St. Lawrence:

From what I've been able to determine from my various sources (all of which - not whom - shall remain unnamed), he was, ironically enough, grilled to death. I'm curious now, so let me know if I'm right or not, 'cause I confess that I didn't spend hours trying to find the correct answer.

Abortion:

Before I get into this, Conor, I want to commend you on your bravery for introducing the topic. :)

Generally, I am against abortion. I do not believe that any woman has the right to kill or injure her children, born or unborn, at any stage of their development, nor do I believe that any man has the right to do so. I don't believe in a woman's right to choose, in this particular case, save for her right to choose whether or not to get pregnant, which we all have in most circumstances (I said "most", so don't throw the rape argument at me at this point please, unless you're really willing to debate). I do not believe that abortion should be encouraged, and I do not believe that it's necessary. I think that the fault of most abortions lies not with the doctors who perform them or the young women who have them performed, but the society and in particular the families which make pregnancy at a young age seem like a massive and terrible ordeal, when it is their responsibility to support, not to pressure, their daughters. I know it's not always the case, but it's common, and I think that makes it worth discussing. Take a young, impressionable girl who is, regrettably, physically ready for children far earlier than she is so emotionally, get her hormones all messed up with a pregnancy, and then make her feel like she's being a huge inconvenience. Tell her that people will look at her funny. Tell her she'll never be beautiful again. Tell her that she's a whore. I hardly think that any but the strongest girls can be blamed at this point for much of anything, including mercilessly (though often not coldly) disposing of their child as though it were less significant than a puppy. Or a rabbit. Or a hamster. Or a fucking newt, for that matter, because they do indeed have more rights.

As for the why, I can offer roughly five separate, distinct, logical answers, and one which is totally personal. If anyone wants to deabte, I'll talk about the other five, and I'd be very interested to see who can refute my arguments. But for now, I'll stick to the personal reason.

I have a strong sense of compassion for all humanity - for all life, actually. I also have a strong sense of responsibility. I never realized how much I hated this matter-of-fact attitude toward slaughter until I got into a bad relationship. There was risk, at times, of my nasty girlfriend getting pregnant. So I did some serious thinking on the subject, and here is what I came up with:

We all DO have the right to choose, both male and female (again, most of the time). I CHOSE to put myself at risk of conceiving a child, with a female that I couldn't possibly stay with. Was that wise? No, it was not. Does that change the fact that I did it? Does it excuse me the responsibility for my actions? No, it does not. And here's where I really turned...

If she had ended up pregnant with my child, and was subsequently put in danger of some kind, I realized that I would have given my life to save her, IF it meant saving the child. On a moment's notice, I wouldn't have hesitated to find out. I would have taken punches, knives, bullets, or an impact with a transport truck, to ensure that that creation of mine was protected. Because I am human. I'm descended from humans. I owe my life to those who thought like me, and to those who gave every ounce of life in them to the next generation, all in the name of overcoming adversity.

We all are descended from such strong people; nature is a tough place to live, or at least it has been, historically. But in my lucky case, that line of strength did not end before my parents. By the time my mother was 24 years old, and my father 25, they had three children. None of these was planned. But not only did they refrain from killing us before we had our first fighting chance at survival, they gave us everything. They fought against a school system that sought to imprison us at an early age and poison our minds with crap. They fought against the poverty (by definition, it was) that threatened nearly every day for the first ten years of my life to leave us homeless and starving. They fought against themselves, and their own weaknesses, and with little help from others save for their own, equally loving, parents, they overcame every obstacle in their way, making every sacrifice necessary, giving everything they had to give and more, to make sure that we, at their great and lasting expense, were as happy and fit and loved as any children possibly could be. There is no way in hell that I, a product of this kind of being, would proceed to whimsically kick over a trough of their blood, sweat and tears, in which I wallowed for over a decade and a half as a child, like it was the kind of watery cesspool that some people's childhoods were made of. Not a chance in hell. I would DIE for my unborn child, and many of you would ask your own to die for you. That is the difference between you and I, between your parents and mine. Does that make me better than you? I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but yes, I believe it does. You too can CHOOSE your course of action. Will you choose for yourself, I wonder?

And that's all I have to say about that.

That's the general "you", by the way, in case anyone took it otherwise. Whether or not I was specifically referring to you, well, that depends on you.

St. Lawrence was, in fact, roasted (grilled over hot coals) "to death." Legend has it that he even said, "Turn me over, I'm done on this side!" He seems to have been very happy to join the ranks of martyrs.

I go to a Catholic university, and know such trivia. (The etymology of the word "trivia," by the way, comes from "tri vium" or "three roads." These are the Latin words that describe a particular juncture whereby two roads combine to form one. It was here that people often stopped to talk, or left messages for other passers-by.) But there's a very particular reason why I like the story of St. Lawrence - when asked to bring the treasures of the Church to the emperor, he went about and gathered the peasantry - prominently displaying them as the "wealth of Our Church." (This is why he was roasted!)



{My abortion argument to follow.}

Akk, or Conor, you can jump on me for this if I'm totally wrong (or Fraser, 'cause you probably remember better than me, or Rhiannon, or Athena)... but wouldn't it be tri viA, since we're dealing with the plural? (There are three of them, after all).

Actually, you're both wrong...at least as far as Classical Latin goes and since that's probably where it originated from, we'll stick with it (you're right about the roasting though. I find it funny and ironic that a guy who was spit-roasted to death became the patron saint of cooks). Via is a 1st declension feminine singular noun, and so in a nominative case, the plural is viae. Accusative is vias, genitive viarum, dative viis, and ablative viis (unless there's some funky stuff I don't know about).

As for abortion, I'm making no big speech. But you did make some interesting points Lincoln and have made me think. But, I'm still pro-choice and you are not a better person than me...I never buy into crap statements like that b/c I sincerely believe that no one is better than anyone else...people just have different strengths and weaknesses (okay...so Hitler is pretty and I guess there may be some extreme examples). Of course, that also means that I'm not better than you because I know that's true too.
But, it is good that you have such high regard for your parents because we do owe 'em much.
Back to the dead folks.

Your grade? On first rating: B+...mabye A-

Grilled CHICKEN SAMMICH! mmmmmmmmmmmm

The funny thing is, I didn't intend for that to be a big speech, either. Just sort of... came out that way, I guess. That's the inflamed, personal side of my view. There are many others which can be discussed in a far more rational, simple fashion, which may or may not come up at a later time.

As for the quality of people, I do not believe that some are simply made of better stuff than others, and if that was implied at all, I certainly want to make it clear that it was unintentional. I do, however, believe that some people act as they should, whereas some do not, when both classes are given the same heart, the same brain, the same circumstances to work with, and it is by the decisions we make in our lives that we can, I believe, be judged on our value as people. I still believe some are better than others. :)

Yeah...you have some points and it did seem that you got pretty passionate there...which is good, as long as you don't get carried away (like I did earlier :) ). But, one thing I hate is any sort of elitism where one feels better than others...ie, the typical male mentality. It's these sorts of attitudes that create much of the problems that our planet has. I feel that there is nothing wrong with thinking and believing...er crap. This is taking too long. I gotta get back to work. One quick post first.