People are upset about parish reorg. Legit. But this:

Robert J. Corti, 64, whose family has been baptized in Our Lady of Peace for generations, said it was folly for church officials to think that people with a deep emotional attachment to a parish would simply transfer their allegiance, and donations, to another. Like many Catholics at churches facing uncertain futures, he said he did not know where he would go if his beloved church closed.

Your allegiance is supposed to be to Christ, no? Or if I may quote 1 Cor 1:13,

Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Yeah, don't worry about it. All of the baptisms are the same.

Labels: catholic

The article from Secular Pro-Life itself is fairly interesting, but this comment gets to the heart of the issue, and the same applies to each side thinking about the other, often.

It reminds me of a few weeks back, on Atheist analysis, when they had Emily Letts and others in for discussion. Emily rattled off a list of things she thought the pro-life movement was: anti-sex, slut shaming, woman hating, promoting gestational slavery, not compassionate, etc. She said (paraphrased) that she couldn't understand why anyone who cared about people could possibly be against abortion, but that she was certain that her own video, along with other actions, were going to turn our cultural sentiment.

This flabbergasted me. You don't know why people hold the beliefs they do, but you think to be able to convert them? There is no doubt that the pro-life movement has individuals that express each of those elements, but the strongest glue that holds the vast majority of pro-lifers together is respect for the life of the individual. I wanted say, I get it. I get that she didn't think the fetus had any moral worth. I get the fact that many pro-choicer activists barely even think of the fetus when it comes to abortion, either because they rationalize that it is not human, or they rationalize that physical dependence in this one case only warrants the withholding of rights. I understand that concept. But take away that premise for a moment, since most people, even many people who fall on the pro-choice side, recognize the humanity of a fetus. You are never going to get an overwhelming majority of people be okay with a carte blanche power to kill their fellow human beings at will. You may be able to carve out exceptions that most are comfortable with. Many less active pro-choicers are pro-choice not because they love abortion, but because they fear a greater evil by poorly developed and implemented policies that fail to have the flexibility needed for special cases (and I'm very sympathetic to that stance!). But you are never ever going to get a vast majority of people to hold the view that killing a large swath of human beings without some sort of checks or oversight is okay. Because people like Emily Letts do not understand that, they will fail in their mission.

Labels: prolife

MSFW. Call a spade a spade, and a vulva a vulva. That's my policy and I'm sticking to it.

Labels: nonplussed and friends, sex

Justifications for Abortion are Inherently Ableist.

Recently, certain disabled pro-choicers have started to protest the ableist language and ableist assumptions about a disabled person’s quality of life used by the pro-choice movement in order to promote late-term abortion.

Labels: prolife

I do, and here's how it's done.

1. Open Firefox 7
2. In the Address Bar field, type about:config and press Enter.
3. As usual, click the click the I’ll be careful, I promise! button.
4. In the Filter field located at the beginning of the page, type locate browser.urlbar.trimURLs and press Enter.
5. Locate the Preference (or key) and double click the value so that it goes from the “default” value of “True” to the “user set” value of “False”.
6. Exit Firefox and enjoy your web addresses with the “http://” prefix!
7. Click OK.
8. Done!

Labels: technology

Those damn Republicans, always thinking they know better than the scientists. Oh wait.

Prompted by controversy over dangerous research and recent laboratory accidents, the White House announced Friday that it would temporarily halt all new funding for experiments that seek to study certain infectious agents by making them more dangerous.

Labels: politics, science

Indiana’s argument is that its definition of marriage has a legitimate and important aim and is a means well-tailored to that aim, a means that involves no prohibition, and is simply not concerned with prohibitions. Nevertheless, Posner’s opinion says, dozens of times, that the states prohibit, ban, forbid same-sex marriage. Among people who can distinguish between not recognizing and forbidding, that’s an untruth.

The argument’s two key, interlocked elements are optimality (what sort of child-raising is best for children) and biological parenthood (which results from sexual intercourse—the only form of sexual activity capable of generating a child). Indiana claims again and again that the two elements fit reality, and fit each other, in the belief and intention of its legislature, and in “the entire experience of Western civilization.”

Posner takes exquisite care never to allow the two elements to appear together, even by implication. His judgment never once confronts, or even mentions or alludes to, Indiana’s central, reiterated claim.

For best results, never deal with your opponents' arguments.

Labels: marriage, politics, religion

Good for them. I'm writing to my legislators requesting relief.

Labels: economics, politics

Some people are freaking out and being calmed down by friends. Mark Shea is horribly sensible and clear thinking as always.

That paragraph is the real biggie causing hyperventilation across both NPR and St. Blog’s Rightwingosphere, but what, exactly, is new (or wrong) with it? We do, after all, believe that every member of the body of Christ has gifts for the other members. There’s no asterisk in Romans 12 or 1 Corinthians 12 that says those who happen to experience homosexual temptations are exempt from having something to offer the Church. Ah! What about that line about “accepting and valuing their sexual orientation” cries both the Progressive and the Reactionary, carefully ignoring the bit about “without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony”.

Yes it turns out that you can want to do things that are wrong, have that give you a unique perspective on life, and participate in the life of the community productively. The horror I tell you.

Labels: catholic, sex

A most thought-provoking article, with conclusions that I can agree heartily with. People living together, attempting to live chastely, which may require them to avoid sexual relations, for the purpose of friendship. And no neither of them use the term in the title, it's just clickbait, which doesn't even make sense because I don't put anything past the click.

Labels: catholic, morality, sex

What a very useful resource.

Labels: prolife

Or so it seems from listening to him talk. He also wants to put scientists who think certain vaccines are safe in jail, despite the fact that he's a lawyer, not a scientist. So if you're a scientist and you agree with him on an issue, you're a saint and everyone who disagrees with you should be put in jail. If you're a scientist who disagrees with him on an issue, you're a kook and should be put in jail. This we call having respect for science.

Labels: politics, science

I have just learned that the 3 Cs are

• Chicks
• Cash
• Cristal

It looks like Cristal is a Veblen good. Probably chicks and cash too.

Labels: economics, humor