Common Sense, or Non-Sense?
Posted by Matt Yonke on Friday, September 19th, 2008
UPDATE: Eric Scheidler's response to Ms. Sherman's column was published in today's Beacon.
In this morning's Beacon News, columnist Deena Sherman offered some thoughts in the "Common Sense" column about putting aside disrespect and hate in the abortion debate.
Sherman is right to call for civility, but her article makes no advances towards any such thing. In a column ostensibly about Eric Scheidler's libel case against Planned Parenthood, Ms. Sherman addresses everything from Nazism to Mahatma Gandhi.
Everything, that is, except whether whether Steve Trombley lied about Eric and Aurora's pro-life community. "That's not the question I'm asking.", Ms. Sherman said. But she never even answers the question she claims to be asking!
The question she claims to be asking is whether "radical pro-life zealots" (who she defines as anyone who's ever held a face the truth sign) are being properly rebuked within the movement. Not that she did any research, mind you. Not that there's been a single instance of pro-life violence in Aurora, mind you. She's just not sure.
Just like Trombley, she makes drive-by accusations that are nearly impossible to verify against people who are nearly impossible to identify.
The one thing she is clear about is what a wonderful person she thinks Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was.
She briefly references a column that ran on a date she doesn't list by an author she doesn't name that contained "blatant lies" about Sanger being associated with the Nazis. She goes on to say that Sanger won the respect of Martin Luther King Jr. and worked to "prevent [women] from ever considering abortion".
The facts aren't adding up here. Just who is mis-characterizing Ms. Sanger?
It is acknowledged fact that Ms. Sanger supported the "science" of Eugenics, that is the practice of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
She was strongly of the opinion that those she considered "inferior" or "unfit", such as the mentally challenged or even "imbeciles", those not smart enough to meet her standards should be forcibly sterilized and contraception should be used by everyone. Thinking people, she said, have three children or less.
Let's just take a brief look at some verifiable things that Margaret Sanger actually said (emphasis added):
- "…the number of insane and feeble-minded are increasing. Ignorance and stupidity create too many children."
- —Margaret Sanger (editorial comment). Birth Control Review, Volume II, Number 7 (July 1918), page 9.
- "As long as the feeble-minded and other unfit are allowed to reproduce their kind, we shall have just such social needs."
- —Margaret Sanger. "Editorial Comment," Birth Control Review, Volume IV, Number 6 (June 1920), page 6.
- "…the poor little waifs are a sad, miserable lot. It would be a great kindness to let them die outright, I believe." (referring to babies in hospitals with less than perfect conditions)
- —Margaret Sanger. "Women in Germany." Birth Control Review, Volume V, Number 1 (January 1921), page 9.
- "To meet this problem as a great scientist has recently pointed out, we need not more of the fit, but fewer of the unfit. …syphilitics, consumptives, epileptics and semi-idiots are permitted to propagate their own curse, both what is called legitimately and illegitimately. Is it not time to protect ourselves and our children and our children's children? The propagation of the degenerate, the imbecile, the feeble-minded, should be prevented."
- —Margaret Sanger. "Birth Control — Past, Present and Future." Birth Control Review Volume V, Number 8 (August 1921), page 19.
- "Today Eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political, and social problems …
As an advocate of Birth Control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the "unfit" and the "fit," admittedly the greatest present menace to the human race, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between the two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit though less fertile parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over fertility of the mentally and physically defective …"
- —Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, Volume V, Number 10 (October 1921), page 5.
Oh, and here's one more verifiable quote, though not from Ms. Sanger:
- "I believe Margaret Sanger would have been proud of us today if she had seen the directions that we have most recently in this organization taken."
- —Faye Wattleton, former President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, at PPFA's annual luncheon in St. Louis, on May 2, 1979.
No spinning, lying, or misquoting necessary. Ms. Sanger's words speak for themselves. So do Planned Parenthood's.
As I said, the Margaret-Sanger-is-a-saint issue is just one of many raised in this column. Read the whole column for yourself and consider sending a response to the Beacon, via e-mail or by post:
Beacon News495 N. Commons Drive
Aurora, IL 60504
First of all, she does not say what this other article is that does not have good sources? Secondly, where are her sources? Her idea at the end of her article, where she talks about how pro-lifers and pro-choicers have the same goal, to end the need for abortion, sounds very similar to the ideas in Christina Page's book "How the Pro-choice movement saved America:freedom,ppolitcs, and the war on sex". They are in either the first chapter, or in the introduction.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Having done enough research on what Margaret Sanger actually taught, I know for a fact that she was racist & a big supporter of eugenics. & despite claims to the contrary, there is plenty of evidence ou there. I've also dealt with people like Ms. Sherman. Over the last 2 months since PP opened its clinic here in DBQ, I have seen their supporters ingore, twist or deny the verifiable facts. & when they couldn't, they then tried to redirect the attention elsewhere.
Prayer, telling the truth & loving our enemies as Jesus told us to is what we must keep on doing. In the end, we are on the right side of this battle. Deep down they know it. They also know that as we get the truth out, we will draw more people t our side. That is why they try to silence us in any way they can. & why we must keep on in the face of everything they throw at us.
September 21st, 2008 at 12:23 am
People should not have kids if they cannot take care of themselves. That is just common sense.
It is cruel to bring children into your loser lifestyle and subject them to poverty.
Then they have to learn from parents or a parent that makes nothing but bad decisions.
Very selfish and cruel!
September 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
The issue is HOW one avoids (in good conscience) children!
1. With nature (abstinence)?
2. Against nature (aborting - contraception)?
A case of MORAL or IMMORAL behavior!!!
September 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
I notice that many "quotes" are partial and taken out of context. Why not link to each article and allow readers to view the full context of her words?
September 21st, 2008 at 10:51 am
Student, if you'll look in the first paragraph, the words "Common Sense" column are hyperlinked to the article…
September 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
You know, Henry Ford was a terrible racist too. Does this mean that everyone who works for Ford now is racist? That everyone who owns a Ford supports and believes in his racist ideas? That Ford still holds those philosophies as truth and practices racist behaviors?
The Sanger argument that pro-lifers pull out every now and then reeks of desperation and everyone knows it. It really just hurts your cause.
September 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
PP is "pro-choice", is it not?
As long as PP exists (and Sanger was the part & partial of PP's existence), you fault pro-lifers, (rightly so, in my opinion) for their failure to not CONSTANTLY pull out the Sanger argument, but rather do it only "every now and then".
September 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Does all this NOT go back to the beginning of
BIRTH CONTROL:
Abortion - the aborting of a pre-born human being.
Contraception - the aborting of the reproduction of a pre-born human being.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Yes, I realize the newspaper column is hyperlinked. However, Mr. Yonke lists PARTIAL quotes, likely taken out of context, by Margaret Sanger (claiming "No spinning, lying, or misquoting necessary") and doesn't include a link to the original reference material.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Student,
I'm not sure if these are fully archived online anywhere but I'll see what I can do about that.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Btw, while I'm looking for that, what context could possibly justify her support for eugenics or the very concept that some human beings are "fit" to live while others are not?
September 21st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I've looked and can't seem to find them anywhere. If you can, I'd appreciate it. What did you use as your original source?
I'd rather not put words into her mouth. I believe I have some idea of what she was referring to, but I'd like to see it in context.
September 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Jerry - your position on contraception is ridiculous. The choice to use contraception is not immoral, and is not the same thing as abortion.
Let me give you an example. An aquaintence of mine is a young married woman who just lost her son of one year to complications due to a congenital heart defect. It was a long, hard year of fear and anguish for them, capped off by the death of a son to whom they had devoted themselves.
The percentage chance of every potential future biological child of theirs being born with the same congenital heart defect is in the high 90's. That is, if they conceive more children, more than likely every one of them will suffer and die from the same heart problem.
They have chosen to use contraception instead, and to adopt their children.
According to you, that choice is immoral, regardless of their reason. If you really believe that, I pity you.
September 21st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Carol:
Do you beleive abortion is immoral?
If so, the reason it is immoral is because it is aborting a human being.
For the same reason contraception is immoral because it is aborting the reproduction of a human being.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
If, in good conscience a couple determines it best to not have biological children - I commend them for their deliberations.
However to practice abstinence is not aborting in any way their human nature.
Contraception, on the other hand is aborting their human nature, namely aborting their reproductive power of their human nature.
September 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Abstinence - moral
Aborting - immoral
[So I beleive, (for good reasons, hopefully)]
September 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Wow. You people really are nuts.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
In #16 I replied:
"I commend them for their deliberations."
Perhaps more pertinent is,
I admire them for their difficult, courageous deliberations.
September 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Jerry Vilt is very scary. He reminds me of Hannibal Lecter. As most psychopaths, he thinks that he is god like and above everyone else, with all the right answers.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
The issue is HOW one avoids (in good conscience) children!
1. With nature (abstinence)?
2. Against nature (aborting - contraception)?
A case of MORAL or IMMORAL behavior!!!
***********************
Oh please, Jerry, deal with the fact that not every person wants children and they don't have to punish themselves with lifetime celibacy because children aren't part of their plans. Deciding not to have children and still be able to enjoy sex with use of reliable contraception is quite moral behavior. Except in the eyes of christians who hate both contraception and abortion.
The only organization who is so threatened by people making their own choices regarding sex and reproduction is the r.c.c. and any other church forbidding the use of contraception to prevent pregnancy and birth. Luckily for many of us, we're not forced to belong to churches, and we can choose to avoid them.
September 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
a VIDEO: Gianna Jessen "Aborted Baby Survivor Speaks".
Mike
September 21st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
There are 3 main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception…
1. The increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture.
2. All methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse.
3. Contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion
http://www.hli.org/contraception_prevent_abortion.html
Mike
September 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Get your free CD…
a Dr. Janet Smith's "Contraception Why Not?".
Mike
September 21st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Back to the topic. My letter to the editor:
Sherman's 9/19 article on the abortion debate demonstrates that she herself has never read Margaret Sanger's writings. From Sanger's Pivot of Civilization, Chapter 1:
"The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty- stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to- day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon American society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupid, cruel sentimentalism." Oh, and it only gets worse from there.
She tells anecdotes of poor women worked to fatigue in factories and then harassed by their demanding broods at home. We're given stories of unbelievably ignorant, incompetent mothers with "swarm[s] of sickly and neglected children". But what was the average number of children per family in her "study"? Gasp!–3!!!
Sanger refers to dubious "studies" and "statistics". She says, "Authorities tell us that 75 per cent. of the school-children are defective." Oh, really? Of men drafted into the US Army, "47.3 per cent…of the population had the mentality of twelve-year-old children or less–in other words that they are morons." Need I say more? And who's using "inflammatory language", Ms. Sherman? Our soldiers should never be slandered in such a fashion. Nor should peaceful pro-lifers be slandered by Sanger's progeny.
Those graphic pictures you don't like? "Use words"? As the saying goes, "A picture's worth a thousand words."
I don't "need to demonize [my] opposition". They do a good job of that by themselves. And I WILL "simply keep telling that truth"–the truth that the founder of PP hated the poor, the disabled, the "least of these" in society. Now let's apply your measure, Ms. Sherman, of judging a group by how it treats its "zealots". What are we to think of a corporation which prides itself on a founder who believed, "When we learn further… of inmates… in alms-houses, reformatories, schools for the blind, deaf and mute, in insane asylums, in homes for the feeble-minded and epileptic… our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste."
You can find Sanger's Pivot of Civilization online.
September 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
You know, Henry Ford was a terrible racist too. Does this mean that everyone who works for Ford now is racist? That everyone who owns a Ford supports and believes in his racist ideas? That Ford still holds those philosophies as truth and practices racist behaviors?
September 21st, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Why is it that even the pro-abort crowd says they want abortion to be rare? Is it because they believe that babies, even in the womb are individuals of their own and should not be killed for some reason? Hmmmm
September 21st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Seems deenasherman@att.net is no longer a valid e-mail address. She must have gotten swamped with e-mails. I just sent her the following email and it came back as a bad e-mail address:
Hello Deena,
My name is Paul. I am a Planned Parenthood Protester. I am glad to hear you are pro-life from a personal/moral standpoint. There is a question I would like to pose to you about your position. 1) Are you against abortion personally because you believe that babies, even in the womb are individuals of their own and therefore deserving of care and protection?
Thank you for your thoughtful response,
Sincerely,
Planned Parenthood Protester
September 21st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Matt, Eric-
As a long time pro-life activist, and as one who received my degree in Journalism (didn't we all?) in the late 70's- I spit my coffee through my nose while reading this! We used to call this "yellow journalism".
I am never at a loss for words- but this one took my breath away! Al- you have some very good points. Ms. Sanger has been well documented, and the facts speak for themselves. To the pro-choice folk out there- Thank you for reminding me how "not nice" you can truly be. This is a blog about the article- or I would address NFP, as a brilliant option to artificial contraception. Or the fact that my 8 yr. old grandson is alive and healthy- despite "docs" telling my son and his wife that this precious child "would not live-and they should abort". He was supposedly "incompatible with life". Thank God that my son and daughter- in-law-did their own thinking and made the right CHOICE!Eric- keep on fighting the good fight! We're praying for you. I miss all you folks at PLAL- I didn't get to see you this year. We could use a Tour in Ohio….hint, hint… Pax et Bonem !
September 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 am
Mike says:
There are 3 main reasons why the abortion industry needs contraception…
1. The increase of contraceptive use increases the amount of promiscuity in a culture.
2. All methods of contraception fail to prevent pregnancy a certain percentage of the time either through flaws in the method or through misuse.
3. Contraception does not prevent abortion because contraception is, in many cases, a form of abortion
********************
Oh please, this is more anti-contraception belief, which many of us don't share. There is ONE reason why the rcc hates the idea of contraception which PREVENTS abortion to a large degree:
1. Any choice exercised by individuals in sexual and reproductive matters threatens the catholic church and its so-called "authority."
If you have problems with contraception, then you have the right not to use it. What the rcc does is to bully and intimidate everyone into not using it as well. Which is why many have already left the church, never to return.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:36 am
Matt,and all- Mark Crutcher has ALL of Ms. Sanger's info available of his website- http://www.prolifeamerica.com (or org)-he had a complete library of her books, research, etc. that he has "donated" on-line for the pro-life cause. Another good site is http://www. ThePill Kills.com.
Ocean- I am a proud Roman Catholic.We use NFP (which ,when married couples use it, the divorce rate is less than 5%- speaks volumes ,does it not? )I have been a proud rcc (as you disprespectfully put it) all my life- and I think, act ,and question as you do- but I have never felt bullied or intimidated by my Church. I am new to this blog, but I know the folks at PLAL. Obviously, you are not a Catholic. Many leave because they want to pick and choose what they believe. I have watched many leave, just to view their options "out there" ,then come running back to the Church. And you are right, some never return- as in all other churches.
Contraception (bc pills, IUDs, etc,)indeed kills babies.BTW- have you read the great news of the growth of the Catholic Church? 6% growth from 2000-2006. I find it amusing when non- Cath's speak for us (Lord…forgive Them, fo they Know Not…) Ocean- I would really check out NFP- those that use it have wonderful, life-long ,respectful sexual relations- it is not about abstinence. You sound educated- along pro-choice lines. Why not read a little pro-life lit? Are you afraid that it might make sense? Pax!
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Paula, or anyone else who would like to answer:
Do you also believe that condoms, diaphragms and spermacides also "kill babies?"
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm
In as much as they "kill" a human reproductive process, they are a no no. The feeling is we don't have that kind of right over human nature.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
(If you don't have the same faith, that will go over like a DEAD BALLOON!)
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
"kill" as in "alter and/or disrupt"…..simply put - aborting.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Being somewhat formal about it:
CONTRACEPTION - Aborting (altering and/or disrupting) in any way, shape, form or manner the reproductive process of the human body, male and female.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Everything else in the known universe…..as we see fit!
Human Beings…..a no no!
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Do you feel you have the right to seek treatment for a bacterial infection, cancer, dandruff, body odor etc.? These "treatments" all act "over human nature."
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I believe this growth takes into account growth in 3rd world countries — not the United States. Other statistics you may/may not be aware of:
Priests. After skyrocketing from about 27,000 in 1930 to 58,000 in 1965, the number of priests in the United States dropped to 45,000 in 2002. By 2020, there will be about 31,000 priests–and only 15,000 will be under the age of 70. Right now there are more priests aged 80 to 84 than there are aged 30 to 34.
Ordinations. In 1965 there were 1,575 ordinations to the priesthood, in 2002 there were 450, a decline of 350 percent. Taking into account ordinations, deaths and departures, in 1965 there was a net gain of 725 priests. In 1998, there was a net loss of 810.
Priestless parishes. About 1 percent of parishes, 549, were without a resident priest in 1965. In 2002 there were 2,928 priestless parishes, about 15 percent of U.S. parishes. By 2020, a quarter of all parishes, 4,656, will have no priest.
Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700–a 90 percent decrease. Without any students, seminaries across the country have been sold or shuttered. There were 596 seminaries in 1965, and only 200 in 2002.
Sisters. 180,000 sisters were the backbone of the Catholic education and health systems in 1965. In 2002, there were 75,000 sisters, with an average age of 68. By 2020, the number of sisters will drop to 40,000–and of these, only 21,000 will be aged 70 or under. In 1965, 104,000 sisters were teaching, while in 2002 there were only 8,200 teachers.
Brothers. The number of professed brothers decreased from about 12,000 in 1965 to 5,700 in 2002, with a further drop to 3,100 projected for 2020.
Religious Orders. The religious orders will soon be virtually non-existent in the United States. For example, in 1965 there were 5,277 Jesuit priests and 3,559 seminarians; in 2000 there were 3,172 priests and 38 seminarians. There were 2,534 OFM Franciscan priests and 2,251 seminarians in 1965; in 2000 there were 1,492 priests and 60 seminarians. There were 2,434 Christian Brothers in 1965 and 912 seminarians; in 2000 there were 959 Brothers and 7 seminarians. There were 1,148 Redemptorist priests in 1965 and 1,128 seminarians; in 2000 there were 349 priests and 24 seminarians. Every major religious order in the United States mirrors these statistics.
High Schools. Between 1965 and 2002 the number of diocesan high schools fell from 1,566 to 786. At the same time the number of students dropped from almost 700,000 to 386,000.
Parochial Grade Schools. There were 10,503 parochial grade schools in 1965 and 6,623 in 2002. The number of students went from 4.5 million to 1.9 million.
Sacramental Life. In 1965 there were 1.3 million infant baptisms; in 2002 there were 1 million. (In the same period the number of Catholics in the United States rose from 45 million to 65 million.) In 1965 there were 126,000 adult baptisms—–converts—–in 2002 there were 80,000. In 1965 there were 352,000 Catholic marriages, in 2002 there were 256,000. In 1965 there were 338 annulments, in 2002 there were 50,000.
Mass attendance. A 1958 Gallup poll reported that 74 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1958. A 1994 University of Notre Dame study found that the attendance rate was 26.6 percent. A more recent study by Fordham University professor James Lothian concluded that 65 percent of Catholics went to Sunday Mass in 1965, while the rate dropped to 25 percent in 2000.
Source: Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II (Author: Kenneth C. Jones)
***********
I do thank you for the source material for M. Sanger. I will, most definitely, check it out.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
You said it Student…."those things are NOT of nature, they are "abbarations" of nature!…..thus we fight them in EVERY WAY POSSIBLE!
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:02 pm
No, Jerry, they are not "abberations" of nature. They are part of the "natural" world.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm
they are part of the natural world…..isn't this different from the individual nature within the natural world?
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:09 pm
the nature of a disease, is NOT the nature of the thing that is diseased.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
#42 is "groping"! sorry….I think #43 is exactly what I meant to say.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Paula says:
Ocean- I would really check out NFP- those that use it have wonderful, life-long ,respectful sexual relations- it is not about abstinence.
**************
Nope, I'll pass on the NFP, as I have no desire or intention to risk pregnancy, which I consider a burden at this point. I'll stick with what works and doesn't get me pregnant, thank you.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Ocean, just a passing comment re your #45:
Your "no intention to risk pregnancy"…..thus your preference of contraception over "NFP" [which (nfp) to you is at least out and out abstanence].
Wow; there is a risk (must be at least very small) of getting pregnant with absolutely no sex!
September 24th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Jerry Vilt says:
Your "no intention to risk pregnancy"…..thus your preference of contraception over "NFP" [which (nfp) to you is at least out and out abstanence]. Wow; there is a risk (must be at least very small) of getting pregnant with absolutely no sex!
**********************
This post makes absolutely NO sense. But I can tell you that my method for avoiding the unwanted burdens of pregnancy and birth is not total abstinence, nor is it that idiotic NFP.
September 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
I got on this blog, after reading Ms. Sherman's misguided ideas,and reading some of the interesting blogs. Student- Thank you for your stats- I appreciate them. Stats can, however, be slanted in whatever direction or position that you so choose . I do believe most of the stats. However, baptisms were listed, how about Catholic deaths? This would make the growth rate ,even higher than originally quoted.And what do annullments have to do w/ growth of the Church? An annulled marriage does not make a person non-Catholic, nor change the growth rate.We will not be without Priests- I just finished "Springtime of Evangelization", by Pope JPII, written in the 1990's.He foresaw a new "springtime, a new love of Catholics for their Faith. And yes, it is happening.Our Church connot contain the new growth- it's wonderful! And yes, you quoted, that we have some parishes sans Priest. Kind of true, yes- but what we have done is combine parishes, and share Priests,so I guess it is a matter of semantics. The year 2020 keeps popping up. That is speculation on someone's part, I focus on real data. Who is to tell what will happen in 12 years? Please check on the # of women and men, joining Holy Orders now,for "Priests for Life", all the women and men joining Mother Teresa's order (no longer just "Sister's of Charity",since men are joining in droves), etc.The Catholic Church is going to be ok. Ocean- you are so very angry. NFP is not idiotic, but you are entitled to your beliefs and your anger.Simple answer for you and those that don't like the R.C. Church-don't go. We are a loving people- we might rub off on you. I'm sure that you would not enjoy the peace and absence of anger that we have. Keep clinging to that anger, as it eats you up inside.My curiousity wonders,"Why so angry?" Kel- you quoted that "you people really are nuts". So, why stay on a blog w/ crazy people? I'm loving my pro-life zealot crazy life- I embrace it. Your question- not biting. I have been around pro-choice folks for so long,that I know the "lead -in questions" and all the rhetoric. "Let's agree to make abortion safe, legal and rare. "Get a life" or "Your mother should have aborted you" (to those of us that protest with signs or simply pray). Sound familiar ,Kal? It's old- you need to come up with something fresh on the pro-abort side. Eric and Matt- I apologize. I got "off-topic". But I will return to center, and drop Ms.Sherman a letter on Ms.Sanger and her love of this "wonderful woman of eugenics" . Please tell John J.and Joe that I said "hello". Hope to see you all soon. Please pray for a new President that will be pro-life!NObama! NoWay!
September 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Paula says:
Ocean- you are so very angry. NFP is not idiotic, but you are entitled to your beliefs and your anger.Simple answer for you and those that don't like the R.C. Church-don't go. We are a loving people- we might rub off on you. I'm sure that you would not enjoy the peace and absence of anger that we have. Keep clinging to that anger, as it eats you up inside.My curiousity wonders,"Why so angry?"
****************
Gotta love it, any time a prochoicer tells the facts about the cruel and oppressive dogmas of the rcc, that person is always called "angry" by the church advocates. Not a problem, you have a right to that opinion, no matter how incorrect it is.
Obviously, you enjoy being a slave to the catholic dogma, and that's your choice. I choose the pleasures of secularist FREEDOM over the miseries of catholic slavery and that is mine. Luckily for those of us in the U.S., we can both have what we want. Other countries dominated by the rcc aren't nearly so lucky.
September 25th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
to Ocean,
Might you have a comment or two about the following?
Freedom is not the right to do what we want.
Freedom is the right to do what we ought.
peace
September 25th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
to Ocean,
Might you have a comment or two about the following?
Freedom is not the right to do what we want. Freedom is the right to do what we ought.
*************************
This is exactly why I kicked out the toxic baggage of gods, religions and churches over 25 years ago, and have never once regretted it. For me, freedom IS the right to do what I WANT, as long as that freedom does not include breaking any laws of my city, state or country. Since I am not a slave to the catholic church, its toxic and oppressive rules and "laws" don't apply to me. FREEDOM; it's a wonderful thing.
September 25th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
to Ocean,
Could there possibly be bad laws as well as good laws?
September 26th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Ocean- just curious- do you believe in God?
September 27th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Paula says:
Ocean- just curious- do you believe in God?
*******************
Paula, just curious, do you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of fun. My answer to your question is NO, and the FSM is imaginary too.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Ocean-
I respect your honesty, and your beliefs.
We both know where we stand, no conversion attempts.
Thanks for being honest.
No feedback on letter, yet. Will post if I get a response. Peace!
September 29th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
[...] Yonke, of the PLAL staff, made some excellent points in his blog post on September 19, 2008. He notes that, despite what people like to say, the quotes used to prove [...]
November 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
check this out…
this is mine…
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:35 am