Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood

Record numbers and rough weather at Aurora "Face the Truth" Tour stop

Posted by Matt Yonke on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008

Saturday morning was the final day of the Pro-Life Action League's summer Face the Truth Tour which just happened to coincide with Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood's monthly protest at PP Aurora. The day dawned with dark clouds and heavy rains. There were initial worries that the display would not be able to proceed due to the inclement weather.

But with hope in our hearts, we started with a small picket line on New York Street. Slowly but surely, pro-lifers began to trickle in. As the rain began to subside, the trickle turned into a flood until each and every picket sign we brought was in the line and the people were still coming.

By 9:15 the graphic signs were brought out and in no time both sides of New York Street between Eola and Oakhurst were lined with signs displaying the truth about abortion.

All told, over 150 people came to show their support for life, more than we had at any other site on the Face the Truth Tour across all of Northern Illinois.

The only trouble came when Joe Scheidler, National Director of the Pro-Life Action League, was ordered off the corner of New York Street and Oakhurst Drive even though he was holding his sign on a site hard to construe as anything other than a public thoroughfare open to protest.

Joe stood his ground while Eric Scheidler spoke to police, who made no final decision on whether to force Joe to leave before the scheduled end time of 10:30 a.m. so there he stayed.

The next two sites, Washington and Ogden in Naperville and Rt. 59 and New York St. in Aurora, drew numbers almost as large despite pouring rain all through the Naperville site. The Pro-Life Action League's Ann Scheidler said that this year was one of the best Face the Truth Tours in the nine years the Tours have run. Once again, Aurora's pro-life community showed Illinois what effective pro-life activism looks like.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm and is filed under Miscellaneous. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

147 Responses to “Record numbers and rough weather at Aurora "Face the Truth" Tour stop”

  1. Sandy says:

    Praise God!!!!!

    July 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
  2. Karen K. says:

    The TRUTH will set the babies free from the hands of the abortionists!

    Thank you dear God for bringing all these wonderful people together to defend your precious children!

    I kept saying these words over and over as the people in the cars drove by and looked at the signs,
    "Stir up their hearts oh Lord!"

    July 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
  3. kathy says:

    You will never change anything but thats okay keep trying cause I just avoid all those disgusting picture and I drive by planned parenthood everyday.Four times daily to be exact and I have only had to see your futile effort once.For that,I,thank GOD!!!

    July 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
  4. Karen K. says:

    When the time comes as it surely will, when we face that awesome moment, the final judgment, I've often thought, as Fulton Sheen wrote, that it is a terrible moment of loneliness. You have no advocates, you are there alone standing before God and a terror will rip through your soul like nothing you can imagine. But I really think that those in the pro-life movement will not be alone. I think there will be a chorus of voices that have never been heard in this world but are heard beautifully and clearly in the next world and they will plead for everyone who has been in this movement. They will say to God, "Spare him because he loved us," and God will look at you and say not, "Did you succeed?" but "Did you try?"
    ~ Henry Hyde ~

    July 22nd, 2008 at 10:41 pm
  5. truthseeker says:

    My personal thank you and God Bless you Joe Schiedler.
    The people who think abortion is OK are the creators of those horrid photographs of babies ripped into bloody pieces. We must never be silent to their slaughter and fight with ever greater perserverence to expose the evil of abortion for the rest to see. And as shown on this blog, many of the same ones who would kill these children have the nerve to say it is hurting the minds of our children to see those pictures of the carnage they comit within the walls of the abortuary on a daily basis right in our backyard. News for you Student and the professor, it is not the pictures themseleves but rather it is the self-righteousness and callousness with which you hold the lives of these children in the womb with such little value that is so appalling to our children's sensibilities. They understand that the pictures are just pictures. What they don't understand is how could anybody do that to a baby.

    July 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 am
  6. Educator says:

    Well said truthseeker. Thank you for your post.

    July 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
  7. Renee Zettek says:

    Thank you everyone whom loves Jesus as I do and will stand and fight for God's most precious and innocent baby's.God's chosen souls.God Bless Eric and his family.They are truly a blessing from God himself and a gift to all of us especially the baby's.

    July 28th, 2008 at 2:03 am
  8. Karen K. says:

    Ocean says:
    Jerry Vilt wrote:
    To me as a observer, blogs 1-193, all put together, do not equal in curiosity what your answer to the following 2 questions are, namely:

    1. What is your definition of "abortion"?

    Ocean: Simple; the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which is usually done in the very first weeks.

    2. What is your definition of "murder"?

    Ocean: The intentional killing of a BORN person, which does NOT include abortion. Hope that helps.

    July 7th, 2008 at 2:30

    So Ocean, if a woman was 9 mths pregnant and someone lets say stabbed her and her baby died, you would not consider it murder because the baby wasn't yet "born"?

    July 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
  9. Professor says:

    Ocean says:
    Jerry Vilt wrote:
    To me as a observer, blogs 1-193, all put together, do not equal in curiosity what your answer to the following 2 questions are, namely:

    1. What is your definition of "abortion"?

    Ocean: Simple; the termination of an unwanted pregnancy, which is usually done in the very first weeks.

    2. What is your definition of "murder"?

    Ocean: The intentional killing of a BORN person, which does NOT include abortion. Hope that helps.

    July 7th, 2008 at 2:30

    So Ocean, if a woman was 9 mths pregnant and someone lets say stabbed her and her baby died, you would not consider it murder because the baby wasn't yet "born"?

    I'm not Ocean, but that would be correct from my viewpoint.

    July 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
  10. Jerry Vilt says:

    Really, seriously what is meant by birth….in "real, actual" terms (words)?

    July 28th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
  11. Jerry Vilt says:

    For that matter in any terms.

    July 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
  12. Jerry Vilt says:

    Perhaps a definition of "birth"?

    July 28th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
  13. Jerry Vilt says:

    Yikes! I didn't think this out enough…..your view point doesn't center on whether birth took place but rather that "it" is either in a woman or out of a woman, and this would be what makes it murder or not?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
  14. Jerry Vilt says:

    A woman has ABSOLUTE "AUTHORITY" over her body?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
  15. Jerry Vilt says:

    Do I (or a woman) have a "right" to cut off my hand for WHETHER REASON I may have?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
  16. Jerry Vilt says:

    Actually my train of thought taken to an extreme would be do me have a right to kill ourselves (like suicide)?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
  17. Jerry Vilt says:

    A right to kill ourselves for any reason what so ever or for no reason at all….simply because we want to?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
  18. Jerry Vilt says:

    (You can kinda blow me out of the water by asking me first….."what do you mean by "right" Jerry? (Tho then again that may not be a problem).

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
  19. Jerry Vilt says:

    Perhaps as basic are both "sides" in agreement that "murder" is immoral?…..Is there even agreement on the existence of morality?

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
  20. Jerry Vilt says:

    "as basic as"….an understatement!!! If there isn't agreement on these issues, argueing all the way to "born" vs "unborn" is just so much retheric (excuse spelling).

    July 28th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
  21. Jerry Vilt says:

    I did it again, and again, and again!!! Surely I am learning, tho it may not seem like it! PLEASE DELETE ALL MY REPLYS!….I promise to let Karen K, Professor, and Ocean proceed with her thread WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS BY ME! Again, I kindly request complete deletion!

    July 28th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
  22. Jerry Vilt says:

    In couriosity, to understand your definition as "complete and exclusive":

    "Abortion – the termination of an unwanted pregnancy."

    Is Abortion also "the termination of a WANTED pregnancy?"

    July 28th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
  23. Jerry Vilt says:

    Request still advanced….DELETE 'EM ALL! Thank You.
    (Including, of course, this one too)

    July 28th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
  24. Jerry Vilt says:

    Delete em all if for no other reason than that they are ALL OFF TOPIC! Thank You.

    July 28th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
  25. Professor says:

    Perhaps as basic are both "sides" in agreement that "murder" is immoral?…..Is there even agreement on the existence of morality?

    Yes, there is such a thing as morality. But I feel that morality has to do with how people interact with other people and, to some extent, their environment. "My right to swing my arm stops at your face". The main limitations to personal freedom, in my mind, are effects on other people and questions of sanity (always a difficult and dangerous one). Also, yes, I do think you have authority over your own body, except again as it affects others. So you have the 'right' to cut off your hand or even kill yourself, but I do think there is a condition to make sure you are sane beforehand.

    The abortion debate, for me, divides into the early term and the late term abortions. I do not see an early term embryo or fetus as being a person and so I do not see it as having rights. Period.

    Late terms abortions are much more problematic because I do see very late term fetuses as having some rights. But the question is one of balancing the right to life of the fetus with the right to body autonomy by the woman. In this balance, the right to autonomy wins, in my mind. A person simply does not have the right to take over another person's body without their consent. So, the woman, in my mind, has an absolute right to have the fetus removed. The question is whether she has the right to have a late term fetus killed. There, I would say that if there are incubators or a way to keep the fetus alive without damaging the health of the woman, then the woman does NOT have such a right. If, however, there are NOT incubators or if the removal of the fetus would cause medical harm to the woman, she does have the right.

    As for someone killing a late term fetus in an assault on the woman, I definitely see charges for the assault. Those charges can be strengthened because of *her* loss (just like they would be if she lost a kidney). I could see a law on the order of manslaughter for such a situation (perhaps).

    July 29th, 2008 at 7:05 am
  26. Karen K. says:

    We are not a "kidney"

    HE CHOSE ME TO BE
    Mother M. Angelica
    ——————————————————————————–
    "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." (Jer.1:5) Our minds cannot comprehend how special each soul is to God. We do not understand the dignity that is ours when His Goodness chose each one of us to live, to think, to know, to see, to love.
    We did not happen to be—we were chosen by God to exist. Before time began God chose each one of us and this choice was deliberate. God saw all the possible human beings He might have created throughout the history of the world. Out of possible billions of human beings that might have existed in God's mind—His Eye rested on each one of us and then stopped looking and said, "You shall be." He saw all who could have been and decided they would not be. His providence placed us in a time and state of life that would bring out our greatest potential.

    He gave each of us special talents, gifts and natural virtues all geared towards a deeper knowledge of Himself. Even those whose circumstances prevent them from knowing Him directly, possess a deep conviction of His existence and providence.

    He placed into each of us an inner radar system that warns of danger and assures us intuitively of His care, so we will never be far from Him and will not be deprived of the knowledge of His existence.

    The Hand that formed each of us left Its imprint upon our minds and souls for He made us to His own image. The soul He breathed into this work of His Hands—our body—was imprinted with some of His love—His creative power—His strength.

    We reflect His eternity, for once His Will called us out of nothingness, we became immortal—our soul will never die.
    ———-
    "Yahweh called me before I was born, from my mother's womb he pronounced my name."
    ———-

    "You know me through and through, from having watched my bones take shape when I was being formed in secret, knitted together in the limbo of the womb." (Ps. 139:15) Only God knows us as we are. When the Psalmist said God knows us through and through, he meant every aspect of our creation, life, talents, temperament and characteristics. He knew the crosses that would come our way and how each one would help to change, mold and form our soul to His Image. Like all fathers, He looked forward to the day He would see Himself clearly mirrored in us. He anticipated our choosing Him above all things and saw what marvelous glory those choices would give us. He saw the holiness we might obtain, the humility of heart that would be like a shield around us. He saw the tears His love would gently wipe away and the times He would lean down to take hold of our hand as we fell from grace. He saw our bad choices and grieved over our pain and then sought ways to bring good out of everything. Yes, He knew us then, through and through as He knows us now and—still He loves us.
    ———

    "My days were listed and determined even before the first of them occurred." (Ps. 139:16) We have such a low opinion of ourselves—our sense of God's justice is so severe—our comprehension of His mercy is meager—our delight in His love short-lived. We reserve our expression of love for God as an act of gratitude after some favor has been received. How often do we think of God's love for us before one day of our existence came into being? With what love and care He brought us forth and determined the length of our days! We did not just happen to be. We have a mission to fulfill, a place in His Kingdom to occupy, a duty to perform and a work to accomplish. We are important to God and an integral part of salvation history. Each human being exerts an influence, changes people for good or bad, builds or destroys, uses or creates opportunities. We can truthfully say each human being changes the world for good or bad and the world is not the same because each one of us has lived in it. No matter how insignificant our role, how lowly our position, how unknown our contribution, each one of us leaves a mark somewhere, in some way upon this world. No wonder He chooses us with great care and determines our course with infinite love. What a gift is life!
    ———
    There are many opinions today as to when a seed becomes a person—a human being—a nature with powers to decide and to accomplish. When is a soul implanted into the body of a developing human being? Some say when the heart begins to beat, others when brain waves begin to function. What does Scripture say? What visible proof do we possess to solve this mystery?

    We know that "Jesus was like us in all things but sin." We must see if the Incarnate Word in the womb of the Immaculate Temple of God—Mary—was fruitful, powerful—alive—a Divine Person—God—man. Scripture tells us the angel Gabriel had informed Mary that her cousin Elizabeth had conceived a son in her old age. Immediately after the announcement of her own Motherhood, "Mary set out at that time and went as quickly as she could to a town in the hill country of Judah." We are speaking here of a five mile journey—a journey made by a woman who had just said her "Amen" to God. There was no doubt in her mind that she immediately possessed and carried in her womb the Son of God.

    So evident was the Divine Presence within her—so powerful and strong that tiny seed, that as soon as she greeted her cousin Elizabeth, the child Elizabeth carried experienced the power of the Word made Flesh. Elizabeth and her six month old child felt the Presence of the One who called them forth from nothingness. The God-man, who had been placed just one day before in the darkness of Mary's Immaculate womb, gave the light of holiness and sanctifying grace to His living but unborn Precursor. Mother and child felt a Presence and their souls felt drawn, humbled and joyful. "Elizabeth gave a loud cry and said, "Of all women you are the most blessed, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Why should I be honored with a visit from the mother of my Lord?" It was certainly a mystery to Elizabeth. The Incarnate Son of God began redeeming mankind and spreading the Good News as soon as He was made Flesh.

    At the time of the Incarnation, Elizabeth was in her sixth month and Luke informs us that Mary stayed with her for three months—until the birth and circumcision of John the Baptist. There is no question that Mary began that visit immediately after the Word was made Flesh. There can now be no question in our minds as to when the soul and body are united to form a being made to the image and likeness of God. It is at conception.

    If there were in Mary merely the beginning of a body without a human soul united to Divinity there would have been no reaction on the part of Elizabeth and her unborn son —no exclamation of surprise at the honor of being visited and cared for by God's own Mother. Motherhood surely begins when there is a whole being within a woman, a being with a body and a soul united together to form a human person. Elizabeth attested to the reality of this truth by calling Mary the Mother of her Lord. She saw two mysteries in one intuitive glance—the Incarnation of the Messiah and the reality of a fully human person at conception.

    When God says, "Let there be life" dare we say "It shall not be"?
    ——–

    "Your body, you know, is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you since you received Him from God. You are not your own property; you have been bought and paid for. That is why you should use your body for the glory of God. (1 Cor. 6:19) We have a tendency to think our body is our own and we can do as we please with it. But this is not so. We were created by God—created as weak human beings—part animal, part spiritual. Our dignity as human beings was degraded by pride and rebellion in the beginning by our first parents Adam and Eve and then by our own wrong choices. God's love for us devised a way to raise us above our degradation—above our own nature, and set us apart as beings He could rightfully call "sons." He sent His own Son to take our flesh upon Himself—live and die as one of us and then rise from the dead so we would be delivered from our slavery to sin. What a price was paid for one so fragile in nature, so vacillating in will, so prone to evil. The Great King looks for a peasant to raise up to the dignity of a Prince. Each one of us is a kind of Cinderella, who is beckoned by the King to live a new life. The choice is ours, but the prize is His—He has already a right to everything we are, everything we possess. He has only good to give us. Why do we so often prefer what harms us? Is the right to choose good and evil more precious to us than peace, happiness and joy? Would we rather be miserable and misuse our freedom to choose rather than be humble and admit God Knows what is best for us? What price He paid to save us and what price we pay when we do our own will? No, we do not have a right to do as we please with our life or anyone else's. Our life belongs to God and that God is powerful enough to maintain it, good enough to sustain it and provident enough to care for all its needs.

    Our body, St. Paul says, houses the Spirit of the Lord. It is a Temple. To desecrate it by sin or to take away its life giving spirit, is to commit an injustice to God, man and oneself—to God because He created it and it belongs to Him, to our neighbor because he needs to see God radiate in our lives and to ourselves because we were created to be sons of God and heirs to His Kingdom.

    ————————
    Some look upon birth as an accident, life as a necessary evil and death as resignation to the inevitable. The prospect can become so clouded by selfishness, statistics and pride that a womb giving life is turned into a tomb of death. There are others whose concepts of life become so narrow, their future so hopeless and their present so unbearable, that the only solution to their problem is the extinction of that life completely. And then there are many who live in a kind of nether world—the darkness of inferiority—of uselessness, of despair without a thought of God, love or what is to come. They live within a circle of their own thoughts, selfish desires and self-hatred. If only all those living in these painful, frustrating attitudes would realize how much they are loved by God, how they have a place in His plans, how He watches over them, cares for them and desires they be with Him in His Kingdom. Surely the realization of being created, supported, loved and cared for from conception, through life and in death would secure freedom to the unborn, give courage to the destitute and confidence to the hopeless.

    God has our entire lives in the palm of His loving Hands—we can rest secure about our past, present and future for He loves us.

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:22 am
  27. Professor says:

    If your religion is against abortion, don't have one. But don't expect everyone else to share your viewpoint. There are other interpretations of those texts in the Bible, but to go into that would be off topic, I'm sure.

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:47 am
  28. Ramir San Diego says:

    "If your religion is against abortion, don't have one."
    ——————————————-

    Typical response…replace "abortion" with either murder, rape, incest, abuse or any other horrendous deed at the level of your "precious" abortion and see if that washes with anybody else.

    Your staunch defense of the Devil's masterpiece gives an insight into the state of your soul.

    I pray you see the error of your ways before it's too late.

    July 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
  29. Professor says:

    And the point is that there is consensus that murder, rape, incest, abuse, theft, etc are to be illegal. There is no consensus that abortion is in the same category. So it boils down to a religious question.

    As for the 'state of my soul'. That is my business, not yours (even under your mythology).

    July 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
  30. Karen K. says:

    Solomon said,
    "How are you to know right from wrong if you do not know God?"

    July 29th, 2008 at 9:39 am
  31. Margo Cupps says:

    "There is a way that seems right to a man,
    but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12

    July 29th, 2008 at 11:34 am
  32. kathy says:

    I have a very hard time understanding how,if God has a plan for our lives,abortion even came to be.After all didn't GOD see it in the lives of those that perform them?If that is the case then he "knows" that some women will have abortions right?He also knows that some men and women will abuse their children in many different ways,right?If that is the case then why do these things exist if GOD has a plan for everyones lives?Why would GOD put a child in the hands of an abuser?Why would he give a child just to take it away before it ever had a chance to live?There are just too many contradictions in the bible to make it a dependable source to live my life by.I believe in choice,you don't.That is a part of life.Not everyone believes the same thing.If we did then it would be a perfect world and it is far from perfect.Can you explain why some women are barren and some are not?Why some women miscarry and others don't?Is it GODS will that some women that really want children can't have them and those that don't can?

    July 29th, 2008 at 11:42 am
  33. Ramir San Diego says:

    Kathy,

    God's plan is for all of us, here on earth, to know Him, love Him, serve Him and be with Him in Heaven for all eternity, after our brief time on this earth.

    Why does God allow all these situations/ suffering? The best answer I have come across is 'for a greater good'. We may not see it in our life time, though…but we believe and we keep our faith.

    I am reminded of the parable (was it in last week's readings?) of the weed growing with the wheat at the same time. The workers asked the master, should we pull out the weeds so that the wheat will grow. The Master said "No, let them grow together". We will separate the weed from the wheat at harvest time. The weeds will then be gathered up and thrown into the furnace.

    "I believe in choice,you don't."

    Actually, all of us are given a choice…to be with God for all eternity or be without Him forver. I shudder at the thought of the latter.

    July 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
  34. Karen K. says:

    Kathy, just because God knows everything doesn't mean he necessarily intervenes in everything. There is natural order, consequences of certain actions. A baby may not thrive in the womb, because of various reasons, maybe the mother was exposed to a toxic substance, there can be many factors for such things to happen that we do not even know about.
    Also this may help:

    "For whether the trouble and temptation arise from the Devil, or from men, or on account of sins, or in whatever way, it is always God who gives it to you, even though it reaches you through various channels, as it pleases Him; since it is only the evil of the pain that reaches you, and this is always ordered for your good. Even though, however, the evil of the fault itself- for example, an act of injury or insult committed by your neighbor-is contrary to God's will, as far as you are concerned, He makes use of it for your benefit and salvation. Therefore, instead of giving way to sadness and discontent, you should give thanks with inward joy and gladness, doing everything that lies in your power with perseverance and resolution, without losing time and, with that loss, the many and great rewards that God wills that you should gain by this opportunity he presents to you.

    And lastly, all these trials, and all the toil and travail the soul endures, while braving these temptations and withdrawals of spiritual delight, are but a loving purgatory, if(as has been already said) they are borne with humility and patience. And they will help us to win that crown in Heaven, which otherwise we could not obtain, the glory of which will be in proportion to the toil and pain through which it was gained." Lorenzo Scupoli(1530-1610)

    July 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
  35. Ramir San Diego says:

    This is also commonly called: "redemptive suffering"

    A concept very alien to the culture of death.

    July 29th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
  36. Professor says:

    Yes, your views are clear. But you have to admit that their is a great difference of opinion on the matter of abortion and that your primary reason for being against it is religious? While I believe there are alternative readings for the Bible verses quoted against abortion, I don't think that is the main point. Your view is a religious one. It is one for which there is no consensus. In particular, your designation of abortion as murder is NOT universal (even for religious people). As such, you should live by *your* rules and let others live by theirs.

    July 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
  37. B says:

    Professor says:

    "In particular, your designation of abortion as murder is NOT universal (even for religious people). As such, you should live by *your* rules and let others live by theirs."

    That's a non-sequitur. Just because something isn't universally agreed upon doesn't mean that society can't have a rule coming down on one side or the other. To take an extreme example, NAMBLA thinks sex with young boys is appropriate. The lack of unanimity doesn't mean that society can't make a rule against it.

    July 29th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
  38. AuroraResident says:

    B,
    And society DOES have a "rule coming down on one side or the other" about abortion. It's called Roe v. Wade. You just don't agree with the rule. Many people do.

    July 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
  39. Professor says:

    That's a non-sequitur. Just because something isn't universally agreed upon doesn't mean that society can't have a rule coming down on one side or the other. To take an extreme example, NAMBLA thinks sex with young boys is appropriate. The lack of unanimity doesn't mean that society can't make a rule against it.

    Unanimity is not the same as universal in my sense. There *is* a societal consensus about sex with young boys being wrong. There is NOT a societal consensus that abortion is murder. In fact, the consensus is that it is not. There does seem to be a consensus that abortion is something to be avoided if possible, preferably using effective birth control, but that it is necessary when the BC fails.

    July 29th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
  40. Deb says:

    AuroraResident says:
    B,
    And society DOES have a "rule coming down on one side or the other" about abortion. It's called Roe v. Wade. You just don't agree with the rule. Many people do.
    July 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Society used to have a rule that blacks were a fraction of a person and were better off owned and "cared for" by responsible, whole white people. By your reasoning we should return to slavery and Jim Crow. I don't know about you, but I'm grateful there were people brave enough to stand up against the status quo and and fight for what was right, no matter how futile (not to mention dangerous) it must have seemed at the time.

    July 29th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
  41. MKeller says:

    Society used to have a rule that blacks were a fraction of a person and were better off owned and "cared for" by responsible, whole white people. By your reasoning we should return to slavery and Jim Crow. I don't know about you, but I'm grateful there were people brave enough to stand up against the status quo and and fight for what was right, no matter how futile (not to mention dangerous) it must have seemed at the time.

    Where on earth do you see that AuroraResident thinks slavery should be legal? Because they think abortion should be legal? That makes absolutely no sense and is quite possible the stupidest comment I've seen on here.

    Of course you have the right to disagree with a law, and to protest, speak out, and try to change it. When you can convince enough people out there that abortion is wrong and should be made illegal you will have won. Throwing out ignorant accusations and waving bibles in people's faces is not going to help you.

    July 29th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
  42. Deb says:

    Where on earth do you see that AuroraResident thinks slavery should be legal? Because they think abortion should be legal? That makes absolutely no sense and is quite possible the stupidest comment I've seen on here.

    I did not say that AuroraResident thinks slavery should be legal. In fact, I was assuming the opposite. I was simply pointing out that the Supreme Court has come down on the wrong side of social justice issues in the past and that it would be a very different America if everyone, back then, had just thrown up their hands and said, "Oh well, there's nothing to be done…the Supreme Court has spoken."

    July 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
  43. Matt Yonke says:

    Aww sheesh. You've opened my favorite can of worms.

    MKeller,

    The analogy goes like this:

    It used to be the case that in America, you could own slaves under the law. But that didn't make it right. In 1772 you could have argued "Well, owning slaves is legal, so why don't you abolitionists just go home and stop bothering us slave owners!"

    Obviously, treating another person like property is wrong whether a law says it is or not. So the abolitionists were right to move for the government to outlaw slavery. I think we can all agree that we live in a better country because of their work.

    Now, abortion is legal in the U.S. right now. People desiring or providing abortions sometimes argue "Abortion is legal. Why don't you pro-lifers just go home and stop bothering people doing things that are perfectly legal."

    But, just as with slavery, the morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not laws allow for it. If it's wrong, it doesn't become right because some guys in Washington write a paper about it.

    So, we're not saying that supporters of abortion rights are supporters of slavery, but simply that the case of slavery proves that that argument doesn't hold any water.

    July 29th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
  44. Student says:

    Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I read AR's post to be in response to "B." In fact, the post was addressed to "B" who said:

    Just because something isn't universally agreed upon doesn't mean that society can't have a rule coming down on one side or the other.

    Thus, the response seemed appropriate to the above statement.

    July 29th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
  45. Karen K. says:

    Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me." Dr. King understood that his own protection, and the protection of his people, was very much wrapped up in law. We could translate his quote into the language of abortion and say it this way, "It may be true that the law cannot make a woman pro-life, but it can stop her from killing her unborn baby." Dr. King provided similar sentiment on page 33 of his 1963 book, Strength to Love: "Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." At the end of the day, judicial decrees exist to restrain those who will not restrain themselves.

    From a historical perspective, it is easy to measure the influence that abortion legislation has had on the moral perception of the average citizen. In 1970, when abortion laws were first liberalized in 14 states (3 years prior to Roe v. Wade), there were roughly 200,000 abortions performed in the U.S. Twenty years later, the annual abortion rate peaked at more than 1.6 million a year. The legal "normalization" of abortion drove the annual abortion rate up by 700%. Daniel Callahan predicted this sad phenomenon in an article he wrote for the January 8, 1973 issue of Christianity and Crisis.

    A change in abortion laws, from restrictive to permissive, appears–from all data and in every country–to bring forward a whole class of women who would otherwise not have wanted an abortion or felt the need for one.1

    Along the same lines, The Elliot Institute, which has been researching the impact of abortion since the 1980's, notes that 72% of women who report post-abortion problems would never have sought an abortion if abortion had not been legal. Only 4% of those surveyed indicated that they would have definitely sought an abortion even if it were illegal. While the results of this survey come from an admittedly narrow sample group (252 women across 42 states who all reported some type of post-abortion problem) the results are consistent both with the historical data and with plain common sense. It is reasonable to believe that the willingness of most people to participate in a certain activity is greatly influenced by the legality of that activity, and is probably proportionate to the penalty associated with the activity.

    It is true that the law cannot physically prevent someone from breaking that law (unless law enforcement catches them in the act and is able to intervene). What the law can do, however, is impose punishment upon those who break the law (in this case, abortion providers), and thereby deter both that individual and others from breaking that law in the future. The threat of punishment is a very real and appropriate deterrent. The other important function of the law, as mentioned above, is its ability to shape the perceptions of society. When African-Americans were given equal standing under the law, and when the laws requiring such equality were finally enforced, perceptions began to change. The relentless efforts of Dr. King and many others to prompt the enforcement of just laws, did much more than just establish legal barriers to racism. The laws which emerged helped reform the way an entire nation thought, moving us from a society that was steeped in racism into a society that is, at least, much less steeped in racism. From Abort73.com

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
  46. Karen K. says:

    The wire coat hanger has long been the prop of "choice" for those staging pro-abortion rallies or protests. You see them on signs and buttons and hanging around necks, all designed to symbolize what will happen to women if they ever lose the legal right to kill their unborn offspring. There are a couple of serious problems with this tactic and, ultimately, this line of thinking. First, the "coat hanger defense" has nothing to do with the ethics of abortion. It makes no attempt to justify the act, it simply argues that if women ever lose this right, they'll die en masse from self-induced abortions. Those who make such an argument conveniently ignore the fact that abortion, itself, kills a living human being, not by accident but by design. It is completely backwards to argue that society must "keep it safe" for one human being to kill another human being, one who is completely innocent and defenseless. It is like arguing that we should legalize armed robbery because bank robbers might die in the process of holding up a bank. Laws must protect the potential victim, not the potential assailant.
    The second problem with these hysterical claims (that thousands of future women will die if abortion is outlawed) is that they have no solid historical basis. They're just an emotionally charged smokescreen to divert attention from the grim reality of abortion itself. If abortion is outlawed in the future, it is true that some women will still have abortions, but most will not. Will any of the women who do abort illegally ever die? It's possible (there are women who die each year from legal abortions), but the number of deaths will be no where near the 1.3 million people who are currently dying every year from legal abortions in the U.S.Abort73.com

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
  47. Student says:

    KarenK,
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=JYtE_eUeMw4

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
  48. Professor says:

    From a historical perspective, it is easy to measure the influence that abortion legislation has had on the moral perception of the average citizen. In 1970, when abortion laws were first liberalized in 14 states (3 years prior to Roe v. Wade), there were roughly 200,000 abortions performed in the U.S. Twenty years later, the annual abortion rate peaked at more than 1.6 million a year. The legal "normalization" of abortion drove the annual abortion rate up by 700%. Daniel Callahan predicted this sad phenomenon in an article he wrote for the January 8, 1973 issue of Christianity and Crisis.

    A change in abortion laws, from restrictive to permissive, appears–from all data and in every country–to bring forward a whole class of women who would otherwise not have wanted an abortion or felt the need for one.1

    This is, at best, a gross misinterpretation of the data. It shows that there was a HUGE class of women that wanted abortions but couldn't get them!

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
  49. Professor says:

    Now, abortion is legal in the U.S. right now. People desiring or providing abortions sometimes argue "Abortion is legal. Why don't you pro-lifers just go home and stop bothering people doing things that are perfectly legal."

    But, just as with slavery, the morality of abortion has nothing to do with whether or not laws allow for it. If it's wrong, it doesn't become right because some guys in Washington write a paper about it.

    And yet, there *was* a consensus that freedom was a good thing, even though the constitution didn't grant it to certain people. There was a consensus that oppression was a bad thing, even though the laws supported it. Today, there IS no consensus that abortion is in any way murder. So your analogy fails. The hypocrisy of the original constitution doesn't argue that slavery was better than freedom. We are arguing that having the right of abortion is better than not having that right.

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
  50. Karen K. says:

    Dr. Bernard Nathanson, cofounder of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), who helped legitimize the claim that 10,000 women were dying each year from illegal abortions admitted years ago that the number was completely fabricated for PR purposes. He writes in his expos"© aborting America (193):

    How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible.

    Dr. Christopher Tietze, then acting as the chief statistician for Planned Parenthood (the largest abortion provider in the world) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), also addressed the exaggerated claim of 5,000 – 10,000 abortion related deaths per year. He writes in 1969 edition of Scientific America (Vol. 220, p. 23):

    Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths (from illegal abortion) might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now. The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.

    In the year prior to Roe v. Wade (1972), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Sept. 4, 1992, Vol. 41, No. SS-5) that 39 women died from illegal abortion in the U.S (24 more died that year from legal abortions). That is a far cry from 10,000, and 10,000 speculative deaths is farther still from the 1.3 million actual deaths that are already happening each year through legal abortion.

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
  51. Karen K. says:

    cont…
    The increased "safety" of abortion in modern times owes not to its legality, but to improved medical technology. Mary Calderon, former director of Planned Parenthood, estimated in a July 1960 article from the American Journal of Public Health that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians in good standing. She writes the following:

    Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921 there were 144 abortion deaths, In 1951 there were only 15; and , while the abortion death rate was going down so strikingly in that 30-year period, we know what happened to the population and the birth rate. Two corollary factors must be mentioned here: first, chemotherapy and antibiotics have come in, benefiting all surgical procedures as well as abortion. Second, and even more important, the conference estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many of them are in good standing in their communities. They must do a pretty good job if the death rate is as low as it is…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous.

    In the end, the back-alley, coat-hanger abortion is nothing more than a convenient myth aimed at sparking emotions and arousing public sympathy. If abortion is outlawed in the future, some abortions will still take place, but just like illegal abortions before Roe, they will not be self-induced nor will they be performed by back-alley butchers. If abortion remains legal, however, millions of innocent human beings will continue to die, year after year, and this is both a tragedy and a huge injustice. Abort73.com

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
  52. Student says:

    More spam! Can you speak for yourself?

    July 29th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
  53. Matt Yonke says:

    Professor,

    Understood. And we're arguing the opposite. But the point is, if something is wrong, societal consensus doesn't make it right.

    You cannot, in all seriousness, be arguing that all it takes to make something "morally acceptable" is a majority, can you?

    I assume, given your stance on "reproductive healthcare issues" that you have some sympathy with the women's rights movement?

    For the majority of human history, it was assumed by the majority of people that a woman's place was in the home, taking care of domestic issues. The women's rights movement had to fight not only men but women as well to make their stance the majority position.

    Your argument about abortion goes that since you think the majority consensus of Americans is that abortion is ok if not desirable, the minority ought to keep their nosy noses out of it.

    But how does that apply to the women's movement? Shouldn't they have kept their nosy noses out of it? What about the civil rights movement? Obviously it wouldn't have been a struggle if the majority of Americans supported integration and complete equality for all people. Shouldn't the civil rights folks have just kept quiet since the consensus was against them?

    Well no, obviously not. But why not? Because morality boils down to something deeper than consensus. Treating people of a different skin color or gender as inferior to yourself is wrong no matter what the balance of popular opinion says at any given point in time.

    Isn't it?

    July 29th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
  54. truthseeker says:

    Well said Matt.

    July 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
  55. Deb says:

    Professor,
    Over 600,000 soldiers and approximately 400,000 civilians died as a result of the American Civil War which was fought primarily over whether or not a person had the rights of ownership over another. In addition, 11 states completely seceded from the Union, with several others partially doing so. A brutal war ravished and destroyed large portions of our country for four years. I would hardly call that "consensus".
    Also, if you are so confident that the majority of Americans are in support of the "right" to an abortion, why not fight for the issue be decided in the proper arena, the legislatures, rather than by activist courts?

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:26 am
  56. Deb says:

    A person simply does not have the right to take over another person's body without their consent. So, the woman, in my mind, has an absolute right to have the fetus removed.

    By virtue of our anatomy and physiology, pregnancy is the natural and intended result of sexual relations. Therefore, engaging in such is de facto consent.
    And by the way, the baby does not take over the mother's body. While it is true that the baby receives nourishment and (usually) protection for development from the mother, the mother's body continues to function independently. What you really mean is that the mother shouldn't have to deal with the inconveniences and discomforts of being pregnant.

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:48 am
  57. Karen K. says:

    Dear Student,It is not who is saying the truth, but I believe you do not like what the truth is saying.

    professor says:
    "A person simply does not have the right to take over another person's body without their consent."

    Well, if that is true, (which Deb has explained it is not) but lets say it is,then that same should apply to the one she is carring. The mother does not have the right to take over her child's body and destroy it.(The child is a growing body, it is not a tooth.)

    "There are essentially two issues which must be resolved concerning unborn embryos and fetuses. The first is, "Are they human beings?" The second is, "Should they be recognized as persons under the law?" We've already established that there is no debate on the first question. It is a matter of plain, objective science. Embryos and fetuses are fully and individually human from the moment of fertilization on. If this were not true, if unborn children were not demonstrably human, there would be no need to even talk about rights of personhood. "Removing a fetus" would be the moral equivalent of pulling a tooth. This, however, is not the case, and so the debate must now enter the political arena.
    There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity. If you look up the word "person" in your average dictionary (we'll use Webster's), you'll find something like this:

    Person n. A human being.

    A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. For more than thirty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is this. In America today, there is a huge and singular group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. Is that not astounding?! It is astounding, but not wholly unprecedented."Abort73.com

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:21 am
  58. Karen K. says:

    "There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

    There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. What is a person? A person is a human being (unless, of course, you haven't been born yet, in which case we'll define personhood in any way possible so as to exclude you, kill you and forget you).

    Welcome to America." Abort73.com

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:26 am
  59. AuroraResident says:

    if you are so confident that the majority of Americans are in support of the "right" to an abortion, why not fight for the issue be decided in the proper arena, the legislatures, rather than by activist courts?

    On the one hand you argue that the majority shouldn't decide and on the other you want the majority to decide. Which is it? Wasn't it "activist courts" that disallowed "separate but equal?" Wasn't it "activist courts" that decided Loving v. Virginia? It seems you'd like to have your cake and eat it too.

    July 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am
  60. Deb says:

    AuroraResident says:
    On the one hand you argue that the majority shouldn't decide and on the other you want the majority to decide. Which is it? Wasn't it "activist courts" that disallowed "separate but equal?" Wasn't it "activist courts" that decided Loving v. Virginia? It seems you'd like to have your cake and eat it too.

    My argument from the beginning has been that the Supreme Court is hardly without error. Just as they were wrong about slavery they were dead wrong (pun intended) on the abortion issue. In their defense (ugh, I can't believe I'm saying that) they did not have the advances in science that are available today, so their flawed judgement came from, at least in part, a lack of information on when life begins. Today science confirms over and over again that a totally unique, being comes into being from the moment the sperm penetrates the ovum and cell division begins. You can close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet all you want. It will not change that fact.

    As for "majority (mob) rules". I'm not a big fan. I'd much rather see justice reign. I just find it interesting (and a bit amusing) that it is the constant assertion of the pro abortion side that the majority of Americans support abortion on demand and yet do everything in their power to keep this battle in the courts and out of the hands of elected representatives and the democratic process. I would think if you were so confident that you had the majority on this issue, you would be fighting tooth and nail to prove that. I think you're simply afraid you'll find out your "majority" is in the same category as Professor's "HUGE class of women that wanted abortion but couldn't get them". Fictional at best, totally deceptive at its most sinister.
    Now really, who wants their cake and eat it too?

    I'm not familiar with Loving v. Virginia so I do not know if it was an activist court or constructionist court handing down that decision. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

    July 30th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
  61. Student says:

    Deb,
    If you're interested, you can read Loving v Virginia here.

    July 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
  62. Deb says:

    Thank you Student. I will try and get to that this evening.

    July 30th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
  63. Professor says:

    Today science confirms over and over again that a totally unique, being comes into being from the moment the sperm penetrates the ovum and cell division begins. You can close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and stamp your feet all you want. It will not change that fact.

    This is false, if for no other reason than science simply doesn't use such language. From a scientific perspective, the sperm and egg are also 'totally unique individuals', being the haploid stage of our life cycle (and hence just as human biologically as you and me). The fact that they have half as many chromosomes certainly does NOT make them less human or less 'individuals'.

    The point is that we are not talking about questions that biology can answer. It is not a question of when 'life begins' because life hasn't 'begun' on earth for almost 3.7 billion years. It isn't a question of when human life begins, because sperm and egg cells are human life. Having a full complement of chromosomes is not the issue either since every cell of an adult has that (well, almost every). It is not a question of when only a single individual *could* be created since it is quite possible for several celled blastocysts to either split or unite: one gives two individuals eventually, the other gives only one. The first happens fairly often: that's how identical twins are made. The second happens much less often: that's how chimeras are made.

    So biology simply doesn't help your argument. If anything, the single thing that distinguishes humans from every other species on earth is our brains and the huge number of connections in them. In particular, the cerebral cortex is uniquely convoluted for humans. It doesn't develop until the third trimester.

    July 30th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
  64. Professor says:

    There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough.

    There is a very good reason for that. The fact of the matter is that BIRTH has always been the crucial legal distinction between a legal person and not. 'All people BORN or naturalized' is in the Constitution.

    July 30th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
  65. Professor says:

    A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law

    Biologically, sperm and egg cells are alive human individuals. They are the haploid stage of our life cycle (are human), are alive (no dispute there), and are individuals (different genetics for each). But I certainly do NOT think that they deserve protection under the law.

    July 30th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
  66. Professor says:

    By virtue of our anatomy and physiology, pregnancy is the natural and intended result of sexual relations. Therefore, engaging in such is de facto consent.

    I disagree. The fact that birth control is used, is, clearly, *lack* of consent. Yes, pregnancy is a risk of sex, but having sex is no more consent to get pregnant than eating potato salad is consent to get the stomach flu.

    Furthermore, even if it *was* consent, I would say that the woman has a right to remove such consent at any time she feels like it.

    And by the way, the baby does not take over the mother's body. While it is true that the baby receives nourishment and (usually) protection for development from the mother, the mother's body continues to function independently. What you really mean is that the mother shouldn't have to deal with the inconveniences and discomforts of being pregnant.

    This is biologically false. Once pregnancy occurs (i.e. implantation), the embryo causes the uterus to release a barrage of hormones that suppress the immune system of the woman. If this didn't happen, the embryo would be rejected by that immune system. There are chemical links both ways between the developing embryo and fetus and the woman. It is very far from simply being 'nourishment and protection'. It is having her whole body taken over.

    July 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
  67. Jerry Vilt says:

    Re #65 Professor:

    "They are the haploid stage of our life cycle (are human)"

    Is above, "strickly speaking" same as "They are the haploid stage of our life cycle (are human beings)"?

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
  68. Jerry Vilt says:

    Anticipating your answer, What I'm trying to verify is that the scientific nomanchature doesn't use the word "conception", but rather says egg is firtulized by spern to produce a zokeete (I butchered the spelling of that!), I'm I correct on this?

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
  69. Jerry Vilt says:

    Carrying this further, does the scientific nomanchature even use the phrase, "human being" or even just "being"??

    July 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
  70. Professor says:

    Is above, "strickly speaking" same as "They are the haploid stage of our life cycle (are human beings)"?

    Not a distinction biologists would make. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

    Anticipating your answer, What I'm trying to verify is that the scientific nomanchature doesn't use the word "conception", but rather says egg is firtulized by spern to produce a zokeete (I butchered the spelling of that!), I'm I correct on this?

    The egg is fertilized by the sperm to produce a zygote. It isn't even an embryo until several divisions of the zygote: specifically when implantation occurs.

    Carrying this further, does the scientific nomanchature even use the phrase, "human being" or even just "being"??

    Actually, neither would be used in scientific literature. It's WAY too vague a concept for science. Again, it's more of a legal term than a scientific one. Now, 'human' IS a scientific term, but then sperm, eggs, etc. are all human.

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
  71. Jerry Vilt says:

    Thanks for the clarification!

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
  72. Jerry Vilt says:

    You nailed my confusion right on the head with:

    "Now, 'human' IS a scientific term, but then sperm, eggs etc. are all human."

    WOW! In my "world" there is A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE between sperm, eggs and a human being! (see my confusion?)

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
  73. Matt Yonke says:

    I'm making a new post in the forum in the Matters of Life and Death section about the philosophical ramifications of viewing children as parasites. Feel free to join me if you care to discuss.

    July 30th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
  74. Educator says:

    I think that is a great idea Matt especially when the discussion is going around in circles, as this one seems to be. Babies being relegated to the class of parasites (unless you happen to want one) is better suited to the forum. Wow, imagine if the woman's body would reject her baby if it were not for hormones, how much that proves this is a totally, separate human being and how much her body must naturally want to protect the baby at all cost to change that much. I might decide to take a look at the forum if I have the time to go around in circles with the so-called "I'm pro-choice for aborting babies" crowd. I will try to stick to the topic of this blog "The Face The Truth Tour", as you requested Matt.

    July 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
  75. Deb says:

    Professor,
    Potato salad is intended to nourish. If you end up ill from it, something has gone wrong. Your reproductive system is meant to, well gosh, reproduce. Therefore, if you engage in sexual activity and pregnancy results, it is indicative that your bodies are working exactly as they are supposed to. Pregnancy is not a "risk" of sexual activity, it is the natural consequence. It is the reason we are anatomically as we are. Since most educated people know that, engaging in sexual activity is de facto consent.
    The fact that the body often still functions as it is supposed to, despite efforts at manipulating fertility and rendering sexual activity sterile does not mitigate that, it only illuminates the errors of the contraceptive mentality. If sex and fertility were approached with the awe and reverence it is owed it would be easy to avoid unplanned pregnancies and thus eliminate the desire for abortion. Instead, pro abortion advocates would rather approach sex selfishly, carelessly and with no respect for its creative (nor its death wielding) power, try to manipulate nature and fertility and then cry "foul" when nature takes its course. The result is over a million dead babies a year in this country alone.
    With regard to being able to "withdraw consent any time she wants to", well, brrrr. That's just cold.
    And you're still wrong. The baby does not take over the mother's body. True, there is a symbiotic relationship, and the child is definitely dependent on the mother for survival during early gestation, but if a mother takes care of herself (you surely don't object to that!) she usually tolerates pregnancy just fine and emerges from delivery – even a c-section – as an even better version of herself. I will concede mine did temporarily steal my figure, but that only damaged my vanity, not my person.

    July 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
  76. AuroraResident says:

    Uh no, Deb. Consent to sex DOES NOT equal consent to pregnancy. This is why people use birth control — to PREVENT pregnancy.

    I took EXTREMELY good care of myself during my pregnancies and was hospitalized with both. I almost died with the second one and that DID NOT make me a better person. Would it have been better if I'd died and left a young son and a husband? I love my kids and think abortion is a last resort, but your mind set is just plain wrong. Feel free to do what is best for you, but I'll make the choices that are best for me and my family without your crazy ideas on reproduction and that includes the choice to use birth control and, yes, even sterilization.

    July 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm
  77. AuroraResident says:

    ** Removed by admin for person attack **

    July 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm
  78. Professor says:

    Deb,
    Sex also is used as a method of bonding between people and as a way to get pleasure. As such, pregnancy is a *risk* because it is unwanted and not the purpose the sex is being used for. You may see that as 'selfish', but I don't. Sex is a good thing for many things other than simple pro-creation. I feel sorry for you for not seeing that.

    As for things being natural or not, there are many, many places where we have decided nature is not the best thing: disease is natural, periodic starvation is natural, walking everywhere is natural, short lives are natural. But we work against those thing to make our lives better. Similarly with birth control. While procreation is natural, it is not always desired, so we have found technologies to lessen the risk.

    July 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pm
  79. Jerry Vilt says:

    What about the entire universe does not equal the level of existence of the human race. That being the reason why the way we deal with all non-human things is substantially different than the way we deal with ourselves. BUT if you consider the human just another "advanced animal", well what I just said means zilch!

    July 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
  80. Professor says:

    What about the entire universe does not equal the level of existence of the human race. That being the reason why the way we deal with all non-human things is substantially different than the way we deal with ourselves. BUT if you consider the human just another "advanced animal", well what I just said means zilch!

    We are, as far as we can determine, the only species that uses reason and grammatical language. We are one of the few that is self-conscious. So you are simply wrong that being an advanced animal negates how we deal with most other animals. It *may* change some of how we deal with chimpanzees, bonobo, elephants, and some species of dolphins.

    July 31st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
  81. Professor says:

    What about the entire universe does not equal the level of existence of the human race.

    I'd also point out that the phrase 'level of existence' is rather meaningless. A thing either exists or not. There are no levels to it.

    July 31st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
  82. Jerry Vilt says:

    "A thing either exists or not"

    To say there are multitude of existences, in that each one is a limited existence (different limitation for each, of course). Is this a meaningless statement?

    July 31st, 2008 at 6:06 pm
  83. Student says:

    Wow! I saw post 77 before it was deleted. It was no more of a "personal attack" than post 74. Apparently it's ok to misrepresent one group but not another — using almost the same words. It is difficult to keep up with the rules.

    July 31st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
  84. Professor says:

    To say there are multitude of existences, in that each one is a limited existence (different limitation for each, of course). Is this a meaningless statement?

    Well, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what the verb 'to exist' means. We exist and we have different capabilities and properties. That is NOT the same as 'different levels of existence', which just sounds like a new-age fuzzy-thinking concept.

    July 31st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
  85. Jerry Vilt says:

    In 82 I said "Is this a meaningless statement." In reading this I believe it might be conscrewed as sarcasism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I should have said, "Does this "pass the test" as being meaningful to your way of thinking?"

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
  86. Jerry Vilt says:

    Yes, Yes, my apology….."levels of existence" maybe ye gads! is appropriate.

    But back to the point, does "limit" fit the bill?

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
  87. Professor says:

    To say there are multitude of existences, in that each one is a limited existence (different limitation for each, of course). Is this a meaningless statement?

    Sorry if I misunderstood your point in this. No, there are not a multitude of existences. There are a multitude of things which exist. Do you see the difference? In your statement, each thing exists in a different way. In mine, they all exist, plain and simple. But then they have different properties. Existence itself is a yes/no thing.

    So, to get back to your original point, animals exist in the same way we do. They have different abilities and properties, and some even have thoughts, but their 'existence' is not on a different level. They exist. So do we. We just have different properties.

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
  88. Jerry Vilt says:

    If everything either exists or doesn't exist, the realization that there are many existences means that each one must contain something that is exactly the same in each (otherwise we couldn't say each one "exists". But than there must be something different in each one, thereby "allowing" more than one existence. This difference I labeled "limit". How does this play out?

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
  89. Jerry Vilt says:

    Oh….I wasn't about that animal vs human vs level of existence! My fault in NOT saying this latest line of thinking was totally divorced from that!

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:33 pm
  90. Jerry Vilt says:

    Everything we experience is a limited existence. Are you sure that doesn't make sense? Isn't it "short, sweet and simple"?

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
  91. Jerry Vilt says:

    also "complete, clear and precise"?

    July 31st, 2008 at 7:49 pm
  92. Jerry Vilt says:

    You're saying, "Everything exists." I agree 100%
    But why can't we also say, "everything is a limited existence?" (I grant you, a human with no experience would ever be able to say it tho) It resulted from what our minds did with all of our experiences.

    July 31st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
  93. Jerry Vilt says:

    "ever" should be "never"

    July 31st, 2008 at 8:02 pm
  94. Educator says:

    To get back on topic about "Face the Truth", speaking of facing the truth. There is an excellent interview by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an ex-abortionist, who is the one who produced "The Silent Scream" showing a real time ultrasound abortion being performed. He addresses the lies that PP have told saying it was a faked. Take a look at http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072904.html. He says PP and NARAL (which he co-founded) have been trying for years to discredit him.

    July 31st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
  95. Student says:

    I looked at your site and the only evidence that it wasn't faked was this particular doctor's word. However, a whole bunch of other doctors claim it is and have cited their reasons why.

    The evidence concerning the development of the brain directly contradicts the claims made in 'The Silent Scream' — and in light of this evidence, the contents of the film have to be re-evaluated. Although 'The Silent Scream' may still have a strong emotional impact when viewed, the evidence — from scientists who have expertise in this area — has to be considered.
    Edd Doerr

    Unless you have further evidence of its authenticity, I'd say you've given none at all.

    July 31st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
  96. Educator says:

    What a joke, I really should have rephrased my comments to say unless you are like professor who is enamoured with the murder of unborn babies take a look at this site Dr. Nathanson, a man who committed hundreds of thousands of abortions before he saw on ultrasound what he was doing, then became pro-life, I would take his word over a pro-death proponent any day of the week. He, along with 80% of women who see their baby on ultrasound will not abort their baby. How many millions of dollars would PP lose by women seeing an ultrasound of their baby? No wonder they don't recommend it. I have to go now. Keep up the good work "Face the Truth Tour".

    July 31st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
  97. Student says:

    Sorry, my mistake. I used Professor's laptop and forgot to change the name. Post 95 belongs to me.

    But how melodramatic you are. Nobody is "enamoured with the murder of unborn babies." I truly don't know why your posts are censored. Why do you find it necessary to put words in the mouths of others? Is your position so weak that is your only defense?

    You can take the SINGLE doctor's word for it — regardless of evidence to the contrary. It's obvious you're not interested in the truth of the matter — only what fits your preconceived mindset.

    July 31st, 2008 at 10:16 pm
  98. Educator says:

    I do apologize Student for the mistaken identity. I am sorry for that.My apologies to professor as well. My point being that there is probably no evidence that could be presented to pro-choicers like yourself that abortion should be restricted. I will try to curb my blunt language and identify the poster correctly, but when a man who stopped performing abortions was presented with evidence that a human life was being taken and changed his mind, and 80% of abortion-minded women change their minds after seeing ultrasound it is quite a testimony to the power of the truth. Like I said keep up the good work "Face the Truth" tour. I will really have to go now.

    July 31st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
  99. Sylvia says:

    Student,
    A link to a PP article as a source? Try something less biased. To quote from your source, "The film is riddled with scientific, medical, and legal inaccuracies, misleading statements, and exaggerations." That describes not the film, but PP propaganda perfectly. I suppose when an organization lives by lies, it may assume automatically everyone else does too.

    Truth is foreign to PP. Next they'll be saying the Truth Tour photos are faked too. I can hear it now: "They were just stillborns whom sick pro-lifers tore apart to make PP and other abortionists look cruel and inhumane. We CARE about women and their unwanted pregnancies." What they mean: "We CARE about the billions of dollars that we'll lose if society were to know the TRUTH of abortion, and that WE are the sick ones who tear babies apart."

    And one more time, to correct just one of the many errors of your source (I've heard from a teacher that sometimes it takes 7 repetitions until some students can learn–this is at least #4, so 3 more to go): It is incorrect to assume that pain can only be felt when the prefrontal cortex of the brain is well-developed.

    August 1st, 2008 at 12:42 am
  100. Student says:

    Sylvia,
    You've quoted from PP and Guttmacher when it suits you so your point is moot. Now, on the other hand, if you have some evidence of the authenticity of the SS Propogaganda film (other than the ONE doctor quoted above), I'd be happy to see it.

    August 1st, 2008 at 7:36 am
  101. Jerry Vilt says:

    It seems sometimes, that the "pro-life" cause is up against insurmountable obstacles. But I was pleasantly rejuvenated, when someone stated that: "Abortion is Satan's masterpiece"; (meaning that we are facing the very worst of which he is capable).

    August 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
  102. Deb says:

    Aurora Resident,
    I am truly sorry that you had a difficult pregnancy and am grateful that you are here to raise your children. I am also sorry that you were hurt by my comments. They were directed toward the norm, which was why I said "usually", but apparently that was missed. I will try to be more clear in the future.
    I do believe that everybody here recognizes that, in rare instances, something goes horribly wrong with a pregnancy a mother's life becomes jeopardized. When this happens it is certainly appropriate to medically intervene on behalf of the mother, even if the intervention will undoubtedly cause the tragic loss of the baby. The difference is that the death of the child is not the motivation.
    Also, pregnancy avoidance in and of itself is not evil, only when it is tied to selfish motives. Preserving your actual health in order to raise your born children and be a loving wife is certainly a noble and in itself a life giving reason. There are , however, 100% safe, and nearly 100% effective (more effective than the most effective chemical contraception)
    methods of pregnancy avoidance which respect your fertility and actually promote bonding between couples, because of the mutual cooperation required. You obviously have a unique situation and I wish you only the best in working it out.
    If approaching sexual relations (and each other) with awe and reverence is a crazy notion, we have become a sad, sad culture indeed.

    August 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
  103. Deb says:

    Professor,
    Your use of the word "use" is telling. That is the point. We should not be "using" sex, just as we should not be "using" each other. Of course there is a unitive dimension to sexual relations. The bonding is deep and meant to permanently link one heart to another for the good of the couple, their family and for the society at large. That is why it should never be taken lightly nor entered into casually (simply for pleasure). The fact that our culture has ignored that for the past 40 years has caused incredible societal devastation.
    The widespread use of artificial contraception has been responsible for unprecedented rises in infidelity, divorce, broken homes, out of wedlock births, teen births, abortion, epidemic STIs, not to mention entire generations who are cynical of marriage and deep intimate relationships. The list goes on. While all of these things have a deeply personal element, they also have a huge impact on society as a whole. I am sorry for you if you don't see that.
    Disease would be more in line with your potato salad analogy. Something has gone wrong with nature.
    Yes, we have technologies and scientific advancements to make life easier and more comfortable. But not all are equal. Therefore they need to be used judiciously and with respect for their long term consequences. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

    August 1st, 2008 at 10:16 am
  104. Professor says:

    The widespread use of artificial contraception has been responsible for unprecedented rises in infidelity, divorce, broken homes, out of wedlock births, teen births, abortion, epidemic STIs, not to mention entire generations who are cynical of marriage and deep intimate relationships. The list goes on. While all of these things have a deeply personal element, they also have a huge impact on society as a whole. I am sorry for you if you don't see that.

    First of all, I don't see contraception as being the reason for those changes, at least not the dominant reason. In fact, I see many of the things you point out as coming more from women acquiring more freedom to choose their own destinies in general (and birth control is one part of that).

    Divorce? I think it's a good thing that people are not forced to stay in bad and unsatisfying marriages. Now, I would agree that they should be much more adult about things, especially when children are involved. But my personal experience is that the harm to children from divorce comes from the parents fighting and putting the kids in the middle more than from the divorce itself.

    Broken homes? Before, people stayed together because they were forced to by laws. Getting a divorce was immensely difficult. What we have now, while certainly not perfect, is much better than the reality of things before. It really was NOT like June Cleaver.

    Out of wedlock births and teen pregnancy? You do realize that most women were married by age 20 before? There was a LOT of teen pregnancy. They just immediately got married (shotgun marriages) and were stuck in those marriages before. In the past, it was a source of amusement to count the months between the marriage and the first child. It was often much less than 9 months.

    Abortion? It did happen before, but either in back alleys or self-induced. The deaths from this were typically hushed up and cover stories given. At least now it is in a safe and healthy environment. Of course, the other alternative was the women who had a dozen children in her life because there was no birth control and no access to abortion. But that was a wonderful thing in your mind, eh?

    As for 'using' sex. It *is* a bonding experience (as well as pleasurable) and is one of the wonderful things in life. To destroy it by always having the *risk* of pregnancy seems very, very sad to me. I have had a vasectomy, so the risk is much less. I'm sure you see this as a terrible thing, but those I have been with over the years have seen it as a definite advantage.

    I think one thing many PLers can't seem to understand is that many people don't want more children. Ever. Yes, we are closed to more fertility. If you want to live your life with that risk at all times, go ahead. many don't. And that is a good thing.

    August 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
  105. Sylvia says:

    Student,
    You missed the point. While I have quoted before from Guttmacher, it was to show how PP will even twist facts from their own research arm when it suits them. I do believe that anything put out by PP (and Guttmacher) should be seriously questioned, as they have an agenda that has the almighty dollar at its root.

    What exactly do you find wrong with the "Silent Scream" video? It shows an abortion being done. It shows a baby being ripped apart. That's what abortion does. Even PP doesn't deny that it is the video of an abortion. Instead PP tries to obfuscate the fact that abortion kills by throwing in insignificant details like claiming the baby can't feel pain that early or can't really scream because there is no air. That's not the point. Anyone watching the video can tell you that what's being torn apart is a baby in utero.

    And that video was made long ago, when ultrasound was more primitive. If abortion defenders are so certain that what they are doing is right, why not let us see abortion being done in, say, 4D Ultrasound? Instead of a grainy, flat picture that some people find hard to read, let's show the baby in 4D Ultrasound, with fingers and toes, nose, eyes, and lips, being dismembered. Let people see the so-called "reflex" of the baby pulling away from the instrument of torture and death. Let people watch as the living, moving child is ripped apart and dies.

    Show the world what abortion is. Then let people make up their own minds. That's what Face the Truth is about, isn't it? We just want people to know the truth. We are not afraid of the truth. The Truth is on our side.

    August 1st, 2008 at 11:58 am
  106. Student says:

    Show the world what abortion is. Then let people make up their own minds. That's what Face the Truth is about, isn't it? We just want people to know the truth. We are not afraid of the truth. The Truth is on our side.

    No, the Face the Truth tour is about shock and spreading your gore porn. As I'm sure you know (with your background) most medical procedures are gory. Shall we force each person having surgery to watch a video of the surgery first so they can really KNOW what happens?

    Again, if we can show me physicians that support the movie, I'm happy to look at that evidence. Given that this is your second post on the topic w/o such evidence, I can only assume that you don't have any.

    August 1st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
  107. Roger says:

    "Gore Porn" …

    I was think in about the use of this term on this blog and had a couple of thoughts…

    1. Pornography typically depicts a human being, either male or female. This lends me to think that by using this term, in referring to images of aborted babies/fetuses, you are admitting that the aborted person is in fact "human".

    2. Pornography's "primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal", according to dictionary.com, so are you saying that someone is "sexually" aroused by seeing these images? This seems pretty "sick" to use an overused word.

    God Bless,
    Roger

    August 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
  108. Student says:

    Yes, Roger, a fetus is human. Have I ever disputed this? Pornography is usually shown to shock and excite — much like what you're doing with the "gore porn." Again, I wish I could take credit for the phrase. Unfortunately, I have to admit I read it in the Chicago Trib., but it seems appropriate under the circumstances.

    August 1st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
  109. Karen K. says:

    Student says: "a fetus is human. Have I ever disputed this? Pornography is usually shown to shock and excite — much like what you're doing with the "gore porn."

    A person,children and adults alike, may get shocked and excited about a surprise birthday party, this is not the same as with pornography, I can't even believe someone would come up with such an analogy, it borders on the insane. It is so disrespectful to talk about the dead in such a repulsive way, especially little babies, but I should not be surprised:

    "Again, I wish I could take credit for the phrase."

    No you can't take credit for the phrase, but I know who can, his name is SATAN!!!

    August 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
  110. Deb says:

    First of all, I don't see contraception as being the reason for those changes, at least not the dominant reason.

    Yes, these things did exist before widespread use of contraception, but in nowhere near the numbers at which they occur today. The fact that these things have risen at staggering rates in the years since is very strong evidence of the correlation.

    Divorce a good thing? I bet millions of children and abandoned spouses would disagree. Marriages that are bad and unsatisfying are usually marriages that were built on rocky foundations to begin with. Marriages built on the cut and run option that artificial contraception inserts into the relationship, and thus keeps couples from bonding on the deepest levels out of fear that the other will one day exercise that option. "Unsatisfying" is yet another telling word about how AC degrades sex and marriage. It takes what is meant to be a beautiful and mysterious giving of oneself totally to another and turns it into mutual self gratification. Because the bonds of unity (truly being one with each other) are absent, when one partner is no longer satisfied, contraception makes it easy to move on. With this thinking we fail to see each other as unique, unrepeatable persons with inherent dignity. We fail to see our other as what completes us. Instead, partners are reduced to utilitarian purposes and are interchangeable based on what satisfies at the moment. Do you really not see a problem with this?

    August 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
  111. Student says:

    Deb,
    You may need someone else to complete you, I do not. I am "complete" as I am and am not dependent on another person for this.

    Yes, I too see divorce a much better option than growing up in a "christian family" where divorce is not an option and everyone is miserable. I have firsthand knowledge of such a family, as I grew up in one. Given that my parents didn't have a need for birth control, it clearly wasn't the reason for everyone's misery. Two people who felt obligated to be together but really don't like each other was the issue. Your one-size-fits-all solution doesn't work for everyone. If it works for you, that's wonderful. You are certainly entitled to live your life as you see fit — but so are the rest of us.

    August 1st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
  112. Student says:

    A person,children and adults alike, may get shocked and excited about a surprise birthday party, this is not the same as with pornography, I can't even believe someone would come up with such an analogy, it borders on the insane. It is so disrespectful to talk about the dead in such a repulsive way, especially little babies, but I should not be surprised:

    But the images are not disrespectful? Pro-lifers throwing a dead fetus at President Clinton was not disrespectful????

    No, the analogy isn't insane. Your statement below sounds more along those lines:

    No you can't take credit for the phrase, but I know who can, his name is SATAN!!!

    August 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
  113. Professor says:

    Divorce a good thing? I bet millions of children and abandoned spouses would disagree. Marriages that are bad and unsatisfying are usually marriages that were built on rocky foundations to begin with. Marriages built on the cut and run option that artificial contraception inserts into the relationship, and thus keeps couples from bonding on the deepest levels out of fear that the other will one day exercise that option. "Unsatisfying" is yet another telling word about how AC degrades sex and marriage. It takes what is meant to be a beautiful and mysterious giving of oneself totally to another and turns it into mutual self gratification. Because the bonds of unity (truly being one with each other) are absent, when one partner is no longer satisfied, contraception makes it easy to move on. With this thinking we fail to see each other as unique, unrepeatable persons with inherent dignity. We fail to see our other as what completes us. Instead, partners are reduced to utilitarian purposes and are interchangeable based on what satisfies at the moment. Do you really not see a problem with this?

    I see being forced to stay in a bad marriage as being much worse. I see having WAY too many kids because of lack of birth control as much worse. I see the complete disrespect for people that this mindset shows as being WAY worse. Having sex for procreation isn't 'giving of oneself'. It's pure selfishness by not taking responsibility for your own fertility. It seems that you would much rather punish a bunch of kids by forcing their parents to stay in bad relationships. I'd much rather have a relationship based on mutual love and respect than one based on not being bale to divorce because of lack of planning and responsibility.

    August 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
  114. Karen K. says:

    How come when you talk about unmarried relationships they are all great. But when you refer to marital relationships they are all considered bad, and all large families are bad. I have known many large families and married couples that are happy. And the unmarried people seem unsatisfied and going from one person to next with some of them having kids that don't know what's what already. That makes for a very unstable evironment for children. It is sad you have not had the wonderful examples of happily married couples, who have a great devotion to each other and God. It is something beautiful to witness!It all boils down to your love for God and then that love is lived in your marriage and for your family. It is a love that lasts for eternity!

    August 1st, 2008 at 7:20 pm
  115. Student says:

    KarenK,
    Not all unmarried relationships are great, nor are all married relationships great. I don't think you can generalize either.

    But when you refer to marital relationships they are all considered bad

    Where was this said? Post number please.

    It is sad you have not had the wonderful examples of happily married couples I'd agree. It's also said that you have not had the wonderful examples of happily non-married couples.

    August 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
  116. Student says:

    Last paragraph should have read:

    It is sad you have not had the wonderful examples of happily married couples

    I'd agree. It's also said that you have not had the wonderful examples of happily non-married couples.

    August 1st, 2008 at 7:47 pm
  117. Student says:

    Deb,
    Can you explain this further:

    Because the bonds of unity (truly being one with each other) are absent, when one partner is no longer satisfied, contraception makes it easy to move on.

    Are you saying that without contraception there would likely be children introduced into bad relationship, thus making it harder for a spouse to leave?

    August 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
  118. Karen K. says:

    "But when you refer to marital relationships they are all considered bad"

    I just come away with that from what I have read here.

    We will not agree on the sanctity of marriage because of the fact that I believe in God and I believe, correct me if I am wrong, you do not. I can see the benefit of the Sacrament of Marriage when both parties take their commitment to each other seriously and then also to a higher authority, God. Not to mention the abounding graces one receives from God in the Sacrament. We need all the help we can get, and it is great to know a loving God is in both of our corners ready to help us get through some inevitable tough times. We could never do it by ourselves. I know that God has a hand on us. But we can reject His love and counsel if we so choose. I remember hearing an interview of an old couple that was married for 70 years. It was asked, to what do you owe to your success for staying together all these years? They said, "we stood before God and said "I do" and — we did!" The adult children said it was not always, 24 hours a day 7 days a week wonderful, but always solid and they felt truly loved and SECURE. They said that the happy memories seemed to drown out any unpleasant memories, and in fact looking back they laugh out loud about some of those times. And the married couple said they loved each other always but on occasion did not like one another for one reason or another. But never went to bed mad. We owe this kind of marriage to our kids and to their kids and for generations to come. That old couple kept God in their marriage and have much to be proud of. They were faithful to each other and most importantly to God. They are a good example to us all. I believe we need to commit to love each other and stick by our words as best we can with God's help. Our children do want stability and so should we!

    Going from one partner to the next is not a stable situation for anyone, child or adult. But again we will not agree.

    August 1st, 2008 at 9:47 pm
  119. Student says:

    But when you refer to marital relationships they are all considered bad"

    I just come away with that from what I have read here.

    Then please do not put words in my mouth. That IS NOT what I said. And for the record, I don't go from one partner to another. I have a stable relationship — we just choose NOT to marry. I don't expect you to agree with my choice, but please respect it as I respect yours to be married.

    August 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
  120. Student says:

    Where HAVE you been Church Lady? I've missed you!

    August 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
  121. Deb says:

    Student says:
    Deb,
    Can you explain this further:
    Because the bonds of unity (truly being one with each other) are absent, when one partner is no longer satisfied, contraception makes it easy to move on.
    Are you saying that without contraception there would likely be children introduced into bad relationship, thus making it harder for a spouse to leave?

    No Student,
    What I am saying is that the "cut and run" option built into artificially contracepted relationships make for bad marriages from the beginning. It is not likely that a person will fully give themselves over to another when an "out" has been built into the relationship from the start. There is a lack of commitment and trust that is inherent in the method.

    What we do with our bodies speaks to each other about our innermost needs, desires and fears.

    When a mature, married couple gives themselves to each other in a non-contracepted relationship they are saying to each other, "You are THE ONE I want to be with forever, come what may. Children or no children, good times or bad. You are my other."

    Note, I said mature and married. It means the couple needs to be cooperative, communicative and respectful of each other's desires, fears and their mutual fertility. These are relationship building skills that promote healthy, happy marriages.

    On the other hand, when a contracepting couple comes together it says,
    "You are SOME ONE (some body, a body) I want to be with, at least for now. That might change though, so we definitely can't bring children into this relationship." Sometimes it adds, "I suppose we might marry, but at least we can always divorce if one or both of us decides we want to be with someone else."

    This is a relationship built on satisfying an immediate desire rather than on building a future with one irreplaceable person. To use your own words, "You may need someone to complete you. I DO NOT" (emphasis added). This is a recipe for failed relationships.

    In addition, when marriages fail to be "satisfying" , and most do at various periods in a couple's life, artificial contraception makes it all too easy and tempting to find temporary satisfaction outside of the marriage. Working on the marriage (the greater good) is set aside and gratification is found with SOME one else (a totally selfish use of another person). "Someones" are always interchangeable. Seeing other people as "someone" is a barrier to building deep and lasting relationships.

    Finally yes, if a couple is blessed with children, those children are a valid reason for committing oneself to making the marriage work. While Professor thinks couples need to act like adults while they divorce, I believe it would be much more prudent for couples to behave like adults before and when they marry and then stand by their marriage commitments. Children learn their relationship skills from their parents and for better or worse, tend to seek companions in the images of their parents. When parents love and respect each other, even through the difficult times, children learn to love and respect and work through challenges. They seek partners who are committed to doing the same. When children learn to bail every time things get tough or less then satisfying, those are the lessons they will carry into their relationships.

    I suppose it is necessary to point out that when it comes to abusive relationships, everything changes. If someone is being abused they certainly need to remove themselves and their children from harm's way.

    August 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
  122. Student says:

    Deb,
    And what is the mature, committed, married couple to do if they DO NOT want children?

    August 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
  123. Deb says:

    Student,
    Thats easy! Systematic NFP. When properly used it is 99-99.6% effective.
    It is 100% safe. And because of the relationship building skills inherent in this method (communication, cooperation, and yes, even periodic abstinence) couples are at a significantly reduced risk for divorce (5% vs. 50%). :-)

    August 4th, 2008 at 11:16 am
  124. AuroraResident says:

    Systematic NFP. When properly used it is 99-99.6% effective.

    WRONG! Effectiveness (failure rate): 2%-25%. Of 100 women who use natural family planning, 2 will become pregnant during the first year of perfect use. 25 out of 100 will become pregnant with typical use in one year. Source.

    Do you object to sterilization too?

    August 4th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
  125. Mike says:

    The divorce rate for those using contraception is 50%. Studies done on the divorce rate for those using NFP is between 0-4%.

    http://www.ccli.org/

    Mike

    August 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
  126. Mike says:

    More answers about NFP (See Bottom of Page)…

    a NFP Questions & Answers.

    Mike

    August 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
  127. AuroraResident says:

    The divorce rate for those using contraception is 50%. Studies done on the divorce rate for those using NFP is between 0-4%.

    Based on what? Is there a study that I missed?

    August 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
  128. Brian says:

    Without getting too involved in this debate, my guess is that the statistics on this are largely meaningless because of the self-selection problem. NFP doesn't prevent divorce. Rather, the people who use NFP are almost entirely orthodox Catholics– that is, Catholics who genuinely believe the Catechism from start to finish. I distinguish them from Easter/Christmas Catholics and even Catholics who go to mass every Sunday but don't take the Catechism that seriously.

    Because divorce is just as unacceptable to them as artificial birth control, it wouldn't be a surprise that the divorce rate is significantly lower than the rate of the population at large.

    August 4th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
  129. Mike says:

    a FREE CD – Includes More of the Advantages of NFP & How Contraception Has Effected Society.

    August 4th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
  130. Deb says:

    Brian
    You are correct, NFP does not in and of itself prevent divorce. When used with the proper disposition, however, it does contribute to healthier marriages (See post 121) . As a happy consequence, NFP couples divorce at a dramatically lower rate.
    Orthodox Catholic spirituality also contributes greatly to lasting marriages. The divorce rate for Catholic couples who use NFP is closer to 1%.

    August 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am
  131. Deb says:

    Aurora Resident,
    A website that sells condoms and sex toys and promotes casual sex among college students is hardly a reliable source on the virtues and effectiveness of NFP.

    Your source addresses 3 older methods of NFP and totally ignores the most widely used Sympto-thermal method, which cross checks fertility using BOTH temperature and physical indicators. A 2007 German study found this method to be 99.6% effective among properly instructed and highly motivated couples.

    Sorry, I am somewhat computer illiterate and cannot figure out how to make the link, but here is the site.

    wwwhumrepoxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dem003v1

    Sterilization for the purposes of pregnancy avoidance has the same inherent problems as contraception (see post 121) in that, at the deepest level, it treats the other as utilitarian and replaceable. It has the added problem of likely being permanent, which closes a marriage off to the possibility of procreation, even should a couple decide to open their hearts and marriage to children.

    That being said, surgical or medical intervention which renders a couple sterile is not immoral, so long as the intent is not the sterility itself.

    I know you are in an uncommon situation and please understand that I am not trying to judge you. I am simply trying to point out that there
    are more loving options.

    I am not aware of any official studies on the divorce rates, but there have been several unofficial ones. Here is one from Physicians for Life, again I'm sorry about the link.

    physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36

    August 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
  132. Student says:

    A website that sells condoms and sex toys and promotes casual sex among college students is hardly a reliable source on the virtues and effectiveness of NFP.

    When I clicked her link it was from Stanford University. I'd certainly trust that over a PL propoganda site.

    That being said, surgical or medical intervention which renders a couple sterile is not immoral, so long as the intent is not the sterility itself.

    Why else would anyone opt for surgical intervention if not for sterility????? I'm sorry, but this is one of the more inane things I've ever read here. A method that is GUARANTEED not to end in an unwanted pregnancy (or an abortion for same) is seen as immoral? This is proof positive that it isn't so much abortion that you are opposed to, it is the sexuality of others. Good grief! Mind your own business.

    August 5th, 2008 at 11:05 am
  133. Roger says:

    Student,

    Why else would anyone opt for surgical intervention if not for sterility????? I'm sorry, but this is one of the more inane things I've ever read here.

    It's relatively easy to think of surgical interventions that can cause sterility but not intend it. Removing a cancerous growth. The intent is not sterility, but saving the life of the person.

    Good grief! Mind your own business.

    I really dislike it when people say this on this blog, weather from pro-life or pro-choice people, although I think that it is mostly said, if not all said, by the pro-choice individuals. For one, this is a pro-life site, and if you really believed this advice and acted upon it, you wouldn't be here posting such things.

    God Bless,
    Roger

    August 5th, 2008 at 11:32 am
  134. Student says:

    Roger,
    We weren't talking about removing a cancerous growth. We were talking about birth control options. Do you see the difference? I personally know Aurora Resident. Another pregnancy, for her, might kill her. How immoral she is to even consider sterilization as an option!!! Perhaps she should just not worry about it and abort any and every time she became pregnant. Even better yet, she should just not worry about it and if she gets pregnant and dies well, hey, too bad for her (and her son, daughter and husband).

    So yes, if what you're really trying to do is control the sexuality of a woman in her 40's, who's been married for 14 years by telling her she's immoral for wanting to continue to be sexually active with her husband and not wanting to become pregnant because it could kill her, and that opting for sterilization is IMMORAL I say, yes, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

    August 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
  135. Deb says:

    Student,
    Aurora Resident's source is the Stanford Sexual Health PEER (emhasis mine) Resource Center. It is a group of college students "educating" (or mis-educating in the case of NFP) other college students on sexual relationships and contraception choices.

    If you go to their About Us page and click on Supplies, you will find the various condoms and sex toys available for sale.

    You ask:Why else would anyone opt for surgical intervention if not for sterility?????

    People with diseased or improperly functioning reproductive systems may require may require medical intervention for removal or treatment of such. Sterility is not the intention, it is a side effect.

    Sterilization is not 100% guarantee . Vasectomy is around 99%, TL starts out about 99% and drops to 98% after 10 years.

    You are very wrong. I care deeply about eliminating abortion. It appears that the difference between us has more to do with the fact that I believe approaching our sexuality and each other with due genuine love and respect will go much farther in solving the problem than manipulating our fertility and each other for the simple convenience of having sex whenever we want it will. We've been experimenting with your approach for 40 years, in case you haven't noticed, its not working.

    August 5th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
  136. Student says:

    Deb,
    See post 134.

    August 5th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
  137. Brian says:

    "So yes, if what you're really trying to do is control the sexuality of a woman in her 40's, who's been married for 14 years by telling her she's immoral for wanting to continue to be sexually active with her husband and not wanting to become pregnant because it could kill her, and that opting for sterilization is IMMORAL I say, yes, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!"

    Who's trying to prevent you from doing anything? Who's trying to make tubal ligation or vasecotomies illegal? No one. Those who choose to believe in Humanae Vitae are free to do so and are free to view those acts as immoral, but that doesn't mean they're getting in your business. So put away the soapbox unless you think you have the right to control others' beliefs.

    August 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
  138. Brian says:

    "So yes, if what you're really trying to do is control the sexuality of a woman in her 40's, who's been married for 14 years by telling her she's immoral for wanting to continue to be sexually active with her husband and not wanting to become pregnant because it could kill her, and that opting for sterilization is IMMORAL I say, yes, MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!"

    Who's trying to prevent you from doing anything? Who's trying to make tubal ligation or vasecotomies illegal? No one. Those who choose to believe in Humanae Vitae are free to do so and are free to view those acts as immoral, but that doesn't mean they're getting in your business. So put away the soapbox unless you think you have the right to control others' beliefs.

    August 5th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
  139. Brian says:

    Sorry about the double post. I tried to modify buy hit enter. My other caveat was that I don't get the difference between other forms of birth control and NFP from the Catholic perspective. In both cases, you are calculating when can you have sex without procreation. Both are prone to end up with conception to one degree or the other (and I don't care about the percentages). For me, the question is–once there is a complete human life, can it be discarded? My answer is no. Personally, I think the operations make the best sense for those who are definitely done with having children, although that view is not consistent with the Church's teaching.

    August 5th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
  140. Deb says:

    Student,
    See post 124.
    AuroraResident specifically asked if I objected to sterilization. I answered and supported consistent with my beliefs.

    I have already acknowledged that she has a difficult and challenging situation (Posts 103 and 131). I wish only the best for her as she and her husband figure out what is best.

    August 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
  141. Brian says:

    Let me also say that I didn't read the full context of what you were saying, Student. In light of the other woman's health situation, I don't see how it could be immoral to have a sterilization operation. I know that the local Catholic hospital would perform the operation in that situation (they only perform them in the context of serious health risk to a mother).

    August 5th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
  142. Jerry Vilt says:

    (a "take off" on a part of THE magnificat:)

    Those with "nothing" will know the truth and those with "everything" will be sent away empty!

    (problem is defining "nothing" and "everything"!)

    July 18th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
  143. Jerry Vilt says:

    learned = possessed of facts.

    July 22nd, 2010 at 4:31 am
  144. Jerry Vilt says:

    (re: term of the statement):

    empty = as in sent away without truth, but still possessed of facts. (?)

    empty = as in sent away without truth, and also "stripped" of prossessed facts. (?)

    following third (via logic) possibility (because of "He neither deceives nor is deceived")is discounted:

    empty = as in "stripped" of prossessed facts (empty) and with or without truth.

    July 23rd, 2010 at 7:30 am
  145. Jerry Vilt says:

    (re: term of the statement):

    empty = not "emptied".

    July 26th, 2010 at 4:29 am
  146. Jerry Vilt says:

    (re: part of the statement):

    "sent away, empty."

    or

    "sent away empty."

    I believe the comma gives a different meaning to what happens to the "possessed of facts".

    In one case even what is possessed, is taken away as well as sent away.

    In the other case what is possessed, is left intact….and just sent away.

    (I think I better "cool it"…..to avoid a visit from the guy(s) and/or gal(s) in white coats.)

    July 27th, 2010 at 2:44 am
  147. Jerry Vilt says:

    re: "those with everything will be sent away empty":

    "empty" as in they will be shown the emptyness of their everything and will be than sent anew to acquire truth also.

    June 18th, 2011 at 2:47 am

Pregnant? Need help? Hurt by abortion? Call 1-800-848-LOVE, 24 hours.