I mean, if you’re a pro-abort type – if you’re pro-choice, if you’re pro-Planned Parenthood – and you learn that the abortion rate in New York City’s 41%, don’t you throw a party? That’s a hell of a success rate!
~Talk radio show host Rush Limbaugh, February 25
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
A quote that ignorant by someone like Rush Limbaugh isn’t even worth engaging.
Thank you, Rush! LIKE!!
Rush has a good point. And 41% is NOT RARE!!!!!!
I’m not a Republican (see, not all pro-lifers are), but I’ve often found Rush entertaining. His old impression of Bill Clinton was easily as funny as anything on Saturday Night Live.
This quote is pretty funny, and true! Say, Hilary Clinton, how does 40-60% add up to “safe, legal, and rare”? A feral cat is safer in NYC than a developing child.
The new statisics of how many children PP kills compared to how many adoption referrals they make adds up as follows:
In 2008, PP killed 260 children (not counting twins) for every 1 it let get away.
In 2009, PP killed 333 children per survivor. That’s an additional 73 dead children (not counting twins) for each child that made it out the door alive. Scary!! Scarier than flying monkeys!!
Ninek, those statistics say nothing about the number of adoption referrals that PP makes.
Andrew, I’m quoting Guttmacher’s own numbers, just released last week, which included adoption.
The only thing safe, legal, and rare in this country is adoption.
And I’m trusting you on that claim. I’m just pointing out that the statistics you’re quoting have nothing to do with the number of times that Planned Parenthood gave patients referrals for, presented the option of, or encouraged women to go with adoptions rather than abortions.
IMO:
The pro-aborts just reward awaits them after death, and only Satan will be partying, showing them how they have served him. I pray they wake up before that day.
Mama3: in my opinion Satan is not real, and those who spend their time trying to deprive other people of freedom will end up leading unfulfilling lives and be consumed by bitterness and hate. Do you think that your opinion has more of a right to be enforced by the state than mine does?
Sorry Andrew – those are their own statistics for their adoption referrals. They are not doing that much anymore about giving women true choices. so – look at the numbers yourself. And at our own PP, they stopped doing pre-natal care for women. That stopped in January 2009.
So basically it’s 333 abortions to one adoption referral. If you like statistics, it looks like PP is much more about abortion than not.
The relevant question here is: how does PP measure success? If it’s by the number of abortions, then they’ve got NYC locked up.
As it stands, any abortins they do, they get part of the money. Does the same go for adoption referrals?
Once again, the statistics that are being cited here say nothing about the number of referrals, what options were presented, etc. They say how many women (ones who were presumably already leaning towards abortion, since they went to Planned Parenthood) ended up choosing abortions versus choosing to keep the baby. In other words, the statistics say basically nothing about Planned Parenthood.
Maybe part of the problem with evil is not recognizing it’s there. And if there are souls to be won – it’s a battle of good vs evil. So recognizing that there may be something going on is a good thing.
And the State can not enforce religion – I think that Andrew you know that – so why even bring that up?
The basics regarding the abortion question is this: Do you or anyone or the state have a right to deny a human their rights or their life? If you say ‘yes’ then why is that moral? If you say ‘No’ then what are you doing to ensure that every human has their rights enforced (even the unborn, the disabled, the poor, the elderly and any other marginalized human).
That is the crux of the matter. Either we protect every human, or it’s open season on the humans that the powerful deem inconsequential.
If you are part of the human family, let’s protect you and your rights.
ones who were presumably already leaning towards abortion, since they went to Planned Parenthood
Obviously since they knew that PP does abortions, not adoption referrals. Right?
Joyfromillinois, I was asking if Mama3 believed that her view on morality justified using coercive law to prevent abortions. Nothing more.
The slippery slope argument you bring up is a common pro-life one, but it’s simplistic. Just because you can’t conceive of reasons to protect anyone’s life if you allow abortion doesn’t mean that those reasons don’t exist. This failing is probably either a symptom or the cause of the deceptive “pro-life” label: pro-lifers are either convinced or do a good job of pretending that seeing value in life must mean banning abortions.
Lori, I presume that there are many organizations (such as, you know, adoption agencies) that provide adoption services directly. Likewise, there are many organizations (including Planned Parenthood) that provide abortion services. Since most people will have a general idea of what they want to do, they will tend to go to the service that they’re planning to take advantage of. Just like you probably go to a car dealer rather than the bike store for advice about a car to buy, people are likely to go to adoption places if they’re planning to put their baby up for adoption, and to abortion places if they’re planning to have an abortion.
None of that, however, says anything about whether Planned Parenthood or similar organizations offer women choices and all the relevant information, or push abortions and don’t present options for adoption, like the original post and Ninek’s comment suggest.
This is a good example of how easy it is to lie with statistics, especially when the lie you’re telling confirms what your listeners want to hear.
Planned Parenthood told US that they only did one adoption referral for every 333 abortions. Those are their own numbers.
Life begins at conception. That’s a scientific fact. Before conception, mom and dad’s DNA doesn’t mingle and become a new creature. Mom’s own cells divide by mitosis, Andrew, except for her eggs which are created by meiosis (Same for dad). That’s goes for all animals, not just humans. All animals begin their lives as a single cell which immediately begins to grow, first by cell number, then by size. This is such basic biology, it should be clear to everyone.
Biologically, all Americans begin as that one humble cell on their way to becoming adults. Since we don’t wait until American’s are old enough to vote to legal protect their lives, there is no logical reason to wait until Americans are BORN to legally protect their lives.
How does killing a child NOT deprive him of his freedom?
Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood just change it’s name to “Abortions R Us?” Why all the euphemism and double talk?
Andrew – you are not making sense – just because people have reasons to do anything does not make it a right action.
People turn to PP because people are not thinking this thru. Even for yourself. A human exists and abortion makes sure that human does not exist. The human was alive, and now dead. Why would you say that there is a ‘reason for that?’
Is ‘I don’t want to ruin my figure good enough? I want to run track good enough? I want to live my life? I don’t want to tell my parents? I’m afraid? My abuser told me I had to or I would be homeless? My uncle who abused me and my emotionally unstable parents thought I was evil and forced me into my first abortion at age 10?
Where is the protection of the humans here – including the mother. And while it may be interesting to play at the scenarios – the reality of abortion is that it’s REAL LIFE we are talking about – and why not protect ALL the LIVES affected?
Pro-Life means helping everyone. It means helping the mother thru all the problems she has – including her difficulties in all areas. We are here to help. It’s not a hypothetical to us – it’s real life. And that is the point.
Just be honest – you are not benignly pro-choice. At every turn you are defending the defenseless: abortion. Just be honest and call yourself that – unless you think that humans have intrinsic worth and want to defend all of them, including the unborn.
It is never too late to do the right thing. It is never too late for a conversion of heart.
Ninek, the discussion about the beginning of life is an important one, but does it relate to what we’re talking about?
And the number of people who choose to not have an abortion or chose to accept an official adoption referral is not the same as the number of people who were offered adoption information.
Joyfromillinois, why are you pretending to quote me saying that abortion is justified because there are reasons to have an abortion? Where, exactly, did I say that?
As always, I’m willing to have a more in depth discussion of the philosophical justifications for pro-choice and pro-life stances over email. At the moment, the lack of structure in your comment makes it difficult to see exactly what to respond to, but I’ll say these two things: it’s “real life” to you, except for the fact that you would force the mother into slavery for nine moths. You’d like to just ignore that part. And I have, in my life, acted in a manner that I believe is perfectly consistent with calling myself pro-choice and pro-life. If you know more about me than I do, feel free to dispute that.
Since Jill Stanek’s quote of the day today is from Rush Limbaugh about the abortion statistics in New York, I find it curious that as soon as Andrew dismissed the quote, he launched into a meandering defense of PP that is inarticulate and devoid of logic. When Andrew went on one of the threads last week, he said he was disappointed that WE didn’t want to have a dialog. However, it is Andrew who doesn’t want to dialog. He dismissed the quote of the day, and now wants to debate for the sake of getting attention. I don’t mind; a lot of people read the articles and comments without commenting themselves. It’s good for them to see what other people think about the subject.
Andrew is doing what many trolls do: Find a subject you oppose (in this case: life) get on a website frequently, counter anything you see written just for the sake of being contrary, and pat yourself on the back for a job well done.
“Whatevs.”
How does being pregnant – whether you want to be pregnant or not – equal slavery? Last time I checked, pregnant women were still free to decide and implement the course of their lives.
Andrew – I find your comments confusing – if you could be more clear, that would be helpful. If I have mis-understood, then clarify please. I was not pretending to quote you – only to sum up the sentiment of what I thought you said. Again, if I have misunderstood, please clarify. I too want an in-depth discussion, and I find it hard since we do not stay on topic to complete the discussion.
Science says the child in the womb is indeed human in an early stage of development. That science also says that the child is alive. So to actually quote you now ‘you’d like to just ignore that part.’
If choosing is the nomenclature you like – would you not agree that some choices are better than others? Some more honest? (say I have a chance to tell you I am 23 (I’m not) the choice to lie to you is not honest). More nobel (laying one’s life down for another? More altruistic (giving money to the poor instead of buying a luxury for myself).
All choices are not equal.
So if we give women empowerment to make a life-affirming choice – are you ok with that? If we help with education, rent, housing, food, clothing and friendship is that ok?
And regarding abortion and adoption – people can have talking points – but it’s what one does that matters. So despite ‘don’t pay attention to that man behind the curtain scenario,’ allowing the child to live via the mother, her family, or adoption – that is an action that allows the child and mother to live.
The fact, even self-reporting that PP hardly refers for abortions, and rarely provides pregnancy care should tell volumes about what it desires and wants, especially regarding their bottom line.
Remember – not all choices are equal. Some cause real harm, and everlasting harm at that.
I hope that is clear, and structured.
I’ll be back later since I have things to do here! Ta-ta!
Oh – and another item – most people do not know that Crisis Pregnancy centers exist. If I had a dollar from every person who told me they had not idea our local center existed, I’d be a much richer woman. People follow what they here from their friends, on the tv/computer. And if not many people know that our local CPC gives free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, food, clothes, baby items and education, then more people will go to PP thinking they will help.
But honestly, PP employees are trained to sell the abortion. It’s a lot like walking onto a used car lot – if you don’t want to buy a car – don’t go! But most women think they will be getting a fair shake from the PP people. From my experience – they usually come out saying ‘I did not know!’ and one woman came in for an ultra sound, said they were NOT interested in abortion (via the phone) and told PP again they were not interested in an abortion. Do you know that that PP tried to get the mother to sign a waiver for an abortion?
Again – it’s been my experience that they are trying to sell abortions. No neutrality – just sales. And they make a lot of money off of women and girls who do not truly know their options, even in the same city where they live. I’ve lived that for 7 years now. The stories are heartbreaking.
None of that, however, says anything about whether Planned Parenthood or similar organizations offer women choices and all the relevant information, or push abortions and don’t present options for adoption, like the original post and Ninek’s comment suggest.
This is a good example of how easy it is to lie with statistics, especially when the lie you’re telling confirms what your listeners want to hear.
Maybe that’s true, but neither do the statistics confirm your apparent belief that PP is always perfectly uniased and presents the case for abortion and adoption /giving birth even-handedly. All of the other available evidence, however, supports what the statistics suggest. Abby Johnson, who used to work at Planned Parenthood, has said that they were supposed to sell abortion, and increase the number of abortions they performed. Other former PP workers have said the same.
Nobody ever said that some PP staffers might preset the case for abortion and for adoption with equal fervor. But the better evidence is that most of them don’t. I remember a thread on a blog – can’ recll where, unfortunately — where PP workers and their supporers basically said “Of course, we do hardly any adoption referrals. Women who come to us arent’ interested in adoption. They know that we’re a place that does abortions.” So any girl or woman who is at all ambivalent isn’t going to get much discouragement from the abortion at PP.
Not long ago, I backed CC into a verbal corner until she finally declared: “Planned Parenthood is not in the maternity business!!”
True, that.
“And I have, in my life, acted in a manner that I believe is perfectly consistent with calling myself pro-choice and pro-life”
The two can not coexist. Either you believe that ALL human life is worth protecting or you believe that a woman should be able to kill some human life if she chooses to do so.
You can’t have it both ways.
You’re right, Lauren. Otherwise, you could be against killing your own toddlers, but perfectly alright with your neighbors offing theirs. There’s a disconnect there, to say the least.
“And I have, in my life, acted in a manner that I believe is perfectly consistent with calling myself pro-choice and pro-life”
The two can not coexist. Either you believe that ALL human life is worth protecting or you believe that a woman should be able to kill some human life if she chooses to do so.
You can’t have it both ways.
Actually, you can have it both ways, and Andrew is neither. Anyone who can defend the murder of millions of human beings is obviously not pro-life, and killing someone is not a choice, it’s a crime, however it does deprive someone of a lifetime of choices. What Andrew meant to say was:
“And I have, in my life, acted in a manner that I believe is perfectly consistent with calling myself pro-abortion”
The Greatest Trick the Devil ever played was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.
There’s no such thing as a pro lifer that’s also pro choice, unless the choice is about ice cream flavors or something.
Pro Life means ALL Life: mother AND unborn baby, the elderly and the disabled.
I just wanted to clarify my comment at 3:50 in case people think I’m saying you can be pro-abortion and pro-life at the same time, because I’m not.
I don’t like to use “pro-choice” to describe people who beleive that abortion should be legal because it’s just another euphamism that pro-aborts hide behind, and because it’s not someone’s “choice” to kill their baby any more than it’s someone’s choice to kill anyone else.
As the sayings go, “Pro-choice is a lie, babies do not chose to die” and “It’s a child, not a choice.”
Andrew:
Why did you engage when the quote wasn’t even worth engaging?
Your right Liz. Andrew fell for the evil one’s Greatest Trick.
satan loves when people don’t believe he exists. These non-believers cause him no additional work but actually do some of his work for him.
Praying for you Andrew.
“Why doesn’t Planned Parenthood just change it’s name to “Abortions R Us?” Why all the euphemism and double talk?”
Because abortion would be illegal if not for euphemisms, double talk, and outright lies.
Ninek, Limbaugh’s quote deserved nothing more than a quick dismissal, since it was baseless and was merely repeated without any additional argument. However, your misleading use of statistics warranted a more thorough response. And nice try with the labeling (some people really do get good at using labels rather than arguments to make a point), but I don’t oppose ‘life.’
Marauder, having your body used for nourishment and many bodily functions controlled by another individual against your will seems to pretty clearly constitute slavery to me. What do you think the distinction is?
“Joyfromillinois,” forgive me. Your use of quotation marks made me think you were trying to quote me, especially since I’d used a similar phrasing to make a very different point.
I have no problem acknowledging that a fetus is a human being, at least under some definition of the word. I have no need to ignore that. (By the way, science cannot “tell” us that the fetus is human. Science can discover facts and give us the tools to classify things, but classifications like “human” are social constructs, nothing more. Similarly, science is unable to definitely find the “prime human”, the point in the evolutionary trail when the first thing is human. Such questions are linguistic, not scientific, though they can be informed by scientific facts.)
Finally, of course not all choices are equal. But at the same time, not all “better” choices should be mandated by the government. That’s why it’s perfectly possible, and even common, to be both pro-choice and pro-life. To take one of your examples, would you support a law that took away your car, your house, most of your clothing, until the point when every child is being fed?
To people in general: I don’t know enough about the statistics of how often Planned Parenthood gives women certain information to have an informed discussion about that. If someone wants to cite some actual data (rather than the misleading statistics that ninek originally posted) on that point then we can have a discussion. Until then, person anecdotes (in my experience, Planned Parenthood is evil…) don’t really add anything.
Lori: “your apparent belief that PP is always perfectly uniased and presents the case for abortion and adoption /giving birth even-handedly”
Did I ever express that belief? Can you point me towards where I said that?
“Abby Johnson, who used to work at Planned Parenthood, has said that they were supposed to sell abortion, and increase the number of abortions they performed. Other former PP workers have said the same.”
Citations?
“So any girl or woman who is at all ambivalent isn’t going to get much discouragement from the abortion at PP.” They shouldn’t get discouragement or encouragement. They should get an honest listing of the options, and then be allowed to make their own choices. If someone can point to actual evidence that Planned Parenthood systematically hides resources that are available to pregnant mothers, that would be interesting, and lead to a good discussion. But so far I haven’t seen anything except for unsupported claims. (By the way, Planned Parenthood isn’t a pro-choice sacred cow or anything. There seems to be a view among many on this blog that discrediting Planned Parenthood is equivalent to discrediting the pro-choice ideology, but that’s clearly no more true than sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests discredits the Catholic faith in general.)
Lauren, I’m glad to hear that there is absolutely no situation in which you would kill. Even if someone were being tortured and killing the abuser were the only solution, I’m glad to know you would do nothing. It’s rare to find someone who stands so firmly on principle.
Kel, so you would say that one cannot be a Christian without believing that Christian moral principles should all be enforced by the coercive criminal statutes of the state?
To everyone who’s saying all life is worth protecting: where do you actually draw the line? Because we know that there is a point where you draw a line.
NAR, it’s easy to attack with labels, and hard to make a point with arguments. Try the latter.
LizFromNebraska, Praxedes: I’d recommend Augustine’s Confessions. It’s a fascinating work, and makes the case against the existence of evil far more powerfully than I can in the comment section to a blog post.
Justlookingon, because it was worth a quick dismissal, after which I engaged other comments, not the quote. Limbaugh is still unworthy of expending energy on.
Limbaugh’s right on. There are far too many people who view a human life as merely a BETTER CHOICE or only a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT or even a vile PARASITE. Take the environmental movement, for example. While there may be a pro-life wing, the bulk of it is rooted in the evolutionist notion of a common ancestor. “We’re all animals.” Therefore, it not only attempts to use language to change reality–“population control” and “sustainable development”–it actually lauds efforts to rid Mother Earth of the human beings supposedly sucking her life out.
Jon, are you rejecting evolution?
but classifications like “human” are social constructs, nothing more. Similarly, science is unable to definitely find the “prime human”, the point in the evolutionary trail when the first thing is human.
Andrew, if science understands us to be human – today, not however many millions of years ago – then how is it that our offspring could be considered anything other than human?
They shouldn’t get discouragement or encouragement. They should get an honest listing of the options, and then be allowed to make their own choices. If someone can point to actual evidence that Planned Parenthood systematically hides resources that are available to pregnant mothers, that would be interesting, and lead to a good discussion. But so far I haven’t seen anything except for unsupported claims.
You haven’t seen Live Action’s undercover videos of physicians giving incorrect fetal development information? http://liveaction.org/rosaacuna
Kel, so you would say that one cannot be a Christian without believing that Christian moral principles should all be enforced by the coercive criminal statutes of the state?
Is that what I said? I do not believe I said that anywhere. However, on the issue of life, it is very simple. If you are going to call yourself a Christian but turn a blind eye, repeatedly, after being made aware of the humanity of the unborn child, and continue to lend support to the pro-“some-other-woman’s-choice-even-though-I-could-NEVER-do-that”-choice to kill unborn children, then, yes, I question whether or not you are truly a Christian as defined by Scripture. Things like adultery, fornication, etc… those are things that Christianity obviously condemns, but to carry criminal penalties for these in America – no, I would not personally “say” that, Andrew. (It is interesting that so many pro-“choicers” make the argument that somehow outlawing abortion would be incredibly harmful and destructive – as if we have never lived in a country where abortion was NOT the law of the land.) When it comes to human life, however, every Christian should be WHOLE life. From conception to natural death.
Incidentally, Mark Steyn’s recent arts article, “Lullaby of Birdland,” mentioned that the songwriter, Sir George Stearing, was born blind. According to George Stearing, he was blind because his abortion was botched. Radical foundation on which to “see” one’s life–and one’s mother (or host if you were a parasite).
Uh oh, Jon. Looks like you’ve stepped on Mr. Christian pro-choice evolutionist’s toes. Yikes.
Andrew, I am not rejecting evolution. Quite the contrary, I have never accepted evolutionism. I don’t believe in evolutionism; I believe God. I’m an engineering graduate, and I do science by what I observe and reproducibly show. “From goo to you via the zoo” is the stuff of fairytales. And now with that parting provocation, I must leave or be late for an appointment–despite the risk of being labelled as a troll.
“It’s a fascinating work, and makes the case against the existence of evil far more powerfully than I can in the comment section to a blog post.”
Do you mean evil as a privation?
This isn’t worth discussing, but Andrew makes eight (8) comments about it. Hmm, the lady doth protest too much.
But what really made me laugh was when he wanted a citation about Abby Johnson saying that PP wanted to sell more abortions. If the ad that Jill has in the upper right corner of this blog isn’t big enough, Andrew, please see your optometrist immediately!!
Abby wrote a whole big book about it. You know what books are, Andrew, they have those funny wordy things all over their pages. ;>)!
Kel, ask any biologist and they’ll tell you that science cannot define a species, any more than it can define life. Science is capable of testing hypotheses and ascertaining physical facts, but scientific classifications are a matter of agreement and social consensus, not fact. Science can only determine whether something is a “human” once we decided upon exactly what “human” means. It cannot define the word for us.
Of course, I’m not sure this is relevant, since I agree that fetuses should probably be considered human individuals. But I guess it is important to realize that that classification is social, not scientific.
I’ll look at those LiveAction videos when I have a chance: thank you for providing a citation.
Finally, where in scripture is this line between personal moral commands and those which we’re supposed to compel others to obey? What, exactly, makes the line so abundantly clear that you feel comfortable making yourself the judge of others’ faith?
Jon, just to be clear: do you reject the fact that species evolve through mutation of the genetic pool, and that certain traits are selected for and passed down due to the survival and reproduction advantage that they convey? Or do you just reject a specific hypothesized evolutionary tree of species? When you say that you believe in God, do you mean that you believe humans were literally created 3000(?) years ago by a God who directly shaped Adam from the mud and Eve from his rib?
Incidentally, where do/did you go to school?
Bobby, yes. Evil merely as the lack of existence, not something which actually exists.
Ninek, thank you for including the numeral along with the word for the number. I’m sure it was very useful. :)
As to citations, if she’s said those things, it should be easy to find actual citations. And the claim wasn’t just about her, it was about “others” as well. I’m not going to read every single pro-life book out there just so you all don’t have to cite your claims.
I realize that I may be attempting to impose scientific standards on a faith-based community, but simply making claims about things which require more than anecdotal experience does not constitute proof, nor does just “knowing” that you read/saw something somewhere. If you make a claim, it’s your responsibility to back it up or admit that you can’t.
Finally, where in scripture is this line between personal moral commands and those which we’re supposed to compel others to obey? What, exactly, makes the line so abundantly clear that you feel comfortable making yourself the judge of others’ faith?
In our society, there are plenty of laws which we compel others to obey. These are based on moral judgments and commands.
I feel very comfortable in my belief that anyone who thinks premeditated murder is acceptable needs to seriously question whether that belief lines up with their faith.
If you believe the fetus is human, as you say, and in your opinion should be considered a human individual, then why is it acceptable for someone to kill this individual?
We have free will. This does not give us license to sin, as Paul makes clear in the book of Romans.
Disagreeing on whether one can be a Christian and believe in evolution or not is one issue. Disagreeing on whether one can be a Christian and believe in legalized abortion (the premeditated killing/murder of innocent human beings) is another. Some things really are up for debate in Christianity. Others – like murder – are not.
“Bobby, yes. Evil merely as the lack of existence, not something which actually exists.”
Okay, I think those you are discussing this question with then may agree with you. I don’t have much time anymore to take part in these discussions today, but at least the Catholic tradition (following Aquinas, building, it would seem, on Augustine) views evil as a privation; a missing of the mark. Thus, strictly speaking, evil does not exist as a thing. The analogy, though, is that of light and darkness. Darkness isn’t an actual thing but merely an absence of light. The Thomistic understanding would say the same thing about evil. I don’t know if this is what you had in mind, but maybe it’ll help clarify?
And that’s nine (9) comments from the lazy guy who doesn’t want to read but wants us to spoon feed him. I’m sorry, I’m one of those pro-lifers who doesn’t care about born children. If born children want to be spoon fed, that’s just too bad. Go gnaw on your mayonaisse sandwich, kiddo, and I’ll let you out of the closet in a few hours. Lol!
The above remarks about not caring for born children is of course sarcasm which plays into the popular meme that abortion advocates use that we don’t care about born children.
This is a blog where anyone can comment. I don’t owe anyone “proof” of anything. Abortion advocates beg for citations, then declare the study or conclusion is invalid. You can spend hours searching for links and footnotes only to have them dismiss the original query and launch down another rabbit hole of bad logic. If someone is sitting at a computer, then they have the same access to the information superhighway that I do. Do you want to take my word for this or that? Or do you want to see for yourself?
Do abortion advocates think that if I can’t convince them that they will be able to expand abortion until the numbers reach 100% of all pre-born children? Because once you accept 60% as being alright, where could you possibly draw the line?
If you are an abortion advocate, who thinks all human procreation must end, who believes that humans are a blight on the planet, then why don’t YOU furnish US with some proof? You can’t. Your belief in abortion as the savior of humanity is just that: a belief. It’s no different from believing the moon is made of green cheese. It’s no different from believing in the Easter bunny. You may smugly think you’re an atheist, but you are as steeped in your own private little world of belief as surely as any toddler who thinks there’s a monster under his bed.
I mean, if you’re a pro-abort type – if you’re pro-choice, if you’re pro-Planned Parenthood – and you learn that the abortion rate in New York City’s 41%, don’t you throw a party? That’s a hell of a success rate! Rush Limbaugh, February 25 says: February 28, 2011 at 11:52 am
~Talk radio show host
=======================================================
Andrew MacKie-Mason
“A quote that ignorant by someone like Rush Limbaugh isn’t even worth engaging.”
============================================================
I believe it was Bill Cosby who told of his sister complaining to his mother that he was watching her.
Coby’s mother told his sister to close her door.
His sister refused. She said if she did she couldn’t see what Cosby was doing.
Andrew MacKie-Mason says: February 28, 2011 at 12:20 pm
“Ninek, those statistics say nothing about the number of adoption referrals that PP makes.”
==============================================================
Andy,
You’re bettin on a dead whorse.
Your doublin down on dumb and losin money on the instant replay.
PP does not do adoptions dude.
There is no easy money to be made and adoptions do nothing to contribute to the de-population of the planet.
Finding homes for foundlings is not part of PP’s mission statement, not even for caucasian infants.
Get with the program.
PP’s primary function is summed up in their un-official name:
‘dead babies r us’
PP is proud that the abortion rate in NYC is 41%. They are especially pleased with themselves that the ‘abortion rate’ for non-caucasians is eve higher.
PP’s favorite winter season song: WHITE Christmas
Andrew MacKie-Mason says: March 1, 2011 at 1:42 pm
“Kel, ask any biologist and they’ll tell you that science cannot define a species, any more than it can define life.”
=============================================================
The hierarchy of biological classification‘s eight major taxonomic ranks, which is an example of definition by genus and differentia.
1. Life
2. Domain
3. Kingdom
4. Phylum
5. Class
6. Order
7. Family
8. Genus
9. Species
Andy,
When ‘yo momma’ was pregnant with you what biological classification of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
Can you break it down for us bro?
I just finished Abby’s book. Great job and God Bless You Abby!
Some of the quotes that you are looking for are on pages 114 and 115 of Abby’s book, Andrew.
Andrew I see that you are very bright and just seem to want to argue into oblivion. I hope you find what you are looking for. I am sorry that everything here is not good enough for what ever you are searching for. Pro-lifers will not give up on helping others, or give up taking the high road.
We protect others, help those in need, give away things our own families can use and try to make a difference. We look at human life as valuable, and important. Mind games only take one so far – but love becomes a life-style that is rich, enchanting, encompassing, peaceable and self-donating. It’s not an intellectual exercise, it’s real life. and it’s important.
It’s not the fancy arguments or entanglements that make life rich – it’s human relationships and self-donation. It’s tackling tough problems and sharing, it is donating time to difficult, long odds and not giving up. It’s making a difference in a family’s life, giving help where needed.
But to have real life, you need life. not fancy arguments…Life.
Justlookingon, because it was worth a quick dismissal, after which I engaged other comments, not the quote. Limbaugh is still unworthy of expending energy on.
Andrew – so, it was worth engaging with a quick dismissal?
Justlookingon, because it was worth a quick dismissal, after which I engaged other comments, not the quote. Limbaugh is still unworthy of expending energy on.
So, Andrew, you did not answer my question – why did you engage when it wasn’t worth engaging?
Joyfromillinois
That’s so true what you posted at 7:43 but sometimes I wish as pro-lifers we’d focus less on convincing those who usually have their hearts and minds already made up and spend more time addressing the crimes being committed by those in the abortion industry. I think as pro-lifers that was an admirable goal to help them see the light but it should never have been our primary goal our primary goal should have always been to fight it out in the courts. Thankfully, I think theres been a shift in the pro-life fight and we’re seeing better results.
Rush is partly right.
41% is a good start, but it isn’t enough.
The world will hit 7 billion people this year, and with Americans consuming most of the world’s natural resources, the more of us that get exterminated, so much the better for our mother, the earth. We’re filthy, and evil, and have worn out our welcome on the planet. We need to go, before the planet becomes a wasteland.
Welcome to the conjoined twins of abortion and environmentalism. They share the same blood supply, therefore a toxin ingested by one, affects the other. In their symbiosis, they live, and move, and do all in seamless union.
They hate humanity, and the planet’s health is a pretext for their bloodlust. Only the most ill-informed buy their pseudo-science. In truth, there have been at least five major extinctions over the past 540 million years, wiping out upwards of 90% of all species that have ever lived.
And here we are.
The earth won’t die because of human activity. Perhaps we might…
…eventually. But I offer the solid proabort this observation:
We’ve aborted 1.8 BILLION members of our species in 50 years, and the pace is accelerating. The population exploded, not because we began breeding like mosquitoes, but because we stopped dying like flies. Thus that growth contains a large and aging bubble. When they die, the population will implode.
And nothing wipes out human life faster than a suction catheter.
Kel, I’m wondering from where in scripture you’re drawing the distinction between what sin Christians can and cannot accept in others: what moral commands must we support implementing through civil power in order to be considered “true Christians” in your eyes, and what moral commands can we accept as more personal? And where, in Scripture, do you derive that distinction from?
Bobby, yes, that’s basically what I’m talking about.
Ninek, I’m becoming more and more convinced that you don’t actually read a single thing I write: you just keep trying to flame and call me a troll.
For one thing, I’m not sure how many times I need to say that I’m a Christian before you’ll stop saying that I believe myself to be an atheist? And since I’ve said nothing that would lead you to accurately believe that I “[think] all human procreation must end”, “[believe] that humans are a blight on the planet” or have a “belief in abortion as the savior of humanity”, you must either be not even trying to engage with what I’m writing or be deliberately mischaracterizing my positions. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re not a liar and ask that you please read my positions before attacking them.
Finally, you have no duty to prove anything, but if people make factual claims they do have a duty to back them up. If I’ve inadvertently made any such claims without citation, please call me out on them and I’ll either find my proof or admit my mistakes.
Praxedes, thank you for the citation. I’ll see if I can procure a copy somewhere and check those out.
Joyfromillinois, it’s not a matter of ‘fancy’ arguments. It’s a matter of honest communication that’s one of the most important parts of human relationships, because it helps with self-examination. At the point when we cease discussing our views and just demand that others accept and respect them without question, we’ve abandoned any hope we have as a species to rise above human limitations to something higher.
Justlookingon, dismissing is not engaging.
Gerald Nadal, it’s statements like that, statements that make baseless assertions about your opponents views and set up strawmen to argue against, that contribute the most to hate and a lack of understanding between individuals.
Wow, Andy, you must have a whopping huge ego to think I addressed all of my comments to you and you alone. You might not have noticed, but you are not the only one here who thinks its alright to kill pre-born humans at will. For every one troll who comments, there are probably ten lurkers who don’t (based on a quote from Dale Carnegie about people who write letters). Not to mention cc, Joan, Ex-gop, and all the other “regulars.”
Ten (10). Again, I urge all not-pro-life people to read Bernard Nathanson’s books. They are very brief and articulate. Why listen to us? I didn’t found NARAL. I didn’t perform or oversee thousands of abortions, but he did. And no one can protest that he was just some pro-life nutter. He wasn’t.
Andy: By giving reference to the comment, you engaged. If something is not worth engaging, you don’t engage in a dismissal. So why did you engage, if it wasn’t worth it?
Ninek, who’s Andy? Now I am confused about who you’re addressing.
However, grammatically speaking, the comments I was referencing are directed to me. You began with a clear address to me, then progressed to something that was clearly your warped view of my behavior, and then started to use an unspecified “you,” which by standard rules of English continues the previous address. If that passage was not meant to be directed at me, then it was a failure of your ability to communicate your point, not some ego that you would like to accuse me of having.
Also, grammatically, this sentence: “If you are an abortion advocate, who thinks all human procreation must end, who believes that humans are a blight on the planet, then why don’t YOU furnish US with some proof?” is a claim that all abortion advocates think that human procreation must end and that humans are a blight on the planet. Since you’ve (mistakenly) labeled me as “pro-abortion” before, it is natural/logical, not egotistical, to take it at least partially as addressed to me.
Justlookingon, when not used in some simplistic, proto-Socratic attempt to run people into a trap of words, “engage” means to “to occupy oneself; become involved”. Announcing an intention not to engage is not an engagement. I realize what you’re trying to do, but it’s simply not an accurate characterization of what happened.
Ok, maybe the ego comment was a bit snarky.
For all the pro-choice folks out there reading: this is Jill Stanek’s blog. She writes the main articles and is generous enough to let us all comment with a minimum of deletions. Thus, not all commenters agree with each other, or with Jill.
Speaking only for myself as an individual:
I have NO common ground with pro-choice advocates. I have a no-exceptions pro-life objective. That means I am working to end ALL elective abortion. (That obviously does not include real life-saving measures such as treating an ectopic pregnancy, which in 2011 cannot yet save the baby). I have a no-exceptions objective which means NO elective abortion for anyone for any reason whatsoever. I am committed to this objective. I am committed to achieving this objective by peaceful means. I am stubborn and tenacious. Cecile Richards is not as committed to her cause as I am to mine. Margaret Sanger was not as committed as I. I will never give up until one of two things occur: I die or legal abortion ends. I will either live to see the end of legal abortion on this planet, or I will die trying before the objective is achieved. If you are pro-choice, I promise you that your resolve will wilt before mine. So have I written it, so shall I do it.
Yes, it’s so generous to allow people to disagree with you. We should all be so grateful!
I’m trying to understand how your last rant-bit fits into the general conversation on this thread. Are you trying to say that you’re willing to do anything, even mischaracterize other people’s positions, lie about what they support, unfairly demonize your opponents, etc, just to achieve your goal? Or is it something else?
Sweetie, please examine the word “peaceful.” Lying is not peaceful; it’s the tactic of bullies. My rant is my rant and I can rant anywhere I please :>) .
Many of us have tried unsuccessfuly to post on pro-pre-natal-homicide sites, such as Unrealitycheck and Abortion Gangsters (humorous nicknames intended!) but it’s amazing how almost all pro-life comments disappear before or immediately after posting. Jill Stanek allows any opinion at all, which is probably why so many people visit her site. You should be grateful. If her name was Amanda Marcotte, opposing opinions would never see the light of day. And my opponents? They usually do a good job of demonizing themselves.
Eleven (11).
Can you remind me the point of the counting?
So, if you don’t lie, does that mean you’re withdrawing or correcting your seeming assertion that everyone who’s pro-choice thinks that all fetuses should be aborted?
And I doubt you’ll ever convince me to be grateful that someone doesn’t engage in mass censorship. Allowing opposing opinions should be default, not something that anyone is particularly proud of. The fact that you seem to treat disagreement as a special privilege is just a little worrisome.
12
The level of substantive debate and non-trolling you’re demonstrating is truly inspiring.
13.
Of course I’m having a bit of fun counting all the times you’ve commented on something not worth commenting on.
Do I even need to point out how that last comment betrays a lack of reading comprehension?
Justlookingon, when not used in some simplistic, proto-Socratic attempt to run people into a trap of words, “engage” means to “to occupy oneself; become involved”. Announcing an intention not to engage is not an engagement. I realize what you’re trying to do, but it’s simply not an accurate characterization of what happened.
Because you say so, Andy?
Thank you. I realize you are trying, always, to do the same thing. You do not accurately characterize the motives, intents, and conversations of the people that graciously allow you to continue to troll this blog. You became involved by making a fallacious statement on the original post. Clearly, by “announcing” your ‘non-engagement’, you engaged yourself in this thread. If something is not worth “engaging”, then one remains silent – like I have on the countless pseudo-intellectual comments you have posted. I didn’t have to announce their unworthiness. Quit trying to assert an advantage you really don’t possess. Be regular, and wipe the snot off your nose.
Does not referring to people by their names constitute some sort of hazing ritual here? Or is it just some sort of juvenile form of attack from people who won’t themselves post under their own names?
“Engage” does not mean what I said it does because I said so. It means that because I pulled it from the dictionary.
Honestly, justlookingon, I think you need to reflect on what trolling is. It is not going into a community and expressing unpopular views, as I have done. It is engaging in personal attacks, insults, mischaracterization, etc in order to provoke someone’s emotions, rather than dealing with them at the level of debate. I just checked, and so far you have not contributed one substantive addition to this thread. Who do you really think is trolling?
I’ll address your incomprehension about what it is to engage a position one final time, but after this I have actual important things to attend to. Feel free to respond, but until you contribute something new, don’t expect anything from me.
To engage a position is to answer it with argument, analysis, etc. It is to assume that the speaker is worth listening to, analyzing, and answering.
What I did, saying that you will not bother to engage something, is an insult, a dismissal. Is it an intellectual thing to do? No. Polite? Certainly not. But it can be justified at times, like when dealing with an ignorant assertion from Rush Limbaugh. That distinction, between dismissal and engagement, between insulting an individual and actually engaging them in discussion, is one you may want to look into a little more.
“pseudo-intellectual”, “assert an advantage”, “Be regular, and wipe the snot off your nose.”
Excuse me? Would you care to actually explain what you’re trying to accuse me of, or will you just take the coward’s way out of throwing out clever phrases and slinking off?