Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« YES! | Main | The Virginia Tragedy »

April 19, 2007

Comments

Bob

The next time you hear some "independent thinker" or "moderate" saying that there really isn't any difference between Republicans and Democrats and that all politicians are the the same, ask yourself if John Kerry would have nominated, and if a democrat senate would have confirmed, Justices Roberts and Alito. This is a great day for this country.
How the media can be aghast at a man who kills 32 of his fellow students and professors, and at the same time give its nod of approval to the slaughter of millions of babies is so far beyond my comprehension that I can only shake my head in disbelief.
Debate his merits and his policies until you are blue in the face for all I care, but know that George W. Bush's signature on this bill and his apointees to the Supreme Court saved the lives of babies today, period. I'll take a stammering President who defends life over a slick-talking pro-abort any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Keep those Justices, GWB, and the souls of the children for whom this decision came too late in your prayers tonight.

Brian

A lot of pro-death politicians keep mentioning the serious health risks women face by not being able to have a partial birth abortion. I'm not a doctor, can someone explain what these risks are? I know they're just using it as propaganda, but just to help me understand the other side's argument: What are the risks of other forms of abortion as opposed to partial birth abortion? And expanding the scope, what are the risks of health care that treats the baby as a person as well as the mother (i.e. a society where abortions are illegal)?

Suzanne

Our governor in Oklahoma just vetoed a bill that would restrict those abortions paid for by state money--even though it passed both houses by a wide margin. So it is a bittersweet day for us in Oklahoma. I ask for your prayers that the legislature overrides his veto.

rhystuck

Health risks from not having partial birth abortion = Zero. It's a flat out lie. Having a partial birth abortion is more risky than just having the darn baby.

Sparki

I've asked the same question about health risks a lot. A PBA is a forced breach, which can cause damage to the mother's cervix depending on technique. Also, a C-section is less risky only because doctors have more training and do them more often. From what I have learned (and believe me, it's like pulling teeth from an alligator that's wide awake), there is absolutely NO situation in which a c-section cannot be substituted for a PBA. The only difference is one leads to a live baby and the other one leads to a dead baby.

--Sparki

BrianC

Susanne in Oak. Good News there is technically no need to. It is NOW illegal to perform a partial birth abortion(AKA infanticide). Any and all state laws that permit it are out the window! Federal law always supersedes state law.

Marty Helgesen

And for more information, including drawings showing how partial birth abortions are perforemed, see
http://www.nrlc.org/
especially
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/index.html

francis 03

One of the concerns Justice Kennedy addressed in his opinion is that dismembering the fetus inside the uterus might cause its bones to cut or rip the uterine wall.

Bob, it's unfortunately the case that this bill likely won't prevent many (or any) abortions. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court only upheld it because it found that it wouldn't.

BobCatholic

Supremes to those who hate the unborn: No so fast!

Unborn children haters: waaaaaaaaaah

Esau

Bob, it's unfortunately the case that this bill likely won't prevent many (or any) abortions. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court only upheld it because it found that it wouldn't.


francis03:

As I stated in the other two threads, remember: 'baby steps'.

Besides, a small victory may one day lead to a great one!

Nick

Esau, I got news for you. The devil is enjoying these baby steps to no where.

Esau

The devil is enjoying these baby steps to no where.

So, I take it, it's better that NOTHING be done at all and that no SUCH EFFORT be taken in trying to combat this evil????

Unless there are SMALL victories won, we can't hope to ever achieve the ultimate one of defeating this evil!

SLAVERY wasn't one in JUST ONE BATTLE!!!

It took a WHOLE SERIES of victories in order to achieve the FINAL END!

bill912

Nick, care to elaborate?

Nick

"So, I take it, it's better that NOTHING be done at all and that no SUCH EFFORT be taken in trying to combat this evil???? Unless there are SMALL victories won, we can't hope to ever achieve the ultimate one of defeating this evil! SLAVERY wasn't one in JUST ONE BATTLE!!! It took a WHOLE SERIES of victories in order to achieve the FINAL END!"

First. God is not incremental, he's merciful and loving. We must pray that God's will be done and not man's will. I'm so sorry that you've been deceived.

Esau

Make that:

SLAVERY wasn't WON in JUST ONE BATTLE!!!

It took a WHOLE SERIES of SMALL VICTORIES in order to achieve the FINAL END!


Need I also REMIND you that even in the Early Days of the PERSECUTED Church, the great Roman Empire wasn't won over by Christianity in just one fell swoop!

It, too, took a whole series of SMALL VICTORIES in order for Christianity to finally be embraced, which lead to it becoming a major religion in our world today!


FURTHERMORE, in regards to your particular statement, the devil ALSO ENJOYS that we NOT take ANY steps at all and I'm sure he rather NOT have such SMALL VICTORIES WON!

Esau

First. God is not incremental, he's merciful and loving. We must pray that God's will be done and not man's will. I'm so sorry that you've been deceived.


I'm sorry that YOU have been DECEIVED!

That's just it -- MAN'S WILL SHOULDN'T BE DONE -- BUT GOD'S -- and the only way out is TO FIGHT THE SMALL FIGHTS and WIN THE SMALL VICTORIES!

CHRISTIANITY, ITSELF, WON OVER THE WORLD BY SUCH 'INCREMENTAL' STEPS!

Don't tell me that CHRISTIANITY became a DOMINANT RELIGION OVERNITE!

bill912

Nick is right. God wants us to pray, but doesn't want us to take any action. Remember what our Lord said about the end of the world: "Come, blessed of MY Father. For I was hungry, and you said a prayer; I was thirsty, and you said a prayer; I was naked, and you said a prayer; sick, and you said a prayer; in prison, and you said a prayer." It's all right there in the Gospels.

Nick

"SLAVERY wasn't WON in JUST ONE BATTLE!!! It took a WHOLE SERIES of SMALL VICTORIES in order to achieve the FINAL END! Need I also REMIND you that even in the Early Days of the PERSECUTED Church, the great Roman Empire wasn't won over by Christianity in just one fell swoop! It, too, took a whole series of SMALL VICTORIES in order for Christianity to finally be embraced, which lead to it becoming a major religion in our world today! FURTHERMORE, in regards to your particular statement, the devil ALSO ENJOYS that we NOT take ANY steps at all and I'm sure he rather NOT have such SMALL VICTORIES WON!"

Where's is your faith Esau? Isn't it amazing how I can back you into a corner and you cry like baby and whimper? Seriously. Are you suggesting that timing is everything. Timing just doesn't cut it. Remember what Martin Luther King Jr said, in his prison cell in Alabama, "For years now I have heard the word 'Wait!" Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?

Nick

"I'm sorry that YOU have been DECEIVED! That's just it -- MAN'S WILL SHOULDN'T BE DONE -- BUT GOD'S -- and the only way out is TO FIGHT THE SMALL FIGHTS and WIN THE SMALL VICTORIES! CHRISTIANITY, ITSELF, WON OVER THE WORLD BY SUCH 'INCREMENTAL' STEPS! Don't tell me that CHRISTIANITY became a DOMINANT RELIGION OVERNITE!"

Of course it wasn't won overnite. And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee! By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing. And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I'm driving at?

bill912

"You see what I'm driving at?"

No. Try just saying what you're driving at.

Esau

Where's is your faith Esau?

14 ¶ What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food:
16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?

17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.


Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?

THAT'S JUST IT --

PEOPLE MUST WORK HARD AT TRYING TO ABOLISH ABORTION -- AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A SERIES OF BATTLES, NOT UNLIKE SLAVERY!

WAS SLAVERY ABOLISHED AFTER JUST ONE ACT OR EVENT? WAS IT ABOLISHED RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS WON????

Did folks FIGHTING TO ABOLISH SLAVERY say to the slaves who were suffering then that they'd have to wait???

NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!

Kris

Nick-

I'm going to tear a page out of Rush Limbaughs book here and ask "What is your solution, sir?"

God Bless.

Nick

Where's is your faith Esau?
14 ¶ What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?
15 And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food:
16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?

THAT'S JUST IT -- PEOPLE MUST WORK HARD AT TRYING TO ABOLISH ABORTION -- AND THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A SERIES OF BATTLES, NOT UNLIKE SLAVERY! WAS SLAVERY ABOLISHED AFTER JUST ONE ACT OR EVENT? WAS IT ABOLISHED RIGHT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WAS WON???? Did folks FIGHTING TO ABOLISH SLAVERY say to the slaves who were suffering then that they'd have to wait???


Esau it took a war to end slavery! By the time blacks were allowed to vote, the pro-abortion movement had already taken wing.
NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!

Esau

Of course it wasn't won overnite.

Oh, gee, I guess THAT was my point -- but what do I know?

I have NO faith and prefer to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, doing NOTHING but PRAY and LEAVE IT ALL to God.


And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee!

HUH????


By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing.

Yes -- De Civitate Dei, in fact!


And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I'm driving at?

YES -- A BRICK WALL!

Great. More rejects from the lunatic asylum. The sane:insane ratio here is dropping precipitously.

Nick

"NO! They ACTUALLY FOUGHT A SERIES OF BATTLES ALL THROUGH THE NEXT CENTURY IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH JUST THAT!"

No. Read your history my friend. Once a government loses respect for the dignity of the human person, none is actually safe.

# 1859: The American Medical Association (AMA) condemns abortion except as necessary to preserve the life of either the mother or child (?)

# 1875: Every state in the United States has adopted laws banning abortion.

# 1916: Margaret Sanger forms the Birth Control League (now Planned Parenthood) to promote contraception and abortion.

# 1959: The American Law Institute (ALI) proposes the "Model Penal Code" urging that abortion be performed in licensed hospitals when necessary to preserve the mental or physical health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest.

# 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. Supreme Court hands down decision that legalizes contraception and defines the "right to privacy."

# 1967: Colorado becomes the first state to allow abortion for cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life.

# 1970: Fourteen states were allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

# 1973: Roe v. Wade. Stating that a constitutional "right to privacy" exists that protects a woman's decision to have an abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court legalizes abortion on demand. The Court permits states to outlaw abortions from viability until birth (third trimester) except when necessary to preserve the mother's life or health.

# 1973: Doe v. Bolton. The Supreme Court defines "health" (of the mother) to include all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age. This basically allows a woman to have an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason.

Nick

"Of course it wasn't won over nite.Oh, gee, I guess THAT was my point -- but what do I know? I have NO faith and prefer to sit around, twiddling my thumbs, doing NOTHING but PRAY and LEAVE IT ALL to God. And you know what? The Roman Empire paid the price for waiting blind pharisee! HUH???? By the time Christianity became legalized Rome was falling. Have you learned nothing. Yes -- De Civitate Dei, in fact! And guess what? By the time slavery became illegal we were in danger of having our nation destroyed. You see what I'm driving at? YES -- A BRICK WALL!"

It was the persecution of Christians by Rome, that was just one, that destroyed the Empire in the first place.

Esau

No. Read your history my friend. Once a government loses respect for the dignity of the human person, none is actually safe.


Actually, YOU should study US history!

There were just as many, if not, even more measures that were FOR SLAVERY and, talking about the dignity of the human person, actually depicted black people as SUBHUMAN!

Hence, just like Slavery, it will take a whole series of similar battles to end abortion -- not just one!

Nick

My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement. We don't put our salvation in partisan politics.

Esau

It was the persecution of Christians by Rome, that was just one, that destroyed the Empire in the first place.


You DON'T GET IT, do you?


I was saying that Christianity didn't become an accepted religion in the Empire OVERNITE -- it took a whole series of 'incremental steps' before that actually happened!

bill912

"'You see what I'm driving at?'"

"No. Try just saying what you're driving at."

Guess not.

Nick

Esau, by the time that happened, it was too little too late.

Esau

My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement.

What the heck are you talking about???

We were talking about the recent court decision regarding PBA, which was essentially a moral victory FOR the Pro-Life movement!


We don't put our salvation in partisan politics.

That's not the point -- the fact of the matter is that we need to SUPPORT those in politics who will help FURTHER THE CAUSE in seeing the end of abortion!

Esau

Esau, by the time that happened, it was too little too late.

NO IT WASN'T BECAUSE, IN THE END, CHRISTIANITY BECAME EMBRACED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND FROM THEREON, BECAME THE VERY FORCE THAT ULTIMATELY SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZED WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!

Tim J.

"My point is that if we allow this law to pass we only farther hindering the pro-life movement"

H'okay... up is down, black is white... I get it.

Nick

Look, knowing how candidates stand on certain issues is one thing. I only support politicians that are 100% pro-life.

Tim J.

Besides which, the law IS passed. The law is law.

Nick

"NO IT WASN'T BECAUSE, IN THE END, CHRISTIANITY BECAME EMBRACED BY THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND FROM THEREON, BECAME THE VERY FORCE THAT ULTIMATELY SHAPED THE FUTURE OF THE WESTERN CIVILIZED WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!"

If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.

Esau

Are you going to tell me that you are going to tell the other babies who are being killed that they should wait?

AND

I only support politicians that are 100% pro-life.


So, I guess you can say to all those innocent babies being killed, "Sorry, I could've voted for somebody that might've helped to further the cause against abortion, but I only vote for 100% candidates!"

Esau

If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.

Ever hear of the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE????

Also, it would help to actually read De Civitate Dei!

Nick

The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before.

Esau

The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before.

THAT'S THE POINT!

Nick

"So, I guess you can say to all those innocent babies being killed, 'Sorry, I could've voted for somebody that might've helped to further the cause against abortion, but I only vote for 100% candidates!'"

Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party.

Esau

Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party.

You mean to say that ACTUALLY ADDING 2 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT ARE PRO-LIFE (the actions of said political party) was a MISTAKE?

Did you even READ about the recent decision on PBA?

Nick

"The Holy Roman Empire came after the fall of Rome. Not before. THAT'S THE POINT!"

I see, take baby steps to ending the persecution of Christians, Rome gets destroyed. Then set up a new empire. Which is by taking baby steps you destroy one country in make a new one.

Nick

"You mean to say that ACTUALLY ADDING 2 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT ARE PRO-LIFE (the actions of said political party) was a MISTAKE? Did you even READ about the recent decision on PBA?"

Where was Bush's anger when South Dakota rejected a ban on all abortions? Very telling if you ask me. Are you going to say to me that this silence over rejection of the ban on all abortions in South Dakota and the election of two Supreme Court justices is a postive?

Esau

I see, take baby steps to ending the persecution of Christians, Rome gets destroyed. Then set up a new empire. Which is by taking baby steps you destroy one country in make a new one.

If Rome becoming a Christian Empire is destruction to you, then there is no point to this (apparently) one-way conversation.

Esau

the election of two Supreme Court justices is a postive?


Do you actually know what is the FUNCTION of a Supreme Court Justice???

Apparently, not!

Nick

"If Rome becoming a Christian Empire is destruction to you, then there is no point to this (apparently) one-way conversation."


Converting people by destroying one nation and making another is not the way to do it.

Kris

Nick--
"Esau the biggest mistake the pro-life movement ever did was align itself with a political party."

I don't really think the pro-life movement really intended to align itself with a political party. It just so happens that the Republican party has a heck-of-alot more pro-lifers in it than the Democratic party. In fact, there are many good Catholics and Christians out there who would like to vote Democratic (myself not included here) but can't because their consciences wont let them elect agents of death.

I'm still not sure what you're "driving at" here Nick. Could you please spell out your ideas, perhaps a long term strategy, for clarity's sake?

God Bless.

Nick

"the election of two Supreme Court justices is a positive? Do you actually know what is the FUNCTION of a Supreme Court Justice??? Apparently, not!"


So you are saying that a positive action by Bush somehow erases a bad action he did? Doesn't work like that.

Brian

Nick-

I'm going to tear a page out of Rush Limbaughs book here and ask "What is your solution, sir?"

God Bless.

I'm interesting in hearing the answer to Kris' question. If Nick would be so kind as to share the solution to ending abortion all at one, I'd be the first on the bandwagon.

Esau

Converting people by destroying one nation and making another is not the way to do it.


They DIDN'T destroy it!

Their own actions (those of the ignoble Roman Power at that time) did that!

However, from the rubbles came a phoenix -- since the Holy Roman Empire that came to be would subsequently help to make Christianity a widespread religion all throughout the known world and, later, even beyond -- in fact, Western Civilization is what it is today because of it!

Kasia

...there are many good Catholics and Christians out there who would like to vote Democratic (myself not included here) but can't because their consciences wont let them elect agents of death.

Yup - I for one would probably vote mixed-ticket if there were actually pro-life Dems on my ballot. And I know quite a few other Catholics who feel the same, or would be hard-core Democrats, if it weren't for life issues.

Esau

So you are saying that a positive action by Bush somehow erases a bad action he did? Doesn't work like that.


Nick,

You DON'T GET IT --

The actions of the Supreme Court Justices have SIGNIFICANT RAMIFICATIONS since they MOVE and SHAPE the COURT (as they are doing right now, in fact, with the recent decision on PBA) for YEARS TO COME!

THUS, their very actions have TREMENDOUS CONSEQUENCES for ALL Americans and can help, in fact, UNDO the horrific repercussions of Roe v. Wade at the very root of its evil!

Especially significant as well is the fact that these folks hold their positions for FOR LIFE and that's why PRO-DEATH folks were so against the nominations for Roberts and Alito, Bush's nominees!

You can read the recent court decision to see why!

Tim J.

By all means, Nick, share this abortion-crushing strategy you've got... don't hold out on us.

Heck, if we all throw in together we ought to have it all wrapped up by, what, next week?

Jon

Yet another example of one of my favorite aphorisms: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

Your not "100% pro-life" so to hell with you. sigh

MissJean

There's nothing wrong with "baby steps" as long as they're in the direction of God's will. There will always be people who complain that correcting evils isn't being done fast enough and we're not there yet, but they just remind me of those people who crabbed at Moses. And remind me here, guys... how long did it take Moses to fulfill his God-given job of getting the people to the promised land?

Nick is insane. Literally. He needs to be committed. Assuming, of course, that he isn't a Perl script. You all spend so much of your lives trying futilely to talk to trolls, irrational lunatics, psychotics, and computer programs it isn't even funny.

Smoky Mountain Perl Script

Does that mean I shouldn't post anymore?

Kris

Anon-

Thank you for comming down off your pedastal to save us all from ourselves.

Nick:
If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen.

Which is absolutely ridiculous. No government of man, even the best, is guaranteed survival. The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that's not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.

There was so much pressure from outside the Empire by the Westward migration of peoples. There were also plagues that we now know to have been worse than the Black Death. There may have been climatic factors. And there were millions of individual people making individual decisions. You can't say events in history happen because of *one* thing.

(One half of the Roman Empire *did* survive, though, for another thousand years, something us Westerners often forget.)

But I do think it's not worth while getting so flustered and arguing with... well, not trolls, but people who are so unable to engage in the back-and-forth of conversation.

Eileen R

Ooops. That last comment was me.

Dr. Eric "Katolykyj"

Thanks to Eileen R for the reminder to those who had forgotten that the Roman Empire didn't actually fall until 1453.

Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus died in Communion with the Roman See. He was a Greek Catholic and didn't repudiate the Council of Florence.

Realist

I marched in the Respect-for Life gatherings in Washington for many years. For years, I have sent many e-mails to legislators and editors supporting Life and finally the message is being heard. Bravo to the five Respect-for-Life Supreme Court Justices!!!!

Esau

Blessed Emperor Constantine XI Paleologus died in Communion with the Roman See. He was a Greek Catholic and didn't repudiate the Council of Florence.

Hmmmm... I wonder what famous and distinguished individual actually mentioned Palelogus in the relatively recent past (although was unjustly castigated for his rather innocent remarks regarding him)?


Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians -- nihil novi sub sole! (nothing is new under the sun!)

This is the very same accusation hurled then at Christians during Augustine's days -- thus, it would be best to actually read De Civitate Dei.

Further, as mentioned, the Holy Roman Empire that came to be helped propel Christianity to become the world religion it is today and, in fact, it can arguably be said that out of that came the very foundation of Western Civilization as we know it.

Jacob

it can arguably be said that...

Anything "can arguably be said." Doesn't make it the truth though.

Esau

Doesn't make it the truth though.

I take it you haven't read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" then?

Kasia

Esau,

Actually, I believe it was Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, wasn't it?

And wow. I actually agree with Realist on something! Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay! :-)

Dr. Eric

Esau,

You have the wrong Emperor.

The Holy Father quoted Manuel II Paleologus.

Esau

Esau,

You have the wrong Emperor.

The Holy Father quoted Manuel II Paleologus.

Wasn't Constantine his son though?

Smoky Mountain Referee

Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians

Esau, I think Nick blamed the Fall of Rome on the Romans for not legalizing Christianity earlier.

Suzanne

"Susanne in Oak. Good News there is technically no need to. It is NOW illegal to perform a partial birth abortion(AKA infanticide). Any and all state laws that permit it are out the window! Federal law always supersedes state law."


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to partial birth abortions. The governor in Oklahoma vetoed a bill that would have prohibited state (tax dollar) funding for all abortions.

Esau

Esau, I think Nick blamed the Fall of Rome on the Romans for not legalizing Christianity earlier.

This assumption was just as faulty.

I would argue the Roman Empire that was of Caesar was meant to fall.

The Holy Roman Empire out of which Christianity would be spread not only throughout but, later, even beyond, was meant to happen.

Smoky Mountain Referee

This assumption was just as faulty.

I withhold judgement on historical causality. I am but a lowly computer programmer.

I am merely irked when people are misquoted -- it often leads to bad results -- hence I put my referee hat on. :)

Esau

I am merely irked when people are misquoted


Smoky:

Where, exactly, in my remarks did I actually say that it was Nick I was referring to?

Smoky Mountain Referee

Then whose statement were you referring to?

Esau

Not to any actual person in particular but merely alluding to the following comments:

The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that's not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.

Smoky Mountain Referee

I don't see how:

Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians

alludes to

The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that's not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.

It seems that it's more likely a mis-reading of Nick's statement:

If Rome had legalized Christianity way before Constantine Rome never would have fallen

which is what I based my comment on. I apologize if I'm wrong. I'll drop this now, as this isn't likely to be useful reading for anyone.

Esau

Here, perhaps this sequence of reading may help (although, unless you're familiar with some of the proposed reasons why the Roman Empire fell, you perhaps may miss it still):

start comment:
The reasons the Roman Empire fell are not clear and agreed upon. There are so many factors. In the past it was traditional to regard moral disintegration as crucial, but that's not so easy an argument to make when you look at the facts.

Then, my comment:
Also, about the Fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the Christians...

MS

But I do think it's not worth while getting so flustered and arguing with... well, not trolls, but people who are so unable to engage in the back-and-forth of conversation.

Well, I don't see how CONSTANT SCREAMING!!! helps facilitate rational conversation either. I feel a bit sorry for Nick and think he's being unjustly derided while trying to get at something important. Catholics here are rejoicing at action that wasn't meant to and probably won't prevent any deaths, and which is nevertheless giving the pro-death people a rhetorical opportunity to bewail the curtailing of their precious "constitutional freedoms". I can easily see this helping the pro-choice movement more than the pro-life in the long run.

Kris

I think the PBA ban shows recognition of how heinous it is to crush a child's skull as it is half-way out of the mother. In this ban there is an acknowledgment, at least a subtle one, that it is ridiculous to argue that a half born baby can be justifiably killed.

Now as to ending abortion totally well, I think my grandpa's farm advice fits well: "You've got a long row to hoe young man, so get your butt back to work!"

Esau

MS:

It's not CONSTANT SCREAMING! it's called STRESSING the point.

Also, what unjust derision was there?


Furthermore:

Catholics here are rejoicing at action that wasn't meant to and probably won't prevent any deaths,

That's why I called it a moral victory.


... and which is nevertheless giving the pro-death people a rhetorical opportunity to bewail the curtailing of their precious "constitutional freedoms".


Oh, so then let's NOT even WIN the SMALL VICTORIES and, in fact, let's NOT even try to win ANY battles against abortion SINCE ANY VICTORY AGAINST ABORTION ONLY MEANS A RHETORICAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PRO-DEATH PEOPLE TO BEWAIL THE CURTAILING OF THEIR PRECIOUS "CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOMS"!

Heck, let's not even fight against abortion at all since it only gives pro-death folks the chance to have a platform from which to speak!

MS

Esau,

I don't know if you or anyone else will care about this, but I'm seriously starting to consider not coming to Mr Akin's site anymore, or at least not reading the comments anymore, because of your ubiquitous participation in the discussions and the manner in which you conduct it. This is not the way to have a conversation. Rhetorically, EMPHASISIZING EVERYTHING IS THE SAME THING AS EMPHASIZING NOTHING, BUT JUST YELLING!!! It's obnoxious and your posts are nearly always unpleasant to read because of it. I know that a lot of people feel the same way and have said so.

More seriously, you seem not to know how to have a discussion with people you disagree with. I'm on your side here, really I am. I am a staunch orthodox Catholic and I hate abortion and want it to disappear. But I do have doubts about the significance of this "victory". I think Nick raised some points which were not really addressed. I suggested that producing no tangible result, but only a moral one, has questionable value if the other side can easily use it to achieve just as much of a moral and rhetorical victory. What will a decision like this, which does nothing to save lives but does get people angry and self-righteous, do when the next round of judicial nominations is up and the Democrats are almost certainly in charge? The point that Kris makes a few posts ago is perfectly sound, but will be lost on all pro-murder supporters if they don't already know it. Killing a baby is always heinous, but they don't see that and the details of the "procedure" make no difference to them. I'm not sure the details of how abortion is conducted should make a difference to us either. Perhaps this ban will have the effect of enforcing the perception that there's a meaningful difference between abortion and infanticide, when there isn't.

But Esau, you show no willingness whatsoever to engage these points or even consider that they might be worth engaging or thinking about for a moment. You treat me with the same sarcastic dismissal as you did Nick. As I said, it's not really worth trying to have a discussion, or read such discussions, in these circumstances.

Esau

MS:

What you and your friend Nick doesn't seem to understand is that you can't win the WAR against abortion OVERNITE!

It appears that you haven't read the comments of others on this thread who feel the same way!

It is also apparent that you haven't read the full extent of my comments or, if so, HAVEN'T CONSIDERED THEM AT ALL AT ANY LENGTH but instead resort to SARCASTIC DISMISSAL.

By the way, my comments were not the SARCASTIC DISMISSAL that you have wrongly characterized them!

In fact, if you read what you said to me and what I actually said, you would come to realize the reasoning behind the comments I made. The same goes for what I said to Nick.

Of course, what do I know?

I'm merely part of a once oppressed people who stupidly thinks that small victories matter and can actually appreciate such small wins because I know that later on down the road, they may lead to greater ones!

MS

Thank you for confirming my point.

Esau

Anytime.

Glad to be of service!

Bob

Actually, this decision will save lives..today. PBA is, to the best of my knowledge, the standard procedure for a late-term murder...er..abortion. The procedure is now banned, so the child who was scheduled to die today will be spared. The abortion mills will now have to design a more cosmetically appealing procedure to murder a child, but until then, we have our proverbial thumbs in the dike.

This also wasn't just a victory for the pro-life movement. It was a victory for the idea that our elected officials make law in this country, not robed appointees. Roe was created out of whole cloth by judges and foisted upon this country. It is bad law that we never voted for. With this first crack in Roe, there is already speculation that states will begin to enact more limits on abortion.

And as for the notion that this is just ammunition for the pro-aborts, whatever happened to the notion of doing something simply because it is the right thing to do? How many excuses are there in the history of mankind for sin and/or inaction? Fornication (...but we really love each other...), murder (...but he was a really bad person...), theft (...they'll never miss it...), sloth (...the job is too big and too difficult...), and cowardice (...what's the point? I can't defeat them and I'll just get hurt...) are just a few examples of how the darker parts of our nature can thrive when we let our guard down and refuse to bear our crosses. Simple question - yes or no: do you think PBA should be legal? If you don't, then celebrate the fact that it no longer is. Then choose your next battle.

This week marked the 65th anniversary of Jimmy Doolittle's (sp?) bombing raids on Japan. They were largely innefective and served no real military purpose. A lot of lives, planes, fuel, training, time, and effort were sacrificed for these raids. What was the point? It energized the country...it raised our hopes for victory...it gave the country a taste of success...it gave our citizens and our troops a notch to put in our collective belts that we could carry into the next battle.

Personally, I am enjoying the taste of this small victory. And I am newly energized for more.

Mary Kay

Bob, I like the comparison to the Doolittle raids.

Given how threatened the pro-aborts sound, this is not a small victory. It does make me wonder what their counter-move will be.

Doolittle's raids prompted Japan to try to dislodge the American navy, which the Americans anticipated leading to another victory.

Besides, in any protracted battle, small victories really do count.

Brian

I agree with MS that the caps are hard on the eyes and could possibly make you come across as angry to a reader unfamiliar with your writing style. You wouldn't write a book using caps every time you wanted to add a little emphasis to a sentence. There are times when extra emphasis is needed by caps or bolding, but those techniques should be used sparingly. The rest of the time good old sentence structure and exclamation points should do the trick. While we've got more freedom with the rules of grammar here on the Internet, maybe we shouldn't bend them quite so much.

Eileen R

Esau, the CAPS read as yelling to me too. It's just the internet convention, drummed into my head as a thirteen year old newbie to the web. ALL CAPS = YELLING.

In defence of Esau, about Christians being blamed for the Roman Empire's collapse, I can very well see where Esau got that from my post, not from misquoting Nick, because yep, that's what I was referring to. The old theory of moral disintegration originally did blame the Christians. The newer moral disintegration theory seems to blame the pagans, but people are working on blaming the Christians again. ;-)

Sherri

Jimmy,

Thanks for the picture of the beautiful baby. That's what it's all about. I am 10 weeks away from seeing the face of my baby and I can't wait. To hold his hand, to hear his cry, to see his face. Mothers hearing their pre-born baby's heart beat and seeing the baby's ultrasound pictures will do more to save the lives of babies than all you guys fighting on the internet. Use your passion for good. Go out and raise some money for a pregnancy help center to buy an ultrasound machine.

Esau

Eileen R:

Thanks as always, Eileen R.!


Brian:

Thanks for the advice!

From both yours and Eileen's feedback, it is definitely something to consider.

What MS doesn't realize though was that the comments he thanked me for wasn't actually sarcastic dismissal as well but that my subsequent comment was.

John

Recently after the Democrats took control of congress, I was amazed to read a survey published by Americans for Religious Liberty which finds that “Catholics” hold 155 seats out of 535 in the new 110th Congress of the United States, seated January 11, 2007. That's nearly one out of three. The new Speaker of the House of Representatives is
”Catholic". If you add the other “Christians, that comes to a total of 448 Christians, or 84% of the entire U.S. Congress.

Why, then, is it so difficult to pass legislation that conforms to Natural Law and Christian morals: against abortion, against "gay
marriage," etc.? Why is it so difficult finally even to get legislation against moral crimes like this partial birth abortion, which only extremists in the United States advocate?

The answer is simple:

They are no longer “Catholic”, because as Kennedy said when he was running for President in 1960, right to John XXIII (who failed to rebuke him)was that as a Catholic, he does not take any direction from the Pope, but the American people. Could one imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X? That set the tone for all of the disrespect Catholic people who emulate their politicians such as Pelosi, Giuliani, Kennedy, Kerry, Cuomo, etc-who advocate death of the unborn but the Pope on down to the USCCB dont have the guts to deny them the body and blood of our Lord!

Catholics after Vatican II are no longer associated with the Bible, not to speak of Tradition. It is, rather, associated with non-religious, secular, liberalist politics.

Senators John Kerry, failed 2004 U.S. Presidential candidate, and Ted Kennedy, participant in the death of a young woman at Chappaquiddick and proud "divorcee," who consistently vote against Natural Law and
Christian moral principles, are good examples of this ilk. They do not hesitate to grab the eucharist for a photo opportunity, nor does Donald Wuerl, the new archbishop of Washington, D.C., hesitate to give the eucharist to them.

So you continue to wonder whether it ever occurred to this ilk, which dares to call itself Catholic/Christian, that if they actually represented Christian morality, they have control of congress to enact the most far-reaching moral program ever attempted but with Popes who preach that all religions should be respected and that the Catholic church is not the only means to salvation, why should they worry?

Brian

John, what's your point? The same argument can be applied to any subject. An environmentalist could say that the reason we aren't all driving zero emission cars is because there aren't enough environmentalists in Congress and the ones who are aren't true to environmentalisms tenants.

Kasia

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't JFK say that before Vatican II?

John

Kasia posted:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't JFK say that before Vatican II?

That is correct-but Pope John XXIII ushered in "agiornomento" and Vatican II

The winds of change were in the air and so was the moral breakdown of the Catholic clergy and laity alike

Mary Kay

Kasia 1, John 0.

not the best way to say it, but I couldn't resist temptation :)

If memory serves right, JFK said that in the months prior to the 1960 election which was held before Vatican II was convened.

EileenR

They are no longer “Catholic”, because as Kennedy said when he was running for President in 1960, right to John XXIII (who failed to rebuke him)was that as a Catholic, he does not take any direction from the Pope, but the American people. Could one imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X?

Doesn't this strike you as the least bit ironic?

Generally, I can't imagine a Catholic saying that to Pius X, but I don't *have* to imagine *you* saying that to Benedict XVI. You've said plenty of times that as a Catholic, you don't have to take direction from the Pope.

Esau

Kasia 1, John 0.

not the best way to say it, but I couldn't resist temptation :)


If it comes to skilled debating, John picked the wrong person to mess around with.

Not to say they're the only ones out here, but based on past threads, I can surely say Kasia and Eileen R. would be two of the most lethal.

Probably why I love reading their comments so much on the blog! Quite the learning experience -- especially for one such as I!

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31