Pro-lifers protest NEA meetings nationwide
The inexplicably pro-abortion National Education Association is holding its national conference in DC this week as our state affiliates across the country.
(Who can forget infamous late-term abortionist George Tiller being invited to speak at a conference at NEA headquarters in March, which Students for Life caught on videotape?)
Yesterday pro-lifers held protests not only at the DC annual meeting site but at NEA meetings across the country. The goal, according to a statement by Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, an organization of young people born after abortion was legalized on January 22, 1973: “to persuade the NEA… leadership to repeal its abortion-related resolutions and policies and to become neutral on abortion.”
Added Gingi Edmonds, Survivors spokesperson…
Teachers devoted to serving children should never sanction the killing of innocent babies and future students. An association that lessens the value of the human lives they are striving to serve is a tragedy and should not be supported. This picket is an opportunity for men and women dedicated to protecting children to take action. The time and money being spent on promoting abortion and pro-abortion candidates by the CA Teachers Association and NEA is hypocritical and destructive, and it is time to stop.
The DC protest included the Family Research Council and “nearly a dozen other groups,” according to an FRC statement, along with NEA members and delegates. Also in attendance were Nellie Gray of March for Life, Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, and Peter Shinn of Pro-Life Unity. See videos of speakers here.
Our own proofreader Angela participated in the protest of the Milwaukee Education Association meeting in WI, sponsored by Missionaries to the Preborn.
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.
As I’ve always maintained, there is never any logic to having a proabort position.
It just doesn’t make any sense to abort your clientele.
THe NEA on its website addresses the lie that it is pro-abortion as well as a number of other lies by extremists.
Hmmm…. Signs of dead babies and old surgery photos? Well, we all have to start somewhere.
Bystander, good point. Makes all the protests look pretty silly. NEA’s position is worth quoting here:
NEA does not have a pro-abortion policy. Period. Yet its stance on this issue is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. NEA’s policy statement reads: “The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.” What this means is that NEA supports the current protections guaranteed under the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. This decision allows women to decide for themselves if they should have children — or not have children — and protects the constitutional rights of all women, whether they are pro-choice or anti-abortion.
Throughout the years, NEA has defended a number of members who were harassed or terminated because they made the decision to have children — against the will of school authorities. One case involved a woman who became pregnant after being raped. She decided to have her child even though school administrators threatened to fire her. Other cases defended by NEA involved unmarried, pregnant women who chose to keep their children.
Here’s an interesting fact: While NEA has spent tens of thousands of dollars defending the rights of its members to choose childbirth over abortion, it has not spent one penny under its legal services program defending their right to have an abortion.
Bystander, Are you in favor of abortion at any point of gestation, including PBA?
From the NEA website:
NEA does not have a pro-abortion policy. Period. Yet its stance on this issue is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. NEA’s policy statement reads: “The National Education Association supports family planning, including the right to reproductive freedom.”What this means is that NEA supports the current protections guaranteed under the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. This decision allows women to decide for themselves if they should have children — or not have children — and protects the constitutional rights of all women, whether they are pro-choice or anti-abortion.
(emphasis mine)
What this means is that they support Roe vs Wade. The use of the proabort term, “anti-abortion” also indicates where their bias lies. The NEA fails to explain how Roe v Wade is beneficial to “pro-life” women and how it supports their constitutional rights.
They explained how they support the rights of pro-life women. Women who choose to have a baby are protected by NEA against school administrators who want to fire them, etc.
“The use of the proabort term, “anti-abortion” also indicates where their bias lies.”
You can’t object to the term “anti-abortion” can you? Aren’t you anti-abortion? You seem anti-abortion to me? You don’t like abortion do you?
Nope. I’m prolife. There’s a world of difference. I’m not anti anything. I’m for life Hal. Life of the baby.
Patricia: 5:02: “The use of the proabort term, “anti-abortion” also indicates where their bias lies.”
Very perceptive, Patricia.
Well it’s not just that Janet. Read the entire paragraph and you’ll see that it’s proabort couched in apparently benign language. It means nothing other than they support Roe v Wade.
Thanks, Hal, for posting the NEA’s position statement.
Janet 4:43, normally I do not debate abortion or any other issue with fanatics, as it is a useless exercise, but here is my response to your question:
I am not “in favor of abortion” under any circumstances. I favor abstinence by those not yet adults, and if that fails, sex education, and contraceptive use to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
In the event of unwanted pregnancy, notwithstanding all of the above, I favor adoption, as an adoptive parent and adoption activist, and charitable and government help to raise the child, if the woman so chooses.
As a final and undesirable alternative, I would allow abortion in the first 14 weeks and later only if there is a legitimate health issue, because the alternative is to force women to self-abort or go to unqualified abortionists.
I think a woman’s decision should be made with the assistance of family, clergy, doctors, and social workers of her choice. I would respect her decision over government mandate or the demands of anti-choice extremists.
In your world, this makes me a “pro-abort”, a “proponent of infanticide” and a “baby killer”.
In the real world, it puts me in the mainstream, along with with Barak Obama. If John McCain could be honest and did not have to cater to the extremists, he would probably agree.
In a perfect world, reasonable people could reach a concensus on these issues.
Unfortunately, there are those who are so obsessed with forcing their own views on others, that this issue cannot be resolved.
There are those on this website, like Hal, who may appreciate and understand my position.
The others, like you and Jill, will just scream that I am a baby killer. So be it.
This “baby killer” is off to the ballpark and fireworks with the family…
Happy Independence Day, even to you anti-choice extremists.
In your world, this makes me a “pro-abort”, a “proponent of infanticide” and a “baby killer”.
Nope. In the real world this is exactly what you stand for and what you are.
Unfortunately, there are those who are so obsessed with forcing their own views on others, that this issue cannot be resolved.
REally? And what do you call Roe v. Wade? You think this wasn’t foisted on America by a group of judges when the majority of Americans didn’t then and still don’t today support abortion.
You don’t call proaborts who can’t even stand to see a parental consent law passed, or who can’t vote to pass a law that would help a baby who survives abortion obsessed. Please, lets get your view of reality checked, shall we?
I believe that rape is NEVER acceptable. NEVER.
Does this make me a fanatic? Does this make me obsessed? Does this mean I’m against choice? Or does this mean that I am a person who knows the difference between right and wrong? A person who understands that somethings are so horrible, so evil, that there is NO CHOICE to be made?
Do you, bystander, think that rape is sometimes acceptable. If someone who thought that it was perfectly fine during the first 3 months of the year were to try and argue with you, would they throw up their hands and say you were not worth arguing with because when it comes to rape, you are a fanatic and it’s useless to try talking to you? Would they say that you’re relentless assertions that rape should be illegal and and people who rape should suffer the full consequences of the law, makes you unreasonable? That you are forcing your views on the rest of society????
Welcome back, MK. Miss you.
hey MK. I missed you too. Were you on vacation?
mk: I missed you three!
Bystander:
Is there a reason you sound so bitter?
Well….
I’m about as pro-life as you can get.
And I’m a public school teacher which automatically means I am part of the NEA.
I think an interesting question would be whether I can put pro-life stickers on my car and have the NEA defend my right to express those views on my personal property even though I park in the teacher’s parking lot and students can see that that’s my car…: )
Bystander: “I would allow abortion in the first 14 weeks and later only if there is a legitimate health issue.”
why not 15 weeks? why do 15 week-olds get rights that 14 week-old don’t?
Bystander, have you ever had an abortion?
They explained how they support the rights of pro-life women. Women who choose to have a baby are protected by NEA against school administrators who want to fire them, etc.
Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2008 5:27 PM
Pro-choice women also have babies…. ;)
Patricia —
“The use of the proabort term, “anti-abortion” also indicates where their bias lies.”
It’s pretty freaking ironic that you object to the term “anti-abortion” as biased, yet insist on using “proabort.” If you’re framing it in terms of ideology and wish to be called pro-life, that’s fine. Pro-life is more than merely anti-abortion; you could say one is anti-abortion because one’s encompassing ideology is pro-life. Similarly, if you are referring merely to the issue of abortion I wouldn’t object to being called pro-abortion, because on the singular issue I am for the right. But in terms of ideology, I would be pro-abortion because my encompassing ideology is pro-choice.
Heaven forbid you show anyone else the respect you demand for yourself, though.
Elizabethwhopostedfirstonthisquestion at July 3, 2008 7:51 PM
Sounds like you have a nice 1st amendment question there.
Jasper @ 7:59 PM
Bystander knows 14 weeks is the onset of calcification of the bones (known as ossification Read 1st paragraph). This tends to makes the extraction procedure required more aggressive with potentially greater risk to the internals of the woman.
Thanks for info Chris. So, her concern is with the womens safety. I though the pro-aborts argument was that all abortions were safe.
Elizabeth who posted first…..
When I was teaching I searched and searched for something other than NEA to give my dues to. I found a couple of prolife places but then quit teaching to have babies. :)
Welcome back MK!!
Happy Independence Day, people!!
Bystander…given your double standard on which babies should be allowed to live, perhaps your screen name should be “Bi-standard”.
Now, just to be fair to all, in having read these posts, “bystander” is not a radical pro-abort. At least he/she does not support abortion past 14 weeks for any reason. At least he/she is active in promoting adoption. A true pro-abort would not promote adoption and would not want ANY limits placed on abortion throughout the entire gestation. Bystander comes to a middle-ground on the issue that is definetely pro-choice but decidely not pro-abortion.
In reality I believe that most pro-lifers would be pleased if we could restrict abortion more so. Overturning Roe is a lofty goal and maybe it will happen someday, but I don’t believe it will be anytime in the near future. If we could reduce any amount of abortion it would be a step in the right direction.
militarywifey,
Abortion is being reduced with prolife legislation such as a woman’s right to the know the emotional and physical risks of abortion, a 24 hour waiting period, parental notification, no coercion bills….this is all well and good!! If Obama becomes president the first thing he will do is sign the FOCA which will overturn all of the above prolife legislation that has reduced abortion in states across the nation.
I can’t stand the term pro-abort just like I can’t stand anti-choice extremist.
I use “anti-abortion” because not everyone who is against abortion holds that positions for “life is sacred” reasons. For example, many first-wave feminists were against abortion because they felt that the abortion providers of their day were quacks. They were anti-abortion, but they didn’t have a pro-life ideology.
I’ve spent enough time explaining the different between “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion.” I would certainly be willing to hear why a “pro-life” person isn’t “anti-abortion.” Literally, it just means “against abortion” or “believes that abortion is bad,” which seems to describe you guys very accurately.
And getting back on the original topic, the NEA is an educational association, not a pro-choice organization disguised as an educational association. Of COURSE abortion isn’t their number one priority. They’re probably picking these candidates for their positions on education.
What we should be asking, while we’re on the subject of framing, is why pro-choice politicians have better positions on education than so-called “pro-family” ones.
FOCA
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3856.html
DRF,
I have no problem with the term Anti Abortion. I am most definitely anti abortion. I think the objection tho, is that we are more than just anti abortion. The term pro life encompasses anti euthanasia, anti cloning, anti embryonic stem cell, etc.
By saying only anti abortion, you are focusing on just one aspect of what we believe.
While I don’t like the term pro abortion, I also don’t like the term pro choice. Choice can mean anything from breakfast cereals to car models. I’d prefer that the pro”choice” side be more explicit in what they are pro choosing for/against.
Which is why I don’t like the term anti choice. I’m all for choice. I’m just against choices that allow lives to be ended.
ProLife lets everyone know exactly what I am in favor of.
Pro choice is a misdirection and if I was from a different planet I would have no idea what the term meant. ProRightToChooseorNotChooseAbortion would be more accurate.
Hey Everyone.
Thanks for the welcome back! I was in Sanibel. I did post that I’d be gone for awhile, but some of you must have missed it.
PIP, it’s great to see you back. The kids still talk about you all the time!
Carla: FOCA would be a disaster, I agree.
DRF and MK: I personally don’t believe there is anything wrong with the term anti-abortion because being “pro-life” usually encompasses being anti-abortion as well. Like MK said, Pro-life is also anti-cloning, anti-euthanasia, etc. Being anti-abortion is just one facet of the whole equation.
The term “anti-choice” however is completely flawed. In terms of an unwanted pregnancy there are usually three options: keep the baby, give the baby up for adoption, or opt for an abortion. Pro-lifers are anti-only one of those choices, not all 3. They are anti-abortion, not anti-choice. That is silly rhetoric. A true anti-choice person would only advocate one of the choices of the above.
Also a pro-abortion person versus a pro-choice person advocates abortion as the best solution to an unwanted pregnancy. A pro-abort does all in their power to keep the government from restricting any form of abortion at any stage of gestation. Most pro-choicers I’ve met do not take this position. A true pro-choicer believes that abortion should be kept legal but not encouraged over the other options (i.e. government funded). A true pro-choicer does not encourage abortion as the best option in a crisis pregnancy.
I used to be Pro-choice but I never was pro-abortion. Of course seeing my daughter’s 6.5 week ultrasound changed all that.
Carla, you wrote: “Abortion is being reduced with prolife legislation such as a woman’s right to the know the emotional and physical risks of abortion, a 24 hour waiting period, parental notification, no coercion bills….this is all well and good!! ”
Why do you think these laws and bills are reducing abortion? Do you have any evidence for this unlikely hypothesis?
I once knew a woman who responded to each law restricting abortion by deliberately getting pregnant and having one. I eventually persuaded her to donate the money to NARAL instead.
You wrote: “If Obama becomes president the first thing he will do is sign the FOCA which will overturn all of the above prolife legislation …”
First of all, a technical point: laws cannot be “overturned”. Only court decisions can be overturned. Laws can be repealed or nullified.
Which laws FOCA will nullify is not clear. Only those laws which can be shown to “interfere” with the right to choose abortion will be nullified. It’s not clear whether “a woman’s right to the know the emotional and physical risks of abortion, a 24 hour waiting period, parental notification, no coercion bills” do this. I’d say in this list the one most likely to be nullified by FOCA would be the 24-hour waiting period, and it’s not certain that even that one would be nullified. I could easily see the Supreme Court rulling that it doesn’t constitute interference.
In particular, Carla, FOCA will certainly not nullify “no coersion” laws. On the contrary, it will for the first time guarantee on the Federal level your right to choose to keep a pregnancy and bear a child.
You are clearly not as well-informed on FOCA as you need to be. Go read the text of the bill:
http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/FOCA2007S1173.html
Hi SoMG,
I am limiting my interaction with you. When I see your name I see the face of the abortionist that did mine. There are others here that don’t mind going round and round with you. I do.
With that said I hope that you have the day off from killing babies.
Toodles.
Patricia —
“The use of the proabort term, “anti-abortion” also indicates where their bias lies.”
It’s pretty freaking ironic that you object to the term “anti-abortion” as biased, yet insist on using “proabort.” If you’re framing it in terms of ideology and wish to be called pro-life, that’s fine. Pro-life is more than merely anti-abortion; you could say one is anti-abortion because one’s encompassing ideology is pro-life. Similarly, if you are referring merely to the issue of abortion I wouldn’t object to being called pro-abortion, because on the singular issue I am for the right. But in terms of ideology, I would be pro-abortion because my encompassing ideology is pro-choice.
Heaven forbid you show anyone else the respect you demand for yourself, though.
Posted by: Alexandra at July 3, 2008 9:32 PM
Well you see Alexandra it’s a matter of semantics.
We prolifers are regularly referred to as anti- which has a very negative connotation. It is done on purpose by the media, as one of the tools to portray prolife people in a negative, derogatory way. Media people have openly admitted to this.
I wouldn’t mind the term prochoice for proaborts, however the term pro choice implies that you are for women having many choices in pregnancy and that you promote all of these choices. Proaborts do not. They promote almost exclusively, abortion. They do not promote adoption, they do not promote pregnancy. They promote abortion – because that is their ideology.
I also do not consider killing ones unborn baby to be a “choice”. Cold blooded murder for the sake of convenience, or what ever else is not a “choice”.
You can argue against this but PP and NARAL and NOW etc. are promoting abortion and nothing else.
Perhaps Alexandra I should use the term anti-child or anti-pregnancy or just anti-life (the latter use to be very common in the 1980’s)
BTW, I agree with MK that prolifers are very much anti- abortion and anti euthanasia etc. However, it is the negativity that the term anti-abortion has that causes me to object to it.
SoMG,
I once knew a woman who responded to each law restricting abortion by deliberately getting pregnant and having one.
Now why doesn’t that surprise me. You really need to start hanging out with a different breed of persons.
militarywifey: Now, just to be fair to all, in having read these posts, “bystander” is not a radical pro-abort. At least he/she does not support abortion past 14 weeks for any reason. At least he/she is active in promoting adoption. A true pro-abort would not promote adoption and would not want ANY limits placed on abortion throughout the entire gestation. Bystander comes to a middle-ground on the issue that is definetely pro-choice but decidely not pro-abortion.
Very well said, MW. There is wanting to rationally discuss the issue, and there is wanting to use lame buzzwords and exaggerated terminology.
Pro choice is a misdirection and if I was from a different planet I would have no idea what the term meant.
MK, there are areas in Florida that just about qualify for being another planet.
If an alien read an abortion board, they would quickly learn that what is being argued is allowing women the legal choice of abortion or not, and that there are people for that choice, and people against that choice.
Jasper @ 10:00 PM
I probably should have written – It appears Bystander knows…
I don’t really know that for sure, but the facts about ossification are correct, and if you’re concerned about later term abortions, but are okay with earlier ones, then safety for the woman is the most likely reason.
Good question to ask her though.
Hi Carla, you wrote: “I am limiting my interaction with you.”
Suit yourself.
You wrote: “When I see your name I see the face of the abortionist that did mine. ”
I’m sorry for your pain. But I am also suspicious that what bothers you is not being reminded of your abortion (doesn’t Jill’s site do that anyway?) but having your factual and logical errors corrected.
SoMG: you just can seem to figure it out, can you?
People actually can experience real pain from the death of their unborn child – from abortion.
In fact it is you who makes factual errors and errors in reasoning. Your position is irrational and not based in reality.
Patricia, you wrote: “In fact it is you who makes factual errors and errors in reasoning. Your position is irrational and not based in reality.”
LOL Have you located that PP document yet? You know, the one that “denies that there are any risks to abortion”? Remember, if you succeed in locating such a document (recent or current, in any medium) I promise to immediately stop doing abortions and never do another one again.
Thank you, MK and MW. I take one exception: There is nothing non-pro-choice about believing that abortion should be funded equally as a medical practice or of supporting abortion as the best solution to a crisis pregnancy in cases in which it is the best solution to that specific crisis pregnancy.
Patricia, I shouldn’t really blame you for your silly falsehoods about PP. Claiming that opponents say things they do not in fact say is a common conservative practice in the USA. As Paul Krugman points out, “Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn
Doug,
If an alien read an abortion board, they would quickly learn that what is being argued is allowing women the legal choice of abortion or not, and that there are people for that choice, and people against that choice.
No argument there. But we were discussing the actual terms used to define what we stand for.
Simply saying pro choice tells us nothing about what the person believes. Same with anti choice.
Saying pro life, I think, explains pretty well what we stand for.
Saying pro abortion is also, to me, unfair. I’d prefer pro abortion “rights”…which is different and gets closer to the heart of the matter.
Pro Life
Pro abortion rights
No confusion. No bad feelings on either side.
No negative overtones.
SoMG,
Remember, if you succeed in locating such a document (recent or current, in any medium) I promise to immediately stop doing abortions and never do another one again.
I could have sworn that last year some time, you claimed that you didn’t DO abortions. But had only assisted in some. Has that changed? Are you a different SoMG?
MK, I think the claim you are referring to was about late-term abortions only. I have never done, or assisted in, a third-trimester abortion. I have assisted in, but only rarely done, second-trimester ones.
“Claiming that opponents say things they do not in fact say is a common conservative practice in the USA.”
So true, SOMG – and don’t forget that the Michelle Obama “Whitey tape” has never surfaced.
LOL Have you located that PP document yet? You know, the one that “denies that there are any risks to abortion”? Remember, if you succeed in locating such a document (recent or current, in any medium) I promise to immediately stop doing abortions and never do another one again.
Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 9:31 AM
As I’ve told you somg just read their website it’s all there. PP denies any ABC risk and insists abortion is safer than childbirth. I’m not doing your homework for you. You’re a big girl.
Of course “people in highly detached psychotic states, probably find” it hard to discern what’s real and what’s not.
I’m surprised you can see past all the blood and guts that taint your day.
mk typed:
“Pro Life
Pro abortion rights”
Janet and I had this discussion on another thread. Problem is human nature, and the desire for faster – pro abortion rights would soon become pro-rights. I’m comfortable with that – but I bet you aren’t.
SoMG,
Patricia, I shouldn’t really blame you for your silly falsehoods about PP. Claiming that opponents say things they do not in fact say is a common conservative practice in the USA. As Paul Krugman points out, “Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn
mk:
(belated welcome back)
I thought there was a move on this board to drop the ad hominem attacks – but I just read “Of course in your highly detached psychotic state” from Patricia.
Please moderate – as you do so well.
SoMG,
MK, I think the claim you are referring to was about late-term abortions only. I have never done, or assisted in, a third-trimester abortion. I have assisted in, but only rarely done, second-trimester ones.
Thanks for clearing that up. I was a tad confused. Would you tell me why you don’t participate in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions?
mk:
“that John McCain isn
Phylo,
Thanks for the welcome back.
And you’re right. I just read that and thought, hmmmm…that’s gonna stir up trouble.
Patricia, you’ve got to be careful how you word things. Just the word “your” changed your post from a general statement about psychopathy to a direct attack on SoMG himself.
LIE #1: John McCain isn
MK, welcome back!
MK, I already answered that question on an earlier thread, but I don’t mind repeating myself: there is very little demand for late-term abortions so it’s hard to succeed by providing them; also, they’re too gory for me. I enjoy gore in movies but not so much in real life.
My favorite gory movies are the great med-school comedy RE-ANIMATOR (but not the inferior sequels) and George Romero’s original DAWN OF THE DEAD (the recent remake is much inferior). Actually the third in Romero’s trilogy, DAY OF THE DEAD, is almost as good as DAWN. Among other things it features a very-well-acted crazy surgeon. Best line: “Civility must be rewarded, Captain. If it’s not rewarded, there’s no use for it. There’s just no use for it at all!”)
Phylo,
McCain himself is touting his “maverick” past.
With all his talk about “CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE” does this mean that Barack is not a loyal democrat?
I don’t think being a loyal republican means agreeing across the board with every other republican. If that was true we wouldn’t have primaries. It wouldn’t matter who was running. They would all be identical.
MK, you wrote, sarcastically: “Liberals, God Bless their pure little hearts, never [claim their opponents say things they don’t actually say.]”
By way of example, you wrote: “We all know that John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years.”
Well, he did say so. I agree that it’s a distortion to say he wants to keep ALL the troops there for 100 years, but he did say he wants to keep SOME.
You wrote: “…And that John McCain isn
Patricia, you wrote: “PP denies any ABC risk and insists abortion is safer than childbirth.”
Neither of these claims (both of which are true)denies that abortion has risks.
Keep looking.
When I was an education student in college I called the NEA and asked them for a breakdown of where the dues go. They said that they couldn’t give me that information.
It’s not transparent as to how much money is going where and it’s not exactly an easy process to get your money diverted.
If anyone knows how to go about this (I have to be part of the NEA…grr) please let me know!
Simply saying pro choice tells us nothing about what the person believes. Same with anti choice.
MK, except that the choice is already defined by this being an abortion board.
…..
Saying pro life, I think, explains pretty well what we stand for.
Again, in the context of an abortion board, sure, the same as applies to “pro-choice.”
Without that, then there are many pro-lifers who are for the death penalty, just as therre are many who are against it.
Doug,
MK, except that the choice is already defined by this being an abortion board.
Again, I don’t recall anyone confining the definition to blog sites. We are talking about the terms, not the terms used on pro life sites.
And technically this is NOT an abortion site. It is a pro life/anti abortion site…
phylosopher: McCain himself is touting his “maverick” past.
He’s gotta do that, given how much Bush Jr. has hurt Republicans.
And to be fair, McCain has indeed infuriated conservatives at times.
“MK, except that the choice is already defined by this being an abortion board.”
Again, I don’t recall anyone confining the definition to blog sites. We are talking about the terms, not the terms used on pro life sites.
Then the point remains that the “yes or no” of Pro-Choice is not the same as the “yes” of being Pro-Abortion.
…..
And technically this is NOT an abortion site. It is a pro life/anti abortion site…
Well, this is still an abortion board right here – witness the posts. Agreed that Jill’s site, overall, also deals with things other than abortion.
Doug,
You drive me to distraction…and with the price of gas, you should rethink you’re mileage!
The name of this site is Jill Stanek…PRO LIFE Pulse. Pro life. the term abortion does not once appear in the title.
Secondly, I have no idea what the heck your point is here: Then the point remains that the “yes or no” of Pro-Choice is not the same as the “yes” of being Pro-Abortion.
The conversation was about which terms to use to describe the different sides of the abortion issue.
Not the different veiws. Not whether or not the yes or no of pro choice is the same as the yes or no of pro abortion.
Pro Lifers are for the right of all innocent human life being protected from fertilization to natural death. Note the term INNOCENT. This is why pro lifers are not against the death penalty across the board. ALL pro lifers are against killing INNOCENT people.
Pro choice people are advocating the right of a woman to choose an abortion is she wants. Pro abortion rights. Period. They are not pro choice for the death penalty. They are not across the board pro the right to euthanasia. They are not across the board pro the choice to clone. They are not across the board pro the choice to do embryonic stem cell research. Pro choice refers to and ONLY to (in the context of the prolife vs prochoice) the right of a woman to choose abortion.
ProLife refers to many things…across the board.
Pro lifers are against abortion rights, among OTHER things.
What is your argument?
MK: And technically this is NOT an abortion site. It is a pro life/anti abortion site…
Doug: 12:06: Well, this is still an abortion board right here – witness the posts. Agreed that Jill’s site, overall, also deals with things other than abortion.
Right where? Are we on different boards? Jill doesn’t write in favor of abortion. It’s her pro-life blog called “Pro-Life Pulse”.
mk: You beat me to it!! (Reference to title of Jill’s blog.) :)
Saying pro life, I think, explains pretty well what we stand for.
*
Again, in the context of an abortion board, sure, the same as applies to “pro-choice.”
Try to focus here…it is precisely the fact that the terms are NOT ALWAYS used on “abortion” boards that requires these terms to be better defined.
For the last time. We ARE NOT talking about the terms being used in the context of a website. We are talking about EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. When the terms are used OUTSIDE of an obvious context.
Pro Life, without any other terminology, makes it clear to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, IN ANY CONTEXT what we stand for.
Pro Choice begs the question “CHOICE FOR WHAT?”
Doug,
Here is a list of words women use and what they really mean…
FINE
This is the word women use to end an argument when they feel they are right and you need to shut up……………. Never use “fine” to describe how a woman looks – this will cause you to have one of those arguments.
FIVE MINUTES
This is half an hour. It is equivalent to the five minutes that your football game is going to last before you take out the trash, so it’s an even trade.
NOTHING
This means “something,” and you should be on your toes. “Nothing” is usually used to describe the feeling a woman has of wanting to turn you inside out, upside down, and backwards. “Nothing” usually signifies an argument that will last “Five Minutes” and end with “Fine”
GO AHEAD (With Raised Eyebrows! )
This is a dare. One that will result in a woman getting upset over “Nothing” and will end with the word “Fine”
GO AHEAD (Normal Eyebrows)
This means “I give up” or “do what you want because I don’t care” You will get a “Raised Eyebrow Go Ahead” in just a few minutes, followed by “Nothing” and “Fine” and she will talk to you in about “Five Minutes” when she cools off.
LOUD SIGH
This is not actually a word, but is a non-verbal statement often misunderstood by men. A “Loud Sigh” means she thinks you are an idiot at that moment, and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you over “Nothing”
SOFT SIGH
Again, not a word, but a non-verbal statement. “Soft Sighs” mean that she is content. Your best bet is to not move or breathe, and she will stay content.
THAT’S OKAY
This is one of the most dangerous statements that a woman can make to a man. “That’s Okay” means that she wants to think long and hard before paying you back for whatever it is that you have done. “That’s Okay” is often used with the word “Fine” and in conjunction with a “Raised Eyebrow.”
GO AHEAD!
At some point in the near future, you are going to be in some mighty big trouble.
PLEASE DO
This is not a statement, it is an offer. A woman is giving you the chance to come up with whatever excuse or reason you have for doing whatever it is that you have done. You have a fair chance with the truth, so be careful and you shouldn’t get a “That’s Okay”
THANKS
A woman is thanking you. Do not! faint. Just say you’re welcome.
THANKS A LOT
This is much different from “Thanks.” A woman will say, “Thanks A Lot” when she is really ticked off at you. It signifies that you have offended her in some callous way, and will be followed by the “Loud Sigh.” Be careful not to ask what is wrong after the “Loud Sigh,” as she will only tell you “Nothing
Doug,
Fine.
LOL
Patricia, you wrote: “PP denies any ABC risk and insists abortion is safer than childbirth.”
Neither of these claims (both of which are true)denies that abortion has risks.
Keep looking.
Posted by: SoMG at July 4, 2008 10:44 AM
Somg, I know you like to think you are the smart, savvy one on this board but think again.
PP is not going to place anything about risks or whatever on it’s site. I use to be married to a lawyer, so I know a tad about legal stuff – and believe me PP will cover their a$$es everywhich way they can. And whatever is left exposed they will buy off, lie, cheat or threaten their way out of.
Besides this thread is not about PP it’s about the nea.
IF you want to keep harping on this, take Jill’s suggestion and start your own blog.
Like CArla, I really can’t be bothered with you either because you are always off topic.
Test
This is in response to Elizabeth waaaay up there.
I was researching where my teacher dues could be diverted to years ago. I found some websites that may be of use to you.
CEA Christian Educators Association
http://www.ceai.org/
AAE Association of American Educators
http://www.aaeteachers.org/
This is in response to Elizabeth waaaay up there.
I was researching where my teacher dues could be diverted to years ago. I found some websites that may be of use to you.
CEA Christian Educators Association
AAE Association of American Educators
Love it, MK!! :)
Patricia, you wrote: “Somg, I know you like to think you are the smart, savvy one on this board… ”
I prefer the term “well-informed”.
You wrote: “PP is not going to place anything about risks … on it’s [sic] site.”
Well now let’s see.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/pregnancy/pregnant-now-what-4253.htm
I find the following: “Abortion is safe and serious complications are rare. But the risk of complications increases the longer a pregnancy continues.” This clearly admits that there are risks.
The site also encourages pregnant women to think about the following considerations when making their decisions:
Whether or not anyone is pressuring you to choose abortion.
Whether or not you have strong religious beliefs against abortion.
Whether or not you look down on women who have abortions.
Whether or not you can handle the abortion experience.
It says “You may want to discuss your answers with your partner, someone in your family, a friend, a trusted religious adviser, or a counselor.”
Also: “Be sure to examine your moral concerns before choosing abortion.”
And: “The challenge of raising a child alone can … be exciting and rewarding.”
I find the following: “Abortion is safe and serious complications are rare. But the risk of complications increases the longer a pregnancy continues.” This clearly admits that there are risks.
Did it say what the risks were? I must have missed it. Or maybe it just wasn’t there…like Patricia said…
Bethany no it does not list the risks. Neither of abortion nor of chidbirth.
Why don’t you read it for yourself? You can’t inform yourself without my help?
Carla: 2:48: This is in response to Elizabeth waaaay up there.
I was researching where my teacher dues could be diverted to years ago. I found some websites that may be of use to you.
CEA Christian Educators Association
AAE Association of American Educators
Thank you for posting that information. I’d be very interested to know that if I were a pro-life teacher!
SoMG,
While I have never heard so much as one word of compassion come out of you, and I think you are one of the coldest human beings I have ever encountered, you’re not usually so petty and nasty.
All insults aside, is everything okay? If not, feel like talking? If so, then back to your corner, wait for the bell.
Seriously tho, you all right?
MK,
I love your kids! They are so great. I hope you are doing well, yourself. Did something happen to you?
PIP,
I spent weeks worrying about you and now you’re worried about me…lol.
I was in Florida (Sanibel) and there was NO internet access. I missed everyone and was really bummed to hear that Rae and Amanda had jumped ship. I hope they’ll come back and we can clear up any misunderstandings that were had. I miss them. Amanda is really well spoken. And Rae, well Rae is my honey.
But I am SOO GLAD that you’re back!
Awww why did they leave??
thanks mk, I STILL don’t have cable, but hopefully by next week I will. But I am spending a lot of time at cafes and school on the wireless. There are about a bajillion wireless networks in my apartment building but alas all require a password. Why can’t they share the love??? lol.
I must go now, grocery shopping. I’m glad to be back too :)
Bethany no it does not list the risks. Neither of abortion nor of chidbirth.
Why don’t you read it for yourself? You can’t inform yourself without my help?
That really wasn’t the response I was expecting, SOMG… You’re generally pretty patient with my questions. Is something the matter?
Usually, just to let you know…when I ask you a direct question, I know an answer beforehand (or at least have a good idea), but I ask to see what you’re going to say about it , since you are someone very closely involved with abortion. Kind of like a test, to see how truthful you’ll be.
Have a good July 4th, SOMG.
The baby killers are getting dumber even as I write. The Non Education Association explicitly states its position, but the self-deluded just can’t comprehend.
Missionaries to the Preborn?
The preborn are going to be converted from what to what by these missionaries?
MK: You drive me to distraction…and with the price of gas, you should rethink your mileage!
My truck burns diesel, Babe.
…..
The name of this site is Jill Stanek…PRO LIFE Pulse. Pro life. the term abortion does not once appear in the title.
The fact remains that abortion is what we argue about the most.
…..
Secondly, I have no idea what the heck your point is here: “Then the point remains that the “yes or no” of Pro-Choice is not the same as the “yes” of being Pro-Abortion.”
If we’re talking about message boards where abortion is the topic, then “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are well understood as to what they mean.
If not, then it’s still silly to act like being for the legal choice of a thing is equivalent to simply being for the thing.
Yet really, what, other than the abortion issue, is “pro-choice” associated with, to any significant degree?
…..
The conversation was about which terms to use to describe the different sides of the abortion issue.
And then “pro-life” and “pro-choice” covers it well.
…..
Not the different veiws. Not whether or not the yes or no of pro choice is the same as the yes or no of pro abortion. Pro Lifers are for the right of all innocent human life being protected from fertilization to natural death. Note the term INNOCENT. This is why pro lifers are not against the death penalty across the board. ALL pro lifers are against killing INNOCENT people. Pro choice people are advocating the right of a woman to choose an abortion is she wants. Pro abortion rights. Period. They are not pro choice for the death penalty. They are not across the board pro the right to euthanasia. They are not across the board pro the choice to clone. They are not across the board pro the choice to do embryonic stem cell research. Pro choice refers to and ONLY to (in the context of the prolife vs prochoice) the right of a woman to choose abortion. ProLife refers to many things…across the board. Pro lifers are against abortion rights, among OTHER things. What is your argument?
The above, and what you’ve said in this last paragraph does come around to the truth about it – yes, “in the context of the pro-life versus pro-choice” what “pro-choice” means isn’t in doubt, and that’s what I’ve been saying all along, i.e. with respect to the abortion debate.
It certainly is true that people who are against the death penalty can be said to be “pro-life” there, but again, you don’t hear that much, much less than in relation to abortion.
To boil it all down, “pro-life” can mean beyond the abortion issue, as with capital punishment, euthnasia, etc., though in relation to the abortion argument is by far where we hear it the most.
“Pro-choice” is heard beyond the abortion issue even much less frequently, if ever.
it is precisely the fact that the terms are NOT ALWAYS used on “abortion” boards that requires these terms to be better defined.
MK, you really don’t hear “pro-choice” except with respect to the abortion debate.
…..
For the last time. We ARE NOT talking about the terms being used in the context of a website. We are talking about EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. When the terms are used OUTSIDE of an obvious context. Pro Life, without any other terminology, makes it clear to ANYONE, ANYWHERE, IN ANY CONTEXT what we stand for.
That’s not true. “Pro-life” often includes being for the death penalty, or being against it. If you want to talk about the sense that is beyond the abortion debate, then what it stands for is still in question.
…..
Pro Choice begs the question “CHOICE FOR WHAT?”
No, because it’s understood to be in the context of the abortion debate.
“Pro-life,” while still mostly used in the context of the abortion debate, is sometimes seen outside it.
No, because it’s understood to be in the context of the abortion debate.
Obviously, not to everyone, Doug…or we wouldn’t continually have this argument.
Bethany, where do you see “pro-choice” except for in relation to the abortion debate?
For example, you look up “pro-life” on Wikipedia, and while the relationship with abortion is the most prominent, it is mentioned that it applies to some other things too, like euthansia.
Not so for “pro-choice” which is understood tobe referring to the legal choice of abortion.
Bethany, I could never throw you in a trash can, so you might as well warm up yours.
I prefer to keep it cold, for better effect. ;-)
:: laughing and laughing ::
Seriously, here’s why I couldn’t give you the heave-ho, Bethany.
I know you’re a really good person, a great mother and wife, strong in your mind and your faith, enormously creative and energetic and artistic, very good-looking, and you’ve got a good sense of humor.
So, so there.
Well, now, Doug…how am I supposed to be getting mad enough to throw you in the trash when you’re saying stuff like that? :-) Really, that’s way too kind. I think I’ll hold off on the can for a while.
Well, B, I didn’t say you were supposed to be getting mad…. I’m not ruling it out, though. ; )
I realize we’re simply going to disagree on some things, but in this day and age of people getting banned, quitting the board, etc., I still thought something or other…
Anyway, the last time you threw me in the trash I said, “I’ll give you an hour to quit that.”
haha
tehehe,
I like it when we’re all laughing and being silly. :)
MK,
Do your kids talk about me? They probably talk about Gabriella and her obsession with hot dogs. She has a new one now..she only eats the frosting off of cupcakes. Just.the.frosting.
It’s good to see them focusing on educating the teachers about abortion. I was watching baseball this weekend and saw all sorts of commercials promoting “clean” athletics. That is, athletics without steroids. All the ad’s talked about the detrimental effects. Yet Planned Parenthood and the drug companies are pushing BC in elementary schools. And they are passing laws where theycan distribute them without parental consent. Does anybody see the irony here? They are banning steroid (hormonal cocktails) use from adult use but “educating” our children to stay on BC (steroids). And not only are they teaching them that, but they are pushing same drugs in our elementary and high schools at no charge. WAKE UP PARENTS!!!!
“Truthseeker”, you wrote: “Does anybody see the irony here? They are banning steroid (hormonal cocktails) use from adult use but “educating” our children to stay on BC (steroids). ”
Oh brother. We serve people ethanol to drink, which is an alcohol, but not methanol, which is also an alcohol. Does anyone see irony in that?
To what extent is birth-control (pills, I assume) actually steroidal?
* Many formulations combining varying amounts of a synthetic
o estrogen and a
o synthetic progestin (progesterone-like steroid)
* taken for 3 weeks; then stopped to allow menstruation
* most widely-used method
* associated with a small increased risk of cardiovascular disease
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/B/BirthControl.html
By the 1930s, scientists had isolated and determined the structure of the steroid hormones and found that high doses of androgens, estrogens or progesterone inhibited ovulation,[7][8][9][10] but obtaining them from European pharmaceutical companies produced from animal extracts was extraordinarily expensive.[11]
Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill (COCP), often referred to as the birth-control pill, or simply “the Pill”, is a combination of an estrogen (oestrogen) and a progestin (progestogen), taken by mouth to inhibit normal female fertility. On October 15, 1951, a young Mexican chemistry student Luis E. Miramontes, working under the direction of Carl Djerassi and the director of the Mexican chemical company Syntex, George Rosenkranz, was the first person to synthesise the compound used to produce the (first) combined oral contraceptive pill. Combined oral contraceptives were then developed by Gregory Goodwin Pincus, John Rock, and Min Chueh Chang.[1] They were first approved for contraceptive use in the United States in 1960, and are still a popular form of birth control. They are currently used by more than 100 million women worldwide and by almost 12 million women in the United States.[2][3] Usage varies widely by country,[4] age, education, and marital status: one quarter of women aged 16
Military Wife:
Now, just to be fair to all, in having read these posts, “bystander” is not a radical pro-abort. At least he/she does not support abortion past 14 weeks for any reason.
I’m sorry, but that kind of “innocent” but insidiously incremental permission is how we got to where we are today – now permitting even those who survive the killing attempt to die in “comfort rooms”! Brave New World of abominations happening now within “care” facilities. And those who drank the Kool-aid of the incrementalists contributed and still do.
And it’s the same with the liberal NEA. They have permitted the most liberal limbs to be climbed out upon for years – without including parents; usurping those individual rights; defending permissiveness by not drawing firm lines of defense of morality; until now we have the educational system as probably THE most “pass the abuser” scandal ridden institution (without interference because there are no deep pockets for the greedy lawyers to gain from) with more and more teachers exposing themselves, raping the innocent, seducing the underage and socializing the generations through its own agendas which literally rewrite history, etc. And those teachers of good character are left to fend for themselves with the out of control makings of their liberal colleagues.
No…you stop carnage early before it ever gets to where you can justify “objectively” something you’d never imagine could have happened to yourself at the very same stage of life/existence. And obviously it did not for those who can so cavalierly find themselves in living positions that rationalize the deliberate demise of others.
To what extent is birth-control (pills, I assume) actually steroidal?
Posted by: Doug at July 6, 2008 4:36 PM
Doug, I was basing that on my understanding that steroids are hormone cocktails.
Truthseeker,
Ummm….okay….
Doug,
Most popular BC pills include a combination of estrogen and progesterone. Progesterone is a steroid.
Thanks, TS, just wondered.