"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" - HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."- Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. - - Mark Shea
Done. There is a similar poll on foxnews.com if you view the Obama May Waive Away Contraception article.
If you want any kind of surgery or medical procedure done, usually the doctor has to sit down, explain the whole thing, show you models, get your informed consent on a zillion zillion forms, and then offer to let you watch the surgery on the ultrasound monitor or a little TV screen.
Funny how, with abortion, it suddenly becomes okay to tell the patient as little as possible. Why, it’s like they believe it’s not just a surgical operation that removes annoying bits of parasitic tissue!
Per Fr. Z’s request, I have added this to my blog.
I am in complete lockstep with Fr. Zuhlsdorf on this one (not that I disagree with him much).
Nearly 50/50 now.
It’s a bit like the old line: “When did you stop beating your wife?”
Women shouldn’t have an abortion – period.
But in the spirit of the post, I have voted in, I hope, the (theo)logical way.
A huge step forward in protecting the God given rights of women IMO! Women deserve to be fully informed and an ultrasound is barely even the minimum they deserve in the way of details BEFORE they make such an irrevocable decision.
And that is even if you don’t believe abortion to be murder– as I do!
I voted yes because even women of no faith at all who firmly believe the lies that an abortion does not kill a baby deserve to be properly informed and an ultrasound is part of that information.
I voted yes. Any dentist who extracts a third molar (wisdom tooth) would show a patient the proximity of the lower jaw nerve to the tooth to be extracted. Standard of Care thingy.,
I just voted (“Yes,” of course), and it’s now (10:20 AM 09 Feb CST) 54.9% (1,216 votes) YES and 45.1% (999 votes) NO!!!
We CAN make a difference!!!
I voted yes. It’s now 57% yes, 42% (almost 43%) no.
Voted! Funny how those pushing “right to choose” balk at the idea of people making an informed decision.
Even those who would treat pregnancy as a disease should have the best interests in the “patient” in mind. Those who would change their minds at the ultrasound are arguably those who, even without the ultrasound, would be likelier to be tormented with psychological issues following their abortion for the rest of their lives. They are not “good candidates” for the “procedure,” just as candidates for some other surgeries are evaluated.
Except, it’s not about the the woman. One gets the distinct impression that it is about abortion for abortion’s sake. It is all but a “sacrament” of feminism.
The Yes vote is now 59.43%
yes yes YES…a 14 week ultrasound rocked my world…and saved my son.
The headline writer at least does not seem ill intentioned: “Texas forces mothers seeking abortions to view image of unborn child”
@ No Tambourines;
“Funny how those pushing “right to choose” balk at the idea of people making an informed decision.”
It is funny, but it is not funny ha, ha! It’s like funny, oh ____ (insert appropriate explicative…I won’t impede your freedom of thought)!
The pro-abort crowd is all for choice as long as you choose to abort. The choice is yours. Sheesh!
Elizabeth D: the headline is a minor spin: forces, as opposed to requires. It conjures an image of the woman’s head being held, toothpicks keeping eyelids from closing…..
I don’t disagree, but I also don’t think it’s an unfair or inaccurate characterization. It’s force, just not of the directly physical kind, just as the Administration’s mandate is force, though not of a directly physical kind. The threat of physical force lurks distantly behind any sort of government mandate, of course, which is why we sometimes use it to such great rhetorical effect. But the knife cuts both ways. In many ways, “mere” compulsion is worse than physical force, because it compels a person to engage in acts, apparently of his own will, that he does not believe.
If a government official were to grab a Catholic doctor by the hand and literally force him to perform an abortion, that would at least leave it clear where the doctor stood. But ah, if he can be compelled to betray God’s law out of fear–then he does violence to the doctor’s own soul, where mere physical force cannot easily go. He also diminishes Catholicism’s witness and claim to the Truth.
So in a sense, I can see where the abortion industry is coming from on this. But not completely, for, in the end, all that the abortionist is being made to do is to acknowledge observable reality. He is not being made to lie, or even to say something he does not know to be true. At worst, he is being compelled to acknowledge the truth and maybe to let his conscience lay bare a little bit–and that, deep down, is what the abortion lobby really fears.
After a moment’s consideration, though, I just had a terrifying thought:
What if some enterprising leftist lawyer crafts a legal complaint that the law violates the abortionist’s 5th Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination…?
It was a 9 week ultrasound of my nephew that changed my view instantly and led me to Catholicism.
That 9 week ‘fetus’ “blob of tissue” (with arms. legs and a beating heart) is now 20 and in college.
Thank you God for opening my eyes.
This is what the pro aborts fear.. that people wont kill their children. They aren’t for ‘choice’.. they are for death.
The vote is now Yes-65%, No-35%
Yes, and since Fr. Z’s first snapshot, they have received another 24 votes for the No side, while the Yes side has more than tripled.
The pro-abortion side really has no reason to deny this.
Doctors being forced to use ultrasound here is extremely different from Obama forcing Catholic doctors to agree with contraception. The pro-abortion doctors do not have any real ideological argument or belief against the use of ultrasound technology. In fact, do they not use it to monitor and perform abortions?
What argument can they make against mothers seeing an image of it? All they’re seeing is factual reality. They have a right to know what is going on. And they have a right to have all information provided to them to make a ‘choice.’
If they argue that this would be undue emotional pressure for the mother to not choose abortion… then this argument can also work against them for exactly the same reasons that emotional pressure may likewise be pushing a mother to abort her child.
The only reasons they would then oppose this is that:
1) They don’t really stand for women’s choices nor educataing women. This is a smokescreen. They are liars.
2) They only want to force their position and what is beneficial for them on women in order to make money.
3) They themselves want to ignore reality and willfully remain ignorant about what their consciences are telling them, that what they are doing is unnecessary murder and only harms humanity. And they reinforce this by supporting and fighting against policies that will help foster general support for their beliefs and thus ease their consciences and continue to shelter them from reality by believing they are protected by popular belief and opinion rather than factual truth.
4) They do it to protect themselves from the potential wrath of the masses if ever the masses were to wake up and see abortion for the grave crime it truly is. Thus it is necessary to keep the masses as ignorant as possible.
5) All of the above.
Thank you for pointing out the poll, Fr. Z. I went over and voted “YES!”, and the poll now shows 70.32% voting “YES!”
A reader over there also made a good comment – couples, not just women, should be required to view the ultasound before deciding to kill their baby.
As of 10 Feb 0714 GMT:
Yes 71.5% (2,614 votes)
No 28.5% (1,042 votes)
Total Votes: 3,656
It was up to 74% yes when I voted.