What to read now that you’ve read Watchmen.
Louisiana State University gets its very own SWAT team (but they won’t call it that).
Yet another reason why I’ll never understand religion. These people get excommunicated, while pedophile priests get protected?
U.S. attorneys in medical marijuana states seem to be having a hard time figuring out what to do under the new administration. Personally, I think Obama should pardon everyone convicted of federal crimes related to dispensing medical marijuana if said crimes were committed in states where what they were doing was legal under state law.
Former Drug Czar Barry McCaffery says he “doesn’t care” if marijuana is legalized.
Man wrongly arrested for taking photos in the New York City subway (it isn’t illegal). Glad they at least dropped the initial charges. But he’s still being charged with disorderly conduct for addressing the officers in “an unreasonable voice.” They were illegally arresting him, and refused to admit they were in error. I think just about any tone of voice under that scenario would be reasonable.
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 9th, 2009 at 11:27 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under General Drug War, Police Militarization, Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
“an unreasonable voice.”
As opposed to the entirely reasonable voices that police typically use when arresting someone.
Um, what? High risk warrants on campus??? WTF?? What warrants would be considered high risk??
“I don’t want to turn campus into a ‘Big Brother’ state. I don’t want a fortress,” Martin said. “But all these devices, if they can help us intervene or deter crime, then they are important.”
Yikes.
It’s become the great catch all charge. Cops use it all the time now to give them a reason for a nuisance arrest. What recourse does a person have at that point? You can’t sue the cops. Your automatically out the time, money, and effort to fight it. It’s a disgusting, but effective tactic.
Any time you see “disorderly conduct” and the rest of the charges look shady, just vote to acquit. They put that there to get the mouthbreathers that believe everyone arrested by cops deserve it to vote “guilty”.
Someone needs to take a serious run at challenging these “disorderly conduct” statutes as void for vagueness. I know its probably been tried and failed, but it may be time to try again. Its just ridiculous that you can suffer criminal penalties for failing to maintain a sufficiently obsequious tone of voice and demeanor when interacting with the police. If you threaten the police, physically resist, or attempt to assault an office, that is one thing – But if you don’t do any of those things, then you shouldn’t be charged with a crime.
The cops probably wanted to charge the photographer with disobeying a lawful order until they realized what they were asking wasn’t lawful, so they made up some other bullshit law.
Yet another reason why I’ll never understand religion.
I understand your point, Radley, but you’re drawing quite an overarching conclusion. It’s sort of like looking at your Michael West expose and concluding, “I’ll never understand forensics,” or looking at the politicization of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and concluding, “I’ll never understand science.” The problem is one of consolidated wealth and power, not of an errant belief system.
Barry McCaffery:
“I don’t care. … If you’re 40 years old, and you’re living in Oregon, and you have 12 giant pot plants in the back of your log cabin, knock yourself out.”
at least until my stormtroopers show up and shoot you and your dog.
1. Come on now folks. Read between the lines. Les Miles has obviously signed some gentlemen of questionable civility and LSU needs that SWAT team just to cover up for the football team.
2. I hope the photographer doesn’t back down, as the officers in question are likely to be thoroughly embarrassed in a trial, assuming that the D.A. lets it get that far.
3. I’ve never looked at the issue, but there might be a problem with just issuing a blanket pardon. I recall president Carter did something like that for those who evaded the Vietnam era draft, but don’t remember the legal particulars (hey, I was 2).
I think it’s problematic to pardon someone merely because the act was legal under state law, though. I suspect there are a lot of federal crimes that fall into that category, and don’t know how we would go about parsing them to see which are deserving of pardons and which are not.
I would be more receptive to a blanket pardon for anyone convicted of any offense related to marijuana, representing a finding by the president that the costs of prosecuting, incarcerating and monitoring those convicted of crimes related to marijuana so vastly exceeds the benefit of such prosecutions that there is not sufficient justification to continue such prosecutions.
The President could not, consistent with his oath of office, tell the executive branch NOT to enforce the law on marijuana when cases fell into their laps, but he could tell them not to actively investigate those crimes (much like we probably don’t actively investigate many Mann Act claims today) merely as a matter of allocating scarce resources.
‘Equipped with assault rifles, throat lights, helmets, bullet-proof vests and battering rams, the Warrant Team will be a rapidly deployable unit capable of responding to any incident of campus violence.’
it should say ‘will be rapidly capable of creating our own incidents of campus violence.’
someone occasionally tries to introduce atypical emergency procedures on amabulances- paralytics, central access IV lines, etc- the problem is that these procedures are never truly mastered and, sometimes, actually harm the patient. The risk to reward is just not worth it for most ambulance services. The risk to reward on most of these SWAT teams is just not worth it. These guys don’t have enough legitimate usage to be competent- they need to focus on being good cops.
#9 – The SWAT folks will have plenty of practice kicking in doors and such serving warrants for expired parking tickets and failure to appear…
But what if the first is a consequence of the second? In the case of an episcopal, Christian church, the concentration of wealth and power is a direct result of the belief system. That leaves us two possiblities:
1. If the concentration is wrong, then the belief system must be in error.
2. If the belief system is not in error, then the concentration is not the problem.
I think most adherents would take proposition 2 and argue that the problem was with those people who were office rather than the belief system, but that is dependent on the belief system.
Regarding the LSU SWAT team, my hackles were up early on when I saw the unquestioned and unsubstantiated statement
This has become a popular nostrum, but I have never seen anything to substantiate it. What is more likely is that media attention has skyrocketed for isolated incidents of violence against the background of an unreported of flat or declining trend, making it seem like the problem is everpresent. It’s just another variation on church arsons in the mid-nineties, high school shootings in the late nineties, and shark attacks in 2001 (before other events killed that story), and so on down the line. All of those were “dangerous trends” that never existed, if one bothered to look up the actual statistics.
Also,
It seems more likely that the presence of such a team, with no legitimate reason for deployment 99.9% of the time, will increase campus violence, though I don’t know that the statistics will count it as such when it is the mighty SWAT officers bashing in doors and delivering beat-downs to mouthy college dope smokers.
Radley…the reason you “don’t understand religion” is because, unlike myself, you haven’t acknowledged and accepted the fact that 99% of people involved with religion are glorious hypocrites paying lip service. The catholic church is the industry standard for money grubbing, lip service paying, self-serving, hypocrites. I lose 10 points of respect for anyone that confesses to being a regular, organized religion following sheep….and 50 points if they admit to being a practicing catholic.
All hail the flying spaghetti monster! : )
I wonder how long till the Catholic Church beatifies the stepfather who raped the 9 year old. It would be fully within their tradition of late.
Also on the LSU SWAT story, I forgot to mention the undercover cops
Just in case anyone wasn’t clear on the real purpose of these guys, it’s just another front in the War On Citizens Who Use Drugs.
Re ‘excommunication:’
Excommunication is first SELF-imposed. A Church declaration of same is merely ‘the paperwork’ catching up with what’s already happened.
Make that showing insufficient servility to his masters.
Protect and serve my ass!
John @ #11:
But what if the first is a consequence of the second?
That’s a reason to not understand that religion, but not religion all together. Religion isn’t inherently about the organizational structure of a church. It may be in the case of Roman Catholicism, but many religions are silent about how its practitioners should organize. For example, I’m Lutheran and in my church pretty much the only position required by our beliefs is a pastor. How the church is organized beyond that is a matter of function, not belief, and thus any flaws in the church’s organization reflect poorly not on our beliefs but on how we practice them (and, I suppose, how effective we are as administrators). My point is that priests protecting bad priests is no different than cops protecting bad cops. It doesn’t reflect the inherent shortcomings of religion or law enforcement; it reflects the inherent shortcomings of the fallible men who try to put those belief systems into action.
I hate the thought of killing even small fetuses. But, this might be a case where I could actually be involved in an abortion. The child would likely die if allowed to carry the twins to term. And, no 9yo child should have to suffer through pregnancy.
The guy was in protective custody because the other prisoners would have given him the death sentence! I have very little tolerance for child rapists. I’d supply the fellow prisoners the shank to do it! Maybe I’m wrong. But, that is one horrific crime!
Catholic rules are mostly and made and added on to what is really in the Bible. Or, like the one of calling a priest “father”! That is forbidden in it! So, it really represents “religion” well, but not Christianity. When I worked at the hospital, there was a gay (well, at least effeminate) priest! You have to admit, celibacy might be easier for him! Or NOT!
Radley, its really very simple what they’re mindset is. In the R.C. Church pretty much anything can be forgiven, except murder. You can not get absolution from a priest for committing murder. That is one of the few sins one can commit that is strictly between you and God. So by this logic one can be a multiple time/ multiple incest pedophile rapists’ and its ok by their logic so long as you ask for forgiveness. Dare to commit murder because someone is going to kill you, and your up for excommunication.
BTW, this is actually one of the few cases I think the abortion was justified. The girls body was deemed to be unable to physically deal with one pregnancy, let alone twins. Brining the baby’s to term would in all likely hood killed her, and probably the baby’s as well. This is a case of choosing ones loses. Looses three people or loose two. I’d chose the two.
#11
Perhaps the Catholic belief system is in error, but Catholocism is not all religion. Other, or even all, denominations may also be fundamentally in error, but it doesn’t seem that this sort of thing happens in all of them.
The Catholic church seems to me more prone to these sorts of abuses, twisting of its own beliefs (following the letter of the law “here, but not there”, for instance).
I still agree with #6 that the fundamental problem is the wealth and power of the Catholic Church in this instance, rather than all “religion.” Even if a belief system is not in error, a concentration of wealth and power could most definitely be in error because that sort of concentration can be used to twist the belief system to its own ends.
There isn’t a belief that I know of in Catholocism saying that priests should be allowed to do whatever their sick little hearts desire. Instead, the power of the church has served to protect them instead of enforcing its on doctrines, in an attempt to maintain its own power.
Corruption, power-grabbing, and fear mongering exist everywhere, not only in religion.
We believe in capitalism. However, a concentration of wealth and power in Washington has twisted that idea into something no longer resembling capitalism. That doesn’t mean capitalism is flawed, but what we humans/Americans have done to it certainly is.
#19 needs corrected. That should be man-made. Not “and made”! Sorry, my eyes are not working at full tilt, yet!
Re: Barry McCaffery:
As many commenters here has said, politicians only care about getting reelected. Until the legalization proponants can assure the politicians that they will still be elected, even when the drug warriors come at them full force, I don’t think the opinions of GEN McCaffrey, or Pat Buchanon, or the Economist, or whoever else regardless of stature is going to make a difference.
After all, Democratic politicians probably rightfully doubt they would get the libertarian vote anyway, and can’t risk alienating the “middle”, who are squishy on the issue, so why be bold and change the law? High risk, low reward from their standpoint.
Hannah,
That is incorrect. Priests can forgive all sins, even murder.
Regarding this blog’s discussion of Catholicism in general:
I came to this blog because of the police abuse stories Radley posted, and while I understand that many people here are atheists, it is always upsetting to see rank bigotry towards Catholics expressed here. I suspect it’s because libertarians don’t like anyone (irrespective that it’s a private organization like a church) telling someone what is “good” and “bad,” especially regarding sex. But even that disagreement doesn’t explain the naked hostility that people like Zappa express. It’s really sad.
Frankly, it makes me think that libertarianism’s “live and let live” mantra is completely false and hypocritical. I suspect that the Church would be severely persecuted in a libertarian utopia.
The answer to Radley’s question posted here is because of the protection of power and abuse of power. It’s something inherent in all structured organizations, and has nothing to do with the Church per se. You’d think that people on a libertarian blog would understand that instead of getting all snippy about religion.
I’m thankful that a few people were able to step above the snark and were able to discuss the issue in a mature way.
When the country goes bankrupt, will at least some of these SWAT teams go away?
Ah criminey! Looks like we’re in for another 90 post abortion thread now.
Which is kidnapping. There’s no such thing as an “illegal arrest”. The verb “arrest” means to hold someone under the authority of a law. Without that authority, it’s simply kidnapping. And they should be charged with such.
My only real concern about the unlawful arrest is that police will get their collective heads out of their ass before I pass the bar and have an opportunity to sue them myself.
I’m so close I can smell the money!!!
What if it’s not? The Christian church before Constantine was loosely organized and had no real hierarchical structure. From what little history of it was recorded in the Bible, specifically the Acts of the Apostles as recorded by Luke and some of Paul’s letters, each church (being all the group of believers in a particular area) met in houses and had no real structure. It wasn’t until years later that Paul suggested overseers for some of the churches, but I would assume that after 10+ years these people had naturally assumed such a position, anyway.
And they weren’t paid positions. The only money spoken of was some given to Paul to help him with his living expenses (although he mentions working his trade as a tent-maker) but much more to help the poor in Jerusalem and other places. Near the beginning of Acts it sounds as if the Christians in Jerusalem were living essentially communistically.
The structures that were added on to Christianity are not a necessary part of it, and that’s what has caused problems over the last 2000 years. I see people blame the Catholics, but Luther’s reforms did little to move away from the hierarchical power structure, and most Protestant denominations have simply copied that structure and moved the emphasis on power closer to the bottom.
As for why the Catholic Church protects its own errant priests while doing things such as in the linked article, it’s the same herd mentality that makes police officers protect the criminals in their ranks.
Sydney,
It’s because the catholic church has made a habit of covering up for child molesters for 30 years. Kinda like the thin blue line for perverts. You’re free to believe and worship any way you like. However, you’re gonna have to grow a thick skin if you take criticism of the catholic church personally.
Who were those people to doubt God’s plan for that little girl? No wonder they were excommunicated. Geeze. I mean come on, if God didn’t want those twins born from a 9 year old girl, he wouldn’t have put those fetuses there.
It totally makes sense now, once God magics a fetus into someone, you have to spare no effort to save it!
Sydney,
If by persecuted you mean held up to derision of private individuals and groups then you are correct, and so would every other religion, group, cause, etc.
If by persecuted you mean subjected to force of law to stop their free worship and expression than you could not be more wrong.
” I suspect that the Church would be severely persecuted in a libertarian utopia.”
Persecuted, I doubt. Heavily criticized and made fun of, absolutely, but that happens already.
I don’t know that this is true of you, Sydney, but it seems to me that a lot of religious people like to play victim and equate people saying not nice things about their religion, or trying to keep religion out of government with persecution.
Being a Christian, I hear stories of “persecution” often from fellow Christians, and it invariably is “someone said something that I disagree with” or “I can’t try to make converts at work” or something along those lines.
It’s a great country we live in where that counts as persecution. As I like to point out, Christians aren’t victims in this country – period – but they often play the role of victimizer in the supposed name of their religion. That’s not Christianity, but with all the loudmouths on TV pushing it as such you’d be forgiven for thinking it is.
“You can’t sue the cops. Your automatically out the time, money, and effort to fight it. It’s a disgusting, but effective tactic.”
That’s not true. The problem is that people like you think they are powerless. A cop pulling this crap would be setting himself up for a nice 42 USC 1983 lawsuit. You CAN do something about it. The sad fact is that most people aren’t willing to do so. Maybe they are scared. Maybe they are ignorant or stupid or lazy. I don’t know.
I remember reading about how a 30 minute wrongful arrest of a firefighter on a call led to a 19k payday.
Slapping those cuffs on the wrong person can be a very expensive mistake.
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?id=58350§ionId=46
#13 – I am a quasi-practicing Catholic. I think what the Church in Brazil has pronounced is a complete travesty. I may worship in the Catholic church, but first and foremost I am an American – I think for myself and do not allow others to think for me. If I went to Mass in any other country – I too, would probably be excommunicated for my beliefs. Chief among them that the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory holds water.
I do not think criticism is persecution.
However, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that in libertarian utopia, people like Zappa will not be corrupted into using force (whether or not it’s “state” force or other force) against Christians. It’s just not credible. If anything, the level of hostility suggests that libertarians would be eager to persecute Christians with force.
“We don’t do that, because we’re pure” is not an effective answer.
I know there are some libertarian schools of thought that suggest, for instance, that laws against discrimination are unnecessary because the market and other factors would work better. If such laws are deemed necessary for certain kinds of discrimination, and unnecessary for other kinds, I can bet that religion will conveniently be found to be unnecessary.
If you believe that abortion is murder, then the mother aided and abetted a double murder. Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble here, but murdering children is worse than raping them. (I say this as someone who was molested once as a child, and have wanted to deck people for suggesting that kids are usually better off dead than “having to deal with the aftermath of molestation.”)
In response to #24 Sydney
And what part of my post did you find “hostile”…..? I would say it was more derogatory and demeaning of religion (if pointing out blatant hypocrisy is derogatory or demeaning)…not hostile.
Hostile would be condoning stoning and killing people for things like…I don’t know…getting raped and not making a sound….or planting 2 seeds in one hole….or eating shrimp…or being gay….or telling you to kill your child as a sacrifice to me…or torturing and killing people that didn’t believe the way I did…THAT would be hostile. I know I’ve read that stuff somewhere…just can’t exactly remember where…oh yeah….now I remember…nevermind….
In all honesty…as long as you aren’t trying to pass laws that affect me based on your religion or some other nonsense like that….I’m not hostile at all….I just laugh at the silly things people will believe when feed it over a long period of time by enough people. And I laugh at catholics most of all because I find them to be the silliest.
@ Mike 36,
I noticed that in your zeal to address abortion you didn’t address why pedophile priests get protected…which is like ironic…or coincidental.
Zappa,
It is hostile to blatantly pre-judge anyone who professes to be Catholic. Instead of taking people as they are, you pre-judge them. Essentially, what you want is validation of bigotry and your sterotypes. While it must be comforting to think that Catholics are sheep, the reality is very different.
They get protected because of institutional corruption. That should be obvious. As to why the RCC cares more about abortion than child molestation it is because murder is a significantly worse moral and criminal offense than any sexual sin/act. Murder is the ultimate violation of a person’s rights, and such is without equal in moral offenses that can be committed against another human being. To the Roman Catholic Church, the murder of infants is a damn near unforgiveable sin.
The most common defense of the right to abortion I have seen from libertarians and objectivists is that the child is a “potential, not actual” human being thus it has no rights. Fair enough, but so are the retarded and severely handicapped, as it is absolutely laughable to call them an actual human being if your definition of “actual” in this case requires the ability to function as an individual with most or all of the normal human capabilities.
So rather than judge the law on its merits, its origin is sufficient to condemn it? What would we call that logical fallacy, “argumentum ad originem?” Remind me again how you are fundamentally different from religious people who tell the non-religious that their opinions are automatically invalid due to their beliefs.
Re Disorderly Conduct: In Ohio, you cannot even get a jury trial for disorderly conduct. Unless it is what is called “persistent disorderly conduct”, it is just a minor misdemeanor with no jail time and a fine of up to $150 (and court costs).
And Ohio Courts have ruled that, despite the Ohio Constitution’s Bill of Rights that says, “The right of trial by jury shall be inviolate,” as long as there is no jail time and the fine is not more than, you guessed it, $150, a jury trial is not required.
They get a lot of people that way.
On the other hand, in Ohio, resisting an unlawful arrest is legal.
In other news, George W. Bush just announced that he doesn’t care if Saddam Hussein stays in power.
#42- Mike T-
I’m not going to jump onto the religion bashing wagon, but I too, take offense when people pass laws to affect me that are based on their religion. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I feel that morality should not be legislated. I can name several religion-based laws off the top of my head that I oppose.
‘Remind me again how you are fundamentally different from religious people who tell the non-religious that their opinions are automatically invalid due to their beliefs.’
non-religious people push for laws to limit religious people encroaching on them. religious people push their beliefs onto everyone through legislation. That’s the fundamental difference I see.
I’m not surprised the Catholic Church did this. I’m also not surprised to read comment from people who think they have the right to opine about abortion when it was not their body involved whatsoever. And of course someone will read my response and launch into some righteously indignant bullshit rant opining about children and morals and blah, blah, blah misogynycakes because nine times out of ten, the “what about the children!” morality call surrounding is a smoke screen for controlling women’s bodies.
Re: LSU “SWAT” team
““If we have to have some plainclothes officers, I’m going to trust our police force to do it right and to do it well,” Martin said.”
Okay, but don’t all citizens do this with every police force only to be proven wrong all too often? And at an increasing frequency?
MikeT@37
I find it hard to determine which is actually more “sinful”.
to choose to murder the fetuses, or the child.
The little girl is going to have to deal with this rape, and it results, for the rest of her life. That is why I can’t really see this rape and impregnation as anything less than unforgivable.
Thinking the victim had any blame or would be better off dead, sounds like someone with limited thinking abilities That is crazy! The child already has enough to deal with, without some adult thinking the child is “better off dead”! And, that is not the issue that we are dealing with here.
So far as the abortion goes, how would a moral, Christian, doctor take care of this? Would he consider the life of the mother being in danger or think about “murdering” the unborn babies. Even as a pro-life person, I could not, conscientiously, say that this child should have been forced to carry the pregnancy, until she and the fetuses died! Or, that she should be thought of as a murderer, for getting the abortion.
And it all happened because some pervert impregnated her at an age which was incompatible with a normal pregnancy. It is just so sad. It is one of the gray areas where pure anti-abortionists don’t have the right answer. That is one of the reasons laws against abortion make mistakes, as well. Either, the child, or the fetus, (or both) is going to die. In this case it was twins.
And as I understand it, you don’t have to be of any religion to have morals. And, the morals issues are what we are talking about. Even atheists have morals.
LSU SWAT TEAM:
“The team, which LSUPD expects to be deployable before the beginning of the fall semester, will serve a two-fold purpose — serving warrants to high risk suspects and responding to life-threatening situations on campus”
1.) As another commenter suggested, there probably shouldn’t be too many high risk warrants in a campus setting. So, the “high risk warrant” team will justify its existence by busting dudes who are growing a little weed and listening to OAR all fucking day.
2.) In the event of a “life threatening situation” on campus, patrol officers should be quick and competent enough to track down the suspect and incapacitate or kill him, with or without long rifles. Waiting for a SWAT team, may lead to more casualties.
3.) SWAT teams should be regional entities in all but the most heavily populated jurisdictions, otherwise, smaller agencies will tend to use them in ways they should not be used in a free society.
4.) LSUPD can use whaterver euphemism it prefers, but this is still a CAMPUS SWAT TEAM!!!. It is also a tremendously stupid idea and a huge fucking waste of taxpayer dollars.
#17 I call it “failure to kneel at the zipper”.
I´m not trying to defend the Church, but I´m sure there is some sensationalism on it. Anyway, a good article in Portuguese about the situation(Something readable if you use Google Translator, fluent Spanish readers may read it also).
http://terramagazine.terra.com.br/interna/0,,OI3616925-EI6594,00-Dom+Jose+Nao+dei+excomunhao+E+a+lei+da+Igreja.html
@Sydney – “It is hostile to blatantly pre-judge anyone who professes to be Catholic.”
Not to speak for Zappa, but he’s not PRE-JUDGING you. He’s JUDGING your professed allegiance to the belief structure and/or the organization. Difference.
The church will always defend a priest’s right to molest little boys, and apparently also, the right of adults to rape their daughters and sons. Isn’t it just “god’s will?”
Obviously I’m with the “I don’t understand religion” side.
A little history, the church didn’t always consider abortion “murder”. People today, talk about it with such definitive terms, black and white, left and right. Yet even the church, apparently, has gone back and forth on the issue over the centuries. Interestingly, throughout the vast majority of the church’s history, the law pretty consistently held that abortion was not murder if done before “quickening” or similar time period (5th-16th centuries; see St. Augustine, Pope Innocent III, Pope Gregory XIV, et al). It wasn’t until just recently, 17th century onward, that abortion was considered akin to murder.
Whatever your opinion on abortion, it is apparent that not even the church has been clear as to when “life” starts, as many different rulings and opinions have been issued over history. Which one could possibly be the “correct” one? That which was belief for 95% of church history, or that which is new-the most recent?…And then given all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were yet another reversal on this policy a century from now.
Now, just a friendly reminder, not all religions are in agreement with the Catholic church on this issue. I only give the history of the Vatican because it’s been mentioned several times here before. Regardless, not all religions believe that life starts at “conception”. Not all people believe in the Christian definition of life. IMO, it’s a shame that most discussion of this issue is always so focused on Christian perspective. However, seeing as how we all have freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion, we should also be free from having other people’s beliefs being pushed on us. Nor should a free society enshrine in it’s laws, any particular favored or popular religious doctrine.
Michael
“And it all happened because some pervert impregnated her at an age which was incompatible with a normal pregnancy. It is just so sad. It is one of the gray areas where pure anti-abortionists don’t have the right answer. That is one of the reasons laws against abortion make mistakes, as well. Either, the child, or the fetus, (or both) is going to die. In this case it was twins.”
I think Brazils laws actually did a pretty good job here for the anti-abortionists. The article states that you cant get an abortion unless the pregnancy is from rape, or deemed to be a life threatening issue for the mother. While I don’t fully agree with the rape statute ( I have problems with punishing the innocent no matter how they’re conceived) the child is simply to young to bear babies with out putting her self at risk. I can understand putting one’s own survival before someone else’s.
Sydney Carton
“Hannah,
That is incorrect. Priests can forgive all sins, even murder.”
Given the advice of 2 priests (one R.C., the other Anglican both able to quote catholic catechism) I’m going with what they told me. That god has the ability to forgive murder, but not priests through him.
I don’t understand why the life of the living is always subordinated to the potential life of a fetus.
The most evil entity the world has ever known: the roman catholic church.
#54: Chris K.
“I don’t understand why the life of the living is always subordinated to the potential life of a fetus.”
Simple, Chris! Fetuses represent the purity of Christ and the miracle of God magicking life where there was none. Once you’re born, you inherit the original sin, and are expected to cow tow to God for every breath.
Oh! You thought there was rational thought involved? No, there isn’t. It’s superstition all the way to the core.
It all starts with the programming. You want to belong to the local group? Be loved by your family? Well! Then you need to go to church with the rest of them, where you’ll be subjected to brainwashing techniques like cyclical background noise and mantra repetition.
Let’s see… how does the RCC one go? Oh yeah: “Hail Mary, Full of Grace, The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of death.”
If you repeat that enough times, and at an early enough age, you will become unable to objectively question what you’re being taught at the same time, which, currently, includes “Fetuses are special, all others are sinners”.
So, when someone like me comes along, and actually suggests that perhaps fetuses are little more that lumps of flesh that should be considered the property of the mother and that “A human life” starts at some point after birth when the mind becomes self aware, the arm flailing and generation of straw man arguments begins.
See? Understanding religion is easy!