Thursday, April 23, 2009


So, a rundown of my week. I'm still recovering - but I'll hit the highlights.

1. Exam on Monday - barely prepared because I worked all weekend - also, can't understand Freud and wish there was a Freud's Cliff's Notes

2. Found out that the library paid me for more hours than I worked (YAY, I guess?!) But now have to work an extra 20 hours.

3. Poster project due and must be turned in at printshop as well as online for professor...first poster and very nervous I did it wrong.

4. Might have to graduate in Dec. 2010 instead of May 2010 because of financial aid stuff, pressure from classes, and assistantship stuff...freaking out, although have come to terms with this possibility.

5. Had a storytelling day for class - did not have a story prepared and made sure I "volunteered" to go next week.

6. Worked everyday as well as went to class...

7. Have not thoroughly cleaned my apartment for like, two weeks. Am lucky to get dishes clean when all I want to do is lay on couch and fall asleep.

8. Met a crazy person at the bus stop - who was apparently being beaten up by people I could not see and who would not leave her alone.

9. Got to hold a baby - my manager brought her six-month old, Bella, into the store, so that was a nice little baby fix.

10. Had no one respond to my last post except Sara...very sad.

11. Missing my girls.

12. Missing my boyfriend.

13. Missing my family - including my nephew's fifth birthday - he had an obstacle course and a spiderman cake.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Pro-Choice Does Not Mean Pro-Abortion: An Argument for Abortion Rights Featuring the Rev. Carlton Veazey
Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Since the Supreme Court's historic 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, the issue of a woman's right to an abortion has fostered one of the most contentious moral and political debates in America. Opponents of abortion rights argue that life begins at conception - making abortion tantamount to homicide. Abortion rights advocates, in contrast, maintain that women have a right to decide what happens to their bodies - sometimes without any restrictions.

To explore the case for abortion rights, the Pew Forum turns to the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, who for more than a decade has been president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Based in Washington, D.C., the coalition advocates for reproductive choice and religious freedom on behalf of about 40 religious groups and organizations. Prior to joining the coalition, Veazey spent 33 years as a pastor at Zion Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

A counterargument explaining the case against abortion rights is made by the Rev. J. Daniel Mindling, professor of moral theology at Mount St. Mary's Seminary.

Featuring: The Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, President, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Interviewer: David Masci, Senior Research Fellow, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

Question & Answer

Can you explain how your Christian faith informs your views in support of abortion rights?

I grew up in a Christian home. My father was a Baptist minister for many years in Memphis, Tenn. One of the things that he instilled in me - I used to hear it so much - was free will, free will, free will. It was ingrained in me that you have the ability to make choices. You have the ability to decide what you want to do. You are responsible for your decisions, but God has given you that responsibility, that option to make decisions.

I had firsthand experience of seeing black women and poor women being disproportionately impacted by the fact that they had no choices about an unintended pregnancy, even if it would damage their health or cause great hardship in their family. And I remember some of them being maimed in back-alley abortions; some of them died. There was no legal choice before Roe v. Wade.

But in this day and time, we have a clearer understanding that men and women are moral agents and equipped to make decisions about even the most difficult and complex matters. We must ensure a woman can determine when and whether to have children according to her own conscience and religious beliefs and without governmental interference or coercion. We must also ensure that women have the resources to have a healthy, safe pregnancy, if that is their decision, and that women and families have the resources to raise a child with security.

The right to choose has changed and expanded over the years since Roe v. Wade. We now speak of reproductive justice - and that includes comprehensive sex education, family planning and contraception, adequate medical care, a safe environment, the ability to continue a pregnancy and the resources that make that choice possible. That is my moral framework.

You talk about free will, and as a Christian you believe in free will. But you also said that God gave us free will and gave us the opportunity to make right and wrong choices. Why do you believe that abortion can, at least in some instances, be the right choice?

Dan Maguire, a former Jesuit priest and professor of moral theology and ethics at Marquette University, says that to have a child can be a sacred choice, but to not have a child can also be a sacred choice.

And these choices revolve around circumstances and issues - like whether a person is old enough to care for a child or whether a woman already has more children than she can care for. Also, remember that medical circumstances are the reason many women have an abortion - for example, if they are having chemotherapy for cancer or have a life-threatening chronic illness - and most later-term abortions occur because of fetal abnormalities that will result in stillbirth or the death of the child. These are difficult decisions; they're moral decisions, sometimes requiring a woman to decide if she will risk her life for a pregnancy.

Abortion is a very serious decision and each decision depends on circumstances. That's why I tell people: I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. And that's an important distinction.

You've talked about the right of a woman to make a choice. Does the fetus have any rights?

First, let me say that the religious, pro-choice position is based on respect for human life, including potential life and existing life.

But I do not believe that life as we know it starts at conception. I am troubled by the implications of a fetus having legal rights because that could pit the fetus against the woman carrying the fetus; for example, if the woman needed a medical procedure, the law could require the fetus to be considered separately and equally.

From a religious perspective, it's more important to consider the moral issues involved in making a decision about abortion. Also, it's important to remember that religious traditions have very different ideas about the status of the fetus. Roman Catholic doctrine regards a fertilized egg as a human being. Judaism holds that life begins with the first breath.

What about at the very end of a woman's pregnancy? Does a fetus acquire rights after the point of viability, when it can survive outside the womb? Or let me ask it another way: Assuming a woman is healthy and her fetus is healthy, should the woman be able to terminate her pregnancy until the end of her pregnancy?

There's an assumption that a woman would end a viable pregnancy carelessly or without a reason. The facts don't bear this out. Most abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Late abortions are virtually always performed for the most serious medical and health reasons, including saving the woman's life.

But what if such a case came before you? If you were that woman's pastor, what would you say?

I would talk to her in a helpful, positive, respectful way and help her discuss what was troubling her. I would suggest alternatives such as adoption.

Let me shift gears a little bit. Many Americans have said they favor a compromise, or reaching a middle-ground policy, on abortion. Do you sympathize with this desire and do you think that both sides should compromise to end this rancorous debate?

I have been to more middle-ground and common-ground meetings than I can remember and I've never been to one where we walked out with any decision.

That being said, I think that we all should agree that abortion should be rare. How do we do that? We do that by providing comprehensive sex education in schools and in religious congregations and by ensuring that there is accurate information about contraception and that contraception is available. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress has not been willing to pass a bill to fund comprehensive sex education, but they are willing to put a lot of money into failed and harmful abstinence-only programs that often rely on scare tactics and inaccurate information.

Former Surgeon General David Satcher has shown that abstinence-only programs do not work and that we should provide young people with the information to protect themselves. Education that stresses abstinence and provides accurate information about contraception will reduce the abortion rate. That is the ground that I stand on. I would say that here is a way we can work together to reduce the need for abortions.

Abortion has become central to what many people call the "culture wars." Some consider it to be the most contentious moral issue in America today. Why do many Catholics, evangelical Christians and other people of faith disagree with you?

I was raised to respect differing views so the rigid views against abortion are hard for me to understand. I will often tell someone on the other side, "I respect you. I may disagree with your theological perspective, but I respect your views. But I think it's totally arrogant for you to tell me that I need to believe what you believe." It's not that I think we should not try to win each other over. But we have to respect people's different religious beliefs.

But what about people who believe that life begins at conception and that terminating a pregnancy is murder? For them, it may not just be about respecting or tolerating each other's viewpoints; they believe this is an issue of life or death. What do you say to people who make that kind of argument?

I would say that they have a right to their beliefs, as do I. I would try to explain that my views are grounded in my religion, as are theirs. I believe that we must ensure that women are treated with dignity and respect and that women are able to follow the dictates of their conscience - and that includes their reproductive decisions. Ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that women have the ability to make decisions of conscience and have access to reproductive health services.

Some in the anti-abortion camp contend that the existence of legalized abortion is a sign of the self-centeredness and selfishness of our age. Is there any validity to this view?

Although abortion is a very difficult decision, it can be the most responsible decision a person can make when faced with an unintended pregnancy or a pregnancy that will have serious health consequences.

Depending on the circumstances, it might be selfish to bring a child into the world. You know, a lot of people say, "You must bring this child into the world." They are 100 percent supportive while the child is in the womb. As soon as the child is born, they abort the child in other ways. They abort a child through lack of health care, lack of education, lack of housing, and through poverty, which can drive a child into drugs or the criminal justice system.

So is it selfish to bring children into the world and not care for them? I think the other side can be very selfish by neglecting the children we have already. For all practical purposes, children whom we are neglecting are being aborted.

Saturday, April 11, 2009


Friday, April 10, 2009


I have been abandoned by my intrepid girls Star Trek Team to fight off Seven of Whore who has stolen my man! The agony! The pain! The anguish! The betrayal! I am all alone. How will I defeat her - she has huge breasts and blond hair, and can sing!
heeheeheehee...I miss melodrama sometimes.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Eek at the End

Does anyone have any interview advice? I've been reading books and researching it and such, but I've been reviewing my past job interviews and wondering if maybe I'm screwing something up? Maybe I'm not asking good questions, or I'm being too honest, or something! It could also be that I'm just not right for the particular position, but I'm wanting to make sure that that's the reason I am not getting jobs and not because of something else, like sucky performance.
Also, our conversation seems to have hit a dead-end on my last post (which is why I'm posting again) but definitely interesting. Trying to read Vatican documents is like trying to read law documents or Freud or something else very complicated with a language all its own. It was taking me awhile, and cutting into my time reading Freud (for class) as well as other class stuff, so I had to shelve it. Sorry for anyone ready to continue. I'm sure we'll get into some more down the road.
I've been reading two books that I think everyone should read (or at least all women):
1) The Feminine Mistake by Leslie Bennetts.
2) The Price of Motherhood by Ann Crittendon - it's NOT against motherhood, it just sounds it.

Basically, I've been branching out on my feminist theory and practices reading. I've read most of the big ones in Women's Studies, so now I'm re-reading or looking for new ones or new perspectives. Helps my research!

I don't really have any more is starting to wind up: I have a bunch of final projects to complete and exams to study for - but the reading continues. I also have to figure out my classes for summer and fall and register for my Library Subject Exam. Eek!

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

The Pope

Remember my last post, where I mentioned that the Vatican and the Pope aren't really getting my full respect (not that they'd care) as truthful or worthy of respect? Basically, it came about because of two recent articles I read - the first about the Pope and condoms - as "exacerbating the problem of AIDS" and secondly because of an article in Ms. magazine. called Vatican Justice. I'll post the article here and given the fact that people might find Ms. biased because of its feminist stance, I'll also link to articles that support Ms. from different sources.

NATIONAL NEWS | winter 2009
Vatican Justice
Pedophile priests can stay in the Church, but priests who ordain women may be excommunicated

By Bill Frogameni

WHAT HAPPENS IF A Catholic priest molests children?

Usually, he’s protected by the Church hierarchy. Maybe he’ll eventually have his parish or diocese taken away, or be switched to another one—often after years of serial abuse. But there’s a good chance he’ll stay in the Church.

So what happens if a Catholic priest publicly supports ordaining women? Well, then he’s excommunicated on the double.

“Nearly 5,000 Catholic priests [in the U.S.] have sexually abused over 12,000 Catholic children…but they were not excommunicated,” says Father Roy Bourgeois, who faced the latter scenario after helping celebrate what the Vatican considers to be an illegitimate ordination mass in August 2008. Bourgeois, a Vietnam veteran with a Purple Heart who became a prominent peace activist, stood with the trailblazers of the female ordination movement in Lexington, Ky., to make Janice Sevre-Duszynska a Catholic priest.

For thumbing his nose at one of the most sacred tenets of the conservative hierarchy—that only men are worthy of the priesthood—Bourgeois was swiftly rebuked by the Vatican in a letter two months later, telling him he had 30 days to renounce his actions or face excommunication.

After his deadline passed without a definitive word, Bourgeois told Ms. that his heart wouldn’t allow him to cave in to the Vatican. “Deeper than the hurt, the sadness, there’s a peace that comes from knowing I followed my conscience in addressing this great injustice,” he said.

Still, Bourgeois wanted to question the Pope: “Who are we as men to say that our call to the priesthood is valid, but yours as women is not?” Given that 64 percent of American Catholics in a 2005 AP/Ipsos poll agreed that women should be ordained, they might ask the pope the same thing. But the Vatican, despite parish closings across America and a 30 percent decline in priests between 1965 and 2000, doesn’t seem ready for that question.

“The church believes that the intent of Jesus’ founding of the priesthood is that it was reserved for men,” explained Sister Mary Anne Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. But, speaking for the group Roman Catholic Womenpriests, Bridget Mary Meehan, herself ordained in 2006 and subsequently excommunicated, disputes that teaching. “Jesus never ordained anyone,” says Meehan. “And in the tradition, women were ordained deacons, priests and bishops for the first 1,200 years.”

The Vatican’s strong response to Bourgeois’ action stands in stark contrast to its overwhelming failure to punish molesters. Even a homicidal priest, Father Gerald Robinson, who was convicted in 2006 of the satanicritualistic murder of a 71-year-old nun in an Ohio chapel (see “The Nun’s Story,” Summer 2006), has not been excommunicated. Though Robinson to date has spent more than two and a half years in prison and lost an appeal, he still remains a priest, albeit one quietly retired by his bishop.

Walsh’s explanation: As heinous as the crime was, the Church doesn’t excommunicate for murder.

The Vatican may soon have further explaining to do, this time in a U.S. courtroom. A federal appeals court ruled in late November that a lawsuit arising in Kentucky over the Vatican’s negligence in dealing with sexual abuse could proceed—the first time a court that high has recognized the Holy See’s potential liability in this arena.

One of the key pieces of evidence in the lawsuit? A 1962 memo, approved by Pope John XXIII, directing Catholic bishops to keep silent about sex-abuse claims.

Photo by Jenny Warbug

Now, I also checked for validation: there's an article from Catholic News Service about the ex-communication of Bourgeois.
It was hard to find anything about the priests that abused children and whether they were ex-communicated separate from other issues. But if anyone wants to look further, that'd be fine.