• « Previous Post
• Next Post »
• 

110 Comments on “A Day in the Life of the Netherlands”

Please Note: Visitor comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Generations for Life or our parent organization, the Pro-Life Action League.

1. Lydia says:

   And not only “consenting.” Indeed, the whole promotion of pedophilia goes hand in hand with the gradual erosion of choice itself. Consider that legalized prostitution ends up meaning that officials turn a blind eye to sexual slavery. And what is the significance of “consent” between a little child and an adult? Especially with a young child, the situation is inherently coercive. I had a post called “Choice Devours Itself” on Right Reason, the web log for conservative philosophers. In it I argued that there is a sort of weird social phenomenon whereby people begin by glorifying “choice” in particular areas–esp. sex and death–and end by giving up on choice and ignoring or excusing coercion in these areas. I think–speaking very openly here, even more so than in the post–that the issue is a spiritual one. If you worship sex and death, they, being jealous gods, take over the situation and eventually choice goes out the window and you end up with the strong preying on the weak blatantly. I think, again frankly, that Satan is personally involved in this sort of societal development and uses the choice fools for his own ends.

   In the thread on the post, for some reason the commentators all wanted to talk about the subject (only one example I’d raised) of “health” workers around the world who cooperated with sex slavers to be allowed to give condoms to the girls. It was horrifying to see the excuses that were made for these people, who agreed in advance not to give the girls info. on how to escape prostitution, in order to get access to them.

   Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 7:26 pm

2. mary kay says:

   Lauren,

   if you are reading this…

   Do you see that once people start practicing moral relativism then anything goes…If pedophilia is okay in the netherlands, then why should we be so up in arms about the priests that practiced it here in the states? (Don’t get me wrong…im mortified by those priests behavior).
   I’m just saying that once it becomes okay for some it will soon become okay for all.

   I’m sure you are sickened by what we just read, but the guys pushing for pedophilia could use all the pro choice arguments and substitute aborting children with having sex with them.

   And how can you argue. It’s their choice. “How dare you try to tell them what to do with their bodies. They have been looked down upon long enough. It’s time they stood up for themselves and demanded equal rights under the law. No one is going to keep them down. They have rights. They have needs. All us right wing religious nuts just need to shut up and let them have at it…No one is saying WE have to have sex with children, but why can’t they. If you don’t like pedophilia then don’t practice it!”

   But of course you and I can see clearly that they are stripping those children of their rights…even if they consent…because children are not emotionally mature enough to make this kind of choice.

   This is how the prolife movement feels about abortion. To us it is crystal clear that by demanding your rights you are also stripping another human being of theirs. And we both agree that that is wrong…
   Do you see? By your rules you have no right to stop them. (Of course I hope you’d want to…) And that is why we Catholics are willing to submit to a higher law than just our feelings. Because we recognize how dangerous that road is…

   MK

   Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 9:04 pm

3. Sunnyday says:

   Just when I think nothing worse can come out of Netherlands, here is another piece of news like no other.

   I have come to really admire the efforts of life-embracing and God-loving people in that country. It must be quite a test of fortitude for them to keep the faith and to try and help the Dutch govt and individuals go towards the direction that protects life, family, marriage, the elderly and every member of society.

   From time to time, I wonder: what is it about Netherlands that prompts people there to come up with ideas such as legitimizing infant euthanasia, child pornography, bestiality and pedophilia? And why do the moves seem to “succeed” (I mean, they seem to get support from society)?

   Comment posted May 31st, 2006 at 10:52 pm

4. Pansy Moss says:

   Why does everything truly vile come out of the Netherlands? Is the lack of sunshine? OK, that was sarcasm, but I’m serious, what is their deal? Oh, I just read Sunnyday asked the same question!

   I was also thinking just like you said Sunnyday, it is so hard just trying to survive in the US as a someone who goes to Church and tries to follow the teachings here-I cannot imagine attempting that in the Netherlands. I would imagine I am not strong enough, which is why God put me in the US.

   Does anyone know what the fruits of the spirit are there? I mean how high are depression and suicide rates? Are people happy about how immoral their laws and general culture have become?

   I often wonder what PP is trying to accomplish. Are people happier after they contracepted, because despite that people still manage to get pregnant. Are their lives better after abortions? Despite the large presence of PP in inner city settings “empowering” people with abc, there are still ghettos, there is still poverty, lack of good schools, but the plus side is lots and lots of women are having abortions, and then having children outside of marriage to be abused by their new boyfriends. Anyway, my point is what is the Netherlands trying to as a nation and as a culture that they find beneficial?

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 5:44 am

5. Lucy says:

   I was wondering if you people were actually going to respond to this. I’m glad, but I’m surprised. It seems to me that people aren’t very important around here once their out of the womb. I wasn’t absolutly certain you wouldn’t be in support of a bunch of criminals seeking asylum in government…of course…then again look at the government here….anyone here republican?

   Personally I’m in favor, I say we open the doors to a nice big cage. Tell them sure boys, you can have your ‘rights’ represented in government, this is your meeting room. Usher them in, and close the Gate. Never to be reopened again. I mean, they have just volunteered their identities. Here they want to scream not to have their name put on a list in the neighborhood. There they want to have their names called on a government roster. They believe that they are being viewed as common criminals…maybe for a reason.

   I understand that they are truly just worried about the well being of the children. They feel the 12 year olds are being denied rights. And there’s the rub. I don’t know of anywhere that actually has laws against 12 year olds having sex. Preferences against it sure. The laws are against adults having sex with 12 year olds. The children can do as they wish. The children aren’t being oppressed. Neither are the adults. It isn’t oppression to be told you can’t abuse the children.

   Of course, before the Catholic Church gets to self righteous about this one there are some little blemishes that might want to be taken care of. Priests are not immune to the shame of a Pedophile. It’s still a crime, I don’t care what the collar looks like. I actually expect to see some clergy in the cage, or at least their representatives.

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am

6. Lucy says:

   Catholic and enjoying it. Ah, the irony, all things considered.

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 9:34 am

7. John says:

   Lucy said: “Priests are not immune to the shame of a Pedophile. It’s still a crime, I don’t care what the collar looks like.”

   Lucy,

   No argument here.

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 9:56 am

8. John says:

   Lucy said: “Catholic and enjoying it. Ah, the irony, all things considered.”

   Lucy,

   What things?

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 10:03 am

9. Pansy Moss says:

   It seems to me that people aren’t very important around here once their out of the womb.

   In all fairness, this is a pro-life blog focusing mostly out of anti-abortion issues. People who come here read about pro-life news and thoughts. It does not mean that is what people’s thoughts, actions, or feelings begin and end with. If you frequent a sewing blog, and someone mentions “I baked a cake the other day, ” would you assume cooking is not very important to them because they frequent a sewing blog?

   Lucy said: “Priests are not immune to the shame of a Pedophile. It’s still a crime, I don’t care what the collar looks like.”

   Lucy,

   No argument here.

   Agreed. But because someone who is Catholic, or a part of any group makes a big mistake, it does not mean all Catholics should throw in the towel and say pedophilia is OK. That would be like white people should all embrace slavery because some white people owned slaves.

   Why is trying to stand up for what is right always considered “self-righteous” if you are religious?

   Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 11:43 am

10. Sunnyday says:

    When a lot of the focus is on preborn people and this makes born SEEM less important, it’s only because the former can’t speak for themselves and can’t defend themselves. Hence, they need us born people to speak for them and remind everyone that they ARE human beings, too, who have the basic right to life, just like every other human being.

    Again, this DOES NOT mean that those of us who choose to speak up for, and help protect, preborn people believe that born people are less important.

    Comment posted June 1st, 2006 at 7:08 pm

11. Pansy Moss says:

    Again, this DOES NOT mean that those of us who choose to speak up for, and help protect, preborn people believe that born people are less important.

    I think this is just one of those things pro-lifers say about us because either a.) they are simply prejudice bigots who makes assumptions (“pro-lifers just protest abortion, but do nothing in terms of any oher charity or cause, especially for people who are born”) about all pro-lifers without knowing any, dialoguing with any, or seeing how any live. How they know this, I don’t know because all the pro-life people I know actually spread themselves a bit too thin for social justice causes. Anyway, prochoicers saying that is like saying all black men want to do is eat fried chicken and rape white women.

    Then b.) they just think if they say enough stuff like that enough, we will be so apologetic, we will come over to their side.

    Comment posted June 2nd, 2006 at 5:17 am

12. mary kay says:

    Pansy and Sunnyday,

    I also think they say stuff like Lucy because they have so little ammunition for their side of the argument that 90% of what they say is attacking us personally. If they just stuck to the topic at hand and did not attack us directly, their posts would only be a sentence or two long. Mostly beggining with the phrase ” I want”…

    And you are right, Most pro-lifers do take on social issues across the board…

    I myself have fostered a child from Guatemala so she could come to the states to have facial surgery, fostered an inner city child so he could attend private school, teach immigrant children, volunteered with autistic children, mentally handicapped children, visited a nursing home (alzheimers floor) every week for four years, help take care of my father (who is like Terry Schiavo), have taken many inner city kids camping…I’m not bragging, wouldn’t even mention it except to make a point…so I could hardly be accused of just fighting for prolife…

    It just seems that many (and I say many, not all) of these guys need to attack who we are instead of what we say…Speaks volumes about them, and not much about us…

    But what do you expect? They don’t respect life, why would they respect anything else…!

    MK

    Comment posted June 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 am

13. Lucy says:

    Agreed. But because someone who is Catholic, or a part of any group makes a big mistake, it does not mean all Catholics should throw in the towel and say pedophilia is OK. That would be like white people should all embrace slavery because some white people owned slaves.

    Why is trying to stand up for what is right always considered “self-righteous” if you are religious?

    I didn’t say that Catholics should say that pedophilia is okay. Perhaps I should clarify. While I hope that what is being presented represents a minority, if one pays attention to the media these days one would expect that there would be a portion of Catholics who might be okay with it. I don’t expect any group to adhere to anything in entirety. It is my belief that people operate as individuals. While occasionally people find strength, or comfort in gathering in numbers, these are still conglomerations of individuals that individually chose to join the group. While the choices made are indicitive of a part of an individuals character, at least at that moment in time, it is unlikely to be a marker for the individuals full persona. While I take issue with the Catholic Church, I understand fully that each individual member of the Catholic church is an individual who is there for their own personal reasons, and is a complex person with many different features to their character. Therefore, I do not as a rule take issue with people who are Catholic, because it is not who they are in entirety. I don’t know how much sense that makes. I completely agree with your comparison to the ownership of slaves. I believe that you should have this statement published somewhere and it can perhaps be utilized to prevent such things as ‘white flight’ ‘cross burnings’ (they do still happen in some areas), perhaps it can be utilized in our little immigration issue, and I can think of more than a few followers of Islam who would like to have that painted on a Wall somewhere for all of the world to ponder.

    My Self Righteous assertion is really more directed at the Church then the members, once again if that makes sense. It’s my issue… that’s all. Religion has more than likely taken the accusation more often than most, but really it gets assigned to anyone who is arguing that someone else is wrong…when the opponent does not wish to be wrong. If premises are checked and to the best of your knowledge your position is correct, until or unless you find evidence that you find contradictory to the position you originally took, and you know that you have taken every precaution you possibly could, which doesn’t mean all available, that’s essentially impossible, or at least improbable, I would take it as a compliment. It’s just an accusation of Self Assuredness.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 12:29 am

14. Lucy says:

    I also think they say stuff like Lucy because they have so little ammunition for their side of the argument that 90% of what they say is attacking us personally. If they just stuck to the topic at hand and did not attack us directly, their posts would only be a sentence or two long. Mostly beggining with the phrase ” I want”…

    Mary Kay,
    It’s so nice to see more evidence of the pleasant, respectful, dignified person you are. Are you hoping that if you just keep saying how nice you are it will sink in? If you think that I am attacking you personally it is because I am sick of you attacking me personally. Yes, it’s true. I want. Obviously you do as well. You want me to treat you with respect and dignity that you repeatedly demonstrate you do not deserve. Beginning by the way. If you are going to behave like a juvenile, and display abundant evidence that you haven’t the sense to recognize the tendancy in yourself, and beg of others that they also ignore your obvious shortfallings please do not expect to be treated better than that. Particularly since you are requesting better treatment than you provide. Do not tell me that you are respectful in your manner of speaking to me despite the fact that I am telling you that I do not find commentaries as such respectful or dignified.

    You have displayed behavior befitting of preteen girls giggling behind the backs of other young girls. It would be appropriate to display disaproval of such behavior in girls of such age so as to prevent them from engaging in such hurtful behavior in the future. One would hardly know how to attend to such behavior when extended by a woman of your obvious years. I understand that in theme with your juvinile behavior you will notify me that I have been cruel for admonishing you for this and will express your belief that I have belittled you in doing so. I ask you this though, is there a such thing as an appropriate time to notify you that you are mistaken about anything, or an appropriate manner? Or will any disagreement with you result in just this variety of childish behavior?

    I may have misjudged you when I questioned your mean spirited behavior. Perhaps it is just immaturity, though as the mother of a minimum of five one would have expected better, though for the life of me I don’t know why.

    The attack have been blatantly against what you have said. It might be time to notice that you are simply not fond of being questioned.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 12:48 am

15. Lucy says:

    I think this is just one of those things pro-lifers say about us because either a.) they are simply prejudice bigots who makes assumptions (”pro-lifers just protest abortion, but do nothing in terms of any oher charity or cause, especially for people who are born”) about all pro-lifers without knowing any, dialoguing with any, or seeing how any live. How they know this, I don’t know because all the pro-life people I know actually spread themselves a bit too thin for social justice causes. Anyway, prochoicers saying that is like saying all black men want to do is eat fried chicken and rape white women.

    Then b.) they just think if they say enough stuff like that enough, we will be so apologetic, we will come over to their side.

    Would now be a bad time to point out that any attempt to communicate with people who are anti abortion results in automatic attacks against those of us who believe that a womans right to her body is an absolute right. I have been outright attacked here and so many other places by anti abortion people that I franky anticipate it at this point. My favorite part is that the anti-abortion crowd is also overwhelmingly Christian, which in my findings pays fine lip service to the concept of love and compassion and yet gives little evidence to support such vocal assertions.

    When I first started attempting to locate and communicate, in hopes of reaching some kind of understanding on these sites I found it horrifying the way other people who are what I refer to as the actual Right to Lifers, who you call the Pro-Choicers, seemed to waste no time in hurling insults at the anti abortion people. I found it positively amazing, until I found that I was in fact, no matter what, greeted immediately with insults and character attacks by people who didn’t know what I thought, or what my experience was. The level of cruelty from both sides is obscene, however, I frankly have come to understand where it comes from on the side that I argue from. I letter that attempted to explain why I believe what I believe earned a response that told me I was essentially responsible for the Hollocost. It gave me no insight as to why they believed that a fetus could suddenly have rights that out weighed the rights of the woman it was in. I recieved nothing but countless insults. Everything I said was taken out of context and twisted. Frankly, theres a difference between displaying prejudice and having learned your lesson.

    The Anti-abortion side, with little exception has displayed vile and disgusting behavior. Left to my own devices I would honestly avoid all of you at all costs. However, the current political climate is clear. People who wish to strip women of the right to control their body have somehow gained high government offices and those of us who wish to prevent ourselves from losing control of our own bodies must make our voices heard. The greatest harm that can be done to womans reclamation of her right to self governance looms dangerously close unless we understand what we are looking at and take measures to stop it. The best means we have at our disposal is the utilization of our vocal cords if you will. I am saddened that there are women so ready to relinquish rights to their body and mind, yet I know enough of the history of liberty not to be surprised. For every individual who wishes to gain or preserve liberty there are others that will happily toss it aside. Sadly, again, the desire to dismiss liberty is commonly done for the best interest of someone whom the dismissal will obviously not serve, yet those who it will benefit have convinced them anyway. Regardless, the preservation of my own liberty is enough reason for me to endure the insults that I will doubtlessly endure along the way. It is my hope that all of us who understand the vital importance of a womans right to her own body and what that means and includes, will be able to see this through to the end without having to begin again where our great grand mothers left off.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 1:07 am

16. mary kay says:

    LUCY.

    Yawn….

    MK

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 6:05 am

17. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Boring? Yes, I suppose you must get that all of the time. I have never seen an individual so willing to continually paint themselves in such a negative light. What astounds me further is the persistant demand to be understood as somehow being misunderstood. It’s fascinating really. Wherever do you find the stamina?

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 am

18. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lucy:
    [One] letter that attempted to explain why I believe what I believe earned a response that told me I was essentially responsible for the [Holocaust]. It gave me no insight as to why they believed that a fetus could suddenly have rights that out weighed the rights of the woman it was in. I recieved nothing but countless insults. Everything I said was taken out of context and twisted. Frankly, theres a difference between displaying prejudice and having learned your lesson.

    Lucy, I have explained my position on fetal rights before, but I will do it again.

    Suppose I wanted to prevent an abortionist from going to his place of business. I lie down behind his car in my driveway. I have no right to be there, of course, because this impedes his freedom of movement to go where he wants. However, he has no right to hit me with his hands or a baseball bat, or even to drag me out of the way. He certainly does not have the right to back over me. Before he can go to work, he will have to call an authorized person to force me to move. If circumstances place my right to bodily integrity in contention with his right to move freely, my right to bodily integrity is superior.
    If a company sells a product which is discovered to be carcinogenic, it is taken off the market, without any thoughts as to that company’s investments. The right to life of potential customers supercedes the company’s right to do business and their financial freedoms.
    If I am asked to hold a baby and my arms get tired, can I drop the baby? If I my husband does not want to support a baby I am carrying, is it permissible for him to kill the child? If I no longer want my pets, can I lock them in my spare room and ignore them until they stop crying? If a child comes onto my property to avoid oncoming traffic, can I push that child back into the road?
    When two people’s rights collide, it is necessary to determine which is the greater right. I admit this is difficult in the case of abortion, because the right to bodily integrity. Yet the right to life of even an animal is more important under law than my right to privacy. If someone fears an animal under my care is abused, investigators can get a warrant and come into my house even if I protest it. Did you know that if you stuck scissors in the back of your pet’s head and sucked out its brains with a vacuum, you could face several years in prison? Or if you tore it into pieces or injected deadly chemicals into its system. In our society animals have more rights than human beings.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 4:54 pm

19. Lucy says:

    I am seeking for someone to define life. Not to explain when they believe life begins, but to define what they understand it to be. For people that define themselves as Pro-life this should be a simple task. After all, what are you Pro.

    What is life.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 4:55 pm

20. Lucy says:

    Lucy, I have explained my position on fetal rights before, but I will do it again.

    Suppose I wanted to prevent an abortionist from going to his place of business. I lie down behind his car in my driveway. I have no right to be there, of course, because this impedes his freedom of movement to go where he wants. However, he has no right to hit me with his hands or a baseball bat, or even to drag me out of the way. He certainly does not have the right to back over me. Before he can go to work, he will have to call an authorized person to force me to move. If circumstances place my right to bodily integrity in contention with his right to move freely, my right to bodily integrity is superior.
    If a company sells a product which is discovered to be carcinogenic, it is taken off the market, without any thoughts as to that company’s investments. The right to life of potential customers supercedes the company’s right to do business and their financial freedoms.
    If I am asked to hold a baby and my arms get tired, can I drop the baby? If I my husband does not want to support a baby I am carrying, is it permissible for him to kill the child? If I no longer want my pets, can I lock them in my spare room and ignore them until they stop crying? If a child comes onto my property to avoid oncoming traffic, can I push that child back into the road?
    When two people’s rights collide, it is necessary to determine which is the greater right. I admit this is difficult in the case of abortion, because the right to bodily integrity. Yet the right to life of even an animal is more important under law than my right to privacy. If someone fears an animal under my care is abused, investigators can get a warrant and come into my house even if I protest it. Did you know that if you stuck scissors in the back of your pet’s head and sucked out its brains with a vacuum, you could face several years in prison? Or if you tore it into pieces or injected deadly chemicals into its system. In our society animals have more rights than human beings.

    Right. That’s a good explanation. I’m relatively certain however that once the authorities were brought in the doctor could have you locked up for trespassing and sued for financial and emotional devastation of some variety. I’d do it any way. The rest of it is so much nonsense I couldn’t imagine where to begin.

    Like I said though. Answer the question if you can. If you can’t, I have nothing to say to you because you have nothing that will convince me that you have the right to transfer rights to my body to anyone, nevermind a fetus.

    It has become my position that I do not need to make attempts to communicate with Hateful Christians and you have already exposed your hateful tone to me in another post. Answer the question.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 5:07 pm

21. Pansy Moss says:

    Would now be a bad time to point out that any attempt to communicate with people who are anti abortion results in automatic attacks against those of us who believe that a womans right to her body is an absolute right.

    I can realte to this because in all fairness, this is exactly the way I feel when I attempt to dialogue with pro-choicers, except I would word the same sentence this way:

    “Would now be a bad time to point out that any attempt to communicate with people who are anti life results in automatic attacks against those of us who believe that a is murder. ”

    First of all, I am often met with instead of arguments on the issue, with personal attacks-and these aren’t in personal conversations. These are in news reports, newspaper opeds, little side storylines about ridiculous religious fanatics from showa like CSI to Battlestar Galactica. One oped I read about a month ago talked about how people who are pro-life have a disdain for sex. Where do they get their information.

    1.Like you said about women’s rights, why can’t one pro-choicer simply say “well, I don’t agree with them, but they believe it’s murder, and if they truly believe that, then you cannot expect them to change their minds because murder is a big deal.” I have never heard that. Like I said, all I hear is we are anti-sex, anti-women, anti- civil rights…Lauren said we are gun-toting racists.

    2. On the same token, I also understand that I cannot ask for this respect, because I cannot give it. God help, me I really wish I could because I hate the way this issue separates people who probably would not be separated. Here is why: you argue that abortion is ultimately about a woman’s right to her body. I understand the sentiment, but it seems so trivial to me. Not because I am holier than thou, but like I said, I believe abortion is the murder of little babies. I don’t believe a baby is her body, but a separate, whole person. I really, truly believe that. When you weigh in a woman’s right to abort, versus the right of a child to not be ripped to shreds with a suction device, there is not comparison at all. Again, you can argue that it is not a baby, it does not feel pain, whatever, in my heart, I believe it is a baby, it does feel pain, and abortion is murder and is wrong. I have known everytime I became pregnant, that this child is a gift of the highest value from God, and my job from that moment on is to nurture and care for this child. If I cannot do that, then nothing else in this world matters at all. If it were otherise, there would be no point. There is no other reason to work, to read, to study, to cook meals, and even to joke about my daily struggles with other Moms to find a bit of peace, except to use my talents to praise God’s gift of love His creation. That is me in a nutshell, very simple.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm

22. Lucy says:

    Pansy Moss,
    I must admit I was about to jump ship, but if you will please avoid referencing me as an anti-life person in the future, since as I’m sure you can understand I take offense, I would be interested in hearing anything you would like to tell me about why you are opposed to abortion. Scientific details that have swayed you, personal understandings or experiences, whatever you would like to include. If you would like an open platform to explain I would like to listen. Actually listen, no attacks, no anger. I don’t expect you to agree with me, you don’t expect me to agree with you, just to attempt to understand one another. Perhaps have a better understanding of where the other is coming from.

    It’s up to you. I’ll check back and see if you’ve responded.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 8:40 pm

23. Lucy says:

    What I just wrote sounds as though I did not read your post. I just realized that. I was just thinking that you might like to discuss it further. As I said, it’s up to you. I would give you a bit of where I’m coming from, but I don’t currently have any reason to believe that my opinion is desired on here. Instead I have been used as a battering ram by others, so unless you wish to hear what I have to say, I don’t intend to say it. I am, however, as I stated before, interested in listenting. I can’t spell lately, I don’t know what is wrong with me, please excuse the errors.

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 8:44 pm

24. Sunnyday says:

    Lucy and everyone, pls. either place copy and pasted statements inside quotation marks or type them in bold or italics. It’s confusing and time-consuming to try figuring out who wrote what.

    Thanks. =)

    Sunny

    Comment posted June 3rd, 2006 at 9:03 pm

25. Pansy Moss says:

    I must admit I was about to jump ship, but if you will please avoid referencing me as an anti-life person in the future, since as I’m sure you can understand I take offense,

    I’m sorry. I did that on purpose because you used the term “anti abortion” instead of “pro-life” and I was trying to make the point about what the statement sounded in the exact opposite. In retrospect, it was a bit snarky of me, because really, when I think of it, I have no problem with being called anti abortion.

    Scientific evidence? I don’t think I can give you any evidence to convince you, but I can explain my “why’s”. My father is a developmental psychologist, with a focus on child development. When he was in grad school at Columbia and at SUNY Stoneybrook, it was in the 70′s, the abortion issue was new, but not quite as “hot” as it is now. I come from a long line of democrats and my father says he never really thought of the abortion issue. He kind of figured it was a woman’s issue and it was her business, until he started studying child development. They started right from the beginning. If they managed to get their hands on fetuses who were spontaneously aborted by things like car accidents, they I guess did experiments on them. Nothing like vissection, but showed that as people tried to help them, they responded to people reading to them, and to tickling etc. He said it was also common in the old days to take tons of x-rays of pregnant women. It was primitive, but it was all they had, and this used to be a fascination. Also, all the old textbooks used to use the word “child” or “baby” as opposed to simply “fetus”. Anyway, when he learned this, he became adamantly pro-life and no longer a fence sitter. Now, for the life of me, I cannot remember any major conversations at a very young age with him about this issue-it never really came up, but I remember I loved looking through his text books. He also had a degree in physical anthropology, so he lots of text books on gorillas which I adored, so it was not uncommon that I looked through his books often for fun. Anyway, the pictures of developing preborn babies always fascinated me. I thought they were quite cute and tiny.

    We didn’t become Catholic until many years later, after the situation I wrote about in the other thread. To help me recover, (and get me out the country for a bit) my father took a Fulbright scholarship in the Fiji Islands, and that was where my family truly embraced the faith. But prior to that, abortion was always a scientific/moral issue. Religion tied it together as to the significnance it of it all.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 6:00 am

26. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lucy also said:
    The level of cruelty from both sides is obscene, however, I frankly have come to understand where it comes from on the side that I argue from.

    I understand how those arguing on the side I argue for can become angry. It is difficult to argue again and again on the bahalf of people who are denied, rejected, and murdered. It is disheartening to hear again and again that those you care deeply about are not even human. For those of us who have lost a child, especially very early in pregnancy, it is doubly hurtful because you also deny the humanity of our own children.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 6:46 am

27. Young Christian Woman says:

    What is life.

    I do not see the point of defining this; it has already been defined.

    From dictionary.com:
    1. a. The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
    b. The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
    3. A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed hundreds of lives.

    A fetus (after implantation) undergoes all the functions of life; it can metabolize, it grows, its cells reproduce, and it responds to stimuli. The fetus cannot survive on its own, but neither can anyone else in some places. If a person is submerged, he or she needs an oxygen tank. If a person lives in Alaska, he or she needs warm clothing and shelter. Very few of us would survive long if we had to find, grow, or hunt our own food with no assistance. A fetus is neither dead nor inanimate, and thus it is alive.

    Of course, I doubt this is what you really meant, because cows, mosquitoes, and lettuce are also alive. You probably mean to ask either “What is human life?” or, eventually, “What sort of life is worthy of legal protection?”

    It can be difficult to define human life. If I refer to the genetic code, that would imbue life to dead people and any organ. If I refer to some physical characteristic, such as opposable thumbs, I would deny the humanity of a person who has lost or was born without his or her hands. If I refer to some sort of mental capacity, there could be some profoundly disabled individuals who did not meet the definition. It is one of those categories where it is somewhat easy to say what belongs and what does not, but when one tries to define it, it becomes more slippery. Defining what it means to be human has resulted in many tragic cases of dehumanization, such as eugenics, genocide, slavery, and abortion.

    A live human:
    -has a human genetic code (which is not, by the way, based on a number of chromosomes)
    -is not dead
    -is not a part of a human being

    The last part, of course, is most problematic, because doubtless you would claim that a fetal human is part of another human being. One could also make an argument that one of a pair of Siamese twins was not human in and of him/herself. Perhaps the easiest thing to do is simply to state that such persons are human.

    A live human:
    -has a human genetic code (which is not, by the way, based on a number of chromosomes)
    -is not dead
    -is not a part of a human being
    A part of a human being:
    has a genetic code identical to the rest of the human being, excluding its gametes, or is a gamete
    cannot reason independently of another part of that human which can also reason

    It has become my position that I do not need to make attempts to communicate with Hateful Christians and you have already exposed your hateful tone to me in another post. Answer the question.

    I do not believe I have done any such thing. When have I done that?

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

28. Lucy says:

    Pansy Moss,
    I can certainly understand being in a position where you believe one thing and you find one little piece of information that turns your world upside down. It is a rough ride. I wasn’t specifically asking you to provide me with Scientific evidence, I was just attempting to indicate that I was willing to listen to anything you wished to say, since you are capable of civility. I’m sorry if I gave a different impression.

    I actually used to believe in the anti-abortion side. I don’t say anti-abortion in an effort to offend you. I was betting it wouldn’t offensive, or at least hoping. For my own reasons I cannot call you pro-life, and you are anti abortion. I think anti-choice is unfair because it’s insinuations are obviously nonsense, and probably intend to offend. Of course my beliefs were largely related to the indocrinations of church. I’m not implying that is why you believe it, I’m just saying I think that is what drove me.

    I will respond to the rest of your posts in a bit. I am exhausted, and a little hurt, (not by you), Thank you for being willing to speak to me as though I were a human being. Some of the people on here give you a bad name, though you have certainly not earned it yourself.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 10:09 pm

29. Pansy Moss says:

    Lucy,

    Thank you for seeing my attempts at civility. I agree, I have no problem with differing opinions, just meaness, and I think it is easy to get defensive, and in beng defensive, offensive. It can get a life it’s own.

    I was thinking of an example about how my faith and logic kind of complement each other.

    My husband and I were having a bit of a debate not just on “The War” but war in general. OK, our lives are boring, and this is what we do for fun. We are both like history…

    My husband was telling me that “experts” claim that if we didn’t drop the bomb on Japan, we would have been fighting the Japanese until 1972. I bring up that yeah, OK, but dropping the bomb on civillians was an atrocity. He agrees, but then brings up the mre logical angle, but what would so many years of war done to the country? The moral? economically? How many lives lost? In other words, it was probably wrong, but maybe since it did happen, we should just count our blessings so to speak (I want to add, not that he thinks this way, but he is playing devil’s advocate for the sake of interest because our lives, like I said, are boring). Logically, I would probably say “yeah, I guess so, what’s done is done and maybe the ends did justify the means…” But The Church says “Nope, it was wrong period, end of subject” So I don’t cave in. It may seem to make sense, the war is over, Japan is financially succesful a country and our ally, yatta yatta yatta, but in the end you cannot extract good from evil. You can work to make things better despite an evil action, but you cannot justify an evil action to make things good.

    Of course I realise that my thoughts on the A-Bomb in 2006 make no difference in scheme of things, but there are other choices I have made, or can make using the same type of logic and faith. My thoughts on abortion is one example.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 10:50 pm

30. Lucy says:

    Young Christian Woman,

    I was referring to a post where you had asked a question and then presented an answer that you more than likely presumed to be what I would say. I have however read responses you gave me on another post, to which I will respond to later. I know that my grammar isn’t always the best, and honestly my spelling abilities seem to be lost as well. I’m sorry if that will make it difficult for you to communicate with me, honestly, I don’t have the energy to correct long time bad habits at the moment. I apologize for the unfair assertion, and hope that you will be able to forgive it.

    I think that I was also mistakingly associating you with another individual who seems intent on hurting me. I apologize for that as well.

    I had a different idea in mind when I asked for the definition of life. I recognize and acknowledge what you are speaking of. I however was making a reference to something that I place importance on and consider to be far more abstract. I was speaking on what I suppose would be best summarized as the spirit of life.

    I will expound later. For now, I am truly exhausted.

    I hope you have a good evening.

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 10:52 pm

31. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Maybe you have read it and chosen not to reply, and that is okay. I understand.

    But I wrote to you on the last thread.

    If you haven’t read it, would you?

    If not, then get a good nights sleep.

    God Bless,
    MK

    Comment posted June 4th, 2006 at 11:00 pm

32. Young Christian Woman says:

    Lucy:

    Sorry for making assumptions. Thank you for forgiving me.

    Life is beautiful. Life is the grand scale of human experience from Adam and Eve to the return of Jesus. Life is everything that a person experiences, good or bad, from the moment of conception till the instant of death. And the second life is inconceivable, but I know it is eternal. Life is loving and being loved, feeling and thinking and singing and rejoicing. Life also has sorrow and sadness and depression. But the life to come will not have those things. Life is being in relationship with other human beings. Life is knowing and being known.

    Comment posted June 5th, 2006 at 2:45 am

33. rosie says:

    Lucy,
    While I agree with YCW, I also think that life is what you make it. I don’t know if that answer is in relation to what you asked or not though.

    Comment posted June 5th, 2006 at 10:20 am

34. Lucy says:

    Sorry for making assumptions. Thank you for forgiving me.

    Life is beautiful. Life is the grand scale of human experience from Adam and Eve to the return of Jesus. Life is everything that a person experiences, good or bad, from the moment of conception till the instant of death. And the second life is inconceivable, but I know it is eternal. Life is loving and being loved, feeling and thinking and singing and rejoicing. Life also has sorrow and sadness and depression. But the life to come will not have those things. Life is being in relationship with other human beings. Life is knowing and being known.

    First, I didn’t mean to be condescending and forgive…sorry.

    The religion I don’t agree with, but I think that’s been established by now. Once again, I can understand why people believe them, and in the sense that they provide hope, and guidance and all of the positive things I have seen attached to religion I respect them. What you said is in a nutshell, other than that, was essentially what I was getting at.

    What I believe however, as I do not subscribe to a faith, does have a slight variation. I believe that, as you might have guessed, we must make choices. As is the nature of choices, once we have opted for one, another disapears. I think I understand the source of the belief that just because we hold the capacity to do something does not negate the question of whether or not we should do it. I could rob a bank, certainly, but this does not eliminate the question of whether or not I should do it. If I understanding correctly, which I may or may not be…

    I don’t mind being corrected. I think I may have given the impression that I mind being corrected. Which would be my loss if I was opposed. I, as anybody, take issue with the tone in which I feel I am being corrected, but this could be a misconception on my part as easily as anything. Being corrected when we are wrong is the only way we will learn, if unwilling to consider alternative ways of examining a situation we will never progress as individuals, which would be tragic. So, I do not mind being corrected at all, I will for my part, attempt to consider that the tone of all corrections is actually benign unless stated otherwise. I will also examine them, in some fashions as less than corrections, and more as alternative possiblities. I hope that is acceptable.

    At any rate, If I understand correctly, the concept of the availability of an option is not the issue, but the fact that this does not negate the need to question whether it is a valid option. I don’t know for certain that made sense. Therefore, the availability of abortions, is naturally not an issue. Noone is here to debate what is reality. The availabity is a given. Therefore the consideration at hand, as I understand it, would be that it be considered as to whether or not this is a valid option, based on criteria held by those in opposition to its availablity that are more than plentiful on this site as well as others, though desires to rehash are welcome.

    Mary Kay, just so we are clear, when I write in the manner I do as is above, it is not in an attempt to diminish anyones intelligence, or to try to make myself appear superior in any fashion. If I felt that there was a question of intelligence I would not write in this fashion. My intent is to attempt to be clear, because I myself worry that I am not always clear, and am simply trying to be as clear with what I am trying to say as possible. This may be something I still fail at, but if this is what you are referencing, this is my intent. This just seemed like a good time to point that out. I hope that is okay.

    Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 8:58 pm

35. Lucy says:

    Rosie,
    While I agree with YCW, I also think that life is what you make it. I don’t know if that answer is in relation to what you asked or not though.

    It is my opinion that this is essentially a perfect description. I am of the opinion that we each must be allowed to achieve for ourselves, and on occasion make our own mistakes. I think that we learn when we get things wrong, and that these lessons will lead, if we are wise enough to pay attention, to future achievements. I figure out of a thousand mistakes I might be wise enough to pay attention once, but I do notice the difference:), on the rare occasion.

    Comment posted June 6th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

36. Young Christian Woman says:

    My tone may not have been ideal when correcting you, and I know you are not the only one who has made gramatical errors.

    I’m not sure whether I understand what you are saying about availability. Certainly no one debates the reality that abortion is legal, but we would very much hold that it should not be legal, nor available illegally. I guess our aim is twofold; we wish to:
    1) Convince women that although legal and available, abortion is wrong and they should not have one; and,
    2) Work towards making abortion illegal and unavailable.

    The above may or may not be in contradiction to what you were saying.

    I would add that societies, as well as individuals, make choices. There are choices inherent in what we value, what we protect, and what we condemn. At present, the individuals who have made those choices for society have chosen to protect a woman’s body, but not a child’s body. A choice has been made to value privacy, and not to value children. We condemn the use of some drugs, but not of others (often based on monetary concerns).

    It is, of course, possible to change society. Many people want to change what our society is choosing. Those who value chastity are fighting those who undermine its teaching. Those who value a right to educate their own children are fighting those who value conformity. Those who value the lives of children are fighting those who value the bodily autonomy of women. Those who value a women’s contribution in the workplace are fighting those who value their contibution in the home. Sometimes two sides don’t disagree on the principles, but only on their implementation. None of us desire to increase the number of unwanted children, but some think that adoption is the best solution while others think that killing the children is better.

    Yes, eliminating abortion would mean less options for pregnant women. It would take away something they now consider their right. However, as a society, it would simply mean extending rights to a different group of people. Doubtless many slaveholders felt that the Emancipation Proclamation trampled on their rights. But that was not its purpose. Currently, one group is considered the property of another. Mothers have every power, including death, over their unborn children. If we change this, it is not our intent to limit the mother. Our intent is to liberate the child.

    Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am

37. Mary Kay says:

    Oh Lucy,

    If you were standing here I would hug you…the relief…I’m not an evil person and the wieght of feeling so misunderstood was really awful.

    Yes, that is exactly what I was saying…(when I quoted Chesterton also) that just because we CAN do something doesn’t mean we SHOULD…

    In the last blog you argue that we should make use of all things natural because I God gave us the intelligence to know how to use something, He must have intended us to do so.

    But there is danger there. Look at cocaine, or the A bomb. What we did to Japan was horrible! But it could be argued that God gave us the tools and intelligence to make this bomb or this drug so He must have meant for us to do so. But really this is the old argument of whether or not guns are evil. The gun itself is just an inanimate object. The person holding the gun however…

    We must be responsible for the gifts, (resources, intelligence) that God gives us. (Let me clarify something…are you an atheist, an agnostic or just not sure what you want to commit to?) Because I realize that I use God alot in my arguments…
    If you don’t believe in any supreme being then my arguments lose a lot of validity. But they are all that I have, because I can’t separate my faith from my philosophy.

    Either way, I do believe, as you stated, that having the ability to do something doesn’t mean we have the right to do it.

    MK

    Comment posted June 7th, 2006 at 9:25 am

38. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I don’t know that I should expect you to be anymore capable of removing God from your arguements than I would be of insertion. I don’t believe in a supreme being. Not in the same fashion anyway. There are those that seem to be operating under the imperession that everything has just always been, which might be true, but honestly the whole thing kind of makes my head hurt. I’m not agnostic by any means. I know what I believe, I just have trouble wording it. I believe that religion is the original science. I believe that there is a beginning, which is also a difficult thing to fathom because my brain doesn’t go back that far. I believe that something had to be the beginning and being the original is always more difficult than being the rest….or so I’m told. I’ve never been the original and only have being first to comare it too…which doesn’t compare.

    The beginning I believe in is not a being capable of communication in my belief. I don’t believe that the beginning actually cares what I do or do not do. It is my choice to remain alive, because certainly I could figure out how to choose otherwise. Therefore, I beieve that all of the choices that I make are in order to remain alive. I beieve that there are some things I cannot do in order to remain alive. I may not innitiate violence against another person trying to remain alive. I may defend myself, I may not attack first. If this Philosophy would just make it into the mainstream our tanks and guns could be used for so many other things and we wouldn’t have to point horrible bombs at each other to keep them at bay. Our national reserves would purely provide aid in case of a nature related disaster, and they could probably spare the time to travel the globe doing so. Do not hit anyone that did not hit you. This is not that challenging is it? Sorry, sometimes it just baffles me, In the history books they call pre emptive wars invasion, and when we have been attacked it isn’t pre emptive it is self defense. Sorry, off topic.

    I may not take anything from another person without their permission. This permission would usually take the form of a trade, however, there are always donations. Either way, there would be respect for one anothers property.

    Overall, as I have stated, I can appreciate the spirit of Religion, I’m simply opposed to the invasion of it into government.

    I’m not fond of the A bomb or cocaine. Cocaine however is natural, as is heroin, marijuana(which is less harmful than tobacco; not that this is a huge accomplishment), amongst other drugs that we just found. It is my understanding that small degrees of arsenic can actually be found in most natural sources of water, that have not been polluted either. It is just that the doses are so small we would have to behave drastically to experience negative effects. I understand this is not what you meant, but I am actually of the belief that people should be able to choose to use drugs if they wish. I would prefer they make a different choice, and am fully in favor of education regarding the possible effects. However, our rights to make our own choices inevitably leads to a poor choice or two, and attempts to remove choices does not remove harms.

    The A bomb, I would actually argue that the war it was used in would probably have persisted if the bomb was not used. I am not certain however. Drastic measures commonly have drastic results. Other wars that began after that are in some cases still persisting today, providing much more pain and suffering amongst the people. But, as I said above. If everyone only hits those that hit them Bombs will become useless no matter what.

    Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 12:19 am

39. Mary Kay says:

    Lucy,

    While I understand all of the things you list as acceptable social standards, I must confess that they remarkably resemble the ten commandants. So the question I pose to you is why should we listen to your set of “rules”? Why not somebody elses set of rules?
    (I’m not attacking your rules personally, I just mean what makes one mans rules better than another mans rules?)

    What if one man says stealing is okay, because nobody should have more than anybody else? Does someone have to physically attack me before I can attack back? Who decides when it is okay to attack back? What if he wants to move into my house? Can I attack him then? What if he wants to move into my neighbors house? Or what if he wants my car because his standard of morals is different than mine and he believes that he has the right to my car?

    My point is that, if we use a subjective standard, it will always be changing according to the feelings of the people setting the standard. Only with an objective truth, can their be an objective authority, thus an objective standard. I realize that who the authority will be is yet another subjective question, but every civilization since the beginning of time has based it’s standard of morals on an objective authority in one way or another. A higher power if you will. Even in something like communism where the “party” became the higher power.

    Which is why, to me at least, the belief in God and the magesterium of the church, gives us a clear cut standard of behavior complete with the reasons for said behavior, and a place to go for answers when there is disagreement as to the interpretation of these standards.

    I guess what I’m saying is that if you remove God from the picture then it is every man for himself and while YOU may hold yourself up to very high standards you have no way of insuring that the general population will live up to the same high standards. Does that make sense? Eventually a civilization that exists on the vague set of rules that each man makes for himself, will implode. Even in America, where we carefully set down each law, we have disagreement. I believe this is still the best system there is, but it has flaws. Take the marriage ammendment. Our elected officials, who are supposed to represent the “people” voted completely opposite to the “peoples” wishes. I don’t remember the numbers, but X amount of states don’t want the ammendment, but Y amount of represenatives voted for it…
    (Government is not my forte…I have no head for facts, dates, names, places…wish I had my own personal “fact spouter” to travel around with so I could snap my fingers and say “quick, give me the statistics…”) But you know what I’m talking about. The vote that was just taken…

    What I’m trying to say is as people we crave boundaries and definitions and need them to live peacefully together. Without them, or when they are unclear or ambiguous, we tend to take as much license as we can get away with.

    It’s like the monolpoly game. Some people use free parking, others don’t. Doesn’t really matter as long as all the players agree to the same rule. If however, I want free parking and you don’t, we have five options. You play your way, I play mine. OR
    We don’t play at all. Or we both play by your rules, OR we both play by my rules, OR we check with the “authority” or the rule sheet and let the “higher power” decide. If however, one of us refuses to recognize Milton Bradley (or parker bros. or whoever) as being that higher power, then we are left with only two choices. We each play by our own rules or we don’t play at all.
    If we play by our own rules, one of us could win by unfair means and if we don’t play at all, well then it would be a loss to both of us.

    So it is with abortion. We have four choices. We do it your way, we do it my way, we each do whatever we want, or we look to a “higher power” and let It decide for us. If we do it your way, I will feel cheated, If we do it my way, you will feel cheated. If we each do it our own way, I will still feel cheated and the playing board won’t be fair…(you’d be winning extra money, and I wouldn’t) so we are left with a “higher authority”, in this case the supreme court. I would just like to go to an even higher authority. Because I believe that even Parker bros. changed the rule sheet and now allows for “free parking”. So in this instance,
    when the supreme court made a ruling (the rule sheet), God has made a different one (Parker bros.) and now the matter is settled. I realize that this argument is flawed because actually the people will decide for themselves in the end, but the idea that there is a final, recognized authority, makes the game of monopoly more pleasant to play. All the players could decide unanimously that any rule could be changed, and as long as they agree the game could continue, but the bottom line is there is a definitive way to play…

    Okay, baby is crying, gotta go…be back…
    MK

    Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 8:14 am

40. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    My goal wasn’t to make it sound like or not sound like the ten commandments. If they do then that’s fine. With the exceptions of the No God before me one and the no false idols one, I think that’s all, I think that they are probably rather good rules to live by. You’ll also find that they are the basic ideas of Confuscism and many other more tradition based faiths, practices, and religions. You believe these ideas were sent by God, I believe that they are basic common sense. Of course, if you are right than it is realistic to believe that common sense would have also been sent by God.

    Well, we’ve tried the proposed rules of others. Those rules tend to lead to horrific experiences for all involved…except the rulers that is. I’m sure you caught good ole Castro taking offense at the idea of being the wealthiest ruler in the World. It doesn’t work. That was the point of the experiment of a Constitutional Republic. A land that is governed by laws not men. The laws, the Constitution, is designed to objectively guarentee personal liberty to each and every person. By every person it is my understanding that the intended parties who qualified were people who had been born. In fact, for what it is worth they actually only intended to include landowners, and white male land owners at that. It wasn’t a perfect system, but it was the best that has ever been created in the history of the world. The Fourteenth Amendment actually solves these problems. It simply wasn’t acknowleged, respected, ….something. Whether or not Thomas Jefferson and the others believed that there should be abortion, I don’t know. The dealings were primarily in business terms. The essential priorities were to create an environment where ideas could freely be expressed, I’m afraid that there was a distinct shortage of support for the Catholic Church amongst our founding fathers, though, so long as it did not attempt to rob others of their liberties, they would have ideally supported the Catholic Churches right to exist. They wished to ensure an environment in which controversial ideas were protected and could be acted upon. In a nutshell, it was to be an environment where I’m not asking you to follow my standards. I’m requiring that you not impede upon my rights to follow my standards. I in turn may not impede upon your rights to follow your standards, which means that standards which call for the interuption of others following their standards may not be followed. Those are the breaks, and the basis for why the Catholic Church wasn’t going to gather much support amongst the founding fathers of the first Secular, Constitutional Republic that we are aware of in Human History. The Catholic Church carries a bit of a reputation for attempting to demolish ideas it does not like.

    Essentially, my ideas do not require you to follow them.

    To attack back insinuates that you are speaking of self defense. Which is of course completely rational. As ones property is the result of how one has spent their time, which is their life, to protect it is also rational. I really don’t understand how any of this is subjective. Regarding the standards I hold myself to, vs. the standards of others. I believe that people are capable of holding themselves to high standards. I believe that we are each responsible for our actions. We each accept the benefits or the cost of our choices. We should do this consciously, we must do this consciously. We must be self aware and self determining. No matter what we are self determining, it is simply a matter of what we have determined. Afterall, if we choose to freeze then we chose.

    The objective truth is clear. Self Determination. Personal Responsibility. Individual Liberty, once outside the womb, because that is where it is needed to sustain life. Special provisions are provided to children due the fact that this is their opportunity to learn how be Self Determining and Personally Responsible. Such lessons are not needed and not learned within the womb. It is purely the woman who must think and act on her thoughts.

    If it is a central objective that you are arguing for I agree, it must be to preserve our own individual lives, while respecting the liberty of others so that we might maintain ours. We must think and act to do these things. The reality is that this is how it is working anyway. The guys getting stuff done are doing just this. They are the ones who make it possible for us to purchase needed items with ease and often on a moments notice. It is every man for themselves whether God is removed from the Picture or not. Like I said, the resources that we have are the result of science not religion. In fact, as I have stated numerous times, if left to religion, there would be no science.

    Every civilization since the beginning of time until this one has believed that the ruler was sent from a God. They followed out of fear of reprisal, not from understanding or due to earned respect. When we got to Stalin he just used Brute force. I dont think that was an advance or retreat from the basis as it was a new format. I don’t think these should be our role models. Fortunately they aren’t really.

    I mean, regarding the gay marriage amendment, which fortunately didn’t get past. The House actually only passed it because they apparently felt that it was the Senates turn to say No. The thing is, once again, we are a nation of laws not men. Which means that we are not supposed to put the opinions of the masses into the Constitution or even in the Law books. That is what would be subjective. The objective marker is the Constitution which would prohibit a ban on gay marriage with the first amendment, the fourteenth amendment and the fourth amendment would at least raise an eyebrow. We vote for men to uphold the objective, not to enforce the subjective. Our Objective is Secular, this protects the right for all religions to operate privately with enjoyed freedom from government persecution. We are one of the few countries on the planet where this is successful with little problem. Here, private does not mean behind closed doors. Here, private means without government interference. So the government officials did as they were supposed to, and shame on the ones who voted against the Constitution. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, no more laws passed in an election year. I don’t want to see our legislative branch being used as a forum to secure votes.

    I’m afraid that in this country all Gods are welcome. Which means the Supreme Court is the highest law of the land. As I said, I’m majoring in Political Science and Philosophy, in order to pursue Constitutional Law and First Amendment Law. Therefore, I become a tad obsessive about these things.

    Comment posted June 9th, 2006 at 10:17 pm

41. Lauren says:

    I am not going to respond to this because it is typical straw man MK and you know that… Yeah I want pedophilia.. .Whatever dudes and dudettes. If it’s easier to compare PP with pedophiles go ahead…

    Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 1:02 am

42. Lauren says:

    Why dont you guys form your own state already? Like a religious state? you don’t want a secular state do you? Go spend some time in religious states… let me know how it works out.

    Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 1:05 am

43. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    You’re not obsessive…you’re brilliant. You’re exactly who I mean when I say I wish I could snap my fingers and you would provide all the needed facts, etc.

    Look at the difference between your response and Laurens. I mistakenly believed before that you and Lauren were the same person with different names…I’m only kidding.

    I myself have only gone through two years of college and that was a looooonnnnggg time ago. I am always amazed that when I try to express an idea, there is always someone who has done it better and it actually has a name. Education is wonderful thing.
    I fear that sometimes I sound like one of those country bumpkins that we are so ofter called…

    Nothing against country bumpkins…

    What you wrote made me realize so many things. (nothing has changed my mind about abortion though, because by your argument a woman could give birth and then decide that she didn’t like being a mother and leave her child in a garbage can, because after all, it couldn’t live without her intervention, therefore it must not be a person in it’s own right…)

    But that whole thing about the constitution being the law’s highest authority…I sort of knew it, but never saw it put that way before. So what does the constitution say about the right to life? Or is this one of those things that isn’t settled yet? And what or who is going to settle it. (I don’t believe Roe vs Wade has done that, because my understanding of that ruling was that it wasn’t done for the right reasons and may eventually be overthrown…something about it being federal and it should remain under state authority. Help me to understand. While I’m not formally educated, I do read everything I can get my hands on and am a quick study. (Not that I expect to be an expert in law anytime soon), but I really do want to understand as much of this as I can. Will you help? What is in the 1st, 4th and 14th ammendent that would prohibit gay marriage? Oh, you’ve made me hungry now…a new interest…always exciting…I’m like a dry sponge just waiting…

    MK

    Comment posted June 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am

44. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    The worth of Education is entirely in the hands of each educated individual. I have a friend who was operating under the impression that one had to attend College to be intelligent. She was at a truck stop one day and ended up having a conversation with a truck driver. The truck driver, who if I understood correctly had not been inside of a college, began discussing fine literature with her, and she was blown away. She finally came to the understanding that acquiring a formal education certainly had its perks, however it did not determine intelligence. I am one hundred percent convinced of this fact. There is also the fact that we each have different interests. I, as I stated, am obsessed with this kind of information. Other people find it tedious, boring, and useless. I certainly have not been operating under the impression that you sounded like a…what did you call it? Anything less than an intelligent woman. Since we’ve gotten past our intitial rough patch I think that conversing with you is interesting and pleasant.

    Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm

45. Lucy says:

    The way I look at things, and I don’t agree with some of the ideas held by the main Pro-Choice movement. My ideas would never permit a woman to discard her child. In fact, it is my opinion that choosing to have a child is such a critical decision that should be based on the anticipation of a lifelong commitment that is far more binding than any vows that might be taken in any marriage. Eighteen years nothing, I’m sure that you will vouch for the fact that you don’t have a child that will cease to be yours because they hit any magic age. I’m sure that you will also vouch for the fact that raising them is hard work. While you might find it rewarding, as I’m sure you do, there are more things to consider in that job than in the job of any leader in any country.

    When FDR set up the term limitations for President it was based on a quote, George Washington, I believe, stated that two terms was enough for any man. I think it was Washington, I might be wrong. However, it is my understanding, that the concerns were not for a Tyranny, it was just they didn’t want the job anymore. Most of them found it exhausting, and in the beginning it didn’t pay, which made a difference. While the emotional sentiment is different I imagine, I’m sure any parent can express an understaning at some point in time regarding the exhaustion.

    As the decision to have a child is such an important and life altering decision it should be made with great consideration. By which I mean bringing the Pregancy to completion of course, not the choice to have sex, that is a different story all together from my perspective believe it or not. The job of the now mother is to provide guidance to what is as has been referenced, a potential adult. In todays scientific climate it is simple to forget that the concept of potential is very real. We are fortunate that we do not find ourselves in conditions that force us to acknowlege this as a part of daily life. There are still parts of the world who know it to be a very real fact. Therefore the parents must now attempt to consider all of the things that their child must know to succeed as an adult, and attempt to guide their child to follow this path.

    For some this means a religion, probably for many is more accurate. For all I think that this involves teaching them to be good people, or attmpting too, once again, I’m going to actually be forced to say most. Deciding to keep the child means that you have decided to do this. Placing the child in the garbage is not teaching them to be a good responsible person. These days many places have arrangements where young mothers can turn their baby over, no question asked, to certain establishments, within a certain period after the birth. Birth, is for clarification sake the beginning of life. This includes Premature births in my understanding of things.

    Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 9:15 pm

46. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I’m not trying to make you believe that abortion is good. I don’t anticipate that anything would. I’m working on retaining control over my body and my mind. For whatever it is worth, I have seen the term Anti-Fetal Rights People tossed around on here a few times. I had to think about it a little bit. I understand that the person stating it intended it as an insult towards the Pro-Choice crowd, but I am. I am Anti-Fetal Right. I have to be. I’m Pro-Womens Rights. In my understanding of things there is conflict of interests involved that does not permit both. An explanation of how both can coexist is welcome. Upon further consideration I’ve realized that I am also Pro-Abortion. Not in the terms that it is intended. I don’t have any plans of attempting to persuade Pregnant women to have abortions. I don’t have any intentions of attempting to promote it is the latest greatest idea. Merely that I am in favor of it as a valid option for women. I am fully convinced that part of the problem is the stigma attached to the idea, and in deciding to do what I can to defy the Stigma I must defy one more. I must defy the Stigma that says that being Pro-Abortion is bad thing.

    I am for Counting Abortion as a Valid Option for women. I am, why can’t I say it. I’m Pro-Abortion. For all the reasons I listed above.

    Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 9:22 pm

47. Lucy says:

    The first amendment prohibits the Government from interfering in Religion. Marriage is generally considered a religious ceremony of sort. Therefore, the Government has no authority within the church. Which means that each church, independantly according to their beliefs, may decide who they do and do not perform religious ceremonies. This means, for the record, that if the tide should ever turn, the government cannot force churches to perform any wedding ceremonies that go against it’s values. Therefore, the government cannot mandate that churches perform gay marriage ceremonies.

    The fourteen Amendment guarentees that no rights provided to one citizen, born or nationalized, can be denied rights or priviledges guarenteed to another. This means that even in Court House marriages a marriage cannot be denied based on gender. Age, as you noted is a law that effects everyone, relations, number of partners, beastiality, are rules that effect everyone equally. Gender regarding marriage is not from anything that I can offer. The government can also not choose to acknowledge a wedding performed at one church, yet deny a wedding performed at another for any reason. This would be tantamount to violating the first and fourteenth amendment in one foul swoop.

    I said that it gave the fourth amendment a pretty good swing. I say this because the fourth amendment guarantees our right to privacy, and against unlawful search or seizure, including our rights to property, documents, without the fear of government search or seizure without proper evidence of probable cause. It’s rocky to apply the fourth amendment, yet still marriage is a private decision for many regarding how to spend their lives, and with whom.

    Comment posted June 11th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

48. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Nothing. The Constitution says nothing about the right to life. I don’t mean this to sound the way I can’t seem to avoid it sounding the right to life is a bit more of a guarantee than can be made. I understand that Thomas Jefferson listed it first in the Declaration of Independence, but from what I have read of his writings his reference is more to the ability to self determination of life. While I am alive I am guaranteed the right to; and so forth. I am guaranteed these rights because I need them to live.

    One of the biggest complaints waged against Britain by our founding fathers was : Where were you when we needed you? As is well known the original settlers had a tough time. They were essentially deoositted and forgotten. With some trial and effort, recalling that they had no on staff Monarchy, they managed to figure out a way to successfully live. Errors, yes, but a larger success than history records amongst individuals who simply needed to find away to survive. It is important to attempt to rap ones mind around the fact that these people had to survive conditions they had nothing to compare them too. There was noone telling them what to do, which previously had been how they knew what to do. With the exception of the occasional rebel that actually attempted to rise up, most had accepted a world where someone would come and tell them what was the best thing to do in any given scenerio. Most would have also been quite content to have had such a situation at that moment. Many of the people sent to the ‘New World’ were not explorers but exiles. Food was no longer being shoved under the door. Food had to be found. There was no longer a ration being distributed.

    Essentially by trial and error they succeeded via the free market system. A place where all ideas were welcome. Well, of course we all know well enough that this isn’t entirely accurate, but it is the premise that Washington and co would eventually go to war for.

    Once the Colonist had things off the ground was when Britain finally decided to get in on the action. Suddenly they wanted to be in charge. They were telling the Colonies who they could and could not trade with, sell too, buy from, what they could and could not think. Only, the British had not participated in creating the wealth they now wanted a piece of. Thomas Jefferson for one would have been quite content to have had the British demonstrate enough respect for them to stop telling them how to run their businesses. Thomas Jefferson was not actually in a huge hurry to cease to be British. In fact, he rather viewed it as a last resort.

    He was demanding that they be given the right to Self Determination in what to do with their lives. The British had done this across the globe to various people. Parts of Africa are still reeling from the results of Colonization, as is well known. This was the place that told her that this was not going to happen. They, each as individuals, were the descendants of people who had to learn the hard way how to survive. How to find food, grow food, build shelter, learn how to keep the water clean. While they had help from Native Americans, it is impossible to shortchange the fact that they did so under very difficult circumstances. They had certainly earned their right to control their own lives.

    Which is the basis of it here. Ideally, which I understand that ideal is not the circumstance we live in, though I understand we vary on our understanding of what that means exactly. We each work to earn our lives. We must find away to obtain food honestly, which means in an exchange of the production of our efforts. We must do the same with shelter, clothing. We must make sure our water is clean, which requires work and effort, and thought. I understand that it is easy to operate under the assumption that we turn a knob and walah, but once again, this is just another reminder of how fortunate we are. This fortune comes at a price that we pay for. Someone has to think and act on their thoughts to ensure that when we turn on our faucets the water that comes out is clean.

    I cannot escape the responsibility that I have to maintain my own life. Britain is not here to hand me a free meal, and they wouldn’t have had one to hand me anyway. Every piece of bread, each of its parts is the derivitive of someones time and effort. In order to obtain the fruits of their labor, of their life, I must offer something worthwhile in exchange. I must be able to create something worthwhile to exchange. I am responsible for maintaining my life. I do not have the right to take from another persons efforts without making an exchange and without their permission. Nobody has the right to take from my efforts without exchange or without my permission. These are the rules that our fore fathers discovered of reality. They were going on anyway, it was just that the product of peoples time, effort, lives, was being divied up without respect for the life that was utilized in the making of it.

    In the instance that I wish to avoid my responsibilities I consign myself to die. In my life there are things I must do to remain alive, and things I may do because I am alive. The things that I may do because I am alive are the reward for what I have done to remain alive. This is what gives the right to sex. This is what gives the right to a night at the movie, an extra slice of pie, or an hour sitting and staring at the scenery. My reward is that I get to take care of the things that allow me the opportunity to live long enough to enjoy other activities.

    Life truly is what we do with it. If we do nothing with it it doesn’t last long. It’s quality is directly related to what we do with it. I do not have the right to make any demands on any other life, all transactions are willful. No life has an obligation to me that isn’t wilful on the part of both parties. This is true for all life. Including the combination of a sperm and an egg that holds the potential to become a human being that is held to the same rules. Only, In bringing this life into the world I make a willful contract. I contractually obligate myself to care for them, to teach them, to help them, to feed, clothe them, and shelter them. Even if I choose adoption, which is only viable if I have willing parents arranged before the birth, insertion into a uncertain system is not. I have still met the same contractual agreement. However, it is not my obligation to allow another potential human to use my body. No more than it is my responsibility to give the fruits of the efforts of my mind and body in any other fashion. This is why Communism and Socialism keep failing. There isn’t actually a right way to consign a life to another.

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 1:00 am

49. Lucy says:

    Roe has the unfortunate insinuation that the entire thing could be overlooked if it was found that forcing the woman to continue a preganancy against her will would benefit the state. Here we are in an endless war and a government who doesn’t wish to enact the draft…which it shouldn’t enact the draft.

    I didn’t mean to give you the impression that I was an expert on the law if that is what you are getting at. It is what I am going to study after I acquire my Bachelors in Political Science and Philosophy. Which should be just before the turn of the next millenium considering I work full time and go to school full time. I obsessivly read about these things. The Constitution is there to defend us from the government. Another reason that a gay marriage amendment does not belong in there anymore than the Prohibition amendment should have been there. Oh, and that one giving the government the right to collect Income taxes….NO.

    I believe that as long as we have the first amendment we can salvage the rest if ever the need be. The freedom to speak freely without government intervention is vital. The rest are essentally expansions on this, but important, because the wrong person could twist things out of the original intent. I know it is difficult to imagine but it is a possibility that the Catholic Church could find itself in the minority. The first amendment is the protection for its existance in any case, but it is of greater importance in that situation.

    So, I’m not an expert, just obsessive. Truly, obsessive.

    The closest thing that I can find in the Constitution that implies any kind of reference to a right to life, which I still can’t fathom a right to something we can’t actually control in entirety, I know it sounds silly, probably because it is. The eigth ammendment guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment.

    I understand that our perceptions are different. In my position I could fully understand the feeling that being forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy could qualify.

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 1:14 am

50. Lucy says:

    Oh, and before I forget I had brought up the topic of abuse for a reason other than the one it turned into. It’s regarding the idea of having a say in ones life. However, I have had a long day, which will soon be followed by another long day, so I am going to go take a nap inbetween. Good night.

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 1:16 am

51. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    I gotta ask you…what turned you off of religion? Other than the abortion issue you seem to have high moral standards(I don’t mean to imply you have low ones because we disagree) and so many of them coincide with the our teachings. Where we disagree I still see deep thought and it seems that if you took things one teeny weeny step further you’d agree completely with her. (The church)

    I think the problem I have with your thinking (and this is just my opinion…of course) is that (and this gets back to the “I want” speech) is that so much of it is based on the idea that you have the right to control (as well as the ability to control) everything in your life. And if you don’t then you find a way to rationaize it so that you can create the illusion of control. I’m not berating you here. On the contrary, I think you have a brilliant mind, but I think that your will gets in the way sometimes.

    For instance, you say that if you become pregnant, you must take full responsibility if you choose to have the child come into the world. Absolutely. But, you still made a choice to have sex when you weren’t prepared for the consequences if they occured. Not getting pregnant was in your control, by refraining from having sex. You chose not to. When you were pregnant the deed was done and a human life was begun. Instead of accepting responsibility (which you say must be done) you chose to eliminate the “problem” thus giving you the illusion of control. Then you rationalize that behavior by claiming that it wasn’t really a life. Just a potential. But you weren’t really in control because the life had already started.

    Sometimes being responsible is giving up control, and acknowleding that you cannot control everything. Thus the prayer of AA, NA and GA..”.God grant me the serentity to accept the things I cannot change (I would add, should not change), the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” It seems to me that wisdom would show you that in certain circumstances accepting that you are pregnant and must sacrifice a part of your life for the life of another, is the more noble route. Some things are just not in our power to control.

    You show the same thinking in your arguments for divorce. Yes of course if your husband is beating you, you have every right to leave this marriage. Even the Church allows you to divorce by law, you just can’t remarry. This is because we hold dear to our hearts the idea of committment. We don’t just walk away when things get unpleasant. As I tell my son often, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but there is also a tunnel at the end of the light. Things will not always go the way we want them and we must often denounce ourselves and submit to lifes ups and downs by accepting circumstances that are beyond our control.

    The easy way out is to eliminate unpleasantness, but this is only a temporary fix. Opting out of a less than perfect marriage, eliminating your unborn child, these things do not build character, they diminish it. It cannot, must not, be only about me and what I want. It must always weigh carefully the needs, wants and desires of others. This is maturity. Children stamp there feet when they don’t get what they want, teenagers engage in activity that can harm them because they can only see what is in front of them, but adults must see the bigger picture. We are like a tapestry and if one thread is cut the whole thing begins to unravel. I read somewhere that if you look at a tapestry from behind it just looks like a mishmosh of thread with no apparent purpose, but if you turn it over, you realize that each thread is integral to the whole. As adults we realize that much of what is important is unknowable, unseeable and uncontrollable. And so we must just trust that the weaver knows what is meant to be, even if we, the threads don’t. You may not want to be placed in the tapestry where you have been placed, but if you take yourself out in an effort to control your own “thread” you harm the entire tapestry. We must make our choices responsibly with the whole tapestry in mind and not just our part.

    And so when the weaver places a new thread (an unborn child) into the tapestry, we must not interfere because this thread is integral to the whole. It would be selfish to remove. If there is a reason that the thread should not be there, the weaver will remove it.

    I realize that you don’t believe in the weaver, and I also know that you don’t want me praying for you to believe in Him, but I can’t help myself. I can’t help thinking that it is pain, and distrust of the weaver, that keeps you from accepting Him. Perhaps you feel that He was not there for you over and over, and the idea of placing your very soul in someone or something that never answered your calls (prayers), leaves you mistrustful of His desire for your well being. But recall the poem footsteps. Perhaps in those times when all the people in your life were making poor choices and hurting you, the weaver was there. He was carrying you…

    Perhaps this is a bit sappy, but I worry that you have gone so deeply into the intellectual side of yourself that you have closed off the possibility of spirtual growth. Perhaps in an effort to protect yourself from more pain. But it makes me sad to see you ignoring that side of yourself when clearly you are a deep thinker and greatly desire to live the truth. What that truth, is each of us can only decide for themself, but I hate to see you cutting off a huge part of life in order to save yourself from more pain. Nobody likes pain, but as I said, there is always a tunnel. What truly defines a mans character is not what he does in the light, when all is well and all can see, but what he does in that tunnel, when all is not clear and he is alone with his conscience. Then the cream rises, and the true heroes come forth. Then we see what we are made of, when we sacrifice, and suffer and offer up these sufferings sure that the weaver holds a candle and is always with us if we only strike the match…
    MK

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 8:58 am

52. mary kay says:

    Lauren,

    lauren says: “I am not going to respond to this because it is typical straw man MK and you know that… Yeah I want pedophilia.. .Whatever dudes and dudettes. If it’s easier to compare PP with pedophiles go ahead…”

    Huh?

    MK

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 8:15 pm

53. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I don’t have time to write a lot right now, or anything near what I’d like but I thought I’d take a moment and attempt to answer the question about religion.
    I asked to go to church when I was younger. We had gone to a rummage sale….it isn’t that there weren’t moments inbetween that weren’t okay in childhood. Somehow that makes it all the worse. You never quite know what to expect. In the instance that you feel as though you are safe and secure the rug gets pulled out and you are reminded that you just never know. The rummage sale was in a church. Somehow I correlated cheap toys with church and wanted to go back. Needless to say that I was in for a surprise when I ended up in church. It was Southern Baptist and I didn’t have a clue as to what was going on around me.

    I was 5 or 6 and the idea of someone dying so I didn’t have to didn’t make much sense to begin with. I was quiet, shy, and always attempting to absorb and make sense of what was going on around me. It didn’t make sense…but I was young. A lot of things didn’t make sense. When I was probably about seven they started telling us about how we would go to this horrible place called hell if we didn’t ask some guy, who I had heard a bit about at this point, to save us. I still didn’t know what was going on, but now I was scared.

    When I looked at the world I saw opportunities to explore. I wanted to find out more about the world I lived in. I had questions I wanted answered, and this was not providing answers to any of it. In fact, they started talking about blind faith. I understood blind and I kind of understood it when they explained faith. Combined I understood that I wasn’t supposed to ask questions. Which of course, led me to want to ask more questions. Questions of course that were in the midst of the mess at home, I was shy as it was, so it took little to discourage me from actually asking the questions of anyone, but it didn’t stop me from wondering.

    When I was around eight or nine they started talking about different religions in school. They weren’t talking about the religions, just a mention of the fact that they existed in this part of the world or that, and when they were believed to have begun, or known to in some cases. The fact that there were so many varieties within Christianity in itself was something that I found interesting, and of course drove me to ask questions. Then there was the mention of other religions, Taoism, Hinduism….as I said they didn’t mention any specifics about the religion, just the fact that they existed. So I wanted to know why there were so many. How did one know which was right and which was wrong. Even amongst the varieties of Christianity. So, I asked.

    I was directed to the pastor of the church. He told me that we had scrolls. He told me in that voice that adults use when addressing children regarding topics that they quite obviously feel that children are not capable of actually understanding. So he told me that scrolls had been found and asked if that answered my question. I said yes it did. He forgot to ask what it answered. I walked away understanding that either I had just been blown off because I was a kid, or he didn’t know. I was looking for something more informative, more inciteful.

    This did not cure my desire to have this question answered. There were all kinds of things in the world that I didn’t understand. This was just on the list. Of course, things happen, and I forgot for awhile. Then I got to my last year of High School and met a kid who was fascinated with Religions. I was mesmerized. I remembered what I was supposed to be looking for and went hunting again. I ended up looking more into the spirituality of the matter than the rhetoric.

    I loved Taoism as it turned out. Buddhism certainly had its merits. Paganism has a fantastic past, and is intricately linked with a few exceptions to Christianity. Hinduism has very interesting ideas withing it, and there are some off the beaten path ideas that are also of interest. They all, if examined give excellent ideas of how one should lead their lives. Not only that, but they can all be tied together by one idea or another.

    In the end, it seemed to me, after learning a bit about more tribal faiths that there seemed to be a universal pursuit of understanding the world ingrained into each of them. This was the origin of Philosophy, is the origin of science, which leads to us. To now. This was an attempt to understand the world around them.

    I’m not religious, but I am spiritual. I believe that my spirituality is intricately linked to my insatiable intellectual curiousity. I believe that we are supposed to understand the world that we are in. I believe that we are supposed to learn how to manipulate it to serve our purposes. I understand that you have concerns that this gives a green light to criminal behavior. You are not alone in your curiousity. There is actually a beautiful story in Buddhism that addresses this issue. I will give it to you next time. For now I have to go.

    I hope you have a good night.

    Comment posted June 12th, 2006 at 8:41 pm

54. mary kay says:

    Dear Lucy,

    I went through many of the same things that you did. I have always been fasinated by religion, or more to the point, the supernatural. I was raised Catholic (by 2 very devout parents)and even in my wildest days, never completely let go of it. But when I was a child (7 or my cousin was given a palmistry set for Christmas (her parents were catholic also, though not quite as devout as mine) and that was it. I was hooked. Ghosts, Tarot, palmistry, astrology. For 20 some years I studied and read and practiced paganism. I had four children before I began to rethink where I was spiritually. I too saw truth in every faith. I believed in reincarnation, dabbled in born-again christianity, played with buddihism, hinduism…but when I was thirty three a friend of mine came in from New Jersey. I had just gotten back from the Ren Faire (Pagan heaven) and was discussing my beliefs with her. I was going on and on about the merits of all faiths and that as long as you strived to be a good person, and (“Harmed ye none”), that God (or the godess) would surely smile on you. I gave her the speech about not getting locked into one faith, and being open to all truths. She told me that she too had been wrestling with these issues but that her grandmother had died and left her a rosary. It was the most beautiful rosary that I had ever seen. She admitted that she had no idea what to do with it but that she carried it everywhere. Then she said that she was living with her mother (she had temporarily separated from her husband) and that the rules at her moms house were that she had to attend Mass.

    Then she said the words that completely changed my life…
    She said she understood that while all churches held some truth,
    “ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAD THE “EUCHARIST”!” I felt like somebody had punched me in the stomach. Those words hit home a gripped my heart in a vise. I KNEW, absolutely KNEW that they were the truth.

    I began researching my faith, and came across books, videos and articles on the apparitions of Mary in the 20th century, in particular, Medjugorje. The things that Mary was telling people were unfathomable. Do you know that she appeared to children in Rwanda just before the genocide. She told them that unless they prayed the rosary very hard in atonement for the sins of their countrymen, that thier rivers would run red with blood. We both know what happened…

    I remember going back to church, daily mass, and not being able to look directly at the crucifix for months. I was so ashamed. And then one day, I looked up and the most incredible sense of peace and acceptance and forgiveness flooded me. I have never looked back. You say that you are obsessive about government, well sister, you’ve got a partner in crime, except my obsession became my faith. I couldn’t and still can’t read enough. There is always more. And once you make the leap past all the bad history in the church and focus instead on the basic truths, you’re world changes. and keeps on changing. There is never enough…there is always more. And it’s not some passing fad, or fanatical high that I am on. It’s been fifteen years, and like a good marriage it gets calmer but deeper, less “exciting” but more meaningful. It is incredible. I guess the thing was, that I realized partial truths just weren’t cutting it, and I had found the whole truth. Even protestant churches (and please to my protestant friends, I mean no disrespect) don’t have the whole depth and breadth of our faith. It’s so much more than just “Jesus saves”…It’s huge…it’s unfathomable…it’s breathtaking…it’s all encompassing…

    It pulls together all the other faiths, and it makes sense of our existence. But you can’t just wade….Unlike the baptist church that you had your first experience in…the Catholic church welcomes questions, demands that you ask them. Wants you to go farther and higher…Volumes and Volumes have been written on every aspect of it. And unlike other religions, it’s very clear cut. It is universal, so what I believe in Chicago, is exactly what someone believes in Peru. It’s not like other churches where it’s every group for themselves. Even the Jewish faith doesn’t have one head keeping it all unified. We have dissenters for sure, but there is always that ultimate truth if you’re willing to look.

    I realize that you didn’t ask for this speech, and I’m sorry that I got carried away…it’s just that I got so mad when you told me that nobody would give you clear answers to your questions. what a lost opportunity.

    My six year old is a very deep thinker. Creeps me out sometimes.
    when he was five he came to me and asked if I believed in santa clause. I asked him what he thought and he said he thought it was “dad and me that left the prestents.”

    Recently we were talking about God and heaven and he got this glazed look like he wasn’t buying any of it. I realized that he thought the whole God thing was just another Santa Clause story. So I told him that Santa Clause was just that; a story. And there weren’t really trolls under the bridge at the woods we hike through. And that the tooth fairy didn’t really collect teeth for a living. But then I told him that God, and his guardian angel, and Mary and Jesus were not just stories like Santa Clause. That I would never, ever, ever tell him something about God that was just a story. I promised that when it came to God I would only tell him the plain truth. I explained about the fight with Michael the archangel and that Satan was just as real as God and that Michael would always come to his aid and that the devil could not win against him…

    I’m telling you, that kid was so relieved. It’s like he had been thinking this whole time that this “God” thing was just another giant bunny bringing baskets story…

    My point is that if I had not recognized what he was really asking me, I might, like the pastor at your church, have told him all the wrong things and he might never have asked another question, convinced that we were only telling him fables.

    It is so important to be honest, and straightforward when discussing faith with children. Or with anyone. I so wish someone had been there when your curiosity was at it’s peak and when your ability to be open to these truths was fresh and unjaded.

    We are so much alike in our unsatiable hunger to know things that tickle our fancy, and I wish I could give you this gift of faith that was so mercifully handed to me. Unfortunately, it can only be given, not taken, and it can only found with the heart. It cannot be understood with the head. The mind, while vast, cannot even begin to wrap itself around God. Only the heart, or soul. And only if the gift is offered. You can’t just will it. You have to be given it. but the paradox is that the only One who can give it to you is the very One that you don’t believe in until you are given it. A paradox if ever there was one. But with your permission, I would like to ask, on your behalf, if this gift can be offered to you. Would that upset you? I’m not asking you to ask for it. Just that you allow me to ask for it for you. May I?

    MK

    Comment posted June 13th, 2006 at 8:52 am

55. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I understand that you wish to share something with me that find to be beneficial, however, please understand I cannot be apart of anything that: identifies gay people as perverts if I might quote Quinn, or that they would profane the sanctity of marriage…an institution that I’ve got to tell you history argues directly against its sanctity from a womans perspective, if I might borrow from Young Christian Woman. I have seen referencences on this sight to opposition to gay couples adopting children. First, some of my best friends happen to be gay, making it so an institution of any variety that wishes to behave as though they are somehow an abomination upon the globe is not something that I will ever be a part of. It would be for me tantamount to joining a country club that excludes against certain races, nationalities, or religions. I have no use for a faith that would require such a thing of me. I hope you understand.

    I also have no use for a faith that requires me to mandate women endure pregancies they do not wish, surrendering their bodies without their permission to a fetus inside of them. I was at the library yesterday reading about things regarding abortion and laws regarding it. I admittedly don’t know everything, but know what I have been through, what I have seen, read, felt. I was looking for cold hard facts, the details. 200 women, blah, 345 % of, you know that kind of deal. I didn’t get that far. I picked up a pro and con book, one of those deals that weighs both sides of the arguement. I read about the horrifying experiences of the women in the days prior to the legalization of abortions. It was like reading about the underground railroad. I read about the doctors who decided they were pro choice when they saw the anguish of the women who did not wish to remain pregant. The doctors that risked everything so that these women could have peace. I didn’t get very far before I couldn’t read anymore. I thought about these women, their courage. I know you disagree, and do not feel they had courage. But they had courage. It takes that to make a difficult decision. Sometimes it takes it to make an easy one.

    There was another story, a doctor in a abortion room, a man who was essentially anti abortion upon walking in. All he saw was the fetus, he never mentioned the woman. She didn’t count. He mentioned the motions that medicine defines as reflexes in the fetus. I’ve never understood the concept that a fetus has something that is thought of as a soul. It sounds to horrible to consider. Can you imagine the horror of being sealed tight within the confines of a womb…hooked up to something, and being a conscious, sentient being, capable of understanding everything around them. Conscious of the developement of every one of its organs….It sounds to horrible to concieve of to me. For nine months. Yet this man never mentioned the woman, except in the beginning to note that she smiled, likely nervously at the nurse. He never bothered to mention a look of fear, uncertainty, serenity, anger, anything. It was as though she had disappeared.

    That, by the way is what it looks like to me. Probably to us, but I can really only speak for myself. I don’t believe that you have neccissarily set out to create such a situation, however, intention doesn’t neccesarily coincide with results. Like we aren’t there. We’re just this object that stands inbetween you and the fetus, embryo, inside of us.

    As I said, I understand your intentions are good in wishing that I would find faith, however, religion, particularly Catholism doesn’t look the same to me as it does to you.

    Comment posted June 13th, 2006 at 9:03 pm

56. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I realize what I said in the last post might have sounded a bit harsh. I didn’t mean it to be. There are things though that I really don’t understand about this. Truly one of the big ones is the Gay marriage issue. I just don’t get it. I really don’t.
    So, If I came off as offensive in any way I’m sorry.

    Comment posted June 13th, 2006 at 9:32 pm

57. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Do you realize that you have asked 25 different questions in your post? I fear that this is going to be a lonnnnnnggggg response. Please bear with me.

    First of all, you do NOT sound harsh, but passionate or rather COMpassionate. This is never a bad thing. To think of the woman instead of the only the babies is a very human thing to do…but we’ll get to that later….

    secondly, as I have said before, Quinn is not a catholic. I believe from the way he speaks that he is a fundamentalist, evangelical born again “christian”. That said, I have my own issues with his brand of Christianity. I do not wish to offend non-catholic christians because they are very close to the whole truth, but they ARE missing big pieces. Regardless of what Quinn believes however, he does not do a very good job of representing a “Christlike” attitude. This is why the Catholic church honors men and women as saints. These are people who have given the world a near perfect representation of what a true christian should be. So when you are speaking of Catholics try not to focus on the Quinns, or the Mary Kays, but instead keep in your head the Mother Theresas, the Padre Pios and the Bishop Sheens. None of these compromised on their beliefs but each of them (and thousands more) never showed anything but love and compassion for their brothers and sisters, whether they were prostitutes, hindus or homosexuals…We are not to judge people, only behaviors. Sometimes we get that confused and we sound either arrogant, righteous, or condescending. We forget that not everyone is on the same page, and we neglect to make allowances.

    Next,
    When you look at the Catholic faith, or Christianity, you need to realize two things. The entire faith is based on these two things. Loving God, and loving our brothers and sisters. (Brothers and sisters being, EVERY human being, without exception.) We do not have to agree with them, or condone their behavior, but we must love them as Mother Theresa did…or more explicityly, as Jesus himself did.

    But one of the key ingredients in “LOVE” is something that Jesus himself showed us, in a way that there can be no doubt about what he meant. You can argue with the scholars, you can argue with interpretations of scripture, you can argue amongst yourselves, but you cannot argue that the greatest thing that Christ showed us about how to love is …The Cross.
    Love cannot exist without sacrifice. Selflessness is the key to Christianity. In Judiasm, a covenant was always sealed with blood. They believed that blood held life, the spirit so to speak.
    When Moses made a covenant with his people, he slaughtered a perfect, unblemished lamb and sprinkled the blood on the altar as a sign of God’s promise and he sprinkled blood on the people as a sign of their promise. Thus the covenant was sealed. But the people kept breaking the covenant. God never broke it. We did. So God made a new covenant. He came down, as a perfect, unblemished lamb, and sacrificed himself, for us. This New Covenant CANNOT be broken. Because it lives and breathes and is always available to everyone if they decide to accept it. However, the lesson learned is that it was through selflessness and sacrifice that it was accomplished…love…the cross.

    The reason that this is important is because everything else that we believe is colored by this premise.

    When we marry someone, it will only be a true marriage, a lasting marriage, if both parties are willing to sacrifice. When a baby is born, the mother and father both, will make sacrifices till the day one or the other dies. When we suffer in our lives, we offer that suffering up as a sacrifice.

    Evil, when loosed, will grow and spread until evil begets more evil. If my 8 year old is playing ball in the house (which is against the rules, and in Christian-speak, a sin), and he breaks my favorite vase, I will be very upset. If he then apologizes and asks for forgiveness and I believe that he is sincere, I will readily forgive him…out of love. But his “sin”, even though it is forgiven, still has repurcussions that must be dealt with. There are shards of glass (evil, caused by his sin), that could harm other people, laying all over the floor. And even though I am no longer angry with him, the vase still needs to be cleaned up, (reparation) or the evil will spread. Every action, has a reaction. And so he must clean up the glass (sacrifice) to offset the evil that he produced.

    Our world works much the same way. When people sin (offend God through their behavior), evil is let loose, and continues to poison the atmosphere, until enough reparation is made for it. (This would be all of our Catholic mothers saying, “offer it up for the poor souls…). This is why we fast, or pray, or give things up for lent. Even cleaning the bathroom can be offered up as a sacrifice to offset evil somewhere in the world.

    So let’s say that Mac in Milan commits a sin. That evil travels halfway around the world and Alice in Alaska ends of paying for it by losing her job. She has never seen Mac, but Mac’s sin has affected her. Let’s say that Alice goes to daily mass, and offers her time up as a reparation for the sins of the world. Her sacrifice, though she is unaware of it, is really a way of cleaning up Joe’s glass. By the same token, if I pray a daily rosary and offer this sacrifice up for whoever God chooses,then Sam in Somalia might get the rain he has been praying for.
    Sacrifice offsets evil. Or better yet, sacrifice conquers evil. We know this because Jesus sacrificed himself in the ultimate way, and gave us the example and means to conquer evil forever.

    Okay, enough background…here we go.

    We believe, that God ordered the world in a certain way. The sun comes up, the sun goes down. The winter is cold, the summer is hot. Things are born, things die. The planets follow their orbit, rabbits only mate with other rabbits. A natural order.
    Sometimes, something goes wrong and things get out of order.
    The winter is not so cold, or we have more hurricanes than usual.
    or…now don’t get angry…Men are attracted to men. This is not and evil in itself, but it is out of order. It is not the natural way of things. It is disordered. That word makes it sound awful, be it isn’t meant to. This does not mean diseased. Just that it doesn’t follow the natural path. Men and Women are meant to have sex to procreate. It is the same throughout the animal kingdom. This is the natural order. Pleasure, while certainly a big part of it, is the not end in itself. We are not to have sex solely for the pleasure of it. We are to find pleasure in having sex for the sole purpose of pro-creating. Why? Because God is the Ultimate creator, but in His desire to share everything with us, He has allowed to share in a very special way in this act of Creating. We do not make babies, but by cooperating with Him, together, God and man, babies are created.

    The sperm and the egg. Two completely innocuous entities by themselves, when combined, give us the greatest miracle known to man. Life. While man might be able to clone human beings, or to sustain life outside of the womb, these are all just illusions. Designed by the adversary to give us the impression that we are “creating” life. But satan is only an imitator. He can create nothing. Only God can create. So while, we are left with the false belief that by manipulating that sperm and that egg that we are “creating” life, the truth is we are only imitating creating life.
    Because as far as I know, no man, has ever created something out of nothing. We cannot create the sperm or the egg. We can only manipulate them. Or manipulate the cells that the sperm and egg created. Magic is illusion…slight of hand. But God is the father of Miracles. Not magic. Miracles are real, and unexplainable. Miracles are God’s territory, not man’s. Science can only go so far, until it eventually must acknowledge that all it can do is unravel what is already there. It has not and will never truly “create” anything. It can only work with what is already there.

    So, when 2 men, are attracted to each other, they are what is called disordered. It is not the order it was meant to be. This does not mean that these men are mistakes. Quite the contrary. I too have a close gay friend, and I adore him. He is charming, and funny and witty, and kind and unique. But he recognizes that the sexual life is not meant for him. He is willing to sacrifice that pleasure, because he believes that to engage in it would be to go against God’s natural order and plan for him. He is often lonely, and longs for a non-sexual, yet intimate, relationship. I pray very hard that he finds it. But his path is not my path, and he has been called to make different sacrifices than I have. He has his cross, and I have mine. We must both take up that cross and walk the road that was laid out before us. Because we both believe that this life is not the life that matters except that the choices we make now, will affect us for eternity. We are willing to make certain sacrifices now, to ensure that our relationship with God is not severed, and we will therefore spend eternity with Him. Is it easy? Of course not. But neither was hangin’ on a cross. It’s just something that must be done. Does my friend fall sometimes? Of course he does. But this is to be expected. The difference is, that he recognizes there are some things he can change and some he cannot. The things he cannot change, must be accepted. These are his cross. I can tell you that he is very happy in this decision.

    Birth control is wrong to us for much the same reason. Sperm is a very precious commodity. You would throw gold into the ocean or burn money. You don’t waste treasures. Sperm is one of those treasures. Money is only paper, but look at the power we have given this paper. Gold is only metal, and yet we respect it for what it represents. Sperm is the one of the greatest treasures of all time. (so is the egg, but it’s a little hard to control an egg.) When we waste this beautiful treasure, we insult the One who gave it to us. Sperm allows us to share the act of creation with God and simply spending it and throwing it away is a terrible affront to the giver of the gift. If I gave you a thousand dollars and you flushed it down the toilet, I gotta tell you, I’d be a little miffed. And once again, this blatant disregard for something that was entrusted to us by God, is an evil. Evil begets evil. Something has to offset it. More sacrifice.

    But an even worse evil is when the sperm is used properly, to fertilize an egg, and life is begun, through the miracle that God has allowed, and we refuse to accept this gift…well, I don’t even like to think about how angry we make the gift giver.

    In paganism, (old paganism, not modern…)there is a ritual that was performed to give honor and power to the horned God. Now as a Catholic and former pagan, I can tell you that I am fairly sure I know who that horned god is, (could it be satan?…LOL)and pawning himself off as a pagan god was just a clever and underhanded way to to manipulate people…But anyway, this ritual, called a saturnalia, consisted of unbridled sex and human sacrifice. Again, with the blood. Even satan recognized and imititated the importance of spilled blood. This would empower the horned god and in turn he would reward his followers with earthly things. Selfish things. Which would beget more evil and require more blood…

    Right now, through the womans movement, a great deciet has been played out. We are having unholy sexual relations by the millions, and then we are aborting the resulting babies. This would be like having a GIANT saturnalia. Sex (earthly pleasure with total disregard for the consequences and true meaning of the act) and human sacrifice (abortion – blood sacrifice).

    The amount of evil being released is mind boggling. Think of the implications. Mother Theresa said that the “fruit of abortion is nuclear war” what she meant was that, with all that evil be released into the atmosphere, total destruction was inevitable.

    Now, I am not asking you to agree with everything that I have just written. I am just trying to show you why we believe what we believe. We don’t hate homosexuals (or at least that is not catholic teaching) We do not hate women who have abortions. We do not, or should not hate anyone. But we do hate the fact that sinful behavior affronts God and creates more evil in the world and all of us must suffer with the consequences. We are not an unforgiving people, but we are a people who love Our Father, and are horrified at the thought of offending him. By wasting his gifts, or misusing them.

    Lastly, for just a few minutes, pretend with me, that instead of unborn babies, the law said that up until the age of five, children could be brought to various locations around the country and put to death. The reasons would be numerous and all worthy of our compassion. This woman was raped and for three years, every time she looks at the child all she can see is her rapist. Or that woman lives in an abusive relationship and she just can’t stand to see her child hurt anymore. Then there is another woman, who is very sick and fears that her child will be left alone if she should die. Or the one who is in financial trouble and just can’t afford the child anymore. And all of these, and millions more,(40 million to be more accurate…40 million three and four year olds…) dropped their children off and these children were exterminated.
    And one group of people is outraged and is doing everything they can to stop this insanity, while another group speaks of how these women used to have to do this secretly, and how brave they were. And isn’t it great that finally, we have come to our senses and given these women a way to eliminate their burdens out in the open, and legally. Forget for a moment about the choice and the difference between unborn and born children being a part of their mothers bodies. Suspend your belief for a minute and see this through our eyes. Those three and four year olds are also completely dependent upon their mother for food, and clothing, and love…They could not make it on their own. Would you really fault us for focusing on the plight of those children instead of the mothers? Of course we need to address the issues that these mothers are facing and shame on us for letting things get so out of hand that these mothers feel they have no recourse but to kill their own children. But the more immediate need, is that of the children being killled. While I believe that many of the german soldiers that killed the jews in the holocaust now live with terrible guilt and remorse, at the time we needed to focus on the jews. Nobody was going around saying what about the poor germans. The real horror was the massacre of the Jewish people. The germans could come later. By the same token, women having abortions are of great concern to us. We know that they are making these decisions with great difficulty. We know that they feel abandoned and afraid. Shame on us for not having addressed the problem before it came to this. But the more immediate problem, is the lives of the party with no voice…the innocents. They have no way of speaking for themselves and to us, there is absolutely no difference between the murder of three and four year olds and the murder of “fetuses” They are all alive, they are all gifts from God, they all have the right to follow the path (and carry the cross) that was planned for them. I think that science will never advance fully without keeping God in the picture. It is not either or, it is both.
    God created science, or the natural world, and it seems to me that the best way to learn about or fully understand how something works is to go directly to the source. As long as we keep God out of science, we will be cutting off the greatest resource that we have. They are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, science cannot fully be mastered without the help of the master…

    whew, that was a lot. To sum up, homosexuals are not bad. They were created by God, just like you and me, with a purpose. . They have a different path than you or I, but it is just as integral to the whole picture. But they, just like we, must carry a cross and share in the selfless sacrifice that all men are called to do.

    Abortion is wrong because it offends God by refusing to accept His gifts and insulting Him by destroying the greatest miracle He allows us to share in.

    Birth control is wrong because it wastes the most precious commodity that God has given us. The ability to share in His act of creation.

    Science cannot stand alone. It must include God or it is shortchanging itself…biting off it’s nose to spite itself. Nothing can be known unless it is revealed to us by God.

    We have all been duped by the belief that our wants and our needs and our desires come first. When the truth is that our only goal must be to spend eternity with the one who gave us life, and the only way to do that, is through selflessness and sacrifice.
    Otherwise, we doom ourselves to an eternity of self-service, hedonistic lifestyles, and the illusion that we are masters of our own destiny. Lies, all of it, fed to us by the father of lies.
    Deciets, designed to destroy our relationship with our Father, and to sentence us to eternity without hope. Surrounded by other souls who said “me first”, no one to turn to, because everyone there cares only about himself. Lonliness like you have never known. Emptiness. The knowledge that not another soul there cares one iota about you. That you were tricked into believing that you were most important, but were then told, when there was no escape, that you were just a pawn, used to attack the enemy. You are nothing. You served your purpose, and now you will spend the rest of time trapped in that false world. Because, the truth is, “the emperor has no clothes”…open your eyes, or more importantly, your heart, and you too will realize that he is naked and you have been sold a bill of goods.

    We all have choice. But it was not given to us by the constitution or the bill of rights. God gave each of us a free will. Then He sat back and said … CHOOSE. And our choices are far-reaching, beyond the here and now. Our choices affect our “forever”. We must choose, yes, but we must choose rightly. By weighing all of it. And never, not for any reason, would God condone destroying what he created. He asks that the choice we make is always, to trust Him. Let God be God, and be surprised. Expect miracles.

    Yours in truth,
    with no offense intended,
    MK

    By the way, I hope we can get past the “I apologize for being who I am stage”. I agree to understand that you and I got off on the wrong foot, but now respect each other, and that if things start to get heated, I will not take it personally. I know that sometimes we will get passionate about our views and I will take it in context. Otherwise I will constantly have to explain that I am not attacking you. I am not. I respect you and love debating with you, and will let you know if something you say offends me. Will you do the same so that we can dispense with the walking on eggshells? Thanks, MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 9:20 am

58. rosie says:

    “Science cannot stand alone. It must include God or it is shortchanging itself…biting off it’s nose to spite itself. Nothing can be known unless it is revealed to us by God. ”

    Hey! When I was learning more about the faith the one thing that really got my attention were the incorruptibles,I was just amazed! I had never seen anything like it before and I just knew I was on the right track.

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 9:55 am

59. mary kay says:

    rosie,

    How about the golden ratio in math? Phi? Spirals, solomons temple, the ark of the covenant, beautiful people, and on and on. I simply can’t believe that something as perfect as the fibonaccii system could be coincidence. It saturates nature and to me is the closest thing to perfection mankind can know on the earthly plane.

    MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

60. mary kay says:

    And why is it easier to believe that millions of people in Egypt shared a hallucination when they all saw a woman on top of a coptic church for weeks. She was even photographed. (Look up Zeitun, Egypt). How is it easier to accept that it was everyones imagination, than that it might have truly been our lady?

    Or Fatima, where thousands of eye witnesses say the sun?

    There are hundreds of these appartions. How can you explain them?

    MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 2:05 pm

61. rosie says:

    My favorite is the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Nobody can explain that. I’m fairly new to the faith so i’m sure I haven’t heard all the stories, i’m fascinated when I do though.

    A priest from New York came to our church to fill in for a Sunday and he was talking about Thomas the doubter and he said something interesting. He said that while some need to see to believe, those that believe already see. Tho in Thomas’s defence he didn’t call anyone else who came back from the dead “My Lord My God”. I know what you mean about being a sponge wanting to soak everything up.

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 2:44 pm

62. mary kay says:

    Rosie,

    It’s amazing isn’t it? There is just never enough. There’s the history, the enemies, the miracles, the spiritual, the theological…

    St. Augustine tells the story of how he was contemplating the trinity, when he came across a little girl on the beach. She was filling a seashell with water from the ocean and pouring it into a hole in the sand on the beach. When he asked what she was doing she explained that she was trying to empty the ocean into the hole she had made. St. Augustine was taken aback and asked her how she could possibly hope to put an entire ocean into that little hole. “Ahhh, said the girl. The same way you expect to put something as big as the trinity into your little head.” With that she disappeared.

    That is exactly how I feel about my faith. The only way to truly appreciate it, is to realize that you will never understand or know even a drop of it. It’s too big, too deep and no ones brain is big enough.

    Off subject, my birth sister went to Jerusalem this march and my husband just this second came in and handed me a letter from her. You’ll never believe what was in it! Pictures of some of the incorruptibles. Except she doesn’t say who it is…wierd, huh?
    Coincidence? I don’t think so…

    MK

    By the way, what is your conversion story?

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm

63. mary kay says:

    Rosie,
    Did you know that Our Lady of Guadalupe is the patron saint of the unborn. And that her Tilma has the exact constellations of the stars on the night that the miracle took place. Or that you can see whom they believe to be Juan Diego in her eyes…like a photograph?

    MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 4:14 pm

64. mary kay says:

    Rosie,

    These are from this months catholic digest:

    There are two dogs inside me. One dog is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time. Which one usually wins? The one that I feed the most.
    Native American Tribal Leader

    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, commited citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
    Margaret Mead

    What the caterpillar calls the end, God calls a butterfly.
    Aung San Suu Kyi

    I am convinced that no skill we ever learn is more important than throwing open every door and window to our hearts and minds and souls to God’s grace: embracing all the ways we can find of letting in the light.
    Patricia H. Livingston

    And the day came when the risk it took to remain tight inside the bud, was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
    Anias Nin

    MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 4:37 pm

65. rosie says:

    Another thing about her tilma that I have heard is that what made the image is unknown and when they studied it it is like a butterflies wing, they don’t really know what it is.

    Yikes! My conversion story! Well the whole process took years,I was raised catholic in the cafeteria sense. We went to church when I was a kid for a while. I was baptised, and I got my first communion, but that was all. I ran away when I was 15 and went through 2 foster homes and a group home which weren’t too bad so I guess I got lucky. Anyway, I lived my life like many of the people on this blog site before their conversion. I went through break-up after break up and I was just so confused about what I was doing wrong. On my birthday my aunt sent me a Birthday card with her favorite , now my favorite, quote on it. “If you always do what you’ve always done, you’ll always get what you’ve always got”. I look back now and go “Well duh!” but at the time I was stuck in this rut. Now I knew my husband 10 years before we got married and I knew he went to church but I didn’t want to go with him because I felt I would look like a complete idiot because I didn’t know what I was doing. I mean the 6 year old I watched knew prayers I was supposed to know. Well, a friend had just had a baby and she said I could go with them so I went with them for about 6 months until they stopped going for whatever reason and I started going by myself. My husband and I started hanging out more and we started going to church together and then started dating and got engaged. My friend got pregnant and asked me to be the God mother and guess what, I couldn’t because I wasn’t confirmed. I didn’t really even know what confirmation was and I decided I wanted to be confirmed before our wedding. Our parish is sooo awesome because it is fairly small and the priest is very traditional, so he gave me one on one instruction before I was confirmed by the bishop. Man it is hard to figure out which confirmation name you want because you read about so many great saints, I ended up picking Agatha. I got more into the faith after my confirmation though. Before I was curious, after it was like a light bulb went on and suddenly I understood a bit more than I used to and I was a lot more curious. My husband’s family in very much into the faith and their conversations are just fascinating sometimes, it’s nice to be able to join in. My best friend ,whom i’ve been working on for a year, just started getting one on one instruction from our priest so she can be confirmed, trust me I never thought it would happen.

    I wonder who that little girl was that talked to St.Augustine, I guess it doesn’t matter, message delivered.

    “Coincidence? I don’t think so…”
    Me either.

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 5:36 pm

66. mary kay says:

    Rosie,

    Isn’t it kind of spooky the way so many of us have been flocking back to the church. I mean, why? Why us and not Lucy or Lauren. Why show mercy to us, and not to others. Is it because people were praying for us? I know my mother alone could have prayed me back. Faith, hope and love are theological virtues and as such cannot be gotten on our own like the cardinal virtues. They must be given to us. So why did He give you and me the gift of faith? I only know that I am soooooo grateful, and that I don’t even remember that other person that I used to be. And I haven’t wasted any time in paying Him back. It’s like He’s always knocking on the door, saying “Hey, I’ve got another job I want you to do…” Does that happen to you?

    Where do you live…what parish are you from? It sounds wonderful. I am so amazed that His little army is scattered all over the world. Pathetic little people, living pathetic little lives, when boom, there’s one in New Jersey and Bang there’s another in Minnesota. Think He’s getting us ready for something?

    Sometimes when I’m gushing I feel like a Jehovah’s witness, or a moonie at the airport…but it’s so much deeper than that. It’s so grounded. You know what I mean?

    MK

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 5:59 pm

67. rosie says:

    Mary Kay,
    I have no idea, I know my God mother was praying for me, i’m sure my mom was. Maybe people do get mercy and don’t realize it, maybe it’s tough love that they get. My husband is always telling me how spoiled he feels by God, me, I just feel loved. I know i’m always nagging him and constantly asking him for something or asking what I should do, I feel like we’re in communication a lot, things are always happening ,like me bringing up incorruptibles and then you geting a picture of one and telling me, I love it!

    “Hey, I’ve got another job I want you to do…” Does that happen to you?
    All the time!
    I think he’s getting us ready to get others ready, how many souls do you think it will help when my friend gets confirmed, 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 down the road? I see a picture, just not the whole one i’m sure.
    I go to St. Mark church in Wheaton,Il. We probably live 45 minutes away from each other!
    I think you sound fine, don’t worry about gushing! Yes it is grounded.

    Comment posted June 14th, 2006 at 7:08 pm

68. mary kay says:

    Rosie,

    Will you be going to any of the “truth” tours?

    I’d love to meet you…

    MK

    Comment posted June 15th, 2006 at 5:38 am

69. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    There is a post to you above…#57. Just didn’t want you to miss it!

    MK

    Comment posted June 15th, 2006 at 5:40 am

70. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I just stopped to look. Unfortunately I do not have the time to respond just now. I will respond tomorrow. I hope you have a good day.

    Comment posted June 15th, 2006 at 9:15 am

71. rosie says:

    MK,
    I doubt i’ll be going, I have this thing with crowded places. My heart speeds up and I panic, silly huh?

    Comment posted June 15th, 2006 at 9:38 am

72. mary kay says:

    Rosie,

    No, it’s not silly, but I’m sorry I won’t meet you…
    Besides, you wouldn’t just be in a crowd, you’d be in a crowd that yelled obscenities at you and threw things at you and …well you get the picture…

    I’ll let you know how it goes.

    MK

    Comment posted June 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pm

73. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I hardly know where to begin, not to mention there are still portions of other posts that still require a response.

    The best place is probably with this. The promotion of the denial of self is a theme throughout this site, which isn’t rather surprising, it is a common thread through most religion, neccisarily. Self: Me: I: Ego. It’s a favorite topic of Philosopher Ayn Rand, a woman who makes a lot of sense. Less: Without: Lacking: Minus: Deficit of. The denial of self requires that I do not guide myself. I must choose to leave the path of my life to something else. The roll of a dice, chance, a mystical or supernatural being who doesn’t hold a lot of clout if I don’t believe in it. I often wonder if Zeus retired or was found to be imaginary. Ra was a great God once, and whatever happened to Posiedon. I can turn my life over to another human, a condition of economic political systems such as Monarchies, Tyrannies, Dictatorships, Communism, Socialism…but this presumes that they are somehow endowed with a greater understanding of how my life should be run than I, my experience tells me, and my understanding of history, tells me that this is unwise without considerable evidence to support their claims. Thus leaving me to no option but to understand that if I wish to eat I would be wise to accept that I had a responsibility to figure out how to make that happen, a task that requires my possession of self. I cannot be selfless.

    When I was selfless, primarily because I had been rendered this way, I can not say that I made thoughful choices in the sense that I can say I do now. In large I was operating as a being who had surrendered herself to the will of others. I had been forced. Fighting back only made things worse. I never thought about whether having sex at that time was in my best interest, or if it was in my best interest to have sex with that person; not that there many people, two really. I just really wanted things I had never had, to feel like I was loved. I didn’t know how to love myself. I didn’t know that I should care about myself. About what happened to me. I didn’t know I had the right to. I was lucky, though, I had a sneaking suspicion. I had an enourmous interest in the rebelious spirit. Michaelangelo was and is my favorite artist of all time. Not simply because he is a magnicificant artist, turning boulders into emotional, flesh covered people. Creating heroic giants, and soft and gentle mothers with robes flowing like a river, from nothing but a simple slab of rock. Because he had a rebelious spirit like none other. When presented with the idea that His rendition of the Final Judgement was to dark he responded: Give me a better world and I will paint it. Then he added his self portrait dripping in the painting and made one of the priests a demon.

    Thoreau and Dr. King with their notorious instances of Civil Disobedience in the instance of behaviors they disagreed with. Because I admired the more rebelious spirit I had a bit of an idea in me that I did deserve to consider myself in the events of my life. I just didn’t know how this was done. I knew how to deny myself, but how to reclaim. I would reclaim a little of myself here and there. Then I would lose a bit again. Advance, retreat, advance retreat. The abortion was an advance I assure you. That was me knowing that there was no way that I could possibly ever have my life back if I had a child. There was no way around it. Adoption was not an option. Certainly parenthood was not an option. There is a Pro-Choice site online, an actual pro-choice site. Not an anti-abortion site presenting itself as pro-choice. An actual pro-choice site, which lists the available options. Under each it gives a list of questions that others have asked themselves that a young woman might find useful in helping them make their decision. They refer them to other sites or numbers that can give them further information or assistance on a certain option. It does not give advise on which should be chosen, only characteristics, positive and negative, that are known to accompany each choice.

    I didn’t know about that then, it probably wasn’t there. I didn’t need it anyway. I thought about the idea of keeping the child for a moment. Yes I said child. No pregnant woman, to the best of my knowledge, actually makes reference to the fetus or embryo, yet there is a distinct difference between emotional information and intellectual information. Intellectual information tends to be more useful in these situations than emotional, and yeilds less regret in the end, in my case. So, I went with the cold hard facts. I was to young, I had no money.

    As I said the point that I was attempting to make with my recount of my youth orignally was this. If life is a gift, my opportunity to reclaim that which had been altered into anything but, and rework it to be something, would have been over before it began. I would have been rendered without any life of my own. I am not speaking of being robbed of an opportunity to party, but to make decisions, or to learn to make decisions that effect my life in a positive fashion and run the risk of making mistakes. I understand that the inclination will be to argue against this in some fashion, but I’ve never heard a compelling arguement against it, though I welcome you to be the first. It won’t change anything for me, but it might help someone else to have an answer I didn’t. I’m certain that this sounds selfish. I might take this opportunity to clarify that I find this to be a good thing.

    I have worked very hard to get where I am, and I am still working very hard. I am proud of my accomplishments, and I am glad that my mistakes were mine. I have made every effort to learn from the mistakes that I have made in an effort to learn how I made them, and how to identify how to avoid them in the future. It’s a simple matter of pattern recognition. If I can identify the pattern, discern whether it produces beneficial results or harmful results, I can make an educated decision regarding whether I should repeat the pattern or determine a way to change it. If I must change it I then must learn how to change it. Slight adjustments each and every step of the way. Slight adjustments have landed me in school.

    Due to the ideas implanted in my head previously I was terrified of going back to school. While I was always curious I was terrified of being caught making a mistake. The reprucussions of making a mistake were terrible. The penalty for simply making no effort were slightly less. Therefore, I learned to avoid making a mistake if at all possible, which frequently led to an avoidance of work. Which led to at least a poor appearance in school when I was younger. Learning is going to include making mistakes. I took a deep breathe the day I walked back into a school. I almost walked back to my car and said I can’t do it. I decided that this was for me, it didn’t matter what they thought. My only goal was to know more walking out than I did walking in. No matter what my grades said, my appraisal of my results was what would matter, and the criteria had been set. It turns out this works. In fact I highly reccomend to any students a goal that states that success means that you must know more walking out than in. My grades are great. My prospects are excellent. No matter what it takes, I always meet my goal.

    Finishing my education and entering my chosen field are the most important things to me. I work full time, I study a martial art. It is great for learning self discipline, focus, strength: both for body and mind, courage, it is great excercise and it turns out that the more energy you exert the more energy you have. I attend school full time, and I read as much as I can about the topics that interest me the most. I don’t do these things because I am selfless, but because I am selfish. There is no man who is going to get between me and my goals. Which means that a man who does is not able to understand that my goals are important, which are part of me, which therefore requires that he believe me to be important may hit the road. A man who does believes that I do not deserve to attempt to meet my goals without avoidable interference is not important to me. I do not have time for them in any way shape or matter. If I don’t have time to see a movie with them, then I certainly don’t have time to entertain any other activities with them. The one that I met that gave me the most grief about the fact that I counted my education as important was also very proud of his Christianity. He was also the most intent that what I actually needed to do was sleep with him. He was not happy to discover we did not have the same priorities. My priorities won out, which required me to be quite selfish.

    My reclaimed self gives me the ability to define what my priorities are concretely. I can set conditions on what I will and will not accept in a man. I can set conditions regarding who I will and will not sleep with. I do not need to worry about whether or not he believes I am worth the wait. I know what my value is. He can think what he wants. If I say wait, and he says no, then he is free to leave. I do not have the liberty to hold him captive. Nor would I want to.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 12:39 am

74. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I don’t believe that life has value because we suffer. I believe it has value because we can figure out how to not suffer. Every victory we have over the suffering of mankind is an increase in the value of life. When I solve a problem, no matter how small, I am proud of the fact that I managed to do so. It improves my quality of life by providing me with one more piece of information that will allow me to make life better for me, and in some instances, inadvertantly or advertanly for society as a whole. Our lives are filled with evidence of the progress that has been made to decrease and not increase human suffering. If suffering was an indicator of value then none would have better and more invaluable lives than the diseased, impoverished, and starving people living in many parts of the developing world. The humanitarian aid that is directed to these individuals by many organizations would be considered cruel and unusual, as the provision of momentary joy would deny the ability of these individuals to have the value of suffering.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 12:46 am

75. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I note that you indicate that Volcanoes are an indication that something is wrong with the world. While it is certainly less than preferable to find oneself in the path of an explosion Volcanoes are actually good. They eleviate pressure from below the earths surface. The eruptions actually release nutrient rich materials that allow our soil to become more fertile. It part of a process of the earth kind of overturning itself, returning old used soil, rocks, and such down a layer, and releasing material that has been enriched far beneath the earths surface, permitting us to grown food and raise animals. Areas with Volcanic activity tend to have very fertile lands.

    At this point they are able to reasonably gauge when a Volcanoe will erupt and cna evacuate an area, salvaging lives that would have been lost previously. In the future, not in our life times, I’m sure, they may know how to control the eruptions. Saving further lives, and creating the possibilty of solving problems such as soil that has been sucked dry of its nutrients from overuse.

    In the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Nature is neither friend nor foe.”

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 12:53 am

76. Lucy says:

    Actually, I reread what you wrote, and I saw the bit about the volcanoe somewhere else. However, I find the information about Volcanoes interesting anyway due to the increase of seismic activity in the world. Sorry about that though. I don’t know where I read that.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 12:57 am

77. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    They have done new studies that demonstrate that gay people have completely different reaction to sexual stimuli than straight people. Granted, its a new study, and it is not yet a completed study. It is always interesting to find new things. I once again, am not in a position where I can believe that my friends lot in life is to suffer. I don’t believe pursuing a loving relationship is something that should be denied.

    The fact still stands that religion cannot and must not control our government. It doesn’t matter which religion either. That you believe that Sperm is a precious commodity because your faith tells you that it is according to your acceptance of your faith. Your faith cannot be legislated. Birth control options must remain legal. While, I once again have no grounds to dispute physicians who wish to refuse to prescribe the birth control pill, I do insist that they be open with potential patients about their position. I cannot dispute Pharmacies who do not wish to stock the birth control pill, or any other product for whatever reason they choose. I am opposed to Pharmacists who wish to bully Pharmacies to allow them to refuse to fill patients prescriptions against the Pharmacies policies via legislations.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:14 am

78. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I am apparently drowsy. It has been a long week. I have already made one error in a response and will respond to the rest of the post tomorrow. Hopefully I will be more alert at that time.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 1:15 am

79. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Lucy says:”I don’t believe pursuing a loving relationship is something that should be denied”

    I don’t either. I just question how it is expressed. Love is never wrong. But misguided love can be harmful. And sex is not love. It is only one expression of it. I believe it to be an awesome expression, in the context of a loving marriage between a man and a woman. While I have no problem whatsoever with 2 men or 2 women loving each other, I do think it should and can be expressed in other than sexual ways.

    MK

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 10:31 am

80. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    I too have had a gruelling week. We move on Monday and my computer will be gone for a few days so if you don’t hear from me, know that I am thinking of you and will be back….

    ” The denial of self requires that I do not guide myself. ”

    No, the denial of self means that you CHOSE to deny yourself. If this denial were forced, then you’d have a point, but in my faith, you willlingly give up your “self”.

    You say: ” yet there is a distinct difference between emotional information and intellectual information. Intellectual information tends to be more useful in these situations than emotional, and yeilds less regret in the end, in my case. So, I went with the cold hard facts. I was to young, I had no money. ”

    I say: But you see? This is exactly what I mean by hiding behind your intellectual self. Of course if you are an intelligent human being, then this is a gift from God and like the gift of life, to waste it would be a sin. So by all means pursue your intellectual self. But sometimes it sounds like your intellectual self runs the show. And so by trying to remain reasonable and always using your intellect to guide you, you have actually trapped yourself. Not listening to your heart or your soul make you a SLAVE to your intellect. So in trying to be free, (from emotional bondage) you have actually imprisoned yourself by becoming chained to your intellect. When you turn yourself over to God, you do not cease to be a thinking, reasoning human being. You still have to weigh everything, discern everything…this is the virtue of prudence. If we simply gave ourselves over to God and never had a thought again we might as well be dogs. But this is NOT what God wants. He wants us to choose to love Him, to choose to trust Him, to choose to follow Him…not become spineless creatures with no individuality. I am not you, and you are not me and God knows this because He created us, each different than the other. His plan for me is not His plan for you. We must celebrate our individuality. It is a gift. What He asks is that we follow Him in the way He planned for us. I can choose a different path, and He will still work with me. But, I recognize that His original plan for me will always be the best plan.

    So true freedom is not just freedom to go against God, but true freedom means that I am secure enough in who I am that I can safely hand over my well being to someone whom I trust. I don’t have to hoard myself in order to protect myself. I don’t have to call all the shots because I am able to trust someone else. That is true freedom. To be able to let go and let God do His thing. Slavery would be to always feel as if I was alone and had to do everything by myself because I was unable to share my very life with someone else. So much energy spent on the illusion that I have any REAL control at all. Again, it is just that…an illusion. I actually have very little control over life. Mine or anyone elses. I can have self-control. But real control? I don’t think so. I think it just makes us feel better to believe that we have real control over anything but ourselves.

    you say: “I don’t do these things because I am selfless, but because I am selfish.”

    I we must be selfish, because the most selfish thing I have ever done in my life is to hand it over to God. I have my own best interests at heart, believe me. But when you turn it over, things happen and you realize that being selfish and acting selfishly are two different things. I am always going to be number one, but the best way to take care of myself eternally is to work for the man who also has my best interest at heart. All the things you are doing for yourself are to be commended. Not one of them is going against God. Going to school, learning self defense and self discipline, saving yourself for a man who respects you…all these things are good. They are selfish, yes, but only in the sense that they are good for you. But when you start into the territory of abortion, you cease being merely selfish and begin to act selfishly. You forget that everyone must take care of themselves and you infringe on their right to do so by putting yourself first. We are all selfish and must respect that about each other. The child whose life you ended was concerned with herself too. You know this, that is why you gave her a name. This shows that you recognize her as a fellow human being. And you took away her chance to be a “self”…do you see? Can you understand what I mean about selfish vs. acting selfishly?

    You say: ” I often wonder if Zeus retired or was found to be imaginary. Ra was a great God once, and whatever happened to Posiedon.”

    I say: Yes but these were gods of myth. My God was an historical God. He lived in the flesh as a man. A selfish man, who had a selfish desire. The selfish desire to be loved by us. And to attain this end, He acted in the most selfless of ways…He gave His life…so that He could obtain a selfish goal…our love.

    Zeus, Ra, Posiedon…these gods did not exist in the flesh. Only in the minds of people.

    There is a wonderful story in the chronicles of Narnia. In the last book called “The Last Battle”, the last and final battle of Narnia takes place. Each country has it’s own God that it worshipped. There was Aslan, the God of love (an analogy for Jesus), and Tash, the God of greed and war. Then there were the dwarves. The dwarves were always for the dwarves. They believed in no god and all gods. Whatever was best for them. They could be on your side today if it benefitted them, but on the enemies side tomorrow if that was more in their favor.

    As the battle is taking place, people are being thrown into the tents of the gods that they worshipped. If you believed in Tash, you were thrown into Tash’s tent and ripped apart, destroyed. If you believed in Aslan you were thrown into Aslan’s tent, where you entered a land similar to Narnia, but it was like looking into mirrors that reflected each other. So you kept seeing another Narnia, only each one was more beautiful than the one you were in and you kept going further in and higher up. When you first entered the tent, a feast had been set up, with golden plates, and the choicest wines, and delicacies from all over the world. The dwarves however, while in Aslans tent, could not see the feast. Where there were delicious fruits, the dwarves only saw onions. Where there were silk pillows, the dwarves only saw rocks. This was their choice. The dwarves after all, were for the dwarves. They thought that all of the followers of Aslan were simply toying with them, with all their talk of feasts, and silk. And there were some, who followed Tash, because that is all that they knew. But something deep inside them always caused them to choose what was right, even if it went against Tash. They had never heard of Aslan or were told that he was evil and cruel and so they continued to follow Tash. These went into Aslans tent. When Aslan was questioned about it, He said that anyone who continuouslly chose the path of Good for the sake of Good, was actually choosing Aslans path. Because nothing Good can go to Tash and nothing bad can go Aslan. So if you lived your life in unselfish love, you went to Aslans land. Because Aslan IS love. and his name didn’t matter.

    I tell you this story, because so much of what you say tells me that you choose to be like the dwarves. Lucy for Lucy if you will. And yet under that, I hear hope, and the belief in Love. So I ask you, what will it take to embrace the love and give up the dwarves philosophy. To trust again. To grow in your spirit as much as you have in your mind. Not to exchange your mind for your spirit but to embrace both. To become more “totally” Lucy.

    You say:
    ” I don’t believe that life has value because we suffer. I believe it has value because we can figure out how to not suffer”

    I say:
    Ahhh, but no one has ever figured out not to suffer. Suffering is part of life. Suffering must be endured. In the old days, we used to flagellate ourselves to cause suffering. We now believe that suffering will come, no need to create it. And so wasting your life trying to avoid suffering is like spending your life trying to avoid air. It can’t be avoided. It just is. And when you protect yourself from feeling pain, you run the risk of also not feeling joy. For while men have figured out how to block their feelings, they have not figured out how to block them selectively. You either block them all or you embrace them all. And once you can see that suffering offers reparation, then suffering can be accepted as serving a purpose.

    Bishop Sheen says:

    “The tragedy in life is not that we suffer, but that so much of that suffering is wasted”

    Taking up your piece of the cross can bring great joy. Knowing that your suffering is not in vain, and that you are actively participating in Christ’s crucifixion, that you are helping Him to heal a very sad, and tormented world…well I cannot think of anything that could give me more pleasure…and that is truly a selfish sentiment!

    You say: “If suffering was an indicator of value then none would have better and more invaluable lives than the diseased, impoverished, and starving people living in many parts of the developing world. ”

    I say: Bravo, Now you’ve got it!!!! As long as those people are offering up their suffering, and trusting that in another place and another time they will be grealy rewarded, then YES! they are true martyrs and heroes and I will be first in line to thank them for their very unselfish acts of love. If however, they suffer and do not embrace this suffering as a chance to share in redemption, then my heart goes out to them and it is a tragedy that their suffering was for nought. And when I, through monetary, or spiritual ways can aid their suffering, then I too join in the circle of giving and become part of something bigger than myself. And piece of the cross, by piece of the cross, the burden can be lifted until there is no longer need of suffering. Every abortion requires reparation (suffering), so if I truly want to end suffering I must fight to end sin. Yet again, truly selfish motives. I no longer want suffering either. And I abhor senseless suffering. 40 million lives taken…this will require a great amount of suffering indeed. Wouldn’t it be easier on all of us, to eliminate the need for that suffering by eliminating the cause?

    MK

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 11:40 am

81. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    First, I was barely 2 months along when I had an abortion. I don’t even think I was that far actually. The fetus, as I said there is emotional and intellectual, had not even formed organs yet. I have. I had goals for my life and plans. The fetus could not think. I could. I would have to sacrifice my life to something that had no organs and could not think. I understand that you believe that this is the way it should go, but my value system says that life is far to valuable for this. I am not actually obligated to permit anything to grow inside of me. Call it an individual and I will tell you that I am not obligated to let another individual invade my body; cause great deals of discomfort to me, alter my chemistry, cause foreign organs to develop in my body to suit it, drain me of nutrients, and cause me potential health problems or death. The reality is that the only way to pull this one off is to declare women something other than human, and declare that they are no longer protected by the Constitution of the Untited States. Otherwise there are laws in place that protect her from such intrusions upon her mind and body… if we can demonstrate that we are smart enough to utilize that which is already there for us. To establish that a fetus is an individual and therefore has a right to invade a womans body without her consent will wipe all marital rape laws off the books. Any lawyer who wishes will be able to argue that a woman does not have a right to her body if there is another who needs it more than she does. We will resort back to a time when marriage was a contract that guaranteed sex, therefore eliminating a womans right to choose not to engage in sexual activity for any reason, making marital rape legal. Rape could even become legal. In countries where women do not have the right to own their bodies there is no such thing as rape. Not because women aren’t raped on a regular basis, but because they do not own their bodies. You are free to destroy what you own. If your husband owns your body; guess what.

    As far as arguing that having sex mean possibly getting pregnant, being born means being guarenteed to die. I loved it when I smoked and people would tell me that smoking was going to kill me. I would smile and say, so otherwise I’ll live forever? Getting behind the wheel of a car means potentially getting into an accident. I mean the potentials are endless. Somethings you do because they improve life. There are side effects with every medication, some of them are beneficial. It’s a cost benefit analysis.

    There is a analogy by a Ethicist from Harvard apparently, Judith Jarvis Thompson,
    “You wake up one morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous uncounscious violinist.He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the society of music lovers has…found that you alone hae teh right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinsts circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own…To unplug you would be to kill him. but…it’s only for nine months.”

    You say that I am to intellectual, and not emotional enough. I say that I understand that I must understand intellectually what my emotions are based on so that I can monitor them. My monitoring of my emotions helps me prevent or limit irrational outburst emotionally. Extreme emotions such as anger or sadness can overwhelm an individual and cause extreme devastation. If I understand where they are coming from I can determine whether they are rationally valid in the amounts that I am experiencing them or if I need to re analyze the situation and adjust my reaction to suit the reality instead of my perception. Lust is translated to love due to emotional desires and natural chemical reactions in the body. Actual love is an intellectual experience in which two people learn who the other is and develop an appreciation for who and what they are. I have stated that if I search for a man it is for a man whom I wouldn’t mind being stranded on a deserted island with. Not that I want to be stranded on a deserted island…okay, some days. Which doesn’t mean that he has to look like a movie star, it means that he has to have qualities about him that would make it so that I would choose him over anyone to interact with. Meaning conversations and such.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 6:38 pm

82. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    You suggest that I can somehow retain self determination while surrendering self determination, I don’t believe this is possible.

    I also don’t believe that the idea that we can control our lives is an illusion. Look what has occurred since the forefathers of this country set down to begin this experiment. This computer would have never happened previously, nor my car, nor the refrigerator, or air conditioning, or aspirin. The demonstration that we can indeed improve the world we live in by learning how to control the environment around us is staggering. This never happened under authorative governments that opposed self determination. People were punished for daring to say the earth was round. The guy who figured out how to harness fire was more than likely burned with it for working with the devil.
    That we can determine how to do things by compiling and comparing information, looking for patterns in order to achieve results is blatant.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 6:59 pm

83. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Suffering has certainly been reduced. The Plague, that nasty little disease that tried to wipe out Europe, is now less of a nuissance than the common cold. It is easier to cure. Still comes up as an issue once in a while, though if your options were the common cold or the Plague, you would opt for the Plague. People in Indonesia had the option of leaving before the Volcanoe erupted. I can drink clean water. A friend or family member moving to another state is no longer an indication that one will never see them again. For that matter, neither is moving to another country, overseas. I can send a message over a computer and it takes seconds. There is medication that eleviates cold symptoms in moments. I have an inhaler that allows me to breathe. The system that allowed these break throughs was the Free Market System. Accompanied by a Secular Constitutional Republic it was almost flawless. The autonomous nature of man that is real and true was given its chance to run.

    For some that which is called suffering looks like an opportunity. There are critics of this kind of perspective, amongst the critics are not the people who will have their suffering relieved as a result. The opportunity that presents itself is one that allows one to isolate and solve a problem. It is the challenge that fuels. Suffering would mean a lack of problems to solve. I am speaking not of the altruistic likes who choose to impede upon others abilities to discover what they are capable of by attempting to run their lives, instead of providing tools for the purpose of allowing them to learn how to improve thier own lives. Muhammed Yunus is a man who, acting selfishly, created a system that allows people to realize their full capacities. I’ve seen what others do. They bring a meal and are determined to tell these people how to run their lives. Yunus has been fighting these people for over thirty years.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:12 pm

84. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I don’t understand how suffering can be a bad and a good thing at the same time. It seems to me that it has to be one or the other. As I said before, while to some suffering provides opportunity, they aren’t suffering, they are eleviating the suffering of another because it eleviates their own suffering. I see challenges. Opportunities. Room for progress, improvements.
    I would have to argue that the impoverished, starving and diseased of the developing world aren’t championing a cause, and would happily cease to be any of the above. Those championing causes, as I mentioned, tend to stand in their ways of guiding their own lives. Considering what our founding fathers were up against, and the impact that that exact element had in the parts of the world that know the suffering, it occurs to me that we were about the width of a sheet of paper from being those countries. Of course, no matter what anyone wants to say about America, if it wasn’t for the founding of the United States of America colonization would have left the world a mess the likes they left Africa in. There are historical facts that may have caused as much good as they did harm. If it had not been for the Two World Wars it is entirely possible that Great Britain would still be in the Colonization business. Korea would still be used as a source of slave labor by Japan. The choices that are made, sometimes I just wonder. If a few brave men had not stood up to Great Britain, we would have been drained. Actually, we’d be a developing nation. There would be no developed nations actually.

    It sends shivers down my spine to think about what life would be like if it hadn’t been for the courage to fight for individual rights.

    It is also worth noting that Jefferson understood this. If it was his physical life that he was interested in salvaging he would have simply not written the letter. That document is the very thing that endangered his physical life. Yet, Jefferson was hardly a religious man.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:24 pm

85. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I hope that your move goes well.

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:25 pm

86. Lucy says:

    Oh, Mary Kay,
    I thought this might be of interest.
    ” Morally, legally, and practically, a fetus is not a person. “I have held babies in my hands and now I held an embryo, ” reports a Catholic theolgian visiting an abortion clinic. ” I know the difference.”

    Comment posted June 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pm

87. mary kay says:

    Lucy,

    Lucy say: “I understand that you believe that this is the way it should go, but my value system says that life is far to valuable for this. ”

    I think that should have read…”I understand that you believe that this is the way it should go, but my value system says that MY life is far too valuable for this.”

    If you leave out the word my then you have just won my argument for me. If LIFE is far too valuable for this, then by your own rules you can’t take any life away….

    You said: ” First, I was barely 2 months along when I had an abortion. I don’t even think I was that far actually. The fetus, as I said there is emotional and intellectual, had not even formed organs yet”

    Week 8

    The embryo is reactive to its environment inside the amniotic sac where it swims and moves. Hands and feet can be seen. At the end of week 8, the embryonic period is over and the fetal stage begins.

    10 Weeks LMP:(last menstrual period)
    8 weeks after conception
    At 10 weeks, the baby hiccups and reacts to loud noises.

    Week 8 – Now about 1 ½ inches long (40 millimeters), the embryo is now called a fetus – Latin for “young one” or “offspring.” Everything is now present that will be found in the fully developed adult. The heart has been beating for a month. The stomach and kidneys have begun to function, and there are approximately 40 muscle sets are beginning to function through the direction of the nervous system.

    I could go on but I don’t see what the point would be…None of these were off of pro-life sites by the way. I simply typed in “fetal development”. One was actually off of a site that promoted abortion…

    I guess my point is that, many people only believe in what they can see. How long did it take for the world to accept that micro organisms existed? How many people died from bacterial infections simply because we couldn’t see bacteria? We tend to cling to the idea that something doesn’t exist until we can prove it. But that is simply not how it works. This is what I mean by illusion instead of reality…

    You say: ” I also don’t believe that the idea that we can control our lives is an illusion. Look what has occurred since the forefathers of this country set down to begin this experiment. This computer would have never happened previously, nor my car, nor the refrigerator, or air conditioning, or aspirin. The demonstration that we can indeed improve the world we live in by learning how to control the environment around us is staggering.”

    Yes but lets look at St. Francis prayer again;

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

    Now let’s replace the word change with the word control…

    God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot control,
    control the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.

    Of course we can control things. Many things. The problem comes when we begin to believe that we can control all things.
    That is when we start to believe that we are equal to God. Just look at the Adam and Eve story, or the fight between Michael the archangel and Satan. Or if those are too “mythical” for you, how about Hitler and eugenics? The idea that we can, or that we have the right to, control everything is what creates monsters. The difference between knowledge and wisdom is the knowing when you can and when you should. This is what keeps us from being animals. We are the only creatures with a conscience. We are the only creatures capapble of understanding the concept of right vs. wrong. Is this just a fluke of evolution? I don’t think so. I think this is evidence of a soul. I don’t understand why you are so opposed to the idea of having a soul. Even you admitted that you were attracted to Buddihism. Every single religion accepts the idea of a soul.

    My point of not being able to control everything and to believe that you can is an illusion is based on the idea that science does not create. It simply unravels, or rearranges what is already there. But where “what is already there” came from…now that is the real question. Again, we can manipulate the sperm and the egg, but we cannot create them. We can invent the airplane, but we cannot turn into birds. We can invent the computer but not the mind. These are just imitations of the real things. But we convince ourselves that we are soooo clever for inventing them.

    you say: ” There is a analogy by a Ethicist from Harvard apparently, Judith Jarvis Thompson,
    “You wake up one morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous uncounscious violinist.He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the society of music lovers has…found that you alone hae teh right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinsts circulatory system was plugged into yours so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own…To unplug you would be to kill him. but…it’s only for nine months.”

    I say: But the difference is that in 99% of cases the woman is carrying a child due to a voluntary action of her own. So if I was told that by going into that room I was taking a chance that I would wake up with a violinist attached to me…well then I made the choice to go into the room. I must take responsibilty for my actions. You don’t just go to bed one night and wake up pregnant. Something has to happen first…

    As far as your conclusion that women will be raped because we outlaw abortion, I don’t see the connection. They are apples and oranges. And there is no evidence that women are raped less because abortion is available, any more than there is eveidence that women get pregant less because there is contraception. Actually the opposite is true. Because once you allow sex for the sake of sex you send the message that it is no longer a privelege but a right. I could argue that a man could now rape his wife anytime he wants to because she can just get an abortion and erase the evidence. Taking away the consequences just makes it easier to commit the crime.

    You say: ” It sends shivers down my spine to think about what life would be like if it hadn’t been for the courage to fight for individual rights.

    I agree, but again your argument should read “It sends shivers down my spine to think about what life would be like if it hadn’t been for the courage to fight for MY individual rights”

    Because without the MY you would have to fight for ALL individual rights, including those of the unborn child.

    It worries me that you see pregnancy in such negative light…
    “Call it an individual and I will tell you that I am not obligated to let another individual invade my body; cause great deals of discomfort to me, alter my chemistry, cause foreign organs to develop in my body to suit it, drain me of nutrients, and cause me potential health problems or death.” That that is how you view pregnancy is so sad…

    And you are right. Calling it an individual would infringe on your rights if your rights infringed on theirs. But isn’t that what the constitution is all about. Ensuring EVERYBODY’s rights?

    You say: ” You say that I am to intellectual, and not emotional enough. I say that I understand that I must understand intellectually what my emotions are based on so that I can monitor them. My monitoring of my emotions helps me prevent or limit irrational outburst emotionally”

    I say, yes that is true. Which is why I would not advocate living my life being ruled by my emotions either. That would be as grave an error as living my life ruled by intellect. I would hope that we could find a balance between the mind, body and spirit.
    You say that you are a very spiritual person, and yet all of your arguments come from the intellect. You claim you don’t believe in a soul. Then what is the point of being spriritual? I’m just asking you to allow your emotions equal weight. I know that you are going to hate this, but I have to say it. Do you think that by intellectualizing your abortion, you keep yourself from facing the truth about it? You say you don’t regret it, and yet you named your child. You even had strong feelings that she was a girl. I think that no matter how hard you try to block your feelings about it, they will eventually leak out somewhere. Even when you describe the possibility of having a relationship, you speak of it as though it were an intellectual exercise. Of course you must use good judgement and sound reasoning when choosing a mate, but if that was all there was to it, then arranged marriages would still be the ideal. But I gotta believe that arranged marriages would send you into a tailspin. A good match or marriage must come from compatability, like thinking, and love.
    Body, mind and soul. This isn’t a pair of shoes that you are picking out. Actually, even with a pair of shoes, you use your heart. I mean after you analyze them intellectually, size of the heel, amount of comfort, color coordination,price, you can still be left with three pair that all meet the criteria. And then you pick the one that you just simply like best. But to only pick your mate based on his meeting your criteria…well, that’s just sad…

    You say: ” I don’t understand how suffering can be a bad and a good thing at the same time. It seems to me that it has to be one or the other.”

    Only if you look at suffering as arbitrary is it a bad thing. But only if you look at it as caused by evil and serving the purpose of reparation can it be seen as good. When you see it this way, suffering is just the result not the cause. To eliminate the result, you must eliminate the cause. You must eliminate evil, to eliminate suffering. But if you cooperate in the eliminating of evil by accepting suffering, then it becomes a holy and noble thing. Therefore suffering is bad when wasted, and good when used for a higher purpose…

    Okay, gotta go now, but I’ll try to come back today. Not sure when the hubby is stealing my computer away…I’ll keep coming back as long as the computer is here…

    MK

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 8:25 am

88. mary kay says:

    Lucy says:

    Oh, Mary Kay,
    I thought this might be of interest.
    ” Morally, legally, and practically, a fetus is not a person. “I have held babies in my hands and now I held an embryo, ” reports a Catholic theolgian visiting an abortion clinic. ” I know the difference.

    Claiming to be a Catholic, does not make you one. If a person says something that clearly is contrary to Catholic teaching, then that person cannot be called a Catholic no matter how many degrees they hold.

    Whoever this “theologian” is, they should be shot (she says, toungue in cheek), because it is just such nonsense that confuses people and gives all Catholics a bad name. I’d love to know who this “theologian” was…

    What was this “Catholic” doing inside an abortion clinic anyway?
    John Kerry and Ted Kennedy claim to be Catholics too. I can claim to be a martian, but that doesn’t make me one. Look at the fruit, then determine the tree. This is why I cautioned you to only look at Catholics like Mother Theresa or Padre Pio. Otherwise you run the risk of misunderstanding what it means to be Catholic…

    MK

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 8:33 am

89. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Lucy say: “I understand that you believe that this is the way it should go, but my value system says that life is far to valuable for this. ”

    I think that should have read…”I understand that you believe that this is the way it should go, but my value system says that MY life is far too valuable for this.”

    No, I said what I meant. But, yes, my life is included in that.

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 11:48 pm

90. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    second:

    You said: ” First, I was barely 2 months along when I had an abortion. I don’t even think I was that far actually. The fetus, as I said there is emotional and intellectual, had not even formed organs yet”

    Week 8

    The embryo is reactive to its environment inside the amniotic sac where it swims and moves. Hands and feet can be seen. At the end of week 8, the embryonic period is over and the fetal stage begins.

    I accept the fact that it sounds as though I am trying to rationlize. I didn’t realize that it sounded like that when I wrote it. Please understand that was not my intention. I am fully aware of the fact that I do not need to rationalize my choice, nor do I need to justify it. I also am aware of all this. Prior to the two month marker would have put me before week eight. I did not make my decision lightly, yet understood that there were valid reasons for making it without delay.

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 11:53 pm

91. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    If you leave out the word my then you have just won my argument for me. If LIFE is far too valuable for this, then by your own rules you can’t take any life away….

    By my own rules I am not obligated to share my life with anyone who I do not choose to in any fashion.

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 11:54 pm

92. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I guess my point is that, many people only believe in what they can see. How long did it take for the world to accept that micro organisms existed? How many people died from bacterial infections simply because we couldn’t see bacteria? We tend to cling to the idea that something doesn’t exist until we can prove it. But that is simply not how it works. This is what I mean by illusion instead of reality…

    My choice wasn’t made based on what I could or could not see in these terms. I understand the criteria that I need to fall under. I am fully aware of the fact that the criteria set to women who opt for abortions is that we are mindless and heartless. It just isn’t so.

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 11:56 pm

93. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Regarding the story of creation, I offer up Genesis 3:22. It’s my favorite.

    Comment posted June 18th, 2006 at 11:57 pm

94. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    As you have said, I am Lucy for Lucy. Now I understand that you and I are thinking of this in different terms. My terms say that it is so because I am not capable or interested in running anyones life. I’m not out to tell them I need to save them from anything. I’m just attempting to live my life in the best fashion I can. I am trying to be hard working and industrious. I am trying to only use as much as I make. I am trying to be honest and responsible for my own life. I do not wish to run anyone elses life. I only wish to prevent them from running mine. There is a possiblility that I have information regarding my own life that is worth consideration. There is a possibility that I get to find out whether or not I’m onto anything.

    Hitler was abusing science, not utilizing it. Science isn’t out to run anyones life. Science explores, experiments, and comes up with ideas. If you are interested than you may try them out. If you are not, then you don’t have too. They have come up with a vaccine for cervix cancer for women under the age of 27. Nobody is being forced to try it. Hitler was out to insert a system of control over mass amounts of people because he thought he knew best. Hitler was opposed to people thinking for themselves, and managed to get them to not do it. Actually, history indicates that it is a lot more difficult to get people to think for themselves then to attempt to abdicate the responsibility. Of course, there really is no such thing as abdicating the responsibility for ones own life. It’s just that life probably won’t be that pleasant.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:06 am

95. Lucy says:

    You say: ” It sends shivers down my spine to think about what life would be like if it hadn’t been for the courage to fight for individual rights.

    I agree, but again your argument should read “It sends shivers down my spine to think about what life would be like if it hadn’t been for the courage to fight for MY individual rights”

    Once again, I said what I meant. However, my rights were once again automatically included.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:08 am

96. Lucy says:

    Because without the MY you would have to fight for ALL individual rights, including those of the unborn child.

    The unborn child does not have a right to my life. Nobody has a right to anybody elses life. We only have rights to our own lives. For similar reasons I oppose Communism, Socialism and Welfare states.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:11 am

97. Lucy says:

    As far as your conclusion that women will be raped because we outlaw abortion, I don’t see the connection. They are apples and oranges. And there is no evidence that women are raped less because abortion is available, any more than there is eveidence that women get pregant less because there is contraception. Actually the opposite is true. Because once you allow sex for the sake of sex you send the message that it is no longer a privelege but a right. I could argue that a man could now rape his wife anytime he wants to because she can just get an abortion and erase the evidence. Taking away the consequences just makes it easier to commit the crime.

    These are not apples and oranges at all. The thing that makes it illegal to rape a woman is that she owns her body. That she has sole ownership of her body. If it becomes feasible for anyone else at all, no matter how specific the considerations, to have control over her body for any period of time, with no regard to her thoughts in the matter it becomes concievable that raping a woman can cease to be a crime, particularly within the confines of a contractual marriage.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:20 am

98. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    Many women who have abortions select names. As I said, there seems to be some misconception that this is a matter that does not entail thought and consideration. There seems to be a misconception that we are heartless and mindless. You seem to be operating under the impression that my lack of regret is the result of avoiding emotional responses. Thus indicating that you believe that I would feel regret if I addressed this emotionally, this of course assumes that I have no emotions invested in this, thereby supporting the apparent theory that we are heartless. It seems that the assumption is that I should feel regret, that there is something wrong with me if I don’t. Yet, I have experienced emotions and intellect in correlation with this, there is nothing wrong with me, in that regard anyway, and yet I do not regret my choice because it was the right choice to make.

    Curiosity is not the equivalent of regret, nor is sorrow. Please understand that I spoke more personally with Sidney because I could. However, in an environment where Young Christian Woman expresses her uncertainties about the death penalty, however, feels that as long as it is available, I would be who she would use it on, I try to remember where I am. My point is to let you know that all women who have abortions do not regret it. Not to let you in on my personal emotions. I do not regret it, but this does not mean that I don’t have feelings. It means I don’t appreciate having them trampled on, and in an audience of people who are notorious for standing outside abortion clinics lovingly shouting out such wonderful names as murder and whore, telling young women who are already terrified and there for personal reasons that really don’t concern you, that they will be forgiven by a God they might not believe in for a crime that they aren’t committing, I understand what is at stake. I, as I stated, have a personal responsibilty to take care of myself, which means refraining from putting any part of myself in harms way whenever possible.

    I do feel however, that I have an obligation. You will argue that you speak for those who can’t speak for themselves. I will argue that I argue in defense of those who may not know they are entitled to a defense. Those who heard the screams of murder, of whore, those who were called killers and sluts, those who still have nightmares of those who tried to barricade their entrance to make a decision that would change their lives. Those who know what it is like to understand that to those who stand between you and the rest of your life you are not a person. You are a barrier between them and that which is inside of you that they understand to be the person in question. You have heard the horror stories and understand that your very life is in danger because these people are notoriously committed to by any means neccessary. I own my body. I am right to understand I own my body. Nobody stays in my body wthout my consent, and I don’t care how they got in. I wouldn’t expect to be able to stay in theirs without their consent. Those of us who are able to speak up and say this should in my opinion. Someone did it for me. I have a debt to pay.

    I don’t regret my choice. If I regretted my choice then I would still be glad that I was able to make my own choice. If you take a look around at the stories of regretted abortions you’ll notice a common theme. They negated the responsibility to make their own choice, or tried to, but attempting to deligate the authority elsewhere. Therefore these stories always include accounts of boyfriends, husbands, parents, teachers, friends, and so forth who have made the decision for them. Most of them felt that they should have either kept the baby or put it up for adoption had they made their own choice. Why didn’t they make their own choice. Pansy made her own choice. She was fortunate, she had support from her father. However, I’m willing to bet she would have done her own thinking anyway. Sidney did her own thinking. She still does. Sidney takes a lot of heat for her choices, but they are hers, so she is happy with them and proud of them. Of course, nobody here takes issue with their choices. Though as Lauren will tell you, they too have taken part of the Pro-Choice movement.
    It’s actually pretty hard to be alive and not be Pro-Choice. Even if you attempt to delegate the responsibilty away the fact is you still choose to delegate the responsibility. It’s inescapable. Now, the movement to alter who is making the choices is my concern.

    I have no regret. I can’t help you with that.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:50 am

99. Lucy says:

    Mary Kay,
    I will get back to the rest later. As for the part about Judith Jarvis Thompson, which I will expound on next time. It is important to know that she addresses the entire issue by entertaining that life actually does begin at conception. Her entire arguement is based off of this. I’m glad to have found her. Many of my arguments have been based off an idea that is already declared by her. Her arguments also strongly support the free market basis. However, I’ll return later.

    Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 12:53 am

100. mary kay says:

     Lucy,

     You say:
     “However, in an environment where Young Christian Woman expresses her uncertainties about the death penalty, however, feels that as long as it is available, I would be who she would use it on, I try to remember where I am”
     ” There seems to be a misconception that we are heartless and mindless.”

     I don’t know where you got the idea that YCW would want you put to death for having an abortion, and I can’t speak for her (though I would be shocked if she felt this way), I can tell you that I do not feel this way. I’m not withouth sympathy for the women that choose abortion. I understand that some of you choose this because circumstances seem hopeless. I do not think that you are heartless and mindless. I think that you are desparate and afraid and feel cornered. I have been standing outside of abortion clinics for some time now and have NEVER EVER yelled to a woman that she was a murderer. As I have said before, my heart breaks for the women and I ofter stay till the clinic closes just to be available if the women need someone to talk to. And this has happened often. Whether the women went in because they felt coerced or not doesn’t make a difference. They are hurting when they come out. I ALWAYS make sure to tell them that I am not judging them and that there are places to go to talk if they need, whether it’s ten minutes or ten years from now.

     What other counselors do I cannot say. But I understand that this is a very serious situation and that no one is going home and opening a bottle of champagne.

     I have just finished reading the paper by your ms. Thompson and I find so many flaws in her argument that I don’t even know where to begin. She ends the whole thing by admitting that she doesn’t even agree with the premise she bases her entire argument on.

     And if I woke up with a violinist it would be because of group of people had gotten together and decided to take my rights away.
     I never heard of anyone getting pregnant by a group consensus.
     So unless 10 people had gotten together and voted me pregnant, I don’t see where she was going with her idea.
     The only possible scenario she could argue for was rape, and by her own admission, it would be monstrous for people to have abortions for reasons less serious than rape and to save the mothers life.

     For the record, if a mothers life is truly in danger, like say a tubal pregnancy, or placenta privea, the Catholic church allows for removing the child with the intent to save the mothers life, but not for the intent to kill the child. So if all possible means were used to keep the child alive and it dies anyway the intent was not to abort. The child dying was the result of saving the mother.
     This would be Gods decision, not the mothers. Intent is very important here. With abortion, the intent is that the child should die.

     She also argues that late term abortions would be less acceptable, yet she starts off by saying that life begins at conception. Why? When does that life become worth protecting.
     And we keep making the argument that anybody at any time could become dependant on others for their life. Bedridden people, blind people, Children with downs. This cannot be a criteria for someones life being worthless. 2 days out of the womb does not make the child any more self sufficient.

     So the question always comes down to two parts. When does life begin? and when do your rights override anothers? If life begins at conception, then surely their rights are as important as yours. And if not, then why? The violinist argument just doesn’t cut it. Because it exempts the woman from all culpability for becoming pregnant, and it assumes that having a right makes it right. I argue that as human beings and not animals, we must continually strive for the higher road lest we regress to reaction instead of action.

     If there is no God and we have no soul, and this is the basis for being able to make decisions based on the reasonableness of an argument, then I propose that all is right and nothing is wrong. What would be the reason for making any moral determinations? Why would I ever choose anything that wouldn’t please me regardless of who got hurt. Why wouldn’t I take money from the cash registers at the corner market, sleep with my neighbors husband, take the mustang next door for my own? Would it only be because of “the law”…I would hate myself if the only reason I chose to act in a moral fashion was fear of reprisal. I would feel dehumanized if the only moral code that I followed was that
     I will be punished if I do such and such…The whole idea gives me the creeps. But if I do such and such or don’t do such and such out of love, out of a desire to please the One who created me, out of a higher moral code, then and only then could I sleep at night.

     Imagine if tomorrow everyone woke up and followed the code of “Don’t do it or you’ll be punished”, or” Do what is best for you”, the world would be a cold and unloving place.

     But if everyone woke up tomorrow and lived the Christian Ideal, we all walked around living like Mother Theresa…well you tell me, which world would you find more appealing.?

     MK

     Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 6:03 am

101. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     I will respond to you shortly. There is something that I must finish reading first. Thank you.

     Comment posted June 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm

102. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     First, on a post on here somewhere, if you insist I will dig it up, but I’m not positive where, however, I know it is there. She states that she isn’t certain if she believes in the death penalty, however, there was someone listed first, and abortionists would qualify for it. Now I understand that I am not an abortionist in the sense that I perform the procedure. However, as without me and those like me there would not be a need for the abortionist. In a manner this makes us responsible for their death, as she feels that executing them would be acceptable. I find this particularly disturbing considering the amount of violence directed toward clinics. She would only be executing the abortionist because I am not capable of performing the aborion on myself. If I was capable of performing the abortion on myself, she would execute me by reason of definition.

     While I am glad to hear that you yourself do not shout things such as murder and whore at these women, it does indeed still happen. I don’t know what you say to the women you speak with specifically, however, I am not left with reason to believe that you give them indication to believe that they engaged in an acceptable activity. It’s not that I don’t understand that your intention is more than likely a sincere offering of aid in a situation that you understand to be difficult, but might not fully appreciate for what reasons. It’s just that notifying someone that they will be forgiven is only something that is done to someone whom you believe has done something wrong. That is judgemental. It is not that you can’t make your judgements, in fact you must. It is a matter that they must also make their judgements.

     That there is a need for someone to talk with is really more of a desire to have someone that will listen. Truly listen, truly non judgemental. Not advise, not instruct, or anything but listen. There is a need to be able to ramble in nonsense that makes no more sense to them than it would to you. They have had to make a difficult decision and quickly. Many have already done so on the instruction of others. They are still attempting to make sense of things. There are societal dictations regarding what effect this will have on them, and no matter what effect it actually has it will bring questions regarding what it means about them. They have heard from your side that this makes them a terrible person. They have heard that they have the right. They will try to deal with emotions that they have not dealt with before, and more than likely they will do it alone. Forgiveness is not on the list of things that will make things better. Anticipating that they will be in pain emotionally will not help. Due to messages laid out by society they will already anticipate that they will feel certain ways. If they do not experience these emotions in a timely fashion, or ever, they will wonder if there is something wrong with them.

     I don’t know how to say that the best person for the job of caring for their emotional needs is probably not best done by someone who believes they have done something wrong. I suppose the best way is just to say it. As I stated, I don’t doubt your intentions are good.

     Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 8:55 pm

103. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     Regarding Judith Jarvis Thomson. Her argument is an entertainment of the idea that the embryo; fetus, is as you say, a viable individual with interests that require rights. Therefore, she argues it on the terms that have been laid out. When she states she doesn’t believe what she has said, it is in reference to the fact that she doesn’t believe that a fetus within the first trimester is a viable individual with interests that would then require it to have rights.
     Her statements, which I have made as well, and are arising again since the events of South Dakota, are center on the reality that a right to life means a right to your life, not everyones life. Therefore, if a fetus can live seperately from its mothers womb, none may harm it. The argument from here is that a newborn, or a toddler also require nutrients in life that they cannot in themselves obtain.
     As I have already declared elsewhere, my strong responsibilities that I believe come attached to the choice of being a mother, are also attached at the legal status of abortion. It is the choice that provides the strength that I believe in, not the occurance under coercion. That said, the fact is that a newborn can in fact be separated from mom and not die. Other people are capable of providing nutrients for the newborn. Choosing to have children means making a serious committment, it means acknowledging that you are choosing to bring a being into the world that will depend on you for an extensive period of time. It means knowing this, and acting in accordance to the possession of this knowledge. This means that if you are not prepared to meet the conditions that one must not have a child.

     I understand that you state that if one does not wish to have children one should not have sex. However, protection does not always work. As you are opposed to protection anyway, I can only state the facts. It does not always work, which is not the same as saying it never works. We have the rights to our bodies though. We own our bodies. We also have a right to privacy. This means that the government does not get to step in and dicate how we will use it, and the church…any church does not have the option.

     Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:09 pm

104. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     She also does not argue that people would be montrous. She argues that there are other determinants, such as time, or level of inconvience that would determine how a casual observer might percieve her. She states that if the time is short and the inconvience is minor that you may consider them to be callous, selfish, or indecent, yet not unjust. Justly, she is not required to share her body with any other viable human being under any conditions. She never says montrous.

     She chooses not to discuss late term abortions. She is more interested in the responsibility of a woman to a viable individual who has taken up residence within her body. The point is not when that life becomes worth saving. The point is when does that life need to be able to support itself. The answer is at birth. If we are merely discussing the fact that it must be able to breathe on its own, this is still a manner of self support that does not exist in the womb. When does it need to think for itself?

     Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:17 pm

105. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     With abortion the expectation is that the child will die. If the aborition is done with this in mind, and therefore performed for the purpose of preserving the life of the woman. It is not a result of the intention, merely the expectation.

     Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:18 pm

106. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     Once again, you assume that a belief in God and a pre determined soul are requirements in understanding the difference between right and wrong. I could hardly imagine a worse representative for this arguement than the church, the Catholic church at that.
     I know that you are operating under the assumption that your God is there despite the fact that I don’t believe. Can you imagine for a moment what it looks like to me?

     It’s funny that you should introduce this concept. The thing is, you believe that you have a God watching over you. One who will judge you if you do the right or wrong thing. One who will issue rewards or punishments accordingly. You have a book that you believe instructs you on what will earn you what. It is from my perspective that operate very much in the light you mentioned earlier.

     I, however, and the rest of us athiests, are operating under a different set of standards. By athiests I mean real athiests, not the lot who turned in a supernatural god for a mortal god, still denouncing their self in the interest of an arbitrary second or third party. We operate quite truly in the dark. There is no hidden camera system installed watching us. When we open a door for a person, or drop change in a cup we are not scoring points. We believe that each and every individual is capable of independant thought processes…if you want a display of faith…
     We operate in the understanding that we are responsible for our lives. We must maintain them and preserve them. We understand that we have no rights to infringe upon the rights of others to demonstrate or discover their ability to think for themselves and come up with wonderful ideas that can change the world. We believe that lives are saved because we do not wish to inhibit the free flow of ideas. We know it is true. We live in the evidence. There have been a few bumps along the road, but it is here it worked. J.D. Rockefeller lived. Rockefeller was not an Athiest of course, but he lived by our codes and he made the world a better place for an unknown amount of people. He competed freely, worked hard, strove for excellence. The church did not make this. Mother Theresa did not make this.

     You see something different than I. Can you appreciate the wonder of the reports that come out that complain that the poor in this country are suffering from obesity. Can you appreciate this. In other places, where people are not free to determine their own destinies, the poor are starving to death. Here they weigh to much. We have thrift stores in which one may find the fabrics of Kings and Queens for pocket change. A hamburger can be purchased for a dollar or less. In a world where people don’t eat. This is the result of self determination. As I said we are about a sheet of paper from having been them. If not for the valor and bravery of a few we wouldn’t have this. Others can have this, but through Self-Determination. No Cathecism will provide this, because it never has.

     My world. I’ll take my world. I do what is right because I understand, not because I have been told. I read the Humanae Vitae, that is scary. My world because my actions are attached to me. I know that there is no actual justifiable rationalization for legislating hatred. I know that no good has come, or ever will come from attempting to dicate the lives of others. We are each capable of thinking for ourselves. We are each capable of self determination.

     Comment posted June 20th, 2006 at 9:45 pm

107. mary kay says:

     Hey Lucy,

     Missed talking to ya…super, super busy. This will have to be short and I want to address so much of what you say but I’m so tired I’m ready to cry…

     But this was really important:

     you said: ” It’s funny that you should introduce this concept. The thing is, you believe that you have a God watching over you. One who will judge you if you do the right or wrong thing. One who will issue rewards or punishments accordingly. You have a book that you believe instructs you on what will earn you what.”

     I stopped doing things for rewards and punishments a long time ago…I do what I do because I love Him. That’s all. I’m madly, wildly, breathlessly in love with Him. And the thought of hurting Him or risking His displeasure causes me great pain. Just as the thought of hurting anyone I love causes me pain…I only use the book when an issue is fuzzy, but I rarely need the book because our communication is so good. I almost always know what He wants me to do, and I ALWAYS know when He doesn’t want me to do something…

     Also, I never start a conversation at the clinic by tellling the clients that they will or can be forgiven. I simply ask them if they would like to talk, and urge them to hear ALL the facts before going through those doors.
     Because they can always go in, but once in they can’t undo what they have done. Many girls have said they were so grateful someone was there to tell them the other side. Lots of them are ambivalent and aren’t very knowledgeable about what abortion is or what their other choice really are. My first sentence is usually, “Would you like to talk? That way you can make a real choice…you can act instead of react…don’t do this because you feel backed into a corner…explore all your choices before making one…You say you believe in choice? Well, that implies you’ve looked at all your options. Have you?”

     Then you just sort of feel your way from there. If they have a rosary in their car you can be pretty sure there Catholic. Then you can freely talk about the church. If there Hindu, obviously throwing God in their face is not going to help. If they’re Muslim, the Catholic church is probably not the way to go…Each person is different and you’re right, most of the time I just listen. If they have stopped to talk, they usually are uncertain anyway. If they are determined to go through with it, they usually just give me the finger or tell me mind my own f—ing business. So I’m not just shoving Catholocism down their throats…

     Okay, gotta go. Yer girl does use the term monsters, I just can’t remember where…next time I’m not painting or unpacking I look it up and copy it…

     Okay, take care. I see you guys have been goin’ at it on the other blogs…I’m so jealous.

     MK

     Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 10:11 pm

108. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     That may very well be the way you address the individuals that you find at the clinic. However, you must be aware of the fact that this is not the behavior of many. The reason you recieve the negative reactions is the expectation. I know people who have witnessed very different scenerios. Young girls being shamelessly harrassed. They are called every name in the book. Some of them have been grabbed.

     I myself can account for places that pose as clinics. They lure you inside as a place that provides abortion but insists upon providing counseling first. Once inside you find out that what they have is a nasty disposition towards you. Videos they want you to watch, pamphlets they want you to read, and accusations they would like to make. The only thing that they do that makes you think your not in a torture chamber is make you pee in a cup to make sure your pregant. They do that first. Then you find out where you are. They call you all kinds of things. They tell you that animals are better than you. If you thought you had seen hatred before this is the time you find out you were wrong. It is all directed at you. You don’t know these people, they don’t know you, but they have decided that you are worth the energy that has to be invested in hating someone.

     I didn’t flip anyone off, or tell them where to go. I just wanted to leave. I don’t know if they thought they could scare me into doing things their way or what. I was young, very naive, nervous and a little scared. It’s not as though I had ever been through any of this before. There are things that you hear and things that you know. When you run across people like the ones that were at this operation it isn’t helpful in the least. I didn’t need that kind of help anyway.

     Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:58 pm

109. Lucy says:

     Mary Kay,
     I just searched both of the articles I have by her and can’t find the word monster or monstrous in either. If you find it let me know where, I’m interested in the context. Perhaps you’ve found something that I haven’t seen by her.

     Comment posted June 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 pm

110. Generations for Life » Blog Archive » When Did Playboy Become Respectable? says:

     [...] As we’ve seen, the Netherlands is already moving in this direction, and — please God, I hope I’m wrong — it’s probably only a matter of time before it enters a full gallop. [...]

     Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 3:40 pm