I see what's happening. God is outsourcing to Earth for all his murderous needs. Getting the humans to do his dirty work for half the cost. Angel unemployment rate is now skyrocketing.
Ah, yes. They are living the Biblical verse from Ephesians Chapter 6 verses 4-12:
And a jerk amongst you will murder a righteous man
And the foolish women shall flock to that jerk
Attend to him at his trial at the hands of Caesar
And the jerk shall grin, as though he hath consumed the shit of a ram
And the hand of the jerk shall raise in greeting
And the foolish women shall shake with laughter,
Loving the jerk and yearning for the love of the jerk
Because their own fathers do not love them.
(And the Lord, our Father, also does not love them.)
The sooner people realize the Bible should be used as a spiritual guide as opposed to a blue-print for life, the better for us all, Christians and non-Christians alike.
@Dayman-Fan: What they don't get is it can be a blue-print for YOUR life. Not your neighbor's life, or your coworker's life, or the life of that woman headed into the PP clinic.
@Gretchen (Newly sprung from the medical slammer!): Sorry, I should have specified that. For those who choose to practice Christianity, it should be for their individual lives. I have no problem with it until you try to impose your beliefs on me (and my uterus).
@Dayman-Fan: If it's a blueprint for Christian people's lives, then shouldn't that blueprint include a little quote from, you know, THE MAN, Jesus, saying that it's sinful to judge another person's actions? If a Christian person wants to use the Bible as a blue-print for their lives, then imposing anything on others.... such as Dr. Tiller, is a serious blue-print fail.
@Bunsen Honeydew: No, my point was that is should be used as a personal spiritual guide, NOT as a blue print. If a Christian wants to use the Bible for their personal improvement, go for it. But when you impose your ideals on anyone else, and expect them to abide by your religious views, then, obviously, problems occur. Being an agnostic myself, I'd rather not have any one, of any religion, impose their religious believes on me. So long as you keep your religion to yourself, we're fine. Tragically, this message wasn't clear to Dr. Killer's murderer and to protesting anti-choicers.
These people have no right to call themselves 'Christians' or 'believers in God' if they support murder of a living, already-born human being. It's like they're supporting Pontius Pilate for killing their savior, who gave them eternal life and forgiveness of sins if they believed in God. And I know most of you think religion isn't that great, but in almost every mainstream religion, they denounce violence and murder.
These people just scare the shit out of me and I wouldn't feel safe at all if these nutjobs lived in my town.
@thePrototype: You are remembering the God in the Old Testament. In the New Testament he is a loving, caring God. But even in the OT we hear the 10 commandments, one of which is Thou Shall Not Kill. I don't think God meant it would be okay some of the time.
And Jesus is from the NT and that is where most Christians get their basis, that God so loved the world He gave His only son to cleanse our sins. Its not up to the Christians who are alive now to kill people in the name of God or Jesus or the unborn babies.
@thePrototype: I don't think that God would be pleased about a group of people who live their entire lives putting their words in His mouth and hurting others in His name.
@Gretchen (Newly sprung from the medical slammer!): but here's the thing, again, how do we not know that God isn't speaking through these people? How else is He supposed to get His message through?
Again, I get that the NT is supposed to be a do-over, but who is to say God from the OT isn't making a comeback and is pissed off, maybe He changed His mind?
@Shamrockette: Exactly - in fact, every major faith in the world has some version of "do not harm yourself or others." And while some evangelicals may argue that abortion falls into the "harm" category, they seem to ignore that murder of a non-fetus also qualifies as "harm."
@thePrototype: It's an interesting point. But they go on and on about Jesus Christ in particular, who preached tolerance and non-violence. (I had a mildly Catholic upbringing and no longer affiliate with any particular faith, so grain-of-salt, what do I know..)
@MilointheMeadow: Except for that time that Jesus condemned a fig tree to death for not producing a fig when he was hungry. Jesus had his jerk moments.
@morninggloria: And let's not forget when he flipped over the tables in the temple. I don't know that I'd call it a jerk moment, but people who think Jesus was all butterflies and puppy dogs clearly aren't paying much attention.
Will this be a jury trial or judge? I am kind of concerned about the jury because a) No one seems to be impartial about abortion b)Everyone has heard of this case c) If I was a juror I would be shitting bricks that one of those crazy-ass doll wavers will hunt me down if I found him guilty.
@TheUptightMidwesterner: I'd grow a big beard or cut my hair into a pageboy after I get out of jury duty. That's what people in the movies seem to do when they want to go incognito. Well, either that or switch faces with John Travolta.
@Penny: The problem with the Bible (as with the vast majority of books) is that it can mean anything you want it to; e.g. the same God that doesn't approve of people killing each other got pissy when Saul didn't do as ordered and spared the Amalekites instead of slaughtering every last one of them (1 Samuel 15). And Christians, historically, have not shied away from violent death, either for themselves (martyrs) or for other people who don't agree with them (Crusades). These people are only the most recent iteration of interpreting a complicated, contradictory hodgepodge of a work in the service of their own interests.
@thePrototype: True. The Old Testament has some incredibly violent stories. Granted, Christian doctrine does distinguish between the actions of God in the Old Testament, and the new covenant between God and man in the New Testament, post-Christ.
@thesciencegirl: The thing that scares me about these people is they do not believe in the OT. They are "new covenant" believers and supposedly believe in the love of Christ.
If they feel justified by Biblical law in killing Dr. Tiller because they see him as a murderer, what does his killing (or the support of that killing) make them? Ask any one of these crazies that question and they'll give you a blank stare then begin to babble on again about the "murdered babies". They seem perfectly comfortable overlooking one of the big messages found in both OT and NT - attend to your own sins first and do your praying and fasting in private.
@Penny: This sort of thing falls firmly under the heading of "Religious Hypocrisy". The bible, and the various and multiple factions of Christianity, constantly contradict themselves.
So, although it says "Thou shalt not kill" without any qualifiers, lots of biblical stories show righteous killings of infidels, wars, etc.
I'm not surprised so many people pick and choose what they want to hear. It basically encourages them to do so.
@thePrototype: Well, people can claim that God tells them to do all sorts of things; I was just making a point about basic tenants of mainstream Christianity and how it's not as simple as pulling an anecdote out of the OT without context, which I find that many non-Christians like to do.
But then, I wouldn't call these people mainstream Christians anyway... they're nuts.
@Gretchen (Newly sprung from the medical slammer!): Wouldn't the world be a better place if people got the "Judge not that ye be not judged" and "Work out YOUR OWN salvation with fear and trembling" bits of the bible?
@thesciencegirl: I think part of the problem is that, even though doctrine formally distinguishes between what Christians are expected to believe, in terms of salvation, who the messiah is, etc., the OT has authority because it's seen (erroneously) as a unified document which contains writings that point prophetically to the birth of Christ. And the Jewish nation of the OT provided the blueprint for a lot of Christian privilege. So the OT has weight--if it didn't, why bother having it?
I think there was actually an early Christian writer who suggested ignoring the OT altogether. He was anathematized, unfortunately.
@wtfox?!: Oh no, I agree that the OT has weight, and an important place within Christianity. But I think many, many passages in the NT give it context of how it is supposed to function in the Christian faith, and how Jesus changes things, the need for OT laws, etc. So, to point at an example of God, you know, striking down an army in the OT, as an explanation of how "the Christian God" is violent is not exactly accurate. That was my point.
@thesciencegirl: Sorry! My misunderstanding :D Thanks for making that clearer for me and my misreading ways.
Obv., I agree completely, which brings me to what I hate most about the way anti-abortion supporters justify actions like murder and intimidation... That is, their complete, willful ignorance of the book itself, and the fact that the book has a long, tediously complicated history of interpretation. Whenever I think about that, my rage threatens to lift the top of my head.
@wtfox?!: It's rather amazing how few people have actually read the entire bible, much less given thought as to what it means beyond what other people tell (spoonfeed) them.
@Penny: HUMANS aren't allowed to kill. As for God HIMSELF, based on the Bible, his bloodlust cannot be slaked. Now, these assholes THINK they're God, or at the very least speak for Him, ergo they can kill whomever they please.
See. You just have to apply AWESOME logic. And by "awesome" I mean "terrifying" and by "logic" I mean "craziness."
@wtfox?!: Seriously, the Bible can mean anything to anyone. You have Christian churches that will marry same-sex couples and ones that won't. You have people killing in the name of God, and you have some that believe God wants you to abstain from all killing. Even comments on here along the lines of, "I can't believe people think God wants them to kill!" kind of irritate me, because of the Bible passages you've mentioned.
People should think for themselves. Even the New Testament is just a compilation of writings of men, some gospels were written as much as 120 years after Jesus' death. It just kind of floors me when even seemingly intelligent people want to talk about the "kind and forgiving God of the New Testament." Of course, I think the only thing Christianity has on Scientology is a couple thousand years.
@thePrototype: @thesciencegirl: Ummm... the god of the NT ain't exactly sunshine and rainbows, kids. I find there's is this distinction made between OT and NT that is largely just picked and chosen to create a division that isn't as severe as people are lead to believe.
@IBleedGlitter: The High Priestess of Tinsel: No, as the sign clearly states, abortion is bloody murder. This is an important distinction, as it follows that abortion, being bloody murder, is therefore worse than regular murder.
I had Mirena inserted 2 years ago and the insertion was horrendous. I ended up with alot of bleeding in the ER that night and was prescribed pain-medication to manage the cramping. I was told that that reaction to the insertion was totally normal.
However, in the last two years, I haven't had any problems. Nice, light periods (though I do get some heinous acne once a month).
My doctor only had me come in to check the placement of the strings once and never told me to check them myself. She moved to another state about a year ago, so I'm now somewhat concerned given the stories I've been reading!
As a note - I have the version of Mirena with hormones because the hormones help control the growth of cysts on my ovaries.
My doctor said I couldn't get an IUD because I wasn't in a long term monogamous relationship. She said something like different men can affect it differently. It made me upset because it feels like institutional slut shaming or singles shaming, or both.
How much pain is in the insertion process all comes down to the size of your cervix.
When my ob-gyn was going to put it in, she needed to do a test on cells from my cervix first. Putting something SMALLER than the IUD in my apparently tight little cervix was Immensely screamingly painful.
What I was screaming was "ignore my screaming and do what your have to do!" but we were both so shaken by the experience that we decided on NuvaRing instead.
I went to my GP and told her that birth control pills were making me horribly depressed. She prescribed me low-dose prozac and more birth control pills.
I went to Planned Parenthood and the nurse answered all of my questions and told me to come back in a week for an IUD. Insertion was hellacious, even with two cytotec beforehand for cervical softening, and I'm still in the settling-in period where I have a lot of cramping. But I'm praying it works out, because it's like I have my brain back. I haven't felt depressed or had an anxiety attack in three weeks; I think my record on birth control was six days without some kind of horrible mood swing.
Also, PID is dangerous but it's not a guaranteed game-ender for your fertility. My mother had a Dalkon Shield which got infected and landed her in the hospital. She still had three oops babies later in life.
cate3710 promoted this comment
purpleshoes reminds everyone to take typing breaks and stretch, ow was starred
purpleshoes reminds everyone to take typing breaks and stretch, ow was unstarred
This is a very interesting article. I asked my doctor about the IUD once - she told me that as a childless woman, I didn't want it, and that she had a ZERO percent success rate among women who had not already had children. (By success, she meant whether or not I'd keep it in - she claimed all the women who had them put in before having kids begged her to take them out within a few months because of the pain.)
Now I'm questioning how much of that was even true. For now I'm on the pill, but it's not ideal. Of course, I don't know that having even more cramps and heavy periods on top of already painful periods is any more ideal. But it's an option and obviously my doctor has some strange opinions about it.
@rixatrix: I am a childless woman with a Mirena IUD and only had moderate cramping in the first few weeks. I absolutely love it now, six months later.
Also, the Mirena - unlike the copper IUD - actually makes my periods much, much lighter as well as my cramps. Because that was definitely a huge factor for me, more so than even avoiding pregnancy.
Those who lost their libido while on the pill/patch/ring/implant/shot (phew, long list!), did it come back with Mirena? If you used no bc before and had the Mirena installed, did you notice a change in your libido for the worse?
I'd like to get a copper IUD, but before the pill my periods were 8 days and heavy, I don't want them getting worse. I also want my sex drive back and the crazies to go away. Mirena still contains hormones so I'm a bit iffy about that.
I know that the IUD works well for a lot of women, and I am all in favor of safe birth control for women that doesn't involve hormones. That said, after using the pill, the patch, and a psychotic few months suffering with depo provera, I agreed to try an IUD because I thought it would work well for me - or at least was worth a shot.
As Megan stated, having the IUD insterted was painful. For me, it was a day or two worth of tear-inducing cramping. After the initial pain, I thought it worked well for me ... until about a year later, when one morning I felt intense cramping. I knew it wasn't my period - I was at work and was soon on the floor, crying and doubled over in pain. A coworker drove me to the ER, where, after loudly explaining that my cervix was cramping and no I wasn't "having pms", I was taken into a private room where a nurse inserted a speculum and took a look.
"The string has come out a little further than normal," she said. She pulled it a little, and then it was in her hand.
The IUD fell apart. IN MY UTERUS.
After a shot of something in the ass and some morphine and antibiotics, and 3 hours on a gurney waiting for an ultrasound to see if there was any damage to my uterine walls, I was sent home. Later that week, I had to go back to my gynecologist, and she managed to remove the offending broken piece still remaining in my uterus.
Needless to say, I was PISSED. And I will never recommend the IUD, based on the experience I had. I have been using the Nuva Ring for years now and I love it. I understand that the IUD is something that should be promoted as a generally safe form of birth control, I won't be the one to promote it.
@CaesarThemis: I had a different but also really problematic experience. I had a Mirena for 3.5 years. I didn't really have problems when it was in, so as far as I knew, I was really happy with it... until I wanted it taken out.
My doctor couldn't get it out. I have NEVER felt pain like when she tugged on the strings and ended up pulling my whole uterus because it turned out the Mirena had become imbedded in the wall of my uterus. (Not like the perforation that can happen when they put it in - apparently over time my uterus had grown scar tissue over the Mirena.
Many ultrasounds and one full-on surgery later, it was finally out. (Thank goodness I live in Canada, because if the medical costs weren't covered, the removal would have ended up costing me several thousand dollars.) Sadly, that isn't the end of the story. Because it caused such extensive scarring in my uterus, I may not ever be able to get pregnant. Within the next month or so I have a test (which is supposedly very painful) to try to determine the extent of the scarring.
When I talked to the surgeon after the removal, I asked how common this kind of "complication" was. Her response: it's incorrect to call this a complication, because that suggests that it's unexpected. In fact, this happens so often that it's "just one of the possible expected outcomes," in her words.
07/30/09
07/30/09
And a jerk amongst you will murder a righteous man
And the foolish women shall flock to that jerk
Attend to him at his trial at the hands of Caesar
And the jerk shall grin, as though he hath consumed the shit of a ram
And the hand of the jerk shall raise in greeting
And the foolish women shall shake with laughter,
Loving the jerk and yearning for the love of the jerk
Because their own fathers do not love them.
(And the Lord, our Father, also does not love them.)
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
These people just scare the shit out of me and I wouldn't feel safe at all if these nutjobs lived in my town.
07/30/09
07/30/09
And Jesus is from the NT and that is where most Christians get their basis, that God so loved the world He gave His only son to cleanse our sins. Its not up to the Christians who are alive now to kill people in the name of God or Jesus or the unborn babies.
07/30/09
07/30/09
Again, I get that the NT is supposed to be a do-over, but who is to say God from the OT isn't making a comeback and is pissed off, maybe He changed His mind?
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
If they feel justified by Biblical law in killing Dr. Tiller because they see him as a murderer, what does his killing (or the support of that killing) make them? Ask any one of these crazies that question and they'll give you a blank stare then begin to babble on again about the "murdered babies". They seem perfectly comfortable overlooking one of the big messages found in both OT and NT - attend to your own sins first and do your praying and fasting in private.
07/30/09
So, although it says "Thou shalt not kill" without any qualifiers, lots of biblical stories show righteous killings of infidels, wars, etc.
I'm not surprised so many people pick and choose what they want to hear. It basically encourages them to do so.
07/30/09
But then, I wouldn't call these people mainstream Christians anyway... they're nuts.
07/30/09
07/30/09
I think there was actually an early Christian writer who suggested ignoring the OT altogether. He was anathematized, unfortunately.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
Obv., I agree completely, which brings me to what I hate most about the way anti-abortion supporters justify actions like murder and intimidation... That is, their complete, willful ignorance of the book itself, and the fact that the book has a long, tediously complicated history of interpretation. Whenever I think about that, my rage threatens to lift the top of my head.
07/30/09
07/30/09
See. You just have to apply AWESOME logic. And by "awesome" I mean "terrifying" and by "logic" I mean "craziness."
07/30/09
People should think for themselves. Even the New Testament is just a compilation of writings of men, some gospels were written as much as 120 years after Jesus' death. It just kind of floors me when even seemingly intelligent people want to talk about the "kind and forgiving God of the New Testament." Of course, I think the only thing Christianity has on Scientology is a couple thousand years.
07/30/09
Sadly, religion in general, and certain strains of fundamentalism/extremism in particular, does not encourage this. (I agree completely, though.)
07/30/09
@thePrototype: @thesciencegirl: Ummm... the god of the NT ain't exactly sunshine and rainbows, kids. I find there's is this distinction made between OT and NT that is largely just picked and chosen to create a division that isn't as severe as people are lead to believe.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
Ergo, regular murder is okay.
QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM BISHES.
07/30/09
07/30/09
Well that's a bit scary.
07/30/09
However, in the last two years, I haven't had any problems. Nice, light periods (though I do get some heinous acne once a month).
My doctor only had me come in to check the placement of the strings once and never told me to check them myself. She moved to another state about a year ago, so I'm now somewhat concerned given the stories I've been reading!
As a note - I have the version of Mirena with hormones because the hormones help control the growth of cysts on my ovaries.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
When my ob-gyn was going to put it in, she needed to do a test on cells from my cervix first. Putting something SMALLER than the IUD in my apparently tight little cervix was Immensely screamingly painful.
What I was screaming was "ignore my screaming and do what your have to do!" but we were both so shaken by the experience that we decided on NuvaRing instead.
07/30/09
I went to Planned Parenthood and the nurse answered all of my questions and told me to come back in a week for an IUD. Insertion was hellacious, even with two cytotec beforehand for cervical softening, and I'm still in the settling-in period where I have a lot of cramping. But I'm praying it works out, because it's like I have my brain back. I haven't felt depressed or had an anxiety attack in three weeks; I think my record on birth control was six days without some kind of horrible mood swing.
Also, PID is dangerous but it's not a guaranteed game-ender for your fertility. My mother had a Dalkon Shield which got infected and landed her in the hospital. She still had three oops babies later in life.
07/30/09
Now I'm questioning how much of that was even true. For now I'm on the pill, but it's not ideal. Of course, I don't know that having even more cramps and heavy periods on top of already painful periods is any more ideal. But it's an option and obviously my doctor has some strange opinions about it.
07/30/09
Also, the Mirena - unlike the copper IUD - actually makes my periods much, much lighter as well as my cramps. Because that was definitely a huge factor for me, more so than even avoiding pregnancy.
07/30/09
I'd like to get a copper IUD, but before the pill my periods were 8 days and heavy, I don't want them getting worse. I also want my sex drive back and the crazies to go away. Mirena still contains hormones so I'm a bit iffy about that.
07/30/09
As Megan stated, having the IUD insterted was painful. For me, it was a day or two worth of tear-inducing cramping. After the initial pain, I thought it worked well for me ... until about a year later, when one morning I felt intense cramping. I knew it wasn't my period - I was at work and was soon on the floor, crying and doubled over in pain. A coworker drove me to the ER, where, after loudly explaining that my cervix was cramping and no I wasn't "having pms", I was taken into a private room where a nurse inserted a speculum and took a look.
"The string has come out a little further than normal," she said. She pulled it a little, and then it was in her hand.
The IUD fell apart. IN MY UTERUS.
After a shot of something in the ass and some morphine and antibiotics, and 3 hours on a gurney waiting for an ultrasound to see if there was any damage to my uterine walls, I was sent home. Later that week, I had to go back to my gynecologist, and she managed to remove the offending broken piece still remaining in my uterus.
Needless to say, I was PISSED. And I will never recommend the IUD, based on the experience I had. I have been using the Nuva Ring for years now and I love it. I understand that the IUD is something that should be promoted as a generally safe form of birth control, I won't be the one to promote it.
07/30/09
My doctor couldn't get it out. I have NEVER felt pain like when she tugged on the strings and ended up pulling my whole uterus because it turned out the Mirena had become imbedded in the wall of my uterus. (Not like the perforation that can happen when they put it in - apparently over time my uterus had grown scar tissue over the Mirena.
Many ultrasounds and one full-on surgery later, it was finally out. (Thank goodness I live in Canada, because if the medical costs weren't covered, the removal would have ended up costing me several thousand dollars.) Sadly, that isn't the end of the story. Because it caused such extensive scarring in my uterus, I may not ever be able to get pregnant. Within the next month or so I have a test (which is supposedly very painful) to try to determine the extent of the scarring.
When I talked to the surgeon after the removal, I asked how common this kind of "complication" was. Her response: it's incorrect to call this a complication, because that suggests that it's unexpected. In fact, this happens so often that it's "just one of the possible expected outcomes," in her words.
I'm not very pro-IUD right now.