In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court of the United States today upheld the partial birth abortion ban. All five of the justices in the majority were Catholics. This case stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court of the United States will no longer adjudicate cases based on the Constitution or the laws of the United States. From now on the SCOTUS will decide cases based on the morality dictated by the Vatican who is now in charge of the law in the United States.This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and lesbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.Last year when the Court struck down the death penalty for minors, conservatives throughout the country condemned the Court for considering the briefs filed by Britain, EU, and else where about how it was no longer acceptable practice in the world to execute children. With today’s Catholic majority upholding the Vatican position on abortion, we all await those same conservatives condemnation of the Court for failing again to consider U.S. law and Constitutional right of privacy when it comes to decisions between a woman and her doctor over the state of her health and life.
Peter Nuhn
Yup, conservatives love to eat their cake and keep it too. Well, they wish they could. But we ain’t a-gonna let ‘em.
We will call B.S. on them every single time their hypocrisy appears. This time it’s “it’s o.k. to kill children (by executing them) AND it’s not o.k. to kill children (by abortion)”. Yo! It’s either o.k. to kill children, or it’s not o.k. Which is it, conservatives?
And no, I haven’t violated the Law of the Excluded Middle. I didn’t leave room for the conservatives to say “Well, it’s o.k. to kill children sometimes, depending on the circumstances…” If it’s o.k. to kill children for some reason, then it’s o.k., period.
In case you’re wondering, I don’t believe it’s o.k. to kill children. Period. Ever. Under no circumstances. Never.
It seems like the Catholics only listen to the Pope and not the Bible. When I attended Catholic school, I heard a lot of papal bull(shit) that directly contradicted scripture.
That being said, it would not be difficult to undermine Catholicism if we were able to infiltrate the church and set up a secretly Atheist Pope who then comes out as an Atheist and throws out the Bible and dogma… also issuing a decree of the disassembly of the church. That way, no other new Pope could come along later and reinstate it. The Catholics have no choice but to become Atheists.
Any volunteers?
Reed
“Any volunteers?”
Sorry, I have two big strikes against me. I’m female, and I have zero interest in screwing little boys.
Bill Donahue’s response to Peter Nunh’s editorial:
HollywoodThe NoGodBlog is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, okay? And I’m not afraid to say it. …HollywoodThe NoGodBlog likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism.wow, that actually made me laugh.
On a lighter nore:
Good Friday flagellants face rabies risk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070418/od_nm/philippines_goodfriday_rabies_dc;_ylt=As3L.S3ySxjzKfFT6YRTkUnMWM0F
I’m so depressed and pisssed. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can’t tell us what to do with our bodies? What’s wrong with this frakking country? Sigh.
Comment from: Celebrant Prince
I agree totally…it(abortion) is all about killing children…
I’m glad to hear that you’re prolife…
But I’m curious…how did the bomb thrower make the leap about today’s decision being bad for gays?
I think the reason Peter thinks this is “bad for gays” is that he thinks the Supreme Court is caving in to pressure from the Vatican – and therefore will uphold anti-gay laws.
Zac,
A lighter note, you say. Yecch.
And the ‘Passion’ was a bdsm comedy. Would you believe there are economic incentives to promote this?
If these people didn’t have science available in the form of vaccines and antibiotics, their take on religion would kill a lot more of them.
Having baited phreddy intentionally, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
I said I believed killing children is not o.k. I DID NOT say I was anti-abortion (”pro-life”), although I am certainly pro-life in the sense that human beings have a natural right to survival. But–
A fetus is not yet a human being, therefore it cannot be a child. A fetus is more properly biologically identified as a parasitical organism. Until a fetus becomes viable, it deserves no moral standing as a human being; it cannot survive on its own outside the womb, it is no more sentient than any other simple multi-celled creature, it has no language or memory, it is not yet a human being. I fully, unconditionally support a woman’s right to refuse pregnancy at any stage before her fetus becomes viable. Once a fetus becomes viable and can live outside the womb then and only then can the question of conferring “personhood” upon the fetus be considered. Until viability the fetus is not yet a human being.
phreddy really is such. a. sucker.
“This is of course very bad news for all women in the United States, all gays and l*sbians in the United States, and of course, anyone else not Catholic, especially Freethinkers, Agnostics, and Atheists.”
I’m pretty insulted by this. You don’t have to be a religious kook to consider partial-birth abortion horrific, or to consider a late-term fetus a ‘person.’
Just because many pro-life groups are using the religious angle doesn’t make abortion a church-state issue.
I don’t know how I feel about so called partial birth abortion. I had a hysterectomy years ago, so my opinion no longer matters. AND IT SHOULDN’T matter. That’s a decision to be made between a woman & her doctor. Period. That’s it. It’s no one else’s business. The end.
I certainly wouldn’t want someone OTHER than my doctor and I deciding on the best course of action for my heart condition. He gives me all my options. We consult. I pick one. No politicians needed, thanks.
I am in agreement with the assertion that very late term abortion is not just horrific but absolute barbarism and I support this ruling. Having said that, I still support a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy during the first trimester before the fetus has developed a nervous system or is capable of independent life. Who really needs seven, eight, or even nine months to make that decision anyway?
Peter:
Did the SCOTUS also consider legal briefs filed by the Vatican, or are you just assuming that their Catholic faith swayed their opinion? There’s a big difference there.
alex,
I think it can be a bit more complex than that. You have to leave open the possibility of a woman getting pregnant and only realizing late in the pregnancy that giving birth would kill her and her baby.
At least the ruling leaves room for medical conditions.
I’m still completely against this ruling though. This will only make anti-abortion groups more vigilant in their attempts to ban all abortions.
Prepare for more court rulings.
Late term abortions are not simple black and white decisions but this ruling allows for the procedure when the mothers life or health is in danger but otherwise I stand by my belief that this procedure is sadistic butchery. Have any of you actually researched what is done during a so called partial birth abortion? It is apalling and has no place in a civilised society. Aborting a two month old foetus and an eight month old one are not ethically equivalent no matter how you spin it.
this may cause a backlash on election day.at any rate steady improvement in medical care for pregnant women as well as improved ability to treat the unborn is changing the very nature of this debate.
Perhaps we should follow the example of Germany and the Netherlands which have very low rates of legal abortions and very high incidences of compulsory realistic sexual education and free and easy access to birth control. Among industrial nations only Australia has more legal abortions per 1,000 pregnancies than the United States does. The rate I found is 21.3 abortions per 1,000 pregnancies in the USA and 6.5 in the Netherlands and 7.6 in Germany. Australia came out on top at 22.2 and Canada and the UK in the middle at 16.4 and 15.6 respectivley.
? cannot states prohibit abortion in the 2nd and third trimester under roe v wade.
Reason: Yep.
While I do think that partial birth abortions are barbaric, I do not want to see any restrictions on a woman’s choice.
That being said, I don’t really know how many serious developmental problems aren’t discovered until late in a pregnancy.
Hell, I can think of at least one situation where infanticide of a newborn is the only ethical option.
So it’s really not as black/white as most think.
mxracer652 just to make clear i am not in favor of restricting abortion to first trimester.i would like to see a substantial and sustained reduction in abortion by improving medicine and strict enforcement of child support laws.
MX,
Would you want to see a woman’s choice restricted if she chose to drown her two day old infant? Is that any different from sucking it’s brain out two days earlier while it was still in the womb? What’s the difference?
There is a substantial rumor flying around Washington tonight to the effect that the Pope is planning on putting Scalia up for saint hood in the very near future.
Apple, to answer your question, you should have been around for the confirmation hearings of these five judges. All five were specifically nominated for justice because of their Catholic, anti-abortion views. This decision is not a surprise to anyone except for a few of the very naive who thought Kennedy would rule consistently with his last stated position on this procedure which was the law he struck down did not provide an exception for the health of the patient. This time he changed his position although this law does not provide an exception for the health of the patient, only if the life of the patient is endanger.
Good stuff…
Reagan, Leslie J. When Abortion Was A Crime: Women, Medicine and the Law in the United States, 1867-1973…
Quote,”Discounting the rights of pregnant women weakens everyone’s rights as patients. If a pregnant woman cannot reject a cesarean section for religious, political, or personal reasons-then any woman can be forced to submit to procedures deemed necessary for the fetus; any patient can be forced to comply with treatments deemed necessary by medical personnel.”
Peter:
Er… That actually doesn’t answer my question. My point was that the justices may very well have been influenced by the value system they were brought up in (the Catholic church), and that’s quite a bit different than considering amicus briefs filed by the Vatican, or considering legal precedents of the Holy See (if such a things exist; I’m ignorant about what sort of legal system they have in the Vatican).
I think it’s perfectly legitimate to have qualms about a person’s religious belief as it affects policy, but I don’t think it would be hypocritical for people who condemned the SCOTUS for considering EU briefs last year to not condemn the SCOTUS now. It would be hypocritical only if the Vatican did in fact file similar official legal briefs in an effort to sway the decision. (And this is what I don’t know. I could do the research, but eh… it’s getting late.)
I think it’s possible for the justices to act according to their Catholic views without directly being an agent of the Vatican.
Comment from: Celebrant Prince
Nice try to backpeddle…
No? What is it…a carrot?
What a classic example of one who has chosen to remain blind…but your opinion doesn’t matter…today’s ruling has upheld the law…live with it…
Don’t be too excited over this ruling phreedm. Women in America still retain the legal right to have an abortion, and rightly so, just not late term abortions.
Comment from: alexatheist
Wow…I think this is only the 2nd time we’ve agreed…
Phreeky loves the topic of abortion. He supported a war in Iraq that slaughtered 100s of thousands and displaced millions simply so the RR could get a couple of supremes on the bench.
In practice today’s decision by the court will be meaningless. It is a PR victory alone for the RR and a very temporary one gained at a very high price that we will now extract from the RR.
The backlash against phreedykind has already begun and it is going to be one helluva backlash. A war, an erosion of american cival liberties and a palpable loss of US domestic civility, all backed by the RR, are fueling this backlash.
Phreeky can kiss his 16th century “way of life” goodbye. Good rindance!
alex,
In 150 years I believe Americans will look back into history and not understand how a society could have been so violent towards the weakest among us. Similar to the way we look back at the period of slavery.
If one studies both subjects the arguments for abortion are very similar to the ones used to fight for slavary.
Slavery wasn’t ended overnight. It was ended one brick at a time…thankfully the movement started by part of America’s christian community was persistant in their desire to end the blight that was part of America…
alex:
Not too much as far as I can tell, except internally a fetus is parasitic on a woman’s body. I’m not a biologist though.
My biggest concern is how many developmental problems aren’t diagnosed until late in a pregnancy? If the child is going to have some sort of a life long debilitating disease that prevents it from ever being fully functioning, would you force that child’s parent(s) to care for it until either one dies? What if they have no health insurance? What if the cost of medical care for this child is more than they can afford?
phred:
And it was the other part of America’s xian community who totally opposed it.
Since there is no moral relativism for you, how do you justify anti-slavery laws if they are not biblically condemned?
http://www.lawmemo.com/sct/05/Carhart/
Apple-C: follow this link and you will find at the bottom of the page a list of who submitted briefs in Gonzales v. Carhart. There you will find the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Other Religious Organizations. Satisfied?
To the poster who doesn’t want children killed, I guess it’s OK to kill women because they refuse to be factory wombs? Sorry, but if I am ever pregnant and my health or life is in danger, I sure as hell would choose my own life over the life of a fetus who will probably die anyway. These late term abortions are not performed because someone who has carried a baby almost to term decides they don’t want to have a kid. They are done to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. What the Supreme Court has now said is that women are worthless unless they are willing to be walking wombs. What I have to say in response to that is FRAK YOU.
P.S. Is profanity allowed on this blog? Because I have a potty mouth.
writerdd,
Read the decision closely and you will see that there is a provision built in that does allow late term abortions when the mothers life is in danger. This decision does not remove a womans legal right to an abortion! I however disagree with the absence of a provision allowing this procedure to protect the mothers health.
phreedm,
I think that in 150 years we will have advanced to the point where we can manipulate genes and reproduction to the point that there will not be any unwanted pregnancies and therefore no need for abortions.
You and I might agree that late term abortions are usually morally indefensible unless the mothers life is at stake but I disagree with you totally on first trimester abortions and the use of embryonic stem cells for research.
Did you know? An abortion doctor can now get up to 2 years in prison for performing a partial birth abortion. And yet you can beat a dog and get more time for that.
How is this reflect a “culture of life?”
Peter:
Yes.
The link didn’t actually work for me, but I’ll take your word for it.
it will be interesting to see what effect this has on the elections coming up.
Comment from: mxracer652
You’re kidding…right?
Have you ever studied (on your own) what the bible has to say about slavery?
Do you understand how different slavery was during biblical days as compared to slavery in early America?
Are you aware that slaver still exits today?
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2006/65983.htm
Yo, phreddy,
>A fetus is not yet a human being, >therefore it cannot be a child.
Actually, a fetus is a human being. You were a fetus once. Most of us, however, learn to think a bit more clearly than we did at that stage. That Christian-front organization, the American Medical Association, thinks that a fetus is a human being. Prove them wrong with something other than rhetoric.
>A fetus is more properly >biologically identified as a >parasitical organism.
A parasite that millions of people choose to create that shares their dna? Isn’t that at least a *special* parasite? Tell the woman who is 8 months pregnant that it’s just a parasite. See how that goes over. And how many “parasites” become persons at the point where they become “viable”?
>Until a fetus becomes viable, it >deserves no moral standing as a >human being; it cannot survive on >its own outside the womb,
Does anyone on this site read the things he or she is criticizing? I thought atheists were supposed to be smart. The babies affected by this procedure are, in fact, able to survive, with proper care, outside the womb, and do every day if their brains are not sucked out first.
>it is no more sentient than any >other simple multi-celled creature, >it has no language or memory, it is >not yet a human being.
Are you sentient when you sleep? Or potentially sentient? The fetus becomes sentient if she is not killed.
>I fully, unconditionally support a >woman’s right to refuse pregnancy >at any stage before her fetus >becomes viable.
You idiot. The procedure which this ruling is meant to prohibit is explicitly designed to kill viable “fetuses”. They come out alive and kicking (Google the official medical illustrations of the procedure). The same mother in the same position can have an abortion wherein the same baby is cut up in the womb and sucked out as he or she would be in an earlier-term abortion. The ruling poses NO THREAT to the (former) mother’s health.
Please read the things you criticize before going hyperbolic. Most of my atheist friends are smarter than this.
And writerdd: “I’m so depressed and pisssed [sic]. So when are women going to start storming Washington and telling these fat, old sexist pigs that they can’t tell us what to do with our bodies?”
Actually, the leaders of the prolife movement are mostly now women – many who have had abortions and realized later that it is the opposit of “empowering”. But “Have fun storming the castle!”
Deo gratias!
The fight for the most vulnurable in our society, innocent unborn children, has taken a small step forwards. The forces of good will always triumph over evil. A shining light will gleem in a valley of darkness now that the innocent unborn children may someday gain the rights to life that all humans are endowed by their CREATOR (so says the constitution).
God bless those five justices.
?Viva America!
Phreedm:
You’re kidding about slavery, right?
Ex 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
Ex 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
Ex 21:20
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
Ex 22:3
If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
Lev 22:11
But if the priest buy any soul with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.
Lev 25:39-40
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee ; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant:But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile.
Lev 25:44
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
Eph 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Col 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
Tit 2:9
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again;
1 Pet 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
In the end, 1 Tim 6:1-5
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
So, you see, those of the xtian americans that fought against slavery are “proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth” and all other good, bible believing xtians should withdraw themselves from those people.
Ofcourse, the question of which side the apsolute is on still remains, especially since the Bible swings both ways.
Dear lucifer,
Yes, phreedm was serious about Christians leading the abolitionist movement. Since you don’t seem to dispute that, but rather go to your handy cut-and-paste rejoinder for just such occasions, we’ll take the point as conceded.
Ditto for civil rights. Would you have Martin Luther King silenced because he was a minister who constantly, necessarily invoked the name of Christ in railing against injustice? Was he just another dumb xtian?
If we’re allowed to smear a whole class of people by the real, exaggerated, and imagined abuses perpetrated by its members in the past, then I’ll put the entire history of Christianity against just 20th century atheism any day of the week. Christians should be mindful of evils perpetrated by Christians over the centuries (Crusades, Inquisition, Continental wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, etc.). But to be smeared with this legacy by atheists whose adherents include Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao (and more) is hypocrisy beyond parody.
What is the atheist argument against slavery anyway?
TheTruthYou seem to (conveniently?) forget that xianity was squarely on both sides of the slavery issue in the US. I guess this pretty much reflects the usefulness of the xian holy book – you can use it to both support or decry a position.
Hitler and atheist? I think you need to check your sources. Oh and you missed one of the typically trotted out atheist despots – Pol Pot. You also missed the tiny fact that each of these pricks’ regimes were based on an unreasoning political ideology – and their atrocities had nothing to do with their non-religion.
How many killings are you aware of in the name of atheism? Seriously, I’m not aware of any.
How many people have died because of a too reasonable government? Precious few I’d warrant.
I think your hypocrisy is staring at you in the mirror.
I think the golden rule would pretty much cover that. You know. The xian version goes something like “Do unto others and you would have them do unto you”. But before you go attributing that maxim to your invisible sky daddy, please note that it predates your particular brand of make believe by a long period of time.
HeatheNZ:
Not bad. You’re right about Christians being on both sides of the slavery issue. Of course, we could say the same thing about non-believers, but I hope we can both admit that the “I know you are but what am I” thing gets old quickly.
And whether Hitler was an atheist or a deist seemed to depend on context and what he needed to accomplish. That he eschewed the Catholic faith of his childhood is clear, as is his hatred (sound familiar) of Catholicism, Judaism and those that held those beliefs. He seemed to sometimes lean vaguely Christian in Lutheran Germany for utilitarian purposes at times, but his hero of “reason” was Nietzsche.
The point remains that Christians made the moral arguments and drove the abolition of slavery, and the advancement of Civil Rights, in often explicitly Christian terms. Further, it is intellectually lazy and dishonest to lump all Christians together as hypocrites because many of them have done horrible things while many (more) others have been the agents of real moral change. Notice the logical point here that this does not exonerate all Christians from evil action. It is just as unfair to label all atheists as mass murderers and genocidal maniacs or apologists thereof because the worst criminals in modern history were atheists.
It means that to judge them, as atheists and Christians are often wont to do (in fact, we should judge actions – that’s what reasonable people do), you have to resort to Truth outside mere empiricism.
I appreciate the fact that you paraphrased Christ in positing the atheist moral reasoning against slavery. Could you please tell me where exactly this maxim appears before Christ? No sarcasm here – I’d really appreciate the info. I’m aware of Confucius and various versions of “Don’t do to someone else what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.” But for reasons that should be obvious, that is worlds different from the golden rule.
And please explain how “reasonable” government is precluded from committing atrocities.
Good stuff – thanks for the challenge, HeatheNZ.
TheTruth,
Hitler was not an atheist. And he didn’t go after catholics. He was catholic himself.
“Mein Kampf: “. . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.”
“Hitler considered himself a Catholic until the day he died. In 1941 he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books.”
“As for atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”"
The Truth
Glad you showed up.
Not because of what you have to say, but phreedm’s been looking for you.
Maybe you can take him by the hand and ride off into the sunset together.
TheTruth wrote:
Which is, of course, another christian fantasy.
TheTruth is obviously lacking in the ability too…