Reality
— Posted by Annie (July 13, 2006 at 9:11 am)
Among some pro-aborts there seems to be a real contempt for the unborn child as if she purposely chose to invade the womb of an unsuspecting woman. It is not the child who is innocent, but the woman, who is being attacked against her will. As we have seen on this blog and many other places, the result is a lot of anger and a lot of blood shed.
The fact is that a woman’s body has the capacity to bear children. The purpose of her womb, whether she actually bears children or not, is to be a home for a developing child, just her eyes function in order for her to see. As a human being with free will, she can choose not to bear children. But to deny her very nature, her very biology, is to deny reality.
Therefore, if a woman engages in sexual intercourse and conceives a child, why is she then at war with her own body – a body that is functioning just as it was created to do? Why is there a war being waged against reality?
The child is not the enemy. She is a beautiful reality of the natural order.
This entry is filed under Abortion, Culture Wars. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Pansy Moss says:
I love the picture. I think baby feet are my favorite baby part. Along with little cheeks, and nosies, and fingers…
I guess I should respond to Annie’s good insight, but the picture is too cute.
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Lauren says:
Is taking an aspirin waging war against a natural order? What about eating processed food? How about dying my hair? Painting my nails? Annie, can I ask you if you have anything on your hands?
Comment posted July 13th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Michael-2 says:
Laureen I am not Anne, but I can say that taking an aspirin is an attempt to return to a natural predetermined state.
And what you wear on your body may be significantly different in essence to what you do to your body or the body in your womb.
There are also similarities to getting a polio vaccination and getting a gunshot, since both are intrusive. But there are aslo some important differences.
Again I am not Anne, but if you were to ask me if there is any anything on my hands, I could say that I have no blood on my hands, at least none that I am aware of for the time being at least.
Pax Vobiscum
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 4:22 am
Lauren says:
How do you know if you have blood on your hands Michael? Do you know where everything you own is made? Do you or your significant other own diamonds? Are you aware who got that stone for you and what the cost to them might have been? I laugh heartily at pro-lifers who wear diamonds, and then cry because I know that a 7 year old probably went and got that diamond for you. Mm all in search of something sparkly.
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Pansy Moss says:
Lauren,
#1. Most pro-lifers I know are pretty fastidius about trying not to contribute to organisations they outright know obtain their products through immoral means. It is impossible to know the background of every product of every store.
Diamonds? Get real. You know people who buy diamonds everyday on a whim? I was thinking of doing your best to avoid products made in China. But you can only do so much with access you have and a certain budget.
Are all the pro-choice celebrities who wear millions of dollars of bling exempt of being “laughed at” making bad moral choices in this because they are pro-murder, so they get a pass?
#2. Abortion is a concerted effort to directly murder somone by your own means. That responsibility is fully on the hands of the abortionist, and the person who chose to utilise the abortionists services. Inhereting my grandmother’s diamonds and keeping them is not the same as putting a gun to someone’s head and pulling the trigger. Abortion is, however.
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 8:25 am
rosie says:
This is something I came across, check out the Alberta report.
http://www.prolife.com/HarvestingAbortedBabies.html
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Lauren, lauren, lauren says:
“Diamonds? Get real. You know people who buy diamonds everyday on a whim? I was thinking of doing your best to avoid products made in China. But you can only do so much with access you have and a certain budget.”
I am getting real… You however are not. It’s ok hypocrisy doesnt speak, it screams. I could care less what celebrities are doing nor what Kanye West says, but I have been talking about conflict diamonds since high school. If they champion the cause, more power to them. I laugh so hard tho when i see “pro-lifers” wearing diamonds. It is the largest sign of hypocrisy ever.
That’s it, half the country is a bunch of treacherous murderers, but your sin of wearing a diamond that may have cost a living, breathing child his or her life is just ridiculous. Well your comments today certainly put things into perspective! GREED KILLS.
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Lauren, lauren, lauren says:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/diamonds.html
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Pansy Moss says:
That’s it, half the country is a bunch of treacherous murderers, but your sin of wearing a diamond that may have cost a living, breathing child his or her life is just ridiculous. Well your comments today certainly put things into perspective! GREED KILLS.
Man, you people never read a thing that is said to you.
Where did I say I wore diamonds? I said “get real”. I spend my money on housing, food clothing for my children, but diamonds? Nor do I advocate conflict diamonds, but it is a non-issue because I don’t know anyone who can afford to casually buy diamonds, and the ones I do know-don’t. People in my world simply don’t buy diamonds! So where is the hyposcrisy? I don’t even buy coffee or chocolate if it is not fair trade. That is more my level.
But speaking of laughing, let’s all laugh about something, why are pro-lifers hypocrits-hmmm, because you want to find any excuse as to why abortion is OK. But guess what? Seeing a pro-lifer with an engagement ring does not suddenly turn an act of murder in non-murder. Oddly, that is the best you can do? Pro-choicers should talk about hypocrisy, they speak of “women’s rights” but all they really want is women to masculate themselves and murder their children. They do not care about the slaughter of innocent baby girls, or the harrasment of women forced to have abortions by their boyfriends. Women’s rights to them is not to be respected as women but to imitate men. Pro-aborts have a long way to go before they can point “hypocrit” fingers. Regardless, name calling changes nothing about the evil of murder.
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Pansy Moss says:
“Diamonds? Get real. You know people who buy diamonds everyday on a whim? I was thinking of doing your best to avoid products made in China. But you can only do so much with access you have and a certain budget.”
I am getting real… You however are not. It’s ok hypocrisy doesnt speak, it screams.
You know, I thought maybe you just didn’t read what I said, but rereading your post and how you linked a site to prove to me about conflict diamonds, it occured to me that with all the laughing you do, you have no concept of sarcasm. BTW, you know the history of Amnesty International? It was started by a hypocritical, pro-life Catholic lawyer in England… (laugh away at the hypocrisy).
Stop laughing, people who laugh without a sense of humor are scary, like some villain in a sci fi movie.
I didn’t say “get real” because I don’t know about conflict diamonds. I said get real because it is dumb for me to take stands and boycott purchasing diamonds because I am not, nor do I know anyone in a position to buy diamonds. It is hypocritical and really dumb to try to sound intellectual taking stands on issues that will never be part of your world. I can see it now, me at some dinner party in the Hamptons:
Mesporting a fake New England accent: Well, I never buy diamonds, due to the conflict in Africa.
Other Guest: Oh I know, it is just tragic…(but thinks to self Um sure, whatever, you don’t buy diamonds because your husband is a student who works for a trucking company and you got 6 kids, and dinner at Ponderosa is a luxury for you.)
I mean I think fur coats made from baby harp seals is a tragedy too, and when I get the expendable income to reject all the fur my dh wants to lavish me with, I will boycott that too.
Comment posted July 14th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Lucy says:
Annie,
First it is not the ‘pro-aborts’ as you insist, that have personified a fertilized egg. The Pro-Choice, or the people for responsible family planning, or the people who favor the investment of thought to the needs of children, have generally only entertained the idea that a phenomenon without the ability to think or the need to think could possibly have rights of its own as an attempt to demonstrate the ridiculousness that is posed by the suggestion. It is in fact your side that insists upon the personification of a fertilized egg. If you feel that it is ridiculous to personify that which does not have the required tools for thoughts then I think that we have just found a common ground.
Second, why is it that the potentialities of a body are so natural and yet the potential of the mind is discarded as somehow being akin to criminal? How is that you will tell a woman that if she wishes to avoid pregnancy that she can abstain from sex, (of course, according to the Humanae Vitae, this only applies to dire emergencies, and all options are null and void where marriage does not exist). Yet when she tells you that her mind has devised methods by which she may engage in sexual activity and not get pregnant, (No, I am not talking about the Rythym Method, or ‘NFP’). Such as the Pill or a Condom you tell her that somehow the productive abilities of her mind that can permit her control when she is pregnant are not natural. That they are in fact wrong. Worse still, you will tell her that the natural functions of the mind, which no other living creature has developed, allows her to understand enough about the functions of the human body to understand how to discontinue a pregancy before it has reached the end. Her mind, which you declare to be an unnatural part of her being permits her to decide how to utilize the natural ability of hers to bare children.
This means, despite your declaration that you have witnessed anger on this site due to womens need to fight some natural process, which is nonsense of course, the anger, at least on my part has been inspired by no such thing. If it is impossible to understand that when I say abortion has not led me to anger I mean just that then perhaps the common ground we seem to have reached is a mirage. None the less, the fact is that the ability to exercise greater control over our bodies has had much the same effect as the ability to grow our own food had. See, cows don’t actually come penned, and beef doesn’t actually originate in the butcher store, or in whatver store. We don’t actually come with the knowledge of how to prevent diseases, or cure them. As I’ve said, a disease that once wiped out a healthy portion of Europe, if you will, is now less of a threat than the common cold.
It is not logical to hold one ability to defy nature by utilizing our minds as good and the next as bad without any concrete standards. Considering that in a not to distant future the very same groups who are staunchly opposed to the exploration of stem cell research will demand that it is ‘Gods’ will that it be used to save someone beyond salvage….
Women are in fact able to pursue careers that secure for them greater financial security than they have ever had in the past. Women are in fact able to lower the amount of children that they have, making for a happier experience with the ones that they do have. Granting them the ability to provide better educations, and therefore the potential to a better future. A greater amount of funds are available to provide better health care if they choose. While it is of course preferable that a father be in the picture, it is best if the right father be in the picture. There is no value in having a drugged or drunken father that cannot hold a job and will provide nothing but abuse for mother and children. Some men will still leave, and others a woman will need to leave. With a greater control over her body she may wait until ready, and sure that he is the right man. If she finds out to late, she does not have to latch herself and children to a man of such a nature. Armed with a better job due to improved options she may leave and raise children alone if necessary.
If a woman decides that she has no desire to have children in her life she may choose not have children. This will not rob her of the ability to engage in a loving romantic relationship with a man who would also prefer to not have children. The ability to choose against having children is particularly vital to women who have health conditions that would not allow them to carry children to term. Their own ability to engage in a healthy, happy life need not be prohibited because of medical conditions that would have previously sentenced her to celibacy and other miseries due to an impending fear of death.
That women may have children is indeed a wonderful thing for women who wish to have children. As I have said, a loving and caring mother is a highly under appreciated individual who at very least has my respect. However, for a woman who has no desire to have children, that ability that you believe to be a blessing becomes a curse. That value of having children is lowered if it is a necessity. The thoughts behind having children diminish. It becomes and obligation. To pretend that it is a denial of womanhood not to have children is to cheapen womanhood to a collection of sexual organs. Short of the extrodinary value that I’ve seen placed on sperm around here, I can’t account for an occasion where men have been identified for their reproductive abilities.
A woman can be so much more than a mother. What else could possibly give motherhood value than the choice of? There is no real value in my sneezing yet it is quite the natural function. One would harldy put it up on a pedestal. This, though is the treatment that motherhood is given by the Anti-Abortion side.
Please consider again before you persist in declaring that woman utilizing their minds is a cause of anger. Please consider again before insisting that women using their minds is some how deterimental to them. That the product of a womans mind, which require effort, that are not a time released function, is somehow wrong because she worked to develop it. The occurance of pregnancy requires no thought and little effort. To be a good mother does require thought and effort. Becoming Pregnant does not make for a good mother.
My anger has not been in regards to my desire to control my body. It has been directed at your desire to control my body. I have said this over and over again and will continue to say it.
You’ll note that…
I’m trusting that I’m correct and have not missed something Lauren.
While Lauren may resort to words that I do not feel appropriate in communication, there has been not reference to violence from either of us, and I know of no other Pro-Choicers that have posted on here regularly. At least not insinuations that we would engage in violence, or support violence. In fact, our statements regarding violence have generally pertained to the anti’s side. In fact, Quinn is in favor of executing anyone who thinks abortion should be legal. YCW did in fact tell me that she was in favor of them executing, I can’t remember what was first, but abortionists was second in line. I have been told that I was vile, demonstrably vile. Michael 2 notified me that I was all kinds of horrible things. I don’t know if either he or Mike have finished calling me a murderer, which I am of course not, and I have been told that I am stupid. Or evil.
Overall, the anger has not come from me. I grant that Lauren’s language is not what I choose to use, but that is my personal point. It still causes no physical harm to anyone that she use words that she chooses. I simply see no point, they aren’t terribly effective in relaying ideas. They generally serve as a distraction in fact, as people so disposed will evade the contained idea by focussing on what becomes the elephant in the room.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Lauren, lauren, lauren says:
“but it is a non-issue because I don’t know anyone who can afford to casually buy diamonds”
Sweet, neither do I. Where did I say the diamonds were bought casually? Oh wait, I didnt.
“hmmm, because you want to find any excuse as to why abortion is OK. ”
Exactly! I want to find a reason why abortion is OK.. No, I want to find a reason why people like yourself meddle so much in other people’s lives rather than try to correct the injustices around you? Sure, protest all you want.. You know what happens? You make people loathe you. I’ve had so many people contact me privately that have read this site and read what I said in the Southtown and they THANK me for standing up to you. They think you’re a bunch of fools, a bunch of silly, silly fools that have no grip with the realities an d injustices in life. Instead of trying to deal with why abortion exists let’s just debate what a grand conspiracy Planned Parenthood is. Instead of trying to understand what compels a woman to have an abortion, let’s outlaw contraception because it sends the wrong message. Right, my priorities are not straight.
“Seeing a pro-lifer with an engagement ring does not suddenly turn an act of murder in non-murder. ”
No it shows how pro-birth anti-choicers are rather than pro-life. That’s all.
“Pro-choicers should talk about hypocrisy, they speak of “women’s rights” but all they really want is women to masculate themselves and murder their children.”
Perhaps nyou dont understand the meaning of choice and I’m not about to explain it to you. Look it up.
Let’s face the reality here. You dont want women to have the option to terminate a pregnancy. You want her to have no otherchoice but to carry it, right?
“They do not care about the slaughter of innocent baby girls, or the harrasment of women forced to have abortions by their boyfriends.”
The only thing that I care about is that my sisters, my girls, my ladies, have the right to choose independent of what you or anyone else says (be it their boyfriend, parents, etc.) Bless the women who CHOOSE to carry their pregnancy, and bless the women who CHOOSE not to carry their pregnancy. You would condemn one group to go to hell. I wouldn’t. There’s the difference. But I forgot, Jesus has you on speed dial, so we might as well crown you daughter of God.
” It was started by a hypocritical, pro-life Catholic lawyer in England… (laugh away at the hypocrisy).”
I never said the pro-life Catholic lawyer was a hypocrite. I said you were. Lol. And if I thought Catholics were hypocrites I would have to disown most of my family. You seem to forget that zygotes and gays arent the only two issue the Bible preaches about (which really, the Bible says nothing directly about abortion, ok ok give me your interpretations, but abortion is never mentioned)
Since when do you have to live in the Hamptons to own a diamond? Am i missing something?
Holla Lucy.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
By think, I mean what you’ve heard.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Was the picture on this thread a frog, a fish or a cow? What is it?
When do you believe life begins? Please give me an exact time.
Mike
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
Mike says:
Lucy,
Do you support this proceedure?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit
Why or why not?
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
Lucy says:
Annie,
Another thing is bothering me about what you wrote. If it is natural for women to have children what does that say about women who aren’t capable of having children? If that is a womans highest purpose, something that requires no thoughts and no efforts, then what does it mean about a woman who can’t achieve that efforts.
That a woman who chooses to be a doctor. Who is dedicated and determined. Who works her fingers to the bone, excercising every muscle in her mind. That she works and improves lives, and yet never is able to have children. Or never chooses to be a mother. She is not a woman because she does not have an experience that requires no thought or effort at all.
She is not a woman because for one reason or another she can’t have children? Are there lines drawn between a woman who can’t and a woman who won’t? Does a woman who can’t get partial credit or something because she would if she could? So she’s half woman? How does this work if it is natural for women to have children. A woman who chooses not to have children would become what?
I’m just opposed to the degradation of women. I hope you understand.
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Just out of curiousity does it give you a thrill to look at stuff like that? Is there something that makes it so that you want me to tell you again that the majority of D&E’s are done in instances where there was no hope of the fetus surviving birth. Or that the woman was going to die.
Would it be your preference that women die?
Life begins at birth. Period. When the cord is cut it becomes an individual. Does that solve the riddle for you. Does that get you any closer to an understanding of what life actually is?
Comment posted July 15th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Since when do you have to live in the Hamptons to own a diamond? Am i missing something?
Yes, a sense of humor.
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 4:37 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
You say:
” Yet when she tells you that her mind has devised methods by which she may engage in sexual activity and not get pregnant, ”
If this were true then this discussion would be pointless because there would be no unwanted pregnancies, abortion would not be necessary and the argument would be moot. It doesn’t work however, and that is why abortion exists.
MK
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Another Annie says:
Actually, Annie, what your article fails to address is the newest evidence that a fetus is, in fact, “At War” with a pregnant body.
from “Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy,” New York Times science section, March 14, 2006
A fetus does not sit passively in its mother’s womb and wait to be fed. Its placenta aggressively sprouts blood vessels that invade its mother’s tissues to extract nutrients.
Meanwhile, Dr. Haig argued, natural selection should favor mothers who could restrain these incursions, and manage to have several surviving offspring carrying on their genes. He envisioned pregnancy as a tug of war. Each side pulls hard, and yet a flag tied to the middle of the rope barely moves.
“We tend to think of genes as parts of a machine working together,” Dr. Haig said. “But in the realm of genetic conflict, the cooperation breaks down.”
In a 1993 paper, Dr. Haig first predicted that many complications of pregnancy would turn out to be produced by this conflict. One of the most common complications is pre-eclampsia, in which women experience dangerously high blood pressure late in pregnancy. For decades scientists have puzzled over pre-eclampsia, which occurs in about 6 percent of pregnancies.
Dr. Haig proposed that pre-eclampsia was just an extreme form of a strategy used by all fetuses. The fetuses somehow raised the blood pressure of their mothers so as to drive more blood into the relatively low-pressure placenta. Dr. Haig suggested that pre-eclampsia would be associated with some substance that fetuses injected into their mothers’ bloodstreams. Pre-eclampsia happened when fetuses injected too much of the stuff, perhaps if they were having trouble getting enough nourishment.
In the past few years, Ananth Karumanchi of Harvard Medical School and his colleagues have gathered evidence that suggests Dr. Haig was right. They have found that women with pre-eclampsia had unusually high levels of a protein called soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1, or sFlt1 for short.
Other labs have replicated their results. Dr. Karumanchi’s group has done additional work that indicates that this protein interferes with the mother’s ability to repair minor damage to her blood vessels. As that damage builds up, so does her blood pressure. And as Dr. Haig predicted, the protein is produced by the fetus, not the mother.
Oh but I forgot. You folk don’t cotton much to “Science,” do you?
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Quinn says:
There’s true science and then there’s so-called science. Showing off some dude from New Guinea as the missing link between apes and men is not science. Neither is shouting from the rooftops a discovery of what seems to be the skeletal remains of some sort of half-bird creature as National Geographic will attest (especially after discovering that their “find” was put together by some black market dealer).
So, the mother has to make some small sacrifices to her health in order to take care of her child(ren). So what!? Just because the mother experiences some negative effects from giving birth does not in any way justify slaughtering her baby boy or girl. Moms gladly make sacrifices for their children.
And in the end, women live longer than men on average. And those women who have their children and do not slaughter them have better health overall for the rest of their lives as the study by the government of Finland showed recently. And FYI for Lauren and others, the Finnish government and STAKES is not a pro-life group or mouthpiece. Yet, you’ll probably still find some far out reason to ignore the findings of their well done study.
http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html
Comment posted July 16th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Pansy Moss says:
You folk don’t cotton much to “Science,” do you?
For crying out loud, enough with your rhetoric and stereotypes. Say what you gotta say-you are gung hop for abortion. But if we in turn spatted out the same loaded by lines, you would have a fit! Fact is, educated Catholics are attracted to careers in the sciences because classical education works well, and because many Catholics do not want to pick politcally loaded careers. I know more Catholic engineers than I know educators or social scientists. The Pope Paul VI Institute has done more for women’s healthcare than simply say “I don’t know what to do for you, take The Pill…”
Again, unless you can do research proving all the career choices and even periodical reading of every pro-lifer (like do they suscribe to Omni or Astronomy Today etc), and asked them their feelings on “do you think science is bull s%^*, yes or no?”, knock off your prejusdice statements.
Anyway, science is finding a theory, doing experiments to prove or disprove, and using the evidence to create a Law. Prior to that happening, it is simply an idea. Many ideas are simply an attemot to find some concrete way to prove someones political agenda, like the theory you cited above. Like evolution, not believing it is not a denial of science. Not believing it is because it is not a scientific law, there is no proof, therefore a matter of “choice” as to which theory you find is more valid or not.
High levels of sFlt1 does not prove that pregnancy is in direct opposition to nature. It simply means something causes preeclampsia. There are many factors for one to survive, certain other aspects of health must be sacrificed, like in sickle cell anemia. For whatever reason though, this particular scientific community, instead of turning to find a cure for preeclampsia, they figure “well this proves it, childbearing is bad”. Fact is preecampsia does not benefit the child either as many pregnancies have to end early.
No one claims pregnancy is not hard on the body. It is actually a comfort to many mothers that when they are feeling ill and cannot eat right or whatever, their body’s first priority is to take care of their child. If the mother was not taking in enough calcium, the baby would get enough from the mother’s bones. Many women who would lay down their lives for their children (we call those people “mothers”) without a second thought find comfort in this helping hand from nature.
The prolife argument is not that child rearing is not difficult. You will not find a parent who loves their children and truly takes their job seriously ever, ever, ever ever say it is easy. Rewarding, yes, but easy no. Nothing in this life that is worth it’s weight in salt is easy. Nothing. The argument is simply the slaughter of children because they may be an inconvenience is wrong.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 4:31 am
mary kay says:
Lucy says,
“As you guys argue that it is a full fledged thinking individual that needs rights to ensure its own life…with no brain, or stomache, or should I continue? ”
Dr. Haig says,
“A fetus does not sit passively in its mother’s womb and wait to be fed. Its placenta aggressively sprouts blood vessels that invade its mother’s tissues to extract nutrients.”
It seems to me that “another annie” and Dr. Haig have just thrown a wrench in your argument that a fetus is a passive blob of cells with no life of it’s own…
Also, I have plenty of pictures of 8 week old aborted babies. Did you know that a “Nurse?” has to put the baby back together after it is sucked out through a vacuum hose, to make sure she got all the pieces? Arms, legs, head, etc…
And as for 1% of D and E’s, I know of no instance where a fully viable child must be killed to save the mothers life. At that point the child can be delivered with or without it’s brain. And the danger to the mother would remain the same. So opting to suck it’s brain out before it is born is completely unnecessary. The reason there are so few of these abortions is because doctors won’t preform them. I only know of one in Kansas that will.
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 6:56 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Deaths from Suicide
Using a subset of the same data, STAKES researchers had previously reported that the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth.(2) Two of these suicides were also connected with infanticide. Examples of post-abortion suicide/infanticide attempts have also been documented in the United States.(3)
The same finding was reported in STAKES’ more recent study. Among the 281 women who died within a year of their last pregnancy, 77 (27 percent) had committed suicide. Figure 2 shows the age-adjusted odds ratio for suicide for the three pregnancy groups compared to the “no pregnancy” control group.
Notably, the risk of suicide following a birth was about half that of the general population of women. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have shown that an undisturbed pregnancy actually reduces the risk of suicide.(4)
Abortion, on the other hand, is clearly linked to a dramatic increase in suicide risk. This statistical finding is corroborated by interview-based studies which have consistently shown extraordinarily high levels of suicidal ideation (30-55 percent) and reports of suicide attempts (7-30 percent) among women who have had an abortion.(5) In many of these studies, the women interviewed have explicitly described the abortion as the cause of their suicidal impulses.
There goes you argument that if we take away a womens right to abortion we are pushing them to suicide. It seems to me you not only have the guilt of aborted children but also the guilt of their mothers committing suicide… the burden of guilt for suicide falls to your side, not ours…
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 7:01 am
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Similar admissions of cover-up have been made by other public health authorities.(5) For example, following the death of Barbara Lee Davis from hemorrhage after a routine first-trimester abortion, the chief of the Illinois Department of Public’s Division of Hospitals and Clinics admitted to reporters, “It’s unfortunate, but it’s happening every day in Chicago, and you’re just not hearing about it.”(6) Just one year later, during an investigation of only four Chicago-based abortion clinics, investigative reporters for the Chicago-Sun Times identified twelve abortion-related deaths that had not been reported in the state’s official statistics.(7)
I just don’t see how allowing abortion is helping women…
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 7:06 am
Lauren says:
“Since when do you have to live in the Hamptons to own a diamond? Am i missing something?
Yes, a sense of humor. ”
I wasn’t aware that what you were saying was a joke. Next time either be funnier or say “I’m joking.”
Another Annie, I enjoyed your article it was interesting.
“Showing off some dude from New Guinea as the missing link between apes and men is not science. ”
lmao… I’m sure that’s what evolutionary scientists put on the evolution chart, “some dude”. And i’m sure they all are just a bunch of crackpots too. Lol you do understand their facts are based upon research and study, whereas your “facts” are based upon one book with countless flaws and the rosy notion of “I don’t like your theory so I’ll just say it isn’t real.” I can’t even believe this is a fact of life what people will convince themselves of.
“Abortion, on the other hand, is clearly linked to a dramatic increase in suicide risk.”
You obviously have never taken a statistics class or ethics class, because this is not a conclusion you can come to based on that study. It may seem convenient, but unfortunately it doesnt work. I’m not going to explain statistics to you, I suggest you take a class or something to get yourself educated.
Who was the person that said that BC is 99% effective therefore 1 out of 100 will get pregnant? I hope it wasn’t you too MK.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 11:43 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Women know the risks they take when they seek an abortion. If you feel that there isn’t enough emphasis put on the risks then please, make people more aware, but only about the real ones. Telling women that they don’t get to decide if the risk is worth it to them doesn’t help. Why do you get to decide what risk is worth what to them? Why do you get to do their thinking? Their are tragic deaths involved in all kinds of medical procedures. We know this. There are risks attached to nearly every medication on the market. Sometimes the possible side effects sound worse than what they are intended to cure. We each have to weigh our options and make the decision that sounds best to us.
Allowing women to make the decision whether or not the risk of an abortion outweighs the risks that she endures, whether you believe they exist or not, in continuing the pregnancy. You speak of this in terms of allowing women to make the decision. That’s the thing. You don’t get to decide for them, that is why it is their decision.
If we don’t get to decide when to end a pregnancy what is to prevent someone from telling us we have no choice but to end a pregnancy. The line that says what do you call the person who graduated last from medical school? Doctor. Well, do you want that person making your decisions for you? My friend was horrified when her doctor told her that the child she was pregnant with might have Downs Syndrome. She had tried for so long to get pregnant and now there was a possibility that her child might not be healthy. It came as a huge blow and she and her husband were a wreck. She did some research and found out that the odds that she was actually pregnant with a child that had downs syndrome was very small. The doctor told her that her choices were either an invasive test or an abortion. She was horrified. She knew that the test he reccomended was very risky. She was also disgusted by the fact that he assumed that Downs Syndrome, a non life threatening problem, which comes in variations, which people can still enjoy lives with, would provide a reason for her to absolutely abort the pregnancy.
When women don’t have the choice and others beside the women in question can make such vital decisions, they can also tell my friend that she can’t have her baby. Her baby didn’t have Downs Syndrome. She’s perfectly healthy, and extrodinarily bright.
This isn’t just about allowing women to choose to have an abortion when they can’t see continuing the pregnancy as a valid option for themselves. Or when their live is endangered. When women lose control of their bodies they can be restricted in how many children they have. There are those who are trying to figure out how to control the population. So much for having ten kids that you can fully support if you would like to. Why should you not be able to have as many kids as you can support?
I’ve yet to see any benefits arise from prohibiting womens rights to decide what they do with their bodies. They know the risks. If they don’t there needs to be more education. I for one had to sign a form acknowledging that I understood the risks involved. It was truly scary to acknowledge the possiblities, but I accepted it. I accepted it as the best option that I had.
We are each different. For me it has given me the ability to change my life for the better. I would not have made it back to school. I understand that you would like to believe that I am wrong, but I know the circumstances I would have been under in all of there nightmarish complexity. I would have been a horrific mother that would have destroyed another life. I have had to fight very hard to reclaim my own. I know what it is like to have been that child. I would not have been permitted to give up the child. I would have been punished by being forced to raise a child I couldn’t care for. Which would have also meant the child would have been punished. They would have declared that it would be the only way I would have learned not to do it again.
That is of course if they hadn’t outright killed me.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
That its placenta throws things out means what about the fetus? Is it a thought out process that it tells its placenta to do so? Does it contemplate how it will acquire food? Then push the right buttons in order to get it done?
It’s funny, one of Marx’s opening arguments against what he dubs Capitalism, otherwise known as free enterprise, is that it degrades people into nothing more than button pushers. Which is of course, nonsense. First, figuring out that pushing a button will get you food is a tertiary in the process of man learning how to sustain his life. The primary is understanding the sensation of hunger, and the secondary is understanding that food will ease the sensation, replacing it with a sense of pleasure. The first has to be acknowledged, the second has to be learned, and the third must be learned. From there we can advance to more complex levels which yeild more or better food, but essentially we will be learning different ways to push the button. Marx’s systems when implemented have never relieved anyone of this process, simply of the product that is yeilded from pushing the button.
A primary is that which we have no control over. It is a natural reflex of our body, such as blinking, which requires no thought, but is an essential in the care of the eye. Plants perform the same primary functions. Animals accomplish the latter. It is only in the advancement of the latter levels that we certify our humanity.
To pretend that a function that is performed by plants and basic levels of animals are somehow a contradiction to the idea that I and a fetus, or embryo, or blastocyst are not and cannot be equals denies that which seperates us from the other lifeforms on the planet.
Actually, the reason that the head is deflated is to decrease the risk that it presents to the woman. It would be far more hazardous to actually deliver the child at that point. First, it would strain her body to dialate the necessary point. Generally, the woman in question is already in a delicate condition and further strain on her body is not advisable if the interest is the mothers health. The interest at that point is not split between the fetus and the woman. The interest, unless specified otherwise by the woman, is soley placed on her well being. All measures to decrease the risk to her are invested in. Delivery in Pregnancy already poses a threat to a womans health. If she is in poor health then the risk increases.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Considering the other places that I’ve read the information that Another Annie posted, I don’t think that she is on your side. If she is, she should check out the latest edition of Free Inquiry. Or, you should, if you are still there Another Annie.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Abortion, which is an option possible because of the mind. You know full well that A: only Abstinence is 100% effective. B: That people do not always use protection when they should. Sometimes we do stupid things.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Annie says:
Pansy says:
“I love the picture. I think baby feet are my favorite baby part. Along with little cheeks, and nosies, and fingers…”
I love their feet too! My little one’s are so chubby. I also can’t get over how soft her hands are! Ah! To have skin like that!
Babies are wonderful!
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
The question becomes: since you believe that an embryo/fetus/blastocyst cannot survive on it’s own due to the fact that it cannot think and I say that either can a newborn/6 month old/ my father/ Kathys mother, then where do you draw the line on when you can take someones life. By your own definition, my father, Kathy’s mother, a newborn, a fetus and a blastocyst are all equally dependent therefore equally expendable.
You didn’t address the suicide sheet.
You are the one who said the brilliant mind of man came up with a way to prevent pregnancy. I simply pointed out that not so brilliant minds are using this technology and getting pregnant more than ever.
You still have not shown me an example where a mothers life is in danger in the last month of pregnancy where delivering the baby alive would pose a greater threat. You claim that it happens, but you don’t back it up. The reason they suck the babies brains out are because if it is born alive they could be charged with murder/infanticide. They could and do use laminaria to enlarge the cervix.
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
sorry. My computer was giving me wierd warnings so I cut that short. I was afraid it wouldn’t go through.
Anyway, delivering the baby alive would pose no greater threat than killing it first.
also did you know that a kangaroo baby will leave it’s mother’s pouch and climb a great distance (relative to it’s size) to find it’s mother’s teat. It does this at an age that is the equivalent to an eight week old human fetus. I’ll find the website. It has a picture and the joey looks less like a kangaroo than a human embryo looks like a person. Yet it still manages to (on it’s own) find that teat. If a kangaroo can think at that age, I must assume that a human (with as you say, it’s capacity for thought) must be able to do much more…
MK
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
mary kay says:
http://search.netscape.com/ns/search?query=kangaroo+babies
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 10:02 pm
mary kay says:
Enlarge picture
Newborn joey sucking on a teat in the pouch
. As with all marsupials, the young are born at a very early stage of development after a gestation of 31-36 days. At this stage, only the forelimbs are somewhat developed, to allow the newborn to climb to the pouch and attach to a teat. In comparison, a human embryo at a similar stage of development would be about 7 weeks old, and premature babies born at less than 23 weeks are usually not mature enough to survive. The joey will usually stay in the pouch for about 9 months or (for the Western Grey) 180 to 320 days, before starting to leave the pouch for small periods of time. It is usually fed by its mother until the age of 18 months.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
mary kay says:
http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/redir?src=image&requestId=2589c88d2fd34342&clickedItemRank=8&userQuery=joey+teat&clickedItemURN=http%3A%2F%2Fencyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com%2FKangaroo
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Mike says:
Lucy said …
“Abortion, which is an option possible because of the mind. You know full well that A: only Abstinence is 100% effective.”
Your close Lucy but not completely right. Abstinence did fail one time in history when Our Heavenly Mother became pregnant with the Baby Jesus.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Mike says:
Lucy says…
“Life begins at birth. Period. When the cord is cut it becomes an individual”
Lucy with this rational the baby can be fully born outside of the mother with the cord attached and it would be legal to hold a gun to the baby’s brains and blow it away.
I cannot figure the rational of the Pro-Aborts. I begin to cry reading their logic but then unfortunately I end up laughing histerically.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Mike says:
Lucy says…
“Life begins at birth. Period. When the cord is cut it becomes an individual”
Lucy also with your statement I take it you think nothing is wrong with this procedure described…
http://www.priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit
and I am not looking for a long winded answer. Just a simple “yes” or “no” would be fine.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Lucy says:
Mike,
Obviously it has escaped your attention that the point is that I am not interested in what you are looking for. I have already asked you if you get a kick out of looking at stuff like that. You have already made it quite clear that you intend to be an ignorant dictator. Not just a dictator. Of course you have competition. Do you think that science says that you can live without a brain too?
Did Mary have any say in that alleged pregnancy?
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Did Mary have any say in that alleged pregnancy?
Um, yes. We call her the Co-Redemptrix because it was by her choice and her “yes” that she conceived of the Holy Spirit. We celebrate the Feast of the Annunciation because it was the day she said “yes”.
Keep in mind her choice was to conceive. She is not Co-Redemptrix because she happened to be pregnant and decided in the Annunciation not to kill Baby Jesus. Big difference.
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 2:56 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Life begins at birth. Period. When the cord is cut it becomes an individual.”
Lucy,
I’m a little confused. When do you believe life begins?
At birth? Or when the umbilical cord is cut?
Also, what exactly do you mean by “individual”?
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Did Mary have any say in that alleged pregnancy?”
Lucy,
Just to clarify: Are you calling into question whether the woman Christians believe to be the Mother of God actually had a son named Yeshua, who was later crucified, or are you merely calling into question the theological belief in the Virgin Birth?
I suspect it’s the latter, but I wanted to be sure.
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 10:51 am
Lucy says:
John,
First:
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Poems
The Rhodora Note
On being asked, Whence Note is the flower?
In May, when sea-winds pierced Note our solitudes,
I found the fresh Rhodora in the woods Note,
Spreading its leafless blooms Definition in a damp nook,
To please the desert Definition and the sluggish brook.
The purple petals Note, fallen in the pool Note,
Made the black Note water with their beauty gay;
Here might the red-bird Note come his plumes to cool,
And court the flower that cheapens Note his array.
Rhodora Note! if the sages Note ask thee why
This charm is wasted on the earth and sky,
Tell them, dear, Note that if Note eyes were made for seeing,
Then Beauty is its own excuse for being Note:
Why thou wert there, O rival Note of the rose!
I never thought to ask Note, I never knew:
But, in my simple ignorance Note, suppose
The self-same Power Note that brought me there brought you Note.
1834 [1839]
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Lucy says:
John,
Second, I question everything regarding your religion. I question its source of authority to dictate the actions of the masses that follow it. I don’t question their right to follow, that is their business, as long as they don’t tell me where to go. I don’t follow.
Had you expected otherwise? Had you expected that I believed all the fantastic stories that are part of you church?
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Lucy says:
John,
I’ll get back to the question regarding life in a bit. For now I have to go.
I just found a good book that is in the vein of what I believe. It is called Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach. Actually you can view it online.
http://www.lib.ru/RBACH/seagullengl.txt
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:14 am
John says:
Lucy said: ” Second, I question everything regarding your religion. I question its source of authority to dictate the actions of the masses that follow it. I don’t question their right to follow, that is their business, as long as they don’t tell me where to go. I don’t follow.
Had you expected otherwise? Had you expected that I believed all the fantastic stories that are part of you church?”
Lucy,
No, I didn’t expect that at all. I realize now that I should have been more direct in the question I asked in comment #43, which I raised in response to what you called “Mary’s alleged pregnancy”.
I asked the following:
“Just to clarify: Are you calling into question whether the woman Christians believe to be the Mother of God actually had a son named Yeshua, who was later crucified, or are you merely calling into question the theological belief in the Virgin Birth?
I suspect it’s the latter, but I wanted to be sure.”
Let’s leave theology aside. What I am curious to know is this:
Do you acknowledge, from a strictly historical standpoint, that a Jew named Yeshua bar Yosef was crucified on a hill outside Jerusalem in approximately the year 30, under the authority of Pontius Pilate, who was then Roman procurator of Judea?
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Annie says:
John said,
“Lucy said: “Life begins at birth. Period. When the cord is cut it becomes an individual.”
Lucy,
I’m a little confused. When do you believe life begins?
At birth? Or when the umbilical cord is cut?
Also, what exactly do you mean by “individual”?”
I’m curious as well. When do you believe life begins?
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Lucy says:
John,
I’ll borrow from Thomas Paine. It is as plausible as it is not. Pregnancies occurred and children were born. I’m sure it was a common enough name, so why deny the possiblity. Crucifixion was, it would seem a common form of execution. I can’t imagine that men with different ideas met any better fate in that time than they have in others, so therefore, certainly I accept possibility that such a thing could have occurred. The historical documents are non existant without seeking the church as I understand it. The church would be a poor alibi in such matters all things considered.
Can I choke down the notion that if such a man existed he should be understood to be a demi-god. Not a chance.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Lucy says:
Annie,
I keep trying to explain this. The poem that I posted above is a pretty good analysis. The story that I placed there is also a good demonstration. If you have a few minutes,
http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/mcnally/anthem/
This is a fairly short novel that gives a decent summation.
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm
This is an excellent essay on the idea.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
Lucy says:
Annie,
The concept of individualism is directly linked to the way one thinks. It is the basis of what the founding fathers of this country were thinking in terms of. It is the idea I do not feel what you feel and you do not feel what I feel.
We each operate individually…of course, you can’t use the word in the definition…
In order to reach new levels we must grow. This does not mean that I don’t know algebra and you do and I must grow to reach your level of understanding of an idea that already exists, though this is certainly important. We each must of course learn things that have already been established. It is also not possible, or at least plausible that we will learn everything that there is to know, or experience everything that is possible…
The reason that we have the technological possiblities that we have are because of individual thought. It is because someone did not buy into the limitations that were imposed upon them by the society of the time and worked to exceed them. Thus, we have our computers, our cars, our books, our farms, our gardens, our houses, our sky scrapers, our the list is inexhaustible, yet it wasn’t always. The reason that it is now so very long is because of the establishment of a country where different ideas were to be free to run wild. This was going to be the place where you could tame fire, as it were, without running the risk of being burned with it by people declaring that you must be employed by the devil. This was supposed to be the goal.
The very nature of the game was going to be that your life would not be linked to anyone that you did not voluntarily link your life to. Therefore, it would be up to you to figure out how to feed yourself, clothe yourself, and so forth. For the first time in the known history of the world you would be the sole benefactor of any of your earnings. You could choose to dispose of them as you wished, and there was no crown to spend your earned wealth for you. You owed no debt to your fellow human beings for the pure reason that you happened to exist, and they owed nothing to you. All trades were then voluntary.
If you worshipped a religion you would be free to do so. You would be free to practice any religious customs that you chose, and you would be free to practice none at all. It would be illegal for anyone to utilize any force, including legislative force, to either impose a religious view on you, or to deny your right to practice yours. All ideas were to be welcomed, your ability to get an idea into print would be directly linked to your ability to find a way to print it. The government would not have any grounds to prevent one belief, or to assist another.
Except now, individual means having a set and distinct DNA or something like that, only one Social Security number issued to that body.
Individuals have ideas and act upon them, utilizing their own ability to assess the world around them to decide which ideas are good or not. They feel exhilaration at the knowledge that some ideas may not work, while others may yield wonderful results.
Individuals are like the Rhodora. They don’t exist for the purpose of the enjoyment of others. They work to be the best that they can, and pursue their ideas for the sake of themselves and without consideration that anyone else might even be watching. Individuals know that “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Ayn Rand-Atlas Shrugged
That this is the only way to ensure individuality, and life.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Lucy says:
Life should begin at birth. I think though, that if we begin it before death we will have accomplished more than many.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “I can’t imagine that men with different ideas met any better fate in that time than they have in others, so therefore, certainly I accept possibility that such a thing could have occurred. The historical documents are non existant without seeking the church as I understand it.”
Lucy,
The “possibility” that Jesus existed?
Probably the most famous non-Christian references to Jesus are from the first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.
Moreover, no less authorities than Tacitus, Suetenius, and Pliny the Younger (among others) likewise corroborate the historicity of Jesus’ existence.
If you’re going to merely concede the “possibility” that Jesus existed, for consistency’s sake you’ll have to extend the same skepticism to the whole of ancient history.
Lucy said: “Can I choke down the notion that if such a man existed he should be understood to be a demi-god. Not a chance.”
Recall that I prefaced my question by saying, “Let’s leave theology aside.”
For the record, however, Christians don’t believe Jesus is a demi-god.
We believe he is God.
Comment posted July 27th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Lucy says:
John,
No, not really. The fact that I am willing to admit that the possibilty exists is enough. I do not actually have to extend the same skepticism to all of ancient history. I will however, if it will make you feel better. Perhaps the Ancient Egyptians did not build pyramids, there is no certain proof. Happy? What difference is there whether or not some guy existed that you call Jesus. Would you prefer that I say that due to the fact that he didn’t leave any written documentation behind I find it questionable.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/causeofDestruct.htm#voice
I assume you referring to stuff such as this. I mean, urban legends frequently make the news. Just a few weeks ago a friend warned me to be careful when walking to my car because gang initiates had been hiding under the cars and then attacking unsuspecting females. That he had seen this on the news. It is an urban legend. You’d be amazed how many times people have unwittingly bought Elvis’s bike for pocket change. It is my understanding that the most recent lucky devil was Jay Leno. Another friend assured me that this had to be legitimate. You learn to nod and smile, say thank you when appropriate. Okay, the bad guy will be hiding in my trunk, and will jump out and get me as soon as I park.
History that is accepted as fact has scientific evidence to back it up. I mean, there is ample evidence to support the theories related to Ancient Egypt. They make new discoveries however, and it eliminates other theories. It isn’t a matter of hear say, or enough echoes in the room. Skeptiscm of historical data is wise. However, if there is ample evidence it is wise to hold it as a possibility as there is not evidence to discard it either. It isn’t a dogmatic practice. We don’t know all of ancient history. We are learning more and more every day, however, what we primarily have are reasonable guesses. More reason to put into a pile for considerations than for discard.
Take an art history class. They have assigned everything these people do to their religions. Of course, these are just starting off points for further investigations. It may turn out that they were actually scientific explorations being documented. Asking questions permits an opportunity to find answers.
Yes, I believe that it is possible that Jesus existed. Yes, I will happily apply the same skeptiscm to the rest of ancient history; in fact I will tell you it has already been applied. There needs to be physical evidence to support the declarations of mankind. Thus, I ask for proof of your god.
You believe that Jesus was god, and the son of god at the same time. I know. I grew up in a baptist church. I’m fully aware of what you believe.
Comment posted July 31st, 2006 at 11:55 am
John says:
Lucy said: “The fact that I am willing to admit that the possibilty exists is enough. I do not actually have to extend the same skepticism to all of ancient history. I will however, if it will make you feel better. Perhaps the Ancient Egyptians did not build pyramids, there is no certain proof. Happy? What difference is there whether or not some guy existed that you call Jesus. Would you prefer that I say that due to the fact that he didn’t leave any written documentation behind I find it questionable.”
Lucy,
Considering you’re willing to believe it’s merely “possible” that the ancient Egyptians didn’t build pyramids, I assume, based on the last point I cited above, that you also believe that it is merely “possible” that Socrates existed.
“[W]hat difference is there whether or not” Jesus existed is truly an astonishing question. As Aquinas argued, if the Incarnation didn’t happen, then an even more incredible phenomenon took place: the conversion of millions of people by the biggest lie in history.
Lucy said: “Yes, I believe that it is possible that Jesus existed. Yes, I will happily apply the same skeptiscm to the rest of ancient history; in fact I will tell you it has already been applied. There needs to be physical evidence to support the declarations of mankind. Thus, I ask for proof of your god.”
I would start by pointing to the ancient documentation of the existence of the Christian religion, as well as the existence of the New Testament texts.
Both prompt the question: Who is Jesus? Only one explanation fits the bill; unfortunately, that explanation is often dismissed out of hand based on a priori assumptions.
I’d also throw in the Shroud of Turin — you needn’t bother to point out about the 1988 radiocarbon dating tests; the article addresses that — and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
You and I both know that anything from Wikipedia must be taken with a grain of salt, but at the very least, the links provide fertile ground for historical vetting.
Comment posted July 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Lucy says:
John,
I was joking when I said that it was possible that the Egyptians didn’t build the pyramids. There is evidence to support the fact that the Egyptians living in very specified time periods built the pyramids. We even have evidence as to why. We have similar evidence to all kinds of Historical accounts. You should try reading up on Plato, try the Republic, the Apology,…you might take a step or two backwards when you notice the similarities between such works and those found in the bible.
So, do you believe in Allah and the Islamic faith? Do you believe in Zeus? Is a high enough number of people believing in something really all that you need? Somehow, when I consider the number of things the people around me buy into, I’m not willing to go off the cliff with them.
I have asked that God be proven, the Christian God, be proven without reference to the documents of the church. I have also asked that it be done without referencing what could be offered by any Deist, a wave of the hand to nature. I ask that you provide evidence that if Jesus existed, he is who you say. If he existed is of little interest. Let him exist if it will help you sleep, as I’ve said, it is as reasonable as anything. I don’t know why you need me to tell you I believe it out right, or further more, to care. So let him have been, its of no importance to me. The majority of the world believes he existed, whether they assign him any importance or not is another issue, you like majority rule, so let him exist. Prove he was who you say. Put down your bible, which has no credibility until you prove that it has a real source of authority.
Forget your church, because it falls to the same rules as your bible. Do not bother with trying to adopt a Deist perspective, and point to nature, with one foot stepping in Paganism. Without evidence of your god, the one who has given all of the alleged orders, you cannot provide evidence of a secondary. First before your Jesus can be who you say he is, you must prove the primary.
When your lovely Catholic Enclopedia was written, (oh, and I love the version of Michelangelo it tells, and the ommisions on Da Vince are priceless), they may have wished to obtain a slightly better grasp of Aristotle before attempting to utilize him in aleving themselves of guilt concerning Galileo.
Afterall, you claim that Jesus is the son of god, not god. I asked you before, and you declined to answer. If I do not believe in your god, how is that I should believe that he has given any gifts, or orders of any kind?
Comment posted August 5th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “I have asked that God be proven, the Christian God, be proven without reference to the documents of the church.”
Lucy,
I offered the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo as but two examples, and noted that the links provided in the Wikipedia articles on each (the former especially) provided fertile ground for historical vetting.
Do they constitute irrefutable proof? No, but they’re also rather hard to ignore.
I’m intrigued by your refusal to admit into evidence any “documents of the church”.
Since you assume that the supernatural does not exist, you determine — without looking at the evidence — that the New Testament is historically unreliable precisely because it attests to the existence of the supernatural.
It has been demonstrated time and again that when the same neutral, objective approach that is used to examine other documents from antiquity is used to examine the New Testament documents, the texts prove amazingly reliable.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that no set of documents has ever been more critically analyzed than the New Testament — and history and archaeology continually bear out its claims.
The state of the documents is unparalleled as ancient texts go, and the documents we have are remarkably consistent. Discrepancies are few; major ones are non-existent.
There are approximately 500 copies earlier than A. D. 500. The next most extant text is the Iliad, for which we have about 50 copies dating from <500 years of its writing. There is but one quite late manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals, yet no one questions whether its historical accounts are authentic.
Thus, I can’t help but note that your refusal to “let the documents of the church” into evidence amounts to an a priori assumption on your part as to what these documents attest to.
Why do you steadfastly refuse to judge the New Testament by the same standard you use to judge other ancient documents?
Comment posted August 7th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Lucy says:
John,
First, the Wikipedia is wholly unreliable source for information. Well, it pales in comparison to the Catholic Encyclopedia actually. I know a few people who have learned that the Wikipedia is unacceptable the hard way when teachers dock them points for using it as a source. There is no reason therefore to challenge the wikipedia, or to pay attention to it for reasons beyond personal amusement. It is unacceptable as a reference in the first place, and I will not entertain the possibility that I should waste my time on it.
I will not offer the wikipedia as evidence, why ever should I accept it?
I am aware of the shroud that you speak of. It is considered a mystery, it is not something that can be used as conclusive evidence in itself. It is something that is still in need of conclusive evidence itself, discounting it as evidence for anything except its own existance, but offering no evidence regarding what that means precisely. Even if you could prove that it was a shroud from a man whom you call Jesus, it would do nothing to prove that he was who you say he was. How could it?
Regarding documents used by the church; it is the problem of attempting to confuse cause and effect. The church is supposed to be based on the existance of this god you speak of. Therefore, in order for anything that the church has to say to be relevant, the basis of it must be proven. If there is no basis, the church is invalid. To ask the church to prove that it has a basis by utilizing itself is the equivalent of pulling your self up by your bootstraps. Shall I anticipate the same church that has charged unsuspecting faithful for entrance to a place called purgatory to tell the truth about its own validity? Afterall, to lie so shamelessly about Galileo; to drag the name of Aristotle through the mud, and then attempt to claim allegiance to, to defame Michelangelo, (and that hurts, I love Michelangelo for all that he was, to see him turned against himself in demise…), to pretend to have been friend to Da Vinci, and the crimes persist from there…it is horrible. That they should be expected to be honest about their very foundation?
Regarding the New Testament’s reliability. I once again submit ‘The Age of Reason’ by Thomas Paine. If strapped for cash, you will find that it may be read completely online. I would ask whom you would like me to believe it has been critically analyzed by, but I suspect it has been no one without ties to the church. Please, provide me names if you have any. I can seek out their relation to the church on my own.
Do you realize that die hard republicans will accept democrat ideas if they are introduced by republicans, and the same is true vice versa. Studies have been done to prove this disturbing fact. Considering the similarities between the worlds three largest religions; yet watch how they kill each other for being different. It’s hideously astonishing. Catholiscm and Islam are nearly twins, which makes the rest of Christianity very close relations, ensuring the position of cousin established with the Jews.
If you think that no one questions the authenticity of Tacitus or Homer I once again send you to Thomas Paine. Once again, online is accessible. Most people who invest their explorations of the texts that exist in the world with critical analysis, which means that yes, if things sound less then plausible, then they are scruitinized carefully.
I appreciate the fact that you are unable to prove that the church has a basis without using the church. I also appreciate the fact that you would like to shift the fault onto me. As though, I somehow, have proven to be an unreasonable individual in asking for evidence you can’t produce. Somehow my rejection of unacceptable material based on reasons, which have now been provided in duplicate, makes me a troubled and closed minded individual. That’s fun.
If you can’t perform the task as I have asked you may of course admit it. If you need more time to figure it out or to find evidence then that is also perfectly acceptable. Though I do wonder what grounds you have been using to date. That is in my opinion your problem as long as it stays out of my life. Of course, you have invaded my life, and therefore, it is my problem.
The question is can you do it. Can you prove your god? Oh, and the shroud is also not evidence of god. It would under all circumstances only ever amount to being proof of a man.
Comment posted August 7th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
John says:
Lucy said: “[Wikipedia] is unacceptable as a reference in the first place, and I will not entertain the possibility that I should waste my time on it.”
Lucy,
Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, its content itself must always be taken with a grain of salt — as I made clear in an earlier comment.
It is widely recognized by individuals with a whole range of viewpoints that Wikipedia’s content cannot in any way be regarded as definitive.
However, the links it lists (on the Shroud of Turin, especially) — as I have said twice previously — provide fertile ground for historical vetting.
Specifically, the links page on the entry on the Shroud has an extensive list of, on the one hand, “Sites which claim the shroud is of natural or supernatural origin” and, on the other, “Sites which claim the shroud is man-made or not associated with Christ”.
It also lists a couple of links to the National Geographic Society.
I selected Wikipedia because I figured — incorrectly — that both of us could have recognized that it was not, at surface value, an obviously biased source one way or the other, and that it therefore would have served as a useful starting point.
I was wrong.
Still, I stand by the spirit of my original claim: Check out the evidence on the Shroud. Scrutinize it as much as you’d like.
“I am aware of the shroud that you speak of. It is considered a mystery, it is not something that can be used as conclusive evidence in itself.”
I explicitly said as much in comment #57.
“Even if you could prove that it was a shroud from a man whom you call Jesus, it would do nothing to prove that he was who you say he was. How could it?”
I’m no expert on the matter, but using Occam’s Razor, it seems eminently sensible to conclude that the shroud can be dated to 1st century Jerusalem, and that it really was the burial cloth of a man who was badly tortured before dying a horrendously painful death.
Can I prove that the shroud held the body of Jesus Christ? No.
But there’s rather strong evidence that it did.
Bearing in mind, of course, that absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, but one can’t help but wonder where Jesus’ body is.
Dead bodies don’t normally get up and walk out of their burial cloths.
“The church is supposed to be based on the existance of this god you speak of. Therefore, in order for anything that the church has to say to be relevant, the basis of it must be proven. If there is no basis, the church is invalid. To ask the church to prove that it has a basis by utilizing itself is the equivalent of pulling your self up by your bootstraps.”
I’m not entirely sure I get the analogy, but once again, you’re making an a priori assumption that the writers of the New Testament (more specifically, the Gospels) were being dishonest:
You have dismissed out of hand the possibility that they were being truthful and that they recorded real historical events.
I could attempt to offer a proof for God’s existence — being an armchair fan of Aquinas, I’d probably select one of the “Five Ways”, but I doubt it would actually convince you, as you’ve probably heard most of the philosophical arguments for God’s existence before, and are probably well-versed in their counter-arguments.
Am I right?
It’s worth noting that you have not proven that God doesn’t exist.
“Shall I anticipate the same church that has charged unsuspecting faithful for entrance to a place called purgatory to tell the truth about its own validity?”
If memory serves, the Church forbade the trafficking of indulgences at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. Unfortunately, avaricious Catholics continued this scandalous practice long after, but the fact remains that they did so in direct contradiction to the Church’s declaration.
“Catholiscm and Islam are nearly twins, which makes the rest of Christianity very close relations, ensuring the position of cousin established with the Jews.”
It’s true that members of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same God, but to say that “Catholicism is Islam are nearly twins” ignores vast differences in how each views God.
The central tenet of Christianity, the Incarnation, is utterly blasphemous to a Muslim. To the Islamic mind, it is unthinkable that God would become man.
“I would ask whom you would like me to believe it has been critically analyzed by, but I suspect it has been no one without ties to the church. Please, provide me names if you have any. I can seek out their relation to the church on my own.”
Indeed, faithful members of the Church have analyzed the New Testament.
However, I was primarily thinking of the untold millions (in the past few centuries, especially) who have confidently asserted that the New Testament claims of miraculous feedings, healings, and raising of the dead are either myths, lies, or delusions — assertions that, in the last analysis, don’t hold up.
Unless, of course, the one making the assertions has already ruled out the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
Comment posted August 8th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
John said:
Unless, of course, the one making the assertions has already ruled out the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
Really, this is the crux of the matter. The evidence of God is everything, everywhere. We are evidence of God.
But if a person decides that there is no God, no evidence will be strong enough. The best evidence we can offer–changed lives, changed hearts, creation itself, our own soul–is dismissed by those who reject God. What miracle is more potent than these things? Lucy, if you ask God to show himself, He will. But if you look for evidence without accepting anything as evidence, of course you will find no evidence.
Comment posted August 8th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
rosie says:
Young Christian Woman,
” Lucy, if you ask God to show himself, He will.”
Yes! My husband told his friend recently that if he wanted to know if there was a God that he should just ask him for something, the guy called a couple days later and told him “i believe in God”
Comment posted August 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Are you evading the question?
Are you of the impression that if I can’t prove a negative that would eleviate you from proving a positive? That’s how it used to work when the church put Galileo on trial for finding evidence against the bible; but things have changed. Today you must prove a positive. That is why suspects aren’t imprisoned if their guilt can not be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. So, whether or not I can prove there is not a god is irrelevant. You are the one claiming that such a phenomenon exists. Prove it.
As I said; even if the shroud could have been produced because of the prescence of a man; no matter what condition they were in; it would prove no more than the prescence of a man. It would not prove which man. Even if it could it would not prove the man to be any more than a man.
Putting forth further questions, such as where is the body of Jesus; doesn’t actually help you. Questions are not answers. But for whatever its worth; maybe he’s with Hoffa. Actually; if missing bodies are your criteria why not declare Hoffa god? Crime results in many missing bodies. The missing body could also be utilized as evidence that he didn’t exist. I don’t even understand what the point was of trying to use it.
The Church’s entire claim to fame is based on the fact that there is a god. Will you refute that?
This god is said to have sent ‘his only son’ to earth to die. In order for this god to send anyone first this god must exist. Will you refute this? And if so how?
The rest doesn’t actually matter until you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god. The rest is all hinging on whether or not you can prove this god.
From there you must prove that this god is actually giving orders. If you can prove this you must prove why it is that this god would not give orders to all, but to use some as a relay system. You must prove that god wrote the bible.
You must prove god sanctioned the church.
Prove that there is a god. Or admit that it is beyond your abilities. If you are left to admit that it is beyond your own abilities; then please explain on what grounds you demand allegiance to orders that have been delivered by a source that may not exist. The act of doing things requires a bare minimum of existance.
Aquinas is no more evidence for a god than the Deists claim. The Deists look at the world around us and use that for the reason they believe in a higher power. It is not evidence that they are correct. They can prove there are trees. They have not proven how it got there. That is what the study of the theory of evolution is looking for. The very fact that the church is so opposed to a study trying to trace to the origins of the earth tells me that there is a huge deal of uncertainty of what they will find.
I want proof. Scientific proof. Real science; not that stuff you guys pretend is science either.
Comment posted August 9th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Lucy says:
Rosie,
That’s the proof they use for Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy. I want Scientific evidence. That a tree exists proves only that a tree exists. I could just as soon believe that the tree fairy put it there without hard evidence.
Comment posted August 9th, 2006 at 8:11 am
John says:
Lucy said: “Putting forth further questions, such as where is the body of Jesus; doesn’t actually help you.”
Lucy,
Secular Roman historians (e. g., Tacitus, Suetonius, and Lucian) all acknowledge that Jesus, whom they also regarded as the founder of the Christian religion, was put to death during the reign of Pontius Pilate.
The Romans weren’t stupid. They didn’t establish an empire by messing around. They did so in large part due to an amazingly well-trained army that had no tolerance for mistakes among its soldiers.
Do you honestly find it plausible that after the Romans put Jesus to death, they would have allowed his body to be stolen?
“The rest doesn’t actually matter until you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a god. The rest is all hinging on whether or not you can prove this god.”
I have already explained in comment #59 why I don’t think it would serve any purpose to offer a philosophical proof of God’s existence.
“I want proof. Scientific proof. Real science; not that stuff you guys pretend is science either.”
Science tells us about the workings of the physical world — that which we can perceive with our senses.
Science, by definition, cannot tell us about the workings of the metaphysical world — nor does it claim to be able to do so.
Therefore, I don’t see how offering scientific evidence that proves the existence of God is possible.
Again, I come back to a point and a question I raised in an earlier comment:
I can’t help but note that your refusal to “let the documents of the church” into evidence amounts to an a priori assumption on your part as to what these documents attest to.
Why do you steadfastly refuse to judge the New Testament by the same standard you use to judge other ancient documents?
In light of our present discussion, I can’t help but call to mind this passage from Chesterton’s Orthodoxy (my favorite sentence of the passage — in my opinion, the coup de grâce — is in boldface):
Comment posted August 9th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Lucy says:
John,
The mob doesn’t allow for mistakes. What is your point. You want me to tell you that other sources that I say can be refuted are all the evidence I need that Jesus is god…I don’t think so. Try again. I have told you, if you wish to hold that a man by the name of Jesus was on the planet, I’m not going to fight you. You can even have them crucify him. It was a common form of punishment. It doesn’t make him god. A missing body doesn’t make for a god. Nor does a really good army. We had a pretty good army ourselves when Hoffa went missing.
I have already told you. I don’t care about what is claimed. You claim that there is a god. Do I seem interested? I want proof. Scientific proof. I’m not looking for a Philosophical argument. I want tangible, hard, indisputable proof of a god. I don’t want to know if I throw a rock through a window how do I know for certain that the rock had anything to do with the window breaking. Nor do I want to know if we learn or remember. I want to see this god of yours.
If you can’t offer scientific proof of a god then what are you doing. If you do not see how it would be possible then how do you justify claiming that god said anything. You have no proof that there is a god but you want to tell me that god said…
You have faith in some god, that you admit you have no proof of. You claim to be taking orders from this god that you have no proof of. You claim to have some right to judge me and tell me that I am immoral to believe that abortion should be legal. You make this claim because of an alleged conversation with a god you can’t prove to exist. You wish to tell me how to live my life because you have ideas in your head that have been placed there by what for all intensive purpose can only be identified as an imaginary friend. John, this isn’t good.
Why don’t you offer me the parts of the New Testament that you would like me to entertain. I have explained, your bible is a book written by mortal hands, with mortal words. Despite the horrors contained within it, without your god it has no authority. It’s a paperweight, a how not to guide at best. Your New Testament cannot prove anything except that a mortal wrote something down. That happens all the time. It doesn’t prove god. If there were books that could be said to be suggestive that there might be a god, there are certainly better options than the bible.
Yet, still, offer me the parts of the New Testament that you feel would aid your case, and I’ll be glad to comb over them.
Until then I suggest finding that god of yours. That or really, really, no more telling women that god does not want them to have an abortion.
Comment posted August 10th, 2006 at 1:16 am
John says:
Lucy said: “If you can’t offer scientific proof of a god then what are you doing.”
Lucy,
As I explained in my last comment:
Science tells us about the workings of the physical world — that which we can perceive with our senses.
Science, by definition, cannot tell us about the workings of the metaphysical world — nor does it claim to be able to do so.
Therefore, I don’t see how offering scientific evidence that proves the existence of God is possible.
But scientific evidence isn’t the only type of evidence there is. And personally, I think the historical evidence for God’s existence is the strongest there is.
“Why don’t you offer me the parts of the New Testament that you would like me to entertain. I have explained, your bible is a book written by mortal hands, with mortal words. Despite the horrors contained within it, without your god it has no authority.”
It seems to me that:
What you’re saying here is that in an attempt to prove the existence of God, one cannot admit into evidence the New Testament, because one has not first proven the existence of God.
…which seems to me like circular reasoning.
Nonetheless, the particular parts of the NT I had in mind are the Gospels, and more particularly, the accounts of Jesus’ passion and death, and the subsequent visions of Jesus after he had risen from the dead.
I’ve already made my case — the best I can do under the circumstances — of why I believe the NT (and the Gospels in particular) should be judged according to the same historical standards as other ancient texts.
What further evidence is needed for the existence of God than a man being raised from the dead?
Comment posted August 10th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Lucy says:
John,
Historical evidence? He said she said.
We can’t decide who discovered America. It is possible that the Chinese found it first; and that still ignores that there were already people here when they got here. The only historical evidence that is presented as evidence for anything is that which can be verified by scientific evidence. If you can’t verify your ‘historical evidence’ with science, I really don’t see what it is worth.
What actually impresses me is that you have not bothered to insist upon using the rational of the Deists.
Circular reasoning? You want to say that the Bible is evidence of a god that you cannot produce. I still refer you to the Age of Reason.
You have no proof that the Gospels were written by people who actually were anywhere or saw anything. The New Testament is being judged by the same standards as other ancient texts. If it is not found plausible it is discarded. If there is not enough scientific evidence to support it beyond a shadow of a doubt it is not counted as a factual source of human history. You admit that you cannot prove that your god exists. It would be impossible to ask that concepts based on unprovable claims be admitted into the same history books as the building of the Sphinx. Please note, the Building of the Sphinx is counted as known information. We are even relatively certain who built it. However, Ra does not make it into legitimate history books as anything but a faith held by people.
There are people who believe that Tsunamis are gods way of punishing people. I can only imagine that CPR would have looked pretty impressive to some. There are all kinds of things that have perfectly reasonable, earthly explanations that have at one time or another been assigned to supernatural forces.
Did you see god raise the man from the dead?
Comment posted August 12th, 2006 at 3:14 am
John says:
“Did you see god raise the man from the dead?”
Personally, no, I did not witness the resurrection of Jesus with my own eyes.
I also never saw Caesar cross the Rubicon, although I don’t doubt that he did.
It’s worth noting that the evidence for the former is more copious than that for the latter.
Comment posted August 14th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
rev jotwp says:
Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thinking
–Kahlil Gibran
Comment posted September 8th, 2006 at 10:46 pm