Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Scientology and Forced Abortions
A while back, I posted about a YouTube video making fun of an album of crappy Scientology "music". I have read some of the anti-Scientology sites off and on for a few years. However, for the past couple of months or so, I have been paying more attention to some of the information coming out about this cult. A lot of people laugh off Scientology as just some goofy cult for Hollywood people. However, there are some far more serious aspects to this cult. People have died, gone insane and/or committed suicide because of Scientology.
Scientology promises people that they will be able to use their "technology" to get rid of "body thetans" (for details on that, check out the whole Xenu story) and become superhuman beings who never get sick and are never unhappy. However, to go through the various courses and auditing to reach these levels of enlightenment, it costs at least $300,000.
Many ordinary people who get involved with the cult don't have that kind of money. So, many join up with Scientology's Sea Organization or "Sea Org". The Sea Org is a pseudo-military outfit whose members are basically the worker bees in the Scientology organization. They are paid little and have very few days off. They sign a one billion year contract where they promise to come back to the Sea Org in future lives to serve. They are also assured that they are doing something to "save the planet" from psychiatry and false belief systems (of which they consider Christianity one). They are completely and utterly dedicated to serving Scientology.
Sea Org members are allowed to get married, and many do just so they can have more privacy, as married couples get their own quarters and don't have to share with a bunch of other people. However, if a woman in the Sea Org gets pregnant, she is given two options: abort the baby or leave. Now, keep in mind that this is a cult that this woman's whole existence is dependent on. These people are kept cut off and isolated from the rest of the "wog" world. ("Wog" being the term used by Scientology to refer to the people and world outside Scientology.) Given that, what choice do you think the woman usually makes? It is a sad fact that most of these women feel they have no choice but to abort. The cult pressures them to abort and makes sure they are cut off from their non-cult family members (if they have any) so that they have nowhere else to go. Since the Sea Org doesn't really offer these people health care of any sort (if they get sick, they are sent to free clinics), the Sea Org women usually end up at a Planned Parenthood to get their abortions.
Dawn Olsen at the blog GlossLip tells the story of one young woman named Astra Woodcraft who left the cult and chose life for her child. Her father, Lawrence Woodcraft, had previously left the cult, so she had a support system to fall back on.
One thing that I, being pro-life, disagree with in Dawn's post is her beliefs about why the "religious right" have not addressed the issue of Scientology forcing women to have abortions. I think religious conservatives and the pro-life movement haven't said much about this simply because they don't know that this is going on. I didn't know about this until quite recently, myself. I bet that most people, while they have heard of Scientology, have never even heard of the Sea Org.
This post is my way of speaking out against this horrible practice (one of very many) by a dangerous cult. I encourage pro-lifers and Christians to get informed about the abuses of Scientology. Despite their propaganda that claims that you can be both a Christian and a Scientologist, that simply isn't true. L. Ron Hubbard was contemptuous of Christianity and had previously been involved in Satanic practices. In fact, the "crossed out Cross" that Scientology uses has also been used by the Church of Satan.
Here are a list of links to help you get informed:
- What Christians Need to Know about Scientology -- A great resource that explains the Satanic roots of Scientology and why it is completely incompatible with Christianity.
- Operation Clambake -- One of the major websites exposing Scientology.
- Lermanet.com: Exposing the Con -- Another major website by an ex-member exposing Scientology.
- Ex-Scientology Kids -- A fantastic new site by some people who grew up in this cult, including Astra Woodcraft.
- Scientology Associated Deaths -- Many, many sad stories here.
- The Jason Beghe Interview on Xenu TV -- Actor Jason Beghe was one of the most devout celebrity Scientologists. He has recently come out and very publicly denounced the cult. Watching this interview is very worthwhile but I must warn you it's not work safe because he uses lots of salty language. He's pretty angry at the whole experience. Also, he uses a lot of terminology peculiar to Scientology, so if you are confused, look it up on some of the above websites.
- Scientology Disconnection -- A website about Scientology's disconnection policy, which is used to break up families and relationships.
Let me add one more important thing. This is an area that crisis pregnancy centers in places where there are a lot of Sea Org members (like the Los Angeles area and Clearwater, Florida) should concentrate on. I would encourage them to make a special attempt to reach out to these women. They are frightened, brainwashed and have no one to turn to.
Update: I have added some links about Scientology's disconnection policy, which is used to isolate cult members from non-cult family and friends. Also, I neglected to recommend that you watch the video accompanying the GlossLip post. It was apparently done several years ago, and Astra talks about life in the Sea Org and her decision to have her baby and leave the Sea Org. I have not had a chance to watch the whole thing yet, since it's over 48 minutes long. I've watched about 30 minutes of it and will watch the rest tonight. The interview really brings home the agony and torment that this cult puts its rank-and-file members through.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:50 AM
| Comments (4)
Friday, May 4, 2007
While reading this disgusting story and the mostly retarded, immoral, amoral reader comments that followed it, "Roxanne" by the Police came up on my iPod.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:30 AM
| Comments (1)
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Some Good News for a Change
Today, the Supreme Court banned partial birth abortions. Good.
Of course, radical feminists are fuming. Also good.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:35 PM
Monday, May 15, 2006
Roe Attorney on Tossing People from the Lifeboat*
Via Relapsed Catholic and Hillbilly White Trash comes this: The American Thinker - What some pro-choicers really think. Ron Weddington -- who with his then-wife Sarah Weddington was co-counsel on the Roe v. Wade case -- wrote a very provocative letter to President-elect Bill Clinton. While doing a Technorati search on this topic, I noticed some leftists accusing those who posted on this of "cherry-picking" various passages of the letter. Well, the entire letter is reproduced in this PDF file (on pages 61-64), so yes, it is every bit as bad as the passages make it sound.
Here are some excerpts with my admittedly sarcastic commentary bolded and in brackets:
The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can’t afford to have babies.
There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged differently as discriminatory, mean-spirited and...well...so Republican. [Because, of course we all know Republicans hate the poor -- unlike us.]
You made a good start when you appointed Dr. Elders, but she will need a lot of help. You will have to enlist the aid of sports and entertainment stars to counteract the propaganda spread by church officials seeking parishioners, [Yes, people should listen to movie stars, pop stars and sports stars instead of their pastors. Celebrities are so much wiser, after all.] generals seeking cannon fodder and businessmen seeking cheap labor that, throughout the ages, has convinced the poor that children are necessary to fulfillment as a person. [I never knew that people had babies because generals and businessmen told them to -- you learn something new every day!]
[G]overnment is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions. . . . There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery. . . and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don’t have a lot of time left. [More babies are being born every second! We must stop the scourge!]
We don’t need more cannon fodder. [Get rid of those damned military people! They usually vote Republican anyway.] We don’t need more parishioners. [Same goes for those damned godbags.] We don’t need more cheap labor. [We have illegal aliens for that.] We don’t need more poor babies.
Margaret Sanger's philosophy lives on.
*I couldn't help but think of the Steve Taylor song, "Lifeboat".
Posted by Susan B. at 11:57 AM
| Comments (2)
Friday, March 10, 2006
Bringing Back Modesty
While I'm still on blogging sabbatical, I would like to introduce you to a new (at least to me) website and blog whose mission I fully support.
I found it via a post at Dawn Eden's blog a couple of weeks ago. Dawn highlighted the t-shirts in their online store. These shirts really upset some feminist bloggers. For some reason, they find the whole idea of modesty really offensive. Why, I don't know. Either they are too dim to understand that modesty is not "repressive" and doesn't mean women should be ashamed of their bodies. (Actually, it means that women respect their bodies as being something special and precious.) Or else they think the whole "Girls Gone Wild" thing, where stupid, drunk girls get naked so that they can become masturbation fodder for men, is somehow liberating and "sex-positive". Whatever the reason, these innocuous t-shirts got feminist knees a-jerking.
Anyway, the site in question is Modesty Zone and they have a blog: Modestly Yours. Wendy Shalit, who wrote A Return to Modesty, founded the site. (I have this book, but it is one of many I never have time to read. Perhaps I can get an audiobook version of it on iTunes.) The site includes many fine bloggers, such as Ambra Nykol. As far as I'm concerned, these are the real feminists, not the smirking, nasty, foul-mouthed, abortion-is-all-that-matters, anti-modesty, pro-promiscuity, anti-Christian, Islamist-coddling, anti-defense crowd who call themselves feminists these days. Modestly Yours is quite a refreshing oasis in the desert of crap that blogdom is becoming these days. Do check them out.
Posted by Susan B. at 1:45 PM
| Comments (4)
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Capital Punishment in the News
Yes, I'm giving this sleepy blog a can of Jolt Cola to wake it up. Anyway, a bunch of Hollywood types and other assorted do-gooders are all upset because California is about to execute some murderous thug. (Whether this execution actually happens remains to be seen. California's death penalty, from what I've seen, is never actually used.) This sensitive, misunderstood soul is someone who was a gang leader and who mocked one of his victims as he died.
What's my opinion on the death penalty? I left a comment explaining it on this post on Mark Shea's blog. I'll just copy and paste it, while correcting typos and adding a relevant link:
Well, I think Prager is right. The death penalty is insurance. It insures that a bloodthirsty killer who either gets a thrill from killing or who will kill whoever he needs to kill to get his way will never take another innocent life. And to me, that is more "pro-life" than putting innocent people at risk so one can feel all morally superior.
Take the Norman Mailer example from the column. To Mailer, the young victim's life was worth nothing compared to whatever writing talent the murderer had. This is a disgusting, anti-life worldview.
I don't think every murderer should be executed. It depends on the situation. But many should be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world. And they make living in the real world a lot more dangerous.
And I mean that for most, if not all, death penalty opponents, whether they be starry-eyed, naive crypto-pacifists, Hollywood elitists or religious leaders. The Hollywood people don't have to live in the world created by people like Tookie Williams. They can hide in their mansions behind state-of-the-art security systems and armed bodyguards. And they don't give two craps about the victims -- they can't make themselves look wonderful, compassionate and open-minded by standing up for the rights of the victims. It just doesn't have that radical chic. But Mumia and Tookie...very chic!
The religious leaders are just as sheltered, if more sincere and less venal. And the starry-eyed, naive people...well, they just like to stick their heads in the sand. They are the same people who think terrorism is caused by the U.S. not giving out enough foreign aid.
So, yes, I'm for the death penalty. I'll leave the comments open on this one, but let me warn those who disagree with me: I am in no mood to "debate" this issue. I won't do it. And if anyone tries the old "How can you be against abortion and support capital punishment?" fallacy, I will dismiss you as an idiot. I made my position very clear above, and if you have trouble understanding it, then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:50 PM
| Comments (5)
Monday, October 17, 2005
Tuesday, October 4, 2005
Go ahead, call me a prude...
...I don't care. In fact, I'm proud to be a prude. Because articles like this make me sad. Apparently feminism fought for the right for women to be as skanky as they wanna be. And before I get accused of having a double standard, let me make something clear. I think that better behavior should be demanded from men, rather than worse behavior expected from women. Men should be castigated for being promiscuous as much as women should be, rather than being praised for being "studs".
I recently read a review for a book called Female Chauvinist Pigs, which, in light of the above article, sounds like something that's timely and right on target.
I refuse to rehash why I think the so-called "sexual revolution" has been a bad deal for women. If you want to read more on what I think of this subject, go here, here, here, here and here. Then when you are through reading those, read this.
Incidentally, I really look forward to Dawn Eden's book, which she mentions here. She is putting her blog on hiatus so that she can work on it. It sounds like the message in her book is one that desperately needs to be heard.
BTW, if you disagree with this post, please read all of the above links before commenting. Otherwise, I will not take your comment seriously and I will ignore you. In other words, don't be a butthead. (Yes, I'm in one of those moods.)
Posted by Susan B. at 11:55 AM
| Comments (7)
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Ewww...I actually went to InstaPundit...
And naturally I run right into a post that embodies everything I hate about the libertine libertoids. I read through some of the comments, but I had to stop, lest I lose every meal I've eaten over the past week or so. There are so many things wrong with the worldview of these people...I don't even know where to start.
No...come to think of it, actually I do know where to start. Andrea Harris quite effectively pours ice-cold water on overheated fantasies of consequence-free hedonism right here:
Now when I observe the tone of the culture that is presented to me from every media orifice, I can only wonder what its effect is on the more sensitive minds of teenagers, especially female teenagers. They are simultaneously told that their bodies are their own yet relentlessly mocked if they haven’t allowed another human to invade their most intimate spaces by the time they graduate high school. Women, the current crop of feminist high panjandrums say, were oppressed in the Bad Old Days because they were forced to be the sexual slaves of just one man. Now they get to be the sexual slaves of any man. I call this attitude “imagine a crotch being shoved into the human face, forever.” Perhaps the only way these girls feel they can escape the relentless press of the flesh is by shrinking themselves down to nothing.
I'm not going to open up comments on this entry because I'm in no mood to deal with trolls and other buttheads right now. My apologies to all my good commenters (and you know who you are).
Posted by Susan B. at 2:50 PM
Tuesday, May 3, 2005
Two Babies, Two Nations, Same Issue
There are two different baby girls who are being let down by healthcare providers.
One baby girl is in the UK. Her name is Charlotte Wyatt. She has a website -- SaveCharlotte.com -- where you can read about her situation. BlogsforTerri also has updates about this case and a link to raise money for Baby Charlotte's care.
BlogsforTerri also tells us about another baby in Texas named Knya Dismuke. Like Baby Charlotte, she may also have medical care discontinued because it she is considered too sick and her care is considered too expensive.
Both babies need our help and prayers...they deserve a chance.
Now, a little aside relating to the second story...This morning, a troll got all sanctimonious in my previous post (a post completely unrelated to this subject) and blamed President Bush and the Republicans for this baby's plight. While I appreciate the troll for bringing the story to my attention (I am behind in my blog reading and had not seen the story on BlogsforTerri yet), I don't appreciate him/her using this baby as a political football. I am going to remove the troll's comment because it doesn't belong in that thread. If he/she wants to come back and discuss this case rationally -- without mindless bashing of the President and Republicans or repeating canards like "[Terri's] brain was, uh, liquid" -- then he/she is welcome to do so in this thread.
Update: I'm very sad to report that Baby Knya has died. Apparently, she died because her body gave out, not because of withheld treatment. Thank you to reader Barb M. for letting me know about this. (Link to article via Straight Up with Sherri.)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:10 PM
| Comments (2)
Monday, April 11, 2005
Traction on the Slippery Slope
An elderly woman named Mae Magouirk almost met the same fate as Terri Schiavo. She was not vegetative and she was not in a coma. She had stated in a living will that she didn't want nutrition and hydration withheld unless she was in a coma or PVS. But yet they were withheld. However, BlogsforTerri and many others raised awareness about her case and she is now receiving nutrition and hydration again. As it turns out, a family member with questionable motives was responsible for making the decision to withhold nutrition and hydration.
If more people like Mrs. Magouirk can be spared being disposed of because they are weak and disabled, then Terri hasn't died in vain. Perhaps we now have some traction on the slippery slope towards euthanizing those who are disabled and unable to speak for themselves.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:52 AM
| Comments (3)
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
Get a Living Will? Not so fast...
A lot of people are saying that the lesson to learn from the whole Terri Schiavo situation is "get a Living Will". I know that when I was going through the process to prepare for my gallbladder surgery, I was asked if I had one. When I said I didn't, they handed me a packet with a living will* form.
However, BlogsforTerri and Times Against Humanity warn against living wills and explain why they are not a good idea. Instead, they encourage people to use an alternative, such as a Will to Live.
*The night before the surgery, I filled out the form (although it wasn't notarized or anything, so it probably wasn't legal). I crossed out the part about withholding nutrition and hydration and I wrote the following in the comments: "I do not want to be starved or dehydrated to death. If there is any hope for me at all, please give me a chance!"
Saturday, April 2, 2005
The Humanity of the Weak
"But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong..." -- 1 Corinthians 1:27
I don't think it's a coincidence that Pope John Paul II died just two days after Terri Schiavo died. I think God is trying to tell us something.
One of the most appalling things about the debate about Terri's fate was how the other side tried to strip her of her humanity. Here are the various terms that I've heard people use to describe her: vegetable, carrot, house plant, slab of meat, blob, vegtard, shell, non-person. There are more, I'm sure. These were shameful, hateful ways to describe Terri. Because, whatever amount of brain damage Terri had, she was still a human being, made in God's image. Even if she were brain dead, she would still be a human being. Nobody has the right to strip anyone of their humanity because of what they can and cannot do, or how they look. You can't proclaim that someone isn't human anymore because of any physical or mental frailty or disability. They are a human being, made in God's image, and nothing you say or do is going to change that.
We need to quit acting like the weaker among us are less worthy or are an embarrassment. I know that while the Pope was aging and in failing health, some felt he should step down -- that the Catholic Church needed someone stronger and more vital to be its leader. Again, this shows how we think that those who are weak have nothing of value to offer. The world favors the strong over the weak, and I suppose this is only natural. But God has a different way of looking at things. Perhaps God was showing us something by the Pope persevering despite his failing health.
This post from Idle Mendacity (found via The Blog from the Core, via a trackback on JYB) expresses what I'm trying to say here much better than I can:
That's when it hit me. The media want Terri to die and the Pope to disappear into some monastery some place because they just don't want to look at them. Terri is sick, her body is helpless, she is an infant in an adult body. The pope is old, his body is crooked, he is a shell with only the unseen brain still in working order. They are both unnatural and unseemly by modern standards. They are both ugly, grotesque, much like that of The Elephant Man, Joseph Merick, a beautiful soul in a misshapen body. So too are the Pope and Terri. Beautiful souls but awful to look at. So people would rather not. They'd rather not be reminded of age and sickness - that's why nursing homes are filled with otherwise healthy senior citizens. They'd rather not go near people so near death and infirmity - that's why literally thousands of citizens of so-called "civilized" France died of neglect during a heat wave. People just didn't care. They didn't want to care. Terri and the Pope and those like them are the Other. They are the not-us. They are the freaks of the modern world. [...]
My answer to that of course people - "normal" people - would not want to die that way. You wouldn't even starve a dog or cat to death. But then, dogs and cats are "normal" in their way as well. There are millions of them - all alike. It is only when one becomes "damaged", like Terri is damaged, that we put them down. But we do not starve them. Because they are not "freaks", they are not something contrary to nature, contrary to the way everyone else looks, contrary to how "humans" are supposed to be. They are a "life", unlike Terri and unlike the Pope is becoming. And who determines what "life" is? The mob, of course and the mob will think whatever the media wants them to think - and the politicians will think whatever the mob thinks. The media of course can't stand "freaks" like Terri or the Pope - people who have outlived their usefulness, ugly people, different people, broken people. The only acceptable people are people like themselves - this is one of the cornerstones of eugenics and this is partly what we're seeing now in the world today.
Yes, I think God is not only trying to tell us something...He is trying to warn us about something.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Don't Throw Rocks at Rock
NRO's Dorinda Bordlee says comedian Chris Rock's recent remarks about abortion being "beautiful" demostrate the power of political satire to reveal an uncomfortable truth:
So here we are, five years into the new millennium, and a comedian has the nerve to say out loud what men across America know full well: that legalized abortion is great for their sex lives; that abortion on demand makes women into sex objects with the full consent of the highest court in the land; and that if their sexual use of a woman results in the unfortunate side effect of a pregnancy, then $300 and their "kindhearted" support of the woman's "right to choose" will take care of the problem.
(Via Relapsed Catholic.)
Posted by Susan B. at 10:25 PM
| Comments (1)
Monday, January 24, 2005
Photoblogging the March for Life
Bunnie Diehl has lots of photos from today's March for Life in Washington DC. Just start here and go forward. Or start at the top and scroll down.
Incidentally, in this post (linked by Dawn Eden), pro-abortion feminists tell pro-life Democrats to get lost.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:40 PM
Sunday, November 14, 2004
On the Morality of Contraception
A few days ago, Dawn Eden announced that she has come to the conclusion that all contraception is wrong. In a later post, she elaborated on why she has come to this conclusion.
I've pondered this subject on this blog a couple of times. While I'm still on the fence on this issue, I think Dawn's post has pushed me a little farther to the anti-contraception side.
It seems to me that more and more Protestants are returning to the belief that contraception is wrong. I say returning because opposition to birth control didn't used to be just a "Catholic thing". From what I understand, all Protestant churches were opposed to contraception until the latter half of the 20th century.
Why did the Protestant churches abandon their opposition? I really don't know, unless it was to adapt to changing mores (instead of standing fast against them).
I think a lot of what is motivating the growing anti-contraception beliefs among Protestants is the fact that many birth control methods (like the Pill) can act as an abortifacient. But the reasons Dawn gives for believing contraception is wrong are more far-reaching than that. So are Catholic teachings (as I understand them, not being Catholic) on this subject.
Maybe someday I'll get off the fence when it comes to the morality of contraception. I guess, for me, the barrier is this: I have a hard time criticizing loving, married couples because they use non-abortifacient birth control.
I'm sure this post reflects every bit of the ambivalence I have when it comes to this subject.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Whitewashing Margaret Sanger
A couple of days ago, a concerned reader emailed me about Dover Publications publishing the autobiography of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. (Dover Publications specializes in nostalgia publishing -- they are the ones who published the books of Charles Dana Gibson illustrations I use in some of my site skins.) This reader, like many of us, is aware of Margaret Sanger's belief in eugenics and is alarmed that Dover Publications would glorify Sanger and make it look like she was just a courageous, compassionate woman who wanted to help the poor.
I share this reader's concerns and would like to do my part in making sure people know the whole truth about Sanger. Here are a couple of articles (in addition to the one linked above) that will shed some light:
If you want to see Sanger's legacy in action, be sure to check out the posts about Planned Parenthood on Dawn Eden's blog. Dawn regularly does the "dumpster dive" into Planned Parenthood's websites (particularly those aimed at teens and children) so you don't have to.
Just as I was wrapping up this post, I noticed that Dawn linked to this post by Charles G. Hill on this same subject.
Posted by Susan B. at 6:43 PM
Monday, October 25, 2004
Correcting Stem Cell Research Misconceptions
There are a lot of misconceptions about stem cells research, the effectiveness of certain kinds of stem cells and what is being federally funded and what isn't. Both Dawn Eden and Roy Jacobsen have great posts that clear up those misconceptions.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:17 PM
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
Kill the Rabbit!
Dean Esmay has this provocative post* defending pr0n. I will use this as an opportunity to once again link to this classic article on the subject. Here's just a sample:
The Playboy philosophy, which requires women to be thin, infertile, and always available, essentially requires childlessness. And you can bet your birth control packet that abortion is the natural bedfellow of the successful playboy.
The Playboy Foundation, the (ahem) philanthropic wing of Playboy Enterprises, provides grants and donations to a wide range of projects, most involving reproductive rights and freedom of speech—industry code for promoting sexual license as a natural right, and abortion as a failsafe guarantee. Hence the heavy support of the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and similarly single-minded organizations.
Of course, Hugh Hefner is on the side of women's liberation—as long as it supports his "incredible machine that brings to me the most beautiful young women … already wanting to be … part of my life." What could be better for an irresponsible and sexually aggressive male than an entire culture that considers women sex objects, treats pregnancy as a disease, and offers abortion as its cure?[...]
And all of this has happened through a few reliable tricks of the trade that go right back to the serpent in the garden, who played the first game of "two truths and a lie." Most every temptation proceeds by offering almost the whole truth. The woman in the garden was promised that her eyes would be opened, that she would be like God, and that she would know good from evil. The serpent delivered—almost. Her eyes were opened; she did know good from evil. But she did not become like God.
Hefner, too, can deliver on two of his three promises. Women, he purrs, are the refined gentleman's path to truth, goodness, and beauty. Hefner certainly did—and does—deliver beauty, albeit a two-dimensional version. And in the early days at least, his women were the good, clean, "wholesome" type that men might aspire to romantic involvement with—certainly far more so than anything pornography had previously offered (unless you count the pre-Raphaelites and Le Dejeuner sur L'Herbe).
But Hefner does not deliver truth. Bring it out in the open, Hefner said, and you'll feel better. Well, like it or not, the Playboy philosophy is now your culture's philosophy. Do you feel better?
Now, go read the whole thing.
Update: The CT version of the article is condensed some. This GodSpy link has a longer and more scathing version of this article.
*Be careful where you click in Dean's post, since he links to some "adult" images.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:05 AM
| Comments (7)
Friday, August 6, 2004
I'm very busy right now, but I wanted to link to some interesting discussions on modesty by Old Oligarch and Lutheran in a Tipi. Old Oligarch addresses swimwear in this post. Lutheran in a Tipi responds. Old Oligarch then follows up.
I would like to say more on this when I have some time. Until then, here are a few quick points.
First of all, while I don't agree with everything O.O. says here, I agree with quite a bit of it. There is a lot of pressure on women to "show off your bod". And, strangely enough, much of that pressure comes from other women. If you wish to dress more modestly (like wear a one-piece or a swimskirt to the beach or wear bermuda-style shorts instead of shorter shorts), some people will assume you are a mincing, repressed little person who is ashamed of her body. ("Poor thing, bless her heart!") Personally, I don't like tank tops or sandals either and don't wear them. I'm not saying either of those things are necessarily immodest...I just don't like to wear stuff like that. But I've had people give me a hard time for not wearing tank tops and sandals.
Lutheran in a Tipi responds to O.O., asking a couple of questions about how responsible women are for the actions of men. She makes the following statement, which I agree with:
To me, modesty is a matter of educating females about good taste in clothing. But the goal will still be beauty...But some will argue that women should not make themselves beautiful at all, that therein lies the problem. It's my belief that women have the right to make themselves (or their homes, or their investment portfolios) beautiful, and to the extent that they succeed, they are not responsible for men's reactions.
The thing is, I have actually seen Christians argue that any attempt by a woman to be pretty is immodest. In the comments on another blog a long time ago, I said something along the lines that women can look attractive without being immodest. Someone else commented that "looking attractive" is itself of questionable modesty. I either let the subject drop or I managed to respond in a non-snarky manner (I can't remember which). What I felt like saying was, "So, in order to be truly modest, I guess women are supposed to make themselves look as ugly as possible, huh?"
And I have to agree with Twylah and her commenters about these swimsuits. To me, they cross the line from mere modesty into complete prudery.
O.O. has a follow up post that addresses Twylah's questions. He ends with this point:
There is also modesty in speech, etc., which have not been discussed. If you want one area in which men routinely fail in modesty and scandalize women, it is often modesty in speech.
Amen to that. I can't tell you how many Christian men I've seen show this kind of immodesty. I mean, I've seen Christian men joke about ogling women, make offensive sexual jokes and make jokes about wanting women to be less modest. Do they realize how hypocritical this makes them look?
Well, I already wrote more on this than I intended, but I may yet have more to say when I have time. Meanwhile, feel free to chime in in the comments on this subject.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:40 AM
| Comments (6)
Monday, July 26, 2004
I first saw this t-shirt (along with some other Planned Parenthood trinkets) in this post by Dawn Eden from a couple of days ago. Drudge picked up on it, today. Now, Dawn has found some interesting links between the t-shirt and the writer of the appalling article I posted about last week. From Dawn's post:
In other words, this revolting T-shirt, which is now making headlines around the world, is the brainstorm of Amy Richards, who co-writes the "I Had an Abortion" campaign literature and proudly wears the slogan across her chest in an ad campaign for her and her partner's upcoming documentary.
That Times Magazine article now looks less like a shocking admission of individual guilt, and more like a first volley in a propaganda campaign that is only just beginning.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:44 PM
| Comments (2)
Monday, July 19, 2004
That's the only word I can think of to describe this article. It's a woman coldly describing why she decided to abort two of the triplets she was carrying. Basically, she didn't want to have to move to the suburbs and buy large jars of mayonnaise. Also, she might have had to slow down her career a bit and put some tiny human beings first in her life. (Link first seen over at Peppermint Patty's. Michelle Malkin has some more commentary on this.)
Way back when I used to be "pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion," I read an article similar in tone to this one. The article was supposed to show me how much better it is now that abortion is "safe and legal". However, it had the opposite effect on me. It made me question my beliefs on this issue. It took a year or two, but I gradually became pro-life.
The article was in Ms. Magazine. This was in the late 80s and I was going to college. One day, walking from one of my classes, there was a table of magazines free for the taking. So, thinking of myself as kind of a feminist, I picked up a Ms. Magazine. I remember that it had Cher on the cover.
I had read copies of Ms. before. I would always forget how strange and whacked-out the content was in between its polished and mainstream-looking covers. Even then, I was turned off by radical feminism, even though I thought of myself as a feminist.
Anyway, this particular issue had an article about "the bad old days" before abortion was legal. The article consisted of the personal stories of several women who had illegal abortions. I don't remember any of the stories making me think, "Yeah, it's a good thing it's legal now," although that was my opinion back then. And one story in particular horrified me.
This was the story of a woman who had gotten pregnant while a college student. Her boyfriend offered to marry her, but she didn't want to get married. She wanted to finish school and start a career. I think she was about five months along when she went to an abortionist. I can't remember the particulars, but he did something that would later cause her to give birth to her dead baby.
So that's what happened when she was alone in her dorm room later. After doing so, do you know what her main concern was? Getting rid of the body. And do you know what she did?
She flushed the baby down the toilet.
That's right she flushed her child down the toilet as if it were excrement. And there was no acknowledgment from her that the baby was anything more than excrement. And do you know what her main worry was?
That the baby would stop up the toilet and she would get caught.
She also said that her health was very bad after having the abortion because she lost a lot of blood. My reaction to that was, "Who cares! You flushed your baby down the toilet!"
This woman was just so completely self-absorbed, I lost all compassion for her. She flushed her dead baby down the toilet like it was nothing, and had no remorse. And for what? For a career? What is a career compared to a human being?
So, that is what turned me towards becoming pro-life again. (Yes, I was pro-life when I first found out what an abortion was, when I was around eleven or twelve. As a teenager I talked myself into being "pro-choice but personally opposed".) Thank you, Ms. Magazine, for getting me to see the light.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:35 AM
| Comments (5)
Thursday, July 15, 2004
As you know by now, the Federal Marriage Amendment was voted down by the Senate. While I support the amendment, I was not surprised to see it voted down.
This subject has prompted Joshua Claybourn to post about Christian Libertarianism:
There are some important questions that I think one must ask when considering it. How many hearts will the amendment change, and how will it change them? Do the amendment's supporters expect people to view the debate or provision and conclude that homosexual unions are in fact wrong? I'm guessing no heart will be convinced of that through an amendment, but I'm positive that countless hearts will be hardened by a party and, indirectly, a faith that isn't accurately portrayed in this debate.[...]
The state should not be called upon to bring about the virtuous life. The price is subservience to the state. Many will view this as a cop-out or shirking from God's wishes, but I am a libertarian precisely because I wish to protect traditional values and culture from the state. San Fransisco's mayor Gavin Newsom is a wonderful example of the problems that can befall a church that so closely ties its precepts to a secular state. It's time for the church to consider its own marriages apart from a secular state.
I appreciate a lot of the things Josh is saying in his post. I'm totally opposed to the idea of a theocracy or the church getting bound up in political matters. However, Josh falls into the error that is typical of libertarians -- that changes in values and the culture occur in a vacuum and don't effect anyone else.
An example of this is a statement recently made by libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz -- a statement I've heard other bloggers echo. He said that if gays "marry", it doesn't have the slightest effect on your own marriage. And that is true...now. But what about the future? What about what marriage will mean, say, fifty years from now? Libertarians are very often "here and now" thinkers. This gives credence to Mark Shea's often-made statement that libertarianism is for selfish people with no children*.
Josh seems to be saying that the church can be sealed-off from the rest of society -- that how society or the state views marriage doesn't have to affect the way the church views marriage. But society does affect the churches. Why else are so many churches falling into apostasy? Also, if the church is walled-off from the rest of society, then how is this "changing hearts and minds" supposed to take place? I see this leading to a church that is completely ineffectual and irrelevant. (Actually, this is already happening despite the fevered hysteria from certain quarters about the "Religious Right".)
As for the state...what if churches that refuse to "marry" gays start getting charged with discrimination and "hate crimes"? The gay marriage proponents say that this won't happen, but once again I ask, what about the future?
If gays want to have completely secular legal arrangements, such as civil unions, that would give them legal rights that a marriage would give a straight couple, I honestly would have no objection to that. It would be a purely legal matter, a matter of the state. But why the insistence on "marriage"? Why change the very definition of marriage?
Considering that many straight couples have the same view of marriage -- that it's just a vehicle for attaining certain legal rights and financial advantages -- perhaps Josh has a point. Let those people, whether they be straight or gay, have their civil unions. Save marriage for those who see it as something more than a legal arrangement.
*Although, to be fair, a libertarian could just as validly point out that statism, whether it be from the left or right, often uses "for the children" as its rallying cry.
Update: Josh has corrected me regarding one of my statements in this post.
Update 2: Eric Seymour answers Josh: Why Christians should support the FMA.
Tuesday, June 1, 2004
The slouch towards Gomorrah is complete...
We've already arrived...
Exhibit A: Daily Mail (Via Drudge) - Abortion Soars in Quest for Perfect Baby
Those with conditions that can usually be corrected medically - such as deformed feet and cleft lips and palates - are instead being terminated.
And the number of abortions of Down's syndrome babies now outstrips live births, despite the fact that those with the condition can live a long and fulfilling life. As screening techniques improve, the trend is likely to grow - horrifying pro-life campaigners.
'These figures are symptomatic of a eugenic trend of the consumerist society hell-bent on obliterating deformity - and at what cost to its own humanity? ' said ethicist Jacqueline Laing, of London Metropolitan University. 'We are obliterating the willingness of people to accept disability. Babies are required to fit a description of normality before they are allowed to be born.'
Disposable human life -- be perfect or die!
Exhibit B: New York Times - Friends, Friends With Benefits and the Benefits of the Local Mall
''I have my friends for my emotional needs, so I don't need that from the guy I'm having sex with,'' Melissa explained at the time, sounding very much like the ''Sex and the City'' character Samantha Jones. So why, now that the boy had ''broken up'' with her, was she feeling so depressed? ''It's really stupid, I know,'' she said, shaking her head. ''It's kind of ironic, isn't it? I try to set up a situation where I won't get hurt, and I still manage to get hurt.''[...]
Like other high-school girls I talked to, Melissa says she doesn't see why boys get to have ''all the fun,'' although during the few months we communicated, it was clear that Melissa's hookups rarely brought her joy. She complained often about being depressed, and her hookups, which she hoped would make her feel better, usually left her feeling worse. But a few days after a hookup, she would have forgotten that they tended to make her miserable, and would tell me excitedly about a new boy she was planning to meet. When that boy failed to show or called to say he was running an hour late, Melissa's spirits would sink -- again.
But when I asked Melissa whether she thought hookups worked equally well for girls and boys, she surprised me with her answer. ''It's equal,'' she said. ''Everyone is using each other. That's fair.''
If you read the whole article, you will find out what "hooking up" entails (and what's not included in the deal). It's a very one-sided system where the boys reap all the "benefits" and the girls don't get much in return except hurt and degradation. But they're not supposed to complain about that because they're "liberated", you see.
Is it just me, or has Brave New World become a reality?
(Both links are via Mark Shea, who used these articles to make the point that America and the West have nothing of value to offer the Islamic world. I don't agree with that at all. Can't we acknowledge that we have problems without all the moral equivalency?)
Posted by Susan B. at 1:55 PM
| Comments (4)
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Little Miss Hooters Revisited
Needless to say, I'm relieved and happy that the "Little Miss Hooters" contest that I posted about earlier has been cancelled. As disheartening as it is that someone would think such a contest would be a good idea in the first place, it's very heartening to see that people won't stand for crap like this.
Joe Carter and Sara Butler have brought up some good points about this whole thing I'd like to address. Both Carter and Butler assert that if we see the objectification of women as being okay, then we should not be surprised when little girls are objectified, too.
I would like to address that point, but first, let me interject something about Hooters in general.
I have been to Hooters a couple of times. The command I worked at previously was mostly military (the current command I work at is mostly civilian). Over ten years ago, the office where I worked had a couple of after-work get-togethers at Hooters. I wasn't the only woman since there was another civilian lady who worked in the office. (I think my supervisor's wife also came to at least one of the get-togethers).
I have to say, I wasn't really offended. I thought I might be, but I wasn't. The guys seemed more interested in proving who could eat the most "3 Mile Island" buffalo wings than ogling the waitresses. The waitresses wore short-shorts and tank tops, but I also noticed that they wore flesh-colored tights under the short-shorts. (Maybe this was because this was in the winter months -- I don't know.) Honestly, you could see as much or even more skin at the beach or at the grocery store in the summer than you would see at Hooters. Anyway, what I'm saying is that Hooters did not seem like the den of iniquity that some think it is. Some act like working at Hooters is the same as being a stripper, a pr0n "actress" or a prostitute.
Is the typical Hooters outfit immodest? Yes it is. So is running around in skimpy swimsuits on the beach. So is wearing low-rider jeans with your underwear sticking up out of the top. So is wearing tops that show off large portions of your midriff. So is wearing see-through dresses at film festivals. Do I think women should be more modest? Of course I do.
Okay, back to the point Carter and Butler were making...
I agree with what they are saying -- that when you say that anything goes in the name of "sexual freedom", it's a given that the sexualization of children will eventually follow suit.
Now, the next argument is that there is a huge difference between a child being exploited and a grown woman making her own decision -- even if it's a bad one. And I agree with that, too. You can't infantilize women and say that they don't know what they are doing. And you can't force them to be modest by rule of law. (The only thing the law can do is keep people from running around naked in public.)
But what Carter and Butler said about this still stands. We have created a culture where modesty is laughed at and ridiculed, rather than respected. Being immodest is considered cool. If you object to the increasing pornographication of our culture, you are dismissed as a prude who would like to create an American version of the Taliban.
With that in mind, should we really be surprised that someone would come up with something as appalling as a "Little Miss Hooters" contest?
Posted by Susan B. at 8:37 PM
Friday, May 21, 2004
What Happened to Modesty?
Apropos to the previous post...Ryan Reynolds and Joshua Claybourn lament the disappearance of modesty.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:02 PM
I find the whole idea of beauty pageants for little girls exploitive and creepy. The Little Miss Hooters contest takes things to a new disgusting low. Whoever thought this up and whoever enters their child in this thing should be deeply ashamed. (Yes, I know they have no shame -- that's the whole problem.)
Posted by Susan B. at 11:53 AM
| Comments (3)
Thursday, May 13, 2004
Men Who Play God
Here are two examples of this kind of arrogance and what it leads to:
- Dawn Eden confronts Dr. James D. Watson, the man who helped discover DNA. Dr. Watson is also an advocate of eugenics -- he believes that those who aren't "perfect" should not be allowed to be born. He even feels this way about his own son. (Via the Thinklings.)
- David Reimer was born a boy. After a botched circumcision, a doctor told David's parents that he could be turned into a girl. The belief was that gender was just a social construct. The doctor behind the attempt to transform David into a girl was Dr. John Money. I saw a documentary about David years ago and thought his story was so sad. He was put through so much misery, as was his family. I was relieved that it looked like he was finally putting his life together. But the story has a sad ending. David Reimer committed suicide recently.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:40 PM
Cultural Rot and Abu Ghraib
Via Mark Shea comes this column:
Rebecca Hagelin - Prisoner abuse and the rot of American culture
In this column, Hagelin makes a very good case for linking the mainstream acceptance of pr0n in our culture to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.
Update: Here's an earlier take on this subject from Donna M. Hughes on NRO. (Via Bunnie Diehl.)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:24 AM
| Comments (1)
Monday, May 3, 2004
More on the March
From bloggers coming from two different viewpoints:
For other links on this subject, see this post.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:28 PM
Monday, April 26, 2004
Planned Parenthood's Agenda
What exactly is it? I think it's more than many people realize. Dawn Eden has a very enlightening and disturbing post about that agenda. May I be so indelicate as to point out that encouraging irresponsible behavior among teens would be very good for business for an "abortion provider" such as Planned Parenthood?
(Link via Kevin McGehee.)
While on the general subject, Andrea Harris has a practical solution* to unwanted pregnancies. Also, Bill from INDC Journal (found via Dean's World) has a photo essay about attending a pro-
choiceabortion rally for John Kerry. He promises more coverage later.
*Just a warning, very...blunt language is used.
Update: Reading this account of the pro-abortion march at After Abortion has left me appalled and angry. (Via Open Book.) Also, both Michael Williams and Ben Domenech note the graying of the pro-abortion movement.
One more thing, I refuse to call this march a "pro-choice" march as I did earlier. That was a mistake. It was a pro-abortion march. Yes, I realize there are people who are genuinely pro-choice and who are not necessarily pro-abortion. While I disagree with them, I respect them far too much to lump them in with the likes of Planned Parenthood and the jerks at this march.
Update 2: Even more to appall and disgust you...get a load of these pictures from the march at Bunnie Diehl's blog -- just start at the top and scroll down. (Via the Thinklings.)
Posted by Susan B. at 10:05 AM
| Comments (6)
Wednesday, April 7, 2004
Messed Up Priorities
So some people are actually going to vote for Kerry instead of Bush because their precious pr0n is threatened? It's nice to see what they think is really important. I guess addictions drive people to do crazy things.
Justin Katz has a challenge for those who want their pr0n:
So here's a thought: if the public really is as enamored of smut as Ashcroft's critics believe, why not campaign to change the law? If [pr0n] is such an obviously good, or at least neutral, thing, why sidestep the actual issue — involving those six guys and some unknown millions of dollars — by substituting rhetoric about the war? Come out from behind the computer desk and lance the issue head on.
And while on this subject...Michael Williams has a thoughtful post pointing out that this is a spiritual issue, which is why he doesn't think the government can do much about this problem:
The root of the problem isn't that people are making pornography, it's that people have a desire to consume it -- and the government has no power (or authority) to change what people desire. The solution to pornography is individual and personal.
Update: More from JunkYardBlog:
A President Kerry will lose the war, meaning that Islamicist radicals will win. America will change for the worse. It's not at all impossible that forms of Sharia could replace our own laws if we capitulate, since we will end up in a loser's game of changing ourselves to make the bad guys happy. You want to lose your precious right to [pr0n]? Elect Kerry. You want to keep it? Elect Bush.
Now, as to the [pr0n] effort itself, it's probably worth noting (though the libertarians probably won't acknowledge it) that all the Bush administration is doing is returning to enforcing laws that the Clinton administration did not enforce. In their 30 year history, the relevant laws that the FBI is using here have been enforced for 20. The Clinton administration stopped enforcing them ten years ago, and [pr0n] exploded into the gigantic global enterprise it is today, with the [pr0n] spam and pop ups on the web and all that assaulting behavior. The Bush administration is restoring enforcement, nothing more. If you don't like that, libertarians, get the law changed.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:10 AM
| Comments (2)
Monday, March 15, 2004
Same-Sex Marriage -- Two Views
Although this topic has been debated on various blogs, I've pretty much avoided it here. Instead of boring you with my own ineptly expressed thoughts on this, let me point to this Thomas Sowell column and this piece by Donald Sensing, because they both make excellent points that I agree with. Sowell looks at SSM mostly from a legal standpoint, and Sensing addresses it mostly from a moral and societal standpoint.
(Second link via lots of folks.)
Posted by Susan B. at 8:33 PM
| Comments (1)
Monday, February 9, 2004
This is what you get...
...when you separate God from sexuality. Not only do you get degradation and promiscuity. You also get the kind of rationalizations that Camille Paglia puts forth here: the position that rape is not that big of a deal, no worse than getting beat up. Here is what I posted in Dean's comments in response to this:
- I generally like Camille Paglia, although I don't agree with her very much. The problem with her whole view is that she, being an atheist, completely leaves God out of the equation.
- It is stated in the Bible that when a man and woman have sex, they become "one flesh". This is true whether it's husband/wife, john/prostitute or rapist/victim. C.S. Lewis has pointed out that, "wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured." That's why rape is such a destructive thing. That's why it's preposterous and offensive to say it's no worse than "getting beat up".
- Humans are more that just rutting animals. We have souls. Again, Paglia's view completely ignores this.
- The whole conversation here seems to revolve around that whole "date rape" thing. And I agree that some women foolishly get themselves in bad situations. However, I have to ask, does all this "boys will be boys" stuff also apply to strangers attacking in a parking lot or breaking in a window? Should the victim in those situations comfort herself with knowing that sex is just a "dark force" and that she's really no worse off than if she were just beaten up?
Dean then posts again on the subject. He says this:
We need to stop treating rape like a religious matter, like a sacrosant event, like the most unimaginable possible violation.
Oh, but it is...for the very reasons I stated above. Yes, some people heal and end up okay. Others' lives are ruined forever. I think it depends on the person and the circumstances.
Sunday, February 1, 2004
More on Contraception
Remember this post from last week? (More input in the comments from my fellow Protestants would be appreciated -- hint, hint.) Well, here are a few more items on this subject to think about:
Like I've said, I'm still on the fence on this subject.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:01 PM
| Comments (5)
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
Should Protestants oppose contraception?
Abortion: Striking at the Root of the Problem
Sadly, with the ascension and acceptance of principles espoused by Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, pro-life Protestant Evangelicals now reflect the same worldly fears and rejection of pregnancy that motivate women to seek an abortion -- inconvenience; interference with the pursuit of happiness or possessions; undue stress added to the marriage, etc. Today, most pro-life Protestants would readily acknowledge certain types of contraception might be wrong, but they would bristle at any suggestion all contraception is wrong.
I'm a pro-life Protestant and this is one of those issues where I'm kind of on the fence, although lately I find myself leaning more towards the anti-contraception side.
Any thoughts on this?
(Via Fructus Ventris.)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:05 PM
| Comments (5)
Completely disgusting item of the week (or perhaps the month or even the year):
A Wichita abortion clinic will commemorate the 31st anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision by offering free services.
Women's Health Care Services, led by Dr. George Tiller, will offer free third-trimester abortions to Medicaid patients Saturday. The anniversary is Thursday.
In a statement, Tiller said the free abortions were his way of thanking Wichita for support during 1991 and 2001, when anti-abortion advocates staged large-scale protests in Wichita.
Be proud, Wichita -- this is a real honor! So step right up and get your FREE* abortion, ladies. But hurry...this Roe v. Wade anniversary special is available for ONE DAY ONLY!
*Medicaid patients only. Not responsible for physical and emotional consequences or for unintended live births.
Posted by Susan B. at 2:17 PM
| Comments (3)
Friday, January 16, 2004
Social Conservatives and NRO
Recently, Joe Carter and Mark Shea rightfully took exception to this load of BS published in NRO. Here is the false dichotomy that ends the piece:
Except Playboy really does have something to do with freedom, and these days maybe that's worth remembering. A society that allows Playboy is not a society that allows women to be stoned to death for adultery. Human nature being what it is, we're probably stuck with either burkas or naked balloon breasts forever. I know which I prefer.
I've noticed this same libertine libertarian attitude in blogosphere for a long time. The premise is, "Pr0n is good, it's the American way, and anyone who objects is a big, prudy square who may as well go join up with the Taliban." I've seen other bloggers says stuff like, "We should airdrop Playboys and beam pr0no movies into their countries...that will bring them into the 21st century and show them that women have rights and yada, yada, yada..."
That whole attitude, that whole premise, is a bunch of ignorant crap! Is that the best we have to offer as an alternative to Islamofascism? I think we have better things to offer than the most corrupt filth of our popular culture. And I don't see how you counter women being degraded by radical Islamists with women being degraded by the pr0n industry. That makes no sense whatsoever. I'm sorry, but I reject both Islamofascism and pornography. I'll take a third way, thankyouverymuch.
Needless to say, many are disappointed with NRO. Not just for the Seipp column, but also because of they believe that social conservatism takes a back seat to other concerns at NRO. Ramesh Ponnuru responds to Shea's and Carter's criticism. Ponnuru makes a good point here:
But I would remind these guys that National Review editorializes consistently and runs articles regularly against gay marriage, abortion, cloning, euthanasia, illegitimacy, divorce, day care, and gender integration in the military. Do social conservatives control so many editorial offices that it is wise of them to attack those allies they have? Is there, for that matter, any national publication of comparable circulation and prominence that has taken these positions? That has argued for the Federal Marriage Amendment as often? On cloning, the Standard might tie with us, but I doubt it.
The thing is, I've seen other bloggers complain that NRO is too socially conservative. Once again, it seems like there's quite a bit of friction between social conservatives and pro-defense, economic conservatives who are socially liberal.
BTW, if you need an antidote to that Seipp piece (or even if you don't), read this.
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
Is the PBA ban ineffectual?
I'm not sure what to think of what this guy says. He believes the PBA ban was worded in such a way as to make it very easy to get around, so therefore it's useless. (If that's the case, why are the pro-abortion groups so upset?)
He also predicts that new ultrasound technologies will eventually be used for "non-invasive" abortions.
I'd like to know what some other folks think of this. Is the writer of this column just an alarmist, or does he have a point?
Posted by Susan B. at 8:06 PM
| Comments (1)
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
Thank You, President Bush
(Via Joshua Claybourn.)
Posted by Susan B. at 7:15 PM
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Way, way back in the early days of this blog, I posted a link to a really good article. Sadly, the link to the article no longer works, since Regeneration Quarterly went belly-up some time ago. Occasionally, I've gotten referrals from people searching for this article, and I've regretted that all I could offer was an excerpt and a dead link.
However, I recently discovered that this article has been republished elsewhere on the web -- in GodSpy: Read Mercer Schuchardt - The Cultural Victory of Hugh Hefner
So, if you were looking for this article, now you've found it. And if you haven't read it, then I highly recommend it.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:45 PM
| Comments (1)
More Good News on the Pro-Life Front
The Senate has passed the bill banning partial birth abortion. The bill will then go to President Bush who, unlike his predecessor, will sign it. (Clinton vetoed PBA bans twice when he was President.)
A couple of weeks ago, I was blogsurfing and found myself at some feminist blog. This blogger complained that the term "partial birth abortion" is misleading and is just an attempt to inflame people against the procedure. However, this blogger avoided saying what exactly a PBA entails.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:10 PM
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
I recently read about some men complaining that their prospects for marrying are dwindling because it's hard to find a decent woman who is untainted by feminism. One suggestion was to start marrying foreign-born women, or women who have been isolated from the larger culture.
One could also make a similar complaint about men. It looks like the number of men who are untainted by exposure to pr0n is dwindling as well. It seems these pr0n-tainted men have very twisted expectations about women and sex. It looks like they'd make lousy husbands, if someone were
stupid unfortunate enough to marry them.
Thanks a lot, sexual revolution! Thanks for freeing everyone from those repressive things known as "morals" and "ethics". Everything is so much better now. [/sarcasm]
Who was it that said, "If God doesn't destroy us, He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology"?
Posted by Susan B. at 2:00 PM
| Comments (3)
Thursday, September 4, 2003
What's wrong with this picture?
(Upon seeing this in the morning paper my first grumpy, intemperate, sarcastic thought was, "Yeah, kill the babies and let the murderers live!")
Update: Joshua Claybourn wonders where all the anti-death-penalty protesters were during Paul Hill's execution. I have to admit that I wondered the same thing myself. Well, there were "more than a dozen" here in Pensacola, FWIW.
Update 2: Roy Jacobsen thinks the media may have chosen to ignore the anti-death-penalty protesters in this instance. (And I didn't get the title of this post from his post -- I swear!)
Posted by Susan B. at 9:37 AM
Tuesday, September 2, 2003
Nine years ago, Paul Hill murdered an abortionist and an escort outside an abortion clinic here in Pensacola. Tomorrow, he will be executed for those murders. To this day, he is completely unrepentant.
Hill may be anti-abortion, but he is not pro-life. Ego, hatred and vengefulness drove him to take the law into his own hands. He is not a martyr and he is not a hero. As a pro-lifer, let me say that what Hill did was horrible and is a grave sin.
"The sooner I am executed...the sooner I am going to heaven," said Hill, who is to be executed Wednesday night. "I expect a great reward in heaven. I am looking forward to glory. I don't feel remorse."
The ultimate judgment of Hill is up to God. However, I think it's safe to say that if Hill doesn't repent of murdering two human beings, he's in for a rude surprise when he stands before God.
Update: The news story link I used when I first posted this has expired, so I updated the link. The quote I used came from the first story.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:07 PM
Monday, August 25, 2003
While I'm busy...
Go read this post by William Luse now!
(Via Such Small Hands.)
Posted by Susan B. at 10:52 PM
Sunday, August 10, 2003
Lileks and Lewis
Some words of wisdom...
James Lileks on marriage and family:
This story has irritated me from the start, and it has nothing to do with Rev. Robinson’s sexual orientation. The guy left his wife and kids to go do the hokey-pokey with someone else: that’s what it’s all about, at least for me. Marriages founder for a variety of reasons, and ofttimes they’re valid reasons, sad and inescapable. But “I want to have sex with other people” is not a valid reason for depriving two little girls of a daddy who lives with them, gets up at night when they're sick, kisses them in the morning when they wake. There's a word for people who leave their children because they don't want to have sex with Mommy anymore: selfish. I'm not a praying man, but I cannot possibly imagine asking God if that would be okay. Send them another Dad, okay? Until you do I'll keep my cellphone on 24/7, I promise.
C.S. Lewis on people putting Eros love (i.e. romantic love or "being in love") before anything else (from The Four Loves):
It seems to sanction all sorts of actions they would not otherwise have dared. I do not mean solely, or chiefly, acts that violate chastity. They are just as likely to be acts of injustice or uncharity against the outer world. They will seem like proofs of piety and zeal towards Eros. The pair can say to one another in an almost sacrificial spirit, "It is for love's sake that I have neglected my parents -- left my children -- cheated my partner -- failed my friend at his greatest need." These reasons in love's law have passed for good. The votaries may even come to feel a particular merit in such sacrifices; what costlier offering can be laid on love's altar than one's conscience?
Posted by Susan B. at 10:23 PM
Sunday, July 6, 2003
Here are some thoughtful items on the subject of marriage that I've run across lately:
- Eve Tushnet recently linked to this article by a minister named Mike McNichols: Stumbling Toward a Theology of Getting Married. It's a lengthy but interesting read. Like Eve, I'm not sure if I agree with all of McNichols' conclusions, but I respect that he's trying to address the problem of couples living together before marriage in a non-superficial manner.
- Ben Domenech has this excellent essay: The Family Enemy. Ben says that as the government redefines "marriage," the definition of "family" will also be changed.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:32 PM
Wednesday, July 2, 2003
Good and Bad News on the Pro-Life Front
First the good news...A recent survey by a pro-choice women's group has found that a slim majority of women are pro-life (or at least oppose abortion-on-demand):
Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications.
The findings, with a 3 percent margin of error for the 1,000 women surveyed, tips the scale from the last sampling in 2001, when 45 percent of women sided against making abortion readily available or imposing only mild restrictions. Only 30 percent support making it generally available, down from 34 percent in 2001, the survey found.
I'm interested in whether there has been a shift in men's views of abortion as well.
(Via Joshua Claybourn.)
Now the bad news...This is absolutely depraved!
(First seen on Mark Shea's blog.)
Posted by Susan B. at 1:41 PM
| Comments (3)
Friday, June 20, 2003
What Is Tolerance?
"Tolerance" and "intolerance" are words that have been thrown around so much that they've just about lost their meaning. Cam Edwards takes a look at what tolerance really is...and isn't.
(Via Lynn S.)
Posted by Susan B. at 1:24 PM
| Comments (1)
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
Jane Roe's Reversal
I had heard the other day that Norma McCorvey, the "Roe" in Roe vs. Wade, was going to make a big announcement today. Well, here it is: she is suing to overturn the Roe vs. Wade decision. McCorvey, who is now pro-life, regrets her part in that decision and says that she was used:
Seeking an abortion at the age of 21, McCorvey made up a story that she had been raped. She was put in touch with two attorneys who aimed to challenge the Texas abortion statute.
"Plain and simple, I was used," she said. "I was a nobody to them. They only needed a pregnant woman to use for their case, and that is it. They cared, not about me, but only about legalizing abortion. Even after the case, I was never respected – probably because I was not an Ivy League-educated, liberal feminist like they were."
I'm rather pessimistic as to whether McCorvey will be successful in pulling this off (although I hope I'm wrong). However, this should be an interesting case to watch. Maybe it will get some people to think differently about abortion.
(Via Relapsed Catholic.)
Update: Well, it looks like my pessimism was justified. McCorvey's request to reopen Roe vs. Wade has been dismissed. (Via Joyful Christian.)
Posted by Susan B. at 12:24 PM
Monday, May 12, 2003
Women in Combat
It looks like my opinion that women do not belong in combat roles is very much in the minority in this post. Well, I stand by that opinion. Men and women are different. And I don't think sending women into combat is a positive thing for women. It's bad enough that men have to do it.
While on this subject, Bobby Allison-Gallimore points out some problems with this InstaPundit item about women in combat.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:42 PM
| Comments (3)
Sunday, May 4, 2003
William Bennett, Gambling and Morality
William Bennett, who has written books about virtues and morality, is a high-stakes gambler. As you can imagine, the media are all over this. Amy Welborn has much to say about this. (No permalinks on Amy's blog...just scroll down.)
Does this make Bennett a hypocrite? I agree with Amy that Bennett is not a hypocrite because he has never denounced gambling and has never tried to conceal that he is a gambler.
Is gambling sinful? Well, my opinion is that gambling is a waste of time and money. And I think it can play on a person's greed. There are people in my family who go to Biloxi and play the nickel slots for fun. I went one time and I have to say it was not fun to me. It gets boring and depressing pretty quickly. And Amy has one of the most accurate descriptions of casinos that I've seen:
I've been to casinos - in Biloxi, Montreal, Niagara Falls and Atlantic City - and those few minutes that we spend walking through and playing a few nickel slots are, to me, like some cacaphonic vision of hell. I do think casinos are some of the most depressing places on the planet: caverns illuminated by artificial light, no windows, filled with the constant dings of the slots with row upon row of mostly older women slouched at the machines, staring and alone.
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
But I digress...the original question was if gambling is a sin. Well, I just don't know. Some say it is, some say it isn't. Yes, it's wasteful of money and yes it can lead to greed. But there are lots of things that are wasteful and can cause you to be too fixated on money. If you can make a good case for the sinfulness or non-sinfulness of gambling, feel free to do so in the comments.
Does Bennett's gambling habit lessen his authority on moral issues? Perhaps it has. David Mills at Touchstone's Mere Comments thinks Bennett should not be let off the hook, since he is generally held up to a higher standard than most. Those who firmly believe gambling is sinful will certainly be skeptical of Bennett from now on.
And finally, Mark Shea thinks the whole story has been blown out of proportion.
What do you think? Has Bennett been "caught," or is this no big deal?
Update: Joshua Claybourn and Susanna Cornett have more about Bennett and gambling. Joshua says that Bennett's gambling, while excessive, does not make him a hypocrite. Susanna says that Bennett is a hypocrite and his credibility is pretty much gone.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:03 PM
| Comments (10)
Monday, April 28, 2003
Rod Dreher at The Corner posts about this unbelievable article:
New York Times: Sex and the Single Senior
It's about a 70-year-old woman who has decided that promiscuity is the path to happiness. She is even writing a book about her "adventures." Dreher pretty much said what I think of all this, but I'd like to comment on a couple of things:
Ms. Juska, a retired high school English teacher (round-heeled is an antiquated slang expression for a promiscuous woman), was moved to action after seeing Eric Rohmer's film "Autumn Tale." Its plot involves a woman placing a personal ad in a newspaper on her middle-age friend's behalf.
Okay, so this woman makes a life-altering decision based on...a movie. You've got to be kidding me!
"Before I got home I had written my ad in my head," Ms. Juska said. "But I did think, as if I were teaching a class and would ask my students, `What harm might this decision cause other people?' The only person that would be is my son. So I asked him, and he said: `Go get 'em, Mom. It's your turn.' The night I sent the ad in I felt so great."
My own mother is about the same age as this woman. I couldn't imagine saying to my mother, "Go ahead and sleep around, Mom! Have fun!" This is weird and messed up on so many levels.
"When women in particular hear about what I've done, the question which unbidden comes to them is, `What have I done with my life?' " she continued. "And lots of people at my age don't want to go back and look at it. That's why they're so nuts about their grandchildren. It keeps the focus off them."
So being promiscuous is "doing something with your life?" And maybe people your age are nuts about their grandchildren because they value family. I suppose this woman is too self-absorbed to see that keeping the focus off yourself and putting others first can be a good thing.
I don't know what annoys me more about this article, the woman it's about, or the breezy, look-at-this-plucky-old-lady-rising-above-repression tone. Ugh.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:20 PM
| Comments (7)
Sunday, April 20, 2003
Why does this not surprise me?
Scott Peterson will most likely be charged with double homicide -- for the murders of both his wife Laci and their unborn son, Connor. NOW doesn't like this at all.
Fetal homicide laws have been opposed by some pro-choice organizations that fear they will undermine a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the statues exempt legal abortions.
After watching news reports of Peterson's arrest, Stark expressed concern with the tone of the coverage.
"There's something about this that bothers me a little bit," Stark said. "Was it born, or was it unborn? If it was unborn, then I can't see charging (Peterson) with a double-murder." [...]
"He was wanted and expected, and (Laci Peterson) had a name for him, but if he wasn't born, he wasn't born. It sets a kind of precedent," Stark said, adding that the issue was "just something I've been ruminating on."
All they care about is abortion.
(Via Joyful Christian.)
Update: Kevin McGehee has also blogged about this article and makes a great point about the media.
Update 2: NOW is distancing itself from the statements of the Morris County chapter president.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:41 PM
Tuesday, April 1, 2003
The kids may be alright...
Are kids today more pro-life? According to this article, they may be:
New York Times: Surprise, Mom: I'm Anti-Abortion
It seems many of the adults are saying, "What's the matter with these kids today?"
"I was shocked that there were that many students who felt strong enough and confident enough to speak about being pro-life," said Nina Verin, a parent of another student in the class (whose oral argument was about war in Iraq). "The people I associate with in town are pro-choice, so I'm troubled — where do these kids come from?"
Apparently, the kids are thinking about this issue differently than their parents:
Britni Hoffbeck, another speech student at Red Wing High who opposes abortion, and who says her views are more conservative than those of her parents, put her argument succinctly: "It's more about the baby's rights than the woman's rights."
Tom Cosgrove, a communications consultant in Cambridge, Mass., who has researched the views of young people for national abortion-rights groups, said: "All the restrictions that the right-to-life movement has imposed young people look at and say, `They're a good thing, because it's meant to protect a young woman's health.' They don't want the label of pro-choice. The pro-life side figured out a long time ago that this is about children, whereas the pro-choice movement is focused on women and choice."
I'll take this as a good sign, although teenagers have a tendency to change their views about things as they get older. For example, I went from being pro-life to pro-choice and then back to pro-life again (as an adult). But maybe there is a true shift in public opinion coming on this issue. Perhaps by the end of this century, people will look at abortion the same way people look at slavery now.
Posted by Susan B. at 9:09 PM
| Comments (3)
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
On "Real" Women
Tony Woodlief has a great takedown of the notions that some feminists have of what a "real, serious" woman is. His inspiration is a magazine that declares that it's aimed at "real" women, not those dumb homemakers who sit around watching soaps and eating bonbons all day. (As if!)
The real woman. Not the woman who sacrifices a career because she believes she can do more good in the world by raising and teaching her children herself. So what if she has wrestled for years with the challenges, for example, of raising her children in adherence to her faith? That doesn't compare with hustling to get appointed Executive Mid-Manager in MegaCorporation ABC, after all. Get real, mom. You are merely managing the moral, physical, and intellectual development of human beings; it's not like you are putting together PowerPoint slides comparing the costs of competing stationary vendors.
Not that the homemaker could do something like that, because she is, implies Betty, uneducated. Educated women, you see, don't stay home. How do we know? Because the sweethearts at Betty, along with their pseudo-intellectual ilk who infest the coastal cities, look around themselves and see educated women working. None of these smart women would dream of staying home with the kids. Ipso facto, educated women don't stoop to such an enterprise.
There's much more, of course.
I've seen this attitude even among some relatively non-feminist mothers who work outside the home. They believe that if a woman is educated and chooses to be a stay-at-home mother, she is "wasting" herself. And they usually assume that stay-at-home mothers are uneducated or submissive. Many of them have this disdainful attitude because their own mothers worked outside the home, so they never knew anything different.
I have a completely different view because my mother was a homemaker. If I ever have kids, I will be a stay-at-home mother, too. I have great respect for homemakers, and I think it's a shame that feminism has devalued such important work.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:20 PM
| Comments (1)
Thursday, March 13, 2003
The Senate has approved a ban on the barbaric procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion. The House is expected to pass the bill and President Bush (unlike his predecessor) will sign it.
(Via The Colonel Sanders Conspiracy).
Posted by Susan B. at 11:46 PM
Sunday, March 9, 2003
Mirele posted some comments (and also blogged them) to this post. She took exception to Patty's post and my agreement with it. I decided to respond to her in a separate post rather than in the comments. If you're not interested, you can skip this.
If you're still with me, I'm going to excerpt Mirele's points and then give my response:
Ok. There seems to be this mistaken idea here from Patty (and LilacRose, by extension) that women lost the sexual revolution because we put out and the only reason we stay with men is due to sex. Frankly, someone's got rocks in her head, and that person is not me.
It may not be you or me, but a lot of women do have "rocks in their heads." They've bought into the lie that "sexual freedom" means sleeping around and acting like men at their worst. But, men and women are different. You can't get around this. To see what I mean by this, read this post by Steve H. at Little Tiny Lies. He gives a man's perspective on Patty's post. He's brutally honest, and, I think, on the mark.
Let me propose something different. Before the sexual revolution, women's sexuality was owned by others: her father, then her husband. She did not have the right to tell her husband no to forced sex, and she certainly couldn't accuse him of rape, because it was considered that wives had to put out for their husbands. Remember, men in those days had raging hormones, and it was the wives' job to satisfy their husbands' lust, just as it was an unmarried woman's job to keep her beau chaste. So this is my question. What is the difference? The difference is that women now own their own sexuality, for good or for ill. I rather prefer this than to go back to the good old days, when my sexuality was dictated because of the ownership relationship between myself and my male relations. It should also be noted that with freedom comes responsibility and a lot of women have made hash of that. That doesn't make the principle of self-determination wrong, it just indicates that more education about choices is necessary.
I don't think anyone here is in favor of husbands forcing themselves on their wives, or of unmarried women being "owned" by their fathers. I don't know why pointing out that some women have been poor custodians of their sexuality means that one thinks women should be owned by anyone. The point is that women are free to make their own decisions -- and in some cases these decisions are bad ones that have far-reaching effects.
If a woman decides of her own free will to subscribe to the many different versions of female subordination present in the USA (where I live), then she is making her choice and who am I to gainsay her? My problem is with those who (for example) insinuate that marital relations between men and women are put together with "sex glue" (which is, in my opinion, unwarranted hyperbole) and are doomed to fail.
I don't think Patty was saying that all martial relations are put together with "sex glue." What she is saying is that some relationships are held together only with that glue and not with something more substantial. I think what Patty calls "sex glue" is exactly what Paul was talking about here and here -- one flesh. C.S. Lewis also explains this very well in The Screwtape Letters: "The truth is that wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured."
Going back to the past, where wives were given responsibility for their husbands' sexuality, while at the same time not being able to say no to their husbands' demands for sex, and girls were made responsible for boys' sexuality (which is still the case in some American religious organizations I'm familiar with) is not desirable. Women should be free to make choices about their own sexuality. And we should be warned in advance about those consequences. Ultimately, it is up to women ourselves, because we are not property.
But women do have a responsibility for men's sexuality. Men also have a responsibility to women. I believe that the sexual revolution has eroded that sense of responsibility among many men. That's why women have come out the losers in this whole thing. Of course women are not property; of course they are free to make choices, just as men are. But some choices are bad ones that affect more than just the person making the choice.
Posted by Susan B. at 6:00 PM
| Comments (4)
Monday, March 3, 2003
Women Lost the Sexual Revolution
Patty at Pdawwg has a great essay about the so-called sexual revolution. Here's a brief excerpt:
We abdicated our job as responsible guardians of our own sexuality. We bought into the culture that said this was a good thing, and we never once stopped to count the cost to us, to our children, to our grandchildren. We can deny ourselves nothing, including sexual gratification. Ask yourselves this question, if you were to stop having sex today with your husband, boyfriend, fiancé or dating partner, would he stay? Would you want him to stay? If the answer is no or I don’t know, that’s not love, that’s sex glue.
Now, go read the whole thing, won't you?
Posted by Susan B. at 11:06 PM
| Comments (5)
Friday, February 21, 2003
Sex Ed That Sucks
A lot of blogs have been linking to this story today. Anne Wilson has the best take on this:
The article should have been titled, "Girls encouraged to sexually service boys in return for humiliation and no sexual pleasure themselves. Free STDs included."
Anne also points out another health risk at issue here.
Posted by Susan B. at 10:12 PM
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Update on Wrongheaded Florida Adoption Law
I posted on this back in August. It looks like this law is going to be stricken from the books soon. Good.
Posted by Susan B. at 1:08 PM
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
Appropriate for the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Created Equal - The Pro-Life Blog. (Found via Eve Tushnet.) Another great pro-life blog: Prolifeguy's Take.
Joel Fuhrmann also has a couple of great posts on this subject, including a link to this Rod Dreher column about a Unitarian church service celebrating Roe v. Wade.
Like Joel, I also used to be pro-choice. I was still a lapsed Christian when I became pro-life. My change of heart about this issue was a gradual one. It's kind of a long story that I'd like to blog about sometime.
Update: Take a look at the blogs4God Anti-Massacre Movement, a gallery of suggested Planned Parenthood poster designs created by pro-life bloggers.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:22 AM
Tuesday, January 21, 2003
If these young women are so "liberated," why are they more degraded than ever?
Washington Post - The Buddy System
Thanks Clinton, Ally McBeal and Sex and the City. Thanks a bunch.
(Via The Corner.)
Posted by Susan B. at 12:28 PM
Thursday, January 9, 2003
Profit Over Safety
Via Eve Tushnet comes this sad, upsetting article:
New York Times: At a Texas Foundry, an Indifference to Life
I believe in capitalism. But it must be tempered with morality. The above article shows what happens when it isn't.
Posted by Susan B. at 11:02 PM
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Boortz on Abortion
I enjoy Neal Boortz’s show and I agree with a lot of the things he says. Other times I find him to be very offensive. This is particularly the case in the rare instances when he talks about abortion. Usually this is the "forbidden subject"...he doesn’t take calls about it and he refuses to read emails about it. He seems to be talking about it more than usual lately. What I'd like to address is this part of his program notes for today:
THIS IS WHY REPUBLICANS LOSE
We have a true zealot … a religious zealot … serving in the Georgia General Assembly. His name is Bobby Franklin and, of course, he’s a Republican. They should list him in the legislative directory as Rep. Bobby Franklin, RZ-Marietta.
Bobby Franklin is now in the process of demonstrating just why women will go to extreme lengths to avoid voting for a Republican candidate. He is going to introduce a bill in the Georgia General Assembly which will require a pregnant woman to obtain a “death warrant” before she can have an abortion. The actual abortion will be referred to as an “execution.” The bill will call for a trial where the mother will be required to testify in open court as to why the “execution” should take place. Both sides, the rapidly growing cell mass and the mother, will have the right to appeal. A doctor who is found to have performed an “execution” without a “death warrant” having been signed will be jailed for five years and will lose his medical license.
Here is a lesson in political reality for you Republicans out there:
1. There are many women who are voting for Democrat candidates who are far more aligned with the Republican philosophy than the Democratic, but won’t vote for Republicans because of people like Bobby Franklin.
2. There are virtually NO women who would otherwise vote for Democrats, but who instead vote Republican because of people like Bobby Franklin.
3. Abortion is legal, and it's going to remain legal. Period.
So … thank you Bobby Franklin, and a big thanks to all of your religious fanatic-zealot friends, for chasing even more women into the open arms of the Democratic Socialist party. You are serving the cause of freedom so well.
I agree with some of what he’s said here, but I absolutely disagree with other parts. First I'll address where I agree with him.
Franklin's bill is ridiculous. It's ham-fisted, mean-spirited and exactly the wrong way to present the pro-life point of view. Attacking women who seek abortions is not going to help people to be open to the idea that there’s another human life involved and that that life has a rights. I also agree that when Republicans come on too strong with this issue, they drive voters away. I do not think that pro-life Republicans should abandon the issue. Rather, I think they should work quietly and incrementally toward their goal.
I strongly disagree with Boortz’s statement that the baby is just a "rapidly growing cell mass." It's not a blob of tissue. It's a developing human life. I also take issue with his general hostility toward pro-lifers.
I don't know if I agree that abortion will never be illegal. I'm inclined to think that people have hardened their hearts to the point that they think a baby is only a person if they want it. If they don't, then it's just a blob of cells. This attitude is, of course, illogical, but it helps our society rationalize killing some babies while going to great lengths to save others. But I still hope that maybe someday, most people will realize what a great moral evil abortion is.
Posted by Susan B. at 8:30 PM
Sunday, December 8, 2002
If that's the case, then count me out, please. I don't have much to add except -- what Susanna Cornett said.
If you think she's wrong, think again.
Posted by Susan B. at 1:05 PM
Thursday, November 21, 2002
That's my reaction to this Planned (Un)Parenthood "Holiday Card" (there's no way I could call it a Christmas card). This reminds me of something. A few years ago, there was a pro-choice benefit album that consisted of some alternative rock artists covering various Christmas songs. The album was entitled...get this...O Come All Ye Faithful.
While on this subject...I agree with Mark Shea that there will be a ban on PBAs. While I believe that most voters do not support making all abortion illegal, most people do see PBAs for what they are -- barbaric and cruel. The only people defending PBAs are the most militant, rabid pro-aborts. I agree with the strategy of quietly working to ban PBAs, therefore forcing the Democrats to be the ones to make a big deal about PBAs. They will be put in a position where they will either have to defend this "procedure," or admit that it's indefensible (which will put them at odds with pro-abortion extremists like NOW).
Posted by Susan B. at 12:08 AM
Monday, November 11, 2002
Bob Crane -- A Sad, Sordid Story
Old Oligarch reviews the new movie about the life and death of Hogan's Heroes star Bob Crane. The film documents Crane's gradual slide into the dark world of pornography and sex addiction. It is often said that addiction eventually results in death. This was certainly the case for Crane. Old Oligarch concludes:
...The whole tragedy of Bob Crane is how his addiction embarrassed and alienated those around him. This wonderfully witty, talented, generous and humane man pained so many people with the wicked products of his addiction that it ruined his career, his marriage and ultimately his life. If he had only been brave enough to repent, and to pull the hooks from his eyes, he would have lived to be a better husband, father and actor, instead of making that hopeless, sordid, bloody end, alone and empty in a Scottsdale hotel room.
I recommend reading the whole post -- it's excellent.
Posted by Susan B. at 3:19 PM
Wednesday, October 16, 2002
Victims of the DC-Area Sniper
Last night, I read this article about the sniper victims. Seeing their faces and reading a little about their lives added to the sadness and anger I already feel about this situation. The latest victim of the sniper, Linda Franklin, had local ties -- her friend and former sister-in-law lives here in Pensacola. Here is the story about this on the website of a local TV station. From the article:
Turner says Franklin was the glue that held her family together. She planned family camping trips for all the nieces and nephews and kept them smiling with games and pranks.
Donna Turner/Sniper Victim Friend; "It makes me angry. We need to find out where these snipers are if it's one, two, or ten. It doesn't matter it's not fair because he's taken innocent people."
Franklin had beaten breast cancer and had been undergoing therapy after having a double mastectomy.
Her friend can't believe she survived cancer and then died in such a tragic way.
This is just sad beyond words. Family and friends robbed of a wonderful person in their lives, because some sicko wants to play God. Mrs. Franklin had survived breast cancer, only to be senselessly murdered by a monster.
Then there's this:
Will Turner and her family travel to Virginia for the funeral?
She hasn't decided yet.
She's afraid to travel to the area while the sniper is still on the loose.
I pray that they catch this evil person (or persons) soon, before he robs someone else of their life. Before he robs someone else of a beloved family member or friend.
Posted by Susan B. at 7:51 PM
Thursday, August 8, 2002
Outrage in Florida
Andrea Harris links to an article about an appalling new law here in Florida:
South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Women who put babies up for adoption required to publish sexual pasts
What is the rationale for such a disgusting law? From the article:
The law is a part of revised Florida adoption requirements enacted last year that require a birth mother to make an exhaustive effort to locate the birth father to notify him about adoption proceedings.
When background searches don’t work, a birth mother must place legal notices about the adoption in a local newspaper where the baby was conceived.
In the newspaper notice, the mother must list her name, describe herself, name or describe the possible father(s) and list the date and the city or county of conception.
The legislator who spearheaded the overhaul of the state’s adoption laws said they were designed to make adoptions better, easier and quicker.
To that last sentence, all I can say is that they have failed miserably. Again from the article:
“The adoption community is up in arms against this [law],” said Boca Raton attorney Charlotte Danciu, who represents the six women. “When women come into my office and find their whole lives have to be exposed in the newspaper, they are like, ‘Forget it.’ They can abort without consent, but they can’t give the child an opportunity to live without humiliating themselves.”
This is just stupid, sad and wrong. This is going to cause many more abortions and a lot less adoptions.
Andrea Harris has some excellent commentary on this law and adoption in general.
Posted by Susan B. at 12:46 AM
Sunday, June 23, 2002
Last week, Martin Roth Online had a link to this interesting article in Regeneration Quarterly on how Playboy and Hugh Hefner's "Playboy Philosophy" have manipulated our culture:
The Playboy Philosophy, which requires women to be thin, infertile, and always available, essentially requires childlessness. And you can bet your birth control packet that abortion is the natural bedfellow of the successful playboy. The Playboy Foundation, the (ahem) philanthropic wing of Playboy Enterprises, provides grants and donations to a wide range of projects, most involving reproductive rights and freedom of speech—industry code for promoting sexual license as a natural right and abortion as a failsafe guarantee. Hence the heavy support of the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and similarly single-minded organizations. On the playboyenterprises.com Web site you can witness the Playboy bunny icon digitally morphing, with breathtaking symbolic audacity, into a dove of peace winging its way around the world. Why is he so at peace? Because Hefner has made the world safe for a 50 percent divorce rate, guaranteeing him a constant stream of beautiful and financially vulnerable young women.
Of course, Hugh Hefner is on the side of women's liberation—as long as it supports his "incredible machine that brings to me the most beautiful young women . . . already wanting to be . . . part of my life." What could be better for an irresponsible and sexually aggressive male than an entire culture that views women as sex objects, views pregnancy as a disease, and offers abortion as its cure?
Posted by Susan B. at 11:40 PM