Watch the Law and Order episode Dignity online

I missed the pro-life Law and Order episode everyone has been talking about. Fortunately, Fr. Pavone sent out a link to Jill Stanek’s post about it, and in her post, she links to the online episode. I hope to be able to watch it soon. Just thought I’d share it with you now, both the video and her post about it. :)

Peace be with you. I’m diving back into my novel. I’m getting close to the 10,000 word mark and there’s a cup of hot coffee calling my name, then I’ll be off to my weekly pro-life prayer group, where we talk about many things besides abortion, though abortion is the main object of our prayers, as in, the end of abortion and the culture of death. Boggles my mind that so many people refuse to acknowledge our views as pro-life and insist on reducing them to anti-abortion. I am for life, not merely anti-murder, though, of course, being for life includes and presupposes anti-murder. But it includes much else besides. Much much else. Why is that so hard to understand?

Really, I don’t think it’s hard to understand at all. I don’t think it’s that they don’t understand, those who call us “anti-abortion” or “anti-choice”. I think it is a refusal to understand, to see, to acknowledge. I think it is a denial. A desperate and pathetic one, at that. Wake up, people. Get real, for heaven’s sake. For all of us.

Advertisements

About Disciple

I am a pro-life activist, blogger, writer, poet, singer songwriter, musician, photographer, nerd, bookworm and Mac fan. I have two dogs, one of whom is well-travelled. (I had three for a while after adopting a senior dog, but he has now passed away, and the pack is back to two girl dogs. One was born after, the days of mammoth road trips.) And the most important thing is: I was received into Holy Mother Church in 1996 and, through the grace of God, I love Christ and His Church more with every passing day. Thanks be to God!
This entry was posted in Pro-life and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Watch the Law and Order episode Dignity online

  1. Betty says:

    Denial yes, and …… In the case of Boyd, who admits he is killing
    http://www.lifenews.com/state4549.html

    Which reminds me of the tales of the Pagans of Old as they place the child on the altar already stained with the blood of so many sacrifices…… it is their Religion – offering the children to the god Molech.

    • Disciple says:

      Have you read about the women now who consider (now, get ready for this, it makes me sick to think about it) abortion to be…a sacrament?! Yes, you read that right, Betty: a sacrament!

      So your image is especially a propos. Which is awful. Craziness. Absolute craziness. What the heck is wrong with these people’s brains?!

      Google “abortion as a sacrament” and see what you find. The first thing that came up for me when I Googled it was a book called the Sacrament of Abortion.

      I can barely type those words. Excuse me, I have to go wash my hands now. UGH!

  2. jesurgislac says:

    Unfortunately for Catholics who like to think of themselves as “anti-abortion” rather than pro-death (70,000 women each year die because they were denied access to safe, legal abortion), the proven method of preventing abortions is to promote access to contraception.

    So I guess Catholics who want to oppose abortion have to decide for themselves: to prevent abortions effectively by promoting free access to and free use of contraception, whenever a woman does not want to get pregnant: or to be against the provision both of contraception and of safe legal abortion, to the consequent deaths of so many women – and without any effect on the abortion rate?

    It’s a question of whether it’s more important to be morally righteous about sex and abortion, or to actively try to prevent people having abortions, I guess. Which side do you come down on – the morally righteous side or the anti-abortion side?

    • Disciple says:

      I think that you are skewing the question. When you say “morally righteous side”, it sounds to me as if you are saying “morally self-righteous side” and to that you oppose the anti-abortion side with the usual arguments. Which of us is actuallly being self-righteous?

      You also mention the deaths of 70,000 women who die each year because they were denied access to safe legal abortion. Where does this figure come from? You cite no source. Is that worldwide or only in the U.S.? And no matter what your source is, you are completely ignoring the fact that each year over 1,000,000 human beings die in this country alone because of legal and yet often profoundly unsafe abortions that women did have access to. Which of these sets of deaths is the more acceptable to you? Which side do you come down on?

      I am pro-life. I want the mother and her baby to live. I want women to stop treating themselves as objects for men’s amusement and sexual pleasure. I want men to love women and treat them as human beings. I want babies and mothers and fathers to live, to have life and have it abundantly. That’s what I want.

      What is it that you want for your fellow human beings? The opposite of what I want? I want life. The opposite of life…is death.

      Btw, when” a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant”, she doesn’t have to have sex. And no man should force her to do so, but that is often what happens. Abortion doesn’t help women and it doesn’t help free women. Abortion only helps men enslave women. It’s time for women to stand up and be free and stop letting men coerce them into killing their children.

      And for that to happen, women and men need to have conversion of hearts and minds.

      Peace be with you, jesurgislac, and thank you for commenting.

  3. Jesurgislac says:

    . Which of us is actuallly being self-righteous?

    Well, that’s fair. Both of us, I guess. I’m being self-righteous about my support for the value of human life and basic human rights, you’re being self-righteous about your belief that women must be punished for having sex for pleasure by being denied the basic healthcare that a sexually-active women needs. (Your statement that “Btw, when” a woman doesn’t want to get pregnant”, she doesn’t have to have sex” disregards women who want to have sex without getting pregnant…)

    What is it that you want for your fellow human beings?

    Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness summarizes it nicely. Obviously, one could go into much more detail. But I absolutely do not want 70,000 women each year to die because they were not allowed access to safe, legal abortion.

    It always amazes me how people supposedly interested in preventing abortion, fail to inform themselves of basic and readily-available information about abortion. For a source on the 70,000 deaths from illegal abortion per year, one easily-googlable source is Medical News Today – ultimately, of course, this comes from the WHO report in 2004. As abortion incidence worldwide seems to be falling, thanks to the better-availability of contraception, the figure may have fallen overall.

    And no man should force her to do so, but that is often what happens. Abortion doesn’t help women and it doesn’t help free women. Abortion only helps men enslave women.

    Well, we can agree that rape is wrong. Good.

    But your belief that a woman who is pregnant against her will should be forced, against her will, through pregnancy and childbirth, in order to make her create a baby from the fertilised egg, just makes you equivalent to the rapists – you believe in enslaving and forcing women. That you know rape is wrong, but still stand with the rapist rather than with the victim of rape, just makes you a bit of a hypocrite.

    • Disciple says:

      Did you miss the statistic about the million + babies who are sacrificed yearly in this country alone through these abortions you defend so strenuously? Or do you just not give a damn?

      Your last paragraph is absurd. More absurd than the others, I should say. You apparently do not know what I believe and equally apparently are not willing to read what I have said, either in this post or in my replies or in any of my other posts or replies. When you decide to do so, we can have an actual discussion. As long as you prefer to talk and not listen, or write and not read, you are welcome to continue alone.

      • Jesurgislac says:

        Did you miss the statistic about the million + [fetuses] who are sacrificed yearly in this country alone through these abortions you defend so strenuously? Or do you just not give a damn?

        Sorry, I obviously wasn’t clear.

        I absolutely want the abortion rate lowered.

        The way to do that, as the Netherlands and other countries have proved, is to make contraception freely and easily available, promote contraceptive use whenever a woman and a man have intercourse and don’t intend to engender a child, and of course provide free pre-natal and post-natal healthcare, free healthcare for children, and a strong welfare net for single mothers and strong employment rights for parents.

        The Netherlands has all that: and an abortion rate one-seventh that of the US. My point was: people who actively want to prevent abortions, value human life, and care about human rights, need to pro-actively support provision of contraception. Plus healthcare.

        Your last paragraph is absurd.

        Okay, my apologies: if my last paragraph is absurd I must have misread your statement and you do in fact believe that any woman who has been raped has an absolute right to an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Good.

        • Disciple says:

          You are so wrong on so many levels, it boggles my mind. To suggest the Netherlands as a place that stands up for human rights would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad and downright scary. You are not speaking up for human rights. You are ignoring the rights of the most innocent and defenseless persons imaginable. You are merely saying that wanting sex badly enough justifies murder.

          I don’t see how you have the gall to pretend that you care for anyone’s rights at all. The stance you have presented here is selfish in the extreme.

          NO ONE SHOULD BE MURDERED BECAUSE OF SOMEONE ELSE’S CRIME!

          Perhaps you will not ignore that sentence. Perhaps you will think. Perhaps you will open your eyes and heart and mind. We are not animals, we are humans, we are persons. I believe that a woman and a man and a child are all persons and should be treated as such.

          Abortion is MURDER. And that is all there is to it. You condone murder, I do not. Your “rights” do not include murder. You do, however, have an obligation to the LIFE that may be created as a result of your actions. Sex is wonderful and is a gift from God, but it is not to be abused and children created by the loving act between a man and a woman are also gifts from God, also not to be abused. And certainly, not to be MURDERED for the “crime” of inconveniencing their selfish parents.

          Don’t want a child? Don’t have sex until you are prepared to accept the child who may be created as a result. If that’s too hard for you to accept, then I will pray for you. I will pray for you in any case, because I pray everyday for an end to the culture of death and for those who have been horribly deceived by it.

          For more on the Netherlands and their “human rights” and “bioethics” situation, I can refer you to Wesley J. Smith’s podcast, What It Means To Be Human and his blog Secondhand Smoke. For those who are blithely unaware of the true state of things, learning from him can be an eye-opening and mind-blowing experience. I’ll look up the actual links for you (or whoever may read this) and post them in a bit.

  4. jesurgislac says:

    Disciple: You are merely saying that wanting sex badly enough justifies murder.

    Huh? I am saying that the best way to prevent abortions is to provide free and freely-available contraception, and promote its use. The least-effective way of preventing abortions is to make them illegal.

    Your argument that people ought not to have heterosexual intercourse unless they intend to engender a baby can’t really be called an attempt to prevent abortions at all: it’s quite literally never in human recorded history been known to work.

    But I’m interested by your claim to believe that the (roughly) eight hundred thousand abortions performed each year in the US, every single woman who had an abortion deserved to be put on trial for premeditated murder.

    What penalty do you believe a woman should suffer if convicted of having an abortion? If it’s a death penalty state, do you believe a woman who has an abortion should be executed? Do you support the death penalty for premeditated murder?

    • Disciple says:

      I gotta admit, you have a marvelous knack for missing my point, misrepresenting it, and ignoring the fact that abortion is murder. Do you deny that killing a child is murder? Do you deny that abortion aborts, as in, kills a child?

      This is the whole point, the point that most people who take the pro-abortion stance seem to not want to talk about. If you are willing to kill a child so that you can continue to have sex with no responsibility for the child, then I have nothing to say to you, except that I wish you would think again.

      Contraception has not curbed the abortion mentality. If anything, the contraceptive mentality has increased the number of abortions. Sex when perceived as entertainment leads to more sex, not love-making, but sheer sex, which leads to more women getting pregnant who are anything but interested in having a child and raising a family. Contraception is often touted as a way to bring down the number of abortions. But it does not.

      Murder is not justified. Abortion is not justified. The ends do not justify the means.

      Murder is murder and that is all there is to it.

      Murder

      Is

      Murder.

  5. Jesurgislac says:

    Do you deny that killing a child is murder?

    Of course not. When have I ever argued otherwise?

    Do you deny that abortion aborts, as in, kills a child?

    Of course. No one thinks that abortion “kills a child”. A fetus is not a child.

    A fertilised egg is a potential human life, that may become a baby if a woman spends nine months labor – gives her uterus, blood, bodily resources, her strength, potentially her health and even her life – to make egg into baby.

    A pro-lifer is someone who feels entitled to force a woman, against her will, to provide the use of her body to make fertilised egg into baby – and justifies that by pretending they believe that a fetus is identical to a child, and using inflammatory language claiming they think “abortion is murder”.

    • Disciple says:

      You are so thoroughly deceived. Reading your comments is like reading the textbook arguments for abortion. Abortion is murder of a human being in the very beginning stages of his life. He is not a chicken who will become a human later. He is a human who will be a human later too, only he will be a human who has been allowed to develop further. But he is not something else at one point of his development and then a human later.

      Read what abortionists and scientists who are honest say. They admit that abortion kills human babies. They just don’t give a damn.

      Read The Abortioneers website. Read my post below and the article at Abortioneers. Then we can talk further.

      https://catholicview.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/abortionist-blogs-about-being-pregnant-and-aborting-other-peoples-babies/

  6. Betty says:

    I have never heard such absurd comments. This person [Jesurgislac ] has no clue, has NEVER studied Biology. This person has no clue about the Dignity of the Human Person, the body as the Temple of the Holy Spirit or heard of Father God’s Divine Plan. And…. has never bothered to find out the Truth! It is so very sad. I will pray for him/her!

    BTW I guess a fetus is a Golden Retriever? Dogfish Shark? Pine Tree? Uh — Shitake mushroom?

    !!!Human beings beget Human beings!!!

    • jesurgislac says:

      This person [Jesurgislac ] has no clue, has NEVER studied Biology.

      Just because I disagree with you on the ethics of forced pregnancy?

      We disagree on religion, yes – I am not a Catholic.

      I appreciate the kind intentions behind your offer to pray for me (at least, I trust you meant them kindly!) and I offer mutual goodwill in return: I hope you may accept someday that any ethical system which requires a 9-year-old girl, repeatedly raped by her stepfather, to die when her uterus bursts with the twin fetuses, is an evil system that dehumanizes women and honors rapists.

      BTW I guess a fetus is a Golden Retriever? Dogfish Shark? Pine Tree? Uh — Shitake mushroom?

      Don’t be absurd! A human fetus is the unique genetic possibility that may become a human baby, if a woman chooses to labor through pregnancy to make it so. The key word, though, is choice. Forcing a woman – or a girl – to use her body against her will is evil.

  7. Betty says:

    Your ignorance is still showing!
    —” that may become a human baby”—

    it IS a human baby at the moment of conception. That is what I meant when I said you have NEVER studied Biology!

  8. jesurgislac says:

    No, Betty. At the moment of conception, it’s a zygote: a single cell created when egg absorbs sperm. Not a baby.

    The zygote passes down the Fallopian tube in which it was conceived, into the uterus. This takes a few days. When the zygote’s cell division has created a multi-cellular blob with an outer wall and an inner group of cells, called a blastocyst. The outer wall is what will develop into the placenta: the inner group of cells is called an embryo. The blastocyst is still not a baby. Nor is the embryo. Nor is the placenta.

    The blastocyst takes about a week to reach the uterus and implant into the wall. At this point the embryo begins to develop – the cells begin to take on specific functions and over the next eight weeks or so the embryo will become recognizably a human fetus – and the outer wall of the blastocyst recognizably a human placenta. But even when the embryo has become a fetus – that fetus is still not a baby.

    There are significant biological differences even between a newborn baby and a 32-week fetus: a fetus lives and thrives in the uterus, in a liquid environment, without breathing, without eating, acquiring nourishment and oxygen via the placenta.

    No one who had studied human biology could ever seriously equate a fetus with a baby. Seriously, Betty: no one.

  9. Betty says:

    Well – My major in college was Biology, minor chemistry, went on into the medical field. Unless science has changed since I went to school, at the moment of union of ovum from HUMAN female [23 chromosomes] and sperm from HUMAN male [23 chromosomes] , the result is 46 chromosomes, and by definition, a LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING. Yes- living and breathing. The stages you mentioned are just that — stages in the growth and development of said HUMAN BEING. And the deliberate taking the life of said HUMAN BEING at any time during the stages of growth and development constitutes murder.

    My next question is – why are you so angry? Why are you so desperately trying to justify your pro-death stance? Why do you so desperately deny the existence of these precious pre-born babies?
    That is why you need prayers

    • jesurgislac says:

      Unless science has changed since I went to school, at the moment of union of ovum from HUMAN female [23 chromosomes] and sperm from HUMAN male [23 chromosomes] , the result is 46 chromosomes, and by definition, a LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING.

      Ah. Well, science has changed since you went to school – whenever that was. They have since discovered that the first breath a human being takes is the one after they’re born – and only then, obviously, if they’re born late enough in fetal development that their lungs work. What college did you go to that taught you that a single-celled zygote in the Fallopian tube is breathing?

      That you can define all stages of development, from zygote to adult, as “human being” is true. You can. But you can’t call a zygote a baby any more than you can call a 9-year-old girl a baby. They’re different stages of development. And arguing that it’s murder to perform an abortion on a 9-year-old girl – that is ugly. One in three women in the US are, in your view, murderers. You think – presumably – that they should be prosecuted and convicted under Murder One. Doctor George Tiller was murdered in church by someone who shared your views, and all he’d ever done for thirty years was save the lives of women who were pregnant with fetuses too damaged to live, where pregnancy was destroying their health. And yet you have the arrogance to condemn people who save lives – their own, their future children, the children of others – as murderers.

      My next question is – why are you so angry? Why are you so desperately trying to justify your pro-death stance?

      I’m angry because you think saving the life and future fertility of a 9-year-old girl is a “pro-death” stance.

      I’m angry because 70,000 women die each year because they’re denied access to safe, legal abortion. I’m angry because pro-lifers, while advocating these women should die for the sake of their religious beliefs, and indifferent to the deaths of 150,000 women each year in childbirth, claim that their name for themselves “pro-life” is accurate.

      I’m angry because I care passionately about the value of human life, and human rights and dignity, and slavery and dehumanization make me angry.

      That you think my anger in defense of human life and human rights, against slavery, against dehumanization, is something you need to pray about, makes me… kind of sad, at best. I’m trying not to be too angry with you because, despite your advocating for the death of a 9-year-old girl, and your arrogance in calling the doctors who saved her life and her future fertility, murderers – you obviously are doing so out of a supreme and unenlightened ignorance, since you managed to major in biology without discovering that zygotes don’t breathe.

    • jesurgislac says:

      My next question is – why are you so angry?

      You know, one of the discussion threads on today’s Pandagon is about the chronic lies told by the pro-life movement.

      Either you do not have a major in Biology and do not work in a medical field – ie, you’re lying in this comment about your educational/work background: or you are persistently lying about what you know to be true – the process of fetal development.

      Just as Disciple lied about what was in my blog post. to me – as if I wouldn’t notice.

      It’s not just the dishonesty. It’s the chronic and boldfaced dishonesty of people who are genuinely accustomed to telling lies so often, so regularly, that they cannot understand a person who tries to be honest, even arguing on a blogthread.

  10. Betty says:

    OMG there is no logic to your rantings.
    beyond ignorance! The said zygote absolutely must have nutrition and oxygen to survive! Otherwise it would not be alive! It would not grow and develop. Just as the chicken embryo absorbs what it needs from its surroundings as it grows and develops.

    And to use one bizarre and horrible incident to excuse the murder of 50,000,000 babies is beyond my comprehension!
    This is a waste of my valuable time!

    Actually I thought I was having a conversation with a rational person.

  11. jesurgislac says:

    The said zygote absolutely must have nutrition and oxygen to survive!

    Actually, a zygote – until it attaches itself to the uterus wall – is dependent on the nutrition provided by the egg. It doesn’t receive nutrition or oxygen from any outside source: it is absolutely not breathing. (No fetus takes a breath, ever: the biological changeover from fetus to baby is, in fact, the first breath.)

    A blastocyst, attached to the uterus wall, receives oxygen and nutrition via the woman’s bloodstream. Neither blastocyst, embryo, or fetus actually breathes or eats on its own: it is nourished by what the pregnant woman eats, dependent on the pregnant woman’s breath for oxygen.

    I am surprised you didn’t learn all this in college.

    The murder of George Tiller, and the other eight people who have been murdered by pro-lifers, was justified and excused by calling abortion “murder”. When you claim that a woman who has an abortion, and the doctor who perfoms the abortion, are both murderers, you are justifying the murder of the doctor and of the woman. The pro-life rhetoric which claims abortion is murder leads directly to the murder of Dr. David Gunn; of Dr. John Britton and James Barrett; of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols; of Robert Sanderson; of Dr. Barnett Slepian; and of Dr. George Tiller. All murders committed by pro-lifers because of the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that claims that 1 in 3 American women are murderers.

    These are indeed bizarre and horrible incidents, and they are justified in the minds of pro-lifers who commit and who celebrate these murders because they think when you claim that “50,000,000 babies” have been murdered, you are speaking the truth.

  12. Betty says:

    Oh – this is soooo funny! It does not breathe, so it is not alive therefor it cannot grow or develop. So for 9 months the woman carries a piece of tissue in her womb and then when it hits the air it miraculous turns into a baby. hohoho – I have not laughed so hard in a long time. I wonder why the piece of tissue does not rot or turn gangrenous in the womb without oxygen.

    • jesurgislac says:

      It does not breathe, so it is not alive therefor it cannot grow or develop.

      Really? Which college did you go to that taught you that?

      hohoho – I have not laughed so hard in a long time.

      Possibly you were laughing so hard when you were in your college biology classes that you forgot to take notes? :-D I mean: if you’d paid attention in college, you’d realize I’m describing the process of development accurately and completely: and if all attempts to enlighten your ignorance have always met with a refusal to listen and shouts of laughter that it can’t possibly be that way I don’t think you can ever have been properly educated.

  13. Betty says:

    Merriam-Webster – breathe: to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes
    life – : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
    Animals breathe – take in oxygen and give off carbon dioxide.
    Plants breathe – take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen.
    If an organism does not breathe it is dead.
    A zygote takes up nutrition and oxygen [breathes] as it grows and developes.
    If it has 46 chromosomes, it is human.
    Therefore, a living breathing Human Being by definition.
    Biology 101
    Sorry you are in denial. You do not want to recognize the existence of the pre-born baby in the womb. The Bible does, but maybe you do not believe in that either.

    ”With Child” is the proper term.

    ”going to have a baby” is a modern term used to brainwash society into believing that there is no baby until it ‘hits the air’ and turns into a living breathing human being.

    • jesurgislac says:

      You omitted the full definition, Betty: “1 a :to draw air into and expel it from the lungs : RESPIRE; broadly : to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes b : to inhale and exhale freely”.

      What you were trying to call “breathing” is more scientifically called “gas exchange”, as the lungs are not involved: once the blastocyst attaches to the uterus wall and begins to differentiate into placenta and fetus, you could, unscientifically, claim that the fetus is “breathing” through the placenta, but it’s more accurate to say that the placenta allows the diffusion of food substances from the pregnant woman to the fetus, the diffusion of waste substances from the fetus to the pregnant woman, and gas exchange from the woman’s oxygenated blood to the fetus. The woman eats, excretes, and breathes for two while she is pregnant: the fetus functions, biologically speaking, as a parasite.

      ”going to have a baby” is a modern term used to brainwash society into believing that there is no baby until it ‘hits the air’ and turns into a living breathing human being.

      Actually, the term “going to have a baby” dates back to the 19th century at least, in English language use: it’s referenced in the 1961 book The Origins and Development of the English Language as a charmingly old-fashioned way of saying that a woman is pregnant.

      You do not want to recognize the existence of the [fetus] in the womb.

      Of course I recognize the existence of the fetus in the uterus, Betty! Furthermore (unlike you, despite your claims to a scientific education and medical training) it appears that I am much better acquainted than you are with the details of how a human being develops from zygote to fetus to baby… ;-)

      • Disciple says:

        Once again your science is behind the times, Jesurgislac. Here is what science knows. According to the National Geographic DVD, Biology of Prenatal Development, quoted below from the documentation and script on the EHD website.

        From Chapter 34 “Breathing” Motion and Urination:

        Although there is no air in the uterus, the embryo displays intermittent breathing motions by 8 weeks.[100]

        Perhaps it has been a while since you have studied science, as you told Betty earlier. Perhaps you are trying very hard to believe what you have said. I believe you are sincere. But I also think you are misinformed. It is possible for you to become informed. But you will have to make an effort. And consider your sources. GIGO, you know.

        • jesurgislac says:

          Disciple, a check at your link confirmed that the DVD produced by the “Endowment for Human Development” (EHD) is not a National Geographic DVD – it’s distributed by National Geographic.

          EHD, as a swift google found, is a website funded primarily to produce handsome images of huma fetal development in the uterus, and – to the point for pro-lifers – to make false claims about how an embryo “breathes”. As they say: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

          The fact that you tried to lie to me about what I’d actually written handily demonstrated that you will lie about anything, even something that you know the person you are speaking to knows to be false. The fact that this EHD website makes false claims that an embryo without lungs can “breathe” handily demonstrates that it’s not a scientific or medical website: it’s a pro-lifer resource website.

          Perhaps you have never studied science, as I suspect Betty never did. But I suspect you are not even trying very hard to believe what you have said. I do not believe you are even sincere in your ignorance, because of the lie you tried to tell me earlier. Of course the pro-life industry makes big bucks from selling blatant misinformation to people who want to believe, and who don’t want to think about the sources of their information. And it’s not possible for someone like Betty to become informed, however sincere her ignorance, because her reaction to being told the facts is to mock and laugh – she doesn’t want to know the truth.

          You, on the other hand: you lie.

          • Disciple says:

            Well, EHD consider themselves to be neutral on controversial bioethical issues, interested only in educating people. Here’s what they say about this on their website.

            EHD’s Policy of Bioethical Neutrality

            Children’s blocks spelling out Science EHD’s board of directors has established a Policy of Bioethical Neutrality, which prohibits our organization from taking public policy positions on controversial bioethical issues.

            Consistent with this policy, we neither affiliate with nor discriminate against organizations that primarily focus on these controversial issues.

            We strongly believe that helping everyone appreciate early human development and understand the forces shaping lifelong health before, during, and after pregnancy are essential steps in the fight to prevent birth defects and disease, promote health and academic achievement, and save lives. Achieving these worthwhile goals should transcend all controversy.

            So, no, EHD is not a pr0-life group. Nope. If you don’t like what they have on their DVD or their website, fine. But that doesn’t make them pro-life. And it doesn’t make them your enemy.

            I didn’t realize that the DVD was only distributed by NatGeo. But I thank you for pointing that out. It made me go back and check and now I’ve discovered that I could have bought the DVD there at EHD instead of NatGeo and I could have saved some money. It’s only $19.95 at EHD. I don’t know about shipping costs yet. But if it’s reasonable, I’m going to buy some of these for Christmas presents this year.

            So thank you, J, for pointing that out.

  14. jesurgislac says:

    Disciple, I find it interesting that although you can neither tell the truth yourself, nor report accurately on facts, you are quite prepared to benefit from someone who can.

    • Disciple says:

      I’m glad you find that interesting. I’m glad that you are finding what you need here at this Catholic right-wing blog (or so some have described it recently). Feel free to also occasionally actually read my posts and the posts I link to, more than what somebody else may say about them, even Google. Headlines and excerpts are not always enough to go on.

      Yes, I am prepared to benefit from truth when you speak it. Truth is truth.

      And abortion is still murder.

  15. jesurgislac says:

    I’m glad that you are finding what you need here at this Catholic right-wing blog

    What I need? I’m sorry, you’re confused. I don’t need to be reminded that pro-lifers can at best be said to be deluded and ignorant, but are for the most part callous, uncaring of human life or human rights, and chronic liars. But yes: that is what I’ve found at this blog. I don’t thank you for it because I could very much wish it wasn’t true, and that right-wing Catholics were capable of letting their religion inform their politics, rather than the other way about.

    Feel free to also occasionally actually read my posts

    Thanks for the invitation, but I think reading two of your posts was enough: the only one of mine you read you lied about. Remember? It was how you outed yourself as a chronic liar.

    Yes, I am prepared to benefit from truth when you speak it. Truth is truth.

    Okay. Do feel free to read my discussion with Betty and profit from the truth: and someday you may be prepared to benefit from the truth that women are human beings, not slaves, incubators, or breeding animals: and that, in religious language, to treat a human being like an animal or a machine, is a sin.

      • Betty says:

        Yes, The irony!

        • jesurgislac says:

          I always think how ironic it is that a movement dedicated to death and destruction should have named itself “pro-life”.

          But you may not know what the word means, since you seem to be using it wrong… irony.

          • Disciple says:

            Well, Jesurgislac (it pains me to see the name of my Lord in your handle, J), it’s been a whole lot of fun being attacked by you on my blog at every turn, but I’m afraid you’re going to have to find a new hobby. I’d like to say that I’m going to miss your sharp tongue and barbarous barbs.

            But I won’t.

            I will, however, continue to pray the Rosary and Divine Mercy for you. Peace be with you, J. Someday. Soon, I hope.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s