Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Repeatable words by Bill Donohue on the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade
This was sent to me in an email this morning. They are from Catholic League's Bill Donohue. On the sad 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, they are well worth repeating and I do with all due apologies to Bill Donohue, although I suspect he would bless the repeating.
Everyone Knows Abortion Kills
January 22, 2013
Bill Donohue comments on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade: “An abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health.” Those are not the words of a pro-life activist in 2013—those are the words of Planned Parenthood fifty years ago. So what’s changed since 1963? After all, abortion still kills. What’s changed is the decision of Planned Parenthood to float a fiction: it decided that the nascent feminist movement had to include the right of a woman to kill her unborn child. In doing so it broke ranks with the first feminists. When President Obama invoked Seneca Falls yesterday in his Inaugural Address, he sought to call attention to the first women’s rights convention in that upstate New York town in 1848. What he didn’t say is that the organizer, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, saw abortion as another case of treating women like property, “and it was degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Susan B. Anthony also branded abortion as anti-women. Pro-abortion feminists know that abortion kills. Here’s an example. Gloria Allred, the famous feminist lawyer, was once asked on TV whether it would be better if there were no abortions. She refused to budge, saying, “Not necessarily.” Yet three years later when she took the side of a pregnant woman, Laci Peterson, who had been killed by her husband after naming her unborn baby Connor, Allred contended, “The fact that there are two individuals who are dead here, Laci and Connor, that has to be the most important consideration of everything.” She got it exactly right—there were two individuals who were murdered. Hillary Clinton upset some feminists in 2005 when she said, “We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women.” She did not say why abortion is sad, or how it was different from any other surgical procedure, and she didn’t have to: everyone knows abortion kills."
I have long thought that an Amendment defining human life as beginning at conception is pointless, unless a prohibition on
killing it is added.
The whole thing about homicide laws is determining when it is okay and not okay to kill. Roe v. Wade has already settled that merely being alive does not protect you if you are not born yet.
In ancient times, that didn't protect you either, if you were not
healthy enough, wrong sex or too inconvenient. Or if a slave or something. Or if you had offended someone of one rank as opposed to someone of another rank, depending on the society at issue.
Even in our own history, merely being human wasn't enough in all states.
This is as stupid as the claim that Martin Luther King, Jr. was pro-gun rights. A fact that someone just made up because he went on TV and pretended to make a rational argument. You don't have to defend gun rights with crazy, fiction. It's a second amendment issue and part of the American culture. What other argument needs to be made for gun rights? (Although, I do support controls to prevent anymore children from suffering, such as in Newtown.)
No one has to defend their pro-life stance with made up facts or revisionist history. You only have to make one argument--human life is precious in God's sight, and who are we to interfere with His plan. We're (Americans) so anxious to throw our problems away--as if there are no consequences for our behavior. (All children born or unborn should live in safety.)
and simply saying human life is precious in God's sight is irrelevant to the legal system. And even there, with that statement, you got priorities and pro and against death penalty issues and so forth. It is a starting point not
a total solution. Especially when you consider that God is not mentioned ONCE in The Constitution.
The latter was denounced as interfering with God's curse on woman after The Fall, ignoring that labor saving devices for men like plows drawn by oxen also interferes with God's curse on man after The Fall, and that such mitigation is never counted in The Bible as sin.
And no, financial issues were NOT why adultery was a capital offense (only if BOTH parties were caught and killed), and there were societies where children were designated as officially of a man or a clan regardless of sexual activities. PURITY is the issue. And God only allowed men to have as
many women as they could treat equally.
Exodus shows that even a concubine could leave without paying money, if another wife was taken and the previous one's food, clothing or sexual activity was lessened because of this. Rabbinic law later allowed only the man to initiate divorce, but obviously with repaying the bride price the woman could initiate divorce in The Torah.
it has been taken for granted that the mother is more concerned about the child and automatically a better custodial parent than the father, and frankly I am not too sure that that is always the case, until the past several decades.
In 1836 I think it was, The Married Women's Property Act in New York was a spearhead issue for women's rights or feminism, because the usual scene was that the man at marriage did not endow the wife with his worldly goods but vice versa, regardless of what vows might have included. (marriage and other vows are just stuff you rattle off to get what you want anyway, the marriage legality.)
The man became owner of all her property, and anything else she might acquire, and could spend it all and divorce her leaving her with nothing.
The frequent argument against women having any rights in marriage, was that their relationship was so bound to each other, that he automatically had her best interests in mind. Considering wife beating wasn't illegal this is open to question (and definition of "best interests") and was similar to arguments against slavery abolition of the sentimental view of the slavery scene sort of arguments. Which should say something there.
An example of how identical laws and actions can have exactly OPPOSITE purposes is the extension of suffrage to women by Wyoming and Utah. Wyoming did so, because used to women working, shooting, fighting, and probably drinking, like men, so saw no reason to exclude them from voting. (this was always a state matter.) Utah on the other hand, presupposed women would do as their husbands told them, and since gentiles (non Mormons) had one wife apiece, the Mormon men could drag their harems to the polls and outvote the gentiles.
I say the reason for this difference is that a man's toil should not have to support a child whom he believes to be his own yet who is not. Remember the very different and specific curses placed on man and woman in Genesis 3. You, however, say that "financial issues were NOT why adultery was a capital offense". Can you prove that?
Ex.21:10,11 "If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
"And if he do not these three unto her,then shall she go out free without money." LXX translates this
as "necessities, clothing and marriage rights." Strongs Concordance the word "marriage" in that verse is H5772 and not the same as the other places the English word marriage is used,
"from an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together; (sexual)
cohabitation - duty of marriage."
the word translated food is H7607
"from flesh (as swelling out) as living or for food; generally food of any kind."
(parentheses in Strong's, not my addition.)
so indeed, not just technically no reduction in food, but no reduction in food that results in her losing weight. technically you could give the same amount of edibles to someone, which were cheaper and nearly useless, like boiled straw for instance, and claim you were within The Law, but this term judges the amount of food not by its bulk and weight, but by HER bulk and weight being affected or not.
while the term "sexual activity" doesn't appear there are a lot of references to sexual activity sometimes graphic sometimes poetic double entendre.
Septuagint (LXX)using a word we can translate "necessities" would seem to be more accurate than the English word "food."
Now as for adultery, or even fornication by a man as single with a prostitute, there were clear messages against this such as when several thousand were killed with plagues in connection with this; the warning not to have your daughter be a prostitute lest the land fall to whoredom; and Samson's trek downhill began after he had visited a prostitute.
Hosea 4:14 apparently referencing the test a priest with a kind of holy water could give to determine if a woman had cheated, God says
"I will no longer punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery, for themselves are separated with whores [that would be secular type paganism irrelevant -my note] and sacrifice with harlots [that would be the pagan type - my note]: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall."
Clearly the double standard wasn't something God approved, only tolerated and reined in a lot.
The whole picture of sexuality in The Torah rules is one involving proprieties or converting an improper relationship into a proper one. There is no overt permission for male fornication. Even in the case of war captives, the virgins are set aside for MARRIAGE and must be given a month of mourning before the man who chooses one can touch her, and if she does not please him must set her free and not sell her, which would imply that stedfast rejection of sexual advances would eventually win out. Rape was not an option, neither were there provisions for brothels and military was to be celibate since even accidental semen spill caused impurity, and nothing unclean was to be among them in their wars. David said the men with him had been kept from women when he asked the high priest for bread.
IF a dead serious effort at keeping society pure was going on, anyone having casual sex or paid for sex was at risk to find himself stuck with the woman as his concubine, having to support her, and not able to sell her.
Adultery is a concept that goes beyond marriage, because to adulterate is to add to and water down something. to contaminate. Push this analogy far enough, and you begin to realize that all unchastity is adultery, and so is the permitted polygamy.
Notice that Jesus said that those divorcing and remarrying (which is just one at a time reduction of polygamy to serial monogamy) were in fact guilty of adultery, even though The Law allowed it, because "in the beginning it was not so."
one man, one woman.
is not mentioned once in the CONSTITUTION? Just where did Christina learn to read? According to a copy (one of several I keep at several desks and computers around me) the CONSTITUTION is dedicated to and by the Declaration of Independance? It is the introduction to it? The last paragraph of the Declaration, which is signed b the Founding Fathers, SAYS:"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.............
Excuse me? Just who do you think is the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD? Do not ever question the Constitution of the USA
ever again Christina! You have just been found wrong.
I don't know why anyone would want to discuss anything in this forum if this random visit proves that the posters here do not know how to READ. One must read with COMPREHENSION.
The Evelyn Wood speed read is wrong. It seems that folks here have wired their brains with reading material that is incorrect. Have you been reading the BOM? Christina?
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
kindly show me the exact words in the Constitution ITSELF, not in some description in a collection of US historic papers, not in some statement placed before the Constitution ITSELF in a book or online site that contains the Constitution, but in the Constitution ITSELF that even mentions the Declaration of Independence or God.
And BTW the useage "G-d" to avoid saying the Name of God, done by Jews and maybe some others today, is totally in error. The HOLY NAME OF GOD that could not be spoken is YHWH or Yahweh aka Jehovah. Not Adonai, Lord, or Elohim, God. (Actually The OT repeatedly names Him and says to praise The Name of YHWH, wherever you see LORD spelled out all caps but the ord shorter in height than the L is where the Masoretic text reads YHWH but there was an indicator to here say Adonai or Lord when reading it out loud. When the idea got going that one should not say Yahweh out loud I don't know, but it is not Mosaic.)
Articles of Confederation (which gave too much sovereignty to the states and failed miserably) AD 1781.
Constitution of the United States
("to form a more perfect union" than the preceding semi union imperfect union) AD 1788.
As for a man's toil, it has never been unusual in the Middle East for women to toil a lot as well, and Proverbs 31 describes a woman who is "invigorates her arms" and makes independent business activities and her husband is enriched thereby so that "he has no need of spoil" and can spend his time in the city gates involved in local issues and public life. Don't read west euro past 150 years into everything.
If financial issues were the only thing, God would not be displeased.
I think your flaw, is that you separate The Torah from God, and view it as a Hebrew social product.
That is liberalism, modernism, heresy, and held by any atheist. Of course God made concessions and so forth to existing customs to some extent and hardness of heart, but that is not what you are implying in all your arguments.
Ruth's son is adopted by Naomi at the end of The Book of Ruth the same people who said "a son is born to Ruth" now saying "a son is born to Naomi," which legally erased the Moabite blood, making David later okay to count as Israelite being less than 10 generations removed from a Moabite ancestor, and therefore eligible to be king. In I Chronicles we see a man who had no son, married his daughter to his Egyptian slave, and raised her son to his own name and the child was counted in the roles of Judah.
Do you really think that? My most recent talk to a Christian audience was a contrast of Mosaic Law with modern secular law in order to point out God's soberingly greater wisdom.
If I told you what I thought your flaw was, based on your writing here, then... well, read the last verse of St John's gospel.
here it is:
"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one,I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."
so what is that supposed to tell me about my flaw? It is not relevant to anything but Jesus and His words and actions, says nothing about human sin and flaws. what is the relevance?
I would like to see a copy of that talk, probably would have subtle elements in it that undermine faith to those who spot and pursue them and are missed by most. Or perhaps that is in talks to other audiences.
I see NOTHING in your posts here that point to appreciating God's soberingly greater wisdom, or are you one of those who thinks that sexual morality should not be a subject of legislation, that charity should never be done by the govt., fed or state or local, or that the food laws were about health not ritual purity and should be reestablished?
I am impressed that you seem to think you know what is wrong with a piece of writing of mine that you have never seen. I am as likely to show it to you as to cast pearls before swine.
Christian King Alfred the Great, major formulator of English Common Law, instituted the plough tax, one penny per plow per year to go to the poor, a penny was a big deal back then.
In theory, if polygamy had not been permitted, the penalty would have had to have been the same.
Another reason, of the pragmatic sort, is that a male as potential warrior and heavy laborer is more of a loss to society if killed than is a woman, though that is weak since The Law required the man AND the woman in adultery to die.
But with a single standard, you are going to get adulterous woman dead, her partner dead, and her cheating husband also dead the whole kit and kaboodle. sort of inconvenient.
Since The Law only mandated death when the matter was too public, the possibility of mercy and repentance if not a public scandal existed also, abused of course.
If you examine the details of The Law, there really aren't any available women for men to be fornicating with. A concubine slave has to be treated as a wife, not just kicked out like a regular slave at the seventh year, and if the owner decides not to have her he must treat her as a daughter, elsewhere a slave who is engaged in fornication and apparently everyone involved is flogged, a widow is not under her father's rule but no Israelite woman is to be a prostitute, that leaves only foreign travelling or resident alien women plying their wares, and such would probably be quickly run out of town by the morals police equivalent.
Of course, in actual practice, you got another story, not because of The Law but because of playing games like you want to do, to avoid the spirit of it. Such as by the time of The Judges, the corrupt people (who having no king over them to police them did as they pleased, "every man did as was right in his sight" the book begins and ends) had changed the levirate marriage law, from being limited to a male close relative who lived with the couple at the husband's death to any male relative even a total stranger to the woman, in The Book of Ruth.
Again you claim to know what is going on inside the head of somebody merely from their writing. That is judgement of the particular sort that Jesus commands his followers against. I'll tell you what I want. I want two things. First, I want you to use your own blog rather than parasitize this one. And I want accurate exegesis, not sloppy or semi-literate scholarship. Given that I have said in so many words that purity/holiness is why neither man or woman should commit adultery, just why do you think I am playing games with this subject?
because you give every reason EXCEPT that for the Torah, and only admit this when in a corner.
I have been giving exegesis, you are apparently doing eisegesis. that's reading stuff in.
as for sloppy scholarship, that phrasing red flags you as "scholar" rather than Scripture oriented. do you live in that house of cards the systematic theologians build incl. the sort of people who make up the Jesus Seminar and other abominations?
as for the New Age, this isn't directly obviously as relevant as for instance a link to CANA would be (Christian Answers to the New Age) or to Berit Kjos page.
But the kind of mishanding of Scripture and the overall message that undermines OT which is the foundation of NT regardless of any lipservice to contrary once in a blue moon, is precisely the kind of discrediting of absolutes and reduction of Scripture to little more than just the product of yet another culture,which by accident of meaningless history we have in our background, and of interest ("bible as literature," "bible as poetry" kind of GARBAGE) only in a superficial way.
leaving one afloat that the New Age would want.
And that is exactly the kind of impression and message I get (but of course reject) from the supposed scholar exegete here.
no I don't say touche.
And I repeat, The Law or Torah is not just the specific rules, but the entire 5 books of Moses, which give information that would make a hearer pause before considering stuff okay. Solomon only had legal sex, but with hundreds of women he might as well have had his own brothel, and he was led astray, not only by his foreign wives, but by his lack of self control which lack made resistance to other temptations difficult.
You have fallen for the heresy that scholarship and scripture are necessarily opposites. Go ask most of the great thinkers of European civilization about that, and don't judge the notion of scholarship by the prejudices of modern academic liberal theologians.
"you give every reason EXCEPT that for the Torah, and only admit this when in a corner"
Admit? I freely and openly confess it among friends in the congregation I am part of. You regularly impute to your antagonists here motives that cannot be deduced from their words, which are all you have to go on. Your own mind is probably the one place in which you win those debates.
towards when I contemplate them.
And I have learned FROM EXPERIENCE sometimes painful occasionally on the edge of dangerous, to NOT IGNORE those little oddities those little slips that being too charitable or too sloppy would make me overlook.
Did not Jesus say that out of the treasure of the heart the mouth speaketh?
I spot patterns also. And the person who tried most to get me to stop spotting patterns was one of the most destructive personalities and chronic liars I have ever known.
Yes, Christine, you can deduce exactly what is in the hearts and minds of people you have never met and have encountered only by their writing of a few words on specific topics. You know best.
You [Christine] have fallen for the heresy that scholarship and scripture are necessarily opposites. Go ask most of the great thinkers of European civilization about that, and don't judge the notion of scholarship by the prejudices of modern academic liberal theologians.
Yes, another false dichotomy pushed by liberals and enemies of the Church who are the 'termites' within the "Church".
Hey, but who needs systematic theologians when we have Christine?
As for systematic theology, there is an inherent flaw in that, which is the idea that we can box God and everything about Him into neatly understandable rational categories,
that the finite can comprehend the infinite in His essence and all possible working out of details of His actions in the world and the believer.
while the cult of the irrational is nothing to be into, the effort to reduce theology etc. to a machine like thing is the result of the west following St. Augustine in his swallowing neoplatonism whole, instead of merely using it insofar as it is useful and no further.
rationalism is not using God given reason, but exalting reason as godlike in itself. (the romantic movement of course did the same thing to the emotions.)
Some people need to be ignored/resisted for them to go away.
"Grinding Down America" is done on a macro scale and a micro scale.
The micro-organism are often sent into relevant posting groups to cause confusion and frustration.
We are praying for your peace and joy Mrs. Cumbey.
in ancient synagogues, but dumped because favored by Christians later, and brought into the Church by the Jews who believed in Jesus, there was an understanding developed that the man who cheated on his wife was guilty of adultery as much as the cheating woman was, although no obvious punishment was in play.
This of course is the understanding you will get if you treat The Torah incl. Genesis and its history of development of stuff as an integrated whole as it was written.
God would not hear the prayers of the men who had dumped their wives, the companions of their youth, as He called them, for other women, and those wives were praying to God.
don't let your daughter be a prostitute lest the land fall to whoredom? And what happens then? God is displeased and here comes foreign invasion and massacre of men sometimes of women.
fearing God, a man keeps chaste.
the reduction of Scripture to some dry irrelevance and somehow we are to avoid doing wrong and the idea of God is divorced from Scripture leads to working on alternative ideas of God, read the herescope articles, at the links section on Constance's front page for where that has led of late.
If you want to be concerned about divisiveness look to yourself, anon. whoever.
Yes, some people will only go away if ignored, I think I will just ignore the trolls who try to get me in a fight.
January 22, 2013 marked the 40th anniversary since the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Roe vs. Wade case. The result was legalized abortion across the United States of America and a never-ending debate surrounding theology, public policy and women’s rights.
While many people are aware of the the legal battle, the background of the woman at the center of it all, Jane Roe (real name: Norma McCorvey), may be unknown to most Americans. Her story is a fascinating one, as the plaintiff-turned-activist quickly became the catalyst — and face — of legalized abortion, later renouncing her role to become a Christian and one of the nation’s most outspoken pro-life advocates.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]