The Senate Doesn’t Trust Clergy
The Senate Doesn’t Trust Clergy
The Senate doesn’t trust women to make decisions about what’s best for their bodies, their lives, or their families. Apparently, it doesn’t trust clergy either. Last night, the Senate passed the Child Custody Protection Act, a federal bill that would criminalize accompanying a minor across state lines to have an abortion without her parent’s permission or knowledge. The law contains no exceptions for grandparents, adult siblings, or clergy members.
But clergy of all faiths have historically played an essential role in helping women receive abortions. In 1967, when abortion was illegal in most of this country, a group of clergy banded together to form the Clergy Consultation Service in order to help women obtain safe, but illegal, abortions. By the time Roe v. Wade was decided, the network had more than 1000 clergy members.
Should Congress have allowed clergy to exercise their conscience and minister to their congregations without the threat of violating federal law? God forbid.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Senate doesn’t trust ANYONE because they know they cannot be trusted themselves.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pmComment by the banned – - So I guess this would be your Last Waltz.
July 26th, 2006 at 8:48 pmJames,
For someone who is banned, you sure are posting a lot.
About the only way they can actually ban you is to ban the IP address you use. There are ways around that. Think about it.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:02 pm#3 – Hi James (the banned),
I’m sorry you’ve been banned. Finally pushed hard enough, eh? Not that I think that’s a bad thing, of course. I will visit your website again, I know I’ve clicked on one or two of your personality names before. I hope you keep coming back in disguise. Keep up the good work!
July 26th, 2006 at 9:04 pmWow. He’s gone.
Hey TP! Are you going to delete us, since we responded to him?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:06 pmZooey,
Can you believe this? I’m wondering if they had good reason to think he was someone else. Otherwise, this ban of risser seems fishy to me.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pmThe clergy can assist minors obtain abortions in states where parental notification is required – by assisting them in taking their need for a judicial override to a judge.
S. 403 does nothing but close a loophole that would allow minors to circumvent state law.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:08 pmThe comment section needs to be a place that is facilitates a meaningful discussion. If we have people in the comments section who fill up every post with extreme rhetoric and attacks, that can\’t happen.
Right now, we are working on ways to improve the dialogue. Some of that involves preventing certain people from posting and some of it involves technical enhancements that are in the works.
But ultimately, it involves you: our trusted and valued readers. We need your help to make the comments section a place that everyone can be proud of. I\’ll have more to say on this soon.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:11 pmGetting ‘banned’ that is funny.
Hell, MSN was way better a banning folks, even then it was only a matter of editing some registry entries and creating a new user. As far as high speed connection goes your IP is not really ’static’ if you know what I mean.
- TauTurtle
July 26th, 2006 at 9:17 pmJudd,
I’m not proud of the fact that TP has banned James. If that’s the way you’re going to do things, you probably ought to get started banning some of our resident trolls. Ban me too, since I don’t have much time anymore, and mostly contribute snark.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pmThe crazies will be gone soon and the clergy can do whatever they want illegaly just as before until that time… after the crazies are out of washington we can roll it all back…
July 26th, 2006 at 9:21 pmJudd,
I think this is a worthy goal, but difficult to accomplish on an anonymous comment board. Good luck.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pmChris,
I agree. I don’t like any banning. If I don’t like someone’s comments, and scroll on by. It ain’t hard.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:24 pmAsk the supporting Senators how they would facilitate enforcement. Is it going to be up to the applicable states? You mean have a local jurisdiction enforce a Federal staute, like say the immigration one?What exactly is the penalty and who takes the brunt of it? So would the FBI be involved? Why wouldn’t a minor just transport themselves? Are we talking about minors under the driving age? WTF?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:27 pmOT: Why not have an option to post either A) a pertinent fact reply thread and B) Emotional, no logic needed, reply thread. All editing would apply to the ON Topic replies, and all the emotion driven one’s would be in their own little corner. Heaven forbid some color could be used. Context is everything, is it not.? Just a suggestion.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:34 pmZooey: Good point.
Does this strike anyone as being the followup to the Mann Act?
Anyway, Twenty Bucks, Same as in Town. Same whoring, same pimp, different girls.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:37 pmOOPS! I’ve been lurking, off and on admittedly, for a couple of months now. I sat through one site that eventually blew up into the nastiest, most threatening (one guy did show up at another commenter’s home!), and the most heart sinking show I’ve ever witnessed. Why did I stay? Because it had been good, and naively I expected it to be good again. I have to ask. Do I stay or do I go? Please be honest.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pmSorry Jude – can’t agree with your banning James Risser. His comments were no more inflammatory than some others, in particular the trolls that come onto this site. I agree with Zooey – don’t like what somebody is saying, scroll down past it. I suspect the real issue may be the non-MSM links on his website…you know, the stuff we in the U.S. don’t usually see. Quite impossible to begin to understand what the truth is when so much information gets “scrubbed” before it ever gets to us.
James, I notice (at least on the articles you have linked to recently) you are not getting comments. Lot of fear here in the U.S., since we all know (or at least have been told) that our emails, phone calls, and websurfing is possibly or likely being monitored.
We’d all better think about what this means…are we willing to give up our liberty because of our fears? Isn’t this B.S. what this administration has been trying to inculcate in our populace since Sept. 11?
July 26th, 2006 at 9:45 pmI believe miner will do just what bush does and sign a disreguard notice and do what they need to do. Sounds fair to me. Good leadership from the White House, ah yes
July 26th, 2006 at 9:46 pmMarchDancer,
Please stay. Stop lurking! We need freash perspective.
July 26th, 2006 at 9:51 pmOops, [fresh] perspective. Heh. That, too.
#17 – jurassicpork, Great roundup, as usual.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:00 pmShame on our Senate for believing that parents should have more rights concerning their own children than clergy members. But then, it is refreshing to see that the left has suddenly found such respect for and faith in members of holy order. Quite a refreshing change from the leftist position of, say, yesterday!
July 26th, 2006 at 10:00 pm#23 – OLDPUPPYMAX,
In the real world (reality), sometimes daddy’s knockup their little girls, and mommy’s just fine with anything daddy’s got going on. Sometimes the preacher has to step in and help out little girls.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:04 pm#24 – sometimes daddy’s knockup their little girls, and mommy’s just fine with anything daddy’s got going on.
But, as has been noted over and over again, this event accounts for somewhere less than 1% of all abortions.
Anyway, I would agree that the above does happen (more than I would probably care to imagine). When the situation is that dire, the state needs to step in on a number of levels. Why can’t the first contact be with a judge in seeking judicial override of a duly passed, constitutionally permissible law?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:11 pmChase,
Well, piss on the 1%. It happens, Chase, I have professional knowledge of it happening.
Sometimes things need to get taken care of, and people don’t even think of stopping by the courthouse. It might surprise you how many people have no idea what their legal rights are. They just go about the business of doing what they need to do, with the best intentions. Should they find out their rights? Sure, but basically it doesn’t even occur to them.
Chase, you are a smart person. I rarely agree with you, but I’ve got a lifetime of life lessons behind me, and you are just starting out. You should consider law school.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:24 pm#26 – I readily admit it happens. Incest (or rape) isn’t nearly the top reason women seek abortions. Not by a long-shot. But it does happen.
I would hope that before conducting the abortion (in violation of a state law requiring consent), the doctor would do more than “go about the business of doing what they need to do” and investigate a little deeper, hopefully a first step in helping the child out of a horrible existence.
As for law school, well, my life as a 1L begins in exactly 2 weeks.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:32 pmChase,
If a law that only affects 1% of the population of the United States is unconstitutional, does the fact that so few people are affected make it ok?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:40 pm#28 – If a law that only affects 1% of the population of the United States is unconstitutional
What law is unconstitutional?
July 26th, 2006 at 10:48 pmRed-neck republican couples as often-as-not share two great grandparents, two grandparents and two parents. This is the core of family values.
July 26th, 2006 at 10:48 pmI would hope that before conducting the abortion (in violation of a state law requiring consent), the doctor would do more than “go about the business of doing what they need to do†and investigate a little deeper, hopefully a first step in helping the child out of a horrible existence.
First things first, Chase. It’s not a perfect world. Would that it were.
As for law school, well, my life as a 1L begins in exactly 2 weeks.
Comment by Chase
Fantastic! Then you’ll find out the answer to your question in #29. Best of luck to you!
July 26th, 2006 at 11:11 pm#31 – Exactly, first things first: comply with a state law that has withstood constitutional challenge, that was initially vetted though the democratic process. That would be the “first thing” in states that require either parental notification/consent or a judicial override.
Touche. I was hoping BnF would tell me what unconstitutional law he was referring to, as I cannot find one that has been discussed in this thread.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:28 pmPeople first, Chase. This is what I mean by life lessons.
Hopefully Briseadh na Faire will get back to you on that.
July 26th, 2006 at 11:36 pmI would hope that before conducting the abortion (in violation of a state law requiring consent), the doctor would do more than “go about the business of doing what they need to do†and investigate a little deeper, hopefully a first step in helping the child out of a horrible existence.
As for law school, well, my life as a 1L begins in exactly 2 weeks.
Comment by Chase —
Chases name has been forwarded to the war department
July 27th, 2006 at 12:03 amI don’t know why Congress doesn’t just pass a law banning all women from having sex. I mean, that’s ultimately what they want isn’t it?
Here’s another even better idea: let’s just put all women in prison. That way, none of them can have sex, or get raped, or be victims of incest; or get pregnant because of failed condoms or drunkeness or irresponsible men or lack of money for birth control, and therefore, decide to do what is best for themselves with their own bodies and the potentially either good or bad future lives of an unborn embryo/fetus/baby.
Here’s another even better idea to satisfy all religious zealots and Congress: let’s just make a law outlawing women in general. And any female born will be instantly put to death. Then, since there will then be no women to try and end an unwanted pregnancy, Congress and all religious zealots will be eternally happy.
I mean, why is any of that any more insane that stripping US citizens of all their rights slowly but surely before Bush and his theocratic cabal is kicked out of office?
July 27th, 2006 at 12:07 amAs for law school, well, my life as a 1L begins in exactly 2 weeks.
Comment by Chase
your life began as mine, a human, your life, today, consists to exploit your fellow human$$
How do you expect me to respect you?
July 27th, 2006 at 12:11 amYoiu will not fight, YOU will not go to war?
You will not join the army
You are a wimp.
WIMP CHASE
I agree that women should have the right to chose. But this thread is a stretch, I mean there is no exceptions for clergy, agreed, its just the way it is presented, like they don’t trust all clergy, just the ones who would assist in abortions, which seems to be a small number of radical clergy, maybe Episcopalian?
July 27th, 2006 at 12:14 am#37 – For Truth,
I took the bait on the Bolton thread. Check #57. It’s your fault I’m off the wagon…
July 27th, 2006 at 12:18 amAh, I see how it is, For Truth, you are a master manipulator. Still your fault. ;)
July 27th, 2006 at 12:21 amRepublicans at work – meddling in people’s most private business again.
First it was our phone records, now these old white men are inserting themselves into women’s lives to assert control over what women do with their bodies. What next?
July 27th, 2006 at 12:27 amJames, if you read this, I tried to leave a comment on your blog, but blogger won’t let me sign up using any name. Good luck to you, I’m sure you’ll find a way to let us know of your next incarnation. :)
July 27th, 2006 at 12:30 amWhat really pisses me off is when they (the republicans) refer to the young women who are burdened with an unwanted pregnancy as “girls”. These young woman are ultimately women, and they know what’s best for them. If they want to seek the help of a granparent, older brother, sister, aunt, uncle, clergy, whatever, these young mothers should be able to call on them to help them out of a situation that would, ultimately relagate them and their unwanted child from a life of extreme poverty. If they can’t seek the help of blood family, the clergy is their next viable step. Why can a murderer/criminal confess to a member of the cloth in the confessional and not fear the repurcusion of their crime by that pastor, or have the authorities force that pastor to tell. The act of confessing to a member of the cloth is sacrosant and cannot be intruded upon unless it’s between the confessor and their God. But have a young women, under the age of 18, distressed about an unwanted pregnancy, turn to that same pastor, and ask for assistance, and turn that pastor into a criminal? Maybe only in BushWorld can, and will, this happen.
This is no longer the country our Forefathers would fight for. We have decended into the abyss and there’s no way out.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:14 amYou guys are really grabbing for any reason to bash this legislation. The Child Custody Protection Act seems pretty sensible to me.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:19 amWell I do NOT trust Pat Robertson, nor Jerry Falwell either, nor any other far-right religious clergy nut, but the GOP membership loves those morons > lol.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:40 amThe TRUTH behind the Hezbollah incident that Israel used as a pretext to invade another country
Check out the maps and explanations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqR1qcWtnpg
July 27th, 2006 at 6:21 am“Imagine a surgeon who is completely clueless, who has no idea what he or she is doing.
Imagine a pilot who is equally incompetent.
Now imagine a president.â€
So beginneth Bob Herbert’s article, entitled, “Failure Upon Failure.†So, obviously, they shouldn’t trust George “Holy Roller” Bush, either.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:45 amjames risser has been banned? Boy, I can sure think of several other regular posters who have been much more hostile, crude, rude, and leud with much less to add to the topics at hand. I agree with others here, if I don’t like a particular poster, usually I scroll past and don’t respond. Sometimes, though, I respond to gauge their response to what I post. This can help me fine tune my message to people like that in the real world who, BTW, aren’t banned. Let them all have a voice, let james risser back.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:53 amThis is not an issue, and its rediculous that you people are so outrages.
A child cant recieve medical care from a doctor or hospitlal without parental consent. Parents must take reponsibility for the actions of their children in many areas of life, legal, school, etc
to say that a parent should not know if their child is going to have an abortion, that could have serious medical complications following the procedure is rediculous. It makes no sense.
She could come home, hemmorage out and bleed to death, or become die of septic shock,
not to mention the psychological impact the child will face afterward, and please dont kid yourself about this, many women experience great depression after an abortion.
i know all the arguments about rape and incest, and to me they a moot, they dont hold water because so few rapes or cases of incesnt result in pregnancy, as tragic as they are.
there is no justifiable argument as to why it would be ok for anyone to transport a pregnant teenager accross state lines to recieve an abortion without parental consent.
for that matter ther is no justifiable argument to allow a teenager to have an abortion, period, withouth parental consent. if a parent has to give consent for stitches, doctor treatment, hospitalisation, lazik eye surgery etc, etc, etc, they should have to give consent for abortion as well.
another good argument is that if the abortion does result in complications and hospitalisation of the teen, who is responsible for those medical bills, is naral or planned parenthood going to pay for the medical treatment, or pychological therapy that may be required after this teen has been permitted to have an abortion…
in all other situations a parent is reponisible for the well being of the child, and must give parental consent, for a number of things. hell you have to get consent to go on a damn highschool field trip to the museum…. yet pro-abortion advocates demand the right to abuse children by violation a pregnant teen without parental consent, and killing the unborne child she carrys.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:47 amOne of the ten commandments, “thou shalt not kill”. Abortion should’ve been banned years ago. Also, how can a clergyman call himself holy while assisting a female to commit an atrocious act that is condemned biblically. The Senate and House do indeed produce foolish bills and prohibitions, but this is one bill that I believe is highly relevant for society. If you decide to have unprotected sex then you must pay the consequences, whether your a teenager or adult. I have one solution, practice abstinence until marriage.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:08 amI believe the point of the legislation is to have the child share the fact of her pregnancy with her parents, so that they, together, can make the choice about what to do. Extending the law to include grandparents, siblings or clergy would just allow the child to “shop” for someone who would drive them to get an abortion.
chester, great points, but they are lost on the “don’t tell me what to do with my body” crowd – they just want to have things their way in all situations – “give me the freedom to do what I want, but everyone else has to absorb the consequences when it goes bad”.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:10 amWhere is the thread that discusses the stunning LOSS by GAY MARRIAGE advocates from the supreme court of washington state – one of the most liberal states in the union? Republicans are no longer afraid to take on these hot button issues, and are now winning. Libs never learn that if they start a fight, they might just lose the ground they had gained.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:12 amI also support this bill because it’s part of parental duties. The mother and/or father is legally and biblically responsible for their child. A teenager should only use clergy members for consultation purposes. I hope and pray that the Senate and House pass a bill banning abortion. It’s biblically wrong.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:23 amI looks like some have bit the bait dangled in the original posting: this law does not prevent clergy, grandmothers or aunts from helping minors.
It prevents them from delivering the young women across state lines to obtain an abortion in the same states it would prevent them from taking the young lady to the abortion clinic without notifying (or securing consent from) their parents.
The Senate bill has an “emergency exception”.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:25 amOne of the ten commandments, “thou shalt not killâ€. Abortion should’ve been banned years ago. Also, how can a clergyman call himself holy while assisting a female to commit an atrocious act that is condemned biblically. The Senate and House do indeed produce foolish bills and prohibitions, but this is one bill that I believe is highly relevant for society. If you decide to have unprotected sex then you must pay the consequences, whether your a teenager or adult. I have one solution, practice abstinence until marriage.
Comment by Daryll — July 27, 2006 @ 9:08 am
Since you quote the Commandment, “thou shalt not kill,” 1) are you also opposed to the war in Iraq and our taking the side of and arming Israel in their war against Lebanon? 2) Are you also opposed to the death penalty?
Regarding your statement that a person must “pay the consequences” for unprotected sex, then I assume you consider it ok to punish a woman by forcing her to have a child?
You so-called “Christians” are sorely lacking in the love Christ encouraged us to have toward our fellow beings. You use your faith as a tool to control and punish others, and in doing so, you are operating with the same mindset as a radical Islamist.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:20 am“I assume you consider it ok to punish a woman by forcing her to have a child?”
its not forcing a woman to have a child… she already has one, as a consequence of her own actions (majority of the time). We simply seek to prevent her from killing/murdering the child she has inside of her.
its interesting that we have inconsistency of thought in this country. if i am involved in a car crash with a woman who happens to be pregnant, and because of my actions she looses the baby, i can be charged criminally with the death of the child. manslaugher i think is the charge, but dont quote me….
however, if the woman drivers herself to the abortion clinic the doc can suck the baby out with a vacum and thats ok….
its a joke , a farse, and a damn shame.
the questions about being against the war in iraq and for isreal, well those are just straw man arguments.
when we reference the commandment not to kill, we do so in the context in which it was given. the commandment is better read as thou shall not murder. everyone knows this. throught the bible killing was condoned, with just cause, self defense, capital punishment, etc.
so it is perfectly justifiable to obose abortion while also supporting a war in iraq and supporting isreal defending herself. they are worlds apart.
sadly it comes to name calling and put dows , saying that we dont express the love of christ because we opose abortion, its sad.
we are not in favor of “forced” pregnancy, thats called rape, or incest. we simply opose state sponsored/condoned infanticide.
and please excuse my spelling as i typed this in a hurry.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:32 amChester,
It’s not an infant, period. When you grow a uterus, you can have a say in the matter. Until then, be quiet.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:42 amChester,
It’s not an infant, period. When you grow a uterus, you can have a say in the matter. Until then, be quiet.
……….
Zooey,
Just because i dont have a uterus, does not mean i can opose what i consider to be murder. And by definition, abortion kills a living thing.
my question for you Zooey, if its not a baby, child, infant, etc then what is it?
you can call it a fetus if you want but that does not get you out of the fact that it is a human being.
So i will conceed the point to you Zooey, you are correct in your assessment that it is not an infant, developmentally its not to that stage of Human development..
In the stage of human development most abortions occur during the fetal stage of Human development.
So i retract my statment that it is infanticide, and change it to homicide. because by definition abortion kills a human being.
living things reproduce after their kind, cats have kittens, dogs have puppys, humans have babies, the stuff thats growing inside you, from the momment of conception is human stuff in nature.
when asked what kind of being is growing inside a pregnant woman, no matter the stage of development, from conception to birth, it is a human being. no amount of argumentation can change that.
simply telling me to shut up because i dont have a womb is a cheap way out Zooey, you have not addressed any of the arguments, you simply hide behind the fact that i am a man therefore i have no voice in the subject. Well my wife feels the same way about the issue and makes the same arguments, so what would you say to her? rather than shut me out because i happen to have a penis, how about you stop being sexist and refut my arguments….?!
July 27th, 2006 at 10:54 amWhere is the thread that discusses the stunning LOSS by GAY MARRIAGE advocates from the supreme court of washington state – one of the most liberal states in the union? Republicans are no longer afraid to take on these hot button issues, and are now winning. Libs never learn that if they start a fight, they might just lose the ground they had gained.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 27, 2006 @ 9:12 am
This is NOT a dead issue. I live in Washington State. It is now up to the Washington Legislature to take the issue up. And I don’t call the narrow 5 to 4 vote any kind of victory. If it does get put to a vote – IT WILL PASS.
July 27th, 2006 at 10:59 amLIFE BEGINS WHEN THE INFANT IS VIABLE – PERIOD!
July 27th, 2006 at 11:00 amLIFE BEGINS WHEN THE INFANT IS VIABLE – PERIOD!
……
says who, you? and what reasons do you have to believe what you believe?
and what do you consider viable to mean? that it can take care of itself? breath on its own? when if born it will contnue to live outside the mother?
what if your 80 years old and if left on your own you die? are they no longer viable either?
if life begins at viability does that mean the fetus is dead before that point… dead things do not give rise to living things.
if its a living being at 9 months, it had to be a living being at 8 months, and a living being at 7 months, and a living being at 6 months, and a living being at 5 months, and a its was a living being at 4 months, and a living being at 3 months, and a living being a 2 months, thu it had to start outa as a living being at conception.
so LIFE begins at conception… its a scientific fact… you cant deny it
what you really mean madashell is that PERSONHOOD begins at viability. what you are arguing is that not untill the human being is viable should it be a PERSON protected by law.
what you are arguing is that there are 2 classes of human beings, those that are perons, and those that are not, its the same argument used to justify genocide thought history.
the argument goes like this, we know its wrong to kill people, but this group of humans over here… those people, well they are not really people, they are second class persons, or not persons at all, so its ok, even noble, to kill and exterminate thes non-persons, who just happen to be human beings. I hate to invoke the reference, but the nazis used this argument to convince people that it was ok to kill the jews because they were non-persons, they were 2nd class.
they argumen is that there is some life unworthy of life.
the fetus is alive, you cant deny that, what you are left with is determining at stage of human development the living human being becomes a person worthy of protection.
i would argue that there is no life that is unworthy of life. by its very nature all human beings, regardless of stage of development, race, agr, etc, are by default human persons worthy of respect and protcetion.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:16 amSince you quote the Commandment, “thou shalt not kill,†1) are you also opposed to the war in Iraq and our taking the side of and arming Israel in their war against Lebanon? 2) Are you also opposed to the death penalty?
Regarding your statement that a person must “pay the consequences†for unprotected sex, then I assume you consider it ok to punish a woman by forcing her to have a child?
You so-called “Christians†are sorely lacking in the love Christ encouraged us to have toward our fellow beings. You use your faith as a tool to control and punish others, and in doing so, you are operating with the same mindset as a radical Islamist.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — July 27, 2006 @ 10:20 am
_____________________________________________________________________________
impeachncheaneythenbush, I’m not lacking in love, I have agape love for everyone. I’m not using my faith to control and punish abortionist. I’m just being informative. The scriptures in the bible condemn and convict you, not me. If you can’t follow the laws in the bible then can’t be a christian. Christian=Christ-like, Bible=Christ.
July 27th, 2006 at 11:45 amComplaining about the war and then justifying the murder of a million babies a year..
July 27th, 2006 at 12:05 pmanyone else see the problem with this logic.
Comment by chester — July 27, 2006 @ 11:16 am
As a woman, your opinion matters NOT to me. If men had the ability to get pregnant, you can BET that abortion would be a sacrament.
And as a woman who has HAD CHILDREN – They were not “alive” to me until they breathed on their OWN outside MY WOMB! Not yours. MINE.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:11 pmOh, and by the way Chester – that comment comes from a DOCTOR. A MALE DOCTOR.
July 27th, 2006 at 12:12 pmI will always be
Pro Child
July 27th, 2006 at 12:17 pmPro Family
PRO CHOICE
You can’t abort that baby! Life is sacred! Besides, he might grow up to kill us so AY-rabs in a few years!
July 27th, 2006 at 12:57 pmWere is the responsibility of the man? It takes to to tangle.
Chester You have no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. She need to make her own mind up not anyone else.
If this young woman has abusive parents and cann’t turn to them. What is she suppose to do? She needs to go to someone she can trust.
The Religious right Nuts wants to control what women do which is wrong, wrong, wrong. This is America which is suppose to be free.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:01 pmi would argue that there is no life that is unworthy of life.
would you say, for example, Ted Bundy was “worthy of life”.
July 27th, 2006 at 1:50 pmAs a minister, I believe strongly that I need to do everything I can to help a young person reach out to their familes when they are facing an unplanned pregnancy. But I also know that there have been times in the 30 years that I have counseled pregnant teenagers where to involve a parent would have placed her at grave physical, psychological, or economic danger. Nothing in this bill will stop a young woman from seeking an abortion in a neighboring state on her own; it will just mean that she will do so without any adult involvement. For more on theological support for abortion as a moral decision, see our open letter to religious leaders on abortion and my blog on sexuality and religion.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:00 pmif these people really wanted to lower aboriton rates, they should have voted for the lautenberg ammendment to provide COMPREHENSIVE sex education- but they voted no because they feel teaching abstinence is the best way to teach kids.. even though it had failed time and time again.
July 27th, 2006 at 2:24 pmmy question for you Zooey, if its not a baby, child, infant, etc then what is it?
Comment by chester
It is a clump of cells with the potential to become human life, most of which get sloughed off before a woman even knows she might be pregnant. That’s a point for you, chester.
Here’s my point: It is my business and my choice.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:41 pm#69 – Well said and well done, Rev Debra W. Haffner.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:42 pmAnd as a woman who has HAD CHILDREN – They were not “alive†to me until they breathed on their OWN outside MY WOMB! Not yours. MINE.
Comment by madashell
////////////////
again Madashell, you refuse to even engage the arguments,
Regardless of wether they are “alive to you” does not mean they are not alive, it just means you have a misconstrued view of reality. also the argument about me being a man is rediculous, its a kin to saying that if you are not going to adopt children that you have no right to complain about child abuse. or that if you are not going to counsel women then you have no right to complain about rape…. the arguments make no sense. just because i dont have a womb does not change the validity of my arguments.
the problem is that you cant refute the fact that when a woman becomes pregnant she has a living, moving, growing, being, inside of her that it is human in nature.
It is a humnan being.
as for not telling a woman what to do with her body, well you are absolutely right. no one should be able to tell a woman that she has to get pregnant and have a child.
last time i checked rape is illegal, once you choose to have sex, even with birth control, you knowingly take the risk of becoming pregnant. no one is forcing it upon you.
after you are pregnant, i would argue that the human being growing inside the mother has a greater and more important right to life and right to be protected, that superceeds the right of the mother to not be pregnant, which she forfitted when she made the choice to be sexually active. accidents happen, and thats the risk we take, but the fetus has a greater claim to life than the mother does to not be pregnant.
pro-abortion advocate always say keep your hands off my body, and dont tell me what to do with my body, while at the same time destroying the bodies of their unborn children
as for all these extreem cases that people talk about, they suck, they really do. its tradgic that abusive parents exist, that someone would rape their daughter and then kill the child to cover it is unconcienable. but you cant base the whole of law on the most extreem of cases.
and there is still the argument to be made that even if the pregnancy is a product of rape, it still has the fundamental right to life, which superceeds the potential emotional trauma the mother may experience after having the child.
one would not allow a woman to kill her 2 year old if it were a product of rape simply because it causes her emotional pain an reminds her of the rapist and the traumatic event, so why should she kill it at 5 months or 8 ?
anyway , i have rambled. simply put, abortion is the deliberate termination or the life of a human being. regardless of stage of development, all human beings have the right to live, and should not face indescriminate killing.
pro-abortion advocates never refute the solid arguments that support the right of the unborne to live and be borne. or can the refute the fact that an unborne child, or embroy is a human being. they cant justify the indiscriminate killing of human beings, so they simply resort to the tired tacktics of personal attacks, strawman arguments, and simply ignoring the arguments that do exist.
saying “keep your hands off my body” or “you dont have a womb, so you dont have an opinion that counts” are not refutations, they simply avoid the arguments, and dont advance their cause
they simply attack
July 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pm71. and those clumps of cells look EXACTLY like a toad’s.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:47 pmMY BODY, CHESTER, MY BODY, MY BODY, MY BODY.
MY WOMB, MY WOMB, MY WOMB.
MY CHOICE, MY CHOICE, MY CHOICE.
STAY THE F*CK OUT MY MINE AND MY DAUGHTERS’ WOMBS.
THIS TOPIC IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
I am sick and tired of MEN and their desire to control EVERY ASPECT OF A WOMAN’S LIFE.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:52 pm…after you are pregnant, i would argue that the human being growing inside the mother has a greater and more important right to life and right to be protected, that superceeds the right of the mother to not be pregnant, which she forfitted when she made the choice to be sexually active.
Comment by chester
madashell, this is all we need to know about chester. I say we cut him loose. What say you?
July 27th, 2006 at 3:54 pmIt is a clump of cells with the potential to become human life, most of which get sloughed off before a woman even knows she might be pregnant. That’s a point for you, chester.
Here’s my point: It is my business and my choice.
Comment by Zooey
—————
what kind of cells are the zooey, that clump of cells as you call it are human cells. more importantly, they are growing cells, that represent a living being, of the human kind.
and i might add that most abortions dont take place at the “clump” stage of development. most abortions take place long after the fetus has human form, fingers, toes, etc.
its a human being.
and saying “It is my business and my choice” is just plain wrong.
if you saw a woman strangeling her 1 year old baby in the supermarket, and when you tried to stop her from killing the child if she told you “It is my business and my choice” would you walk away and let her kill the child, or would you try to stop it????
can you please answer that? and if you would try to stop the woman from killing her 1 year old child, why cant i push for laws to stop what i consider to be the exact same thing, the killing of an innocent human being?!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:55 pmand for your information chester, if I had known, 25 years ago, my first pregnancy that I carried for nine full months a baby – who I HAD, whose stomach was not fully developed, and two days later DIED. All this poor life felt WAS PAIN, it was on her face! If I HAD KNOWN, I WOULD HAVE ABORTED HER, THEN SHE WOULD NEVER WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT EXCRUCIATING PAIN.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:56 pmYour analogy, Chester, is just plain ASSININE.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pmMajor problem with your argument is that when elected officials take office, they put their hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. Never once has an elected official put their hand over the Constitution and sworn to uphold the Bible.
We live in, what is supposed to be, a secular state. If you don’t like it, move to the Middle East. I heard a rumor that religion controls a lot of the politics there, and it’s been working out fantastically for them!
July 27th, 2006 at 3:57 pmmadashell, my guess would be that, if asked, chester would be against the “Nanny State.” Except for women, we must always be watched to make sure we’re not messing up our wombs, or our womb’s potential. Back to work. I wouldn’t stick around, if I were you…it’s not worth your time because there really is nothing to be debated.
July 27th, 2006 at 3:58 pm81. As an aside, Zooey, the reverand moon says that women who no longer procreate, should be chastised. and that’s putting his comment mildly.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:00 pmMY BODY, CHESTER, MY BODY, MY BODY, MY BODY.
MY WOMB, MY WOMB, MY WOMB.
MY CHOICE, MY CHOICE, MY CHOICE.
STAY THE F*CK OUT MY MINE AND MY DAUGHTERS’ WOMBS.
THIS TOPIC IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
………..
Mada,
you are acting like a child, its yours and you can do what you want, problem is, the childs bodys isnt yours, and your killing it.
its like a man who has a puppy and says its my puppy and it i want to bash its brains in with a bat its my right, its MINE and i can do with it what i WANT…….
we dont allow that behavior because its not just the mans property, its a living animal, and it has a right to live. so we dont allow the man to brutally kill the innocent puppy.
we give the puppy more rights than the unborn.
you says its your womb and i should not worry about what you do with it, and thats fine, but the living human being inside of you is not yours to simply destroy if you wish. do what you want with your body, but dont destroy another living being in the process,,,,thats all i ask .
and since i have an interest in protecting the lives of innocent human beings, this topid is very much my concern, as well as the states.
if you think otherwise mada, please explain why, rather than just rant and rave like a child , … its mine, mine, mine.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:03 pmno i dont want a nanny state,
i want the laws to be consistent, and abortion to be illegal.
i wan people to be educated about birth control, so that their are not unwanted pregnancies.
i want people to acknowledge that pregnancy is a naturall consequence of sexual activity (even with birth control) and when they do get pregnant unexpectedly, they should recognize that the living human being inside them has a greater right to life than they do to not be pregnant.
i am pro-choice, but that choice ends as soon as you choose to engage in sexualy activity.
abortion should be treated as we do homiced or murder, if you have a self defense argument, such are the health or life of the mother is at risk, or its rape or incest, it should be allowed, otherwise you are killing an innocent human being without cause and you should be treated accordingly. if i can get jail time for causing a woman to miscarry during an auto accident, an abortion should be illegal…. or change the laws to say that causing a woman to miscarry is not a criminal offence…. at least make em consistent.
do what you want people, if you wanna whore around, whore around, but dont kill innocent babies because nature took its course.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:15 pmthe childs bodys isnt yours,
AS LONG AS ITS IN MY BODY IT IS MINE! AND MY DECISION.
July 27th, 2006 at 4:50 pmand if you care SO MUCH about children – why the hell are you allowing your government to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN IN IRAQ. I have SEEN THE PICTURES, sir, and they are NOT PRETTY. And another thing – what do you do to help the children that are here? do you let them starve? do YOU let parents beat and abuse them? what do you do for the children who are HERE?
July 27th, 2006 at 4:53 pm“AS LONG AS ITS IN MY BODY IT IS MINE! AND MY DECISION. ”
i tried to have a reasonable discussion….. tried to engage you with some arguments,
you dont wanna hear any of it, you refuse to even discuss the issue,
thats fine, i give up on you for now. i guess its too scary to face the facts and thats why you cant do anything be resort to the same old childish arguments.
i guess i can take comfot in the knowledge that if things keep going as they are withing the next 5 years abortion will be illegal
July 27th, 2006 at 4:56 pmnd if you care SO MUCH about children – why the hell are you allowing your government to KILL INNOCENT CHILDREN IN IRAQ. I have SEEN THE PICTURES, sir, and they are NOT PRETTY. And another thing – what do you do to help the children that are here? do you let them starve? do YOU let parents beat and abuse them? what do you do for the children who are HERE?
…………
I dont condone the killing of innocent children in iraq, if we are going to be at war we should do everything in ou power to save civilian lives.
i would prefer we not be in Iraq…. but that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand
regardless, you are still attacking me…. not my arguments,
not once have you been able to refute one of my arguments, you just keep attacking me personally. which is what one does when they dont have an answer,
they attack the source of the argument in hopes of discrediting the argument itself, because its easier to attack the source than it is the argument.
its called the genetic fallecy of reasoning. … its used frequently by people when they cant come up with a good argument to support their side.
what your trying to say is that if i support the war, and war kills children, then im contradicting myself, therefor anything that i have to say about the killing of innocent unborne childrenshould be ignored because i have no credibility due to the obvious contradiction that you have manufactured….obviously.
which i supose…. if true….. would be an easier argument to make rather than makeing the argument that somehow taking the life of an innocent human being without cause is ok
July 27th, 2006 at 5:07 pmYou know, Chester, you’re absolutely right. I have zero patience for people who think they have any right whatsoever to dictate what a woman does with her life. And it is HER life. Not yours. Not your wife’s. Not anybody’s business but the woman’s, and maybe her partner. Why would you suggest women or girls should revisit the backroom abortions with WIREHANGERS?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:17 pmAnd chester, you still haven’t answered my question. What do you do for the poor unfortunate children in this country?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:18 pmdo you let them starve? do YOU let parents beat and abuse them? what do you do for the children who are HERE?
…..
i serve in ministry, and donate money to charities that help underprivlaged children.
but even if i didnt do one thing to help poor or unwanted kids, that does not negate the validity of my arguments.
what your saying is that unless i want to adopt or become a foster parent that i have no right to say a father should not molest his daughter. your saying that if i am not actively involved in fixing the problem by providing time or money that i have no right to speak out on an issue. and its just plain wrong
im not going to stand on the highway trying to get people to slow down, but that dowsnt mean i cant advocate for safer roads and speed limits. if it affects the well being of society at large, regardless of my direct involvment with the issue, i have a right as a citizen of that society to speak out against percieved injustice.
its a moral issue, and moral issues affect the whole of society.
do you want to live in a society that values life? or a society that values convenience.
would you rather live in a society that says all human beings have a right to life that is sacred and not to be undermined, or would you rather live in a society that some human beigns are not persons, and not to be valued?
just because i dont work at a crisis pregnancy center does not negate my right to speak out against injustice.
again just because you may not be willing to adopt a kid into your home , it does not negate your right to speak out against child abuse.
and whats interesting is that you would not use this line of argumentation for any other circumstance.
only when you need something to throw back because its not easy to come up with tastefull argument shows that killing an innocent human being without cause is ok, is moral, or is just.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmI love it. My body, I claim it as mine alone. Here Chester tries to suggest that I’m being childish for making that statement. Don’t you have a better argument than that?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:20 pmSweeping statement like “Apparently, it doesn’t trust clergy either,” is as ignorant as “Apparently. parents don’t trust teachers.” Some clergy are honest and trustworthy – some are not. Ame goes for teachrs – but sweeping generalizations seem to characterize most progressive hyperbole.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:22 pmand then again, chester, why would ANYONE want to bring a child into this F*CKED up world that BUSH CREATED? So that eventually they can be recruited to fight your wars?
July 27th, 2006 at 5:23 pmWhy would you suggest women or girls should revisit the backroom abortions with WIREHANGERS?
…………..
madashell,
i think you only asked this to try an attack my character once again, basicly saying that if i want women to die because abortion is illegal then im a sexist bigotted hate monger not to be listened to, again, we have the genetic fallicy, attacking the person making the argument rather than the arguments themselves
but you asked the question, and i will give you the courtesy of answering, even though i know you wont like it.
basically i look at it like this. all life is sacred and should be respected and protected.
i dont want any abortions to take place, much less illegal ones.
if abortion were made illegal there would inevitably be a number of women who choose to break the law and have illegal abortions. this might as you say lead to some women dying.
if you value all life equally your left with only one alternative, which is to choose the solution that leads to the least numebr of people dying.
each year we have 1,400,000 abortions in the united states.
if abortion were made illegal we would save 1.4 million lives.
lets supose that due to illegal abortions that 50,000 women die each year, along with their babies. for a total of 100,000 peopl dead each year due to illegal abortions.
we have still saved 1.3 million lives.
even if 250,000 women died per year due to illegal abortions, we would still have saved 900,000 lives per year.
i know it sounds cruel, and cold hearted, but if you value life equally your only alternative is to play it by the numbers..
interestingly, im not a hipocrit, if illegal abortions resulted in more deaths than legal abortion, 1.4 million people a year, i would advocate for making it legal as to save lives.
however i highly doubt that if abortion were made illegal in the united states that you would see more that 5-10,000 woman dying due to back ally abortions
July 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pmand then again, chester, why would ANYONE want to bring a child into this F*CKED up world that BUSH CREATED? So that eventually they can be recruited to fight your wars?…
./…………
1st) its not my war
2nd) ive already addressed this,
3rd) i spose an easy way of getting rid of all societal problems would be to get rid of society, but i doubt you would have many takers on that one
Madashell,
im going home now… ill be back on tonight,
my one question for you is this, rather than attack me why not refute my arguments.
i would love for you to do just this one thing for me.
please explain to my why it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being without cause?
just answer that one question.
please dont argue that it is not a human being, because medically it is, you dont have cats growing in you , or puppies, you have a human being. you can argue its not a person if you wish, but dont argue the point that its not a human being, it gets us nowhere.
anyway
July 27th, 2006 at 5:40 pmhave a good one
and god bless.
chester
Because, Chester, to me, a fetus is NOT a human being yet. Unless it can live outside the womb and BREATH on its own, then you can all it a human being.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:44 pmthen you CAN call it a human being.
July 27th, 2006 at 5:45 pmMy position is simple. Until a blasé cyst attaches to the uterine wall, it consists of a genetic map enclosing a mass of stem cells that could become anything from a shrew to a human being. Stem cells are harvested by nature from within the genetic map to form an embryo. At about this point, the stem cells cease to be an undifferentiated mass and develop into a human being.
July 27th, 2006 at 6:56 pmJust because i dont have a uterus, does not mean i can opose what i consider to be murder. And by definition, abortion kills a living thing.
Comment by chester — July 27, 2006 @ 10:54 am
So does preparing that chicken dinner you had last night.
Abortion ends a potential life, not a viable or conscious one. Nature will abort a considerable number of embryos and fetuses, so clearly it is a natural thing.
If you wanna value a life, go adopt some of the hundred thousand in foster care. Until we love the ones we have, we don’t need to be making any more…
July 27th, 2006 at 7:40 pmCount me in for what zoo and madashell said…
chester needs to be given a uterus (I’ll donate mine) and allowed to be kept as pregnant as a milk cow.
July 27th, 2006 at 7:47 pmI love it. My body, I claim it as mine alone. Here Chester tries to suggest that I’m being childish for making that statement. Don’t you have a better argument than that?
Comment by madashell
Chester makes me want to go out and get pregnant, just so I can have an abortion.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:47 pm/sarcasm off
chester needs to be given a uterus (I’ll donate mine) and allowed to be kept as pregnant as a milk cow.
Comment by unbelievable
Good one, unbelievable. I hope he takes you up on it!
July 27th, 2006 at 8:49 pmif you saw a woman strangeling her 1 year old baby in the supermarket, and when you tried to stop her from killing the child if she told you “It is my business and my choice†would you walk away and let her kill the child, or would you try to stop it????
Yes, because attempted murder is a crime. Abortion is legal.
the childs bodys isnt yours,
That fetus lives through the woman. Living woman trumps fetus.
Chester, you may come back to argue this further. Personally, I have nothing more to say to you, and I’m sure you can say nothing I want to hear. Bye.
July 27th, 2006 at 8:56 pmGood one, unbelievable. I hope he takes you up on it!
Comment by Zooey — July 27, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
I’m guessing that he also lacks the balls : )
July 27th, 2006 at 8:58 pmOne more thing, Chester. Sex is a natural human activity, and as long as the participants are willing and of legal age, no one is doing anything wrong.
July 27th, 2006 at 9:04 pmUnbelievable,
He sure has some “stones” to stick around here all day debating something that’s none of his business. Yeah, try telling him that…
July 27th, 2006 at 9:06 pmChester’s opinions sound like mine did when I was 15 and not sexually active yet… It’s easy to judge when it’s never been your decision to make.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:13 amJust serfed in. Great site, guys!i
October 21st, 2006 at 9:53 amdvd-players-uk
October 27th, 2006 at 12:36 amu
Just serfed in. Great site, guys!
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:09 pmhttp://myblogma.com/handbags/ handbags handbags
December 8th, 2006 at 3:50 amGreat site. I will bookmark for my sons to view as well!!!
February 14th, 2007 at 6:31 pm