results of that process for the pregnant women, the way that medicine and pharmaceuticals currently affect that process and what the various forms of birth control are and how they actually work. Someone who sincerely was concerned about this issue would take the trouble to do that research and see just exactly what emotional load they would be dumping on women by encouraging them to believe that ‘every zygote is a child’.

     

    Your arguments to date have predominantly been your personal emotional ones: ‘I feel’, ‘I am troubled by’, ‘I believe’, ‘it hurts me to think’, ‘I am appalled by’, etc. Other people are not required to live their lives with your emotional comfort in mind, nor does their responsibility to ‘respect’ your religion require them to conform their behavior to its teachings or to believe those teachings have any validity whatsoever. I certainly ‘respect’ the right to people to be Christian Scientists even though I believe the underlying beliefs of that faith are stupid, deluded and likely to kill them and their children if they become seriously ill.

     

    In addition, your arguments in response to other people’s posts tend to focus pretty heavily on their emotions rather than their statements of fact, as you accuse them of being selfish, distrustful, hopeless, defensive, considering the fetus a ‘cyst’, etc.  It’s a little difficult to ‘trust’ someone who is so quick to diagnose instead of discuss.

     

    I agree with you that there’s no need to believe that ‘what is’ has to be ‘what will be’, but since ‘past results are the best predictor of future performance’ there has to at least some tenuous connection between the reality that exists and where we end up. Certainly your personal views about what ‘truly human’ means are irrelevant when you insist on talking about what people would be like when they understood what they really could be IF they were non-violent, selfless, etc. Since that is not how they have been historically and isn’t how they are actually demonstrate they are now, ‘hoping’ that they will be in the future makes no more sense than saying people would be ‘better off’ if they were all telepathic. It makes an interesting SF tale, but it certainly isn’t a reasonable basis for either public or medical policy.  I think one of the problems you consistently stumble over is that you can’t grasp that the ‘traditional woman’ who was WILLING TO BE endless selfless didn’t exist and that in fact society went to great lengths traditionally to keep women in a position where they  DIDN’T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE.  This myth is pretty much the patriarchal equivalent of the ‘happy darkies who love massa’ in Gone With The Wind.

  • colleen

    I got to hand it to you, you are one tough cookie to convince!

    Paul, perhaps if you stopped trying to ‘convince’ me and started listening to and responding to what I’m saying you would have better luck. The fact of the matter is that all you have ever done here (besides talk about yourself) is proselytize your ‘faith’ and talk about ‘life’ issues. the ‘life’ you talk about and express concern for is almost exclusively located in the bodies of women or in petrie dishes. And you do this (almost) every day and have been doing so for a long while now. Indeed you have started an organization not to speak about the occupation of Iraq but to draw attention to abortion issues.
    .
    My reason for replying to you was to point out that your “narrow little caricature” statement was inaccurate and explain why I reached the conclusion that you are a conservative.

    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

    Dr Warren Hern, MD

  • katwa

    To remove diseased tissue or prevent staining clothing is quite a bit different from stopping a beating heart.

    So you’re cool with abortion before the heart is beating? You think the soul is in the heart?

     

    And I never said anything about preventing stained clothing or removing diseased tissue… I have no idea what you are talking about. I said that to some women, forced birth might NOT be better than abortion.

     

    Conjugal sex is not rape.

    Um, wow. You really don’t know what rape is. I’m not sure if you’re trying to say that all non-marital sex is rape, that husbands can do whatever they want whenever they want to their wives, or what, but most of us define rape around consent, not whethere you’re properly owned or not.

     

    What is left  of a woman after she has asked someone to remove her progeny from her womb?

    Huh? Does abortion remove some part of the woman??

  • katwa

    Are you o.k. with this??

    Yes. A fetus shouldn’t get special rights no one else has, the right to use my body without my consent. Until we have the technology to support a fetus without the woman’s body, removing it from the uterus will kill it.

    We are all going down the tubes together because of abortion, contraception, etc.

    What’s you’re problem with contraception? I thought you were against abortions? Preventing conception is the best way to prevent abortions.

     

    Healing and forgiveness is available from any priest, pastor, or pro-lifer. 

    Not all of us share your religion, you know.

  • katwa

    What are thoughts on heart transplants? Think it leaves the patient soulless, or maybe with someone else’s soul?

  • paul-bradford

    I find it hard to deal with threads that are this long.  

     

    I’ve taken up your post on the Lila Rose thread.  I hope you will understand.

     

    Thanks.

     

    Paul Bradford

    Pro-Life Catholics for Choice