A SENIOR Vatican official has criticised the excommunication of a Brazilian woman whose nine-year-old daughter had an abortion after being raped, as well as the medical team who performed it.
Said Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life:
Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy.
The Academy for Life is tasked with promoting the church’s doctrine on bioethics.
Fisichella recently hit the headlines when he attacked President Obama’s decision to allow stem-cell research to be resumed in the US, reversing the ban imposed by the imbecile George W Bush.
Monsignor Rino Fisichella
In a frantic backtracking exercise, Brazilian bishops said last week that the excommunication of the mother and doctors of the girl, who was pregnant with twins after having allegedly been raped by her stepfather, was wrong and would not be applied.
According to this report, The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil decided that the child’s mother acted “under pressure from the doctors” who said the girl would die if she carried the babies to term.
Dimas Lara Barbosa, the body’s secretary-general, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated.
We must take the circumstances into consideration.
As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said, contrary to the position taken by Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who announced the excommunications.
Barbosa said only doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions are thrown out of the church.
Sobrinho’s sick decision that the abortion “was more serious” than the rape caused brought worldwide condemnation of the Catholic Church. Many commentators denounced his lack of compassion. But Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the head of the church’s Congregation for Bishops, supported Sobrinho, telling the Italian daily La Stampa the twins had had a right to live and that the attacks on Sobrinho were “unjustified.”
Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or if the woman’s health is in danger.
The girl was found to be four months’ pregnant after being taken to a hospital suffering stomach pains. Officials said she told them she had been abused by her stepfather since the age of six.
Her 23-year-old stepfather was arrested and is being kept in protective custody.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
March 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy.
Like this is the first time, or the last. But when you live by rigid, archaic dogma (that’s anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-human to boot) you have to expect such things and not whine that you’re persecuted every other minute.
March 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Why do Catholics view excommunication as a punishment? Surely to be freed from the clutches of an insane cult should come as a ‘blessed’ release.
I wonder how many Islamicalists, or whatever they are calling themselves today, wish they could be given the elbow by the death cult that blights their lives.
Religion eh…I dunno!
March 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Some interesting questions around this:
1. Is the raping step dad a Catholic and where was the Church’s teaching when he was around that little girl?
2. Did the family priest visit the home and what has he got to say?
3. Any comments from Cormac “Smoothy” O’Connor given plenty of air time on the BBC to whine about the importance of religion to underpin our values blah, blah, bah……….. And soon we hear gearing up for advancement into the House of Lords. (Please, don’t let that happen, FSM. We get enough of him already on BBC Radio 4. )
4. Or what about Rowan Williams – “Suffer Little children etc….” Maybe the word “suffer” needs further definition?
5. Meanwhile around 500 clitercterectomies (Female Genital Mutilation) are estimated as being carried out in the UK and the NHS intends to reverse any it can discover. I don’t how you can do that. What we also ought to be doing is coming down severely on the criminals who are doing this. Or might that be insentive to the feelings of minorities.
PS Congratulations on the item, Barry.
March 16th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Broga.
4. Or what about Rowan Williams – “Suffer Little children etc….” Maybe the word “suffer” needs further definition?
I think that the religious cults(cunts) have done more than enough to define the suffering of children. The question should be ‘How do we get them to stop causing it?’
In your Q5 you mention female genital mutilation. I live in West London. There is a very big East African community here. Mainly from Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia. In fact my own landlady, and I’ve lived in this building for over fifteen years, is Eritrean.
What shocks me is that it is the mainly the mothers who want their daughters mutilated, apparently it makes for a better dowry, whatever the fuck that is. It is clear that the 500 mutilations that you mention being carried out in the UK is only the clit of the iceberg. It is quite likely, or probable, that some send their daughters abroad to be mutilated. How the hell the NHS thinks it can reverse such a procedure is beyond me…and possibly beyond medical science.
Why the fuck can’t people just their let children be children. Don’t indoctrinate them. Don’t fill their minds with superstitious bollocks, and for fuck’s sake don’t mutilate their bodies.
Religion eh…I despair!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:31 am
I am afraid that while this was handled badly from a public relations point of view, the archbishop was correct originally, assuming that he had all the facts.
Without much hope of success, I will try to explain the facts of the matter from the Catholic point of view. 1. Both in civil law and in Catholic doctrine, murder is a more serious crime than rape and, thus, is punished more severely than rape. Deliberately killing babies in the womb is murder. You, presumably, don’t think so but we do. So while it looks like the Church didn’t care about the rape, that is not the case. There was no undoing that. The murders about to be committed had to be stopped, if possible.
2. Excommunication is not “punishment”. It is a medicinal penalty that aims at bringing the seriousness of the sin to the attention of the sinner. To die in mortal sin is a one way ticket to hell (your belief or disbelief is irrelevant here. This is what Catholics believe). The rapist knows that rape is wrong and, if he is a Catholic, he knows that it is a mortal sin. (One way ticket to hell.)
Many people who participate in abortion don’t believe that it is murder. Thus, if they claim to be Catholics, it is necessary to excommunicate them, so that they are under no illusions about what is at stake. Excommunication does not kick anyone out of the Church. In fact such people are encouraged to come but they may not receive the sacraments, until they repent and are reconciled. If they do not repent and receive absolution, well, you know where they are headed.
The child in question was nearly 16-20 weeks pregnant (depending on which report one reads). As long as she was not in danger, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the pregnancy to continue until the babies were viable. (Or to term if that might have been possible). At the point her life was threatened, it would have been licit to abort. The Church requires only that the intent of an abortion be to save the mother, not kill the child in utero.
I don’t know where Barbarosa gets his information from. The notion that only doctors who perform abortions “systematically” are excommunicated is preposterous. What doctors get 3?, 6?, 75? murders before they are excommunicated? I don’t think so.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:55 am
I would just like to know what the hell those bishops are smoking that they seriously think a nine-year-old girl could carry a set of twins to viability, let alone full term. If anything about this could make me more sick than the rest of it, that would be it. It’s certainly clear where the Catholic church’s priorities are. The life of the mother comes DEAD LAST. Literally, whenever possible.
March 17th, 2009 at 3:57 am
Unfortunately the credibility of our teaching took a blow as it appeared, in the eyes of many, to be insensitive, incomprehensible and lacking mercy.
And we thought they were out of touch…
March 17th, 2009 at 7:11 am
I bet the stepfather will be fast tracked to sainthood – the patron saint of abuse…. All those priests will love it. Pity about the altar boys though…
March 17th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Lily, do you adhere to Catholic teaching on other family planning methods? I note most Western Catholics pick and choose which aspects of Papal infallibility they give credence to.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:05 am
So, Lily…
If it’s murder, what do you suggest the punishment be? Death, perhaps?
And, you fucking idiot, do you seriously think that a nine-year old girl could carry TWINS to full term without a real danger to herself?
Furthermore, given that abortion is ILLEGAL in Brazil, except in the case or rape and danger to the mother, don’t you think the doctors would have based their decision on the potential threat, rather than simply a desire to “kill the child in utero?”
I’d really like to know where you got your qualifications in obstetrics and gynaecology…
March 17th, 2009 at 10:47 am
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 3/17/2009, at The Unreligious Right
March 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The child might very well have been able to carry the twins to viability. She was already nearly 5 months pregnant. I simply do not know what was possible in her case but, then, neither does anyone else unconnected with it. The fact is that the onset of menses is the sign that the body is being prepared for pregnancy. A sufficient body mass is needed for it to occur. One reason menses is occuring earlier in the west, particularly in the US, is obesity. More and more girls reach 100 lbs (45kg) earlier than ever and that appears to be the tipping point.
Look, I am as horrified as anyone that a nine year old could have been so abused. I would gladly fry the stepfather’s testicles and stuff them down his throat. But what too many who are horrified by this story think is that by aborting the babies, the nine year old can go back to being a carefree child. Well, no. She can’t. A grave injustice has been done to her and now she has been forced to participate in another. We cannot know if she wanted an abortion and we cannot know how she is going to feel about it in the coming years. The abortion didn’t undo anything or restore the status quo ante. That is not possible.
As to other questions here– papal infallibility has nothing to do with doctrinal teachings on family planning. The pope has spoken infallibly twice only and that was with regard to matters concerning Mary. Someone here has alluded to Catholics who pick and chose what they will and will not obey. True– but they are fooling themselves. They are not my concern.
The Church’s priority is what it has always been. It defends the sanctity of life in every circumstance. It is the weak and helpless who are most vulnerable and most in need of protection. If a mother’s life is in danger and the only way to save it is a surgery or procedure that will cause the child to die, that is what must happen. But the intent must not be to kill the child. We take murder very seriously. We recognize developmental differences, of course. But we also recognize that it is not possible to draw a meaningful line and say that before this point (or after this point) the human person does not have a claim to humanity and may be exterminated for whatever reason.
March 17th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
But what too many who are horrified by this story think is that by aborting the babies, the nine year old can go back to being a carefree child.
Um, no. We think that by aborting the fetuses, the nine-year-old can continue to LIVE. As opposed to being horribly killed in childbirth or attempting to get there. Because unlike Catholics, we think women and girls shouldn’t be forced to sacrifice their lives on the altar of fetus-worship.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Lily,
A grave injustice has been done to her and now she has been forced to participate in another.
As opposed to being forced to participate in the pregnancy?
The problem with your argument is that it’s unclear which part of the story is preventing her from going back to being a carefree child. You seem to suggest that the abortion is the thing that will scar this child, more so than the abuse itself. Would the girl have gone back to being a carefree child as a 9-year-old mother? You’re stretching reason to the breaking point.
You’re also playing fast and loose with terminology. You said in your original post “deliberately killing babies in the womb is murder.” There’s a lot wrong with that sentence. First, you call a fetus a baby. A fetus is a developing baby, but it’s not a baby. There’s a reason we have a separate word for them. It’s because they’re different things. Second, no, it’s not murder. In the UK, murder is defined as killing a human being with malice aforethought. A fetus is not a human being. If you want to say “I believe that killing a fetus is a sin,” fine, knock yourself out. But stop using terminology that bleeds into that of temporal crimes and obfuscates the issue.
March 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Fetus is a stage of human development. The fetus can never become a dog or a head of lettuce. If you object to the word baby, I will use the word human. Killing humans in utero is wrong. Period.
By the way, have you ever heard a couple refer to “expecting a fetus?” No, they refer to themselves as “expecting a baby”. Likewise, we throw “baby showers” for expectant mothers. Not “fetus showers”. Words mean something so you are right to try and dehumanize the baby in the womb. It won’t work, though.
Chicken girl. I am sorry you aren’t willing to hear me and think about what I say. But I do know that some people feel so strongly about particular issues that they simply cannot. We have said repeatedly that an abortion to save her life was licit. Brazilian law says the same. Can you please try to understand that?
March 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Give it up Lily, the catholic church is one of the nastiest, backward thinking institutions around, all they did here was show their true colours and if you are willing to defend them then in my book that makes you as bad as them ,your deluded, get some help.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
This business about the catholic church being against the taking of life is all new to me. I thought that it was in the name of this self same organization, and with their implicit authority, that some of the worst crimes in history were committed. Or is it only OK when the vatican or its agents authorize it?
March 17th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I think I have said pretty much all that I wanted to say on the subject. So, I will leave it at that. I think we can agree that a serious crime was committed against that little girl and that we all hope that she, as well as all other abused children, will recover and thrive.
Re the ususal accusations that are being offered here– Well, the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years now and looks good for another 2000 or so. You can call it backward thinking and nasty but that is, soberly speaking, hilarious and really is unworthy of you. It demonstrates a very limited understanding of history and human nature. An ancient institution, global in scope, and made up of fallible human beings is going to have some pretty unpleasant characters among its members. They will, if they haven’t already, receive their just recompense.
While demeaning the messenger is a familiar strategy, it does nothing to delegitimate the argument. The Catholic Church could have an unbroken record of murder going back 2000 years and it would change nothing. Where abortion is concerned, a human is killed. It is not a dog; it is not a giraffe; nor is it an apple. Likewise, one can try to dehumanize the developing infant in the womb by calling it “fetal tissue”, the “product of conception” or any of the other repellent terms the proabortion crowd has come up with. But that cannot make the child less human than it already is and, if that child lives to the age of 80, s/he will not be more human than s/he was at conception.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
One thing I find interesting is how people accept the doctrines of their born into religion and then argue that perspective. There is simply no way that another position is tenable for them, regardless of what arguments are made. I don’t see why they try to argue; much more honest would be to say “these are my beliefs, la la la la la can’t hear you la la la”.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if catholic doctrine changed to say abortion is fine.
March 17th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Lily,
If you have scrambled eggs for breakfast and later someone asks you what you ate, do you tell them you had chicken for breakfast? Words do, in fact, mean things. A chicken egg is not the same as a chicken. It is a chicken EGG. It could someday BECOME a chicken given the right conditions, but it is not now a chicken.
Strange how you say that the one condition under which an abortion is acceptable is where the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, and then you rail against an abortion performed to save the life of an innocent nine-year-old as “murder”. She went to the hospital for stomach pains at ~4 months along, which is how they discovered the pregnancy in the first place. And yet you seem so determined to believe that this was just a perfectly normal textbook pregnancy and that it was aborted not because the life of a nine-year-old child is of any importance but because the eeebil atheist doctors saw a chance to murder two precious wittle “babies” and ran with it.
At what point would you be willing to let this poor girl have those parasites removed from her body? If it’s not enough that a qualified medical professional determines that the pregnancy is a threat to the mother’s life, then what the heck do you want? If a nine year old pregnant with twins isn’t a dangerous pregnancy, then what is?
Go to your local elementary school and take a good look at one of the third-grade girls. Do you SERIOUSLY think a set of twins can FIT in there?!
March 17th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
“The idea of a little cluster of stem cells being a person goes against the longest Christian tradition in existence, and makes no sense at all”. – Dr Daniel C. Maguire, Catholic theologian and professor of moral theological ethics at Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
See http://www.religiousconsultati.....dition.htm
March 17th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Good for another 2000 years, do me a favour. There were more people in Woolworth’s every Sunday morning than in catholic churches (up until a few months ago anyway) and look what happened to them!
I was an alter server for many years, many years ago and I went back to the church a little while back just out of curiosity, the place was deserted except for a handful of old people ( and some twat in a frock) I give this church 5 years max before it closes through lack of interest, and bloody good riddance to it when it does!
March 17th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The Catholic religion has not existed for 2,000 years. It has existed since 384 CE, when the pope of Rome, Siricius, unilaterally declared his four co-equal popes his subordinates. Since Rome had an army, and Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem did not, the popes of those archdioceses were forced to submit. The pope of Constantinople was able to resist, and the Orthodox patriarchy rejects Roman overlordship to this day. It was The Acts of Peter, which the RC church rejects as non-canonical, that concocted the pretence that Peter had been executed in Rome, which he never visited in his life. Then, during the bishopric of Siricius, the interpolation showing Jesus appointing Peter as his heir was inserted into Matthew, enabling Siricius to pretend that Peter had been the first Pope.
As for Catholicism lasting another 2,000 years: try 200.
There is a good reason why people like “Lily” are unteachable. Anyone who continues to believe that right and wrong are whatever a pope says they are, heads it’s a sin and tails it’s not a sin, is a few ergs short of a full charge. See the article, “Belief that an embryo has a soul is stupid,” at http://www.freethoughtperspective.net
March 17th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
As for my description of the catholic church as nasty and backward thinking. I think that given their track record on supporting scientific progress, ‘Backward thinking’ is a bloody compliment, they got off lightly, I must be feeling charitable.
March 17th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Stop using medical terms, Lily, it doesn’t make you any less of a savage spear-chucker
March 17th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
P.S. Let me repeat part of a previous comment. From 384 CE until 1869 CE, the RC church taught that abortion prior to the fifth month was not a sin, because quickening was the moment at which a fetus acquired a soul. Pope Pius IX, a psychopath even more insane and evil than Ratzinazi, in 1869 decreed that a fetus has a soul from the moment of conception. Then in 1870, because he could no more tolerate dissent than the current Vatican Fuhrer, Pius pronounced himself infallible, in defiance of the 85 percent of bishops who saw such narcissism as heretical or even diabolical–as an earlier pope had described it in 1324.
March 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Hmmm. Some interesting comments. Hen, for instance said:
One thing I find interesting is how people accept the doctrines of their born into religion and then argue that perspective. There is simply no way that another position is tenable for them, regardless of what arguments are made. I don’t see why they try to argue; much more honest would be to say “these are my beliefs, la la la la la can’t hear you la la la”.
As a thought experiment, I wonder what would happen if catholic doctrine changed to say abortion is fine.
Nothing would happen. It is not possible to think the unthinkable. It is like asking us to imagine that water is dry. Beyond that I had to smile at your all-too familiar assumptions. I converted from atheism to Christianity at 25 when I was in grad school. My poor father still hasn’t recovered from the shock. I became a Catholic a year ago after wrestling for a good 12 or 13 years with various doctrinal issues and, frankly, the usual Protestant prejudices.
In other words, I can hear you very well. In fact, I was once, weakly, pro abortion. That changed over time, as I faced up to the issues that you are all avoiding.
Wurble, you are simply adorable! What a comedian– pretend that modern science is not the gift of the medieval Catholic Church to the modern world. Good one!
Dear Dr. Harwood. The Church never, let me repeat, never permitted abortion. It was always a grave sin. This can be verified quite easily. The Romans had a nasty habit of ordering their wives, and lovers to abort, which they could do legally (the death rate was horrific) and was part of the reason they were in demographic free fall (population decline) even before Julius Caesar came on the scene.
In fact, Rodney Stark, a sociologist, contends that the Christians, by forbidding abortion and by not exposing girl babies after birth, literally outbred the Romans, which he thinks is no small part of the reason for Christianity’s success. You could do worse than consult his book “The Rise of Christianity”. His was an unusual approach and I must say I enjoyed it very much, even though I am not convinced by all of it.
Beyond that? Well, let’s just say your summary of the early history of the Church is … quite imaginative. It will come as a surprise to more than a few historians.
March 17th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Hey Lily,
Blue rinse is optional.
Thanks for the ‘adorable’ comment but I suspect your not my type. I like my women to have a mind of their own ( and their own teeth wherever possible)
March 17th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Rats! Still, I will get over my disappointment, somehow. I know what you mean about types, though. I am fond of grammar geeks (aka “anal retentives”) who would come down on such things as, it’s for its, your for you are, and the like.
If they also have goatees? Perfection!
March 17th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Hey Lily, you forgot to answer my question. If a doctor isn’t good enough to determine if a patient’s life is in danger, who is? And would you mind explaining how it is you think ONE viable fetus, much less TWO, can fit inside a nine-year-old girl?
March 17th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Lily,
Get real. The girl weighs 80lbs, not 100. She was 15 weeks pregnant, which means not even four months–certainly not the five you claim. She’s 9 years old and is clearly not capable of bearing children. Just because one menstruates that doesn’t mean they’re physically capable of bearing children (especially twins), which is evidenced by the millions of women who die during pregnancy or childbirth every year. Get your head out of your theology and into scientific reality for crying out loud.
March 17th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
The fatuous, godphuqt unteachable, “Lily”, who has the pretentious insolence to challenge a historian’s statements relevant to his field of specialization as if she were his equal, should give serious consideration to a brain exchange with a cabbage–if she can find a cabbage willing to make the sacrifice.
While I have opinions (e.g., persons who cannot see a qualitative difference between a pre-human tadpole with zero brainwave activity indicative of human thought, and a self-aware sentient being, are incapable of telling right from wrong and as such are legally insane), I limit my statements about history to facts that no competent biblical historian disputes.
For concise delineations of relevant details about the god delusion and other popular fairy tales, see my Dictionary of Contemporary Mythology, available from Amazon or the special orders desk at any book store.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Yikes! More questions hurled at me? Folks, at some point we have to wind this up.
Chicken girl, I didn’t forget to answer your “question”. It was not a question; it was dishonest spewing. Virtually everything you emoted about was answered in my original post. Frankly, if the doctor had a legitimate health reason to perform the operation, there is no reason for him to have withheld it from the archbishop. Of course he might not be Catholic, so it might not matter to him if he is excommunicated (which would be meaningless, since he would not be a communicant). Likewise the mother. If she cared about excommunication, it would not have been hard for her to present those reasons to the archbishop
Buffy, how do you know that the girl weighs 80 pounds? It is very unlikely that she would have achieved puberty at that weight. Obviously, if she is that small, she would not be able to carry the children to term or, even, to viability, without serious risk. In such a case, the abortion would be justified.
Your maternal mortality statistics are pure fiction. Try again. It is possible to argue even hot topics honestly. Try it. You might like it.
Ah, Dr. Harwood! I wish you could have brought yourself to argue a little more politely. As it is, I am going to need to be blunt. Do you seriously want to offer me a vanity press publication as a scholarly resource!??! A book which a total of 8 libraries out of 71,000 have bothered to acquire (assuming the book wasn’t foisted on them as a “gift”)? Yes, I know just how many libraries in the entire English speaking world, Europe and a fair number of Mideastern libraries have it. You see there is this little bibliographic utility called OCLC (WorldCat) which 71,000 libraries in 112 countries and territories around the world use to locate, acquire, catalog, lend and preserve library materials. The library at my university is one of them.
I understand partisanship but this is pure self-delusion.
Now, because this has gotten unnecessarily ugly, which might amuse you all but doesn’t amuse me, I will bow out. I suppose if someone asks a legitimate question I will respond but I don’t think that is likely to happen.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Buffy, how do you know that the girl weighs 80 pounds? It is very unlikely that she would have achieved puberty at that weight. Obviously, if she is that small, she would not be able to carry the children to term or, even, to viability, without serious risk. In such a case, the abortion would be justified.
The AP reported on March 4 that the girl weighs 36kg/80lbs.
AP: Brazil girl, alleged incest victim, aborts twins
The girl’s size was a primary reason for the abortion being performed and there’s no reason the church wouldn’t have known about it if the AP does.
Maybe you should have done a little research before opening your mouth, huh?
March 17th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
I think you need to think twice before you type. I wouldn’t trust the AP to report that some dogs have fleas, much less to report this story honestly. Maybe you should do a little research yourself– you might start by reading my first message with an open mind to see what questions I actually addressed before all the irrelevant bashing, fuming and spewing started.
March 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Ah, I see. A nine-year-old girl can’t possibly be too small to give birth to twins, so the AP and the director of the hospital must simply be lying.
Thus the illusion that you’re the moral one who wants to save baybees and we’re the horrible atheists who just love roasting them on spits is preserved. Well done.
By the way. Even if you’re right and this girl does have 20 extra pounds of fat on her that are being carefully concealed from the press and the general public, that doesn’t mean that her HIPS are any bigger. Seriously, go take a look at some nine-year-old girls sometime, willya?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Read my message again. And again. And again, if necessary. At some point, you have to be able to understand what I wrote. Is not every relevant sentence contingent? Does not each contain an if… then clause? Can you please point out the sentence(s) you don’t understand? I will try to use different words.
Wait! I know! Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
March 17th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Purely out of anger at having my professional expertise questioned by an amateur, I allowed myself to be goaded into engaging in a battle of wits with an opponent who was unarmed. That was unethical, and a violation of one of my own rules.
Anyone who believes in religion either has not read my history of the origin and evolution of Western religion, titled Mythology’s Last God: Yahweh and Jesus (Prometheus Books, 1992), or is insane. Copies can be found in The British Library, The Library of Congress, and Cambridge University. It is still available from Amazon, although I would urge potential buyers to hold off until an updated version, titled God, Jesus and the Bible: The Origin and Evolution of Religion, is published by World Audience later this year.
My novel, The Fall and Rise of the House of Hippo (World Audience, 2008), while its character who becomes pope is fictitious, contains much factual information about real-world popes.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Prometheus Books– a commercial imprint that specializes in skeptical literature. OK. What peer-reviewed research have you published? I can’t find you in any citation index, I can’t find you in any history database– I did find one article by you published in a magazine. Not a journal. Now, why can’t I find you in any citation index? In Historical abstracts or America History and Life? On Google scholar? Of course, if your scholarly output was published much before 1990, I will need to consult print indexes, since most of the online don’t go back that far.
Shall I bother?
March 18th, 2009 at 1:04 am
Have you gone and checked out some elementary school kids yet? I seriously think you may be a bit surprised when you find out that 9 year olds are actually QUITE a bit smaller than adult women. Yes, even the ones who have started puberty.
Or maybe you need me to use different words so you get it.
NINE YEAR OLD IS SMALL. GOT TINY PELVIS. BABY NO FIT IN THERE. CAUSE MAJOR OUCHIE WHEN TRY TO PUT BABY IN THERE. WE THINK GOOD IDEA TO NOT MAKE TINY PEOPLE GROW BABIES INSIDE THEM.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:11 am
And oh, speaking of your first post, I found it hilarious (and for hilarious read “disgusting”) that a man can sexually abuse two girls for years, causing a life-threatening pregnancy to one of them and “oh well, it’s already happened, and he knows what he did, so it’s okay” but if you save a nine-year-old girl’s life you need to be excommunicated so you know what a bad, bad thing you did.
Somebody’s priorities are SERIOUSLY screwed up.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:41 am
OK. I can’t ignore the evidence any more. Poor, little aptly named Chicken girl, can’t tolerate a different perspective much less read something that contradicts her beliefs. Let’s take a look at the sentences that are giving you trouble:
As long as she was not in danger, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the pregnancy to continue until the babies were viable.
As long as… this introduces a dependent clause which refers to a specific condition. The independent clause is couched in the conditional perfect. That is used to indicate something that would have (or could have) happened, if the condition in the dependent clause had been met.
So let’s review. As long as (or “If”) the child’s life was not in danger, the pregnancy could have continued. The other way of saying that might have been clearer: The pregnancy could have continued, if the child’s life was not in danger. This is a plain statement of fact. It does not depend on your wishes for its truth.
(Or to term if that might have been possible). A more highly hypothetical sentence cannot be constructed. How you can read anything but “it was not at all likely to be possible” in the specific case we were talking about, eludes me.
At the point her life was threatened, it would have been licit to abort. Upon the condition of a life threatening condition, it is ok to abort. I couched it as a conditional because I am not certain that her life was in danger, at least at that point. (No matter how loudly you shriek and spew, you don’t know either.)
How much more clearly can I say that an abortion is allowed to save the mother’s life?
Beyond all that, you have utterly failed to grasp that my message was not particularly about the situation of the Brazilian child but because her situation led to the usual huffing and puffing of the ignorant, I felt it worthwhile to set you all straight on what excommunication is and under what circumstances an abortion can be allowed.
I am scratching my head over your refusal to hear it. Maybe ignorance really is bliss?
Oh dear! Not content with ignorance you have added absurdity to this mess! No where did I say that it was ok for anyone to rape. No where.
Your prejudices have seriously deranged you.
March 18th, 2009 at 3:32 am
Lilly: “OK. I can’t ignore the evidence any more. Poor, little aptly named Chicken girl, can’t tolerate a different perspective much less read something that contradicts her beliefs. Let’s take a look at the sentences that are giving you trouble:
As long as she was not in danger, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the pregnancy to continue until the babies were viable.
As long as… this introduces a dependent clause which refers to a specific condition. The independent clause is couched in the conditional perfect. That is used to indicate something that would have (or could have) happened, if the condition in the dependent clause had been met.”
Here we go again with the pseudo-intellectual bullshit argument from the believer; that is, if you try to sound really intelligent, then you must be right in your previous statements and therefore everyone else is wrong; that is you pick apart someone’s sentence construction, as if that proves somehow that little nine year old girls can and do carry twins to terms.
Chicken Girl has not had her beliefs contradicted, as little raped girls being unable to carry twins to term is not a matter of belief: it is a fact of reality, something that believers cannot make the distinction between. That is: what is fact and what is fiction. They have no idea. Some Christians think Harry Potter is real and that if children read it, it’ll turn them into witches and wizards, who in turn will wave wands to turn their friends into toads, which is why these demented superstitious fools ban the reading of JK Rowling’s books in their ’schools’. Making attacks against someone’s sentence construction proves or disproves nothing, Lilly. It only shows you up as a self righteous wanker, whose only way out of this mess of your vile belief system is to try and make yourself look intellectually superior, as if that proves anything at all.
Lilly; “Prometheus Books– a commercial imprint that specializes in skeptical literature. OK. What peer-reviewed research have you published?”
So what have you published, Lilly? Being published is a great achievement, and one’s publisher and how many copies sold or stored in libraries in no way detracts from the content of an author’s book; being POD published, self published, or ‘vanity’ published in no way highlights bad writing or bad research, but it does highlight prejudice in people such as yourself who look down on small independent presses as you think ’small’ means ‘bad’. Like a lot of cave-dwelling believers, you demand all manner of proofs and citations and so on from your challengers, and yet provide none for yourself. And when you consider the utter contradictory crap published by catholics, who are mostly independent themselves, you can in no way suggest that other authors are unworthy if they are put into print by small presses. (BTW, I’ve read the “Catholic Handbook” and there’s no bigger howling piece of tripe ever to waste paper.)
The Catholic Church is a stinking cancer, the biggest paedophile ring ever to exist, and anyone who supports it can only be a well-indoctrinated robot, spouting catholic absurdities until you die. Please go away and stay away. (PS: Lilly, have you ever wondered why the seat of Catholic Christian power is seated in Rome and not Jerusalem where your god is supposed to have lived and preached? I’ll let you do the research on that one…only don’t bother to tell me, as I already know.)
March 18th, 2009 at 4:16 am
Since the latest unteachable stalker cannot comprehend that the educated cannot be “converted” to ignorance, and keeps posting the same inane drivel over and over, it is high time she was fed to the spam filter.
March 18th, 2009 at 4:29 am
Since Callisto omitted to mention that Prometheus is the largest, most respected publisher of books disproving every kind of superstition on this planet, perhaps she was assuming that the persons for whom this site is designed would all know that. Nonetheless, let me rectify the omission.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Please excuse my grammatical errors, what can I say? I went to a catholic school.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:48 am
I joined this thread this morning and was shocked to find that the comments had grown out of all proportion from the normal half dozen jibes and had been hi-jacked by some born again loony.
Lily: this is an atheist site. Never in a million years will you be able to excuse the abhorrent attitudes and actions of the vatican so piss off.
You guys: When will you learn that born again types are totally deaf to reason; should be politely listened to and then ignored.
Looking around the streets today, I am a firm believer that the availablility of abortions should be extended from 16 weeks to 16 YEARS!! :0)
March 18th, 2009 at 10:05 am
What have I missed? Have we caught a live one?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I am afraid you are right, newspaniard. This is an atheist site and like all true believers the gang that has responded here is closed-minded. I am afraid there is no conversation to be had here. There doesn’t appear to be any free-thinking either which does imply a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Or so I thought.
Callisto? Whatever. The man couldn’t get tenure with his record of publication (so far as I can determine it.) Self-publication is useless in the academic world which he, apparently, wants to make me and you believe he is part of. So far I have seen no sign of that. Commercial publishers will (and do) publish rubbish, if they think it will sell.
Now, since no one wants to talk about the original subject I will not try to engage you in a real conversation any further. I take no pleasure in pointless quarreling.
March 18th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Lily, I have a bad, bad feeling about you and your sanctimonious, half witted defence of Roman Catholicism. I think you are the same Lily who was booted off the Raving Atheist Forum after years of being treated with understanding, tolerance and attempts to place evidence and facts before you. In which case we are wasting our time. Anyone who defends a barbaric self serving hag like Mother Theresa (friend of dictators, always travelled first class and thought suffering was good for the mothers who were denied drugs) should not be taken seriously. You supported her being fast tracked to sainthood.
If you stick around here, and you are indeed she, then you should be retained as an example of a glimpse of the hell that exists within the superstitious Roman Catholic Mind. However, erudite contributors need not expect that you might consider reality: you are here to find a refuge and solace from yourself.
March 18th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Lily, you wrote…
‘I think you need to think twice before you type. I wouldn’t trust the AP to report that some dogs have fleas, much less to report this story honestly’.
I think you need to think once! You seem to distrust the AP report giving details of the girls weight, even though it was citing the director of the medical establishment that would have weighed her as a matter of routine. And yet you whole-heartedly put your faith in a nonsensical fable, drawn from non-eyewitness accounts, about events that supposedly happened two millennia ago – with those very same events being based on at least a dozen crucified/resurrected saviour myths from the millennia previous to that!
And you have the nerve to accuse us of being closed-minded.
Can we keep this puppy please Uncle Barry?
March 18th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
For the overwhelming majority who do NOT need further proof that the incurably godphuqt are dangerously, criminally, certifiably insane, PLEASE spam-filter this troll.
March 18th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Do you think that Lily would continue to defend the Catholic Church if she had lived a few hundred years ago and been accused by them of being a witch? Somehow I have the feeling that even as she was exploring the absolute outer limits of human suffering that she would.
March 18th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Lily,
While it’s obvious you’re incapable of using reason I’ll try once more.
There is no physical law that says a girl must weigh some magical 100lbs to begin menstruating. First menses is triggered by hormonal changes, not weight. (My wife was 9 and 85lbs when she began. I was 10 and about 95lbs). While overweight girls sometimes have their first menses earlier it doesn’t’ mean the weight triggered it–it’s likely their diet (chock full of hormones thanks to modern food production practices) contributed to it.
You can stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the reports that the girl is 80lbs are false. You can pretend a 9 year old is capable of carrying to term and giving birth to twins. Religious people are known for denying reality to keep their fairy tales intact in their heads. Meanwhile real live human beings suffer and die as a result.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
And I would add that the poor child, and we must not loose sight of the fact that she is only a child, has been subjected to the most appalling physical and mental/emotional abuse.
The fucking catholic church are doing her no favours by dragging this excommunication nonsense through the court of public opinion.
When will these cunts start to respect human life. I mean the life of a real living, breathing human being and not the foetal result of a sickening, appalling assault on an innocent girl.
What is wrong with these people?
March 18th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
The comments are increasingly off-topic, irrelevant and just plain bizarre. Let’s see:
Buffy, why didn’t you read what I wrote before writing your nonsense? I wouldn’t be too quick to accuse anyone of lacking “reason” given your reading comprehension level. Or is it merely lack of intellectual honesty? Let’s parse what you said, shall we?
There is no physical law that says a girl must weigh some magical 100lbs to begin menstruating.
What I actually said: One reason menses is occuring earlier in the west, particularly in the US, is obesity. More and more girls reach 100 lbs (45kg) earlier than ever and that appears to be the tipping point.
First menses is triggered by hormonal changes, not weight.
No kidding? REALLY? And what do you think happens to obese females? Fat contributes to the over production of endogenous estrogens. That is why obesity is related to a significantly higher risk for a whole host of diseases, among them endometrial and breast cancer which are normally treated with synthetically derived progestins and progesterone (Provera, Megace) I invite you to google obesity and estrogen for further information.
Beyond that I have repeatedly stated that I don’t know what the girl weighed; that it doesn’t matter because the abortion was appropriate no matter what her weight, if her life was in danger. How many times must I repeat that?
What is this psychological need you all have to read dishonestly and refuse to discuss?
Hey, Harwood! I’m still waiting for that list of your peer-reviewed journal articles.
remigius Yeah, boy. We all know how much an abortion helps an abused child or, any rape victim for that matter. Bet you didn’t know that more than a few such victims have chosen to carry to term, in order to put an end to the violence.
Nothing, absolutely nothing takes away the horror of rape. Killing a child doesn’t do it. The woman is still a victim and now there is another.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
And before someone admonishes me on this post, like someone has just done in real life, I use the term ‘cunt’ as the most hateful word I can direct at anyone. My ’so-called’ friend Susie has just dissed me for using a word that is associated with female genitalia. But she is happy to use the words prick, dickhead and knob.
Women eh…I dunno.
Yeh Barry I know. I’ll get my coat.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Yeah! Lily’s back…
And she’s just as mental as ever.
Happy days.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Lily. I sincerely wish I knew what the fuck you were on about.
Please go to a clinic. Ask them to give you a thorough examination. A check up from the neck up.
Then come back here…You will be most welcome.
Barry. What is the procedure when one suspects a retard has got hold of Lily’s email account?
March 18th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
In this case, the abortion saved a little girl’s life. You keep saying that you’re okay with that (grudgingly, I guess) and yet here you are, in this comment thread, still trying to argue that she should have tried to carry not one but TWO fetuses to term, despite being NINE YEARS OLD.
And that is what has got me so pissed off about this Lily. That you think there’s any “if” about this. This girl is a CHILD. She cannot carry even a single fetus to term. She physically cannot do it. She is NOT an adult. She’s not even a teenager, Lily. Not even close. She is NINE. With all she’s been through, unfortunately, there’s probably no going back to happy, carefree childhood for her. But this utter disregard for her right to LIVE is sickening. Yes, I know you’re going to sputter now about how her twins had to die so that she could live. But, Lily, I hate to break this to you, but… they were going to die anyway. You know why? Because their mother was NINE YEARS OLD. I don’t know about you, but I will enthusiastically take two lives lost over three.
Unlike you, I think that third life is actually kind of important.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Chicken girl? Whatever. I have said repeatedly that if the girl’s life was in danger, the abortion was appropriate. It doesn’t matter what her age. What more can I say? It is sheerly idiotic to claim that I “grudge” this outcome. A life was saved. That is always 100% good news.
Actually, remigius, I hadn’t noticed that you used the word “cunt” because I just skimmed your message. I didn’t need to read it because I knew it would be more dishonest, off-topic ranting. You don’t need to apologize for “cunt” either because I know you don’t have the breeding to avoid it. Just in case you want to know- I, at least, have never used prick, dickhead,knob, etc. in my life. Nor has anyone I know. But, then, I do hang around with a better class.
I don’t know if I am mental. I do know that I am appalled, disgusted, and thoroughly disheartened by the intellectual dishonesty on parade here. I keep saying I am finished but my sheer disbelief that you can be so oblivious to the use of natural reason and my inability to believe that you want to be a ranting mob compels me to keep trying to reach you. However, enough is enough. It can’t be done, or else I cannot do it. I accept that. C’est la vie and all that rot.
March 18th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
remigus, I’m not going to chastise you, but don’t you think it’s kind of ironic to use the word “cunt” as an insult against an organization headed entirely by men?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Lily, you keep saying “if”. There is no “if”. Her life WAS in danger. FACT. The abortion WAS necessary. FACT. Her life WAS saved. FACT.
And here you are arguing until you’re blue in the face that she should have carried to term as if it’s perfectly reasonable to expect a NINE-YEAR-OLD to do that.
If a nine-year-old girl pregnant with twins is not the freaking DEFINITION of a dangerous, life-threatening pregnancy, then what the hell is?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
By the way Lily, are you still going to insist that excommunicating the girl’s doctors was appropriate even though it is blindingly OBVIOUS to anyone with a functioning brain that the abortion was to save her life?
March 18th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Chicken Girl.You wrote
…remigus, I’m not going to chastise you, but don’t you think it’s kind of ironic to use the word “cunt” as an insult against an organization headed entirely by men’
Not at all. It seems that the ‘men’ who are in charge of the misogynistic cults that so prevail in our society are afraid of women, and especially their genitalia. Please don’t ask me why, I’m not party to their particular hang up. I really would like to know why they fear women and their reproductive organs, but alas that secret is forever lost to me.
The best I can do is rub it in their faces. So to speak!
March 19th, 2009 at 12:00 am
The best I can do is rub it in their faces. So to speak!
Hawt.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am
I wrote to Senator Obama, asking him why a man with less than one full term in the Senate should be promoted to the office of President. It was simply a thought exercise, and I did not mail it, since I recognize that I have no standing to question an American politician on such an issue. Only a fatuous oaf would think that Obama should have to justify himself to someone who is not even an American.
And only a fatuous oaf would think that a non-historian who believes her bible’s assurances, that the earth is flat and that a snake and a donkey can talk (or does she concede that her bible is fiction?), has the standing to question a biblical historian who has published 40 books and over 600 journal articles in 9 countries, including such peer-reviewed publications as Journal of Higher Criticism, Humanistic Judaism, Free Inquiry, and Skeptical Inquirer.
Editor: Stop providing this turd of Ratzinazi shit with a forum for her insane delusions. Flush her.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:11 am
I wish I knew what Hawt means. I’ve googled but the best it can come up with is Hot Artists With A Thirst!
I’m getting too old for this shit….
March 19th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Dr Harwood. Yes, we realise that you have been on the receiving end of a rather spiteful ad hom, but surely a gentleman of your calibre would rise above it…and demolish the bitch with a well aimed rational broadside.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:33 am
remigius, Urban Dictionary is your friend.
March 19th, 2009 at 12:56 am
The Urban Dictionary is no friend of mine. They have rejected most of my submitted entries –
Jihadvertising
Islamputee
jihaddled
jihad nauseum
qur’anorak
islamateur
islambiguity
jihadministration
jihadolescent
qur’animosity
and my own personal favourite anaqur’anism – meaning ‘trying to play a 21st century game by 7th century rules.
The bastards rejected the lot of them.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:47 am
I have looked up ‘hawt’ on the urban dictionary.
I am still none the wiser but at least I am better informed!
March 19th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Harwood, those are not peer-reviewed academic journals. It is very nice that you are publishing articles in magazines of interest to you and others here. That is not a small accomplishment, especially in the numbers you have cited. But it is not scholarly, peer-reviewed work.
Remigius may think it is “ad hominem” (and spiteful at that!) to report that I can’t find your name in any scholarly journal or citation index but that is a plain fact. You claim to be a scholar. I have asked you to tell me about your academic output. Why won’t you tell me about it? “Authorship” of a self-published book is meaningless in academia, as you must know, if you are really part of it.
Let’s see. What else have you got wrong? Well, as a matter of fact, I do have training in history, although I did my advanced degrees in a different, but related area. No, I don’t believe in a young or a flat earth, nor do I believe, any more than the Catholic Church does, that the Old Testament is too be taken literally, where it clearly is not meant to be. A poem is read as a poem. Mythology is read as mythology. Stories are read as stories. There is an intelligent way to read ancient literature and there is the way atheists and fundamentalists do. I know the difference. It is the rare atheist who does.
You can certainly keep screaming for me to be prevented from posting and that is ok, if it happens. It is ok, if it doesn’t. I have no wish to torment you. I would remind you that you are the one who claimed expertise in an area that I am very well read in. I have asked you to cite some of your academic work. You have failed to do so. Had you been able to, I would have gone to the library and read some of your articles, so that I could see if my own reading or understanding is, somehow, faulty.
Still, I am perfectly content to leave you to enjoy your writing in an area you clearly have a deep, if idiosyncratic, interest in. I will continue to rely on the expertise of the majority working in those areas of biblical scholarship. Scholarly consensus can, of course, be wrong. But you must demonstrate that. Declaring it isn’t enough.
March 19th, 2009 at 3:32 am
remigius,
Why do the male cultists fear women and our reproductive organs? Jealousy and fear. We have them, they don’t, and the thought of us having control over something so powerful terrifies them. That’s why they have all that garbage in place to control us and our organs.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:40 am
Lily,
I think the point most people here are trying to make and please correct me if I am wrong ( not you Lily, you shut the fuck up and listen ) is that there can be no justification for any course of action in this case other than an immediate abortion, I think the current accepted term is, its a ‘no-brainer’.
Your first post on this story said “the archbishop was correct originally”, I assume you meant in announcing the excommunication of her mother and the Doctors which he justified by saying that “abortion was more serious than the rape” ( of a 9 year old girl). Well, its not! And to think anything else shows a disgusting lack of empathy on your part. You should be ashamed of yourself!
You claim to be educated ( I don’t, by the way) and yet you come across as an ignoramus of the highest order, you don’t appear to have the common sense you were born with.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Buffy – You seem to be very proud of your formidable front bottom. I am pleased for you, but I don’t think this is the reason behind such misogyny. I think it’s more of a mental thing than a fanny thing.
Just try to imagine what the world would be like if Lily was pope.
Scary isn’t it.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I’m off to church today to hand in my de-baptism form has anyone any suggestions (within the law) of what I say to the man in the frock?
March 19th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I have always found the word ‘twat’ very effective when addressing the clergy.
March 19th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Cunt it is then.
March 19th, 2009 at 10:19 am
@ chrsbol re “man in frock”: I was waiting for a bus outside a church in central Brighton last Sunday when a lad of about five in the queue spotted the priest in emerald green and white vestments at the church entrance.
He tugged at his father’s sleeve and asked: “Dad, why is that man wearing a frock?”
Dad smiled down at him and said: “Chris, this is Brighton – it’s full of men in frocks!”
Little boy: “S’ppose …”
March 19th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Ah yes green and white vestments. When I was forced to attend mass one had to make a note of the colour of the robes and what the sermon was about because you would be tested the following monday at school to make sure you’d been. Severe punishment to those who hadn’t. I was thrashed with a belt for something as paltry and my mother took me to the man in the frock to show him my weals. “He got what he deserved” was what the twat said. I could fill this blog with similar stories and that’s why I’m handing in my de-baptism form. Not that it’ll do any good but it may just annoy some fucker.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Wurble- you are a drooling idiot if you think telling me to shut up does anything to support your “argument”. It is merely an attempt to bully me, since you cannot win on the merits of the case.
It is simply disingenuous to claim that the 9 year old could not possibly have given birth. It has already happened and there was a recent case in which a 10 year old in Cincinatti was impregnated and brought the child to term.
As I have stated repeatedly, there is no question but what an abortion was proper, at the point the girl was in danger. There is no way for me or you to know whether she could have safely gone another few weeks to the point of viability. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT AN ABORTION IS PHYSICALLY VIOLENT UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES???
Bloody hell! Do you not understand that forcing the cervix open unaturally is violent?!!? Or perhaps, they gave her drugs to kill the babies. She still had to deliver them. Or, maybe they opened up her abdomen and removed the children that way. Those are the only 3 options.
HOW IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT MAKES ANY SENSE IS THIS NECESSARILY BETTER THAN WAITING A FEW WEEKS TO SEE IF THE BABIES Could BE BROUGHT TO A POINT THAT THEY COULD LIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB?
I don’t have the slightest doubt that you and your ilk will find a way to dismiss this. You are beneath contempt and you are certainly a waste of my time. I need to have my head examined for continuing to try to talk sense in an insane asylum.
March 19th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Bing bong…”Will Dr Freud please come to Emergency”
March 19th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
First of all, legally, they can’t do any of the things you describe.
Listen, I know you’re probably feeling an instinctive maternal urge, whenever babies and children are involved I feel the same. However, the feelings are misplaced. You are speaking generally about abortion, I get it, but ultimately how we may feel is not backed up by science. I understand how you feel, really I do, but you must understand. These are not babies, they will be one day, but they aren’t here and now.
I still feel uncomfortable with abortion, partly because of my catholic ‘education’ and mainly because I find it hard to separate the cluster of cells and developing organs with the smiling giggling tiny adorable humans that run around and smear poop on their toys (Dog bless ‘em). But in reality; they are separate. One is a process, the other is alive.
The ones who really need your concern are living children, thinking, breathing, feeling, like this poor girl who not only has to live with the events of being raped by a man she thought she could trust as a father-figure, but now has to face condemnation from the authorities she thought she could turn to.
No one should be forced or just wonder into childrearing, it is not a light undertaking. Children need to be raised in safety, security and love. Having a baby was overwhelming for me, an educated woman in her early twenties, but can you imagine how it was for her?
I don’t regret having my baby, it was right, appropriate and I love her more my own life. Perhaps I would have regreted an abortion, but would it not be better to resent oneself than an innocent baby?
I’m pleading that you think long and hard about these women who have abortions, they aren’t evil, they aren’t uncaring. They aren’t always the victims of rape, but know they’ll never be able to raise a child. Isn’t it better they discontinue a pregnancy and not then treat a human being, complete with a brain and working nervous system, like a nuisence?
In short, there are people in the world who need your love, young and old, more than an fetus. Just look down your street at the homeless, the disposessed, the elderly alone in crumbling homes and children living under abuse and violence. They are ALIVE, they need your help and concern.
I probably will come across as uncaring to an embryo, but if was the choice between a scared, traumatised young girl and a group of vaguely human shaped organs, then I know who I’d rather help.
March 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Rozi:
When have I ever expressed anything even remotely suggesting that women who have abortions are evil? They are not. Most of them are victims. It is quite a coup for society (aka men) to have succeeded in turning women against their own flesh and blood. Do you think it an accident that the most fervent supporters of abortion are men between 18-44? Why do you think that is?
While I have no particular maternal feelings, I do recognize that when any class of human can be disposed of like a used kleenex, we are all in danger. That is why the US constitution calls the right to life “inviolable”. It undergirds and guarantees all our other human rights which are meaningless, if we don’t have the right to life. Abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, euthanasia– just exactly who is safe when the young, the elderly, and the mentally and physically handicapped are not?
No woman needs to raise a child she is unable to care for. There are long lists of couples waiting for children in the US. That includes 5+ year-long waiting lists for handicapped infants. That last has probably shrunk considerably, since we have nearly aborted Down syndrome infants out of existence.
While I do not take the inconvenience of an unwanted pregnancy lightly, those 9 months pale in comparison to deliberate killing of a human being. And it is “inconvenience” the drives the vast majority of abortions. Guttmacher (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) reports the following world-wide “reason for abortion” stats which I believe are the most recent:
# Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
# Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
# Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
# Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
# Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
# Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
# Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
# Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
# Other: 2.1%
The numbers tell the story, don’t they?
In short, there are people in the world who need your love, young and old, more than an fetus. Just look down your street at the homeless, the disposessed, the elderly alone in crumbling homes and children living under abuse and violence. They are ALIVE, they need your help and concern.
LOL! That was one of the most subtle insults I have ever had hurled at me. Beautifully delivered! But guess what? It fails utterly. I do work with them those people “down the street”. I give, as do vast numbers of other Christians, serious amounts of money to charities that work with people in need of all sorts. I, personally, work with a group that prepares women in prison for successful reentry into society and the workforce. I also support a group that cares for the children of women in prison– houses them, educates them, brings them on visits to their mothers provides ongoing medical care, wonderful recreational opportunities for them with not one penny from the government. It is all from donations from, you guessed it, Christians. You may conclude from this, by the way, that the plight of vulnerable women and children is very near to my heart.
I still utterly reject the hell-born notion that killing infants in the womb has any redeeming value at all. It is, on rare occasions, a painful necessity.
And finally:
NO ONE; NO ONE is condemning the child! Soemtimes I think you pro-death people are out of your minds. No 9 year old can consent to an abortion. Even if she knew what it is, she could not consent to it meaningfully. By the same token, what 9 year old could stand up to her mother and the doctors, i.e. the “authority figures,” and refuse one?
Can there be anything more to be said?
March 19th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Wurble: I can’t recall being called an ‘Ilk’ before, but it seems to fit. Do Ilks have invisible friends for whom they will argue, and argue, and argue, and argue exists until everyone is exhausted? I know that persons of a certain gender are inclined to insist on always getting the last word, even if the word they are using is total b*llocks. Anyway, this Ilk approves of abortion at any stage, if the mother wants it, after all, in the main, it is she who has to bring it up, not the sanctimonious god botherers who are so quick to point and sit in judgement.
I know, Barry, another house-point lost; heading for the naughty step now.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
It is simply disingenuous to claim that the 9 year old could not possibly have given birth. It has already happened and there was a recent case in which a 10 year old in Cincinatti was impregnated and brought the child to term.
The youngest person ever to give birth was a five-year-old girl in Peru in 1938. She survived and went on to have another child as an adult. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngest_mother
You know what that was, and your 10-year-old Cincinnati girl is? A freak occurrence. They got lucky. No, lucky is an understatement. They won the freaking lottery. Just because it has happened does not mean it’s reasonable to expect it to happen, any more than it would be reasonable for me to quit my job and put a down payment on a mansion just because I bought a lottery ticket. Hey, people win the lottery all the time, right?
If I did quit my job, you would rightly think I was batshit insane. And that’s just money that I would be playing with. We are talking about a little girl’s LIFE. It quite simply is not worth the risk. Not for one fetus, not for two, not for a hundred. The needs of the people who are ALREADY HERE are more important.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
I ought to apologise, really, if I have insulted you. I did not intend to. I only wanted to claify that atheists are not ‘pro-death’, we believe that there’s no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no reiencarnation, so how can we not believe in life? That’s all we have ultimately.
What we’re saying is that those who have a provable life, a real one with a nervous system and a functioning brain, have rights. They need to be listened to.
You mention euthenasia saying its preying on the elderly and the infirm, which it might be in some cases, but if it were me in intolerable pain or reduced to a vegetable, I’d want someone to end it and use my organs to help someone with a chance of survival.
Sorry, there’s probably no point in arguing, you have your views and you are intitled to them, but… meh.
March 19th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“Wurble- you are a drooling idiot if you think telling me to shut up does anything to support your “argument”. It is merely an attempt to bully me, since you cannot win on the merits of the case.”
Not bully, more like ‘Wind up’, Not sure if it worked though!
As my final word I just wanna say, Thank jebus that the people who had any influence in this case i.e., the girls mother and the Doctors had the good sense to go ahead with the abortion, it shows that when the chips are down nobody really gives a flying fuck what the catholic church has to say, but it sure is fun to argue about it!
Lily, that “Bloody Hell” is gonna cost you at confession, what’s the going rate these days, still 3 Hail Mary’s and 4 our fathers?
Keep taking the tablets.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
pope’s arse-licker: “trying to talk sense in an insane asylum”? If you had the intelligence The Flying Spaghetti Monster gave linguini, you would realize that you are LIVING in an insane asylum. It is called the Catholic Church. What you are doing, attributing to others what you see in the mirror, is called projection.
March 19th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
To continue my comment from earlier, speaking of the medical lottery.
Earlier this year, a woman in Australia gave birth to a baby girl that she had carried to term inside her ovary. The only reason the pregnancy hadn’t been aborted was that the condition was not discovered until her doctor did a c-section and went, “Holy shit. The baby’s in her OVARY.” Reportedly, the woman’s ovary had been stretched so thin you could see the baby’s hair. This woman was INSANELY lucky. And the fact that she and her baby escaped nearly-certain death doesn’t mean we should start refusing women treatment for ectopic pregnancies. (Or have I given you ideas?)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7427907.stm
Another C-section, this time in Mexico. This woman was in labor at home, hours away from medical help and her labor was not progressing. Having lost a previous baby in labor this way. She decided THIS baby was coming out alive or she was going to die trying. She performed a cesarean section on herself with a kitchen knife. Her baby survived and she made a full recovery.
Guess this means we don’t need to keep wasting money on hospital c-sections, huh? (hint: no)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....m%C3%ADrez
March 19th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Lily loves the academic stuff – and her new favourite is “peer reviewed”.
As for her reaction to a priest abusing her, possibly advancing with a lighted taper while she was up to her arse in dry brushwood, I don’t know?
Poor, sad Lily. Utter determination to insist that her crazy beliefs are correct in every respect when even a quarter sane person would see that they cannot be. What goes on in her head? Why is she terrified of entertaining fresh thoughts, new ideas? And yet she has learned to write, she can read and she acheives an element of comprehension. As my old and long deceased Scots grannie might have said, “She is more to be pitied than laughed at.” However, her comments on this site, including her CAPITAL LETTERS hysteria make that unlikely.