When I was at the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, one thing I did on a regular basis was have conversations with leaders of national anti-abortion organizations. I did so in the hopes that they would get a better understanding of the abortion process, the abortion doctors and the women who desired abortions. If I had any kind of agenda, it was the hope that if these leaders understood more about the reality of abortion, they might be more inclined to tone down their rhetoric a little (and thus be less likely to incite some would-be assassin). Also, to be honest, it was a good way for me to test my debating skills.
One person I spoke to on a regular basis was Father Frank Pavone, the Director of “Priests for Life.” We
met maybe twice a year formally and occasionally ran into each other at protests and other events. I know that Frank was always grateful for my candor. I have to admit it was often a one way conversation in that I was trying to educate him on why clinics did what they did. Still, he always said that he got a lot out of our conversations, but who knows?
One day, during one of our meetings, he asked if I might be interested in meeting with a bunch of “his folks.” Not being shy, I said I’d meet with anyone. So, he invited me to come up to Staten Island to his “national headquarters” to meet with a group of his priests and staff. I jumped at the opportunity.
When I arrived at his office I was warmly greeted by the receptionist and other staff. I have no doubt they were alerted to the fact that I was coming. I wasn’t nervous at all. Indeed, I felt like some of them were more nervous than me. I have to say I was excited about being in the “lion’s den.” Frank eventually came out, got me a cup of coffee and we talked for a bit in his private office. He then walked me down the hall to a large conference room.
Seated around a conference table were about 20 priests. I sat at the head of the table. It was a very strange feeling (as a former Catholic) to be surrounded by them but I was not nervous at all. I was totally ready for any of their questions.
I kidded around about being a “former Catholic” then went into a 20 minute monologue. I talked about who our doctors were and what motivated them, I admitted that there were bad doctors that we wished we could close down, I confessed that our clinics are not perfect, that some women do ultimately regret their abortions, that abortion is a form of killing, that late term abortions, although rare, were “gross,” that I totally defended their right to protest at a clinic, that women know they are aborting some kind of “life”, that our clinics tried desperately to make sure the woman never came back, that some doctors do make a nice living but that a lot of them gave away their services, that the number of abortions fortunately was going down and that a number of clinic staff also talk to their local antis.
When I was done, I apologized for going on so long and said I’d be happy to answer any questions.
You could hear a pin drop. Cue the crickets.
Indeed, it got very awkward so I chimed in and said “C’mon folks, hit me with everything you got!” They chuckled and Frank looked around and said “any questions?”
Ultimately, one young priest shyly raised his hand and said “Do you know Doctor Tiller?
I said I did. Waiting for some zinger about third trimester abortions, I braced myself for the follow-up.
“Well, what is he really like?”
This is it? This was their tough question?
I answered the question but while I was talking, I realized what I had just done. I had thought of practically every charge or accusation that they could come up with and answered all of them as honestly and candidly as possible. I laid it all on the table. Geez, I had told the priests that abortion was “killing” and, after that, they didn’t know what to say in response.
Ultimately, at one point some older priest with an edge to him asked me about the “partial birth abortion” procedure. I first surprised him when I said that the procedure, as described by the anti-abortion movement, was basically accurate. That surprised them because they were used to hearing the pro-choice groups say that there was no such thing as a “partial birth abortion.” I said I don’t care what you call it but there is such a procedure. I then I added that I felt that in some ways the PBA was a more “humane” form of abortion because the fetus was left intact and it gave the mother the opportunity to see it and say “goodbye.”
Again, crickets….
You could have cut it with a knife.
All in all, it was an exhilarating experience for me. Frank later told me that it was “fascinating.” Whether or not it made any difference is beyond me. But what it did teach me is that advocates of abortion rights just need to be brutally honest about abortion, not try to sugarcoat things and just trust women to make the right decision.
December 28, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Their reception of and reaction to you was interesting! Too bad you didn’t have any information on how many of them organized protests, walked the sidewalk, etc. Had they been a roomful of Flip Benham wannabes, I think they would have roasted you alive– dry drunks often tend to be like that.
On the other hand, knowing the seminarians I used to, it’s quite likely that they were simply not comfortable being in the presence of a woman of the opposite sex. (Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven is a great scholarly study of the RCC’s patriarchy issues.)
My guess is, if you’d been in to talk with them a dozen times, they wouldn’t have stayed so tongue-tied. Familiarity can breed contempt, you know. There might be an interesting observation to be made about the fact you weren’t invited back– you were too threatening to their stereotypes, maybe? Or not enough of a schlemiel for the good father to have you back in to kick around some more?
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Interesting that you are still assuming I am a woman….
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Hey! I’ve already warned the Dunkel that you and your gay male partner are perverting two children. I believe I asked him to pray for you. Has it worked yet?
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 1:12 pm
actually, i have met fr frank and i feel comfortable saying that he feels no contempt for pat or any other pro-choice people, but rather thinks choicers are simply misguided.
the same holds true with the priests i know.
actually the priests are far more loving and tolerant in their mentality of choicers than many laymen i know.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 9:28 am
Pat, your last statement says it all ” just trust women to make the right decision” because absolutely none of the protesters I know would ever dream of trusting a woman nor respecting a woman unless she does as they wish.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 1:13 pm
women have always had free will.
not agreeing with what a particular act, by no means equates to disrespect for her as a person.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 4:03 pm
rogelio, people only have “free will” insofar as their life experiences have allowed them to expand their limits. Anybody who thinks she can make absolutely any choice she wants to is insane. Sane people realize there’s a difference between choosing anything and choosing what’s possible.
A person who limits himself to what’s possible bases it on what he knows is possible– and if his life is controlled by a dominating partner, sect, political system or psychological condition, his “free will” is very much constrained. it’s not a plausible argument to use when it involves the future of a fetus, much less a real child.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm
but that free will has led countless women to abort regardless of what anyone else said, including the law.
laws for or against abortion are of little meaning of a woman has her mind set on it.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
And what a woman wants means nothing if she fears shunning by her church or another beating by her husband… “Free will” is too broad a term to use in the sort of argument you want to make.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm
the reasons you listed are also reasons why many women abort.
do you have ANY idea how many women who abort are active in their churches, bro?
a lot of times, they are seeking abortion to begin with to avoid being shunned by those people for facing an unplanned pregnancy.
and an awful lot of the women who abort are also married with children and are terrified to bring another child into a violent home.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 10:28 am
TNSDH, it is all about control– men trying to control women, and men and women trying to control others’ sexual behavior. And the question is, why? And I can see where someone might take a surrogate mother to court to carry a pregnancy to term because he or she has contracted to get (and presuambly care for) a child out of the arrangement, but I don’t see the so-called “pro-lifers” taking care of the children they would willingly go to court to have born. It shows how they are really focused on having control.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 1:17 pm
jajajajaja
pure conjecture.
i have no control over someone else, nor do i want it.
i suggest that SOME of those who don’t want to hear that someone disapproves of certain behavior, wish to control those who speak of that disapproval and silence them, just as SOME who disapprove want to silence those who engage in the acts they disapprove of.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 4:05 pm
If you don’t, then what’s this animus toward birth control? There’s something strange going on there…. Especially given that you admit to being a child of the Seventies. . . .
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:46 pm
it is not towards birth control, it is towards artificial, especially hormonal birth control.
it is the method of how it possibly works that makes me oppose it.
my mentality towards my sexual activity has also changed.
it used to be if it felt good, do it.
now i see sex differently.
this is not to say that i try and force others to do as i do.
the fact that i made a vow of celibacy cannot dictate that others do as well.
what i think has no bearing on what others do.
but the fact that i think what i do can’t be negated.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:39 am
Why have you taken this “vow of celibacy?” what the frig is that all about, Rogie?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 1:21 pm
want to take a guess?
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 9:12 am
Apirecpation for this information is over 9000-thank you!
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 10:48 am
You did sugar coat one fact, Pat: “…that women know they are aborting some kind of “life”…” “Some kind of ‘life'” coats this — “a little girl who’s just begun to live.” Quite some sugar, I’d say.
I’m not surprised that none of these “priests for life” picked up on that, because Satan got to them first. And just think about all the other priests out there who were not at your meeting.
By the way, you’re not a former Catholic. Baptism is permanent. You’re a non-believing Catholic. I myself am a believing Catholic, but a cowardly one.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 12:09 pm
At seven weeks, can you tell the sex, John?
And I dont think I sugarcoated it. I told them right up front that abortion is killing or a form of killing. I then added “something is alive when they come in and it’s not alive when they leave.”
I find that no pro-lifer has a rebuttal. I think they are stunned when I admit it, but what else are they gonna say except “well, it’s wrong.”
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 1:40 pm
At seven weeks, this form of life, and that’s about all it is, looks like that posted on this link
http://php.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php?title=Carnegie_stage_18
So, no, John couldn’t tell the sex. It’s just a potential child. Lots can happen between 7 and 40 weeks. Just potential. Just like the woman, pregnant with a 7 wk embryo, has potential. Which is more important? It’s up to the woman. Pure and simple.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 9:00 am
potential child is like a little bit pregnant…
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Great post with lots of imaoptrnt stuff.
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Isn’t that enough?
LikeLike
December 29, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Yes,
The choice being up to the woman,
Is enough.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 8:23 am
Potential for the woman is the priority, as it always should be.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 4:01 pm
You have more useful info than the British had colonies prIIWW-e.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 5:52 am
I can’t tell the sex; scientists can. I say “her” because I’ve been told that most who survive the hazardous journey from day one till day two hundred are female. See, “something” — that’s sugarcoating. Say “girl” instead. See if that gets Frank and the boys off their asses. Probably not even then.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 10:52 am
Scientists can tell the sex at just a few weeks? Is that really true?
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 11:48 am
maybe
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 4:27 pm
They can by “chorionic vili sampling” for DNA at that early stage…but that’s about it..
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:01 pm
A few usually means 3?
CVS, when done, is much further along in weeks gestation..
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 1:02 pm
actually…..
if you take into consideration the millions of sex selective abortions in cultures in which males are valued more than females, it is the females that don’t survive pregnancies.
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 4:56 pm
It HAS to be a boy or girl at the moment of conception, or the so-called “pro-lifers” lose a very important PR position. Did you also know that you can tell its eye color and college major within six hours of implantation in the uterine wall???
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 11:25 pm
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I love it!!!
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 2:04 pm
True Hermaphrodites are not a boy or girl at conception, neither are several sex chromosomal linked problems.
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 5:13 pm
I ALWAYS generalize, Remira! You’ll just have to get used to it.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 8:22 am
Frank Pavone and his sidekick Alveda King are in the game for the two bit celebrity status they have attained. All their performances, press releases and B-rated videos read like a who’s who in People magazine.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 10:53 am
I hear ya, Katie. Over the years I’ve wondered about him, wondered if all of that time was wasted.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Not only time, but so many people who contribute to the shylock. He and his organization prey on people for money and do so incessantly. I was on one of his email lists for a few years. He’s shameless.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I wouldn’t go that far. He’s hardly better than I am.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 11:22 pm
jajajaja
i LOVE him, but his emails do always ask for money.
in that respect, it is very much like the pro-choice email lists i am on.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:41 am
Every organization asks for money – they have to if they want to continue their “good work.” They’re out to protect their jobs, which is not necessarily bad…
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm
While sex is determined at conception, the visibility of a particular genitalia is difficult but not impossible until later. The genital tubercle (nub) area at 12 weeks pregnant will be about the size of a ‘pin head’. On ultrasound scans; looking through, layers of skin, womb and amniotic fluid it will be difficult to see.
Waiting until 16 weeks pregnant when the fetus is about three times bigger and gender changes done is a better time for that first ‘look’.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Does it really matter what gender they are, or how Jewish they are, or how much blood traceable to Africa they have in their veins? Can’t we just make it illegal again to kill them?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:42 am
I do think it should be illegal to abort future Yankee fans…
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 1:20 pm
>>>The genital tubercle (nub) area at 12 weeks pregnant will be about the size of a ‘pin head’<<<
and sometimes remains that way.
*sorry, but it was killing me not to say it*
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 6:49 pm
and sometimes remains that way? Ask John about that.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:52 am
I don’t think you mean J, as in Dunkle, right, Kate? I think you’re referring to someone much closer to you.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 7:10 am
that’s why it’s called a weenis.
it’s interesting that in a society where the messed up concept of female beauty has women adding foreign substances into their breasts, starving themselves to be a size 4, when they are naturally a size 10, 14, or even 20, and has teenage girls shoving their fingers down their throats to vomit, when others in the world do not have food, the major basis for making a male attractive seems to be the size of his pinga.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 7:42 am
hahahaha
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:42 am
Ouch…not that was very harsh, Kate 🙂
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 4:33 pm
You’re the one who plays the gender card, Dunkle.
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 8:38 pm
But that’s just for you female chauvinists (course I admit I’m one too).
LikeLike
December 30, 2010 at 9:47 pm
Here it is, folks! The tautology meister, Dunklemeister
LikeLike
December 31, 2010 at 4:48 am
See why I like you?
LikeLike
January 2, 2011 at 4:59 pm
He still hasn’t unbosomed himself as to why HE can’t personally care for any of those “unborn children” he hopes to have “rescued.”
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:15 am
If I knew who she was, I’d care for her. But if I have saved some little girl or boy during my forty years of trying, I don’t know him. (I’m not very good at what I try to do.)
LikeLike
January 13, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Ah! Interesting: If he knew who she was, he’d care for her, but he’s not going to go out of his way to help someone by asking people or agencies who are in the field what he can do for any child. Too focused on abortion, is he?
Let’s see; didn’t I hear something about that sort of person?
LikeLike
January 14, 2011 at 11:46 am
Now you’re changing the charge, Chuckles, from “he’s never helped a child he’s saved” to “he’s never helped any child.” And here I plead guiltless. But don’t ask me to prove it because I wouldn’t even if I could.
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 11:34 am
I can’t believe you said it was killing. What happened to “blob of tissue”/”not fully human”/ and all that other bullshit?
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Rose, tens of thousands of unwanted Romanian babies were dumped in orphanages because abortion was illegal under Communism. When Ceausescu was killed, the funding for the orphanages ended and tens of thousands of children were simply abandoned. They are still mostly homeless, unequipped for employment, living on begging, stealing and public charity, host to all the ills that poverty, neglect and substance abuse supply.
If you are going to insist that an embryo, a cystoblast or a fetus is human, what have you done so far in your life to ensure that the resulting birth does not produce a child like one of these? It’s all well and good to claim to show compassion, but when the performance does not match the claim, there’s a problem. Tell us about your history as a public school classroom volunteer or a foster parent. How many kids have you adopted? Of course, you’re not a Big Sister.
In my experience, for so-called “pro-lifers,” the closer it gets, the less sacred life becomes.
LikeLike
January 29, 2011 at 8:46 pm
There is a lot of trajedy in the world. Sounds like Ceausescu had an unhealthy obsession with the womb. I remember the talk of the Romanian orphans, it’s a sad story. I personally am not sure I could ever go through with an abortion…but I don’t judge people who do. I personally could never go through with the adoption of a romanian orphan, either, though. I have a very catholic background, BUT, Sr. Casimir in 5th grade told us that if your conscience doesn’t condemn you, neither will God. We got in a hell of an argument about it because I’m telling her sin is sin whether you feel it or not, and she just kept holding on to her ground. Wise old woman, she was.
It has just always ticked me off…the delusion…abortion is not different from infanticide in my weak little mind. Yet some people do both freely, without remorse. It’s illegal but it’s widely practiced in China.
Abortion has been here as long as women. It will always be here. Some religions have this idea of the “quickening”, which is an interesting diversion. I just never heard a person refer to it as killing on the pro-choice side. It’s what it is, no sugar coat. Notice, I didn’t call it murder, because it is legal. I don’t know, but I’m guessing murder is a legal term, which makes the pro-life position incorrect. Maybe it’s self-defense,from the evil feotal spawn.
Life is nasty, nasty, nasty at times, I’ll agree. I’m just amazed the pro-choicers have put on their big girl pants now and call it killing.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 5:43 am
Not bad, Rose, not bad. Maybe we’ll invite you into the club. And old Sister was right: God might not have condemned Hitler, or Herod, and he might not condemn Bill Clinton or Charley Manson either. (And maybe not even Ted Bundy, but don’t tell Chuckles.)
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:36 am
Hitler was born and raised a catholic, and was never excommunicated…so if the church didn’t condemn him…
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Rose — excommunication is different from condemnation.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Yet a nun who allowed a mother of 4 in a catholic hospital to recieve an abortion to save the mother’s life WAS excommunicated, while a sick bastard who was responsible for the death of millions of people is “condemned”.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 7:24 am
One point at a time, R, or I might tack back my invitation. But, since you mention two:
#1 — the nun. This is where child killing becomes tricky. Here we’ve reached the point where we should be arguing.
#2 Hitler was neither condemned nor “condemned,” so far as I know.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 1:59 pm
Very valid, pithy, sutcnicc, and on point. WD.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 9:05 am
Why are such a large disproportional number of priests pedophiles, or help pedophiles?
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 10:17 am
It’s only a small number, DH, but of course still a horror. It started during WWII. After that priests excused themselves from practicing chastity.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Dunkle:
“John Dunkle Says:
January 31, 2011 at 10:17 am
It’s only a small number,”
—-
There have been thousands of priests implicated in pedophilia.
John, is that a small number to you?
Also, many of them committed their crimes well before WWII.
It did not start with WWII.
LikeLike
February 1, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Crytal made a good point.
John, how are thousands a small number?
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:43 am
Rose, Hitler’s father was a family tyrant and abused Hitler in the most pernicious way. His mother never defended him from either his father or the insane aunt who lived with the family. Hitler learned early, as most German children did at the time, to be a “good German,” to bury his resentments, to deny what his feelings were telling him, and to store up his need for revenge. It was after his father died that he started displaying the megalomania that would drive him for the rest of his life.
Do you think you could have been a better mother to him?
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:53 am
Do you suppose Hitler felt any guilt for what he did? Did his upbringing lead to his hatred, or was he of the same cloth as his father, only in a grander scale.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:38 am
Rose, why such an exclusive focus on fetal life and not a corresponding one for real children? Have you considered that maybe there’s something that’s preventing you from seeing there is a need to care for life beyond the womb?
What I hear from you is a need to judge, to punish, to exert negative power, rather than to nurture and love.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:57 am
You don’t seem to understand. My big problem with the pro-choice side of things is they would not admit they were killing…ending a life-form. They are now. I think that’s an interesting change.
Didn’t I JUST SAY that if there is a God, I feel he punishes according to each one’s own conscience.
Y’all are trying to button-hole me to one side or the other. Maybe I’m neither and have my own reasons.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 5:57 pm
But if there is not God, that doesn’t happen, and you have fallen victim of a fairy tale.
Pascal proposed the Divine Gamble: “Live your life as though there is a God capable of eternal reward and eternal punishment. If you are right, you win everything. If you are wrong, you lose nothing.”
I think a more responsible Divine Gamble would be, “Act as though there is no God and that it is up to you to bring hope, faith and good works to the world. If you are wrong, you lose nothing. If you are right, the world nevertheless is better for you having been there.”
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 8:29 pm
So what does it hurt YOU for others to believe in a God? My mother was very religious, and also the sweetest person I might ever know. Many extraordinary, in my eyes, people were as plain as day and powerless in the world’s eyes, but you can’t imagine how kind they were. They needed God as their world needed order, something unfailingly good in a world where most of their lives were beyond their control, and living sometimes took more strength than they felt they had.
My own mother failed to judge women who obtained abortions and you know why? I brought her with me to a Planned Parenthood office, I had to have an adult to get the pill. She and my sisters thought I had an abortion at that time for years.
I don’t know…you might think yourself a good person, but I have never met women as good as my friends mothers, who were all devout catholics. I don’t know what any of their feelings on abortion were, though. It wasn’t discussed, believe it or not.
But, lookie heah…when I was in high school, 1974, we were shown a film about abortion. I have never forgotten the basket full of dead babies. It looked like death, and it looked like babies. So sue me, it stuck with me.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 7:14 am
Yeah, they were counting on being able to manipulate you into being anti-abortion by trotting out the basket of butchered little baby bits. Have you ever asked them how many children they adopted? There’s a difference between being anti-abortion and being truly “pro-life.” And they’ve kept you from pondering it.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 8:38 am
All I can say is you are making assumptions about me that couldn’t be further from the truth.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 8:39 am
The baskets of babies were real, not “blobs of tissue” form into baby like forms. I have eyes…
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Rose, in #13: How Hitler felt about being a monster is irrelevant in this discussion. My point is, Hitler’s conduct was preventable to a large extent.
Children learn what is “normal” in the environment they grow up in. I have asked many abused women who had not left the abuser why they stayed, and the answer was always a variant of “But he LOVES me!” Looking into their backgrounds, I always found a pattern of abuse starting at an early age: these women learned that it was normal to be slapped around, belittled and raped throughout their life.
I have also asked women who left their abuser why they left, and the response was a variation of “Nobody in my family ever behaved like that.”
Children in that sort of environment accept it as normal and repeat it in their turn. But nurture can break the cycle.
If Hitler had been raised in a culture where parents were not praised for deceiving, manipulating and brutalizing their children, his mother would have had a chance to give him the foundation for a good life.
So, my question to you is, are you doing for at least one child (not of your family, your social class or your church) what you can to prevent him from becoming another Hitler?
If not, aren’t you worried that some fetus you rescue will turn out to be a mini-Hitler?
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 8:13 pm
You see the nature/nurture divide as totally nurture. I see it as 50-50. Even at that, I think there is always a choice. Free will is an interesting concept that I do appreciate. To me, it means we are always responsible for OUR OWN conduct, not that of anyone else. Hitler’s dad might have been a real prick, but Hitler didn’t need to follow in his shadow. He chose to.
Will my own child follow a path of degredation towards his fellow man? I don’t know. I’m not perfect, maybe something I’ve done has harmed him in ways I can’t fathom. I always did the best I could.
You have a strange argument. To justify my belief, based on science, that a fetus is a living creature who must be killed in order to end his life…it’s just logic. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, or Mother Teresa to figure that one out
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 6:05 pm
That’s a posting full of ingsthi!
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:18 pm
Nonithg I could say would give you undue credit for this story.
LikeLike
April 21, 2014 at 4:22 am
It’s great to find someone so on the ball
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 7:08 am
Rose, you have to be careful with that 50-50 assumption about nature and nurture. Too many people use it to avoid taking responsibility for overdoing or underdoing it with their own children.There’s a couple of pages at the aborticentrism site which quote Andrew Hacker on people who want to have children for the wrong reasons.Life used to be a lot simpler when we had them because we wanted them to support us in our old age. Today, we generally want them to grow up to meet some notion or other we have of what it is to be a good person. The problem starts when they deviate from that plan and we don’t have a Plan B for getting them there. That’s when we can slide into an overreactive mode that we can’t get out of.
Many people mistake experimentation for
“free will.” People will choose to do something because they don’t have enough information to make a better choice. If the results are unpleasant to them, they might learn to choose better next time– although that’s not a guarantee. As I pointed out earlier, a lot of abused women, even though they find it unpleasant, think it’s normal. “Free will” is very much overrated. The only one who truly exercises “free will” is the insane person. The rest of us make choices by referring to the lessons of past choices and experiences.
Hitler didn’t follow in his father’s path. He simply used the rest of his life to work out all his childhood trauma of guilt, pain, worthlessness, revenge, and so on. I would recommend you find and read some of the biographies. Don’t watch any vides; they’re pretty much all superficial.
And a fetus is a living being, just not human until you choose to devote your life to make it so. Have you done any surrogate pregnancies?
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 8:42 am
I think you are absolutely wrong. You sound like a behaviorist, and I don’t bark up that tree.
Why are you so concerned with what I’ve done with my time and my womb, anyhow? If your position is correct, why do you have to find me worthy enough to be able to state my own?
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 10:38 am
Rose, since the so-called “pro-life” movement bases its cailmed “protection of human life” largely on the fact that people don’t like the idea of personally dying, I like to argue from the point that nobody would have done either my mother or me a favor by insisting that she bear me: withoiut me she still would have had ten others left to care for.
So, I like to test people to see if they’ve been suckered into the I-hate-abortion-because-it-butchers-babies shtick and moved on to the level of accepting that they, and only they, can be responsible for the development of a child whose birth they insisted upon. I might appear to be making assumptions about you, but if you have indeed taken on the raising of a child whom you never intended to have or sacrificed your financial well-being to ensure the proper development of a child not of your family, social class or church; if you have adopted more children than you can comfortably afford; if you serve as a public school classroom volunteer or Big Sister; why, then you can let any perceived aspersions I might cast roll off your back.
It’s a confirmation about the nature of aborticentrism that the most vocfierous so-called “pro-lifer” on this blog doesn’t care for children other than those of his own family. I would hope you are not that sort.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 10:53 am
I don’t think it really makes any difference. What I am noting here is that pro choice people seem to finally be able to admit it is killing.
And as far as caring about life other than my own family…isn’t that the definition of true womanhood? We’re all in this game together.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 1:45 pm
The so-called “pro-lifers” are not in this game together with us: They are determined to rescue themselves from the nothingness that Death threatens. They do it by waging an allegorical battle against it, in which the fetus represents them and they play the part of God. They desperately need secular confirmation of their heroics, which is why they clamor for public attention to their fight. Look up aborticentrism to get the big picture.
And I’m not a woman, but I’d say yes, we’re in this together.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Forget it, Rose. He’s fighting his father again.
LikeLike
February 7, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Your answer shows real inllntigeece.
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 8:58 am
Hi,
I think you would all benefit in this conversation, and probably enjoy,
Richard Dawkin’s
The Extended Phenyotype.
It may facilitate a common ground for you to discuss the antiquated concepts of Nature vs Nuture.
They really are very artificial dichotomous “buckets” that do not model the real world very well.
Regards
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 9:16 am
Give a synopsis, please.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 12:19 am
Frankly I think that’s abollutesy good stuff.
LikeLike
February 11, 2011 at 8:38 am
Why are so many Catholics Pedophiles?
LikeLike
February 11, 2011 at 9:18 am
Catholics have been Pedophiles for centuries. It is only recently that the extent of their pedophilia has been exposed.
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 4:35 pm
C’mon, John, are Catholics always right? How do you respond to the number of priests who molested kids in the past? Be honest…
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 4:54 pm
I am a weakling. I realize that Catholics know that Catholicism is right and whatever I believe is wrong.
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Even I don’t understand my response in 21. Let me try again:
“C’mon, John, are Catholics always right?” They are always right on the great questions like, “Must everybody be chaste?” and “Is that bread really Christ’s body?”
“How do you respond to the number of priests who molested kids in the past?” human weakness — also, Satan goes after priests more intensely than he goes after you or me.
LikeLike
February 13, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Catholics are scum pedophiles, simple.
They over represent the general population in pedophilia.
It is so sad. But they have been doing it for millennium.
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 2:11 pm
I had a brother in the seminary, and the first time I visited him, I was struck by how socially inept all his classmates were– and neither he nor I were much different from them. They were 19-year-olds going on 13, due for maturation too late, when they’d already be imprisoned in bonds of chastity and obedience. There’d come a time when they’d be older, more handsome, more physically attractive and attracted and aware of feelings of mutual sexual attraction with women. But if they didn’t mature, they’d feel the pull of sexual desire toward people whom they didn’t have to treat as equals– either too-needy parishioners or children.
Satan has nothing to do with it; it all has to do with learning about responsible sexual engagement– and neither my brother nor his classmates were going to have a chance to learn what was appropriate. (They lacked the opportunity St. Augustine had, to sow their wild oats and then fear sexuality for the rest of their life.)
He dropped out eventually; the rest, if they were lucky, got into Dungeons and Dragons.
LikeLike