gadgetlady

Having been both Catholic and Christian. For my part, when I was a Catholic I was not a Christian. I know that's not true of everybody, but it is true of me; when I became a Christian I left the Catholic church. I don't want to get into a theological debate here, but I should tell you that you don't need to do a history of religion with me. I do completely understand Catholicism, having attended a Jesuit University and having studied the religion intensely.

Carlene, if someone asked you if you were the same religion as I (I attend an evangelical, fundamentalist Christian church), would you answer yes or no?

JP Moreland spoke at our church today, discussing the theology and goal behind his new book, Kingdom Triangle, and what he is devoting the next 10 years of his life towards. What an amazing sermon and an amazing man. I would strongly recommend his new book.

The way I define religion, and I think the way most people define religion, and certainly the way the dictionary defines religion, evangelical Christians and Catholics are not the same religion. If you were to ask Carlene and me if we were the same religion, I know I would say "no" and I'm reasonably sure Carlene would, too. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. [*]The life or condition of a person in a religious order. According to 1b and 2, the Catholic religion is different from the evangelical Christian religion. I know a lot of Catholics (my whole family is Catholic -- although some only socially -- meaning some are not followers of Christ), and not a single one of them would say they have the same religion as I.

I didn't say that at all, nor did I even imply it. What I said was that Bernard Nathanson is a Catholic, and that's not my religion. laurend said it WAS my religion, and I disagreed.

Having been both, I again disagree. Besides belief in a supernatural being, religion involves institutions and ritual observances. The institutions and ritual observances specific to Catholicism are not specific to evangelical Christian religions. While Protestants and Catholics may be similar in that they both profess Christ to be at the center of their faith, they are not the same religion at all in rituals and institutions. There are deep, significant doctrinal differences.

Abortion NO / The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform The pictures are pretty gruesome, but it shows what REALLY happens in abortion, and that what's growing inside the womb isn't just a blob of tissue. Babies pulled apart limb from limb -- the ultimate child abuse.

I used to be Catholic, so I'm well aware of the differences. While there are some commonalities, they are not the same religion.

He was vocal about his change of heart when he first changed his heart -- and he was an athiest at the time. So his religion (which, btw, is not mine) has nothing to do with his decision. The decision was made when he was an athiest. But of course, since he's Catholic now we must all disregard his point of view.

I should add -- I think people who have experienced child abuse have a very reasonable and understandable objection to spanking. Child abuse is a horrible, horrible thing and I'm sure never leaves the psyche. Vehement reactions to anything resembling those childhood experiences (as different as reasoned, calm, disciplinary spanking is) are completely understandable.

I think what TracyK was objecting to is the reasoning that abortion is acceptable but spanking is not because it's "child abuse". Abortion is really the ultimate form of child abuse.

It's amazing to me that you have a problem with that number. With over 1.5 million abortions in the US every year, why does it sound so impossible that one abortionist had his hand in 75,000 over the course of many years?

It has been known to happen -- not often, but it's certainly not impossible. I don't at all doubt there are hardened criminals who have been rehabilitated. Maybe if she had been in the room watching those 75,000 abortions being performed, she might change her mind, too.

"Hon", this man was the founder of NARAL, along with Betty Friedan and one other abortion doctor. I am astounded that you question his credibility. It is not in dispute. By anyone! Those in the "keep abortion legal" movement don't even dispute him. Have you never changed your mind on an issue? Certainly, we all come to different realizations at different points in our life. One can be participating in an activity that is of questionable nature and only come to the realization after years of participation that the activity is wrong. Maybe it wasn't a realization -- maybe it was a point of clarity for him. Maybe he suppressed his feelings about the issue because he aborted his own child (his pregnant girlfriend). Maybe, being a doctor, "body parts" didn't have much of an impact on him for a long period of time. I can't concisely explain all of the reasons he changed his mind, but I do know that the visual of an unborn baby on an ultrasound had a profound impact on him. I'm not making this guy up, and he didn't make himself up. He's real, and his history is real. I know you don't like it, but it's a fact. There are many other former abortionists (for Mark, I mean those who used to perform abortions, own clinics, or work in clinics) who are now pro-life as well. Do you discount all of their experiences because they must have been quacks to change their minds?

You misunderstand the timeline. First of all, abortion was legal in New York before Roe v. Wade was decided (as it was in several other states as well, such as California, Colorado, Hawaii, etc.). So he performed legal abortions in New York while he was working to make abortion legal throughout the US. He operated a clinic in New York called the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest freestanding abortion clinic in the world (at the time). Second, he continued performing and overseeing abortions after Roe. He only changed his mind about the humanity of the unborn after ultrasounds became more prevalent and he was able to see what it was he was aborting.

I found him compelling when I heard him speak 20 years ago and he was an athiest. His religion is of no interest to me. I'm not surprised you don't want to hear what he says, though. I'm sure you wouldn't care to listen to anyone who used to perform abortions, owned an abortion clinic, or worked in one, and is now pro-life. I personally think they have some very compelling and intriguing stories. I'd be happy to read all about anyone you can find who used to be pro-life and then changed sides (there aren't many, though, except for politicians who find it politically expedient -- wonder why?).

You might want to read up on Bernard Nathanson if you don't think he has any credibility. He was one of the founding members of NARAL and he performed over 75,000 abortions in New York. He was an athiest when he became pro-life. He is considered one of the fathers of the modern "pro-choice" movement (of course, he's been disowned now), being the co-founder and first president of NARAL. He knows of what he speaks.

So he was credible when he was in favor of abortion, but now that he's pro-life he can't be trusted?

This is from a man who performed over 75,000 abortions personally. That certainly can't be considered pro-life propaganda. Certainly one should at least CONSIDER why he changed his position? So your challenging me to do so is disingenuous. You have a closed mind and nothing will convince you. I will, however, continue to post facts in the hopes that some people who are NOT closed-minded will consider them. You could say the same thing about the child you're abusing, the wife you're beating, or the 3/5 of a black person. At some point, empirical scientific evidence needs to come into play to protect people. Oh, you weren't unclear. I knew your challenge was a red herring. I just wanted to make sure everyone else knew.

What criterion would you like me to use to prove it? Because it sounds like you're saying "it can't be proven, therefore nothing you can say will prove it." I have certainly presented a lot of proof, but there is more. What would change your mind? Actually, history demonstrates that the numbers of women having abortions would be reduced dramatically. If you listen to former abortionist (just so we're clear here, I mean someone who used to perform abortions) Bernard Nathanson, a man who's role was critical in the decriminalization of abortion (he was one of the founders of NARAL), he says: "We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000. Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200 - 250 annually. The figure constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law. Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1500% since legalization." If you do a web search on him and read about how he and others falsified statistics and got the media on their side, you might find it interesting. You can read a brief summary at Confessions of an Ex-Abortionist (and no, I'm not Catholic and no, I don't think this is a religious issue -- this just happens to be where a good summary is).

So you would also have been fine with the Dred Scott decision, that a black person is 3/5 of a person -- because it was a Supreme Court decision written into law and therefore must have been right at the time? Let's chat again when Roe is overturned, then. Because it seems to me from what you're saying that you'll be just fine with that decision. If that's the case, then great! I'm glad to hear it. It is, of course, the business of the "life" involved. And since no one is speaking for that life, I choose to do so.

You are absolutely right that this is currently the case. However, when abortion is illegal again (and I believe it will be), the burden will then be on YOU to prove the developing baby is NOT a human life (that is, if you want to join the fight to make it legal again). Since you have admitted you don't know whether it is or not, why don't you flesh out some arguments in favor or opposed? Because it seems to me that since you have acknowledged that this is the crux of the matter, you should be able to form an opinion on it. Let me help you get started: How would one determine whether the unborn is a human life? How does one define human? How does one define life? What criterion should be used to make the determination? How does one define when life ceases and how can these criterion be applied to the beginning of life?

] The state forces its views on others all the time. Do you abuse your children, or your wife for that matter? In the privacy of your own home with no one around? It's your right, after all. Why should the state force you to stop doing what others believe is wrong but you believe is acceptable? Now you will say this is a ridiculous argument, I'm sure. But when the government said a black person is only 3/5 of a person and therefore could be owned as a slave and treated accordingly, laws were created based on that decision. People said, "If you don't believe in slavery, don't own slaves." That was a discriminitory decision but it was the law of the land until it was overturned. Again, and again, and again: the crux of the issue is whether the unborn is a human life. Prove your point as to why it is not.

:faint: Didn't you just say the question is what makes it a human life? Didn't I answer that? And didn't I ask YOU to tell me why it isn't? OK, so you are not going to answer the questions and discuss the issues. I will just accept that.

I know we're not, and I'm not an idiot. The baby has a beating heart usually before the mother knows she's pregnant, so in fact the argument is NOT completely irrelevant. Here are some facts for you: • Day 1 – fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins • Day 6 – embryo begins implanting in the uterus • Day 22 – heart begins to beat with the child’s own blood, often a different type than the mother’s • Week 5 – eyes, legs, hands begin to develop • Week 6 – brain waves detectable; mouth, lips present; fingernails forming • Week 7 – eyelids, toes form; nose distinct, baby kicking and swimming • Week 8 – every organ in place; bones begin to replace cartilage, fingerprints begin to form; • Weeks 9 and 10 - teeth begin to form, fingernails develop; baby can turn head, frown • Week 11 – baby can grasp objects placed in hand; all organ systems functioning; the baby has fingerprints, a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation • Week 12 – the baby has all of the part necessary to experience pain, including the nerves, spinal cord and thalamus; the baby is nearing the end of the first trimester • Week 17 - baby can have dream (REM) sleep These are all occurring PRIOR to viability, PRIOR to late-term abortions. Most abortions are performed between weeks 8 and 12. At that point, this entity is no longer "a dividing embryo". That is, absolutely, the crux of the issue. So you tell me why this thing with a beating heart and often all major organs prior to the abortion is NOT a human life? It is what I have been discussing all along, but you refuse to acknowledge it. I understand the question. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. The only question at hand is whether the developing baby is a human life. Did I say it enough times for you? It isn't the first time I've said it. Please tell me how it is not a human life.