Disqus - Latest Comments for NABILAT

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:18:13 -0000

That's again, really interesting, you're going to "win" by sheer numbers.
Good luck with that.
The Moslems are reproducing faster than you, so you better get busy.

I did recognize your sarcasm, you just used it so badly... I couldn't
resist.

How do you know the discarded embryos would not be fulfilling a purpose of
Gods to help others, since God allowed them to be created? Do you know
God's mind?
I think the Scribes and Pharasees thought they had it all figured out too,
and Jesus called them all hypocrits.

Your not hiding behind platitudes, perhaps, but you are certainly hiding
behind religious rhetoric, that not everyone believes or accepts.

I don't care what you think about me either. Our two children are grown and
now we take care of unwanted and homeless children. We don't take any money
from the government either.
I have given as good as I've gotten from you, so get off your high horse.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:01:12 -0000

Thank you liz, I have enjoyed sharing with you as well and I do not think
you babble at all!
You are quite correct about free will not being easy! But if we were all
"robots" - thinking the same way - would life be too boring?
Even so, It would indeed be great if we all made better choices in this
world -- but we are getting better. Let's not lose sight of the progress
we've made - ending slavery almost everywhere - bringing more democratic
governments into the world, etc. We have a very long way to go, but there
are many good people, like yourself, and there is hope for us all yet.
I don't have any idea what the Republicans will do about stepping up to the
plate. I've never been able to understand them.
Keep smiling. I wish you peace and much joy!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 11:11:14 -0000

Thank you CIndy. I am actually kind of happy now that we suffered that snow
storm so I had a chance to converse with you and liz, and Mark and a few of
the others. I guess I went a little "over the top" with some of my remarks
here, but I imagine Jonathan Swift felt the same way when he wrote "A Modest
Proposal" about the plight of Irish Catholics. (Not that I'm claiming to be
in his class by any means). I think you are exactly right in what you have
said here. We each have to do our best to make this world a better place. I
suppose there will always be disagreement about what path that takes. I
wish you peace and good things always!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 09:03:13 -0000

Don't you have some propaganda to work on?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:06:20 -0000

I don't think humanity will devolve into the dystopian scenario you depict
here. I think you have a more jaded view of women and humanity than I do?
(is that possible?) :)
Life is indeed at the foundation of our existence, and at that foundation,
self-preservation is a prime instinct.
Perhaps you can think of it this way. If you are familiar with Maslow's
heirarchy of needs, you understand that people must have certain basic needs
taken care of before they can aspire to a "higher" state of conscience,
which Maslow called self-actualization. This is pretty basic stuff and
accepted among the physical and social sciences. If you aren't familiar
with it, the short version is that People don't worry about other people
when they are struggling to meet their own basic needs: food, water,
shelter and security, etc. When those needs are satisfied, we move up the
pyramid to want other things like education, approval from others, bonds
with others, etc. To boil our problem down to a nutshell, we have people at
differing levels of need in our culture. When we reach a point in our social
evolution where everyone's basic needs are being met, than as a culture we
will move beyond those basic instincts and be able to have the empathy you
are seeking and I think everyone aspires to. I suppose what it comes down
to, is that people who are at the top of the pyramid, so to speak, can not
shout and holler at the people still at the bottom and expect them to
understand what the hell they are talking about.
Cindy, in short... I think the Pro-Life movement, for all it's good
intentions, is actually making life harder on people. How can we expect
people who are still struggling to meet their basic needs in our culture, to
have the philosophical understanding of people who enjoy life at the top
of Maslow's pyramid? That really isn't going to happen until everyone
reaches the same level, or at least gets past those first levels. Until our
society works at correcting the inequity people suffer, there will always be
people struggling at the bottom to meet their own basic needs, and others
looking down on them. I don't see the church offering any solutions to
solving that inequity, only making an already difficult situation even more
difficult for people. If we concentrate on solving some of our very basic
problems, like poverty and providing truly equal educational opportunities
for people, then people will naturally rise above worrying about their
own basic survival and be able to feel and understand compassion for others
including the unborn, (I'm not saying their aren't truly selfish people who
should know better, i.e. Madoff, ...but those are warped individuals and not
representative examples of humanity. Sure there are many selfish, vein
women, and there always will be, but they surely are not representative of
most women. Not any more than criminals are representative of all humanity -
the actions of a few never generalize to an entire group.)
"Corrupting our family design" is the subject of an entirely different
debate, and one I'm way to exhausted to enter into here. I personally have
known many gay couples who have made loving, caring, wonderful parents by
adopting children, but that is another hot button issue for the church.
Haven't single mothers already "corrupted family design"? Certain Christian
groups have said so. The fidelis rep who commented on how God "permits"
IVF babies to be conceived the same way God "permits" sin and depravity in
the world really got my goat. Seriously???
Sure technology can always be corrupted, but I have more faith in mankind
and the American people to not slide down the slippery slope you propose
here.
but I have a question for you, since I respect your opinion...
most of the Pro-Life comments I've read on that site seem to be very
Pro-Republican, and Republicans are notoriously anti-"entitlement"
benefits...So who do these Republican Pro-Lifers think is going to pay for
all these unwanted babies they so desperately want to be born? Oh
yes,,let's protect the poor babies... let's give them the chance to be
born....but who will care for them? As I said before, lots of babies are
born with some serious problems. Who wants to care for them?
To paraphrase the quip "having your cake and eating it to, it seems they
want to "have their babies, but not worry if they eat". That's pretty
messed up. Democrats at least worry about whether or not folks are able to
eat, have shelter, etc. Didn't Jesus say "feed the hungry", etc? Yet
Democrats are seen here as anti-CHristian. I think that is all very
interesting.
Anyway, I really have to run now.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:01:35 -0000

Dear Cindy, I'm not able to spend any more time on that site, but since this comes also to email, I wanted to respond to you. I have found you to be an intelligent and reasonable person and I didn't want you to think I had ignored your questions. I don't know how this works exactly, but I hope you get this.
I truly hope we reach the day you describe, when unwanted babies can indeed be allowed to grow in "glass jars", or super-incubators. In this environment, they would not be subjected to drugs, cigarettes, or alcohol that cause so much damage during their development. They could grow to term and be adopted by loving parents who will give them a nice life. That's a good dream, and something to look forward to.
In such a situation, someone going into the room and smashing the "jars" would be committing a great wrong, in the same way it's wrong for someone to walk into the rooms of patients who are on life support and "pull their plugs."
It is not the "vessel" that makes the distinction, it is the REQUIREMENT for one human being forced to MAKE herself available to the needs of another life.
Once safely in the "glass jars" no other human being is being forced to sustain that life.
Yes, I know women nowadays can decide to bring their babies to term and give them up for adoption, and it spite of what the fanatics claim here, many do. What makes me sad, is that couples ask for pristine, mostly white babies, but decline babies that are born with special needs. Unfortunately, there are many of those.
In any case, the essential difference is, women should not be FORCED into carrying a child if it is against their will. Having Roe v. Wade overturned will eliminate any civilized options to pregnant women who may be facing circumstances they feel overwhelmed by. I was amazed at the level of passion for the unborn displayed on that site, and so little compassion for the lives of women they know nothing about.
If we reach the point you describe, then another more reasonable alternative will be made available to women.
In spite of my sarcastic rants, I do not believe that the unborn have no rights at all. I do however, believe that the mother's rights have to take precedence over the rights of a fetus, because the mother is already a participant in our society, and the fetus is not.
I truly and sincerely look forward to the day when abortion will not be the necessary evil it is right now.
I do not, I assure you, have a hardened heart. Since our kids are grown, we've taken in foster kids. I do not have the words to describe the heartache these kids go through. Can you imagine, me being speechless? There are over 500,000 kids in foster care in our country.
Anyway, no I don't think you're mind is nutty at all. If I still haven't answered your question, please let me know and I'll try again. Thank you for giving me the opportunity for an intelligent dialogue.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:50:29 -0000

I hardly think you are in a position to judge my intelligence or my education.
As for being a Roman Citizen, I think I've been speaking as an American citizen.
You are the one who claimed "diversity is becoming the new god and is highly over-rated." Yet we live in a diverse culture. You are the one who wants to change that, not I.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:16:48 -0000

So couples who want to experience the joy of a child through the process of IVF should be denied the opportunity to do so, because they are "manipulating life for their own goals"? I don't think they view their children as as "creating a problem".
So if the embryos are not useful to someone else they do not have the right to exist? All I'm saying is if they are there? Perhaps they could fulfill another purpose of God's plan. How do you know?
Your argument about life stages still do not justify over-turning Roe v. Wade.
I'm sorry you view your children as "parasites sucking the life out of [you]", I'm sure some women having an abortion view the embryo in exactly the same way!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 10:01:18 -0000

Oh amiller, you have nothing to fear from me!
I will miss you most of all!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:47:27 -0000

Indeed the reflections of an open mind.... "take your views elsewhere."
Ha! How typical. I see that I am not reaching the "hearts that are hardened" and the "ears that will not hear" so I will move my camel to another tent.
Do me the same courtesy and Try to keep your camel's nose out of mine!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:42:16 -0000

I'm sorry you were so violated, and I admire the fact that you were strong enough to make the choice you did.
Remember though, that not every woman in that situation would have that same strength. I think your view lacks compassion for other women who may be faced with circumstances they feel overwhelmed by.
How can you express such passion for the unborn, and have so little compassion for the "born"?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:38:44 -0000

Thank you Mark. I leave this site in good hands. The snow is finally abating and I have to move on.
I know you'll miss me. ;)
As for Linda Andrejek below, you are still making a religious argument.
Besides if the "soul" keeps the body alive, then do all animals and plants have souls? They are alive.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:31:56 -0000

Ha Ha, Obviously, and I have tried so hard!
You can't even fix ignorance when people are too closed minded to listen to another's point of view.
how dismissive of you! So typical of closed minded people.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:24:08 -0000

p.s. I'm happy that your one example of a woman that was raped, was able to
carry her child. Good for her. You cannot however, convince me that all
women faced with that terible situation would be able to do so. How can you
possibly speak for all women faced with those circumstances? How do you
know she will definitely suffer depression because of her abortion? Sure,
some women face depression after an abortion. Some women face depression
after the birth of a child as well. It's called "post-partum depression."
Depression can be treated. It can also be part of the information and
counseling process. I'm sure women who would have an abortion in a back
street alley would have even more to be depressed about. Your argument
still does not justify overturning Roe v. Wade.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:16:11 -0000

You are overstating the situation and distorting the truth. I have never
met anyone who "loves" abortion or worships it. Because some people object
to some heavy handed tactics that Pro-Lifers sometimes use to get their
point across, does not make them lovers of abortion. There are ways to
reach out to pregnant women without the scare tactics some of you zealots
choose to use. As for being filled with hate and venom, I don't know of any
Pro-choice advocates that have bombed any churches for their beliefs, but I
can think of several Pro-Lifers who bombed women's health centers and who
killed doctors. So who is filled with hate and venom and evil?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:10:15 -0000

According to the CDC abortions are actually on the decrease, so I don't know
where you are getting your inflated statistics. "Why can't people just
accept the consequences of their actions?" you ask, and you claim that I
live in a "dreamworld." Breast cancer did increase, not because of
contraception, but becaise menopausal women were taking hormone therapy to
relieve their symptoms. It is also increasing because detecting cancer has
become easier. Why don't you get your facts straight? Pornography has
increased because of the internet, Mr. Know it All, not because of Roe v.
Wade. You are also quite wrong about the plight of women around the world.
In areas where contraception was introduced, women were able to take better
care of the children they had, instead of watching some of them starve, or
worse, selling some of them into child slavery so that the others could
eat. Oh yes, I live in a dreamworld alright.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:03:10 -0000

And you are calling me smug? I have to pay my taxes too, to support things
that I find abhorent like the war in Iraq for instance. Since America was
founded by diverse cultures, how is supporting diversity 'my' definition?
global warming....seriously? do you even listen to yourself?
If people want to love and protect the unborn, they can do so by
counseling, educating, assissting and helping pregnant women come to a
different conclusion. That would be an approach that I could respect. That
is quite different than returning to an era of barbarism when grown women
were left with no choice but a butcher shop. What you are saying still does
not justify an over-turn of Roe v. Wade.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:56:08 -0000

Ha! Wrong on all counts, but nice try.
What "natural law" is the Pope supporting exactly? From the beginning of
time human beings have been performing abortions and in fact, performing
infanticide. Did God not ask Abraham to sacrifice his only son? Wasn't
infant sacrifice a regular part of the human experience in those days? The
animal kingdom is not without myriad examples of killing young. I fail to
see how the Pope has a handle on "natural" law.
I don't actually "hate" the pope, I hate how people point to him as if his
reasoning goes beyond that of mere mortals. If popes' speak for the church,
and they are fallible, then their decisions (like those I've listed
previously) are also fallible. You can't have one without the other. The
church cannot be infallible if it's leader, that sets the policies is
fallible. Where is your logic?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:48:35 -0000

First, I have to re-state here: No one is "FOR" abortion. No one thinks abortion is a "Good" thing.

I'd like to address claims 1 -A B C. Since abortions will not end if Roe v Wade is overturned, the alternatives of illegal abortions promise much more inhumanity, pain, and risk etc. for the fetus as well as for the mother!! That would be better?

As for 5. THat is incorrect. Unfortunately, due to the wit and wisdom of the Christian right, many young people are not always aware of the consequences of their actions. Hard to believe, but you'd be surprised at the ignorance of our youth in this regard. Not to mention the influence of drugs and alcohol on their behavior. In addition, contraception even when used correctly, is not always 100% effective.

6. The term "pro-abortionist" is incorrect. Also, anarchy does not have to be the result of ensuring basic protections and rights for people. We teach children not to lie, not to steal, etc. People can vote on a set of laws that ensure the protections of people who agree to abide by them in that society. In this case, the people who can vote are the grown women. THose that oppose abortion can counsel, encourage, offer alternatives, help and assistance to pregnant women considering abortion. That is quite different than closing the door to any possibility of them terminating a pregnancy in a medical environment.
So then what happens? We tell rape victims who get pregnant, well guess what, you have to carry that rapist's child inside of you for nine months, or off you go to a butcher shop and risk your life. Oh yes, the child did nothing. It is innocent. But it will be a constant reminder of the violent violation, and some women are not emotionally capable of handling that. Too bad, right?

7. I don't think anyone, even athiests believe abortion is a "good" thing. I don't know anyone who believes that. It is simply a "choice" between barbaric conditions, or clean, sterile conditions. If we want to continue to offer counseling and choices to women, great. But to force them into a back street alley again is barbaric.
8. A fetus does depend on a woman's body, and in the very early stages of conception it is no more than a cluster of cells. It does not, at that point, feel pain, etc. Later on, is a different story, but until we can offer women alternatives that do not relegate them to being unwilling incubators, we can provide legal, safe abortions that use humane, pain relieving methods for both.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:16:56 -0000

How interesting. I'm sure the Taliban feels the same way.
Careful, the "Morality Police" are just around the corner!

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:12:47 -0000

I'm sorry, liz. I would love to see religion taken out of the equation as well, but that can't happen because then they lose their platform for the discussion. IF someone can make an argument against Pro-Choice without the religious factor, I would like to hear it.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:10:08 -0000

They are not persons yet. They may have different DNA, but the eggs will not become persons unless grown inside the womb of a woman.
What is the church's problem with "mechanical" or medical assistance?
Isn't Love a gift from GOd? If they love the child that is brought into this world by mechanical means, is that not still a child worth loving? So GOd allows these children to be made, outside of a womb, the same way he allows rape, and other sins? That's interesting.
What have you got against mechanical means for sustaining, or creating life? THe church wouldn't like to see someone taken off of life support because they are being sustained by mechanical means.
The fertilized eggs will not, in any case "grow into a person" because you said they were going to be discarded. My alternative was to put them to life sustaining use. Doesn't all life have a purpose? According to God's plan? COuld not these eggs also have a purpose then? To sustain someone elses life? It's better to just let them die or get thrown into the garbage?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:58:10 -0000

amiller - I am not saying that babies do not depend on their parents for their care and protection. If you read my post, you'd see that I made that stipulation. The difference is that the baby does not depend on the use of the mother's body to be sustained. That is the essential difference.

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:52:03 -0000

You want to follow God's will liz, and that's great. All I'm saying is that not everyone does and God himself does not FORCE people to do so. Encourage, counsel, assist, help whenever you can...that's great. How would we feel if the Taliban really did take over our country and we all were forced to follow the teachings of Mohammed, because they believe Islam is the one true religion and Allah is the one true God? Or get killed if we don't play along. Not too happy I'd guess. Tolerance and acceptance of diversity is what we are supposed to be all about. No?

Re: CatholicVote.com

NABILAT — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 22:47:23 -0000

When that happens, and don't get me wrong, I'm sure it will someday, then we have the opportunity to provide a reasonable alternative to abortion. When that becomes possible, than it also becomes possible to educate, counsel, and encourage women to use that alternative instead.

Look, it's already happened to a certain extent. In the old days a single woman getting pregnant was a social abomination. Some even committed suicide. People began to accept single moms and help and encourage them, so lots of women can now make the decision to carry the child to term and give it up for adoption. That's great, but we cannot FORCE women to make that choice. Until we can offer them a reasonable alternative to carrying an unwanted child in their bodies for nine months, we have to respect their rights.