Tactless, tasteless, tawdry--hold on, I'm not even through with the T's yet. What, does PP actually *want* hate mail?
R.W. | 11.19.02 - 7:41 pm | #

This makes me want to barf. (Sorry for being graphic).
Michelle K. | 11.19.02 - 8:37 pm | #

BARF!! This makes me really really sick. "choice on earth?"

You know, I think that whole term "pro-choice" is hilarious.
God ALREADY gave us a choice.
We have the choice to kill our babies or to not kill our babies.

Meggan | 11.19.02 - 8:50 pm | #

Meggan's obliviousness to the varying degress of agreement or disagreement on the issue aside, the card is just silly. I'd think it just as silly if the Vatican issued cards saying "And the rhythm method after your mulled wine." - a political agenda being pushed in such an asinine way on any holiday is just dumb.

As for most Americans thinking the holiday season is about a birth, I might have some issues - I'm convinced most people think that Christmas is about rushing to buy gifts for people because they're buying gifts for you, and - after all - the commercials say we should.

I think much of the idea of being with family and friends for the sake of family and friends, and looking out for one another, is lost on all - theist or atheist.

My Christmas Eve car wreck story would highlight this, but it's time to watch "24", so I must go.


andy | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 9:00 pm | #

I wonder what all those "conservative Catholic" Democrats and "pro-choice Catholics" think of this.

Minute Particulars has a great point about the symbolism of the snowflakes. I guess the card is cut off right above the flames.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 9:05 pm | #

Andy, I don't want to get into again but Meggan's right. The "choice" is simple: it's between being life and death. It's all the rationalizing for the choice of death that makes it sound complicated.
Michelle K. | 11.19.02 - 9:33 pm | #

Michelle - perhaps it's simple to you, but even though I disagree completely with your position, I can understand how you would hold such a position. Would that you would afford me the same courtesy, walking a mile in my shoes as it were.

It's not just about life and death in a general sense - plants are living until plucked and eaten too. The honest difference is where varying groups see the embryo or fetus as a human being - I can respect that such differences exist without ignoring them to make myself feel better. Try it sometime.
andy | Homepage | 11.19.02 - 11:21 pm | #

Andy, there are "honest differences" in some circles over whether members of certain races/ethnic groups are human beings. The Truth is still the Truth.

Do you really think the issue the rights of unborn children is analogous to respecting a plant??
Dev Thakur | 11.20.02 - 2:19 am | #

Fret not,these cards canbe used to push school choice in public education; that way we'd be doing it for the children,right?
tonymixan | 11.20.02 - 7:17 am | #

Andy,
My comment may have seemed oblivious to you because I was simply making a statement in reaction to the "Choice on Earth" card. I am certainly NOT oblivious "to the varying degress of agreement or disagreement on the issue"
I DO understand that some people simply and honestly do not see a fetus or an embryo as a human being and because I understand that I do not condemn those people (condemning is not my job, anyway). I, however do see a fetus and an embryo as human life and feel sad that others cannot.
The slogan "pro-choice" makes me laugh because it puts the emphasis on
choice which, in my opinion and based on my view of fetuses and embryos, we already have. No, I am not oblivious to the fact that the slogan refers to legal choice rather than free will. I know that some people are pro-choice without being pro-abortion themselves.
While I see abortion as the killing of human life I, in fact, am a little scared of what would happen if abortion was made illegal. To me the solution must involve more than banning abortions. It's very very difficult.
So you see, I am not oblivious.
Walk a mile in my shoes.
Meggan | 11.20.02 - 9:02 am | #

How can we find out which larger charitable groups (like the United Way) and more importantly, which retail chains and big businesses give to Planned Parenthood so we can start stonewalling them as completely as possible?

I'd love to boycott some store or business and then tell them and PP exactly why.

"Choice on Earth!" Blasphemy!
Therese Z | 11.20.02 - 9:29 am | #

Add to the consideration of murder, willfully clouded with talk of fetuses and embryos as subhuman ...

... the fact that Roe v. Wade gave Planned Parenthood a veritable license to mint money -- blood money, but mint they do. Downstream of Roe, the wheels of government work relentlessly to grind out protections for that license, whether it be with RICO, or laws requiring OB's to train in abortion, or the promise of Illinois' new attorney general to shutter crisis-pregnancy centers because they fail to promote abortion.

So what we have here is a loathsome attempt at advertising. Ironic that a significant portion of PP's cheering section would black out at the thought of sending a card from another for-profit entity selected at random from the rogue's gallery comprising "big business".
Bob Kunz | 11.20.02 - 10:36 am | #

Andy,

While I disagree with your opinion on choice, you (and many others) are mistaken about whether the "fetus" is a human being. It is, there is no biological or medical doubt whatsoever. And in fact, the better informed proponents of infanticide recognize that. The issue is not whether its a human being; the issue is whether a human being at that stage of development is a person under the Constitution. AS I recall, other human beings were not considered "persons" under the Constitution in the past, although you would certainly not argue that they are not person now.
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 11:42 am | #

NRA, NASCAR and 9/11 fireworks less tasteless ???? They would be the Miss Manners of tact compared to PP.
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 11:44 am | #

While fully agreeing with the evil of abortion and of Planned Parenthood, I note that Planned Parenthood is consistently wrong, even in the little things. Real snowflakes are hexagonal. PP's are octagonal. As for "choice", it is meanless to talk about choice without specifying what is being chosen. I have used the signature tag Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery. Shortly after Norma McCorvey's highly publicized conversion to Evangelical Chrisitianity (she later became a Catholic) she said in an interview, "I'm pro-life on choice." She, who had been working in the abortion industry, knew that "choice" was a euphemism for abortion. In fact, supporters of legal abortion (a phrase I recommend for occasions where you need a neutral term) used to call themselves "pro-abortion" until they discovered the PR spin value of "pro-choice" I have documentation of that fact if anyone wants it.
Marty Helgesen | 11.20.02 - 11:46 am | #

Of course, anyone can believe the fetus is not a human being; but then you can believe the moon is made of green cheese, the earth is flat, or the stars are diamonds floating in the sky. It doesn't make you right, and in fact weakens your credibility. But then, acceptance of the pc position for many people depends upon this misconception, which is why they cling to it despite all evidence to the contrary (gee, sounds kind of irrational and fundamentalist).
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 11:49 am | #

Well said Michelle. It's the murder we object to. That's why is difficult for Andy and others to convince us to respect their "opinion". It's no different than saying why can't you respect my belief that stealing your property is ok? (except that respecting the pro-abortionist view results in the deaths of millions of persons every year)

Bottom line question for the pro-aborts: if not at conception, when does the fetus become a person (a human being with rights, like a right to life, that deserve protecting)?
Gene H | 11.20.02 - 1:10 pm | #

We only complicate that which we cannot rationalize or justify.
Paul Scheibmeir | 11.20.02 - 1:15 pm | #

"We will conform our lives to the truth or we will conform the truth to our lives." - EMJ


Paul Scheibmeir | 11.20.02 - 1:22 pm | #

"Respecting someone's rights to hold an opinion does not bar one from saying their opinions are radical and looney".

Bingo! So why do pro-aborts accuse pro-lifers of being narrow-minded and judgmental if we dare to disagree with them? Pro-aborts may believe pro-lifers are radical and looney, that is your right. But it is also our right to continue to state our convictions and to try to effect change. I know the slavery argument has been somewhat overworked but it's because it is an excellent example of this. Slavery has been abolished precisely because emancipators understood that the life and liberty of a race of people was more important than the rights of slave-owners to continue to act on their beliefs that black people were less than human. Where would we be if the emancipators had left well enough alone just because they didn't want to risk offending anybody? Because pro-lifers believe that the pre-born are essentially an oppressed group of people with the inalienable rights to life and liberty, we are obligated to try and protect them and to effect change. We sure wouldn't get anywhere sitting on our butts with our mouths shut, now would we?
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 1:32 pm | #

Gene - I've references Sagan's article as, in my opinion, a reasonable means of determining (with a somewhat fuzzy boundary simply due to the nature of human development)when a fetus is entitled to rights. I'm not sure how pro-life people can consider a peanut-shaped blob with only the bare beginnings of a spinal tube, no thoughts, and no personality as a human being.






andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:34 pm | #

I'm pro-choice and I don't call pro-life people narrow-minded or judgemental. I completely understand the reasoning, at least the religious reasoning, behind their position - I just happen to think a) there is no God thus b) their reasoning is a bit off.

The slavery example is flawed in that one need only look at a person of any race and they are readily identifiable as a living, breathing, thinking human being. Can't say the same for a peanut blob.
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:40 pm | #

Ah, so humanity is defined by what it looks like...how enlightened...so the blob's life is forfeit despite the fact that it is a human life. It just looks different so its killable.

BTW, if Planned Parenthood got to Mary, they probably would have handed her a coat hanger.
Jonathan | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 1:56 pm | #

Andy,

Since you don't believe in God, you should be even more in favor of pushing the 'life agenda' because this is the only chance you get.

Look at the matter in a purely scientific manner. A 'fetus' begins doing its 'things and stuff' at very early stages of the pregnancy. What I'm trying to say is that all of the proof has pointed toward the fetus as being alive. That isn't a topic about religion or God, rather that is the nature of life and how life begins. Only on a purely 'emotional' level can the pro choice arguement be even remotely valid. and that is an arguement full of half truthes and sophitsry.

pax christi

Dale Cebula | 11.20.02 - 2:09 pm | #

How many times does this exact conversation get played out?

OK, Andy, it's the pro-lifers' turn:

"A baby just out of the womb isn't apparently cognizant. Are they not human beings? How about senior citizens? Those with mental handicaps? In a coma? Knocked out?"

You've already spoken against partial birth abortion, so you don't have any room to go out that way. Perhaps you'll bring up fingers, toes, and eyes and maintain that "consciousness" equals "personhood" with an "of course" argument.

To which we'll say that there are plenty of people without fingers, toes, and eyes... some without any of these. So we're left with the "consciousness" declaration, which brings us back to my question of the degree of self-awareness. Perhaps this time around, you'll sieze on my coma example (or maybe I'll have slipped and offered the example of a person at the tail end of life); somebody in a coma is not going to wake up, whereas somebody simply knocked out probably will.

Then, I'll suggest that a fetus will most definitely "wake up" to consciousness. It's likely that by this point in the debate, you'll think me just silly as well as fanatical, and the feeling will be reciprocated.

I respect your opinion, however erroneous, Andy. I'll just feel a whole lot better about saying that when you're stating it in the context of an argument for bringing back abortion.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 2:11 pm | #

Jonathan, do try to follow me - I only stated that people of other races are obviously human from a visual standpoint. There is no reasonable question about their being humans (inferior, or whatever, being beside the point - they are obviously human beings). If you wish to extrapolate that to something I did not say, that's your right.

Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood doesn't go out in search of pregnant women to talk into abortion - the women enter their clinics of their own accord. And they didn't have coat hangars in the time of Jesus, to my knowledge (I could be wrong).

Dale - I've never met a pro-choice person who said a fetus isn't alive. It quite obviously is. But simply being alive and being a human being with rights are two different things. I have the opposite view of you - I see the defense of the extreme pro-life position as based on naught but emotionalism and faith in something that may or may not exist.

andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 2:17 pm | #

"I'm not sure how pro-life people can consider a peanut-shaped blob with only the bare beginnings of a spinal tube, no thoughts, and no personality as a human being."

Precisely from an atheistic, materialistic point of view, you of all people should believe that a fetus is human life. After all, this "blob" ehibits the life processes (exchange of oxygen/CO2, growth, metabolism) that defines living matter. It is human as in part of the species Homo Sapiens - 36 chromosomes and all that. Live + human = human life. Is that so hard to understand - better yet, can you prove otherwise?
By requiring "thinking" (an illusion created by random chemical exchanges according to the materialistic/ atheistic point of view) and personality (whatever the hell that is) you are adding religious or quasi-religious arguments to the requirement of personhood. Simple fact is, we are all a bunch of random chemical reacting blobs (some more blobby than others). Why should some human blobs be denied the right to continue living that other human blobs enjoy?







C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 2:22 pm | #

"Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood doesn't go out in search of pregnant women to talk into abortion"

Well, actually with the marketing campaigns that PP typically do, that is precisely what they are doing.

"And they didn't have coat hangars in the time of Jesus"

But they did have abortion in the time of Jesus. One of the earliest Christian documents (Didache) specifically mentions it.

"But simply being alive and being a human being with rights are two different things"

I seem to recall reading about another place, fairly recently actually, of living beings marked for termination not having any rights.

Buzz | 11.20.02 - 2:38 pm | #

"But simply being alive and being a human being with rights are two different things"

I'm not sure how to interpret your claim. Are you saying being alive and being human are two different things? Yes, a bird is alive, but not human. But a human fetus is also alive, and human (otherwise, we would call it a fish fetus, or something else, right?). thus, being a live human fetus and a live human are not two different things. (Name me one live human who was also not a live human fetus, or one live human fetus that grew up to be something other than a live human "person")

Do you mean a live human fetus has different rights than a live psot partum human? Well, thanks for stating the obvious, but that's what the whole argument is about. We know they have different rights, the issue is why? Is it appropriate? Is it justified? What justifies it? Pro-choice people cannot answer that without resort to mystical "personhood" - thought, personality - talk about begging the question - you are a person because you have personality? What's personality? The condition of being a person. What's a person? . . .

Or are you saying that being a live human being does not entitle you automatically to the right to continue as a live human being? Thus, certain live humans, for whatever reason (eg, race, skin color, sexual orientation, stage of development) are disposable?
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 2:56 pm | #

Buzz - as I said, people enter PP clinics of their own free will. Advertising that they offer consultation and reproductive services is part of staying in business. I doubt you think that McDonald's advertising makes anyone go in for a Big Coronary Burger against their own volition.

I never said they didn't have abortion. I said they didn't have coat hangers. It was a refutation of a silly and baseless example that had been put forth.

And for the final point, feel free to take it completely out of the context of the larger discussion. I won't say I'm surprised.
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 3:01 pm | #

No problem. I was just following the same paradigm you used in your initial replies to Meggan & Michelle. I thought you would appreciate it.
Buzz | 11.20.02 - 3:09 pm | #

"The slavery example is flawed in that one need only look at a person of any race and they are readily identifiable as a living, breathing, thinking, human being."

Well actually, no Andy, the slavery example is not flawed because this recognition of personhood was *not* readily identifiable to the advocates of slavery (otherwise there would have been no Civil War). It is obvious to you now, of course, 150 years later but at the time, those who were pro-choice for slavery argued that black people were no more than beasts of burden. It is my sincere hope that one day people will say "Of course the pre-born child is a human being. That's so obvious.How could advocates of abortion not see that?"
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 3:25 pm | #

"I see the defense of the extreme pro-life position as based on naught but emotionalism and faith in something that may or may not exist."

Let's look at it from the other side of the aisle. We know its genetically human and alive, yet its not a person because:

1) it can't think (although some of our best "thinkers" claim its all a random illusion anyway)

2) they can't feel (although from a purely materialistic point of view, that doesn't mean anything anyway because we cannot evaluate the quality of feeling - do we "know" that they can't feel? do dogs feel? do cells "feel" - i.e exhibit a reaction to stimuli?

3) They don't look like human beings. Wrong, they look exactly like human beings, in fact they look more like ALL OTHER human beings at that stage of development than at any other time in their life cycle. 2 year olds don't look like 47 year old humans, either.

So pro-aborts rely on thinking, feeling and looks.

Now, which side is it that relies on emotion and nothing but faith in something that may or may not exist?
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 3:33 pm | #

Michelle - do a Google for slavery ads - while the blacks were seen as inferior (oddly enough, a Biblical stance was oft used to support this), they are repeatedly referred to as men, women, and children in the ads. Odd, if they weren't identifiably human by the people who owned them.

And, sorry C. Matt, since I don't consider the peanut blob to be a human being, saying that it looks like other human beings at that point becomes utterly meaningless. It looks like other peanut blobs that went on to become humans, and many that didn't (through miscarriage or abortion).

Also - speaking of Planned Parenthood, a friend of mine who has been to their clinics in the past had this to say:

"I have to tell you that PP has rows upon rows of information on adoption in every single exam room. I know, obviously, because I've been there. They also have pamphlets that say 'FAQ about abortion' ,'single parenting', etc. Every option is equally represented."
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 3:57 pm | #

"Every option is equally represented".

Yah. Riiiiiiiight.
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 4:13 pm | #

Michelle - just out of curiosity, have you been into a Planned Parenthood and reviewed the materials? I have not, but my friend has, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her claim as I've never seen her be dishonest to my knowledge. So, have you reviewed the materials yourself or are you just being difficult?
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 4:23 pm | #

Michelle - also, why not check out PP's website at http://www.plannedparenthood.org and then click on the "Health Info" link - gasp, it even says that abstinence is guaranteed to not get you pregnant! They're so subversive!
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 4:27 pm | #

Andy,

Are the only peanut blobs that don't become persons the ones that naturally miscarry or are killed?

I would appreciate those cites you mentioned above about when a fetus becomes a person.
Gene H | 11.20.02 - 4:31 pm | #

You know Andy, you're right, I really should take a trip into my local Planned Parenthood clinic to see what they're offering. They probably do present different options but I highly doubt all the options are presented in the same light. Why? I've known too many women who've been talked into having abortions because they do not feel they would be supported if they had their child. To quote Mother Teresa: "You cannot love the mother and kill the child". If we (society) really loved the woman, we would love her child too and do everything we could to support her in taking care of it. I highly doubt that Planned Parenthood's abortion business would be so brisk if women were truly convinced that adoption or keeping the child were loving, possible options. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an early feminist (1840's) said, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our own children as property to be disposed of as we see fit". Kind of sounds like a parallel to slavery, doesn't it?
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 5:05 pm | #

Andy,

This isn't so much a content-based observation, but I just had to point out that you saw fit to dismiss C. Matt's latest post purely on the basis of one point (on which I agree with your logic). As I was taught, argumentation isn't supposed to work like that... three points proferred means three points must be rebutted.

As for all options begin presented at PP, I've never been in one, but I do remember when they made a presentation to my class in high school. More or less: "Of course, abstinence would work, but you'll never be able to manage that, so let's move on."

Offering such material is, for PP, akin to any other politically obligatory disclaimer. "Of course, I support the President, but..."; "Of course, I don't care what they do privately, but..."; "Of course, adoption and actually raising the child are options, but...".

Really, if the PP position is that there is nothing at all wrong with abortions (except to unreasonable fundamentalists), then what exigencies would lead them to promote either pro-life strategy over the "more convenient" abortion route?

And this isn't even getting into the extent to which they downplay post-abortion emotional problems.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 5:31 pm | #

Make that "options BEING presented."

Oops.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 5:33 pm | #

Justin, his first point wasn't even an argument but a statement of something I had already said. As for the second point, the existence of feeling, we know (as best one can know via the senses) that they exist and correlate to conditions in and specific parts of the brain, specific biochemicals, and the studies can be reproduced. If he wants to argue the nature of reality and what can be known, the discussion really won't be anything but mental masturbation - getting out of bed and functioning is based on the assumption that the world is knowable. To claim that it isn't knowable is to refute the very argument since it's based on the world itself.

My friend, who chooses to not post here for fear of the treatment she'll receive, said she was never told she should have an abortion or carry the child to term - she was provided information so that she could make her own decision. That they don't actively push the agenda that pro-lifers want doesn't mean they encourage the opposite - you're excluding the middle.
andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 5:57 pm | #

Andy,

"And, sorry C. Matt, since I don't consider the peanut blob to be a human being, saying that it looks like other human beings at that point becomes utterly meaningless. It looks like other peanut blobs that went on to become humans, and many that didn't (through miscarriage or abortion)."


Have any of these "peanut blobs" you describe turned out to become full grown peanuts? Show me one. You can't. You just continue to refuse to accept the obvious. Do you want some crakcers to go with your geen cheese moon?

You actually expect to be taken seriously when you say that human beings, at that stage, are not human beings because . . . because . . . what, they may grow up to be a peanut? Do you just not see the weakness of that argument (fetus is not human being?) Say that a human being at that stage of development is not a Constitutional person, and you will be at least arguing the true issue, not the "nonhuman" strawman : But wait, once you grant its a human, the nonperson argument kind of falls apart, doesn't it? I understand why you hold on to your peanuts so tightly, and its pretty transparent.
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 6:04 pm | #

C. Matt - I recommend you learn to recognize similes when they are used (and the don't always have to have the word "like" so it can be tricky, I know).

In addition, I recommend you recognize that being "human" and being "a human" are not the same thing.

Now, please pardon me, but I must buy some crackers for my green cheese moon appetizer.


andy | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 6:11 pm | #

Andy, there you go again. You just slid that veiled insult in there. It comes so naturally you probably didn't even notice it. "My friend who chooses not to post here for fear of the treatment she'll receive..." In other words, pro-lifers are a bunch of jerks who'll make her feel like a pile of ---- for having either having had an abortion or agreeing with it. Let me tell you, I've been verbally flogged, scorned, ridiculed and called names by pro-choicers many, many times. They can be very abusive. The subject is touchy for sure but you don't help matters with comments like that.
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 6:12 pm | #

Are you saying that the pro-choice position is not based upon emotion and faith? That is how I understood your earlier comment about the pro-life basis. I was pointing out how emotionally charged and faith based the pro-choice position is. You don't think the peanut blob looks like a human being because you don't think the blob is human. But EVERY human goes through this "peanut looking blob" stage. You can't refute that. Your problem isn't that it doesn't look like a human, your problem is that it doesn't look like a human at the personhood right stage, just like a human toddler doesn't look like a human at the geriatric stage. They are both human, as is the human peanut blob. Offer me one, ONE respected medical/biological peer reviewed article that says the human peanut blob is not biologically human.

One more time: The PCers rely on "it doesn't look like a person," "it has no feelings" and "it can't think."

Here's an interesting riddle for you: Name a person who can't breath, doesn't think, can't feel, and does not look human.

Answer: ExxonMobil Corporation. Constitutionally recognized person.
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 6:17 pm | #

"I recommend you learn to recognize similes when they are used (and the don't always have to have the word "like" so it can be tricky, I know)."

Now were getting somewhere. The peanut thing is a simile - it is peanut looking, but not a peanut, because . . . it is a human. I am happy to accept your concession.

Now 'splain why this human is not a person?
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 6:24 pm | #

In writing a paper on abortion I have been to 3 Planned Parenthood clinics - in the los Angeles area - within the last year. Only one clinic had some flyers- I had to ask for- on adoption. Almost all of the readily available information was on birth control and the 'choice' of 'termination.'
Rich H | 11.20.02 - 6:25 pm | #

By the way, Mark, as an administrative thing: Is there a way to number the posts for easier referencing (I recall the old system had it)?
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 6:35 pm | #

Nope. Sorry! It's a Haloscan thing.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 6:37 pm | #

Andy
Terry LaForest Lynch | 11.20.02 - 6:45 pm | #

Andy,

"For the record, I'm against partial birth abortion,(except in cases where the mother's life is clearly threatened-then it's up to her)" The AMA and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have both testified on the record, that partial birth abortion is never medically indicated, never mind necessary. Any woman who is physically able to undergo the partial birth abortion procedure, is physically able to deliver a living child. The sole purpose of the procedure is to guarentee the birth of a dead child.
Terry LaForest Lynch | 11.20.02 - 7:01 pm | #

For a little levity:

I think a typo on C. Matt's part suggests a good title for a pro-life fund-raising CD:

"Gene Cheese Moon"

-------------

Andy,

You're right; none of the points were actually self-contained arguments. They were all part of the larger argument (indeed, restatements of what you'd said... that was the point), which is the one you've been avoiding.

As for the substance of your "feeling" point, it seems to me that (from an atheistic point of view) you're privileging one chemical reaction called "feeling" over another. Biochemical reactions in the brain might be the method by which a larger blob of matter reacts to stimuli, but that does not mean that smaller blobs of matter do not "feel" (respond to stimuli). But what's the importance of "feeling" anyway? I'm sure cows have chemical reactions in the brain, too.

As I wrote before, there's no room to move in this argument. Especially if a human is not necessarily human. Maybe you're the one who "needs to recognize" something...

---------------

C. Matt,

You can always refer to the time and date of comments to specify.
Justin Katz | Homepage | 11.20.02 - 7:05 pm | #

11.20.02 7:00PM

good idea
C. Matt | 11.20.02 - 7:16 pm | #

For anyone who is interested, Andy are you listening? there's a really pro-life website offering articles from a number of unusual pro-life advocates. One is atheist Nat Hentoff, columnist for the Village Voice who very convincingly explains why it is indeed possible to be an atheist and pro-life. In his article Pro-Choice bigots: a view from the pro-life left he gives many examples of hostility, intimidation, and censorship from the pro-choice side. The site can be found at http://no-violence.net/. Give it a shot Andy. You might find you're surprised.
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 7:18 pm | #

Sorry, that should have been "really good pro-life website".
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 7:18 pm | #

Michelle-

Andy presented no thinly veiled insult...I told him flat out I would not post here because I was afraid of being attacked. He is telling you what I said.

I never had an abortion, fortunately, for in the frightening instance that brought me to PP, I was never actually pregnant. Though the situation was indeed horiffic. I had been sexually assaulted, beaten, and then missed a period. I was a teenager, and thought my world was about to end.

A counselor at Planned parenthood absolutely and literally saved my life. She also did not hold back when I said, "If I am pregnant I absolutely want an abortion." She said I was upset, having an emotional reaction to a very traumatic event, and that I had options available outside of abortion if I was interested. She said I would need to take some time to ponder things if I was pregnant, that there would be no scheduling of any procedure today, just testing and talking.

As it turned out, the emotional trauma of the violent act had made my body go a little nutty, and I didn't have a period for awhile. Again, no pregnancy.

I stil have nightmares about what happened. I can't imagine being forced to birth the offspring of my attacker in addition to being scarred for life by his wicked act on my then innocent body. How overwhelming. It's so many years later, and I still cry.

But I digress.

I feel fortunate that there were people there who gave me options, talked to me, made me feel safe. Every exam room had every type of literature you could imagine. It felt like a place to get answers, and that is always how I will view PP.

To close, please don't think that Andy is blowing smoke, he has directly quoted my statements made in e-mails to him in regards to this subject. I was upset to see the misconceptions that people have about Planned parenthood, especially yours.

I just wanted to explain it to somebody. I did not want to hear judgements made by people who have never received the exceptionally compassionate care the women at Planned parenthood offer. I am so thankful that they were there. I surely couldn't have survived without them.


anon. | 11.20.02 - 7:57 pm | #

None of us wants to hear judgments; this is why we follow Christ.
John L. Sillasen | 11.20.02 - 9:04 pm | #

Does "anon" strike anyone as a Madison Avenue marketing pitch for PPoA?
John L. Sillasen | 11.20.02 - 9:06 pm | #

Andy,

Anybody who uses your logic is not human.

What is your address?
Paul Scheibmeir | 11.20.02 - 10:06 pm | #

Why is it that 99 out of 100 planned parenthoods are in black and hispanic neighborhoods?

Just trying to help the poor I suppose.....just trying to help....

Also, ever notice how "over-population" problems are always in Africa?

You know, if any of you out there think the world is over populated, I suggest that you take one for the team. Do the honorable thing.


Paul Scheibmeir | 11.20.02 - 10:16 pm | #

John L. - That's mighty cynical, pal, and one helluva way to alienate soleone, who, for all we know, has bared (even anonymously) the most devastating events of her life.

Anon (Andy's friend) - I'd be more apt to say that what you found is a mighty rare PP center. Yes, there is compassion to be found at PP, and no one denies that. The people who work there undoubtedly feel that they are providing a service to women who are in dire need.

Where we differ is in our understanding of the "solution" they overwhelmingly offer. You see it as a necessary choice; baby-rhetoric aside, I see it as resulting in the termination of a human being. Your story is powerful, but I'm afraid that that fact eclipses any compassion which given PP personnel may give; that at the end of the day, people are dying at their hands.

If you don't mind, I'm going to pray for you; not necessarily for your conversion, but that you might be comforted in those times when you relive that horror.
Marc Lewandowski | 11.20.02 - 10:37 pm | #

Dear Anon,
I am sorry for the pain you've suffered. Forgive me if I considered that remark (that you were afraid we'd attack you) presumes we pro-lifers are just a bunch of cold-hearted jerks as I've been unfairly accused of this before. Why should you assume we would attack you? I'd say it was it's because that's what you've been led to believe you'd encounter. If you only knew the many compassionate women I have known working at pro-life centers. They care so much about helping both the mother and the child because the choice shouldn't have to be about loving one person and not the other. These people often are called to help those who are traumatized by having had an abortion. The depression and guilt are often so overwhelming the woman is suicidal. This is something I know Planned Parenthood doesn't offer help with, and doesn't want to admit happens. It happens--lots. To women who've had an abortion, I feel sorry they've made that choice because I believe that every child has the right to life, but I wouldn't verbally attack them or think they're lousy people. Recently I read of a woman who was raped at knifepoint. She said, "killing your child doesn't help you forget the rape". That child wasn't just the rapist's offspring, it was hers as well. It was her child which she chose to give life to and was one positive thing that came from a horrible experience. Again, I'm really sorry for how you've suffered. I hope you won't believe the stereotype that has pro-lifers hating anyone who disagrees with them. It's really not true.
Michelle K. | 11.20.02 - 11:51 pm | #

Therese Z,

There is an organization called the St. Antoninus Institute that puts out an annual Pro-Life Shopping Guide which lists companies supporting pro-abortion organizations. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are. It looks like they may be a year behind, but not certain of this. I only say this, because I believe Target (Dayton Hudson Corp.) has been taken off the "bad list" even though it still appears on their web-site. However, whatever minor outdated information might be reflected, I think it is a very good source, and the only one I'm aware of. Anyway, here is there web-site:

http://www.stantoninus.net/listab.htm


David B. | 11.21.02 - 12:16 am | #

Andy, I respect another's right to hold a different opinion. Believe me, I'm all for freedom of speech and thought. It's the killing I object to. Because I believe that the need to protect pre-born children is urgent, I necessarily will speak up in order to defend their right to life. Not to do so would be remiss. You and other pro-abortion advocates say you respect my right to hold a different opinion but you really don't. Pro-lifers are constantly belittled in the media, made out as fanatics and narrow-minded shrills and not given anywhere near a fair opportunity to present their views without being scorned. This phenomena has been documented by those in the media themselves. The "liberal bias" is a given. This is also evident in your sarcastic words urging me to "try it" (respecting others) sometime. Gee, weren't you just lecturing me on ad hom attacks several weeks ago? When you compared human life to a plant's you reminded me how nutty our world is. People will actually pay to have surgery performed on a gold fish and scream and perform violent acts on people wearing fur, yet these same people would not think twice about aborting a baby, even one partially born. Something is definitely wrong with our society's priorities. To refuse to see that is to bury your head in the sand.
Michelle K. | 11.21.02 - 12:40 am | #

C. Matt - you mean the moon isn't made out of green cheese? (roll eyes)

Michelle - respecting someone's right to hold an opinion does not bar one from saying their opinions are radical and looney. As for the plant reference, it was not saying humans and plants are the same - it was showing that you can't just sum up the argument as "life and death" because it's far too broad.

For the record, I'm against partial birth abortions (except in cases where the mother's life is clearly threatened - then it's up to her) and I find supporters of unregulated third trimester abortions as nutty as, say, the Army of God.

andy | Homepage | 11.21.02 - 1:04 am | #

John - it's very nice of you to ridicule someone's pain. You truly have warranted the title of Asshole. Were Jesus alive today, I am sure you would make him proud.

Additionally, it's sweet of you to summarize me as you do, but, well, you don't know me - you know little about me. But if it makes you feel good to compartmentalize me and write me off so that your fairy-tale feel-good stories make sense, so be it. You're still an Asshole (capital A for emphasis).

Paul - you can find my address quite easily. I promise I'm not a very complex program just complicating your simple life.

Marc - thank you for understanding, at least on some level, my friend's pain. Unlike others. If your god is real, I look forward to his judgement on them - maybe I'll see them in Hell.

And now, all of this aside, I have to go for one of my best friends lost a good friend today in a motorcycle accident. I want to be standing by in case he needs an ear. Your time, especially John's, might be better spent looking after the truly alive and not peanut blobs.

Good night.
andy | Homepage | 11.21.02 - 1:42 am | #

Do I have to explain my earlier tounge-in-cheek, retorical post?

I guess so.

Andy, the random synapses that fire in my brain construct a case for your inhumanity. You also espouse a view point that I feel is inconvenient and potentially harmful to my way of life, even my life itself. Even though your DNA is different from mine, I, firm in my resolve to choose, think it is high time to terminate your inhumane lifeform.

Of course I am just kidding. (I do not think it is right to kill other people.)

But Andy, I know that you are not kidding.

So, which one of us is more scarry?

[Before you reply, I know my spelling and grammar can be very scarry.]
Paul Scheibmeir | 11.21.02 - 7:40 am | #

Hey Andy,

my condolences to your friend and their family. It saddens me to hear of a fallen fellow rider.
C. Matt | 11.21.02 - 10:27 am | #

Sorry folks, I'm done with this debate - I'm sure most of you are fine people with whom I would simply disagree politely were we discussing this over a beer - but John's complete lack of compassion and sensitivity did it for me. I won't have the trauma of my friends mocked, ridiculed, or belittled in such a way.

Anyway, it's been fun (honestly), and I'm sure the issue will come up again and I'll be back full force, maximizing the value of your internet entertainment dollar.

C. Matt - I'll pass on your regards to my friend. Thank you.

And I apologize for my word choice in my last post - while I still hold that opinion of John, I could have found a more polite way to say it.
andy | Homepage | 11.21.02 - 11:13 am | #

from Andy posted 11.20.02 - 2:12 pm
Last time I checked, Planned Parenthood doesn't go out in search of pregnant women to talk into abortion - the women enter their clinics of their own accord.


Yes, They do. It's called sex education in the classroom.
Maureen McHugh | Homepage | 11.21.02 - 12:00 pm | #

Marc. It's not cynical. Remember: I gave up cynicism. Sometimes you cannot get to the end of the line by soothsaying. Truth is required.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 12:15 pm | #

Fianally, I get to use the word, "Sheeeeeesssshh". Here goes. Sheeeeeesssshh, Therese Z!!! The boycott of abortion affiliated organizations has been in full swing for several decades.

Where for you to jump on the bandwagon? The pro-life news vehicles I prefer, where you will find the connections: Population Research Institute (PRI.com?), EWTN.com, Priests for Life (?.com). These will provide you with more information than you can handle, or just what you want.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 12:31 pm | #

Marc, a better response to your characterization of my backsliding into cynical fervor:

The thoughts were posed, bared, on global blog. This blog is not sola sillasena, but groupa de troopa in Cristo. You have a fragment of Christ to melt away the hearts, and I have a fragment to hammer away the obstacles to truth.

If you don't mind now, I'll go back to doing something else. (This very statement is not cynical ... by decree.)
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 12:40 pm | #

Paul, Andy's address is not going to surprise you, as you have discovered that he is not human, as you've blogged.

On this very blog site, but in a different window, Andy reveals a clue to his home base. It can be discerned in the course of some dialog on the topic of animals.

***Hold everything. Am I reverting to cynicism, sarcasm or irony?***

OK, then. Try this. His logic, which you've questioned, and which I looked up near the beginning of this window, does not appear in any overt manner, at least in that particular comment.

Yet, in another window, Andy discusses animals. And he does an excellent job of it, registering some interest in dolphin intelligence.

You should go there and check out my reply. Animals are almost like people, yet the reverse is far from the truth. Why? I will let the readers ponder this mystery.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 12:49 pm | #

Andy, I'm glad we're getting to know each other. Your characterizations are ok with me. I get it all day long from teenagers, usually ones with big problems, although sometimes ones with few problems.

Sometimes they and you are right on. My load in life is fairly light, so taking on someone's trash is not that big a deal for me.

But, Andy, you project a heavy load at this time. I'm glad you have revealed this. It's the way reconciliation begins.

What you're looking for is what all of us have ever looked for. Some of us have found a bit of it. It lightens the load. Jesus suffered and He suffers today.

It is when you tap into this divine aspect of suffering that your load begins to lighten. It lightens in a manner of speaking; what actually happens in most cases is that we are enabled to handle a heavier pain.

It is said that the Pope stoops due to some disease. Hogwash; he is bent over because of the load he carries. Yet he is filled with joy.

The truth will set one free of the painful conditions you have conveyed.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 10:17 pm | #

Ditto Maureen: Planned Parenthood operates a marketing program nationally and internationally using the most sophisticated techniques ever developed by the pitch industries of history.

Mind control is a second rate item compared to the techno-rhetoric of the Planned Parenthood Federation. It's big money, the biggest. It is one of the major agenda programs in the United Nations money mill. To thwart PPF's UN agenda to some degree, it took the Pope, the United States, and Islam.

Planned Parenthood is no small player. We're talking one of the biggest.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 10:24 pm | #

"Were Jesus alive today ..." Andy, if you're still there, what makes you believe that Jesus is not alive today?

The Catholic Church continues because Jesus lives. Those in the Church are His body, with the Pope serving as His stand-in, His vicar.

This is not an opinion. Opinions don't propel religions for two millenia.

Jesus is alive. He ascended to the Father so that all of us could take part in His divine gift. Had He merely stayed in the condition of, say, Methuslah, then we'd all have to stand in line waiting to talk with Him.

God is alive; He is life. And He hooks us up merely for the asking. "Merely???" Depends on how one might choose to define "merely", doesn't it? Yes, there's more to it than merely signing your name to a document declaring you to be Catholic. When you commit yourself to God, then your problems will disappear, although not likely right away. In my case, they got worse and I got worse (my bad)for a while. But my faith, given me by God ... hmmn, I realize too that not only did God give me faith, but He gave me me; all I am is given by God ... already proved stronger than "my bad".

It's an age old story. Check it out for yourself.

And your friend with all the pain, and your late friend leaving others with great pain, why do you imagine that I dump on this? I have joy that is greater than pain. Were I to meet this pain in person, then certainly I would feel it, and this empathy would be expressed in my bearing. But, the joy would not go away. Joy and sadness are not mutually exclusive; although joy and hatred do not get along well at all. It is much more than a question of either/or, Andy.
John L. Sillasen | 11.21.02 - 11:59 pm | #

"Opinions don't propel religions for two millenia."

What of (in descending order by number of practitioners) Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Zoroastrianism, all of which survive and are centuries older than Christianity? Or of Australian Dreamtime, which has remained essentially unchanged for at least 4,000 years? The religions are for the most part mutually exclusive to Christianity, so they can't all be true.




Jon Darby | 11.24.02 - 8:47 pm | #

Those ancient religions are evident in western civilizations. Christianity has not totally redeemed the west from its ancient cultures, in which lots of the elements of such religions can be identified. If you don't believe it, then start exploring by listening to popular lyrics; then listen to how people talk. It moves right along from there. Ever heard the expression, "the resurgence of paganism"? "Resurgence", not importation? The religions of man are not mutually exclusive over the ages other than by emphases.

Opinions are not what gave rise to any of these things, but only to which aspects of them were emphasized in various cultures. The way we see without divine input culminates perhaps in the ancient Roman civilization, as some believe.

The most elemental and primary religion is the human instinct to believe in God. It has taken many forms, and been developed in many ways.

What I am saying in "opinions don't propel religions for two millenia" is that manmade religion is a default condition, which will exist no matter what. It does not rely on opinion to keep it going. It's an instinct; ie, an part of human nature, and perhaps a part of all creation. Psalms has inanimate creatures praising God; Jesus told the pharisees that if He were to silence his praisers, then the "very stones" would cry out.

Catholicism has fulfilled all the religious instincts in creation; none of the other religions has done this. Catholicism attributes the difference to Divine Revelation, which is beyond the abilities of man to suggest.

No one has ever been able to disprove this claim of the Church.

Note: Australian Dreamtime has given 4,000 years due to the lack of physical evidence going back any further. We have glyphs of that longevity and more right here in California's desert. Although these American glyphs are more materially oriented than the those Australian ones.

The reason we can understand Dreamtime somewhat is because it's in our nature to "get it", no differently than in the "aboriginal" nature.

So, I'm proposing that it is not opinions which drive religions, as opinions only have the power to configure religions. The driving power in human nature in its yearning for God. It will keep going no matter what the opinions.
John L. Sillasen | 11.24.02 - 9:15 pm | #

Non-Christian religions are NOT mutually exclusive to Christianity; all of them have some truth, but all of them have some error. Catholicism has truth, but no error.

Brings us back to my initial point, that Jesus is alive today, and dwells in His Church in a different way than He did before His Ascension. He is divinizing His people.

Non-Catholics seem to see the relationship between God and man differently than the Church. When one is in a state of grace, then one is part of the body of Christ; Christ, being God, incorporates those in grace into His divinity.

If I have expressed this incorrectly, then I will appreciate the correction. It's a difficult doctrine to state.

To enter into a state of grace does not require that one get rid of all pre-Christian cultural elements. These elements are long formed by man's religion. This is not bad; it is just the way things are.

If I go around saying things such as "holy cow", am I evidencing a pagan religious belief in myself? No, although I personally try not to say such things. I'd rather use more "earthy" terms which don't have religious overtones. What about, "Count your lucky stars"? If a Christian utters this phrase, will it doom him or her, or reveal a false
Christianity?

Every element of human nature has at some point in human history and pre-history been seized upon by religious leaders, and used for the purpose of whatever the religion was up to.

Finally in the "glorified body" which Christians will receive, as St. Paul the Apostle points out, a lot of the chaff of humanity will be gotten rid of ... I guess, actually, all the chaff. We will then be pure. In the meantime, we can try to purify ourselves. Perhaps the most effective way to do this is to do charitable acts.
John L. Sillasen | 11.24.02 - 9:30 pm | #

"Non-Christian religions are NOT mutually exclusive to Christianity; all of them have some truth, but all of them have some error. Catholicism has truth, but no error."

Catholicism, or conservative Christianity in general, is predicated on the premise that Jesus Christ is the son of God- not figuratively, but literally. Islam and Judaism are focused on a God incapable of fathering a child- it would be almost like stating "Time-Space" fathered a child by a mortal woman.
Likewise, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are adamant in their monotheistic stance, while Hinduism, Taoism, and Confucianism (and Shintoism and many other ancient religions) all worship a multiplicity of deities. Again, how is this not mutual exclusivity?
The Catholic Church has acknowledged its past errors, most famous perhaps being the Galileo inquest and the Spanish inquisition. How can it be said to be free of error?

Jon Darby | 11.26.02 - 12:07 am | #