[Bumped In Honor of Ragsdale Week] Words Fail

The king is dead. Long live the king.

That would be a fellow named Warren Hern, who has literally written the book on abortions. That’s all he does.

http://www.drhern.com/abouthern.asp

As for Dean Ragsdale, perhaps she might learn how to assist in some abortions, including late-term ones, and then do them. It isn’t that difficult. That would be an EXCELLENT urban plunge for her and her seminary students; CPE taken to the max.

Pray for Katherine Ragsdale. She strikes me as a very angry,  misogynistic and hurt person in need of healing from Jesus the Lord. She should not be in the Christian ministry, IMO, and I would think this regardles of her sexual orientation. Whether some people think that is “mean” of me to say I don’t really care.

As Ragsdale sees it, her critics aren’t giving voice to spontaneous, genuine moral outrage.

I am morally outraged at dismemberment of someone’s body, the suction of their brains from their skulls, and the fragmentation of their skulls.

She should spend some time in the neonatal ICU where my wife works, with a twenty-two week-er and her parents.  Then she would learn something about hopes and dreams—and what constitutes a life.

Woohoo! Christopher Johnson on the first page!  I guess that “Dr. Mengele” line stung.  And the IRD and Mark Tooley on the second page!  This actually is better-written than I was expecting.  The author presents Ragsdale’s views from an interview, and goes to the trouble of quoting a couple of Anglicans who disagree.

Ragsdale’s line is that we conservatives are simply a bunch of dumb sheep being used by evil outside forces intent upon destroying the power and effectiveness of the Episcopal Church because they’re upset at how successful the Church is in leading the “progressive” revolution in the USA.  According to her, you don’t really have theological objections; it’s all politics.

The idea that abortion kills a child, she contends, reflects parental hopes and dreams for the child-to-be, not the reality of what the zygote or fetus actually is.

She has it exactly backwards. It is the left’s position that grants a child existence (or non-existence) based entirely on the parent’s feelings. If mom wants the child then it’s a child… if she doesn’t it isn’t.

Our position is far clearer (and not the least bit based on hopes and dreams) - it’s a child from the start.

Note what is missing from Ragsdale’s position? She is quite clear that it is not a child at a given point… but she will never tell you when it is a child. My guess? She believes that it only becomes a child with her own rights when mom wants it… and that means up to - and even a short time after - birth.

She strikes me as a very angry, misogynistic…

That brought me up short for a moment, and then I saw that you were being very precise in your choice of language.  That is exactly the case.

It’s interesting to know that she knows whether our outrage is “spontaneous, genuine and moral” - how does she determine this? “Inorganic outrage” is such a cute way of saying we don’t know how we feel about abortion. Could someone tell her that not everyone who is outraged is Republican?

Jill, thank you for saying all that needs to be said about abortion and moral outrage in one sentence.

This is a horrible thing to come across, but I actually have talked to a guy on a internet religion forum many times who considers himself a Roman Catholic, who inists that “it” isn’t a baby until it comes through the birth canal. He feels that should circumstances be so difficult for the mother that killing “it” right before it was born would be justifiable. “I walk with Jesus” he kept on saying. I finally couldn’t talk with him anymore because I was that repelled by his POV. Tragically, I don’t think he’s alone in that opinion and I don’t think he’s an internet troll.

Fortunately, FenelonSpoke, this guy is not one of our seminary rectors.

I think that the Roman doctrine is that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception.

Anyone who thinks “it” isn’t a baby might ask to watch some abortions. Help the abortionist pull out the little legs, the little arms, the little ears and noses. Then go to the NICU and see how those little arms and legs look when they’re connected to a living, breathing person.

In addition to arguing that her critics’ rage is inorganic

Whilst, of course, her own argumentative deposits are very much organic.

Occasionally, the press picks up on a story involving a dog or cat or puppy or kitten that is gruesomely tortured—such as by being set on fire, or cruelly cut or beaten or dismembered.  If the perpetrator is apprehended, the press goes on to follow the trial.  The defendant is almost always given jail time in those cases.

Unborn children 24 weeks or older in gestational age are routinely torn limb from limb in hospitals and abortion clinics.  If it happened to a kitten or puppy, our entire society would unite in its outrage.  Because it happens to a “proleptic” person, most never bat an eye. 

If pro-life advocates try to describe the gruesome etaisl of what actually happens during late term abortions, we are accused of using scare tactics or sensationalism.  We are rarely, however, accused of being factually inaccurate.

Great to see the Mighty Spong is intimately involved in this one

Spong, who retired as bishop of Newark in 2000, has a radically different take. “When Katherine came into our diocese,” he recalls, “she was just a vital human being — very popular with other clergy, active in the political maneuvering of [the annual Episcopalian General Convention], frequently on her feet on the floor talking. She had enormous intellectual capacity. I think she’ll be a spectacular dean.

In what other church on earth would “being active in political maneuvering” be seen as a positive characteristic?

Can she possibly our creedal belief “in the life of the world to come,” or is it too just a hope and dream of a life to be? If so, then it becomes justifiable to abort christianity before it is fully developed. This would go a long way towards explaining her current position at EDS.

Yeh, angry and all—but a lot of this is about the need and usefulness of media attention.  ; > )

A la Jack Spong . . .

It’s interesting that he deleiberately uses the word “maneuvering.”

John Shelby Spong-another embrassament to Christian ministry. He should have become a Unitarian a long time ago if he had an integrity.

Should a person who paid for an abortion be considered complicit in the ‘murder’ of the baby?

RoF

Great point, [#6]:

“She has it exactly backwards. It is the left’s position that grants a child existence (or non-existence) based entirely on the parent’s feelings. If mom wants the child then it’s a child… if she doesn’t it isn’t.

“Our position is far clearer (and not the least bit based on hopes and dreams) - it’s a child from the start.”

Have you posted on the wrong thread ROF?

RE: “Have you posted on the wrong thread ROF?”

And repetitive too:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/23001/#368819

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/23001/#368852

It is the left’s position that grants a child existence (or non-existence) based entirely on the parent’s feelings. If mom wants the child then it’s a child… if she doesn’t it isn’t.

Can we get Positive Phototaxis’ words on a giant banner. How could Ms. Ragsdale dare to pretend otherwise? And it’s not even based on the parents’ (plural) feelings - just the mom’s.

In addition to arguing that her critics’ rage is inorganic — that it’s the product, essentially, of right-wing ideological carpetbaggers — Ragsdale also dismisses their arguments as illogical. The idea that abortion kills a child, she contends, reflects parental hopes and dreams for the child-to-be, not the reality of what the zygote or fetus actually is. (It is, in her words, “proleptic,” a theological term for anticipated realities that come to be treated as extant in the here and now.)

Premise 0:
Murder is always utterly horrific and never, under any circumstances, justifiable.

Conclusion 6:
With the one (potential) exception noted in the previous point, from premise 0 abortion is utterly horrific and never justifiable.

Now, is that particularly hard to follow?

Granted, a professional biologist could probably tighten up some of my definitions, and, in particular, the definition of species is (in the field) somewhat vague, so my definition might be challenged, though I think that the argument. But, with those improvements (which should be relatively straightforward), it seems like a solid and self consistent argument to me; and the only premise which I think could reasonably be challenged (though only by a particularly morally repugnant person) is premise 0, which depends on some prior definition of moral good and moral evil. If necessary, I could present an argument for that; otherwise Exodus 20:13 will have to suffice. The rest of the premises are (or would be, in the fully fleshed out version if I had a biology textbook to hand) taken directly from the biology textbook, empirical observation or the dictionary. I do not see any self-contradiction, and I cannot comprehend any way in which the conclusions do not follow necessarily from the premises. Nor do I think that I have made any additional and unstated assumptions (though, of course, I would welcome any correction). I have also, at no point save for premise 0, relied on anything specifically Christian or right wing (however that is defined; I personally no longer believe that the term is particularly useful).

But no. Apparently that is not in fact a rational argument. It consists of the `illogical ramblings of a right wing ideological carpetbagger.’ I stand corrected.

Ragsdale demands the right to define whether human life is valid, based on her desires and agenda. I’m sure she applies the same hateful indifference to those she’d like to subject to suicide laws. If you’re poor, and sick, she’d define you as a burden to society, and only deserving of suicide pills.

Margaret Sanger’s point of view, to a t, Ragsdale is on par with Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao and all other murderers and despots. She will justify no end of hatred and slaughter, to serve her ends.

The really sad thing is that there are people in this world that thin and believe and follow the likes of Ragsdale, et al

Some of you have no sense of proportion.  Imagine getting enraged over a zygote that will only grow up to devestate Mother Gaia with his voracious consumption of resources, his rape of the environment, his slavish devotion to fossil fuels, his gleeful clubbing of baby polar bears.

Every human life on this planet means that the hegenomy of misogynist, homophobes is bound to continue unchecked.  It means that every tiny petal and every tiny wing may not get to open and unfurl. It means a failure to restore this country to its true glory when Mastadons roamed the plains and when man was a worshipper of his environment rather than a tyrant to it.

Come now, you must know that even the smallest of feet leave a carbon foot print?  Can we ignore the dangerous exhalations of the newborn?  I say not.

And aren’t we coming close to making these things in the lab?  The whole pregnancy thing seems so anti science and smacks of religion.  It needs to be regulated altogether with only enlightened people of new conciousness being assigned the state sanctioned 1 child bearing license. 

We just can not afford to get all het up over some zygotes being dismembered and tossed aside like the crab legs from the seafood buffett. 

Now is that the logical, spontaneous, organic rage of which Ragsdale is so enraptured?  I wonder how she feels about the rage of heaven?

“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. 10They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” 11Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed.”  Maranatha!

We just can not afford to get all het up over some zygotes being dismembered and tossed aside like the crab legs from the seafood buffett.

Well, there goes my trip to Joe’s Crab Shack…thanks, Paula. (sobbing)

RoF

I have a question for anyone reading this who is pro-choice: When does human life begin? Why do you think that?

Those who are pro-life think that human life begins at conception. Since to be pro-life is to be pro human life, the termination of a young life is homicide. It’s a fairly simple, internally consistent and logical position.

What’s the counter-argument?

Brilliant, Paula!

RoF,  God discriminates between the life of animals* and humans. 

See Genesis 9:5-9; Leviticus 19:16; Leviticus 24:17-18and Deuteronomy 30:11-20

*Though Scripture teaches us to be kind, humane, respect and care for them, not to torture and butcher them piecemeal, one leg at a time like pagans probably did or to leave an ox in the ditch over the Sabbath.  All Scripture is trying to get God’s people to be different, to be holy, not to be like the pagans in any way, sexually, relationally, with commerce, government, cleanliness, eating, in regard to human life. Seems like TEC is trying hard to get the world to return to life before God’s covenant with Abraham or Noah.

I read (quickly and with increasing nausea) the entire article. Satanic.

I do, however, hope that this person gets all the publicity she seems to crave (and more), as she is such a humorless, unattractive spokesman for her humorless, unattractive, hard-left point-of-view.

What a wicked woman.  And not exactly the soul of intellectual integrity, either. And, as usual among progressives, she locates the problem in our psyches and not our hearts and heads; she does not need to respond to our arguments if she can say that we are disordered.

#28 1. The historic view of the church is that abortion is sinful from the moment of conception (regardless of theological speculation about ensoulement).

2. Theologians (eg Aquinas) have speculated when and how “ensoulment” occurs. Some have speculated that ensoulment occurs some weeks after conception. Given having a soul, on this account, is essential to being human, contemporary pro abortion theologians have used this speculation to argue that prior to ensoulement whatever is in the womb is not human. Thus (contra church tradition) argue that abortion may not be sinful - at least until ensoulment.

3. The irony is that often such theologians don’t believe that speaking of souls is a helpful way to understand what it is to be human. (Crudely, they don’t believe that souls exist). So that debating about when ensoulement occurs is purely tactical.

Can we get Positive Phototaxis’ words on a giant banner. How could Ms. Ragsdale dare to pretend otherwise? And it’s not even based on the parents’ (plural) feelings - just the mom’s.

I’d go even further, myself, insofar as if the mother hasn’t made up her mind about the status of her unborn child (or even if she has but has yet to abort), the default legal position is that it is a baby human.  Illustration:  A woman walking into an abortion mill is struck by a car driven by a drunk driver and her child dies.  This will almost uniformly result in charges brought against the driver for the death of the child (albeit for “fetal destruction” or some other euphamism).

Yet the tiniest of non human, single cell microorganisms are considered life to be “protected” by the radical left. Including those not native to our shores, that have been classified as invasive, are fought for tooth and nail.

Ragsdale supports the notion, as did the democrat party of slavery, that the powerful can reduce human beings to less than human, when it profits them. She doesn’t respect or consider all women equal, she demands the right to think and decide for them. She supports policies that kill women, as they kill all those who she considers expendable. I believe were Christ to stand before her, he would denounce her as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and she could attack him as being guilty of a hate crime.

Since things, animals, humans,etc… that grow & thrive on/in their habitat-environment-womb etc…have life and are considered alive. So, then upon conception the baby begins to grow thus has life. Things, animals, humans, etc… that do not grow in their habitat-environment-wombs etc… are considered dead and have no life then one may dispose of the dead. Seems to me that mother nature takes care of this process but in some instances may need a little help but ONLY IF WARRANTED AND THE LIFE IS NOT LIVING/GROWING/THRIVING, etc…

It’s helpful that this kind of thing is out in the open at least.

It would be great if this article was printed up and sent to every parish in TEC in booklet form with the title “Your Episcopal Church”.

DoW

The humanity of the unborn child is largely irrelevant to those on the pro-abortion side of this argument.  They base their position on an a priori commitment to the autonomy of the adult.  This adult is seeking to avoid the unchosen obligations of parenthood - where the most important word in the sentence is ‘unchosen.’  If sexual activity entails a necessary responsibility to accept children, then autonomy is threatened.  Under this conception, sex is primarily a means of personal gratification, with an optional secondary purpose of reproduction attached.  Men have this freedom by nature, but women get pregnant.  If women are to be enabled to act on the conviction that the primary purpose of sex is personal gratification, then women must have the right to abort.  This is the true logic of abortion.  It is intended to break the natural connection in women between maternity and sex.

Philosophical word games (like using ‘proleptic’) might be played here and there to salve the tender conscience, but make no mistake.  Nothing would change if the humanity of the unborn child were accepted without question by those on the other side.  They do not support abortion because they think an unborn child is an ‘it’ instead of a ‘he.’  They support abortion because it frees the individual from obligations he does not wish to carry.  They know said individual will kill to prevent having to carry those obligations even if he knows he is killing another human being.  And they live in peace with that understanding.  In can’t be otherwise, if the greatest good is to maximize the freedom of the individual.

carl

Yet the tiniest of non human, single cell microorganisms are considered life to be “protected” by the radical left. Including those not native to our shores, that have been classified as invasive, are fought for tooth and nail.

I’ve always thought that was a great argument. If a sea turtl species is endangered, then the law doesn’t just prohibit killing the adult of the species… you can’t touch the eggs (or even disturb the environment that they mature in).

Is potential human life less valuable to them? Of course it is! Because humans are just other creatures and we aren’t rare/endangered. To take it farther… they think there are far too many of us as it is.

Like slave-owners in the United States (predominantly Christian), the abortion-mongers need to dehumanize the unborn in order to salve their consciences.  I believe that people realize that abortion ends a life, but are willing to rationalize with the Zygote and fetus words, which will allow them to (temporarily) sleep at night.  As someone (Jerry Seinfeld?) said, “What’s a day without a good rationalization?”

I’m sure that Ms Ragsdale’s Bible (if she actually has one) must have Psalm 139 missing.

I continue to be amazed at the absolute crap that comes out of supposed Christians in TEC.

2 completely different world views, and never the twain shall meet.  Ever.

If a sea turtl species is endangered, then the law doesn’t just prohibit killing the adult of the species… you can’t touch the eggs (or even disturb the environment that they mature in).

Ditto the nests of eagles and least terns. I’m a tree hugger (not beyond the range of sense, I hope, however) - but if I value the lives of these creatures, how much more do I - and should I! - value the life of child in the making. I agree with Gillian - let’s drop the euphemisms. What is happening in the womb is the development of a brand-new human being, a development, and a life, that begins with the joining of two cells. And let’s drop the euphemisms for what goes on in abortion clinics, too. It’s the same thing that goes on in any slaughterhouse.

I agree with Katherine (No. 5) that this article is much better written than I expected from Greg’s introduction.  I don’t see it as “fawning” or “biased” as does Greg.  I think the fact that the author introduces a wider audience to the Ragsdale controversy and meaningfully quotes Ragsdale critics is helpful.  The author also presents Ragsdale’s views with all their ugliness and condencension.  Furthermore, it makes clear that Ragsdale buys hook, line and sinker the laughable perspective that there is no real controversy in TEC - its’ all soemthing cooked up by the IRD!  My sense is the author does not agree with this fanciful view.

This is really disturbing; this individual in a position of influencing the seminarians on their way to priesthood!  The secular liberal left has invaded a Divinity School… Tragic.  When is this going to stop.  What would our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ say to Katherine?  “Reflects parental hopes and dreams for the child to be,” What was she at conception; was she a child of parents in love or a one night stand?  No matter what Katherine is a person from the womb to be what she is… Some where along the way there was someone that influenced her to this distorted thinking.

The Episcopal Church needs to remove her from this position of influence.

Rejoice.
Keep the Faith

Scott S., I think the author agrees more with Ragsdale than with me, but he was honest enough to do straight quotes of his source, and to include some contrary quotes without snark, which is rare on the left.

“Inorganic rage?”  As opposed to what? “Organic rage?”  Sounds like some kind of health food breakfast cereal.  “Try new Organic Rage Oat Crunch - made only from organic emotions.”  I should have guessed that even pro-abortionists would go “green” sooner or later.  Does “inorganic” rage contribute to global warming?  If, according to this fool, my rage is “inorganic,” then am I also “inorganic?”  Am I a robot?  This is going to be tough to explain to my four grown children.  The more this woman talks, the more “certifiable” she reveals herself to be.

Thanks, Don-

I thought “organic rage” was a really odd expression too. It sounds like Ragsdale is suggesting that the people opposed to abortion have no heartfelt, real emotions and/or rational beliefs around it, but that they oppose it because they are part of a larger plot in TEC to keep people down or something. It’s very weird.

The answer to your question, RING OF FIRE, is “Yes.”  Anyone who pays for an abortion is “complicit” in it.  Plus, anyone who sees the pregnant woman while she is on her way to an abortion clinic is “complicit.”  Anyone who has used the word “abortion” in the presence of a pregnant woman in the past ten years is “complicit” whenever a woman anywhere gets an abortion. And they are all going to Hell.  There, ROF, satisfied?  Get what you wanted? See-your assumption was correct! Those of us who post on here really are all barbaric, brainless, conservative, right-wing twits.  Now go play in your sandbox.  Sheesh!

Ragsdale’s rage is “organic” - organic fertilizer that is.

RoF - I will answer your question regarding murder and paying for abortion.  Morally, abortion is murder and the all the people who enable the abortion (including those who pay for it) are morally complicit in murder.  Legally, abortion is not murder, so there is no legal ramification to helping to provide for an abortion.

What we are seeing with abortion and the “assisted suicide” movement is the culmination of defining personhood by function.  You are a person only in so far as you have a function to society.  The unborn have no function and can be killed.  The terminally ill have no function and can be killed.  The newly born have no function and we are even now starting to reduce the sentences handed to women who kill their new born children (so called “prom mom’s”).  I forsee a time when the severly mentally challenged will be terminated or that it will not be illegal to kill your children under a certain age.

We are so functionally driven in our society that our first question (or in the top 3) we ask another person when we meet him or her is “So, what do you do?”

We need to recover the idea that we are all persons who are created in the image of God and even the least “functional” bears that image!

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Hanks #40,

They don’t read Psalm 139 anymore because of verses 21-22 are “mean spirited.”

RoF - I will answer your question regarding murder and paying for abortion.  Morally, abortion is murder and the all the people who enable the abortion (including those who pay for it) are morally complicit in murder.  Legally, abortion is not murder, so there is no legal ramification to helping to provide for an abortion.

Thanks Phil!

RoF

The answer to your question, RING OF FIRE, is “Yes.” Anyone who pays for an abortion is “complicit” in it.  Plus, anyone who sees the pregnant woman while she is on her way to an abortion clinic is “complicit.” Anyone who has used the word “abortion” in the presence of a pregnant woman in the past ten years is “complicit” whenever a woman anywhere gets an abortion. And they are all going to Hell.

so, someone that pays for an abortion is going to hell, right? Interesting.

RoF

Tom Dennis [44], Ragsdale doesn’t represent the secular liberal left invading a Divinity school.  Secular liberals are generally normal people (I used to be one).  Secular liberals generally believe that government should keep abortion legal, but they don’t necessarily like abortion.

Katherine Ragsdale likes it when fetuses get aborted.  To her world view, and now increasingly the world view of the Episcopal Church, abortion is a blessing - a holy and praiseworthy act.  If it was up to Ragsdale, there would be an abortion clinic on every corner, like Starbucks (or maybe even in Starbucks).

Ragsdale is not a secular liberal, she is a satanic liberal.  She herself mocked Bill Clinton’s “legal, safe, and rare” opinion of abortion (which pretty much sums of the secular liberal point-of-view), mostly because she objects to Clinton’s third adjective: rare.  To Ragsdale, there are not enough aborted babies.  That is the satanic liberal view of abortion.  That is the growing view in TEC.

DoW

I hope that Episcopal Church Women will open their eyes to Rev. Ragsdale’s misrepresentation of them and defend themselves and their church against this misleading propaganda.
Ragsdale has rejected her identity as a woman and identifies herself as a lesbian, yet she PRESUMES to speak for women.
It seems to me that women have very little representation in the Episcopal church and they (especially pro-life women) have not been allowed to speak for themselves.
Now that the pro-life movement “NOEL” has been driven from the Episcopal church and the Episcopal Church has officially allied itself with the RCRC (Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice), women have even less chance of being heard with regard to the subject of abortion, I pray that women will recognize this injustice and demand that they as Christian women have a right to be heard in this life or death matter.

so, someone that pays for an abortion is going to hell, right? Interesting.

ROF - Why post on a Christian board if you have so little understanding of Christianity?

Someone who pays for a movie ticket when hisr parents told them not to go is on his way to he11. That’s the consequence of the most inconsequential sin.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to end that way… even for the most consequential sins.

#55 - not even the Roman Catholic Church teaches that.  Disobeying your parents in regards to purchasing a movie ticket is not a mortal sin, meaning the consequence of that sin isn’t hell.

Well, I can’t comment of Katherine Ragsdale’s views, but there are some militant gays and lesbians who sneeringly call parents “breeders” and pat themselves on the back for not having children. They envision themselves as being primarily responsible for saving Gaia-mother earth. If Ragsdale come from this POV she would be likely to wish that there would be more abortions.

As I said, she may love nature or may even think that she loves humanity. I wouldn’t be surprised if she doesn’t like many human beings except for those who agree with her and are not breeders.
The waves of rage and misanthropy which come from her pronouncments is almost palpable. Only the Holy Spirit can heal her and I pray thtat the Holy Spirit does.

RoF, I believe [48]DonRJ’s comments were a bit tongue-in-cheek, sarcastic, whatever you would like - not really dead serious. 

But then again, you knew that, didn’t you?

so, someone that pays for an abortion is going to hell, right?

I leave the judgment calls to Our Lord, ROF. I don’t know. I only know that, given that human life is sacrosanct, I wouldn’t want to be in the position of helping to destroy it and I would certainly consider it a mortal sin. But the final dispensation is not in my hands and we have a merciful Lord who forgives sins when we repent, ask for forgiveness and seek to amend.

Before the debate on paying for movie tickets goes any further, please not the ending of my response to RingOfFire.  Uh…tongue in cheek, sarcasm, etc., etc., etc.  I saw his question as a “baiting” question and so responded as if I am truly a babaric, uneducated troglydyte, which I assumed ROF expected to find on this site.  People, people!

I am still shocked, dismayed and disappointed that a <strike>cemetary</strike> seminary could, in good conscience, unanimously vote in someone with Ragsdale’s views into any position, much less the head of the school.  How sad that here are folks paying to be educated about Jesus there, but instead receive lies.

Someone who pays for a movie ticket when hisr parents told them not to go is on his way to he11. That’s the consequence of the most inconsequential sin.

Forgive me my *sarcasm*, but I don’t think I’m the one that doesn’t have an understanding of Christianity.

If you think a kid going to the movies, on the sly, gives him an automatic E Ticket Ride to Hell, there is no use debating with you.

I leave the judgment calls to Our Lord, ROF. I don’t know. I only know that, given that human life is sacrosanct, I wouldn’t want to be in the position of helping to destroy it and I would certainly consider it a mortal sin. But the final dispensation is not in my hands and we have a merciful Lord who forgives sins when we repent, ask for forgiveness and seek to amend.

Thank you oscewicee.  THAT makes sense.

Abortion—as abhorrent as it is—is legal in this country. Is it morally just?  I think that’s between the person making the decision to have the abortion and God.  Not StandFirm or “Operation Rescue” who goes through the trash of abortion clinic workers, sometimes just the person that does the filing, sends letters to their neighbors which say, “Did you know that Suzie Q is a BABY KILLER?”

So, somehow, I don’t think that DonRJ was necessarily truly being tongue-in-cheek.  If you’d like me to post the link to a very good article about your ‘benevolent’ ‘Christian’ pals at Operation Rescue, let me know. This is indeed the tactic that they took with Dr. Tiller’s office.

It’s not up to any of you, either, to determine the mind of God.  I’ve known women on both sides of this issue.  I have known women who have used abortion like birth control, and it makes me sick.  I have known some women who have agonized over the decision, and have contemplated killing themselves over the decision. 

God is the only one who can judge any of it, and, unfortunately, though I know it is hard to accept, none of you are God… and ‘Thank God’ for that.

RoF

Nope, none of us is God including Katherine Ragsdale and Elizabeth Kaeton, but they certainly do a lot of judging of people against abortion.  Do you also give them the same sppech, “Thank God you’re not God”? And why would you assume that Randall Terry is a “pal” af anyone here?

[62] RingOfFire

Abortion—as abhorrent as it is—is legal in this country. Is it morally just?  I think that’s between the person making the decision to have the abortion and God.

Why is killing a child 5 minutes before birth any different then killing a child five minutes after birth?  What changes at birth such that killing is no longer a matter “between the person making the decision to have the abortion and God.”

carl

Carl,

Because abortion is legal, and killing a child after it’s born, is illegal? (strictly speaking about law, not arguments on morality)

RoF

ROF I can see the moral priority you accord to individual decisions. Do you apply the same to all moral decisions?

Slavery should perhaps be an individual decision or racism? Maybe you could narrate a tale about how you knew individuals on both sides of the slavery debate or perhaps a moving story about a slave owner who agonized about slavery. You might tell us how some slave owners made you sick but you wouldn’t presume to judge their decision. After all is said and done, no one can know the will of God about anything.

[65] RingOfFire

Because abortion is legal, and killing a child after it’s born, is illegal? (strictly speaking about law, not arguments on morality)

Did you miss this statement in your own post?

Abortion—as abhorrent as it is—is legal in this country. <u>Is it morally just?</u>  I think that’s between the person making the decision to have the abortion and God.

You asked the question about morality, Rof, and then you punted the answer.  I was asking why you punted the answer on the question of morality.  What morally significant change does birth introduce such that prohibitions against murder suddenly come into effect?

carl

Ring of Fire, the determining factor for whether any sin, including abortion, murder, lying, gossip, whatever, will be held against us in judgment by God is whether we have confessed the act or thought to God as sin, acknowledged our need for His forgiveness and that such forgiveness could only be paid for by the shed blood of Jesus, and truly repented of the sin. 

True repentance is the sincere intention to avoid future sin by the received grace of God and asking Him for His will, not ours, to rule the thoughts, words, and deeds of our lives.

Will we fail and fall into sin?  Of course.  The choice we must make is whether we will defend that sin and attack anyone who convicts us of it, or whether we will die to our self and live to God in Christ Jesus.  Moses, David and St. Paul were all murderers, too.  But they did not defend their sin, rather confessing it as sin to God, asking and receiving His forgiveness, and walking in that sin no more.

If we’re going to argue semantics here the “birth” process actually takes place when sperm and egg unite.  Otherwise that’s to say the fetus isn’t a human being until it comes out of the birth canal.

Ring of Fire, I’d like to see your answer to driver8 (#66).

RingOfFire:  I said I was being “tongue-in-cheek, but you now say I wasn’t - “I don’t think that DonRJ was necessarily truly being tongue in cheek.”  Wow! You read minds, too.  Quick - I’m now thinking of a number between 1 and 10.  What is it?  Do you bend spoons with your mind, too?

Forgive me my *sarcasm*, but I don’t think I’m the one that doesn’t have an understanding of Christianity.

If you think a kid going to the movies, on the sly, gives him an automatic E Ticket Ride to Hell, there is no use debating with you.

Wow… make a claim in statement one and then prove it incorrect before you finish typing.

That is efficiency in posting. Embarrassing perhaps… but efficient.

Anglican Mainstream has posted a very good article, “Let’s Get Our Facts Straight about Tiller and Anti-Abortion Violence”  - Brian Clowes, PhD.
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11469#more-11469

A few choice quotes from the article linked above:
“4) Tiller has been tried on criminal indictments for multiple abuses of his practice, including breaking state laws requiring another medical doctor to verify that certain patients’ lives were at risk before performing late-term abortions. This man was no hero or saint, and his being held up as a martyr says more about pro-abortionists than it does about those they are trying to condemn.

5) Abortionists are not only widely considered an embarrassment to the medical profession, but they are much more likely to commit violence than to suffer violence. You may be surprised to learn that more than a dozen abortionists have been convicted of murder and manslaughter ? of their wives, of their patients, and even of other abortionists. Yet you never hear about these killings in the press (see http://www.abortionviolence.com/ for documentation). Abortionists are more likely to kill than to be killed.

6) Whenever an abortionist mutilates, kills or molests a woman, the “pro-choice” movement always rushes to his defense, as they did for Brian Finkel, the Arizona abortionist who was sent to prison for 35 years for 22 counts of sexual abuse. So much for caring for women!”

There is plenty more good stuff….

RoF - The result of any sin is death and hell.  Were we left to on our own, we would justly be condemned to hell because we constantly choose for ourselves rather than for God.  So, paying for an abortion will cause a person (barring any other intervention) to be condemned to hell.  Disobeying one’s parents (again, barring any other intervention) will cause someone to go to hell.  Baiting other people to enjoy their reactions will cause someone (you!) to go to hell.  God does not care what is “legal” in this or any other country when it comes to morality - especially the morality surrounding murder.  I grew up in Omaha Nebraska and there was a “Believe It or Not” book I read about Nebraska history that shared a story about a town that needed to start a cemetary, so they legalized murder for a period of time.  (I think it was one year).  That law had no effect on the morality of murder.  So, since all of us have sinned ever so slightly, all of use are condemned to hell (again, barring intervention).

But the Good News (Gospel) is that God became incarnate in the person of Jesus to redeem, not just us sinners, but all of creation.  God defeated death and sin and paid the price for our individual and corporate sins.  So, by participating in the death and resurrection of Jesus, we will become part of God’s new creation and part of God’s work to redeem lost humanity and fallen creation.  So, the person who obtained, performed, paid for, enabled, or suppored abortion can be forgiven and can be made new because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

So, have you accepted what Jesus did for you on the cross?  Have you accepted that God wants to make you new and to give you victory over death and sin?  If so, then you should know the answer to your own question.  If not, I invite you to do so - to surrender to your secular view that says you have to have all the answers and have to convince others that you are right.

Phil Snyder

So, have you accepted what Jesus did for you on the cross?  Have you accepted that God wants to make you new and to give you victory over death and sin?  If so, then you should know the answer to your own question.  If not, I invite you to do so - to surrender to your secular view that says you have to have all the answers and have to convince others that you are right.

Aww, thanks Phil.  I mean it. I did give my life to Christ, years ago. I struggle just like you and everyone else.

RoF

Now retired, I was trained as a Special Educator and spent nearly 20 years as a special education teacher, diagnostician and administrator. In my pursuit of the necessary certifications and graduate degrees, I had to take a number of courses in the category of “Human Growth and Development”. One of the things that was made quite clear in those courses was that human life begins at conception—at that point, whatever you want to call “it”, “it” is a living human organism in the earliest stages of human growth and development, a process which will not end until that human organism dies. And, of course, that human organism dies in a successful abortion. As far as I can tell, modern biology would agree.

There is a curious “discussion” going on in the House of Bishops/Deputies list as a consequence of the murder of Dr. Tiller. It is, of course, the usual suspects attacking those who point out that abortion ends a human life and is, in most cases, contrary to the teaching of the Episcopal Church as expressed in resolutions of the General Convention as responsible for this murder.

They are dragging up the argument that back in the bad old days, many women were rendered sterile or died from illegal “amateur” abortions. To the best of my knowledge, those are also a risk for legal “professional” abortions.

There are cases where abortions are necessary. But they are rare and a small percentage of the close to a million abortions performed annually in the U.S. There are cases (e.g., rape or incest) where one might argue that abortions are desirable. But again, those are rare and a small percentage of all abortions performed in the U.S.

Is it a matter of a right to “reproductive choice”?  I’m a guy. I have a “reproductive choice”—I can choose to engage in sexual intercourse or to abstain from sexual intercourse. Usually a woman has that same choice. I think that once the “reproductive choice” of a man and a woman—namely to engage in sexual intercourse—they both should be prepared to live with the consequences of that choice.

As a matter of “public policy”, I think we need to do more to make good, affordable prenatal and postnatal care to women; adequate nutrition, medical care and education for all children; and good, affordable day care for the children of working parents available. And it would also help to make adoption easier. Such steps would remove some of the “reasons” for the scandal of abortions.

Slavery should perhaps be an individual decision or racism? Maybe you could narrate a tale about how you knew individuals on both sides of the slavery debate or perhaps a moving story about a slave owner who agonized about slavery. You might tell us how some slave owners made you sick but you wouldn’t presume to judge their decision. After all is said and done, no one can know the will of God about anything.

You are right Driver.  I am so wrong. Please lay your healing hands upon me and ‘drive’ the demons from my soul…

RoF

If we’re going to argue semantics here the “birth” process actually takes place when sperm and egg unite.  Otherwise that’s to say the fetus isn’t a human being until it comes out of the birth canal.

Wow Milton!  See?  Then, the abortion decision should most certainly be left to the woman and God.

And there is no argument.  Abortion is moot, if the fetus is not a human being until it comes out of the birth canal.

RoF

As a matter of “public policy”, I think we need to do more to make good, affordable prenatal and postnatal care to women; adequate nutrition, medical care and education for all children; and good, affordable day care for the children of working parents available. And it would also help to make adoption easier. Such steps would remove some of the “reasons” for the scandal of abortions.

Good point. But how about preventing abortion alltogether?  How do we do that, without contraception education?  Again, how do all of you that are *foaming at the mouth* at me think that if Roe V Wade is overturned that abortions will stop?

Instead of trying, lamely, to interrogate me, why don’t you discuss how, logically, you are going to prevent unwanted pregnancy by only preaching ‘no sex before marriage?’

Has it worked in the past?  Obviously not.  What can we do, logically, to make abortion a thing of the past?

RoF

Has it worked in the past?

Has “no sex before marriage” worked?

Yes… every single time it has been applied.

You certainly make a lot of assumptions, ROF. I don’t recall lots of people here saying “only” preaching no sex before marriage or that contraception should not be available. I think people should wait to have sex, but I don’t think contraception should not be available.
No frothing at the mouth here. To disagree with you doesn’t automatically mean that people are ““frothing at the mouth”.
Got hyperbole, have you? ;^)

Baiting other people to enjoy their reactions will cause someone (you!) to go to hell.

Phil,

If that’s the case, then the majority of posters on this thread, and on others here, will be joining me, and I will be in good company.

RoF

You certainly make a lot of assumptions, ROF.

So do you Fenlon, especially when it comes to me.  Should I cut and paste them? I also recall that you are always the first to whine and try to get me kicked off of here…just wait…it will happen..heh

Pot? Meet Kettle.

I don’t recall lots of people here saying “only” preaching no sex before marriage or that contraception should not be available.

Really?  Where?  Is that what the owners of the site believe? I’ve seen a few posters with moderate views on this, but not many.

I think people should wait to have sex, but I don’t think contraception should not be available.
No frothing at the mouth here. To disagree with you doesn’t automatically mean that people are ““frothing at the mouth”.
Got hyperbole, have you? ;^)

No, I took the whole ‘foaming/frothing at the mouth’ thing from the Ice Princess, who has used those words to describe posters that she doesn’t like or agree with.  Talk to her about hyperbole. It’s often used in Harlequin Romance novels too…

Thanks,
RoF

Not quite, RoF, your analogy is based on misrepresentation, and falls flat on it’s face. What you are doing, is making noise, because you can’t actually engage in honest debate on the issue. You’re afraid of the truth, because you know it shows your agenda for what it is, corruption.

RingOfFire, although no sex before marriage is the standard for Christians, technically speaking that is not required if the goal is to prevent pregancies.  Just no intercourse before marriage.  Is that too much to ask to prevent abortions?

I think no sex before marriage should be what is preached and practiced.  But in the spirit of live and let live, how about no intercourse unless you are willing to risk a pregnancy and all the possible out comes, limit yourself to other forms of intimate activities.

If you have intercourse, it can result in a baby.  If people are not willing to take the responcibility, including the possibilty the pregancy could have complications, they should not perform the act.

So, RoF, you spend your time reading Harlequin romance novels? Not very edifying, but it does explain your peevish, catty, and not very intelligent rejoinders.

Good grief, you’re a whiner, ROF. I’m tired of talking to you. And your little routine with Sarah bores me. I’ve decided to take another break from reading your posts for the evening. But be sure to get the last word in. Live it up. ;^)

Good evening.

Not quite, RoF, your analogy is based on misrepresentation, and falls flat on it’s face. What you are doing, is making noise, because you can’t actually engage in honest debate on the issue. You’re afraid of the truth, because you know it shows your agenda for what it is, corruption.

You win Mari!  Good Job!  (sounding like a coach at the Special Olympics)

RoF

(wondering if this will be it…)

So, RoF, you spend your time reading Harlequin romance novels? Not very edifying, but it does explain your peevish, catty, and not very intelligent rejoinders.

Then, I’m in good company with you, Mari.

RoF

Three quick thoughts:

1) I share the general abhorrence of Ragsdale.

2) I disagree strongly with Greg’s intro description of this piece as “one of the most biased, fawning pieces of ‘journalism’ I’ve had the displeasure of reading in quite a while.”  It is not entirely even-handed, but it is far from the worst example one can come up with of fawning over liberalism.  The paragraph he quotes, for example, is well drafted to make clear that it’s all Ragsdale giving those characterizations. 

3) In the end, the article is an asset, as Greg hints in his last line—it successfully reveals Ragsdale and her views for what they are.  If Tiller’s killer is a net loss for the pro-life cause, I think Ragsdale is a net loss for the other side.  Most of those who adopt the same cop-out on abortion as RingofFire has expressed here know instinctually that abortion is NOT a blessing.

Also, William Saletan on Slate (a very good writer who’s a pro-life voice on a liberal website) has two very interesting abortion articles:

Is Abortion Murder? 
[confronting the what to think of Tiller’s killer question]
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/06/03/is-abortion-murder.aspx

and

Abortion Compromise: Four Ideas
[two that take each side to task for rhetoric / attitude]
http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/06/04/abortion-compromise-four-ideas.aspx

I’ll pray for you, RoF, that you see that your sinful life, and bitter hatred of others is wrong, and repent. Otherwise your entire life will have been one of waste and misery.

ROF I know you almost never respond to me - even though I always try to be reasonable and charitable in my attempts at conversation with you. Anyway I’ll try again!

Putting the bar at preventing all “unwanted” pregnancies (to use your language) is surely unreasonably high. There is no country in the world, even those with considerably easier access to contraception, better sex education (as you might see it), child, lone parent and family support, financial support for those in need etc, that has no “unwanted” pregnancies. Indeed at least one country with all of those things - namely Sweden - has a higher abortion rate than the USA.

One might reasonably argue that the USA should create such policies whilst acknowledging that it may not reduce the demand for abortion.

Indeed one point of having law is because one recognizes the need for such. Let me give you an example - one might be committed to reducing the number of gang related murders and put in place a range of policies that aim at such - whilst still feeling it reasonable that the law should provide a range of sanctions against actual murders that do take place.

I understand you would like to see a whole raft of policies that you think will reduce the demand for abortion. I’m not unsympathetic to that and can see that it is reasonable (even if we might disagree on individual policies). I am not as convinced as you that such policies will necessarily reduce abortion demand and see no prospect that they will eliminate demand for abortion.

What is baffling to me is that, given your stated view that abortion is murder, why you see no place for lawful action. Of course, just like other illegitimate killing one might deeply desire there should be no such acts whilst recognizing that one should have a law that responds to actual illegitimate killing.

I don’t want to get this thread too far off track.  But I do want to say that making birth control more readily available will not decrease the abortion rate.  For one thing birth control is readily available, been to a drug store recently? And since all methods of birth control except for sterilization have a failure rate there would still be unplanned pregnancies even if we put the pill in pez dispensers and past them out at Junior High orientation.

Rather the availablility of birth control has lead to a contraceptive mentality which presumes that a baby is in certain circumstances a mistake, a thing best avoided and a unfortunate consequence of not being careful enough.  It allows the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of sexual intercourse not by illness or physical abnormalities but by deliberate intent. 

Without this cultural acceptance of pregnancy as a wrong to be righted in so many instances the liberal attitude (liberal is not being used in the political sense here) towards abortion would never thrive.  Because in order for that attitude to thrive the value of the preborn child must be based on its status in the eyes of another, rather on the fact it is a human life in and of itself, created by God. 

And ROF perhaps you did not mean to, but in one of your statements you came very close to moral relativism.  There can not be one moral choice for me and another for you.  All morality is universal and has as its author God.

I’ll pray for you, RoF, that you see that your sinful life, and bitter hatred of others is wrong, and repent. Otherwise your entire life will have been one of waste and misery.

Says the woman who just wrote this:

Not very edifying, but it does explain your peevish, catty, and not very intelligent rejoinders.

I don’t think it’s me that is sinful, bitter and filled with hatred, Mari..well..I mean…no more than you.

This is a very sad place, and very toxic as well.  If this is your way of trying to ‘win’ people over to Christ, it’s very misguided.

Thanks for the game, but you all win. Game over.

RoF

It’s pretty clear that laws against rape haven’t stopped the practice of rape, so it’s obvious that these laws should be repealed and clean, hygenic rape centers established to once and for all rid society of these filthy, dangerous, back-alley sexual assaults.  I personally would abhor what goes on in them, but truly, this is a matter between the rapists and God.

You’re comment is spot on, Paula. There are clinics in high school that are dispensing the pill, condoms are handed out willy nilly, and above all, abortion has been made available at a moment’s notice. Girls are told their parents don’t even have to know. Sex has been elevated above life, and while organizations like NOW pretend that the focus should be on young women’s opportunities, they are promoting a mindset that says don’t think, makes parents out to be the enemy, and any caution against allowing ones self to be pressured into sex, as coming from those that want to deprive one of their “freedom”.

In reality, they are depriving young people of the time and discipline they need to grow into thinking, functioning adults. It’s all one giant distraction, intended to disrupt and destroy young lives. They care no more about these young people, than they care about babies in the womb. All are disposable in their narrow minds.

Oh, and Carl in #37 hit the nail on the head.

You are right Driver.  I am so wrong. Please lay your healing hands upon me and ‘drive’ the demons from my soul…

That’s a pretty lame response to an earnest question respectfully asked.

Does anyone else get the feeling that Ring O’ Fire is a non de plume for Ms. Kaeton?  There’s something familiar about the rhetoric.

I wondered if RoF was someone like that, though I’m not familiar enough with Kaeton’s snark style to offer a definitive opinion.

Hey folks—please get back on topic and cease with the personal responses/rejoinders/assertions/etc.  Wish I could warn someone specifically rather than the entire thread of commenters . . .

As a reminder, the post is about Katherine “Abortion is a Blessing” Ragsdale.

If Ragsdale believes slaughtering babies is a blessing, well, we know who those who believe in ritual human sacrifice, worship.

For what it’s worth, I thought this was a pretty good article(and not just because it mentions me and links to my site).  The Boston Phoenix is an alternative publication so it’s obviously going to have a leftward slant and that’s fine.  What impressed me about the article is that, whether it meant to or not, it makes Miss Ragsdale look even more morally repugnant than I thought possible.

I think Paula is on to something but doesn’t go far enough. Birth control is wrong. Abortion is the safety net of birth control.

Well the Ragsdale supporters ae now questioning the number of 60,000 abortions…..they are even breaking down the number by consultation hours per case er week and saying that that number is hyperbole! The spin will get so far out of whack to make this person look like what Ragsdale wants him to be a “saint”.

Via Orthodoxy.  Humanae Vitae is right.

[105] via orthodoxy

Birth control is wrong.

Yes and no.  Birth control that acts as an abortifacient is wrong.  But let’s not forget that NFP is birth control by any other name, and NFP has an official Imprimatur stamped on its forehead.  Call it what you like.  It’s still birth control.

  Abortion is the safety net of birth control.

Abortion is the safety net of autonomy.  It has much deeper and wider ranging implications then birth control.

carl

It’s possible to use birth control but accept a pregnancy if it happens anyway.  Using birth control doesn’t mean a couple is completely against having an “unplanned” birth (just planned by Someone Else) or that they wd terminate it.

I found this interesting transcript of a 2006 Pew Forum program about the Supreme Court Argument To Ban Partial Birth Abortion.  Katherine Ragsdale participated and argued against the ban.
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=131

Ring of Fire, I think you are confusing me with The Templar in #79.

“her critics’ rage is inorganic” - it seems to me as if her own views are very much inorganic in that she wants to reduce the human baby in the womb from the moment of conception to being a piece of tissue or a collection of inorganic cells that can be clinically disposed of without any grief. My opposition to abortion however is both inorganic and organic if we must stick with those categories. We have raised two lovely daughters, both born 4 weeks prematurely, and lost one son who was born 5 weeks prematurely. At no stage did we think we were conceiving and bearing inorganic cellular material. We grieved the loss of our son after 36 hours of life because he was a true human being, not an “inorganic” candidate for late term or partial birth abortion. One wonders if the unfeeling, inorganic Ragsdale has ever born and raised children herself, or has she only ever seen them in a laboratory?
My “inorganic” objection is based on Biblical theology, based on God’s revelation to us, which is hardly inorganic since God is a living personal being. If she has no objection to abortion, then would she have had any objection to her own abortion - or would that be too organic for her?

What distinguishes NFP from other forms of birth control is that it doesn’t separate the couple’s fertility from their sexuality. 

Our own birth control method suffers from the disadvantages of simultaneously being high-maintenance and involuntary, issues which grow increasingly more complicated over time.  She’ll be 42 months old in October.

For the truth about Tiller’s and other abortionists’ characters - three articles to enlighten you:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=11469
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060209.html
http://lifenews.com/state4203.html

Hat tip - Anglican Mainstream and Transfigurations

Boring Bloke—Thanks for that wonderful argument you made—if only the rest of the thread were as well-focused! I really do think ROF is having a jolly ol’ time getting everybody worked up, and that’s pretty counter-productive. Regarding what you wrote, I would add to the reasoning in Premise 6 (about the dependance of the pre-born) that it’s important to remember that not only is the pre-born fully dependent, but the post born is as well: a premature baby obviously needs all kinds of help to stay alive, but—and I’d love to get Ragsdale’s twisted take on this—a perfectly healthy one week old is TOTALLY helpless as well: put it in its crib for three or four days and do nothing, it’s dead. So, the reasoning about pre-born dependence—and this was one I used to make myself—is really quite shaky, I think.

This is from a 2006 UK Independent Interview with Peter Singer. 

“Would you kill a disabled baby? KAREN MEADE, Dublin

Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”

I abhor the man but at least he is honest enough to admit that the same criteria often used to justify abortion can certainly be used to justify infanticide.

Ring of Fire, post #62,
You said:
“I have known women who have used abortion like birth control, and it makes me sick.”
I agree.
Do you think that the use of “abortion like birth control” is either a sin or a “blessing”?

We all know it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature,but many don’t know how dangerous it is fooling with Father God.

I wonder whether Dean Ragsdale and the EDS faculty ever considered the suggestion in #1 and #11 for improving the CPE curriculum for seminarians.

After all, Tim Tebow has done circumcisions on mission trips.

Jeffersonian, loved your comment [96] about clean, hygienic rape centers. Excellent point! I’ll have to remember it to use the next time I’m presented with the old back-alley argument in a discussion.

I suppose Ragsdale would be right at home in China where women have to endure forced abortions simply because they have conceived more than one child.

Sadly, words do not seem to fail Miss Ragsdale.

Sadly, Miss Ragsdale either just doesn’t get the message or she deliberately ignores it, and her words show it.  Personally, I think the Devil writes her script…..Oh, I forgot:  She IS the Devil, isn’t she?