For those who did not get a chance to attend the Vagina Monologues at Marquette, here is one of the most crowd-riling portions via YouTube. Sara Soriano performs the monologue “The Woman Who Loved to Make Vaginas Happy” (view with discretion).
Part One:
Part Two:
Update:
Upon request, let me clarify the purpose of the Vagina Monologues. According to the website of V-Day, which promotes the performances, the only purpose of their organization is to end violence against women. It can be assumed then that this must also be their intention in encouraging these performances.
Marquette tied its purpose in bringing the Monologues to campus to the goals of the Jesuits. Spokeswoman Bridget Miller claimed the performance was meant to be consistent with Decree 14 of the Documents of the 34th General Congregation of the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits). From the Marquette Tribune:
Miller said the statement calls “all Jesuits to listen carefully and courageously to the experience of women.” The statement also invites “all Jesuits, as individuals and through their institutions, to align themselves in solidarity with women” and to give “specific attention to the phenomenon of violence against women.”
Apparently, this performance is supposed to align us in solidarity with women and give attention to violence against them.
Granted, this is one scene out of the play. However, there seems to be very little value in sponsoring a performance with this type of content as a means of advancing the purpose described above.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
No press is bad press. Thanks Katie
PS, hope you and the lil sib had fun on Friday!
Thats jaw dropping…
Katie can you please explain what the Vagina Monologues are intended to do. It would further clarify why these events shouldn’t be sponsored on campus. Tax dollars and student segregated fees are used to fund events like this at universities across the country. Thank you Yout Tube… Simply amazing. The references to Lesbian behavior are definitely present. Please continue to educate on this subject…. I can’t believe this happened at a Christian institution, who knows what happens at the Public schools.
The complete hypocrisy of this school is just ridiculous. It wouldn’t bother me that much if we hosted the play if we didn’t have Administrative types like Fr. Andy lie to to everyone and his mother that “MU would never host the Vagina Monologues.” Stop lying, it’s nausiating. If you’re not enough of an adult to stand up for Catholic principles or even your own moral decency, or, hey! maybe the dignity of women, don’t waste our time with believing your ignorant schtick is honest in the first place.
The group of us that performed the monologues, yes, including Sara, felt more empowered as women after the performance than I think we’ve felt in a long time. You can bash the monologues all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that sitting up on stage and talking about our bodies and the things that we’re supposed to be ashamed of and the things we’re taught to be secretive about by the sexually fearful American society made us feel stronger and more connected to the female of the species. Your words can’t hurt us because we know we’re good, decent, strong, moral women, and being a part of the Vagina Monologues on Marquette’s campus was one of the most important things I did in my four years here.
I don’t doubt that each woman in the performance is “good, decent, strong, (and) moral women”. However, there are other ways to empower women that do not fly in the face of Catholic teaching. Not only was this offensive, but it was borderline racist.
Racist? Were we at the same performance?
And Catholic teaching has some serious growing up to do. Some things that were ok 1000 years ago don’t exactly work anymore.
I consider the monologues as treating women as objects rather than good decent people. I think there is more to a woman than their vagina or their sex. There are definitely other ways to empower women than these tasteless exercises.
You’re right, there is more to a woman than her vagina. But we shouldn’t teach our girls to be ashamed that they even have one. And we shouldn’t be teaching our girls to be ashamed of what vaginas are capable of. And we certainly shouldn’t be creating a double standard where it’s ok for men to discuss their sexuality but women can’t. There is nothing tasteless about the Vagina Monologues because they reflect the real experiences of real women. And you know what? Sometimes, life is vulgar. Sometimes life is ugly and offensive and rude and terrifying. And if we don’t talk about it, it will continue to happen.
Examples:
The play “Hair” teaches women that they don’t have to groom themselves to the requirements of their partner and they should claim complete control over the appearance of their vaginas.
The play “The Woman Who Loved To Make Vaginas Happy” actually empowers women by showing them that they don’t have to be ashamed of the noises they make during sex. Traditionally women are taught that sex is for procreation only and that they’re not supposed to enjoy it, but you know what, that’s a silly, stupid, unrealistic expectation.
“Reclaiming Cunt” does just that, reclaims a word that has for so long been used to denigrate women to make them ashamed of their parts. If penis isn’t used as a derrogatory term, then no variation of “vagina” should be derrogatory either.
“Because He Liked to Look at It” and “The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could” — both examples of the Pope’s declaration that sex should happen in the context of a relationship where one partner is giving of themselves to the other, without selfishness. Both sexual encounters succeeded in making the ashamed woman more confortable in her own skin, a selfless act on the part of their partners.
I could go on through the whole show, but I think you get the point.
MU socialist,
I really wish you wouldn’t rely on euphemisms so heavily when you’re trying to make a passionate argument, they belittle your own significant level of intelligence.
The group of us that performed the monologues, yes, including Sara, felt more empowered as women after the performance than I think we’ve felt in a long time.
I’m sure you did feel empowered. Having not read or seen the play yet, I really can’t comment on the specifics of it (minus the fact that I am continually pissed at this University for the double-faced nature of everything). However, I have to say 1) there are a lot of people who feel empowered by lots of things, so I’m not sure “empowered” is your strongest point of justification for a play’s performance; and 2) I think it’s sad (sorry, it is) that women feel that a play is the strongest tool of empowerment available to them. Jobs? Voting? Higher graduation rates nationally?
You can bash the monologues all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that sitting up on stage and talking about our bodies and the things that we’re supposed to be ashamed of
What are you talking about? Who exactly are telling women they should be “ashamed” of having a vagina? Who exactly are telling women all of these little back ally rumors? Is the Left just creating these fantasy enemies so that they can feel empowered by their own sense of political self-awareness?
and the things we’re taught to be secretive about
Amazing, more of all of this “teaching” going on. Who is “teaching” this stuff? Really? Right now the Left has complete control over all aspects of American society – government, media, entertainment, education. Please inform me of who is doing all of this alleged teaching and indoctrinating. Please point out to me where their monolithic dominance holds sway.
by the sexually fearful American society
This is just laughable. What are you talking about?!? Are you talking about all the television shows that celebrate promiscuity? Are you talking about all the magazines that celebrate casual sex? Apart from even the merits of an oversexualized society that has debased women, made women feel explicitly like sex objects causing the very attitude that “we need to free women” that the VM are supposed to counter — where is this sexually fearful American society??
made us feel stronger and more connected to the female of the species. Your words can’t hurt us
Why all the victimization? Who is exactly is trying to “hurt” people? You were just given a stage to host the Vagina Monologues at a top 10 Catholic University in America. Who exactly has victimized or wronged you? Why is it that every time someone criticizes the VM it’s automatically an attempt to “hurt” you? Aren’t you getting a little too wrapped up in the play, as if your own personality is identified with it?
because we know we’re good, decent, strong, moral women, and being a part of the Vagina Monologues on Marquette’s campus was one of the most important things I did in my four years here.
I’d be curious to see if you think that women can think that the Vagina Monologues are not the best way to serve women’s interests and still be “good, decent, strong, moral women”.
Musocialist-
1) I strongly disagree with the “reclaiming” argument for terms of derogation. Cunt has never had a positive meaning. Neither has bitch or the n word. I’m aware of the philosophy that says you can turn such words into a positive declaration of identity. Vagina is not a term of derogation, neither is penis. However, cunt and dick will always be derogatory.
2) While women may have been traditionally taught sex was for procreation, this isn’t the Catholic churches teaching. Sex is supposed to be enjoyed by both parties in a loving, married relationship. If you feel this is an example of the Catholic Church needing to “grow up” that is one matter, but do not assign the former sexist view with the Church.
3) While I would agree with Dr. Hathaway’s comments that the Vagina Monologues are simply not very well-written and do not achieve their purpose, I appreciate that you see value in them. The problem is when this is presented as an example of Jesuits showing their solidarity with women and rejecting violence against women. Marquette is a Catholic institution for the greater glory of God. I disagree with my Church on many matters: I’m against a marriage amendment, I believe if married couples want to use birth control they should, I think their should be women and married priests….. however, these are personal views. I do not think they should be represented as consistent with a Catholic viewpoint because of the current times or my own viewpoint. Marquette’s decision to not only allow the VMs to be performed, but sponsor it, troubles me. I am sure those who derive the benefits you list could be just as easily obtained by going to performances elsewhere, such as UWM.
christine, you are aware that the ideal Catholic woman you’re eager to get across is nothing more than the Mrs. Cleaver? If you aspire to be a fine, true Catholic woman, I have to ask: why the hell are you wasting your money in college? You’re not supposed to be anything more than a baby-maker.
JMichael-
Ignoring how personally offensive your post is to me as a woman and as a Catholic, I wonder where you got your image of what women should be according to the modern Church. Did you go to Marquette? Did you see your female classmates as aspiring to be “Mrs. Cleavers”. In years of Catholic school, I never once was taught my ideal role was to be a “baby-maker”. I was taught to aspire to excellence. In many ways, Catholics were ahead in rights for women.
Someday I plan on having children. I would prefer not to have them right now, but I wouldn’t kill a baby because it would be an inconvenience in my education and career.
Oh, and I currently attend law school at a public institution. I wouldn’t object if they performed the Vagina Monologues. The problem arises when this is portrayed as consistent with Catholic teaching.
Most of all, Mu Socialist, it’s pretty naive to judge real life on the basis of popular entertainment, particularly Broadway. Hey, I loved watching Casino Royale, and even felt pumped (aka empowered) after this latest testosterone filled Bond flick… BUT IT’S NOT REAL LIFE.
Speaking of reclaiming words, maybe us straight folk should start with the word gay. Gay was our word. How can musicians and actors perform Gilbert & Sullivan, Hart & Rogers, or Rogers and Hammerstein without the connotation when they sing the word “gay?” I find the use of the word offensive. Why couldn’t they call it “argyle pride?” How many straight people actually wear argyle?
Mu Socialist, if you really believe even half the things you say, about how and what women are taught about sex, I feel sorry for you, because that means your parents must have done a worse job than mine.
I have also found that people who talk flagrantly of their “sexual prowess” are merely compensating for their insecurity. Fortunately, what my parents did well was instill in me a strong faith in my God so as to never have the need to belittle a woman sexually or talk about my penis.
VM at Marquette was a tasteless stunt that did nothing but demonstrate the lack of integrity, intestinal fortitude, and moral leadership of the institution’s administration. It is my full intention of filing a formal complaint with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over Marquette’s hosting the Vagina Monologues. It has no place in such an envionment.
“Speaking of reclaiming words, maybe us straight folk should start with the word gay. Gay was our word.”
This focus on the deeper, original meaning of particular words is worthless, in my opinion. That’s how we got to the decision two years ago that the English word “Warrior” somehow immediately connoted Native American imagery (that was originally designed by the same Jesuits who now detest it) from over 50 years ago.
The obsession over words, I think, is a distraction from or a replacement of serious conversation about the arguments/emotions felt beneath words. Words are simply the language tool used for communication between human beings, and each person is free to use them to represent whatever they’d like.
Does it drive me bonkers that the left has destroyed the original meaning of a lot of words? (Diversity, for one). Sure, but that’s not the biggest problem we face in political culture. Let’s debate and discuss the real issues that these tools of communication are supposed to represent.
On another note …
I used to think you only came of age on the internet when you had to screen liberal hate comments on your own blog. Now, I’m beginning to think you only really come of age when you have to screen comments from people you’re supposed to agree with.
Brian, thank you. That is one of the most reasonable things I’ve ever heard anyone say.
And I for one LOVE argyle.
James,
If we’re operating under your logic, John Ashcroft has no place here either because he supported and led a war, a war in which people were killed, and murder is a violation of Catholic teaching. Also, no group advocating for the death penalty should be allowed a voice on campus either, because let’s not forget, the Catholic church came out against that too back in November.
You can’t pick and choose when to be Catholic.
Reclaiming gay? Cute. First of all, in both the “happy” and “homosexual” contexts, gay is not an offensive word. There’s no shame in being happy or homosexual, so if you want to start that whole reclaiming campaign, good luck. Really.
And Brian, thank you. You’re an upstanding guy and have made my day to day GOP relations a lot less painful
“If we’re operating under your logic, John Ashcroft has no place here either because he supported and led a war, a war in which people were killed, and murder is a violation of Catholic teaching”
So our troops in WWII were murderers by your logic since they killed the enemy? For that matter our troops in ANY wars are considered murderers by you? I really would like to understand your reasoning behind this surprising statement.
George Patton makes a great point. Let me add a few further thoughts:
There are different grades or catergories of Catholic teaching that are due different levels of respect and deference. The Pope made a prudential judgement that the Iraq War was wrong, but he did not bind the conscience of Catholics to oppose it, nor did he say Catholic soldiers should not serve in it. Same with the death penalty. JPII made a prudential judgement that the death penalty advanced a culture of death in the face of a culture of life, and with modern prisons has been rendered basically unnecessary. But he has not declared that on the level of dogma. On the other hand, certain teachings regarding human sexuality are dogmatic and should be respected as such.
Second, in addition to the difference between teachings (which makes it okay to honor someone who was pro-Iraq War but not someone who is pro-abortion) I believe there is a very big difference between a speech sponsored by student groups, like John Ashcroft is giving, and a Distinguished Alumna Award from the University like Gwen Moore is getting.
I think it’s totally unfair to write off the accomplishments of our alumna if they happen to fall under Catholicism’s outdated list of no-no’s. If we aren’t going to be proud of our alumni who do honorable things that happen not to fall in line with Catholic teaching, if we aren’t going to honor those accomplishments that better people lives even if they aren’t what the Bible reccomends, then MU shouldn’t admit non-Catholic students, or Catholic students who believe in things like a woman’s right to control her own body or marriage equality. It’s unfortunate to hear that you think that Gwen Moore should be left out of the running for any kind of recognition for her work making people’s lives better because her views are different from yours. If your solution is to only honor those that live perfectly Catholic lives, than those of us who don’t believe that Catholicism in its current state is functioning for the good of others shouldn’t waste our time getting a degree from an institution that is ashamed of us.
MU, as far as I can tell, welcomes the opinions of those who aren’t Catholic or who have reservations about Catholicism. There is no reason why an insitution of higher education should refrain from honoring someone who has accomplished countless positive things in their life because some of the higher-ups in the religious institution that backs the school doesn’t agree with them. I have news for you, MU alums are going to go on and do amazing things in the way of LGBT equality, women’s sexual health and reproductive rights, peace efforts, safe sex education (not abstinence only)… should students be given an entrance survey prior to applying to make sure their political and religious beliefs line up with Catholicism so that MU won’t be put in an uncomfortable situation later when the student achieves something remarkable that happen to conflict with Catholic teaching?
It’s a private school, they can do that if they want, but I think Marquette would be hurting itself immensely if it limited its accolades to one type of person.
christine, i’m not sure we’re talking about the same church. we’re talking about the Catholic Church… the one who hasn’t said something and then done something consistent with their directives since they let Hitler and Mussolini have a pass in Europe rather than give up their money and save lives.
i’m glad you’re in law school. you can join the millions of other suburban, (i presume you’re white too) annoying females who actually believe that women’s rights are inclusive of all women, and fit nicely in that Catholic box that everyone likes to tote around but no one really knows what’s in it. I’m sorry, you’re clearly Mrs. Brady and not June Cleaver, but it would do you well to take off your suburban housewife in training goggles and stop letting the word “vagina” make you shiver.
And that was officially the dumbest post we’ve ever had on this blog.
Please, do some research, take a history class on World War II, and then come back and post on our blog. Do not waste anyone else’s time until you have done so.
Suburban housewife training? I didn’t know they were offering that at the top law schools these days.
When Christine ends up a top-notch lawyer she will long forget your attacks on her instead of her argument.
I’m not trying to defend JMichael’s argument (I think I know what he was getting at, but, no… not really…)
Let’s just go with an abortion-specific example, for starters.
Here’s the thing. You don’t support a woman’s right to control her own body, so why would you support a woman’s right to do anything else, like get a job or a college degree, or hell, even decide when, if ever, she wants to have children? Essentially my problem is that no one is questioning a man’s right to control what happens to his own body, but people are all up-in-arms about a woman wanting the same courtesy. We don’t even have to bring the fetus into the equation. You can HOPE that women CHOOSE not to have an abortion. You can ENCOURAGE women not to CHOOSE to have an abortion, but at the end of the day, a woman will still have the same legal control over her own body as a man does. As it stands, you would like to legally restrict a woman from making a personal choice about her own body, but still legally allow men to have full control of what happens to their bodies. It’s sexism, pure and simple.
I think all of us are pro-choice, just you guys would never choose abortion. And that’s fair. But you can’t, and you shouldn’t, choose for anyone else.
On second thought, that was in no way a clarification of JMichael. But I think I made a decent point nonetheless.
Anywho, I know the VMs don’t make mention of abortion (and they should –for the trauma of having to make that choice, the trauma of the procedure itself, and negative consequences of not being allowed to make the choice for yourself — it’s a complex issue that could benefit from being dramatized). But I think that the VMs are simply a tip of the iceberg when it comes to women’s sexual health issues. Are some of them written poorly? Yeah, probably. But they’re important for the purpose of getting the discussion going. Would any of us be talking about any women’s health issues right now had the VMs not been on campus? I doubt it, because the word “vagina” freaks people out. So yeah, they may contain offensive material, they may be crude, they may have questionable themes and langauge, but as far as I’m concerned, here at MU, they did exactly what they were intended to do. And I sincerely hope that next year they happen again (only this time, let the students facilitate the discussion — I think that you can agree with me when I say that most of the time the student body at large seems to be more organized and more in tune with the right way to approach various topics or discussions than the faculty or administration is. I cite the successful Marriage Amendment debate last fall that probably would have blown had it not been entirely student-planned.)
PS Katie, I’m sorry you missed the Suburban Housewife Training this semester… perhaps next year it will count toward the University core…
“i’m glad you’re in law school. you can join the millions of other suburban, (i presume you’re white too) annoying females who actually believe that women’s rights are inclusive of all women, and fit nicely in that Catholic box that everyone likes to tote around but no one really knows what’s in it. I’m sorry, you’re clearly Mrs. Brady and not June Cleaver, but it would do you well to take off your suburban housewife in training goggles and stop letting the word “vagina†make you shiver.”
JMichael-
It is clear that you’ve written me into some sort of box based on the fact that I am Catholic, pro-life, and do not think the VMs should have been performed as somehow consistent with Catholic teaching. However, you seem to be attacking an argument I did not make. I did not claim, nor do I, find anything objectionable about the word vagina. I never asserted that women’s rights were inclusive of all women; in fact, I think white feminist movements have shut out minorities. I don’t think that lesbians should be forced to become the “suburban housewife” you so detest (in fact, I’ve made anti-marriage amendment comments on this blog). Speaking of, why the venom towards suburban housewives if that is what a woman chooses? Do you think all stay at home moms are Mrs. Cleavers cooking all day and catering to their husbands whims? Many of these women are socially and politically active; indeed, there were several volunteers in the Kerry Milwaukee campaign office in 2004 who were these “suburban housewives” you detest.
I am troubled by the fact you’ve continued to launch personal attacks on me, but I feel no need to defend myself by sharing my own career goals.
You don’t support a woman’s right to control her own body, so why would you support a woman’s right to do anything else, like get a job or a college degree, or hell, even decide when, if ever, she wants to have children? Essentially my problem is that no one is questioning a man’s right to control what happens to his own body, but people are all up-in-arms about a woman wanting the same courtesy.
The issue here is that you are not just “controlling your own body” with the decision to have an abortion, you are consciously deciding to kill another human being. If men wanted the “right” to kill another human being I would passionately oppose it as well. You keep pitting men against women in this debate but you are ignoring the real issue, it’s women arguing for the “right” to take the life of another human being.
Also, I think Jmicheal’s condemnation of “housewives” is quite typical of the left. Society as a whole is moving towards everyone working and children being left at day cares. This is no replacement for a loving, caring family that dedicates time to their children. We should measure ourselves not by our success but by the success of our children. If we do so, society quickly realizes the invaluable contributions these “housewives” JM detests so much make.
A family is a team, my mother played an equal if not greater role in our family and society by raising all four of us at home (not to mention homeschooling us). My father never could have succeeded at work, and ultimately contribute to succeeding at home by raising a healthy family, to the extent he did if she had a full time job. I am saddened by our society’s condemnation of the role of a mother and I feel just as proud of my mother’s accomplishments as I am of my father’s.
Women are EXPECTED to be in the role of housewife and mother, and that’s where I vomit.
I had a stay-at-home dad and a full-time employed mom for much of my childhood, and I’m glad I did because it taught me to reject the typical “mother as housewife” stereotype. If a woman chooses to do that, great, but she shouldn’t be pressured into the role because she’s a woman, and men shouldn’t have their manhood questioned if they choose the stay-at-home route either.
And abortion being murder is still debatable. I believe life begins at birth, so for me, abortion is not murder. (I also believe in assisted suicide for braindead people — it’s about quality of life and potential for quality of life, not just the fact that you’re breathing and warm). If you believe life begins at conception, great, then abortion can be murder for you. But as long as life is not defined by conception as a universal medically sound rule, you have no right to call me a murderer if I choose to abort a fetus safely and legally.
It would be interesting to see who else would step up to be the mother if the women didn’t do it.
Kind of a funny Freudian slip… does this mean a woman is not a real mother if she’s not a housewife? Who is the one with the expectations here?
mu socialite – most kids who have a stay-at-home dad and a mother working full-time have do it for the money, i.e. the mother makes the most. Was that your parents motivation? I also think you should reject stereotyping. Men never have their manhood questioned when they stay at home, only their sanity. Wow, you really thinks life begins at birth. Prolifers would think you were braindead, but you are golden, prolifers won’t assist you with your suicide. I bet if you tried really hard you could at least come around to life begins at the point of viablilty. You said abortion being murder is still debatable. So I guess it would still be debatable that you could be called a murderer. Right?
[...] Andy Tanroff: People have more fun/hits reading the comments, which is definitely huge. Our readers definitely enjoy the commenting as well, look at the fray over on Katie’s monologues post. [...]
I’m afraid I find this entire controversy–and the play it centers on–to be somewhat of a joke. I am a liberal woman, but I can hardly say I find the Vagina Monologues to be empowering, let alone a good work of theater. If you want empowerment through theater, I suggest “How I Learned to Drive” or “A Doll’s House”.
Brandon, may I suggest that your religious zeal is running away with you? The determination of when life begins has always been a religious/ethical question, with varied answers between religions. Many actually do teach that life begins at birth, and some (notably Judaism) actually mandate abortion under certain conditions. Do you really believe that the government should enforce your religious opinions over those of other groups, despite the fact that no one opinion stands out as being any more inherently sensible than the others? (Well, perhaps you shouldn’t answer that.) No one is forcing you to abort your potential children. You are free to live by your religious convictions while still allowing others to live by theirs.
I am sure your mother is a fine lady, and she certainly seems to have raised an intelligent and passionate son. However, my parents too raised successful children. I treasure the time I spent in day care, which never substituted for family time when my parents came home. The egalitarian nature of my parents’ relationship is something extraordinary to witness–because they truly did share child-rearing and housemaking duties, I have a stronger relationship with my father than most of my fellows who were mostly raised by their mothers despite their nominally two-parent homes. It seems odd to me that a man who clearly never attended day care or elementary school–am I correct in thinking you were homeschooled?–would be so disparaging of opportunities he knows little to nothing about. Simply because you were raised one way does not make that the best or only way to properly raise children. I know many women who would make terrible housemothers, and many men who would make abyssmal sole breadwinners. Family models are not one size fits all.
JC, many religions teach that life begins at birth? I don’t know what your definition of many is but I know just saying it’s so doesn’t mean it’s true. You treasured the time you spent in daycare? What little kid thinks like that? You have stronger relationship with your father than your friends. Do your friends read this blog? Are you sure your’re not just one of those people who is good at making a problem seem like an opportunity?
If a woman has the right to choose abortion, why does the man not have the same right to choose indmnity from child support? Is that not sexism, mu socialist?
How about this: Abortion is the woman’s right to choose control over her own body, only after she has demonstrated an incapacity to control her own body.
So why didn’t she “choose” control of her body the first time? Don’t you see? She ALREADY HAD THE CHOICE!
Actually, Simon, I am quite sure. As for your other questions:
1. Among other religions, Islam and Judaism both mandate abortion if the mother’s health or life is at risk. Buddhism encourages examination on a case by case basis, but in principle sanctions abotion in the case of health risk to the mother or (interestingly) in the case of a fetus with severe mental incapacities. Among the five major world religions, only Hinduism and some branches of Christianity hold that abortion is always a sin. As for when life begins, Sikhism has no official answer, Judaism states that life begins at birth, Islam teaches that fetuses become human at 120 days, Buddhism teaches that the fetus becomes human when it is capable of consciousness, Unitarian Universalists believe life begins at birth, Wiccans believe life begins at birth, atheists are split on the issue–and this is all just scratching the surface of the variety of religions which do not believe that life begins at conception. Even several branches of Christianity–such as the U.S. Episcopal Church–no longer believe that life begins at conception. With all the variety of opinions, who’s to say which should preeminate?
2. Actually, I know a number of little kids who think like that. In any class at elementary school, you will find a number of children who simply don’t want to leave because they would rather spend more time with their friends. The same is true of children in day care. I was in day care for two hours a day until I was nine years old, and I loved it. All of my best friends were there, and I could play all sorts of group games I couldn’t at home. Not to mention that I liked all of the adults. Why wouldn’t I enjoy day care, exactly?
3. I’m afraid I don’t follow you. Why is this question relevant? However, no, my friends do not read this blog–most of them are liberals like myself, only less interested in debate with the “opposition”.
Are you sure you’re not the type of person who is good at ignoring anything which contradicts your entrenched beliefs? If so, I am very sorry for you.
As for Mr. King: I am curious, given your theory on choice, what your opinion is on abortion in cases of rape or incest.
Mu Socialite,
I strongly recommend a comprehensive review of the legal definition of war and the legal definition of murder. Where would we classify Ted Kennedy?
[...] faculty, ranging anywhere from claiming that Catholicism oppresses women all the way to promoting obscene performances on [...]
As an antidote to some of the lefty lies posted above:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;
http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/pius12gs.htm
THE GOOD SAMARITAN: JEWISH PRAISE FOR POPE PIUS XII
Dimitri Cavalli
——————————————————————————–
Inside the Vatican has given considerable space in its pages to coverage of the fierce debate over the wartime role of Pope Pius XII and his alleged “silence” in the face of the Nazi persecution of the Jews (see particularly our June 1997 and our October 1999 issues). We will continue to do so as long as the debate rages. The article we print here brings together a considerable amount of previously scattered evidence for how Jews during Pius’s lifetime viewed Pius’s conduct. Reading Cavalli’s piece, it is striking to see how different the general Jewish opinion of Pius XII was in the years during and immediately following the war from what it is today. This prompts a fundamental question: Were the Jews who praised and thanked Pius after the war all mistaken or insincere, or are the attacks on Pius today unfair?—The Editor
During World War II, many Jews around the world had the chance to observe Pope Pius XII’s conduct. They listened to his every word, and scrutinized his every action. Instead of seeing “Hitler’s Pope,” most Jews concluded that Pius XII’s public statements were directed against the Nazis, and that he and his subordinates in many Nazi-occupied and Axis countries were trying to save Jewish lives. The many extraordinary and eloquent tributes that the Pope once received from Jews show that the allegations that he was a Nazi collaborator and indifferent toward the extermination of Jews would have seem completely unjustified and unjust to those who closely following his career.