Us and Them
— Posted by John (July 17, 2006 at 4:32 pm)
After the Mundelein incident, the rest of our Face the Truth Tour went well. The only other real problem we encountered was a disagreement with a Cook County law enforcement officer who tried telling us we were “advertising”, and as such, weren’t allowed to display graphic abortion signs on the Chicago streets adjacent to forest preserve property.
The situation was quickly defused once his superior arrived, who assured us we were acting well within our rights.
We got some coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times on Friday in an article by Neil Steinberg, who happened by the Tour in downtown Chicago last Wednesday. Although Steinberg is a strongly “pro-choice” atheist, he acknowledges that he and my boss, Joe Scheidler, “enjoy an unusually good relationship”.
In his weekend hotline, Scheidler notes that Steinberg’s article “isn’t half bad”, and I’d have to agree. I was particularly struck by the final four paragraphs, which portend gloom for our pro-abortion opposition, and ultimate victory for us pro-lifers:
A few pro-choicers are standing next to Joe [Scheidler], and I talk to them. One holds a sign reading “My Body, My Choice.” She chooses not to give her name, and isn’t exactly aflame with her cause, anyway.
“It’s still legal and we’d like to keep it that way,” she says.
Tepid stuff, next to Joe’s glittery-eyed verve.
That’s the problem with the whole conflict. There’s no balance. On one side you’ve got guys like Joe Scheidler, practically a biblical figure, John Brown holding a staff and spreading his arms over bleeding Kansas. On the other, you have bland rationality under the by-definition indecisive banner of “choice” (hmmm, which one, let’s see …) afraid to give their names and lacking anywhere near the passion their opponents possess. It hardly seems a fair fight.
There’s still a long way to go, of course, but Steinberg hints at a crucial point that pro-lifers have been making more often these last few years:
The days of abortion in America are numbered.
This entry is filed under Culture Wars, The Front Lines. 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:
The days of abortion in America are numbered.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Lauren says:
The days of abortion are numbered? Legal abortion or abortion?
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
mary kay says:
Well now Lauren, that would be your “choice”, wouldn’t it?
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
Michael-2 says:
There will always be abortions, but the end of 3rd trimester abortion should have ended a long time ago, and never should have really started. Even 2nd trimester abortion is more or less on the way out.
Of course 1st trimester abortion is the crux of the issue. I would like to see a day when these are also rare. This would necessitate vigorous adoption programs, compassionate counseling, including attempts to reconcile daughters and parents and fathers and mothers. I suspect that many if not most abortions result from conflicts between the mother and her husband/boyfriend.
Maybe the day will come when medical science will be able to viably transfer a 1st trimester embryo/fetus from one “host” to the other, so that people like Lucy and Lauren can still be “cured” of their “infection” and someone who wants the child can bring it to term. I do not advocate this as a normal procedure and I am not sure of the theological implications of this, but I do not think it is necessary all bad. It would also work in the cases of someone who is physically a bit weak to bring the child to term.
Comment posted July 17th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Annie says:
Michael 2 says:
“Maybe the day will come when medical science will be able to viably transfer a 1st trimester embryo/fetus from one “host” to the other . . .”
It’s an interesting option if ever it could happen. I don’t doubt that some day it could. Do you think women would be open to this?
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 7:46 am
Lucy says:
A loss of womans right to her own body is no reason to cheer. Not unless you are the person that wants to control her instead. Then I suppose it is a victory. As long as women don’t have to ask permission to end a pregnancy, they won’t have to ask permission to continue one either.
As soon as a woman is told she does not have the right to determine whether she continues a pregnancy for any reason, the door opens for the rest.
A doctor already tried to tell my friend to abort a pregnancy she wanted to keep. This isn’t a trait of an individual who is in favor of a womans rights to determine what happens to her body. This is the trait of someone who wishes to remove that right. I lump that doctor in with the individuals who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. Or attempt to compell uninterested individuals in taking birth control they do not wish to take.
There are only two ways. Either women control what happens to their bodies, or they don’t. It is barbaric that in a free society we are even having this discussion. That the rights to a womans body should be consigned to a government or a church is a conversation that belonged in Soviet Russia or in China, it does not belong here. That there are those who will rejoice in The United States of America over the possibility of the loss of womens rights is as disgusting as the existance of White Supremists and the people who torment Gay people simply for being Gay.
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 9:06 am
joe says:
“There are only two ways. Either women control what happens to their bodies, or they don’t.”
I disagree… It is illegal for women to use cocaine. I am pretty tired of the “control over their own bodies” argument. Prove to me that it is wrong to outlaw cocaine. If you can’t then I would say this line of arguing is dead.
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Would I be right in saying that you hold personal freedom, or liberty, as the highest possible right. Even higher than the right to life? I’m not being sarcastic. I just read somewhere about how a certain group of people, (I think they were enlightened, intellectual, and libertarian) hold that liberty is the hightest right. A light went on and I thought, “hey, that’s sounds just like Lucy!” Am I right?
If I am, it explains a lot about the way you think and why are paths are parallel but never connect, you know what I mean?
MK
Comment posted July 18th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Lauren says:
Joe, Please do not compare drug abuse and addiction to a woman’s right to an abortion. They are two completely unrelated topics.
Stick to the topic.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 12:06 am
mary kay says:
Lauren,
I thought the topic was a woman’s right to do whatever she wanted with her body. Seems like using drugs should be her choice too. I think it’s right on topic. Perhaps you just don’t want to see the irony…
MK
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 7:01 am
joe says:
Lauren,
A woman who uses cocaine is making a choice of what to do with her body. Pro-choice intellectuals say that that a woman who is having an abortion is making a choice of what to do with her body. I did not invent this relation, the other side did. I only used their logic against them to illustrate their stupidity. Your beef should be with them, not me.
Joe
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Yang says:
Good One Joe!
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
You are very close. I rather wish you hadn’t felt I would believe that you were being sarcastic. Rather than say personal liberty is > than life, try personal liberty is = to life. Though I’m not libertarian. Libertarians start out okay then they start to move into relativism. I believe in absolutes. I believe that absolutes are to match up with the consitancy of reality. Those we can find in the world around us. It is in line with the ideas of the Deists, which is of course, what Jefferson was. In fact, some of the Deists, such as Whitman, as in Walt, seem to believe that there was evidence that Jesus was a Deist. They generally hold him in high regard, but despise the religion accredited to him. Thomas Paine sings his praises just before ripping the Bible into shreds in The Age of Reason. Whitman has a number of poems written regarding Jesus, all holding him in the highest esteem, yet he rejects Christianity in entirety. He is regarded as a man of freedom.
The absolute is mans pursuit of happiness. It is my overall belief that Jefferson put things out of order. I also think that he took it for granted that people would better understand what he meant. The absolute is mans pursuit of happiness. I understand that there are minds out there that automatically convert this into drug use, random sex with strangers, pornography, drunken debauchery, killing sprees, and so forth. I don’t know quite what to do with minds that equate such activities with joy. I stand somewhere between horror and fear. I think overall I simply feel pity. You will find that those who pursue these activities are very rarely happy. Yet it is part of the pursuit, and short of activities that violate others ability to pursue their happiness there is a difference between the pursuit and the securement of. Thus, if one insists upon being drunk at all times they are not my problem until they take actions that make it my problem. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It is based on ones ability to do so without injuring others.
You will find that amongst those who have admitted this as an absolute and pursued it the goals are much different. You will find that they are extrodinary artists such as Michaelangelo, (he’d hate me for putting the paintings ahead of his sculptures, but you will find that his David is different from any before for a reason. I love Michaelangelo, do you know the Pieta? Or authors, there are to many to list. (Countless painters as well of course). There are Philosophers, Scientists, Inventors. These are the men and women who in the words of Henry David Thoreau, ’suck the marrow out of life.’ These are your teachers who find no satisfaction until the child who has struggled diligently all year feels comfortable solving whatever problem is in front of them. These are the men and women who rejoice over what they have achieved. These are the men and women who push the boundries and try new things. These are the men and women who create technology and start businesses. These are the living. That which they do can not be done by accident.
In order to achieve these things they must have liberty. In every situation, no matter how good the intent, systems of restraints have limited mans ability to better understand the universe around them and utilize it in order to improve his own life, and by default, the life around him. See, it is by default. If a man is to seek his own happiness he must have himself. He must be an individual. This means that to the extent of my efforts I may take strides to succeed. This requires that man be free to utilize his imagination. That he must strive to look past the limitations of his current conditions and find ways in which to enhance them, alter them, build upon them, and so forth. For some this means working to buy a fancy mansion in Paris, for others it means saving up enough to afford taking an additional week of off work to take the kids to the park.
In order to pursue happiness one must have a system of values. If you do not know if you would prefer the extra week or a mansion in Paris however will you plan your day? The resources available to us are finite. Therefore it is inevitable, no matter what our pursuits have allowed us to earn, that we will have to make a choice. It is a pursuit because no matter how much I may believe that I want the mansion in Paris, I may once there find myself wondering about other options I bypassed. Yet, that I might wish I had chosen differently is not reason enough to discount this as the objective of mans life, or as the excuse to retract liberty as the means.
I after all am under the belief that Lauren would have a bright future in Political Lobbying. In a different time and place I might be in a position to choose the course of Laurens future. There is nothing that will prove me more capable or less capable than making a choice that will provide her a good life than she. However, what right should I have to push Lauren in a direction that may or may not yeild her better results than she will arrive at with her own decsion to go into financing. If anything, I have to believe that Lauren has a far better understanding of the factors in her decision than I have. Therefore, I have to believe that Lauren is a far better judge of her career path than I, as Lauren knows intimate factors of her decision that may very well be available to none but herself. I, afterall, do not have to live Laurens life if I push her to misery.
The total result of this process is that which we call life.
The properties of alive require no effort and we share with all plants and animals, not to mention the very planet on which we stand. That which is living requires a conscious effort. First one must establish what objective will make them happy. Then they must pursue it. If living required nothing more than a pulse, then it would make no difference what religion one followed. It would make no difference whether men were enslaved. If we lived under communism, socialism, feudalism…these things would not make a difference.
As I’ve said, if Jefferson sought to save his pulse the surest road would have been to keep quiet. It wasn’t until he spoke that he found his status as alive threatened.
As the woman does not share the properties of living with the fetus inside of her it does not share the rights that are meant to defend her right to remain living, not alive.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Lucy says:
Joe,
I concur, good one. You have succeeded in missing the point so beautifully that only Quinn who holds that science says you may remain alive without a brain, trumps you in missing a point so horrendously. For that I must congratulate you.
The point is that you don’t get to be in charge. Which means that I don’t actually have to explain to you why it is that a woman may use cocaine if she wishes. If a woman is pregnant she may still use cocaine, and for seconds she may shoot up with smack. Now I can think of an extensive list of reasons why a woman should not use cocaine, however, I can’t think of any as to why I should have more say in determining what she does or does not put in her system than she. For one, as long as she makes that determination and not you or I, she gets to choose who injects her with Cyanide as well; or more aptly, doesn’t. She is the sole owner of her life. When she is strung out on Cocaine and can’t take care of herself I won’t ask you to care for her, despite the fact that the current system does insist upon such impositions, but she has as much right to destroy her life as better it.
If you are looking for a reason why you don’t get to dictate my life I’m going to tell you because it is mine and not yours.
You’re not tired of the arguement taht I’m a person with rights to my body for nothing Joe. As long as I tell you no you have no sanction to control me. This means you will have violated the free will of a human being. You will have done so to further your own irrational, baseless, inhumane endeavors.
You have not now, nor will you ever have rights to my body.
If you chain us to a wall, pregnant, shackling our hands and feet, there is no lie you can tell yourself about your good deed as you strap tape over our lips to spare your ears our screams, you will be guilty of violating the rights of human beings.
Do not expect Joe, that I will do as you ask and beg for a life that is mine. Do not expect that you will have the opportunity of adding degrading insult to disgusting injury. I’ll not beg you to do right, as you won’t recognize it in your power hungry fit. If you were able to believe that there was a possiblity that I held ownership and thus rights to my body and none other you would not tire of the thought you doubtlessly never had.
Like those who understood the difference between alive and living before me I will tell you that in order to take my life you will have to remove it from my body. Until you are prepared to remove me from my body, at which point it will be hollow and you may do as you please. Until that moment in time, I’m still using it and YOU WILL WAIT YOUR TURN, or use your own.
Comment posted July 19th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
Pansy Moss says:
You are very close. I rather wish you hadn’t felt I would believe that you were being sarcastic.
MK is not being sarcastic. She is a charitable soul and is hoping to achieve some common ground.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 3:57 am
joe says:
Lucy,
Nice nonsensical rant. Your so melodramatic.
Joe
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Lucy says:
Pansy,
Yes, I did understand that. I see you did not understand the point of what I said. Thank you however.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Lucy says:
Joe,
No, I suppose that it wouldn’t make sense to you would it. I’m melodramatic? You want to control my body and do not think that I you should be opposed. Were you hoping that I would object to women using drugs if they wished and that you could then use that against me?
Should I in fact be grateful that you wish to control me? Should I operate under the impression that you are somehow more intelligent than I? Should I be of the impression that you are somehow better equipped to run my life? Whatever would I base this on? You’ll notice that I do not marvel at your moral superiority but at your lack of ability to notice you have no morals.
What was it that was argued above, that some day, despite the fact that you fight science tooth and nail, will be able to transplant a fetus from one woman to the next. Of course, I am not exactly operating under the impression that you will actually seek the consent of the woman before you engage in such activities.
Do you suppose that they have Planned Parenthoods under lock and key, with Bullet Proof glass because of us or you?
You do not have my permission to control my body. You will not have my permission to control my body.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
rosie says:
Lucy,
“Of course, I am not exactly operating under the impression that you will actually seek the consent of the woman before you engage in such activities.”
I got the impression that they meant it would be similar to adoption, it would be a woman who wanted a baby. What’s wrong with that?
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 9:25 am
Mary Kay says:
#
Pansy Moss says:
You are very close. I rather wish you hadn’t felt I would believe that you were being sarcastic.
MK is not being sarcastic. She is a charitable soul and is hoping to achieve some common ground.
Thank you Pansy, for your kind words. They give me courage. I think what Lucy meant was that she hoped we had moved beyond worrying that every little thing we say might be offensive.
But you are right. I am seeking to understand Lucy’s way of thinking. And her explanation was an epiphany. You see, we keep arguing that a baby’s life is at stake. But that is because we believe that Life is of far greater value than Liberty. Which is not to say that we don’t hold Liberty dear, just that to us, Liberty is something that is within us. It was given to us by God and no outside force can take it away. Our “freedom” is not something obtained through this world, and so this world cannot take it from us.
When Maximillian Kolbe was imprisoned in Auswitch (SP?), he thanked God because this allowed him to help his fellow prisoners…(by saying mass, and talking, and praying…) He did not see this as a prison, but as yet another way to serve God.
To an outsider it would appear that his freedom had been taken from him, but because he valued God and Life more than his freedom, and because his freedom came from within, he did not see himself has oppressed. You and I know that as long as we are serving God, it doesn’t matter what our outside circumstances are. We are still free. This is what allowed Mother Theresa to live in abject poverty. She didn’t feel poor. She felt rich. Because her freedom did not come from the things of this world. They came from God.
But if a person does not believe in God, or self-sacrifice
then it is impossible for them to understand our stand on Life.
To Lucy, being pregnant and “being forced” to carry the child to term would feel like a punishment. And because we are the ones making it illegal to have an abortion, we would be her “punishers”. Do you see? So even though I disagree vehemently with her, I can see her logic. Why would she allow a life to exist if it would compromise her own? Why would she make the sacrifice? There would be no compelling reason. She can’t do it for God. She values her liberty too much to sacrifice it for life because both rights being equal in her eyes means that she would always choose the right that would benefit her. In this case it would be liberty. If her life was at stake, she would choose life. Though she might say that she would choose death over losing her liberty. I’m not sure because she said they were equal.
SO,
We value life more than freedom, and Lucy values them equally.
Therefore we can never win this argument based on the child being alive, because even if it is, it still is not “her” life, but it is “her” liberty.
Lucy,
Have I gotten that right?
MK
“It is a poverty that a child must die, so that you can live as you wish” Mother Theresa
(No offense Lucy. Just thought M.T. hit the nail on the head as far as where we are coming from…)
Comment posted July 21st, 2006 at 4:22 pm
joe says:
Lucy writes, “Were you hoping that I would object to women using drugs if they wished and that you could then use that against me?”
No. I wasn’t.
Actually I find the fact that you don’t object to women using illegal drugs to be consistent with what I imagined.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 10:48 am
Lucy says:
No, Mary Kay,
You’ve gotten nothing right up to and including the fact that you have opted to resorting back to speaking about me instead of to me.
Thank you very much.
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
I didn’t mean to speak”" you. I’m so sorry that it seemed that way. I was answering Pansy and got carried away. It was done in an honest spirit. That’s why I included you when I asked if I got it right. Sometimes it just seems like we are all in a room together and I assume that you are always part of the conversation, You know?
What did I get wrong? I truly, really and honestly am trying to understand. I think that part of the problem with these discussions is that we are working off of different premises. So I’m trying to understand your premise. I really am. It’s just so different than the way that I think, that it is kind of hard.
It’s like I really don’t care for the color green, so when my girlfriend who loves the color green asks if I like the dress she is wearing and it is green, I have a hard time overcoming my predjudice and giving her an unbiased answer. Yet over time, she has shown me that green can actually be quite beautiful and now my bedroom is green. So I am, with an open mind and heart trying to see this through your eyes. I will never agree with you, but I do want to understand you. See?
So, I’m sorry if it seemed like I was talking about you. Like I said, I just started opining and forgot myself…oops. Peace?
MK
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
That first sentence should read: “I didn’t mean to speak “about” you…
MK
Comment posted July 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 pm
joe says:
“Should I in fact be grateful that you wish to control me?”
Abortion and contraception is not about me controlling a woman’s body, it is about a woman giving up control of her body to a loser whose child she does not want to carry.
With abortion and contraception women are more easily manipulated by men who merely want to control their bodies like a remote control car. The woman’s body becomes a play thing… a toy… These women intuitively know this, but are manipulated once again by abortion providers and contraceptive manufacturers. The people who manipulate them blame the people who are trying to protect them and the paranoid victim lashes out at the very people who are most trying to help them.
Promiscuous women are constantly at a very high rate of anxiety and very defensive (This explains a lot of the anger and lashing out we see on this site). I would be too if I were trapped in a lifestyle that required giving up control of my body on a regular basis to strangers.
People in a high state of anxiety are very susceptible to suggestion. The messages most preferred by a distressed individual are ones that are most supportive of their current lifestyle and past choices. After all, if you are already feeling helpless you would want to hide from the realities that make this feeling worse.
This is why we see such template behavior from all the pro-abortion women we come across on this site. I would swear sometimes that they are the same person. They use the same talking points and sound bites. They also react very similarly when being challenged. That similarity being defensive, aggressive and in my opinion violent.
“Do you suppose that they have Planned Parenthoods under lock and key, with Bullet Proof glass because of us or you?”
If a Planned Parenthood clinic is attacked by a patron who realized that she was manipulated, would she be classified as “one of you” or “one of us’? If an abortionist went crazy from guilt and he started shooting up his own clinic would be “one of us” or “one of you”? If an escapee from an insane asylum thought he was attacking Pizza Hut instead of a Planned Parenthood clinic would he be “one of us” or “one of you”? In the Planned Parenthood way of thinking all three would be classified as “one of us” as far as I am concerned all three should be classified as “one of you”.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 10:48 am
Lucy says:
Joe,
No, Planned Parenthoods have only been attacked by people on your side of this. The lethal violence has come from your side.
Where have you been threatened on here? Where has any indication been given that violence would be directed to you?
Actually, I am angry because you want to control me and think I am dumb enough not to know it. I am not helpless, and you are not helping me. You are of no use to me at all.
You don’t know what women think or feel. You don’t certainly don’t know how I feel or what I think. You wish to impose your ignorant versions of it on me.
You seem horribly ignorant and angry to me. You sound like the same kind of control freak who wants any group to believe that they can’t live without them. Once again you have no willing victim here.
I am not your willing victim.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
You were explaining what to Pansy? What I meant when you don’t understand what I mean? Pansy just likes to be nasty to me now for some reason. Apparently I stepped out of line when I thanked her for being kind. She seems to have been making amends for being nice to the girl who doesn’t regret her abortion ever since. That or I simply misunderstood and she wasn’t actually being nice. Go ahead, explain to Pansy what I meant, but to me it sounded like you had gone back to the little school girls whispering in the corner routine that I thought had been broken.
The actuality of why I said that I wished you hadn’t felt that I would think you had been sarcastic was truly simply because it was so very close to where I am coming from. That was all. That you think that I would think you sarcastic was part of why I tried to go into such depth in explaining.
I am trying to think of how to expain further. If you are still actually interested in having me explain. I’m not sure how though.
I don’t know if I can give you poems by Whitman, if that will help. This is my favorite of his poems.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Lucy says:
Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. 1900.
180. When I heard the Learn’d Astronomer
WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer;
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me;
When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them;
When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; 5
Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Though, I don’t know if you will appreciate this one, it is a bit of where Deists are coming from:
Walt Whitman (1819–1892). Leaves of Grass. 1900.
33. To Him that was Crucified
MY spirit to yours, dear brother;
Do not mind because many, sounding your name, do not understand you;
I do not sound your name, but I understand you, (there are others also;)
I specify you with joy, O my comrade, to salute you, and to salute those who are with you, before and since—and those to come also,
That we all labor together, transmitting the same charge and succession; 5
We few, equals, indifferent of lands, indifferent of times;
We, enclosers of all continents, all castes—allowers of all theologies,
Compassionaters, perceivers, rapport of men,
We walk silent among disputes and assertions, but reject not the disputers, nor any thing that is asserted;
We hear the bawling and din—we are reach’d at by divisions, jealousies, recriminations on every side, 10
They close peremptorily upon us, to surround us, my comrade,
Yet we walk unheld, free, the whole earth over, journeying up and down, till we make our ineffaceable mark upon time and the diverse eras,
Till we saturate time and eras, that the men and women of races, ages to come, may prove brethren and lovers, as we are.
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Nearly anyone can learn to play the piano…would you agree?
Yet it takes something special to make a piano sing. Would you agree?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
Yet there is something in both that makes it equally playing the piano, and yet none could call them equal. Would you agree?
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:19 pm
mary kay says:
Lucy,
Pansy said this about me to you and I was responding to her about me but started talking to her about you…very simple really.
Not.
LOL
MK
#
Pansy Moss says:
You are very close. I rather wish you hadn’t felt I would believe that you were being sarcastic.
MK is not being sarcastic. She is a charitable soul and is hoping to achieve some common ground.
Comment posted July 20th, 2006 at 3:57 am
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:31 pm
mary kay says:
Nearly anyone can learn to play the piano…would you agree?
Yet it takes something special to make a piano sing. Would you agree?
Yet there is something in both that makes it equally playing the piano, and yet none could call them equal. Would you agree
Lucy,
Yes I agree. But it is the soul that makes the piano sing. And the soul comes from somewhere that cannot be seen or touched or proven. When you look up at those silent stars, ask yourself where they came from. And if the answer comes that they are from the one who created them, and if you hear those stars begin to sing, then fall on your knees and pledge yourself to the One who has created such a beautiful song. And reverence the human soul contained in the tiny body of a babe that was created along with the stars by Him who creates all. Do not destroy what He has created. Rather, join the song, lift your voice and praise Him for the great things that He does. Thank Him for your gift of Life and respect all other lives that He also creates. Don’t blame Him for your parents sins. They had free will and also made “choices”. They only played the piano. You however have the choice to make it sing… To make the piano sing you must first make sure that it is in perfect tune. It is meant to make certain sounds. It was created for a specific purpose. When it is tuned perfectly, then each string is doing what it was meant to do. It is following its natural course. Any string out of tune and the whole piano sounds wrong. We were meant to love each other in a specific way. We were created with a specific purpose. If you are in perfect tune then you will play a perfect song. When a new life is created it is because that is what it was meant to be. By allowing this new string (life) to do it’s job you are allowing the piano to be played the way it was intended. You can play many types of music. Rock, folk, jazz, classical…but only if the strings are as they should be. If I told you that you could only play jazz on your piano then I would be infringing on your rights…but if I tell you that the piano will only play properly if it is properly tuned, then I am not infringing on your rights, I am helping you to play to the best of your ability. Dear Lucy, you may play any tune that you want. But please, your piano is out of tune. And your song will be dissonant unless you adjust those strings. Play as the piano was meant to be played and the stars will sing along. Your little Emily would join in harmony with you if you only let her. Her string is perfectly tuned. And the One who created the piano? Well, He will sit back and listen…with a smile on His face, tapping his foot, so pleased that you have learned well…to play a perfect song…
MK
Comment posted July 23rd, 2006 at 9:57 pm
joe says:
Lucy,
I am curious. In the pro-life crowd we have many converts who worked in the abortion industry and have been converted to be pro-life. They convert because of how horrible it is to be pro-abortion.
I would like to know how many pro-lifers that you have heard that have turned to your side. Are there any? It seems to me that if your position is correct and consistent with truth that many on our side would just simply reject us immoral (as you put it) people and join your side.
If you are chomping at the bit for a list of people that were pro-abortion that have turned to our side…. Just ask for it…. You won’t be disappointed.
Joe
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 12:10 am
Lucy says:
Joe,
Actually, I was until I was about 15 or 16. That was about the time I started to realize how horrible your side actually was. That was when I started to realize that no matter what, a lack of freedom to determine ones life in the manner that you represent is unforgivable. Due to my past position I am generally willing to operate under the initial assumption that simple ignorance is involved. With understanding of what you are doing, persistance can only mean absolute disregard for human life.
My understanding of what is actually going on, has of course changed and evolved over time, I have added new resources that support my position, however, I have never found reason to return to you. Awake is a wonderful thing. You won’t understand until you feel it.
As for those who have joined you, they have their reasons I’m sure. If they ever change their minds, they will be more than welcome to return.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
No. That is not what I mean at all.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Lucy says:
Mary Kay,
I will try to explain if you are willing to listen. However, first, I do not believe in your god. Even if he did exist I wouldn’t have anything to do with him. Whether or not a piano is or isn’t out of tune is irrelevant and my Piano if you will is fine, thank you very much.
I was speaking literally as in, not every one is Beethoven.
That whole soul stuff; I also don’t follow Plato.
We aren’t born good, bad, anything like that. We have to work for it.
I follow Aristotle. As closely as I am able. I love Aristotle. The difference between Aristotle and Plato is that of night and day. Aristotle would have essentially been a Deist.
That which drives the pianist to make the keys sing is the condition of living-which is different from being alive. There is Passion in living, for living. Being alive doesn’t require that.
For now I am going to bed however.
Goodnight.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 12:42 am
joe says:
Lucy,
You wrote, “Actually, I was until I was about 15 or 16. That was about the time I started to realize how horrible your side actually was.”
I have often said we all start out pro-life. Let me guess you started having sex around 15 or 16 too.
I was more talking about people who have been active in the pro-life movement, who realized the “error” of their ways and converted to the pro-choice movement. I didn’t expect their to be many.
Joe
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
joe says:
I also did not expect you to ask me for a list of the converts from your side. As there are some very impressive people on that list.
Comment posted July 24th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Lucy says:
No, Joe,
Not that it is any of your business, but I was a virgin until I was nearly 19 years old, and can count my sexual partners on one hand nearly 10 years later. I have told far more no than yes.
I’ve not taken a poll to see how many. I’m not of the impression that I need to have the approval of the masses for my position.
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Lucy says:
Joe,
I thought this might be of interest to you.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Lucy says:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html#alive
Comment posted July 26th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Molly says:
“The people who manipulate them blame the people who are trying to protect them and the paranoid victim lashes out at the very people who are most trying to help them”
I’m extremely late on this discussion, but this statement reminded me of one time a few months back when my brothers and I found a mouse in our backyard. Of course, the dogs were trying to kill it, so we scooped the mouse up and tried to take it to a safe place. But the mouse was scared of us and struggled to get out of our arms. Finally, it succeeded and jumped away from us… right into the dog’s mouth.
Some people fall to see who their real enemies are.
Comment posted September 19th, 2007 at 11:59 am
John says:
Molly,
Heh! Great point.
Comment posted September 19th, 2007 at 12:05 pm