Opinion

We must keep fighting to outlaw abortion: A response to Thomas Reese

People participate in the March for Life near the Supreme Court in Washington, on Jan. 19, 2018. The march -- which typically draws busloads of Catholic school students, a large contingent of evangelical Christians and poster-toting protesters of many persuasions -- falls each year around the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that recognized a legal right to abortion and intends to pressure Congress and the White House to limit legal access to the procedure. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

(RNS) — The Rev. Thomas J. Reese recently suggested that the pro-life movement should accept the sad fact of legalized abortion, and now simply work to reduce the number of pre-born babies whose lives are brutally ended. While appreciating any thoughtful conversation and counsel on this pivotal issue, and agreeing with some of his suggestions for reducing abortions, as chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities, I want to indicate my serious reservations about Reese’s strategy, considering it a capitulation to the abortion culture, and a grave weakening of the powerful pro-life witness.

His main assertion — that we give up all efforts to legally protect unborn human life, and work only to reduce the number of abortions — is an unnecessary dichotomy. Catholic tradition and basic human rights teach us that every human being has an inalienable right to life that must be recognized and protected in law. While the law is not the only means of protecting life, it plays a key and decisive role in affecting both human behavior and thinking. We cannot give up!

At the same time, he is right: We must offer loving support to meet the needs of women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy. The pro-life movement has a long history of such dedication to this united mission through the formation, funding and staffing of thousands of pregnancy resource centers. The movement has advocated for public policies that seek to ensure that pregnant mothers are never abandoned to the violence of abortion and that mothers and babies receive the support and protection society can offer.

He also has a point that some polls do show a diminishing support for restrictive abortion laws. Not all do, with other research indicating that more and more Americans want more rigorous limits on abortion.

However, Reese would rightly be disappointed, as would I, if pro-immigration reformers were to give up because polls discourage them. We would lament if anti-capital punishment advocates in some states were to surrender because of polls showing their fellow citizens were not on their side. I expect he would laudably urge them to persevere. Why not pro-lifers?

One of Reese’s most troubling assertions is that contraception should be used to reduce abortions. In addition to rejecting the church’s teaching that contraception is itself morally flawed, and the fact that it can be medically harmful to women, his reasoning is questionable.

In reality, more than half of women seeking abortion were actually using contraception during the month they became pregnant, and studies have shown that once contraception is more widely available, abortion rates may actually rise!

Another reality is that some contraceptive drugs and devices may work by preventing the newly conceived embryo from implanting in the womb and surviving. It is difficult to claim that we can reduce abortions by promoting drugs that may sometimes induce an early abortion.

Reese’s strategy reminds me of those in the mid-19th century who proposed amelioration as a way to reduce slavery in our country. The ameliorists argued that, sure, slavery was awful, but, really it was here to stay. So, we should acknowledge that it is constitutionally protected, and simply work to lessen the number of slaves. Thank God, those who believed that slavery was a moral horror, a cancer on our country, and contrary to the higher values of a lawful republic, could never accept this capitulation.

Abortion is a grave injustice. We must do everything in our power to legally protect babies and to provide for the needs of mothers. While Reese believes that an end to abortion is impossible, we serve a God through whom all things are possible. May we never give in to the culture of death or lose faith in our efforts to build a culture of life in our world.

(Cardinal Timothy Dolan is the Roman Catholic archbishop of New York and chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

About the author

Cardinal Timothy Dolan

241 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Pregnancy can be “medically harmful” to women. It can lead to death at the worst and life long health problems for women that survive pregnancy.

    Dolan’s comment shows his total ignorance, or his willingness to spread partial information, half-truths, rather than address the full range of issues around reproduction.

    It shows a serious lack of integrity on his part.

    Thomas Reese was right BUT he should have acknowledged that full and complete education about reproduction and sex and health, access to the birth control that is best for each woman, pre-natal and post-natal health care for women and their babies as well as safe access to a safe abortion IF that is what a woman decides is best for her situation, is what Planned Parenthood has been advocating from the beginning.

  • Hey, Timmy how about this? When you are capable of getting pregnant, then you can have a say as to what goes on in the lives of those who can.

  • Well, that was certainly pointless.

    It goes along with “when you have a nuclear weapon, you can decided if you want to use it” and “if your grandmother were still alive, you could choose not to end her life”.

  • And once again to defuse the issue:

    o Bottom Line:

    The failures of the widely used birth “control” methods i.e. the pill and male condom have led to the
    large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and STDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. If that were not the case, there probably would not be a March for Life.

    Let us start with the male condom because it is inexpensive:

    Amazon’s Choice
    Trojan Condom ENZ Lubricated, 36 Count
    by Trojan

    $13.27 ($0.37/each)
    And the condom gives protection from both pregnancy and STD protection.
    How to use?
    https://www.youtube.com/wat
    https://www.youtube.com/wat
    https://www.youtube.com/wat
    and at least another five YouTube instructions along with some smart phone apps so there should be no problem using them properly. But are they being used?

    Using Guttmacher Institute data on birth control method failure rates, one is able to calculate the number of unplanned pregnancies resulting from the current use of male condoms (condom in the pocket or billfold but not used). It is a horrific number of 1.2 million/yr. Even perfect use of would result in 138,000 unplanned pregnancies (improper training i.e. did not watch any of the free instructions as noted above or they leaked) but still results in an 88% reduction in unplanned pregnancies and one assumes STDs. There are the 19 million cases of STDs as reported by the CDC basically due to not using a condom or a lack of education.

    And some added commentary from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:

    “Bill Gates is putting out a call to inventors, but he’s not looking for software, or the latest high-tech gadget. This time he’s in search of a better condom.
    On its Grand Challenges website, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is offering a $100,000 startup grant to the person who designs “the next generation condom that significantly preserves or enhances pleasure” and promotes “regular use.”
    It may sound like the setup for a joke, but the goal is deadly serious. While researchers call condoms one of the best ways to stop the spread of HIV (added: or unplanned pregnancies or STDs), the virus that causes AIDS, getting people to use them is another story.”

  • Translating from the Cardinalese:
    We reserve the right as your moral superiors to interfere in the personal lives and financial, sexual, moral, and familial decisions of fully adult, functional people who not only not our parishioners, but really don’t give a damn about our opinions.

    But don’t worry, we can offer you some totally specious reasoning, like the dangers of birth control, to justify it. We’ll even make a few promises, like providing for the needs of mothers, that we put almost no effort into actually doing, if it will convince you.

    Birth is dangerous. I’ve never heard of a condom killing anyone.

  • The role of church is to ask women to not opt for abortions and to ask men to not cause them.

  • Since the Cardinal can’t pass laws, he can’t “interfere in the personal lives and financial, sexual, moral, and familial decisions of fully adult, functional people”.

    However, you and friends would very much like to interfere in the personal lives, financial positions, and decisions of fully adult functional people as your comments on the Masterpiece case attest.

  • “We’ll even make a few promises, like providing for the needs of mothers:”

    Back in the day, that included baby selling. Especially in Ireland

  • Not really, “Bob Arnzen”. They are an endorsement of reproductive choice, something that deluded religious nutbars like you can’t appreciate.

  • Speaking for yourself there in your last sentence, BobbyJo. Except that you hardly have any friends.

  • Pointless indeed. Not to mention that the pro-life movement is primarily driven by people who CAN get pregnant but are certainly no less vilified by the left on that account.

  • Outlawing abortion does not change the rate of abortion, it simply harms women. Of course that is the true goal of the fetus fetishists.

  • What do you mean back on the day? We have baby-selling right now and you’re already on the record as being all for it.

  • Lots of people who are not “on the left” are pro choice. And calling people baby killers is not exactly what I would refer to as the loving kindness of Christians.

    Oh, yes. It is!!!!

  • Correction there, Shawnie5. You are speaking of the anti-abortion movement, not the “pro-life movement”.

    Think of it and your religious beliefs like a bowel movement, and you’ll be on the right track.

  • +Cardinal Dolan could do more to reduce abortions by supporting good contraceptive health care for women and families. He could support government assistance for pregnant women. He could work toward accessibility to health care for all (and I mean health care that includes contraceptives, sterilizations, and vasectomys).

    He needs to work toward building a culture of pregnancy by intention and not by accident. That absolutely, positively means giving up on the idea that the only purpose of sex is for purposes of procreation. Sex is an expression of closeness, love, sharing – an expression of the bond of two people in love.

    We need some serious discussions of why most Catholic women and their husbands want contraceptives in their lives. Look at how they live, the long time it takes for education now, to get established in a career (men and women, too). Look at the terrible things that happen (war, famine, natural disasters) that mean a couple need to control their fertility for a time while they very much need to be able to share their love in the midst of the terrible things they face. Look at the ups and downs of life that mean women and families need to be able to better plan when to have children and how many to have.

    You can make abortion illegal when you make the need for abortion less desperate. I think that was the point Fr. Reese was making.

    One more point. Much, much discussion needs to occur on the right of women to make decisions when a pregnancy threatens her life or her health. We also need discussion on fetal defects. Remember Savita!

  • Spot on, Susan Humphreys. Catholic beliefs leave women who follow all the Catholic rules in great danger. There is little to no consideration for all that a woman is. There is still that attitude that a woman is either a nun, a wife/mother, or the celibate old-maid aunt in the family. It is part of the problem with the “complementarian” mind-set that still assumes men are in charge and women “help” them, rather than be the one in charge of directing their own lives. What is not recognized is that women play many different roles in society now and they play more powerful roles. To exercise all their talents means they need to be able to manage their fertility.

    With contraceptives and sterilizations (medical care Catholic bishops say is “sinful”) women also can now protect themselves from the damage that too many pregnancies or too frequent pregnancies can do to their bodies and their health. They can also be saved when a pregnancy goes wrong. Just 100 years ago women did not have the medical advances that mean they can actually protect themselves – and sometimes, yes, that means having an abortion when a woman’s life/health is threatened. Women can choose to live to raise the children they do have and to continue to physically express their love for their husbands.

  • For the sake of accuracy, I’d say that Cardinal Dolan is “chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
    Committee on Pro-LifeDominion Activities . . .”

  • Again, a lot of verbiage as the result of a very large number of irresponsible humans practicing unsafe sex. For example, if men used condoms instead of leaving them in their pockets etc., the number of unplanned pregnancies due to this failure would be reduced from 1.2 million/year in the USA to 138,000 per year based on Guttmacher statistics. And if women would remember to take the Pill daily, the number of unplanned pregnancies due to this failure would be reduced from 1 million a year to 38,000. For some strange reason, Guttmacher failed to give statistics for the combined use of the Pill and a condom. One, however, assumes it would be substantially lower than 38,000 unplanned pregnancies/year as one would be using a double “whammy” to prevent pregnancies.

    In the meantime, women have got to stop playing “abortion roulette” by using something more reliable than the daily Pill and/or depending on her partner to use a condom for pregnancy and STD protection. See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html . Note some dimensional analysis required to properly understand the statistics.

    The CDC estimates there are on average 19 million cases of STDs in the USA every year. That is 190 million cases in ten years and 380 million cases in 20 years showing that either many citizens get more than one STD infection or that almost every citizen has had one STD infection in their life as the USA population is ~325 million. And in most cases such infections could have been prevented by the proper use of a 50 cent condom. And of course those same condoms could have prevented many of the unplanned pregnancies many of which resulted in abortions.

    And what is it with the constant debate over health insurance (e.g. the ACA) picking up the cost of birth control and STD protection?

    The price of condom as noted previously? About 50 cents (the only protection against STD transfer other than masturbation for the sexually active) and birth control pills?

    About $20 to $50 a month (67 cents to $1.67 per day without insurance or support from a government program or Planned Parenthood.

    And an IUD? 24 cents/day.

    If you cannot afford this small price to pay for pregnancy and STD protection, should you be having sex?

  • Thanks for your comments. Mr. Arnzen frequently resorts to personal attacks when he finds himself in the losing position with no way out. When he resorts to such remarks I know he is conceding defeat!

  • Actually I have chosen to abstain from sex for several years now BUT not when I was younger. I was married for 14 years. Had a wonderful love affair or should I say sex affair. Then moved on!

    You are a real crock Bob!

  • It is certainly refreshing to see that you’ve dropped all pretense of holding a Catholic position. It was not a believable pose to begin with, and honesty is the best policy.

    The problem with the anti-complementarian mindset is that is contrary to the theory of evolution and our knowledge of biology.

    With contraceptive and sterilizations women can focus on being totally self-centered and absorbed, and men can be relieved of any responsibility for what happens when women copulate.

    Trying to put a good face on it with “Women can choose to live to raise the children they do have and to continue to physically express their love for their husbands.” is outright bizarre.

  • He can get his indoctrinated followers to elect politicians who promise to change the laws.

  • And don’t forget, if you’re in the mood for some yummy Baby Salad, just stop by the nearest Planned Parenthood Deli and place your order. Freshly chopped, every day, with Ranch Sauce on top !!

  • People with religious beliefs are as entitled to vote, to lobby their elected representatives, and to influence legislation as you and the various agnostic, atheist, Marxist, and other zanies out there are.

    I know that disturbs you, but you disturb them.

  • Bob, most Catholics do not accept some teachings. This idea you have that there are hundreds of millions of people who call themselves “Catholic” really do believe everything the Church says and really live by all that the Church teaches is simply not true. Three women in my family chose to live to raise the children they already had – by getting sterilizations. Two of them did so against the “advice” of priests and one who figured it was none of the priests business. All were told “the next pregnancy could kill you.”

    A majority of Catholics in most “advanced” countries and in many “developing” nations want and/or use contraceptives. Legal gay marriage is supported by huge majorities of Catholics. In many countries, majorities of Catholics think women priests is a good idea.

    Despite what you may think, Catholics have a wide range of beliefs – and disbeliefs. They sit next to you in the pews at Mass, they walk beside you to receive the Eucharist. They confess their sins – at least the ones they figure really are sins. Many if not most pray the rosary, say grace before meals, pray during the day.

    They are “Catholics”, Bob, and they come in many mixtures of acceptance of Catholic teachings. To be Catholic is not one thing, it is many things in many combinations.

  • Savita’s death was the result of an attitude that she had no say-so in the level of risk she was willing to take to carry a dying fetus until its last heart beat. She died because she was treated like a cow, an animal not quite fully human herself and with no right to place limits on the risks she would take to carry a dying child. Next time there is a fire, tell the firemen that if children are at risk, the firemen must rescue them no matter the risk to themselves. They can’t avoid going into a blazing building as long as there is a chance a child has a heart beat – no matter the risk.

  • The whole Savita thing is so muddled that I some how thing that she died because of both malpractice and the 8th.

  • Dolan, as always, is a total and complete fraud.
    The citings he point’s out are all from the USCCB.

    He is an accessory to various child abuse crimes by protecting and seeking to transfer pedophile priests, and offering others golden-parachutes to simply go away.

    He sought to illegally transfer $57 million of church funds to keep from paying 575 child-victims of sexual predator priests while ABP of Milwaukee.

    He communicated with Ratzinger : “As victims organize and become more public, the potential for true scandal is very real.” And :“I foresee an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability,”

    Dolan is devoid of any human ethical concept.

  • Savita’s death was the result of medical misadventure.

    Your continuing spin of it in the face of the inquest reports indicates that you’re basically unconcerned with facts.

  • ATF45, individuals who reject their denomination’s teachings are generally termed “heretics” of they do so knowingly.

    This idea you have that there are hundreds of millions of people who call themselves “Catholic” but reject nearly everything their church holds is therefore simply not true.

    Whatever they may be, “Catholic” is not it.

    People with integrity don’t give the organizations they belong to the finger.

    Despite what you may think, Catholicism is a hierarchical by its very nature, and Catholics have a highly developed system of belief, much of which acceptance is required of:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

    That means that those who “…. confess their sins – at least the ones they figure really are sins.” on matters such as abortion commit additional sins by doing so.

    Like the “Catholics” at Catholics for Choice, they are something, but they are not faithful Catholics.

  • Bob Cariozen is the nom de plume of a frequent past poster who simply tired of losing arguments.

    The fact that you wish his endorsement speaks volumes.

  • No your wrong, Cardinal Dolan just does not like to see little girls and boys in the womb brutally and viciously dismembered and murdered….the good Cardinal also does not like to see people like you go to hell for supporting the hellish murder of children in the womb.

  • Hi Spuddie, Did you know in the last 50 years according to the United Nations we have had between 120-160 MILLION….thats 120-160 MILLION sex selection abortions.

    Meaning 120-160 MILLION little girls in the womb have been murdered because liberals love abortion.

  • Sure you can murder babies…….and hell will be what you “choose” for your soul.

  • Loving kindness means speaking the truth………..abortion supporters are vicious and brutal child killers. If they don’t repent they have chosen hell for themselves.

  • Jane…..do you have baby bones in your soul? Did you murder one of your own children by abortion?

  • But Fundagelicals only like females as slaves or sex objects. And there will still be enough girls to go around.

  • Does the good cardinal pay any taxes to help support these babies after they are born? Does the church help the parents raise them, or do they just abuse them?

  • They are not babies, they are fetuses. I do not believe in a soul, so Imdo not care. If you do not want an abortion, do not have one. Otherwise, mind your own business.

  • Are you really that heartless that you don’t care that abortion is being used as a tool to keep boy babies and dismember and kill girl babies?

    120 million……please think about that number…….120 million girl babies have been murdered for the crime of being female. In the coming years tens of millions more girl babies will be murdered by abortion to keep the pro-abortion crowd happy.

    By the way…….abortion is a pedophiles and the men who really do use women as sex slaves and sex objects best friend…….they can abuse women all they want then all they have to do is pay for the abortion leaving the woman a mother of a baby she murdered – a lifetime of knowing she is a mother who murdered her own child.

  • Hey Maggie, did you know none of that is an argument against abortion rights whatsoever.

    Yes you are pointing out patriarchy is a terrible thing. Too bad you support the version of it here.

    Unless its your womb, you have no input on the decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy. Even then the alleged promise to care for women who consider terminating a pregnancy is a flat out lie.

    If you are actively hostile the the notion of women as people capable of making decisions concerning their own body, you are also hostile to the existence of children and their needs. Concern for life for a fetus worshiper only covers gestation.

  • I think the situation was muddled – Savita was already in the midst of losing the child in her womb – that child was dying. But in an attempt to meet the very fine point of waiting for the heartbeat of that child to stop or waiting for some immediate threat to Savita’s life, the medical people were caught where they could not exercise judgment. And, Savita and her husband were caught where there own sense of what was right for the situation just didn’t matter.

    Do you remember the case of the abortion in Phoenix that sent the local bishop into such a tailspin? The ethics board of the hospital had reviewed the situation and decided that the life of the mother was threatened – there was a high risk of the mother dying unless an abortion was performed. The nun who sat on the ethics board was excommunicated by the local bishop and the hospital was threatened with losing its designation as a Catholic hospital. The hospital ultimately decided to stop being a “Catholic” hospital

    Sometimes judgment is called for. Sometimes there are no perfect answers. Sometimes the letter of the law (or doctrine) doesn’t really fit the situation. When that happens, it matters what the person facing the danger wants – not the bishops, nuns, theologists, ethicists. The person whose life is at risk – what she wants matters. Is she a cow or a human being with the right to protect her own life, to weigh the chances for herself, the child in her womb, and the effect on others if she dies? That woman in Phoenix already had four or five young children at home; she and her husband thanked the nun for saving her life.

    The situation in Phoenix could have been another Savita case. Yes. Both are muddled and there was no perfect answer to either case.

  • Too bad you do neither. You are malicious and dishonest.

    You are simply try to aggrandize yourself by proclaiming to be superior to others. So much so that you are delusional enough to pretend you must make personal intimate decisions for others.

  • Does anyone? That is a question between you and your church. Not for anyone else to care or abide by.

    More importantly, children are not killed in abortion. Children are born. Abortion is not murder either. One has to be born to be murdered.

    You don’t want to treat other women as people, why should anyone believe you are concerned with children as people either?

  • Not true whatsoever. Its primarily driven by men, many of which like Dolan aren’t even allowed by their faith to engage in relationships and have families.

    As for vilifying, being called a fetus worshiper or forced birther pales in comparison to calling others murderers. Nor do you see anti-abortion pundits being shot or offices bombed.

  • If you don’t think of women as people, those whose bodies are not yours to command, why the hell should we take your concern for born children seriously?

    If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like others having it, get bent. Its nothing you have any rightful say in.

  • Still trying to pretend those FAKED VIDEOS BY KNOWN LIARS in Project Veritas need to be taken seriously? Too late for that. Their latest foible got them in hot water with the US attorneys office. They were pawning off videos of violent neo-nazis as anti-trump protesters.

  • You probably should not use the words “Cardinal” and “little girls and boys” in the same sentence. We all know clergy love children, especially in a Biblical way. 🙂

  • Bob, I don’t think most Catholics “reject nearly everything”. But I do think that Catholics pick and choose what inspires them, what feeds their faith, what gives them an ability to live life with trust in a loving God. Most Catholics in this country regularly use contraceptives. Catholic women are as likely as non-Catholic women to have a sterilization when they are advised to by a doctor or when they have had all the children they want or are able to raise. Catholics support legal civil gay marriage. Catholics are just about evenly split on the issue of keeping abortion legal or making it illegal.

    This is the truth of what Catholics are wrestling with in living in the modern world. And, it is absolutely clear that majorities of Catholics in many countries do not agree with some of what the bishops teach. It is simply true. They are still Catholic.

  • GOD is and has been the most prolific ABORTIONIST throughout Man’s history.
    How many fetuses has HE killed and is killing via miscarriages and stillbirths ?
    BILLIONS !

  • You’ve already expressed your unqualified approval of surrogacy, which is baby-selling in its purest form.

    As for not addressing the issue presented…neither did you.

  • I’m well-acquainted with the pro-life movement and those who work within it and raise funds for it. It is women, mostly mothers themselves, who feel the most passionately about it and give the most time and effort to it. I’ve known relatively few men who are comparably devoted to it (although yes, they exist, before someone protests). Even men who are nominally pro-life usually tend to stand back from the abortion debate altogether, considering it a women’s issue.

    Wouldn’t know about pedophiles, but it’s quite true that many men are fans of abortion because it removes the financial consequences of their haphazard sexual behavior. That is nothing new. Roman men, for example, had the legal right to force both abortion and infanticide upon their wives and mistresses for the same reason.

  • No actually it isn’t. Nor have I said much on the subject here or elsewhere.

    But I remember you going on a ridiculous tangent about biological children are somehow more important to the definition of families than adopted ones. It was some bullsht you were spewing against marriage equality. You have put out some strange, wildly ridiculous garbage in the past. That one I remember for being particularly batsht insane.

    “neither did you.”

    More dishonesty from you. As usual. I was describing how churches frequently capitalized on abortion bans in the past.

  • I am sure anyone that stands up to your ridiculousness leaves you slapping yourself though not on the knee.

  • I didn’t WISH for his endorsement Bob. There you go misrepresenting the facts, for what purpose? I accept his comment in the spirit given. If you can’t be honest about such a simple statement it shows everyone there are great doubts about your honesty with everything you say! You have a serious problem. It appears to be eating you up.

  • Listen, I emphasize with bodily autonomy arguments. As a man, I don’t like to tell women what to do. But there is another person involved in abortion. Also, I support the ACA.

  • “If you are actively hostile the the notion of women as people capable of making decisions concerning their own body”
    We both know in an abortion a child is murdered not a woman’s body but a child who is a unique individual person.

    “Unless its your womb, you have no input on the decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy.”
    A woman doesn’t abort her womb….she aborts a little girl or boy with their own soul, body, and life – abortion is the murder of a person.

    “you are pointing out patriarchy is a terrible thing.”
    Women are responsible for murdering the children in their womb – don’t try and blame it on anyone other than the mother who “chooses” abortion.

    I saw that you stared in this video but I don’t agree with your logic…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNgwsT295G8

  • No, a child is born. No children are harmed in abortion. Plenty of children are harmed when it’s banned. Especially those who are not ready to be parents or are not pregnant by choice.

    Your whole argument is about pretending a fetus is exactly the same as a born being. Biology is not your friend.

    You are still not getting to the part where you explain your authority to treat other women as your personal property whose bodies are your to forward.

    Women are responsible for the choice to have an abortion. And you have no say in such choices unless it’s your pregnancy. Nobody is asking for your input here in such decisions or needs it. You mistake desiring people to do things is the same as power to command them.

    Unless the YouTube is a cat video, I am not going to bother to open it.

  • But only one of them bears the entire physical burden of a pregnancy. It’s in her body, it’s always her choice and her choice alone.

    “Also, I support the ACA”

    Strikes me as the kind of nonsense to say when you want to pretend to be on the same side of the political fence.

  • Analogy fail. That was a stupid response. A woman’s body is not your property to command. Abortion is not murder.

  • So some women don’t respect the lives of other women. Most of its public representation are men. Few men devoted to it? Every male republican running for office claims that voting for them is a step towards ending abortion rights.

    The american anti abortion movement got it’s start as the remnants of the segregationists. Something about going undue liberties with the lives of others seems to appeal to them.

  • And the other person is the fetus in question. And I have enough resistance cred to say that I am mostly on the same side of the political fence. At least I didn’t say, “I’m against the death penalty.” Even Evan McMullin is against it.

  • Legally, it isn’t, but biologically, it is. A fetus’ body is not your property to command.

  • Of course it is. It is the creation of a child for the express purpose of separating it from its natural parents and delivering it to a consumer for compensation. Most nations ban it as a human rights violation, as well as several states, including your own.

    Whatever the church did or didn’t do as a result of past bans is not the issue presented, which is keeping or not keeping abortion illegal now.

  • I’ll wager not a single male republican running for office cares one whit about abortion one way or another. They, like all politicians, are responding to what their constituents want.

    Feminists were opposing abortion long before desegregation was ever a thing:

    –No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime! — Susan B. Anthony.

    –When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. — Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

  • You mean, the modern anti-abortion movement? That’s true (especially with an assist of Francis Schaeffer’s faulty theology). But there was a time in which the anti-abortion movement was solely made up of Catholics, who were addressing it as a human rights issue (these were the post-Vatican II days).

  • I had it correctly. I didn’t need your attempt to modify it.

    It is a human rights issue where the Catholic Church was always on the side against them. Going on the side of trying to force compliance with their sex negative agenda. Control of women by attacking birth control first and foremost and abortion as a secondary platform. The attempt to pretend the anti abortion platform is a human rights issue falls flat when one considers the outright hostility to the rights of the born inherent in it.

  • Your opinion is not supported by the weight of the statements, acts, money and support given to the platform by them. People like yourself have been willing to vote for bigots, pedophiles adulterers, law breakers, thieves, and incompetents on the promise of attacking abortion rights.

    Between the support of Trump by “values voters” and statements,made supporting Roy Moore’s Senate run, it is clear the anti abortion platform is merely a grift to get people to vote for the reprehensible.

  • You seem to have serious problem.

    You can’t let a single statement with a religious basis go by without trying to pick it apart, explain it, dismiss it, or otherwise trash can it, usually by parroting something you’ve read at Alternet, The Secular Outpost, or some other bastion of anti-religious inanity.

    For example your discourse on “malakoi” and “arsenakatoi” were cobbled together from tidbits at one or both of those sites.

    “Arsenakatoi is not a common word. A literal translation would be man (arseno) and bed (katoi). Modern scholars think that here the word is referring to the men that use the temple prostitutes or the catamites, these men today we call pederasts.”

    Well, no and no.

    The reference to temple prostitutes was to the shrine of Cybele, an ancient fertility goddess, whose pagan temple loomed over first century Rome from atop the Palatine Hill. In Cybele’s temple, castrated Galli priests engaged in anal sex with men, in unholy worship of Cybele. And, yes, it was also used to refer to pederasts.

    Paul chose his words carefully to convey the absolute depravity, a disgusting practice in worship of a pagan goddess.

    Your gloss on it as far as I can tell originated with the Metropolitan Community Church.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Community_Church

    MCC’s mission is to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and it has been a leading force in the development of “queer theology”.

    “Arsenokoitai” is a compound word which originated in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus 20:13 which speaks of a man who lies with mankind as with womankind. In Leviticus, the compound word arsenokoitai word is presented as two separate words – arsenos meaning “man” and koiten meaning “lay.” Paul merely joined these two root words together into a compound masculine participle which can only mean “men who lay with men.” For anyone who can read Koine, this word is so easy to understand that it is almost laughable to think that it could be a reference to anything other than male homosexuality.

    In every instance in which the arsenokoit compound word occurs it is in a context that offers clues as to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list), and it denotes homosexual intercourse.

    The term arsenokoitai itself indicates an inclusive sense: all men who play the active role in homosexual intercourse. Had Paul intended to single out pederasts he could have used the technical term paiderastïs.

    The meaning that Paul gave to arsenokoitai has to be unpacked in light of Romans1:24-27. When Paul speaks of the sexual intercourse of “males with males” (arsenes en arsenes) in v.27, he obviously has in mind arsenokoitai.19

    The attempt to reinterpret what every reader of the New Testament has understood for 1,900 is part of their effort to put lipstick on a pig.

    In other words, it is hogwash, as is much of your cut and paste.

  • Actually in virtually all cases, the child is going to one natural parent. Sometimes both natural parents. Compensation is not an integral part of it either. Many act as surrogates as a favor to the prospective parents (as is the norm in the US and Western Europe)

    You were stretching a point to an untenable degree. But I guess when one starts fetus worship it can go in all sorts of odd directions.

    It is not so much supporting the notion of surrogacy as it is pointing out the batsht crazy take you have on it and distinguish it from the for Ed adoptions the Catholic Church loved so much.

  • Of course it is. Only one human being bears the entirety of the physical burdens of a pregnancy. It is never the father. A man doesn’t get ownership of a woman he impregnates. His input is not necessary legally or physically.

    A fetus IS a woman’s to command. It is her will which keeps it alive. Her body is necessary for its existence. Get choice overrides your whining.

    A fetus is not a person. It has no autonomous existence until birth. Therefore the only one who legally or physically can act on its behalf is the mother and her alone. This is unlike any born person.. If she does not choose to keep a pregnancy, that is her right. If you don’t like it, tough luck. You bear none of burden or responsibility of a pregnancy.

  • While I appreciate your perceptions of Catholics from the perspective of a former Catholic, the fact that all mankind sins, and that some people sin more than others is true but not noteworthy and does not advance your position. Nor does your eccentric definition of “Catholic” comport with that church’s own definition.

    There was an individual in the 20th century who practiced the sort of thing that you’re touting, staying within an organization and purporting to be a loyal member of it, while at the same time undermining it from within and attacking its very basis.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vidkun_Quisling

    In religion this sort of folk is called a “heretic”. In his case the term was “traitor”.

    Given the wide range of religious places an individual can land in the United States, there is very little reason or excuse to be a quisling.

    If the preference is for bells and smells, there are high church ELCA Lutheran and Episcopal parishes galore.

    The Metropolitan Community Church appeals to its particular segment, and there are Unitarian, Free Thought, Humanist, and New Thought communities for those who’ve simply tired of the entire trinitarian/revelation shtick.

    Folks should seek their own level, not to try to drage their denomination to theirs.

  • The fetus exists entirely at the will and in the body of its mother.

    You can’t pretend it has rights like a born person without actually attacking the rights of of a born person. Personhood starts at birth. When it no longer requires the physical systems and attachment to the mother.

    “And I have enough resistance cred to say that I am mostly on the same side of the political fence”

    Sounds like you are BS’ing me here. Quit while you’re ahead here. I am not concerned with your remarks on they front.

  • Nice to know you would have gladly been sold by one of your parents. Which one would you have dispensed with, mom or dad?

    Surrogacy is banned in most of Europe, btw, and in the rest only volunteer surrogacy is allowed with severe limitations — I believe Greece is an exception. Wonder why most of the rest of the civilized world acknowledges a child’s right to his biological identity and to be raised by his own biological parents if at all possible, but not the US?

    Also nice to know compensation is not important … guess there was no need for laws recently passed in Asia to keep Americans with more money than sense from coming over to rent the wombs of vulnerable foreign women, sometimes abandoning the sales deal altogether if the product turned out to not line up with specifications.

    No stretching of a point at all. If one is going to make an issue out of “baby selling” them there is no way to avoid the issue of surrogacy, which most of the world agrees is exactly that.

  • I see you’re back with “dishonest”.

    Ah, the factless thoughtless approach we all missed so much.

  • Anybody under the age of 18 exists entirely at the will of the parents. Personhood may legally start at birth, but it biologically begins at conception. And yes, even at birth the child is attatched to the mother until she or he leaves her or his house.

  • I suppose “muddled” is all that one can say faced with a clear inquest report by medical experts with a list of failures in her treatment and recommendations for avoiding a repeat – none of which included legalizing abortion.

    The nun in Phoenix made a mistake. She corrected it and the excommunication was rescinded.

    The hospital in Phoenix made a mistake and then decided it liked making money more than being moral.

  • A fetus is genetically different from her mother. This fact overrides all your whiny posturing. Also, said fetus, even after birth, has no autonomous existence until she graduates from high school.

  • Fetus….Latin for little child. Embryology and every medical text book clearly explain the development of the person in the womb – that’s why abortion supporters hate ultrasound videos and pictures of babies in the womb….because it proves beyond any doubt that a child in the womb is a person.

    Have you ever heard a mother say, “I just felt my non living choice in my womb kick”? No….but you have heard a mother say about her child in the womb, “my baby just kicked”.

    Every child in the womb is as fully human as you and I. Every little girl or boy in the womb is a person with an immortal soul and is our sister or brother.

    Jesus said, “whatever you do to the least of my you do unto Me.”
    Not only do you support the murder of children in the womb but you support the direct and intentional murder of child Jesus created and loves so dearly that He considers what you do to that child as being done to Him.

    Abortion is a total loss for the mother….she does not become un-pregnant….she becomes a mother who murdered her own child and a person who crucified a child in the womb.

    If you have had an abortion Jesus will forgive and heal you….but you must turn from the murder of babies and chose love and life.

  • Hate to burst your bubble, Tater, but most politicians are reprehensible. Otherwise no one could pay them to live and work in the corrupt cesspool that is Washington DC.

    The question is what policies any given candidate is supporting and whether they will be good for the country or not.

  • “The fetus exists entirely at the will and in the body of its mother.”

    Please explain for us this:

    “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion“ – Justice Blackmun, Opinion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

  • “With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion“ – Justice Blackmun, Opinion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

  • The American anti-abortion did NOT get its start as “the remnants of the segregationists”.

    That assertion is idiotic.

  • Listen, ever heard of the consistent life ethic? It’s proof that the anti-abortion platform is a human rights issue. Also I’m not Catholic, and pro-condom.

  • https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/what-the-u-s-pro-life-movement-forgets-about-its-own-roots/

    The origins of the anti-abortion movement was in the Catholic social justice movement.

    Small groups of Catholic doctors, nurses, lawyers, and housewives joined together to oppose abortion. In 1967 the National Council of Catholic Bishops aided their campaigns with support, money, and the formation of the National Right to Life Committee.

    These early Catholic activists were often joined by a handful of non-Catholics – Protestants, Mormons, and Orthodox Christians.

  • WHAMO! Nasty, typical Christian “Bob Arnzen” slides in another swipe at a poster.

  • Too funny again, “Bob Arnzen” the religious whackjob, asking for facts!

    Oh, the irony from l’il ole Bobber just never stops.

  • Not quite, Shawnie5. A correct statement would be that most evangelicals and anti-abortionists are reprehensible, and stupid.

    There, fixed that for ya. But your bubble was burst long ago.

  • No, Bob Jose Arnzen Carioca. You are clearly the one with several serious problems -with your head.

  • No, Bob Jose Arnzen Carioca. I won every argument I had against you, and also exposed your dishonest postings.

    You are a lying sack of turds.

  • “it liked making money more than being moral.” Well, there you have the NRA in a nutshell, l’il Bobber.

  • You have some facts, but they are incomplete. For your homework, read “Defenders of the Unborn”, by Daniel K. Williams, and “Women against Abortion”, by Karissa Haugenberg, the parts on Marjory Mecklenburg and Julie Loesch Wiley. They’re both on Kindle, so you can read them ASAP.

  • That most anti-abortionists are pro-birth does not mean that the anti-abortion position is false. Sorry.

  • Sometimes what I say does not comport with what the Church says. This is true. But it is reality to recognize the tens of millions of those who identify with the Catholic Church and treasure some elements of that faith but do not agree with all the Church teaches. How many Catholics would be left in Europe, North America, Australia, the Philippines, and much of South America if only those who believed/agreed with everything were the only ones who called themselves “Catholic?” Not the tens and tens of millions ( hundreds of millions?) you like to talk about.

    The world has changed, culture has changed, we now understand things we did not understand 2000 years ago and we live in ways people of 2000 years ago could barely imagine. This is true for men and women, but it is especially true for women. I think the Church has to learn to how to bring the message of Jesus into the modern world. They even need to get back to the basics of the faith and rethink what is evangelization in a world of educated people who live in democracies, a world where everyone, but especially women, have many different roles they can play, many of them roles older cultures never imagined – or allowed.

  • “We would lament if anti-capital punishment advocates in some states were to surrender because of polls showing their fellow citizens were not on their side. I expect he would laudably urge them to persevere. Why not pro-lifers?”

    Good to see Dolan is finally semi admitting to the fact ‘pro-lifers’ are only anti abortion advocates. It’s starting to clear up some of the fog he’s spewed previously and makes it evident Dolan’s ‘good’ pro-life Catholics can be pretty much anti-life for any other issue.

  • Interesting comment since in a post 2 days ago you said “Mr. Arnzen frequently resorts to personal attacks when he finds himself in the losing position with no way out.” Your most recent post ended “You are a real crock Bob”. Insults do not prove any point.

    In addition I notice that posts from Bob Cariozen are often just insults instead of contributions.

  • “A fetus is not a person. It has no autonomous existence until birth. ”

    Your opinion only, what you like to believe. Since the fetus is viable well before birth, at what point would you say it has become a person?

  • I really could not care less whether what you say comports with what the Catholic church teaches.

    This is true.

    These discussions are wild and wooly and people get to say their piece.

    My objection is to trying to palm this stuff off as Catholic commentary.

    That is intellectually dishonest, and it leads the gullible astray.

  • Not really. Do parents have some right to end the lives of their teens that I’m not aware of?

    Children are dependent, but they are not physically dependent upon one particular person only. Motherless babies can be cared for by others.

  • Here we have two guys — two single, unmarried, childless men — attempting to define the fate of women within their congregations and outside as well. This is like two nuns suggesting that all men should be castrated as a condition of priesthood. Both views are equally unfounded.

  • Again, a lot of verbiage as the result of a very large number of irresponsible humans practicing unsafe sex.

  • Wrong again I get my information from many sources. Then I verify it with other sources. You might try doing that! It is the way to be a responsible person and poster on these sites.

    You simply can’t accept that your position is going down the tubes and you have no way to stop it.

  • My comments are a viewpoint of a Catholic. The viewpoints I express are not uncommon among Catholics. Tens of millions of Catholics do not agree with all that is taught by the Catholic Church. That does not mean they are not Catholic. It means they disagree with a particular teaching.

    I don’t “palm” my comments as “Catholic commentary.” I do say I am Catholic. Do you think that a Catholic who does not agree with some point of Catholic teaching should not speak, has no right to speak? That attitude may have worked in a Medieval world of divine-right kings and the religion the divine right king decided would be recognized in his kingdom. But not today.

    Why pretend, Bob, that these disagreements do not exist? And most of all, why attack the person who raises the issues on which there is disagreement? It would be one thing to present what you think the correct Catholic viewpoint is – that is valuable. It is another to attack the person and that person’s right to claim membership in a faith.

    There are tens of millions – hundreds of millions? – of Catholics who are making a place for themselves inside Catholicism even though they do not agree with all the teachings. Think about it this way: we are talking to each other. Finally, we have platforms where we can talk to each other and say out loud what teachings we really do struggle with. We aren’t going to stop talking, commenting, exploring how our lives affect our faith and how our faith affects of lives.

  • I don’t think the nun in Phoenix made a mistake. She saved a life. Savita’s death resulted from doctors and nurses trying to obey minute points of law and doctrine to protect the child and ignoring their equal responsibility to protect Savita. More, the law and doctrine ignores the humanity of the woman, her right to make decisions that protect her own life – htis is true in both the Phoenix and the Irish cases. Savita died because she didn’t matter to doctors and nurses nearly as much as their trying to push a camel through the eye of a needle. She would have lived if there had been a nun like the one in Phoenix who made a difficult call in an terrible situation and saved one of the lives at risk.

  • Block Bob Cariozen, and any other poster who writes similar comments. They are likely the same person, a known RNS nuisance (probably a teenager), and the thread will read much more cleanly without them.

  • I went to THREE Latin dictionaries online. Not ONE defined “fetus” as “little child”.

    NOT ONE.

    You people are so dishonest, or so uneducated. Or both.

  • fe·tus
    ˈfēdəs/Submit
    noun
    an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception.

    Can you read Ben…….A HUMAN BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Can you also say busted…….

    A human BABY

  • Marriam – Webster Definition of fetus
    : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth — compare

    Ben…you made this way to easy………………………….

    Notice the word……………….HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Oxford Dictionary
    fetus
    (British foetus)
    NOUN

    An unborn or unhatched offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human more than eight weeks after conception.

    Ben my friend………………….”HUMAN”

    So it is clear according to the definition of the word fetus you support the murder of a HUMAN – HUMAN BABY.

    Next time you say it’s OK to dismember and kill a fetus please remember you just said it is ok to dismember and slaughter a HUMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • a law cannot be based solely on intention .

    only intention separates the beloved child of a catholic family, who live down the street, from the surrogacy cases you call a human rights violation . many, if not most, surrogate children do end up in loving homes . the now young women i know was conceived by an interracial couple out of wedlock, and would have terminated before a chance for life and breath . my friends stepped in and paid for medical care and hospital costs, with some for the woman to live on .

    not everyone can do that . but that is off the subject . the subject is if you ban the exchange of money to bring a fetus to term, you would have banned a child such as i described from being born .

    by the way, i see that you shield your comment history from public view : i hope this does not mean you are troll .

  • I understand you do not believe the nun in Phoenix made a mistake.

    You also do not believe she owed one iotat of fealty to her church’s teachings, do not believe her church’s teachings have the slightest traction, do not recognize the authority of that denomination’s hiearchy.

    She believed she made a mistake. After developing an understanding of the nature of the mistake, she corrected herself, reconciled with her church, and the excommunication was lifted. She remains a Catholic.

    Savita’s death resulted from physicians failing to recognize and treat an infection until it was too late.

    Despite her husband’s belief otherwise, the considered medical opinion by a judicial inquest was that an abortion by the time the medical team recognized they had missed obvious signs of an infection and failed to treat it with antibiotics would not have saved her life.

  • Your comments are of an individual who rejects the notion of fealty to the Catholic church’s teachings, does not believe that church’s teachings have the slightest traction, does not recognize the authority of that denomination’s hierarchy, but you claim they are the the “viewpoint of a Catholic”.

    I have no objection if you “aren’t going to stop talking, commenting, or “exploring how our lives affect our faith”. As long as we observe the rules of both this forum and Disqus we can say as we wish.

    I do think basic honesty, and the facts, contradict any claim any of this is from the “viewpoint of a Catholic”. And that is my sole objection, which I will repeat from time to time.

  • I do believe that at least some pro-lifers would be in favor of capital punishment for a foetus who plans and executes a first degree murder and is found guilty in a fair trial.

  • Of course laws can be based upon intention. Intent is an essential element of most crimes and torts.

    Adoption makes the best of an already bad situation. Surrogacy intentionally CREATES a bad situation via a commercial contract.

    You can not compare the two.

    And I learned long ago to hide my comment history after being followed around Huffington Post by an unhinged liberal who had no interest in any article I commented upon other than to post annoying replies to me. Why would you be interested in my comment history, anyway?

  • She gets it from gaychristian dot com and then verifies it at christiangays dot com. LOL!

    She could just save time and just link to John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality — which is where it all proceeds from anyway.

  • you and I know NO such thing. It’s a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. Millions of acorns fall to the ground but a vanishingly small number even sprout (implant) let alone grow enough to make even a sapling.

  • who has time for anti-abortion screeds and propaganda?? Maybe you do. But every time I look it’s the same old garbage.

  • Maggie
    ignorant, recycling lies, such as the notion that an abortion causes breast cancer. Thoroughly disproved but yet the forced birthers keep lying to innocent girls who probably would NOT have gotten pregnant if they had access to birth control and sex education.

  • there is no such thing as an unborn human. You have to be born to be a human, to draw breath. “Ruach”, the breath of Life, medically called “inspiration” life. Go read your Effing buy-bull. That’s what it says. You draw your first breath = you are human.

  • the products of conception are not a child–by any means. Do you know that religious groups and cultures all differ as to when life begins. You goobers want to privilege your Rightwing Christian beliefs and conform the constitution to it. It is NOT going to happen.

  • it’s not 1973. Nor is it “1984” and we don’t live under totalitarianism where wing nuts like you and Maggie make the rules for everyone. Get a grip
    .

  • Teens and pre-teens can petition the court for an abortion without their parents knowing. This happens in the enlightened states within the USA. Do you know that in other countries, girl CHILDREN who have been raped and impregnated by their fathers, uncles, brothers, etc. are FORCED to bring that pregnancy to term. Ever see a pregnant 9 year old?? She’s a walking belly. Even you would blanch.

  • Cardinal Dolan cares nothing about pregnant women, only that he control all women all the time by denying them the rights of full personhood. An adult woman is FULLY capable of making decisions on her own behalf concerning a problem pregnancy. Why you pukes keep yammering the same nonsense day after day. What a waste of time.

    By the way The Catholic Church has ZERO moral authority. They have done NOTHING to prevent further pedophilia in the church. The pope may want to but the Vatican, the Curia, and even the US Catholic Bishops refuse to do anything. And you goobers are morally bankrupt to defend and even quote Dolan. If Dolan has his way, the USA will become a theocracy.

  • Google “NRA Ring of Freedom”. It sells arms. Also, the whole “PP sells arms”, comes from losers using the ironically named Project Veritas’ deceptive tactics. And I’m not a fan of PP.

  • perfect. What idiots Maggie and Bob are. So selective in their monomania of abortion.
    Hey, Maggie and Bob, do you know what we ministers call child sexual assault::

    SOUL MURDER. You murder the child’s soul.
    Stop priests from abusing children. Zero tolerance. That is where your energy and passion should go. Not this nattering and stupid arguments. That’s really ‘saving’ children.

  • About 60%-70% of abortions take place in the first eight weeks…….

    In the last 50 years just in the US we have murdered 55 million babies by abortion…….so even if you believe the child in the womb is not human until eight weeks that means we have murdered between 15-18 million human beings……

    That’s “choice” in a nutshell….the mass murder of human beings.

  • The embryology textbook says that the products of conception is a different human being. Totally dependent on the mother, but yes, a different human being. I have no tolerance for rightwing Christians. Google “consistent life ethic”.

  • I know it hurts when someone remembers all the silly things you’ve posted.

    I got the impression the religion was Wicca, especially when you got very very evasive about it.

  • So, Blackmun did not know animal excrement from chocolate topping?

    Should we all sit around and wait for the next installment of what you, Spuddie, and a favored zany on the Supreme Court comes up with next, speaking of totalitarian wing nuts?

  • This has nothing to do with your views on the Catholic Church. A woman can do all of the decisions she can as long as she doesn’t kill another being. A fetus is another being.

  • It wasn’t disgusting.

    If you think it was, you didn’t read it or you can’t understand it.

  • The donors are gun manufacturers. So in a way they sell guns. Also, look at the product placement in NRATV or in an NRA magazine.

  • No, they do not sell guns. Not in any way.

    It is unsurprising that an organization which supports the Second Amendment has no problem with gun advertising.

    I would be more surprised if they ran ads from Planned Parenthood or Everytown for Gun Safety.

  • At least they advertise guns, which is a way of selling guns. And tell me, what does PP have to do with the 2nd amendment debate?

  • It’s also anti choice in a nutshell…

    You know, the people who oppose abortion, oppose the easily available birth control that would reduce abortion, oppose the comprehensive sex education that would reduce abortion, don’t off squat in the way of support from pregnancy to early childhood care to people who cannot afford another child…

    And so on.

  • “Why would you be interested….”

    because i want to better understand the logic of the person i am corresponding with . as i would guess that people would read mine . sorry that you experienced a “unhinged” liberal . i don’t care for the “unhinged” right-wingers who sometimes follow me .

    you can compare the two . i did .

    “Surrogacy intentionally CREATES a bad situation via a commercial contract.”

    there is a lot packed in there, but the simple observation is that if the creation is of a child for a some one who wants and cares for and loves that child, you have to go further to show that that is “a bad situation” . badness is not in evidence .

    “…laws can be based upon….”

    my phrase was that laws could not SOLELY be based on intention . there has to first be an underlying crime involved that the intent either lessens or magnifies .

  • Most of the rest of the world understands that it is a wrong done to the child to intentionally deprive it of one or both of its natural parents purely to cater to the personal desires and preferences of the consumer. That is what constitutes the bad situation as well as the underlying crime.

    Ever hear of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? Every nation in the UN has signed it with the exception of the United States. Wonder why that is? Possibly, in part, because of provisions such as this which our nation declines to honor:

    —The child has the right to a name at birth. The child also has the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, to know his or her parents and be cared for by them.

    —The State has an obligation to protect and, if necessary, re-establish basic aspects of
    the child’s identity. This includes name, nationality and family ties.

    —The child has a right to live with his or her parents unless this is deemed incompatible with the child’s best interests. The child also has the right to maintain contact with both parents if separated from one or both.

    I’m sorry you find intentionally — and commercially — depriving a child of a parent such an insignificant matter. Most of the world considers it a tragedy.

  • You obviously did not follow the conversation, are unaware of the history between the two posters, and apparently have an anti-gun fetish.

    No, accepting advertising from firearms manufacturers is not selling firearms.

    In order to sell firearms you need an Federal Firearms License.

    The NRA supports the Second Amendment. Exercise of the Second Amendment requires firearms. All of this is completely legal.

    The NRA also accept advertising for schools, numismatic companies, vitamin vendors, algicide sellers, garden equipment companies, a national hardware and tool company, hearing aids, a veteran assistance organization, tobacco products, and a sporting goods company.

    If the NRA bothers you, repeal the Second Amendment.

  • If you continue this anti-gun anti-NRA nonsense I will simply block you.

    The NRA is the nation’s oldest civil rights organization. It has over 5 million citizen members who support it with their dues, with their time and efforts. It supports the entire Bill of Rights, with particular emphasis on the Second Amendment.

    It is the largest single trainer of law enforcement officers in the use of firearms in the country, and has a close cooperative relationship with both law enforcement and the armed forces.

    Vox is a left-wing rag.

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the organization for firearms manufacturers.

    I am not looking for a firearms/Second Amendment conversation, nor do I plan on giving a a defense against a load of anti-NRA manure sourced from the usual Bloomberg-funded propaganda mills.

    So, back to abortion or good-bye.

  • Ben, your just trying to rationalize the fact that you support the murder of millions of children.

    The pro-life pregnancy care center I support helps mothers and children for as many days, months, and years as they need support…….all free of charge. It doesn’t end at birth it is only the beginning of the help offered.

    No abortion mill ever helps mothers and children…..all they offer is a dead baby and a lifetime of pain and regret for a mother who killed her own child.

  • Anti- capital punishment advocates are concerned at the method of government punishment. They are concerned about what their government is doing in their name.

    Those of us trying to protect women’s rights want to preserve their freedom from government control of their private lives.

  • Your almost right. We would still need safe and legal abortion for those who might still have unwanted pregnancy’s.

  • why do you need to know….you taking names for when Mike Pence and Timothy Dolan rounds us up for extermination??

  • Are there any other behaviors which you believe we should remove the prohibitions against and rely on prophylactics and education for?

    Murder?

    Speeding?

    Drug use?

    Theft?

    Or is this just a special case where you advise the people who believe the behavior to be a blight on society that the solution is to foment other blights on society?

  • Still not getting to the point where you acknowledge the fact a fetus exists entirely in the body of a person with their own life, rights and existence.

    You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a fetus either grows in a mason jar or that a woman suddenly becomes your slave when she becomes pregnant.

    Your concern for a woman who has an abortion is phony and backhanded. They won’t do as you command, so they get attacked, denigrated and their existence ignored in your rant.

  • You are right…..the fetus is entirely in the body of her mother and needs her mother to survive. (except of course for the millions of late term abortions that have taken place where the mother could have given birth but chose to murder her child instead)

    Every baby that is born needs other people to survive……

    No infant, toddler, or child can survive on their own….

    I need other people to survive (farmers for food, doctors, perspiration drug companies, the power company in winter for heating, etc)

    A woman has no more right to murder the distinct individual little girl or boy in her womb than she has the right to murder her baby at six day, six months, or six years.

    Every mother who has had an abortion and every father who has supported abortion is and will be for all eternity a parent who dismembered and brutally and viciously murdered their own daughter or son…..a parent who used their power to murder a child.

    Jesus will heal and forgive but only if those who have murdered their own children repent……

  • Her mother needs to do more than just survive. She has her life and her body which is not yours to command.

    BTW, you malicious l!ar, late term abortions are invariably done by women who intended to keep their pregnancies for entirely medical reasons.

    “Every baby that is born needs other people to survive…..”

    But not the sole body or systems of its mother. Practically anyone can intervene to protect one without compromising the personhood of another to do it. It is clear you are dishonestly pretending a fetus is indistinguishable physically from s child.

    Abortion is not murder and very clearly distinguished from infanticide. Your need to lie and conflate undermines any moral pretension of your position

  • The baby in the womb has her life and her body and it not her mothers to dismember and kill.

    Spuddie…my friend…late term abortions are usually considered the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation – when a baby can live outside of the womb. In the last 50 years our world has had close to two BILLION abortions……about 1% of abortions are late term……..meaning that approximately 10,000,000 late term abortions have been committed in the last 50 years…………a number that would make the Nazis proud when murdering Jews and abortion supporters proud when killing babies.

    I will accept you apology……….

    I see in your post above you use the word “personhood” …………..every child in the womb is a person. Young, small, in need of love and support…..you are a person larger but in need of love and support as well.

    It is just sad to see your passion and drive for the mass murder of little girls and boys in the womb.

  • As usual, little “Bob Arnzen” cries and goes home with his toys if you disagree with his pro-gun anti-abortion agenda.

  • A serious question…please disregard if you do not believe in God.

    A person of faith and love believes the souls of babies murdered by abortion spend eternity with God.

    Do you believe that?

    If you do would you like to spend eternity next to the persons who you supported being being dismembered and murdered in womb or would you rather they are aborted from heaven as well?

  • That’s ideal, Shawnie5. Then the blocked poster can point out your (frequent) idiocy at will, without having to be bothered with yet another of your vacuous responses.

    You simply aren’t very smart. But thanks for your support :-).

  • Your anti-abortion position is wrong. Sorry the world has to be bothered by idiots such as yourself.

  • “…does not believe that church’s teachings have the slightest traction…”

    What an exaggeration! I, along with tens of millions of other Catholics, find great comfort in the Catholic Church, without turning ourselves into programmed robots.

    This process of dissent is how the Church learns and grows and finds that doctrine does need to be relooked at. Think of the attitude toward slavery at one time. Or the attitude of the Church toward those who found the earth does not circle the sun. Or usury. At one time, the Church didn’t have a problem with married priests, and then changed to requiring priests to be celibate. Perhaps it is time to move back to our traditional belief on that one. Look, look, look at the fumbling of the Church on hiding sex abuse by priests.

    The Church needs the voices of those who disagree to find out where they have made mistakes or where cultural changes make how the Church has framed some issues just impossible, like the roles of women in the world today. The church fit itself into and formed its doctrines within a particular cultural/knowledge paradigm and mistook what was particular to that culture and time for what was required by God.

  • What’s with all this “one iota of fealty” and “slightest traction” stuff? There is a great deal of ground between the “all” and “nothing” you posit. It is the ground tens of millions (hundreds of millions?) of Catholics stand on as they participate in their faith, find strength in it, find a glimpse of God in it.

  • Bobism. There,s a prophylactic which if applied some years ago— I’m guessing about 55– the world would be a much better place.

  • It probably has something to do with reality, facts, stuff like that. Your probably would have no interest, eh?

    There are great many people looking for faith and strength who reject the denomination of which they are nominal members.

    The energy they spend critiquing, kvetching, kibitzing, and otherwise complaining could be spent elsewhere actually growing in faith.

    For example, were you an Episcopalian think of all the free time you’d have.

  • This “programmed robots” shtick (What an exaggeration!) is an excuse to stick your fingers in your ears and keep on truckin’“within a particular cultural/knowledge paradigm”.

    The Church is not going to learn and grow from anything you’re writing.

    You’d have to know considerably more than you do to give advice to it. For example, celibacy IS the traditional discipline.

    https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8782

    http://eclecticmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/05/book-review-celibacy-in-early-church.html

    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/03/16/a_case_for_priestly_celibacy_110187.html

    Complainers complain, not build.

  • Not a relevant question. We live in a country with secular laws and religious freedom. I never have to care what you think of God, nor can be forced to. I respect your right to believe as you do. But I do not have any obligation to take your beliefs seriously nor be bound by them.

    You are using faith to aggrandize yourself and pretend superiority over all others. Even to the point of commanding them as if they were your property. There is nothing moral in your stance. Especially given your reviling, your false witness, your phony displays of piety.

    You are falling back on the most infantile of religious arguments.

    “If you don’t do as I say, my invisible supernatural sky daddy will punish you for your insolence”.

    Besides, why would I want to spend an eternity with shrill unpleasant people such as yourself?

  • A baby is born. It exists in her mother’s body. It has no existence outside it until birth. It is her’s in all respects and her right to handle as she sees fit.

    “Spuddie…my friend…late term abortions are usually considered the third trimester, or 27th week of gestation – when a baby can live outside of the womb”

    Maggie, you are still a l1ar. Late term abortions are done solely for medical reasons. When birthing it is impossible. In your ignorance and arrogance, you would endanger the lives of women who intended to keep their pregnancies. If you believe there is a hell for the wicked and those indifferent to life, your stance would surely doom you to it.

    “I will accept you apology……….”

    Get bent, l1ar. You are a terrible person who has said here that you encourage the death of women for your own self-aggrandizement.

    “every child in the womb is a person.”

    Of course they aren’t. They have no independent or autonomous existence until birth. You are just telling me you don’t know or don’t care what is the definition of person. Typical for fetus worshiping 1iars.

    “It is just sad to see your passion and drive for the mass murder of little girls and boys in the womb.”

    Which is about the same as a passion and drive of mass murder of unicorns. Since little girls and boys exist when born.

  • Bob………of course a fetus is a human person. We all know that. Pope throughout history have said blacks, Jews, the poor, the handicapped are not fully human.

    Bob you may think you are better and more important than blacks, Jews, the poor, the handicapped, children in the womb but your not. We are all human.

  • stop defending the Roman Church of the Pedophile Priests. You have no moral standing to decide how any other person should live their life. Your megalomania on this subject is unhealthy for you. Why don’t YOU get a life?

  • Maybe you should mind your own business when it comes to abortion. You seem fixated on this. Did your own mother not want you Bobby-boy? is that why you’re so anal.

  • I plan to.

    I have been working on a proposal at the state level to call a Constitutional Convention to allow the states to call the shots on abortion, same sex marriage, and a host of other issues that should be decided at the grassroots leve.

    That will pry your fingers and the fingers of your fellow Wiccans off the electorate, paranoidoyal.

    And eight-year timetable should be about right.

  • It was legal to murder Jews in Nazi Germany………….When you face God in eternity you can try and explain why you murdered His children to Him.

  • The real reason the Roman Church is so against abortion is that every other abortion means one less young boy for the priests to molest!

  • Baloney! Until a few years ago the 2nd Amendment gave no individual a right to keep and bear anything and was (correctly IMHO) interpreted as permitting the states to create National Guard militias. NRA is a bunch of gun nuts who have bloody little to do with any civil rights.

  • From its approval as the Second Amendment to today it has protected an individual right to keep and bear arms (weapons capable of being carried).

    The National Guard did not coming into being until 1903 with passage of the Dick Act, so it certainly had nothing to do with “permitting the states to create National Guard militias”.

    And the state militias, some of which still exist, predated both the Constitution and the Second Amendment, so the state militias are not contingent on it in any way.

    I can tell, however, where you’re getting your “facts”.

  • No, Maggie, and you like your pal BobbyJo excel at your chosen occupation of whataboutism.

    You’ve lost in your anti-abortion efforts. Get over it already, and get over your crazy Christian fairy tales too.

  • Heading into Pascal’s Wager with that one, Maggot. You’d better look it up before you take yet another deep dive into your unreality.

  • Speaking of “heartless”, where’s your lazy sky fairy to fix the problems that you are whining about? Care to pray to it and let us watch to see if anything happens?

  • Speak for yourself. The Church is not going to learn and grow from anything, ever, anyway.

  • Bob, in Christ we have love and victory over sin, satan, and death. With Christ we have eternal life. The babies in the womb you kill are with Jesus.

ADVERTISEMENTs