As a rule, I don't generally comment* about what goes on over at Horsesass. Mostly this is because the site's proprietor, Mr. Goldstein, is a little more than irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Besides, life is just too short and the weather outside just too grand to waste time with small people who try to get attention.
Now I'm not an easily offended person. I'm pretty laid back and even-natured with a good sense of humor about most things. This leads me to state that the following paragraph has got to be the most putrid thing that I've read in the past month.
9PM: Questions over choice. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris announced this week that her 1-month old son has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome. At 38-years-old, McMorris would have surely been advised by her doctors to screen for genetic abnormalities via amniocentesis. One can only assume that her religious convictions led her to decline. Would you abort a Down Syndrome fetus? McMorris made her choice -- shouldn't other women be allowed to make theirs?
Apparently this will be one topic tonight on KIRO News Radio 710 with your host David Goldstein. The dozens of you listening will no doubt want to call in at 1-877-710-KIRO.
Speaking for myself here but if the situation were different and it were my niece a blogging/part-time radio host had brought up in a tawdry, aborting Down Syndrome babies debate, that person would have about a dozen angry Scotsmen giving him a size-thirteen enema with a Kiwi applicator the next day.
Fortunately, I don't have a dog in this fight. So I'll try to be a friend here and give Goldy some helpful advice - and I know you're reading this - I'd really steer clear of a particular group of Scots-Irish family members in the immediate future.
Better yet. I'd just drop the topic and poor analogy altogether and not bring it up on your show.
*** An exception was made when I remarked about how Goldstein made an 'ucktard of himself by violating Republican PCO Tim Borders' voter secrecy with, as it turned out, erroneous information he received from dumpster-diving attorney Richard Pope.***
It all just sounds a wee bit too Third Reich-ish for my tastes...
Posted by: Mike H on June 2, 2007 08:27 PMThat's a great point... if it's okay to terminate a Down's kid because his/her condition is undesirable, why not a girl because her gender is undesirable?
The mother should always have the right to choose, correct?
Posted by: Mike H on June 2, 2007 09:35 PMAnd therein lies the problem: the baby did not have Downs. When the young womans Mom was waiting for the birth she had opportunity to speak with others in the waiting room, many of whom were also told their babies were at risk for Downs. This is not a reliable test and yet doctors want all pregnancies tested for Downs.
With approximately one out of every 800 babies born have Down syndrome, how many will be wrongly aborted? How is it liberals don't see the hypocrisy in this when they argue for that one possibly innocent guy on death row?
Regarding that Goldstein guy: he proved himself despicable long ago. Nothing is sacred or precious enough to him that he wouldn't exploit it for a buck's worth of publicity.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 2, 2007 09:37 PMGood of you to chime in on the topic.
As for the news that Cole has Down Syndrome, that's unfortunate. Hopefully like many with Down Syndrome he can live a happy life. Many that are, do, despite their handicap. Best wishes go out Cole's parents.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 2, 2007 09:51 PMThe guy is a shameless exploiter of the sensational. That's why he often uses profanity to make his points. He can't get any attention by simply stating articulate arguments, instead he has to say something egregious.
If his radio show is hurting to the point that he has to go to this extreme to incite a few callers, that pretty much says it all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 2, 2007 10:26 PM1. What is a human life?
2. What happens if a government authority or
some individual or entity with superior
authority defines a bright line and says that
only lives that have a defined quality should
exist?
This is the essence of the culture of death.
If life is devalued, then it is not a difficult
leap to saying that those that do not have a certain standard of life should die. That could include those of certain abilities, gender, age, and color.
The couple of times I have heard Goldie and read his blog I thought that he was a typical
secular progressive who is so focused on "me" that no one could love or understand "me" as much as "I" can. I don't think much of other humans that kick people when they are down. Rep. Mc Morris, like Mayor Nickels should be given the space and privacy to deal with their personal situations in their own way and time. I don't know who the horse is, but I certainly know who the ass is.
Connecting it to a specific situation such as McMorris's is tasteless and cruel.
And Don, while I agree with the gist of your post, it is petty to call a fellow blogger irrelevant when he is certainly more relevant than you are.
On a related note, and totally unrelated to the Downs Syndrome issue, where are the people on this board who criticized Darcy Burner for running for Congress while she had young children?
Posted by: Bruce on June 2, 2007 11:01 PM
I also hope Stefan got to hear Mr. Obama. It was a great sleech and many things in ti shold appeal to a true conservative. What an idea! Someone who runs for President as an American rather than as a Conservative or a Liberaaaaaaaaaal. What do the marines say? OBAMPOWA HURRAH I posted pix and comments at my blog.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 2, 2007 11:04 PMMy response in general to this tasteless topic is--go to abort73.com and go to the left of page where it says "photographic evidence" and click to see what these aborted babies look like. What radical pro-aborts don't tell you is that after 6 weeks, they look human, with legs, hands, toes, eyes, head, arms etc.
After they dismember the baby, the "doctor" that tore the baby apart has to piece the body parts all back together on the table. This is how they determine if they "got it all." It's sickening. And a whole lot of women/girls get angry when they see this, because they say that no one told them just how human these babies look at 8 weeks, 10 weeks, etc. The dirty little secret of abortion (over a million a year) is that many, many women are living in horrible guilt over what they've done. They bought the lie that if you just tear the baby into pieces and throw it away that it 'fixes' everything. Most of them will admit that it just made everything worse. Planned Parenthood doesn't talk about that 'inconvenient truth', do they? You can find hundreds of stories online about the agony that millions of women are going through over having been talked into doing it. A lot of them were just told they had to by their boyfriends, parents, etc. and wish they had not caved. All we ever hear is that it's some kind of right to destroy another's life, but no one wants to warn these women about the torment far too many live with afterward for years to come. There is no undoing it.
Posted by: Michele on June 2, 2007 11:05 PMOh, and there were a lot of Repubicans at the Obama rally. maybe it was the costly tickets? Or are we all gonna vote American this time? Pix abd Words on the Obama Visit at SeattleJew
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 2, 2007 11:10 PMOh, and there were a lot of Republicans at the Obama rally. Maybe it was the costly tickets? Or are we all gonna vote American this time? He says many conservative things and certainly ha sled a more moral life than any of the Publican candidates other than the one Mormon. . Pix and Words on the Obama Visit at SeattleJew
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 2, 2007 11:12 PMThe fact is these are important topics to discuss, and often the radio host is putting them out there as much to be educated by the experiences of listeners, as to be a channel for one opinion or another.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 2, 2007 11:34 PMWhen she runs again, as she said she will, it seems to me that it would be totally within reason to ask her what she thinks about aborting Down Syndrome babies, and whether she would use that issue against a Republican as her friends do.
She mentioned horsesass in at least one of her recent videos, which she has since made private.
And OH MY, check out her most recent video on her YouTube page. She whines about the war funding bill -- it's easy to talk tough about cutting off funding for the troops when you're not in Congress, eh? sounds like you're extremely naive about political realities -- and then tells people to, on Memorial Day, instead of simply remembering the troops, to protest against the war.
I almost wish I lived in her district so I could devote a lot of my time to breaking her. :-)
Like one of my favorite Country-Western singers, Trace Atkins (all 6'7' of him) sez in one of his songs.....
you just go ahead & keep enraging folks by exercising you 1st Amendment Right in this manner...and I'll soon feel like exercising my whatever Amendment Right and give you a good old-fashioned Country ass-kickin'!!
Perhaps KLOWNstein ought to have a topic like
"Is it ok for someone to stomp a whiney, sniveling talk-show host for polluting the airwaves with garbage?"
Don Ward
Posted by: David Goldstein on June 3, 2007 09:14 AMSecond, I do believe that the sentiment in post #31 does accurately reflect Goldies' line of thinking...that in dealing with the right he wishes to let bygones be zyklon B.
Posted by: LeftoFascists must die! on June 3, 2007 09:36 AM1. I suppose the ideological purity police attempt
to purge all not in lockstep with every lame
idea. There is a pro-life wing of the dems:
Robert Patrick Casey, Sr., better known as Bob Casey, Sr. or simply Bob Casey (January 9, 1932 - May 30, 2000), was an American politician and member of the Democratic Party who served Pennsylvania in several capacities, most notably as its 42nd Governor from 1987 to 1995. He is best known for leading the pro-life wing of the Democratic party, and for taking the lead in fighting Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major Supreme Court course case that upheld almost all the prohibitions on abortion that he signed into law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Casey
Not all pro-lifers are pubbies and some are dems.
2. The Special Olympics which was created by one of the most famous dem families to honor their "special" relative has showcased the talents of many athletes.
http://www.specialolympics.org/Special+Olympics+Public+Website/default.htm
How can some one be so digusting and still live. Breathing has to be automatic in your case.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 09:39 AMBill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 3, 2007 09:45 AM"Every time I hear someone talk about aborting Down's kids (or anyone who is developmentally disabled), I get creeped out. It always leads down a slippery slope... at what point do you say that a human being isn't valuable enough or too much trouble to be worth being born?"
Mike my daughter has Downs Syndrome and I hear you but if we had it to do again we would not have had her. We love her oh god we love her but I can't say that she is a human being in any meaningful way. She will have no purpose in life other than to be cared for and when we are gone she will be institutionalized.
Lets do everyone a favor. A DD fetus should be aborted one hundred percent of the time. Healthy children should be delivered one hundred percent of the time.
Posted by: Phatoman on June 3, 2007 09:53 AM"Democrats woo abortion opponents for Senate
Party denies 'positioning' as it selects Casey for Pennsylvania...."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7150734/
Care to give this senate seat back since you don't like pro-lifers.
Does Goldie have advertisers? Does the station?
Do they know that he is mouthing off without adult supervision?
I don't know how much Bob Casey, Jr. speaks out, but he defeated Santorium. I haven't been active in party politics of any type for years, but I do know that there are local dems across the country who are pro-lifers. Like conservative dems they tend to keep quiet particularly in one party rule locales where one's livelihood depends on not rocking the boat too much. What I have found is that most people feel very uneasy about the issue no matter what side they are on.
Phatoman:
I have not walked in your shoes and I respect your thoughts. I disagree with you on the 100%
abortion rule in the case of DD. That should remain an individual choice. Best Wishes.
They continue today calling it prenatal testing, or selective termination. Today's goal for these parents-to-be is creating the "perfect" baby.
If you'd like to read a thoughful article on the subject, see this website, and the article in full by A. Matusow:
http://www.jewsforlife.org/Article_Detail.cfm?ID=196
Really? You don't think?
However, with a handle like your's, openly seeking death for those who have a different opinion than you, I suspect you wrote it.
Posted by: Daniel K on June 3, 2007 11:05 AM2. If it wasn't Goldie, he should go after them.
In this post-Imus world, using someone's
moniker in the manner of post #31 can
have consequences.
3. Will the real putrid trash idiot claim
no pride of authorship.
One road involves my grandson, diagnosed autistic at age 4. If a future test would determine this before birth, should he have been aborted? It's been a long, hard road, with lots of therapy. However, he just graduated from a private college with a 3.35 GPA, with law school in the future.
The other road is about abortion, itself. Goldy asks...."shouldn't other women be allowed to make theirs?"(choice) The obvious answer is...the choice was made when the woman spread open her legs...crude but honest.
Posted by: Susu on June 3, 2007 12:07 PMPull your head out. All you have to do is look at Obama's voting record in public office to see that he is just one more of the establishment. It's people like you that elect idiots like Bush. There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, do differentiate Obama from any other Dem that is running for President. You are willing to overlook his "history" and take him on the words of his political speach.
And way to get be entirely off topic. I know you are trolling for exactly what I just said but you have to know you are an utter fool for even thinking of voting for Obama.
Posted by: Mr Rcguy on June 3, 2007 12:08 PMMy only advice to him? Physician, heal thyself!
The Piper
Posted by: Piper Scott on June 3, 2007 12:48 PMAs for the issue at hand. The podcast of Hour 3 will be posted to 710kiro.com sometime on Monday. I suggest you listen to it before vilifying me for something you assume I might say.
Posted by: Goldy on June 3, 2007 12:57 PMIt does not matter what you said, look at what you wrote. You used the suffering and misery of another person to try and make a political point. You have no moral compass when spewing hatred toward Republicans.
You crossed a line. I encourage people to contact KIRO and ask them to give Goldy the boot. What an ass.
Posted by: Grandgadfly on June 3, 2007 01:13 PMHere's a question, let's say a child is in a horrible accident and becomes a quadriplegic? Or, better yet, that Iraqi boy who's now in Seattle because his face was disfigured by gunfire and is getting reconstructive surgery? In Iraq, since he's blind and so horribly maimed, he really has no chance at a "meaningful" life. He will always need to be cared for. Should they just take him out back and shoot him? How about the quadriplegic? What if the child has brain damage and is rendered retarded due to an accident? Should they just be put down? Should anyone who becomes disabled and really serves no purpose in life than to be cared for be killed to save everyone else the trouble?
Because really, if you are going to terminate people before birth because the have extreme disabilities, or even because they are not "healthy", then by that standard you really should also terminate people after birth for the same reasons.
And that is why it creeps me out and sounds so Third Reich-ish... because it is.
Posted by: Mike H on June 3, 2007 01:32 PMOK, here is nmy challenge to YOU. These are issues on which I consider myself a concervative .. please rate Obama and onay of the current Publicans:
1. Iraq We have lost. We need a strategic solution that gets out .. not abrupt witdrawal or long term commitment.
2. Taxes. We need to pay our way. A trillion dollar debt and massive capital xfer to CDhina is idiotic,
3. Work. Is classism conservative? Every American should serve and every American should have equal opportunity.
4. Healthcare. We need a national plan that works. Details aside, we are headed for a fiscal and probably health disaster. Obama has suggested a plan. So has Romney .. they are very similar.
5. Pride. Who provokes more priode in being an American? McCain is the only Publican with the ability.
"Innovating Teacher Pay and Teacher Support
School districts across America face systemic barriers to attracting and putting the best teachers in schools where they are needed the most. Although the federal role in education is limited, one way the federal government can make the most of its scarce resources is by fostering innovation -- identifying the best programs and practices, and helping expand them around the country. Senator Obama introduced the Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act to award grants to school districts that try new methods to improve student achievement and reward effective teachers. Under this initiative, 20 districts across the country would get grants to develop innovative plans in consultation with their teacher unions. High-performing teachers would be eligible for pay increases of 10 to 20 percent of their base salary. These innovation districts would be required to implement systemic reforms and show convincing results. These best practices would provide models for other school systems to adopt."
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
1. Note that the consultation is with the union.
Suppose a local wants a structure without
unions?
2. There is no mention of competition in
education. Ehat does he do about failing
schools and children in failing schools?
3. He is essentially attempting to modify a failing system by adding enhancements here and there.
I will let others discuss their issues, but does he admire the European model? Regarding faith in politics, he says this:
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate. In December, 2006, Senator Obama discussed the importance of faith in the global battle against AIDS."
What if the universal is moral relativism. Does that mean that we can't go after genital mutilation and five year old engaged brides. If the universal is that we respect that faith tradition, what the heck does that mean? I suspect it means whatever the hearer wants.
I am very happy that he is running, it is a sign of maturity for this country. I know that Joe Biden rightly got trashed for saying Obama could speak well and was clean. I suspect that many in the crowd were happy to see a Black man who was not Sharpton/Jackson. Me too, not because I agree with him, but because he is a credible candidate.
The market in 2008 will sort everything out.
I guess the comment is discerment about which facts are important to comment on. Rep Mc Morris and Mayor Nickels deserve privacy. The whole stinking mess in Schiavo should have been revealed.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 02:50 PMMost of the offfensive suff over there is a lot like here ad is a lot mORE likely to come form right wingers than"libs."
Returning to the show on Down's, Goldy handled it very, very well. He showed not only sumpat5hy for the family but respect for their honestly accepting the implications of their values. There is a lesson there for all talk hosts!
Speaking as a Jew, our law on this is not very clear either. We are taught to value life above all else. One can break almost any other law in defense of life. What neither Judaism, Islam or Christianity can deal with is the new knowledge we have gained form genetics. If I know that 1/3 of all concepti fail to survive the first few weeks, and if I have the knowledge to save one healthy fetus over another, msutn't I make that choice? Do I take one life at the expense of another or vice versa?
Personally I fail to understand where in the revelations of the three Abrahamic faith does the Deity grant authority to Iman, the Pope, the elders, the Sanhedrin to any man made body to determine truth. The best a human can do is to learn the Deity's direct revelation, that is science, and then reconcile it which ever book
is revered.
Down's sis a special problem, when as here, the fetus is allowed to progress to term. By then we have to decide where the limits of human suffering lie.
But then, I am just a Seattlejew.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 3, 2007 03:40 PM1. Iraq. No we really haven't lost but we do not have the political will to do what it takes to win. Just like Korea and just like Vietnam. I am all for us leaving but I am not for leaving like we did in Vietnam with all it's various consequences. I also don't support the war, it was an interventionist travesty, but leaving before Iraqis can hold their own is plain stupid. Unfortunately the "politically correct" thing right now is to support any effort to get us out, good or bad. Consequently Obama says nothing of meaning here.
2. Taxes. I agree but we have nobody that is willing to take that stand either (Ron Paul maybe?). Money is an addiction that most politicians have. Cutting taxes (true tax cuts or reform) means making choices, not even hard ones, just plain choices. Saying that ,,, show me where Obama has actually voted differently than anybody else and in the end not some preliminary vote that doesn't mean a thing. Or if he is standing up against this: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHA8LG0.html
3. Work? Every American can have equal opportunity. It's what you personally choose to sacrifice to get to where you want to be.
4. Nationalized Health Care is a terrible idea. I don't subscribe to the cool aid. I would support some type of employer subsidy or incentive but not the wholesale nationalization of a "plan". Even then it would be with my nose plugged. Retirement, un-insured children? We may be able to find common ground there.
5. Pride? Sure Obama has the ability to make people feel warm and fuzzy, but I feel warmer and fuzzier looking at my wife's boobs. Seriously. What a bunch of crap. I'm voting for Obama 'cause he makes me feel good. Jeez. I absolutely hope you are making a better decision than that.
Posted by: Mr. Rcguy on June 3, 2007 03:52 PMThe vast majority of parents choose to abort in such a situation - they are, simply, vanishing from public notice. There are far, far fewer of these children now than when I was a child.
Posted by: H Moul on June 3, 2007 05:46 PMI am not a theologian, but there are a couple that read this blog. Here are my thoughts:
"Personally I fail to understand where in the revelations of the three Abrahamic faith does the Deity grant authority to Iman, the Pope, the elders, the Sanhedrin to any man made body to determine truth. The best a human can do is to learn the Deity's direct revelation, that is science, and then reconcile it which ever book
is revered."
1. I will limit my comments to my particular brand of Christianity. There are many that claim to be Christians and the scope of whether they interpret Scripture literally ranges from literalists to those that view the Ten Commandments as the ten suggestions. According to Scripture, tares will be placed among the wheat. It is not my job to separate the wheat from the chaff as that is above my pay grade.
2. Literalists view the Scripture as the inspired Word of the Living God as spoken through the Prophets. So, the Ten Commandements are not the ten suggestions. Since, no one person is perfect, then there is a get home free card which is probably more than you care to know.
3. Now, to the meat of your question which is who died and made "you" king or queen?
a. You are probably familar with the statement,
"render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
That indicates that there is a framework
of both civil and cannonical authority.
b. Hebrews 13 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. This refers to civil authority.
c. As to church authority:
The Epstile of St. Paul to Titus outlines
the hierarchy of the church as well as
characteristics and duties.
Although, I have attended Seders, I would no more
presume to criticize the doctrine of your faith than your hint that you thought Christians were
lame-brained. For, a better discussion of belief
vs. non-belief follow the brothers Hitchens as they toss that football back and forth. Theologians, please correct my errors.
And... abortion in the first four months of pregnancy.
Month-five (and later) abortions should be illegal, except to save the life of the mother. You snooze, you lose. I admit that it's an arbitrary line, but one that has to be drawn. (Why not let each state pick it's own arbitrary point? Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, so it's a states' rights issue!) Birth is also arbitrary. My son's birthday was picked by a doctor.
Conception is not a great point to pick to ascribe the right to life to a conceptus. At conception, there can be no consciousness, there can be no mental processes, because there are no neurons. It takes weeks for the first fetal stem cell to begin to differentiate into a neuron. It takes many millions of neurons to give rise to conscious mental processes. So there can be no soul. "Soul" comes with "enough" mental complexity. Science still can not tell us how much "enough" is, but it is certainly more than a thousand neurons.
Unless you want to say that slugs have souls.
I've never been a party to an abortion, but this is the land of liberty, and making early-term abortions illegal will not achieve a reduction in abortion. We need other programs to achieve that noble end.
Choice is freedom. Choice is liberty.
Expanding government power (by limiting abortion, among other things) is reduction in choice.
It is liberals who want to control our behavior and limit our chocie and force us to do what they think is in the "greater good."
Conservatives should be pro-choice, at least in the first four months of pregnancy, because conservatives care about individualism. And no, kids' rights are not equal to adults' rights. Kids can't sign legal contracts, own property, etc...
I've been a Special Olympics speed skating coach for the last decade. I've met a lot of wonderful, happy downs-syndome adults. But I would NEVER presume to force a pregnant woman who had good reason to believe her child had downs to carry him or her to term. I honor those who stick it out, but I know it is a really tough life to be the parent of a downs syndrome kid. It's a major source of marital strife and divorce. At times, it can be a living hell. I say let such prospective parents choose their own path. It will be on their own conscience, not yours.
Although, you may or may not accept the authority of a spiritual leader. Should you care to delve deeper, the following link gives the Biblical case against abortion, obviously from an conservative viewpoint.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/thebible.html
To be fair, not all Christian denominations say that abortion is wrong.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 09:09 PMFor any woman who has not borne kids to force another woman to risk her life in this way is major tyrrany.
To do this is to presume to tell people that they should risk their lives, when YOU haven't been in a position of risking your life in this way.
Look, we value Congressional candidates with military experience. Why? Because it really IS true that those who have served in a foreign war have more moral authority when deciding to send some poor infantry grunt to risk his life in a foreign land.
Same thing with abortion.
If you haven't actually borne a child yourself, then why should a pregnant woman listen to you?
The Republican Party will probably continue to hurt itself by flogging this unpopular issue. You know this issue hurts you.
Stick to fiscal conservative issues or you will never get back into power. Dump the social conservative issues and interventionist foreign policy. Return to being the party of small government.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on June 3, 2007 09:18 PMYou are trying to find a pragmatic solution to the issue of abortion, but you have stumbled onto the real issue:
"takes many millions of neurons to give rise to conscious mental processes. So there can be no soul. "Soul" comes with "enough" mental complexity"
The problem is that many religious denominations disagree with you on this concept:
Background:
Within Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and other religions and ethical systems, the morality of abortion is grounded in the precise belief of the nature of the fetus. There is a general consensus in North America that when the fetus becomes a human person, then abortions should be severely limited. Most would confine abortions at that stage to situations that threaten the life of the pregnant woman; a very few would eliminate access to abortions totally. The problem that generates so much controversy is that no consensus exists in society over the point, between conception and birth, when personhood begins.
Halacha (Jewish law) does define when a fetus becomes a nefesh (person). "...a baby...becomes a full-fledged human being when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a 'partial life.' " 5 In the case of a "feet-first" delivery, it happens when most of the fetal body is outside the mother's body.
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm
This is one thought, see the Biblical case against abortion cited above. The reason that on a previous thread mainstreamers or whatever they are called want Evangelicals and other conservative Christians to simply go away or drop off the face of the earth is that the issues posed by Evangelical and conservative Christians pose some real political challenges. Still, if your faith tradition states certain things about the nature of a soul, I respect that. Other faith traditions differ.
The problem for society is how to craft a legislative solution to this issue.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 09:34 PM1. I am an indie, not a pubbie and there are
many varieties of conservatives here, not all
party people. Pubbies will decide what is
best for their party, not me.
2. "The Republican Party will probably continue to hurt itself by flogging this unpopular issue. You know this issue hurts you.
Stick to fiscal conservative issues or you will never get back into power. Dump the social conservative issues and interventionist foreign policy. Return to being the party of small government." How do you explain Senator Casey?
You make a interesting statement about the popularity of a particular social issue. Goodness, if I had to depend upon as Blanche Dubois would say "the kindness of strangers" to secure my liberty and education, I'd probably be a slave. Abolition and an equality of opportunity are sometimes not popular. "Popular" often achieves limited results as popularity ebbs and flows.
Anyhow, I'll let the mainstreamers and pubbies duke it out. It's fun to watch.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 09:47 PMPlease accept my apologies for misspelling your name.
Posted by: WVH on June 3, 2007 09:57 PMI think many partisan Republicans like me are conflicted because we would LOVE to be pro-choice for the sake of being more political palatable, except for we can't get past that little irksome voice in the back of our heads that just screams that abortion is gravely wrong.
You could logically say that forcing a woman to bring a child to term is a "major tyrrany" if, say, there was some pregnancy fairy that flitted around at night, randomly dropping babies into women's wombs as they sleep. That's not how babies come to be, though.
Eat a pint of Haagen Dazs every day and you're going to have to deal with some weight gain. Have sex without birth-control and eventually you're going to piss a "+" with your EPT. This is what I think scientists call "cause and effect."
Truly a shame to put a child in a dumpster because someone "isn't ready" for a baby. I know my parents weren't ready for me. Who really is? :)
Posted by: AD on June 3, 2007 10:14 PM"Drawing on Thomas Clarkson's evidence, he described in detail the appalling conditions in which slaves travelled from Africa in the middle passage, and argued that abolishing the trade would also bring an improvement to the conditions of existing slaves in the West Indies. He put forward twelve propositions for abolition, largely based upon Clarkson's Essay on the Impolicy of the African Slave Trade, which had been printed in large numbers and widely circulated. However, Wilberforce was opposed to extending the franchise to working class reformers, encouraged by Thomas Paine's Rights of Man to seek the vote. Wilberforce led the establishment of the Society for Suppression of Vice and Encouragement of Religion to curb political aspiration and support for the French Revolution. In January 1790, Wilberforce succeeded in gaining approval for a Parliamentary select committee to consider the slave trade and to examine the vast quantity of evidence which he put forward...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce
I thank God that Wilberforce wasn't a moral midget.
Cheers to both parties as they attempt to be relevant and to all a good night.
Iraq
We agree except for one thing. The loss. A major lesson of the 2oth century is that colonial occupation only works if it is done totally and overwhelmingly. We might have been able t do this in Iraq if we had gone in woth the size of force Powell wanted. Now it is too late. We need a strategic retreat ..with emphais on strategic. On that we agree.
Socialized Medicine Like it or not that is what you will get. The current system based on employment is a mess. It hurts our competitiveness and is massively inefficient.
There may be non socialized altertnatives but I have not heard anyone propose one.
I probably agree with you about the schools. The issue is poilitcal. A demo who opposed the NEA has no chance of getting the nomination. That said, the Publicans have their own albatross in this area. The reuslt .. the kids get fucked!
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 08:19 AMOpportunities
Americans do not6 have anywhere near equal opportunity to work. We have gross inequities .. unique in the industrial world .. in access to education. Also, someone going to the UW form the middle class may accumulate house size debts that limit her choices later in life.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 08:23 AMOh .. and what did Reagan bring to office?
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 08:25 AMFirst my comments applied to all three abrahamic revaltion.
The issue for Christians is a bit harder since your history does not claim a revelation as in the story of the Deity or Gabriel giving Moses the Torah or M. the Quran. Instead, the "canon" of the new testament AND all the OT except for the Torah was determined by committee. Even if there were text in the committee's authorized edition that gaver the authority, the issue is clear.
The other issue is one that Judaism, over it history, may ahve solved by the tradiotn that science trumps all other forms of revelation. Even here, the majority of Jews may not accept this.
I you want to talk mor e of this, I would love to get as thread going at Seattlejew (just Google the word).
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 08:33 AMYour arguments appear sound and reasonable, but they amount to little more than sophistry. Similar style of arguments were used to justify slavery in the past. It is convenient to "define" the value of life using any set of criteria that makes one comfortable, but that is insufficient to address the issue. Even if we attempted to use science as a tool for the determination, we run into 3 problems:
1) There is no scientific means to draw a line between human and non-human aspects of humanity. Every measure is fluid and open to interpretation. We have only 2 real demarcations: Conception and birth.
2) Science is totally incapable of establishing a measure of what makes us human. "soul" is not a measurable and testable item and thus cannot be scientifically established. If you believe in a soul, you pretty much have to exclude science in your efforts to classify it.
3) Relying on science to determine the measure of one's rights in this country is effectively undermining the philosophical underpinnings of our founders who established that our rights were not generated from man but from our creator. When you insert a man-made "checklist" of requirements, you have established that our rights DO come from man and not from the creator. In a sense, scientific criteria may be unconstitutional in that respect.
While it is rather inconvenient to deal with the question of the unborn, how we define life simply cannot be left up to arbitrary logical constructs. Allowing an individual to make the decision as to whether another life is deserving of life is quite profound. Extending this argument out means that I can choose for myself whether my neighbor is human enough and whether I can terminate him. Legally it is not allowed, but the same moral argument is in play here. In other words, one cannot simply rely on one's own comfort with what constitutes a valid human life. Because you personally feel that 4 or 5 months is a reasonable cut-off is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the life in question.
As for other devices used, we cannot simply use consensus or majority rule. Whether my neighbor lives or dies is not at the hands of a majority. His status as a human with inalienable rights is not a result of a consensus decision on his meeting certain criteria.
Posted by: Eyago on June 4, 2007 09:03 AMMaybe because many people have concluded that religion is irrational and cannot be defended "logically" thus the religious argument can be easily ignored by those seeking to "win" the argument, and the believer of the religion can then be marginalized as being backward and unsophisticated. It is unfathomable to the intellectual elite to think that someone would have rational arguments against something they have rationally construed to be true.
In other words, only religious bigots are incapable of seeing this argument from a "rational" and "humane" perspective and thus cannot accept the logic that abortion is the greater good.
Posted by: Eyago on June 4, 2007 10:27 AM"To do this is to presume to tell people that they should risk their lives, when YOU haven't been in a position of risking your life in this way."
So I guess then you agree that someone like Bill Clinton sending our troops to war in Bosnia was just as wrong?
Hypocrite!
Posted by: pbj on June 4, 2007 11:24 AMThere are better ways to prevent the necessity and frequency of these invasive ugly procedures. They begin with effective sex education and contraception. They are knowledge, compassion, support, and access to medical professionals and services. They do not include optimistic ignorance, wishful thinking, or laws that force women to mutilate themselves in private.
Posted by: Acid Brain on June 4, 2007 11:34 AMDEFINE 'health of the mother' .. but you won't because that would negate the convenience of your excuse to conveniently rid yourself of this months' nasty little inconvenience. The inconvenient LIE about the "health of the mother" is that the numbers are so miniscule as to be irrelevant... just as the "rape" excuse, just as the "incest" excuse They are a minority of cases and you know it.
The majority of abortions in this country aren't to save mom's life (or rape cases, or incest cases, or even handicap cases) - they're to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy. They're post-facto birth control. They're for convenience.
Sweeping decisions should not be made based on an extreme minority of cases. That's like getting rid of sidewalks because a person occassionally trips over them and gets hurt.
Abortions to in respose to rape-babies are an extreme minority. Suppose 100 women have abortions. Of those women, 1 needs the abortion to prevent her death, 1 needs the abortion because a rapist knocked her up, 98 need them because they're stupid and irresponsible and they just don't feel like facing the biological consequences of their actions.
1 of those abortions is "medically necessary" (although it takes a pretty sick woman that's willing to kill her own progeny to save herself - I often wonder if they'd hold their 5yr old up in front of them as a human shield to prevent being shot as well...)OK, maybe you consider that a legit reason to have an abortion. 1 of those abortions is because mom was raped. OK, maybe you consider that legit too (although I disagree, because the circumstances leading to your existence don't make your existence any less worthwhile - and I personally know people that were born of rape, and not one of them has ever said, "I don't deserve to be alive because I was a product of rape.")
So, how do those TWO justify the other 98? It's absurd.
It's like saying, "we should treat the majority of muslims like the extreme few that fly commercial jets into skyscrapers." And we all know how libs feel about that. How can you justify the whole, on the basis of an extreme minority?
The answer is, you can't. We shouldn't open the floodgates to let a few drops through.
FURTHERMORE, just one Mother like Anna Radosz gives lie to every "health of the mother" excuse you can come up with... Just one mother like Jennifer Ann Carl gives lie to every "health of the mother" excuse you can come up with.
ASK any mother if she would jump in a raging river to protect her child; ask if she would rush into traffic or put herself between her child and a pitbull. The answer will always be OF COURSE I WOULD.
The bottom line about abortion is that it is all about the MONEY: In fact, in the last seven years alone, Planned Parenthood has earned profits - or built a surplus - of more than $350 million. In that time period, it has been given government grants of nearly $1.5 billion.
If you believe in abortion have the balss to say I BELIEVE IN KILLING BABIES, instead of relying on pathetically miniscue event excuses.
I Just Purposefully Killed My Puppy
Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:18 PM
So, about 3 days ago I went down to the animal shelter and adopted a puppy. A cute little rolypoly thing. I named it Beth, after an ex-girlfriend (who I sincerely hope gets hit by a bus one day).
And it was great. I loved that great feeling I had when I picked it out amongst all the other days, I loved how good if felt to hold it for the first time when it stared at me with its big hopeful eyes, and I smiled with delight the first time it licked my cheek. Anybody who has a dog knows the joy and pleasurable experience you have your first day with your new dog. It's wonderful right? Of course it is.
But... you know, as the last couple days went by, I realized how that great initial feeling came with consequences and responsibilities and expenses. Consequences and responsibilities and expenses that I DIDN'T WANT. Suddenly, I was dealing with a creature in my life that I had to take care of. Feeding, cleaning, picking up after its messes... ugh. All I wanted was the joy of getting a new puppy. I didn't want THIS. Sure, I knew that this might be a very real consequence I'd have to deal with by choosing to adopt a puppy - but now that I was actually saddled with this consequence, I realized I didn't want it. All I wanted was to do something that was fun and felt good. Why should I have to take responsibility for the consequences of that?
Now... like a lot of people, I'm a progressive, left-leaning, liberal Democrat that believes in freedom of choice. I believe that I have a penumbral RIGHT under the Constitution to CHOOSE whether I want to have an unnecessary burden in my life or not - regardless of how or why that burden is upon me. I believe it's a RIGHT for me to, for any reason whatsoever, excise from my life something that basically amounts to a leech or a parasite. NO ONE should have to be stuck with caring for a creature they don't want.
So, I took my puppy and hopped in the car. I went to three different veterinarians and asked them to kill my dog. They looked at me like I was a monster. I tried desperately to explain my situation to them - but they wouldn't listen. They said that what I wanted to do was WRONG and that I was an evil, evil person. I didn't know what to do, so I did the only thing I could think of - my last option, my only option: I took my puppy into a back alley and killed it. It wasn't clean. It wasn't safe. But I had to do what I had to do.
Some of you might think that was a terrible thing to do. But you know what? SCREW you. MY LIFE, MY CHOICE. You have NO right trying to FORCE me to take care of and take responsibility for this creature! If I don't want to deal with the consequences of adopting a puppy, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO. My life, my choice.
And jeez, could you imagine if I hadn't asked for the puppy in the first place? If some stranger came up and put it in my arms and said, "Here, take this!" No one should have to raise a puppy that was forced against them on their will.
It sickens me to know that I live in a society that doesn't allow people to exercise their right to choose - that I live in a society that doesn't give people safe, professional places to have a puppy killed if they decide they don't want to deal with it. I am truly saddened by the plight of those like me who are stuck without options, without choices, forced to take responsibility for something that they don't want to take responsibility for, having to resort to back-alley puppy killing. Sure, it's probably their fault they have the puppy in the first place - but so what? People should be allowed to kill their pets whenever they want, and not have to deal with unsafe conditions, social stigma, or unwanted burdens. It's not even human life. Plus, what kind of life would it be for the puppy anyway? It's not wanted, and a creature that isn't wanted is simply better off dead.
I envision a day when people have access and availability to them to have their puppies killed on demand. What I'd really love, is a group or organization in every city that, in addition to providing care and counseling for puppy owners, they provide affordable puppy killing services for those that choose to do so. We could call it "Planned Puppyownerhood." What a person does with their own life is an issue of privacy - something that's between a person and their veterinarian and no one else. We should respect people's privacy and choice, and let them do with their life whatever they want - regardless of how abhorrent we might find what they're doing.
Freedom means choice - and NOBODY should be infringing on my ability to choose what's best for MY life. If a person wants to kill their puppy, it's nobody's business but their own.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 4, 2007 01:04 PMThanks for the invite to blog at your site. I only blog here just because I don't have the time to do more blogging than I do. Thank you for your honesty about the schools. One of the reasons that I blog here is that unless some dem gets the kind of relevation like Nixon going to China, competition in schools is going to come from some pubbie with balls. Margaret Thatcher, for all her personal flaws, changed the dynamic in Britain. I think we can both agree that every child no matter that child's circumstance deserves a good basic education. That is my life's work. Blogging is for fun.
Posted by: WVH on June 4, 2007 01:12 PMI am in the process of moving, so much of my library is packed.
"The issue for Christians is a bit harder since your history does not claim a revelation as in the story of the Deity or Gabriel giving Moses the Torah or M. the Quran. Instead, the "canon" of the new testament AND all the OT except for the Torah was determined by committee. Even if there were text in the committee's authorized edition that gaver the authority, the issue is clear."
There are several excellent books that debunk the Da Vinci code and the assertation that Christianity was decided by commitee and Gnostic works were excluded. I don't think that you are getting that the entire Bible, including the new Testament is the inspired Word of God. God has spoken through the Prophets including the Disciples. If you read Revelation, it is in fact the Revelation of St. John. I am fully convinced of my faith and I have studied other religions, including yours. You are on very shaky ground, even if you have studied other religions to understand the depths of the underlying concepts without deep practice.
Many mainstreamers, secular progressives, or ruling elite, whatever consider us Christian conservatives to have an IQ smaller than our shoe size and totally incapible of understanding the political process. The correct analysis, in my opinion, is that we have not described our positions in a manner that those who are kindred spirits, no matter the label could understand and agree with. The abortion debate is couched in terms of the rights of the mother and that is true to a certain extent. There is built in tension with the balancing of Constitutional rights all the time. Like Wilberforce, we are going to have to present scientific evidence for the argument that the excercise of a set of rights does not give carte blanche to take a life. There are several different fronts for this argument. Many conservative churches are launching campaigns to get their members to take in foster children, for example.
Now, regarding the sterotype that most Christians inhabit doublewides and we are too stupid to know that political victory involves crafting a message and strong grassroots efforts, well, those making those arguments are clueless as to why you are losing. You stand for nothing.
Posted by: WVH on June 4, 2007 01:52 PMGod post
I think, however, that you need to add a few things to explain Judaism itself.
Orthodox rabbinic Judaism is about 1900 years old. It arose after the loss of the Temple as a means for keeping the Law intact. While that is history, there is no record of the Deity ruling that this form of Judaism has authority. Indeed, the Karaite sect, at times and places more popular than rabbinic Judaism denied rabbinic authority over these matters. Bptom line .. the rabbinate is self appointed ... as is the Imanate in islam.
Orthodox Judaism insists that one and only one book is revelation .. the Torah. The rest, including all the stuff Christians call the old testament is merely human commentary. The Torah, BTW, never mentions Jerusalem or a Messiah.
Judaism lacks a credo .. there is nothing you have to believe, only things you are supposed to do.
So, it is a bit deceptive to say the we do not consider a fetus a life. Some Jews do and some do not. I doubt very much that there is a well developed Halacha.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 03:42 PMI am rather well read on this subject would challenge you to find any version of history wherein God or Jesus canonizes the Books agreed on at Nicea?
Even if you were to accept that Paul had an epiphany, he does not describe the events of Jesus' life at all. So, the canon, including all the direct quotation come from accounts written after Paul's death r largely after then. There is no place in the New Testament where Jesus or God says ... these 4 books, they are what I want you to accept as the truth.
Matters become worse when you deal with what Christians call the "Old Testament." Judaism does not consider any of this, after Moses' death, as holy scripture. Inspired, bright, interesting, etc but the Jewish version of the Deity wrote one and only (set of) book(s). I am not very well read in the sayings of Jesus but I am fairly sure he never gives a list of books in the OT, other than the Torah, that comprise divine law.
Finally, you question my right to question Christian dogma. Why wouldn't I have that right? Much of what the Church claims as truth is supposedly history and that is everyone's interest. Beyond that the contradiction between evangelism and others not having the right to question is obvious.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 4, 2007 03:58 PMThe process you describe (using a red herring to hide what is really wanted) is a typical method of liberals. They did the same thing with the spotted owl and with the salmon. They didn't care a whit about the spotted owl, just as they don't care a whit about the salmon. They are just a red herring to use to hide what they really want--no logging and no dams on rivers.
That is why if you offer them a solution to the problem they say they have, they will just find something wrong with your solution. Show that spotted owls do just fine in second growth forests makes no difference to them. Offer to build ladders for the salmon to get around the dams--not good enough. Offer to make exceptions for the life of the mother or for rape and incest, they create the imperative, oh so necessary "health of the mother" exception that they can drive a truck through.
You can never take what liberals say at face value. They grab on to what they think can help their position because if they say what they really think, they know they will never get a majority to agree with them. It is all obfuscation.
By the way, say hello to John Galt and Dagny Taggart.
Bill H
Three s's ... suction first trimester (horrendous cramping and the sound of that vacuum...ugh)
saline ... saline second trimester (induced labor and hours of it, then knocked out to remove the baby...painful aftermath)
scissors to the head ... third trimester (see saline . . --. but this time, the actual brain is sucked out.)
Results - dead baby and a very wounded woman. You can use all the euphamisms you want - 'choice' 'product of conception' whatEVER, but in the end the choice is the choice to kill your own flesh and blood.
America WAKE UP!!!! Abortion is killing us one baby, sometimes two or more, at a time.
Posted by: Lee Anne on June 4, 2007 08:34 PM1. I have already said that I am not a theologian.
2. If you as a Jew do not accept Christianity,
that is your right and right to your belief.
3. I suppose common curtesy is in order when
discussing belief. In the name of religion,
people have done and said some awful things.
I would no more attack your beliefs than I
would kick a puppy. If you hate the idea of
Christianity and want to question its
legitimacy. So be it.
4. The use of the term "cannonizes" what the
heck do you mean by this.
5. You hate Christians, OK, well, I don't hate
you and I would never dis your religion.
4. You might want to check out this site for
more info about the Da Vinci code:
http://www.debunkingdavinci.com/
Most of your issues seem to come out of the
book.
So many here have shared their stories. Words fail me. I hope that the sharing of your story helps you to heal. Best Wishes.
Posted by: WVH on June 4, 2007 10:32 PMI never said I hate Christians. I do respect history. Where religions make factual claims that re not true, then we all have the same right to criticize that we would if a scientist was wrong.
Nothing I said has anything to do with the da Vinci Code btw. All I said was that Christianity, and esp. the Roman Church, is built differently form Islam and Judaism. The latter two have stories about the Deity making a direct and recorded revelation. Believe or not believe as you will that Gabriel dictated the Quran and that the followers of the prophet recorded the words accurately. Judaism goe further, claiming the Deity Himself WROTE the Torah.
The difference with the origins of Christianity is that there is no claim to a document (other than the five books of Moses) that comes directly form the hand or mouth of the Deirty to a permanent record. From its origins, Christianity was dependent on soem authority deciding what was and was not an accurate memory of the sayings of Jesus.
There is a similar issue, though of lesser import, in Judaism. While oNLY the Torah is said to be revealed, there is also supposed to be transmission of an oral tradition that adds to the direct revelation .. this is the Talmud. Orthodox Judaims considers the learned opinions in the Talmus as truths, albeit those truths are secondary to the Torah.
So, I do not see why you would take offencxe. The history of the Church in these matter si pretty clear. Paul doesn't describe Jesus early life and the decision to include Revelations was certaionly not made by the early church.
is this hurtful? Sorry, sometimes history is that way. Again, I wold welcome this as a thread in the blog and would be ahppy to give you plenty of room there for your side.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 5, 2007 12:27 AMYour comments are not hurtful, just expected. Such is the way of the world. For those that do not believe, no proof will ever be enough, for those that do believe no proof is necessary. No doubting Thomas here. Thank goodness for the Jews and Christians who work together in the ICEJ:
our mandate
The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem was founded in 1980 as an evangelical Christian response to the need to comfort Zion according to the command of scripture found in Isaiah 40:1-2: "Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem...
http://www.icej.org/
True respect means neither taking offense nor being offensive. Too bad you are not there yet or maybe ever. I will leave you to talk to yourself.
SeattleJew,
I think you need writers for your blog and are really interested in baiting people. You do, howvever, ask interesting questions.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-origin.htm
Answers many of your comments.
Bible Origin - Divine Inspiration
When examining Bible origin, many of today's liberal scholars look everywhere but the Bible. However, the Bible tells us that the origin of the Bible is God Himself. In 2 Timothy 3:16, we read that all scripture is inspired by God. The Greek word used for inspiration is theopneustos, which means "God-breathed." In 2 Peter 1:21, we understand that each writer was "carried along" by God. Therefore, God used each of the Bible's 40 authors, including their diverse cultural backgrounds, personalities and positions, to deliver His divine Word to all mankind.
Bible Origin - The Word of God
It seems that the question of Bible origin turns on the truth of its divine inspiration. In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit." This is confirmed in 2 Timothy 3:16. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, "...you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God..." Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, "...Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters..." Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit." And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, "...if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life..."
Again, please accept my apology for the off-topic comments. I don't think any religion should be trashed in an attempt to get columnists for a blog.
Back to your posts, there is no difference in what you ost from what I posted. My only comment was that Islam and Judaism both make the claim of having a text delivered directly from the Deity. (So does Mormonism). This is entirely different from claming that certain (but not others) amngst the early Christian writers were inspired. In one case the claim is that the Deity wrote the Torah/Quran/Book of Moroni. In the other, the claim is that the Council of Nioea was able to vett assorted documents written by different people and determine which ones were and which were not divinely inspired. Moreover, when the texts are the ones in the "Old Testamewnt" the relevant authorities were not even Christians but a council of Pharisees meeting anonymously to decide which writings since the Torah were to be considered hsitorical ... never as revelation though.
How is this trashing your religion? I am simply discussing History. There is nothing wrong in believing that a human agency .. the papacy .. is inerrant. Nor is there anything good about believing that God gave the Torah to Moses. What is wrong is the refusal t accept the realities of science and history.
Now, I think I have spent too much effort in this topic here. I will write something about the thread at SeattleJew and WVH can choose for himself whether to repond there.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 5, 2007 07:56 AM1. It is herself
2. I wouldn't post on your blog if it was the
last blog on earth.
3. You are like Goldie, you trash something and
then invite comment. For the liberal
perspective, I go to Huffington. I avoid
Goldie and you because both of you are the
plague.
Regardless of how you feel about abortion, there are statistics about the choices that have been made by parents faced with carrying a child with Down's syndrome that cannot be disputed. This happened to my sister in her pregnancy a year ago, so I have done a fair amount of research on this.
Common blood tests (called something like a triple screening) reveal the chance of the fetus having a chromosmal abnormality. This blood test is not done until the 2nd trimester. This could be Down's syndrome, or it could be an even more severe chromosomal abnormailty that could end the baby's life, once born, in weeks or months. If this blood test comes back positive for Down's syndrome or another abnormality, a doctor typically presents the choice of, and may recommend, an amniocentesis.
If the amniocentesis comes back positive, that's the point where a mother or couple make a decision as to whether to have the baby, or to abort. I imagine this is one of the most difficult decisions in the world, and that's probably why counseling is typically made available to the couple at this point. I won't go into all of the things that would be considered, from cost to quality of life to the prospect that a marriage would survive this to the impact on siblings, but there is indeed plenty to consider. And personally, I would not know what my husband and I would decide unless we were truly faced with this reality, and I would judge no one for their personal decision.
The POINT of my post here is the statistic on what people have chosen to do in this situation, which does not line up with the number of people who are not christian (it is much higher), nor does it even line up with the number of people who are pro-choice (again, much higher).
Over 90% of women who are given a dignosis for Down's Syndrome choose to have an abortion. Click here for source.
Posted by: Gabby on June 5, 2007 10:38 AMMark Twain once said there are lies, damn lies and then there are statisitics. The link leads to an abstract. Is there a link to the data tabs and appendices? Was the article peer reviewed. Does the data give a demographic breakdown?
I am assume that your comments are based upon the number of individuals that identify as Christians. It is not up to me to sort the real deal from the faux, but I think that we can both agree that some identify themselves as something they are not.
Also, there are many different denominations that operate under the banner of Christian. Some denominations do not think abortion is wrong.
So, without further details, it is really hard to interpret the data.
Bill H
Posted by: Bill H on June 5, 2007 03:29 PMI don't want to put words in Gabby's mouth, but I think the point was supposed to be that Christians
only she used "c" were hypocrites. Probably a Freudian slip with the use of the "c" and how appropriate. The truth of the matter is hypocrites, liars, murderers, and cheats come in all flavors.
I can do stats if I put my mind to it, but it is not my strong subject. Thanks for the pointer.
Posted by: WVH on June 5, 2007 09:30 PMI am truly sorry that WVH feel that something I have said somehow trashed her religion. FWIW, John XXIII, Cesar Chavez, are amongst my personal heroes. I also grew up is an Italian/Irish neighborhood where all of my friends and neighbors were catholic.
I don't think I lack respect when I relate history but I do believe history is important.
Christmasghost
Huffington?? I don't think I have ever posted there so I guess you are confusing me with someone else. As for my blog What there is offensive to you? In fact, a lot of what is therwe is rather conservative, Did you read my essay on Seattle Art Museum??? Do ou disagree with that??? I also tend to write very strongly on patriotism issues ,,, including my support for and gratitude to Tom Jefferson for making ti possible for me to live here. Does this bother you???
Or do you disagree with my worries about the SLU development???
Maybe you are confusing me with soe of the more doctrinaire community at HA? I am a pretty ba;lanced equla opportunity critic .. sometimes this has included Goldie. E.g. I think hois comments on SeaTac are inane. Do you feel differently?
I really want to know. Please fee free to write me or not.
If you ever want to tell me what it is that is offensive to you, I sincerely would like to know.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 5, 2007 11:20 PMI try to be tolerant of all, but if I think you are a jerk, I'll tell you. Too bad another blogger has the moniker of Sister Toldjah. Life is too short to beat around the bush with a load of b.s. I am not offended, believe me, I'll heard worse and since I am a work in progress, on the Potter's Wheel, as it were, I let an occasional cuss word out.
I simply think that religion is at its core better discussed with a degree of reverence. You seem to view my religion purely in a historical context. That is certainly one way of looking at it. One of the beauties of the the faith is that is a lot of subtlety that one doesn't get from simply a chronology of events or for that matter
taking a passage here and there out of context.
To be perfectly blunt, I wish you would STFU about religion and get onto politics where we really could have some discussion. Aren't you too old to be up this late? Anyhow, as Rodney King would say, "Can't we all just get along?" Or, as you secular progressives would say now that both our self esteems were feed, Group hug time.
Posted by: WVH on June 6, 2007 12:26 AMI am a Catholic, born and raised and practicing. I do not subscribe to everything the Catholic church does or says or stands for. I have my own mind and use it, but I do cherish my church for spiritual guidance. Most of all, I look to Jesus's life and strive to be as understanding, full of love, accepting, forgiving, and peaceful as he was. Of course, I fall far short, but never stop trying.
The point of my post, again, was to present some facts for thought and possible discussion. I was actually shocked to learn that over 90% of these pregnancies (yes, as my previous post made clear, pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome) ended in abortion, and these are mid-term pregnancies. It made me realize what a complex issue this truly is. Heavy decisions we make in this life are rarely cut and dry, and there are grey areas, to be sure, all over the place.
Posted by: Gabby on June 6, 2007 08:05 AMAs I previously said, a young friend of mine was given a Downs prognosis for her unborn daughter. She and her husband had/have the attitude that she was their child, that they would love and cherish her NO MATTER WHAT. The odd thing about the whole episode is that about 6 more people in labor the same time as she were also given the diagnosis and delivered equally healthy and "normal" children.
This whole forced Downs testing is nonsense... follow the MONEY: see who benefits from the testing and see who benefits from the "results" of the testing. we all know the answer is NOT the unborn children.
Gabby, I'm sure your Catholicism gives you spiritual comfort and I'm glad for you. BUT as a practicing cradle Catholic, I believe you are lying to yourself if you think you can pick and choose what of Catholicism suits your needs/desires/lifestyles. I also believe it is Catholics of convenience like you, like Pelosi, like Kennedy, Gregoire, Murray, Kerry, Cantwell and many thousands of others about whom Pope Benedict was speaking when he suggested we need a smaller Church of true followers than a large unweildy one of those who ignore the precepts of our faith that they don't like. It may just be that all you folks, while indeed faithful would be better suited to a less demanding Christianity. Our faith, Catholicism demands certain actions based on the beliefs and tenets of the Church. Those unable or unwilling to obey should find a religion they can. It doesn't help to have 'finger in the wind' bishops such as our own Brunett who, like most other politicians are more concerned about furthering their own career than boldly defendy the faith to which they claim to have pledged allegiance. You may want to reread the Apostes Creed and examine your heart to find if you are truly an apostle of the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 6, 2007 09:41 AMPrenatal Screening for Down Syndrome
What is the difference between a screening test and a diagnostic test? In diagnostic tests, a positive result very likely means the patient has the disease or condition of concern. In screening tests, the goal is to estimate the risk of the patient having the disease or condition. Diagnostic tests tend to be more expensive and require an elaborate procedure; screening tests are quick and easy to do. However, screening tests have more chances of being wrong: there are "false-positives" or "screen-positives" (test states the patient has the condition when the patient really doesn't) and "false-negatives" (patient has the condition but the test states he/she doesn't).
The Uncertain Rationale for Prenatal Disability Screening
by David Wasserman, JD, and Adrienne Asch, PhD
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Prenatal Screening Strategies for Down Syndrome
AND SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU GABBY...
Pope John Paul II addressed the issue of pre-natal diagnosis with these words in "The Gospel of Life" (Evangelium Vitae):
Special attention must be given to evaluating the morality of pre-natal diagnostic techniques which enable the early detection of possible anomalies in the unborn child. In view of the complexity of these techniques, an accurate and systematic moral judgment is necessary. When they do not involve disproportionate risks for the child and the mother, and are meant to make possible early therapy or even to favor a serene and informed acceptance of the child not yet born, these techniques are morally licit. But since the possibilities of pre-natal therapy are today still limited, it not infrequently happens that these techniques are used with a eugenic intention which accepts selective abortion in order to prevent the birth of children affected by various types of anomalies. Such an attitude is shameful and utterly reprehensible, since it presumes to measure the value of a human life only within the parameters of "normality" and physical well-being, thus opening the way to legitimizing infanticide and euthanasia as well.
Have you no qualms about all those children mistakenly aborted?
Personally, it is my firm belief that any woman even considering killing her child because he does not meet her citeria for perfection should heartily examine her reasons for becoming a Mother and question whether she will ever be able/willing to place her childs LIFE above her own.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 6, 2007 10:48 AMShame on you. I have not expressed any personal opinion whatsoever on my personal feelings on abortion. I do not think that is any of your business, actually.
Thank you for taking time to respond. As I have said before, the wheat will be separated from the chaff and that is above my pay grade. I think me and Seattle Jew are friends, now. One thing that our discussion was about was the role of authority. You may believe whatever you want and if you have Biblical authority for your beliefs, well I am willing to listen to you. I once spoke with an individual of another denomination and we did the 20 questions thing based upon the principles of the Nicene Creed. Turns out, all they really liked about their denomination was the ceremony of the services. There is in fact a recent survey of young Catholics and many of them feel as you do. Problem is, in my opinion, Christianity was never convenient nor easy. That is why so many of us were burned at the stake, that is why so many us are currently being burned at the stake. Don't believe me, go to the Voice of Christian Martys. In my opinion, you can't have it both ways, either you get with the program or at least you are honest like my Anglican acquaintence and say all you like is the ceremony. I hate to be harsh and I am stepping outside my paygrade with this next comment, Honey, you ain't nothing but stuck on yourself.
Posted by: WVH on June 6, 2007 01:12 PMI was commenting on your cafeteria Catholicism expresses at #104:
" I do not subscribe to everything the Catholic church does or says or stands for. I have my own mind and use it, but I do cherish my church for spiritual guidance. "
Sorry babe, that is the antithesis of what our church stands for. When you CHOOSE to belong to a group, you know the rules, the expectations full well going into it. Yes, yes, I know you are a cradle Catholic, but by your Confirmation you acknowledged you understood what is expected of you as a Catholic. Furthermore you reiterate and renew that ackowledgement during the Easter holy days. Those are not just nice words during a lovely ceremony: they have meaning and it is up to you to live up to them, not parse them and manipulate their meaning for the convenience of your conscience.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on June 6, 2007 01:26 PMI wasn't kidding when I told SeattleJew that I was a work in progress. For some Christians that don't have the luxury of the cafeteria style faith you want to espouse, this site is a real
eyeopener:
http://www.persecution.com/
Wherever your spiritual journey takes you, I wish you well. I think that whatever you settle on, remember there are certain fundamental principles for a Christian that are laid out in the Nicene Creed, no matter the denomination. If you find that your spiritual journey makes it impossible to adhere to those principles, sobeit. That is between you and God. I do have a hallelujah.
moment in the here and now, maybe you really aren't what you are claiming to be and there is
another tradition better suited for you. Whatever you decide, best wishes.
It was good to see that you regard me as a friend.
May I suggest that the value of any faith is in what it does for you? At the same time, the risk of any faith is that it may lead you to do ha Is that simplistic?
Returning to Goldy's wonderful hour on Down's, sometimes the decision driven by faith may conflict with other ways of viewing life. Let me try a story. I know of a Japanese couple who had a terribly deformed baby. The baby's brain was so damaged that it appeared unlikely the baby would even be more than a warm mass of human flesh. In theor country it wild have been accepted to let the child die. This couple (atheists as it happens) beleived in a concept called imprinting. In this concept the baby is trained by reptive 24 hour a day attention. Eventually, according to this "faith", the baby is reporgrammed and gains human qualities. Experts in Japan and the US told them that imprinting was nonsense.
Now the teaser. Before I tell you the rest of the story, what do you think is right? The prognosis was that the "child" would at best remain a warm bundle and worse might, in a world we can not see, be undergoing unimaginable suffering.
Well? What do you think they should do? A few other facts:
1. they were well off and could afford to buy the 24/7 care.
2. The story is true.
Posted by: SeattleJew on June 6, 2007 11:05 PMEven though we disagree on many things and could probably get into some pretty good knock down drag out fights, you are a friend because I recognize your humanity. There are, I hope, certain basic traits, that many cultures aspire to which elevate the human condition. Katomar and others here have spoken more eloquently, than I about what they faced when they attempted to be the best of what it is to be human and recognize the challenges of raising another human that doesn't fit in this Paris Hilton world.
Girl children are killed in many countries and there is genital mutilation in others. At the core, my friend, both you and Goldy are moral relativists. My pal, Cato the recent, has this quote, "morality is in the eye of the beholder."
Where we disagree, is that there are universals and they are unchanging. Since you are a Jew, let's use the Ten Commandments. I don't believe that they are suggestions, do you?
This is my theory, you and Goldy are really scared that the people of faith who are not moral relativists might be right. Scary, isn't it for you? So, to give yourselves comfort, you attempt to tear down what you have no ability to understand. Faith for many is a mystery and why some people come to faith and others like Chris Hitchens hurl angry arrows toward heaven hoping to hit God. No one knows. It is quite a mystery.
Tonight, I'm the one that is the geezer and I need to turn in.