Building Code Board hearing tonight
Posted by Eric Scheidler on Wednesday, September 10th, 2008
The zoning case against Planned Parenthood is moving forward in state court. Just yesterday Judge Kenneth Popejoy was assigned to the case in DuPage County court, which has reasserted its jurisdiction over the case after a brief haitus in federal court. And tonight we continue the municipal side of the case with an appearance before the Aurora Building Code Board of Appeals.
This hearing gives city officials their third and final chance to seriously address the substance of the case against Planned Parenthood—as they've refused to do in our two appeals to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Corporation Counsel Alayne Weingartz has filed a Motion to Dismiss—even though she was the one who insisted our case had to be brought to this Board in the first place.
Come out to the Fifth Floor Conference Room at City Hall (map) at 5 p.m. for the hearing, or check back here for live reports.
5:20 p.m. Sorry for the delay in getting an update here. Our faithful lawyers were caught in traffic thanks to an accident on I-88. They should be arriving any minute.
The Building Code Board of Appeals is assembled, along with their attorney Pete Wilson (the same who represented the Zoning Board of Appeals), plus Aurora Corporation Counsel Alayne Weingartz, Planned Parenthood attorney Chris Wilson (no relation to Pete). Three are about half-a-dozen pro-life citizens, plus a few others.
5:25 p.m. Our attorneys, Peter Breen and Tom Brjecha, have just arrived, and the meeting has been called to order. Chris Wilson was apparently caught in the same traffic jam; he added his apology to Tom and Peter's for the delay in starting.
5:30 p.m. Pete Wilson reviews the jurisdiction and procedures pertaining to the Building Code Board of Appeals, and how this hearing will go forward. The Board votes to assign Pete Wilson as the parliamentarian to assist them with the hearing.
5:35 p.m. Now the attorneys are asked to present their arguments on the City's Motion to Dismiss. Alayne Weingartz argues that Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood should be barred as a party to the appeal. Now she argues that darn near every aspect of our appeal should be thrown out, either because the Board does not have jurisdiction or because we're too late.
(It's a shell game, folks. Last year we were assured that neither the mayor nor the city council had any authority to confront Planned Parenthood's misdeads. Then we were told the ZBA doesn't have jurisdiction either, and now neither, it seems, does the BCBA.)
Alayne says the only matter this Board can consider is whether the building official should have issued a final occupancy permit, a question which relates only to whether or not PP completed their final "punch list" of construction issue.
5:40 p.m. Peter Breen now takes issue with Weingartz's claim that FVFAPP cannot be party to this appeal. The cases Weingartz cited against us are over 50 years old and not form Illinois; but more recent Illinois caselaw supports FVFAPP as a party representing community members living nearby PP and impacted by their presence in the neighborhood.
Now Peter responds to Weingartz's assertion that our appeal comes too late. He says that approvals earned by PP improperly are invalid, regardless of whether they are individually appealed by a particular date.
5:45 p.m. Now Chris Wilson states that Planned Parenthood joins the City's Motion to Dismiss. FVFAPP has no standing, and only punch-list items can be considered in the question whether Planned Parenthood ought to have been issued a final occupancy certificate.
And now the Board votes to adjourn to executive session to consider the Motion to Dismiss. . .
6:30 p.m. We're still waiting on the Board to return. They've been in executive session for 45 minutes.
7:15 p.m. Still waiting. Tom Brejcha muses that the "six-man version of Twelve Angry Men" may be going on. Pro-life activist Joe Basar replies, "As long as they've got a Henry Fonda in there."
7:20 p.m. The Board returns. The chairman calls on a member to offer a motion. One of the members moves that the Motion to Dismiss all matters that fall outside the 20 day limit for appeals be granted. The Board votes unanimously to do so.
7:25 p.m. Chris Wilson explains that the only matter that remains is the issuance of the occupancy permit, which it seems the Board agrees depends only on whether those matters on the final punch-list of construction code items were correctly addressed.
The Board votes to meet again Sept. 24 to discuss that matter, and adjourns the meeting.
What this means: For the third time—the fourth time if you add in the mayor's statements back on October 1 last year—city officials have refused to squarely face the serious problems surrounding Planned Parenthood's erection of the Abortion Fortress of Aurora.
Wow. So if I understand this correctly, let’s say that a building is constructed and occupied for years. Then, one day, a private citizen notices something that doesn’t look right, something that’s a safety issue. Are you telling me that the city of Aurora has no jurisdiction to require the owner to make changes to the building? This is laughable. I guess the AFD couldn’t shut down the building either if that item was not included on a final punch list!
September 10th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
#1 Charles says,…"So if I understand this correctly let's say that a building is constructed and occupied for years…
Correction: the years in this case is 20 days!
Ms. Alayne states that Fox Valley Families Against Planned Parenthood should be barred as a party.
She felt no real individual, citizen of Aurora,
that lives close within 250 feet of the clinic is actually filing the suit.
Yes, I am an Aurora citizen! and unfortunately, I live
just a little out of the 250 feet.
I have lived in the community for 14 years. Since
the clinic has come in secretly there has been more
police sirens and other emergency sirens.
I am troubled when I hear the sirens. I often wonder
are they going to the clinic?
Last Saturday the ambulance did go to pick up a very young lady whose abortion had gone wrong. This was not the first time I have witnessed this at the clinic.
What about the school buses that stop close to the clinic letting the children off? How safe are they with the increased traffic? I have also witnessed this too.
Foot traffic is busy going to Dominicks/Blockbuster.
There are walkers, bikers, strollers, kids and adults.
How safe will they be each time with the increased traffic? I have seen alot of activity.
My neighbor got her house refinanced and found out that
her home had lost its value 10,000. Did that really
surprise anyone?
Yes, I live in the neighborhood, Ms. Alayne!
and I am HERE FOR LIFE!
September 10th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
This Board is a joke. They should all be thrown out of office. Total frauds, just like the Mayor and most of the phony council members, who hide behind their phony arguements. One day it will catch up with them.
Ms. Alayne should be fired too. Can't stand to even look at all these phonies. Most I suspect are pro-abortionists or pro-planned parenthood, without an once of integrity between them.
Would like to see all of them thrown out!!
September 10th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Just awful. We can only pray for a change of hearts here. Prayer is the most powerful tool we've got.
God bless you guys,
Elizabeth
September 11th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Does anyone know if United Way of Aurora is connected to the Planned Parenthood Agency? The East Aurora Teachers Union will soon be asking all union members to support the United Way of Aurora at the next drive coming soon. While United Way helps fund many agencies that in-turn directly help "our" children (Aunt Martha's) I need to know if any of these monies go either directly or indirectly to Planned Parenthood. Please help.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:43 am
Aunt Martha's is a pro-choice agency per leadership in Pro-Life Action League. United way supports March of Dimes which supports abortion on demand. Contrary but true. I contributed to and worked for an agency affiliated with United Way (Easter Seals) and while employed there, through my company, made contributions to United Way their parent organization until I received word that they had ties to organizations that fund and politically rally for abortion on demand. Sad but true–the companies that should unilaterally be on our side are not.
Odder still are major corporations vested in the manufacture and sale of infant and toddler's products, and mother's and feminine products who contribute to Planned Parenthood. Talk about contradictory. That is a long list by the way.
These are some of the more glaring examples:
Johnson Baby Products
Johnson & Johnson
Petagonia
E.P.T. Pregnancy Test
o.b. pads
Stay Free pads
Other Food Manufacturers:
Betty Crocker
Cheerios
Hungry Jack
General Mills
Kix
Joan Of Arc Foods
(St.Joan must be rolling in her grave.)
to name a few.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Pat,
I work for a company that contributes to United Way of Chicago in a corporate way…when the Aurora PP abortuary broke and I got involved with the pro-life effort I googgled both companies (just to be on the safe side) and found that some of United Way's monies get funneled to PP.
Our company rep asked why I decided not to contribute..and I told her the reason why. She came back later and stated that it's only those UW in those other states that do that…not in Chicago (yeah, right)
She stated that you can specify as to where your specific contribution would go…I told her that wherever my contribution goes in UW, it would just free
up the budget for that area and UW would still allocate those monies to the PP fund…so, technically, you will still be supporting PP in some under-handed way.
If you check the United Way website, their goal and activities for kids are very good…as S Fane stated..I just don't understand how a company geared to help kids can contribute to PP, the largest killer of unborn kids.
Maybe if a lot more people withheld their contribution stating PP/ abortion support as a reason..maybe the company will wake up.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
S Fane writes: "Aunt Martha's is a pro-choice agency per leadership in Pro-Life Action League."
I don't know if I'd call Aunt Martha's "pro-choice". My understanding is that they are, in some way or another, pro-contraception. I don't know much more than that.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:28 am
From Margo's post:
"My neighbor got her house refinanced and found out that
her home had lost its value 10,000. Did that really
surprise anyone?"
Margo, you might want to look into this little thing called the "housing crisis" that's going on nationally right now. I think you might find that it's the reason your neighbor's house has lost value. Oddly enough, the mortgage crisis is totally unconnected to Planned Parenthood.
September 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
September 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
response to #10:
The contraception prevents the child from coming into existence! It is effectly aborting the potential child! Thus that's why there is no abortion!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
"from #11 above - "Thus that's why there is no abortion!"
REPHRASED:
Thus that's why contraception "might actually prevent an abortion."!
September 11th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Aunt Martha's DOES promote contraception, which (in my opinion) promotes sexual activity to women. It doesn't matter if they are single or married, adults or minors. They spoke to my unmarried, underage daughter about contraception and they don't have to have the parent's permission.
I will say, the nurse who talked to my daughter did not pressure her, but how many girls need to be pressured to go the "easy" road or be persuaded? Personally I find this appaling, but not suprising.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Surely, you jest!?!! Now you're worried about the "potential" child? Not a real one, but the "potential" one???? Doesn't NFP also "effectly [sic] abort the potential child" as well? This is one of the more ridiculous things I've ever heard.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Response to # 14 —
I am an Aurora resident. However,
I live just a little outside the 250 feet of the clinic.
The Pill–how does it work?
Information is taken from The Physicians Desk Reference)
The birth control pill works simultaneously to prevent the release of an egg and to prevent the implantation of a fertilized embryo should conception take place.
Its hormones send a message to the brain which mimic
pregnancy so that an egg will not be released.
Sometimes, however, this mechanism fail, so there are
two back-up mechanisms working on the body simultaneously.
For one, the pill acts to thicken the mucus in the woman's cervix in order to inhibit sperm from reaching the egg.
Also, it creates a hostile environment in the woman's uterus so that in the event that sperm does reach the egg and fertilize it, the embryo will not be able to implant in the wall of the woman's uterus, and will be expelled from the woman's body.
In this last function of the pill, it has the effect of an early chemical abortion.
—–
A facility that has to keep its practices secret in
order to arrive in the community is not one that can
be trusted to give accurate information to the clients
going into it.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:58 am
abstanence is aborting???
altering or disrupting or killing egg or spern is not aborting???
September 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
abstanence above - NFP
September 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
aborting a "potential human being" may not sound like much….unless you realize it MEANS THERE WILL BE NO HUMAN BEING because of the abort!!!
September 12th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Of course not! Why on earth would you think that's aborting? There is NOTHING to abort!
What you fail to realize is that a "potential human being" DOES NOT EXIST! You cannot abort something that DOES NOT EXIST!
September 13th, 2008 at 8:16 am
So if you choose to not have sex during a fertile period, thereby denying a 'potential person' existence, wouldn't that be the same thing also?
*boggle*
September 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
re #20 "So if you choose to not have sex during a fertile period, thereby denying a "potential person" existence, wouldn't that be the same thing also?
reply: If it was, I'd be "denying" a potential person's existence, as often has the millions of fertile women of whoom I am denying sex of!
Just because a "potential thing" is NOT actual, it IS NOT void of some kind of existence. A potential rose is NOT a rose, but none the less the rose bud that is the "source" of its potentially is an actual existence.
The sperm, egg and process exactually exist, and it is from that, that we have a "potential being".
Aborting a "potential human being" means we are aborting ACTURAL sperm, egg, process!
September 13th, 2008 at 8:57 am
a "potential being" IMPLYS actual existences, same existences being "components" of the potential being.
The actual components (if not destroyed ((aborted))) generate to the actual being. (formerly only a potential being)
September 13th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Show me a fertile women (complete with all the actual things that fertility implies) and I'll claim a potential human being exists!
But the important point is the actual things (fertility)are NOT the human being they (fertility items and process)are ordered to (nature) namely the human being. This ordering (nature), is the cause of the potentiality of the potential human being.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
A potential human being does not exist unless there is a fertile woman. And aborting the fertile part of her, even tho we are talking about things OTHER then an actual human being, effectly destroys the potential human being and thus NO actual human being is possible.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Re: A rose bush with rose buds (but no roses). One can say Rose(s) do not exist here.
If we kill (abort) the buds, well we can still say, Rose(s) do not exist here.
BUT a actual Rose would have come into existence (where there was no Rose)if we hadn't aborted the rose bud!!!
September 13th, 2008 at 9:38 am
"They poured out innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed…Psalm 106:38a
—
This is what is in my community!
They came a dark secret to the neighborhood,
but the children of Light against them stood.
September 13th, 2008 at 9:44 am
re #25:
Where there was NO actual rose, there was a potential rose (whose existence is from the rose bud). This potential rose generates into an actual rose, IF the rose bud is NOT aborted!
September 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Jerry Vilt wrote:
Just because a "potential thing" is NOT actual, it IS
NOT void of some kind of existence. A potential rose is
NOT a rose, but none the less the rose bud that is the "source" of its potentially is an actual existence.
The sperm, egg and process exactually exist, and it is from that, that we have a "potential being". Aborting a "potential human being" means we are aborting ACTURAL sperm, egg, process!
*********************
Yes, but FAPP is opposed to contraception too, which makes no sense to me. Reliable contraception PREVENTS pregnancy to a large extent, and therefore, by extension, it prevents abortion as well. No pregnancy, no abortion. Why FAPP has such a problem with such a simple fact is beyond me.
September 13th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
re #28: "Reliable contracption PREVENTS pregnancy"
Aren't we talking about destruction here? No wonder there is no child available for abortion….the causes of bringing the child into existence have been DESTROYED! (isn't that what contracption does?).
By contracption we don't "allow" there to be a child, thus no abortion! (Because we destroyed the "parts" of the potential child!!!)
We've eliminated a need for abortion by eliminating the ability of the women to make a child!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Seriously, Jerry, are you high?
September 13th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Contraception eliminates abortion by eliminating the entire "mechanism" and all of the components that produces the child.
We eliminated the need to abort the child, but we're aborted everything that is just short of actually being a child to accomplish this! We eliminated the need to abort the child by eliminating all that is necessary to produce a child!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Re: #28 "No pregnancy, no abortion. Why FAPP has such a problem with such a simple fact is beyond me"
Reply: Right, no abortion BECAUSE contracption aborts the pregnancy instead!!!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I am NOT sure of my analogies usually, but it seems this might apply:
I mfg cars…..but they are constantly being stollen when made. So I'll close down the plant….wow! I've eliminated the stealing!!!
September 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I've just noticed your #30 Student:….Ha Ha…I surely hope not but wound up might definitely be the case!!!
September 13th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
ALL hormonal contraceptives (e.g., the Pill, Norplant, Depo Provera, etc.) have as one of their modes of action early abortion. They alter the uterine lining so that if ovulation does occur and fertilization takes place, the newly conceived baby cannot implant, thus causing abortion. Untold millions of babies have been aborted without their mothers' knowledge, as the women never knew they had conceived. Most women don't know of the abortive nature of hormonal contraceptives, but it's right there in the package inserts of the drugs. With the lower doses nowadays (too many women were dying from strokes due to high dose hormones), "breakthrough ovulation" is more common.
Besides, hormonal contraception also causes breast cancer. It is labeled a Class 1 carcinogen by the World Health Organization. And it is polluting our waterways as women flush their hormone-laden excrement down the toilet. Sewage treatment plants have no way of filtering it out. What happens when pregnant women and young boys are exposed to it? Wildlife? Girls and women with estrogen-susceptible cancer genes? Remember, it's a carcinogen. So why would anyone promote it?
IUDs are abortifacient, flat-out.
All that's left artificially are spermicides, caps, and condoms–not very effective in preventing disease and pregnancy, always harmful to the soul. So again, why promote them?
Natural Family Planning (NFP) is the only safe, effective, morally licit means of spacing pregnancy (in marriage). Check out the Couple to Couple League for more info.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
C'mon, Syliva. You're smarter than that. Jerry's saying that by interupting fertilization of the egg (i.e., not allowing the egg and sperm to meet) that one is somehow destroying a "potential baby." That's nonsense and you know it.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
re #36 (Student)
"not allowing the egg and sperm to meet"
Does one have to "destroy" to stop something from happening? Why not simply "stop" it….the result is identical in both cases!
September 14th, 2008 at 12:53 am
potential human being - All I am doing is LABELING the complete "picture" of a fertile man and woman "uniteing".
September 14th, 2008 at 1:00 am
"woman" should be "fertile woman". sorry
September 14th, 2008 at 1:03 am
re 37: "Why not simply 'stop it'….the result is identical in both cases!"
should be: Why not simply "not allow"….the result is identical in both cases!
(In the forum one can simply go back and edit adinfinity and always end up with an exact, concise, the best you have to offer….instead of this cockmany method here in the blog!!!)
September 14th, 2008 at 1:24 am
just as well, tho…..because I do the "final" via "in particular - definitions" in the forum. Matt can zap all my goofs here with a click of the mouse or a press of a key (latter if he is a keyboard geek, like me).
September 14th, 2008 at 1:37 am
comment about #36:
potential baby - the adjective "potential" means something about the baby…..not the baby itself. That's why "potential" is used instead of "actual".
I'm not a teacher….but that's the best way I can think of to explain your "That's nonsense and you know it."
September 14th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Comment about #36:
If "not allowing the egg and sperm to meet" makes conception IMPOSSIBLE (whereas conception would occur if there was allowance) some kind of ABORT to something has occured!!!
ABORT, as in taking out of existence what existed OR
making IMPOSSIBLE what would have been inevitable.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:19 am
sperm, eggs, female plumbing apparatus by themselves certainly are not as noble as live embryo. But when "conditions" are such that it is inevitable that a live embryo would result…..in such a case the "parts" become as noble as the whole. We abort an essential part and we are as guilty as one who aborts a live embryo!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:29 am
My profound apology!…."plumbing" should be "reproductive"!!!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:34 am
But of course if there is no God…..guilty schmilty, it doesn't matter.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Jerry, to quote the late, great George Carlin, "Not every ejaculation deserves a name!"
September 14th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Right! Yes indeed! BUT our problem as I see it, is about those that "DO DESERVE A NAME".
September 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Then I'm truly confused as to what we're debating about. I understand your position on abortion — I disagree — but I understand where you're coming from.
Here is my confusion? Are you saying that by avoiding fertilization (i.e., taking precautions to make sure they DO NOT meet) is aborting a potential anything?
September 14th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
I was much hasty with #48, should be:
But what of ejaculation that "deserves a name?"
September 14th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
If we "avoid" fertilization by simply not doing anything in "opposition" to nature (abstinence) AND
nature takes it course…..there is no conception AND we are NOT guilty of ABORTION.
But if we "interfer"(contraception) with nature in a case where there would be a conception but our contracption "stops" the conception, I am of the belief that we are guilty of ABORTION….because we have killed what would have resulted if we didn't abort.
(wow!…..very very hard trying to make my position clear, concise and exact)
September 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
speaking generally, I'm of the opinion that it's HANDS OFF when we are refering to reproduction….We just don't have authority. If this is clear to you I think you would be well aware of where I'm coming from (regardless at this point of wther we agree or disagree on specifics)
Our only "recourse" (if we find it necessary) in to NOT participate in nature (abstenence). This is NOT doing anything against nature, such as aborting.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
re: #49 "taking precautions"……that's it on the head….I beleive we ARE NOT allowed to "take precautions" (I think we mean contraception here) not allowed because we are NOT the cause of our nature…..thus we ought not try to control it in any way.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I'm not the cause of my car's existence either. But I am prefectly free to control where it goes. Why? because humans assembled it and humans filled (well, almost filled….costs a arm and leg now) with gas. But we have done absolutely nothing when we are talking about our reproduction. (Another one of my anologies….I might be asking for it?!?)
September 14th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
about my car….I'm also perfectly free to destroy it even, if I want to. The paramount difference is things, (all things in the known universe) are not equal to us in "nobility of existence….or order of existence". As a result, the way we treat them is substantially different from the way we treat ourselves.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The nature of us vs the nature of everything else….substantially different!!!
September 14th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
A broken leg or a dezize….Is NOT of our nature…nature is missing in some ways in these cases.
When we set the leg or cure to dezize…we are NOT interfereing in any way with our nature….we are COMPLETEING it!
September 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Jerry Vilt wrote:
re #28: "Reliable contracption PREVENTS pregnancy"
Aren't we talking about destruction here? No wonder there is no child available for abortion….the causes of bringing the child into existence have been DESTROYED! (isn't that what contracption does?). By contracption we don't "allow" there to be a child, thus no abortion! (Because we destroyed the "parts" of the potential child!!!) We've eliminated a need for abortion by eliminating the ability of the women to make a child!
*************
Jerry, this may come as a huge shock to you, but not every woman wants to get pregnant, give birth or be a mother. Some moms are content with the number of children they have already and DON'T want any more. Obviously, YOU have a big problem with the idea of women deciding for themselves whether they will be mothers or not, and if they are moms, how many children THEY want to have. Too bad.
Since this country is not run by the cruel and oppressive doctrines of the catholic church, it is EACH woman's choice to decide on motherhood. It is none of the church's business what that choice is.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
Re: #28 "No pregnancy, no abortion. Why FAPP has such a problem with such a simple fact is beyond me"
Reply: Right, no abortion BECAUSE contraception aborts the pregnancy instead!!!
***************
In other words, you and the rcc hierarchy just want women to keep being baby factories "for god and church" until menopause or early death. Which I already knew, but thanks for the added confirmation.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
sperm, eggs, female plumbing apparatus by themselves certainly are not as noble as live embryo. But when "conditions" are such that it is inevitable that a live embryo would result…..in such a case the "parts" become as noble as the whole. We abort an essential part and we are as guilty as one who aborts a live embryo!
****************
Since it isn't a crime for a woman to choose NOT to be pregnant or give birth, there's no guilt involved. The anti-contraception doctrines of the rcc are NOT laws in the U.S., and thank goodness for that.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
#58 Ocean: Wow! Wow! Wow!
A woman can following her conscience newer have children and the rcc would pat her on the back, IF IF IF
she avoided (following her conscience) haveing children by NOT NOT interfereing in anyway with her nature!
Oh man, I've been busting my brain cells trying to get a accross the most basic principle of all this.(The principle, to be sure is my belief, but it makes my conclusions reasonable) I think Student understands my basic philosophy.
September 14th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The rcc would praise her, she (the church) would be presumptous to even pat her on the back without the women's permission!
September 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
[...] is judicial appointments. In the past twelve months, I've been involved in three different federal cases, and another that may reach the federal level before the end. So I care an awful lot about [...]
September 14th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Student,
Sorry for any confusion. I was responding to the query in #28 as to why one might be against contraception.
Jerry's not doing too well explaining his position.
Jerry,
Would I be correct in summing up your point to be: contraception is wrong because it interferes with God's design, stripping the act of intercourse of its meaning and robbing the couple of the awesome potential to be cooperators and co-creators with God? And that every act of intercourse should respect the designs of our Creator? I understand your use of the word "abort" in all contraception as to mean deliberately acting to frustrate the natural ends of God's design for sexuality. It is the active turning against God and saying, "Thy will WILL NOT be done".
September 14th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Your explaination is much easier that's for sure. But I was (or have) difficulty because I was trying to approach the problem via "natural law" without relying on my faith in God. (It may not be possible, I don't know; doesn't seem so because an impass is met in trying to start at a very basic "principles" that Student and I could agree 100% on.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Gotta take a 20 minute break to watch G.K.Chesterson, Apostle of Common Sense on EWTN….will be back.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Ocean,
The RCC is not "cruel and oppressive". It is liberating. The Truth sets you free. Holy Mother Church wants the best for her children. She wants us to experience the depth and breadth of sacrificial, life-long, life-giving love.
Fulfillment and happiness from sex outside marriage is a lie. Its fruits are STDs, abortion, broken hearts, broken relationships, broken spirits, broken marriages. It does not free; it enslaves. Look at our society. See what the "Sexual Revolution" has wrought. Read Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae. It's not long or hard to understand, but it IS very prophetic. Paul VI predicted that with the acceptance of contraception would come a rise in divorce, abortion, promiscuity, abuse, pornography, and other societal ills. People laughed at him. They thought they knew better. But Pope Paul VI was right.
Life has been cheapened. Children are no longer seen as the great blessing that they are. They are now a commodity, to be bought (through in vitro fertilization, artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood) and disposed of (through abortion and contraception) when not "wanted". How sad!
Natural Family Planning is a legitimate, effective (over 99%) way of spacing babies or avoiding pregnancy if there is serious reason to do so. We are all called to seek God's will in our lives. For married couples, we are called to be generous in our response to God's offering of the gift of children. Does that mean all married couples should have 12 children? No. It just means that we are to see children as gifts from God and need serious reason (e.g., financial, emotional, familial needs, health, age) to postpone or forebear future pregnancies. Then we are to use licit means (such as NFP), that requires some sacrifice on our part, but respects God's design and does not thwart His action.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Contraception is wrong for the same reason abortion is wrong! That's what I was trying to establish just using logic!
But we (or at least me) got hung up on defining "aborting" and implication of "parts vs whole" and implication of "higher order of existence vs lower order of existence" and implication of "nature".
September 14th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
"Natural law" without God is amoral (without morals). Therefore, any arguments that try to show "rightness" or "wrongness" fall flat. It is a very selfish philosophy. "MY choice. MY fertility. MY pleasure." Medicine and doctors are gods. "If it can be done, do it. Who does it harm? Who are YOU to decide right and wrong?" Without God, each is left to decide his own "right" and "wrong". So anything and everything becomes permissible.
Jerry, your only hope in "natural law" arguments is to show how contraception harms the woman's body. Then it hits home. It enters the selfish realm.
But don't give up on God-based arguments, because they contain Truth. And since God continuously calls to all of us, maybe some of that Truth will hit their mark in even the most hardened heart. God speaks to everyone. That's why even those who do not know Christ can still agree on some basics like "Thou shall not kill".
September 14th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I replied with #68 before seeing #67. My present position? #67 is PERFECT!!! far beyond ANYTHING I could possibly come up with!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Yee Gosh! and then you improved on #67 with #69!
September 14th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Sylvia, as far as I'M concerned, the catholic church is a monument to cruelty and oppression. If you want to be a slave to it for life, that is your decision. Thank goodness it doesn't have to be mine. Many of us, myself included, prefer the joys of secularist freedom over the misery and poverty of catholic slavery, your propaganda notwithstanding.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Sylvia says:
"Natural law" without God is amoral (without morals). Therefore, any arguments that try to show "rightness" or "wrongness" fall flat. It is a very selfish philosophy. "MY choice. MY fertility. MY pleasure." Medicine and doctors are gods. "If it can be done, do it. Who does it harm? Who are YOU to decide right and wrong?" Without God, each is left to decide his own "right" and "wrong". So anything and everything becomes permissible.
*******************
Freedom of choice harms the CHURCH. Which is why the church forbids it. Any exercise of freedom, in any matter, is a threat to the status quo, which benefits the church, and keeps the people who believe their oppressive doctrines slaves. The church especially hates the idea that individuals could have their own power to make their own decisions, so they use guilt and fear to con the gullible into handing all their personal power to the church. Some of us figured that out a long time ago. Which is why we not only dumped the catholic church, but all gods, religions and churches in the process. Life is much better when one is free from its toxic influence.
September 14th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Re #73, Ocean's very first statement:
"Freedom of choice harms the CHURCH."
Comment:
That can be understood as an acknowledgement that 'freedom of choice' used as a reason to abort, does indeed harm the CHURCH.
(However, I'm sure Ocean didn't mean it that way.)
September 15th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Re my #74:
"(However, I'm sure Ocean didn't mean it that way.)"
should have been:
(However, I believe Ocean didn't mean it that way.)
September 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ocean, Re my #74 & #75:
Regardless of how your statement was meant, how does it equate to;
"No other institution in the world can claim the great historical continuity of Roman Catholicism"
September 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
This post is now closed. Please take such off-topic discussions to the forums.
September 15th, 2008 at 11:34 am