Beating pro-abort vandalism
M. Susan Pine, president of FACE Life, reported that pro-lifers at Mary Mother of Light Maronite Catholic Church in Lake Worth, FL, have just replaced – for the 3rd time – a pro-life banner facing the Planned Parenthood next door.
Susan reported the others were all stolen, by whom I wonder? Of course, MSM doesn’t report these sorts of pro-abort malfeasance
But this sign is bigger and more securely attached. “If they steal this one it will require a pick-up truck!” reported Susan.
Mar.30, 2009 9:00 am |
Free Speech |
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.
wow, you mean someone that is ok with stealing life would have no scrupples about stealing a sign?? Shocking , just shocking…
It’s probably some MSM reporters that are stealing the signs.
I think it’s the PP employees or the deathscorts that were “ordered” by PP to remove those signs…
It’s not even the “graphic” sign/pic of the result of their diabolical practice.
Well, we wouldn’t want these women to actually make an INFORMED choice, now would we? We need to suppress the truth in order to continue to prey upon their ignorance and fear. (sarcasm)
What are they so afraid of?
They should set up a video camera (disguised) so one can catch the vandalism on tape. Then you can press charges.
Yes – it’s probably Planned Parenthood – or a post-abortive person. I had my items taken a couple of years ago…and documenting the incident is important…
I do sidewalk counseling at our local Planned Parenthood. I do this all year long, in all kinds of weather.
One winter, a friend came by to help me stay warm, and offered to drive me around the block. That was fine by me, and I left my signs (thank goodness I brought my purse in the car) by the tree where I was standing.
When I returned, all my materials were gone – pamphlets, help information, signs and hats and gloves.
At first PP denied having my items – but 5 minutes later, a man working for PP came out with my items.
I should not have been surprised that people working for an entity that ends human life would have no qualms taking other peoples’ property and lying about it.
Document it & file a report. Video is undeniably smart.
PP is just practicing good business:
Eliminate the competition.
They could care less about the moms or the babies they are killing.
Where I live, the overpasses on the freeways often have graffitti spray painted on them…the usual stupid gang related garbage, symbols, etc.
How these taggers even manage to do their “work” without getting caught, (or killed by falling over the edge) is beyond me. A lot of these taggings are complicated artwork which takes TIME to accomplish.
These taggings stay on the overpass for weeks, sometimes even months before they get removed.
A few years ago, someone spray painted in huge red letters “ABORTION KILLS BABIES” in one such prime area. This spanned the entire width of the overpass. It was GONE the NEXT DAY.
Mike:
Will this be the legacy our generation leaves to the world; that we were obsessed with the destruction of our offspring?
How sick is that?
question for you: when you guys do your “sidewalkcounselling” at PP do people come to you or are you going after them? How do you know who to go after? Isn’t it only something like I in 10 of theIr clients that had an abortion?
Will this be the legacy our generation leaves to the world; that we were obsessed with the destruction of our offspring?
Judging by Hillary’s speech when she accepted her Sanger Award, it’s the legacy the administration wants to leave. I’ll post a link to it over on the Sanger thread if you haven’t seen it.
Question for you, asitis:
Why do you ask?
Hillary is a narcissistic person. She sold her sold her soul to the devil a long time ago. Is it any wonder that she would accept the Planned Barrenhood award?
Wow, what a great sign! Where can I get one like it?
question for you: when you guys do your “sidewalkcounselling” at PP do people come to you or are you going after them? How do you know who to go after? Isn’t it only something like I in 10 of theIr clients that had an abortion?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 11:29 AM It depends. The reactions are mixed. We have literature that we pass out. We don’t chase anyone. Some women are determined to have the abortion. Many are open to stopping and talking. They take the information.
Two Things:
Who on earth honestly looks up to Margaret Sanger and why? Was Clinton honestly saying that for the cameras or what? That’s sick. I get a shudder reading Sanger’s comments every single time.
And, then, there’s the matter of the sign. What a cute baby! I wouldn’t doubt that the employees are behind its disappearing acts. It could be anyone, but for some reason they’re for choice until you give women real choices and real things to think about.
Baby! So cute.
Vannah, I know. Hasn’t Hitlary done her homework?
I never knew that Sanger was a racist, but a quick 2 second sweep to a website was ALL it took to find out.
why do I ask, Pat (short for Patricia per chance?)? I’m curious how it works.
Likewise Heather. And a 2 second sweep also lead me to suspect those claims. I have some reading to do on Sanger.
asitis, You will be amazed. I just cannot believe how many black women I have seen going into the clinic. It’s not PP, but they just roll in and out like it’s a McDonalds drive through. I just can’t believe it.
asitis: If you’re so curious, why don’t you pretend you’re a pregnant woman and go to a PP and see what happens?
This should answer your question right freom the horses mouth, so to speak.
I dare you.
“If they steal this one it will require a pick-up truck!” reported Susan.
I’ll bet they will find one;|
heather I’m not sure what you are saying. Are these black women having abortions? Or are they there for other services too? Black have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy and this a higher rate of abortion so it would not surprise me that you might see more black women going for abortions at the clinic.
why bother to do that mike when I have a wealth of proliferw here who can tell me what happens where they are?
Again how is it that our Secretary of State can gush about Mararet Sanger and yet just a couple years ago (I can’t remember who it was)…was asked to step down from his republican post and resign from his job after making a complimentary comment about Robert Byrd on his Birthday.
anon was moi!
Hmmm…our “PP bad for Aurora” sign has been stolen for the 3rd time, too. And this was right next to our doorstep.
I’m a little skeptical to report this as theft to the local police…
…oh well, time to get 2 more at the next rally…
Wasn’t RobertyByrd. It was Strom Thurmon.
Tuesday, December 10, 2002 Posted: 12:56 AM EST (0556 GMT)
Lott:
Lott: “My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago.”
\
Gore criticizes Lott for comments at Thurmond’s 100th birthday (December 9)
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott issued a written apology Monday evening over his comment that the United States would have avoided “all these problems” if then-segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.
“A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past,” Lott said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”
asitis, are you PL or PC? I volunteer at 2 clinics. The east side clients are usually black. You should see the building. It’s got holes in the back window and it’s in the middle of the ghetto. It’s not fit for a dog. The look of the death camp creeps me out.
asitis will be trying to get all of the info out of you she can and then twist it and throw it back in your face, Heather. She is pro killing a growing baby in a mother’s womb.
Don’t bother.
Carla, got it. Thanks.
Just have to add..there is a daycare right next to the abortion clinic. The school bus driver always honks in support of us being there. A lot of police wave too.
…and ambulance drivers. It’s a good feeling when people support you. The world is not all bad.
asitis: YOU are the one who asked what pro-lifers do at abortion clinics. If you want to know the truth, and see it and EXPERIENCE it FOR YOURSELF, then DO what I suggested to you.
By the very fact that you you ask me why you should do it speaks volumes.
Put your money where your mouth is and GO SEE FOR YOURSELF…don’t rely on what you ASSUME is going to be a biased answer from anyone here who actually does pro-life work at an abortion clinic.
You’re too chicken to do it. Admit it.
You’re nothing but a big talking, word twisting COWARD and we all know it.
Heather,
Did you go somewhere to get training? I am not a sidewalk counselor….YET!! :)
Carla, no. I found some You Tube videos and e-mailed the guy who posted them. He called me and I went out. I made lots of fast friends. We all take turns bringing the coffee and dounuts. I just observed for a while, and now I am able to remain calm as can be. I always ask the Lord to give me the words, and he does.
We have a few of the “Silent No More” women.
That is so awesome, Heather!! Good for you!! Good for the babies and mommies too. I am so thankful for you, being out on the front lines. God bless you!
asitis, are you PL or PC? I volunteer at 2 clinics. The east side clients are usually black. You should see the building. It’s got holes in the back window and it’s in the middle of the ghetto. It’s not fit for a dog. The look of the death camp creeps me out.
Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2009 12:34 PM
Hi heather. I’m pro-choice. That sounds like a dismal place. Do they just do abortions or does it offer other services?
asitis, they do abortions up to 22 weeks. Martin Ruddock assisted Martin Haskell in inventing the PB abortion. I believe he has been an abortionist for 30 years. The man is paranoid and he curses like a drunken sailor. Then he goes to perform abortions. He’s called several of us ladies “whores”…..I cannot imagine what happens in that clinic to his patients.
I see Murdering Marty every Thursday.
You’re too chicken to do it. Admit it.
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2009 12:53 PM
What is there to be “ckicken” about Mike? Am I too assume it’s a scary thing for people who are going into PP for abortions, birth control, pap mears, breast exams, STI tesing etc, to come in contact with you? Surely that’s not the impression you want to give people here is it?
Asking how you know who to counsel should not be a difficult question. Heather answered it. It seems that where she “counsels” they simply offer pamphlets to people and hope to engage someone who may be seeking am abortion. That’s what I got from her answer anyway.
over a dozen code violations.” The Center for Women’s Health in Cleveland was informed that its license would not be renewed after inspectors discovered that the clinic was not meeting even the most rudimentary of standards, such as taking a patient’s temperature and blood pressure before risky late-term abortion surgeries.
Abortionist Martin Ruddock, who ran the abortion mill that would do abortions — including partial-birth abortions — through the second trimester of pregnancy, did not believe his clinic should have been subject to the state laws that regulate ambulatory surgical care facilities, even though his ads described his clinic as such.
Ruddock did not have an emergency transfer agreement with a local hospital, and endangered one woman with abortion complications when he had difficulty finding a hospital to admit her.
Ruddock’s clinic is one of nearly a dozen abortion mills to close across the country since June. Most were closed by various state authorities, which had uncovered violations that included the delivery and alleged murder of a live baby, workers aborting women without medical licenses, and the misuse of the hazardous abortion drug RU 486, among other charges.
“The closure of Ruddock’s clinic shows that the implementation of standards are effective at stopping abortion until it can be banned nationally. Standards are useful tools that are putting abortionist clinics out of business in droves,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “As a result, our land is not only a safer place for women, but also for the child in the womb.”
“Arrogant abortionists, such as Ruddock, will never adhere to the laws because they somehow think they are exempt from the same rules everyone else must follow. Their unwillingness or inability to follow the law has become their undoing,” said Newman.
Abortion mills have been closed for unsafe conditions in Ohio, Alabama, Florida, and California.
However, in Kansas, the Board of Healing Arts continues to ignore the death of a teenager last year during a botched third-trimester abortion, which included the documented misuse of RU 486. A similar misuse of RU 486 led to the closure of an Alabama abortion clinic earlier this year. The Kansas Board also refuses to deal with the filthy, roach-infested conditions that have been uncovered at two Kansas abortion mills.
“Although the trend is toward states clamping down on their outlaw abortionists, we still have some work to do in others,” said Newman.
He’s called several of us ladies “whores”…..I cannot imagine what happens in that clinic to his patients.
Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Was he called anything by you ladies? Regardless, that’s not an excuse.
Asitis,
I think Heather answered your other question, but in response to your question below:
How do you know who to go after? Isn’t it only something like I in 10 of theIr clients that had an abortion?
I think PP clinics have specific/designated days set up for providing just abortion serivces, which would make sense for their point of view 1)To get in as many abortion patients as possible 2)To reduce the chances of their other patients (primary care, prenatal care, etc) from getting harassed by clinic protestors.
As for sidewalk counseling, here is some more information to hopefully answer your questions:
Sidewalk Counseling Guides:
http://thoughts-and-faith-to-share.blogspot.com/2007/06/serious-thoughts-on-sidewalk-counseling.html
http://sidewalkcounseling.com/black.asp
http://www.webcom.com/sidewalk/
asitis, No. He rolls his car window down and starts his ranting and raving. Some of his former workers claim that he is “paranoid.”
Ok lovely mods, I’ve got two posts in que (or maybe spam folder by mistake :p ) which have a bunch of links on sidewalk counseling for Asitis.
why do I ask, Pat (short for Patricia per chance?)?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 12:03 PM
***************************************
I thought you were going to be “good,” asitis. ;)
Let’s not start this again. Just say “no” to conspiracy theories. :D
Conspiracy theories? How would that be a conspiracy theory Kel?
And what about Patricia being good (if in fact Pat is Patricia)? I thought you also said posting under two monikers at the same time was NOT being good.
Rachel thanks for those links. I’ll ahvea loook at them when I get back. I have to go do some outside “chores”!
Ah yes, Martin Ruddoc, who’s NAF clinic in Ohio was Forced to Close After Numerous Health Violations
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1698391/posts
Who showed blatant disregard for a patient during a 911 call for said whom he’d preformed an abortion on:
http://vlex.com/vid/gaughan-v-cleveland-25653589
Re; My article…It says Ruddock was closed, but he’s back. He’s a lot like Tiller. Anything goes. And he had to settle a lawsuit out of court after leaving a woman sterile after a botched abortion. She won 1 million.
Op, other post didn’t appear. *Sighs* I’ll post it again…
Sidewalk Counselors Blogs/Testimonies:
http://sidewalk-talk.blogspot.com/
http://sidewalkcounselorsunited.blogspot.com/
http://fdalessio.blogspot.com/2005/04/sidewalk-counseling-apr-2006.html
http://vitalsignsblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/essence-of-sidewalk-counseling.html
http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/05/compassionate-sidewalk-counseling-how.html
Sidewalk Counselors Blogs/Testimonies:
http://sidewalk-talk.blogspot.com/
http://sidewalkcounselorsunited.blogspot.com/
http://fdalessio.blogspot.com/2005/04/sidewalk-counseling-apr-2006.html
http://anniebanno.blogspot.com/2005/05/real-truth-about-crisis-pregnancy.html
http://www.dawneden.com/2006/10/across-streetby-guestbloggerdennis.html
http://thedramaofexistence.blogspot.com/2006/09/encounter.html
http://generationsforlife.org/2006/0914/a-life-saved/
http://journals.aol.com/amandabreiser/LilIceJournal/entries/2005/11/05/part-3/230
http://theschoolofmary.blogspot.com/2007/02/providence-at-planned-parenthood-and.html
Audio/Video:
No Greater Joy (Caution: brief images of aborted fetuses)
http://www.prolifeaction.org/sidewalk/packet.htm
This video discusses sidewalk counselinig from the perspective of four individuals: who they are, the type of information they distribute, spiritual involvement, how to approach women (“don’t yell at the women and if they yell at you, don’t respond”, “don’t be rude to any woman you’re speaking to, never shout”, “don’t accuse this woman. You’re not there to accuse, you’re there to help”) and guidelines, caring about both woman and child.
The Essence of Sidewalk Counseling (requires Real Player)
http://www.vitalsignsministries.org/ram/042801wknd.ram
“For nearly 25 years I have served as a sidewalk counselor, seeking to dissuade men and women from going into abortion clinics. In this 10-minute “Vital Signs” radio program I outlined the essence of this ministry, explaining what sidewalk counselors say and why they engage in such a disquieting task.”
Rachael, Thanks for the links! That 911 call just goes to show you how little he cares. Also, a woman named Connie came forward and filed a complaint against him for calling her at home. Her exact words were “He called me to see how I was doing at home, and he called my job.” “He did not call to enquire about my medical condition at all.” I think we can read between the lines.
Ok, sorry about the number of links, but those are some of the sidewalk counselors testimonies and first hand-experience to give you an idea of what sidewalk counselors do. Also, going back, I realize some of the links are no longer working, just keep looking, though, there are some good ones in there!
Conspiracy theories? How would that be a conspiracy theory Kel?
And what about Patricia being good (if in fact Pat is Patricia)? I thought you also said posting under two monikers at the same time was NOT being good.
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 1:33 PM
*****************************************
What I also said was to leave it to the MODS to find out these things. It is not your job to police the site looking for double monikers.
Haha Kel! Like the mods are going to call her on that! Maybe what I should have addressed the question to you then?
Okay …. Kel, did Angel post as Pat?
Rachel, holy moly you agve me lots to raed, will do later. My “boss” is calling!
Uh huh, sure. Just try to atleast look at a few of them.
Haha Kel! Like the mods are going to call her on that! Maybe what I should have addressed the question to you then?
Okay …. Kel, did Angel post as Pat?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 2:11 PM
**********************************************
First of all, there is no evidence to connect the two at all. None.
Secondly, I’m asking you nicely not to ask these questions again, because it is frankly none of your business. If you don’t feel you can trust the mods here to make appropriate decisions and moderate the site (because that IS their job), then you can choose to post on a different message board, or go and moderate one of your own.
Rules: “Therefore, respect the Moderators’ decisions. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Know they exercise extreme prudence. All decisions are final.”
“Do not violate another’s privacy.”
You’re coming pretty close to violating both of these, so you might want to quit while you’re ahead.
I don’t see what it matters if angel is Pat or Patricia. It’s not relavent to the discussion, is it?
Look, I just came back as Donna, Heather:]
Kel, agreed.
Kel, I will respect your “decision” here. I will take your word that Angel did not post as Pat earlier.
How exactly am I violating someone’s privacy by referring to them by another moniker they have used? I have seen others, mods (Carla, Jasper) included do this before. If that violating a rule you should probably take it up with them as well Kel.
Heather, no it’s not relevant to the discussion. But why would someone hide their identity like that?
Wow, Rachael, I’d best start bookmarking those links. Thanks for the info!
I don’t know. My real name is Heather. Maybe some people just want to change up. I don’t always use my real name on other sites.
Kel, if it’d be easier just to bookmark one page, I’ve got the sidewalk counseling websites all listed at the following entry, on sidewalk counseling, at my web journal :
http://rsnider.livejournal.com/17052.html
My friend went on Facebook the other day and set up an account. Would you believe that as soon as she posted her FIRST message, someone who she has intentionally been avoiding for 5 years popped right up??? There is a lot of truth to “It’s a small world.”
Kel, I will respect your “decision” here. I will take your word that Angel did not post as Pat earlier.
How exactly am I violating someone’s privacy by referring to them by another moniker they have used? I have seen others, mods (Carla, Jasper) included do this before. If that violating a rule you should probably take it up with them as well Kel.
***************************************
They are mods. You are not. There’s the difference.
———————————
But why would someone hide their identity like that?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 2:27 PM
****************************************
How do you know that ANYONE is hiding their identity here?? You have no way of knowing any of that information, and you have now accused at least two different posters of being someone who we know they were NOT.
The reason why this comes across as if it’s a “conspiracy” is because you accuse people of being someone else quite frequently. If you can’t have a discussion without having to guess someone’s “real” identity, then what’s the point? Is it important for you to know, just in case it is “who you think it is,” so that you can harass her and mock her like you did when she was ACTUALLY posting here?
Lots of people leave and come back under different monikers, and I’m sure their reasons are varied. I don’t know what YOUR reason was for changing your moniker months ago, and nobody asked. The only difference this would make is if someone were banned from the site and then reappeared under a different moniker, and/or if someone decided to be a troll, hurling insults (which could just as easily get them banned, so why do it?).
As you said, it’s not relevant to the discussion. You come close to violating people’s privacy when, as you did on an old thread, state that you “know the last name” of a poster and “where she lives.” You can easily be perceived as a real threat when you say things like that and you do risk being banned. It’s a fine line, and none of us should risk crossing it.
Kel…well said.
Kel, very well said.
But why would someone hide their identity like that, ASITIS?? LOL
Kel,
Thank you. That was indeed a very good reminder.
Asitis:How exactly am I violating someone’s privacy by referring to them by another moniker they have used? I have seen others, mods (Carla, Jasper) included do this before. If that violating a rule you should probably take it up with them as well Kel.
***************************************
Kel: They are mods. You are not. There’s the difference
Excuse me? You are saying that it’s a violation of someone’s privacy to call them by another moniker they use/used. But it’s okay for mods to violate someone’s privacy??????? Really????? For what reason Kel? Seems like an odd double standard to me.
Kel: I don’t know what YOUR reason was for changing your moniker months ago, and nobody asked.
Well then you missed the comment I made as soon as someone asked Kel! Do you need to see it again? I already copied in answer to a similar comment someone else made. Do you want me to get it for you????
Kel: You come close to violating people’s privacy when, as you did on an old thread, state that you “know the last name” of a poster and “where she lives.” You can easily be perceived as a real threat when you say things like that and you do risk being banned. It’s a fine line, and none of us should risk crossing it.
Posted by: Kel at March 30, 2009 2:40 PM
Oh but I didn’t and I wouldn’t. :)
Kel:The reason why this comes across as if it’s a “conspiracy” is because you accuse people of being someone else quite frequently.
Not “people” Kel. Just one person who keeps changing their name.
Nope, what I said was that you have come close to violating the privacy of a person who once posted here. Read my whole post next time. And constantly seeing you questioning people about who they *might* be is becoming ridiculous.
Nobody asked your reason, did they? Bobby Bambino asked if you were the same person, and you said yes. I don’t recall you giving your reason for the name change. If there was a reason, by all means, feel free to repost it. It’s your right, since it’s YOUR moniker.
Oh but I didn’t and I wouldn’t. :)
Oh but you DID.
The sign about an aborted fetus “asking” its mother to be allowed to live is so ridiculous. What about a fetus asking its mother if it can have enough food to stay alive? Is this better than being aborted?
Is being”allowed” to live better than being forced to be born into circumstances where you have zero chance of ever getting decent food,shelter,clothing,education and medical care?
What a bunch of hypocrites you anti-choicers are !
You support and vote for presidents and other politicians who gut or eliminate government programs to provide poor children with better care because that’s “socialism”,
and then you have the nerve to demand that poor women give birth to unwanted children even though they don’t have the means to take care of them. And please don’t give me this nonsense about adoption.
Some time ago I mentioned that poor,unwanted children are at risl fopr malnutrition, and that this causes lowered intelligence. And somebody said that people with lower intelligence deserve to live too. Come on ! America is the richest country in the world. Children shouldn’t be growing up malnourished.
No wonder so many abortions take place today! If we could provide better for the poor, those abortions wouldn’t be happening for the most part.
Kel:The reason why this comes across as if it’s a “conspiracy” is because you accuse people of being someone else quite frequently.
Not “people” Kel. Just one person who keeps changing their name.
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 3:10 PM
*****************************************
Incorrect. TWO people so far, who have NOT changed their names, and are NOT who you believe them to be!! Do you realize how absolutely paranoid and insane you sound?
And no, lucky for you and the other person, you didn’t expose her last name and where she lived. But you said you knew it, which can be easily perceived as an online threat. It’s called web etiquette.
Oh but I didn’t and I wouldn’t. :)
Oh but you DID.
Posted by: Bethany at March 30, 2009 3:12 PM
I did? Where did I give out her last name and town Betahny? Please, please show me!
Anyone else starting to actually find Robert hilarious? I think he may be a pro-lifer making fun of the pro-choice side.
Nope, what I said was that you have come close to violating the privacy of a person who once posted here. Read my whole post next time. And constantly seeing you questioning people about who they *might* be is becoming ridiculous.
Posted by: Kel at March 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Oh! I thought you meant it was a violation of someone’s privacy to call them by an old moniker. I see that’s not what you meant.
What purpose does it serve coming back as different people and denying it? Especially when your persona is so recognizable?
Incorrect. TWO people so far, who have NOT changed their names, and are NOT who you believe them to be!! Do you realize how absolutely paranoid and insane you sound?
And no, lucky for you and the other person, you didn’t expose her last name and where she lived. But you said you knew it, which can be easily perceived as an online threat. It’s called web etiquette.
Posted by: Kel at March 30, 2009 3:14 PM
Two people? So am I to take it that you are now admitting Patricia and tstl are one person? And the two people you are referring to are angel and pat? Angel sounds way too much like Patricia/tstl and seems to have just appeared in the weeks after tstl’s leaving.
Anyone else starting to actually find Robert hilarious? I think he may be a pro-lifer making fun of the pro-choice side.
Posted by: Oliver at March 30, 2009 3:18 PM Not hilarious, disturbed.
Anyone else starting to actually find Robert hilarious? I think he may be a pro-lifer making fun of the pro-choice side.
Posted by: Oliver at March 30, 2009 3:18 PM
That is funny Oliver!:) I have thought the same thing at times about some of the pro-lifers here actually being pro-choice.
Ahhhhh, as kel would say….. more conspiracy theories!!!!!
Asitis,
I suggest you drop it.
Kel: How does all this make me sound “Paranoid”?
The truth is, I read too many Nancy Drew books as a kid! ;)
Good grief, Robert. Just good grief.
Asitis,
I suggest you drop it.
Posted by: Carla at March 30, 2009 3:25 PM
Drop what carla? ;)
Your pointless accusations maybe?
What purpose does it serve coming back as different people and denying it? Especially when your persona is so recognizable?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 3:19 PM
*****************************************
LOL-obviously it isn’t so recognizable. You just think it is.
My daughter loves Nancy Drew. Perhaps I should rethink her collection. ;)
lol!
Two people? So am I to take it that you are now admitting Patricia and tstl are one person?
*******************************
I thought we already discussed this the other day. Did I just dream it??
And the two people you are referring to are angel and pat? Angel sounds way too much like Patricia/tstl and seems to have just appeared in the weeks after tstl’s leaving.
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 3:23 PM
*************************************
More questions as to people’s identities? Didn’t we just discuss this, too? Geeze…
Kel:I thought we already discussed this the other day. Did I just dream it??
We did indeed. And correct me if I’m wrong, but you claimed then that Patricia was not tstl, contrary to the evidence. (HT: Nancy!).
But now you are referring to two people instead of three. Hmmmmm…..
We did indeed. And correct me if I’m wrong, but you claimed then that Patricia was not tstl, contrary to the evidence. (HT: Nancy!).
But now you are referring to two people instead of three. Hmmmmm…..
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 3:50 PM
******************************************
TSTL possibly “outed” herself, from the posts I read. But most of it was accusations. Therefore, I cannot say for certain…if she did “out” herself, then perhaps they were the same person, though she was not posting under two monikers at once, which leads me again to say that it really is none of your business. :)
Astitis, the sky is falling. Can I borrow your tin foil hat to protect me?
She doesn’t seem like the tin foil hat type, Bethany. When you’re SERIOUS, you get yourself a metal colander. :D
LOL Kel :D
TSTL possibly “outed” herself, from the posts I read. But most of it was accusations. Therefore, I cannot say for certain…if she did “out” herself, then perhaps they were the same person, though she was not posting under two monikers at once, which leads me again to say that it really is none of your business. :)
Also, Kel, I think it’s entirely possible that TSTL only put in the name Patricia because she had been accused so many times already, and the name was stuck in her head. I know that the same thing happened to me when I kept seeing Asitis say talk about Patricia (she is obsessed!), and I accidentally addressed Patricia instead of TSTL…which made Asitis even more adamant about her conspiracy theory.
Also, Kel, I think it’s entirely possible that TSTL only put in the name Patricia because she had been accused so many times already, and the name was stuck in her head. I know that the same thing happened to me when I kept seeing Asitis say talk about Patricia…
*************************************
Yes, Bethany, I can easily see that happening.
Dont question the wise one guys! She knows…
Good grief, Robert. Just good grief.
Bobby, lol…that’s what I was thinking. :D
Drop what carla? ;)
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 3:27 PM
Your pointless accusations maybe?
Posted by: Oliver at March 30, 2009 3:35 PM
You should have put a “duh” at the end of that, Oliver. lol
I guess it was already a given, but I like the word “duh”
you guys are funny the way you try so hard to say Patricia isn’t tstl or angel! I hope she appreciates it! Maybe not though because it just makes it all the more obvious and draws more attention to what she does. So keep on keepin’ on. Amusing!
Seriously Bethany, I mean, what does one say to that? I don’t even know where our common ground is to even begin to try and reason…
Who cares Asitis? Really. Didnt you change your name from Virginia?
Also, Kel, I think it’s entirely possible that TSTL only put in the name Patricia because she had been accused so many times already, and the name was stuck in her head. I know that the same thing happened to me when I kept seeing Asitis say talk about Patricia (she is obsessed!), and I accidentally addressed Patricia instead of TSTL…which made Asitis even more adamant about her conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Bethany at March 30, 2009 4:15 PM
And this folks is the best one yet! Tstl got confused and thought she was Patricia?!!!!
But wait… it gets even better…. Bethany takes it further to suggest that she herself only called tstl Patricia because she heard me do it so many times? How many times Bethany? How about….zero! I had suspicions (because of some of her ridiculous arguments) but I didn’t voice them until your little slip-up Bethany.
C’mon Bethany. You can do better……….
Who cares Asitis? Really. Didnt you change your name from Virginia?
Posted by: Oliver at March 30, 2009 4:49 PM
Yes indeedy Oliver! And I owned up to it as soon as I was aked and I explained why. Subsequent to that some opeople here have called me by both name. Which supposedly isn’t allowed, but I personally don’t care.
Asitis, we’ve repeatedly told you to drop this subject, and since you have failed to do so, I’ve requested that Jill ban you.
Jill should have banned her for lack of stubstance long ago anyways.
Sure Bethany, I can see why you would want me to be banned.
Any response to my comment at 4:52?
Seems to me you just keep it going yourself……..
I love the picture of the hat! LOL!!! Just saw it!
Asitis, we all want you banned. You’re annoying, and you bring nothing to any discussion we’ve had here, ever.
You never answer questions honestly. You refuse to debate with any integrity. And you are a troll.. So yes, we want you banned.
Asitis, you have taken up most of the thread carrying on over a screen name. You post a lot like Jess, but that doesn’t mean you’re Jess. That’s what I am thinking, but that doesn’t mean I’m right. Just a wild guess. People use different screen names for different reasons.
She is right Bethany. You dont seem me going after any of the pro-choicers who dont do these things. Of course, there are only a handful on this particular site really…
Adios, asitis. As White Sox announcer Ken “Hawk” Harrelson says, “He gone!” You’re banned.
Look, I’ve lost complete sight of the question, because all I’ve read, is stuff from Astis, and your responces to her. What are supost to be discussing?
RJ,
I think that was the whole problem in the first place. I actually forget the point of this thread a while ago as well.
Jill,
Well done I have to say. The funny part is that she may be right, yet her limited view on life kept her from ending the pointless kerfuffle she created.
For the love of Pete could someone honestly tell me what kind of an individual idolizes Margaret Sanger’s work? Sorry…that’s so random and off-topic, but, she was a bigot with no heart. She was capable of such wonderful things, as we all are, but she elected racism and intolerance over peace and justice.
Would one of you be kind enough to do me a favor in the unlikely event that I somehow end up receiving an award or something in her honor? Just come to northern New Mexico and bop me upside the head. Thanks.
For the love of Pete could someone honestly tell me what kind of an individual idolizes Margaret Sanger’s work?
The only kind of person who can idolize her is someone who believes in her ideals. Those who idolize her are most of the time just as racist, just as bigoted, just as intolerant of others as she was.
Getting a Margaret Sanger award is like getting the Hitler award.
For the love of Pete could someone honestly tell me what kind of an individual idolizes Margaret Sanger’s work?
The KKK comes to mind.
“For the love of Pete could someone honestly tell me what kind of an individual idolizes Margaret Sanger’s work?
The KKK comes to mind.
Posted by: Heather at March 30, 2009 5:57 PM”
Heather:
Since you’ve returned I’ve wanted to engage you in a conversation so here’s my answer to your question (Clue: Answer is cleverly embedded in this post): Hillary Clinton?
Seriously, what have you been doing? I am so happy that you had a change of heart. God is so good isn’t He? Be blessed.
And please tell me more. It makes the hours of posting here worth every second.
For the love of Pete could someone honestly tell me what kind of an individual idolizes Margaret Sanger’s work? Sorry…that’s so random and off-topic, but, she was a bigot with no heart. She was capable of such wonderful things, as we all are, but she elected racism and intolerance over peace and justice.
Posted by: Vannah at March 30, 2009 5:24 PM
-At a time in our history where most women had virtually no control over their fertility, married or not, Sanger championed access to birth control. It virtually helped kick start that movement. For that, she is commended by the pro-choice side. Aside from modern day, this was a time in our country when childbirth and prolapsed pregnancy was a health risk for some women w/o access to doctors. It also prevented mothers from being able to access opportunities outside of their household, ie, work and/or continuing education, legal rights, etc.
As for her bigotry and/or racism, for me this doesn’t negate the good that she did. I’m sure it was hard to find many Americans who were NOT racist or bigoted at that time. That includes our elected leaders, clergy, activists, etc. I’ve come to accept this. Dig up anyone’s transcripts from that time and you would find many a damning quote. Unfortunate, yes, but, a sign of the times. Good was still done in spite of.
Danielle, define “good”.
Danielle, define “good”.
Posted by: Bethany at March 30, 2009 6:33 PM
Bethany, I did. I said at the top that the reason she is celebrated on this side is because she was one of (if not the only) active, vocal champions of birth control for women at a time when it was unheard of. Planning parenthood with medicine and devices was actually a new concept. That = good.
no, you defined what you think was “good”…but what does good mean?
And who defines what is “good” or “bad”, Danielle, and why?
@Bethany,
I’m confused…were you not asking me what I found good in Sanger’s work? If so, I answered.As for what/who defines “good” (outside of a dictionary), its pretty personal and most certainly subjective. We are each responsible for defining what is good.
Was this a rhetorical question?
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 1:16 PM
“What is there to be “ckicken” about Mike?”
—————————————————
1) Discovering that you are wrong about something you desperately wanted to be true.
2) The truth.
3) The TRUTH.
You should read John Newtons life story.
When he finally heard the ‘pop’ it was a very painful experience.
He had to deal with all the guilt and shame associated with attempting, at least in his own mind, to strip a fellow human being of every shread of his/her humanity in order to place them in bondage for the rest of their life.
Of forcibly separating children from their mothers and fathers, and mothers and fathers from their children, husbands and wives from one another.
If you are able, put yourself in that man’s place when the ‘truth’ imposed itself into the delusion he called reality.
You have probably never knowingly killed one person.
Think what it would be like to know you were directly responsible for the misery and deaths of thousands of innocent people.
Now, think what it would be like to have that guilt and shame and self condemnation removed in an instant and to know all was forgiven and all was forgotten by the one person who held your once pathetic life in his hands.
You can not imagine it. It will not make sense till you experience it.
When you do experience it, it might make you want to write a song.
A song like ‘Amazing Grace’.
yor bro ken
Danielle,
As for her bigotry and racism for me it doesn’t negate the good that she did.
I was engaging someone in a conversation about Susan G Komen. They stated that even though Susan G Komen gives to Planned Parenthood “the nation’s largest baby killing business” it doesn’t negate the good that SGK does.
Just because YOU think it was hard back then to find someone who wasn’t bigoted or racist does not make that statement true. Does not make the evil that Sanger did OK.
Danielle,
Your relativism is astounding. How far are you willing to let some else define what is good for them when it results in ‘your’ loss, as you define loss.
Who will prevail in this contest of relativism?
The strongest, the smartest, the richest, the most influential, the one who wields the most power?
You presume that society will come to your aid when it is you who are being oppressed by someone more powerfull than yourself, who believes in the 60’s maxim, ‘If it feels good do it and do it unto others before they do it unto you.’
If the more powerful one is clever enough or is influential enough, they can get away with it because there will always be sycophants who believe the brute is too valuable to allow him to fall.
You are advocating the law of the jungle and if you achieve your goal, do you honestly believe you will be able to survive unscathed?
yor bro ken
And what are we all doing here but providing an opinion, Carla? Bethany asked, I answered. What you just replied was your opinion, as well. Where you see ‘evil’ I can see good, that is our difference here.
You know one of the ‘good’ things the KKK did was to beat the stuffins out of husbands who abused their wives. It was probably pretty effective. The abusive husband figured out how to control himself or he figured out how to leave town with or without his wife.
So maybe feministas should give a ‘white hood and cape’ award to people who work to end domectic violence.
What feminista would not be pleased as punch to receive such an honor.
yor bro ken
@kbhvac –
Where did you get that I was letting others define what is ‘good’ or not? I said that good is subjective to everyone, not just me. Who are what defines good in your life? Is this about me not saying that God defined good for me? I’m shocked by how much was inferred by my response.
Danielle:
If Sanger’s ideology had been adopted through her population control agenda (which was introduced to congress), I would never have been born.
She held the position that certain groups of people should undergo mandatory sterilizations, and one of those groups were the deaf. My grandfather was born deaf.
Most information about Sanger tells us that her position on birth control was largely motivated by eugenics, which was a psuedo-science thought to cure the ills of society by pressuring or forcing certain groups (generally minorities or those considered uneducated or disabled) to be childless and encouraging “well-bred” groups to reproduce. Her advocacy of birth control was intended to promote racism and bigotry under the guise of “science”- those elements of her character that you excuse were not just irrelevant flaws reflective of a time period.
Where did you get that I was letting others define what is ‘good’ or not? I said that good is subjective to everyone, not just me. Who are what defines good in your life? Is this about me not saying that God defined good for me? I’m shocked by how much was inferred by my response.
Well, who does define good and bad, Danielle? Is it all relative?
Is rape a subjective wrong?
Pro-death femenists have given steam to the notion that women have made such progress. How so? How many men get a woman pregnant today and “man up”? Abortion allows them to wimp out and walk off. Abortion = freedom for men to use women for their own gratification and the woman pays the ultimate price. Women have bought it. Then the woman turns her body over to the abortionist. There are terrible consequences to this. Then women tell the government “Get your laws off of my body.” So, should rape be legalized?
And please note…I am not man bashing. Just pointing out the insanity. Isn’t there something in scripture about “hearts will wax cold” and “evil will be called good?”…I cannot recall.
His man, I have always LOVED that post that you put up from time to time…about abortion pitting women against children, etc.?? Do you have it? I’d like to print it up.
I try to commend all for their good deeds but Sanger was a bigot, whose horror is felt into the modern day. She ought not to have awards held in her name. People like Frederick Douglass- he could still be considered a revolutionary in contemporary times. Very few people were like him, I know, but Sanger is held in the same class as him though she detested people like him for nothing more than skin color, and some of us have a problem with hailing her as a hero. She was a racist, and even racists do acts of good. Absolutely. God recognizes these.
But, I am not in the business of judging Sanger on either her good acts or her bad acts- just trying to learn from the wretched mistakes that she made. Does that make more sense?
Danielle: “At a time in our history……legal rights etc”.
Very good job COPYING this from some book or pro Margaret Sanger website.
Very original.
Next time try using your own words.
Or is memorizing this part of your PP taining book instructions?
Mike, true. And I think it wouldn’t be so bad if she had actually given them credit for the quote but it seems that she wanted to pretend those were her words.
Okay, Danielle, you do realize that the whole REASON that Sanger championed birth control and abortion was because SHE WANTED AFRICAN-AMERICANS (and other “undesirables”) TO EXTERMINATE THEMSELVES?
Sanger’s motives were not altruistic in the slightest.
Would you take me at all seriously if I said, “Hitler’s racist views notwithstanding, he did a lot of great things for Germany, so he couldn’t have been all bad.”
Honestly, quit drinking the Kool-Aid and take an objective look at Sanger’s OWN WORDS.
Posted by: Danielle at March 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“Where did you get that I was letting others define what is ‘good’ or not?”
“I said that good is subjective to everyone, not just me.”
——————————————————-
I believe you answered your own question.
If there is not a standard with which to measure ‘good’, with which to compare it, then it is subject to each individuals perception and the term becomes so ambiguous, so meaningless, it is worthless.
Is it like, pornography? It cannot be defined, but you know it when you see it?
Hot and cold,
fast and slow,
are all relatve terms.
We can mesure temperature and speed using verifiable standards.
We can measure ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by a verifiable standard.
If something is ‘bad’ then we would not want it for ourselves and we should not desire it for another.
If something is ‘good’ then it is desireable for ourselves and we would want it for another.
Do we want to be lied to or deceived by another?
Do we want to be robbed by another?
Do we want to be manipulated by another?
Do we want to be injured by another?
Do we want to be harmed by another?
Society codifies these values into laws.
A wise man once said you should love one another as you love yourself.
That tells me two things:
1) You cannot know how to love someone else until you have learned to love yourself?
2) How you love someone else is a measurement of how you love yourself.
I do not believe for one minute that you would want to be subjected to the whim and will of another person. That would be slavery.
But you are willing to allow someone else to be subjected to the whim and will of another.
To be indifferent to the suffering of another is as ‘bad’ as the one who inflicts the harm.
yor bro ken
I find it extremely disturbing that Hilary Clinton admires a woman who not only was a racist and favored eugenics but also encouraged adultery and fornication. *shudders*
Again, WHAT A GREAT SIGN! WHERE CAN I GET ONE LIKE IT?
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at March 30, 2009 10:41 PM
“I find it extremely disturbing that Hilary Clinton admires a woman who not only was a racist and favored eugenics but also encouraged adultery and fornication.” *shudders*”
——————————————————
Liz,
It is distubing, but it comes as no surprise.
A mother who would subordinate her daughters best interests and the interests of a nation to preserve and protect her own political ambitions is capable of just about anything.
The smartest women on the planet had no idea her philandering spouse was sharing cigars in the oval office with a white house intern that was young enough to be her daughter.
Hillary manipulated the firing of a long time employee of the White House Travel office, Billy Dale, by having him of ‘theft’ (Dale was subsequently acquitted after a costly trial.) so she can get one of her cronies appointed to the post.
(The kinder gentler gender is a refreshing change to the era of cigar smoke filled back room (female interns optional) good ole boy politics.
No surprise that Hillary Rodham Clinton would admire a ‘master manipulator’ like Margaret Sanger who seduced and manipulated wealthy old men to gain access to the good ole boy club.
A womans gotta do what a womans gotta do.
You go girl!
yor bro ken
I am going to start printing out all of your posts, Kbhvac.
There are so many good messages in them…some of them I want to read later and they keep getting lost in the discussions.
I really was taught something tonight by this one:
“1) You cannot know how to love someone else until you have learned to love yourself?
2) How you love someone else is a measurement of how you love yourself.”
Thank you, kbhvac.
Posted by: asitis at March 30, 2009 4:52 PM
“And this folks is the best one yet! Tstl got confused and thought she was Patricia?!!!!”
—————————————————–
It could happen.
PBHO got confused and thought he was the Prime Minister of Ireland.
On another occasion PBHO got confused and thought he was Muslim. The interviewer had to re-orient PBHO to christianity.
On another occasion PBHO said he had been to all ’57’ states.
If the most intelligent president there has ever been and ever will be can make those kind of blunders, surely a lowly ‘poster’ can get confused on her ‘handle’.
yor bro ken
Asitis
You were commenting on the First Lady’s buffed biceps the other day and said, “If you got it flaunt it.”
Does that same rule apply to her ‘glutei maximi’?
If she’s got it, why do she try and hide it?
If she gots em, why don’t she ‘flaunt em’?
Why the buns of stealth?
yor bro ken
Bethany,
Thanks for the compliment.
Some of them are only good for laughs.
Some are poor attempts at humor.
Some are intended to provoke, not as in ‘provoke one another to love and good works’, but to poke in a ‘sacred golden calf’ to elicit a response.
The truth will set you free, but often it will infuriate you first.
yor bro ken
Bethany,
Do you have to know the super secret special agent password and/or secret handshake to post ‘photos’ or is it a privelege reserved for the moderators.
By the way I love the hat in the photo. Reminds me of the movie ‘Signs’.
yor bro ken
lol kbhvac.
I was going to tell you in this post how to do it, but everytime I type the code, it becomes invisible when I preview it…so I decided to just upload the instructions to my website and give you the link to that. Here you go!
http://www.sketchesbybethany.net/htmlhelp.htm
If Sanger’s ideology had been adopted through her population control agenda (which was introduced to congress), I would never have been born.
Posted by: Janette at March 30, 2009 7:49 PM
-What is the argument here? I’m not advocating eugenics…if that were the case I prob. wouldn’t have been born, either. I specifically said in spite of some her politics, there was a very real breakthrough in the methods of and access to birth control for women in the early 20th century. This is what I am referring to.
Well, who does define good and bad, Danielle? Is it all relative?
Is rape a subjective wrong?
Posted by: Bethany at March 30, 2009 7:58 PM
-Many people, laws, ideals, religious beliefs and preferences go into anyone person’s defintion of good, Bethany.
No, rape is not a subjective wrong, its wrong period – but you knew that. I’m not what the point was of that last question.
I try to commend all for their good deeds but Sanger was a bigot, whose horror is felt into the modern day. \
Posted by: Vannah at March 30, 2009 9:11 PM
-So I get that you don’t see the good in Sanger’s movement, not because she was a racist with no redeeming qualities, but because you are pro-life and disagree with abortion. Therefore, there are no redeeming qualities. Got it. Then why did you ask the question in the first place? Or maybe that one was supposed to be rhetorical too, and not been to be responded to sincerely.
Very good job COPYING this from some book or pro Margaret Sanger website. Very original. Next time try using your own words. Or is memorizing this part of your PP taining book instructions?
Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2009 9:45 PM
-I copy and regurgitate nothing. I speak my own thoughts on this board.
Okay, Danielle, you do realize that the whole REASON that Sanger championed birth control and abortion was because SHE WANTED AFRICAN-AMERICANS (and other “undesirables”) TO EXTERMINATE THEMSELVES?
Posted by: JoAnna at March 30, 2009 10:21 PM
-And it is widely discussed that the reason Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation is because the North was losing the war and he needed more bodies…not because he had an ephiphany that racism was wrong and he had a calling to free slaves. So, should I disregard the benefit of that decision because it wasn’t for the same reasons I would hope they were for?
The point is, to me and many others, the work that Sanger did on behalf of providing access to BC went above and beyond her own personal desires for eugenics. It’s permeated throughout our country and the one of the reasons why we have birth control at all. For that, I will be grateful.
If there is not a standard with which to measure ‘good’, with which to compare it, then it is subject to each individuals perception and the term becomes so ambiguous, so meaningless, it is worthless. Is it like, pornography? It cannot be defined, but you know it when you see it?
Posted by: kbhvac at March 30, 2009 10:25 PM
-Ok then, so what’s your standard? You’re so taken aback that I could call ‘good’ a subjective term whereas for you, it is not. So then, I’m interested. What or who defines good for you? I’ll bet your own preferences will come into play.
Ms. Danielle, all things are subjective. You say that rape is a wrong no matter what, can you honestly tell that to any man? After all, it’s a relative and you have to respect them for their personal choices regarding rape. No, abortion is a wrong and also a symptom of a wrong. It is a wrong to destroy another human, unleash knives and burning liquid on their naked bodies for nothing more than what they are. And it is a symptom of a wrong because abortion has never once been liberation to women, rather than the manifestation of their shackles.
Ms. Danielle, I hope that you understand that I cannot support Sanger because I cannot find it in my heart to support bigotry. And I cannot find it in my heart to support the cause that the preborn are property. No one, if I might say so without insulting you, is property of another human being. Please don’t misunderstand me, because you misunderstood me earlier.
Danielle: “No, rape is not a subjective wrong, its wrong period – but you knew that. I’m not what the point was of that last question. ”
What the hell? How can you claim that good and wrong are subjective and then claim that rape is not? Your entire moral system is based on good being subjective! You just dropped your entire moral system to randomly argue one point?? Thats crazy! I was with you on the subjective moral thing to a degree, but how on earth do you justify one moral as universal but others as not? How can you determine which are universal and which are subjective? How disapointing…
Danielle: “Ok then, so what’s your standard? You’re so taken aback that I could call ‘good’ a subjective term whereas for you, it is not. So then, I’m interested. What or who defines good for you? ”
What determines good for YOU Danielle? You apparently believe rape is universally immoral. Thats quite a double standard.
Ms. Danielle, all things are subjective. You say that rape is a wrong no matter what, can you honestly tell that to any man? After all, it’s a relative and you have to respect them for their personal choices regarding rape. No, abortion is a wrong and also a symptom of a wrong. It is a wrong to destroy another human, unleash knives and burning liquid on their naked bodies for nothing more than what they are. And it is a symptom of a wrong because abortion has never once been liberation to women, rather than the manifestation of their shackles. Ms. Danielle, I hope that you understand that I cannot support Sanger because I cannot find it in my heart to support bigotry. And I cannot find it in my heart to support the cause that the preborn are property. No one, if I might say so without insulting you, is property of another human being. Please don’t misunderstand me, because you misunderstood me earlier.
Posted by: Vannah at March 31, 2009 11:04 AM
Ms. Vannah (ps – what’s w/the ‘ms’? Was that sincere formality or are you just being cheeky?),
Let me add that you appear to have misunderstood me. I did not say all things are relative, I said that goodness is subjective. That does not mean that because one person’s definition of ‘good’ has to (or would be) acceptable or moral to someone else.
Because one can see the subjectivity in an issue does not cancel out their own compass of right/wrong, or that they are incapable of following social rules, regulations and mores…that you cannot uphold the laws of your country. Maybe that’s where everyone is getting tripped up. It is actally possible to be an upright, contributing citizen in your society while accepting that not all things are as black and white as they seem. Good is defined differently by every single one of us, period. They are certain things that we agree on as a collective, and it keeps us a civilization.
I’m really perplexed as to why/how rape keeps coming into the conversation here. I really don’t see the relevance. Good means different things to diff people, yes, but, raise your hand if you don’t think rape is wrong, that is actually good and should not be illegal?…*crickets*…I thought so. Is there a crazy or two that actually believes this? Sure. Is he or she a pariah of their community, society? Probably. Is their definition of ‘good’ not only intolerable to the collective but also illegal? Yes. This just happens to be one of the things we can agree on. Moving on.
If you choose not to support the work of Maragaret Sanger because of her role in the acceptance of birth control and secondarily, the access to abortion, then that is totally understandable and acceptable, given that you’re pro-life (I would argue that if you are pro-life but support sex-ed and birth control, you would be able to see some benefit to her role, but I digress…). What I can’t stand is using a 2ndary reason, racism/bigotry, as a trojan horse to what’s really bothersome about Sanger: If it wasn’t for her, there wouldn’t be any Planned Parenthood. There it is, plain and simple. That she’s believed to be a raging bigot is simply gravy for the argument.
There were many, many, MANY racist and bigoted people in our country’s history, who had impact on our society, big and small (and continue to). If you rounded up everyone who used the n-word, ever had a slave, encouraged others to have a slave, sang in blackface, blocked a school bus from dropping off a black student, stole land from a Native American, rallied against giving women the right to vote, broke bread with the Klan and their ilk, rounded up Japanese immigrants into camps, etc, etc…you would find your school textbooks mighty thin.
It is incredibly disappointing and disheartening to learn such things about leaders that we may have thought differently of. But it comes down to what you can accept, and what you cannot. If that bigot was the mother or father of a cause that was dear to your heart, you would work to swallow hard and walk past it. But, this topic is not one of them for you and therefore, you can’t. Got it. I understand.
Danielle: “No, rape is not a subjective wrong, its wrong period – but you knew that. I’m not what the point was of that last question. ”
What the hell? How can you claim that good and wrong are subjective and then claim that rape is not? Your entire moral system is based on good being subjective! You just dropped your entire moral system to randomly argue one point?? Thats crazy! I was with you on the subjective moral thing to a degree, but how on earth do you justify one moral as universal but others as not? How can you determine which are universal and which are subjective? How disapointing…
Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 11:16 AM
-Oliver, please see my response to Vannah. This will clarify for you. If not, oh well.
Posted by: Danielle at March 31, 2009 10:12 AM
“Ok then, so what’s your standard? You’re so taken aback that I could call ‘good’ a subjective term whereas for you, it is not. So then, I’m interested. What or who defines good for you? I’ll bet your own preferences will come into play.”
——————————————————–
We can measure ‘good’ and ‘bad’ by a verifiable standard.
If something is ‘bad’ then we would not want it for ourselves and we should not desire it for another.
If something is ‘good’ then it is desireable for ourselves and we would want it for another.
Society codifies these values into laws.
——————————————————–
You have agreed that a pregnant woman’s embryo/fetus is ‘human’, yet to you, it is morally or ehtically neutral or even ‘good’ for the pregnant woman to cause great harm to her own prenatal child.
No sane person would desire that harm for themselves.
I consider you to be sane. But you are inconsistent in what you call ‘good’ and what you call ‘bad’.
You were offended when I suggested you use a baseball bat to ‘choice’ newborn infants and elderly people to alleviate suffering because the thought was repugnant to you.
A ‘choice’ for a dead prenatal human is just as repugnant as killing an elderly person.
You may do some mental gymnastics to devalue the prenatal human being, but when you do, you have left the sphere of rational thought and entered into the subjective realm of ‘belief’.
yor bro ken
No Danielle. Your explanation was no sufficient. You just essentially pointed out “well I mean not many people think rape is good! And if they did, they are probably a problem to society!”
You need to clarify.
Danielle: “Is their definition of ‘good’ not only intolerable to the collective but also illegal?”
Its a simple issue. Is imorality of rape subjective or is it universal? The above quote seems to suggest that it is subjective, yet you claimed earlier that it is universal. Which is it? (It isnt irelevant by the way. It is in fact incredibly important to the discussion at hand.)
Posted by: Danielle at March 31, 2009 9:42 AM
“No, rape is not a subjective wrong, its wrong period – but you knew that.”
——————————————————–
Most rapists would disagree with you based on your subjective standard of good and bad. Most rapists would argue that rape is ‘good’ for the raper, but if they became the ‘rapee’, the unwilling victim, they would quickly change their opinion.
You have to see where ‘your’ argument is leading.
Even if a majority agreed with the ‘rapist’, the act of rape would still be wrong, because the raper would not desire the violence to be done to his person and neither would the majority.
yor bro ken
If something is ‘bad’ then we would not want it for ourselves and we should not desire it for another.
If something is ‘good’ then it is desireable for ourselves and we would want it for another.
Society codifies these values into laws.
-I agree with you to a point (!). If something is good/bad we do/do not want it for another, and SOME of those values become laws.
You have agreed that a pregnant woman’s embryo/fetus is ‘human’, yet to you, it is morally or ehtically neutral or even ‘good’ for the pregnant woman to cause great harm to her own prenatal child. No sane person would desire that harm for themselves.
-You’re right. And I don’t qualify abortion as harm.
I consider you to be sane. But you are inconsistent in what you call ‘good’ and what you call ‘bad’.
-Not true, if you believe that you are in charge of defining good and bad in your life.
You were offended when I suggested you use a baseball bat to ‘choice’ newborn infants and elderly people to alleviate suffering because the thought was repugnant to you.
-Yes I was. Still am.
A ‘choice’ for a dead prenatal human is just as repugnant as killing an elderly person.
-To you. Not to me.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 11:54 AM
Its a simple issue. Is imorality of rape subjective or is it universal? The above quote seems to suggest that it is subjective, yet you claimed earlier that it is universal. Which is it? (It isnt irelevant by the way. It is in fact incredibly important to the discussion at hand.)
Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 11:57 AM
-The morality of rape is subjective. Morality itself is mostly subjective. But, we are fortunate that our society agrees that rape is wrong, immoral, hurtful and should be illegal. We decided that collectively, for the most part. If most of society agreed that abortion was wrong, immoral, and hurtful, that would be illegal, too. But they don’t.
Most rapists would disagree with you based on your subjective standard of good and bad. Most rapists would argue that rape is ‘good’ for the raper, but if they became the ‘rapee’, the unwilling victim, they would quickly change their opinion.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 12:04 PM
-I’m sure they would disagree with me. But we’ve collectively agreed as a society that that type of behavior is wrong, and should be punished. I never said that because your compass of good and bad is personal, it should therefore dictate to the rest of us what will and will not be. We live as a community, and at the very least, that majority helps set the path as to how we can interact with others, what is and is not acceptable. He can think all day long that its perfectly fine to overtake women and violate them…but that doesn’t mean the collective won’t stop him from doing it.
Danielle: ” If most of society agreed that abortion was wrong, immoral, and hurtful, that would be illegal, too. But they don’t.”
This is where you are wrong. Our ethic system is not based on majority rule. The premises that are used and interpreted to develop our ethic system may be based on a common appeal, but the ultimate mores we have come to are based on interpretation of the premises.
Abortion is not legal simply because the majority of Americans want this. It is legal because the SCOTUS interpreted the legalization of abortion to be the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately their assesment was flawed in its reasoning.
Kind of scary that you believe in what is commonly refered to as “mob rule.” Arent we supposed to protect the rights of the minority in our country?
Males are also victims of ‘rape’.
In the case of gang rape, the majority of the gang will agree that the ‘rape’ was a good thing.
You can get the majority of the gang to agree with you, but that does not make an ‘act’ good or ‘bad’.
Now we are back to the truth of the matter. If the act is done to you is it ‘good’ or is it ‘bad’?
If it is ‘bad’ for you then you should never excuse or argue that it would be ‘good’ for some other victim.
The standard is not so subjective when it is applied equally. It is not a perfect standard, not because the standard is weak, but because humans are weak.
yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 11:54 AM
A ‘choice’ for a dead prenatal human is just as repugnant as killing an elderly person.
————————————————–
“-To you. Not to me.”
—————————————————-
No we are back to the relative subjective standard. You are not willing to apply the rapists subjective standard to yourself, because you know it is harmful to you.
But you are perfectly willing to apply the rapists relative subjective stanard to another woman’s prenatal child, because you wrongly believe that to do so causes no harm to you, to her and to her prenatal child.
yor bro ken
You would applaud me if I rescued any victim from the hands of the rapist. You would probably be, pleased, at least inwardly, if the rapist were killed in the rescue.
You believe in the physical autonomy of the victim of the rapist’ but you do not believe in the physical autonomy of the prenatal child. You equate the prenatal child with the rapist.
No you set more value on the rapist than you do one the prenatal child. You seem to view an unwanted pregancy as a continuing form of rape.
You view the abortionist as the ‘rescuer’ and the pregnant woman as the ‘victim’ and the prenatal child as the ‘rapist’.
Do I understand your perspective correctly?
yor bro ken
Danielle,
You were offended when I suggested you use a baseball bat to ‘choice’ newborn infants and elderly people to alleviate suffering because the thought was repugnant to you.
“-Yes I was. Still am.”
Why is it repugnant?
Why are you offended?
Do you view yourself as the ‘victim’?
Does the violent imagery cause you discomfort?
Why?
How is a razor sharp currette or a suction canula any less violent a weapon than a baseball bat?
The end result the same: a battered lifeless human body.
Does fact that one act is ‘legal’, and the other is not, change everything for you?
Now that is subject and relative.
yor bro ken
Hi, Ms. Danielle.
No, the Ms. is not cheekiness. I mean it in respect. If I don’t know someone personally, then I call them by a formal name. Since I don’t know you personally, I was just trying to be polite. Sometimes, I accidently forget the title though. If you don’t want to be called that, then just tell me. Some people prefer just their name. And, I would be a Miss, not a Ms. :).
Second, I am not sure that you are hearing me. Not your fault- I’m not very good with brief explanations. Let me try one more time and see if I make sense (if not, I’m really sorry- I don’t explain very well sometimes).
I am not against birth control. I am glad that we have it, albeit I prefer abstinence, I feel that birth control is a great plan for all to have access to, especially in areas where rape is really high and healthcare is really poor (such as Africa, although I would just prefer that the rape and healthcare situations were improved so that the people could live their lives with the dignity that they deserve).
But the difference between someone who was racist, such as Washington, for example, who owned slaves, and Sanger was that Sanger was outright encouraging racism. She felt that racism was the key to creating a perfect society, whereas someone such as Washington owned slaves and most likely considered himself superior but saw things such as a good government and moral virtues (well, some moral virtues) as the key to a better society.
This is where you are wrong. Our ethic system is not based on majority rule. The premises that are used and interpreted to develop our ethic system may be based on a common appeal, but the ultimate mores we have come to are based on interpretation of the premises.
-Which is pretty much what I said, but…point for you.
Abortion is not legal simply because the majority of Americans want this. It is legal because the SCOTUS interpreted the legalization of abortion to be the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately their assesment was flawed in its reasoning.
-And what was the impetus for bringing this case forward to the SCOTUS? Cases are brought by people or organizations on behalf of people who they represent. The attorneys evidently had enough material to bring a case. It always begins with a person.
And to your next point, let’s say that you’re right – the country didn’t want it, the judicial branch forced it upon you. Ok…so isn’t that why you’re protesting? If there was such a tremendous surge of public outrage, wouldn’t the chances of overturning RvW have come a lot sooner than 30 years later? If no one wanted it, why didn’t you win, then?
Kind of scary that you believe in what is commonly refered to as “mob rule.” Arent we supposed to protect the rights of the minority in our country?
-Mob rule is not what I am referring to. I’m referring to the rules and regulations that we create, legally or socially, in order to live in the same space, in some level of peace.
Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 12:22 PM
In the case of gang rape, the majority of the gang will agree that the ‘rape’ was a good thing. You can get the majority of the gang to agree with you, but that does not make an ‘act’ good or ‘bad’.
-A gang does not a society make. You know what I’m talking about.
Now we are back to the truth of the matter. If the act is done to you is it ‘good’ or is it ‘bad’?
-It depends. What is the act?
If it is ‘bad’ for you then you should never excuse or argue that it would be ‘good’ for some other victim.
-Sure I could. For instance I might agree with divorce. I may think its wrong, or bad and would never do it myself. But, for another person, that may be something they need or think will be good for them. I can argue that it’s bad for me but good for someone else.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 12:25 PM
No we are back to the relative subjective standard. You are not willing to apply the rapists subjective standard to yourself, because you know it is harmful to you.
-Huh? That one’s a little cloudy, sorry. I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
But you are perfectly willing to apply the rapists relative subjective stanard to another woman’s prenatal child, because you wrongly believe that to do so causes no harm to you, to her and to her prenatal child.
-It is your opinion that it is wrong for me to believe this. That in itself is subjective positioning.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 12:33 PM
You would applaud me if I rescued any victim from the hands of the rapist. You would probably be, pleased, at least inwardly, if the rapist were killed in the rescue.
-I don’t think I would wish for his/her death, but I would applaud you, yes.
You believe in the physical autonomy of the victim of the rapist’ but you do not believe in the physical autonomy of the prenatal child.
-Yes, correct.
You equate the prenatal child with the rapist.
-No, incorrect. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?
No you set more value on the rapist than you do one the prenatal child.
-Again, really really big perception leaps, here. No.
You seem to view an unwanted pregancy as a continuing form of rape.
-To some women, it is.
You view the abortionist as the ‘rescuer’ and the pregnant woman as the ‘victim’ and the prenatal child as the ‘rapist’.
-Abortion doctor + rescuer = depends on if the woman sees them that way
-Pregnant woman + victim = of rape? Yes.
-Prenatal child + rapist = product of rape.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 12:50 PM
You were offended when I suggested you use a baseball bat to ‘choice’ newborn infants and elderly people to alleviate suffering because the thought was repugnant to you.
Why is it repugnant? Why are you offended?
-Because you used a coarse, graphic and intentionally inflammatory example to demonstrate your believe that as someone PC, I would be capable of, or would condone, such behavior. It was not meant to move the conversation forward, but rather to cheapen it with insults.
Do you view yourself as the ‘victim’?
-Victim of what?
Does the violent imagery cause you discomfort? Why?
-Of course. Thinking of killing people is not pleasant.
How is a razor sharp currette or a suction canula any less violent a weapon than a baseball bat?
-Well, a lot of things, really. Suctioning out the contents of a woman’s uterus, along with a partially formed fetus is gross imagery, but not the same as what you said.
Does fact that one act is ‘legal’, and the other is not, change everything for you?
-No. My feelings on abortion have very little to do with whether it’s legal. I’m just fighting to keep it legal.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 1:01 PM
But the difference between someone who was racist, such as Washington, for example, who owned slaves, and Sanger was that Sanger was outright encouraging racism. She felt that racism was the key to creating a perfect society, whereas someone such as Washington owned slaves and most likely considered himself superior but saw things such as a good government and moral virtues (well, some moral virtues) as the key to a better society.
Posted by: Vannah at March 31, 2009 1:25 PM
-We can agree to disagree on this point, but you can throw lipstick on a pig and… you know the rest. Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc are no less racist than Margaret Sanger. You can dress it up in nice language and defend that they thought it was moral at the time, but it’s all the same. She just put the ugliness out there for all to see.
Danielle: “And to your next point, let’s say that you’re right – the country didn’t want it, the judicial branch forced it upon you. Ok…so isn’t that why you’re protesting? If there was such a tremendous surge of public outrage, wouldn’t the chances of overturning RvW have come a lot sooner than 30 years later? If no one wanted it, why didn’t you win, then?”
Care to point to the line of text that I wrote that supports that I think the majority of Americans do not want abortion? What are you talking about? My point was that REGARDLESS of whether or not the majority of Americans want abortion, abortion should be outlawed as it is an unjust violation of human rights. Youre the one talking about “majority rule.”
And yes, you were talking about mob rule. Here is your quote talking about it.
Danielle: “If most of society agreed that abortion was wrong…”
You are talking about mob rule which has no place in deciding the laws based on the protection of human rights.
If you are insulted or offended by the comparisons then disprove the analogy.
If the analogy is false you know you are innocent.
If the analogy is correct then you know you are guilty.
Elective abortion is premeditated homicide.
Disprove the statement. If the charge is false then the truth will acquit you.
You do not have to establish your innocence, just prove the statement is false.
yor bro ken
Care to point to the line of text that I wrote that supports that I think the majority of Americans do not want abortion? What are you talking about?
-Oliver, you’re the one who said that the reason abortion is legal is because the SCOTUS interpreted it in a way to make it so. Wasn’t your point that it wasn’t what the public wanted, rather a judicial decision? Hence my response.
My point was that REGARDLESS of whether or not the majority of Americans want abortion, abortion should be outlawed as it is an unjust violation of human rights.
-Therein lies the rub, doesn’t it. You say yes, I say no.
And yes, you were talking about mob rule. Here is your quote talking about it.
Danielle: “If most of society agreed that abortion was wrong…”
You are talking about mob rule which has no place in deciding the laws based on the protection of human rights.
-Um, ok. No, but ok. Oliver = +1.
Posted by: Oliver at March 31, 2009 3:06 PM
If you are insulted or offended by the comparisons then disprove the analogy.
-Here is goes (drumroll)…a newborn, an elderly person and a fetus are not the same, and the fetus does not have the same rights as the other two. A fetus is a partially formed human being on its way to becoming a person, and will be one if it is born. You already knew I felt that way…I guess you need it for ammunition, or something.
If the analogy is correct then you know you are guilty.
-Guilt? Innocence? Of what? I feel neither nor am I driven to prove either.
Elective abortion is premeditated homicide. Disprove the statement. If the charge is false then the truth will acquit you.
-See above.
Posted by: kbhvac at March 31, 2009 3:21 PM
“You are talking about mob rule which has no place in deciding the laws based on the protection of human rights.”
Oliver, I am curious to hear more from you on this, if you don’t mind elaborating. I also believe that “majority rules” is not the sum and substance of our ethics/legal system, and I just got into a discussion at another blog about this. If you were given the opportunity to vote to ban same-sex unions, would you? By that I mean, would you believe that your religion required you to vote against sin — that, in essence, to vote against criminalizing an immoral action would be to support that action itself — or would you believe that your duty as a majority member required you not to take away the rights of the minority just because you could (so long as those rights did not directly interfere with the rights of, or harm, others)?
It’s okay if you don’t want to get into it. I was just curious.
Oh, my, this is a terribly repetitive conversation. Can we just settle this matter on this: all humans are created (emphasis here) equal. All humans must be free from rape, abortion, and other violations of human rights and disparaging activities to the human spirit. We have got to learn to be free and we have got to learn to take care of one another and see one another as individuals with different eyes in which to see the world, and that is how you eliminate poverty, abortion, rape, censorship, genocide, and many other ills. Let’s stop with the making fun of this and snyde comments at that. We think that we’re so much wittier than we really are by doing this and instead we only end up irritating one another. Let’s just stop and focus on what’s right:
Equal rights, equal opportunities. That’s all that we’re asking.
Alexandra, I’m just letting you know that Oliver will be out until really late tonight. He’ll probably want to discuss it with you, but it will probably not be for awhile. Just letting you know. :)
Oh, it’s okay, Lauren. I was literally sitting around watching paint dry today, for like HOURS, so naturally I wound up here again; and then of course I posted that immediately before I had to finally leave for a few hours of tutoring. I’m just glad I didn’t come back to find any angry Facebook messages or name-calling coming at me or something.
Danielle, your analogy about Lincoln is specious. Lincoln did good so that more good would result. He didn’t commit an evil act in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, whatever his motives may have been. Moreover, his motives were to win the war so that slaves would REMAIN free.
Margaret Sanger and Hitler both did evil so that their supposed good (but in reality, more evil) would result. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor by exterminating Jews. Do you agree with him? Sanger thought she was doing the world a favor by encouraging black women to use birth control and abort their babies. Do you agree with her?
Sorry, I just got a chance to re-read that and it sounded strange. I didn’t mean it to come across as curt or anything. I’ll stop typing now.
Don’t worry, Alexandra I didn’t think you were being curt. :)
Danielle:
How does birth convey personhood?
How is it that a fetus 30 weeks post-conception in the womb is not a person, but a fetus 30 weeks post-conception outside the womb is?
Do you think it is okay for someone to pull a baby halfway out of the womb, shove scissors in the back of her skull, and suction out her brains?
Do you think it is okay for someone to stab a needle into a baby’s heart and inject poison? Does it matter whether the baby is in his mommy’s tummy or lying on top of it? Does it matter whether the mommy thought it was okay?
Do you think that it is acceptable to pull off a baby’s arms, legs, and head? Is it okay to remove her from the womb first so that the person performing the procedure can see what he is doing, and is less likely to accidentally do damage to the baby’s mommy with the sharp instruments?
Do you think it is okay to suck a baby into a tiny tube with a knife on the end, shredding his flesh as you go?
Which of these would be okay to do to you?
Did you know that you can repent of this evil, turn to Jesus Christ, and be saved, though for helping to bring these things on His precious children you deserve no better yourself? Did you know that even though it is hard for me to love you, even though it sickens me that you think most of my children were never anything more than a worthless piece of tissue, He loves you every bit as much as He loves me and my children and the children you help to kill? Did you know that when He grieves as their tiny bodies are violated and unceremoniously discarded, He also grieves that you had a part in it, and as much as He mourns their passing, He mourns your sin?
Did you know that even now, He is awaiting you with open arms and would welcome you back to His family?
Posted by: lauren at March 31, 2009 9:13 PM
“Don’t worry, Alexandra I didn’t think you were being curt. :)”
—————————————————-
Just don’t call me Shirley.
(From the movie ‘Airplane’
yor bro ken
Just a quick comment regarding the sign pictured above. The picture is captioned as being an “8 week unborn” baby. This is not correct. Please look at any reputable book or website on pregnancy development. At 8 weeks, the developing baby has not yet completed the development of eyelids or ears. The picture above shows what a baby looks like at approximately 16 to 20 weeks of gestation. You do not due your cause justice by presenting inaccurate information.
I’m a 56 year-old father of six wonderful homebirthed, homeschooled kids, five boys and one girl, and an RN. Let me ask you one simple question, anyone, on this site. If you truly believe that an abortion, at any stage of the pregnancy, is literally the same as killing a four year-old to death with a ball-peen hammer, than the “Eric Rudolph” action would be the only moral response. If I knew there was a clinic near me that was bludgeoning toddlers to death to harvest their organs for resale, I would load up my deer rifle. a .270, and shoot everyone working in the clinic and rescue the children. But you don’t endorse that behavior regarding abortions, do you? Why not? Because you don’t really, in your heart of hearts, believe it’s the same thing. And because you don’t, the self-righteous and self-satisfied reality of “pro-life” religiousity rings false and hollow. And no, my wife and I, though being adamantly pro-choice, have never had, nor would never consider, having an abortion.
Hi PapaHans.
“If you truly believe that an abortion, at any stage of the pregnancy, is literally the same as killing a four year-old to death with a ball-peen hammer, than the “Eric Rudolph” action would be the only moral response.”
That’s quite incorrect. Doing so would lead to anarchy and a civil war, which would make things much worse. In fact, we may use the just-war doctrine guidelines as a model for whether or not such behavior would be appropriate. The just-war doctrine reads:
1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
I would argue that the only point we have satisfied are point 1. We have NOT used all our means. I doubt VERY MUCH that we would have ANY prospect of winning, seeing as how most Americans consider themselves pro-choice. And finally, as I mentioned above, the damage that it would do would be tremendous; it would completely destroy this country.
So in order to make your argument persuasive, there needs to be a bit more rational and less emotion. Unfortunately, your last several sentences are full of emotionally driven rhetoric, void of any real meaning or substance. You throw up some classic straw mean as well.
Now I’m curious why you would never consider having an abortion…