NARAL promotes baby killing as the “sane” choice
NARAL has been running a contest for the best slogan to print on pro-abort stickers at the Rally to Restore Sanity, hosted by Jon Stewart, and March to Keep Fear Alive, hosted by Stephen Colbert, to be held simultaneously on the Washington Mall on October 30 from 12-3p.
Personally I’m thrilled liberals, particularly pro-aborts, have chosen the last Saturday before the 2010 Election to entertain themselves while we conservatives do last minute campaigning.
The more of them who distract themselves there, the better for us. Less of them underfoot.
But I digress. Today NARAL announced the 5 slogan finalists, and there is a recurring theme. 4 of the 5 tout the sanity of pro-aborts:
Vote Pro-Choice. Politicians Make Crappy Doctors. Restore Sanity: Vote Pro-Choice! Just Another Sane, Pro-Choice Voter. Sanity is Voting Pro-Choice! Pro-Choice is the Sane Choice
Now I realize these are tied in to Stewart’s “restore sanity” theme.
But they still struck me as ironic, and I can’t imagine the irony will be lost on clear thinking people. Killing babies is sane, saving their lives is insane? Voting for politicians who support laws and funding to kill babies is sane, while voting for politicians who try to save babies is insane?
I also realize the obvious ploy here is to categorize pro-lifers as the insane ones.
But “sane” just doesn’t seem to me to be a word pro-aborts would want to interject into this conversation.
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.
Actually, I rather like the first slogan. Just change the first part a bit. “Down with Obamacare. Politicians Make Crappy Doctors.”
(Of course, Howard Dean is a doctor who made a crappy politician. But I digress.)
All the others for the pro-abort movement are just flagrant false advertising. :)
Pro-aborts don’t want their abortion mills to be regulated, they don’t want women to see their babies on an ultrasound, they lie to women continuously, they don’t help them when the women DON’T want to abort, they dehumanize an entire class of humans, they are fueled with hatred, they are scientifically ignorant…..That sounds pretty insane to me. Sane choice, indeed. **EYE ROLL**
Whatever.
If you can’t fight them with facts, resort to ridicule!
I’m sure that many celebrities will be in attendance — I’ll make note of it, so I can make sure to boycott them!
Apparently I’m anti-choice, so I refuse to vote.
My slogan:
Abortionists Make Crappy Doctors!
Isn’t Stephen Colbert supposed to be Catholic? I’m so over him, and also Jon Stewart.
I PC acquaintance of mine said “no one intelligent is prolife.” Okay.
So not only are we stupid, we’re insane. And I bet “antichoice” men don’t put the toilet seat down, either.
Anyway, I contacted the office of Mike Fitzpatrick, the Republican running for the 8th Congressional District with a few questions, and he called me. Not a call from his staff, a call from him! I’m really impressed! And yes, he’s prolife!
http://www.fitzpatrickforcongress.com/
Phillymiss…..I suppose your friend doesn’t know about, say, Peter Kreeft, or…Nat Hentoff? Christopher Hitchens admitted to being pro-life (he believes the fetus should have rights)….They’re pretty intelligent, right? Norah Vincent? Intelligent. Kathryn Reed? Intelligent. Frederica Mathewes-Green? Intelligent.
MaryLee, these were hardcore San Francisco liberals, actually nice people, but hopeless on this issue. The woman who told me this was very cavalier about abortion, saying that “all her friends” had had one, as if she were saying all her friends had Botox injections or something. We always hear that abortion is something women don’t take lightly, but this person certainly did.
Rally to Restore Sanity
Yeah. Good luck with that.
MaryLee, thank you for that list of truly intelligent pro-lifers! I had read Norah Vincent’s book “Self-Made Man” and didnt’ realize that she was an outspoken pro-lifer! She was apparently given an award by Feminists for Life! Now I **really** like her!
This would be called “24-carat irony”. The abortion-tolerant position is so logically incoherent that, if it weren’t bolstered by a frenzied, hormone-charged desire to safeguard alleged “consequence-free sex”, it would have been laughed out of any logic-embracing public forum years ago.
“The abortion-tolerant position is so logically incoherent that”
It’s interesting that the tiny minority of far-right religiously-minded activists who believe and say the things that you have expressed here seem to think that they know so much better than literally the entire civilized world, because abortion is legal in some capacity in all but a small handful of very backwards countries, none of which belong to the first world.
I hope it rains. Or better yet, Sean will crash the rally.
Joan, I never tire of saying this: We don’t care about the numbers of people who are pro-life or pro-abortion. Abortion IS murder. Eventually the rest of the world will catch up to us. Check out the Secular Pro-Life website, too. If most of the world had bubonic plague, we would still fight it rather than roll over and let it sweep over us. Abortion statistics rival plague statistics. A third of a generation is lost. I don’t care what the abortionists think. I care that babies get a chance to take their first breath. For those who’s mom’s are in dire straights, I care that the babies get a chance to join a family who will love and raise them. Your level of coldness is antarctic, Joan.
Cranky,
You have a gift!! :)
Do you save all of your work somewhere?
…because abortion is legal in some capacity in all but a small handful of very backwards countries, none of which belong to the first world.
I went to Fort Sumpter this summer when I was in South Carolina, and before you go to the island there are these historical exhibits about slavery, the fort, and its role in the Civil War. Prominent Southerners used to argue that slavery was acceptable because it existed in “civilized societies” like ancient Greece and Rome.
Sorry, I had to sign off before. Like I was saying, if a large number of people are doing something criminal, we don’t just roll over because, gosh, there are so many. What kind of ethics does one have if one changes them with the tide of public opinion? Murder doesn’t stop being murder by popular opinion. Babies aren’t any less dead because abortionists think it’s alright to kill them.
A species that turns on itself is a species that has developed a deadly pathology.
Wait, what? I hope they are allowing pro-life groups to promote themselves as well.
Colbert is an Irish Catholic……I wonder if he had no say as to who and what could promote themselves at this rally. Either way, I am devastated I won’t be there.
In any case they are both COMEDIANS, first and foremost. Its kind stupid for NARAL, or any other serious issues organization, to be promoting themselves at this rally. Its sorta like tax lawyers or coroners advertising their services at a circus or children party
“Eventually the rest of the world will catch up to us. ”
Right, of course. The entire civilized world is going to suddenly do an about-face and defiantly march backwards hundreds of years to a time when the Vatican controlled all of Europe. There is no undoing social progress.
“A third of a generation is lost.”
Something that never existed cannot be lost. You might as well say that some other arbitrary percentage of “a generation” has been lost because of all the people who didn’t have unprotected sex at every possible opportunity and therefore did not conceive. In the final analysis, there is no material difference between a woman having an abortion and not conceiving to begin with.
“I went to Fort Sumpter this summer when I was in South Carolina, and before you go to the island there are these historical exhibits about slavery, the fort, and its role in the Civil War. Prominent Southerners used to argue that slavery was acceptable because it existed in “civilized societies” like ancient Greece and Rome.”
Slavery is an absurd analogy, no matter what you think of the morality of abortion. By the time of the Civil War, slavery was on the way out. Abortion rights have been steadily increasing throughout the entire world for the last century. You are on the wrong side of this worldwide social trend whether you want to recognize it or not. Without making a judgment on the morality of slavery whatsoever, which is irrelevant here, abolitionists were on the right side of that trend.
Stephanie
October 14th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
But, but, Jon Stewart has testified before Congress*! Obviously that makes him a legitimate and serious news anchor!
* I personally think he probably lost credibility for that, but that’s sounds like something he would riff on, on his show. And having confused even myself with the levels of meta in the preceding sentence, I feel satisfied with this comment. ;)
“Sorry, I had to sign off before. Like I was saying, if a large number of people are doing something criminal, we don’t just roll over because, gosh, there are so many.”
There’s a “large number of people”, and then there’s a sustained, near-universal consensus in modern democratic societies. If you can’t tell the difference between the temporary whims of a mob and the social contracts of pluralistic political bodies evolving to meet the progression of people’s social beliefs, then what more can I really say to you? You’ve latched onto things like slavery, the bubonic plague, and whatever else you fancy as analogues to abortion exclusively on the basis of one perceived shared characteristic between them, while completely ignoring the social contexts of both and the direction of society’s shifting consensus.
BTW, “criminal” and “murder” are legal terms. If something is not against the law then it by definition cannot be either of those things.
“A species that turns on itself is a species that has developed a deadly pathology.”
Yeah, all those animal species where mothers eat their young have gone extinct… wait.
Wow, Joan. You are really something.
There is something about your terrible attitude that just doesn’t sit well with many of us. Are you seething with hatred? I don’t understand why of course. Only you can know what awful things you must have endured to hate so much. Joan, you want to kill innocent little humans who are just starting out in life. Why? What did other people’s babies ever do to you? Did a baby bite you?
ninek, if you and your co-ideologues are going to constantly harp about how you’re so much more “logically coherent” than I am, and how superior your moral reasoning is, then I expect some serious, well-reasoned, “logically coherent” responses to my posts in order to live up to the lofty intellectual accolades that you and others here have claimed exclusive dominion over. Saying that I’m “seething with hatred” is not an argument, it’s an ad hominem attack used to attempt to under-cut me without addressing my points.
As the adage goes: if the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table. And that’s all I see here: a lot of table-pounding from people who are a whole lot less “logically coherent” than they claim to be.
Saying that I’m “seething with hatred” is not an argument, it’s an ad hominem attack used to attempt to under-cut me without addressing my points.
Saying, “you’re wrong because lots of people disagree with you” over and over and over does not constitute making any points. If you actually made a point or three, people would respond to them. “You people are idiots and nobody listens to you, LOLZ!” is not an argument, never has been, and never will be. The upshot of all that being that your line about table-pounding is really the most ironically hilarious thing you’ve said since you came up out from under your bridge to practice your trollery here.
Try making an argument first. Then you can complain that no one is responding to it.
“Something that never existed cannot be lost.”
Unborn people exist as sure as you do joan. They just are not as lost.
“BTW, “criminal” and “murder” are legal terms. If something is not against the law then it by definition cannot be either of those things.”
Joan, as much as you think it’s absurd, another slavery analogy is about to be made. Slavery was perfectly legal. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be. Yeah by the time the Civil War came around it was on the way out, but obviously it had to be on the rise before it could be on the way out. There had to be a majority of people who thought it was acceptable at one point in time for it to have been so prominent. The abolitionists weren’t always the majority. They were always on the right side but they weren’t always on the winning side. Just like we won’t always win but we will always be on the right side.
“Something that never existed cannot be lost”
Oh wow, thanks for telling me that the two children I lost to miscarraige never existed. I mean, I saw them on the ultrasound screen and felt the physical pain of their loss, but obviously it was all in my head! Thanks for clearing that up.
“Saying, “you’re wrong because lots of people disagree with you” over and over and over does not constitute making any points. ”
Except I’m not saying that, but your reductionism is a less offensive tool of evasion than ninek’s “you liek to murder babeis!!1! hater!1!” so I’ll let it slide.
“Yeah by the time the Civil War came around it was on the way out, but obviously it had to be on the rise before it could be on the way out. There had to be a majority of people who thought it was acceptable at one point in time for it to have been so prominent.”
You’re really missing the point I’m making. The popular comparison here is between the abolitionist movement and the anti-abortion movement, but it’s a very one-dimensional comparison, because it ignores context: popular sentiment in western societies had been trending towards viewing slavery as immoral long before the Civil War took place. Abortion rights, on the other hand, have been expanding over time, and popular sentiment has continued to increasingly favor them as well. A reasonable observer in 1840 could have safely and correctly predicted that slavery would no longer be legal or acceptable in western society within a short period of time. Nobody in their right mind would think that abortion is going to be illegal again within a few decades anywhere in the civilized world, much less the entire western hemisphere.
No, Joan, you miss our analogy. We are saying that calling a class of humans “non persons” is the same regardless of if you’re talking about slavery or abortion.
“Abortion rights, on the other hand, have been expanding over time, and popular sentiment has continued to increasingly favor them as well.”
Wrong, as usual. Did you miss all the news stories on how the majority of people in the U.S. now identify as pro-life? And from all appearances, this tendency in public opinion is only going to grow.
In the final analysis, there is no material difference between a woman having an abortion and not conceiving to begin with.
In what universe is this logical, scientific, or true? Abortion = dead child. Not conceiving = no lives lost.
“Wrong, as usual. Did you miss all the news stories on how the majority of people in the U.S. now identify as pro-life? And from all appearances, this tendency in public opinion is only going to grow.”
As if “pro-life” means for most people what it means to the fringe anti-abortion movement types? If you honestly think there is a growing tendency for people to want abortion banned, you’re dead wrong. The polls you’re referring to didn’t even define what “pro-life” or “pro-choice” means to the respondents. These same polls have been conducted for many years now and have continued to fluctuate over that time.
The stickers don’t seem to actually be related to the rallies. NARAL is just using the events as an excuse to promote themselves, right? ‘Cause I couldn’t care about Jon, but I do like Colbert.
Why? What did other people’s babies ever do to you?
Seriously. You’re not the typical “women are more important than floating shrimp” sort of pro-choicer we see around here a lot, you seem to really HATE the little guys. You talk about unborn babies with this cold, detached tone as though they’re nothing at best and contemptuous at worst. Is this how you act when a family member, friend or acquaintence tells you she’s pregnant?
If unborn babies don’t exist, then pregnant women aren’t pregnant.
Maybe joan is an abortionist. Maybe at her mill there is one abortionist who aborts the babies and one abortionist who “aborts” on the nonpregnant women.
This scenerio would keep joan in the dark about the existence of unborn children. Maybe she has been so brainwashed by the proaborts that she really believes the stork brings babies and abortionists perform some sort of cleansing ritual on females.
Saying the unborn don’t exist says alot about the sanity of the probaborts. At least one of them anyway.
Except I’m not saying that, but your reductionism is a less offensive tool of evasion than ninek’s “you liek to murder babeis!!1! hater!1!” so I’ll let it slide.
Oh, will you? Well, golly gee whiz, how very kind of you! That’s just the nicest thing! And does it offend you that we call abortion murder? Oh, that’s terrible! A few thousand children are going to die today in abortions, but let me tell you, your hurt feelings have just leaped to the top of my priority list!
Saying that “abortion is legal in some capacity in all but a small handful of very backwards countries, none of which belong to the first world”* therefore “You are on the wrong side of this worldwide social trend whether you want to recognize it or not” is exactly the same as saying “lots of people disagree with you, therefore you are wrong.” It’s an old logical fallacy: the appeal to popularity. It does not matter how nicely or cleverly you phrase it, because that will never be an argument to support anything, least of all abortion. Claiming that it is when everyone who’s had even a cursory background in argument can tell you that it’s not is…beyond ridiculous.
* The people in Ireland and Poland would like a word with you about their dismissal from the “first world.” Everyone who lives in the third world would like a word with you about their dismissal from “people who can capably judge right and wrong.” Comments like that one are offensive. Calling abortion murder? Not so much.
“Saying that “abortion is legal in some capacity in all but a small handful of very backwards countries, none of which belong to the first world”* therefore “You are on the wrong side of this worldwide social trend whether you want to recognize it or not” is exactly the same as saying “lots of people disagree with you, therefore you are wrong.””
No, it’s exactly the same as saying “abortion is legal in some capacity in all but a small handful of very backwards countries, none of which belong to the first world” and “you are on the wrong side of this worldwide social trend whether you want to recognize it or not.”
It’s not an “appeal to popularity”. It’s an argument used to illustrate the lunacy of comparing the anti-abortion movement to the anti-slavery movement: there is an ever-growing consensus in civilized countries that abortion is a right that should be legally protected by the government, and therefore is completely incomparable with the example of slavery, which was trending in exactly the opposite direction at the time the Civil War occurred.
“* The people in Ireland and Poland would like a word with you about their dismissal from the “first world.””
First off, abortion is legal with stipulations in both Ireland and Poland, and secondly, Poland is a developing country. It is not part of the first world and never has been.
Joan,
How does the morality of the action depend on the number or percentage of people who support it? You seem to be saying that the major difference between the anti-abortion movement and the anti-slavery movement is that most people were against slavery while most people now are not against abortion, for you write “there is an ever-growing consensus in civilized countries that abortion is a right that should be legally protected by the government, and therefore is completely incomparable with the example of slavery, which was trending in exactly the opposite direction at the time the Civil War occurred.” I, as well as I am sure many others, am having a very difficult time seeing how this is not an argument which appeals to numbers or to the opinion of the “civilized.” I claim that they are all wrong in their assessment of the morality of abortion. How does their civilized consensus refute any argument I am able to give against abortion?
Joan wrote: Except I’m not saying that, but your reductionism is a less offensive tool of evasion than ninek’s “you liek to murder babeis!!1! hater!1!” so I’ll let it slide.
Which is absolutely not a quote. Pound the facts, Joan.. or it Ashley? Ashley had a penchant for not spelling babies correctly.
My rebuttal to all your comments is simple:
Motherhood begins at conception.
Motherhood begins at conception.
Motherhood begins at conception.
joan
October 15th, 2010 at 8:09 am
You must be doing this just to get a rise out of people. I can not imagine anyone could be this deliberately obtuse and be in earnest at the same time. Or at least that is the fiction I will comfort myself with in those moments when I realize that you actually do believe such a patently obvious appeal to popularity actually constitutes any kind of logic.
Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
Fact: Motherhood begins at conception.
Oh, have I mentioned when motherhood begins? That’s right, at conception. **pound pound**
I could do this all morning. But I won’t. Because the facts speak for themselves.
The biggest irony to the comparison of abortion to slavery is that Naral is trying to run the CPC’s out of Dodge, which would create what? Oh yes, an underground railroad which would have to be used to liberate pregnant women from coerced and forced abortions.
“there is an ever-growing consensus in civilized countries that abortion is a right that should be legally protected by the government, and therefore is completely incomparable with the example of slavery, which was trending in exactly the opposite direction at the time the Civil War occurred.”
And how exactly does this change the fact that both slaves and the unborn are dehumanized?
“abortion is legal with stipulations in both Ireland and Poland”
Yes, the life of the mother. No one is arguing that abortion should be illegal in this circumstance. Try again.
This is a comedy rally, by comedians, for entertainment purposes. I can’t attend so I’ll be watching it live streamed. I’m experiencing a bit of second hand embarrasment for NARAL, if they indeed do try to promote themselves. They are simply not getting the point. The only signs brought should be poking fun of rally signs (i.e. the “I disagree with you but I’m fairly certain you’re not Hitler.”
If they go they will make fun of themselves.
If you’re ever bored, go to http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos and type in abortion. You’ll find that they’re pretty fair to the pro-life position, though they do make fun of us.
“How does the morality of the action depend on the number or percentage of people who support it?”
I don’t believe I made that claim. I’m not arguing about the morality of abortion here. In fact, if you will refer to my 6:10PM post, you will see that I specifically framed my argument as such: “[s]lavery is an absurd analogy, no matter what you think of the morality of abortion… [w]ithout making a judgment on the morality of slavery whatsoever”.
“I, as well as I am sure many others, am having a very difficult time seeing how this is not an argument which appeals to numbers or to the opinion of the “civilized.””
Let’s back up a step here. My argument, which I will reiterate once more, is that it’s absurd to compare the movement against abortion to the movement against slavery because the proponents of both movements are on completely different sides of the relevant historical trends relating to their respective causes. Western society had been moving to recognize slavery as immoral (again, this is an observation, not a personal moral judgment) for a sustained period of time prior to the American Civil War. Contrariwise, western society has been moving to recognize abortion as increasingly acceptable for a sustained period of time. Therefore, to make the claim that it is inevitable for abortion to one day be viewed in the same light as slavery is to completely ignore the social context in both cases.
“How does their civilized consensus refute any argument I am able to give against abortion?”
I’m not really interested in moving towards a moral discussion here, and this is completely irrelevant to the present argument, but a more practical way of looking at morality might find it relative to society, and therefore “civilized consensus” is very much an argument in favor of the morality of abortion, in those countries of the world (in other words, almost all of them) where abortion is legal in some capacity.
“Which is absolutely not a quote. Pound the facts, Joan.. or it Ashley? Ashley had a penchant for not spelling babies correctly.”
It’s not a direct quote, but it is a fair approximation of your claim that I “hate so much” and that I “want to kill innocent little humans”.
Okay, I see what you are saying Joan. Sorry, I jumped into the middle of the convo and lost context, not realizing WHAT you were trying to defend.
“Yes, the life of the mother. No one is arguing that abortion should be illegal in this circumstance. Try again.”
Actually, Poland has an exception for rape and fetal deformity also.
Well, using your logic they can’t possibly know right from wrong since they’re a developing country. Better to use Ireland as an example.
God Chooses the Foolish to Put the Wise to Shame
I Corinthians 1: 18 – 31
count me as one of the ‘insane, foolish’ ones who believe that life should be protected from conception until natural death.
I’ll reiterate another post, Joan
If slavery was on the decline at some point in time (i.e. leading up to the civil war) then it must have been on the rise at some point before that. That’s a safe logical assumption.
so…
Even if we ignore recent polls and pretend the term “Pro-life” can mean anything other than “Pro-life” and assume that recent legislation in most of these “civilized” pro-abort countries to limit and/or ban abortions is not indicative of changing “social tides” and thus assume that the abortion accepting mentality is “on the rise” we can compare this trend to the trend of slavery being on the rise before it’s fall….. and thus continue the abortion accepting trend to also eventually end in a fall parallel with the slavery accepting fall as more and more people realize that dehumanizing and exploiting one group of humanity for profit and political gain is wrong morally, ethically, and socially. History repeating itself. Different terms, same dance.
Understand the connection now? And yes, repeatedly rephrasing and rehashing the popularity argument does not make it more logical or relevant. Even if you insist that the popularity is increasing….
You are desperately trying to keep the argument in a field you feel you are more educated than us in because, and this is my assumption, you know that arguing the basic humanity of the preborn will lose this for you and that’s why you’re default on that subject is “they don’t exist”. Because if they did, and they do, you are in fact advocating murder. And no matter how many people think that’s ok, you know it’s not.
Why do I have that Wicked song “Popular” stuck in my head?
Anywhoo, if someone could read, they’d see that I wrote Are you seething with hatred? That was a question not a statement. Questions can be identified by the curly mark with the dot at the bottom. Look, here’s one: ? See. But hey, thanks for owning it!
Motherhood begins at conception.
Abortion is murder.
2+2=4
The earth orbits the sun.
Just poundin’ the facts, ma’am.
If you honestly think there is a growing tendency for people to want abortion banned, you’re dead wrong. The polls you’re referring to didn’t even define what “pro-life” or “pro-choice” means to the respondents. These same polls have been conducted for many years now and have continued to fluctuate over that time.
If that’s the case, and the pro-life and pro-abortion numbers keep fluctuating, then how can you tell support for abortion is one the rise? Nevertheless, the pro-life numbers are now on the rise. But there are many indicators of strong public support for restrictions on abortion, including the increasing success of pro-life candidatess.
You’re also ignoring the fact that abortion didn’t become legal in the U.S. because of public acceptance. It became legal by judicial fiat without any input from the public whatsoever.
Your whole idea that if public acceptance of a practice is increasing, that means that it will only continue to go that way is faulty. Acceptance of abortion. like slavery, has changed many times throughout history, and will again. (Yes, many moderns love to believe in the idea of ever-advancing progress, but history shows that’s simply not the case).
Abortion was widely accepted under the Roman Empire; in Christian Europe, it was outlawed. Acceptance crept back under English common law and in the early days of American history. However, the push to ban the abortion was actually on the rise in the 1960’s and early 70’s, due to a fuller knowledge of fetal development. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1950’s) was explicit that an unborn child had rights before birth. Many states were working to ban abortion, and successfully, right up to the eve of the Roe v. Wade. The judicial decision reversed things. There’s no reason it can’t be reversed again.
I don’t know what happened to my comments earlier, but they evaporated.
At the risk of repeating myself, Joan didn’t read my comment correctly when I asked, asked rather than stated, if she was seething with hate. She owned it, which is refreshingly honest of her. I could be wrong, but Joan posted a comment on a thread a while back in which she declared her intention to enter the abortion business. If I got it wrong and it was another poster, then I would stand corrected. Now that we’ve cleared that up, I am thinking of playing a new drinking game tonight. Everytime Joan uses a different phrase or sentence to describe “abortion is OK because it’s popular”, take a drink. If I actually did this, I would have a whopping hangover tomorrow. Lol!
By the way, motherhood begins at conception.
ProChoiceGirl would like to be an abortionist. I have not yet read of Joanie’s proabort aspirations.
Sorry about the hangover. :)
I found two of your missing comments and republished them.
“If slavery was on the decline at some point in time (i.e. leading up to the civil war) then it must have been on the rise at some point before that. That’s a safe logical assumption.”
It’s also completely irrelevant because I’m comparing the state of slavery during the period of time leading up to and during the American abolitionist era, not literally the entire history of slavery.
“You are desperately trying to keep the argument in a field you feel you are more educated than us in”
Pish posh. That would be every field; I’m focusing on this particular topic because that’s the subject of this argument. Does that make fairly good sense to you?
“that’s why you’re [sic] default on that subject is “they don’t exist”.”
Where did I say that fetuses don’t exist? That wouldn’t make any sense. What I said does not exist is the “third of a generation” that has supposedly been aborted.
“If that’s the case, and the pro-life and pro-abortion numbers keep fluctuating, then how can you tell support for abortion is one the rise?”
Because I’m not judging the cultural acceptance of abortion based on a handful of opinion polls conducted over a short period of time and confined to one country?
Here, I’m going to make a statement and you’re going to read it and tell me where I am factually wrong and then we can go from there: in the pluralist democracies of the developed world, where law is made and enforced with the consent of society and its members, abortion rights and popular acceptance of abortion have been steadily expanding from the 20th century onward.
“But there are many indicators of strong public support for restrictions on abortion, including the increasing success of pro-life candidatess.”
I think you are drastically over-estimating the percentage of voters who are truly single-issue and vote exclusively or primarily for a candidate based on their abortion stance.
“You’re also ignoring the fact that abortion didn’t become legal in the U.S. because of public acceptance. It became legal by judicial fiat without any input from the public whatsoever.”
How it became legal is beside the point (though for the record, abortion was legal to some degree in 20 states before Roe v. Wade). Public acceptance has very much trended upwards in the years since 1973.
“Acceptance of abortion. like slavery, has changed many times throughout history, and will again … Abortion was widely accepted under the Roman Empire; in Christian Europe, it was outlawed. Acceptance crept back under English common law and in the early days of American history.”
Yes, abortion was certainly outlawed when the Catholic Church exercised absolute control over the affairs of Europe. Of course, the likelihood that the Catholic Church, which as far as I can tell is the only major political force throughout history that has virulently opposed abortion, is going to somehow reassert itself in Europe once again, is simply nonexistent. You might as well claim that another Crusade is going to happen.
“At the risk of repeating myself, Joan didn’t read my comment correctly when I asked, asked rather than stated, if she was seething with hate.”
Oh, of course, it was just an innocent question that I took the wrong way. You weren’t using a rhetorical trick to baldly accuse me of seething with hate without actually asserting it and therefore having to own up to that; you were just curious if I am, is all. So when I ask you if you’re a knuckle-dragging moron that was born in the shallow end of the gene pool, certainly you’ll understand that I’m just asking in order that I may satisfy my own curiosity with your answer, and in no way am I implying that you are in fact the thing I described.
“Joan posted a comment on a thread a while back in which she declared her intention to enter the abortion business. ”
What are you talking about? I don’t work in medicine and I never have.
joan
October 15th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
What are you talking about? I don’t work in medicine and I never have.
A statement that also describes most abortion providers.
Oh, yes, Carla clarified that it was PCGal that wants to kill baayybeez. I stand corrected.
Motherhood begins at conception. Motherhood begins at conception.
Lolz. Joan thinks she’s more educated than we are in every field. Every field.
Good grief. Troll food makes bigger trolls, y’all. Exhibit “A”…
For the record:
1) the idea that “opinion was trending away from slavery during the Civil war, so you can’t compare the anti-slavery movement to the anti-abortion movement” is almost stupefyingly nonsensical. For one thing, I really don’t know of anyone who seriously considers “the trends of the opinion polls” as the only relevant reason (or even a significant reason at all) to compare the two movements. Both abortion and slavery dehumanize human persons in order to treat them however we wish (including death); both of them were made the law of the land by the U.S. Supreme Court (cf. Dred Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade); both are very lucrative for those who practise them; both violate the dignity of the human person in grievous ways; and the list goes on. No… “my side seems to be on the rising tide of history” is as illogical a claim as it is flamboyant.
2) As many commenters already pointed out: when trying to decide the morality of [x], the number of people who support or reject [x], to say nothing of any “trends” of those numbers, is completely irrelevant. If it’s wrong to kill an innocent human person, then it’s wrong… and even the agreement of 100% of humanity will not affect the matter. (Ninek, I think I vaguely remember you saying something vaguely like that, once or twice, right? :) ) This is WHY the “appeal to popularity/consensus” is a fallacy.
3) I really would like to see the hard-core pro-aborts (like our newest troll, Joan) explain why they believe rape, forced insemination, and the like (or any crime against another person) to be wrong… especially since they’re so comfortable with dispensing death to humans who don’t meet their standards of “personhood with right to life”, and the criteria they use to formulate their “standards” seems very much to be their own raw personal opinions and tastes. We Christians believe such crimes are wrong because they violate God’s objective moral law and the dignity of a human person created in His Image and Likeness; but those certainly aren’t her reasons, since she (at least) rejects the existence of a natural moral law.
By the way, there’s an object lesson in moral/logical incoherence: if one denies the existence of an objective moral law, then one can hardly argue in favour of “right and wrong” regarding anything (which certain pro-abortion commenters somehow persist in doing). I’m not sure how much more clearly I can say that.
Joan-
Actually all our arguments ARE relevant and on point. The only problem with them is you can’t argue/understand them. But if you want to hone in on small details that support your argument as long as you take them out of context since that’s the only way you can possibly “win” this argument, have at it. You aren’t hearing or actually arguing with us anyway.
btw Your weak popularity diversion argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Preborn human beings are human beings. It is wrong to murder human beings. Especially for such relativistic excuses like age, location, intelligence, gender, level of dependency, and especially “everyone else is doing it”.
And to say that 1/3 of a generation can’t vanish because it never existed is saying that the unborn children slaughtered in abortion to make up that number (provided by the CDC, PP, and others) never existed. i.e. Preborn children don’t exist. That’s scientifically inaccurate. Plus your statement “What I said does not exist is the “third of a generation” that has supposedly been aborted.”, implies that no abortions have taken place since ’73. We, unlike you apparently, realize that most (not all) of the abortions that occurred since ’73 were performed on pregnant mothers. One cannot be pregnant without conceiving a human child. Abortion “ends pregnancy” and thus kills the developing child. A child who would otherwise have joined this generation. Thus, a third of a generation is lost to abortion. This is simple logic. Try to keep up.
Plus if we apply your argument to, and I know you’ll call this “irrelevant” because your mind is incapable of understanding relevant parallels, the WWII, one could claim that the 2/3 of the Jews killed in the Holocaust never existed…. since apparently dead people don’t count.
“1) the idea that “opinion was trending away from slavery during the Civil war, so you can’t compare the anti-slavery movement to the anti-abortion movement” is almost stupefyingly nonsensical.”
Your evidence for this statement… stupefyingly nonexistent.
” For one thing, I really don’t know of anyone who seriously considers “the trends of the opinion polls” as the only relevant reason (or even a significant reason at all) to compare the two movements.”
What are you talking about? I reference sustained shifts in law and public opinion, two things that drive and reinforce each other, over a large amount of time and all you take from that is “trends of the opinion polls”? What’s more, I’ve been specifically arguing against comparing the two movements on the basis that they are not compatible. For the life of me, I can’t understand why you or anyone else here would just dive headfirst into an argument without even understanding it.
“both of them were made the law of the land by the U.S. Supreme Court (cf. Dred Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade)”
You’re even more historically ignorant than I previously thought if you honestly think these two things were not the “law of the land” before the major Supreme Court decisions regarding them.
“No… “my side seems to be on the rising tide of history” is as illogical a claim as it is flamboyant.”
Oh, it most certainly is: that’s why I’ve been demolishing the absurd argument that the “pro-life movement” is on the right side of history by explaining why its continued comparisons to the American abolitionist movement are fraudulent.
“2) As many commenters already pointed out…”
I’ve already explained this multiple times in this very thread now. I am not debating the morality of anything here. It has no part of this argument and it never has.
“We Christians believe such crimes are wrong because they violate God’s objective moral law and the dignity of a human person created in His Image and Likeness; but those certainly aren’t her reasons, since she (at least) rejects the existence of a natural moral law.”
Please cite my exact words where I categorically “reject the existence of a natural moral law”. You could certainly infer from my words that I’m not entirely taken with the idea of natural law, but I have not said anything on the subject that would justify your claim that I have completely rejected it.
“By the way, there’s an object lesson in moral/logical incoherence: if one denies the existence of an objective moral law, then one can hardly argue in favour of “right and wrong” regarding anything (which certain pro-abortion commenters somehow persist in doing). I’m not sure how much more clearly I can say that.”
And I’m not sure how much more clearly I can say this: you are piling one irrelevancy on top of another. You have introduced multiple things that were never topical to this discussion.
“Actually all our arguments ARE relevant and on point. The only problem with them is you can’t argue/understand them.”
No, you have made it crystal clear that it is YOU who do not understand the tenor of this discussion or its substantive matters of debate. You are such a dedicated reductionist that you have repeatedly attempted to deconstruct a long, nuanced argument (at least from my end of it, anyway) into a simple question of right or wrong.
“And to say that 1/3 of a generation can’t vanish because it never existed is saying that the unborn children slaughtered in abortion to make up that number (provided by the CDC, PP, and others) never existed. i.e. Preborn children don’t exist.”
A “generation” is a social construct. It refers to the collective body of people who were BORN at a specific time in history, grew up and took the reins of culture and made it their own. An aborted fetus, no matter what you think of its supposed humanity, does not fit into this description. Nobody would ever say that a stillborn infant in 1980 was part of Generation X.
“Plus your statement “What I said does not exist is the “third of a generation” that has supposedly been aborted.”, implies that no abortions have taken place since ’73.”
Yeah, okay, you’ve really outfoxed me here. I’ve been implying all along that no abortion has ever happened since 1973. I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant, but I’ll spell it out for you: by “supposedly” I’m referring to the idea that the number of abortions during that time is equal to one third of the entire number of conceptions during that time.
“A child who would otherwise have joined this generation. Thus, a third of a generation is lost to abortion. This is simple logic. Try to keep up.”
And hence my analogy to an “unconceived” child that would have “joined his or her generation” if only its parents had engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse at a specific time and therefore conceived it. You have some nerve to try and talk down to me after failing to grasp literally every single element of my argument, all written in plain, easily understood English.
“Plus if we apply your argument to, and I know you’ll call this “irrelevant” because your mind is incapable of understanding relevant parallels, the WWII, one could claim that the 2/3 of the Jews killed in the Holocaust never existed…. since apparently dead people don’t count.”
Oh, this is the frosting on the stupidity cake here. You’re actually arguing that saying “people that were never born do not belong to the generation they would have belonged to if they had been born” is logically equivalent to saying “2/3rds of the Jews killed in the Holocaust never existed.” That’s really something.
Motherhood begins at conception.
Joan is merely a construct on my interwebs and therefore does not exist.
Abortion is murder.
2+2=4
No you aren’t understanding. Your comparing unconceived children to aborted children is equating once-existent children(even though it was a short period of existence) with never-existed children. Therefore aborted children do/did not exist. Even you do not understand your own logic. And yes, a stillborn child is a child lost to their generation. There are many mothers and families and friends of those families who would very much count them as such.
My holocaust argument makes perfect sense to anyone who values (accounts worth to) every human being born and unborn. Therefore they all count. You’re refusal to count aborted infants as children lost to their generation implies that for you they never existed.
“by “supposedly” I’m referring to the idea that the number of abortions during that time is equal to one third of the entire number of conceptions during that time.”
“Supposedly” is not a word to use when talking about basic math. Like 2 and 2 supposedly equal four and that’s supposedly half of eight….. Do you have something against math? Don’t trust it for some reason? Or is it just your aversion to logic? Or maybe you are implying that the numbers are made up. If they are, question the CDC and Planned Parenthood, as that is where we get them.
Yes, I suppose I am a dedicated reductionist. I do tend to take a long drawn out nuanced argument filled with derogatory slights and long complicated terms thrown in to make the speaker sound “more educated than you” and boil it down to it’s basic statement which I then point out is either flawed or a good point. Sorry if so far that hasn’t worked in your favor, try better arguments…. perhaps with less filler?
*hiccup* I want to give Joan a homework assignment. Address the following fact:
Motherhood begins at conception.
Ok, let me help get you started, since repetition had no effect:
A mother who procures an abortion becomes the mother of a dead human being.
Discuss.
“Oh, it most certainly is: that’s why I’ve been demolishing the absurd argument that the “pro-life movement” is on the right side of history by explaining why its continued comparisons to the American abolitionist movement are fraudulent.”
The abolitionist movement was unpopular at one point in time, just as you claim the anti-abortion movement is today, so such a comparison claim is hardly fraudulent. If the “civilized” world finally abandons this deadly practice as we are trying to accomplish then such comparison claims would only be validated.
“I’ve already explained this multiple times in this very thread now. I am not debating the morality of anything here. It has no part of this argument and it never has.”
How does morality have no part in a discussion, let alone a debate on abortion? Exactly what are you arguing at this point?
L. Walker, ‘The abolitionist movement was unpopular at one point in time, just as you claim the anti-abortion movement is today’. We could also say ‘the abolitionist movement was unpopular at one point in time as was the pro-choice movement’. Both moved from constraining peoples rights to the freeing of peoples rights. See? It is as the world has become more civilized that the availability of abortion has increased.
Mother:
[n] a condition that is the inspiration for an activity or situation; “necessity is the mother of invention”
[n] A WOMAN WHO HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A CHILD (also used as a term of address to your mother); “the mother of three children”
[n] a term of address for an elderly woman
[n] a stringy slimy substance consisting of yeast cells and bacteria; forms during fermentation and is added to cider or wine to produce vinegar
[v] make children; “Abraham begot Isaac”; “Men often father children but don’t recognize them”
[v] care for like a mother; “She fusses over her husband”
‘Motherhood begins at conception’ is not a fact. It is opinion and the definitions are ‘conflicting and inconclusive’
You should have come to the candlelight vigil tonight for Pregnancy and Infant Loss Rememberance Day, Cran. A world wide day of remembrance.
Mothers and fathers who lost children at 11 weeks along, 19 weeks along, 28 weeks along, 38 weeks along, stillborn, early infant death, miscarriages at 10 and 9 weeks along and a mother(me)who had an abortion and two miscarriages.
One mother who couldn’t make it had 6 miscarriages. Two sets of twins. There were photos and footprints and a shared sense of grief and loss.
Yeah. Come tell us we are not mothers and fathers.
Whilst I empathize with your position Carla, and a pregnancy and infant loss rememberance day is a worthy event, it does not change the factual terminology.
What reaction do you think most people would have towards a woman or man without any children who says ‘I am a mother’ or ‘I am a father”?
So unless you have, or have had, visible, living children by your side, no, you are not mothers and fathers.
Again back to the reaction of others??? Really????
I don’t give a flying fig if anyone thinks I am a mother or not.
I am a mother of 7 children. 3 are in heaven and 4 are with me. Your opinion doesn’t change that.
I have 3 friends. They have each had abortions and were unable to bear any children after that. The only child they ever carried died. They are all mothers. Deal with it.
So when the census asks how many children you have you say what?
And when the taxman asks how many children you have you say what?
When the school asks how many children you wish to enrol you say what?
‘Your opinion doesn’t change that’ – no, maybe not. But your opinion of the situation would be amongst an absolute minority, infinitesimal almost.
Everything except your opinion says that motherhood does not begin at conception. ‘Looming’ motherhood or ‘potential’ motherhood may, but not motherhood.
Almost no-one would recognize your friends as mothers in any way and I think you realize that, deal with it.
My opinion of my situation?? Really?? It is my life and my life experience we are talking about here, Cran that you so callously dismiss I might add. And the lives and life experiences of the friends I know that have lost children. Not my opinion. Fact.
Again, I don’t care if “almost no-one” would recognize my friends as mothers.
Our children lived and then they died.
PS You might in the future want to consider that there are SEVERAL more commenters here that have lost children to early infant death, miscarriage, abortion and stillbirth. Be sure and tell them they aren’t mothers either.
I pray to God NOBODY ever comes to you if they miscarry. Well, I am pretty sure they won’t. Thank you, God.
People who’s toddlers die also don’t put those children’s names on their tax forms. Nor do people who’s children are grown up and filing their own tax forms.
Lack of government form for proof of existence argument nullified.
Proceed.
Motherhood begins at conception.
NARAL:
There’s a fine line between sanity and insanity. Be careful what you ask for.
Were your pro-life mothers insane because they gave you life?
* * *
cranium,
I know many women who count their deceased children when asked how many children they have. You’re just trying to be difficult – have some empathy for these women.
Joan, you are an idiot. Sorry, just had to jump in here, I could not take your retardation anymore. Okay, now if you know EVERY topic, then tell me how exactly an elevator motor runs or what its components are.
Okay now that you look dumb, back to abortion.
You stated that it is no difference when a woman does not conceieve or she has an abortion. Therefore, you are saying that just as much as a non existent fetus is nothing, so is an aborted one. Do you have grandchildren? Are you one of those pro baby killers that see an unborn as a sack of cell shit until the mother wants it? Or are you the one that pushes every preggo into the chop and block clinic? I really cannot stand feminists like you who ruin motherhood and respect for human life just so women can be sluts who open their legs to everybody. Women need to get over themselves and be MOTHERS. that, my friend, is the difference between a whore who deserves to be talked about and the WOMAN who raises her child with pride and protects it from the first positive pregnancy test, or the second a nut is busted.
Carla, these [edited by moderator] can not understand your pain and I sympathize with you. They fight for women’s rights so that they can sleep around and they have no value for human life. You value life because its a living thing. Trees have no heartbeat, but I bet you they hug them and cry when someone cuts one down because they care more about the monkeys living in them than unborn children. My best friend had 2 miscarriages and they are not here because of circumstances beyond her control and she still is a mother and God bless all of your babies.
The baby is not a part of the womans body. It is not the woman’s body. It is the baby that sends messages when it is ready to be born. The mom does not choose when to go into labor. “Sack of non-existent cells” does. BECAUSE IT IS A HUMAN LIFE. Pro-choicers really do not make sense. they are hypocrites who will say how cute a baby is and give a baby shower as long as mommy wants it. But the second the mom does not want it then it is non a human or does not need a crib or clothes anymore.
We cannot choose to kill husbands to get away from them and be free, we divorce them so they can find someone who will love them. Hence, women should give their babies up for adoption for someone who will love them.
So when the census asks how many children you have you say what?
And when the taxman asks how many children you have you say what?
When the school asks how many children you wish to enrol you say what?
My grandmother was preceded in death by two infant sons and twin infant daughters. Do you know where it says that? Her obituary. Do you know when those children died? Both before and shortly after birth. She was survived by my father, her only living child.
Before she had my father, she was a mother to her children… back in those days (early 1900s) if a baby was later-term and was born prematurely or miscarried (stillbirth) they were listed as “infants.” Gee, maybe those days weren’t so archaic after all… so much for modern-day progress. One of those sons, I found out from various records, lived only two hours. Another son was stillborn. I don’t know about the twin girls. I’m betting that on any tax form she ever had to fill out, she had to state that she had 1 dependent and not 5, but what difference does that make? Does the fact that her children died mean she was NOT, in fact, their mother? Complete and utter nonsense.
Those children had names, birth and death certificates, and I am named after one of those twin infant daughters. My father knows the names of all his siblings.
Cranium, you’ve insulted every mother who has ever miscarried, had a stillbirth, or a premature baby who passed away, AS WELL AS any mother who has lost a child of ANY age. When asked on a form for tax purposes how many children one has, it is implied that they are “living” children. (Ever do any geneaological research? I have, and records list ALL children, whether living or dead, regardless of how long they lived or whether stillborn.)
‘Your opinion doesn’t change that’ – no, maybe not. But your opinion of the situation would be amongst an absolute minority, infinitesimal almost.
LOL- if it makes you feel superior, you just keep on thinking that.
Yes, abortion was certainly outlawed when the Catholic Church exercised absolute control over the affairs of Europe. Of course, the likelihood that the Catholic Church, which as far as I can tell is the only major political force throughout history that has virulently opposed abortion, is going to somehow reassert itself in Europe once again, is simply nonexistent. You might as well claim that another Crusade is going to happen.
Considering the fact that in Europe the population is dwindling, largely because the secularists there are contracepting and aborting themselves to death, and that droves of pro-child and (I believe) anti-abortion Muslims are emigrating there, I just don’t think the pro-abortion movement there is going to be on — how did you put it? — “the right side of history.” Pro-aborts should really try having a few more kids, so their ranks will survive.
I would really love to see some statistics or poll numbers from you, Joan, instead of just assertions on your part, on how acceptance for abortion has steadily been increasing in civilized countries. How would you measure that?
cranium October 15th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Finally! A coherent argument from the other side! Cran, I may disagree with much of what you say, but at least you are able to understand logic. I almost wanted to hug you after this post, simply because even one or two of Joan’s posts make me want to put a pencil through my skull.
You are correct about the abolitionist comparison, that not only does it compare with abortion, but it could possibly be a comparison for either side. On the topic of motherhood, however, I beg the question, what would you say to a pregnant woman who celebrates Mother’s Day with her husband? What about when gossipers ask who the father of a woman’s unborn child is? What would one call him if not a father?
“A WOMAN WHO HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A CHILD”
Your making progress cranium.
Your definition of a mother is right. A mom does indeed give birth to a child.
Sometimes that child is born alive and sometimes that child is born dead. Either way the woman is a mother.
Rant alert.
A friend of mine once said something to the effect of, “Trolls reliably do three things: troll (i.e. butt into forums with positions utterly antithetical to the forum, and crassly parade their positions, and pepper their comments with sneers and posturing), grow when they’re fed, and grow more stupid and convoluted with time and attention.”
Some of these recent trolls, with their obtuseness (whether real or feigned), their crassness, and their outright cruelty, are enough to try the patience of a Saint (and I’m not one, regrettably)–which is possibly one of their objectives. Do these trolls simply not realize that (for example) belittling and insulting someone’s loss of a child before birth is anything other than the work of a boor and a cad? Unless they truly have some dysfunction which seriously impairs their ability to understand social conventions and dynamics (like Asperger’s Syndrome, or something), I can’t help but think that these trolls are genuinely okay with being cruel and callous.
Question for Joan, cranium, Biggz, “Nick”, and the like: if you really find our positions so revolting and inferior, why don’t you go to a more accommodating site (like RHRealitycheck, or something), where they’re much more likely to shower your brilliant and insightful arguments with the agreement and accolades that you think they deserve? Why keep coming here, especially since (as per Joan’s latest comments) you find our positions and techniques so offensive and wrong?
Ponder that a bit, please. You’re free to post here as long as the moderators can stomach you (and my hat’s off to their patience), but I can’t fathom why, especially with your recent yelps of indignation (I think especially of Joan), you’d want to stay.
It’s infuriating: these trolls say increasingly stupid and inflammatory things in order to provoke a reaction, then jeer and snark at those who don’t, and then pounce on those who do reply with endless streams of illogical, morally bankrupt nonsense, replete with meandering rabbit trails aplenty. It’s almost as if they think, “If I say something THIS stupid and inflammatory, someone will HAVE to reply! And if I lead them down 10 irrelevant paths at once, that’ll make the firefight go even longer!”
Good grief… put away your troll suits, sell your under-the-bridge condominiums, and get a human life, will you? If you want to debate something, then drop your taste for scorn, sophistries, endless red-herring-laden and question-begging meanderings, and callousness. I can’t imagine what you hope to gain (or whom you intend to impress) by them, anyway.
End of rant.
Paladin, at the end of my last comment, I almost said, “I know, Paladin, I know… I promise, I’m done feeding the troll.” :D lol I seriously thought about it!
Cranium at least has already stated he believes he is the self-appointed beacon of truth on a site full of loonies and is here so that people who come here to read will find the truth instead of statements by religious individuals.
I’m amazed his head still fits through the door, but whatever. :D
:) I understand the temptation, believe me. The rant was primarily directed to myself, as a sort of pre-emptive strike to prevent myself from replying to their nonsense, point by point… because (a bit like an alcoholic picking up that first drink) I was literally opening up notepad to edit a mega-reply to all the [expletive deleted] garbage spewed by them in the past day or so. I’ve been down the “black hole of debating trolls” enough times to know better, but the desire to correct blithering error is still pretty fierce!
Maybe we should start an accountability group, or something… :P
Hey Paladin,
I think the trolls visit so often because they need something positive in their lives and we are it! There is not a prolifer here that they have a chance of gaining (although they sometimes impress me with their humor).
Everytime they visit, we get another chance to put a prolife drop of saving water into their buckets.
cranium keeps visiting here because of my prayers. Right cranium? (: I think I’ll have time to say a Rosary this weekend just for him.
If each regular prolife visitor here who has witnessed the power of prayer would pick one proabort that visits to pray for that’s a lot of prayer drops. I firmly believe that letting trolls know that they are so loved to the point that we make time out of our busy days to pray for them will greatly help them and bring us a few steps closer to making abortion another atrocity to read about in the history books.
“Trip, trap! trip, trap!” went the bridge as she trotted across.
“Who’s that tripping over my bridge?” roared the troll.
“Oh, it is only I, a little Prolifer and I’m going up to the hillside to pray for you.
“Now, I’m coming to gobble you up,” said the troll.
“Oh, no! pray don’t take me. I’m too little, that I am,” said the little Prolifer. “Wait a bit till my brother Prolife Paladin comes. He’s much bigger.”
“Well, be off with you,” said the troll.
(The story continues in a similar fashion and most of us know who the Most Powerful and last Prolifer to show up in the story will be.)
:) Praxedes, you’re wonderful! That was just what my soul needed, today! Sometimes, the warrior needs to change weapons; and you just reminded me that St. Padre Pio startled his monastery on more than one occasion with his cry, “Bring me my weapon!” [The other brothers soon learned that he was speaking of his rosary. :) ]
I’ve been praying for all the abortion-tolerant people (as a whole) whom I’ve met on the various forums (and especially here), but it certainly wouldn’t hurt for me to make those prayers a bit more specific, once in a while. Tell you what: I’ll join my own daily rosary intention to yours, today, and upgrade our spiritual weapon to the “tactical nuclear” level…
Add my prayers for Joan and Cranium too!
Me too! I love to nag God for peace and for the conversion of the spiritually needy.
Hey Ninek,
I’ve always said everyone knows when someone is fathered. At conception. Thus, that’s when we’re “mothered” too. They’re “expecting” a safe and healthy birth. Not for a baby to appear out of a wormhole from another universe.
And by the way, did you know that motherhood begins at conception?
Carla, I am a father of one, a fine son aged 29. I was almost a father of two. My former wife and I suffered a stillbirth 21 years ago which also almost took her life.
I understand your grief but for people who have had miscarriages, stillbirths, abortions or similar to go around proclaiming themselves to be mothers or fathers seems a bit of a self-indulgent stretch to me.
“Mother: A WOMAN WHO HAS GIVEN BIRTH TO A CHILD”
“My former wife and I suffered a stillbirth 21 years ago”
stillbirth – the tragic birth of a dead baby, the delivery of a fetus that has died.
cranium, what was your relationship to the little girl your ex-wife gave birth to if you were not her father and she your daughter? Did this little baby receive no name other than Stillbirth?
Your right, I guess I really cannot comprehend. I cannot comprehend how you think someone who acknowledges that they fathered or mothered a beautiful little child is considered self-indulgent but those that kill their own children are not.
Yes, you and your ex-wife were mom and dad to a daughter. Had your daughter not had inherent worth, you would not have used the word suffered. You also wouldn’t remember the exact number of years ago you lost her. I am truly sorry for the loss of your daughter.
My genuine thanks for your empathy Praxedes.
Perhaps we need to acknowledge that terms like ‘mother’, ‘father’: and especially ‘motherhood’ and ‘fatherhood’ get bandied around in quite a broad range of applications.
I ‘fathered’ (as in contributed to the conception of) a second child but am not a father of two. My ex-wife was an ‘expectant mother’ but is the mother of one.
The child was planned. We CHOSE to have a second. That is why we have ‘suffered’.
I still think it is slightly odd to call oneself a mother or father if one has no child present.
Hi Paladin. ‘pepper their comments with sneers and posturing’, hm, maybe some posturing but I don’t think I’ve been any more guilty of sneers than some others here. ‘grow more stupid and convolute’ – well the stupid part is of course a matter of opinion, but I am aware of the peril of becoming convoluted so I try to pull things back to basics after they’ve grown a bit ‘tangly’ on some threads.
‘outright cruelty’ – that’s a bit harsh isn’t it? I think anything that may have trended that way is quite pot/kettle anyway.
‘and my hat’s off to their patience’ – I must second that motion, with applause. And as I was saying the other day, if ‘we’ are so wrong and ‘you’ are so right, what have you got to lose? Surely we help strengthen your case?
‘replete with meandering rabbit trails aplenty’ – pot/kettle. Asking the same question six different ways until you get an answer you can latch on to.
‘statements by religious individuals.’ – I acknowledge that you are not all religious and I have tried to stop bagging faith except when someone highlights it.
‘I’m amazed his head still fits through the door’ – you should see the size of my doors!!! They’re even bigger than my head!!!
‘I was literally opening up notepad’ – well, what I do is open two tabs. One with the comments so I can scroll down and respond point by point. The other to write my responses in as I work through the comments. All I have to do is flip between tabs. I may have a big head but I’m happy to share :-)
‘cranium keeps visiting here because of my prayers. Right cranium?’ – whatever works for you ;-) nomnomnomnomnom.
‘I’m amazed his head still fits through the door’ – you should see the size of my doors!!! They’re even bigger than my head!!!
That makes me think of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0FBi5Rv1ho
“A snow white pillow for my big, fat head…” :D
It may be big but it is NOT fat! How vewwy vewwy wude! :-)
My favorite Peter Gabriel song is the one with Kate Bush, ‘Running up that hill’ or something.
Actually, the one you mentioned is just a Kate Bush song. The one they did together is “Don’t Give Up.”
My fave Peter Gabriel song is “In Your Eyes.” Well, I mean, it’s hard to choose. Most of the classic Peter Gabriel and classic Genesis is too good to pick just one. :D
YES! “don’t Give Up’. Thanks for that Kel.
I have records (those big round black things) going back to the late 60’s. Led Zeppelin, Dire Straits, Styx, Thin Lizzy, The Who, and a few odd ones like The Sensational Alex Harvey Band. I never bought the ‘mainstream’ ones, I let my friends do that. I have the original The Who rock opera Tommy double album in a cardboard case with a delightful glossy book with caricatures of Ringo, Elton et al. It might be worth something!
I rarely listen to them though, I like whatever is new. Anything Dave Groll is involved in, Ben Folds, Sia, quite a bit of rap and hip hop. Not Lady Gaga, Justin Beiber and the likes – yuk! I don’t listen to commercial radio, I listen to a ‘youth oriented’ non-commercial network.
One of my fave songs is Running Up that Hill by Kate Bush.
Gads, Cranium. The world must have stopped spinning.
I am also very sorry to hear of the death of your baby daughter. :(
I’ve just listened to the song ‘Don’t Give Up’ on UTube. I’ve never heard of the song nor it’s singers before.
Yesterday in Mass our priest gave a talk about the 33 miners who were trapped. The priest called all the children 5th grade and younger up to the alter with him and asked them questions about what they might know of this story.
11 of the kids had been given cardboard with a picture on it and they were told to hold the cardboard out with the picture facing the congregation.
On the first card was a picture of a dog. The priest told everyone the picture stood for a letter. The kids guessed “D” for dog. The priest asked the child to turn the card around and it showed a letter ‘D’. The second child had a picture of an octupus. When it was turned around, the letter ‘O’ faced the congregation.
This continued until the words “DON’T GIVE UP” were spelled out for us all to see.
cranium @5:42 pm,
I’m very sorry for your loss.
Ditto. Condolences Cranium. I’m so sorry for your loss :(
You all write this as if both Jon and Steven are PRO CHOICE and have abortion parties on the weekends… both of them have multiple children. You’re aiming your misguided anger at the wrong people. Not every “liberal” is pro choice(this one isnt)… that seems to be the demonizing rhetoric around here tho :(
thanks for lumping us all in together though, i love consistency. i knew a few women who now identify as being “conservative” who had abortions in high school…
Dunno why I expected this blog to be UNbiased…