« god understands | Main | So Many Stories »

Monday, February 21, 2005

Comments

Sarah

Umm, interestingly enough, everyone wants to talk about what I said offhandedly a few weeks ago. I guess I need to clairify this in the simplest way I know how.

I am not Christian.
My particular spiritual path has no strong feelings for or against abortion.
Hence, when I dedided to have mine, it was a very easy moral choice that has left me with no substantial feelings of guilt, shame, or remorse (besides a general "well that sucked" feeling).
In reading this thread, a lot of people frame their problems with abortion in a Christian framework. Most opposition to legal abortion comes from a Christian framework. While other non-Christian points exist, they are not as dominant in our media, society, or this thread.
Being non-Christian, those arguements have no effect on me and would not encouraged me to have or not have an abortion. Because I'm not Christian.
Hence my not being Christian makes this issue a lot simpler.
The end.

Rachael

Ol Cranky,
Ok, to clearifiy, I interpreted Sarah's orignal comment as that only Christians oppose abortion. In my response, I was not attacking Sarah personally, rather I was making light of the issue that non-Christians struggle with the moral issues of abortion also. My intial comment "Not being Christian doesn't absolve one's conscience." when taken in the context I intended was saying "non-religious pro-lifers, abortion providers, and pro-choice advocates also struggle with the moral issues of abortion."
Even if as you say Sarah ment it to be "we think that many who call themselves Christian use that to have someone else tell them what to think instead of appearing to actually think for themselves." This is stereotpying and prejudice, and does not add weight to your arguments.

Ol Cranky

Rachel:

You may want to re-read your response to Sarah (you start out with "Not being Christian doesn't absolve one's conscience." and then go on to provide a link of non-christian "Pro-life" supporters), sarah's post and the one she responded to. When your done with that, maybe you'll understand my reply.

Rachael

Ol'Cranky,
While there've certainly been misunderstandings in discussion, I've always kept a respectful tone with others here in discussions. And I ask the same respect and curtesy be given to me by others. Regardless of political views or beliefs, no one's above common curtesy or respect.

Rachael

Ol' Cranky,
Ok, let me rephrase that. You are quick to dismiss a person who is Christian's views because ""many who call themselves Christian use that to have someone else tell them what to think instead of appearing to actually think for themselves"
This is both a commiting the logical fallacy of an ad hominem attack
see http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
and a baseless judgement on Christians. You can't start to understand another's beliefs and views if you're quick to judge and stereotype.

Rachael

Ol' Cranky,
"You & Butterfly may want to consider that when the words you spout sound more like programmed responses based solely on dogma." Ouch, that was harsh and uncalled for. It is just that we're often stereotyped by pro-choice. And you just proved that by assuming that "many who call themselves Christian use that to have someone else tell them what to think instead of appearing to actually think for themselves" and in fact many Christians are not the control freaks you protray them as, but are compassionate and loving human beings. The actions of a few Christians does not demonstrate the behavior of all. You can't start to understand another's religious beliefs and views if you're quick to judge and stereotype.

Ol Cranky

Rachel:

you completely missed Sarah's point. It's not that those of us who are pro-choice don't think you have to be Christian to have a conscience, we think that many who call themselves Christian use that to have someone else tell them what to think instead of appearing to actually think for themselves. You & Butterfly may want to consider that when the words you spout sound more like programmed responses based solely on dogma.

Rachael

Sarah,
Not being Christian doesn't absolve one's conscience. I don't think anyone's really comfortable with abortion. My understanding is that both abortion provider and activist alike often see it as a necessary sorrow. Below are some testimonies of former abortion providers. These quotes have been tracked down from a number of sources, from the research of pro-choice author Magda Denes to the Washington Post to other magazines.
http://clinicquotes.topcities.com/drsquit.html
http://clinicquotes.topcities.com/morequotes.htm

In addition, please note that not all abortion activists are Christians. There are non-religious anti-abortion activists as well.
Feminists for Life:
http://www.feministsforlife.org/

Democrats for Life of America:
http://www.democratsforlife.com

Libertarians for Life:
http://www.l4l.org/

Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

Pagans for Life:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/index.html

Life Athletes:
http://www.lifeathletes.org/

Black Americans for Life:
http://www.nrlc.org/outreach/bal.html

Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians:
http://www.plagal.org/

Women Affirming Life:
http://www.affirmlife.com/index.cfm

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons:
http://www.aapsonline.org/

Pharmacists for Life:
http://www.pfli.org/

Physicians Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (PHACT):
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9707/

Professionals for Excellence in Health Care:
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Acres/3052/

South African Doctors for Life:
http://www.dfl.org.za/

Sarah

You know, looking back on all the discussion in this thread, I'm so glad I'm not Christian. This whole issue becomes so much easier when you're not looking at it from a Christian framework.

butterfly

Do you really believe that abortion doesn't kill a defenseless human being? Here's a link to some images. Please have a look and tell me what you think. If you're anything like me, you'll be outraged. These are dead women too. If you don't think they are human beings, then what are they exactly? Peace in the womb! Women deserve BETTER than abortion: legal or illegal!

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/archive1.htm

chrystal

I agree with Ol Cranky.

"All of her friends had babies, and she felt that since they had an apartment with an extra bedroom they were set."

This is not a reason to have a child.

Ol Cranky

cb:

all I can say to your reply is "what??"

I don't know about you, but all of my friends who planned to have a child (as this woman did) did so making sure they could be responsible parents who could provide for their growing family. Did you read the original post?

"All of her friends had babies, and she felt that since they had an apartment with an extra bedroom they were set."

"Scott had a mental condition and couldn't afford his meds"

"Charmaine insisted that the pregnancy was planned"

"he was not working reliably"

"Charmaine eventually acknowledged that she could have left the clinic at any time, and that she did not tell the staff that this was not her decision. I told her either would have stopped everything."

This is not someone who would have put this child up for adoption instead of terminating as such it wasn't a choice between *adoption* or abortion for her. If her family supported her in having this child, as she said, when he wanted out she could have gone home to her parents to help her raise this child, she could have spoken up and voiced dissent or concerns, she did not. This couple has an obvious communication problem, they kindasorta made some decisions - or not.

This was also not a case of an inadvertent pregnancy that they had to start discussing after the fact. The purchase of a car or a new home is much less significant a decision than planning a family. Children are not playthings, parents have responsibilities to their children and putting thought into if/how they can support a child *prior* to *intentionally* getting pregnant is crucial to at least trying to ensure you can fulfill the basic obligations you have as a parent.

Promoting abstinence would not have prevented THIS situation. These kids were playing house, this girl went out of her way TO get pregnant.

cb

Ol Cranky,

You talk about a human being as if he or she were on an equivalent level of a home purchase or a vehicle purchase. Indeed, with no income and no financial stability, it would be irresponsible to purchase such things (of course, it would also not be allowed based on a simple credit check). Human beings, however, are NOT mere property despite the modern day attitude of the Culture of Death towards human beings (whether they are models, people who are disabled but far from being in an "unresponsive coma," or innocent babies, or other groups).

Your comments also neglect to mention that there are alternatives to killing one's child. There are crisis pregnancy centers which provide free or low cost counseling, classes, baby products, furniture, toys, clothing, medical care, etc. Adoption is also a CHOICE.

Based on your statements, I have to wonder how you feel about many class action lawsuits. What about recent lawsuits against the tobacco industry? While I am fully against smoking (I can't stand to even be around others smoking), most people are fully aware of the consequences these days. Using your logic, every single person who has smoked a tobacco product in the last two decades (at minimum) should have fully been aware of the potential consequences and thus not entitled to sue. In short, they made a CHOICE (note: the abortion issue does not have exclusive domain over the word "choice") to smoke and put their health at risk. Or is there a special exception where any situation revolving around legalized child slaughter is all the fault of the emotionally distraught mother?

This woman was emotionally distraught. As such, I cannot fathom why she was NOT asked if this was truly HER choice or the choice of the *MAN.* Remember, the abortion rhetoric states that men are NEVER supposed to make that choice for women.
In THIS case, the MAN made the choice to kill the child and the woman felt pressured.

Regardless, your comments only make it more imperative to promote ABSTINENCE. The filthy and disgusting culture in which we live where sexual immorality is promoted, which in turn creates profits for industries such as the pornography industry, must be healed. There is NO risk of a pregnancy or any STD if abstinence is practiced. And now I'll save you from typing the "But people will engage in sexual immorality anyway..." response. Here is my answer to that: People are unfortunately going to rob banks (clearly, an immoral practice) anyway. To my knowledge, schools do not provide instruction in practicing "safe" bank robbery. And now I'll save you from saying "But bank robbery is illegal so this is apples and oranges." Here is my reply: Bank robbery is a serious violation of the Seventh Commandment because it is theft (forbidden by that Commandment). It also happens to PRESENTLY be a violation of man made law. (Of course, I feel it should ALWAYS be against the law.) Man made laws have been known to change over the decades and centuries. God's Laws never change. In our morally relativistic society, where the concept of objective evil does not exist (instead, every notion of evil is reduced to merely being someone's "opinion"), EVERY man made law is subject to change. Yes, while society continues to be infected by moral relativism, even the most OBVIOUS COMMON SENSE laws are subject to being overturned. That is precisely what happened on January 22, 1973.

Ol Cranky

Anne:

I beg to differ, this isn't a woman who terminated her pregnancy because she didn't fully understand her options. This is case of a woman who, I'm sorry to say, is not only extremely immature but terribly irresponsible and a couple who needs counseling regardless of whether they stay together or not. Couples should decide together to plan a pregnancy. Thoughtful, responsible couples wait to do so until they have a semblance of financial stability. It is the height of irresponsibility to intentionally get pregnanct and plan bring a child into a family in which neither partner has a job (no income, no insurance) and in which one partner has an unstable condition that wasn't being treated because they could not afford the medications. You need more than an extra bedroom to be set to raise a child.

I've refrained from commenting prior to this because the title says it all. "Playing House" is what they were doing, children deserve so much more than that. She got pregnant because she wanted to have a baby just like her friends and she, apparently, has no idea what it takes to raise a child (there's a big difference between babysitting and rasing a child). I highly doubt if she realized how unprepared for parenthood they were, she would have decided to put the child up for adoption.

It is very sad that she/they got themselves into this situation. The one good thing that came about from her depression over the abortion is that maybe she'll finally get the help she needs to grow up and, hopefully, become a stable, mature adult before she decides to become a parent.

Anne

I have to say that both the poster and the commenter seem to be missing the point (IMHO). There is a girl here, who didn't fully understand her options, both regarding sex, and carrying her baby to term. She was pushed into ending the life of her baby, and she will hurt possibly forever because of it.

It breaks my heart that any woman is ever in the position where she believes abortion is her only option. Certainly I think women need to take more responsibility for their reproductive ability (which I don't think equals birth control, but abstinence), but isn't this heartbreaking? This girl is TORN UP over this, and her baby is gone, she can't change that.

Abortion is life and death for a human being, and even someone who is pro-choice should understand that a woman should have full understanding of that before making an irreversible decision. As long as we continue to treat abortion as just the removal of the "products of conception" or "uterine contents" etc. we will have more women heartbroken and hurting.

Oh, and even Catholics (I'm Catholic) believe in saving a mother's life. If her life is in danger, then ending the pregnancy is not to kill the child, but to save the mother and therefore morally licit. However, I feel the church has to do more work on it's position regarding maternal health. I was carrying my precious baby girl who had fatal defects that posed a higher liklihood of causing me serious problems if I continued the pregnancy. I induced and delivered her a week ago. She was stillborn. The church maintains that it was not licit, because I was not in danger yet. But I didn't believe I could risk my life (much higher odds than the ones mentioned here) because I have other children to raise, and there was no chance of her surviving outside of the womb no matter what I did.

This issue is not going to be resolved soon, but we must look past the legality, the numbers, and the odds. We must look at the people, mothers and babies, all of whom are precious to God.

I pray for all of us.

cb

Hi DP, first, my apologies for not getting back to you. Other discussions took up my limited online time.

Sorry, the CDC, as an agency of the Federal government, will not do. Until the Federal government stops wasting even one penny of people's hard earned tax money on organizations that are in any way connected to the abortion industry and/or promote the notion of legalized abortion, I will not consider any of their agencies neutral. Thus, I will not accept their data as "accurate."

Furthermore, I find this interesting: "Reporting which included demographic data on abortion mortality included 29 states between 1983 and 1987." Last I heard, we had 50 states. The time period between 1983 and 1987 covered 58% of the states. What about the remaining 42%?

Your two studies do not compare the same time period. The abortion death study covers 1972-87 and the pregnancy death study covers, at most, 1979-90 though primarily focusing on 1987-90. It would be nice to see two parallel studies covering EXACTLY the same years.

"Multiple data sources were used, including including national death files, state health departments, maternal mortality review committees, individuals, the media." While I have a higher regard for the other sources named in that sentence, they're actually going to list "individuals" and "the media" as 'sources' for a supposedly scientific study? Let's see. The media focuses on mostly negative happenings. A successful, healthy birth is too routine to be covered. Consulting individuals amounts to mere anecdotal evidence.

"A higher risk of pregnancy-related death was found with increasing maternal age, increasing live-birth order, no prenatal care, and among unmarried women."
Let's see. Increasing maternal age is, in at least some cases, aided by fertility drugs. If a pregnancy can only be achieved by a drug, one is introducing an unnatural risk into the pregnancy. On the surface, yes, it is a "pregnancy related death," but it is not a pregnancy by purely NATURAL means. No prenatal care. In at least some of THOSE cases, the death was avoidable. When we have the means and technology to preserve the life of the mother and baby (regardless of whether the pregnancy was achieved through totally natural or at least partially unnatural means), it should be used. Yes, there could very easily be a financial issue for some mothers. They may not have health insurance and may not be able to afford prenatal care on their own. There are crisis pregnancy centers which can provide low or no cost prenatal care. Instead of wasting tax money on pork that supports specific congressional districts/states (ie - simply a tax funded commercial to reelect a given Congressperson/Senator), such money could be used to fund prenatal care women without health insurance.

Still, even if there were so many UNavoidale pregnancy-related deaths, this is all the MORE reason to heal the culture of its sex-obsessed collective "mindset." This study even lists "unmarried women" as at a higher risk for pregnancy-related death. Instead of simply promoting immoral sexual practices with so-called "protection" (which is NOT 100% safe), safest option is abstinence. When the "protection" doesn't work, there is no risk of pregnancy or an STD. Of course, because sexual immorality makes quick cash for a number of industries (ultimately concentrating wealth in the hands of a few), it's a much harder task to heal the culture. Imagine the progress that could be achieved in fighting poverty and health problems, in technology, scientific discovery, etc., if people who waste time and money on any form of sexual immorality would use their time/money to truly benefit humanity with their talents. Instead, it's just a continuous cycle of filth in various forms and wasted resources (time/money) to obtain more filth.

"But it's going to happen anyway..." That's the excuse used by some to promote "protection" (which doesn't always work). First, humans have the capacity to control themselves. It helps if the messages promoting sexual immorality (especially by those who make money at it) were countered. Second, a lot of things "are going to happen anyway." Banks get robbed. We don't promote "safe techniques to rob banks." Humans have remotely landed a probe on Saturn's moon Titan. Human beings have walked on the Earth's moon. With that in mind, clearly, we have the capability to successfully counter a sex-obsessed culture (which would have the benefits of cutting down on new cases of people being infected by STDs) -- if anyone is interested in trying, of course...

DP

cb asks: "Do you have any sources to back your claim about abortions being 10x "safer" than pregnancies? Sources from an organization that is not tied in any way to an entity in favor of legalized abortion, that is?"

Will the CDC do? According to the CDC, the pregnancy related mortality rate was 7.2 per 100,000 in 1987. In the same year, the abortion related mortality rate was 0.4 per 100,000. So, in fact, I was wrong. Legal abortion is closer to 18X safer than completing pregnancy. Sources below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8692494&dopt=Citation

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7977548&dopt=Citation

cb

DP, this life is but mere preparation for each individual's eternity. We each determine where we will spend our eternity based on our actions. According to the following site (clearly, this is dated), the longest living human as of 1995 was just over 120.

http://www.time.com/time/international/1995/951030/milestones.html

This is a mere drop in the bucket compared to eternity. The vast majority are not even given this much time by God.

Do you have any sources to back your claim about abortions being 10x "safer" than pregnancies? Sources from an organization that is not tied in any way to an entity in favor of legalized abortion, that is? (They don't have to be pro-life sources but they need to be at least completely neutral.) Since you used anecdotes in another thread, I'll add a couple of my own. A fourth great grandmother of mine had thirteen or fourteen children. She lived from 1774-1854 (80 years). (Her husband only lived for 48 years.) Another fourth great grandmother had a minimm of twelve children and possibly thirteen. She lived from 1770-1843 (73 years). Medical care back then was not exactly as advanced as it is now. Heck, hearing the claims of how "unsafe" pregnancy allegedly is NOW with all our medical advances, I'm shocked these two managed to live beyond the birth of each of their first children in the early 1790s! Of course in the case of the first one I mentioned, by having children she had someone to provide a home for her in her old age. These days, the elderly without any family who are unable to live on their own are just shut away in nursing homes and forgotten about by anyone other than the staff.

Of course the discussion of time machines is irrelevant here. My point was that committing an evil is not justified because of a good outcome. (In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, look at paragraph #2116.) As to your new scenerio, like the other one, it seems to imply a quest for "control." God has given each of us free will. (If an action is deemed illegal under secular law, that does not diminish one's ability to exercise free will and still carry out the action. Bank robbery is illegal, but unfortunately it still happens. However, secular penalties seem to do a better job at deterring most people than does the prospect of violating the Seventh Commandment in a grave manner and its potential eternal penalties.) Even if I fulfilled the requirements of either of your scenerios, that could not remove one's free will. It is provided by God. Furthermore, in your second scenerio, it would be rather wasteful to take a risk if it was unknown whether the woman was even considering abortion. Potentially, as in the majority of pregnancies, the woman's life may not even be in danger. Potentially, the woman may be one who would not even consider abortion. On the other hand, if under your scenerio, I could personally take on all the risks and inconveniences of a woman who is pregnant and was leaning towards abortion, in exchange for her FREE WILL (the legal status of abortion is meaningless when it comes to God-given free will) decision not to kill her child via abortion, then yes, I would.

DP

cb: Oh, I see. You're not pro-life, you're pro-martyrdom. That makes your position much clearer.

You're right that women do sometimes die in abortions and that one death is too many. However, abortion is about 10X safer than completing the pregnancy. I also feel that one woman dying in childbirth is one too many. And, having come close to doing that myself, I can tell you that it is not a nice way to die.

I'm sure you know the Bible better than I do, but I'm unaware of any mention of time machines or even altering time in the Gospel. Still, fascinating as a discussion of the ethics (or lack thereof) of time travel could be, it is essentially irrelevent to the current issue. Perhaps a different example is in order. What if you were offered the right to decide the outcome of a pregnancy if you were willing to undergo all the risks and inconveniences of that pregnancy? Would you take that offer? (Note that I did not say that the pregnancy in question would definitely be terminated otherwise--just that you'd have no say otherwise.)

cb

DP, indeed I do. I put my faith in God. In the last century, a woman gave up her life for her baby. She is now a canonized Saint in the Catholic Church. St. Gianna Molla. One does not become a Saint merely because of an exceptional record of life. The soul who is considered for canonization must perform documented miracles (only allowed by God) that are thoroughly investigated. Some of the greatest Saints have taken hundreds of years for canonization. Even Archbishop Fulton Sheen's cause is still under study. He has contributed greatly in life in the middle of the last century. However, there are obviously reasons he has yet to be canonized.

In case you may be unaware, a number of holy Saints have incorrupt bodies. This is not natural or artificial mummification. In life, some belonged to orders that required such poverty that they were not even buried in caskets (IOW, buried directly in the ground, some in very wet conditions). When they are exhumed (in order to obtain relics), some are shown to be wholly or partially incorrupt. There is no scientific explanation for this. There is an excellent book called The Incorruptibles by Joan Carroll Cruz which discusses the details of mummification (natural and artificial) and the differences between those processes and these circumstances. It also describes some of the Saints and Blesseds who are or were incorrupt. The point is that examples are provided from those who follow our Lord Jesus Christ's teachings.

In the last year or so, I read about a case where a woman was told that her baby would be extremely unhealthy and would lead a miserable life if allowed to be born. She received the same admonition from multiple doctors. Many suggested abortion. She refused. The baby was born perfectly healthy. Again, multiple doctors performed tests and came to similar conclusions prior to the baby's birth. Either they were ALL incompetent (highly unlikely) or a miracle happened.

In your examples about health problems resulting from pregnancy, you seemed to have forgotten about women who have died as a result of abortion. Perhaps the statistics are low, but even one is one too many.

As to your thought experiment, we'd have to add one further hypothetical. Attempts to alter time (ie - "time machines") would have to not be seriously immoral (they ARE seriously immoral). Under that circumstance, if I had to take that risk in order to change the mind of someone who was definitely going to abort their child, then yes. However, as time machines or other similar attempts to alter time are seriously immoral, I could not do so. Evil can NEVER be done in order to accomplish good. If you can provide an example that does not in any way violate the Gospel or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, I'd be interested in hearing it.

RachelCohen

"It's not something you get taught"--actually , it is. You're taught it by your paretns in a loving, respectful marriage. Not shacked up, not dating, but in a committed union.

DP

cb: You oppose abortion even when the woman's health is in danger? Do you have any idea what kind of danger you are talking about?

Consider a woman with pulmonary hypertension. In this condition, blood flowing through the lungs is under too high a pressure. This causes problems with the heart as well. A person with PH usually ends up dying of, essentially, drowning in their own blood. A stress such as pregancy will cause a woman with moderate or severe PH to die this way--long before viability. You think it is better to watch a woman slowly drown rather than allow her to have an abortion? Again, there is no chance of the fetus coming to term.

Another example might be ectopic pregnancy, especially tubal pregnancy. Tubal pregnancies generally go 6-8 weeks before they burst, causing pain, shock, bleeding into the abdominal cavity, and, ultimately, death. Again, the embryo has no chance of making it long enough to become a fetus, muchless being brought to term. Is it "pro-life" to insist that these women continue their pregnancies, knowing how they will end?

Finally, one might consider a perfectly "normal" pregancy. About 1 in every 10,000 women who gets pregnant dies as a result of the pregnancy. In African-American women age 35 or older at the time of pregnancy, the risk is much higher, more like 1 in 625. Perhaps these risks don't sound so bad--after all, the same women have a 9999/10,000 or 624/625 chance of coming through the pregnancy alive (not necessarily healthy, but at least alive.) Consider, however, how this risk relates to other risks that might be considered "high". There is only about a 1 in 5 million chance of dying in a plane crash, yet many people fear flying. A person flying on Sept 11, 2001 had about a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying in a plane crash. A thought experiment for you: Suppose I had a time machine (for the purposes of the thought experiment, let's say use of the time machine is absolutely risk free). If I agree to let you decide the outcome of my next pregnancy, will you agree to let me put you in the time machine and have you come out in a random plane flying Sept 11, 2001? You'd have at least a ten fold better chance than I would of surviving...yet somehow I doubt you would consider it a safe experiment for you.

cb

Hi Trope, interesting. You talk about something happening against one's will. Most organisms fight for their lives. Do you think that if given a chance to express their will, most human babies would say they were willing to give up their lives?

Those who favor legalized abortion talk about "choice." They call themselves "pro-choice." Do you realize that there are more choices than whether or not one wants to kill their own baby? For example, determining one's favorite color is a CHOICE. Deciding what to eat for breakfast is a CHOICE. When a baby dies via abortion, that baby has been denied every single CHOICE he or she could ever make in life. Quite frankly, I do not believe the position of being in favor of legalized abortion is truly "pro-choice." Abortion DENIES choice for the child.

You say that women would be "pregnant against their will" without legalized abortion. The vast majority of abortions are NOT performed for health of the mother or for rape/incest (I oppose those as well, but I want to point out that they are the minority of reasons for abortion). Bearing that in mind, if it's not rape/incest, then both the man and woman are willing participants. What is the best way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? Abstinence. Healing a culture which promotes sexual immorality for quick cash. This culture insults humanity and drags it down to an animal level. The human mind, created by God, is capable of far more dignified things than the pressure and promotion of filth. Of course, this constant promotion of filth concentrates wealth in the hands of a few. Despite the constant pressure, every individual has the capacity to rise above the sewage and refuse to participate in sexual immorality.

May the peace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, through the intersession of our Blessed Mother, the Most Holy Virgin Mary, be with you. Our Lady of Guadeloupe, pray for us.

Trope

Hello, cb.
Good question about why some people are "dismayed" at people raising arguments against abortion. There are lots of good reasons to argue against a woman having an abortion, but my concern is that often these anti-abortion folks are working with, or being co-opted by, people who are trying to make abortion illegal &or unavailable to any woman at any time. Just as pro-choice people don't argue that every or most pregnant women should have abortions (how foolish would that be?), we get alarmed at anyone who would try to force us to be pregnant against our will.

Hi, achromic. Hang in there. Sometimes it does still hurt, years later.

achromic

Thanks for doing what must be an incredibly hard job. I know that when I need someone there in that place there was someone. Many years later and I can still say it was the right thing....... he would have never given up cusdoty and he was so abusive (not to metion the poverty, hunger, and the drugs). I made thru' that part of my life and on to a better story, thanks to the kindness of people like you holding my hand. I'll be sure to drop in often here, although I'm sure some of the stories you will tell will hurt like hell.

The comments to this entry are closed.