Off-duty Chicago cop pulls gun on pro-lifer
Posted by Matt Yonke on Wednesday, December 16th, 2009
This morning, Wednesday, December 16, pro-lifer Rachelle Crile of Naperville went to Planned Parenthood around 8 a.m. to sidewalk counsel. After about 45 minutes in temperatures below 20 degrees, Rachelle went to her car in the Blockbuster parking lot to warm up before returning to the front lines.
As Rachelle sat in her car, a couple in a white SUV pulled into the Blockbuster lot a couple rows behind her. Rachelle had a feeling the people might be coming to Planned Parenthood. Since Wednesday mornings are a prime abortion time, Rachelle knew a life could be on the line, so she said a prayer, grabbed her literature and approached the car.
Offer of Help Declined
Rachelle was approaching the car when the driver, a middle-aged man, waved a silver handgun at Rachelle from inside the car. Terrified, Rachelle put up her hands and went back to her car. A little bit later, the SUV pulled into Planned Parenthood's parking lot and the man and a woman got out of the car and entered the facility.
Sidewalk counselor Marie Sulita was also at Planned Parenthood at the time and helped Rachelle contact the police. Within minutes, several squad cars arrived along with a paddy wagon and several unmarked police cars. Officers asked Rachelle for her story and entered Planned Parenthood to interview the man.
Meanwhile, Pro-Life Action League executive director Eric Scheidler arrived at the scene as well as reporters from several local media outlets. It was eventually uncovered that the man was a 41 year-old off-duty Chicago police officer whose identity the police would not divulge. He was at the clinic with a 31 year-old "female companion" according to Aurora Police spokesman Dan Ferelli.
He Said, She Said
In the end, Ferelli said it was the cop's word against Rachelle's and if she wants to press charges, she's going to have to go through the State's Attorney's office, which she is planning to do. The police filed a "disorderly conduct report" to document the situation, but no arrests were made. Check back to this blog for more updates as they happen.
This incident highlights a couple of issues surrounding our clinic witness efforts at Planned Parenthood. First of all, it confirms the ongoing pattern that acts of violence at Planned Parenthood Aurora are committed by Planned Parenthood's staff and customers against pro-lifers. There has not been one incident of violence by a pro-lifer at this facility while there have been numerous assaults against pro-lifers many of which have resulted in arrests and convictions.
Second, as Rachelle told the reporters this morning, the abortion clinic is a violent place, and we shouldn't be surprised when the violence of tearing babies limb from limb leads to more violence, which it obviously does. The abortion mill is a place of violence and evil and there is real spiritual warfare going on there that often manifests itself physically, as it did today.
Incident Should Incite Activism
This incident, and Rachelle's bravery, should encourage us to even more activism and presence at Planned Parenthood where a voice for life is so desperately needed. Consider joining the Pro-Life Action League as we bring the light of Christmas to the darkness of the abortion mill this Saturday, December 19th with the "Empty Manger" Caroling Day. Get all the details and maps to the four DuPage county clinics the tour will visit at the Pro-Life Action League's website.
Also, take note of the news coverage linked below, especially the vitriol being spewed in the comments section, many saying Rachelle "deserved it" and other horrible things. Feel free to leave your own comments supporting Rachelle and the important work of sidewalk counseling.
News Coverage
- Off-duty Chicago cop cited for flashing badge at Aurora abortion clinic—Chicago Sun-Times
- Anti-abortion activist claims off-duty cop flashed gun—WGN Breaking News Center [Includes Audio Interview with Rachelle]
- Clinic protester says she was threatened—Fox Valley Villages Sun
- Cop accused in gun incident outside Aurora Planned Parenthood clinic—Daily Herald
If "customers" feel so ashamed of killing their babies, then they should not try to justify or cover up their actions by assaulting those trying to council them at Planned Parenthood's "abortion mills". They should wear hoods over their heads to hide their identity, and after the killing of their babies, they should carry their guilt with them all the way to Hell. Calvin Wheeler
December 17th, 2009 at 1:43 am
From one of the comments :
"Get a life and you won't be out bothering people who are already in the throws of a difficult decision at a rough point in their life."
Gee…we do have lives and we're using it to save OTHER lives and they call abortion counselling "bothering" people?
I would rather "bother" people than kill them. Maybe these pro-aborts prefer the opposite?
Dang, what a crazy world we live in!
Rachelle and the rest of the counselors: we're praying for your safety..and as JP2 said "Be not afraid".
December 17th, 2009 at 11:09 am
All,
This incident reinforces to me the need for people to get out there to pray. Those who counsel need the prayer support and the visible witness to combat the lies that are thrown all too often by PP and their supporters. Please check out the Life Support page and sign up to pray.
Calvin,
God desires mercy on all. Let's pray for those who make bad decisions above all.
God Bless,
Roger
December 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
rachelle;
i stood outside today in S FLORIDA/FT LAUDERDALE
FEW PEOPLE WAVED; BUT MOST SAID NO; I DID BECAUSE MY
CHURCH WILL NOT MOOOOOOOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
GOD BLESS YOU; JESUS TELLS US TO SUFFER RIDICULE,
AND HARM BECAUSE OF HIM
MERRY CHRISTMAS
December 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
To me, "sidewalk counseling" seems like a euphemism for "bugging the 'hell' out of people", and by hell, I don't mean an the corner my imaginary friend strangely like a whiny, jealous, domineering and horrible parent puts me in, but you know… like "a lot".
[CENSORED] It should be obvious to anyone he almost certainly had no intention of using it. [CENSORED]
Why do you feel the need for all this? To feel like you're right? To belong to a group? To feel special, or loved? I was baptized like seven years ago… Santa Clause used to be real, the Easter Bunny… not jesus. not god. Who said that about putting away childish things… Paul?
But Whatever… the world will always turn. Until the sun burns out or we kill each other with nuclear weapons in a war which will almost certainly be started over religion… the world will keep on turning.
live a little.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Indeed the world will end at some point, maybe in the ways you mentioned, but most likely, for you and me, our lives will not end like this and certainly not because of religion. I would argue most lives have been lost, not because of religion, but for the lack of it. The Church and her moral teachings, call for restraint, self-control, moderation, and action guided by charity. Those who disregard this wisdom are subject to risky behaviors, over indulgences of all kinds, and violence. The later is what the vast majority of people lose their life over. The actions of the officer who flashed his gun could be seen as descending from these negative aspects, and avoidance of moral precepts; failure to restrain from sexual
activity (lack of abstinence leading to his companion's pregnancy), disordered view of the value of human life (decision to have and abortion), and lack of self-restraint and charity in the extreme decision to show his gun.
We don't do this to feel needed, special, or to be right, but to help people and try to inform them about truths they may not have known, in order that they may, not just live a little, but live in full.
December 24th, 2009 at 11:27 am
"..live a little… "
Hey, it's our "choice" to defend life…can't you accept that decision? Oh wait..it's only choice if it's good for you pro-aborts, right?
"Live a little"? I say..let the "little" one live…
Merry Christmas to all (pro-lifers and the rest)!
December 24th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
two quotes from Gnarmageddon, #5, 12/23/09 8:08 PM:
1. "kill each other with nuclear weapons"…..ending humanity "directly".
But what of ending humanity by a more "suttle" way…..namely, slow up reproduction…..thus each new generation is less than the prior one, eventually humanity will also be ended……"indirectly".
Two different ways……the SAME RESULT!
2. "will almost certainly be started over religion"
What if abortion is considered a religious horror?
December 24th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
"indirectly" above:
Countless millions of innocent children [2,000,000,000 (2 billion worldwide)] are NEVER BORN (ABORTION)…..and equally horrific NEVER EVEN CONCEIVED (CONTRACEPTION).
December 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I'd like to thank you all for arguing intelligently (even though I completely disagree with you) and not countering with the standard evangelist rhetoric I usually hear. Nice!
If we're talking population, however, I would say that the argument of humanity ending from extinction on account of over-abortion is a ridiculously "reductio ad absurdum" argument… don't you think? Or were you being facetious? I can't take that seriously, and I really hope that wasn't your intent. Because really… that's absurd.
My over-arching point is that there are really a few objective morals, inherent in most societies (but of course all generalizations are just that, and true absolutes are extremely rare in life,) and everything else are the bells and whistles agreed upon by the society in which they exist.
I stumbled across a very intriguing article today, I'd like to know what you all make of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Also, I was watching a very compelling documentary (based on the book) called "The Pharmacratic Inquisition", concerning the origins of all religion, with a special emphasis on judeo-christianity.
One of my dreams is for the Christ myth to be completely and utterly debunked in my lifetime. All other arguments against Christianity are of lesser importance. Every Christian I talk to says that ultimately their entire belief hinges upon the historicity and resurrection of Jesus. What really disturbs me is that they all seem to implicitly admit that were there no Jesus, they would have no basis for their faith, and nothing would matter. No need for morality, or any of the rest.
That's what truly scares me. All I'm saying is that there IS a need for it, and it doesn't find its origin in God, the Bible, or Christ. Like our capacity for language acquisition, MORAL acquisition is also built into our brain and DNA. And natural selection put it there. We are a social species. Society needs order to continue to exist.
Science (and by science I mean the discipline and method of observation and knowledge-seeking, divorced from any particular cosmology or worldview) is continuing to unlock puzzles and solve riddles that in some cases only mere decades ago were solely under the purview of religion.
What is your ultimate goal? Can you be a Christian, on your own and keeping your faith within the confines of your home and church? Or is part of your mission statement witnessing and spreading the Gospel? If so, when does that stop? Is your perfect world one where everyone on earth is a practicing Christian? Would you have that wish granted, if you could?
I've no problem with you all being what you are, but it seems to me that the belief of the individual is what feeds the church, the institution, who needs to constantly convert to keep its wheels turning and coffers filled, so to speak. The faith of the individual, no matter how private and self-concerned, is what allows the machine, the church, to exist.
I would love to be wrong about that. I would love it if "separation of church and state" was more than a piece of over-used, meaningless, and empty rhetoric in this country. Countries with truly secular governments look at us and laugh or shake their heads. The president praying openly on tv? It's unheard of. I look at France's example of a secular nation and am jealous.
Anyway, I've gone on long enough. I'll let you all digest. Looking forward to your counters-arguments. Please check out those links. I hope you all aren't the type that avoids anything that might shake your faith up a bit, or cause you to question it. That's healthy. Makes you think. Thinking is good. Thank you all.
-Evan
December 27th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Evan(Gnarmageddon), your 3rd paragraph:
"true absolutes are extremely rare in life"
Sir, would you please state one "true absolute"?
Jerry
December 27th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Of EVIL, SIN, SUFFERING, and DEATH,
which ones will be considered true,
with the remainer considered ABSURD???
December 28th, 2009 at 3:16 am
Evan (Gnarmageddon), your 2nd paragraph:
"on account of over-abortion"
"over-abortion" - [with respect to humanity (in general)]
is
"over-abortion" - even with respect to a individual human (in particular)!
December 29th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Evan (Gnarmageddon), your 6th paragraph:
"One of my dreams is for the CHRIST MYTH to be completely and utterly debunked in my lifetime" (caps. mine)
The "Christ myth" - No other institution in the world can claim the great historical continuity of Roman Catholicism! 2,000 years and counting…..and you not only call it a myth but dream that it would disappear!
December 29th, 2009 at 2:00 am
Evan (Gnarmageddon), your last paragraph:
"Thinking is good."
"Thinking" (in GENERAL) is good to God alone (because He created it).
To us (individual humans - in PARTICULAR) thinking is either true thinking or false thinking.
EXAMPLE OF THINKING:
1. To be allowed to proceed with a pregnancy.
2. To be assisted in everyway available to accomplish above.
Is not above, the rights of every female?
AND if so, is not the OPPOSITE of these rights, wrongs?
But Pro-choicers call abortion a right???
December 29th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
One example of a true absolute… umm the color green in plants always signifies the presence of chlorophyll, that's one. No green, no chlorophyll. Usually there are exceptions to rules (almost always), that's my point.
You're going to have to do a bit better than saying something is so "because god created it"… i deny (given the evidence [read: lack of] the existence of your god, so that argument, to me and any other atheist, is to me a smokescreen, the rhetorical throwing up of hands when you don't have a real, concrete answer.
as to historical continuity… there's just so much wrong with that I really don't know where to start.
1) the age of something doesn't make it good or true.
2) i would argue that it's remained the roman catholic church in name only, and has not been the same entity the entire time. how many councils and diets have there been to make/change church policies? the church has to roll with the punches like anything else. new scientific findings, changes in society/government/culture… the church has to address these things and change with the times.
also… look up St. Augustine. He essentially made the Church what it is today in the 4th century. By inserting Plato. An ancient greek philosopher. Before Christ.
The bible is metaphor like any other ancient myth cycle. It's not to be read literally… any of it. You know how many christ-like deities are in other world religions? virgin birth? 12 companions? 3 day death and resurrection? astro-theology, my man.
the sun (son) "dies" in the sky at the end of december for three days. it ends its path in the sky at the same place (preceded by the "three wise men" of orion's belt) for three days, before "coming back to life" and beginning it's path in the sky again, to summer and longer days.
as to abortion, in this time of over-population and the green scare, i don't know how anyone can be faulted for actually processing the decision and making sure they're prepared to bring a life into this world. i don't think someone is morally good just for getting knocked up and keeping it. what are their motives? i hear a lot of selfish young mothers with weird daddy issues talking about how they just something to love them. that's not morally good with me. lots of women aren't prepared.
and mostly, it just doesn't affect you. it's the woman's (and father's, if he's in the picture) decision. i would much rather a woman abort than have it, especially if she's not ready. frankly there are too many people in this world as it is. our planet can not sustain this amount of life for too long. used to be we had disease to even it all out. but now we're too successful (and that's thanks to medicine and science, not getting better by praying away cancer, thank you kindly) for even that to make much of a dent.
just being pragmatic.
anyway, when is the soul in the body? because that's the real issue, right? the fact that fetuses have eternal souls? is that your problem with it? how can you know, absolutely know, this is true and exactly when it enters the body?
you can't admit you arrived at god through upbringing or an emotion-based decision, and now run your life through your own personal cosmological filter?
I have never heard one truly convincing argument for your faith, i'm sorry. it all sounds like so much justification to me.
lastly, what would you all do if one could absolutely disprove the historicity of jesus? would you become jewish or just say "eff it" and live like me (a secular humanist who believes in an innate human moral code)?
please read those links above also… i really was curious as to what you all would make of it. please.
speak soon! and just know I just love argument… this helps us all defend our views and attack the other's when we need to (a public forum)… it's not like i hate or dislike any of you personally. i don't know you. so please don't get too mad or anything, if i'm attacking your faith. just defend it. we're all getting better this way. thanks guys.
-Evan
December 29th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
The soul of anything is the life of the soul….soul is the name of the life of the thing.
A corpse is a formerly live creature that no longer has a soul.
Are you denying the life of a living creature?
Are you denying that the life of a living creature is real?
December 29th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
The soul of anything is the life of the living thing in question! (I blew the very first statement above!!!)
December 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
"as to abortion, in this time of over-population"
"over-population"….aren't you stating in the very beginning that which you are trying to prove???
December 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Evan, my no. 15 is the result of many hours of thinking (not all at the same time), encompassing the "finest" logic I could realize about something substantial.
You passed over it literally in seconds!
In my opinion, this is a form of "entertainment" to you,
whereas you are seeking your entertainment on a blog dedicated to what we (Pro-lifers) consider a MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH…..the KILLING OF INNOCENT UNBORN HUMAN BEINGS (whether you agree or not…..this is what WE BELIEVE).
If I were the Adm of this blog, I'd hit the delete key on this entire reply section (including your pamphlet size replies!).
Sincerely, Jerry
December 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
P.S. …..On a massive, unprecedented scale unequaled in the history of the world!
December 30th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Rachelle, My prayers are with you, him and the entire rest of the community. Sadly, as bizarre as the off-duty cop's behavior was, he will eventually sink his own ship. I can't help but wonder, though, what higher purpose God has in mind that might develop from this incident. I'm recalling Romans 8:28. God bless you and keep you, His ambassador, safe, prepared and confident.
December 31st, 2009 at 11:20 am
The soul of anything is the life of the living thing in question!
let's think about this. i will show you how fun little rhetorical tricks may sound nice and pretty, but mean nothing (like virtually all Christian arguments i hear… rhetoric)
the SOUL of anything IS THE LIFE of the LIVING thing in question.
it follows that if THE SOUL is also THE LIFE then the sentence can be re-written as: THE LIFE is also THE SOUL, or THE LIFE is THE LIFE, or THE SOUL is THE SOUL.
so you're not really saying anything. you're not defining what a "soul" is. i was going to go on and say what i think you're trying to get at, but upon scrolling up, I can't even tell. your rhetoric and metaphors are so mixy-matchy and you've stretched the definition of "soul" and "life" and "death" so as to be meaningless.
and yes, i passed over your point in your no. 15 post in seconds because i hear that argument a lot and it's really not a good one. something's age DOES NOT imply it's worth or verity. i would also argue that you're off. christ, if he existed, was executed 2000 years ago, but we didn't get the Catholic church as we know it today until around the 4th century, making it not much older than islam, or buddhism (i believe)… and besides, as Bill Maher so expertly put it: What else do we cleave to from the Bronze Age?
I'm sorry if I'm asking you tough questions, but don't you think it's your christian duty to examine your faith from time to time, strengthen it a bit by looking at and dispelling doubt? I would love if you stumped me, Jerry, if you put something to me so deep and profound that I could find no recourse but to except that magic IS real, Jesus is Lord, and God loves me. How wonderful if life and the mysteries of the universe were that simple, could be summed up that easily. But I don't think you can do it, Jerry.
I won't kid any of you. I do not respect your beliefs. Or anyone's. I do respect your right to have them. But as your bolding of the words "…WE BELIEVE" indicates, and what my point here is, is that beliefs are too often held to be irrefutable and sacrosanct, simply because someone believes them to be true. It's as if simply by saying "I believe…" before something, you render it unarguable, unassailable by actual truth.
Awesome, you all BELIEVE something, great. Now, when you take that belief and go and stand outside of businesses and institutions, public and private, trying to influence the lives of others on account of that belief… you had better start PROVING it.
deleting my posts simply because you don't like my opinion would be hypocritical, btw. i can work on being more succinct but i'm being way polite now, since my first post.
P.S. Jerry: You still haven't looked at that link I posted? It shows studies and research suggesting the development of our current human moral behavior in other primates, which would derail any notion that man is special in this regard. much research has suggested that true altruism doesn't exist, either. and that capuchin monkeys are aware of the concept of fairness. check it out. mind-blowing stuff.
-Evan
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 am
"it follows that if THE SOUL is also THE LIFE then the sentence can be re-written as: THE LIFE is also THE SOUL, or THE LIFE is THE LIFE, or THE SOUL is THE SOUL."
I wasn't defining the soul!!! I was saying that the soul is the name or label of the life (the "lifeness")of the thing in question…..nothing more!
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:05 am
By naming or labeling anything we are generalizing something (hopefully for future good analysis). But the generalizing, tho most elementary, but necessary)is often interpreted is an explanation or definition of the subject in question.
Jerry
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:19 am
"current human moral behavior in other primates,"
Definition of morality:
That quality in human acts by which we call them right or wrong, good or evil.
We want to give to "other primates" what is of "human"?
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 am
"suggesting the development of our current human moral behavior in other primates"
We are "giving" to "other primates" "human moral behavior"???
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:43 am
"capuchin monkeys are aware of the concept of fairness."
Capuchin monkeys being aware of "fairness" causes us to predicate human moral behavior to them???
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
"The editor-at-large of one of Canada's biggest news services has called for a global one-child policy"
A logical conclusion in the minds of those who believe HUMANS HAVE EQUAL OR LESS DIGNITY than the earth or animals!
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:14 am
my #15 reply:
"EXAMPLE OF THINKING:
1. To be allowed to proceed with a pregnancy.
2. To be assisted in everyway available to accomplish above.
Is not above, the rights of every female?
AND if so, is not the OPPOSITE of these rights, wrongs?
But Pro-choicers call abortion a right???"
——————————————————
your response:
"and yes, i passed over your point in your no. 15 post in seconds because i hear that argument a lot and it's really not a good one. something's age DOES NOT imply it's worth or verity."
What is illogical about my argument???
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:43 am
We "enconter" a thing. (we don't know anything about it other then what our senses tell us)
So we "study" it. Leading us to discover it is a living body.
We know about "bodies" (material, physical, substances), but the "living" part seems daunthing!.
So to study the living part, we "label or name" the living part, the things soul.
Jerry
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:18 pm
Definition of Soul:
The first principle of life of a living being.
Jerry
P.S. (I hope I'm not asked for the definition of "first" or of "principle"……why? BECAUSE WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ON THIS BLOG EXCEPT THE EVIL OF CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION!!!)
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:34 pm
"current human moral behavior in other primates,"
Definition of morality:
That quality in human acts by which we call them right or wrong, good or evil.
We want to give to "other primates" what is of "human"?
Jerry
Jerry: that's not what I said. Don't go making straw men on me, now. You're better than that. I believe in you, Jerry!
i said "the DEVELOPMENT OF current human moral…."
sounds like you still haven't read the article. i'm a science fan, but admittedly no scientist, so just read it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Jerry Vilt says:
"capuchin monkeys are aware of the concept of fairness."
Capuchin monkeys being aware of "fairness" causes us to predicate human moral behavior to them???
Jerry
bro. listen. you keep stretching every argument of mine to really, really absurd lengths.
of course all of this will mean little or nothing to you if you don't "believe in" evolution. check it out. we're the top of a ladder. other primates are lower on the ladder according to how much less developed than us they are. we have top-of-the-ladder "moral" behavior. studies show other primates exhibit the same type of behavior, but not as "far along" as ours is. again, just do yourself a service and read the article, man. i'm grossly generalizing and i'm not going to copy/paste from it simply because you refuse to check it out for yourself and maybe learn something new.
and why would i "give" human behavior to a monkey? it's a MONKEY. if anyone can be accused of anthropomorphizing anything, it's you and every member of your faith pinning human emotions on a supposedly timeless, infinite, all-powerful being. if god is better than human, why is he so violent, hateful, jealous, and generally despicable? "oh, noah… i'm sorry i killed every member of the human race but you and your family, and every other living thing on earth. tell you what, because i loooove you sooooooooo much, i won't ever drown the world in a horrible flood again, mmk? i'll just send my only son, who has no earthly father which would make him a haplotype female clone of the mother since he would carry no y chromosome from a father, and kill him instead. sound good, noah? ok, little buddy, now get to re-populating the earth with only your family and two of everything else. make sure to keep the gene pool legit! seeeeeeeee ya laaaaater!"
really, Jerry?
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Definition of Soul:
The first principle of life of a living being.
Jerry
P.S. (I hope I'm not asked for the definition of "first" or of "principle"……why? BECAUSE WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ON THIS BLOG EXCEPT THE EVIL OF CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION!!!)
lol why should you have to think? oh man, what a buzzkill thinking is, huh? lol, Jerry… come on now.
1) telling me you hope I don't ask because you don't want to have to think about it tells me that I don't even need to read it because you don't even know what you're talking. You basically admit as much, right there.
2) you only believe abortion and contraception (really? condoms? are STDs god's way of telling the sexually active he loves them and hopes they make the right choice next time?) are evil on the basis of your religion. your argument about the one is tied to the other. i can't argue with you about abortion or contraception because you'll just cite some verses or something and nothing will come of it. so it follows that i have to argue your reason for thinking the way you do.
i'm not trying to piss anyone off here (not trying hard, anyway) but really i thought it would help us all to debate about all of this. i want to know how to better defend my views. nothing you say is offending me. in any way.
just debate, man.
why do you feel the need to sidewalk counsel? how many people (i want real statistics) do you all affect? how many little unborn silently screaming little flipper-kicking unlives have you saved?
i think your religion and everything you do as an institution preys on human vulnerability and guilt, which stem from low self-esteem and self-worth. Prove otherwise. Prove to me people would come to god if they didn't have some skeleton in the closet or a reason to feel less than they are.
(trying to bring it back a bit more to the issue at hand, if talking general theology and science makes you uncomfortable)
-Evan
January 2nd, 2010 at 10:54 pm
your #35:
"why do you feel the need to sidewalk counsel? how many people (i want real statistics) do you all affect? how many little unborn silently screaming little flipper-kicking unlives have you saved?"
50,000,000 since '73…..the number saved doesn't exceed 1,000's! We are doing all we can within the confines of the law and charity to our neighbor! If you want to walk a mile….nay a thousand miles it starts with one step.
Jerry
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:13 am
Evan,
In my opinion it's all about not just love and hate, but loving what deserves love and hating what deserves hate.
If we love what deserves hate or hate what deserves love, then man 'o man, will the world have problems!
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 am
P.S. "deserves" in "loving what deserves love" is different then "deserves" in "hating what deserves hate".
Thus, It is better to light one little candle, then to curse the darkness!
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:48 am
your #33:
"the DEVELOPMENT OF current human moral…."
the COMPLETE statement of above is your #23:
"the DEVELOPMENT OF our current human moral behavior IN OTHER PRIMATES" (latter caps are mine)
again,
The statement is predicating human moral behavior of primates!
Jerry
January 3rd, 2010 at 2:18 am
your #34:
"bro. listen. you keep stretching every argument of mine to really, really absurd lengths."
response:
A small error in the beginning is a large one in the end.
A valid argument will hold up to any degree of scruting, would it not? (truth is absolute)
An ever-so-slight flaw of any kind, (such an argument, at first, would seem valid) would only be discovered upon extreme scrutiny.
bro Jerry
January 3rd, 2010 at 9:44 am
your #34:
"of course all of this will mean little or nothing to you if you don't "believe in" evolution. check it out. we're the top of a ladder. other primates are lower on the ladder according to how much less developed than us they are. we have top-of-the-ladder "moral" behavior. studies show other primates exhibit the same type of behavior, but not as "far along" as ours is. again, just do yourself a service and read the article, man. i'm grossly generalizing and i'm not going to copy/paste from it simply because you refuse to check it out for yourself and maybe learn something new."
response:
Definition of Morality - That quality in HUMAN ACTS by which we call them right or wrong, good or evil.
1. Capuchin monkeys are NOT human.
2. Morality is of humans ONLY.
3. Capuchin monkeys are NOT moral!
Jerry
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:38 am
P.S. Intellect (to know) and Free Will (to decide) are NOT present in nonhuman animals.
Their "modus oberandi" is INSTINCT!
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:57 am
your #35:
"1) telling me you hope I don't ask because you don't want to have to think about it tells me that I don't even need to read it because you don't even know what you're talking. You basically admit as much, right there."
Is this a case of, Don't analyze my reasons for having said something, but rather analyze what I have said?
January 4th, 2010 at 10:59 am
The "similarity" of CONTRACEPTION (ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL) and ABORTION (MURDER):
The heralds of the culture of death are working to make sure countless millions of inocent children are NEVER born (ABORTION)…..and equally horrific NEVER EVEN CONCEIVED (CONTRACEPTION)!
January 4th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
i don't know why you keep clinging to this monkey/human morality thing. that's not what i'm saying (obviously the idea is ludicrous), and that has never been my suggestion. i said what we call human "morality" is a kind of behavior (or at least that's how I and any scientist not prescribing to a dualistic concept of good and evil) and that certain primates (i know you still haven't read the article even though i told you to, instead of criticizing my layman's interpretation of it. but that's fair i guess, since i would challenge any of your layman's interpretations of the bible) show the beginnings (along the evolutionary ladder [and don't deny evolution]) of the kinds of behaviors that led to the human morality of today.
i thought it was a pretty simple concept to grasp.
but, reflecting on your incessant repeating of the definition of morality, it got me thinking: do you EVER think critically, for yourself? or whenever you have a question, do you just grab a book from your shelf (dictionary, bible… whatever) and quote your answer verbatim and literally?
do you process and interpret information, or just see it two-dimensionally and regurgitate it, is my basic question.
all your interpretations of my points are way afield of what i meant. i thought i was clear. upon looking at them, my only explanation for your misunderstanding is that you cling to certain words i use and read them in their most literal sense, or stretch the definition to help you build your straw men.
my arguments are valid. but i can see where actually considering them would mess with your worldview a little bit. so i understand.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:54 pm
The "similarity" of CONTRACEPTION (ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL) and ABORTION (MURDER):
The heralds of the culture of death are working to make sure countless millions of inocent children are NEVER born (ABORTION)…..and equally horrific NEVER EVEN CONCEIVED (CONTRACEPTION)!
——————————————————-
1. To be allowed to proceed with a pregnancy.
2. To be assisted in everyway available to accomplish above.
Is not above, the rights of every female?
AND if so, is not the OPPOSITE of these rights, wrongs?
But Pro-choicers call abortion a right???"
——————————————————
January 5th, 2010 at 9:12 am
Ok, this discussion has gone way too far afield from the topic of the post. Comments are closed.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:43 am