AmericanPapist Comments
She goes on to maligne the "favorite anti-choice groups [which] makes your blood boil the most."
Yeah. That's called the conscience going off like a smoke alarm, but rather than doing the sensible thing like repenting, instead trying to drown out the noise with rationalization.
thomas, do you know about the bloggers being blocked or locked by google?over at creative minority report... the deacon's bench and happy catholic and others are locked.
This lady's a good example of the ability of some people to use words with some display of formal intelligence, and yet to have no idea what they, or the arguments they represent, really mean in a substantive way.
"anti-choice stuff…it is just totally illogical to me."
And here I thought it illogical (and unscientific) to assert that the fetus, with measurably distinct DNA as compared to the mother, yet fully human, is simply "part" of the mother's body (like a fingernail) that can be disposed of at will.
They cannot see because they do not will to see. I often ask "pro-choice" types what experiment (after all, science is the answer to everything) establishes that a fetus, from the first moment of conception, is still part of the mother rather than a new human being dependent upon the mother. I've yet to get any coherent response.
You should read Edwin Black's book,"War on the Weak." Black, not exactly a Right-wing Ideologue shows the Eugenics movement that Sanger et. al. where a part of was very Racist. In fact, some of what they did in this country was on par with what the Nazis did. For instance, their is the times when some states engaged in Involuntary sterilizations of various people deemed Undesirable. Of course there was Oliver Wendell Holmes decision in Buck v. Bell.
Last but not least, there was the interview former President of Planned Parenthood, Faye Wattleton gave Carl Rowan. In it she conceded Margaret Sanger did believe in Eugenics but that Planned Parenthood no longer believed in that.
Mr. Peter's...As you know, Satan is a very intelligent angel and he certainly knows what his arguments mean, represent, and he has a full knowledge of his ideas in order to accomplish his evil desire or plan --- and, like-wise,these people who are not thinking with the mind of CHRIST ---(and thus not are in submission to The Holy Spirit)... are, ofcourse, not thinking correctly but have a full awareness and know [be it in a substantially evil way] what they mean and what they are doing. Does that make any sense? You are really too kind. Ofcourse, Satan, is in the veiling business.
If it makes her feel better I just can't wrap my mind around baby murdering rhetoric. We have no right to tell a person what to do with her body - unless that person is very small, innocent, and defenseless. Huh?
I am a Roman Catholic seminarian and here's my take on the post and the links: The Feministe blogger gets it right on the head with respect to most of the groups she slammed, except for Feminists for Life. National Right to Life is an embarrassment to anyone with a conscience and a half-working brain. And we had better sit up and listen to Sonya ... she's got it right ... except for the pro-choice punch at the end.
There's a brilliant beyond brilliant article by Notre Dame Law School professor Cathleen Kaveny (she has a Ph.D. in Theology and a J.D. from Yale) in the Thomist on truly pro-life jurisprudence. It is worth checking out. I think it appeared back in the 80s, but it is still relevant.
I do love Feminists for Life, though. And, I think they get it right ... where a lot of other dull, sappy, and bloggy conservative Catholics get it wrong --- or, don't even get it at all.
Anon1: yes, it makes some sense. Satan is the master deceiver.
Anon2: you have some pretty harsh words for a group that has done herculean work for decades, from likely before you were born. I assure you, most of us here have more than half a brain, and whatever tactical differences some of us might have with NRL, they are not an embarrasment to us. Words like yours, tho, from one who claims (without offering evidence) to be a seminarian, are an embarrassment.
Well said, as usual, Dr. Peters. :)
How, exactly, are they an embarrassment?
How, exactly, are they an embarrassment?
Seconded. But it's been some time now and can only conclude this anon's was a hurl-grenade-and-run comment.
Commenting by HaloScan
