New Stanek WND column, “The pain of the partial birth abortion ban”
Pro-lifers opposing the partial birth abortion ban say it will force abortionists to commit more torturous abortions, and this may be true.
Whereas the ban prohibits breech abortions of babies delivered past the navel and head-first abortions of babies delivered past the chin, some pro-lifers say abortionists will now simply deliver a baby’s legs and rip them off before proceeding, or deliver the baby almost to the navel and disembowel the baby, etc.
One pro-life group opposing the partial birth abortion ban wrote in an Open Letter to Dr. James Dobson two weeks ago (emphasis theirs):The [Supreme Court] Justices raise the likelihood that with this [PBA ban] ruling, the fetus faces greater brutality. On page 30, the Justices note the objection “that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E [PBA].” That is, standard late-term D&E abortion appears to be more cruel than PBA… [N]ow these kids will suffer more horrifically with this ruling than before, as we congratulate ourselves.
However, the very pro-lifers making this argument oppose fetal pain legislation, so their argument is disingenuous. Stated one member of this group, Brian Rohrbaugh, president of Colorado Right to Life, in an interview:
… What was wrong with that [fetal pain consent] bill is it’s very good to warn women that their child is going to
suffer intense pain. But its evil to offer a solution and then to allow the abortion to continue…I can only call it ruthless to withhold pain relief from someone you know is about to be tortured to death, which you can’t stop…
Should Jesus’ friends have knocked the sponge of wine vinegar away from Him while He was being legally but wrongfully killed?…
Continue reading my column today, “The pain of the partial birth abortion ban,” on WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s not really disingenuous — the word “disingenuous” connotes the ideas of insincerity and circumlocution; whereas these pro-life groups are instead being very straightforward about what they believe.
No, “disingenuous” is better applied to the politicians who supported PBABA. Not one abortion will be stopped by PBABA — not even a partial-birth abortion. The US Solicitor General, arguing for the pro-life side, said it explicitly in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood: “if a doctor really believes that a D&X procedure is the way to go in a case, then there’s no ban on the procedure as such.”
No ban on the IDX procedure, the so-called “partial birth abortion” procedure?
These pro-lifers are, I think, *understandably* annoyed.
Their politicians have sold them a bill of goods and failed to deliver on their promises. Pro-life politicians said they’d ban partial-birth abortion, and they haven’t. Pro-life politicians said they’d offer an alternative more humane to the fetus — but now, instead of delivering the fetus whole (albeit dead), they have recommended tearing it limb from limb in utero. Pro-life politicians said they’d stop some abortions, and yet nobody today believes that any abortions will be stopped by the PBABA.
That is the peak of vote-mongering; it’s Machiavellian, underhanded, and disingenuous.
So, no. My gut reaction is that these pro-lifers are being particularly candid and frank about their beliefs in opposing the PBABA.
After all, what reason is left to support it?
Jill, I really hope your readers don’t fall for this one. This is Deception 101. You are criticizing a group for not supporting the fetal pain act, while you claim to care so much for the baby. Jill, if you care so much for the baby, why did you support the PBA ruling which made it far worse for the baby? Jill, you think we’re “disingenuous”, when your own piece shows your hypocrisy! Don’t you think it’s hypocritical to support legislation to help the baby feel less pain when aborted, and then also support legislation that makes the babies suffer worse deaths? I’d say that’s at the height of hypocrisy. Further Jill, I’d like everyone to notice that Jesus’ friends weren’t legislating for the Roman soldiers to administer sour wine to the dying Jesus. According to Luke 23:36, the soldiers did it to mock Him. And further, Jesus refused it. I don’t know about you Jill, but I’d say we should follow Jesus and His followers example. How about you?
Accidentally posted twice, please delete.
No one has answered me yet, and this will be the third time I’ve asked…
the IDX procedure made up 0.15% of abortions in the United States. Thats about one tenth of one percent. For the “incrementalists” to claim this is a victory, or for the “purists” to call it a defeat seems VERY silly.
Why are both sides getting so angry and worked up over a procedure that leaves 99.85% of abortions completely unaffected?
Its funny to me, as you are all so eager to point out that reported rape/incest abortions make up about 2% of the total number of abortions, and how that number is insignificant enough that it should not be considered a valid argument for legal abortions – yet you’re all arguing over a procedure that is FAR more rare than the rape/incest abortions you consider to be insignificant.
“”A journalist observed three IDX and two D&E procedures involving fetuses ranging from 19 to 23 weeks. She “watched for any signs of fetal distress, but … [she] could see no response, no reflexive spasm, nothing. Whether this was a result of the anesthesia or an undeveloped fetal system for pain sensitivity, one thing was clear: There was no discernable response by the fetus.””
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction#_note-salon
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2002/07/24/late_term/index.html
Why are both sides getting so angry and worked up over a procedure that leaves 99.85% of abortions completely unaffected?
Because even one percent of babies is still enough to be upset about. Each baby is important…even if this affected only 1 baby, it would still be worth getting worked up about. Not even one baby deserves to be treated in such a barbaric way. It’s a very serious issue.
“Why are both sides getting so angry and worked up over a procedure that leaves 99.85% of abortions completely unaffected?”
I’m going to have to agree with you here. Both sides do get caught up too often over these issues, but I guess it goes into the emotional idea. These two issues are rare, but it’s what gets to people’s hearts more.
Bethany, I understand that, however:
Because even one percent of rape victims are still enough to be upset about. Each rape victim is important…even if this affected only 1 rape victim, it would still be worth getting worked up about. Not even one rape victim deserves to be treated in such a barbaric way. It’s a very serious issue.
and even though I understand what you were getting at, dont you still think its a little silly that a decision regarding 0.15% of abortions is enough to cause such a huge rift in the pro life movement?
Bethany, I understand that, however:
Because even one percent of rape victims are still enough to be upset about. Each rape victim is important…even if this affected only 1 rape victim, it would still be worth getting worked up about. Not even one rape victim deserves to be treated in such a barbaric way. It’s a very serious issue.
and even though I understand what you were getting at, dont you still think its a little silly that a decision regarding 0.15% of abortions is enough to cause such a huge rift in the pro life movement?
I absolutely agree that the pro-lifers shouldn’t even be having this argument. I think it is ridiculous and i’ve been trying to reason this idea with those who have been coming here recently, and I don’t think they are getting the fact that we want the same thing. I wish they would understand this.
And you’re totally correct. No rape victim or incest victim deserves to be treated in such a fashion. I was sexually assaulted once when I was 12…I know from experience that it’s terrifying. It is absolutely dispicable and atrocious that there are people out there who prey on girls and do these things.
I think that victimizing another human being is not the solution to healing from being victimized.
This is not in ANY way meant to minimize the pain that the girls are suffering from. No matter what happened to cause the conception, there is a unique human life in there, and it’s the girl’s child, not just the rapists child.
I think a better solution would be to give the girl counseling, health support, emotional support, during the pregnancy, and help her know that she can do this (don’t make her feel as though she’s not strong enough to overcome struggles, I feel this lowers their self worth even more), and that she does not have to be victimized again…and that her baby can give her much comfort, or if she cannot take care of a child, there are so many people out there that she could help by adopting her child out…and she still would have the option to see her baby and watch the baby grow up, and communicate with the adoptive parents. There is so much to this, but I think that abortion only ends up making the wound more difficult to heal, protects the rapists, and causes a lot more emotional damage than giving birth does. Hope all of that made sense the way I worded it.
Its funny to me, as you are all so eager to point out that reported rape/incest abortions make up about 2% of the total number of abortions, and how that number is insignificant enough that it should not be considered a valid argument for legal abortions – yet you’re all arguing over a procedure that is FAR more rare than the rape/incest abortions you consider to be insignificant.
This makes me soooo angry. Its like the “statute of limitations on rape” issue…very emotionally charged. The difficulties of women who are raped, and then complicated by the desire to have abortions, should NEVER be minimized, and a pro-life advocate who doesnt beg God for these women to never have another second of suffering is absolutely at the bottom of the pond scum dogpile.
*gets off soapbox*
Well, the rape and abortion thing obviously we disagree on, but my main point was that I find it a little hypocritical that many pro lifers like to point out how small the percentage of rape and incest related abortions are, and dismiss the argument for legal abortions based on that percentage – while they’re fighting over something far more rare…
Either you acknowledge that something is significant even if it only affects one person or you dont. You cant have it both ways.
(When I say you, I dont mean you, Bethany – I mean people who use that argument, which I doubt you would, being a victim yourself.)
Yes, I figured that was your point… I just wanted to try to explain it as best as I could. I understand your point. :)
We argue about percentage points when real life suffering is going on.
Murdered babies suffer, women suffer, pro-lifers suffer, pro-aborts suffer. Why?
Can any one see a link here? Can we see why God warns us to not do certain things. Do you think because He loves us and wants us not to suffer that he says, don’t have immoral, irresponsible sex? Just look at the fruits of disobedience. It started in the Garden and continues to this day. That the wages of sin is death is proven every single day.
And then Cameron, in his twisted way of percieving the world, wants to allow the sin to continue, even encourage it and then be able to blame God for all the evils in the world when it is we who caused them.
It is utter insanity to ignore the loving care of God, do what you want to do, and then blame Him for the terrible results of our actions.
God is not mocked and I repost a very appropriate scriptural quote as a warning to all those who diss God. It is very sobering and a fatal mistake to ignore.
Jude 1:3-15
” 3Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. 4For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home
These men are blemishes at your love feasts
I thought the “love feasts” is what got us into trouble in the first place. But..sounds like fun.
Hey Jill,
just thought of a new pro-life strategy: pass laws to eliminate fetal pain via abortion … it is very much like the defense demanding that no blood be spilled when Shylock demanded his pound-of-flesh in ‘The Merchant of Venice'(Shakespeare).
Medical science cannot do such a thing !
These men are blemishes at your love feasts
I thought the “love feasts” is what got us into trouble in the first place. But..sounds like fun.
correction: “via abortion” should read as ‘during an abortion’
You know, posting Bible verses to those who aren’t, you know, Christian, would be like me posting about the results of my latest rune reading to those who don’t believe in it. Just pointin’ that out.
As to the PBA ban, I was worked up about it at first, then did my research. As Amanda said, it’s such an insignificant number of abortions: getting worked up about it is pointless.
Amanda asked:
“Why are both sides getting so angry and worked up over a procedure that leaves 99.85% of abortions completely unaffected?”
The reason is because for 15 years certain pro-life groups mailed out letters asking for money in order to help bring about the partial-birth abortion ban that would result in stopping the brutal killing of babies.
Now, we find that roughly $250 million has been raised for this purpose over that time and the recent Supreme Court decision will not save even ONE baby from being killed!
Get it now?
Less –
Like I was saying to Bethany though, if they were willing to accept that the small number of rape and incest victims who want to abort are significant, I will accept that in their belief, the number of IDX abortions is significant. Im just trying to point out that they cant have it both ways. But either way, to allow a decision that leaves 99.8% of abortions unaffeceted to cause such a divisive split in their cause seems absurd.
I like the Bible quotes. To me it just screams “I have nothing valid to add to this conversation, but I have a desperate need to feel important so I need to say SOMETHING, so I’ll cut and paste some scripture and fulfil my witnessing requirements for the day!!!”
The reason is because for 15 years certain pro-life groups mailed out letters asking for money in order to help bring about the partial-birth abortion ban that would result in stopping the brutal killing of babies.
Quinn, did all the pro-life organizations know in advance exactly what the wording of the PBA ban would turn out to be, at the time they were fundraising?
Less,
But it’s OK to post pro-murder, pro-abortion philosophies which really are no more than satans’ very words? All you pro-abort liberals make me laugh at your duplicity.
Yeah Hal:
There you go again, demonstrating a complete lack of Biblical knowledge. Love (agape love) feasts were holy communion not associated with sex (eros love). Want to diss communion too Hal? How much do you think your sick attempt at a laugh against the body of Christ costs you Hal?
Did you read the rest of the verse?
“They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted
Quinn,
The solution is not politicians.
It’s the church.
Start waking up the church to the holocaust of abortion.
Amanda, you have perfectly described Jasper and Hisman
“I have nothing valid to add to this conversation, but I have a desperate need to feel important so I need to say SOMETHING, so I’ll cut and paste some scripture and fulfil my witnessing requirements for the day!!!”
Actually, I think HisMan is right about the love feast thing, I’d forgotten about that. I always found that childishly amusing. Hal’s version sound fascinating, though. ; )
Funny, I generally don’t post anything other than my own words. At least I don’t copy/paste from an online Bible that we don’t all relate to and expect people to suddenly convert, presto chango! As I don’t believe Satan exists any more than I believe the Christian God exists, I’m not particularly concerned.
*snicker*
And before Luv gets on here condeming me to hell for my snicker, I was snickering @ Hal’s comment, nothing to do with abortions BTW..
HisMan, in a previous post (yesterday?), you talked about absolutists. Just, who are they?
You are all invited to my next love feast, then join me in Hell for the after party.
And what’s even worse, those who worked on the bill and the PBA Ban KNEW that it only outlawed one procedure (kind of, its OK if the abortionist does it “unintentionally”).
They knew that there are 9-10 late-term procedures that an abortionist can use to murder the baby yet they still pushed a ban of only ONE procedure that would not result in stopping one abortion from occuring!
And now they want all pro-lifers to unite and LIE to the media and the public (including donors) claiming that this ban is somehow a victory that we should be excited about!
GRRRRRR!!!!
Hal, you werent here last night, I am driving the bus to hell, but hold on it’ll be a bumpy ride!
Oh! Oh! I’ll bring cocktails! Or maybe mojitos, I’ve heard they’re better in warm climates. : )
Mark b:
You know who absolutists are so why the rhetorical question?
Is this a test?
Worry about your own understanding of the issue.
Amanda asked:
“Quinn, did all the pro-life organizations know in advance exactly what the wording of the PBA ban would turn out to be, at the time they were fundraising?”
At some point, the lawyers who these pro-life groups turned over their strategy to knew that the ban they were working towards only banned one procedure and that it would only mean the abortionist would have to use one of the other procedures that were not banned in order to kill the baby.
Make sure the mojitos have lids on them Less, and bring a BIG one for the driver (me).
That was me… So you truly are blaming pro-life people for the fact that abortionists are still allowed to kill babies in other ways? Do you think that any of us who are pro-life are pleased by the fact that abortionists still find other gruesome ways to kill babies? What should they have done differently? What would have worked, Quinn?
Amanda: “and even though I understand what you were getting at, dont you still think its a little silly that a decision regarding 0.15% of abortions is enough to cause such a huge rift in the pro life movement?”
I believe this it’s more like 3000-5000 PBA’s per year, which is more than 0.15%. Still, why is this not valid Amanda, these live’s are not worth it?
Let me clarify my question…what could the pro-life organizations have possibly done to successfully eliminate ALL late term abortions?
Quinn –
how exactly were you decieved by the fundraising?
I really dont understand this logic. I mean, do you not research causes before donating money to them?? Because if you had, you would have known prior to donating money that “Partial Birth Abortion” was a term coined by a politician, not a doctor, and that it refers specifically the IDX procedure, which is the procedure that was banned, and that there are other methods which do not involve “partial birth”.
Is that seriously the main reason for the argument here? That you donated money to pro life organizations working to ban partial birth abortion without even knowing what partial birth abortion IS?
And even if they HAD eliminated all late term abortions, wouldn’t you still be offended about that, since it still allows abortions for 1st and 2nd trimester?
Isn’t that still implying “and then you can kill the baby?”
HisMan, Just one name. are you stumped?
Amanda, that was a good point.
“They knew that there are 9-10 late-term procedures that an abortionist can use to murder the baby yet they still pushed a ban of only ONE procedure that would not result in stopping one abortion from occuring!”
step by step quinn, stop getting angry at your fellow pro-lifers…
Hal,
“A fool says in his heart there is no God”.
Apparently you were apathetic enough to allow your first two children to be aborted not even considering the pain they might feel or what might happen to them after their deaths. The only concern you had was for your own temporal situation.
The same apathy is demonstrated with regards to the two children you now enjoy or should I say use when you seem to have no concern for their eternal welfare as you have apparently abdicated your fatherly duty to lead them to Christ and salvation.
Will they be on the bus to hell with you Hal because the Dad they loved was derelict in teaching them about Christ? You see, a truly loving father would jump into hell for his kids and go on a search for the truth that would save their souls.
I mean I can’t imagine the utter agony of seeing your two daughters suffer in hell with you forever because all you had to do was tell them about Jesus.
Wouldn’t be ironic? The two innocent unborn children you killed in heaven, and you and all who you supposedley love and care about, who you led away from Christ by your apathy and unbelief, in hell with you in agony forever with no way out. As a father you have that power.
That realization would be enough hell in and of itself. This despite the fact that you could have chosen to be a man and take a stand for Christ.
I’ll be a man and pray for your daughters that they find Christ. That may be the only solace you would have in hell, to know that your kids were in heaven. I’ll pray for you too Hal, becasue you need to be there with them.
Bethany asked:
“What should they have done differently? What would have worked, Quinn?”
Since they were telling their supporters that the money donated would help towards SAVING BABIES FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED they at the very least should have crafted a bill that would save babies from being slaughtered.
There is nothing complicated about this. Its incredibly simple.
HisMan: If his dauighters wanted to “find” Christ, I think they’d say “Screw dad and HIS beliefs, I am going to find my own”. What your parents do/think/say does not dictate how their children will end up…
Amanda,
why is it not a partial birth, why are you putting it in quotes? look at the testimony of the abortion doctors before the SJC, the baby is partially delivered ( all except the head ). you worked at a death mill, you should know about this..
*amanda, laughing like the devil at other pro-lifers who donated money*
“Still, why is this not valid Amanda, these live’s are not worth it? ”
I never said it wasn’t valid. I was pointing out the double standard of saying that the small percentage of rape and incest victims is insignificant when the percentage here is even smaller – and additionally, that if there is so much disagreement over a decision that effected such a small number of abortions overall, this obviously undermines the goal of future bills that may actually affect a larger number of abortions – and that I think thats pretty silly, even as a pro choicer. And to be fair, I thought it was equally silly that Planned Parenthood flipped out about this ruling too. I am an equal opportunity skeptic of people getting too dramatic over things like this.
Ohhhh Jasper, you and your word twisting.
I was simply saying, which Bethany obviously understood but I guess it went right over your head, that one should know what a PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION meant before donating money… and if they had known, they would have known that a PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN would only ban abortions that involved PARTIAL BIRTH, not ALL methods of late term abortions, which seems to be what Quinn and others intepreted it as.
Today, probably for the last time, I will be going to the hospice to visit my sister-in-law who is close to death.
I have known her for almost 35 years.
She was like many on this website who could care less about God and lived the way she wanted to. That was OK when she was healthy and young and thought she would live forever.
Well, in mercy, her choices caused suffering beyond belief and now, at the age of 55, she is facing a premature death.
The good news is that, in her own way, she eventually came to faith in Christ. The persistance paid off.
I will see her in heaven.
My prayer is the same for all of you, not the suffering, but the salvation and whatever it takes for it to come about.
Psalm 126:
5 Those who sow in tears
will reap with songs of joy.
6 He who goes out weeping,
carrying seed to sow,
will return with songs of joy,
carrying sheaves with him.
“Tears
Quinn, can you please answer this question for me. I am trying so hard to understand your point of view here.
What would your reaction be if all late trimesters had been banned, however, the ruling also stated that this had no effect on 1st and 2nd trimester abortions? Would this be an incremental step, or would it be a wicked ruling because it still allowed abortions?
Bethany, how are you feeling today? I read your site and it looks like you’ve been going through a doozy!
If you’d like to talk you’re welcome to email me. My email is pope7446@sbcglobal.net
I’m praying for you!
Hisman, I’m sorry to hear that about your sister in law. I am glad to know that she found Christ before dying though. Now you have the comfort of knowing you will see her again after she is gone on the earth.
Hisman, I’ll be praying for your SIL. I’m happy to hear that she found Jesus. Praise God for that!
Lauren, thank you so much! I am feeling better today but I am trying hard not to think about what could be in store in the future….someone actually advised me that it’s possible it could be ectopic or a chemical pregnancy….I am hoping that neither is true. :-(
I really hope that this baby will make it. Thank you so much for the comforting words on my blog. It really helps knowing that your mother had the same thing happen when you were conceived.
Do you have msn messenger, by any chance?
“I was pointing out the double standard of saying that the small percentage of rape and incest victims is insignificant when the percentage here is even smaller”
well, I agree, rape victims shouldn’t be categorized as “insignificant”.
I glad you dropped the quotes off of partial birth abortion. thanks
and besides, the mountain of abortion laws have to be dismanted piece by piece (Justice Scalia)
I have AIM, but I can get MSM. I’ll go sign up for an account!
Thank you, Lauren! : )
Hisman:
my girls are way too smart to fall for that “god” stuff.
All they need to know about Jesus they learned on The Simpsons.
As for the solace I’ll have in Hell, I’ll have my new friends Less and Midnight.
And Less is bring MOJITOS!!!
K, I got a MSN messanger. My sn is my email address.
Haha, well guys, if HisMan turns out to be right, Im going to Hell too even though I AM Christian (just not the right kind apparently), so I guess I’ll see you guys there – and I’ll bring Appletinis.
my girls are way too smart to fall for that “god” stuff.
So if one of your girls decided they wanted to believe in God, you would consider her to be unintelligent?
Do you think all people who believe in God are stupid? That is what you just implied here.
You realize that with so many on the planet who beileve in God, or a god, that’s really assuming something.
Maybe even MINT ones! According to the infamous Dante’s Inferno test, I’m actually going to be in Purgatory. I’m going to be missing out hardcore. : ( I’ll get a visitor’s pass or something, though, and bring you a constant supply of whatever flavor mojitos you so desire. : )
Hal, would you be upset if your daughters came to know God?
Hal,
Smart is a relative term.
Mark b:
Here’s my answer: Mark b.
“Hal, would you be upset if your daughters came to know God?”
My oldest told me last week she wanted to start going to church, with me!. I thought maybe she was interested in singing in a church choir. (she has a keen interest in singing) She said, no, she wanted to find Jesus, then she busted out laughing. She was just pulling my leg. So, for a moment, I had to think what my position would be. I really was okay with the whole idea if it is what she wanted, I certainly wouldn’t love her any less. So, I would not be “upset,” but certainly confused.
Amanda:
Why will you be going to hell if I am right, yet you are a Christian?
I didn’t say Christians go to hell.
Gotta go.
“Do you think all people who believe in God are stupid?”
Not stupid necessarily. Wrong, certainly.
Some very intelligent children believe in the Easter Bunny, and probably would forever if society kept playing along (and constructed an entire movement around it with events, books, movies, ceremonies, etc.)
Well since we have mojitos, & appletinis, I shall bring some snamcks…
Everyone ok with sushi?
Because, HisMan, as you’ve repeatedly told me, my “liberal” beliefs that Jesus would not condemn someone for being gay or having an abortion are wrong, the fact that I don’t think Jesus would appreciate you using his name to judge and hate people is wrong, the fact that I dont think there is a single damn thing wrong with being gay is wrong, the fact that I firmly believe gay couples make loving and wonderful parents is wrong, the fact that Im perfectly happy believing what I choose to believe without trying to get other people to think Im right is wrong, the fact that I attend the UCC is wrong because they are pro choice…..
need I go on, or am I already at the 9th layer of damnation here?
Amanda, welcome to our group.
Let’s not pick on Hisman anymore today. He’s experiencing a terrible personal loss, and we can fight about these things with him another time.
If he finds comfort in religion today, more power to him.
My sincere condolences to you and your family Hisman.
“If he finds comfort in religion today, more power to him.”
ABSOLUTELY. Just wish he could have the same respectful notion of the religious beliefs of others.
“My sincere condolences to you and your family Hisman.”
Seconded.
Amanda,
I simply quote ths Bible. Do you believe the
Bible is God’s revealed will or not?
Was God joking when He said, “He gave them up (homosexuals) to their degrading passions”?
Or was it just His suggestion when He said that, “and homosexuals would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?”
Everyone:
Thanks for all the expressions of sympathy. The grreatest thing anyone could do would be to accept Jesus Christ as Lord.
Now I really gotta go.
I could think of many other grreat things besides accepting Jesus: What about find a cure for cancer or AIDS, or ending poverty and hunger in the world..
HisMan bears false witness against a brother in Christ (Matt 19:18) For I am not against incrementalism, as I have stated many times. I am against any law that violates God’s command…DO NOT MURDER, as any Christian should be. So until HisMan repents of his lie, I will not take him seriously.
“So until HisMan repents of his lie, I will not take him seriously.”
Mark B., no one takes him seriously.
and I’m guessing no one takes you seriously either.
Would you like a mojitto Mark B.? They’re quite tasty on the bes ride to hell….
*bus ride (typo)
Nothing to do with anything … but …
I’M COMING HOME!!!!!
Saturday I will be getting on a plane in Paris and leaving for chez moi. Finally ….
Best wishes to HisMan. I’m sorry for the pain you must be going through.
As for the actual article … I really have no comment at this time. :)
Yay Leah! Fly safe! I’ll be sending good vibes your way. : )
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rT90keJ51bY
maybe we should have a dance like they do??
Thanks, Less!
Midnite,
You bring up Michael Jackson again when innocent babies are being killed? *FOR SHAME*
;-)
JK and Midnite,
what is wrong with you two? How dare you have a sense of humor when bad things happen in life?
You obviously didn’t get the memo, you’re supposed to be upset and angry ALL the time, and laughing is just
EEEEEEEEEEEEvil!!!
I was maintaining my stiff upper lip, chastising Midnite for her eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil ways. ;-)
Sorrry!!!
I cant keep myself from seeing the humor/irony in life. (Plus I’d already forgotten about the MJ argument yesterday. Was really looking at us to have a dance in hell to occupy our drunken sushi time)..
*tear*
Cameron:
So let’s take comfort in knowing that a journalist has set the record straight for all of us. Whew.
Get real. It was her opinion and her opinion only. I can’t believe you would even take this article seriously as her opinion is not based on scientific facts and data.
Also, in regards to the second article, it only supports the fact that this procedure is used more widely that you want us to believe.
The pro-choice movement has expected us to buy into the idea that this method is used only when the life of the mother is in danger or the baby has a condition where it will die anyway. Based on the first account of this story I can only conclude that there was no fatal fetal condition as none was mentioned and the only medical condition the mother was suffering from was a missing front tooth.
Seven late term abortions in one clinic in one day?? Wow. What a busy prosperous little office.
All this does is prove to me that this method was NOT used for anything other than for the convenience of aborting an unwanted pregnancy.
“She is 34, has children at home, is missing a front tooth and is currently 23 weeks pregnant. Like the seven other pregnant women scheduled to pass through this operating room today, she will have a surgical abortion. Her doctor will decide, based solely on her medical circumstances, which technique to use.”
*tear*
That’s what we should be doing Midnite, instead of laughing at evil places like Hell in an eeeeeevil way.
We should all be crying on the inside and out for daning to find humor in the world.
*tear*
Bethany asked:
” What would your reaction be if all late trimesters had been banned, however, the ruling also stated that this had no effect on 1st and 2nd trimester abortions? Would this be an incremental step, or would it be a wicked ruling because it still allowed abortions?”
Any law that ands with “…and then you can kill the baby” is a wicked and evil law that all Christians have an obligation to oppose.
Perhaps this will help you to understand. Imagine that one day Roe v Wade is overturned. Once it is overturned is the law that you think is great because it outlaws some small percentage of abortions going to be pointed at as legal precedent for keeping abortion legal in that state?
Charles Rice, emeritus professor of law at Notre Dame says YES IT WILL KEEP ABORTION LEGAL IN THAT STATE.
“If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you’d have to get rid of the ‘pro-life’ abortion laws.” — Charles Rice
Link to interview of Rice where he said that is here
http://www.kgov.com/bel_56kbps/20061212
What do you say Bethany?
Umm…Quinn, in addition to not having a clue what partial birth abortion means, you’re apparently unclear the wording of Roe V Wade and the IDX ban.
Overturning Roe V Wade would not ban abortion anywhere, regardless of the IDX ban. Overturning Roe V Wade means individual states could independently legislate the legality of abortion. Should a state ballot pass banning ALL abortions, ALL abortions would be illegal in that state, overriding any previous regulations. I dont think lawmakers are stupid enough to put a bill through the state legislature without making sure the wording appropriately voids previous restrictions. This sort of thing happens all the time. For example, when a state votes to lower the limit for alcohol intoxication violations, it voids the previous limit.
However, as made clear by the South Dakota vote, legislature banning all abortions is not likely to pass, but rather, legislature permitting abortions in the cases of health/rape/incest and banning all others may be successful. In that case, the IDX ban would come in to play, because even when the health of the mother is an issue, IDX would still be banned unless her LIFE is in jeopardy, which is what Im sure Rice was referring to.
You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re falling victim to some very misleading propaganda.
If personhood of the unborn child becomes established legally, then could those laws still be used against them?
Hey everyone….can I join the bus ride? Apparently I’m going to Limbo….the first level. Can you drop me off on the way, Midnite? :P
I’m all for the sushi, too, Midnite.
Can I bring the the fruit salad and veggie plates?
According to everything I learned in my reproductive policy course, any law that established fetal personhood would void and previous laws that were based on the fetus NOT being a person, just as Roe V Wade voided any previous state abortion bans.
Think about it, if what Quinn is saying is accurate, all of the states that had banned abortion prior to Roe V Wade would still have abortion banned after the decision – which was absolutely not the case. We may not always agree with our lawmakers, but I’m pretty confident they know what they’re doing more than Quinn does….lol.
sorry – and = any betwee void and previous in the first sentence
She said, no, she wanted to find Jesus, then she busted out laughing. She was just pulling my leg.
Sounds like she’s learned how to make her daddy happy.
HisMan,
OMG HISMAN IS JUDE. Let’s review.
The faux apostle, conveniently claiming to be a lesser known brother of prophet named Jesus, Jude, though 200 years later, writes a letter written and addressed to extant believers. It’s a defensive little polemic, at the heart of which is self-affirming preoccupation with those dagnabit apostates. It
According to everything I learned in my reproductive policy course, any law that established fetal personhood would void and previous laws that were based on the fetus NOT being a person, just as Roe V Wade voided any previous state abortion bans.
That’s what I was thinking. Didn’t it say something to that effect in the Roe Vs. Wade decision?
Bethany said, “If personhood of the unborn child becomes established legally, then could those laws still be used against them?”
Bethany, I thought getting in my post early (2nd from the top!) would help, but I got no response from Jill, or anybody. I’m glad some are actually willing to discuss this. Amanda is correct, overturning Roe (and Doe) would put abortion back to the states. It would leave each state to decide if abortion should be legal or not. Here’s the dilemma. Our supposed “pro-life” laws would KEEP ABORTION LEGAL the second Roe is overturned. For example, in Indiana, we have a law (Title 16, Section 34, Indiana code on informed consent) on the books that states, “Abortion shall be a criminal act, EXCEPT when a woman files her consent.” i.e informed consent laws. This law keeps abortion legal in Indiana after Roe is overturned. When we (the pro-life community) try to then ban abortion in Indiana, we then have to overturn our own “pro-life” informed consent law. Isn’t that sick? Overturning our own pro-life laws may be harder than overturning Roe since we put them on the books in the first place. This is what we’ve been trying to say and what Jill won’t deal with. Colorado Right to Life, Bob Enyart, and I support any incremental law that won’t keep abortion legal after Roe is overturned. A quote from Bob Enyart: “How many children will be killed after Roe v. Wade is overturned, by the authority of our own pro-life laws? How many months, years, or decades will it take us to repeal our own pro-life laws?”
Bethany and Lauren, when we support laws that undermine the personhood of the child, we’ve all but shot ourselves in the foot. Here’s a quote from my man, Mark Crutcher’s site: “On August 4, 2004, Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt was on KABC radio in Los Angeles and said this about pro-lifers,
Quinn, this bothers me. The very fact that you wouldn’t support the Partial birth abortion ban even if it DID make ALL late term abortions illegal, proves that it isn’t the idea that the PBA ban actually doesn’t save any lives that you are offended about. It gives me the impression that you really are against taking any steps or measures to save what children you can, while you can…
…and it supports Jill’s analogy of “if you can only rescue a few children from a burning building do you just leave them all or pull out the ones you can?”, which you claim is erroneous.
If we made all late term abortions illegal, then we could work with that and attempt to make 2nd trimester abortions illegal, and 1st trimester abortions illegal…but you say it would be wicked to try to save some, because we couldn’t save them all?
At this time, we are not currently able to pass a human life amendment, and we are not ABLE to save them all. Maybe we will in the future, who knows? That would be absolutely wonderful! Believe me, I want this as badly as you do.
Quinn, we must do what we can, while we can. We must take every opportunity, and make every possible step towards our goal.
Do you see what I am saying?
BTW, the PBA ruling says, “the fetus that may become a child.” So much for trying to establish personhood… When we support this trash, we are compromising on the ultimate goal, and this WILL come back to haunt us.
Per Will:
“It would leave each state to decide if abortion should be legal or not. Here’s the dilemma. Our supposed “pro-life” laws would KEEP ABORTION LEGAL the second Roe is overturned. For example, in Indiana, we have a law (Title 16, Section 34, Indiana code on informed consent) on the books that states, “Abortion shall be a criminal act, EXCEPT when a woman files her consent.” i.e informed consent laws.”
Will,
Being totally unamiliar with this law (or others like it), what was the purpose of the law being written the way it stands??
Also, do you have other examples??
Thanks.
Bethany, I thought getting in my post early (2nd from the top!) would help, but I got no response from Jill, or anybody. I’m glad some are actually willing to discuss this. Amanda is correct, overturning Roe (and Doe) would put abortion back to the states. It would leave each state to decide if abortion should be legal or not. Here’s the dilemma. Our supposed “pro-life” laws would KEEP ABORTION LEGAL the second Roe is overturned. For example, in Indiana, we have a law (Title 16, Section 34, Indiana code on informed consent) on the books that states, “Abortion shall be a criminal act, EXCEPT when a woman files her consent.” i.e informed consent laws. This law keeps abortion legal in Indiana after Roe is overturned. When we (the pro-life community) try to then ban abortion in Indiana, we then have to overturn our own “pro-life” informed consent law. Isn’t that sick? Overturning our own pro-life laws may be harder than overturning Roe since we put them on the books in the first place. This is what we’ve been trying to say and what Jill won’t deal with. Colorado Right to Life, Bob Enyart, and I support any incremental law that won’t keep abortion legal after Roe is overturned. A quote from Bob Enyart: “How many children will be killed after Roe v. Wade is overturned, by the authority of our own pro-life laws? How many months, years, or decades will it take us to repeal our own pro-life laws?”
This is why we must eventually find a way to legally establish personhood of the unborn child. This is the goal, Will.
“Our supposed “pro-life” laws would KEEP ABORTION LEGAL the second Roe is overturned. ”
No – the fact that Roe V Wade turns the decision over to the state is what will keep it legal the second Roe is overturned, and the month after its overturned, and the year after its overturned UNLESS THE STATE LEGISLATURE passes a ban! Do you honestly think your state legislature is stupid enough to create a bill that doesn’t address the previous ones? Laws change! If all laws were contingent on previous laws, NOTHING would ever change in this country, and we all know thats not the case.
Will D,
That is a case where either they both die, or one dies. We believe that the most life should be perserved. It doesn’t make any sense to have BOTH die when one can be saved. It doesn’t undermine the personhood of either.
Do you not agree with a woman removing a child who has implanted in her tubes? If she does nothing, both will die. Who does that serve? The doctor must see two patients. He must do everything possible to save both. If, in the course of treatment, one dies is it not better than both dying?
Hi Amanda,
(please, I would like to have your analysis about the use such ‘legality’ on abortion) – just as the defense allowed Shylock his pound-of-flesh but not a drop of blood … in ‘The Merchant of Venice’ by W. Shakespeare …. if we avoid the whole competing rights issue and pass laws disallowing any fetal pain when an abortion is procured.
The existence of pain does not require person-hood.
Sandy, I have hundreds of examples. Just about every informed consent, waiting period and parental notification law does this. I’m not sure I understand your question though. Look at it this way. Any law that ends with the meaning “and then you can kill the baby” will keep abortion legal after Roe is overturned. I.e. if a minor gets her parents permission, it’s legal for her to have an abortion, if a woman waits 24 hours, it’s legal for her to have an abortion, if a woman files her consent, it’s legal for her to have an abortion, etc.
Lauren, Sandy, sometimes I feel like they are intentionally not getting it.
Hey Sandy,
I’m very shocked you actually read it, and little suspect, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
“It was her opinion and her opinion only.”
It’s an eyewitness acount of several procedures. Does something in particular render the character of the witness less trustworthy… beyond the fact that it’s not in harmony with your wishful thinking?
“I can’t believe you would even take this article seriously as her opinion is not based on scientific facts and data.”
Unfortunately, there are no scientific studies of the procedures. Just this, done in repsonse to a Jill Stanek type nurse that claimed she watched the procedure and the baby started flailing like fish out of water. Even a fully developed baby during normal dilevery isn’t particularly active… in fact, the APGAR scale for accessing the babies condition is based on the Glasgow Coma Scale.
You’re welcome to provide contrary evidence if you can find it.
“Also, in regards to the second article, it only supports the fact that this procedure is used more widely that you want us to believe.”
Whatever! Did you happen to notice that those statistics were desiminted by your presumed prariah and lackey of the pro-abort industry–Guttmacher? I suppose you’re comfortable cherry-picking reality though, especially since common sense has apparently abondoned you.
“The pro-choice movement has expected us to buy into the idea that this method is used only when the life of the mother is in danger or the baby has a condition where it will die anyway.”
I think they actually suggest that that is why it needs to remain legal… not what it is, though I’m sure some, like those refering to fetuses as parasites and such, are ignorant. You’re welcome to direct them to Guttmacher.
“All this does is prove to me that this method was NOT used for anything other than for the convenience of aborting an unwanted pregnancy.”
Well… now you just said it doesn’t prove anything before??? Isn’t it an “opinion?”
Try to get your story straight.
Bethany, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Now you’re saying the goal is to establish personhood of the child, when you and Jill have been saying all along that incrementally chipping away at abortion will lead to its end. Bethany, have you ever supported a law that undermines personhood of the child?
John – are you sure you’re addressing the right person? I haven’t made a single comment about fetal pain legislation, I havent read enough about the proposed bills to commen on them, but again, if a fetal pain law is passed under the premise that a fetus is NOT a person, that law would be voided if it is ever determined that a fetus IS a person. But establishing that the fetus is a person would not absolutely mean an abortion ban – it would probably lead to a case where the main point is bodily integrity, as in, if we acknowledge the fetus is a person, do the rights of that fetus superceed the rights of the mother, or not.
Incrementally chipping away I believe WILL lead to personhood of the unborn child. But I don’t think there’s any way to get you to understand that. :-(
“The existence of pain does not require person-hood.”
And we are to infer then, of course, that something which is not self-aware, and has limited or no capacity for sensory processing in its central nervous system, experiences pain?
Amanda said, “No – the fact that Roe V Wade turns the decision over to the state is what will keep it legal the second Roe is overturned, and the month after its overturned, and the year after its overturned UNLESS THE STATE LEGISLATURE passes a ban! Do you honestly think your state legislature is stupid enough to create a bill that doesn’t address the previous ones? Laws change! If all laws were contingent on previous laws, NOTHING would ever change in this country, and we all know thats not the case.”
Amanda, you’re very confused. Every pro-life organization in America has stated that after Roe is overturned, and abortion is turned over to the states, then the current state laws take over. If a state, maybe Vermont, where abortion was illegal before Roe and no pro-life legislation was passed since Roe, abortion will be illegal after Roe is overturned.
Bethany, please explain how this will work. Explain how the PBA ruling which states, the fetus that may become a child” leads to establishing personhood. I’m willing to hear you out if you can give a rational explanation.
Will, question: Did you support the PBA ban before it came out and you were able to read the decision?
You’re obviously good at reading Will.
Thats exactly what I just said.
You honestly think that if Roe V Wade is potentially going to be overturned, ie, a challenging case goes to the Supreme Court, that state legislators arent going to prepare for it and pass bills accordingly? You honestly think everyone is going to happily go back to bills that haven’t been in effect since 1973 and not readdress them for the present? Some of the state laws on the books still refer to the “quickening”, which is obviously completely obsolete. You’re getting WAYYYYY ahead of yourself here, which is exactly what people like Jill and Bethany are trying to explain to you.
Bethany, please explain how this will work. Explain how the PBA ruling which states, the fetus that may become a child” leads to establishing personhood. I’m willing to hear you out if you can give a rational explanation.
You don’t understand the meaning of “one step closer”. I don’t think there’s anything I can say that would convince you, Will.
Lauren, this isn’t a case where both die or one dies. Imagine we have this conversation 100 years ago, before cesarean section, you would be arguing to me that it’s okay to kill the baby if the mother’s life is at risk. Lo and behold, abortion is banned EXCEPT for the life of the mother. Fast forward 100 years, babies are surviving as early as 21 weeks, and who knows where medical advancements will take us. Now your law is responsible for killing babies that could survive. A good law would be this, “If the mother’s life is at risk at any point in her pregnancy, the living fetus (I hate that word) is removed and every attempt to save it’s life is made.” Notice the key word “living” and notice there’s no reference to duration of the pregnancy. That way, if medical advancements in the next 30 years make it possible for a 15 week old baby to survive, we are not undermining that baby’s right to life, and better, we are not responsible for its death.
Amanda, you are confused and I don’t want you to believe me, but research it for yourself. Americans United for Life is definitely not on my side, and they would be an organization that would tell you what it means for Roe to be overturned, that state laws either in effect now, or if none, laws before Roe, go into effect. As someone already quoted, Charles Rice, a stalwart in the pro-life movement, and emeritus professor of law at Notre Dame, said, “If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you’d have to get rid of the ‘pro-life’ abortion laws.”
Bethany, you are copping out, and that’s sad. I’m willing to listen to you explain how a ruling that says “the fetus that may become a child” is one step closer TO ESTABLISHING PERSONHOOD. You may argue that it’s one step closer to overturning Roe, but overturning and establishing personhood are not synonyms Bethany. In fact, they are two different things. Establishing personhood is my goal, hands down. But the PBA ruling has nothing in it that helps to establish personhood.
Will D, I have no problem with your wording.
Bethany, I supported the PBA ruling until I met Bob Enyart and he explained to me that it won’t save a single human life. After reading the ruling itself, I was even more disgusted at how wicked it is. More wicked than Roe, I think.
LOL. You’re COMPLETELY ignoring the point Im trying to make.
I’ll say it again, in the most simple language I can…
I REALIZE that the previous laws will go back in to effect.
HOWEVER – give youre state legislators a bit of credit. They’re not morons. If a case actually does go to the Supreme Court (actually some states are even doing it now), state lawmakers are going to create NEW bills that will either be passed through state senate or go to a ballot vote. These NEW bills will replace the clearly outdated ones, and will probably be rushed through the process to be put in to effect LONG before a decision is made by the SC.
Alright Lauren! Thanks for hearing me out.
Amanda, the legislators, as a whole, in the US are solidly pro-choice. Have you noticed that? Why would they try to change anything?
Amanda, my state, Colorado, for example, has always been solidly republican. We are slowly, but surely, going democratic. I predict we will be democratic by the next presidential election. If we pass a law in Colorado (which we have) that will actually keep abortion legal after Roe, and then we become solidly democratic and pro-choice when Roe is overturned, how many months, years, or decades will it take us to overturn our own pro-life laws? How many Amanda?
Alright Lauren! Thanks for hearing me out.
I’m confused. Do you actually think that we wouldn’t have supported that wording?
Bethany, it’s not that you wouldn’t support that wording, it’s realizing how important wording is! If we’re not careful, we could be responsible for the killing of babies by supporting bad laws. (We’ve already done this, and I hope we will stop.) Simple wording can make a law good or bad.
If some states vote to keep abortion legal, so be it!!
Good for them!!
If the majority of the state believes abortion should be legal in that state, it should be! THAT is what democracy is all about. Or would you rather we live in a dictatorship? Isnt that what the pro life movement has been fighting for all this time? Turning the decision over to the states? Now you’re scared that decision might not work out in your favor so you won’t support ANY legislation besides an outright ban?
What you’re arguing for is NOT the overturning of Roe V Wade, but the banning of abortion over all, which is not going to happen for a LONG time, if ever (hopefully ever).
However, in conservative states like Oklahoma, S. Carolina, and S. Dakota, bills are already in the works to preempively ban abortion in those states should Roe V Wade be overturned.
Most polls show that about half of the 50 states would pass an abortion ban with a rape/incest exception. Rational people like Bethany would be happy about this, because it would drastically reduce the number of legal abortions in the US.
The reason I called Jill Stanek “pro-choice with exceptions” was for this very reason. She said banning abortion except for the life of the mother is based on viability, and that’s pro-choice! Viability has always been a changing thing and still will change. Viability right now is set at 24 weeks by the NICU, even though babies are surviving at 21 weeks. Plus, viability undermines personhood and more importantly, undermines God’s command, Do Not Murder. That’s why the wording I put forth is so important. You don’t have to kill a baby to save the life of the mother. You remove a living baby to save the mother and sometimes the baby dies in the process. Even if the baby lives for 1 min. outside the womb, that’s life. (Apart from the life it had in the womb.) Viability is garbage!
Amanda, I think you’re starting to see my valid point. If we didn’t pass compromised pro-life legislation, abortion would be illegal after Roe. Now it will be legal BECAUSE of us. I’ve never said I won’t support legislation except an outright ban. You made that up. I’ve been saying the exact opposite on this site. I think you made up your statement about the polls as well. Please show them to us. How many babies will be killed by our own pro-life legislation? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
@Will: Only ONE baby has survived being born just under 22 weeks. ONE baby. So no, viability is correct at being 24 weeks, though there are babies born before then, they often die shortly after birth, as in the case of the Morrison sextuplets here in Minnesota, which were born at 22 weeks and already 3 of them have died and the last three are on very shaky ground.
Seriously though, you are either a very delusional individual or you just have your priorities messed up.
Will,
By invoking how establishing personhood should be the priority, what you are really saying is that you want the constitution or the judiciary to declare when life begins. I suspect you think it’s a “person” upon conception. The judiciary however, has stated quite clearly that it can only resolve the question of when their is a right to an abortion, and the constitution explicitely applies to those that have been “born.”
What exactly to you envission?
Will, what then do you propose we do?
Should we ONLY put through bills that make abortion illegal in all 50 states? Do you think these bills have any chance to pass?
Honestly, what is your solution?
For those who are excited for bans with rape/incest/life of the mother exceptions, PLEASE consider this. The pro-choice side has already been documented as to stating that if abortion is banned with these exceptions, women will be taught to claim that if they have the baby, they will commit suicide, which is perfectly acceptable for them to fall under the “life of the mother” exception. Bans with these exceptions will not stop abortion Amanda and Bethany, I’m sorry.
Rae, can you imagine what those poor people must be going through right now? How tragic. I’ll definitely be praying for them!
Lauren, and others who want to know what we should do: We need to fight for personhood and pass good incremental laws to chip away at abortion. (A human life amendment would be great, but very unlikely.) Outlawing abortion in one state is good incrementalism. A law that says any minor going through any legal medical procedure, must have their parents notified, is a good incremental law. That way, when abortion becomes illegal, it will no longer fall under that law.
Last but not least, GET OUT TO THE CLINICS and sidewalk counsel women to save their babies!
@Lauren: I honestly don’t know either and I think it’s tragic that it had to happen in the first place because it was likely due to the fact that they used fertility drugs improperly as they were most likely prescribed by a normal OB-GYN rather than a fertility specialist.
*sigh*
But the ironic thing is, the couple refused to do a selective reduction procedure because it was against their religious beliefs, so I’m taking a guess that they are Christian and since it’s Minnesota, either Catholic or Lutheran (not sure though). However, I recall Catholics consider IVF to be on par with abortion on the terms of “sinfulness” and I doubt they appreciate fertility drugs either and I’m pretty sure devout Lutherans are about the same on the issues. So the ironic thing is, this couple had absolutely NO problem doing a procedure like IVF or using fertility drugs even though that is considered a grave sin, yet only when the abortion topic comes up do they refuse to do anything because of their religious beliefs?
I dunno, that just kind of bothered me…
Rae, you’re a fool. From wikipedia.com, “As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks, although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks.” (Notice survivors, plural.)
Rae, viability is garbage, and a pro-choice term. If a baby is delivered and lives for a few hours, that baby deserves that right to life.
http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm
25 states have a higher than 40% Pro Life population. If you factor in that this study came out in 05, and most opinion polls show an increase in pro life support, about half of the states have a very good chance of passing an abortion ban with a rape/incest/health exception.
It’s interesting that abortion is the only medical procedure that can be done to a minor w/out parental consent unless it is an emergency.
It never made much sense to me that a 15 year old can’t get her ears pierced without her parent’s permission, but she can have an abortion.
As for the laws, what do you think should be done to get such legislation to pass? The SD abortion ban lost by a good margin. What should we do?
Hi guys,
the use of pain as a democratic-tool is as effective as photos, IMO. Everyone understands and shuns pain … it might take philosophers or lawyers to understand person-hood and a strong education to get rights, but everyone … including voters and legislators comprehend pain. And they do not appreciate pain being inflicted on anyone … especially those already in pain or have an unusual sensitivity to pain – like 3rd trimester fetuses.
I once viewed a program about human-fetal development. The host of the program indicated that he was very much pro-abortion.
Part of this film had a 17 week old fetus shield his eyes with his arm from the glare of the light scope on the camera. The film’s commentator thought that such was a response to a painful stimulus. [‘The Nature of Things’ host David Suzuki … the show was more than 2 decades ago … the original was filmed in Scandinavia.]
The host wondered if he should give-up salmon fishing (which he loved). The fishing hooks caused pain to the caught salmon. [Nobody enquired about the possibility of fetal pain.]
Cameron, thanks for your questions. Henry Blackmun, (a republican) who wrote Roe v. Wade, said in the ruling that if personhood is established, abortion falls flat on its face. I’m taking his advice. Everyone and their dog knows a fetus is a person, as do you. If you don’t, let’s debate that issue.
“How many babies will be killed by our own pro-life legislation? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?”
No more and no less. Abortion demand has been pretty stable, even prior to Roe v. wade, irregardless of the billions the pious have spent, and the exhaustive efforts to make it otherwise.
Ultimately, nothing you can say or do, short keeping women in some sort of controlled environment and/or strapped to tables… a baby factory.. we’ll affect any reduction in the number of induced or surgical abortions.
Amanda, since when is 40% a majority?
@Will: I disagree, viability is not “garbage”, your arguments, however, are. And the fact that you need to use wikipedia to back up your stupid claims just proves even further that you have absolutely no capacity for rational, reasonable thought. Sure, perhaps there are “multiple” survivors of being born at 21 weeks, but take a look at their quality of life, I’m willing to bet it’s a load of suck.
Will, have you ever heard of the term “harelquin fetus”? I ask you to look that up and then tell me that even just living a few hours after birth is worth it for those poor babies.
Lauren, you may not know this, but a big reason the SD ban failed is because Bush did not support it and neither did National Right to Life. (Hold on, I’m throwing up.) Getting rid of National Right To Life With Exceptions would be a good start. Another reason it failed is because PP poured millions of dollars into making sure it didn’t pass. We need to keep trying. PP has a lot of money, but not a bottomless pit.
Rae, they were using a drug similar to clomid, which basically stimulates ovulation.
It’s used if a woman isn’t ovulating on he own. I don’t know of any church that has an issue with this since it is basically just treating a medical condition.
The couple didn’t use IVF or anything like that.
The definitely weren’t being hypocritical by not “reducing”.
Rae, God didn’t grant us the right to kill people based on how long they would live. There’s your biggest problem. We have a fully healthy married man born at 22 weeks in our church. Do you want to tell him it should be legal to kill babies born at the same time he was? What’s wrong with wikipedia?
@John: I do recall reading studies that fetuses can react to noxious stimuli before 20 weeks, but said reaction is not necessarily one out of pain. However it very well could be pain via rudimentary nervous pathways.
It was an interesting article, it didn’t exactly prove that fetuses felt pain before 20 weeks but it did show that fetuses react to noxious stimuli in a distressed manner (which could be out of discomfort or reflexes rather than pain).
Cameron, you didn’t answer my questions. Your logic is absurd. If rape is outlawed, it will still happen as well. Does that mean it shouldn’t be illegal?
One more thing on the Morrisons, I think they’re some sort of (unofficial) Pentecostal. They have a website that linked to their church.
“Cameron, thanks for your questions.”
“Henry Blackmun, (a republican) who wrote Roe v. Wade, said in the ruling that if personhood is established, abortion falls flat on its face.”
Falls flat on its face is just a bit of hyperbole, and it doesn’t answer the question.
What do you envission? A constitutional amendment redefining personhood? Do you want an activist judge to arbitrarily decide that a fetus is in fact “born?” More specifically, there is a great deal of variation no concensus regarding personhood. More importantly, what particular criteria seeing how precedent seems to suggest otherwise?
“Cameron, you didn’t answer my questions. Your logic is absurd. If rape is outlawed, it will still happen as well. Does that mean it shouldn’t be illegal?”
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but rape is in fact illegal, and it should be. I think your response it absurd, because it suggest that you don’t really care whether or not babies are saved, just so long as those who are caught killing them are punished.
@Lauren: Thanks for the info. But I’m just sayin’ that IVF is generally frowned upon in the medical community yes? I’ve always heard that fertility treatments are also frowned upon as they are “trying to change God’s plan”. I wasn’t saying they were being hypocritical in choosing not to reduce the pregnancy. I had read in the paper about a Catholic woman who had IVF and had a multiple pregnancy but refused to selectively abort because of her religion and subsequently lost her pregnancy. The fact that she was using IVF which Catholicism is against yet she apparently had no problem with it and she didn’t have issues until abortion was brought up, when in fact several embryos are destroyed in IVF procedures.
@Will: Wikipedia isn’t the best source of information because it can be edited to say anything and isn’t always entirely accurate.
As for the baby in your church born at 22 weeks, good, I’m glad he is healthy, that’s fantastic. But you have to realize that is RARE, not all 22 week old babies survive, in fact they have about a 75% mortality rate. And if you want to tell him that, fine, but quite honestly I don’t see why it would matter, his parents chose to have him…
Blackmun was basically saying that Roe and any legalized abortion is pointless if personhood of the fetus is established. I don’t know how I envision this, but I’m sure there are many ways. Science may be what ends up establishing it, or even an activist judge. Either way, we know the fetus is a person from conception, it’s just getting that into the law that’s the hard part. Like I’ve said before, babies are saved everyday, regardless of the laws. We need to be at the clinics helping women change their minds from having an abortion.
Rae, wikipedia is a great resource of information, and false edits are deleted all the time. Do you hate God Rae? This is a sincere question. Because I don’t remember God giving us the right to end lives based on age. Viability is evil and against God. Life begins at conception and ends when Rae says it should. Life should begin at conception and naturally. It is never okay to kill LIVING baby, born or unborn Rae, NEVER.
Cameron, why should rape be illegal? Do you think abortion should be illegal? The legality of abortion makes it more prominent Cameron, and everyone knows this. If rape were legal, the number of rapes would sky rocket. I do care about the babies.
@Will: I don’t believe in God. There is no hate, just ambivalence. So what does it matter? God seems to approve of killing as it happens quite a bit in the bible, but wait, no…that’s just normal pro-abort misinterpretation. My bad.
Rae, God doesn’t believe in atheists. (Where do you think the universe came from?)God has the authority to bring someone from one life to the next, we do not. The only reason to be pro-life is because abortion is murder. If there’s no God, then there’s no objective morality, so it doesn’t matter. I take it you’re pro-choice?
Again.. you’re employing hyperbole, not to mention putting words in his mouth (pointless). It simply changes the argument. Currently there is no consideration of the rights of the fetus, but no person outside the womb has any right to another person
How can God not believe in atheists when they exist? The universe came from the Big Bang, but anymore than that I couldn’t tell you as I am not an astrophysicist.
And you guessed correctly, pro-choice I am, doesn’t mean I don’t recognize abortion for what it is. It is killing, I understand that. Which is why I feel making it unnecessary rather than just outright banning it is a better solution because just by banning it you aren’t offering a solution to the problem which is unwanted pregnancies.
The Big Bang that there’s no evidence for? The Big Bang that no one was there to see? The Big Bang that’s a figment of everyone’s imagination? It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than God Himself. I believe in science, apparently you do not. The Big Bang is not science, but a fairy tale. Science does not say that something can come from nothing. Science does not say that order comes from disorder. Those two unscientific things are at the foundation of the Big Bang, making it fiction, not science. What leads you to believe in the Big Bang?
God doesn’t believe in atheists because they can’t prove God doesn’t exist, something they claim to be able to do. Unless you know everything, you have to admit that in the portion of things you don’t know, God may exist.
What makes killing wrong Rae? Do you believe in objective morality?
“The legality of abortion makes it more prominent Cameron, and everyone knows this.”
No it doesn’t, and it’s quite clearly otherwise. Estimates of illegal abortions prior to Roe v. Wade exceed current levels, however many of those extimates were save-the-babies alarmists trying to make a case for a social crises. The most conservative estimates are right in line with current abortion rates. People simply went to their doctors and got em, neverminding the law, and if the doctor wouldn’t, they’d find one that would. Now-a-days, somebody could just get a hold a some pills on the black market, or take all their birth control pills at once, and affect the same ends. then,there’s always sliding down the stairs on your ass when that fails.
“I do care about the babies.”
I’m certain you do. I was making a point more so than insinuating otherwise. The point was to challenge you to craft this abortionless utopia, and what factors would be necessary to really make it happen. Would you lock up the doctor, the woman, both? How would you catch them (last I checked, doctor patient confidentiality is still relatively impervious to suppeano beyond demonstrating legitimate case in advance)? Should we be proactive about it… mandatory monthy pee tests and reporting for all women?
Cameron,
I would take the opinion of a medical professional that was witness and testified under oath to this grusome procedure over some journalist with a biased report.
In this case, the stats I am sure are based on reports from the medical clinic files which are more than likely rubber-stamped with some crazy medical condition of the mother as in this article. I am sure if they researched they would find that “due to the woman’s missing front tooth, she felt she would be unable to eat properly thus rendering her in an diminished state of health.”
Per Cameron:
“Unfortunately, there are no scientific studies of the procedures. Just this, done in repsonse to a Jill Stanek type nurse that claimed she watched the procedure and the baby started flailing like fish out of water. Even a fully developed baby during normal dilevery isn’t particularly active… in fact, the APGAR scale for accessing the babies condition is based on the Glasgow Coma Scale.”
Doesn’t this prove that the baby was obviously distressed??
I have also been searching for an article written in th late 90’s when the PBA Ban was an issue during the Clinton era.
A reporter who was pro-choice wanted to write an article in support of PBA. She decided to do a piece on how this procedure is so necessary for women who were in ill health and/or were carrying babies with fatal conditions.
She plunked herself in a local abortion mill for a couple weeks to interview these “poor women”
And to her utter shock found out that there was no reason women were given this procedure other than they just waited too long to decide to abort, or they just decided now it wasn’t a good time to have a baby.
There was not one woman sitting in that clinic for any other reason than they wanted to end and unwanted pregnancy. No illnesses, no fatal fetal conditions.
Her research changed her mind and she wrote her article in favor of the ban.
I am going to continue to try and find the article as I am sure you will accuse me of a made up fallicy.
Cameron, how were these estimates made? Last I checked, abortions were being done in alleys, not in doctors offices. I challenge you to prove or even make a good case that abortion rates were just as high pre-legal child killing. I don’t think you can.
Rae:”It is killing”
why do you support killing? why should it be legal?
…
There is proof of the Big Bang theory and to me, it makes more sense than some magical being deciding to make the earth arise out of *poof* nothing. There is evidence of the Big Bang in light spectra that come to earth as well as various things called “echos” of the Big Bang. But to each his or her own. Mass can arise from energy so there could have been energy but no mass at the time when the Big Bang occurred. Also with sufficient energy, order can come from disorder.
I don’t have proof that God doesn’t exist, the thing for me is that it has no bearing on my life if he does or not. The thing is: I don’t care if there is a God or not. I am of the opinion that there is no God, and if I’m wrong, well I guess I’m screwed then, but I don’t really believe in the afterlife anyway.
Killing is not always wrong. On the whole, it is, but there are justifiable cases of killing (ie self-defense). What is objective morality? I have a feeling it has to do with God and therefore it will be completely irrelevant towards me, but whatever, shoot.
“The Big Bang that there’s no evidence for?”
And that would be strike two… at least while I’m paying attention. If you don’t know, don’t pretend you do. See “cosmic background radiation (aka the ant races on TV), radiometric dating, low-metal stars, primordial elements, distribution/occurance and abundance of gallaxies, etc… ”
“It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang than God Himself.”
You do realize you’re shooting yourself in the foot by simply deffering to something you simply “believe” exists and/or “just is”???
“God doesn’t believe in atheists because they can’t prove God doesn’t exist, something they claim to be able to do.”
I haven’t. I don’t care.
“God may exist.”
Sure. I don’t care.
“What makes killing wrong Rae?”
Killing’s not always wrong (e.g. self defense, mercy killing, war, etc…)
“Killing is not always wrong. On the whole, it is, but there are justifiable cases of killing (ie self-defense).”
thats it, self-defense? you forgot that killing the unborn is justifyable..
Cameron,
you cannot prove the big bang happened just like you cannot prove evolution, They are just theories…
@Jasper: Abortion could be considered self-defense, as the fetus is more or less there using the mother’s resources without permission (consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy) and therefore abortion would be defending the mother’s body from an “invader”. However, I don’t really agree with the idea of abortion as self-defense unless the mother’s life at risk BECAUSE of the pregnancy.
Note how I said “ie self-defense”…it was just an example.
@Jasper: You also cannot prove God, and in reality He’s just an idea, not even a theory, at least Theories like evolution and the Big Bang have some backing to it.
Rae,
isn’t it amazing how those fetuses zoom in from outer space and implant themselves inside a woman’s body?
It’s just not right that they do this, a complete invasion, out of the blue….
“Cameron, how were these estimates made?”
Different ways. Mostly surveys. Read several abstracts at random and decide for yourself. However, if I were you, I’d take the anti-abortion alarmists with grain of salt, and consider the likelihood of non-reporting with the conservative estimates. Also, our current baseline at about 25%…last I checked.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=illegal+abortion+rate&as_ylo=1900&as_yhi=1973&btnG=Search
Rae, there’s no proof of the Big Bang, and you’ve been lied to. It makes no sense either. For the Big Bang to be true, something had to come from nothing, and order had to come from disorder. Neither is science. At least admit that it’s not science. Why does the “light spectra” or the “echoes” HAVE to come from the fairy tale Big Bang? They don’t. Do you know how big the universe is? And you think it all came out of nowhere? To quote you, “it makes more sense than some magical being deciding to make the earth arise out of *poof* nothing.” So, you’re basically saying that it makes more sense that some magical energy made the earth arise out of *poof* nothing? Order doesn’t come from disorder, especially on the magnitude of the universe. If you disagree, give an example.
Do you know where the original Coke can came from? If you don’t, I’ll tell you. After the big bang, it rained on the rocks and a brown bubbly liquid formed after millions of years. Then, after millions of years, aluminum started forming around the Coke can and and eventually the words formed after erosion from wind and rain and then with natural selection, the can opening part of the lid formed.
Whether or not you believe in God DOES have a bearing on your life. Whether or not you believe in the afterlife doesn’t change the fact that you risk spending eternity in Hell. If you’re right, I just die and return to dirt. If I’m right, you’ll live in torture for eternity.
Objective morality is the opposite of relative morality. Who decides what’s right and wrong? If God, then something is wrong no matter what society says. Who do you believe determines right and wrong? Is it always wrong to violently rape a woman?
Jasper,
“you cannot prove the big bang happened just like you cannot prove evolution, They are just theories…”
LMAO
You such an idiot.
Do you even know what a theory is?
Jasper,
“you cannot prove the big bang happened just like you cannot prove evolution, They are just theories…”
LMAO
You’re such an idiot.
Do you even know what a theory is?
Cameron, nothing you listed is evidence for the unscientific big bang, that magically came from nothing and created order out of disorder. Do you agree that the foundation for the Big Bang is not science? As to radiometric dating, what do you know about it, specifically carbon-14?
“Do you even know what a theory is?”
No, I have no idea….
“thats it, self-defense? you forgot that killing the unborn is justifyable..”
No i didn’t. Only a fetus centric fool attempts to justify when it may or may not be ok to kill a fetus. With abortion however, the onus is those who’d preserve the fetus to justify when pregnancy should be compulsory.
@Jasper: I said I didn’t agree with that argument, in fact I find it stupid, but it has been used in the past.
@Will: I haven’t been lied to. I think it’s just really pathetic that you are *that* paranoid to think that the Big Bang couldn’t possibly have happened. But as I’ve said, I don’t know enough about astrophysics to explain the reasons the “echos” and “light spectra” are evidence of the Big Bang other than the fact that I heard it discussed on a television documentary about…the Big Bang.
But go ahead and decry science and learning in favor of what I call “the easy way out” by just stating “God did it”. Honestly.
“If you’re right, I just die and return to dirt. If I’m right, you’ll live in torture for eternity.”
And you would be tickled pink if you were right and I, a lowly “pro-abort” were being tortured for eternity for my beliefs, because after all, you know, I deserve it and all.
“Cameron, nothing you listed is evidence for the unscientific big bang, that magically came from nothing”
Like God? What did God come from?
Jasper, get it right, the big bang and evolution are unscientific theories.
“With abortion however, the onus is those who’d preserve the fetus to justify when pregnancy should be compulsory”
wow, you granted anybody that kind of power? …I do not own my children, they are on loan to me from God.
“But go ahead and decry science and learning in favor of….”
Actually, there just jelous, as science has far exceeded religion in improving the human condition. People’s beliefs generally are dependant on the authority they trust and not on the evidence. What religious authorities know, is that they’ve been lying far too long, and they’re loosing all trust. I give it a few more generations of science before most people would laugh in your face for having any supernatural belief system that contradicts what we genuinely know.
Rae, I’m disappointed at your response. At least you admitted the only reason you believe in the big bang is because you saw it on TV. I’d still like answers to a couple questions.
Can you agree that since the big bang asserts that something came from nothing, and that it created order from disorder, that it’s not science?
So, you’re basically saying that it makes more sense that some magical energy made the earth arise out of *poof* nothing?
Is it always wrong to violently rape a woman?
Do you believe me as to where the first Coke can came from?
Rae, I believe my lord and savoir Jesus Christ. If fact, throughout His life has not lied about anything.
Rae, I don’t think any of us would be “tickled pink” to see you suffer.
Honestly. If we didn’t care, we just wouldn’t say anything. It is much easier to be a quiet Christian who never shares his faith. We share our faith because we don’t want ANYONE to die w/out it. It grieves us that you deny God. I promise that none of us are having “celebrate the burning sinners” parties.
@Will: No, I believe in the Big Bang theory because it made more sense to me than “God” and the fact that I saw that documentary on TV was just the icing on the cake.
And no, I cannot agree with that because we don’t know if there was “nothing” to begin with.
It makes more sense than “God”.
It is always wrong to violently rape a woman. Rape is always wrong. Murder is always wrong, but not all killing is murder.
And no, I don’t believe you as to where the first Coke came from because I know it’s not true.
*sigh*
It really is futile to argue though, as I think you’re a religious nutter and you think I’m just the evil spawn of satan, so I don’t really see the point, do you?
A rock cannot make itself and a fire cannot burn forever. Matter cannot come from non-matter and a perpetual motion machine cannot exist. Therefore, the universe could not have made itself from nothing, nor could it have always been moving, churning, working, and burning. Another way to state these first two laws of thermodynamics is that the physical universe must have had a supernatural Creator sometime in the recent past.
Interestingly, (if the origins of time did not mislead me) christians have historically not rejected the “Big Bang” because it is plausible that God’s creation might leave such a thumb print.
Of course, Stephen Hawkings might have made that up, but I doubt it. His position was that scientific origins of time and creationism were not mutually exclusive.
Of course, if I remember correctly he isn’t a big bang proponant anyways.
thats exactly correct Lauren….
Oh, BTW Rae, I had a post responding to your’s regarding Jesus’ divinity in the fathers day post.
Hey… if you all, Will and Jasper, want to actually put some effort into this, I’d be happy to continue discussing things. However, there is no apparent effort on your parts beyond pissing match (e.g. evidence, sources, thoughtful questions, cognitive deduction, etc…). While it’s ammusing to watch you talk out your collective @sses, I think I’ve got better things to do… belly button lint and such.
I’ll check back in a few.
@Lauren: I read that. :) Thanks for the response, ’tis appreciated. ^_^
@Will: Though to be frank, I don’t believe religion and science are necessarily mutually exclusive, this is because I’m not really an atheist. A “Deist” is more accurate of a description. My opinion is that God may have “created” the universe by starting the Big Bang, and that science is trying to explain the “how” not so much the “why” to things.
Rae, you’re not the evil spawn of satan, you are a potential Christian whose life is in the balance.
Why can’t you agree that the big bang is not science when I’ve proved that to you already?
Who decided that rape is always wrong? If a country declared rape as morally acceptable, what trumps them?
How do you know I’m wrong for the first Coke can? Were you there when it was made? Do you have evidence against my claim? Is it at least POSSIBLE that I’m right? If not, why?
Blah, going on my memory and not actually going to look at something (however well known) failed me yet again.
By “Origins of time” I of course mean “A brief history of time”
By Stephen Hawkings I mean Stephen Hawking.
The rest stands, though you can obviously see how reliable my memory was of the book…
Cameron, you could start by responding to any of my points. We could also do this “One on One” style at TheologyOnline.com where only you and I can post and not get caught up with the peanut gallery. The gauntlet is down, what saith Cameron?
Rae, an atheist and a deist are polar opposites. So now you believe in God? Amen!
There’s four of us… at most. Hardly a gallery.
What points have I not responded too?
@Will: The Big Bang is science’s explanation for how the universe was created. It may not be the best theory, but it’s as good as we can get at this point in time. You haven’t proven *anything*.
Rape is always wrong and I have no justification for it, it’s just wrong, there is something inside me that tells me that rape is wrong, no matter what.
And the reason you are wrong about how the first Coke was made because there is documentation of how it was actually made, as a stimulant in the Victorian era because it actually had cocaine in it.
@Will: I believe that there is “a” God, and it’s most definitely *not* the “Christian” interpretation of God. I dare say you don’t really understand Deism?
Rae, that thing in you is called a conscience, and it’s a God-given conscience. If someone told you that they just felt rape was right, what would you say? Unless we have an objective God-given morality as our standard, it’s to each their own.
Rae, I have documentation on how the universe was made, by someone who was there.
I don’t think he understands much of anything Rae… even his own beliefs or why he believes them.
“Unless we have an objective God-given morality as our standard, it’s to each their own.”
Funny… two-thirds of the the people on the planet don’t have “God” yet they seem to be at least as moral. Curious!
Cameron, you can start with this post at 09:00pm:
Cameron, nothing you listed is evidence for the unscientific big bang, that magically came from nothing and created order out of disorder. Do you agree that the foundation for the Big Bang is not science? As to radiometric dating, what do you know about it, specifically carbon-14?
Cameron, that’s right. That’s because God gave them a conscience. More evidence for God.
@Will: How do you know that a conscience is something God-given as opposed to something that evolved due to the fact a conscience helps the human population to continue on? The evolution of inherent human morality isn’t that far-fetched.
And just because I believe in a God, does not mean I recognize the bible as the Word of God, so no, I’m not going to read the bible to “discover” how the world was “created”, because I don’t believed it happened as described in the Book of Genesis.
Cameron, do you know where the original Coke can came from? If you don’t, I’ll tell you. After the big bang, it rained on the rocks and a brown bubbly liquid formed after millions of years. Then, after millions of years, aluminum started forming around the Coke can and and eventually the words formed after erosion from wind and rain and then with natural selection, the can opening part of the lid formed.
Welcome to Cameron World where Jesus is the magic man in the sky, all pro-lifers are blithering fools, and Cameron is the omnipotent, omnicient Scientist Extraordniare to be followed and worshipped. He dresses up as a clown and doesn’t even know it. (None of his supporters have had the heart to tell him).
The Scientific Hall of Honor Live Interaction Center demostrates the principle of how something came from nothing despite the fact that nowhere else in the universe is this principle found. Attendees lie down in a thermo-vacuum chamber where there is 0 ATM and it is 0 degrees Kelvin and watch magically how a point of nothing turns into a miniature planet earth (it’s really just a plastic blue ball out of a McDonald’s Kid’s meal. Of course the price of admission is that your brains are sucked out, however, you perish with the forever thought of what it’s like to be a baby in the womb during a partial birth abortion. The Kavorkian Institute sponsors this one and they can’t figure out why only depressed people who think they want to die participate. Scientists who have tried to honeslty model this attraction can’t balance the existence of black holes and the single point theory.
Woman are defended in Fantasy Expo, unborn children are murdered at will in the Planned Abandonment and Cowardly Empowerment Center, porn is allowed at all ages in the Moral Midget Me-Max Surround Sound Theater. Boys are trained to disrespect other people’s daughters in the Not Pretty in Pink Self-Amusement Center. Manhood is deprogrammed at the Gay is Not Happy, It’s Gay Clockwork Orange Tower (phallic symbol) of Power Lecture Hall.
The most loved rides there are: The Lie Boat where you are in a real sinking boat and pummelled with abortion lies and political correctness etiquette until you confess to believing them at which time the boat rises to the surface; the Murder Mystery Clinic where about 20 people are strapped to tables, forced to spread their legs, all while watching a video of Nancy Pelosi reading Mein Kampf and then try to guess who had the real abortion. The winner wins a coveted dismembered Cupie Doll or Cameron Bobble Head with just the head mounted on a plastic scalpel.
Pirates of the Supreme Court is for lawyers only and you have to show proof of bar registration in Massachussetts to get in.
Small Minds Village are for pro-aborts only. They don’t check ID’s there as they think everyone is pro-abortion and doesn’t know it.
Of lesser known but well attended are Accept Liberalism or Shameonyou Enima Water Park. This was designed by and well attended by the owner himself. It’s sponsored by the College of American Psychiatrists or COAP.
The least attended themes are Atheist Village where they have trouble keeping the lights on but is mostly attended by the blind leading the blind, a spin-off group of Mensa.
Currently playing at the Cameron World Theater is, “How to Unplan Parenting with Guest Host Tiller the Killer”. Hal is the head usher there.
Various seminars given at no charge (subsidized by Planned Parenthood) are: 1)”Learning How to Say Nothing and Twist Everything in 300 Words or Less”, taught by the emminent Spiritist Diana and assisted by all knowing Seer Less Unless. 2) “How we Snookered Everybody; Killing is Not Murder it’s a Choice Method” written by SoMG.
Finally, my favorite is the Carple Tunnel of Deathspeak”. This is where spoiled brat, college educated, self-important, godless, memememememe’s spend all their time blogging for something that will lead them to hell.
The price of admission to pro-lifers is to allow yourself and the God you worship to be blasphemed, ridiculed, and denied.
Hal, Erin, Midnite, Less, Rae, and Diana have lifetime passes unless we can convert them at which time they will be forever banned from admission.
The patron devils of Cameron World are Bill and Hillary Clinton. There is a shrine built in their honor at the Park (of course in the dead center, oh I’m sorry, far left) where you can toss your campaign donations into the fountain of murdered babies blood. The price of admission is to consent to a frontal libotomy. Petitions for Socialized Medicine, Gay Marriage, Silencing of the Church, the Men are Evil Except Bill Program, and the Atheist-Based Apathy Initiative.
The owner of Cameron world can be reached at Icarebutnotreally@hopeyougotohell.com.
Rae, a conscience is supernatural. You cannot remove it surgically. Evolutionists are physicalists, they believe everything is physical. If a conscience helps population to continue on, why did evolution forget to give animals a conscience?
As you don’t believe my documentation as to the creation of the universe, I too don’t believe your documentation on the first Coke can. Therefore, I still believe I’m right about that. Can you prove me wrong?
Will, I have just a minute to post tonight, but just wanted to apologize for getting so angry with you again today.
I agree with your position on abortion, just how you come across explaining it really gets to me, and I interpret it wrong. I think sometimes you say it in a way that comes across differently than you meant it to. But that’s not totally your fault. I’m sorry that I wasn’t more understanding about your point of view.
I have had a little extra stress lately…This week I found out that I am pregnant again- Exciting news….except that I had a miscarriage 3 months ago,
(you can see about it here)
and I am concerned that something is wrong with this pregnancy, due to some bleeding… so I am asking for everyone who is willing, to pray for me and the baby, and that nothing will happen to my baby.
Sorry to disrupt the conversation, you can all go on now. Just wanted to clear this up with Will.
“Cameron, nothing you listed is evidence for the unscientific big bang.”
Pick one and elaborate. Right now you sind like a toddler “nuh uh”
“…that magically came from nothing..”
Again, you don’t seem to know what your talking about. At least humor me a review. Go to wikipedia or something and look up big bang, then come back here and let me know how “infinate density” is “nothing.”
Do you agree that the foundation for the Big Bang is not science?
No. Do you know what science is? You certainly don’t seem to know what the foundation of the big bang is.
“As to radiometric dating, what do you know about it, specifically carbon-14?
Not much, but it’s also pretty straight forward, and I’ve worked with the mass-spec a little in the analytical lab. It’s based on the natural abundance and decay rates of stable isotopes. Carbon-14 is short lived low abundance. These isotopes are physically different and are “fractionated” or selected for or against in various natural processess. As result certain substances will have more or less than the naturally occuring back-ground abundance… depending on the nature of formation. How it provides evidence of the big band, I do not know off the top of my head because I ussually ignore those articles in the journals. Gravity’s pretty cool though, and I follow that a little closer.
Bethany, thank you. You and your living baby will definitely be in my prayers. I too am guilty, and am working very hard on doing things the right way, even blogging.
Wow HisMan,
That’s actually kind of funny. I appreciate the MENSA dig in particular.
There you go again Cameron:
Carbon dating assumes a zero-reference.
Talk a little about that magic man.
“Sorry to disrupt the conversation, you can all go on now. Just wanted to clear this up with Will.”
Ugggg you’re so polite it makes me sick.. ;-)
Cameron, I guess you are refusing my offer to debate one on one. That’s okay.
What does Carbon-14 prove as to the age of the earth?
and
Is it always wrong to violently rape a woman?
Cameron, looked up big bang on wikipedia, and it said it was just a theory.
“What does Carbon-14 prove as to the age of the earth?”
I don’t know. I didn’t think it proves anything about somethng as old as the earth because it’s shortlived and low abundance. I think you need heavier stuff to age earth… probably something they got here via meteors. Carbon’s used for really recent stuff.
oh… almost forgot.
Of course rape is wrong. I suspect you have some tenuous and loaded follow-up question now.
For future reference… you can stop jerking off and just cut to the loaded question.
What if they found carbon 14 in oil, or diamonds, or better yet, dinosaur soft tissue? (did you even know they find dinosaur soft tissue all over the place?)
Cameron, who determined that rape is always wrong?
“Cameron, looked up big bang on wikipedia, and it said it was just a theory.”
Good for you. According to the theory, did the big bang come from “nothing?”
Speaking of “just” theory. Do you know what that means? What’s a scientific theory?
On the day of Creation, how old would Carbon-14 dating demostrate, let’s say a piece of coal to be? Would it reveal millions of years or just a few hours?
Did the Creator, in His infinite wisdom, require as a result of atomic/molecular design, allow/weigh/justify a radioactive signature to exist and be present at the moment of creation risking and knowing that the Carbon 14 method would be discoverd and that people, bent on His destruction, would use it to try to disprove His existence?
Remember, only those who seek Him with all their heart will find Him so why bother with the ones you know are going to reject you anyway?
Carbon-14 dating proves nothing. It just gives non-believers a nice warm feeling inside, you know, kind of like what happens to a frog when he’s put in warm water and boiled to death without realizing it.
“The flower withers and the grass fades but the word of God shall endure forevfer”.
I think carbon-14 dating actually disproves evolution.
“who determined that rape is always wrong?”
It’s an anti-social behavioral tendency intrinsic in the human race, such that all societies have abstracted it to a moral code in one form or another indepedently. In short… it’s self-evident that’s wrong, and everyone determined that.
Cameron, no matter how far we go back, you have to eventually admit some physical thing came from nothing, which leaves the realm of science.
Bethany,
my prayers are with you………
“What if they found carbon 14 in oil, or diamonds, or better yet, dinosaur soft tissue? (did you even know they find dinosaur soft tissue all over the place?)”
All over the place? a lil’ more hyperbole? If your case/points are so strong all on there own, why do you find that you need to qualify them so?
So… what have you got to tell me about carbon-14. Please enlighten me, that is if you’re done dispensing all the subjective value crap you need to support your case in the absence of anything objective.
What if a society determined rape was morally okay? On what basis could someone tell that society they were wrong?
Bethany, my prayers are with you as well. Anxious to hear that things will be O.K.
Hisman, love the “cameron world” good entertainment!
Will, thanks for the interesting evening! Enjoyed the reading. Keep going!
“Cameron, no matter how far we go back, you have to eventually admit some physical thing came from nothing, which leaves the realm of science.”
We don’t know.
Cameron, we find c-14 in diamonds, oil, and yes, dinosaur soft tissue. C-14, because of its half-life , should only be found in things less than 50,000 years old. The fact that we find it in these things that are purportedly millions of years old, disproves evolution. What do you make of “billion year old” dinosaur soft tissue?
“What if a society determined rape was morally okay? On what basis could someone tell that society they were wrong?”
Are you going to dance with your hand on my ass all night, or you going to actually make a move?
“Cameron, we find c-14 in diamonds, oil, and yes, dinosaur soft tissue. C-14, because of its half-life , should only be found in things less than 50,000 years old. The fact that we find it in these things that are purportedly millions of years old, disproves evolution. What do you make of “billion year old” dinosaur soft tissue?”
You’re going to have to provide a primary source now. I would never have suspected that you are hip to peer reviewed science.
So… where’s this report?
Cameron, I wouldn’t mind if you did a HisMan World. I need a laugh.
Let me give you a start: “Welcome to HisMan World where everyone is going to hell except him. In the How to be a Hypocrite Without Really Trying Center, Gomer Pyle plays Hisman in “Surprise, Surprise”, a theatrical adapation of the Book of Revelation written by guess who, in which Hisman upon entering heaven finds out the even Cameron is there.” Hisman is still looking for Will D though.
My sister in law passed away tonight.
She is in the loving hands of a wonderful Savior.
Hal, Erin, Midnite, Less, Rae, and Diana have lifetime passes unless we can convert them at which time they will be forever banned from admission.
_________________________
HisMan: What in hades have I done to you today?
@HisMan: I’m sorry to hear about your sister-in-law. :( I hope she passed peacefully surrounded by her loved ones.
Cameron, you’re the luckiest man in the world. My wife is about to divorce me for being trapped to this blog, literally, all night. I must sign off, and may need to take a break for a while. Keep up the good fight everyone! I’ll be praying for you Rae and Cameron. There’s still hope for you two!
Cameron, just google for C-14 and you’ll find it. It’s devastating, but yes, they are finding C-14 in just about everything they thought was millions and billions of years old. To see the dino meat for yourself (soft tissue, blood vessels, etc., here’s a link: http://kgovarchives.com/ShowSummary2006.html#156
HisMan,
I’m sorry to hear about your sister-n-law. That’s too young.
While I fancy myself infinately humorous, and I’m sure you’ve noticed, it appears I mostly offend around here. Also, I wouldn’t hold a stick to your effort at this point. Long day and I’m fried.
How about a video
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/Animated_Rambo_Audition/?m=new&tf=all
Midnite678, you did nothing to me. I thought you didn’t want to be called Midnite? Ha, ha.
Really, guess I’m in a bad mood and I let my dark side out. I’m very sorry sweetheart. I mean that.
Death pisses me off. The death of relatives and the deaths of unborn babies, anyone’s death.
We are powerless over it. Fighting abortion is one way of fighting death when it’s all around us or at least spitting in it’s ugly face.
I hate all death. So does God.
HisMan:
You can call me Midnite or Ashley, either or, I dont care. And thank you for apologizing. I understand why you’re upset. I was like that for a long time after I lost my grandmother, but she was only 56 and it wasnt fair for her to be taken from me the way she did.
I am so sorry for you loss (& I truely mean that too).
HisMan,
Sorry about your Sister in law. Yes, she’s at peace with our Savoir now….
Death is not a worry of mine, even the death of my children or husband, for it is the suffering before the death that worries me if anything. I know that when death happens, a new wonderful eternity begins and I want that! for me and my family!
I’m sorry for your loss and glad for your sister-in-law.
There is a song about the tears for those left behind not for those that have died.
Wait, you’re glad she died Luv? Is that what you meant, sorry am a little confused here?
My Nana died 14 years ago and I am still not glad/happy that she died, it has scared me for the rest of my life.
“it has scared me for the rest of my life”
don’t let it scare you anymore Midnite, accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savoir…
Um Jasper buddy, that is one main reason I quit believing b/c of the events of that night. I still have nightmares about it, and I am scarred for ever b/c of it as well.
HisMan, I
Cameron,
What, you diss my homey Sly?
Is your skin that blue and head that pointed?
Thanks for the laugh.
Guys, all of you, I get ornery on this site. It’s the ghetto in me. You must know that I truly believe there is a heaven and a hell. If I knew annyone of you were going to fall off a cliff and arguing with the devil himself would prevent that, I would do anything to stop it.
I care about all of you.
But I can’t water down the word, it says what it says.
Help me to help you all to Jesus, please…….
Peace.
“I’m sorry for your loss and glad for your sister-in-law.”
hisman, hope you weren’t offended by that, as midnite is feeling? I think you understand. I’m very sorry if not.
Midnite: “I still have nightmares about it, and I am scarred for ever b/c of it as well”
It doesn’t sound like giving up on your faith has really helped you….
Luv, I was not offended, just thought I’d ask a question, so sorry for the intrusion.
Jasper, faith or no faith I will and always will be scarred from that night.
“Jasper, faith or no faith I will and always will be scarred from that night.”
Midnite, you already tried “no faith”, but not “faith”.
Luv,
I know exactly where you were coming from. Don’t even give it a thought.
Susan believed in her own way.
We are way more harsh in our judgement of people than Jesus would ever be.
I luv your posts though. Sorry for ignoring you. I just always agree with you. We’re rowing in the same direction.
That Cam guy, he’s always shouting at us. What’s up with that guy? Maybe he needs some hugs? I mean, Will is divorcing his wife and dancing with Cameron now. Did you hear?
Ashley,
I saw “The Exorcist” when I was about 19. That scared me for a long time.
Look, satan want to steal our joy. Don’t let him.
Your Nana went to be with Jesus. He loved her more than you can know.
Ask God to give you peace about it. he will. I will pray for you.
@HisMan: Is he dancing to music by Queen perchance? :D
I’m on a Queen kick this week, been listening to Under Pressure, Radio Gaga and Killer Queen like a madwoman.
hey Will, see http://www.stopyourdivorcein4week.com
thanks hisman, didn’t think you were ignoring me just wanted to make sure I hadn’t offended you after midnite’s comment(no offense midnite)
I also am rooting for you all the time on this site. Use the Book, I love it!
oops, http://www.stopyourdivorcein4weeks.com
Luv,
It’s a joke about Will. He made a sarcastic comment to Cameron a few posts back.
You have a pure heart though.
Rae:
I like Queen too, especially, “We are the Champions”.
Wish those guys hadn’t died so young though. AIDS sucks.
Will,
Fascinating suff.
I
Cameron:
I started a rumor. Is it true that Will is divorcing his wife and you guys were seen dancing?
Please let Luv know that it’s just not true.
Guys, please keep me laughing, ‘cuz i wanna cry right now.
@HisMan: AIDS does suck, and it makes me sad that Freddie died so young. I was watching some old interviews of him back from the early to mid 80’s and he had such charisma!
I’m planning on switching to an HIV research lab on campus here because I’m absolutely fascinated by HIV and AIDS (even though they scare the crap out of me). I hope to work on HIV/AIDS prevention when I graduate. :)
Jasper:
I tried faith first, and it didnt help one bit. What I went through that night was a little bit traumatizing for anyone especially an eight year old. I tried the faith thing until I was about 14, then I switched to an athiest. At 16, I was in a very bad car wreck and I should not have walked out of that wreck, let alone lived through it. I then changed my views to agnostic. Trust me, if you knew the events of that night you would understand why I am traumatized…
Now I must finish packing, I shall return in a bit!
@HisMan: This is a video my friend’s boyfriend made…it’s quite humorous I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwWMsfjc3co
@HisMan: And here’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” played on a classical guitar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ9jrBg4Lwc&mode=related&search=
@Rae,
I couldn’t take anymore after 30 seconds…
Hisman, CRY it’s purging for the soul!
I enjoy a good cry now and then.
Had a friend that has been staying with us for 12 days, she and her 4 children left yesterday morning. Her mother 54, died of cancer a couple weeks ago and she needed some support and someone to cry to.
@Jasper: Eh, I thought it was funny…I could post some videos of cats doing stupid things. Eh. Just trying to help, but obviously I suck at it.
Luv,
I’m not afraid to cry nor do I think it unmanly. Whine yes, cry, no.
Rae,
I know some people say that AIDS is punishment from God. I don’t think it is.
I think God, knowing all, warns people not to do cetain things because He cares for them. I try to do teh same. I know one would then wonder why does He allow people to get AIDS.
Obviously, He knows infinitely more than us in the grand scheme of things and we probably wouldn’t understand the answer.
Doing AIDS research is doing the Lord’s work, and that’s a good thing. I hope you find the cure. I’ll pray that you will. You can you know, why not? Ask Him to use you.
Ashley,
Can you tell us what happened?
I was in a car wreck once and got into two accidents, one right after the other.
Did you ever think that God protected you?
You shouldn’t let this affect you the way you express it to be doing. We are more than conquerors through Christ.
Let us help you though this trial by fire.
Rae,
You are obviously very compassionate. Thanks. And never, never say you suck at anything. You were made in the King’s image.
That hero video was creative. They should keep working and improving. Some interesting ideas there. You should tell them about that Spielberg challenge. You Tube is amazing isn’t it?
And the guitar. What a gifted talent. Wow, as one who plays the guitar I know how difficult that song is. Unfortunately, I don’t think I could handle that without hours and hours of practice. Time is very short lately.
Please be nice to Cameron. Maybe if I offer him a few thousand bucks he’ll convert to pro-life. We could use a guy like that on our side.
Hey Will. I guarantee you that your wife is better to dance with than Cameron. I’ve seen a photo of him and he’s rather bony. Peace Bro. Press on.
Jasper,
You’re tops man.
Ashley,
Thanks for letting me know you’re real name. That’s a privilege. You’re gonna be alright.
Well gotta go now. Will be gone ’till Sunday night with arrangements and all. For all of you who believe in the power of prayer, please pray for my wife. In the last year she has lost he mom, her close uncle and now her sister. We took care of her mom for the last six years of her life and her sister for the last two. My wife is an amazing woman of God.
Cameron,
Do you watch Dennis the Menace videos all day when you’re not blogging? Shalom to you and say your prayers tonight to the magic man.
Thank you all for the prayers.
I’ll have more blood taken tomorrow (I had some taken to test the levels yeterday), and they’ll be compared and I’ll probably know Monday whether the baby is thriving. I’ll be sure to update once I know something.
Hisman, I am so sorry for your loss.
Hisman, you play the guitar too? Do you play classical or do you flatpick?
Hey Bethany. Have you heard from the lab yet?
I’m actually just about to call them, they open right about now (8:30)
I’ll be praying for you!
They said they will call me back later today.
ARG! That’s so frustrating. Sorry they’re keeping you waiting.
I’m answering many questions at once, sorry. I’ve been at AUL’s legal institute and am behind.
Amanda, 6/20, 10:05a asked: “Why are both sides getting so angry and worked up over a procedure that leaves 99.85% of abortions completely hunaffected?”
Amanda, one reason is as Bethany said, the number doesn’t matter. Each baby is important.
Another reason is this gets to the heart of the disagreement over strategy. One side wants all babies saved at once (absolutists). The other side (prudentialists) believes the absolutist strategy is futile at present and is trying to save the babies it can when it can while fencing in abortion. Absolutists believe the prudential strategy cements legalized abortion. Prudentialists believe their strategy weakens legalized abortion. Prudentialists believe absolutists are acting irresponsibly and unwisely.
Amanda, 6/20, 10:48a, said: “[M]y main point was that I find it a little hypocritical that many pro lifers like to point out how small the percentage of rape and incest related abortions are, and dismiss the argument for legal abortions based on that percentage – while they’re fighting over something far more rare.”
Amanda, you’re mixing discussions. Pro-lifers don’t minimize the profound significance of rape/incest victims. They say pro-aborts exploit these victims, which comprise at most 1% of all abortions and likely far less, to keep abortion of 1+ million babies legal at any time in pregnancy for any reason.
Quinn, 6/20, 11:53a said: “The reason is because for 15 years certain pro-life groups mailed out letters asking for money in order to help bring about the partial-birth abortion ban that would result in stopping the brutal killing of babies. Now, we find that roughly $250 million has been raised for this purpose over that time and the recent Supreme Court decision will not save even ONE baby from being killed!”
Quinn, you’re obviously employing the tactic of repeating the same line so often you legitimize it. You are stating as fact that which you cannot prove as fact. Furthermore, you’re playing Monday morning quarterback. Who knew outlawing pba would take so long? In addition, you are incorrect to say the pba ban won’t save children. I’ve blogged on this several times. Go through my posts and tell me specifically where I’m off.
You are actually employing the same logic as pro-aborts who say abortion must remain legal because making it illegal would only drive it underground and cause more harm.
In this case, you’re saying outlawing pba will only drive abortionists to commit other methods of abortion. Your logic is illogical. Are you promoting the legalization of abortion?
We use this logic in no other area of law. We don’t say not to make stealing a crime because people will still steal and maybe get hurt in the process, for example.
More later.
HisMan, I am truly sorry for your family’s loss. (Hugs to you)
Bethany, I hope all goes well with your pregnancy. I wish you and your baby only the best. Here’s to hoping for a safe, healthy pregnancy. **hugsss**
Just love the guitar, by the way…I can’t play, but the boyfriend can. I’m a singer by trade, anyway. Music is definitely my escape… :)
Thank you, Lyssie.
By the way, You ought to post a video of you singing on youtube sometime. Maybe you and Erin both could do that. :)
Lauren, it’s okay. I know you have gone through that waiting and know what it’s like!
Bethany:
Multitudes will be praying for you:
Go to PhoenixFirst.org
I made up a list of healing/blessings verses to read while I was waiting. It really helped. I just went back to the concordanance of my bible and looked up “womb” and “healing” and “blessing”.
Will D.,
Because I feel bad that no one will answer your question about rape, I will answer it.
Yes, violent rape is always wrong.
There, feel better?
Andrew, are you a God-hater too?
amanda claimed
“However, as made clear by the South Dakota vote, legislature banning all abortions is not likely to pass, but rather, legislature permitting abortions in the cases of health/rape/incest and banning all others may be successful.”
“Legislation (not legislature) permitting abortion in the cases of health/rape/incest” is somehow “more likely” to pass? Is that what you’re claiming?
South Dakota brought up a ban with a rape and incest exception. You know how that did? It did worse than the bill banning all abortion!
Seems like you are the one who doesn’t know what they are talking about.
FYI, To ask for money to stop the slaughter of babies necessarily implies that the argument these lawyers made would make it so those babies would be murdered using that procedure were no longer able to be slaughtered. That it would save those babies from being slaughter. To ask for money that will result in saving babies and then not working with legislation that could even possibly result in saving even one baby is fraud amanda. No one gave money to these groups/lawyers so a bill could be passed that would not even have the possibility of saving a single baby from being violently slaughtered.
Bethany said:
“Quinn, this bothers me. The very fact that you wouldn’t support the Partial birth abortion ban even if it DID make ALL late term abortions illegal, proves that it isn’t the idea that the PBA ban actually doesn’t save any lives that you are offended about. It gives me the impression that you really are against taking any steps or measures to save what children you can, while you can…”
You know what else would bother you tremendously? Daniel disobeying the order of king Nebuchadnezzar who had given Daniel authority over 1/3 of everything. If you had witnessed that you would have shouted “No Daniel!! Just pray in secret and just play along acting like you believe the king is God! If you honor and obey God completely in word and deed the king could have you killed and then all of us Jews will be destroyed!”
Don’t respond like that to God’s enduring command You Shall Not Murder. Because that is what you are doing.
Jill Stanek said:
“Quinn, you’re obviously employing the tactic of repeating the same line so often you legitimize it. You are stating as fact that which you cannot prove as fact. Furthermore, you’re playing Monday morning quarterback. Who knew outlawing pba would take so long? In addition, you are incorrect to say the pba ban won’t save children. I’ve blogged on this several times. Go through my posts and tell me specifically where I’m off.”
OMG! Unbelievable! OK, I will explain in detail what I mean when I say that the ban did not prevent even ONE baby from being slaughtered so you understand exactly what I mean.
What I specificly mean is that if a mom goes in to have her baby slaughtered the abortionist will STILL have that baby boy or girl killed, only by using a DIFFERENT PROCEDURE. For example, Kennedy recommended the “navel partial-birth abortion” where the baby is not taken out any further than the navel to be slaughtered.
Actually, the abortionist can still do the same old procedure if you read the ruling. If the baby comes out too far by mistake so that its unintentional then the abortionist can just go on and do the same old procedure without any kind of penalty.
Now, think about this for a minute Jill. Tiller goes to his killing center to kill some baby boys and girls who are 20+ weeks along. He pulls the first baby out to kill him/her and …. whoops! …. he came all the way out! Oh no! What is he and the clinic staff to do??
Well, obviously he kills the baby and does what he always did. Every time the baby comes out too far he and the staff will just claim it occured by accident and there will be no fine or any other kind of penalty to fear.
I’m correct when I say that this so-called ban (really an abortion manual) will not prevent a single baby from being slaughtered by using a different method or even the same method that is now kind of banned.
Amanda said:
“If some states vote to keep abortion legal, so be it!!
Good for them!!
If the majority of the state believes abortion should be legal in that state, it should be! THAT is what democracy is all about.”
You know what? That is EXACTLY what justice Antonin Scalia thinks!!
He has said it would be just as wrong for the court to give a decision the opposite of Roe v Wade (banning abortion throughout the nation) as it would be for the court to give a decision like Roe v Wade.
And there are pro-lifers out there who totally revere this guy!! UNBELIEVABLE!!!!
You know what else would bother you tremendously? Daniel disobeying the order of king Nebuchadnezzar who had given Daniel authority over 1/3 of everything. If you had witnessed that you would have shouted “No Daniel!! Just pray in secret and just play along acting like you believe the king is God! If you honor and obey God completely in word and deed the king could have you killed and then all of us Jews will be destroyed!”
Don’t respond like that to God’s enduring command You Shall Not Murder. Because that is what you are doing.
No, Quinn, you are, again, wrong. I would not do that. I’m sure it’s fun for you to come up with ridiculous scenarios to try to make me look “bad”.
Quinn, unfortunately for you, I am not murdering anyone. Far from it. And you failed to respond to my point.
You say you support incremental laws, and I asked you, what if a law stated that under no circumstances were there to be any late term abortions? Even if it didn’t say anything in the wording that said “and you can kill the baby”, there would still be 1st and 2nd trimester abortions allowed, however, we would have significantly made progress towards our goal, and we could work with this to move towards the other abortions.
I think you are lying when you say you do support incrementalism if it actually does reduce abortions. That was my point, and you are failing to appropriately respond to it. If you were at a burning building, would you rescue the children you could, or would you let them all burn because if you couldn’t save them all you wouldn’t even try to save one?
If you will read up on all of my past posts here, you will realize that I am supportive of ANY measure towards our goal. And I work at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, one of the things you mentioned that one should do if they want abortions to be reduced. You need to stop being so prideful, thinking that only you have the answers, and only you are following God’s command. Do you not think that we all want abortion done away with completely? Then you are in serious error, my friend.
Like Jasper has said repeatedly, if we had good judges, we could have had laws come about like you mentioned, but as of now, we have to take what we can get. No one is claiming the PBA ban is awesome, or perfect. Far from it. You are completely missing the point. We are finding the SILVER LINING in the “cloud”. And we haven’t stopped fighting for the lives of the unborn, we are still fighting to do whatever we can to stop abortion. And your hindering us by causing division among the church of God is absolutely wrong. It is NOT okay to break one principle of God in order to attempt to get another principle across. If you truly loved and cared about us, and about the babies, you would try to lovingly get your message across, not with the judgemental tone and accusational tone you have had thus far.
Quinn, you correctly copied my request: “I’ve blogged on this several times. Go through my posts and tell me specifically where I’m off.”
And then you incorrectly responded: “OK, I will explain in detail what I mean when I say that the ban did not prevent even ONE baby from being slaughtered so you understand exactly what I mean.”
I understand exactly what you said. You’ve said it several times. I clearly asked you to go through the rational and numerous reasons I listed that the pba ban will save lives and either agree with or refute them.
Hisman and Lauren, thank you so much. I just noticed your posts.
Hey folks,
This is the second part of cyberbullying’: although this is directed at school-age kids, there seems to fit some posters here. Maybe we need be a bit more sceptical ????????
“Psychological harm in the form of humiliation and paranoia are two outcomes of cyberbullying.