Well, I understand that NARAL was swamped by pro-lifers who crashed their demonic little party.
Well done, thou good and faithful servants.
While I would have loved to spend my whole day tweeting with the pro-abort girls’ club who were decrying the pro-life movement as a bastion of male domination (still on that thread-bare whine after four decades?), familial obligations kept me away for much of the day.
Some belated questions for the NARAL groupies:
What of Dr. Kermit Gosnell’s right to radicalized autonomy? Doesn’t any abortion doctor have the right, the obligation to follow the will of the mother and perform late term abortions in the eighth and ninth months?
If a baby emerges all the way and is viable, why shouldn’t the mother’s original will be carried out and the baby have its spinal column crushed before the cord is cut and its throat slit?
Does it really matter how the baby is killed? Why or why not?
I’m not being a cynic or provocateur. I genuinely wish to know where you draw the line with your depravity, or if a line exists at all.
Would you place any restrictions on a woman’s right to have her baby slaughtered? If yes, what are they and why?
Also, do you think that African Americans bear a disproportionate share of the abortions, considering that they are 12% of the population and have 37% of the abortions? Why or why not?
Since NARAL is predominantly a white girls genocidal sorority, exactly what percentage of black and hispanic pregnancies ending in abortion become distasteful?
Will NARAL call upon Planed Parenthood to cease operating 78% of its “clinics” in inner-city neighborhoods? Why or why not?
What is NARAL’s response to founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s admission that the numbers of deaths from illegal abortions were a total fabrication in order to get abortion legalized?
Does NARAL have a fund to compensate the families of women killed by those “safe and legal” abortions? Why not? Do you not bear moral responsibility for participating in the deception that there are no Dr. Gosnells?
Don’t bother responding. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows the answers.
We pray in all sincerity for your conversion and salvation, and if any pro-lifer does not, their own salvation is imperiled.
Get well soon.
Coming Home 
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cecilia Brown, Gerard M. Nadal. Gerard M. Nadal said: NARAL Blogging for Choice (Part II): http://wp.me/pJSAY-17o […]
Let me tell you all about the far-left, radical, feminist groups. I thought I was a feminist, years ago, and decided to go to work for an all female, radical organization. It was a domestic violence program. I guess I didn’t realize how radical they were. My first clue was during the job interview. They illegally asked me, “Are you a feminist?” I said yes, but it was with hesitation. My boss was a judgemental, closed minded, bully!! She disliked men and law enforcement and only liked women who believed exactly as she did. She created such a hostile work environment. I made some really good friends out of the deal. We probably bonded over our PTSD from the abuse we had to endure from her. I needed a job so felt stuck. I call these kind of women the “good old gals.” They are worse than the “good old boy” group because these women disguise themselves as being for the “empowerment” of women, but really all they want is power themselves…to crush & control. I believe that women do not have to be submissive, and my husband & I are equal, but if some women want to be submissive with their husbands, I won’t condem them for it. I have friends who come from matriarchal tribal Nations (right here in the USA), where women own the land, you take your mother’s last name, etc, but I have yet to find a “proabortion” tribe.
We are copy/pasting this in it’s entirety onto our FB notes! Giving you credit of course!
Brilliant discourse!
I love this website & I love your posts.
I’d also love to hear any genuine response (which doesn’t involve calling you & you mom names) to the questions in this post. But of course you’re right, no one with two brain cells can answer them with any consistent logic.
So I’m praying praying praying that this money-making industry that has arisen on the backs (literally) of preborn kids in this country will collapse just like the Iron Curtain did. Please God!
Hi. I’m a pro-abort, apparently with no brain cells (funny, though, somehow I can still type on a keyboard pretty well).
Would I place any restrictions on a woman’s right to have her baby slaughtered?
I generally favor legal abortion, but I understand that viability does make a big difference. As I put it, I favor allowing a woman to remove anything from her own body, even another person. It’s a different situation when that other person can live and breathe on his/her own, outside of the mother.
I don’t want to say that I would never support the abortion of a viable infant, if the physical or mental health of the mother warranted it (and I understand that there are people who believe the lattter is never the case). Once the baby is outside the mother’s body, killing him/her is entirely beside the point.
But late-term abortions are far riskier than early ones, and even people who favor abortion rights know this. They need to be regulated, and the Gosnell case (which even a stalwart “pro-abort” like me finds disturbing on many levels) shows what happens when they’re not. The grand jury in the Gosnell case explicitlyu recommended that abortion clinics be regulated as ambulatory surgical facilities, and certainly for those performing riskier late-term abortions, that seems to make sense.
But I understand why pro-life people would insist there’s absolutely no difference between what Goswell did and what women do using abortificiant contraception. I think understanding this is they key to understanding how pro-life people think (and correct me if I’m wrong there). If one thinks the embyo’s absolute right to life trumps the woman’s rights to remove anything from her body, then there can be no toleration of abortion or potentially abortificiant contraception in one’s world view.
Anyway, that’s the best I can do without resorting to more sarcasm. I’m trying to tone my sarcasm down — a late new year’s resolution, after I recently offended some people at another Catholic blog.
Doesn’t it all come down to “choice” being the “right” of a woman to do what she wants with the child she carries? Viability is not an issue really, the only issue at hand is what the mother wants. Her feelings, her needs, her desires are paramount.
The child in utero is owned by its mother, no more than any other possession, to be discarded if she doesn’t want it, for any reason whatsoever, at her whim.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think abortion clinics ask for your rationale when you request an abortion. They take the money, do the procedure, and you are no longer pregnant, you are now the mother of a dead baby.
Sorry, that’s a little harsh. You’re the mother of a dead fetus.
Yes, it does — it all come down to “choice” being the “right” of a woman to do what she wants with her own body, and that includes removing the child she carries in it.
I don’t think what you say is harsh at all — it’s true. (I was also criticized on the other blog for dragging in irrelevant personal stories, which I admit I tend to do, and here comes one right now). I was once the mother of an unwanted dead embryo. I realized at the time that this technically made me a “mother,” but it’s not what I think motherhood is all about. The whole experience truly convinced me that I could never be pro-life.
And yes, any abortion clinic doing its job properly asks patients for their rationale for the abortion, to make sure no coercion or abuse is involved.
So L., the love you have for your children is a function of the love you have for your own sense of autonomy. The child does not command your love because it is your child and you are its mother. The child doesn’t command your love at all. You choose which child and under what circumstances you will accept the child and offer it sustenance.
In all that you have said here, I see no indication whatsoever that a baby has intrinsic dignity and worth.
In the final analysis you are in love with your own radicalized autonomy. This or that child are merely externalized representations of your acts of will.
Yes, that’s a good way of putting it: The love I have for my children is a function of the love I have for my own sense of autonomy. My children were all choices. I could have legally aborted them, but chose not to. Therefore, as you put it, my family is the externalized representation of my acts of will — or as I often put it, “human beings, created on a whim.” (Particularly true of our youngest one!)
My child certainly do not command any love simply because they are my child and I am their mother — can love really be commanded, by biology or by anything else? If this had been the case, every pregnancy of mine would have been wanted and loved, and I have already said, this wasn’t the case.
(Also, perhaps I should note, when we speak of what “love” is, we are speaking about vastly different concepts — they way we are when we speak about what “God” is, as you put it in one of your previous posts. )
//I was once the mother of an unwanted dead embryo.//
Aren’t you still the mother of a dead human embryo?
A unwanted human being.
You know L, your a “abortion advertisment” in your personal birthing life, which always ends in some trauma that gives reason for abortion. Scars, pain, death, and the only action which hasn’t happen to you is a act of unsanctioned sex, that produced life.
Fact is, at every pro-life site there’s always the pro-death poster(s) who post the same personal stories you have posted. They even have the “identical” family history of having dead babies in their womb for months too.
OTH, there’s always a person who has suffered a abortion, or natural death in the womb of a baby, and shed a tear the rest of their life. One of the signs of PTSD is not being able to emotionally complete the cycle of grief which always ends in a tear. Tell me L, when you read a story of a person that killed a pet(Michael Vick) that was unwanted, do you shed a tear for the unwanted life? They say the way you tell the difference between a personality disorder and a neurotic disorder is the difference between a cat and dog. A dog always is guilty looking after a wrong action, and a cat just looks at you in disdain.
What tells a person what is a right action and a wrong action is sadness and happiness. Even if you have no idea of the meaning and understanding of morality, as humanistic materialist reduce it to relative/subjective choices, and leave a person demoralized and unable to access truth, emotion is a guide to action. So L, were you happy or sad when you “once” had a unwanted human life?
Astran, I was overjoyed to lose the unwanted human life, and celebrated with a bottle of champagne. And I do consider it to be a key experience as to why I am not pro-life.
What, exactly, do you mean by, “an act of unsanctioned sex, that produced life?” Unsanctioned by whom?
As usual, I no idea what you’re saying, but if I did, it’s possible I might be as horrified by it as you seem to be by what I say. Or, maybe not.
L,
What about Michael Vick?
Shed a tear for the unwanted life?
I bet he had bottle of champagne too, after smashing their unwanted heads in.
You know, Loughner laughed at the retelling of a abortion story by a fellow student too. Now, where did he learn that emotional response from? His empathy is located in taking unwanted/wanted life, since life is created as a whim anyway.
As for unsanctioned sex, a rape. That’s all your missing in your life to complete the perfecta reasoning of abortion.
//I was overjoyed to lose the unwanted human life, and celebrated with a bottle of champagne//
Have you ever been treated, or tak(en) drugs for a personality disorder? Do you have a family history of mental disease?
Has there been suicide in your family?
Lost a sibling?
Alcholics/addiction in family?
I’m not horrified by what you think and express in words. Your typical of those that are for the death of unwanted life.
Gee, Astran, I don’t whether you’re genuinely concerned, or just being nosy.
No suicides, no lost siblings, no divorces — some heavy drinkers but no raving drunks (but now that you mention it, my mother does appear to be developing some personality issues as she grows older and sicker). Oh, and my mother was one of those “women’s libbers” because she worked outside the home — that must be it! Blame the feminists! But still, I came home from school every afternoon to a kindly, devout Catholic grandma who lived with us and baked cookies for us. I never tortured animals or set fires, and yet I didn’t grow up to be pro-life — go figure.
Does failure to love everyone, at all times, and being joyful and relieved that nature took its course and resolved the situation of my unwanted pregnancy mean that I am incapable of loving anyone, ever, and therefore must be a sociopath? Apparently so.
I’m thinking more about what Dr. Nadal said above, about the notion of love being “commanded,” between mother and child. My husband wanted more children. I refused to have any more, and I wanted to adopt — but he was against adoption, because he was terrified that he wouldn’t love his adopted children as much as his biological children. I had no such fears, because my love for my children is based entirely on the people they are, and not on our biological relationship.
That makes me think that perhaps we’re on a different page, when it comes to the definition of “love” (which, as I said, is as hard to define as “God”).
//Gee, Astran, I don’t whether you’re genuinely concerned, or just being nosy.//
Well, normally your a fountain of personal experience in matters of loving(undefinable) the death of unwanted human life. “Heavy drinkers” is a euphemism used by functional drunks, and their family accepts such a euphemism. They’re able to work, but drink in company and eventually alone. Gregarious and affable until the witching hour begins. Scotch, with a touch of water, is the preferred drink for such persons eventually. At least the higher income drunk.
Well, you haved lived a boring sheltered life, where no family members have experienced mental or physical calamities.
But, sometimes a person doesn’t know thyself, or what surrounds them. You remember touching a scar on a female member of your family, the dead unwanted human that you owned/posessed within in you. Why remember if not for trauma or happiness? You celebrated death of unwanted human life by drinking some alcohol. Why drink? Reduction of anxiety? The anxiety of a threat to health? Why not a happy meal in celebrating the removal of unwanted human flesh from you? Or no activity. Drinking is a device to forget. Fact is, human memory is conditioned to forget/lessen the vivid happiness of their past, and vividly remember their trauma. Like your mother might be doing.
If I read your self-memory of your childhood, and failed Catholicism correctly, your incapable of realizing what you have done to Catholic family members in your march to abortionism.
But, again, did you shed a tear for the unwanted life that Michael Vick smashed against a wall?
//Does failure to love everyone, at all times, and being joyful and relieved that nature took its course and resolved the situation of my unwanted pregnancy mean that I am incapable of loving anyone, ever, and therefore must be a sociopath? Apparently so//
Is there anything that you cared about that has died and shed a tear over? Since you can’t define love, and yet associate “no love” with a sociopath, you flommox love as a sociopath does!!! LOL.
Sociopaths love, they love themself. It begins with their family not being able to define love!!! LOL. They pick up ideas where life is reduced to being unwanted and disposable in pursuit of their happiness.
“Is there anything that you cared about that has died and shed a tear over?” — yes, above-mentioned grandmother. (She was the heavy drinker — vodka, not scotch, and only two drinks as a nightcap, never any other time. )
I have indeed been blessed with a “boring sheltered life, where no family members have experienced mental or physical calamities.” I was raised by above-mentioned grandmother, who lost her mother and baby brother before she was 10, and her husband when she was the age I am now. She was the one who taught me to be grateful for my boring life.
Drinking can indeed be a device to forget. She had things to forget — I don’t. I drink, in moderation, only to enjoy the moment.
So, I’m a sociopath, then? Is everyone who isn’t pro-life a sociopath, or just me?
//I was raised by above-mentioned grandmother, who lost her mother and baby brother before she was 10, and her husband when she was the age I am now. She was the one who taught me to be grateful for my boring life//
That’s trauma.
So, let’s see, your mother worked? and you were raised by your grandmother. During the age you were raised, that’s not normal. Most mothers were at home raising their children.
BTW, how do you know she didn’t drink while you were at school? Or, after you went to sleep? If memory serves me right, your grandmother was the religious force in your family? Or others? Correct?
Why do you exagerate your condition? Married to the devil.Sociopath Just me.
Who said, and why are you married to the devil?
//So, I’m a sociopath, then? Is everyone who isn’t pro-life a sociopath, or just me?//
Interestingly, a sociopath can never be wrong. Once they decide, they can’t introspect that decision. OTH, they first have a “just me” persecution ideology, which enforces their correct decisions. See the latest case, Jared Loughner.
But, again, did you shed a tear for the unwanted life that Michael Vick smashed against a wall?
Nope, there was nothing traumatic about being grateful for my placid life, nor about having a working mother — for those of us whose families weren’t “high income,” it was far from “not normal.” My grandmother drank only before bed because she, too, worked fulltime — as a waitress, not exactly a glamorous job, but she enjoyed it.
“Interestingly, a sociopath can never be wrong.” Hmmm, interesting — can you ever be wrong, Astran? You seem completely convinced that you’re always right about everything, including me.
//Interestingly, a sociopath can never be wrong.” Hmmm, interesting — can you ever be wrong, Astran? You seem completely convinced that you’re always right about everything, including me//
LOL.
Are you always right about killing unwanted human life? Why I have been wrong many times in my life. Whether I’m right or not has no meaning to you since your a self proclaimed sociopath!!
So I’m a “self-proclaimed sociopath” now? Oooookaaaay, this is getting silly, and it’s well after midnight and I have to go to work tomorrow morning.
This “sociopath” bids you goodnight.
L, I think the fundamental difference between you and I is that I believe your value as a human being and your right to exist on this planet has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether your own mother wanted and/or loved you.
You, on the other hand, apparently believe that every individual’s intrinsic worth and right to exist rests solely and completely on whether they were wanted (and presumably therefore loved) by their birth mother. Unwanted by your standards means unworthy of existing. Where along the developmental timeline seems irrelevant; 2 months, 7 months, anywhere along the way, each person’s worth as a human being must be determined solely by their mother’s attitude toward them.
Why then should a child be more worthy of life because she can breathe outside the womb than she deserves to live before she can draw breath? What is so wrong about an abortionist ending a baby’s life immediately after delivery? By virtue of the paid abortion, it is obvious her mother does not want her. It is obvious his mother does not love him. Perhaps if Gosnell had been a more clinical, and “cleaner” in his methodology of dispatching the unwanted babies we wouldn’t be so horrified?
If you can not see the illogic and inhumanity of that perspective, I’m left wondering why you are posting here and (by your own account) on other pro-life blogs. What masochistic impulse, what inner cry for attention drives you to display your inhumanity among those whose viewpoint could not differ more widely from your own?
Fascinating, from a purely sociological standpoint.
We are all here because of the choices of those who came before us. And yes, it’s true that I don’t believe that the right to life is absolute — I think it’s conditional on cirsumstances. And that goes for my own life as well. I think I understand, as I’ve said before, that pro-life people think that this attitude is every bit as monstrous and evil as what Gosnell did — — obviously, I disagree.
And ever why is it a sign of an “inner cry for attention” that I comment on blogs where mine is the minority opinion? I comment on feminist and “pro-abort” blogs, too — or is that okay, and not an “inner cry for attention,” because I agree with most people there?
I have strong opinions on all sorts of issues, but over the years, abortion is the only subject on which those who disagree with me have strongly implied that my opinions must be due to some mental illness.
(No, wait — someone once insisted I needed counseling after I said on a mommy blog that I didn’t like breastfeeding. Another loaded subject!)
“…someone once insisted I needed counseling after I said on a mommy blog that I didn’t like breastfeeding.”
Yet again a desire to be heard by those who disagree profoundly with you. Truly fascinating.
Every day I am more and more convinced that the internet is full of very disturbed people looking for an outlet.
No, it wasn’t “a desire to be heard by those who disagree profoundly with” me — it was a discussion about why more women don’t breastfeed. And my opinion there is far from unique.
So I am “very disturbed people?” No, actually, I am a wife and mother, cooking dinner, helping with homework, raising a family, and taking my kids to mass on Sundays. I do have a whole gamut of human weaknesses and moral failings, but I don’t happen to think they are what other people necessarily think they are.
I go through my daily life trying not to offend people, and in that way, the Internet is indeed my “outlet” — I can speak freely in a venue where it is encouraged. I do enjoy spirited discussion, and I greatly appreciate the rare moments of common ground. I think that’s the main reason I continue to comment here.
Gerry, excellent (thought provoking) questions of yours (above) got me thinking. Not only people, but cultures differ vastly with respect to the timing in which they consider a child to be “fully human” or “lovable.” In some cultures, where infant mortality rates are traditionally very high, the definition of “fully human baby” begins only after the first few years of the infant’s life — in order to avoid the heartache of the death of so many in the first few years. It seemed sometimes above that you and L. are expressing similar ideas, but across a cultural gulf; but it’s not so simple I suppose. As another example, in the Jewish-American culture in which I was raised, a fetus is not fully human until it graduates from medical school. (Hence, according to my mothers, I’m not fully human.) Nonetheless, culturally ingrained notions have ecological roots, and culture influences all of us.
//Nope, there was nothing traumatic about being grateful for my placid life//
Think about what you wrote. Of course there is nothing traumatic about being grateful for a placid life. I haven’t said your a sociopath, but you always defend yourself with sarcasm. You had no trauma as a child as you have constructed your memory, but you must admit having a person who lost a husband and sibling is truama. That she drank because of her work? is faulty logic, defending the drinking of your Catholic grandmother. I Work, therefore I drink everynight. Get it? You were raised by a untreated truama victim that used religion to cover her traumatic memories of life.Now, that’s my opinon, and you didn’t fully understand my list of questions to you, since you reference yourself, and not the life of your “drinking from working” devout Catholic grandmother. Oh, you may go off on a tangent that disputes that she drank everynight wasn’t from her work, but the lack of social status from being a waitress, or any other rationalization you find stored in memory.
But, what brought me to respond to your posting this time is the queer logic of dead babies in the womb.
A person says:
I once murdered a guy.
I murdered a guy.
I once murdered a guy named Joe.
First.
Do you see any “difference” between those three statements given above?
Second.
Do you have siblings?
Do/did you have close relations with your paternal side of your family? His mother?
Oh, Astran. My grandmother didn’t drink BECAUSE she worked — I meant, she drank ONLY before bed (two drinks, of either vodka & orange juice, or vodka & diet Coke) because she was a responsible woman with a physically demanding fulltime job — remember, you asked, “How do you know she didn’t drink while you were at school?”
The thing is, no matter what I say, you seem to have already concluded that my beloved grandmother was a “functional drunk,” because she had a couple of drinks before she went to bed. (In fact, from what I said above you can draw some conclusions about ME and my drinking habits, that I consider two drinks before bed to be a “heavy drinker.”)
So I was “raised by a untreated trauma victim that used religion to cover her traumatic memories of life?” Alas, by the standards of her generation, my grandmother was no “trauma victim.” Three out of four of my grandparents lost infant siblings — it was quite common in those days, as were maternal deaths in childbirth, early widowhood, etc.
I do think my grandmother had a tough life. When you say she “used religion to cover her traumatic memories,” you’re being not only presumptuous, but also rather offensive. Her faith brought her much peace and comfort.
In fact, your questions about my family are beginning to give me a creepy vibe. Why should I answer you, if you seem intent on assuming the worst about them no matter what I say? I’m sorry, but I am beginning to question your motives in asking them.
Forget your family and questions.
Just answer the question, if you care to, concerning the diffference in the statements below.
A person says:
I once murdered a guy.
I murdered a guy.
//Why should I answer you, if you seem intent on assuming the worst about them no matter what I say? I’m sorry, but I am beginning to question your motives in asking them.//
What I know, I learn from you. I’m not judging, condemning your family, or your actions. What stands out is the statement you made concerning your miscarriage.
What I do know is that you remember( assuming they are true) certain actions which occured to you, and your maternal heir’s birthing experience. “Scars”, “death” and pain, are from your and your familes reproductive memories, and you wrote those words at this blog, not me.
That you deny trauma was around you is evident, and then shutting down inquires into possible reactions/causes to the trauma. So be it.
—————————————————–
//I was once the mother of an unwanted dead embryo. //
//Her faith brought her much peace and comfort//
If she was a devout Catholic, who didn’t believe in abortionism, then and are you capable now, of understanding the spiritual pain you inflicted on her Catholic spirit?
Because I stated she used religion, did she not use religion, and isn’t one of the main comforts of Catholicism is to find reason in physical/mental suffering? That I use the word “trauma” is nothing more then the modern word for suffering in the Catholic sense.
It’s good that you defend your grandmother, and that’s the first sign of Catholicism you have exhibited at this site.
Mercy on you, and your family.
“That you deny trauma was around you is evident…”
Eh? Saying that “I do think my grandmother had a tough life” is denying trauma? I said my own life was placid — middle-class, suburban — and I didn’t take any of it for granted, because I heard stories about what life was like just a generation before.
And I repeat (this time with some quotation marks for emphasis), I was once the “mother” of an unwanted dead embryo. I realized at the time that this technically made me a “mother,” but it’s not what I think motherhood is all about.
The point of that statement was, it takes more than a fertilized egg inside one’s body to make someone a mother.
Oh, and my father’s mother? She popped out 10-pound babies and went right back to work. No birth trauma there. Too bad I didn’t get her pelvis, instead of her nose!
Defending my grandmother was “the first sign of Catholicism” I have exhibited? What an odd thing to say. As far as I know, even hard-core athiests defend their families and their beliefs, and/or lack thereof. I don’t think Caholics ever had a monopoly on that.
Come on L,
We all know your reasons for abortion and all I want you to do is answer if there is a difference in the below statement.
A person says:
I once murdered a guy.
I murdered a guy.
Do you recognize a difference or not?
//Her faith brought her much peace and comfort//
If she was a devout Catholic, who didn’t believe in abortionism, are you capable now of understanding the spiritual/mental pain you inflicted on her Catholic spirit?
And the answer is?
//I said my own life was placid — middle-class, suburban — and I didn’t take any of it for granted,//
I never even thought about your granting and admittance into/of the “middle class suburbian lifestyle”.
Where did that come from?
//I heard stories about what life was like just a generation before.//
What life was like? Suffering in childbirth? Or lack of suburban/economic lifestyle? I’m confused instead of you.
Astran, there you go again — at least this time, you’re not making offensive presumptions, but they’re nonetheless incorrect. You have as little insight into my grandmother’s “Catholic spirit” as you do into her drinking. She used to just roll her eyes whenever I talked about abortion. And she blessed the unholy union of me and my non-Christian partner — so I don’t think she would pass the “devout” test according to everyone’s standards.
And no, I see no difference in the two statements. The guy is still dead either way, just like above-mentioned embryo (which I didn’t murder, by the way, but I’m guessing that’s going to be beside whatever point you want to make here).
Where did WHAT come from? I added further description to “placid,” just so you could picture it better. I could have added, “street with trees, in a good school district,” too.
And what’s confusing about what life was like for many in my grandmother’s generation? All of the above — lack of modern medical care, lack of money, lack of food, etc.: Depression-era, working-class immigrants. Tough lives, but hardly unique for those times.
//And no, I see no difference in the two statements. The guy is still dead either way, just like above-mentioned embryo (which I didn’t murder, by the way, but I’m guessing that’s going to be beside whatever point you want to make here).//
Thank you.
—————————————————–
AA meeting.
I once was a alcoholic.
Now Now, the person trying to have the drunk admit his addiction corrects him and ask him again, who he is.
Yes, I’m a alcoholic.
Can you write, that your the mother of a dead human being, and not that you were ONCE the mother of a dead human being?.
//She used to just roll her eyes whenever I talked about abortion.//
You didn’t answer my question. Rolling her eyes was polite,but all I ask, at this point, is if you caused Catholic spiritual suffering in your grandmother. Have you ever thought about it?
I believe I caused my grandmother to suffer by moving several thousand miles away from her, and only seeing her a few times a year. But she was quite happy with the way I turned out, spiritually, and told me as much. So I guess she would flunk your “devout” test.
And you can call me the mother of a dead embryo if you like — I just said it because RandomThoughts above said of post-abortive women, “You’re the mother of a dead fetus.”
But I certainly don’t count the dead embyro among my children, so therefore it would be a bit weird for me to call myself its “mother.” In a strict biological sense, yes, but as I said — twice — that’s not what motherhood means. Biology sometimes doesn’t enter into it at all.
//I believe I caused my grandmother to suffer by moving several thousand miles away from her, and only seeing her a few times a year. But she was quite happy with the way I turned out, spiritually, and told me as much. So I guess she would flunk your “devout” test.//
I knew that was coming.
It’s not about my devout test, it’s the faith/dogma she had which included that abortion was a mortal sin. She was a good Catholic, who showed mercy to you, even though she knew you were condoning/preaching a unrepentant mortal sin.
Have you ever thought that she might have suffered knowing she wasn’t going to see you ever again: first, from all the evidence that there is no life after you die, and second, from knowing your sinning against her culturo/religion that excludes those that preach a mortal sin. That there is a Judgement day, where those that have been faithful, as her religion taught her, were going to be seperated from those that sinned against her Catholicism, and were banished forever into a place where she was not to be, and continue in Eternity with Jesus, and not those in a state of mortal sin.
“She was a good Catholic, who showed mercy to you…”
Oh Astran, there you go again, with your silly presumptions. Nope, she was actually comforted that someday we would be together again — and she knew I’m not pro-life.
So maybe she’s not where the “good” Catholics go.
//Oh Astran, there you go again, with your silly presumptions. Nope, she was actually comforted that someday we would be together again — and she knew I’m not pro-life.
So maybe she’s not where the “good” Catholics go.//
There is no presumption. It’s the catechism that informs, with the Bible, that there is a Judgement day, where those that lived and obeyed the faith/dogma, and those that promote sins are seperated for Eternity.
Are you denying that her culturo/religion has not been reduced and ridiculed for the faith of her Catholicism, especially in matters concerning abortion? That those same people, are allies of yours in that ridicule she had to have experienced from their words and deeds. Can’t even admit that can you?
Lets us say, that you are to choose between being with your grandmother for Eternity, where no mortal sinners via unrepentant abortion are allowed, or being with your pro-aborts, and not seeing your grandmother for as long as you belief as you do,. What do you choose?
But, it appears your unable to have inflicted Catholic spiritual pain upon your grandmother in promoting induced abortion, which contradicts her lifetime belief in induced abortion being a mortal sin.
Astran, if Heaven is indeed Catholic, and mortal sinners are excluded, then I chose to go to Hell with my beloved Jesus-rejecting, heathen husband. This is the choice I made 20 years ago — and gee, it doesn’t even have anything to do with abortion.
I picked being with the heathen crowd over being with my grandmother long ago. The Catholic priest who married us put the choice to me this way: Do you choose a lifetime on earth with a man, or eternal life with Christ?
I picked the man. No regrets.
So there’s nothing you can say to me that hasn’t been said to me before.
“…ridicule she had to have experienced from their words and deeds…” –? What the heck are you talking about?
After midnight again. Have to turn off the computer, before I turn back into a pumpkin….
//I picked being with the heathen crowd over being with my grandmother long ago//
Ah yes. and the devil man, too.
My whole point was to come to you admitting your above statement. Dr. Nadal words ring true concerning your spirit/mentality.
//In the final analysis you are in love with your own radicalized autonomy.//
//Are you denying that her culturo/religion has not been reduced and ridiculed for the faith of her Catholicism, especially in matters concerning abortion? That those same people, are allies of yours in that ridicule she had to have experienced from their words and deeds. Can’t even admit that can you? //
It’s straight forward, and easy to understand if you think outside of self constructing autonomy.
Funny logic abounds.
I once was a Catholic and therefore I still am. One of your claims at this blog. I’m a Catholic once, always will be.
I once was a mother to a human being that died, therefore I’m not a mother to the dead human being today.
One is a state of spirit, and the other is physical fact, that can’t be denied. You aren’t a Catholic in spirit, but once were.
You will always be a person that experienced death of a human being that was celebrated by drinking alcohol.
[Yawn.] Good morning, Astran, and no, I was never a true “mother” to the dead embryo, which was my whole point in saying I was “once” its mother. I suppose you think I am hell-bound, for celebrating its timely demise? Was that a sin, in Astran’s book? I would put all my money on your answer being yes.
You consider me the “mother” to a bit of dead tissue I flushed down the toilet, but I don’t. I consider myself a “Catholic,” but you don’t.
So I’d say, we’re even.
Here’s a question, getting back to what Dr. Nadal said earlier.
Is a “this or that child” ever NOT an externalized representation of an act of will?
We are all here because of the choices — acts of will — of those who came before us.
A devout Catholic man meets a woman, takes her in holy matrimony, and has a family with her, being open to life at all times. “This or that” child is born
Or… that same couple decides to practice NFP for a while, because of grave health or financial issues.
Or the couple mutally decides to have a Josephite marriage.
Or the couple doesn’t marry at all, and instead they enter respective religious orders and take vows of chastity.
So, through their individual acts of will, “this or that child” is born, or is not born.
When I joke about “human beings created on a whim,” I don’t just mean my own children. I mean all of us.
//I was never a true “mother” to the dead embryo, which was my whole point in saying I was “once” its mother//
Since you weren’t able to distinguish between “once” and “am” when asked, your suddenly able to distinguish your stunted Catholicism is not a “once”.
Those that commit a act, which ended in punishment, such as Loughner will be punished, and
will use the word “once” in describing their action to those with the power to punish or free them from incarceration.
Those who face self introspection, such as a drunk trying to overcome their addiction, will describe their drunk time as “once I was a alcoholic”. But, they are corrected to admit to being a alcoholic the rest of their life.
The function of the word “once” is to distance their action from themself by time and change in morality. I use the Socratic method upon you L to see the intellectual power you are capable of. Honest intellect. Because your “early” Catholic education was not based upon Socratic principles, and simple rote memory, you aren’t capable of certain critical skills concerning Catholicism as a adult. Like a drunk, who we know is capable of extreme rationalization in defence of their vice, they can’t distinguish truth or their true condition. Which is: A demoralized woman is incapable of accessing true information. As your reading this, your mind is already in defence and formulating a answer to defend what is nothing more then a defence of your closed mind to true introspection of your intellect.
Sarcasm is a trait of a person who has shut down their intellect to challenge, since the “answer” is already known. Your personality was formed upon family members, and your sarcasm was used upon them first and foremost. Most comedians use sarcasm, and it reveals insecurity of intellect when their intellect is challenged. It’s a emotional response to inquiry. A adolescent response in a adult body. The use of hyperbolic sarcasm is your typical answer when failing the intellectual challenge presented to you L. It’s funny logic, or queer logic, written unknowingly to the queerness of the logic used.
Take the challenge of being with your grandmother in Eternity, and the facts of Catholic catechismic teaching, which also includes(based) the Bible and Judgement day. Taken as a psychological or spirtual/mental demand upon a person for certain behavior as a condition of being with those you supposively love, you don’t sin, to be with Love. If I sin, I lose those I love forever. And the first person one is taught as a intellectually undeveloped Catholic, that you will lose, and His love, is The Anointed One. He goes first, then all those you “say you love”, for your sin, are next. Who are you sinning for? Why yourself, and normally the pursuit of pleasure in modern times, which ends at a abortion clinic. That old autonomy.
So you used the Socratic method upon me “to see the intellectual power you are capable of,” and determined that I am a “demoralized woman” who “is incapable of accessing true information.” I “failed” your “intellectual challenge.”
Did you enjoy that? Do you relish that feeling of smug superiority? You seem like you do, very much.
Somehow, I can’t shake the feeling that I have totally wasted my time, talking to you here.
Gotta go now — my devil man’s home, gotta make him some tea.
L and Astran,
I’ve deleted some comments because it’s getting a little too sporty here on this thread. Please envision my blog as an extension of my dining room table and conduct your dialogue accordingly.
Thanks.
Dr, Nadal, this conversation with Astran has made me appreciate your constant civility, even though I know some of my views are secular, relativist, selfish and thoroughly abhorrent to you. You can believe someone is dead wrong without declaring them incapable of assesssing true information.
L., You can also be consistently dead wrong in my opinion, which is grounded in Christian Anthropology, and still be a welcome guest at my dinner table! Assessing the truth, having the internal prism through which information is rightly filtered is something that happens in God’s time, not ours, and as a function of grace come to fruition. It isn’t my job to browbeat anyone to get to that point.
But I will strenuously assert the truth while praying for grace to come to fruition.
God Bless.
Thanks! And in the meantime, you can take comfort that so many of us moral relativists usually do the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.
I don’t believe that any child is born on a whim, even those children unplanned or with serious defects. Each child has a specific part to play in God’s plan.
It is our duty to learn the will of God in our lives and to do it to the best of our abilities.
Many people do not try to learn what God wants of them and many people who suspect they know what the will of God is for them, refuse to do it for various reasons (ignorance, fear, obstinancy etc).
One need only look at all the empty schools to understand that in the area of being open to having children, many people who believe in God are failing to do God’s will. His directive was to fill the earth. He would take care of the rest.
Of course, if you don’t believe in God or in his divine providence than all the above is nonsense.
re: “Follow the will of the mother …” it’s a seldom-reported but evidence-based reality that in America most abortions are unwanted or coerced; many forced. (http://www.theunchoice.com/whateveryamerican.htm)
(http://www.theunchoice.com/coerced.htm)
Lila Rose’s PP expose showed how much the mother’s “will” was respected – they sought to circumvent the girls or their parents. Other vulnerable women and families – some lured by the front of healthcare or low-cost services – are coerced from all sides until their will is broken.
There is strong evidence to support this, in published studies and the testimonies of women who’ve been there.
We’re doing “The UnChoice” campaign because evidence shows most (not all, not some, but most) abortions are unwanted, negligently counseled or sold by profit- or agenda-driven industries w/ MSM on their side.
Please help us get the word out. Share the “Forced Abortion in America” report and other well-cited materials free at http://www.theunchoice.com – The word “choice” is a cruel misnomer. It is at best an exploitation of women that puts both babies & moms at risk.