Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Fracus in the 'Hood

Catholic blogosphere has been a cavern for those of us robbed of our faith so the archdiocese can keep people who reject it coming every week to drop money in the basket.

Whatever style of writing you're attracted to, Church militant, snark, sarcasm, humor, gentility, intellectual - talented Catholics are growing like wheat on the internet.

Every once in a while, something dramatic happens. We're always up to our necks in manure here in Boston so I usually miss it. (I just found out the cafeteria at The Cafeteria is Closed opened and some kind of donnybrook took place that shut the blog down.) But yesterday over at Terry's digs, I found out Vox Nova has the pins for Mark Shea. Mark has posted a hilarious summary HERE.

I don't know where we are losing the folks at Vox Nova. No matter how many times you attempt to enlighten them, it seems like they have their story and they stick to it... no matter how silly it gets.

Likening Vox Nova to a Debate Club at Aushwitz is pointing out the immorality of debating butchering babies alive as a choice for pregnant women in our country. Their boo-hooing about being called antisemites is buffoonery.

They want to continue to insist their writers are not prochoice but they freely admit they are against activists who work towards the repeal of laws that license people to kill children.

There are only two positions about choices when a woman is pregnant and it isn't rocket science.

You have to have two things to choose from to make it a choice.

When it comes to the definition of the word 'choice' as it relates to abortion, if you are lobbying for a society that offers women two options when they are pregnant and one of those options is killing their child, you are pro-choice.

Once you take away that option the word choice is not applicable.

They also claim repealing the law would put the baby butchers out of a job. I scoured their archives to find talking points on keeping prison wardens gainfully employed by keeping a steady stream of people on death row strapped down for lethal injections and into the electric chair. Shockingly, I stand here empty-handed.

When you read the thread, you'll see these 'pro-life' Catholics (who can't seem to figure out baby butchers would be needed in obstetrics) have the audacity to claim activists working towards the repeal of the law should have complaints filed with their employers (or potential employers).

And no, before you go "are you saying he is doing the same thing as these." The point is, if people are misbehaving, causing problems, and after constantly confronted and told why they are in error, if they keep trying to act like bullies on the internet, they should not be surprised if people who would hire them would be contacted and told to take note. Livelihood is important, but on the other hand, Mark IS working against the livelihood of others with his constant false witness about VN and the people on it. It affects us, too. Why should we not encourage him to behave betters, so he can be a good witness for the faith instead of a witness of a heckler?

Yeah. Because what kind of a good witness is it to expose Catholics who are misleading their readers.


Karlson later makes a vulgar and sophomoric reference to body part that resides in a gentleman's trousers by calling a fellow commenter in the thread named Richard ,"Dick". Must be the latest fruit of the loom from all his studying of Buddha.

Catholics who sell their prochoice convictions by saying rather than working to repeal laws that make it legal for people to kill other people, we should all focus on financially, emotionally and spiritually supporting pregnant women in crisis are playing games. Under the Obama administration, abortion has increased. They don't even have the decency to be honest about it. So you can throw that theory right out the window.

These things are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it's symbiotic to stop the killing and support women so there is no legitimate reason to filibuster on Roe v. Wade.

Pro-lifers are always on the front lines assisting women. You know who you never see there?

Pro-choice Catholics.

Here's some savvy advice for practicing Catholics: For Lent, give up wasting precious brain cells reading their intellectual dishonesty.


RosicrucianRaytheRiveter said...

Left-footer said...

Pro-abortion Catholic - ain't no such animal.

Torquemada, thou should'st be living at this hour!

Carol McKinley said...

You've got that right!

Carol McKinley said...

n.b. - I don't know what the relationship to smoking ban in parks is to Vox Nova, but I welcome the news. I'd like to see them add beaches. Come to think of it, sidewalks. :O)

Anonymous said...

You make it sound as though the current legality of abortion might be abolished through public pressure on the legislative process. It might help to clarify the situation to note that "Roe v. Wade," as a Supreme Court decision, is not "a law" and cannot be "repealed." It can only be overturned by another Supreme Court decision, something which until now, even with a majority of Republican appointees on the Court for some time, has not happened and may never happen in the future because of the justices' essentially conservative (small "C") reverence for the principle of "stare decisis." I do not think the integrity of one's pro-life position molts a feather if one is politically realistic about the chances of a reversal of the prevailing legal situation in the foreseeable future through public pressure.

Carol McKinley said...

You seem to be underestimating the power of public pressure. My, my. What would Rosa Parks think of you.

Public pressure is how every victory over injustice has been won.

There are some things so heinous, like the legal butchering of infants, that any argument to permit it to continue under the veil of prudence is absurd. Not to mention cruel.

Carol McKinley said...

p.s. It is my understanding that there would be a lot of work to do if SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade. The grassroots would have to work on the state level to enact laws that ban abortion, lobby Congress, the House and the President to criminalize it. Lobby to amend the constitution to grant the right to life to the unborn. Last I knew, this process would involve 'laws'. This was the context I was loosely using the word 'repeal' in. I am happy to stand corrected if your understanding that overturning Roe at SCOTUS puts an end to the matter is correct and I am in error.

love the girls said...

Within a matter of years it won't matter what the supreme court says on Roe v Wade.

Because medical maryjane, immigration, healthcare, and other issues soon to follow are driving a State nulification wedge between them and the usurpation of the court.

So when States like South Dakota rule abortion illegal the Fed's objections will be ignored.

love the girls said...

As for Vox Nova,

Zippy's tussles with Henry Karlson were fun to watch. But Henry is correct, the term does signify complicity with the death camps, especially in light of their defense of 'pro-choice' Catholicism.

Which is not a reason to not use the label, since it is fitting because of their defense of the indefensible. But it is not usable given Mark Shea's absurd reasoning because under his reasoning it would be defamatory.

Anonymous said...

"Because medical maryjane, immigration, healthcare, and other issues soon to follow are driving a State nulification wedge between them and the usurpation of the court."

Nullification is a phantasy; and, by the way, medical marijuana is the closest thing to an act of state nullification that the federal government has recently permitted -- all marijuana is still illegal at the federal level, even though they are choosing not the enforce the laws with any rigor in states which have enacted medical marijuana laws. But unless you look forward to a second civil war (with modern weapons of mass destruction, perhaps on both sides), I would drop talk of "nullification." I do not know of a single generally recognized constitutional expert, even among those who strongly disagree with the premise of a "right to privacy" implied in the Constitution, who believes that the decisions of the Supreme Court are "usurpations," that is, beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court, even if it conclusions themselves are mistaken.

"So when States like South Dakota rule abortion illegal the Fed's objections will be ignored."

Short of civil war, it will be hard to ignore the federal troops sent in to enforce the decision of the Court. Remember what that raving radical Dwight D. Eisenhower did to enforce Brown v. Board? I cannot image the current administration doing less in such a casse as this, and the state officials behind such defiance will go the way of Orville Faubus down the memory-hole of history.

RosicrucianRaytheRiveter said...

If we had condoms for cigarettes, we could enjoy "safe smoke."

Carol McKinley said...

Love the girls,

No mistake about it, the intention is there to let them wear the crown of complicity with death camps. But we are speaking about abortuaries. It is a symbolic comparison.

Caroline said...

Carol..You have a way of getting the truth out in very clear terms. I'd never want to be on an opposing team in a debate. BUT- your best word which summarizes the whole thing is.......



Anonymous said...

Vox Nova? I can't stand arguing with left wing kooks like that anymore. Everything to them seems about money, this one has to much money, that one doesn't have enough...etc not enough health care, the evil military.. they have so many excuses for abortion.


RosicrucianRaytheRiveter said...

Nova was a hot chick in The Planet of the Apes....hotter still because she couldn't speak....heh heh