Warning: main(/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php) [function.main]: failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
Warning: main() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/above.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/b4v/public_html/wp-content/themes/blixed/single.php on line 5
The March for Life is Coming on January 22nd
January 20th, 2008 at 07:39am Mark Noonan
And here’s the spirit we need:
Front Royal, Va, Jan 17, 2008 (CNA).- This January 22, the entire student body of Christendom College, as well as members of the faculty and staff, will join the hundreds of thousands of pro-life Americans at the 35th Annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. Christendom has cancelled classes for the day and the Student Activities Council has charted buses to transport over 400 people from its Front Royal, Virginia campus.
The theme of this year’s March for Life is “Build Unity on the Life Principles throughout America. No Exception! No Compromise!” This theme is charged with the positive fighting spirit that is characteristic of the March.
The March for Life is a peaceful demonstration that memorializes the Supreme Court’s infamous abortion decisions in Roe v. Wade. On January 22, 1974, the first March for Life was held with 20,000 pro-life Americans in attendance. The numbers have grown steadily through the years.
Founded 30 years ago, Christendom College has attended the March for Life as a community every year. Its students are active in pro-life work year round, leading prayerful protests at a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Washington once a week.
A young friend of mine - whom I think will one day wind up a priest - asks the question: what would happen if all the Christians in the world spent a whole day living as Christ wants? The change in the world would be simply revolutionary - and it is a pity that this will not happen until The End. Be that as it may, at least the students and faculty of Christendom College know their duty, and are acting on it.
35 years. 50 million dead children. Isn’t this enough? I think so - it is time we started making a full court press for the abolition of this barbaric practice which kills a child, scars a mother and enriches a few “doctors” who, apparantly, are literally willing to do anything to make a buck.
Entry Filed under: Life Issues
115 Comments
1. keefer | January 20th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Sure would be nice to see some of the presidential candidates show up for this. Do ya think either Hitlery or Earbama will be there? Or Silky Pony, who took 4% in Nevada?
2. js | January 20th, 2008 at 8:46 am
I agree with you Mark.
The medical field is performing more than a million abortions every year. All that manpower, all that equipment, would be invaluable if it were directed toward helping people, instead of killing children.
Human Life begins at conception. There is no medical Doctor in the world that will disagree with that fact. The only place they dont agree is in our courts. Lawyers and Judges, who are supposed to protect lives, diminish it to nonexistence so that they can justify killing it.
I think limiting these abortions to medical necessity would force responsibility on women. They really should say no to unprotected sex if they dont want children. After that life is created is too late.
Taking the life on an unborn child is a pretty screwed up way to teach responsibility.
3. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am
“Build Unity on the Life Principles throughout America. No Exception! No Compromise!”
If they really mean “no exception” will they be protesting the human rights violations and war crimes by our occupation army and its mercenaries in Afghanistan and Iraq?
4. Magnum Serpentine | January 20th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I really don’t see where Jesus says that Abortion is wrong. I see where he likes children but this is not the same as being against abortion.
Furthermore, I see only two commands from Jesus, Love thy neighbor and to spread the gospel. Jesus does not say make the United States a Fundamentalist state.
5. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 11:02 am
For the record, Jesus never existed.
Jesus is just a metaphor. That does not mean the philosophy attributed to Jesus is invalid.
I believe in the message of Jesus, just not Jesus himself.
6. js | January 20th, 2008 at 11:19 am
It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill”. The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that “evil is never to be done that good may come of it”; or, which is the same thing, that “a good end cannot justify a bad means”. Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.
www newadvent org/cathen/01046b.htm
If you seek to teach of morality, please expand your depth.
7. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The founding fathers of this once great nation, believed in something called “The Quickening”. It was believed it was moral and ethical to abort a child as long as it had not kicked. It was generally believed, in the 18th Century and before, that a child was not granted a soul until it started kicking. That kicking was a sign of “The Quickening”.
That is why the founding fathers never said anything about abortion. At that time in history, it was universally acknowledged that a child did not get its soul until it kicked and it was permissible to abort a child before it kicked.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/develop/when.htm
8. js | January 20th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Actually, the precept of the quickening predates America by far. As far back as Aristotle people pandered the concept.
However, our founding fathers did no such thing as to adhere to any such concept.
Exodus 21:22-23:
“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,”
Exodus considered the fetus to be life, human life as we know it, and perscribed punishment for causing an abortion. No place in the Bible will you find the concept of “quickening”. Take note, please; Every signer of the of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were professed Christians.
In effect, quickening means the first signs of life; with todays technology, we know that upon conception, cells are multiplying rapidly, and growing. That, in effect, is a sign of life, hence, its actually in agreement with the Bible if we apply modern science to the concept.
Life begins at conception.
9. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
CW,
Err, more likely they didn’t say anything about abortion because they couldn’t imagine how any civilized human being would want to kill an unborn child…
10. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Magnum,
Jesus also didn’t say that viewing pornography was wrong - you think Our Lord is ok with that massive industry for the degradation of human sexuality?
11. Jonathan | January 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
For all the protesting, talk and threats to overturn Roe v. Wade from the Republicans in Congress, the bottom line is this: Should the GOP have enough force to pass a law outlawing abortion, it would be the equivalent of taking a loaded pistol and blowing their brains out. The GOP would be out of Congress faster that the Chicago Bears’ return man Devon Hester rushing for a score, and they will not risk giving up their power for the wishes of the pro-life and Christian Conservative types. When it comes to the showdown, they’ll think about how the vote will affect the party and vote to keep a woman’s right to choose.
12. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Mark,
Do you feel an embryo should have the same rights as two year old?
13. Ricorun | January 20th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Mark: Jesus also didn’t say that viewing pornography was wrong - you think Our Lord is ok with that massive industry for the degradation of human sexuality?
If He didn’t say anything about it, why do you think He was? (hint: read Romans)
14. NeoClown | January 20th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Unpopular Laws are simply ignored by the public and law enforcement officials.
Years ago laws were passed making it illegal to possess marijuana in the US, and the result of these laws: Marijuana is the most used illegal drug in the United States. Nearly 69 million Americans over the age of 12 have tried marijuana at least once. Marijuana is California’s largest cash crop.
It is against the law for persons to simply walk into the US from another country. To do so would make a person an illegal alien. Result of the law: No one knows for sure, maybe 15 million illegal aliens in the US, maybe more.
Prior to Roe vs. Wade abortion was illegal in the US. Result of the law: Thousands of young women sought out illegal abortions. Thousands of young women and their babies died.
Mark, you’re not a stupid person. I’m not telling you anything new here. You know outlawing abortion won’t make a bit of difference to a frightened 14 year old girl; a girl who’s terrified of disappointing her Christian conservative father.
This 14 year old girl will have a friend who knows someone who knows this lady who will help her end her pregnancy.
Maybe this lady will perform the procedure on her kitchen table, or maybe in her bathtub. Maybe the lady will wash her hands before the procedure, maybe she won’t.
The rate of abortion is going down in the US with the law just as it is. Hopefully the day will come when no young girl seeks to end her pregnancy, but until that day comes please don’t force young women back to the middle ages. Don’t take away the safety net that has kept so many young women alive.
15. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Mark,
Abortions were common during the time of our founding fathers. Ben Franklin had 13 bastards. Guess how many never made it to the light of day.
We know Jefferson had children with his slave, Sally. We don’t know how many she aborted.
16. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Mark,
I lived in the real world of putting handcuffs on people, putting them in the back of squad cars and driving them to either the Dallas or Richardson city jails for over thirty years. I’ve ridden up and down the elevator that Lee Harvey Oswald took his last ride in hundreds of times. I’ve walked into homes responding to family violence calls thousands of time. You take obvious pride in patronizing me with your self-congratulating description of “talking to women who have been victims of abortion.” Yes, I’ve led such a sheltered life compared to you.
Let’s just cut to the chase, as they say. You say that you’re pro-life. You say that you want abortion to stop because it is murder. You want murder utilizing the means of abortion to be illegal. I totally support your taking those positions. However, let’s be real.
The blunt reality you desperately, painfully want to avoid by trying to assert that my perfectly logical arguments are “just-so stories” is that you cannot bear the cost to your placid sense of moral certitude by following logic where it takes you. You cannot bear the idea that the result of your stated views means women go to prison. You know that to advocate that would be mean that there is zero chance that treating abortion as murder, which is what you say it is, would ever become law in the United States. You know that Americans don’t want mothers to go to prison. To the extent they think about it, they want some demonized “abortion industry” to take the blame as though the mother was just an incidental detail. That’s the soothing soft-soap you want for yourself. It has nothing to do with the millions of women, in each of their unique lives and emotional circumstances, making a decision that logic and morality says is theirs every bit as much as the decision of those who perform abortions.
Your desperate attempt to lump all women who obtain abortions into your “just-so story” of “emotional duress” and “false information” is just an attempt to throw sand into the eyes of those who genuinely want to see the commission of murder which is want you want to be able to say is what happens. However, you don’t want the difficult outcomes. You don’t want people to see you as condoning a lot of actual “good” people being sent to prison instead of some safely imaginary evil abortion doctors. You just want the practice of abortion to go away quietly and leave your conscience alone.
Sorry, Mark. What you have described are mitigating circumstances. Despite how you’re trying to indirectly characterize it, the criminal law is not simply a blunt instrument. If abortion is murder as you say it is, then after all parties are convicted by the judge or the jury then the mother would be completely free to offer evidence describing exactly what you spoke of to mitigate the nature of the individual and unique offense. Then, with that additional evidence before them, the judge or the jury would set the sentence.
Trying to call it murder without the consequences of murder means one thing. You don’t honestly believe that an aborted child is the genuine moral equivalent to a one-day-old infant. You just don’t. Be honest.
(I apologize for the cross-posting. I saw the specifically appropriate thread after I posted it on the other thread.)
17. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Christian Wright,
“Ben Franklin had 13 bastards. Guess how many never made it to the light of day.”
First, where did you get your information. As far as I have been able to discover, he had two, a son and a daughter.
Second, if you are correct and he had 13 bastards, then the fact that they lived would mean that none of them were aborted.
18. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
The consensus is the same with every reputable biologist. Whether pro- or anti-abortion, “life begins at conception”. On the pro-side, however, say that it’s ok though, because the baby is not of “instrinsic worth” in the mother’s or her gynecologist’s estimation. In other words, “I don’t want to go through the trouble of having a baby, it’s not worth it to ME!”
So, it’s not a question of whether the baby is a human being or not, that much is already proven. Because they’ve already admitted that science and biology agree that life has begun at conception. It more specifically boils down to the fact that they want to REDEFINE what a human being is according THEIR VALUE PREFERENCES.
The U.S. Government knows that an unborn baby is as much a living human being as you and me, but they come to some screw-ball idea that “instrinsic worth” is determined by THEIR definition of the “values”.
Ok, so much for the facts, Never get FACTS in the way of what you want to do. eh?
Some of you may remember Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was narrator for the film ‘Silent Scream’. Which shows the horror! As a little baby tries to escape the doctors brutalic forceps, little by little the child is cut to pieces-head crushed extracted and reassembled on the outside to make sure they got all the baby out. Dr. Nathanson, as you may know, was founder of the National Abortion Rights League and had performed over 60,000 abortion himself. Dr. Nathanson continued to abort children after his conversion, until he viewed the ultrasound, the nauseating bloody horror that he was viewing turned him away until he could compose himself. He has never performed another abortion, to this day.
This wasn’t some woman in distress, no, this was a seasoned surgeon who had performed thousands of abortions-he know ‘what he just did-and quit!’
Have you stopped and thought about what you are advocating for when you advocate for abortion? How insensitive has society become when they can’t recognize murder when they see it, just because the decisions that are made don’t directly affect you?
Well, I know I’ve just about given up all hope on you Liberals, because you’ve shown here time and time again that you have no concern for life, take Christian Wright there for example-he has no heart. Only blood-lust. The only thing I know to say is, as before they throw the breaker-switch on a convict sitting in the electric chair, ‘May God have mercy on your soul.’
~ Jeremiah
19. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Diana,
Yeah, you’re a regular Sgt. Friday…the most hard-bitten cop the world has ever seen…did you have nails and dirt for breakfast this morning?
As you travelled through the underside of life, did it ever occur to you that some of those people were screwed up not entire due to their own efforts? I mean, sure, we all have to make our choices and we all have written on our hearts what is right and wrong, but some girl raised by a drunk of a mother and who’s father is in jail might not be in the best position to make the right decision all the time - so, she gets pregnant at 16 and in a panic heads out to Planned Parenthood for help, not for an abortion, but for help…because she’s been told that PP provides help. But what happens when she gets there is that she’s told an abortion is the answer to all her troubles…and so she has it…and participates in the death of her child, and then that gets piled on to all the other crap she deals with every day…
No, I’ll never send a woman to jail for aborting her child. What is odd is that you apparantly want very much for me to in some way, shape or form to at least imply that the woman is other than a victim in the affair - I guess so that you can contentedly go your way thinking that I’m some sort of insensitive bastard…
20. js | January 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
So tell us Diana, (unless you really fear the truth)
What is higher, Gods Law, or mans?
No more double talk. Its pretty simple.
21. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Mark,
It would be as completely presumptuous of me to think of you as “some sort of insensitive bastard” (which I don’t) as it is for you to make assumptions about my police career which you know only a minor handful of facts about. No, what I think and what you have now acknowledged is that when it comes to thinking about a child in the womb murdered by the means of abortion, the mother of that child who is morally responsible for deciding to have someone murder that child and the legal mechanisms that American society has instituted to deal with the crime of murder, is that you are forced to blink.
You just can’t accept the consequences of a child in the womb being genuinely a being of the same moral standing as a victim as a child outside the womb and breathing on its own. It’s a moral quandary for you to try to equate them. You prefer that abortion do you a personal favor and go away.
No, unlike you, I’m willing to look reality in the eye and know that women are full human beings. Except in the case of mental illness as adjudged by a court, women are fully-competent moral agents and it is a completely disingenuous of you to try to take our standing as moral agents away from us by virtue of our supposedly being morally-incapacitated by pregnancy or fear.
So, should you ever serve on a jury in a murder case where the victim is an unborn child killed by abortion, you can resolve your moral quandary. You can find her guilty of murder and then listen to and carefully weigh the evidence of her mental state before joining your fellow jurors in assessing her punishment. Of course, your unwillingness to follow the law consider the hard choice of sentencing a mother to prison should disqualify your from the jury pool if you answered truthfully during voir dire. However, that doesn’t mean that you might not be selected.
What does this all make you? You’re a sort of moral chimera. You are, in effect, pro-choice/pro-life.
22. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
js,
The fact that you’re unwilling to follow the logic of your position that abortion is morally equivalent to murder hardly makes my explication of that logic “double talk”. That’s your issue, not mine.
To answer your question simply. God’s Law is ultimate. God is our source of life.
So, explain to me without rambling how that fact means that you don’t prosecute the mother who murders her unborn child by seeking out and submitting to the process of abortion for the crime of murder under human law now? If someone murders you, do you expect us to ignore the murderer under human law and let him or her only deal with God’s Law after his or her death? Should we even have police and criminal courts? God’s Law is superior to human law so that means that human criminal law is irrelevant?
You’re going to have a hard time selling that fantastical notion.
23. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Are you somehow trying to say that life in the womb is not worth protecting under the law Diana?
Its pretty obvious that you are afraid to answer the question about Gods law. You, as you claim, as a police officer (?) dont deserve any special consideration one way or another (certainly, an officer of the law deserves no respect that is not earned, and your forked tongue really demonstrates that there are those, like yourself, that truely deserve our disgust).
So, how is it that you play games with life? You yourself acknowledged that life begins at conception. You banter stupid questions about prosecuting all persons involved in abortion for murder, a question which is fully out of context and leading. But what about it? Is life only valuable and representable after it has been birthed, or is ALL LIFE SACRED?
Under our current laws we dont prosecute abortion as murder. Is it any different than if a mother strangled her newborn? The effect is the same, isnt it?
Tell us about it, Diana, without twisting statements out of thier original context to attack another person. You dont have to attack anyone to tell the truth. Only an idiot needs to do that.
24. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
The fact that you’re unwilling to follow the logic of your position that abortion is morally equivalent to murder hardly makes my explication of that logic “double talk”. That’s your issue, not mine.
DP
—————————————————-
There you go again Diana. My original position was that abortion is murder. Wake up and quit trying to vilify me by lying.
25. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
The life is already in the child before they are ever born, the oxygen in which the mother live is carried through the blood to the little babies lungs as it breathes through the embryonic fluid. Oxygen is one of the first requirements of life. In order for things to grow they must be able break down nutrients in the bloodstream, which is a process know as oxidation.
The little baby is its own person, it is unique given its own set of DNA at conception. X for boy, Y for girl.
How we can know this, is in the beginning when God Created Adam, you have to remember that Adam was a full grown person, when He created man from the dust, laying there, and it says that God ‘breathed the breath of life into Adam’.
~ Jeremiah
26. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“God’s Law is ultimate. God is our source of life.”
————————————-
Then why do you defend taking the life of his children Diana?
Are you now going to tell us you oppose abortion?
These natural and moral truths are basic and go beyond the bounds of any denominational beliefs. Because they are truths, they must shape public policy.
27. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
js,
I’m sorry that you can’t understand the language. There is no distinction between these two concepts.
1) Abortion is morally equivalent to murder.
2) Abortion is murder.
So, what are you prepared to have the criminal justice system to do about it?
28. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Let me sum up where we have been Diana.
You have blistered me with a thousand words, and me, I have asked you 2 questions.
1. Can you show me 1 medical doctor that will say that life does not begin at conception?
and
2. What is higher, Gods Law or Mans?
You have conceded that Life begins at conception, and that Gods Law is ultimate.
Now tell us why you defend abortion. Please. Its not a debate about murder any longer.
29. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
1) Abortion is (morally equivalent to) murder.
2) Abortion is murder.
Either way, abortion is murder. Are you so dense to suggest that I dont understand?
How petty.
30. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
js,
Quote me as “defend[ing] taking the life of his children”. I haven’t. I agree that “truths…must shape public policy”. So, what are you prepared to have the criminal-justice system do as a matter of public policy with the truth that “abortion is murder”? That’s the question you won’t answer.
31. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
So, what are you prepared to have the criminal justice system to do about it?
DP
The criminal justice system doesnt need to do anything different. Judges should not legislate from the Bench Diana.
This is the job of Congress. Our nation as a whole needs to recoginze abortion as murder, and take steps to solve the problem that Judges created by legislating from the bench.
Just as you say, Gods Law is ultimate, and each of us as individuals are bound to follow His Laws, so is our Country bound to follow His Laws. Not because of religion, mind you, as much as it is the whole truth, that cannot be separated from us as a people if we expect to remain a moral weathervane for the world.
We stand or fall on issues like this.
(as we have done, so have so many other nations, under the faulty presumption that abortion is not amoral)
32. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
js,
Should public policy and human law step aside and let God’s Law only work for the children murdered by abortion after they’ve been murdered? Apparently so, because you won’t come out and say so. Mark has been honest enough to admit that he would never sentence a mother who carried her unborn child to the place where she knows it will be murdered to prison. How about you? Any honesty from you or just more words to avoid that hard moral choice that only you can make?
33. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Here’s the new version of the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal in the third trimester. That they are endowed by the evolutionary process with certain inalienable rights depending on their viability as a human being. That among these are the right to death so long as it occurs before the deadline; liberty, if the mother and physician agree; and the pursuit of happiness should they not be one of the ‘Victims of Abortion - The American Holocaust.”
~ Jeremiah
34. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
js,
Quit dodging. This has nothing to do with judges “legislating from the bench”. I’ve explained to you in highly specific detail how Congress can amend the Constitution and compel all fifty states to prosecute abortion as murder. That will mean that mothers will be held accountable for the crime of murder. Quit dodging. Mark’s been honest. Would you sentence the mother to prison or not?
35. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Wasnt it you that argued against the abortion statutes in S Dakota?
I can past some tidbits on that if you would like.
To diminish them and insult them like you did, yes, you did argue for abortion.
Thats the trouble with a forked tongue, you see?
36. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Im not dodging anything. You are just very poor at understanding what you are reading Diana.
37. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
137. js | January 19th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Is taking a life murder? We know that life begins on inception. Human life. If human life begins at inception, there is no moral dispute here. The only loss of that moral authority is in a court of law.
“Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). ”
I answered this question for you last night diana. Why are you chasing your tail?
38. js | January 20th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
do you see me suggesting that murderers get to walk away from the crime?
dont be so naive sweety
39. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
js,
Yes, I argued against the 2006 South Dakota because that law did not treat abortion as murder. Looking at that law and South Dakota’s laws on murder showed that the abortion law absolutely treated the aborted child as morally less than a post-birth murder victim because the penalties imposed were much, much less severe. Go back and read it.
South Dakota and any other state doesn’t need an abortion law if abortion is murder. All they have to do is file murder charges against the person performing the abortion, the mother bringing the victim to the scene of the crime and anyone else who aids in the commission of the murder. It’s really a simple concept.
P.S. The word you’re trying to use is conception, not “inception”.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception
40. js | January 20th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
This has nothing to do with judges “legislating from the bench”. DP
Actually, it really does. Before Roe vs Wade, can you show me 1 federal statute that allowed abortion, or that minimized the life of a fetus so the courts could ignore that life begins at conception? The truth is, right up to 1973 abortion was illegal. The courts changed that, not congress.
Murder is a consequence of abortion. Why do you think mothers should not pay the consequence of thier actions?
Would you suggest they just give out citations like traffic tickets for aiding and abetting murder? Wake up.
41. js | January 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
P.S. The word you’re trying to use is conception, not “inception”.
Actually, to concieve is to create, while inception is the meaning from the beginning, so in this case, it is actually a correct use of the world.
inception
noun
an event that is a beginning; a first part or stage of subsequent events [syn: origin]
To note, as well; inception is a synonym of conception.
Quit nitpicking the little sh*&.
42. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Diana,
You have made some very good points. Here’s one more.
If embryos are in fact human beings then, they should have the same rights and protections as other humans. If that is the case, then what about the rights of the 10s of thousands of frozen embryos kept in fertility clinics. Would not destroying them be considered genocide?
43. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No, Diana, absolutely pro-life…but life isn’t quick and easy and does not fall into neat, little catagories…you seem to want me to be in favor of life imprisonment for everyone involved in an abortion, or to be in favor of abortion. I refuse the false choice offered, thanks very much.
You see, I am not moved to anger by abortion so much as to horrorfication and pity…horror over the inhumanity of it all, pity for the poor people caught up in it…even the abortion providers; some of whom, God help them, might even think they are doing a good thing - imagine how far from God a person has to be in order to think such a thing! I’ve spent time far from God, and I am just so sorry for those who are that far away from him, or perhaps even further away.
There are, of course, some people involved whom I do believe should be sent away for a very long time - those on the pro-abortion side who know precisely what they are doing by advancing the cause of abortion…people who have not just gone far from God, but have alienated themselves from him and have come to see abortion, in and of itself, as a good thing. Such people are amongst the most cold blooded murderers we’ve ever seen - their numbers are small, but they do seem to control the debate on the left side of the aisle, and thus there is no retreat on the left from the ultimate in pro-abortion positions, that of federally-funded abortion on demand (a position held by the national Democratic party - and has everyone understood that any effort by any Democratic President to provide universal health care will mean just that - federally-funded abortion on demand?).
I want an end to it, Diana - I’d like to make it illegal tomorrow, but that isn’t going to happen - so, I’ll keep plugging away, and I’ll keep giving to Several Sources Foundation (http://www.severalsourcesfd.org/) and in the fullness of time, there will be a day when abortion is illegal, and no woman would dream of killing her child, because we will - once again - be a society which considers life inherently valuable and beautiful.
44. Bama | January 20th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
I am PRO-CHOICE. I just think the choice should be made BEFORE the act of creating a child….. not after.
45. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Casper,
The Catholic position on that is that to destroy those embryos is murder.
46. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Bama,
Good point - and as one of our fine commenters has pointed out many times, why have an abortion? Why, that is, carry out a permanent solution to a temporary problem? Elective abortion is entirely illogical, even outside its moral issues…
47. js | January 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
If we would allow childless couples to pay for children, maybe more women would carry to term.
The implication of life for sale is somewhat offensive, however, it is far less offensive than murdering a child who never see’s the light of day.
48. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Mark,
“The Catholic position on that is that to destroy those embryos is murder.”
So what is the Catholic position on keeping thousands of embryos locked up in frozen cabinets for years?
49. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Mark,
It’s simple, then. Don’t call abortion murder. Murder is a word real, everyday people use to denote a crime that is punishable by the criminal justice system. You may state that abortion is any negative word you want, but you can’t be honest and say that’s it’s murder. You’ve ruled that out except in some airy-fairy realm that has no consequence under the law.
By all means, work to pass a law that makes abortion a separate offense with lesser penalties. Then, tell yourself that you’re working to prevent murder. However, you’re not. The dead victims don’t count as full human beings in your peculiar moral universe.
50. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Diana wants to know what the penalty should be, if abortion should be made illegal. Simple:
Abortion is murder. So it should be treated as such. The bible says to take life for life.
So, anyone who may do the actual surgical procedure of murdering an unborn child (Abortion provider), who has innocent blood on THEIR hands, should therefore be sentenced to death, by way of electric chair. The penalty should be the same, because that’s what it is, it is murder.
~ Jeremiah
51. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Jeremiah,
As I’ve indicated, unlike Mark you’re willing to make the connection to the existing law on murder. However, in order to prosecute the murder offense you must prosecute all parties to the murder. It’s simple:
1) Jane Roe has consensual sexual intercourse with Bob Doe.
2) Jane Roe becomes pregnant by Bob Doe.
3) Jane Roe and Bob Doe agree to abort the child.
4) Jane Roe locates a doctor, Dr. Jones, who agrees to perform the abortion and she makes an appointment.
5) On the date of the appointment, Jane Roe is driven by Bob Doe to Dr. Jones’ office where Bob Doe pays Dr. Jones.
6) Dr. Jones performs the abortion assisted by Nurse Smith.
Subsequently, all the parties to the abortion are arrested by the police.
Charged with the crime of murder are:
Dr. Jones - carrying out the murder
Nurse Jones - assisting in carrying out the murder
Jane Doe - soliciting the crime and bringing the victim to the scene to be murdered
Bob Doe - soliciting the crime, bringing the victim to the scene and paying the murderer
It’s not even new law. It just requires a Human Life Amendment that states that human beings before birth are to be treated equally as human beings after birth when they are the victim of a crime.
52. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Diana,
You’re a bit of a maniac, aren’t you?
No, I’ll still call it murder - because that is what it is. It might do you some good to understand that I’m not of the body of thought that views murderers as crazed beasts, but neither am I of the view that they are just ill and in need of TLC - they are a bit of both, but also they are neither. Most importantly, murderers are human beings - called by God, as all of us are, to be saints. Obviously, they are having some trouble on the way.
I’m opposed to the death penalty because, quite simply, it doesn’t give sufficient scope for redemption - justice is served by taking the life of the life-taker, but once a person is dead, its all up for that person…their irrevocable choices in life have been made, and all that awaits is Judgement (as an aside, I don’t know why a non-religious person could be opposed to the death penalty - some are, but it mystifies me what their reasoning is). I want the murderer to become for us an example of the amazing love of God and the incredible fact that there is no sin which cannot be washed clean in the blood of the Lamb - naturally, peope who don’t believe as I do might find all this rather odd…but that is beside the point as far as our discussion goes, because we are now discussing why I’ll continue to call abortion murder, even though I won’t contemplate punishing a woman who has an abortion.
Fundamentally, punishing a woman who has been victimised by the abortion industry works out, morally, as double jeopardy - you’re adding to the horrid guilt of having participated in the death of her child a prison sentence…as if being behind physcial bars is more terrible than the moral bars an abortion victim has erected in her heart. I want the women who have been placed in this situation to come to the full understanding of what they’ve done - and then go out and help save their sisters from making the same mistake. Punishing them serves no moral or social purpose - but they still did, indeed, participate in murder.
53. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
51. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
****************************************
Yes, and it makes perfect sense.
Here’s the sentencing in the order as you’ve stated:
1.Dr. Jones - Receives the Death Penalty by way of electric chair (he is the actual murderer).
2.Nurse Jones - 100 years in prison.
3. Jane Doe - 100 years in prison.
4. Bob Doe - 100 years in prison.
We the jury find the defendant #1 Dr. Jones GUILTY of first degree murder.
We the jury find the defendants #2.3.& 4 GUILTY on the charges found in assisting in the crime of first degree Murder.
That will make people think about their actions, before they do them. If they continue to do them, then we raise the penalty for ALL parties involved to that of the first defendant.
Get tough! Justice will be served!!
~ Jeremiah
54. js | January 20th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
So who says Abortion, as a crime of murder, would compell the death penalty?
People who assist in suicide dont get the death penalty. (kavorkian)
Pulling the plug on a living relative is not even considered criminal now. (Terry Schiavo)
murder in our courts are handled to fit the crime, some actually are to lenient
so if a mother of an aborted child does not have any penalty, why even have this debate?
Yes. It is murder. Yes, the punishment should fit the crime.
55. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Jeremiah,
I guess if you ever came to power, we would need a lot more prisons. I mean by the time you threw anyone who has had an abortion plus all the gays in jail, we might have to set aside a whole state or two to fit everyone.
56. plainjane | January 20th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
The previous six years were proof positive Republican leaders only use the abortion issue as a campaign season wedge issue to keep the lemmings in line. Republicans had six years of total congressional control, Supreme Court in the far right’s pocket to the point they were willing to steal the Presidency for a man who wears religion on his sleeve. What did they give us; nothing?
To me Republicans can blow it out their ear. The Reagan Catholic Democrats who use to buy into this ploy are either going back home to the Democratic Party or dying off.
Democrats are moving forward to make a real dent in the number of abortions by providing sex education, contraception, and adoptions.
One of the biggest lies Republicans have played on the American people is abortion began with Roe V Wade and all that is needed is for the law to be overturned. Overturn it and it will go back into the alleys.
I would like to have the Supreme Court rehear Roe V Wade because I think they ruled on it incorrectly. Instead of a privacy issue it should be ruled under the equal protection clause. If women are forced to carry to term even though it is known she could or will lose her life, then fathers should be rounded up and executed if the mother dies in childbirth. Now that is equal justice.
Just wondering, if Republicans consider all fetuses viable why didn’t Republican give them a tax credit?
57. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Mark,
As I’m fairly certain I’ve said before, I completely agree with your stance on the death penalty for exactly the same reason. A murderer who is alive in prison has the possibility of true repentance even if it takes 50 years to get to that moment. However, your reasoning in torturing the plain meaning of the word murder demonstrates an utter disdain for women that you try to cover up with your flights of imagination about a woman’s feelings of “horrid guilt” and her pathetic status as a victim who doesn’t really have the moral standing to make decisions. Frankly, your contempt, which I suspect you don’t even see within yourself, is really not that surprising given the patriarchal nature of the Roman Catholic Church. Honestly, are you so detached from reality that you think every woman who’s ever had an abortion experienced “horrid guilt”? Wow.
You’ve tried the ploy of claiming that I’m advocating that the woman and anyone else who is a conspirator in the crime be given any particular sentence. Of course, I’ve done nothing of the kind. I cited elsewhere the specific of the existing murder law in South Dakota to contrast it with the abortion statute they passed in 2006. However, in Texas, based on the unique circumstances of the case, the woman could be placed on a multi-decade probation if that’s what the judge or the jury decided. That’s why courts exist. That’s why the right to a trial by jury exists in the Constitution. It takes the unique circumstances of a crime into account.
However, I strongly suspect that the real reason you want to want to twist the word murder out of its plain meaning (isn’t that what conservatives are always claiming “activist judges” do?) is because as I said, you know that if voters were presented with a law outlawing abortion that put the mother in legal jeopardy that such a law would never, ever pass. I have noted, Mark, that you are the driving force behind at least two political blogs. Again, let’s get real.
58. Christian Wright | January 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Casper:
My mistake. He had an estimated 24 illegitimate children.
Franklin was a real player in his day.
We can only guess how many more were aborted.
59. Almiranta | January 20th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I see “Christian” Wrong is trying to best his old record for foolishly incorrect statements. But you’ve set that bar pretty high, CW…though in this thread you have made a valiant effort.
“A woman’s “right to choose” “……weasel words to try to duck out of the real issue. Is it Ok to kill an unborn child or not? Forget that feeble attempt to try to make the act sound like the mere execution of personal freedom. BS. You either think it is morally right or morally wrong to take the life of an unborn child.
In some states, a woman can be entering a clinic eight and a half months pregnant, with the intention of killing that child even though it could easily live outside the womb, and if she were shot in a drive-by shooting the shooter could be tried for murder of the unborn child, while if the woman had been allowed to proceed with her intention and had had the baby’s brains sucked out while it lay 95% born, with just its head in the birth canal so it could not take a breath, writhing in agony, she would be defended as merely exercising some “right to “choose” “—and I wish it were possible to type a contemptuous sneer, because there is no other way to use that phrase.
Skip the hyperbole about rape and incest and life of the mother—those cases are so rare they are statistically insignificant. Babies are killed because they are inconvenient. How noble.
At the beginning of November, 2007, I hired a mature woman to start work for me in two weeks. She had one crisis after another, and then finally needed another week before she could start—she “had” to get an abortion first. Hmmmm. She was with a man she had known for more than 20 years, after a friendship had deepened into love. He makes more than $100,000 a year. Why kill the kid off? Why, because they had decided they “don’t want to be 60 with a kid in high school”. A direct quote.
I just said “I’ll be 60 in a month and I would give my right arm to have a kid in high school” and she started to back-pedal, started to invent other reasons, but before she realized she was speaking to someone who didn’t share her peculiar value system she freely blurted out her real reason, and the others were pretty feeble and obviously efforts to sound less shallow and selfish and, yes, disgusting.
Yeah, it’s too much fun to go jeeping at Moab and even if you had the character to take responsibility for your actions and have the baby and turn it over to decent human beings to love and protect, it’s not as much fun to bounce around in a jeep when you are 8 months pregnant. And isn’t it all about fun?
Her final comment: “We just decided it was best this way”. Mine: “Not for the baby, it isn’t”.
She does not work for me. I didn’t refuse to hire her—no way was I going to risk a lawsuit for some goofball “discrimination” claim. But she was so taken aback that anyone would find her actions less than just super, she found excuses to not come to work till it got so obvious I just said I accepted her decision to find other employment.
I have known two other women who admitted to having three abortions each, and they both said that they always claimed to have used birth control that didn’t work, because they would get a lecture if they admitted they had just taken a chance. And it’s so much more ROMANTIC to be “spontaneous”.
Not for the baby, it isn’t. Kind of lacking in romance to be sucked out and dumped in a trash bin.
I keep hearing one silly argument after another. Diana seems to be saying that if enough people decide to break a law, we should just ditch the law. Or that if it is hard to enforce a law, then we shouldn’t have it. I’m not sure—it wasn’t very clear.
What is wrong with saying outright that something is WRONG—which is the message of making something illegal? Stand up for what is right, make a clear and unambiguous statement that we, as a society, value all human life and want to punish those who take it. Why worry more about those who would commit the act anyway than about the vicitms of the act? How bizarre.
We are, instead, going overboard the other way, saying that it is not only not illegal, it is not wrong, is not vile, and is in fact merely a simple “choice”—chocolate or vanilla, beef or fish, Toyota or Nissan, dead baby or living child—it’s all just one version or another of simply CHOOSING. Eeeny meeny minie moe—why make a big deal out of it?
And what is the end result of saying, in so many ways, that the lives of certain human beings are not of any inherent value? What is the consequence of officially devaluing any category of human life? What is the cost to society, to humanity? Every time in history a category of human being has been declared to be of less value than others, history has excoriated those who went along with that vile notion.
Here’s a thought: Maybe, just MAYBE, if we had the moral courage to state, openly and strongly, that the lives of even the smallest and youngest children are of great value, and that taking those lives is a heinous crime, the end result would be a stronger inclination to respect children. But when a society officially says that the very lives of its youngest members are subject to the whims of others, aren’t we saying that young lives simply don’t count as much?
Isn’t there a possiblity that the rise in cases of truly horrific child abuse might be linked to this idea, the idea that adults get to “choose” which little lives count?
When the only difference between murder and “choice” is the taking of one single breath, aren’t we sending the message that people get to choose which infants deserve protection and which don’t?
60. Casper | January 20th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Christian Wright,
What is your source, please?
61. Jonathan | January 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Let me get this straight: you want to see a doctor end up on death row and nurses in prison for the sole reason that they were doing their jobs? Sure glad that you Jesus freaks aren’t in the White House.
Here, here! Next time if a woman gets knocked-up, she’ll just cross border lines to get an abortion without govt. interference!
Outlawing abortions is not going to solve a goddamn thing.
How cute. Jeremiah, take your rants and shove ‘em where the sun don’t shine.
62. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Here, here! Next time if a woman gets knocked-up, she’ll just cross border lines to get an abortion without govt. interference!–Jonathan
Well, if the law is changed, then she’ll have to go to Canada, or Mexico, or Puerto Rico. Where she belongs!
~ Jeremiah
63. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Almiranta,
I’m unsure if you’re fudging on what I said or not. I even laid it out as a simple scenario in Comment # 51. If the Constitution had a properly-worded Human Life Amendment added to it, then there doesn’t have to be any blather about a “law to outlaw abortion” or a “law to limit abortion”. Here’s some language off the top of my head:
For purposes of any statute concerning homicide in the United States, the human life in the womb shall be considered as completely equivalent in all respects to a human life outside the womb.
With this principle in the Constitution, no further laws need be enacted in any state. Every state and the federal government already have statutes regarding homicide. It will simply require prosecuting entities to enforce the existing law.
64. Jeremiah | January 20th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Stand up for what is right, make a clear and unambiguous statement that we, as a society, value all human life and want to punish those who take it.–Almiranta.
Excellent!
~ Jeremiah
65. FmrMarine | January 20th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Diana;
do YOU have any children?
I doubt it!
What is your take on homosexuality?
Abortion is murder,
it is up to the courts, NOT Mark or any one here to vet the punishment. Your insisting that some one admits to wanting to to lock them ALL up so you can score some argumentative points speaks volumes of your suppressed rage and feelings of inadequacy.
Some would call it penis envy, but in your case……….?
66. js | January 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
What is humility and passion?
Would it be so that we kill these that commit murder, making us no less guilty than they? Should we also line up at the gallows to submit to the laws of men, and lay our souls down for mercy from above?
There is no arguing with the flesh, for the spirit has naught what the flesh desires, nor the flesh what the Spirit desires.
67. Mark Noonan | January 20th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Diana,
Nice try - but, no, I’ve actually managed to meet with a sufficient number of women who have had abortions to come to the reasonable conclusion that all of them felt very guilty over what they had done. I suppose you can find some who don’t feel that way, but you can also find people who like to torture puppies, so such a thing isn’t anything to build a worldview on.
It is rather amusing that you believe I think women somehow less capable than men in making a choice - especially a life-and-death choice like abortion. I’m certain that women, on the whole, are fully capable of making such decisions - I just hold that most women going in for abortions aren’t making fully informed, rational decisions.
I know this because every time we try to pass an informed consent law, Planned Parenthood is up in arms against it which means that they do not give all the facts about abortion prior to performing one on a woman. Additionally, it stands to reason that most women who obtain abortions are in some manner out of kilter - a married women in a loving relationship is extraordinarily unlikely to seek an abortion (yes, I’m sure you can find such - but this would be the very rare exception, and thus of no worth in helping us make a decision). The woman seeking an abortion would likely fall into the catagory of minor, adulterous, drug/alchohol addict, prostitute, depressed or some combination of these…and thus, when this woman arrives at the clinic with her moral sense weakened by all or some of the above and here comes the “counselor” (actually, abortion salesperson) to say that abortion is quick, easy, painless and the solution to the whole problem and please sign here and we’ll have it done in a few minutes. This is not the stuff of which well-informed decisions are made.
And, yes, abortion is murder - the deliberate taking of an innocent life. And, yes, the mother is culpable in this. And what am I supposed to do? Advocate sending a million women to jail? What would jail time do to advance the culture of life? Politics is, indeed, the art of the possible - even if I could get 99% to agree that abortion should be made illegal, I’m never going to get a majority saying that the mother should be sent to jail.
In banning abortion, one must not think in terms of an immediate ban - its just not possible. The change will have to be incremental - one day it will come to an end and legislation will be in place which makes elective abortion illegal - but the sanctions for such an act would be the loss of a license to practice medicine, not jail time…a doctor could do that sort of thing, but as it isn’t necessary and risks putting him out of business, he just won’t do it.
68. Diana Powe | January 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
It’s quite obvious you don’t. You keep insisting on your “just-so story” of how all abortions occur where all but some supposed tiny fraction of women are morally-diminished victims of the comic book villain “abortion industry”.
Meanwhile, with your great imaginary knowledge of all women and faux-compassion for those women you consciously choose to disregard what you want to pretend is the murder of actual human beings. The women you demean and the children aborted? They’re just political chips to be pushed around your little playing field. Oh, someday you blandly aver, “one day it will come to an end.” Where was the Roman Catholic Church during 1939-1945, Mark? Where are you today while the murders you name go on? Practicing realpolitik? Your pride in yourself is quite evident. Congratulations.
69. Mark Noonan | January 21st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Diana,
Ah, now I see where you are coming from - the ranks of ignorant, anti-Catholic bigots.
I suggest you find out just what the Catholic Church was up to…and find out why the chief Rabbi of Rome converted to Catholicism after the war, and what Golda Meir had to say about Pius XII.
70. js | January 21st, 2008 at 9:19 am
Its of little us Mark.
There is little use in throwing pearls before the swine.
71. Sunny | January 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
In some states, a woman can be entering a clinic eight and a half months pregnant, with the intention of killing that child even though it could easily live outside the womb,
Almiranta
In what states would this be permissable? Please do not make such blank statements without facts to back them up. I know of no state that would permit such action.
72. NeoClown | January 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Diana,
I think you finally caught on to Mark. To him it is all about politics. The only reason Mark is blogging about abortion is to fire up the GOP base. Count on seeing a lot of posts regarding abortion and gay marriage in the coming months.
73. Diana Powe | January 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Mark,
See, you want to characterize me, just as you do with anyone you disagree with, on the slenderest of reeds of evidence. If I were an ignorant, anti-Catholic bigot, I wouldn’t feel so free to go to Mass with my brother at St. Bernadette’s there in Houston when I do and I wouldn’t point to Pope John Paul II as possibly the greatest Christian voice of the 20th Century. To acknowledge error and shortcoming, be it as an individual, a nation or a church, is hardly bigotry, as evidenced by the Holy Father’s actions in March 2000:
74. Diana Powe | January 21st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/03/07/vatican.pardon.02/
which was an extension of the Holy See’s release in 1998 of We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah which contains this passage:
75. Diana Powe | January 21st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
76. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Matthew 18:1-14
-Jeremiah
77. Diana Powe | January 21st, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Mark,
I truly don’t doubt your complete sincerity in wishing there were no abortions. I join you in that wish. However, your actions and words show that you don’t really believe in your heart that abortion is murder. Deplorable? Yes. Murder. No. Not in any meaningful sense, as opposed to the political posturing sense.
78. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Regardless of what you say, Diana, abortion is murder. Nothing will ever change it either. Not you or anyone else.
If people don’t see a need in justice being served, I can assure you that will see to it that Justice IS served.
~ Jeremiah
79. Jeremiah | January 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I can assure you that God will see to it that Justice IS served.
~ Jeremiah
80. Mark Noonan | January 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Diana,
Nice try - but you are now just trying to dodge the fact that you clearly believed the Church was silent during the Holocaust…you simply would not have phrased your question in that manner if you knew history, rather than propaganda dressed up as history. Your sad and pathetic attempts to bring up JPII’s acknowledgement that Christians and the Christian Church didn’t do as much as they could are just annoying, knowing that you have bought the concept of “Hitler’s Pope”, and are lacking the courage to admit you bought a lie.
Learn real history, Diana, and then get back to me.
81. Mark Noonan | January 21st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
js,
It is a bit like that - and in this I think I’ll have done with it. One can discuss things with the ignorant, but only if the ignorant will admit it when its pointed out.
82. Tractatus | January 21st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
One can discuss things with the ignorant, but only if the ignorant will admit it when its pointed out.
We’ve been asking you to admit it for quite some time, Noonan. Clearly you see the importance of it. So…are you admitting it now? Or are you just going to run and hide like usual?
83. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:12 am
Mark,
Let me help everyone else out with a translation:
“It is a bit like that - and in this I think I’ll have done with it. One can discuss things with the ignorant, but only if the ignorant will admit it when its pointed out.”
Translation:
“It is a bit like that - and in this I think I’ll have done with it. One can discuss things with those that I deem ignorant (and I am infallible, just ask me), but only if those that I deem ignorant will admit that I am always right.”
And besides, it allows me to divert attention away from substance by claiming my interlocutor is evil and beneath contempt.
I will accept the criticism that my phrasing could be interpreted that somehow the Church sanctioned the Final Solution or had an official policy that tolerated the Holocaust. It did not and, in that, my writing was poor. However, the Church collectively and individually could have done far more than they did.
84. Mark Noonan | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:19 am
No, Diana, its just that you don’t know a great many things which are crucial for you to know in order to engage me in debate - go and learn them, and then we can have at it.
85. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Most patronizingly put, Mark! Would you really prefer that I call you sensei?
86. Diane Tomlinson | January 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 am
Great job Diana Powe!
I chucked all that editorial nonsense I was going to write about Clinton and Obama and just focused on this little bit of delusion and revisionist jurisprudence.
My boss Cavalor, a solicitor, finds your ideas clear and brilliant as I do. “These people want for a thing they cannot have, they wish to punish those they choose to punish for insulting their vision of morality while allowing perhaps the most guilty party under the Law go free,” the boss said to me this morning and that would make the Theocratic Courts of Noonan’s wildest dreams nothing more than Star Chambers.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
87. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
83. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 12:12
“It is a bit like that
————————-
Is it really Diana? Do you really think pushing the penalty to the most severe limits (death) for abortion is justice? Why not, eh? Thats what you are trying to force people to conclude by offering no other choice, as a matter of fact, on several incidents you tried to do just that, some debate technique, eh “HAMMER DIANA”?
And while we are at it, we should also sentence thives to get thier nasty little hands cut off, that should teach them, eh? And Adulterers go to JAIL and stone them@@!! After all, what should we do to show the people has this power? No mercy or humility, we kill women who kill thier children in the abortion clinics, thats what you want, eh?
Such it is, go to any Islamic nation. They will do just that. What a card you played.
I dont find any redemning qualities in your hard line mocking of the truth however. It is not only distasteful, but insulting to suggest that we should do it from the start.
Your corruption exposes your ignorance, and your radical streak, its only purpose is to demean conservativism, and Mark Noonan, for no other purpose than a huge, fat ego that rests upon your shoulders. Yes, you belong to the fathead club.
And you, Diana Tomlinson, whiimpering right up with sympathetic gestures to DP’s spincer musles, and you enjoin and enjoy it so much@@!! The most guilty party is free here however, even though they are a classless bunch of hypocrites.
You should than Mark for the opportunity to be fools, instead of insult him on his own web site.
“Merda taurorum animas conturbit”
88. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 am
js,
Plainly, you either didn’t read or didn’t understand my Comment # 57. Here is the part that is relevant to what you just wrote:
If I were genuinely “pushing the penalty to the most severe limits” then I would be as wrong as Mark is in his wanting to say abortion is murder without actually treating it as murder under the criminal law. People who are found guilty of murder in the United States are given a wide variety of sentences, including periods of community supervision outside of prison. That’s why we have juries. They weigh the individual facts of each case. There is no “one size fits all”, even in a murder prosecution.
Frankly, I don’t see any insult involved in pointing out those who say abortion is murder but only want to punish some of the parties to the crime they name. I can’t imagine Mark would argue that a mother wasn’t part of a conspiracy to murder if she paid to have her newborn killed in the delivery room by the doctor. So, what logic says that she’s not part of a conspiracy to murder if she pays the doctor for the same act while the child is still inside her uterus? There is none, because it isn’t logical.
89. Diane Tomlinson | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
js,
I guess I’m just never meant to understand people who hold the sort of opinions that you do. I just wanted to thank Diana Powe for her clarity not give her a pelvic exam. Relax. This is one of the most polarizing topics in American society today and it is not going to be solved in the comments section of this blog. But to not engage in serious debate knowing that minds are not going to be changed in the process would be an assignment of folly.
I still think based on the advice of the members of the bar that I have spoken with today and what I know of the Law that there is no way to allow a woman who aborts a fetus to go free and the medical professionals who perform the procedure to go to prison without an admission that there must be some inherent difference between a fetus and a child that thrives ex utero.
The point you are trying to make is that you like Noonan would like to think that the htreat of imprisonment would dry up the number of medical practitioners that would perform the procedure even if it were illegal. That sort of logic if taken as fact would mean that there are no drug dealers for fear of incarceration, no con men for the same reason and no strong arm robbers. If a fetus is a life and the mother wants it dead then she is seeking to enter into a contract to assassinate her child and the Law holds her guilty then of muder and she must be sentenced within the local guidelines of the Law.
You can’t have your pretty little Theocracy and then apply secualr rules to the women you want to keep in tow as breeders. You have to choose.
90. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
js,
I’m not saying Mark doesn’t properly oppose abortion. In an ideal world, i.e., not the one we actually live in, there would never be abortions. Everyone can argue against abortion because it is a human life that’s being killed. However, using the word murder for political point-making without being willing to apply it to the real world of abortion demeans the life in the womb that Mark says that he wants to protect.
91. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
DT
Im not suggesting that the threat of prison would dry up abortionists, Im not suggesting anything. You guys did that. What I am saying, and DP is (of course) denying, is the railroading that I saw in her approach to the whole situation was truely not a debate about abortion. It was nothing more than a well concieved attack on her host.
DP
You insulted SD Legislators for being stupid (in many more words than that). You are pandering stupidity, even again, when you accuse members of “political point-making” without being willing to apply it to the real world…oh, ya, that real world that you kept throwing the death penalty at for what, a hundred or so posts? Get real. You are here for nothing more than your ego. You arent debating, your ridiculing. Proving exactly what I said was the truth.++
“Qui potest capere capiat”
92. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 1:49 pm
js,
Apparently, you are not a very careful reader. I have never advocated for any specific punishment for abortion. Not once.
What I have repeatedly argued, complete with a simplified example in Comment # 51, is that there is a logically-necessary conclusion (one that you are obviously desperately trying to avoid because you won’t address it) to asserting as a premise that “abortion is murder”. Okay. Society accepts the premise. Society agrees that abortion as murder. What should society do?
Well, the law already says that murder is a crime. So, they enforce the law. As to punishments, not all states even have capital punishment, so falsely claiming that I keep “throwing the death penalty at” the question is not even part of the real world in those states. I have also repeatedly pointed out that even if a mother is found guilty of murdering her unborn child by having an abortion that only means that a jury (not me - a jury) would decide what her sentence would be consistent with the law in that state which sets possible punishments for murder.
This isn’t complicated. You’re just trying to pretend that it is to avoid the discomfort of the logic.
93. Tractatus | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
No, Diana, its just that you don’t know a great many things which are crucial for you to know in order to engage me in debate - go and learn them, and then we can have at it.
Primarily, it is crucial for you to know that Mark is not subject to the usual rules of debate. If Mark believes something, then it is so–regardless of whether or not it is actually true. Also, Mark need not supply any data or evidence to support his claims; like the previous rule says, as long as Mark believes it, then it is true, and you must accept it as true as well.
Once you understand that Mark’s declarations must go unchallenged and that if you are still stuck in “reality” and don’t abide by Mark’s definitions, then you simply must be some combination of ignorant, foolish, bigoted, hateful, or misguided and therefore unworthy to respond to, then Mark will gladly accept that you agree with him, as Mark believes anybody who has “thought” about an issue will inevitably do.
The above is also why Mark is regarded as such an intellectual powerhouse (by his little peanut gallery…out here in the real world, not so much).
94. DM | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Diana,
I’m curious as to where you’re taking this. If one were to accept your premises for those against abortion:
1.) Abortion is murder, with exception(s) such as saving the life of the mother,
2.) Everyone involved with that murder should be prosecuted to the extent of their involvement, based on state / federal laws.
It seems like you’re trying to get some commenters (Mark in particular) here to agree that these provisions are a logical extension of an anti-abortion stance. If I said I agreed to these statements, what would your response be?
95. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Diana,
Since you say society considers abortion murder, and I assume they do, I hope they do, because that’s what it is according to God’s Word, and there is no authority on it accept God … because it is He who Created life, and He is the only one who has that right to take it away. If the child is stillborn, then that’s His way of abortion. But common sense tells us that we should take care of our bodies, especially while pregnant and not ingest drugs that would do harm to the little child within. In other words, the mother should show that she cares.
Ok, If, as you say, you have “never advocated for any specific punishment for abortion. Not once.” Then how will justice be served with type of attitude? Don’t you want justice to be served? If the little babies aren’t worth anything, then assuredly WE, as fullly-grown adults” musn’t be worth anything.” Right? If society continues to adopt the attitude, that we must feel pit and sorrow for these mothers who don’t know what to do, and we should, but we shouldn’t pity or feel sorrow for them in the event that we lose feeling for, and overlook the innocent little child in her womb, who hath not a choice!!! Instead of teaching her that she has abortion as the “easy alternative - easy way out” and ignore the precious gift of life. We need to teach them to be caring, loving mothers who cherish her God-given gift to bear children. NOT just to say, “Well, I don’t care, I’ll just throw my baby in the trash bin, and everything will be just fine.”
Teach them that God loves them, and He’s going to watch over them as they go through their difficult experience. You know, in the book of Genesis, God commanded Abraham to take his son Isaac up on the mountain to sacrifice him. God wanted to test Abraham’s faith…Well, Abraham said, “Ok,” So, he took Isaac up on the mountain, and Isaac asked, “Where the sacrifice father?” and Abraham said, “The Lord is going to provide one, the Lord will provide.” So he and Isaac carried wood as they prepared the alter where Isaac was to be placed, and he layed Isaac up on the alter and pulled his knife out of his pocket, raised it up, and as he raised it, he heard a voice about that time, “Abraham! Abraham! Don’t lay a hand on the boy. Now I know that you fear God!” Abraham looked up, and there, caught in the bushes was a ram caught by its horns. So Abraham went over and sacrificed the ram instead of his son. And he called that place on that mountain, “The Lord will provide.” Jehovah Jireh - Our Provider.
Anything we need, any problem that may arise, the Lord will be there to help us, if only we will trust, and have faith in the Lord!
That was proof enough that God doesn’t want us to murder our children. Because if we trust in the Lord, then He’s already given us the strength and the confidence we need to overcome the difficulties. For a mother to say, “I don’t need children, it’s not worth it to ME!” is just a very sick excuse created by the Devil to get mothers to do evil things, the way he wants it, instead of the right and noble thing as God commanded ordained for us to do.
js asked the question earlier (What is higher, God Law or man’s law? You keep trying in a most miniscule way to galvanize it over as man’s law somehow being “higher” than God’s Law. Let’s make it clear - God’s Law supercedes to the extent that you wouldn’t have the strengtht to stand if it hadn’t been for His grace in giving you that strength…He molds you together, and He holds you together with His mighty hand of protection. Aren’t you glad that He gave you the right to express your feelings of choice here today? No doubt you are, or you wouldn’t be here expressing them. Now what about the little ones, who are, as we are dependent upon God, are also dependent upon us to make the right choices according to His will, and give them that same opportunity at life. Right?
Well, I know what your opinions are, and that to you, “The little ones have no intrinsic worth” because of some puny-idea laws that man has made-up, but in God’s Almighty presence, His patience is waning, and a disaster could sweep this nation tomorrow if He decided to, I hope that doesn’t happen, because His judgment won’t just fall on the un-righteous, but the righteous as well, He “rains on the just and the unjust”, and a Nation that turns their face against Him will inevitably reap what they’ve sown.
–Jeremiah–
96. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Double talk?
Again diana…you wont learn. Its a habit with you.
DM
Response? She would accuse you of depravity and viciousness next. Its a sure thing, just like she assaulted the SD Legislature for trying to move forward on this issue.
“all those hundreds a’poor women, in jail for murderin thier own kin, before they ever took a breath, those filthy conservatives, they are an unreasonable lot wont cha say?”
Ya c’not put pearls before the swine if ya dont wo’nt them trampled!!!
There is no arguin with the lot like that, they dont try to solve the problem as much as they do to make thier ego’s feel good by disgracing ya…
Idiots like that are the problem, not the solution.
97. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
DM,
Fair question. Let me be clear, though. I don’t argue that those provisions are “a logical extension of an anti-abortion stance”. I told Mark that I accept that he is opposed to abortion and can and should argue forcefully that women who are pregnant should not have abortions. I don’t want abortions.
What I do reject is the logically false notion that one can name abortion as murder, want it criminalized and then argue that the crime should be prosecuted as some special category of crime that isn’t murder. If you’re talking about a coherent criminal code you can’t say “abortion is murder, but it isn’t”. If people demonstrating outside the Supreme Court want to hold up signs that read “Abortion is Wrong!”, or “Abortion is Evil!”, or even “Abortion Kills Human Life!” or anything like that, no one can argue with that. However, if those same people want to hold up signs that say “Abortion is Murder!”, which they routinely do, then to be consistent they must be willing to accept the premises you state above.
There’s only one way to properly say abortion is murder. That way is to state that the child in the womb has the exact same moral standing as a victim in a homicide as a child outside the womb. In Texas right now, a person can be sentenced to death for killing a newborn baby. What coherence would there be to say that a doctor (and only the doctor) could go to prison for (hypothetically) a maximum of five years for murder when the victim is inside the uterus? It’s not coherent and it’s not logical.
98. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Jeremiah,
I agree with you. However, while God will judge all eventually, abortions are happening now. What is to be done with human law which is what is in place today?
_____
js,
Lighten up. As they say around the chemistry lab, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate!”
99. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
What is to be done with human law which is what is in place today?
Don’t pity. Stand up for what’s right. Make sure that justice is served.
Create the Human-Life amendment to the Constitution and we’re set to go.
No pity.
~ Jeremiah
100. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
DM,
The problem is that those who want to criminalize abortion want to be able to argue that it’s murder to build emotion around the subject. However, knowing full well that Americans would overwhelmingly reject prosecuting the mothers for anything, they then tacitly accept that a child in the womb is not really the moral equivalent of a child outside the womb and want to try to go after the doctors after they have been properly demonized as part of the comic book villain “abortion industry”. So, abortion opponents who state “abortion is murder” want the show of being morally principled, without the substance of what that would really entail.
101. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
DM,
Unlike Mark, Jeremiah here demonstrates that he is willing to follow the logic.
102. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Americans would overwhelmingly reject prosecuting the mothers
That’s what I’m saying, Diana. That’s what American’s will judged for, because they don’t want to see justice served.
–Jeremiah–
103. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
DM,
I might add preemptively, before js gets all excited about my mention of the possible death penalty for someone who murders a newborn, that it is the current law in Texas. Hypothetically, Texas could repeal that section of the Capital Murder offense so that a mother could not face the possibility of execution for having an abortion. Of course, I don’t believe for a moment that any state in the United States is going to deem abortion to be murder even if Roe were to be overturned by the Supreme Court.
However, creating a separate offense of abortion in any state would enshrine the principle that the main argument of the pro-life movement - that a life in the womb has the same moral standing as a victim as a life outside the womb - is false. The only thing that would separate someone from a murder charge is the thickness of flesh between the uterus and the outside of the mother’s abdomen, nothing else.
104. js | January 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Diana,
for someone who likes to talk smart, you sure are naive
105. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
js,
For someone who likes to talk smart, you sure do make statements without evidence.
106. Jeremiah | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Diana Powe:
The Goddess of Democracy, who rules the world with her great big little law book.
LOL!
O what a wicked web we weave, when we practice to deceive!
–Jeremiah–
107. Jonathan | January 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Create the Human-Life amendment to the Constitution and we’re set to go.
Never going to happen, Jeremiah.
If the Republicans actually overturned Roe v. Wade and outlawed abortion, they might as well take a loaded gun and blow their brains out.
More than likely, there will be almost instant outrage from the pro-choice crowd and women alike, not to mention the demonstrations, and the inevitable protest on Capitol Hill.
Furthermore, outlawing abortions won’t solve a thing; in fact, we’ll be begging women to go back to the old days of aborting life (i.e - back door alley abortions, self-abortions, crossing borders to places like Canada and Mexico to get an abortion without interference from the federal government, etc.), where the risk of damage to a woman’s reproductive system will increase.
Eventually, the Democrats will hang this issue over the heads of the GOP, and voters will more than likely, throw them out, and the abortion law will be overturned.
Plus, the Republicans know all too well the threat of outlawing abortion is nothing short of political suicide, and they won’t risk losing power to please the pro-life and conservative Christian crowd, but they’ll use the issue of abortion to win support ad votes, and maybe introduce legislation suggesting the abolishment of a woman’s right to choose, but in the end it’ll be shot down faster than a bird in flight.
It’s nothing but a pipe dream, Jeremiah.
108. Jeremiah | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
Jonathan,
If in fact, we do get a Human-Life Amendment passed, that would be, in my view, the greqate3st day in the history of the United States of America! It would be, as Martin Luther King Jr. said in his Freedom speech, phrased a little differently - ‘Safe at last, safe at last, Thank God ALmighty, the young one’s cry, is safe at last.’
But, you’re probably right, it’s just a “pipe-dream.” People in this country are only concerned for their own selfish interests in mind, and not the God who raised them, who Provides for them, their every need.
He has show mercy, where there is none. Justice, where there is only injustice.
How much longer? How much longer can this country travel the crooked road of deceit?
–Jeremiah–
109. Mark Noonan | January 23rd, 2008 at 12:57 am
Jonathan,
You should understand that just because Democrats are cynical, political manipulators, it doesn’t mean that everyone else is. We pro-lifers want our life amendment…but we don’t have the majority to do it. Yet.
Actually, I’m working up in my mind a proposal for a National Endowment for Life…something we could ge through Congress (even a Democratic Congress)..the idea to provide federal seed money to a trust fund to pay for whatever care a poor woman might need in order to bring her unborn child to term. Privately managed like any other trust fund, its purpose would be to provide help and, also, eliminate the “who is going to take care of these kids” argument from the pro-abortion side…and, of course, by kicking out one of the props of the Culture of Death, it would make it easier for us to incrementally work towards an outright ban on abortion.
110. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 6:21 am
105. Diana Powe | January 22nd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
js,
For someone who likes to talk smart, you sure do make statements without evidence.
—————————————-
Evidence that your alligator mouth overloaded your hummingbird arse?
Just read the fine print. Its FULL of evidence sweety.
111. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 6:33 am
“What I do reject is the logically false notion that one can name abortion as murder, want it criminalized and then argue that the crime should be prosecuted as some special category of crime that isn’t murder.”
——————————————–
And you harp on evidence? You said yourself that life begins at conception.
Now its not murder? Lets go back to the beginning;
Please, show us 1 medical doctor that states that human life does not begin at conception.
Just 1 Diana.
112. DM | January 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
Wow - I feel privileged receiving 4 responses. I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
”What I do reject is the logically false notion that one can name abortion as murder, want it criminalized and then argue that the crime should be prosecuted as some special category of crime that isn’t murder. If you’re talking about a coherent criminal code you can’t say “abortion is murder, but it isn’t”. ”
Seems fair enough to me. But that is not to say if we were to change the law and make most elective abortions murder that we couldn’t also change how we prosecute those particular types of murder – yes?
”There’s only one way to properly say abortion is murder. That way is to state that the child in the womb has the exact same moral standing as a victim in a homicide as a child outside the womb.”
Makes sense to me. In fact, don’t we already have some states that can prosecute someone for murder of the child while still in the womb? Isn’t this what you’re referring to as “same moral standing”? I for one fail to see how or why we would treat a child in the womb, especially one within days or hours of birth any different from one who has already drawn a breath. And to complicate it further though I don’t know the source, I read a case where a judge ruled against prosecution of a mother who supposedly smothered her child moments after birth (there was air in the baby’s lungs) but because the umbilical cord was still attached the judge ruled it was still considered part of the mother and labeled it an abortion.
”The problem is that those who want to criminalize abortion want to be able to argue that it’s murder to build emotion around the subject.”.
It is an emotional subject. If how we destroy these innocent lives does not draw an emotional response then whoever you are, I feel sad for your deficiency.
”However, knowing full well that Americans would overwhelmingly reject prosecuting the mothers for anything,…
Why?
I disagree. You seem quite sure that most Americans would reject something where details and specifics haven’t even been spelled out yet. For sure there are many unanswered questions and gray areas as to how criminalizing abortion would unfold, but as with many laws we currently hold they were formed and shaped over time before becoming law. This would allow for opposing views to be heard and the general population to become aware of the ramifications of breaking that law.
”However, creating a separate offense of abortion in any state would enshrine the principle that the main argument of the pro-life movement - that a life in the womb has the same moral standing as a victim as a life outside the womb - is false.”
I don’t believe this either. Circumstances dictate law and the level of responsibility should one break the law. If I kill you because I don’t like you then that would be a clear case of murder. If I kill you because you were charging me with a knife in your hands then it could be argued as self defense. In both cases you’re dead. The difference is the circumstance as to why.
This is partly why we wouldn’t charge an easily swayed and manipulated pregnant 14 year old the same as a doctor or nurse or butcher performing the abortion.
113. DM | January 23rd, 2008 at 10:56 am
” but because the umbilical cord was still attached…”
Actually, I’m not sure if it was determined to be attached or if the mother only claimed it was still attached at the time she smothered the infant.
114. js | January 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
I knew a lady who came from Duluth
Bitten by a dog with a rabid tooth
She went to her grave just a little too soon
Threw a late howl at the yellow moon
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
People cry and people moan
Look for a dry place to call their home
Try to find some place to rest their bones
While the angels and the devils try to make ‘em their own
Where do bad folks go when they die
They don’t go to heaven where the angels fly
Go to a lake of fire and fry
see them again ’till the Fourth of July
Lake of fire
Nirvana
115. slots&hellip | February 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
slots
online poker life insurance leads term life insurance rates slots information please see onto the a few days liver your doctor body reacts to etc swallow the biochemical differences between a final read in both Some thereby incidence of seizure dose th…