Extremist Catholic Bishops... way YIK!

This article, in USA Today is just completely irritating... particularly this:

The bishops suggested that the final document include the message that "aggressively pro-abortion policies" would be viewed "as an attack on the church."

Are they going to pretend that respecting the personal belief systems of people of every faith could be considered "aggressive polic[y]?" They don't find it even slightly hypocritical to claim that the only belief systems worth protecting are their own? Are they going to pretend that the personal belief systems of the many clergy who support reproductive freedom (including Catholics) are somehow less deserving of respect than theirs? Really?

'round and 'round and 'round he goes...

**** this is a side note added at 5:26pm on 8/26:

Happy Belated Birthday, Jasper! ****

(we may disagree but that doesn't change the fact that I love birthdays!)

Mr. Jasper: Ok, let me try again. It is not a trick question. when you were pregnant with your children, when they kicked inside of you, did you say "the baby kicked" or "the fetus kicked" which was it? How did you refer to unborn child?

Mellankelly: Listen, redundancy, although a tactic quite often used by those who have no valid argument, is most certainly not a virtue. If you insist upon asking the same questions, even after they have been answered, I will simply refer you back to my previous response found here. I see no reason why referring to a pregnancy in any colloquial terms would factor into either of our arguments. What I do see is your desperate attempts to move the conversation away from the rights of pregnant women apparently due to your lack of a compelling reason to deny pregnant women these rights.

Mr. Jasper: ..the personal belief systems of a few? no not quite. As you may have noticed, your hero, that wolf in sheeps clothing, Obama is being exposed for his support of selective infanticide.

Mellankelly: Honestly, I've never indicated in any way how I feel about Obama - and to make a statement that he is "my hero" is absurd. Have you ever noticed that these generalizations and misinformation say more about you than they do about anyone else? It appears as if redundancy is second only to ad hominem attacks when it comes to anti-abortion extremists. No politician supports infanticide, you damned fool... maybe you should find places other than anti-abortion sites to obtain your information, eh? Infanticide... seriously? You sound like a bloody lunatic.

Mr. Jasper: did you read that? CREATED equal, endowed by their CREATOR. It doesn't say our rights come from the government or a bunch radical feminists but from from our CREATOR.

Mellankelly: What the heck does that have to do with anything? God has nothing to do with public policy, my dear. She gave us free will for a reason, no? She did not pen our Constitution. If you actually believed that we were all created equal you would cease treating women as if they are inherently lesser than men due to their (God-given) biology. If you believe that we are all equal you would trust women to make their own decisions regarding their reproduction... but you don't believe women are equal, do you? You do not believe that women are capable of making good, informed choices regarding their sexuality or their reproduction. I just happen to disagree with you and it appears as if you just don't like that at all (ergo, your emotive outbursts.)

Mr. Jasper: You when claim the right to slaughter innocent unborn children, you are forcing the nation to accept genocide. The good people of this country will not allow this to go on.

Mellankelly: Poppycock. When I make the very true statement that women born or naturalized in the US are entitled to their full citizenship rights under our Constitution, I am doing nothing more than arguing for the truth: Women (and their doctors/loved ones) are most qualified to make their own medical decisions - would you prefer legislatures make your personal medical decisions for you?

Seriously Mr. Jasper, you must understand that stomping your feet and plugging your ears while spouting anti-abortion rhetoric will get you nowhere. Neither will your emotive babbling about your biblegod - no person in this Country is obliged to agree with your notions about God.

This pretty well sums it up

Your response to my post titled Religious nonsense and public policy is very telling, Mr. Jasper. It appears as if you have no compelling argument to counter my points (how very surprising) and instead chose the only retort you could possibly imagine: your religiousness.

Mr. Jasper: Well, its obvious we just don't share the same values. You certainly can't be a beliver in Christ.

Mellankelly: Well boo for you, Mr. Jasper. The country that we live in (a democracy) is a far cry from the imaginary country you wish it was (a theocracy). Thankfully, this country was founded by the notion that we are free to practice any religion as evidenced in the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Freedom of conscience is the basis of the free exercise clause, and government may not penalize or discriminate against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views nor may it compel persons to affirm any particular beliefs. So while you may fancy yourself a "believer in Christ" it has absolutely no bearing on my life whatsoever. Further, I have many friends and family members who are Christian and do not share you limited views; I would also direct you to the The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice where you will find that religious people of many faiths support a woman's reproductive choices... are you now going to proclaim that they're not "real" Christians because their belief system compels them to protect the rights of all people (including - gasp - pregnant women?) Remember, "A closed mind is not only closed to outside thoughts, it is often closed to itself as well. It is closed to new thoughts and anything that threatens the status quo. But if you can open the doors, maybe just a crack at first, the ideas that have been patiently waiting at your gates will flood in."

And regarding your stories... rape victims and rape victims alone get to decide whether or not to gestate a pregnancy that was the result of rape. I believe that only a coward would hide behind his religion when insisting that women gestate rape-related pregnancies. You have proven yourself to be a coward on more than one occasion... and you've clearly demonstrated that your concern is not with "life" per se, but begins at conception and ends at birth. I pity you and I'm sorry that your religion prohibits you from caring about the life of women facing unwanted pregnancies (including rape victims). I will pray for you, Mr. Jasper.

Oh, and regarding your bogus photo ... debunked: This picture, also distributed on a 3 x 5 inch card and used in numerous anti-abortion campaigns is equally inconsistent. If the forceps securing its head over the jar are standard OR ring forceps, the ring is 1 x 0.5 centimeters, which would mean that the head is too small to be in its third trimester, yet one less developed would not have that much hair, says Dr. Ross. "I strongly suspect that this picture is fake, and the information on the back of the card certainly does not match what's shown," he adds. The second, and most obvious, fallacy lies within the description. It says that the pictured fetus was aborted in 1987 in Texas. However, that was the year that third trimester abortions were banned, rendering the alleged procedure altogether illegal

religious nonsense and public policy

Mr. Jasper: What the heck are you taking about? do you think the child is an alien from space who invaded your womb? It's human life that growing inside of you.

Mellankelly: Well, if you don't understand what bodily integrity is and you you cannot comprehend human reproduction, then there is nothing more that I can do. The bottom line is that you simply cannot subordinate a pregnant woman's rights to a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus.

Mr. Jasper: Do mean the so-called "right to privacy" that scummy lawyers and judges invented to fit there agenda and allow baby killing?

Mellankelly: When I speak of defending women's ("so-called"?) civil liberties I assure you that I am speaking of legal arguments which were not invented by "scummy lawyers and judges." I am speaking of things such as: a lack of compelling state interest, procedural due process, equal protection, and also the right to privacy (combination of the first, third, fourth, fifth, ninth amendments and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment - further, both federal and state courts have recognized a constitutional right of privacy in medical records and patient/physician relationships.) - privacy also covers bodily integrity and self sovereignty... not to mention discrimination (there is no comparative circumstance where a males bodily integrity is forcibly violated to provide for another "person.")

Mr. Jasper: My story is completely relevent, you must not having paying attention.

Mellankelly: Okay... you like to use fairy tales and tell stories to support your personal belief system, I prefer to use legal precedent, factual information and good ole' common sense to argue for the rights of every person in our country (including pregnant women).

Mr. Jasper: Yes, you take that risk when you sleep with a man.

Mellankelly: Malarkey! I have sex with my husband without even being open to the possibility of becoming pregnant or carrying a pregnancy to term. Luckily for me, my husband had a vasectomy in 2001 so my chances of becoming pregnant are slim to none (she says while knocking on wood). And a woman who is raped certainly wouldn't be "taking that risk", right? Your personal opinions about intercourse and pregnancy have absolutely no relevance in any life other than yours. Your personal belief system is not a compelling reason to take rights away from pregnant women.

Mr. Jasper: Not good enough precautions..try abstinance and stop sleeping around. Most women who have abortions are not married. Fornication is a sin.

Mellankelly: Says you. Consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each other is most certainly not a sin. Your religious notions have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others who do not share your faith (myself included). A higher rate of unplanned pregnancy is linked much more closely to economic status (women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher income women.) If your comments are any indication, you appear to be driven by your religious beliefs and not the moral status of a fertilized egg. Your religiousness and your biblegod have absolutely no relevance in the lives of others (aside from those who share your rather limited views). Why on earth should I be forced to adhere to your personal belief system?

Mr. Jasper: It's a metaphor. and yes it does have relevance

Mellankelly: Please enlighten me... how would your "opening the gate" possibly be compared to consensual sex in which the partners used precautions to ensure that they would not become pregnant. You can't.... your comment has absolutely no relevance to that scenario. You just don't like pre-marital sex quite possibly as much as you don't like abortion. Hey, those are your opinions and you're certainly entitled to them... however, your opinion does not a fact make and certainly you have no right to force your personal religious beliefs upon me or anyone else.

Response to Mr. Anonymous silliness

Mr. Anonymous: The genesis of the death wish is rooted in the fall of man that we see in the Book of Genesis.

Mellankelly: And what, exactly, does this have to do with voting NO on prop. 48? This may mean something to you but in my opinion, quoting from the latest Stephen King novel would have been more compelling.

Mr. Anonymous: The unholy, yet inevitable, consequence of that pride is disobedience - eating the forbidden fruit

Mellankelly: Yeah, so? I love all fruit and I'll eat it whenever I want... the only "consequence" being timely digestion, thank you very much.

Mr. Anonymous: The ultimate end is death, as God said it would be.

Mellankelly: Well, that must be such a loverly concept for you, however, death is in no way "the end" - certainly we will all go home to God, as She wishes - mostly though, this occurs sometime after death - of course, there is always the possibility of coming back to this place (YIKES!)

Mr. Anonymous: The prototypical sin is pride, the pride that seeks to exalt the creature above the Creator: "I can be like God.

Mellankelly: Whatever dude... God is in each one of us. Regarding pride (a reasonable or justifiable self-respect), being the standard for sin... POPPYCOCK! Pride is not necessarily a bad thing - God would like us to have a reasonable or justifiable self-respect... I'm so sorry that your faith teaches you otherwise.

Mr. Anonymous: It was then a short and easy step to infanticide.

Mellankelly: Wow. Drama Queen much?

Mr. Anonymous: The exclamation point at the end of the death wish is that...

Mellankelly: There was no exclamation point at the end of the 1974 Award Winning movie, Death Wish... although, now that you mention it, it would've given the title a little more pizazz. I'll write to Michael Winner immediately.

Mr. Anonymous: It's hard to believe that we have degenerated to the point that we'll murder a helpless baby should it escape the violence of an abortion and be born alive.

Mellankelly: Nice try but there already exists a standard in regards to newly born infants. If you'd care to do the research (although it would appear as if you and factual information do not have a real close relationship) feel free to visit The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics to find that the standards are already in place. The verbiage of this law is ambiguous (at best) and will not "save" any premature infants... all it will do is cause unnecessary lawsuits against Doctors (at the expense of the tax payers; not to mention cause our insurance rates to go through the roof.) You will find the following statement from the NRP Steering Committee regarding BAIPA "at the time of delivery... the medical condition and prognosis of the newly born infant should be assessed. At that point decisions about withholding or discontinuing medical treatment that is considered futile may be considered by... providers in conjunction with the parents acting in the best interest of their child." and "The BAIPA indiscriminately defines 'born alive' to include an infant 'at any stage of development... regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion,' and it makes no reference to standards of care or best interests, nor does it specifically protect a parent’s decision-making authority" Bottom line: BAIPA is anti-abortion legislation - the objective of those vehemently opposed to abortion is to criminalize abortion. Period.

Mr. Anonymous: May God grant us the grace to awake from this deadly moral slumber, renounce the death wish, and live like truly free men and women - in the glorious freedom of the children of God

Mellankelly: No, you mean "live like truly free men" because if you happen to be a pregnant woman (regardless of whether or not that pregnancy is wanted) in your little imaginary world... you wouldn't be free - you'd be a slave to the legislatures who would have the ultimate say over what you may or may not do with your body. No thank you... you can go live in your little Theocracy if you'd wish, but I will stay right here in the the Country that I was lucky enough to be born into! The Country where a Doctor and a pregnant woman (and her loved ones) get to decide which medical procedures are in her best interest.