There are plenty of christians (catholics even) who do not think or worship like Jenky or Santorum. In fact, in most places, Jenky and Santorum are the extreme not the norm.

Unfortunately, quite, peaceful, reasonable people make for lousy television.

I always find it interesting when the left states their desire for abortions to be 'rare' in this country. Along comes a movie that will probably due MORE to help create that environment - and the pro-abortion feminists are against it....

I always find it interesting that logical fallacies don't bother you. It's like you have no problem w/ how wacky or computationally weak your arguments are. But hey to each his own.

FTR you are strawmanning the argument as given by NARAL. If you had bothered to go to their website- instead of listening to talking points given to you- you'd know that their opposition has to do w/ the groups who back the film and w/ the donations being made by the film (the donations go to help 'charity' organizations that are ran by the backing organizations). It makes it appear as though the film is a racketeering scheme.

But of course opposing a film because it might be lying to people concerned about abortion would make a valid point....and so we have to contort their concerns to say that it's really just about wanting more abortion. It can't be that they are concerned that your money is being abused. Nope- that can't be it at all.

Women like Rachel Maddow, of course, won't tout 'October Baby' as a good movie which might very well alleviate some abortions in America.

Considering that Maddow had nothing to do w/ this conversation that's indeed a stretch. But hey your whole post has nothing to do w/ the thread topic, so why not?

Instead, she'll put out dreck like 'The Assassination of Dr. Tiller,' a 'documentary' on the late-term abortionist as though he was some heroic martyr.

Yes because how dare Maddow call attention to the supposed 'pro-life' movement which assassinated a doctor and then feels so self-entitled about the assassination as to scorn people who don't think assassination is a good thing.

So let me get this straight: you're pro-assassination and pro-having your money abusively stolen from you, but you're anti-choice.

File this under 'This Week In John's Hyperbolic Attempt To Make It Seem Like He- And His Particular Brand Of Reactionary Christianity- Are An Oppressed Minority When In Reality They Are Not'

Thanks

If you had bothered to go to their website- instead of listening to talking points

Mouzer, I love ya' - but you're telling falsehoods again.

I DID go to their website days after I saw the movie (I never see you behind me when I'm on my computer, but you apparently always make assumptions as to what's on my screen; never have quite understood that...). I KNOW why NARAL is against the movie - but, again, the theme of the movie is on grace, forgiveness, the realities of certain aspects of abortion (that the left, of course, always sweeps under the rug and calls it 'choice'). It will do wonders for women who are contemplating abortion and might get them to choose life. I'd think most women would be in favor of that - but NARAL, of course, sees no benefit to that. They want to keep the abortions flowing and the abortionists clothed and fed....

Considering that Maddow had nothing to do w/ this conversation that's indeed a stretch. But hey your whole post has nothing to do w/ the thread topic, so why not?

Since this thread is on Rachel Maddow's blog - and she often addresses this subject from a hard left perspective - it most certainly has to do with the material she chooses to have - and NOT have - on her show.

She, of course, will not say one kind word about this movie - and she, of course, will make a martyr out of a man who terminated countless unborn lives. Never will she have a feature on the lives of post-abortive women. Never. That worldview gives new meaning to the term 'twisted.'

So let me get this straight: you're pro-assassination...

That absurd accusation offers up another meaning to the term 'twisted'....

She, of course, will not say one kind word about this movie

She hasn't made any statement in any way. This has nothing to do w/ the thread. This is Maddow's blog yes, but she did not initiate this thread, the conversation you're bringing up has nothing to do w/ the thread, and Maddow hasn't made any statement on this particular subject (that is of the movie). You're assigning false motives to Maddow on the basis of something that you have no evidence for. Once again John making a logically fallacious argument on your part does NOT point out hypocrisy on behalf of someone else.

And yeah you wanna know how I know you didn't go to NARAL's website about this? Because when you search it on their website they say upfront what their opposition is and their opposition, is as I stated, because many groups who are vehemently anti-abortion are taking funding from the film even though the film is supposed to be using it's funding to go to charities.

They want to keep the abortions flowing and the abortionists clothed and fed....

The amount of projection that goes on here. Where did they say this on their website hmm? Either show me the link or admit you're making it up. I am quoting them verbatim from their own website. YOU are making up motives that you have ZERO evidence for and then are assigning guilt and blame that you have NO rational reason to conclude. And this is how I know you never bothered to look up what someone else had to say. You simply read what it says on rightolife.org or some other website and then you pretty much copy and paste their outrage as if it's your own.

Oh and by the way: you sit here and mock Tiller calling the man everything shy of murderer and then you mock Maddow for having a documentary about his killing saying that she was attempting to make him into a martyr. Yet you then state that it's absurd for me to say you're trying to glorify his assassination. Did Maddow ever praise Tiller in her documentary? No. She just reported the facts of the case and showed testimonials/interviews about what happened. Yet you're against this because it doesn't give the commentary that you want to hear. What you want to hear is that he's a murderer and deserved to die. And since you're taking that stance it's hardly a stretch for me to conclude that yeah you're pro-assassination of Dr. Tiller. Le sighs.

and she often addresses this subject from a hard left perspective - it most certainly has to do with the material she chooses to have - and NOT have - on her show.

This is like saying that a show about pandas obviously has a bias against snakes because it doesn't feature snakes on it's show. This is a computational fallacy and completely silly.

And ftr she isn't addressing the 'hard left' position on abortion because there isn't a 'hard left' position. There is the pro-choice movement and then the pro-life w/ exceptions and then pro-life no exceptions movements. There are only 3 positions at least generally speaking that are taken on abortion. Pro choice simply means that you believe the law should not force someone to make a decision against their will. It neither means you are for or against abortion. Pro life w/ exceptions means that you believe that the law should stop someone from having an abortion unless their life is in danger or it's a case of rape or incest. Pro life w/ no exceptions means that you believe the law should stop someone from having an abortion regardless of the circumstance.

Never will she have a feature on the lives of post-abortive women

.......actually she has done this several times now. The main spokesperson for the pro-choice movement is a blonde haired lady (I can't remember her name) who has had an abortion in her past. She has been on Maddow's show several times.

What you mean to say is that Maddow doesn't have women on the show who regret having an abortion. This is, as I stated before, horribly fallacious logic. You tell a person they should feel bad about something that they're doing and then when they feel bad you use the fact that they feel bad as evidence that what they're doing is wrong. It's like saying that because so many homosexuals are depressed this therefore means that homosexuality is to blame. It's completely circular thinking.

Additionally you'd be asking Maddow to A. be presumptive about how someone should feel as opposed to how someone does feel, B. you'd be insisting that Maddow decide that she is the moral arbitrator of the universe (which Maddow is on the record as saying she's not), and C. you'd be insisting that Maddow lie about current scientific data.

There is no scientific data that states that women who have an abortion suddenly suffer some form of trauma as a result of their abortion procedure. This has been reviewed again and again by the scientific community and time after time it has been thoroughly debunked.

A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences.^[4] In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.^[5][11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_mental_health

jonlorican: Please hear me: I am not sweeping under the rug the things you attribute to me.

Perhaps there is a movie that you might take in. It is unpleasant story of illegal abortions that are done in the 50's Brittain. People will always look for ways to end unwanted pregnancy for their own reasons. Women die, women are unable to have a baby later.

Vera Drake http://www.lifenews.com/2004/12/01/nat-1006/

That is not my CALL to require birth without legal, safe medical options to coat hangers and infections that WOULD happen anyway. You and your like-minded people that call me and my like minded people names and put words and feelings, thoughts in my mouth and conscience are wrong about this. The attempt to guilt and shame is obvious.

We disagree and do not see any possibility of stopping abortions, controlling women and even barely capable young women, requiring them to give birth, no matter what.

You are wrong about what you say "we" think, say, do. Maybe listening to what people tell you about why they are pro choice is worth a try.

From NARAL's website:

And perhaps more alarming, 10 percent of the film's proceeds are going to operations that match the description of anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs).

If filmmakers want to make a movie with an ideological message, that is entirely their right. But American moviegoers also have the right to know whether their ticket dollars are going to fund organizations that mislead women.

Groups like the American Family Association have touted this film as being a good movie and then, subsequently, are receiving funding for their pregnancy crises centers as a result of the film. Even though the film states that the money is going to a non-partisan charities. That is what NARAL is protesting.

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/get-involved/issue-campaigns/october-baby.html

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/health.medicalresearch

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2072035/Unwanted-pregnancy-doubles-womens-risk-mental-health-problems-abortion-impact.html

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/239011.php

john, if you're okay with Dr. Tillerman's assassination, there's nothing at all twisted about The Mouzer's question.

Dr. Tillerman is kind of a martyr, created by anti-abortionists, who paid with his life to uphold the legal right of a woman to choose.

It's the ultimate irony to sanction murder in "defense" of life.

@Sandy- was I being that sarcastic? I wasn't trying to be mean. We've had this same conversation time after time after time. I only address it to make sure that the facts are put forward as opposed to just right wing hysteria (or I suppose if it came to it left wing hysteria, although that rarely seems to happen).

Mouzer: I think you are making a sincere and reasoned argument, backed with facts. When someone starts putting words in your mouth, analyzing your intent, ignoring your statements, it might be necessary to use some extra emphasis.

On the other hand johnlican says NARAL wants to keep abortions flowing and abortionists clothed and fed.

I would like (for once) johnlorican to cite where he gets that information. I'm guessing it is from his own mind and those he listens to as authorities on what the left thinks, wants and does. He says he went to the site, piles up things they espouse and calls his opinion about what he read at NARAL fact, without showing a quote.

But he offers this gem:

"It will do wonders for women who are contemplating abortion and might get them to choose life"

and wonders why so many women would think that would be controlling to make women view or hear a fetal heartbeat, then wait awhile.

None of this makes me "pro abortion", john.

No one is "pro abortion" the way anti-abortionists want to think we are.

No one thinks abortions are just the greatest thing, and can't wait to have one.

Abortion is a medical necessity, and an utter tragedy all rolled into one, and never pursued on a whim. They are expensive, invasive and painful, both physically and emotionally. Abortion is not something we take lightly. We agonize over the decision, and then often have to run a gauntlet of hatred and abuse just to get inside the clinic.

No woman wants to have an abortion. But we are legally entitled to that medical alternative.

Again, I say to men: how would you feel if society (women in society) said to you, "Hey, I know priapism is painful and might do permanent damage, but you need to think about what you've done, and sit with that for 9 months. Then we'll talk."

What is wrong with being at peace with any decision one chooses? Why should any one feel badly about choosing to terminate a pregnancy? Sometimes people can't afford the child care and related costs to add another child to the family. Should a person feel guilty for doing what she feels is best for her situation?

If I were in the position--which would be an impossibility--I would be relieved to have an abortion because I would be choosing something that I know is in the best interest of all parties involved.

What is wrong with being at peace with any decision one chooses?

I am failing to recollect the exact way that he worded it, but he stated something along the lines of we (those who are pro-choice which he sees as meaning pro-abortion (and no he does not recognize that you can be against abortion but also pro choice...he believes it's an either/or situation)) who worry so much about a woman's ability to make a decision care so little about what happens to a woman as the result of her decision making. He was arguing something to the effect of women suffer psychologically when they have abortions and therefore a woman choosing to have an abortion is being hurt by the law. Therefore outlawing abortions saves women from the trauma of having chosen abortion. And before you ask this was on another thread (he brings up the abortion and contraception issue up a lot).

The cynic in me simply wants to say that this is John's way of saying that you have to be liberated from the tyranny of making the wrong decision. You know kind've like in 1984. We'll make the choices for you, because someone else deciding your life for you is freedom.

John fundamentally doesn't believe in "live and let live" when it comes to the issue of abortion. I suppose he would argue that this is because abortion is murder and therefore it requires a hard-line, black and white perspective. But the idea that you could not tell a woman what to do w/ her body is something he doesn't recognize on this particular subject.

Why should any one feel badly about choosing to terminate a pregnancy? Should a person feel guilty for doing what she feels is best for her situation?

Presumably speaking he would argue that she should feel guilty and feel badly because she has committed murder. But it is entirely cyclical thinking (as I stated in one of the above posts). He tells women "you should feel bad and you should feel guilty" and then when they've been brainwashed into feeling bad and feeling guilty he then uses this as evidence that abortion is wrong. It's like selling a person a placebo pill, but telling the person that it's really poison. Then when the person starts gagging after swallowing the pill (because, ya know, they think they've just been poisoned) you immediately offer to sell them another placebo pill that you market as the antidote. Which then, of course, miraculously cures the person of the sickness they never actually had.

Women feel guilty and are traumatized by the decision to abort a pregnancy in part due to societal pressure, in part due to a biological imperative to reproduce, and in part because they recognize their choice ends the potential for human life.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to make that incredibly painful and difficult choice.

Until it is able to survive ex-utero, a fetus is a parasite, wholly dependent upon the host for survival. If the parasite threatens the life of the host, it must be dealt with.

That doesn't mean the decision to do so isn't fraught with emotional pain.

The mental health risk posed by women who do not have abortions (when the pregnancy is unwanted, that is) is far greater than any phantom threat posed to a woman who has an abortion. There are probably emotional after effects of aborting for a lot of women. But an emotional response to something =/= that, that something was wrong. Religions constantly screaming at women that they should feel bad for having an abortion becomes cyclical. Of course a person that you tell to feel bad for doing X will feel bad when they do X. That's the entire motivation behind why you told them X was wrong in the first place. When you have a huge chunk of religions- such as Catholicism- deciding that they are anti-abortion and spending time giving sermons to women about how abortion is wrong it is bound to create conflict. This is the exact same thing that happens to gays who also want to be religious. The religious leadership abuses it's position and harasses it's congregation into submission which then causes mental problems. When I stated that the problem otherwise did not exist I wasn't saying that a woman wouldn't necessarily feel regret: what I meant was that religion helps to ensure that a woman will only feel regret. Some women may abort and be at peace w/ their decision; others may abort and be wrought w/ turmoil over the decision. But it isn't for you or I to dictate to her how she should feel. Religion usurps her authority (a lot of that going around on the abortion issue) and instead insists that she feel only one way. To use that then as evidence to justify why the religion is harassing women in the first place is just crazy.

He probably didn't get that memo about the Nineteenth.

Or is it that the bishop views women as non-persons whom he deems unworthy or incapable of making choices for themselves?

Either way, he's not a "man of God" - he's a politician in a bishop suit.

I looked on the diocese's website - apparently this homily was given during a "men's march and mass", so that is why he is addressing Catholic men.

However, it doesn't answer the question of why he chose this particular occasion to address this particular issue, instead of a congregation that would be made up of both genders...

Absolutely correct. This is why the Republicans are touting that they don't care that they don't have the women's vote, because they are assuming that men are somehow more powerful leaders.

The point that they miss from my perspective is that many men do not assume full responsibility in parenting, and that this is a major factor as to why a woman may choose an abortion to begin with. Perhaps instead of inflammatory anti-women discussions, a kind, gentle and frank discussion about altering men's perceptions of this responsibility would be more effective.

I've just started reading through the report (as opposed to just reading the web pages I linked to, plus the factsheet that goes along with the report). I've only just started, but so far my impression that this is an important read has only been reinforced. But the main reason why I'm making a follow-up comment is that a footnote on page ten lists TRMS among the media sources used in the study. Maybe that'll be motivating. Or not.

I am not religious, but boy do I wish the rapture will trully happen and we can get rid off all these religious bigots around.

I think Michelle Bachmann was right...God is trying to tell us something with all these natural disasters. Too bad she missed the whole content of the message itself. And God is probably pounding himself on the head right now regretting the day he "created" those people in "his drunken image".

I should really not be surprised, but I am.

Doesn't this all follow logically from the election of this Pope. I think he was thought to be the most conservative Pope in modern times.

The CC is a top down organization, what the Pope thinks matters.

But like I said recently-- the CC should know better than to punish people or organizations for what friends of their (the people above or the organizations) friends did or didn't do.

God can punish to the 7th generation, Americans believe 'you' can punish people only for what they do (not what their friends do, let alone what friends of their friends do).

Here is the good news, though:

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/04/18/466379/catholic-priest-ovation-washington/

courtesy of MeddlingMonk, whose link led me to it.

I have always said I do not automatically disdain Catholics for what the Catholic Church leadership does.

I liken them to the leaders the Jesus called out for being hypocrites and self righteous.

Gah, all this Catholic talk and it never occurred to me to link to that. It's good that you did. It's so easy to make the mistake of assuming that the ones to make it into the news are representative of all the rest that we need these reminders that they're often not.

Now, where's that dunce cap?

I've done some real gaffes to earn one, but you don't deserve a dunce cap for that.

Well, maybe not. But I'm usually the first to point out that religious individuals and institutions don't all gravitate to the same positions and the same part of the political spectrum. It's sort of a thing, like Harpo not speaking.

I believe that if the Catholic Church was put into the nuns' hands, then it would become a church truer to Christ's teachings.

As long as control isn't handed over to the nuns that inhabit horror stories about Catholic schools.

Well-played!