Comments on: It’s The Culture, Stupid

By: jackpres

jackpres — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 02:14:00 +0000

If it was excessive social conservatism that lost the presidential bid and you think conservatism will continue to lose elections, then how do you explain the repeat “Republican” and more conservative House again, as well as 30 Republican Governors etc, etc. ?

By: Lourdes Merici

Lourdes Merici — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:21:00 +0000

How do you respond when someone tells you they are pregnant?
I highly doubt you respond by asking, “Are you pregnant with a zygote, a morula, or an embryo? Because not all people agree with what it is?
If you believe that an unborn baby isn’t a person, than what makes a person a person?
The saddest part about your view is how you are not able to see the beauty in how that embryo growing inside the women will be able to hear his/her mother’s voice and suck his/her thumb all before he or she is born.

By: choiceone

choiceone — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 22:39:00 +0000

Human life exists in a live woman at all times and not just in part of her body – she’s human and she has life. But if an embryo is growing in her uterus and she dies, the embryo also dies. There are no exceptions to this, it is one of those cause-effect things in science that is unqualified by other variables. Only at the point of fetal viability does a fetus have any chance of living in separation from the woman’s body, so that, even if she dies, it has a chance of being “a” “live” “human being.”

That’s why cases such as the needless death of Savita Halappanavar as she miscarried a 17 week old fetus are so tragic (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741). Had the doctors done their job, she would still be alive.

By: Paula Davis

Paula Davis — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:42:00 +0000

It isn’t about agreement. It is about the Truth. And you know that for centuries, we have known that human life exists in a mother’s womb.

By: choiceone

choiceone — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:28:00 +0000

I do not at all disagree that a new DNA combination is formed. Such a DNA may “connote” a new, separate life” but it is not, in fact, a live human being. All it is is a biological blueprint for a new, live human being. The zygote/morula/blastocyst/early embryo cannot of itself grow into such a human being. Its natural life span is 8-10 days, and that life span can be doubled by feeding the blastocyst/embryo a supernutrient. But in order to keep on living and developing being that life span to the point that it can live as human beings live, by breathing (even with artificial medical help), it has to live as a subordinate part of a woman’s body for several months and to receive life from her in that situation.

And I can’t tell you how insulting, demeaning, and misogynistic I think it is to pretend that a woman’s body is nothing but a location. This attitude is why I chose celibacy and left sex and reproduction to others.

In the realm of everyday expressions in my dialect of English is the word “mother-to-be.” I do not think a pregnant woman is a mother. I think a woman who has given birth is a mother. When a fetus attains to viability, as far as I am concerned, it has a potential life as a person in the future. I do not think there is a new human being or person until the pregnant woman and God have finished making it, just as I do not think there is a new book until the writer and God have finished writing and editing it and it is published.

By: Christopher Lake

Christopher Lake — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:01:00 +0000

Choiceone, you are using science here to argue for your position, but the scientific facts are not on your side. It is a biological fact that at the moment of conception, a new DNA is formed, a DNA that is *distinct* from that of the mother or the father. A new DNA connotes a new, separate life that is *temporarily residing within and being supported by* the mother’s body. One’s temporary location does not determine one’s humanity. One does not become “more human” and, therefore, more worthy of being legally protected, simply as a result of being born.

In the realm of everyday expressions, when women are pregnant, they often speak of “eating for two.” Why is that, if there is only one person in question, in regard to pregnancy– and abortion?

By: Paula Davis

Paula Davis — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 19:50:00 +0000

“Fiat” means consent. But this has nothing to do with your gratuitous claim that “a loving God gets a woman’s agreement to become pregnant in advance.” Your assertion, in your mind, opens the door for the “legitimacy” of abortion in the case of violation. Shameful.

By: choiceone

choiceone — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:48:00 +0000

You are assuming that the women of whom you speak consider a zygote, a morula, a blastocyst, or an embryo to be an actual child who has a life of its own. The great weakness of the pro-life movement is to assume that all people agree on that. They just don’t.

By: choiceone

choiceone — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:44:00 +0000

I do mean it. In the Gospels, the one case we have of a pregnancy without the woman praying for it is that of Mary. Have you ever read the account in Luke? An archangel is sent, who tells Mary what will happen. But Mary does not just say “okay.” She has learned already: 1) who the father will be (God); 2) the gender of the child (male); 3) the destiny of the child in this world (savior). But she still asks, How will this happen? And she is given an answer to that question. Still she does not just say “okay.” She wisely says, “Be it unto me according to thy word,” which means she agrees only to exactly what has been said and nothing else. And the Holy Spirit does not come upon her until she says these words of agreement. That is waiting for agreement. It is blasphemous to even to suggest the possibility that the Holy Spirit would rape anyone.

By: prolifemomri

prolifemomri — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:31:00 +0000

Obviously, God Who commands us to love Him first and love our neighbors as ourselves does not answer the problem of unintended pregnancy by telling women to have their children dismembered. As to those women who “know that there are there are things more important than life” may, at times, think their own lives worthless (and should be given much love and support during those times), but to decide that a child’s life is so insignificant that s/he should be killed? The people of the future will look back at our cruelty with horror and shame…