My Morning As a Clinic Escort
by Robin Marty, RH Reality Check
September 28, 2010 - 7:00am (Print)
Back in April, I went to the Planned Parenthood in St. Paul, Minnesota to cover the Good Friday protest and counter-protest events that happens every year. While talking with some of the women touting signs in support of the clinic, I joked, "You know, if I ever get pregnant again, I'm totally going to try out clinic escorting while I'm huge."
Little did I know I was actually pregnant when I said that, and now, almost six months later, I felt like it was time to follow through on my promise.
This Saturday morning I sneaked quietly out of the house to head downtown to the Midwest Women's Clinic, to sit in on a clinic escort training session and test the waters a bit on escorting. I found that much of what I assumed about both escorting and the protesters I would encounter was quite different from what I saw in real life.
We met in a conference room in a non-descript building off of Nicollet Mall. And by non-descript, I mean that I missed it the first time and had to go back through my emails to get directions. There is no identifying marks on the front, no signage, no names. Unlike other clinics, where the escorts tend to have to provide more of a buffer for their clients, here we acted more as signage for the clinic, letting the women with appointments know exactly where they are supposed to be.
There are reasons that Midwest doesn't get the attention that many other clinics in the area receive from anti-choice protesters. And frankly, one of those reasons is that the people who want to "sidewalk counsel" simply don't want to pay for parking.
It's really not surprising. The main "sidewalk counselor" who shows daily at the clinic is paid for his efforts, as is one of the semi-regular protesters. It never occurred to me that clinic protesters might be paid for their work, in comparison to the escorts who volunteer their time to take the women past their pleas and jeers.
A majority of our training consisted of us being shown anti-choice literature that will likely be handed to the clients, and an explanation of the rules that escorts need to follow when it comes to dealing with protesters. Some made a good deal of sense when I considered them more: don't talk to or engage with a protester -- it can confuse the client who is unsure of who to trust (especially true for clinics where protesters may put themselves in vests to make women believe they are also escorts, although that has yet to happen locally).
Other rules confused me more. We had to be sure that as we escort a client we do not stand between the client and protester and interfere with the protester's ability to talk to the woman. In fact, the regular "counselor," Charley, had threatened to call the police on an escort earlier in the week for "blocking his access" to a client by standing in between the two of them when walking her into the clinic. It began to feel like there was a legally sanctioned right to harass, with protesters having more protected rights than the woman seeking an abortion.
The morning I was escorting, Charley was relatively mild. Because of the training session, most of the clients had already entered the building before I went out to train with the other escorts. I'd been told Charley has many standard tactics -- one favorite is to hand cigarettes out on the street in an attempt to draw a crowd (including, bizarrely, to underage teens, showing a confusing disconnect between wanting to help "babies" and actually harming real children.
Then, on most days, he carries around a batch of "baby" dolls, small plastic dolls made to look like curled up 14 week fetuses. He tries to pass them out to the women entering the clinic, picking pink ones for the Caucasian women he sees, and little brown ones for any woman of color who comes by. When he can, he follows the women to the door, shaking his "babies" at them through the big glass window while they wait in the lobby for an elevator to take them up to the clinic.
Because of these stories about him, I felt I was prepared for anything he would do. What I wasn't prepared for, however, was Debra.
I was sent to the far end of the street, by a paid parking lot, where I stood with another trainee and two veterans. A small, gray-haired, be-speckled, frail looking old woman was standing in the entrance to the parking lot. At first I thought she had a stack of diapers in her hand (which, frankly I thought was rather clever) but once she came closer I saw it was a very large batch of brochures. She walked the sidewalk up and down like she was marching a picket line, and the veterans just told me "Oh, yes, that's Debra. She's much worse than Charley."
I got to see her in action a few minutes later.
While we were still being trained, the patients were already starting to arrive, and one woman showed up with two other women for support, each of the friends wheeling an umbrella stroller with a toddler inside. The training stopped for a minute because we could hear shouting through the open door, which went on for quite some time. Later I found out one of the women who was providing emotional support got her stroller stuck in the door, and the full group was being shouted at by both Debra and Charley as they tried to get everyone inside. It was what I had expected. "You don't have to do this! You have other options! Please don't murder your child, he already loves you inside the womb!"
Now, the two women who were friends or family of the patient were leaving the clinic, still pushing their young children in strollers. I watched as Debra ran to the parking lot and grabbed a sign I hadn't seen earlier, with a 12 week fetus next to a picture of bloody tissue.
Debra yelled.
She called them murderers. She asked them how they felt to have blood on their hands. She told them that they couldn't even look at her sign because they knew that what she was showing them was the truth. She told them they were more guilty than the woman inside, because they already had children and know what was being destroyed in that building.
She chased them down the street, following them to the parking lot. She continued berating them as they put their children in car seats, packed away the strollers, climbed into their seats and pulled away. She continued as they paid for their parking on the way out, stood next to the window shouting while they paused, trying to figure out which way to drive down the street to get out of the maze that is downtown Minneapolis.
The Debra put down her sign, picked back up a stack of pamphlets, and began her incessant march, back and forth up and down the street in front of the clinic.
I was in shock. In my head, although I didn't agree with them, I could justify a lot of what anti-choice activists did under the umbrella of "Well, to them, it's justified to 'save a baby.'" I don't like or in any way condone the tactics being used to try and make it more difficult, both physically or emotionally, for a woman to go inside and have an abortion, but the motivation at least made sense: saving a "life." I often wondered how they thought that yelling, name calling and the like would make a woman change her mind, rather than simply antagonize her, but at least I thought I understood there was in fact a reason behind it.
But Debra's tactics aren't like that. I learned that she is the only protester at the clinic who stays the full day. She waits for the women to come out, and that's when she attacks. Once it's already done. Once there is no longer choice still to be made. Once there is no nothing left to "save."
She's not there to advocate. She's not there to counsel. And inherently, she's not there to change a person's mind, although if she managed to, no doubt it would be heralded by Pro-Life Action Ministries as a victory.
Debra, and people like Debra, are there to punish women. To try to make sure that they are somehow hurt emotionally by what they have undergone. They need more women to regret their abortions so that they can justify their own actions in front of the clinics and to bring in more recruits. Why else would you go out of your way, waiting for hours, simply to argue with a woman who has already done the thing you claim you are trying to stop her from doing?
It was the Debras of the world that I wasn't prepared for, the protester who isn't trying to stop what she sees as a murder, but instead gleefully takes the opportunity to hurt someone who is already at a time of emotional upheaval. I wasn't prepared, and I don't know if there even is enough training to make me able to accept her type, or that I'm not there to defend, to protect, but just to act as much like a buffer as I am legally allowed to be.
I'm officially trained as an escort now, but I'm not sure if I can actually be one. Silence is not something I'm equipped to handle, especially not while pregnant. Injustice and unfairness rankle me in a way that I find easier to ignore otherwise. However, I am considering a trip to Fargo in the next few weeks to do a clinic defense for Red River Women's Clinic, which is in the middle of a 40 Days for Life onslaught. If I think I can hold my tongue for an entire day, I might try it again.
Otherwise, I think that after I have my own baby, I may return to Midwest, and perhaps go through Patient Advocacy training instead. I want to help someone through the process, provide emotional support to her, and at the end of the day feel something more healthy than anger and frustration.
I'm not made to be a buffer, I don't think. I'm made to be a helping hand.
Oh, so Debra wasn't just praying? Interesting. And I find it odd, like you, that they continue to hassle women after leaving the clinic, no matter what they were doing there. This shows they're not interested in the fetus. They're interested in controlling women. I applaud you for your efforts!
I would have been so pissed off if someone got in my face like that. It's unbelievable that the anti choice can do that. Isn't that harassment or something?
Great article. couple questions since I've never escorted before, but I am interested in volunteering in the future...
We had to be sure that as we escort a client we do not stand between the client and protester and interfere with the protester's ability to talk to the woman.
Why in the world...? What if a client specifically wants and asks you to stand between them and the protesters, and block them from being yelled at by "sidewalk counselors"? It really pisses me off that this kind of harrassment is legal...
The main "sidewalk counselor" who shows daily at the clinic is paid for his efforts, as is one of the semi-regular protesters. It never occurred to me that clinic protesters might be paid for their work
This is also mind boggling to me. Who is paying them to do this?
She chased them down the street, following them to the parking lot. She continued berating them as they put their children in car seats, packed away the strollers, climbed into their seats and pulled away. She continued...
What if these people responded to her and told her to stop or go away? What if they had called the police? Would they have been able to do anything?
The "blocking access to a patient" thing is sort of a nebulous charge. Here's what it says directly from the papers I got. in the Do Nots:
*Get in the way of protesters distributing literature to patients, or remove anti-abortion literature from a patient's hand. If she wants to dispose of it, point out the recycling bin close to the elevator.
The protester argued that by one escort walking in between him and the patient, she was blocking his ability to distribute lit to the patient, and that he would call the police. Would the police do anything? Probably not. Was the protester right? Not necessarily, but it would depend on which cop showed up, for the most part.
I don't know what would happen if the police were called by the women being yelled at by Debra. The sidewalk is technically public, as was the parking lot. Debra never entered the lot, just stood outside the barrier, about 15 feet from the car. So it's hard to say if the police would consider that any sort of offense.
Charley, and I believe Debra as well, are both paid by Pro-life action ministries in Minnesota.
The protester argued that by one escort walking in between him and the patient, she was blocking his ability to distribute lit to the patient, and that he would call the police.
Why would anybody consider for even a second that the protestor was telling the truth about this issue? They lie about everything else. The protesters have the right to be a position to ATTEMPT to distribute/give their opinion. They do not have the right to SUCCEED in doing so and they certainly have no right whatsoever to control the behavior of anybody else to FACILITATE their attempts to do so.
Thanks for your quick response, Robin. This is all sort of fascinating to me. In spite of all the weird rules, I am still considering volunteering someday if I ever have serious free time.
It's incredible to me that there are people paid to scream at patients and distribute pamphlets and wave "baby" dolls around. It certainly explains the folks you see who show up every single day. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that "Pro-life action ministries" hires psychologically-unbalanced people who cannot otherwise function in a normal work environment/hold down a job. I'm sure there are somewhat normal people, too, but I don't think that applies to the people who are the creepy regulars...
I really appreciate the hard work the clinic escorts do. It's sad that we even need to have clinic escorts for a legal medical procedure. I don't think I would be able to be an escort because I'm a loud mouth and wouldn't be able to keep my mouth shut around the anti-choicers getting in my face. It seriously pisses me off. Like you I think a better use of my time would be a patient advocate.
It's really not surprising. The main "sidewalk counselor" who shows daily at the clinic is paid for his efforts, as is one of the semi-regular protesters. It never occurred to me that clinic protesters might be paid for their work, in comparison to the escorts who volunteer their time to take the women past their pleas and jeers.
Do you know if this is common? From what I understand the guy that is always in front of PP Ford Parkway is also paid by the antis.
Other rules confused me more. We had to be sure that as we escort a client we do not stand between the client and protester and interfere with the protester's ability to talk to the woman. In fact, the regular "counselor," Charley, had threatened to call the police on an escort earlier in the week for "blocking his access" to a client by standing in between the two of them when walking her into the clinic. It began to feel like there was a legally sanctioned right to harass, with protesters having more protected rights than the woman seeking an abortion.
I agree. If he did call the police it would depend on who the cop was. I would love to see a burly feminist cop show up and haul him away for disorderly conduct. There has to be something we can do about this. What really unnerves me about this is that I protested during the RNC convention in 08 and my first amendment rights were repeatedly violated by the government and the police. But these wacko "sidewalk counselors" have their right to harass women protected under the first amendment under the law.
Robin, whatever you decide to do, escort or advocacy, I know your work will be well appreciated. Thanks.
That guy is creepy.
one favorite is to hand cigarettes out on the street in an attempt to draw a crowd (including, bizarrely, to underage teens, showing a confusing disconnect between wanting to help "babies" and actually harming real children.
This is a new one to me. Maybe he could be arrested for giving cigarettes to minors.
I work at Midwest and we really appreciate the escorts. Charley bugged me every day I was pregnant walking in, as if I were a patient at 6 months, 7 months, 8 months and so on.
The worst was when a little verbally attacked me for walking in when she saw my breast pump. So hard to bite my tongue.
Regarding the cigarettes. When I escorted at a clinic in AZ, a woman actually shouted, "Ma'am, don't let that be your baby's last cigarette." Yep, real in touch with public health.
I look forward to seeing you at the clinic some time and thanks again for making our patients and staff feel safe and supported.
Hi lsweet,
Bugged every day while pregnant? Why would I do that if I know that someone works there, and thus is not a client?
Honestly, I required at most 15 or so encounters to recognize someone :)
Some of those people are purely _deranged_! Giving _cigarettes_ to teenagers in the name of "protecting life"?????????
As much as I would love to counter-protest "sidewalk counselors" and the like, I know this is NOT helpful to clinic staff/escorts and clinic patients. It would only help with my anger and frustration at the antis.
I've always wanted to bring flowers, coffee, or cookies to the escorts to show I care and appreciate their work. I donate money to PP and other pro-choice organizations. I also attend the Good Fri. march at PP. I honestly want to give the escorts a huge hug to thank them but they would probably think I'm crazy. Is there something escorts need that I could do? Like in winter can I bring escorts hand-warmers or hot chocolate? Just an idea.
People working at PP and other abortion-providing clinics always appreciate food (*grumbles about comparatively low wages*). I'd still advise calling ahead, particularly if you are in a more conservative area. Some places, staff don't eat treat-gifts unless they come vacuum-sealed. God, I hate how paranoid you have to be in this line of work... can't even trust homemade cookies. :(
But man... handwarmers and packages of cocoa? That would mean a lot to an escort.
In Minnesota, clinic escorts count their years of service by the number of Februarys, rebellious girl--handwarmers are MOST welcome! You could drop off a box at Midwest Health Center for Women, where I volunteer, if you called ahead, and we'd love you for it. Otherwise, a smile or a thumbs up while walking or driving past punctuates the day very nicely.
As one of the volunteers who Charlie regularly threatens with police action, I'm completely unfazed. My role as a volunteer at the clinic is to get the patients safely inside the clinic so that they can keep their appointments without further hassle. Charlie doesn't concern me--the patients do. I'm not protesting anything when I'm outside the clinic. While Charlie bears down menacingly on women searching for the clinic, they're grateful for a friendly, calm presence, and most of them welcome the reassurance an escort can give.
In the Twin Cities, there are three clinics that have escorting programs, if you ever change your mind: Midwest Health Center for Women, Dr. Hanson's, and Planned Parenthood.
Hello, and may this find you most well!
I'm Charley from the article. I'd welcome Robin speaking with me directly about what she saw. A few points...
I'm paid to coordinate the other volunteers at the Twin Cities' six abortion buildings. I've always sidewalk counseled as a volunteer. No one else is paid--perhaps Robin was thinking about Debra, who is the Education Coordinator for Pro-Life Action Ministries and my supervisor.
We offer post-abortion brochures and phone numbers to women leaving the building. We don't argue or discuss with them. Planned Parenthood acknowledges that at least 10 percent of post-abortive women will experience psychological distress, and we offer information on post-abortion support services.
I give cigarettes so that people passing Midwest don't dig in ashtrays or pick cigarette butts off of the ground. I hadn't considered the aspect of giving cigarettes to minors, I give them to whomever asks, up to three cigarettes per week.
I don't wave fetal models in front of the window, I hold them up so that people will know the actual development state of their baby, which is not "a clump of cells" or "fetal tissue."
We speak strongly to people who come as companions, such as the two women with their children in strollers, because women have said that they would prefer not to abort if they felt supported by those around them, and because eventually participation in a child's death weighs on companions, especially if they are parents themselves--they deserve to be encouraged to avoid this.
Thank you, Robin, for your commitment to continuing to seek the truth! May you and your loved ones be greatly blessed!
Sincerely,
Charley Ramsey
I'm paid to coordinate the other volunteers at the Twin Cities' six abortion buildings. I've always sidewalk counseled as a volunteer. No one else is paid--perhaps Robin was thinking about Debra, who is the Education Coordinator for Pro-Life Action Ministries and my supervisor.
Well now we know who you are and what you do. Paid to oppress, shame, harass, and intimidate women. You harass women who are exercising their constitutional right to their bodily autonomy. Does it make you feel like a big man to shame, harass, and bully women?
I wonder how would Pro-Life Action Ministries would feel if I stood outside their offices and protested them? Or "sidewalk counseled" them on their outright lies and misogyny. Hmm, might be difficult to do since they the only address they list on their website is a p.o. box.
We offer post-abortion brochures and phone numbers to women leaving the building. We don't argue or discuss with them. Planned Parenthood acknowledges that at least 10 percent of post-abortive women will experience psychological distress, and we offer information on post-abortion support services.
Bullpucky!!!!!! That is an outright lie! You and Debra harass women! There is no such thing as "post-abortion psychological distress" or "abortion trauma syndrome." It is a myth created by the antis to shame and oppress women. Which you and your co-workers do.
I give cigarettes so that people passing Midwest don't dig in ashtrays or pick cigarette butts off of the ground. I hadn't considered the aspect of giving cigarettes to minors, I give them to whomever asks, up to three cigarettes per week.
And that is bullpucky too. You use cigarettes like a carny shill to create a crowd. BTW, it's illegal to sell or distribute tobacco products to minors in MN. State law MINN. STAT. § 609.685 (2010) says, Whoever furnishes tobacco or tobacco-related devices to a minor is guilty of a misdemeanor for the first violation and a gross misdemeanor for any subsequent violation.
It's sick and sad that you think you are entitled to harass and bully women, to infringe on their constitutional right and it's all ok for you to break the law. Your "sidewalk counseling" is not welcome. Quit harassing, oppressing, and shaming women.
I believe that many women (and also men) subjected to being yelled at, told they were going to hell, having images of surgical procedures waved in front of them, and harassed by pompous STRANGERS would experience some distress. Seems like it would make it hard to figure out why someone is upset if you're actively trying to upset them.
I wonder if Pro-Life Action Ministries has done any research on the psychological distress they cause all of our patients by harassing and screaming at them. I can assure you, it would bother me to come in for my annual pap smear and be told I was going to hell.
These people don't know why anyone is a) coming into the clinic, or b) if they are having an abortion, what their reason is. They indiscriminately yell at everyone.
If I go to the grocery store and someone punches me in the face as I leave, it probably isn't fair to say that I'm upset that I went grocery shopping because you saw me crying later. Just saying.
Hello Katie,
I don't tell people that they are going to Hell, because this is exactly what is meant by "judge not, lest ye be judged." Hell is real, however, and warnings about it can be necessary, just as anyone should be warned about something to be avoided.
Hell is NOT real. I am a Christian, btw. God, Himself, said that the commonly envisioned idea of Hell was something that had never entered into His head. Hell is a bastardization of Hela's dimension, nothing more, nothing less.
Hello Arekushieru,
Jesus Christ said that Hell is real, in references to Gehenna.
I've not heard of Hela?
Gehenna is real, a Hell as it pertains to Christianity is not.
A couple points:
1. I think religion is BS. So, this discussion of Hell is sort of irrelevent. The point is that your personal faith does not entitle you to shame and intimidate women.
2. From reading your posts, you imply that women are moral children who don't understand what they're doing and are totally unaware of their options. If some women have "thanked" you for your presence, then I guarantee you that there are hundreds of others who find your presence to be physically threatening or extremely unnerving.
3. Abortion is not a lucrative industry.
4. You are not a doctor or therapist and have no right to counsel or inform any patient about the development of her pregnancy or her pregnancy options. You are not needed and most certainly are not wanted.
5. An embryo/fetus is not a person and a woman is not an incubator
Thanks and have a good night.
Hi La Plume,
Hell is real or it's not, regardless of religion. Mount Everest doesn't go away if I don't believe in it.
Some of these women literally are children, minors coerced by parents or boyfriends--"have the abortion or I'll kick you out." They can indeed be unaware of their options or can feel powerless to exercise them, exploitation of women if ever there was.
Abortion is lucrative for the doctor, at least a couple of thousand dollars per hour. It is also now intensely lucrative, in the billions of dollars, with the sale of fetal tissue and organs for research and to make cosmetics and vaccines.
And, regarding being needed, I'd consider someone's presence on the sidewalk necessary if I were about to be aborted. I'd be grateful for anyone I could get!
Thanks, and a good night to you as well, even though we're now talking about a different night!
It is also now intensely lucrative, in the billions of dollars, with the sale of fetal tissue and organs for research and to make cosmetics and vaccines.
Fetal tissue and organs from abortion are never sold to be used for 'research' although certainly research may be done with DONATED materials just as fetal tissue from SPONTANEOUS abortions is used in research.
Fetal tissues and organs are never, ever used in cosmetics and the references to 'placenta' on cosmetics refer to COW placentas obtained from slaughterhouses.
Fetal tissue is not used in the preparation of vaccines.
Your inclusion of this sort of ridiculous nonsense is precisely why many of us here conclude that ProLife extremists are terminally gullible. You'll apparently believe literally any silly rumor that you hear, no matter how idiotic.
Some of these women literally are children, minors coerced by parents or boyfriends--"have the abortion or I'll kick you out.
Children don't make medical decisions for themselves. no decent parent would force a raped child to carry a pregnancy to term. Indeed, no decent human being would. Little girls aren't livestock.
I don't think that the above scenario that you quoted, represents a decent parent. But I absolutely believe that if the parent said I would support you in whatever medical decision you made, and I believe that abortion is the best choice for you, here's why, and accompanied the child to the clinic to have an abortion performed, THAT would be a decent parent. :)
Hell is real or it's not, regardless of religion. Mount Everest doesn't go away if I don't believe in it.
ROFL. Yeah, except that Mount Everest is A REAL PLACE ON EARTH, people have been there, and there is abundant proof of its existence. You cannot say the same thing for "Hell"!
Radioactive deadly pink unicorns are either real or they're not, regardless of religion. Radioactivity doesn't go away if I don't believe in it.
and "...regardless of religion"? Wrong. Hell is a construct of religion; it's not some separate concept existing outside of religious belief.
Some of these women literally are children, minors coerced by parents or boyfriends
And enduring the shame, harrassment, intimidation, and stigma associated with being yelled at/confronted by rabid religious fanatics on the clinic sidewalk DOES NOT HELP MATTERS. Again, there are doctors and trained counselors to help. You are not equipped to handle that situation!
Abortion is lucrative for the doctor, at least a couple of thousand dollars per hour. It is also now intensely lucrative, in the billions of dollars, with the sale of fetal tissue and organs for research and to make cosmetics and vaccines.
Wrong. There is no sale of aborted fetal tissue for research or "cosmetics"! Either you are lying through your teeth or you are grossly ignorant of the facts. And I'm guessing that you did not even read the article I linked to. The most lucrative careers for a doctor are cardiologist, radiologist, oncologist, gastroenterologist, cardiac surgeon, orthopedic surgeon, transplant surgeon, and pediatric surgeon. Gynecologist or a doctor who regularly performs abortions -- not in that list.
And, regarding being needed, I'd consider someone's presence on the sidewalk necessary if I were about to be aborted. I'd be grateful for anyone I could get!
Patently ridiculous. There is no conscious "I" in an embryo or a fetus. There is no capacity to reflect on existence or nonexistence in that state.
Patently ridiculous. There is no conscious "I" in an embryo or a fetus. There is no capacity to reflect on existence or nonexistence in that state.
It's also ridiculous considering that there are organ recipients who actually do have a conscious "I" that would probably be grateful for anything similar, yet no one seems to care when it comes to actual PERsons with consciousness and awareness, oddly enough.
There is no sale of aborted fetal tissue for ..."cosmetics"!
I've been hearing this same stupid lie for AT LEAST 20 years. Apparently some nitwit saw 'placenta' on the list of ingredients for their face cream and being too ignorant to realize that ALL reproducing mammals have placentas, and unaware that dairy cows are bred and have a calf every year to 'freshen their milk' and the farmer sells the placentas (right along with the young calves/veal), LEAPT to the totally unjustified conclusion that they 'must be' human placentas.
I sorrow for the future of our country knowing that people with the capacity to cope with making posts on a computer can't bother to google an urban myth like this but instead apparently PREFER to go on believing gross lies because they get such a thrill out of anything that demonizes 'the enemy' (the rest of their fellow citizens) and justifies their bizarre ideology.
The only explanation is:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2010-09-29/news/white-america-has-lost-its-mind/
Hi Crowepps,
Placentas are not fetal tissue in the immoral sense, unless they are obtained by abortion. Placentas and umbilical tissue are produced naturally and are already being used for numerous therapies in Adult Stem Cell Research, versus Embryonic Stem Cell Research which has not produced one.
I see the medical lab couriers making pickups at the abortion buildings, so this would seem to be some evidence of such transactions. I will research further, I've heard about cosmetics and vaccines from sources found generally reliable.
Placentas are not fetal tissue in the immoral sense, unless obtained by abortion? Wanted abortion is moral so how can fetal tissue obtained from an abortion be considered immoral, in this context?
Hi Arekushieru,
Abortion is not moral, even if the mother desires it, because it takes an innocent human life. So using fetal tissue here would be immoral because it comes from an immoral act.
Placental and umbilical tissue are a normal part of birth, and involve no harm to anyone, so their use is morally acceptable.
So, it's moral to force women to stay pregnant and give birth against their will? It's moral to allow thousands of women to die from self-induced abortion or suicide associated with an unwanted pregnancy? It's moral to allow a child to form and be born in a world where it may be unwanted or abused?
It's possible that the clinic you go to contracts with a clinical lab science organization (collecting explicitly donated tissue for distribution to labs across the country). However, I don't think that they would be using a big truck. The people who came to our clinic just took their normal cars, because the tissue from one day doesn't take up much room (just being frank, here).
If your group sees a biohazard truck collecting lots of trash bags, that's just the weekly (or so) collection of all the medical waste from that time period. Some of it is fetal tissue, but most of it isn't. Abortion is a surgery, and surgery can be either a little messy or a lot messy (never spic-and-span). Whatever is used to clean up, usually a bunch of bulky paper-products, has to be incinerated, because it has been exposed to human fluids. So that's the majority of the waste from the clinic. I only mention this because I have seen protesters get down on their knees and pray at a bag of "puppy-pads."
Hi MechaShiva,
Yes, we've seen both the lab collection drivers with normal cars and the biohazard companies with the trucks.
"Medical waste" which is required to disposed of by "biohazard companies" include everything from kleenex through tongue depressors through exam table paper to blood. These trucks visit hospitals and ordinary doctors' offices as well. Their presence at abortion clinics proves nothing except that the clinic is obeying State statutes regarding medical waste just every other medical facility in town.
WHO GENERATES INFECTIOUS MEDICAL WASTE?
There are many facilities which generate infectious medical waste. Some examples are:
hospitals, doctors offices, dentists, clinics, laboratories, research facilities, veterinarians, ambulance squads and emergency medical service providers, etc. Infectious medical waste is even generated in homes by home health care providers and individuals, such as diabetics, who must receive injections at home.
Yes, we've seen both the lab collection drivers with normal cars and the biohazard companies with the trucks.
the clinic you protest at is selling fetal tissue to cosmetics manufacturers?
”Some of these women literally are children, minors coerced by parents or boyfriends--"have the abortion or I'll kick you out." They can indeed be unaware of their options or can feel powerless to exercise them, exploitation of women if ever there was.”
~This perverted self-serving statement was exploiting pregnant women, pregnant little girls, and pregnant female rape victims! Women are exploited by forced-sex and forced-childbirth, both have to do with their bodies and vaginas being used, and abused against their will. Little pregnant girls do not want you perverts watching and badgering them as they go or come from getting an abortion, you make their whole sad life experience more perverted. They think you are gross! I use to smile and be polite to religious pervs, but what I was thinking the whole time was, don’t talk to me, don’t touch me, don’t look at me, don’t think about me, don’t say my name. You pro-lifers remind me so much of the perverts from my childhood.~
Just to clarify, LaPlume, I believe Gehenna simply refers to the pits, or mass graves, where bodies were buried and burned. That's why I believe it exists.
oh, yes, I knew what you meant. Just for the record, I don't have a big problem with religious belief/faith as long as it's not used to oppress others, ...as in this case, women. (which, from reading your many excellent posts, you are not guilty of doing) I wish there were more liberal, feminist, social-justice-oriented Christians, actually.
If you and your anti-choice pals think that you are "counselors," you are seriously delusional. Obviously anybody can call themselves a counselor; but in the professional sense of the term, there are other criteria to be met. In order to be a licensed counselor, in many states, one needs a Masters Degree in psychology and/or counseling field. Do you have a degree, Charlie? And if so, in what field? One of the first things that one learns in a counseling program is that a counseling session provides a safe and non-judgemental environment in which those being counseled feel free to express their feelings. Anti-choice zealots screaming at vulnerable women, who have made a difficult decision, is hardly an appropriate counseling mileu. The controlled chaos of the "sidewalk counselors" is totally antithetical to what a real counseling session is all about. A real counselor would never force literature onto a client. As I noted, true counseling is non judgemental. The comments yelled by "sidewalk counselors," as well as the plastic fetuses and graphic photos, are all about inducing guilt.
I spent time and money in order to obtain the proper credentials for counseling, Charlie, so I'm really offended when anti-choice crazies attempt to pass themselves off as counselors. You're not counselors, you're harassers of women. Big difference! All I can say is "shame."
Planned Parenthood acknowledges that at least 10 percent of post-abortive women will experience psychological distress, and we offer information on post-abortion support services.
At least 10 percent of post-partum women will go home with their live babies and experience psychological distress. Hand any brochures out at fertility clinics encouraging women to forget about having babies because it might upset them later? Women who do experience psychological distress need professional help from qualified, trained medical personnel, not an invitation to a guilt-trip cult staffed by amateur busybodies.
Several studies have found as many as 80% of women feel "down" or "blue" following childbirth. Not to the levels of full blown postpartum depression or psychoses, but certainly a significant number of women have other than wholly positive responses to childbirth. Maybe we should do away with childbirth and babies... I mean, if our goal is to protect "teh womenz."
And, I'm sorry, but if most of your fetal models look anything like an actual baby, then you are, once more, spreading lies....
Planned Parenthood acknowledges that at least 10 percent of post-abortive women will experience psychological distress
I suspect these womyn would feel hardly any distress if you lot were not getting all up in their faces and trying to remind them of a female's place as a vessel for babies.
The loud, rude, "sidewalk counselling" contingent who bully people outside our clinic are not really attempting to communicate with anyone. After 2+ years of watching and (unfortunately) hearing them several times a week, I've concluded that they are lunatics of slightly differing types, whose need to attract attention to themselves by any means is overwhelming. Their intrusive and personal comments to clients, escorts, and even simple passers-by would be unacceptable in any other social situation. One example: As two young women walked past our clinic on their way elsewhere, a protester yelled to them, "They want to suck out the contents of your wombs." As another escort had suggested, "If I stood outside of an ice cream shop with a sign saying 'I regret my fat' and tried to stop people from entering, I'd end up in custody or a room with rubber walls." That's where the anti-choicers belong.
Hello, everyone! May this find you most well!
As CC correctly stated, anyone can call themselves counselors, in the sense of offering counsel, and that is how we understand this term. We are not claiming to be licensed counselors, and the people are of course free to reject what we offer.
The information I quoted on post-abortion distress comes from the Alan Guttmacher Institute of Planned Parenthood.
Giving cigarettes to minors is a true concern that I will take seriously. It is, however, unrelated to why I am at Midwest. If people weren't searching through ashtrays, I wouldn't carry cigarettes, as I don't smoke. Giving cigarettes has become a pleasant social event for people who often are struggling with homelessness and other difficulties, many of whom attend a prison transition program in the next building. I never thought that this would happen, for the first time in my life I bought a carton!
For Stacey, I don't believe that 'regularly threaten with police action" would be precise, although I could see it appearing this way! I recollect it happening three times in three years. It is also intended less as a threat than a notification in order to avoid it if desired. I also appreciated your distinction about offering help to women versus counter-protesting. I see our actions in the same way. Midwest has said that they offer information on parenting and adoption, and we are there to promote these options exclusively. I don't see myself as protesting. It is not harassment to tell women about other options, although how I do it could be.
Regarding escorts walking between clients and ourselves, ordinarily that isn't a problem for us. It sounds as though Midwest is trying to avoid potential conflicts, which is commendable. The real issue is stepping in front of someone as they attempt to proceed on the sidewalk. This is intentionally impeding sidewalk access, which is prohibited for all of us.
For Rachel, I was at the Silver Springs Planned Parenthood in the DC area in '05-'06, and there was ample dialogue if ourselves and escorts were so inclined. Midwest's rule of non-engagement, while apparently always the policy, is only recently being re-enforced. Before this, escorts and ourselves have discussed politics, education, health care, poverty alleviation, environmental policy, etc. We are all seeking learning and growth in what is true, good, and beautiful.
I also believe that it would be to everyone's advantage if engagement were once again permitted. I've found that it improves the atmosphere on the sidewalk, so that those coming to Midwest are treated more kindly by all of us in their difficult circumstance. These people deserve to know that there are many who care about them. Talking always stops long before the people reach Midwest, so confusion is not a concern.
Thank you, everyone, for your honest dialogue, and I look forward to more discussion! Thanks also to Robin for allowing my comments once again to appear. May yourselves and your loved ones, and your endeavors, continue to be richly blessed!
Sincerely,
Charley Ramsey
the people are of course free to reject what we offer.
Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that people should also be free to reject your presence if they don't want to listen to you.
When the concept of freedom of speech was envisioned, it was presumed that it would be linked with civility. Civility includes the concept of leaving strangers alone when they don't want you to bother them as well as not deliberately getting in the way of passersby in an effort to force them to listen to you. Certainly you have a legal right to be an obnoxious nuisance, but that doesn't mean that it is 'moral' for you to do so.
What would really improve the atmosphere on the sidewalk would be your absence altogether.
"Midwest has said that they offer information on parenting and adoption, and we are there to promote these options exclusively."
Oh, pulleeze. How is thrusting pamphlets and shouting at women walking into a clinic "promoting" anything? It's no different from carnival barkers who run up to folks in an amusement park and hand out flyers for whatever is being promoted. You people aren't offering anything except a guilt trip.
Hello!
Civility is of course obligatory. It is always the goal, even if we fall short through emotionalism or other factors.
Deliberately getting in the way of passersby is illegal, this is impeding sidewalk access.
There are women who are still pondering this action as they approach Midwest, and there are women who desire very much not to abort and who intensely seek help with continuing the pregnancy. It seems prudent to assume that any woman coming there could be doing this, and to make alternative information available to them.
We offer them brochures to take and read. If they have the brochure we discontinue speaking to them, except to mention which help centers are available to call right away. They have the information and are in control of the situation.
Thanks, and blessings on your evening!
Civility is of course obligatory. It is always the goal, even if we fall short through emotionalism or other factors.
A person prone to "emotionalism" which causes them to be unable to control their behavior and thus violate civility should not be attempting to make contact with strangers on public sidewalks. Actually, in my opinion, anyone who thinks he has "incredible psychic powers" which allow him to read the minds of strange women and assert they are "still pondering" or that he knows what they're thinking isn't mentally healthy enough to be making contact with strangers on public sidewalks.
I find what you are saying disturbing. It would be a much more beautiful and blessed world if you left women alone and quit bullying them.
I don't see myself as protesting. It is not harassment to tell women about other options, although how I do it could be.
You must think women are really stupid if they haven't thought through their options. THEY don't need you to tell them what to do!
"Sidewalk counseling" is not counseling;
It's rude
It's harassment
It's bullying
It's unwanted attention
It's demeaning
It's misogynistic
You have a belligerent sense of entitlement that you feel you can harass women. What a deranged sense of entitlement that you think women aren't smart enough to decide what is best for them and their families.
And speaking of civility, what you are doing is not civil. You are infringing on a woman's civil rights, her constitutionally protected right, her right to bodily autonomy.
Nothing "pro-life" about it. It's harassment of women, because they are women. It's thuggish misogyny. They hate autonomous women. They want to erase every advance towards full equality and full citizenship for women.
You don't see these cowardly bullies down at the urology clinic every week, screaming "Don't kill your vas deferens!", "Daddy Daddy don't snip me!" etc etc etc.
Because they know they'd get the snot beat out of them if they tried that crap on men.
Thank you goatini sweet girl, love it.
goatini - Beautifully said and so true. Another post for my RHRC favorite quotes and posts file. Thank you.
I've fantasized about what would happen if urology clinics were protested and how men would react to this kind of harassment.
Hello,
It isn't a matter of reading minds, this is what women have told us.
Bless your weekend!
If women aren't certain of their decision, they will share their concerns with the medical proffessionals at the clinic. Those clinicians can and will provide the appropriate service to the woman, along with accurate information about all of her options. If women are grieving after having an abortion, every clinic gives patients referals to legitimate counseling services offered by groups that do not have a political or religious agenda.
Your presence is not necessary. Neither is your inacurate propoganda. The political lobbyists running your group could save money by downsizing their department of protesting.
You aren't needed.
Thank you! Well said! Can't agree with you more here. This is going in my RHRC favorite quotes and posts file.
Hello MechaShiva,
There have been women who have told us that they were grateful for our presence. It seems that even one such woman would justify our being there.
Our information is from medical textbooks.
We have no political lobbyists connected with our group, and have no department of protesting.
Good day!
The information about the surgical procedure might come from a medical text book, but nothing else you hand out does. I've seen enough pro-life propoganda to know it doesn't vary much between groups. The information on fetal development measures from conception, rather than the first day of the last menstrual period (as is used in most clinics), but the pamphlets don't explain this. As a result, women believe that their fetus is around 2 weeks more developed than it really is, and that 2 weeks can make a big difference. Pro-life pamphlets use outdated sources and research studies with problematic (to say the least) methodology that inflate the risks associated with abortion. Pro-life pamphlets commonly claim that abortion causes breast cancer, something that has been disproven for over 20 years now and is not accepted by any legitimate medical organization. On top of it all, many pro-life pamphlets push the idea of "spiritual harm" following an abortion, and all of their post-abortion counseling has a Christian orientation... which is not helpful for many Christians (since their faith may not be the issue bothering them most), and is certainly unhelpful for non-Christians.
Someone is paying you to distribute this filth. That money comes from somewhere, be it federal abstinence-only education funding that goes to CPCs (read: taxes) or donations. Someone, somewhere is lobbying for you to get paid. Whether or not you are part of a formal "Department" you are a part of an organization that undoubtedly has political motivations and connections. There is no such thing as a pro-life organization that is not involved in political activism... it's the main point of the movement.
I do not think that having one patient value your presence is a good enough reason for you to be there. Women who have doubts about their abortions tend not to come back for surgery anyway. That is because women are perfectly capable of making the decision to not abort without your help. The bullying of all the patients who do not want you around (guaranteed to be a far greater number than those who appreciate your presence) is not worth your statistically insignificant non-impact on the number of women who choose abortion. You are nothing more than a decorative element of the pro-life movement, because protesting is easily the most ineffectual thing pro-lifers do.
Hello MechaShiva,
It seems that you've raised a good point about LMP versus conception, and I've mentioned it to our office. We use conception because it is more accurate, and not to mislead women. But, if women are thinking in terms of LMP, I see no reason why we shouldn't also. It would improve clarity to stick to one method.
The link between abortion and breast cancer has not at all been disproven. There is ample evidence that certain groups refuse to accept. Numerous studies claim it, and these studies seem objectively better-designed than the ones which dispute it.
If abortion causes harm, it will have a spiritual component, since we are body and spirit.
Propaganda implies something that is not true. Everything that we say can be factually verified, or we shouldn't say it. If something seems not factual, please let us know. I have heard abortion workers speak of "the lies in your brochure," but have never heard examples other than the LMP/conception issue.
I'm not there to protest, but to promote parenthood or adoption. If everyone chooses parenthood or adoption I don't address an abortion building's capacity for abortions.
Thank you for your thoughts!
The link between abortion and breast cancer has not at all been disproven. There is ample evidence that certain groups refuse to accept.
Yes, yes, the entire scientific establishment, medical researchers, etc., etc., are all just REFUSING to accept the 'truth'. Except that, you know, they're not. Instead it is you guys you just cannot let go of this myth because it's so USEFUL to you.
Everything that we say can be factually verified, or we shouldn't say it.
But I BELIEVE this is true is NOT factual vertification. And, no, you shouldn't say it.
This is probably unduly picky but the building in which the clinic is contained is, ta da, a BUILDING, and doesn't have any 'capacity for abortions'.
Hi Crowepps,
It isn't the entire scientific establishment. It is possible for certain areas of science to become politicized, given the large amounts of prestige and grant money involved.
Something is useful only if it is true. If an abortion/breast cancer link is not true, it is of no use.
We don't speak of what we believe, but of what seems true based upon the evidence, which we must be willing to provide.
Referring to the abortion building, it isn't the best phrasing, but to me it is better than 'clinic.' I was referring to the potential for abortions to be performed inside, which is not of interest to me if no one is coming there for this.
Thanks!
It isn't the entire scientific establishment. It is possible for certain areas of science to become politicized, given the large amounts of prestige and grant money involved.
I'm well aware that ProLife true believers and ProLife organizations are pouring buckets of money into research hoping to 'prove' how terrible abortion is for women, and that ProLife researchers are willing to slant the results of their studies to please those providing their paychecks.
See, the thing is, when one is doing 'science' one does not know the answer before doing the research, and does not design the study in such a way as to come up with that 'right answer' determined beforehand.
In addition, if there are 2,000 scientists, 1,800 of them come up with one answer, and 200 who are rapidly ProLife come with another, the general consensus is that the 1,800 have it and the 200 are blinded by their ideology.
Regardless, of course, the OPINIONS of the scientists, while they certainly might be useful to women so far as providing them information for informed consent, have nothing to do with the women's decisions. If a woman is willing to take the risk of MAYBE getting breast cancer in 30 years because she doesn't want to be pregnant NOW then she has a right to weigh her options and voluntarily take that risk.
It is much easier to estimate the first day of the last menstrual period than to guess the date of implantation (the beginning of the actual pregnancy) or the date of fertilization, which may not even be the same day as ovulation or coitus. Those other measures have too much variability to be estimated with any certainty. This is why doctors use LMP, because it is the simplest and most accurately pinpointed. It also happens to define pregnancy-duration by women's cycles rather than on embryonic development, which is interesting from a philosophical standpoint but unrelated to the reasoning behind choosing LMP.
All major public health organizations and cancer foundations agree that there is not substantial evidence linking abortion to breast cancer. They have made this determination after reviewing all the research with the motivation of decreasing incidence of breast cancer. Grant money is given on how promising research is in this area. All claims regarding corruption of cancer organizations by pro-choice influence are conspiracy theories. You are wrong when you claim that the studies your pamphlets cite are well-designed. There's an excellent analysis of this issue written by an oncologist here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2749
All claims about souls and spiritual health are metaphysical, meaning they are unsubstantiated. By their very definition, there is no way to prove or disprove metaphysical claims. Therefore, metaphysical claims should be presented only as hypotheses, rather than facts or rigorously tested theories. Put simply: religious beliefs are a matter of personal opinion, and should not be foisted onto others.
Propoganda is any media that is meant to persuade, but particularly implies a political agenda. All pro-life handouts are meant to be persuasive with regards to personal decision, and also attempt to influence the reader's opinion of abortion in general (read: abortion in politics). Lies are not necessary to define something as propoganda, but your movement does make ready use of untruths.
Hello MechaShiva,
Metaphysics does not mean unsubstantiated, it means beyond physics, or beyond what is measurable. Such things are true or not even if we can't see them, and they don't change with our opinions.
We should make no use of untruths, and neither should anyone else.
That would be the correct definition for propaganda, which comes from the Latin, "what is propagated." The truth is the only thing worth propagating. So the goal really is not to persuade, but to promote the truth for everyone's benefit. There would be no benefit in persuading someone of something that is untrue.
I will research about the medical and cancer organizations.
If it can't be measured, then there's no way to gather evidence. Without evidence, the claim is unsubstantiated. So yes, all metaphysical claims are unsubstantiated. That's the whole "mystery of faith," believing even though you understand you can never know for sure that any of it is true. What you choose to believe is just that, your personal preference of certain metaphysical hypotheses over others.
The reason your pamphlets are propoganda is that they are based on your religious hypotheses. The pseudoscience supporting anti-abortion claims come from biased research and statistical abuse. You are not spreading truth, you are spreading your perspective... your opinion. When you masquerade opinion for fact, you are lying in order to persuade.
Hello MechaShiva,
I'm sorry for the delay in replying, there was a good deal to think about.
While it is true that metaphysical claims would be unsubstantiated, that doesn't mean that they are unsubstantial, that they have no reality. I don't think that anyone says that there are no metaphysical truths, just that we aren't able to prove those truths by conventional measuring. So, there would be metaphysical truths, whether or not anyone believes in them.
While it is also true that religion involves belief, belief ultimately has no bearing on what is true. Something is true or not regardless of belief. Hopefully one's belief and one's religion correspond to the truth, one wouldn't worship what one doesn't believe to be true, but truth exists independently.
So, either natural law exists, and abortion violates it, or it doesn't. That would mean that our pamphlets speak the truth, or they don't. If they don't speak the truth, they can be ignored, but if they do, they should be heeded. Our pamphlets could have errors, but again, that wouldn't bear upon the existence of natural law.
Finally, perhaps it is the time to wonder how a comment saying, "This guy is creepy" is rated Brilliant, while one involving metaphysics can't even be rated Thoughtful.
Thanks!
What I've noticed about metaphysics: As soon as there is some evidence to support a "metaphysical" theory, it becomes "science." Consider String Theory. Many of the basic ideas sound similar to religious beliefs, but most people think of it as "Quantum Physics." People stop thinking about things as "religion/magic" once they understand how they work. Another great case in point: bacterial growth and Pasteur's experiments disproving spontaneous generation (positively heretical at the time).
Like Pasteur or any good scientist, I won't simply accept something just because some religious leader came up with it. There might be a universal truth, but no one knows what that truth is any better than I do, so I'm going to do what I think is best. The Pope has as much reason to believe in Catholicism as the Dalai Lama has to believe in Tibetan Buddhism or my friend has for believing in Voodoo, and none have more proof to offer me than the others. They're just hypothesizing based on what feels right to them. And what feels right to them varies due to their cultural backgrounds and life experiences, so what feels right to one will not feel right to another.
Some people openly hedge their bets, "I believe what I do, just in case it is real." That's not good enough for me. There might be ideas I like better than others, but I don't put faith in anything untested and/or untestable. I won't let unsubstantiated claims dictate my behavior, because that's just gambling. What if following certain religious beliefs brings me (and others) emotional suffering, and then the belief isn't true? Then we have suffered for nothing. How could I possibly choose one religion over any other, when they are all equally baseless? I think it is better to live my life according to what brings me joy (not to be confused with "pleasure") and alleviates suffering in others, because that is something that is observably positive and unquestionaly ethical... religion or no.
As for "going against natural law," we're going to do that in practically every aspect of modern life. Objectively, an abortion is less harmful to the "fabric of life" than driving my car to work every day. When you consider the vastness of the universe, or even just all the forms of life present on this planet, it's obvious that abortion cannot possibly have any significant impact on "the force that binds everything together"/God.
Additionally, abortion is arguably one of the least "unnatural" things that we do, since it is something humans have documented for at least the last 4000 years. Being that it is so widespread and has been for so long, the fact that it is not explicitly discussed in most religious texts is telling... it must not be that important if no gurus bother to mention it (or perhaps they were just male-centric and didn't care to notice the ethical issues women face, but goddess-based religions did not stigmatize abortion). Also, we aren't the only animals that abort poorly-timed or or otherwise detrimental pregnancies (some herd animals can apparently abort at-will). We just do it with tools, because that's what humans are best at.
Hi MechaShiva,
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
That would be true about metaphysics, we continue to penetrate more deeply into life's mysteries.
Regarding following a religion and being wrong, in his Wager mathematician Blaise Pascal recommended living for thirty days as though God existed. If He does exist, after thirty days this will be known, and if He doesn't, not much time is lost. This relationship with God would include learning which religion unites us best with Him. The Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ, all other Christian denominations come from it.
The Didache, a collection of first-century Christian writings, speaks extensively in prohibition of abortion.
In Catholicism, anyway, the teachings are not those of Church leaders but are part of a deposit of faith revealed by God, that the leaders are charged with protecting, defending, and handing on. Not even the Pope is authorized to change anything of Divine origin.
Abortion would have a greater effect on the fabric of creation because we humans are the pinnacle of creation, being created in God's image, so our effect is outsized relative to other creatures. As vast as the universe is, the greatness of humanity in the Creator's sight is beyond comprehension, not because of our superiority, but because of our Creator's love for us. It is true that our actions don't change God, but in a sense they affect God, because we are His children and it hurts Him to see us suffer.
That would be why it is not an issue of mother versus child, but of mother and child, the Creator values them both inestimably and has a plan for their mutual benefit, even if the child enters under difficult circumstances.
Pascal's Wager is bullshit and contains several fallacies:
It can be applied to ANY of the millions of conflicting/contradictory religions that have ever been invented, not just Christianity. You can apply it to Zeus, Vishna, Allah, ad infinitum. How do you know which one is "correct"? You don't, and nobody has time to test each one by converting for 30 days. If we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by converting to Islam, then we should all be Muslims. Christians never seem to realize that they are in just as much "danger" of going to the Muslim Hell or the Hell of ancient Grecian religions as atheists are in "danger" of going to the Christian Hell. Each group of believers dismisses the Hell threats of the other because they know that those claims are unsubstantiated. And likewise, atheists don't fear anyone's Hell because none of them are backed up by any evidence.
If you support Pascal's Wager, then simply going along with the religion of your family and neighbors is too "risky," and intellectually indefensible. It's an accident of birth, not rational decision-making. Even within Christianity, there are hundreds of conflicting beliefs and denominations, each claiming that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Pascal's Wager is also flawed in that it claims a person has everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by converting to a religion. But if we sacrifice our life to subservience to a nonexistent god, or the "wrong" god, or sacrifice our life in trying to determine which of the millions of nonexistent gods we should worship, then we have lost everything.
The safest bet is to simply be an atheist and appreciate every second of life on this earth, because it is probably all we get.
Hi La Plume,
You are correct, Pascal's Wager referred to God's existence, and not necessarily to religious denominations. But a relationship with God will eventually give the clarity of which denomination is true.
We'll never go wrong opening our life to the true God, Whoever He is. That is what the Wager was about. We don't have to decide at the outset Who that is, He'll show us. Initial conversion to a denomination is not necessary. And, the Wager is for a limited time, so it has limited risk.
It's like you didn't even comprehend anything I wrote.
To illustrate the ridiculous nature of Pascal's Wager for you:
For 30 days in the past, I opened my life to belief and worship of a God, and eventually that God revealed himself to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the one true God.
If you believe that Pascal's Wager is a legitimate reason enough for belief/faith, then it is incredibly "risky" because it is for a limited time. Theoretically, in that small window of time, you could end up choosing one out of any number of Gods at the end of your belief trial period. There are millions of angry, jealous Gods who would like to send you to their own Hell because you decided to worship a "false" God over them. Or maybe all those others Gods are nonexistent... how do you know which one exists? How do you know that your Catholic God is real and Zeus is not?
To really play it safe, you would have to have different "trial periods" in order to try to worship all gods in all ways. After all, any of them could be the one true god! You'd better get it right because this is your soul we're talking about! Unfortunately, that would take 24 hours per day, seven days per week-- and a few hundred lifetimes. Just learning the names of the gods would take a lot of time and effort. Saying one brief daily prayer to even a small fraction of the gods would take all day and night, to find out which one is right. Work and family life would suffer. But since we're talking eternity here, it might be worth it! Are you ready to try? Have you tried Allah yet? You have everything to gain and nothing to lose!
Hi La Plume,
It does require some faith to trust that when we ask that the True God will reveal Himself to us, that He will, and that it won't be some other spiritual entity. There is one true God, but there are evil spirits, fallen angels who will masquerade as God. But, we trust that if we ask God sincerely, we'll receive a convincing response. God can do better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and He will, especially since such a moment is so important.
We're not talking to God as we imagine Him, but as Who He actually is.
But a relationship with God will eventually give the clarity of which denomination is true.
Unless, of course, you have a relationship with a false God who says that abortion is bad and women have less value than men. Then you'll just end up spending the rest of eternity in Hell. Of course, you can avoid this fate by repenting now, and becoming a pro-choice activist. Isn't the fate of your eternal soul worth it?
The Catholic Church is the church founded by Jesus Christ, all other Christian denominations come from it.
The early church split within the first two centuries into multiple sects, as evidenced right in Paul's writings where he complains that only HE had the 'one true faith' and all the churches teaching the older, original tradition were wrong, even though he was a late comer to the faith and wasn't one of the original apostles. Most of these sects, the Sabellianists, the Docetists, the Monophysite, the Apollinarians, the Arianists, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, and most other original sects were wiped out through persecution and murder, although there are still a few Nestorian churches in the middle east.
The Church in Rome made major adjustments to the 'faith' in order to get a political accomodation from Emperor Constantine, including absorbing wholesale the Mass ceremony popular with the Roman army (originally designed to worship the 'god' Sol Invictus). This allowed the Church to become the Official Religion and gave its adherents the power to persecute, murder and wipe out all the adherents of competing versions of the faith.
The Syrian Orthodox Church rejected what they labeled the heretical changes to Christianity of the Roman Orthodox Church and Eastern Orthodox traditions at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and retained their original format. In addition, Coptic Christianity which is believed to have been founded by one of the original apostles and gospel authors, Mark, has been in Egypt since the first century and claims to have preserved the 'original' faith unchanged.
In 1054, the 'official' Church finalized its split into Eastern and Western branches of Orthodoxy after claims were made that the Roman Bishop was supreme, a claim rejected by the Eastern church as contrary to the spirit of Christ's teaching and based in politics, not scripture. The Roman Catholic Church in its present format dates from that time, NOT from the beginning.
Hi Crowepps,
Your Church history knowledge is impressive!
The Docetists, Arians, etc. weren't exactly sects, but followers of heretical teaching. I'm sure that there was bloodshed in dealing with them because such things were done in those days, but excommunication is the way of dealing with heresy, with fervent desire for reunion.
There has always been a faithful core in the Catholic Church, and Paul's writings are considered part of that, which is why they are included in the Scriptures as divinely inspired and other writings, including some of his such as his Gospel, are not. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church in the truth, and so even though most of the Church's bishops went over to Arianism, a faithful remnant didn't.
So, in a sense it is true that the Church's present structure dates from 1054, but it has a supernatural dimension that is eternal and unchanging. That is what makes the Church different from other political entities, even though it is organized and administered along similar lines.
The Docetists, Arians, etc. weren't exactly sects, but followers of heretical teaching.
Keeping in mind, of course, that heresy always is defined by the executioner. Remember, the followers of those faith traditions thought Paul was a heretic. They just didn't suck up to the Emperor well enough to get an army with which to kill his followers.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would always guide the Church in the truth,
I'm sure the Copts are still paying close attention.
~Any god who wants me to have unwanted vaginal pain against my will like a rapist, and sends his pro-life-vaginal-pain-mongers to badger and harass me about my vagina, and me having unwanted vaginal pain against my will is not a god I want to worship, I might as well worship my rapist. The catholic church is no one to listen to, they adore and protect child rapist. Protestants are rampant closet wife beaters! I know you and your ilk is evil, to who? Child rape victims, and women!~
Hello Forced,
God only permits the suffering for us that we can handle, and He gives us the strength to handle it. We're His children, and He loves us more than we can understand. He permits suffering for us when it will make us stronger, the way we allow children to struggle with something on their own in order to master it.
I have heard a lot of people make this claim and it's got to be just about the stupidest statement I've ever heard. LOTS of people are subjected to more suffering than they can handle. That's what suicide and madness are about.
This is an attempt to excuse oneself for KNOWINGLY promoting circumstances that cause suffering and then shifting the blame onto God. It's also a terrific way of excusing oneself from any obligation to alleviate suffering. Maybe instead of God permitting suffering to 'make the victim stronger' He permits suffering to test our willingness to stop it. At this point, we collectively get a massive FAIL on that test.
Hi Crowepps,
God permits suffering for numerous reasons, including both making us stronger and testing our willingness to stop it. Alleviating suffering is part of serving others--"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink..."
Gee, that's a mighty convenient excuse.
Reminds me of another religion's excuse for allowing people to suffer. In Thailand, the Buddhist belief in reincarnation is used to justify selling girls into sexual debt-bondage (slavery). If they were good people in previous lives, they wouldn't have been born women in the first place. Suffering through forced prostitution as a child will help her to erase her karmic debt (and that of her family).
To Hell with religious rules about suffering and how we should just suck it up and deal with it. Suffering is bad, and we should do everything we can to eliminate it. Getting injured and suffering through the healing process does not make you strong. Being consistently healthy and happy makes you strong.
God only permits the suffering for us that we can handle, and He gives us the strength to handle it.
Tell that to women who die in childbirth and women who are violently gang raped and murdered in the Sudan every day.
Or are you one of those martyr fetishists?
Abortion would have a greater effect on the fabric of creation because we humans are the pinnacle of creation, being created in God's image
Yes, yes, that's what we tell ourselves, that we are the pinnacle of creation and the most important thing in the universe and everything and everybody else exists purely to serve our wonderfulness. And then we turn three and realize everybody else thinks exactly the same thing and it's no more true for them than it is for ourselves.
Hi Crowepps,
The universe exists to help us fulfill our dignity. And, part of fulfilling that dignity is being of service to others. So being a pinnacle isn't being self-centered, it is a tremendous responsibility, for which unselfishness is the only approach. Being a pinnacle means being given an assignment of unfathomable importance, to be of maximum benefit to others, which is the way that we benefit in return.
La plume and Crowepps addressed Pascal's Wager and the history of the Church fantastically. I'd like to add a bit.
I've followed several different religions over the years, and none of them (including Catholicism) felt more true to me than any of the others. I spent considerably longer than 30 days in each faith tradition I explored. Conservatives seem to think that atheists just haven't tried religion, and we don't know what we're missing. Au contraire. We've just come to different conclusions.
For one thing, I've never believed this:
humans are the pinnacle of creation
We are not more valuble, unique, or special than any other form of life on this planet. We got here the same way everything else did, through the processes of natural selection. Anyhow, obviously the rest of the things you have to say about how humans are God's favorites requires belief in God to begin with. So, your argument against abortion will fall flat with anyone who doesn't hold the same belief system you do... and that isn't limited to atheists or members of other religions. Even a lot of Christians would disagree with you.
Hi MechaShiva,
Thank you for writing, and yes, La Plume and Crowepps did address these topics terrifically well!
Humans could still be creation's pinnacle even when we have a very unworthy appearance, when we don't behave as though we have this dignity.
Natural selection doesn't rule out a Creator, this could have been a development method of His choosing. The Church has no problem with natural selection as a way for the evolving of our physical selves, only with an assertion that the soul evolves, or that natural selection takes place without a Creator.
There are places that call themselves Catholic that are in fact not, which can explain a feeling of inauthenticity. I grew up in this myself and left it, returning only twelve years ago.
I don't see it as my place to argue about abortion. All of these things are true or not, external to me. If they are true, then people deserve to hear it; if they're not, then I apologize for the annoyance.
The Spirit of Truth is what convinces people, not human effort. I think that we'd all agree that humans desire to grow in what is true, good and beautiful.
Right, right, I forgot about the whole "God created evolution" thing. But at this point, I'd just be going around in circles, because I would have to point out that such a notion is entirely unsupported/faith-based. In any case, if God made evolution, then he made humans exactly the same way that he made everything else. We are not more special. We are just more destructive than any lifeform since the bacteria that converted the composition of our atmosphere, which resulted in a mass extinction.
Hi MechaShiva,
Perhaps you've already said this, however even if God made humans using the same method as making everything else, He still could have made humans different from everything else.
If they are true, then people deserve to hear it; if they're not, then I apologize for the annoyance. The Spirit of Truth is what convinces people, not human effort.
If they are True, people will figure them out all by themselves. They don't need you to explain them. Your presumption in appointing yourself their moral teacher is annoying, as in your incivility in addressing strangers. Instead of apologizing for being annoying, STOP BEING ANNOYING.
I think that we'd all agree that humans desire to grow in what is true, good and beautiful.
Most humans want this to be a process which they control themselves, and have an absolutely enormous unmet need to be LEFT ALONE by self-appointed experts who want to 'teach' them.
Ever heard the scripture about 'by their fruits you shall know them'? Based on that, the Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to say that I am interested in hearing.
Charley - What you are doing is abusive. "Sidewalk counseling" is abusive. When you say things like "May you and your loved ones be greatly blessed!" it comes across as disingenuous. It's condescending to say things like that to women you are being abusive to. It sounds like you are saying it to ease your conscience of abusive behavior.
Hello Rebellious grrl and all,
It seems necessary to distinguish between whether an action such as offering women information is in itself abusive, versus whether the action is done abusively. Even a good action can be performed badly.
I don't shout at women or thrust literature at them. If I did, I'd be cited for disorderly conduct, as the police have told me, and in three years I have never been accused of this, not even by Midwest or their customers. In fact, in reference to my "bearing menacingly down on a woman," actually now I rarely walk up to women at all, but wait until they reach the door.
There are women who are scheduled for abortions who don't want to have them, often because of being in coercive, abusive relationships with boyfriends or parents, so telling them of their ability to honor their true wishes would be counter-abusive, not abusive. How I go about doing this, of course, could be done wrongly. Yes, Midwest has a mechanism for preventing unwanted abortions, but why rely entirely on this for something so important?
And, even an abusive person can wish blessings on someone, since blessings come from the Giver of blessings. So, may this happen!
Um, in answer to your next post, reading the Rating Comments thread, would perhaps help...? Just a thought....
In response to this post, I would say that you are being abusive when you are NOT relying entirely on the clinic for something like this. Because you treat this medical service entirely different from any other, even *similar*, medical service. (Do you hand out brochures and pamphlets to people at the entrances or surrounding areas, thereof, of organ, tissue and blood donor clinics, entreating them to save the life of an indisPUTable human being? Somehow I doubt it....) Because you do not rely on medical textbooks or facts when you hold up photos of late-term fetal development or stillborn feoti to oppose abortion. (The majority of abortions are performed beFORE that stage, after all, y'know....) Because you wait until ASKED to interfere in all other medical decisions, even those that involve another's life (see above) but this one you invade a woman's privacy AND body much like a rapist does.
And if you're harassing women who are in abusive relationships and WANT an abortion because their partner deliberately impregnanted them, you're contributing to the abuse. You don't get to decide what's best for women in abusive relationships. Those educated people in confidential, closed spaces will tell them about their options. Then those women get to decide for themselves.
Your efforts would be better spent lobbying your legislature for support for women who are pregnant and want to stay that way, through support for the health care reform bill, child care subsidies, and increased access to education and jobs for mothers.
Hello Ack,
Your efforts would be better spent lobbying your legislature for support for women who are pregnant and want to stay that way, through support for the health care reform bill, child care subsidies, and increased access to education and jobs for mothers.
These are obviously worthwhile actions, but what would be even better would be to do this while making sure that children remain alive. Child care subsidies and increased access to education and jobs could help women decide that they want to remain pregnant because they have support.
Abortion means that now two people are abused, when there shouldn't be any. If I'm conceived in an abusive relationship, why should I die? How is this my fault?
Relationship abuse is truly a complex topic, and I can sympathize completely with women who consider abortion in order to avoid abuse to the child. But escaping from the abuser is the answer, not putting the child to death, and we have helped women find ways to leave. The abuser shouldn't get to victimize additional people.
If I'm conceived in an abusive relationship, why should I die? How is this my fault?
Why should you live? Maybe she can't stand the idea that the genes of the abuser will be reproduced. Maybe she's afraid a child whose father is a monster that will grow up to do horrible, abusive things like approach strange women at abortion clinics and harass them. There are some people the world would never miss.
Hi Crowepps,
It wouldn't be a question of whether the world misses someone, but whether the Creator wants them there. The Creator properly decides who is to be in the world, not the other creatures in it. Hitler believed that the world shouldn't miss Jewish people.
It wouldn't be a question of whether the world misses someone, but whether the Creator wants them there. The Creator properly decides who is to be in the world, not the other creatures in it. Hitler believed that the world shouldn't miss Jewish people.
Well, obviously the Creator doesn't want someone to be born if the would-be-mother doesn't want to be pregnant with them.
Hello ProChoice,
God wants every pregnancy to have the outcome He has ordained, even if the mother has doubts and concerns, which He understands and with which He is prepared to help. God can will that a child not be born because of miscarriage, but that is His decision as the Author of Life, and humans do not have authority in this area.
God never wills wrongdoing, but He respects our free will, and so He will permit evil if He intends to have it lead to a greater good. God can bring good out of evil, but we cannot do evil in order to achieve good.
Since the Creator could quite easily send an angel with a flaming sword to change the woman's mind, apparently He doesn't have any problem with her decision.
Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."
Hitler made abortion illegal. Does that automatically mean it's a good thing?
Hi Crowepps,
God won't interfere with our free will, so He does permit us to do things that He considers problematic. In order truly to love Him, we must be free to reject Him, including for eternity.
God also usually doesn't work through angels with flaming swords, but with ordinary people and events that He arranges with extraordinarily perfect timing. Therefore, in theory anyway, He could work through someone on the sidewalk in front of the abortion building, who hopefully reflects His loving care for the person going inside. We've had people say that they were asking for a sign of God's will for this, and then encountered us.
My recollection was that the Nazis permitted or required abortion regarding pregnancies between Aryans and Jews. Euthanasia also occurred for those considered unfit. I hadn't heard of Godwin's law, it is good to keep in mind. Naziism is an extreme example among others of the harm that ensues when humans try to direct the world by themselves.
If God finds the concept of Free Will good, who are you to insist that it should be abolished?
Your 'sidewalk counseling' is an excellent example of humans trying to direct the world by themselves. Your theory that your presence there represents God working through you is an excellent example of human arrogance.
Hi Crowepps,
Free will is meant to be used to do what is good. God permits the use of free will for wrongdoing, but He also permits the consequences.
By the way, sidewalk counseling is just a term we use for want of anything better, and I'd be happy using something more neutral. I don't consider myself a protester. Advocate, perhaps?
You're quite right, bad sidewalk counseling or advocacy is an example of humans directing the world by themselves. That is why we are called Pro-Life Action Ministries, a ministry recognizes that any good work is God working through us, that of ourselves we can do nothing.
It would indeed be arrogance to claim that God always works through us. But, He does work through those who are sincerely trying to let Him do so. That applies as well to people working in abortion buildings. I tell abortion workers that if they are sincere in helping women, and open to the ways God wants them to help women, they are right with God and He will direct them.
I tell our volunteers that our efforts must be about Christianity first, and not abortion, because then we will have the best chance of doing what God wants and treating people as He wants them treated. Jesus said that whatever we do to the least of our brothers, we do to Him, so we'll be accountable for every action on the sidewalk, and we must never forget this.
I also tell escorts and abortion workers that if they want my immediate attention, tell me that they believe that my actions are un-Christian. If I'm offending God I'm not accomplishing anything good.
Stop acting like you have moral authority over others because of your religious beliefs.
Your words about God, God's plan, free will, human intervention, and eternity are empty and extremely arrogant. If there was a God, what makes you think that you know how "he" works or what "he" wants? You wouldn't. It's an imaginary crutch to make you feel like you have the right to interfere with the life decisions of other people. You can not prove that your God exists (as opposed to any other religions' God or no God at all). I suggest you find other reasons to be "against" abortion, preferably ones that are grounded in reality, instead of acting like you know the mind of God.
God can be used to justify any number of human atrocities.
And since you insist on bringing up Nazi Germany over and over again, I would like to point out to you that most Nazis were Christian. Naziism is an extreme example among others of the harm that ensues when human beings are arrogant enough to claim moral and racial superiority over others.
Hi La Plume,
I don't mean to come across as having moral authority over others, and that is as it should be, because I don't have moral authority over others.
These things about God are true or not on their own, and not because I say them. If they are true, my saying them doesn't make me superior, but on the contrary, it puts me under greater obligation, I'll have more to answer for.
The Nazis claimed to be Christian, although actually the Church always opposed National Socialism, albeit perhaps with insufficient effectiveness. Ultimately, Christ decides who is Christian, who has followed Him faithfully. He warns us that "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
A true Christian is humble enough to take the lowest place, to put others before himself, and to recognize how imperfectly he does this and how incapable he is of doing good without divine assistance.
While no one knows God completely, there is evidence that God has revealed aspects of Himself for us to know. Jesus Christ was a historical person.
The Nazis claimed to be Christian, although actually the Church always opposed National Socialism
That is incorrect
In Germany, Hitler’s election as Chancellor had partly relied upon the Catholic support he had poached from the Centre Party. Following Mussolini’s example [see below], the Fuhrer set out to limit the power of the German churches and one of his first tasks was to arrange for a Concordat between the Nazi State and the Vatican. This rather unlikely alliance took place on 20th July 1933 and allowed Hitler to safeguard from any potential opposition from those Catholics who were hostile to his new regime.
http://www.rosenoire.org/articles/hist2.php
Concordat Between the Holy See and the German ReichJuly 20, 1933
His Holiness Pope Pius XI and the President of the German Reich, moved by a common desire to consolidate and enhance the friendly relations existing between the Holy See and the German Reich, wish to regulate the relations between the Catholic Church and the State for the whole territory of the German Reich in a permanent manner and on a basis acceptable to both parties. They have decided to conclude a solemn agreement, which will supplement the Concordats already concluded with certain individual German states, and will ensure for the remaining States fundamentally uniform treatment of their respective problems.
...
Article 16
Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it."
Hi Crowepps,
Again, thanks for your history!
Concordats have always been concluded with Church enemies over the centuries, to safeguard Church rights as far as possible. They are not an approval of a regime.
The Church was always aware of the dangers of National Socialism, but at times didn't speak against it vigorously, for various reasons, although individual Bishops did. The Nazis aggressively accused the Church of unpatriotism in any dissent, for instance, so the Church felt on the defensive. Thus, Catholics believed it acceptable to support Naziism.
The encyclical Mit Brennener Sorge, I believe, translated With Burning Sorrow, was smuggled into Germany from the Vatican and read in all of the churches regarding Naziism.
If the Church is so fond of the idea of 'martyrdom' for pregnant women, and so wary of the idea of damnation for doctors who do things to assist those pregnant women to live, perhaps it would have been more 'moral' for the heirarchy of the Church to avoid the 'immoral action' of legitimatizing the Nazis, stick up for Eternal Truths and outright condemn the Nazis. Surely it's not better for a true Catholic to survive, knowing for the rest of their life that their cowardice enabled genocide and war.
Seems like martyrdom is something that's only a 'great good' for women, but not nearly so attractive for Bishops, Archbishops and Popes.
Hi Crowepps,
Obviously hindsight is involved here, but yes, you're absolutely correct that if we're dealing with Eternal Truths, they are worth dying for, and it is the job of Church leaders to say that, including in Nazi Germany.
The writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch are good examples of this, he wrote letters to various communities on his way to being executed by fire in Rome. Would that our modern day leaders had his courage!
A very high number of the first Popes were martyred.
Concordats have always been concluded with Church enemies over the centuries, to safeguard Church rights as far as possible.
Your claim was that " actually the Church always opposed National Socialism" and now you appear to be claiming that they secretly opposed them with (gasp) an encyclical which appeared rather late in the conflict.
The Nazis aggressively accused the Church of unpatriotism in any dissent, for instance, so the Church felt on the defensive. Thus, Catholics believed it acceptable to support Naziism.
So, the laity were moral idiots because their leadership were moral cowards?
Hi Colleen,
The encyclical was brought into Germany secretly and then read publicly.
The Church had warned about National Socialism before the Nazis came to power, and forbade Catholics to join the party, since its beliefs were incompatible with Catholicism. After the Nazis were elected, however, eventually the Church allowed this, and criticism of Naziism became more muted, especially once the war began.
Yes, if that is the condition of the Church leadership, that will be the condition of the laity, in practice anyway. The laity have an obligation to form themselves in the truth and to act upon it, so it can't all be blamed on the leadership, but leadership is a big factor.
You exude an air of arrogance and of claiming moral superiority because 1) you write as though you know what you say is true without supplying any evidence, 2) you use belief as an excuse to harass others, especially women, and therefore demonstrate a lack of respect for the beliefs or non-belief of others.
Oh, and it is entirely possible that Jesus was not a historical person and didn't actually exist.
Hi La Plume,
It should go without saying that these things seem true to me, but if they're not, they're not, regardless of what I think. I think that what I say about God can be proven, although I'd need to look the proofs up.
If these things are true, they confer no moral superiority on me. If I know about physics or mathematics, that doesn't make me better or worse, I didn't invent them and don't have any proprietorship of them. I'd just be talking about something available to everyone.
If these things are as good as claimed, however, I'd have an obligation to try to make them known, and then others decide whether or not to avail themselves.
~Hitler wanted more blond-haired blue-eyed babies, and more soldiers for his armies no doubt. My grandmother calls me if one of my cousins has a newborn baby with blue-eyes and blond-hair, she does not call if one of my cousins has a newborn baby with brown-eyes and blown-hair. I have always heard men in my family complain that boys do not join the army as much as they should. You would think boys would be hurt that certain people just want them to be born were the can join the army.~
So my family line is mostly Italian with some Native American tossed in for fun which contributes to my olive skin, dark hair, and green eyes. On the other hand, my husband's family is TOTALLY German... blonde hair, blue eyes, unnecessarily German last names (impossible to spell and pronounce), etc. When our son popped out looking like a Hitler's youth poster child both sides of the family were incredibly pleased. One of my elderly Italian aunts even commented to the effect of "è una buona aspetto per un ragazzo... e sicuro" which basically translates to "that's a good look for a boy... and safe."
:/
~Has it ever occurred to you that the woman, little girl, or rape victim is scared, and does not want to have extreme vaginal pain, does not want to have to anticipate and worry what could go wrong in delivery with her vagina. I, as some one who was sexually abused find it abhorrent that you people think some ones right to life gives them the right to cause a woman, little girl, or pregnant rape victim extreme vaginal agony to save their life. Every female has the right not to have extreme vaginal agony against her will, I know there is "NO" reason that justifies causing any female any vaginal pain against her will.~
Hello Forced,
Yes, we understand that fears of the pains of pregnancy are a strong incentive for abortion. Pain management continue to improve, though pain could still be significant.
It would seem to be one of the great mysteries of maternity, more in that sense than paternity, of how much suffering mothers will, or are called upon to undergo for their children. The greatest acts of love involve sacrificing and suffering for the good of another.
Continuing a pregnancy amidst such fears requires tremendous faith that there is Someone Who has known them and this situation from eternity, Who knows exactly how much they can handle, and Who will get them through this. The same goes for providing for the child: "Do not worry about what you will eat or drink or wear, your Father in Heaven knows that you need these things."
The greatest acts of love involve sacrificing and suffering for the good of another.
I disagree. The greatest acts of love involve releasing a person from their suffering. This does not require that the "savior" suffer, and their suffering does not make the "saving" more important.
Besides, this whole emphasis on the suffering-savior is decidedly Christianity-based (though martyrdom is something religious extremists of all stripes support). It's not a universal value, because it has dangerous repercussions when people internalize some idea of the "righteousness of suffering." You might consider looking into other religions' views on the matter, just to get a sense of perspective.
Anyhow, continuing a pregnancy in the face of enormous difficulty does not require faith in a higher power. Atheists are perfectly capable of making these same decisions, and find their source of strength internally (and through their relationships with support-people). Religious people are no more likely to choose to carry to term than non-religious folks, and religion certainly does not make a person morally superior.
Yes, we understand that fears of the pains of pregnancy are a strong incentive for abortion. Pain management continue to improve, though pain could still be significant.
Oh, trust me, it's still significant.
It would seem to be one of the great mysteries of maternity, more in that sense than paternity, of how much suffering mothers will, or are called upon to undergo for their children. The greatest acts of love involve sacrificing and suffering for the good of another.
And not allowing women to freely choose to make those sacrifices kind of defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it?
Continuing a pregnancy amidst such fears requires tremendous faith that there is Someone Who has known them and this situation from eternity, Who knows exactly how much they can handle, and Who will get them through this.
They may have tremendous faith that someone will pay their overdue rent and electrical bills, but somehow this never seems to happen.
The same goes for providing for the child: "Do not worry about what you will eat or drink or wear, your Father in Heaven knows that you need these things."
But He won't stop legislators from cutting funds that would provide them. Although if you really don't worry about what the child will eat or drink or wear, I suppose s/he'll be provided for, because Child Protective Services will have him/her removed from your custody.
What I picked up from your post is. Yeah, pregnancy is painful but deal with it because it's just one of those "great mysteries of maternity." Oh and don't worry God will provide.
Wake up and join reality. There is no "great mysteries of maternity." If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, the worst thing for her would be to force her by whatever means to give birth.
There is no love in your statement. There is no love in what you're saying. There is no truth in what you are saying. You harass women seeking abortions during the day and then continue to post your bs and lies here. You don't want to have a conversation, you just want a place to spew your vicious dangerous lies and hateful misogyny. It's really getting old and your posts are getting more and more nauseating.
Why does this matter? Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid ways of finding truth not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good. For it is faith's certainty that it has a grasp on truth, combined with its inability to actually find it, that produces things such as the oppression of women and gays, opposition to stem cell research and euthanasia, attacks on science, denial of contraception for birth control and AIDS prevention, sexual repression, and of course all those wars, suicide bombings and religious persecutions.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-11-column11_ST_N.htm
Hello Rebellious grrl,
I don't mean to diminish or demean the difficulties of pregnancy. Femininity is a great mystery, as is masculinity, and maternity is part of femininity.
Truth and love are what we all seek, and in which I'm trying to progress in these comments, as badly as I do it. I hope that perhaps it could be possible to see the effort, even if the truth and love don't come through as I'd wish. I'd appreciate any specifics in how truth and love could be better accomplished.
If you don't have a thorough grasp of pregnancy and its complications, what on Earth makes you think that you're qualified to tell pregnant women what they should think or do?
Truth and Love could be better accomplished by minding your own business and concentrating on the 'mysteries of masculinity' where there's some possibility you might actually know what you're talking about. Go bring the Word to the guys at the Batterers Intervention Group.
Hi Crowepps,
Someone, I can't find the comment, said, "Your rights stop at the end of my nose." Basically, the nose of the child is where the mother's rights stop, whether the child is in the womb or in a car seat.
That's why I'm not really there to discuss pregnancy, and don't need to be an expert in it, I'm there to discuss the other person involved.
And, obviously everything is a mystery to us when we think about it!
Okay...this is novel...equating the uterus with car seat carriers...which makes women cars?
Sigh.
Someone, I can't find the comment, said, "Your rights stop at the end of my nose." Basically, the nose of the child is where the mother's rights stop, whether the child is in the womb or in a car seat.
Actually, there's a big difference, because the rights of the ZBEF end where the uterus begins.
That's why I'm not really there to discuss pregnancy, and don't need to be an expert in it, I'm there to discuss the other person involved.
It's obvious you're not an expert on pregnancy, since if you were you'd know there isn't another 'person' around until quite late in the pregnancy.
And, obviously everything is a mystery to us when we think about it!
Oh, no, not at all. Some of us actually have enough intelligence to obtain an education, continue learning lifelong, and don't rely on superstition or 'mystery' in making our decisions. That's what being a human being is all about, actual THINKING!
Femininity is a great mystery, as is masculinity, and maternity is part of femininity.
Care to elaborate?
No, you just make sure the woman is victimized twice over. Making sure that 'children' remain alive puts the women at risk and dehumanizes them.
The abuser shouldn't get to victimize additional people.
Just how is it that your having "helped women find ways to leave" prevents the abuser from victimizing additional people? The abuser promptly finds ANOTHER victim and continues to perpetrate abuse on HER. Perhaps instead of just helping the women to leave, you could pressure the police to prosecute the abuser so that's locked up where he can't hurt anyone else or do a protest near the ABUSER to 'save' other women who might be fooled by him.
Hi Crowepps,
I meant that an abortion means that the abuser has victimized both the mother and the child. Both should find safety away from the abuser.
I would agree that there should be encouragement of prosecution of abusers as well as education to help abusers see that women are children of God and that this is how they want to treat women. They would need to see as well that they are sons of God and that abuse is behavior unworthy of them.
How do comments remain posted to be read? Would this not be useful for others seeking to follow the entire message thread?
Thanks!
Sorry Charley,
We're not buying what your selling. Your rating is low because you're a troll. Troll rating = 1.
(Hint, text under the number of comments, "Comments are rated by readers on a scale from 1 to 5. Comments with a rating of 2 or less are hidden. Click on hidden comments to view them.")
I just hate to be the bearer of bad news. Really I do.
Hello Rebellious grrl,
Thank you for the advice about comments. It isn't about me, it is about what is true. Some things are true no matter who says them, and no matter how they are received.
Selling something that isn't true doesn't make it true, and calling the truth untrue doesn't make it so.
So, it is less a question of, "how do the readers rate this," and more, "is this objectively true?"
Hello Arekushieru,
I have looked at the Rating Comments thread, but still need to understand it. If a comment is rated as satisfactory, it stays? Most of these ratings are by one voter. I'd appreciate knowing more about the process.
No other medical action results in the death of a person. A fetus is legally a person everywhere but in abortion, because killing a pregnant woman brings charges of two murders.
As well-meaning as the persons working in an abortion building might be, there is still a financial motivation in providing abortions. It is difficult for anyone to dissuade someone from something when it impacts one's livelihood.
Abortions in Minnesota are performed up to 20 weeks of development, so we use a first-trimester medical-textbook abortion picture in our brochure. Others who come to make statements about abortion use late-term pictures, but we do not.
I don't see how we invade a woman's privacy and body like a rapist does. When we talk to women they maintain control of their privacy and body by ignoring us if they choose, which is not possible with a rapist.
Privacy does not extend to harming another person. A rapist, for example, cannot claim privacy to carry out rape.
Umm, you really are unable to see women as autonomous beings, aren't you? If I don't consent to donate an organ, and an indisPUTable human being dies, that's a result of a medical activity. Yet, for some reason, only WOMEN are deemed to be the ones who should not be permitted to deny or give consent, especially in regards to a specifically female medical activity. One would think that women don't have the same rights as other groups of humans, simply because of that female function. Oops. Did I point out a logic fail, there...?
And you really are unable to see the difference between force and unforced, aren't you? Because, if you HAD been able to, you would know that the fetus wasn't killed due to a woman's CHOICE but because of a LACK of choice given her. Similar to the forced abortion policy in China, y'know, the thing ProChoicers are against, because of that whole... well... *choice*... thing...? Besides, I guess you want to grant personhood status to my mother's tumour (which, by *your* logic, would mean that she couldn't remove it even though it's causing her considerable pain, because you think it's better for someone ELSE to suffer as long as all persons are alive - SICKening -), molar and ectopic pregnancies, cells, sperm, eggs, parasitic fetuses, fetus in fetu, etc, etc... simply because they would ALL have the same requirements for personhood that a fetus did, then.
As well meaning as an ob/gyn working in the L & D section of a hospital might be, there is still a financial motivation to providing these services (and a MUCH more lucrative one, at that, than abortion services). It would be difficult to dissuade somone from such a thing when it impacts on their livelihood. Meaning that financial motivations aren't really what you are concerned about, so it's rather disingenuous to bring them up
I have never seen a medical textbook that has a picture of an aborted fetus.
They shouldn't HAVE to be the ones to ignore you in the first place, especially considering the scenarios, y'know, I outlined above AND previously...? You are, like a rapist, placing all the responsibility on the victim/target (which is what I was oRIginally referring to...?) to do something.
Finally, more than one voter has to vote in order for it to be counted. If you hadn't noticed (which I find surprising, if that's the case), the vote count doesn't go up if one person votes twice. The voter simply changes their first votes RAting if they vote again. Thanks.
Hello Arekushieru,
Thank you for your detailed response, I'll write when I've studied it more.
For the comments, I'm still trying to understand...I see some comments still up that have a 0 rating, or are unrated, or have a higher rating but from one voter. Some of my comments are no longer visible though they have a 2 rating. My first comment was made not visible, but now is visible, with I believe a 2 rating. Help!
Commenters can only see their own rating, they can't see the number of voters who voted for them. GEH. My mistake. Makes it impossible to figure out.
Anyone with a rating higher than two with a number of two or more voters keeps his/her post visible. Anyone with a rating of two or lower with a number of two or more voters makes her/his post invisible.
If you need to clarify this anymore, it should be continued on the Rating Comments thread.
Hello Arekushieru,
Refusing to donate an organ doesn't cause someone's death, their disease does. I might have failed to prevent their death, but I didn't cause it. There is no disease in pregnancy, the doctor's action causes the child's death.
Tumors, sperm, and eggs do not have souls, and therefore are not persons. A fetus has a soul and thus is a person, even if in a state incompatible with life such as with an ectopic pregnancy. Frozen embryos also have souls and are persons, which is why embryonic stem cell research is immoral.
It is true that many women believe that they must have an abortion because of a perceived lack of choices regarding finances, support, etc. But this lack of choices is only apparent, not real, and we are there to tell them this. On our Free Help brochure there are 95 pregnancy help centers.
The comparison with a rapist still would not be valid. I am actually just another person speaking on the sidewalk, which cannot be said of a rapist. This woman might be highly annoyed with me, but she is not being forced in any way. Blaming the victim in rape states falsely that the woman had the power to prevent the rape.
It is true that there would probably not be many reasons for a medical textbook to show an aborted fetus, although I could imagine a nursing textbook showing one, since there must always be a subsequent count of body parts. Our fetal development pictures are from medical textbooks.
Finally, thank you for the continued advice about comments rating. I still don't understand why other comments rated 0 are still visible, and how no one else has comments that are darkened, though perhaps I only see mine? Meanwhile, all of my comments are not visible though some are rated higher than this. I must be missing something!
A fetus has a soul and thus is a person, even if in a state incompatible with life such as with an ectopic pregnancy. Frozen embryos also have souls and are persons, which is why embryonic stem cell research is immoral.
Assumes facts absent evidence. Your belief in "ensoulment" upon fertilization is just that...a belief. Your beliefs do not trump a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
Refusing to donate an organ doesn't cause someone's death, their disease does. I might have failed to prevent their death, but I didn't cause it. There is no disease in pregnancy, the doctor's action causes the child's death.
Then your movement is not about life, it's about punishment, misogyny and hypocrisy.
Tumors, sperm, and eggs do not have souls, and therefore are not persons. A fetus has a soul and thus is a person, even if in a state incompatible with life such as with an ectopic pregnancy. Frozen embryos also have souls and are persons, which is why embryonic stem cell research is immoral.
First off, if we are going by Christian precepts: Prove that souls exist. THEN prove that tumours, sperm and eggs do NOT have a soul. I am a Christian, remember, but it is beCAUSE I am a Christian I don't automatically believe that Christian dogma (such as the assumption that only God and Christians can determine what does and doesn't have a soul) is applicable to EVeryone.
Secondly, if we are going by the concepts of conscious and awareness being applicable as to what constitutes a soul: Tumours, eggs and sperm have the same level of consciousness and awareness that fetuses have.
Lastly, embryonic stem cell research actually DOES affect indisputable persons by saving their lives. Thus, embryonic stem cell research is moral.
It is true that many women believe that they must have an abortion because of a perceived lack of choices regarding finances, support, etc. But this lack of choices is only apparent, not real, and we are there to tell them this. On our Free Help brochure there are 95 pregnancy help centers.
And the decision on whether there is or isn't a perceived lack of choices is best left to the woman not an outsider/stranger.
95 pregnancy help centers? Would that be Crisis Pregnancy Centres? Because they absolutely do NOT address, as you put it, the 'perceived lack of choices'. Actually, places such as Planned Parenthood probably help more with that because they are affiliated with programs that assist on the full spectrum before AND after birth.
The comparison with a rapist still would not be valid. I am actually just another person speaking on the sidewalk, which cannot be said of a rapist. This woman might be highly annoyed with me, but she is not being forced in any way. Blaming the victim in rape states falsely that the woman had the power to prevent the rape.
You simply continue to fail to understand that a comparison does not reQUIRE two situations to be exACTly the same. You are stating, with your actions, that the target/victim has the responsibility/power to prevent YOUR activity. However, when not blaming the victim, it is stated that the one who DOES the targeting/perpetrating the crime has the responsibility/power to prevent their OWN activities.
It is true that there would probably not be many reasons for a medical textbook to show an aborted fetus, although I could imagine a nursing textbook showing one, since there must always be a subsequent count of body parts. Our fetal development pictures are from medical textbooks.
Ok, this one I will give you. You had, indeed, already stated this, actually. My mistake.
Finally, thank you for the continued advice about comments rating. I still don't understand why other comments rated 0 are still visible, and how no one else has comments that are darkened, though perhaps I only see mine? Meanwhile, all of my comments are not visible though some are rated higher than this. I must be missing something!
If you haven't already done so, please repost this in the Rating Comments thread. Otherwise, I will not respond.
