New Stanek WND column, “Abortion leaders concede?”
Abortion matriarchs Kate Michelman and Frances Kissling ceded quite a few points to pro-lifers in a Los Angeles Times op-ed marking the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
Actually, “matriarchs” isn’t quite right since Michelman and Kissling have helped facilitate the killing of their movement’s progeny.
The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier and that those aren’t really babies despite the overwhelming evidence – in other words, stupidos.
Or those they pay handsomely for their souls – political prostitutes, sell-sex traffickers, and bottom-feeding abortion mill workers who can’t get work anywhere else.
Not much to work with.
But I digress.
In a nutshell the barrennesses admitted in their column that pro-aborts are losing the battle thanks to….
Continue reading my column today, “Abortion leaders concede?” 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.
That was an incredible column, Jill. Thank you!!
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
“I for one will never try to “build common ground” with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.
I do stand ready to dialogue with those in the mushy middle who don’t understand the abortion cartel’s agenda. But we will never have a meeting of the minds on abortion.
Why did Kissling and Michelman write their piece? To shake up pro-aborts to undergo “a serious reassessment” of strategy, not to say pro-lifers were right.”
There’s no question about their motives now. If we wait long enough, they will self-destruct. Good triumphs over evil. Lord, have mercy on us all.
>>>>The problem is Michelman and Kissling are schizophrenic. Their logical Spock side correctly deciphered the facts, but their rabid Amanda Marcotte side twisted them back into pretzels.http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/01/28/anti-choice-marches-and-bad-singers
Hilarious as usual, Jill.
Actually, “matriarchs” isn’t quite right since Michelman and Kissling have helped facilitate the killing of their movement’s progeny.
You wish the pro-choice movement were dying off. You’ve been saying that sh** for 35 years, and it still hasn’t happened. When are you going to realize that political views are not genetic?
Isn’t it fun watching the pro-choice Democrats steamroll over the GOP clown car on the way to the White House this year? So much for your culture of life.
edited by moderator Bethany at 8:41 AM
Reality, please watch the language.
I say in my canned speech that we’ll eventually win the war by attrition alone, but that babies of liberals matter just as much to us as our own.
Political views are formed in large part by environment, as are religious views. Both tie in to the abortion debate. Both bode better for pro-lifers than pro-aborts.
You will point to statistics saying our people abort as much as your people, which I highly doubt. Nevertheless, our people procreate more than your people. Have you heard of a large liberal family since the Kennedys? Look around. Your side has instituted its own one-child policy, willingly, sad to say.
Furthermore, the homosexual lobby doesn’t procreate at all, again, your people.
The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier and that those aren’t really babies despite the overwhelming evidence – in other words, stupidos.
Or those they pay handsomely for their souls – political prostitutes, sell-sex traffickers, and bottom- feeding abortion mill workers who can’t get work anywhere else.
You sure don’t sound very Christian in this passage… : ). Here is a story about the one you call your Master:
After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. “Follow me,” Jesus said to him, and Levi got up, left everything and followed him.
Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?”
Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
Jeff, read some more. Jesus called leaders of the opposition snakes and sons of snakes.
That
Because all women who get abortions are just “whores” right? My mother-in-law aborted her fourth pregnancy because she didn’t want an added mouth to feed to take opportunities away from her already-living three children. She has never slept with anyone but her husband. Yeah, such a whore – choosing her breathing children over something that is just potentially a child sometime in the future. THIS is what they mean by the “moral high ground.” Flinging insults at people, calling them names, treating them like they are less than human (going to hell?) because they made a very difficult decision and chose to obey their maternal instincts and protect the children they already have. You are disgusting.
Overwhelming evidence that fetii are actually babies? I’d love to see some of this, especially since a baby is defined as a BORN human between certain ages. A fetus isn’t a baby anymore than my grandfather is a baby. These are terms used for certain age groups. THIS is also what they meant by the “moral high ground.” You use words incorrectly, shouting them over and over again until some people are fooled, because they are more emotionally charged. This is disgusting. You are tricking people to make them feel guilty, to make them choose something that may well be the wrong choice for them.
And honestly, can you not see the difference between the individual’s right to choose abortion and a state’s right to outlaw it? Why do you say that the government has no right to interfere with a state’s decision but support the state’s right to interfere with an individual’s decision? How does this make any sense at all to you?
You are a disgusting human being. You are so quick to judge and yet you’ve obviously never been in a position where you’ve had to make a really difficult choice. You’ve never been living as a family of five in a one-bedroom apartment, going without food for days on end so that your children can eat, and then found that you were pregnant again. Until you’ve been in that situation, you have absolutely no right to turn to women who have and tell them that they are whores going to hell.
I didn
I enjoyed your piece. I especially liked this part. “I for one will never try to ‘build common ground’ with the abortion industry. There is no common ground. The culture of death is the sworn enemy of the culture of life. This is a war, a clash of civilizations.”
I can compromise on how much sugar I put in my tea (I
“because they made a very difficult decision and chose to obey their maternal instincts and protect the children they already have.”
********
Marlowe, think that one through…and please define “maternal instincts” for me.
unbelievable. I thought I heard it all, then this. WOW!
Reality, please watch the language.
How ironic from someone who throws around words like “whore.”
Political views are formed in large part by environment, as are religious views. Both tie in to the abortion debate. Both bode better for pro-lifers than pro-aborts.
If that’s true, then why are most Americans still pro-choice? Why does the majority of America still support Roe v. Wade? Why, after 35 years, are you still no closer to outlawing abortion? Why are the Democrats doing so well this year? Why won’t your “pro-life” president even bother to meet with you in person for the March for Life?
Nevertheless, our people procreate more than your people.
Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers.
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Phil, 8:25,
Thanks for the link, Phil (see post above). Wow, Amanda Marcotte is one unhappy woman. How does one accumulate so much anger at such a young age? Amanda, lighten up. Take a vacation. Find a beach somewhere. Life is good. Yikes!
Well Jill, it sounds like you’ve got some trolls from the RH Reality Check blog. Come on folks, if you’re going to argue here at least be respectful and use intellegent arguemnts (that means backing up your arguments with facts & sources), not just mud slinging, it poorly represents your side and makes the intellegent & respectful pro-choicers here look bad.
(and I’m sorry if my spelling isn’t perfect, who is the perfect typist?)
A holocaust! Never mind the actual holocausts where people suffered and died, people with names, families, lives. You know, actual people. Once you start breathing and feeling, these supposed pro-lifers stop caring. I’d suggest they all go take a visit to the Holocaust Museum, which is in the same city as the march after all. Wonder if they could muster up some sympathy for victims of the actual Holocaust, or if real people just interest them less than potential people.
How funny (in a pathetic way) that she would say this…We did just that the day before the March…just ask Jill, Jacquie and Sandy what my reaction was…
As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers.
Well, Reality..this is simply not true..here is one pro-life girl/woman from high school through (err, well still in) college. But nice try..I’m so glad you know ALL girls to make this assertion.
And here is another, who is out of college, still pro-life, who has in the past volunteered at the local soup kitchen and food pantry once a week during the summer for 4 years, and who now works 40+ hours a week as direct care staff at a residential facility for children and adults with developmental, behavioral, and communication disabilities, so stow it!
What a pathetic statement Amanda made about the Holocaust! If she thinks that one out, she would realize that the Holocaust that happened many years ago has ended. It was horrendously tragic, and each one of those precious lives receives our symapathy to this day. HOWEVER, there is NOTHING we can do to bring them back. If it were still going on, we would be fighting tooth and nail to stop it just as we are in the current Holocaust of the preborn. We would fight for the “real” people then just as we fight for the “real” people now. To clear up any confusion that Amanda & her followers may have..We DO consider the preborn real people…duh. It’s them who don’t.
Hi Marlowe.
“Overwhelming evidence that fetii are actually babies?”
This is not the argument. You are correct to point out that your grandfather is not a baby. However your Grandfather was once a baby, as he was once a fetus and an embryo. Fetus, baby, boy, etc. are are accidental terms to describe a being in certain stages. Life is a continuum. But they are all the same organism, a human being. Killing a fetus is killing a human being. Because science has shown that we were all once embryos, killing the embryo that I once was is the same thing as killing me.
Your last statement (as well as your first) is an appeal to emotion, and not an argument in favor of abortion-choice. I don’t need to have struggled with addictions to child porn in order to tell you that pedophilia is wrong. The issue of whether or not killing someone is permitted is irrelevant to family, social, or economic status. God love you.
I ment to say “once every week during the summer for 4 years”
Hey Bethany,
Per our conversations last week via email…
Looks like satan’s new footsoldiers have arrived…lol.
Marlowe,
Your examples of poverty are actually examples of people with adequate means. Look around the world. Plenty of people with far worse situations do not kill their kids in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. People can get welfare. So things are not that dire. No one is forced to kill thier kids.
Your comments are pure drama.
I remember hearing that all the time when I was a kid. People wearing gold jewelry telling how they can’t afford another mouth to feed.
Truly no man can serve two masters.
Elizabeth —
Well, Reality..this is simply not true..here is one pro-life girl/woman from high school through (err, well still in) college. But nice try..I’m so glad you know ALL girls to make this assertion.
This is just poor reading comprehension. Nobody said they “all” turn pro-choice, but that the overwhelming majority do, which is true.
Pro-choicers don’t need to out-breed pro-lifers, when we can simply change minds. It’s not hard, being right and all.
Compromise on how much sugar you put in your tea? WHAT? Any REAL southerner knows that if you aren’t teetering on the brink of a diabetic coma after a glass of sweet tea, it ISN’T REAL SWEET TEA!
Look, if you guys aren’t willing to compromise, you’ll never get anywhere. It’s the machine of politics.
Jill, many clinic workers are volunteers, and often are paid rather decently. Many abortion providers are qualified OB/GYNs and could easily have a more lucrative practice.
Also, haven’t we had this converstion before, about people throwing around psychiatric terminology they don’t actually understand? If you’re not a psyichiatrist, you can’t diagnose a mental condition. You have NO IDEA whether any of them are actually sociopathic or not.
Also, Jill, the gay community is going to be mroe and more on our side, considering how your leaders won’t even let them in your little parade. See? Being nasty to people you don’t agree with doesn’t get you anywhere.
My bad, schizophrenic. Jeez, that’s even WORSE. You know how difficult a diagnosis of actual schizophernia is to arrive at?
marykay, yep, oh well. I guess it’ll always cycle to this point. I enjoyed it while it lasted.
Anon, that’s just almost blatantly ridiculous. There IS starving going on RIGHT HERE in America, on out streets, in our cities. People die of starvation every day, in this country. If you deny that, you’re just blatantly blind, or blatantly stupid.
Your examples of poverty are actually examples of people with adequate means. Look around the world. Plenty of people with far worse situations do not kill their kids in order to live a more affluent lifestyle. People can get welfare. So things are not that dire. No one is forced to kill thier kids.
Who wants to live in poverty when we don’t have to? The American dream is about moving on up, not getting on welfare. Why don’t pro-lifers want people to have decent and happy lives?
Reality,
why are most Americans still pro-choice?
First of all, they aren’t.
Second, we have an aging population. Younger folks are a smaller group.
Why are the Democrats doing so well this year?
First, elite supporters have switched to supporting more dems because we have had republicans for 8 years and they don’t want to be on the wrong side when they need favors. You don’t think young poor folks gave Obama his $90 million do you?
Second, older voters vote more.
Why won’t your “pro-life” president even bother to meet with you in person for the March for Life?
He invited them to the White House and they came, in person.
Nevertheless, our people procreate more than your people.
Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers.
This is non sense. Religious folks have a birthrate 75% higher than non religious folks. And the religious groups shrinking fastest are the ones that don’t take a hard stand against abortion.
Your comments about college women are the coinage of your own mind.
Anonymous- Most non-religious folks used to be religious folks. Also, young people have been making massive turnouts in the primaries this year, and by and large, university students and those in college have come out almost overwhelmingly in support of Obama.
Religious folks have a birthrate 75% higher than non religious folks.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Ah,
Amanda Marcotte, the anti-Catholic bigot.
Raised a Episcopalian and got a degree from a Catholic University.
She knew to keep her mouth shut while she got a education from those evil Catholics.
What a flaming hypocrite.
But, like all bigots, she just couldn’t keep her anti-Catholic hate speech to herself.
Now she stews in her own bigotry and still blames everyone else for her descent into petty paying jobs. Marcotte’s only claim to fame; being a unashamed anti-Catholic bigot.
Sorry Erin. There is no compromising on abortion. I will never compromise. I had one. I had my first baby killed. So did you. We are now mothers of dead babies.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
We are changing their minds, reality. That’s what the whole point of the Michelman and Kissling article was talking about.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
Reality, 9:13, 9:45,
It’s not true most Americans are pro-choice, nor does the majority support the myth that a fetus is not a human life, thus supporting Roe.V.Wade. Check your high school biology book that was written BEFORE 1973. It will tell you the Truth. You’re in your own little pro-choice world if you believe otherwise. What is your source, Planned Parenthood?
***********************
You say: “Nonsense. Political views are not genetic. As soon as pro-life high school girls go to college and start having sex, they turn pro-choice in overwhelming numbers”
Reality, this was your experience, not mine. It sounds like it was a lousy experience for you in college, it is sad that so many of your girlfrends succumbed to peer pressure to abort. They must feel awful about it. I don’t know one person who has had an abortion. Really. So I don’t buy what you are saying about MOST pro-life girls switching to pro-choice in college.
You are right that political views are not genetic, no one said they are. The point is that the pro-choicers are dying off because they’re aborting part of the next generation of their own children. And I’ve never heard any proof that kids who are raised in pro-life families are switching to your side in droves. If they are at all, it’ll hardly be enough to sustain your numbers for much longer.
*sigh* yllas, just go away already.
Hi, Janet! I’m Erin! Now you know a person who had an abortion, doesn’t regret it, and is doing absolutely FANTASTIC with her life right now. (Also, I’m a college student. Score one for reality.)
Then sorry, Carla, but the PL movement is never going to make any progress. That’s how politics works.
Hi Janet,
You know another woman who has had an abortion and is prolife. My life is going fantastic as well now that I have worked through the pain of what I have done and surrendered my life to Jesus. I will always regret what I have done.
Yllas, while Amanda Marcotte may very well be an anti-catholic bigot, she is also an anti-protestant bigot as well. She has many articles criticizing the protestant Christians who consider themselves Quiverfull (I’m one of those Christians).
Maybe you should go away Erin, Like back to read more of Aman Marcotte’s anti-Catholic hate speech and get a better method of defending anti-Catholic bigots. You know Erin, that Marcotte is not a anti-Catholic bigot. Right Erin?
Ok Erin. I should give up then? :)
What, so the experiences and voices of the numerous women who’ve had a negative experience with abortion or those who’ve had an abortion but don’t jump the pro-choice bandwagon are unimportant, insignificant and don’t count!?
“She has many articles criticizing the protestant Christians who consider themselves Quiverfull”
I LOVE the Quiverfull movement!!! Take THAT, culture of death!
We are changing their minds, reality.
Not exactly:
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Abortion should be legal in all or most cases: 57%
Illegal in most (25%) or all (15%) cases: 40%
People who want abortion and birth control totally outlawed are the extreme fringe and have been for 35 years. That’s not changing any time soon.
The American dream is about moving on up, not getting on welfare. Why don’t pro-lifers want people to have decent and happy lives?
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:52 AM
The American dream is not about moving up.
It is about the dignity and rights of everyone.
Abortion doesn’t make life decent and happy.
Moving up by killing someone else is not the dream most Americans hold dear.
I would argue that prolifers, more than pro abortion folks, want people to be happy and successful. That is why we give our time money and commitment to pregnancy care centers that offer services that are time intensive. We think people are happy in loving families and we tell them are valued and so are their kids.
Pro abortion folks enable bad behavior and don’t challenge people to be their best. Their money doesn’t go to women in need, it goes to politicians who promise to work against abortion restrictions.
You try to scare folks out of parenthood by telling them kids are too expensive and will ruin their lives, etc.
The average welfare mom is on welfare for two years and two kids.
I know folks who were on welfare for a while got jobs and are now successful. They bought houses, cars and now their kids are doing great. Welfare is just temporary help till people get it together. You and your fiscal conservative buddies try to make it sound like folks just abuse it.
If the democrat congress can give 1.6 billion to sugar producers prop up the price of sugar, then they can do something for families. Where have all the real liberals gone?
I have to agree with the letter that Jill posted by NOW. As a woman, I am tired of waiting on our elected representatives to allocate resources that help women while they pay back all their elites and business donors with favors first.
Children are not a burden on a family or its future.
They are the family and its future.
That’s right Bethany. Marcotte is a rage against humanity. And I find Marcotte the result of being raised a Episcopalian, that sneered at Catholics first, then proceded to broaden her sneer to all Christians that do not worship the Christian God that allows abortion by his believers/followers.
Nah, Carla. I’m just saying that at least for a while, you have to be flexible. Baby steps. Things like coming out rabidly against BC or ESCR ticks off the independents and the moderates. You’ve got to stay with near-term abortions, stuff that actually IS controversial to large amounts of people. After winning public opinion, you slowly introduce the next level. It has to be a very gradual process.
Jeez, what am I doing? I’m giving political advice to my political enemies! I’m a traitor!
*runs away*
I LOVE the Quiverfull movement!!! Take THAT, culture of death!
Yahooooo Bobby…and the mindset of children being blessings instead of burdens is really taking off. There are more and more protestant Christians labeling themselves “quiverfull” now.
For the abortion supportive side to say that our life affirming side isn’t gaining in the United States is a bold faced lie, and it’s just a way to try to discourage us from continuing the fight. They’re getting desperate.
We will win the abortion battle in the end. That’s all there is to it. People can say what they want. We’ll keep fighting for the lives of our children!
Anon, that’s just almost blatantly ridiculous. There IS starving going on RIGHT HERE in America, on out streets, in our cities. People die of starvation every day, in this country. If you deny that, you’re just blatantly blind, or blatantly stupid.
Posted by: Erin at January 30, 2008 9:50 AM
What America do you live in? These people are choosing to starve. There is no reason in America why a person should starve. There are homeless shelters, soup kitchens, public aid, ANY Christian church, food stamps, etc., etc., etc. The only problem that we can’t seem to fix is one’s stubborness to actually accept the help that is out there and readily offered to them, or to get them off the drugs that cloud their minds into making informed decisions about their own health.
Your arrogance and the name calling makes you look extremely immature.
What, so the feelings, experiences and voices of Obviously comments like Erin’s lead me to believe that pro-choicers don’t care about the general wellbeing of women having abortions, just those who will further or endorse their political views and pat them on the back for their choices. They don’t care about women who’ve had a negative experience or emotional reation to their abortion, or the families and children of the women who’ve died from so-called “safe” & legal abortion.
Someday I’m going to invent something that allows me to kick internet trolls in the shin at my leisure.
yllas would have some sore shins.
That’s right Bethany. Marcotte is a rage against humanity. And I find Marcotte the result of being raised a Episcopalian, that sneered at Catholics first, then proceded to broaden her sneer to all Christians that do not worship the Christian God that allows abortion by his believers/followers.
Whatever happened to her, it was certainly tragic. She has some of the most disgusting articles.
Reality,
Why don’t pro-lifers want people to have decent and happy lives?
Tell me you’re joking…or have you come over to our side…it’s your side that is keeping people from having any lives let along decent happy ones…
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
Political views aren’t genetic, folks. Why waste time pumping out unwanted babies for the cause, when you can just change minds? It takes 18 years to grow a voter, but only minutes to convince college students that they’re better off having the ability to control their family size by using birth control or having an abortion if they need to.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 9:59 AM
Reality,
Being pro-life is not a CAUSE for us! We are NOT having babies to build an army against you. Where do you get that notion? It is simply NOT TRUE, and if you really listened you would realize that. This is about the sanctity of each and every human life on your side, our side, every side. The benefit of our beliefs is that our numbers NATURALLY increase. It’s your choice.
I know. Bethany. I have really noticed that more and more Protestants are open to life and not buying into the culture’s lies. I have much hope for the future. God love you.
Phil, oh does that make me mad. Thanks for the link. Just posted on it.
Anon, you want to know who comprises the vast majority of the homeless population? In the youth age group, gay and lesbian kids who’ve been thrown out. I believe the statistic is around 40%. In the older age group? VETERANS.
These are people that our country is ignoring. If you are homeless, you don’t have an address. usually, that excludes you from food stamps. Homeless shelters and churches cannot provide adequate job training or provide them with means to support themselves, or give them any kind of adequate diet to fend off malnutrition. A sandwich and some water isn’t going to help someone who’s chronically low on vital nutrients.
Then sorry, Carla, but the PL movement is never going to make any progress. That’s how politics works.
Posted by: Erin at January 30, 2008 10:06 AM
What politics? the politics of influence peddling and elitism?
Don’t believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people?
Don’t believe in a system with accoutability to the people?
Anon,
If you want to italicize try this…
lesser sign small letter eye greater sign at the beginning of the sentence you want italicized followed by a lesser sign slash (the one under the question mark on your keyboard) small letter eye greater sign.
Can’t just show you because it will automatically italicize…
Practice a few if you want…it’s really helpful when differentiating between your response and what you are responding to…
Marykay, Anonymous, here is a tutorial on how to do the italics:
http://www.tizag.com/htmlT/htmlitalic.php
Anonymous 10:23, great response, thanks. I completely agree.
Erin, I can hardly wait until you become prolife! You are bright, articulate and have a great sense of humor. “kicking internet trolls in the shin” You are lot misled, but you keep coming here for some reason……:)
Erin,
Who pays the bills for all those Obama promotions to youth? The same people who sell everything else to young people and know how to work, them, duh. It is called advertising, marketing, and it is expensive. The youth are responding to it. They aren’t creating it.
“Reality”-
If you look through those polling numbers, they vary widely. Some show more people opposing abortion in “all or most” situations, others don’t.
Regardless, two women who were (until a week ago) considered major players in the pro-choice movement have come out and said that pro-lifers are gaining ground (and in some areas, have taken the ground). Kissling and Michelman were not ones to praise the efforts of pro-lifers when they were leaders of two of the world’s most influential abortion rights groups, so their recognition of pro-life gains is something to take note of.
hippie —
The American dream is not about moving up.
Of course it is.
It is about the dignity and rights of everyone.
And that would necessarily include women.
Abortion doesn’t make life decent and happy.
Sure it does. I know a young woman who fell pregnant while she was in university, and instead of hastily marrying and dropping out, she had her abortion and went on to get her MBA. Now she’s successful and happy and married to someone right for her. And her ex-boyfriend went on to join the military, make a wonderful career for himself, and marry the right woman for him when he was ready. Both are very happy with the results of that abortion. It made life sweeter for them both.
Moving up by killing someone else is not the dream most Americans hold dear.
Most Americans don’t consider an unwanted fetus to be “someone else.” It’s just an unwanted fetus.
I would argue that prolifers, more than pro abortion folks, want people to be happy and successful.
Is that why they refuse to give women their birth control at the pharmacy, causing them to experience unwanted pregnancies? Funny way of showing it.
Pro abortion folks enable bad behavior
What’s bad about finishing your college degree? Joining the military? Having a successful career?
You try to scare folks out of parenthood by telling them kids are too expensive and will ruin their lives, etc.
Nonsense. People come to that conclusion all on their own. Most women who abort already have kids.
The average welfare mom is on welfare for two years and two kids.
Then she has an abortion and climbs her way out of the perpetual poverty anti-abortion people would have her live in forever.
If the democrat congress can give 1.6 billion to sugar producers prop up the price of sugar, then they can do something for families. Where have all the real liberals gone?
Ask your suddenly fiscal conservative president. And while you’re at it, ask him why he keeps vetoing the Democratic efforts to expand children’s health insurance. Too bad pro-lifers only care about children before they’re born.
Thanks mk,
I have a German keyboard and the symbols are not in the same places. I will see what the computer help tells about italics.
If you are homeless, you don’t have an address. usually, that excludes you from food stamps. Homeless shelters and churches cannot provide adequate job training or provide them with means to support themselves, or give them any kind of adequate diet to fend off malnutrition. A sandwich and some water isn’t going to help someone who’s chronically low on vital nutrients.
I agree that living without an address would make it difficult to get any kind of public assistance. However I vehmently disagree with your statement that church’s and private agencies aren’t able to provide adequite job training or nutrition. Soup kitchens follow similar nutrition guidelines as instutions (schools, hospitals, etc) and offer full hot meals and nutritious drinks as well as a bagged lunch for them to take for later. Also, I recommend you do some research before making assumptions about what such organizations can and can’t provide. Faith-based and private organizations provide a large percent of essential services (which public assistance doesn’t meet) to the urban inner city poor and homeless population (including job training, homeless shelters, transitional homes, educational services, low-cost clothing & home items, meal services, etc).
Reality,
Too bad pro-lifers only care about children before they’re born.
First you bash the Quiverfull movement because we have too many kids, now you say we don’t care about kids…hmmmm…
Ask your suddenly fiscal conservative president. And while you’re at it, ask him why he keeps vetoing the Democratic efforts to expand children’s health insurance. Too bad pro-lifers only care about children before they’re born.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 10:31 AM
He is not my president. I am a lifelong democrat.
I could stay here all day……
But today the temp is -14 and the windchill is -35. No school today! I have 4 cherubs to tend to.
Peace.
“Is that why they refuse to give women their birth control at the pharmacy, causing them to experience unwanted pregnancies?”
It’s the sex that they engage in that causes their unwanted pregnancy, not the lack of birth control.
“Too bad pro-lifers only care about children before they’re born.”
If this was true, all it would show is that some pro-lifers are inconsistent. It has no bearing whatsoever on the morality of abortion.
mk, you are confused. I never bashed the Quiverfull movement. Try again.
My friends who were on welfare never had abortions.
They got out of poverty by working and they are good women leading good lives and setting good examples for their kids.
Abortion doesn’t save you.
Bobby —
It’s the sex that they engage in that causes their unwanted pregnancy, not the lack of birth control.
Really? I have sex all the time, and I never get pregnant. I think you need to do a bit of reading up on birth control.
What causes pregnancy, Reality?
“Most Americans don’t consider an unwanted fetus to be “someone else.” It’s just an unwanted fetus.”
Really? Late term abortionist George Tiller thinks they consider him or her a baby that is difficult to part with. He consistently calls them babies on his website.
Reality,
My apologies…but it’s not too late…
How DO you feel about the Quiverfull philosophy?
And I don’t mean “to each his own”, I mean how do you feel about women having as many children as they can?
Certainly it’s not mutual consenting sexual intercourse and biology(?), because without sex & biology there’d be no need for birth control in the first place.
Reality,
Check out the Planned Parenthood site where they explain and list the failure rates of each contraceptive method.
Where do they get those numbers? For actual women who got pregnant while using birth control.
My brother has four kids from contraceptive failure.
Contraceptives fail sometimes. Planned Parenthood knows it and you should too.
Reality,
Really? I have sex all the time, and I never get pregnant. I think you need to do a bit of reading up on birth control.
Yes, but if you continued to take birth control but stopped having sex you couldn’t get pregnant. However, if you continue to use birth control and keep having sex (assuming of course that you are having sex with the opposite gender) you could get pregnant.
Conclusion: Sex causes pregnancy.
In fact, reality, my contention was that if you are pregnant (and didn’t want to be, so barring IVF), then you engaged in sex. You argued the converse that if you have sex, then you don’t get pregnant. The converse of a statement is not equivalent to the original statement.
Now see, this would be a perfect example of Comprhensive Sex Ed not working. Reality believes that sex is not what causes pregnancy. AND she believes she is invulnerable to pregnancy because she uses birth control…
What are they teaching you kids in school? lol
Why Mad Amanda is posting under the moniker “reality”. She can’t use her real name to post, since it has become too well known for being a raving,foaming at the mouth, spit spraying, anti-Catholic bigot.
She propagandizes for abortion at the site Phil mentioned, where she gets one to two comments about her articles. On a good day, maybe 20 comments.
But, the bigot can’t let her bigotry go(typical unrepentent bigot) and it has resulted in her being unable to go a week or two without mentioning those Catholics which got her sent into oblivion.
She even thought she could move the world into investigating those evil Catholic Organizations which made her famous.
Which is hillarious that Marcotte is being mentioned on such a appropriate day, when her male saviour(John Edwards) that hired her, is going into political oblivion too.
That and her writing about those “pre-convicted rapist” at Duke U. Marcotte, the idiot that kept on giving until Edwards lost his home state.
What causes pregnancy, Reality?
oh Bobby, everyone knows that the unborn babies – oops, Fetii, are are parasites that hop from host to host. They attach themselves to the womb of the woman, with the intent of using up her vital organs.
Laura, I deleted your comment because it broke the rules. You directly insulted Jill several times. Try debating the topic, not the person, next time.
You were a whore – you had sex before marriage and conceived your bastard outside of marriage.
You are a self-admitted bad mother.
You were a failed wife.
You are a failed nurse.
You are a failed politician.
You sure throw a lot of names around for someone who’s never done anything successfully.
Geez Laura, while don’t we be a little more verbally abusive and degrading, shall we?
Sorry, Bethany (I quotes Laura and you can take that part out if you want)
Thanks, Rachael…I deleted Laura’s because she broke the rules. You did good in your reply, yours will stay.
Laura, I deleted your comment because it broke the rules. You directly insulted Jill several times. Try debating the topic, not the person, next time.
Posted by: Bethany at January 30, 2008 10:56 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Whores” “stupidos”
Jill LIKES namecalling.
I’m playing by HER rules.
It reminds me of the time she posted the personal information of the Weitz employees on this board.
I went ahead and posted HER personal information.
Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.
“Whores” “stupidos”
Jill LIKES namecalling.
I’m playing by HER rules.
It reminds me of the time she posted the personal information of the Weitz employees on this board.
I went ahead and posted HER personal information.
Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.
Jill’s information is already out there publicly, so you didn’t hurt her by doing that, silly.
lol
Laura,
As I recall, Jill published her own info after we deleted it…
…And deleted John McCain’s pro-choice quote, too.
Jill’s hysteria is showing.
…and Laura’s jealousy is showing…
mk —
How DO you feel about the Quiverfull philosophy?
If that’s what someone wants to do, I’m happy for them. Why wouldn’t I be? I am pro-choice, after all.
hippie —
Check out the Planned Parenthood site where they explain and list the failure rates of each contraceptive method.
I use an IUD. It has a 0.8% first year failure rate. Pretty good, no? Even if I use it for the next 30 years, I’ll most likely not get pregnant. It’s really fantastic. Nothing to remember, nothing to keep paying for, no side-effects and no pregnancies. It’s a win-win-win-win.
yllas —
Why Mad Amanda is posting under the moniker “reality”.
Here we go again! I love it when you people start complimenting me like that. Amanda is a fantastic writer, and I am honored to be mistaken for her. This is why I love coming here so much. You people are just too nice to your pro-choice visitors.
I use an IUD. It has a 0.8% first year failure rate. Pretty good, no? Even if I use it for the next 30 years, I’ll most likely not get pregnant. It’s really fantastic. Nothing to remember, nothing to keep paying for, no side-effects and no pregnancies. It’s a win-win-win-win.
Please be careful. If you DO become pregnant, it’s very likely you could have an ectopic because of the IUD. I have a couple of friends who have only 1 tube because they got pregnant as a result of the IUD, and their tube was ruptured. It was devastating (not to mention painful) for them.
mk —
Yes, but if you continued to take birth control but stopped having sex you couldn’t get pregnant.
I’m not going to stop having sex, mk. See, this is why the pro-life movement is doomed to failure: people like to have sex. It feels good. It’s a natural and normal part of life, and I don’t want to stop.
Why do pro-lifers hate sex so much? It’s ridiculous. Sex is fun. You should try it.
However, if you continue to use birth control and keep having sex (assuming of course that you are having sex with the opposite gender) you could get pregnant.
But I haven’t, and I’m not likely to, thanks to birth control.
Laura,
Silliness aside…what prochoice McCain quote…I keep feeling like McCain is quite the prolife candidate he says he is…I’d love to see this quote.
Sometimes I get the feeling that he only thinks he’s prolife. He said somewhere, something like…”Of course I’m prolife, except for rape, incest or the life of the mother”
Which of course as you know, are unacceptable criteria to us prolifers. So, show me that quote. Please.
Bethany —
Please be careful. If you DO become pregnant, it’s very likely you could have an ectopic because of the IUD.
It’s highly unlikely that I will become pregnant with an IUD in. Using an IUD is the definition of “being careful.” It’s highly, highly effective.
I’m not going to stop having sex, mk. See, this is why the pro-life movement is doomed to failure: people like to have sex. It feels good. It’s a natural and normal part of life, and I don’t want to stop.
Why do pro-lifers hate sex so much? It’s ridiculous. Sex is fun. You should try it.
Duh huh sex is fun. How do you think I got 3 kids, how do you think Marykay got 6? Did they just pop out of nowhere?
This is yet another misconception of us that keeps getting rehashed. Just because we don’t think that people should be having illicit sex, or prostituting themselves, doesn’t mean we don’t love sex itself. Sex is awesome… I think that I can safely say that most pro-lifers are probably having sex pretty frequently, and REALLY enjoying it- at least, if they’re like me. I could get really graphic here, but I won’t.
The difference is that we enjoy every aspect of sex, not just the parts that have to do with “I”, “me” and “my”. We enjoy sex for what is truly is. For pleasure AND for reproduction.
However, is the IUD one of the most commonly used forms out there? What’s the percentage of women using an IUD versus the percentage of women using other forms of birth control such as the Pill & condoms. Let’s stick with the more commonly used forms and their failure rates, shall we?
Bethany —
Just because we don’t think that people should be having illicit sex, or prostituting themselves, doesn’t mean we don’t love sex itself.
There’s nothing illicit about the sex I have with my husband. We just don’t want anymore kids.
The vast majority of Americans don’t have “illicit” sex, they just want normal sex lives without unwanted babies, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
And also, it is a merging of souls, from two committed people who love each other.
I am talking about married couples by the way, in my above post. I didn’t clarify before.
Bethany —
The difference is that we enjoy every aspect of sex, not just the parts that have to do with “I”, “me” and “my”. We enjoy sex for what is truly is. For pleasure AND for reproduction.
And also, it is a merging of souls, from two committed people who love each other. I am talking about married couples by the way, in my above post. I didn’t clarify before.
Guess what? You don’t get to decide what sex is for for everyone else. You only get to make that decision for yourself. That’s what it means to live in a free society with religious liberty.
Reality, if you want to prevent conception, that is fine with me. You can, but really the issue here is abortion. Yes, contraception which is abortive is also an issue. The IUD is not necessarily abortive (I’m not totally sure though, haven’t read up on it enough), but certainly can increase the risk for ectopic pregnancy, which leads to you having to have an abortion to save your life. Which is one reason I oppose them.
Especially since the people I know who have been hurt by them are so close to home.
There’s nothing wrong with sex per say, it’s fun, it feels good, and it forms intimacy between two people, but it can have devastating consequences (STDs, unplanned pregnancy, & emotional fallout) if used in a irresponsible or careless manner.
Guess what? You don’t get to decide what sex is for for everyone else. You only get to make that decision for yourself. That’s what it means to live in a free society with religious liberty.
I didn’t say I did, reality.
Just to clarify again, because I know Reality is going to take it and turn it into something it wasn’t meant to be… I am not seeking to ban IUD’s.
The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier and that those aren’t really babies despite the overwhelming evidence – in other words, stupidos.
This is, hands down, the most hateful thing I’ve ever seen written on this site. Sadly, I’m no longer surprised to see it.
Bethany, your words:
We enjoy sex for what is truly is. For pleasure AND for reproduction.
You don’t get to decide what sex “truly is,” for me, or how I should enjoy it. You don’t get to substitute your judgment for mine or anyone else’s.
You don’t get to decide what sex “truly is,” for me, or how I should enjoy it. You don’t get to substitute your judgment for mine or anyone else’s.
Sorry, reality, it’s a biological fact, not one that I made up.
Bethany,
I am not seeking to ban IUD’s.
I am. An IUD works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. So if you ask reality if she has ever had an abortion, she would have to answer that she doesn’t know. She may have had none, or she may have had dozens…
Jeff:
“You sure don’t sound very Christian in this passage.”
“Jesus answered them, ‘It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance’.”
Yes, Jill would fare much better in the eyes of her critics if she merely called them all “sick.” Doubtless she would then be hailed as a humble, inclusive, virtuous teacher.
Jill was making the point that persuasion, for pro-choice folk, is getting harder. The cohort whose credulity they can count on has shrunk to those who’ve already sold their soul, don’t know they’re sick, and imagine the cure itself is the problem. Calling them to repentence has been precisely the pro-life mission for decades, and this call is consistently met with derision.
Marlowe:
“Because all women who get abortions are just ‘whores’ right?”
Since this inference is not warranted based on anything Jill said — no, wrong. But it makes it far easier to impugn Jill’s position when the premises you infer from are supplied in part from your own prejudices. Right?
Reality:
“Why, after 35 years, are you still no closer to outlawing abortion?”
We’re dramatically closer. But it’s not reasonable to expect ethically confused people to understand the complexities of history, so I’m sure Jill will give you a pass. ;-)
Bobby:
“Fetus, baby, boy, etc. are are accidental terms to describe a being in certain stages.”
Dang. Nice to see someone here who can speak properly in philosophical terms (not that the usual suspects around here are lacking intellectual rigor, but I just get a chill when I sense that someone is using the word “accidental” properly in this sense ;-)
am. An IUD works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting. So if you ask reality if she has ever had an abortion, she would have to answer that she doesn’t know. She may have had none, or she may have had dozens…
Okay, I didn’t know that before. Thanks MK. I guess I DO seek to ban IUD’s then.
Bethany: “We enjoy sex for what is truly is. For pleasure AND for reproduction.”
reality: “You don’t get to decide what sex ‘truly is,’ for me, or how I should enjoy it. You don’t get to substitute your judgment for mine or anyone else’s.”
She doesn’t have to. The entire abortion issue, hello, acknowledges that sex is about reproduction. If that were not objectively true, there’d be nothing there to abort. Q freaking ED. Good grief.
Rasqual, awesome to see you here again!!!
Bethany —
Reality, if you want to prevent conception, that is fine with me. You can, but really the issue here is abortion.
Wrong. The pro-life movement fights against effective contraception for women, too. It even fights against emergency contraception for rape victims, for god’s sake. How disgusting.
Yes, contraception which is abortive is also an issue.
Contraception is not “abortive.” Women who don’t use contraception are far more likely to lose fertilized eggs than women who do.
You know why? Women who use the pill or other hormonal contraception usually don’t ovulate. No ovulation, no fertilization.
Women who use nothing ovulate every month, therefore, they have a much higher chance of losing fertilized eggs.
The IUD is not necessarily abortive (I’m not totally sure though, haven’t read up on it enough), but certainly can increase the risk for ectopic pregnancy, which leads to you having to have an abortion to save your life. Which is one reason I oppose them.
No, the IUD decreases my chance of pregnancy, and therefore, also decreases my chance of ectopic pregnancy. I am much safer with my IUD than without it.
“Dang. Nice to see someone here who can speak properly in philosophical terms (not that the usual suspects around here are lacking intellectual rigor, but I just get a chill when I sense that someone is using the word “accidental” properly in this sense ;-)”
Haha, glad I could impress you, rasqual. I think we get nowhere in this debate without a solid foundation (which I am still lacking) in ontology. God love you.
mk —
An IUD works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting.
Wow, that is completely and utterly incorrect.
Read some:
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Network/v20_1/NWvol20-1IUDsperm.htm
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) prevent fertilization primarily by interfering with the ability of sperm to survive and to ascend the fallopian tubes, where fertilization occurs.
Having a foreign body in the uterus, such as an IUD, causes both anatomical and biochemical changes that appear to be toxic to sperm. Studies have generally found that sperm are not as viable among IUD users, compared to other women.1
Particularly in the presence of copper-bearing devices, sperm have been absent or few in number in the upper female genital tract, concluded a report of a World Health Organization study group. “Spermatozoa can migrate to the fallopian tubes in some cases but are less likely to reach the normal site of fertilization.”2 Scientists in Chile and the United States reached similar conclusions in their 1996 review of meGraphic of an inserted IUDchanism of action research.3
When a foreign body is in the uterus, the endometrium reacts by releasing white blood cells, enzymes and prostaglandins; and these reactions of the endometrium appear to prevent sperm from reaching the fallopian tubes. In addition, copper-bearing IUDs release copper ions into the fluids of the uterus and the fallopian tubes, enhancing the debilitating effect on sperm.
Evidence for these mechanisms includes physical examination of women’s eggs. When an ovum is fertilized, it begins to produce human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) near the time of implantation. A 1987 study to monitor hCG production in 40 women using IUDs found only one probable fertilized egg among 107 cycles. “Whatever the IUD’s specific mechanism of action, it appears that the IUD effectively interrupts the reproductive process before implantation,” the study concluded.4
Another way researchers have documented the IUD’s mechanism of action is to recover an ovum during a woman’s fertile period. Using this approach, researchers recovered ova from 115 women using no contraception and 56 women using IUDs.
Half of the women using no contraception who had intercourse during the fertile period had ova that were consistent in appearance with fertilized eggs. In contrast, none of the ova taken from copper IUD users who had intercourse appeared to be fertilized. Also, no ova were found in the uterus of any of the copper IUD users. “IUDs exert effects that extend beyond the body of the uterus and interfere with steps of the reproductive process that take place before the eggs reach the uterine cavity,” concluded Dr. Frank Alvarez and colleagues.5
http://www.epigee.org/guide/iud.html
“As well, the hormones help to alter the uterine lining in order to inhibit implantation of a fertilized egg.”
Thank you Bobby.
Read the research results, Bobby:
Half of the women using no contraception who had intercourse during the fertile period had ova that were consistent in appearance with fertilized eggs. In contrast, none of the ova taken from copper IUD users who had intercourse appeared to be fertilized.
Half the women who didn’t use contraception had fertilized eggs. None of the IUD users had fertilized eggs.
Clearly, IUD users are far less likely to “abort” than women who use nothing. Women who use no birth control are the real “aborters.”
An IUD works by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting.
*
Wow, that is completely and utterly incorrect.
Now see reality,
You have so much more credibility if you said “that is only partially correct”, or “let’s not forget that it is also hostile to sperm”
How Does it Work?
* The exact way it works is not completely understood. The IUD may work by slowing the sperm as they move toward the egg, thus preventing fertilization. The IUD may also alter the lining of the uterus so that the fertilized egg does not attach to the uterine wall. The IUD can remain in the uterus on average from 1-5 years.
http://www.peelregion.ca/health/hsexual/htmfiles/bciud.htm#how
How it works
Both types of IUD prevent fertilization of the egg by damaging or killing sperm. The IUD also affects the uterine lining (where a fertilized egg would implant and grow).
* LNg IUD. This IUD prevents fertilization by damaging or killing sperm and making the mucus in the cervix thick and sticky, so sperm can’t get through to the uterus. It also keeps the lining of the uterus (endometrium) from growing very thick.1 This makes the lining a poor place for a fertilized egg to implant and grow.
http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/intrauterine-device-iud-for-birth-control
http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/factsheets/mechact.htm
Modern methods of contraception have had an important impact in improving the health of women and children. However, in certain countries or regions of the world, incorrect and intentionally misleading information about the mechanism of action of these contraceptive methods has proliferated.
IUDs, especially the now most widely used copper containing IUDs (TCu-380A and Multiload) hinder ascent of sperm to the fallopian tubes (where fertilization occurs) or reduce the ability of sperm to fertilize an egg. Several studies have shown that IUDs influence the number of sperm reaching the uterine cavity and the fallopian tubes. The sterile foreign-body reaction in the uterine cavity causes both cellular and biochemical changes that may be toxic to sperm. There is also evidence that the copper released from the IUDs may have a toxic effect on the sperm.
Investigators have done flushing studies of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes after exposure to semen. Women using IUDs had lower concentrations of sperm in the uterus and tubes than did women not using IUDs. In addition, the sperm found in women using copper IUDs were likely to be damaged and not able to fertilize.12 Thus, the evidence suggests that fewer sperm reach the site of fertilization in women using IUDs than in women who are not using the device, and, for women using copper devices, the sperm may not be able to fertilize the egg. This effect on the sperm is considered the main mechanism of the IUD’s contraceptive action.
If the mechanism of action of IUDs was to prevent implantation of fertilized eggs in the uterine cavity, then rates of ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy in the fallopian tubes) should be unaffected by IUD use. In contrast, inert and copper-bearing IUDs confer powerful protection against tubal pregnancies.15 This fact strongly suggests that these IUDs prevent fertilization from occurring or have a contraceptive effect that extends beyond the uterus to include the fallopian tubes as well.
Some people incorrectly believe that the principal mechanism of action of IUDs is prevention of implantation of fertilized eggs.16 The existing evidence does not support the theory that the mechanism of action of IUDs includes the destruction of embryos in the uterus.
Reality, it doesn’t matter if it’s not the primary function. If it’s a 2nd or 3rd function, it’s still abortive.
Let’s repeat that last sentence one more time:
The existing evidence does not support the theory that the mechanism of action of IUDs includes the destruction of embryos in the uterus.
The existing evidence does not support your “abortive” theory, mk.
Reality, it doesn’t matter if it’s not the primary function. If it’s a 2nd or 3rd function, it’s still abortive.
Bethany, that’s ridiculous. The fact is, women who use no birth control at are “abort” FAR MORE OFTEN than women who use birth control — ANY birth control. Women who don’t use birth control are the real killers of fertilized eggs. If you cared at all about these poor “souls,” you would push for greater use of birth control, which absolutely prevents fertilized egg “abortion.”
I just found this on abortionfacts.com
Is an IUD a contraceptive or an abortive agent?
Until recently, almost all scientific papers had agreed that its effect was to prevent the implantation of the tiny new human being into the nutrient lining of the uterus; an abortive action. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated in an official report that its effectiveness is “in direct proportion to the quantity and quality of the inflammatory reaction to various types of IUDs”…and states that there “is one common thread . . . ” They all “interfere in some manner with the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine cavity.” Second Report on IUDs, Dec. 1978, U.S. Dept. of HEW, Food & Drug Administration Document 017-012-00276-5
A detailed report in a Planned Parenthood publication in 1989 claimed that a high percentage of its action was the prevention of fertilization. IUDs are ontraceptives, not Abortifacients: A Comment on Research and Belief, I. Sivin, Studies in Family Planning, Vol. 20, No. 6, Dec.
Bethany, that’s ridiculous. The fact is, women who use no birth control at are “abort” FAR MORE OFTEN than women who use birth control — ANY birth control. Women who don’t use birth control are the real killers of fertilized eggs. If you cared at all about these poor “souls,” you would push for greater use of birth control, which absolutely prevents fertilized egg “abortion.”
i’m sorry…you’ve lost me. And i’ve gotta run for now and make lunch. Ttys!
Reality, when performing an action which is intrinsically good (conjugal act), it is not wrong for the unintended result of a fertilized egg to be aborted naturally by the body. In fact, the body naturally aborts many times because the embryo had many problems. However, the problem that pro-lifers have is that when you introduce unnatural means into the sexual act, and those very means that you introduced cause an abortion (whether it does or not) then that is a moral dilemma. Do you see the distinction I’m trying to make between natural and unnatural abortions? God love you, reality.
Bethany —
abortionfacts.com is a pro-life site full of lies. Sorry.
And sorry if I lost you with my simple logic. Here, I’ll make it easier for you:
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Bobby —
Reality, when performing an action which is intrinsically good (conjugal act), it is not wrong for the unintended result of a fertilized egg to be aborted naturally by the body. In fact, the body naturally aborts many times because the embryo had many problems. However, the problem that pro-lifers have is that when you introduce unnatural means into the sexual act, and those very means that you introduced cause an abortion (whether it does or not) then that is a moral dilemma.
But those unnatural means make it far less likely that an abortion will happen. Therefore, they do not “cause” abortion, they prevent it.
What is wrong with preventing abortions, whether by natural or unnatural means? Prevention is prevention. Isn’t less abortions a good thing?
Bethany: Howdy.
Still not likely to hang out a lot (so busy), but I hope my ducking in reminds you that my thoughts are frequently with y’all. God bless you!
I agree that less abortion is a good thing, but (and it’s very cliche) the end does not justify the means. So I would disagree with the idea that lies behind “prevention is prevention.” So if an embryo dies as a result of not implanting because of a contraceptive device, the embryo dies as the result of an action that one TOOK. In the other case, the embryo dies as a result of an action that one DID NOT take (not using an IUD). So this is basically where I think many of us are coming from as far as our moral groundings are concerned. To sum up, I believe that not taking an action to interfere with something natural is morally permissible (I think this holds in most circumstances…). God love you.
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen
Amen, Janet.
Well, I don’t mean to try and get in the last word, but the baby is finally asleep, so I’d better get some work done. Nice talking with you, reality. Take care.
Bobby —
So if an embryo dies as a result of not implanting because of a contraceptive device, the embryo dies as the result of an action that one TOOK.
Embryos fail to implant whether or not a contraceptive is used. FAR MORE embryos are killed when a woman neglects to responsibly use contraception.
If a woman uses birth control, she’s doing everything she possibly can to prevent embryos from being created and killed. She is preventing ovulation and preventing fertilization. If one embryo manages to slip through and die, that is not her fault. She did everything she could.
But if a woman doesn’t use birth control, she is willfully killing embryos every month. Clearly, this is the greater tragedy, both due to the high number of embryos killed and the fact that it’s easily preventable if women just use birth control.
In the other case, the embryo dies as a result of an action that one DID NOT take (not using an IUD).
So mass death caused by neglect is better than one unavoidable death? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me.
The old proabort mantras never change, however disproven they may be.
This garbage about prolifers not caring about anyone who is already born, for instance.
In addition to their calloused, cruel disregard for innocent human life in the womb, the proaborts aren’t particularly concerned for breathing, ex-utero folks- you remember, these women killed by “safe & legal abortions”- either:
Diane Adams, 28, died 1992
Eurice Agbagaa, 26, died 1989
Leigh Ann Alford, 34, died 2003
Demitrice Andews, 22, died 1988
Mickey Apodaca, 28, died 1984
Gloria Aponte, 20, died 1986
Charisse Ards, 20, died 1989
Barbara Auerbach, 38, died 1981
KB, age 19, died 1988
Jacqueline Bailey, 29, died 1977
Brenda Banks, 35, died 1989
Myrta Baptiste, 26, died 1989
Lisa Bardsley, 26, died 1995
Junette Barnes, 27, died 1988
Deanna Bell, 13, died 1992
Brenda Benton, 35, died 1987
Rosario Bermeo, 30, died 1983
Janet Blaum, 37, died 1974
Cassandra Bleavins, 20, died 1971
Linda Boom, 35, died 1995
Diane Boyd, 19, died 1981
Mary Bradley, 41, died 1985
Dorothy Brown, 37, died 1974
Chanelle Bryant, 22, died 2004
Dorothy Bryant, 22, died 1986
Belinda Byrd, 37, died 1987
Janeth Caldwell, 36, died 1987
Geneva Calton, 21, died 1979
Joan Camp, 22, died 1985
Marla Cardamone, 18, died 1989
Teresa Causey, 17, died 1988
Claudia Caventou, 33, died 1988
Patricia Chacon, 16, died 1984
Colleen Chambers, 34, died 1984
Sandra Chmiel, 35, died 1975
Gwendolyn Cliett, 29, died 1980
Margaret Clodfelter, 19, died 1980
Pamela Colson, 31, died 1994
Geneva Colton, 21, died 1979
Andrea Corey, 31, died 1993
Liliana Cortez, 22, died 1986
Edith Cote, 38, died 1991
Sheryl Cottone, 23, died 1981
Twila Coulter, 21, died 1972
Carol Cunningham, 21, died 1986
Betty Damato, 26, died 1980
Mary Ann Dancy, 32, died 1990
Angel Dardie, 22, died 1982
Barbaralee Davis, 18, died 1977
Glenda Davis, 31, died 1989
Kathy Davis, 26, died 1987
Margaret Davis, 33, died 1971
Sharon Davis, 17, died 1983
Marina DeChapel, 34, died 1978
Arlin dela Cruz, age 19, died 1992
Synthia Dennard, 24, died 1989
Alerte Desanges, 36, died 1994
Barbara Dillon, 22, died 1981
Jane Doe of Newark, 20, died 1993
Laniece Dorsey, 17, died 1986
Tamika Dowdy, 22, died 1998
Gwendolyn Drummer, 15, died 1972
Duarte, Anjelica, 21, died 1991
Evelyn Dudley, 38, died 1973
Sherry Emry, 26, died 1978
Georgianna English, 32, died 1980
Maureen Espinoza, 16, died 1997
Gladyss Estanlisao, 28, died 1989
Erna Fisher, 18, died 1988
Bonnie Fix, 38, died 1974
Sharon Floyd, 18, died 1975
Linda Fondren, 21, died 1974
Janet Forster, 18, died 1971
Cristella Forte, 16, died 1986
Glenna Jean Fox, 17, died 1989
Jammie Garcia, 14, died 1994
Josefina Garcia, died 1985
Marie Gibson, 34, died 1980
Christen Gilbert, 19, died 2005
Kathleen Gilbert, 29, died 1985
Christina Goesswein, 19, died 1990
Gaylene Golden, 21, died 1985
Maria Gomez, 39, died 1976
Edrica Goode, 21, died 2007
Shary Graham, 34, died 1982
Doris Grant, 32, died 1971
Debra Gray, 34, died 1989
Laura Grunas, 30, died 2006
Carolina Gutierrez, 21, died 1996
Angela Hall, 27, died 1991
Sharon Hamplton, 27, died 1996
Arneta Hardaway, 18, died 1985
Gracalynn “Tammy” Harris, 19, died 1997
Wilma Harris, 17, died 1974
L’Echelle Head, 21, died 2000
Sheila Hebert, 27, died 1984
Donna Heim, 20, died 1986
Lou Ann Herron, 33, died 1998
Moris Helen Herron, 26, died 1983
Rhonda Hess, 20, died 1982
Betty Hines, 21, died 1971
Shirley Hollis, 30, died 1991
Denise Holmes, 24, died 1970
Barbara Hoppert, 16, died 1983
Mary Ives, 28, died 1983
Karretu Jabbie, 24, died 1989
Louchrisser Jackson, 23, died 1977
Sandra Kaiser, 14, died 1984
Patricia King, 24, died 1987
Giselene Lafontant, 25, died 1993
Minnie Lathan, 41, died 1978
Barbara Lerner, 30, died 1981
Susan Levy, 30, died 1992
Cora Lewis, 23, died 1992
Sara Lint, 22, died 1970
Maria Lira, 19, ded 1974
Suzanne Logan, 34, died 1992
Diana Lopez, 25, died 2002
Linda Lovelace, 21, died 1980
Elva Lozada, died 1964
Deborah Lozinski, 17, died 1985
Dawn Mack, 21, died 1991
Michelle Madden, 18, died 1986
Sharon Margrove, 25, died 1970
Haley Mason, 22, died 2001
Gail Mazo, 27, died 1979
Sophie McCoy, 17, died 1990
Rita McDowell, 16, died 1975
Myria McFadden, 28, died 1987
Evangeline McKenna, 38, died 1974
Kathy McKnight, 36, died 1993
Kendra McLeod, 22, died 1998
Lynn McNair, 24, died 1979
Dawn Mendoza, 28, died 1988
Yvonne Mesteth, 18, died 1985
Natalie Meyers, 16, died 1972
Sandra Milton, 23, died 1990
Mitsue Mohar, 31, died 1975
Ruth Montero, 23, died 1979
Denise Montoya, 15, died 1988
Beverly Moore, 15, died 1975
Sylvia Moore, 18, died 1986
Christine Mora, 18, died 1994
Maura Morales, 25, died 1981
Shelby Moran, 60, died 1999
Katherine Morse, 20, died 1970
Kelly Morse, 32, died 1992
Loretta Morton, 16, died 1984
Kathy Murphy, 17, died 1973
Dorothy Muzorewa, 25, died 1974
Guadalupe Negron, 33, died 1993
Kimberly Neil, died 2000
Germaine Newman, 14, died 1984
Sara Niebel, 15, died 1994
Maria Ortega, 23, died 1970
Joyce Ortenzio, 32, died 1988
Venus Ortiz, 29, died 1998
Linda Padfield, 28, died 1973
Mary Ann Page, 36, died 1977
Mary Paredez, 26, died 1977
Holly Patterson, 18, died 2003
Shirley Payne, 33, died 1983
Mary Pena, 43, died 1984
DaNette Pergusson, 19, died 1992
Erika Peterson, 28, died 1961
Katherine Pierce, 27, died 1989
Katrina Poole, 16, died 1988
Yvette Poteat, 26, died 1985
Vanessa Preston, 22, died 1980
Dawn Ravenell, 13, died 1985
Jacqueline Reynolds, 22, died 1986
Erica Richardson, 16, died 1989
Luz Rodriguez, 40, died 1986
Magdalena Rodriguez, 23, died 1994
Rosael Rodriguez, 21, died 1986
Adelle Roe, age 26, died 2002
Amanda Roe, 19, died 1970
Alice Roe, 31, died 1970
Amy Roe, 35, died 1971
Annie Roe, 29, died 1971
Andrea Roe, 26, died 1971
Anita Roe, 23, died 1971
April Roe, 17, died 1971
Audrey Roe, 44, died 1971
Barbara Roe, 35, died 1971
Becky Roe, 18, died 1971
Beth Roe, 35, died 1971
Betty Roe, 29, died 1974
Beverly Roe, 21, died 1978
Brenda Roe, 31, died 1974
Cherish Roe, died 2005
Christi Roe, 29, died 1972
Cindy Roe, 25, died 1972
Colleen Roe, 31, died 1972
Connie Roe, 31, died 1972
Danielle Roe, 18, died 1972
Dawn Roe, 29, died 1972
Denise Roe, 27, died 1977
Donna Roe, 18, died 1973
Dorothy Roe, 44, died 1973
Eleanor Roe, 20, died 1973
Ellen Roe #1, 22, died 1974
Ellen Roe #2, 18, died 1983
Erica Roe, 20, died 1974
Faith Roe, 21, died 1974
Faye Roe, 18, died 1979
Gail Roe, 23, died 1975
Gloria Roe, 35, died 1976
Isabel Roe, died 1981
Judy Roe, 42, died 1970
Julie Roe, 14, died 1972
Kimberly Roe, 25, died 1970
Lori Roe, 17, died 1970
Malorie Roe, 35, died 1974
Mary Roe, 19, died 1971
Melissa Roe, 27, died 1992
Molly Roe, 21, died 1975
Monica Roe, 31, died 1971
Nadine Roe, 32, died 1978
Nancy Roe, 16, died 1972
Pamela Roe, 38, died 1974
Patricia Roe, 16, died 1975
Robin Roe, 21, died 1972
Roseanne Roe, 37, died 1971
Roxanne Roe, 17, died 1972
Sandra Roe, 18, died 1971
Sara Roe, 22, died 1972
Serena Roe, 22, died 1980
Sherri Roe, 20, died 1975
Sheryl Roe, 23, died 1970
Susan Roe, 21, died 1992
Tammy Roe, 33, died 1971
Tara Roe, died 2005
Teresa Roe, 19, died 1974
Terri Roe, 43, died 1991
Vanessa Roe, 35, died 1973
Vicki Roe, 23, died 1971
Wanda Roe, died 2006
Wendy Roe, 23, died 1972
Yvonne Roe, 19, died 1999
Julia Rogers, 20, died 1973
Rhonda Rollinson, 32, died 1992
Allegra Roseberry, 41, died 1988
Sharonda Rowe, 17, died 1981
Rhonda Ruggiero, 29, died 1982
Stacy Ruckman, 23, died 1988
LaSandra Russ, 20, died 1971
Tamia Russell, 15, doed 2004
F.S., 16, died 1970
Stella Saenz, 42, died 1968
Angela Sanchez, 27, died 1993
Angela Satterfield, 23, died 1990
Carole Schaner, 37, died 1971
Angela Scott, 19, died 1979
Oriene Shevin, 34, died 2005
Gloria Small, 43, died 1978
Deloris Smith, 15, died 1979
Diane Smith, 23, died 1976
Laura Hope Smith, 22, died 2007
Margaret Smith, 24, died 1971
Teresa Smith, 31, died 1988
Laura Sorrels, 30, died 1988
Kathryn Strong, 26, died 1972
Jennifer Suddeth, 17, died 1982
Tami Suematsu, 19, died 1988
Yvonne Tanner, 22, died 1984
Michelle Thames, 18, died 1987
Ingrid Thomas, 28, died 1994
Magnolia Thomas, 36, died 1986
Hoa Thuy “Vivian” Tran, 22, died 2003
Elizabeth Tsuji, 21, died 1978
Cheryl Tubbs, 29, died 1975
Iris Valazquez, 20, died 1987
Cycloria Vangates, 32, died 1976
Veal, Latachie, 17, died 1991
Brenda Vise, 38, died 2002
Cheryl Vosseler, 17, died 1969
Gail Vroman, 20, died 1979
Pamela Wainwright, 37, died 1987
Lynette Wallace, 22, died 1975
Debra Walton, 35, died 1989
Nicey Washington, 26, died 2000
Sheila Watley, 31, died 1987
Diane Watson, 27, died 1987
Ingar Weber, 28, died 1991
Robin Wells, 27, died 1981
Chivon Williams, died 1996
Ellen Williams, 38, died 1985
Nichole Williams, 22, died 1997
Sandra Williams, 30, died 1984
Shirley Williams, 30, died 1980
Tanya Williamson, 28, died 1996
Carole Wingo, 22, died 1974
Virginia Wolfe, 33, died 1998
Darlene Wood, 23, died 1982
Gail Wright, 29, died 1986
Stacy Zallie, 20, died 2002
A topic that never seems go lose it’s appeal at NAF conferences is how to cover up abortion cartel “oopsies” — aka maternal deaths. You’d think that such paragons of concern for women as these folks claim to be would focus on medically preventing these botch jobs but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, the focus has been consistently on legal ways of avoiding responsibilty for them…at least, it has been ever since Warren Hern got booed off the stage at one of these conferences for advocating responsible medicine. Heaven forbid that an abortionist should see any sort of light…but he did feel the heat, and altered his priorities accordingly. Oh, and yes, that is the same Warren Hern who admitted that he got a pseudo-electric “charge” out of the death throes of an innocent child being murdered, and the same one who, in a fit of relative honesty, said,
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Women who don’t use birth control are the real fertilized egg killers. They’re letting them die left and right. Women who use the pill, the patch, the ring, the IUD, or anything else stop ovulation and stop fertilization and therefore, are far less likely to “abort” fertilized eggs.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM, 1:13 also
***That is the most bizarre reasoning I’ve hear yet in support of artificial birth control. You are making incorrect assumptions on basic biology.
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
THE MENSTRUAL PERIOD IS NOT DISCHARGING DEAD EMBRYOS AS YOU SUGGEST. THERE IS NO “MASS DEATH”.
Please tell me if I am missing something here…..
Janet —
You are assuming that every egg that is released by the woman not using birth control is fertilized, which is just NOT TRUE. (Ask someone who is trying to get pregnant).
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN USING BC.
Your conclusion is illogical. Women who use birth control hardly ever ovulate. If there is no egg, there can be no fertilization, and therefore no “abortion.”
Women who do not use birth control ovulate every month. More ovulation = more chances for fertilization = more chances for abortion.
Women who do not use birth control abort far more embryos than women who use birth control.
RASQUAL,
I am thrilled to see you here…and you will just love Bobby…def. your intellectual equal…which is tough to do!
I was just talking about you at the march!
reality,
Maybe this will help:
So mass death caused by neglect is better than one unavoidable death? I’m sorry, but that makes no sense to me.
Thousands of children die of Leukemia each year.
A few are murdered are murdered.
All are tragic.
The latter are intentional.
They should be illegal.
Oh wait. They are.
Many women miscarry.
Many women abort.
All are tragic.
The latter are intentional.
They should be illegal.
Sadly, they aren’t.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Reality,
Sorry, I meant to say
FAR MORE EMBRYOS ARE NOT BEING ABORTED WITH WOMEN- WHO ARE NOT – USING BIRTH CONTROL.
Pardon this interruption, Jill, but I need to ask about your use of “stupido”.
Were you trying to mock in spanish or spanglish?
spanish: estupido
spanglish: stupido
Either way, your point did come across wonderfully. Coldly. Raw.
Dearest Reality,
My friend’s mom had to have a full hysterectomy due to the IDU’s flawless failure rate. The baby grew in the wrong place and she was doomed.
So now my friend is minus a sibling.
Not trying to be scientific. Just a true story.
And sorry if I lost you with my simple logic.
No, I didn’t get lost because your logic was simple. I got lost because your post made no sense.
Here, I’ll make it easier for you:
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Now say the same woman uses nothing for a year. She’s going to ovulate 12-13 times in that year. That’s 12-13 chances for fertilization, and probably 80% of the ones that get fertilized will “abort.”
Where do you get the number 80%. Why do you think 80 percent of them will spontaneously abort?
Reality,
Are you confused? If you don’t have sex when you’re ovulating..no eggs get fertilized, duh! You know, cause you need SPERM to fertilize the eggs. There is no murdering of embryos through the natural menstruation each month. Maybe you should go back and take a junior high health class.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Sorry, Reality, but I’ve got to run. Take care.
Mk, your 1:47 post hit the nail on the head. I hope reality will read it and “get” what we’re trying to get at.
“Bobby…def. your intellectual equal”
I’m sorry MK, but this is the first time I’ve read something of yours that has been flat out wrong. All I do is repeat stuff that I hear smart people say. I’m not an intellectual by any means. I just have a zeal for the innocent.
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
Bobby,
You are so funny and humble.
I’ll second that Amen. Amen!
All I do is repeat stuff that I hear smart people say.
haha Bobby..so not true..I think you’re one of the “smart people.”
Many of your comments are very compassionate and intelligent..mine are mostly blunt and sarcastic lol. I just don’t know how to be ANY other way though.
Elizabeth: Sarcasm is merely informal reductio ad absurdum. It’s the most natural way of arguing in the world. Blunt sarcasm, however, robs you of the opportunity to see rationality that often lies just behind that facade of sarcasm.
Once you’ve examined what’s behind your sarcasm, you’ll learn to migrate more of your rationality into your sarcasm. It’s like finding your way through a dark room in one direction, then you know how to go the other way too. ;-)
This is true..and when I have time to be more involved in my comments..I usually elaborate more on them..but sometimes I just have a minute or 2 to comment!
“The only recruits they can now entice are young women they convince that whores are happier”
You’re cute when you make things up out of the blue.
“and that those aren’t really babies despite the overwhelming evidence”
Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed. So you’re the “stupido”, even though that’s supposed to be a freaking adjective, and not a noun.
“Or those they pay handsomely for their souls”
This is a whole different subject altogether. Prove that souls exist.
“political prostitutes, sell-sex traffickers, and bottom- feeding abortion mill workers who can’t get work anywhere else.”
What, not even at a McDonald’s? I doubt that working at an abortion clinic is the last option for anyone, ever. Again, nice job completely bull*****ing your argument.
And once again, the pro-life argument relies on emotional appeal, whether it’s a blatant lie or not, and not hard facts.
Great stuff! Loved the term, “the barrennesses.”
Valgaav, if you want logical arguments that follow reason and science, read “Defending Life” by Frank Beckwith. I don’t know how anyone can read that and become pro-life. God love you.
Lime5… nice name :) There’s another book that uses facts and evidence to expose the abortion business.
The fact remains that if the PC movement truly had the support of the vast majority of Americans, then Frances and Kate wouldn’t have had need to write this article.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality,
I made a correction to my post on the other thread (1:53 P.M.)
Did you see it?
Reality, when performing an action which is intrinsically good (conjugal act), it is not wrong for the unintended result of a fertilized egg to be aborted naturally by the body. In fact, the body naturally aborts many times because the embryo had many problems. However, the problem that pro-lifers have is that when you introduce unnatural means into the sexual act, and those very means that you introduced cause an abortion (whether it does or not) then that is a moral dilemma. Do you see the distinction I’m trying to make between natural and unnatural abortions? God love you, reality.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM
………………………………….
Please sight evidence that embryos fail to implant because there is something ‘wrong’ with them.
“Embryos and fetuses aren’t babies. Babies are what they’re called when they’ve been birthed.
“Prove that souls exist.”
**Posted by: Valgaav at January 30, 2008 5:22 PM
Valgaav,
They were always called babies until 1973 with Roe v. Wade. (Coincidence?) You can check any text book or encyclopedia published before that.
Can you prove that souls don’t exist? It would probably be easier for someone to make an argument that they do. (I’m not that someone.) Sorry! God bless you.
Posted by: Janet (Anon2) at January 30, 2008 8:20 PM
…………………………………………………..
Ah yes! And babies were delivered by storks or found in cabbage patches. Women were never pregnant. (Too vulgar of a term.) They had a bun in the oven. Were in the family way. Of course this was caused by eating chocolate covered grasshoppers. Ensoulment took place at first breath. IE: The breath of life.
Sally,
LOL! That so reminds me of when I couldn’t go out with my boyfriend because Aunt Flo was coming to visit!!! LOL
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Sally,
In my house it was a baby as soon as the rabbit died. (You may be too young to remember that.)
Valgaav: “And once again, the pro-life argument relies on emotional appeal, whether it’s a blatant lie or not, and not hard facts.”
Silly wabbit — saying words with no meaning. “The” “pro-life argument” would be WHAT? And please show how, as putatively explicated, it “relies on” emotional appeal.
Folks, I think I’m going to wax emotional for a while. The first course will be exhilaration. I’ll follow that with despair, then pose a chaser of ennui. After that we’ll play it by ear.
Then we can listen to Valgaav talk about how my “pro-life argument” “relies on” my maudlin catharsis.
And these folk have the chutzpah to pretend pro-life aren’t rational? Please.
STR seems to be confusing the ideology with the person. Yes, we want to reach out to the pro-abort if possible, but the movement must be aborted.
“Please sight evidence that embryos fail to implant because there is something ‘wrong’ with them.”
Sure, Sally.
Bruce Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Embryology (St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 2004), p. 58; Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human, 7th ed. (New York: W.B. Saunders, 2003), p. 40
The problems would be chromosomal abnormalities, and so they some of them wouldn’t even be embryos. Sometimes they are the result of two or more sperm penetrating an egg without it’s nucleus, resulting in a hydatidiform mole.
Please sight evidence that embryos fail to implant because there is something ‘wrong’ with them.
Sally, my unborn baby died due to an abnormality in the brain which led to his/her death. So there’s at least one.
There are times that the baby dies for other reasons, but very often it is due to chromosomal abnormalities and things like that.
Rasqual: “The” “pro-life argument” would be WHAT? And please show how, as putatively explicated, it “relies on” emotional appeal.
A lot of it is personifying the unborn, based on what a given person feels, rather than on fact. Feelings of the person projected onto embryos, etc.
We are passing a sonogram bill up here in SD. While listening to PP’s futile arguments against letting a woman see a sonogram, this little gem came to me…
What do Planned Parenthood and Dick Cheney have in common? Both pull the trigger before identifying the target.
A lot of it is personifying the unborn, based on what a given person feels, rather than on fact. Feelings of the person projected onto embryos, etc.
That is not what the pro-life argument hinges on, Doug. The basis of the pro-life argument is that the unborn are complete human beings who deserve protection simply because they are such.
The only time personification comes in is when people try to claim that the unborn feels nothing, when there is absolutely no proof this is true. There are articles which imply it, but they are all about “maybe” and “possibly”. There is nothing solid. No one knows exactly what the fetus feels.
Nevertheless, this doesn’t change the non-religious, non-emotional fact which we base our argument on, that the unborn is a human being and therefore is entitled to the protection of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
reality,
Say a woman uses the pill for a whole year. It has a failure rate of, what, 1-2%? In that year, she’ll ovulate maybe one time. That’s one chance for fertilization and one chance to “abort” a fertilized egg.
Posted by: reality at January 30, 2008 12:39 PM
I think you misunderstand what the failure rate represents.
First 1-2% is the theorhetical failure rate with perfect use and the 1-2% is confirmed pregnancies, not instances of ovulation. We can’t know how many times she might ovulate and not conceive, but we can count the number of confirmed pregnancies.
However the actual rate of confirmed pregnancies with typical use in the real population is 9% according to PP/guttmacher.
“A lot of it is personifying the unborn, based on what a given person feels, rather than on fact. Feelings of the person projected onto embryos, etc.”
That is not what the pro-life argument hinges on, Doug. The basis of the pro-life argument is that the unborn are complete human beings who deserve protection simply because they are such.
Bethany, agreed that it’s a different deal, there. I think that where you say “deserve,” however, you are involving some projection and feelings. There would not be any debate, even any connception of such things, did we not have feelings and empathy for others. I guess this begs the question of what an “other” is, then.
……
The only time personification comes in is when people try to claim that the unborn feels nothing, when there is absolutely no proof this is true. There are articles which imply it, but they are all about “maybe” and “possibly”. There is nothing solid. No one knows exactly what the fetus feels.
It is a matter of caring, more or less, about the unborn, and that caring has sources and causes, which often do involve personification. Saying human-being-that-deserves-so-and-so is that, in large measure.
……
Nevertheless, this doesn’t change the non-religious, non-emotional fact which we base our argument on, that the unborn is a human being and therefore is entitled to the protection of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
There are two different things there. One is that, yes, as far as physical state, I agree that as you mean “human being,” the term does apply. However, the “therefore” part is opinion.
Doug
Bethany, agreed that it’s a different deal, there. I think that where you say “deserve,” however, you are involving some projection and feelings. There would not be any debate, even any connception of such things, did we not have feelings and empathy for others. I guess this begs the question of what an “other” is, then.
It doesn’t really beg the question, any more than saying “women deserve not to be raped” begs the question of whether women are “others”, Doug.
And yes, of course there is some emotion involved, but isn’t that true for pretty much any argument?
Murdering adults and children is wrong because people deserve to live their lives… appeal to emotion. (does that beg the question of whether they are “others”?)
Raping women is wrong because it hurts women and women deserve not to be raped….appeal to emotion
Being a pedophile is wrong because it hurts a child, and a child deserves not to be molested…appeal to emotion
Not to mention that your position that women deserve not to suffer inconvenience during pregnancy is also an appeal to emotion.
so I really don’t see what the point is of dismissing my argument because there is an emotional appeal in there. It’s simply got to be there.
Anonymous 1:46, thank you!!
“Bethany, agreed that it’s a different deal, there. I think that where you say “deserve,” however, you are involving some projection and feelings. There would not be any debate, even any connception of such things, did we not have feelings and empathy for others. I guess this begs the question of what an “other” is, then.”
It doesn’t really beg the question, any more than saying “women deserve not to be raped” begs the question of whether women are “others”, Doug.
Yeah it does. Women are not in question here.
……
And yes, of course there is some emotion involved, but isn’t that true for pretty much any argument?
As far as moral stuff, of course. Otherwise, it could just be mathematical, logical, etc.
……
Murdering adults and children is wrong because people deserve to live their lives… appeal to emotion. (does that beg the question of whether they are “others”?)
If we are defining them as all thinking, feeling people, then no – it’s not really at issue. But there is that question for the unborn.
……
Raping women is wrong because it hurts women and women deserve not to be raped….appeal to emotion. Being a pedophile is wrong because it hurts a child, and a child deserves not to be molested…appeal to emotion. Not to mention that your position that women deserve not to suffer inconvenience during pregnancy is also an appeal to emotion.
Agreed.
……
so I really don’t see what the point is of dismissing my argument because there is an emotional appeal in there. It’s simply got to be there.
Truly, I’m not dismissing it. I’m saying that it’s not just a matter of “fact.” If it was, then there wouldn’t be disagreement with it from the get-go.
It is not just saying “it’s a human being,” or not. It is also a question of our caring, either way, and the origin of that caring. Some of it involves empathy for the pregnant woman, and then on the part of Pro-Lifers we sometimes see what appears to be empathy for the unborn, and early enough in gestation that is what I argue with – for empathy there has to be some identification with and caring about the feelings, and early enough in gestation there are no feelings on the part of the unborn.
Yeah it does. Women are not in question here.
They are, for rapists. Just as unborn children are, for abortionists.
“Yeah it does. Women are not in question here.”
They are, for rapists. Just as unborn children are, for abortionists.
Nope – regardless of what a given doctor thinks, women are not in question as far as being “others.”
Nope – regardless of what a given doctor thinks, women are not in question as far as being “others.”
What? That doesn’t even answer what I said.
“Bethany, agreed that it’s a different deal, there. I think that where you say “deserve,” however, you are involving some projection and feelings. There would not be any debate, even any conception of such things, did we not have feelings and empathy for others. I guess this begs the question of what an “other” is, then.”
It doesn’t really beg the question, any more than saying “women deserve not to be raped” begs the question of whether women are “others”, Doug.
“Yeah it does. Women are not in question here.”
They are, for rapists. Just as unborn children are, for abortionists.
“Nope – regardless of what a given doctor thinks, women are not in question as far as being “others.”
What? That doesn’t even answer what I said.
Sure it does. It is fact that we have feelings and empathy for others, but that is where they have feelings, in the first place. To a point in gestation, the unborn do not, and thus the question of when and if the unborn are “others” in that regard is valid.
A rapist knows the woman has feelings. It’s not in question. A doctor may think that feelings are there, or not, for the unborn at various stages of gestation. A doctor may think that “children” applies to the unborn, or not, at varying stages of gestation as well. There could be any amount of feeling of “others,” there, for the unborn, on the doctor’s part. We don’t know what it would be though, without knowing the individual doctor and likely asking him. The woman is still not in doubt.
A rapist knows the woman has feelings.
Prove it.