Turn of tide? Humanity of Jubilee Duggar not up for debate
The [blog] debate that all of these people were having was whether or not the Duggars had disrespected their child by showing pictures of her deceased body at the funeral. Of the hundreds of comments I read, nobody suggested that this was not a full-fledged child. The cause of contention was the issue of whether they had respected their daughter’s dignity, not whether she had dignity in the first place. Her worthiness of respect was taken for granted.
… This would not have been the tenor of the conversation 10 years ago — or even five. Even as recently as 2006, there would have been a flood of “it’s just a fetus, who cares?” remarks, and the debate would have centered around whether the child was even worthy of a funeral.
The old myth about unborn life being “just a clump of tissue” has been under attack since the advent of the ultrasound machine, and now it would seem that it’s finally been relegated to the dustbin of history….
I fully believe that 100 years from now, the vast majority of people will consider abortion morally wrong — modern technology has made it too hard to deny the dignity of human life within the womb. The only question was when the shift would finally happen, when society would finally stop clinging to the antiquated, unscientific ideas about unborn children. Survey data has been looking promising for a while, but the internet reaction to the Duggar photos seals it. There is no question that our society has far more respect for unborn human life than it used to….
I believe that we have just witnessed the tide turn.
~ Jennifer Fulwiler, National Catholic Register, December 19
[Pixelated photo of baby Jubilee’s tiny hand via starcasm.net, which warned viewers that uncensored photos of the “child” might be “disturbing.”]
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.
Jubilee has taught us all a powerful lesson about the humanity and dignity of unborn people like herself. What a beautiful legacy for her. This reminds me of the caption on one of Jubilee’s pictures, something to the effect of “there are no feet so small that they cannot leave an imprint in this world”. In her case, it really was her feet that made an imprint.
May Jubilee’s memory be eternal.
whether or not the Duggars had disrespected their child by showing pictures of her deceased body at the funeral. Of the hundreds of comments I read, nobody suggested that this was not a full-fledged child. The cause of contention was the issue of whether they had respected their daughter’s dignity, not whether she had dignity in the first place. Her worthiness of respect was taken for granted.
… This would not have been the tenor of the conversation 10 years ago — or even five. Even as recently as 2006, there would have been a flood of “it’s just a fetus, who cares?” remarks, and the debate would have centered around whether the child was even worthy of a funeral.
Oh good grief – what does it really matter what “somebody else suggests,” there? It’s up to the Duggars.
It is Jubiliee’s hand that is pixelated.
There is no hiding the truth from those that wish to see the humanity of the preborn.
Amen for ultrasound technology!!
Do clumps of cells and masses of tissues have tiny feet, hands, arms, legs, heads and faces?
Lord, open the eyes of your people.
While we can use this sad moment in Duggars’ family to illustrate the sanctity of life or whether or not one feels this life is a child or not, I think one point is being missed. It is up to the Duggars on how they grieve their loss and not anybody else. They chose to publicize the fact they were having a funeral service for their daughter and had pictures of her. She is their daughter after all, they do not want to forget her and nor should anybody else. People handle grief differently and I say “thank you” to the Duggar family for showing our culture of death that there is beauty in death and that a life is a life, no matter how short it is or if they saw life outside the womb.
Carla, whoops, right, will fix, thanks.
“Oh good grief – what does it really matter what “somebody else suggests,” there? It’s up to the Duggars.”
Who decides what you are, Doug? Whatever word it is that best defines how you view yourself at your most essential (person, human being, etc), who is that “up to”?
@Doug: Given that the article not about what the Duggars should/did do but about how people reacted, emotionally, to the child as discernible from their comments, then what “somebody else suggests” is the only thing that matters in terms of the article’s conclusion. Obviously it’s up to them how they mourn their child. But the article isn’t about them. It’s about everyone else’s reactions and how they express that.
The power of pictures, AGAIN.
We need to see the pictures!
Not to nit-pick Jennifer’s Fulwiler’s wonderful post (which I pray is spot-on), but weren’t there blogs and stories about Jubilee that referred to the “fetal corpse”? That doesn’t sound to me like acknowledging a full-fledged baby. That’s precisely the way you attempt to dehumanize a baby.
i HATE to keep reminding these nutty pro death pro aborts but FETUS is latin for “little one” i mean duh! little one what? purse car fence? little baby. while i was preggo doctors used both…..fetal heartbeat and baby. dont they realize how stupid they actually sound?
“Oh good grief – what does it really matter what “somebody else suggests,” there? It’s up to the Duggars.”
Alexandra: Who decides what you are, Doug? Whatever word it is that best defines how you view yourself at your most essential (person, human being, etc), who is that “up to”?
Good question, Alexandra. Anybody can say anything, of course. If my family and friends were holding a wake for me, I say let them have free reign. :)
As to what is the “most essential” nature of us, part of us, etc., I’m not totally sure what you mean. There are many beliefs and philosophies about it. Is it really up to one entity?
i HATE to keep reminding these nutty pro death pro aborts but FETUS is latin for “little one” i mean duh!
Oh Heather, with all due respect, yeah, you do mean “duh,” because it does not mean that. You’ve been reading nutty anti-choice websites again, or quoting people too gullible to know better. :( ;)
Alice: Given that the article not about what the Duggars should/did do but about how people reacted, emotionally, to the child as discernible from their comments, then what “somebody else suggests” is the only thing that matters in terms of the article’s conclusion. Obviously it’s up to them how they mourn their child. But the article isn’t about them. It’s about everyone else’s reactions and how they express that.
Alice, I’m saying there is no necessary “should” as to what the Duggars did. Yeah, we can no doubt find a huge spectrum of opinion, from “they did not do nearly enough,” to “they did altogether too much.”
I hear you on everybody else’s reactions, and I’d say that anybody, regardless of whether they’d be generally classified as pro-life or pro-choice, can have their opinions, but so what? I’m saying it’s foolish to presume that those opinions necessarily carry any weight, whether you think them wacky or not. I fully agree that it’s silly to say something like, “They didn’t need to do that because it wasn’t a human being.” Likewise for saying they should have paraded the corpse around for a day (days?) like Santorum did.
Well, according to the Oxford English Dictionary and others, fetus actually means “offspring,” though I know some will object to even that, since the offspring has not yet “sprung off,” which according to them, means being born.
And really, even Doug knows a human fetus is human. He just doesn’t think it’s got enough other qualities, besides human DNA, which make it “human enough” to accord it any rights, including the right to life. At least that’s what I’ve gotten from numerous conversations with him.
But then again, he’s a tad hard to pin down…
The old myth about unborn life being “just a clump of tissue” has been under attack since the advent of the ultrasound machine, and now it would seem that it’s finally been relegated to the dustbin of history….
Ultrasound machines are a great invention of course, but even before they were around, the bloody, mutilated body of the very first pre-born baby that was aborted was the only testimony anybody needed to testify that this is a child, not “just a clump of tissue”. The pro-aborts are without excuse far beyond the invention of the ultrasound.
Doug wrote, in reply to Heather:
[Heather]
i HATE to keep reminding these nutty pro death pro aborts but FETUS is latin for “little one” i mean duh!
[Doug]
Oh Heather, with all due respect, yeah, you do mean “duh,” because it does not mean that. You’ve been reading nutty anti-choice websites again, or quoting people too gullible to know better. :( ;)
Er… sir, I’m afraid that’s quite incorrect, and that Heather is correct:
Webster’s Dictionary:
[Latin expression fetus, foetus, bringing forth, brood, offspring, young ones, compare to fetus fruitful, fructified, that is or was filled with young; akin to English fawn deer, fecundity, felicity, feminine, female, and probably to do, or according to others, to be.].
Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary:
II. Concr., young, offspring, progeny, brood (the predom. signif. of the word, in sing. and plur.; esp. freq. in poets; cf.: “catulus, pullus, hinnus, hinnuleus):
Wherever did you get the idea that “fetus” did NOT mean “young/offspring”, anyway?
:) Sorry, Kel… I missed your entry as I typed! I’d say that “great minds think alike”, but I don’t have quite so much confidence in my own mind, as all that…
“As to what is the “most essential” nature of us, part of us, etc., I’m not totally sure what you mean. There are many beliefs and philosophies about it. Is it really up to one entity?”
I was not referring to philosophies or beliefs, just semantics. Whatever you or anyone else calls a person. :P So, ie, you’re a person. If your family, at your wake, said you weren’t, would that mean you weren’t? Anybody can say anything – but is anything anybody says true?
Alice, I’m saying there is no necessary “should” as to what the Duggars did. Yeah, we can no doubt find a huge spectrum of opinion, from “they did not do nearly enough,” to “they did altogether too much.”
Absolutely agreed with you here.
I hear you on everybody else’s reactions, and I’d say that anybody, regardless of whether they’d be generally classified as pro-life or pro-choice, can have their opinions, but so what?
That question is precisely what the article is exploring. What conclusions can be drawn from these reactions? What do they indicate about people’s thoughts with regards to the life and dignity of the Jubilee as a child? Not because those thoughts translate into anything relevant in terms of what the Duggars should or shouldn’t do, but because they speak to what people think–in broad strokes–about the life and dignity of unborn persons in general. The indignation of random strangers on Jubilee’s behalf is utterly irrelevant to the Duggar’s specific situation. The point the article speaks to is that people, in general, seem to feel that Jubilee was a person worth being indignant for, even though she had not been born. And that is a significant observation, in terms of the socio-cultural view of the unborn.
Paladin, I’ve seen the same definitions you have. “Fetus” is still not Latin for “young one,” or “little one.”
Kel: And really, even Doug knows a human fetus is human. He just doesn’t think it’s got enough other qualities, besides human DNA, which make it “human enough” to accord it any rights, including the right to life. At least that’s what I’ve gotten from numerous conversations with him.
Merry Christmas, Kel. Indeed, the unborn in this argument are as human as you and me. “Human enough” is not what I’m saying for rights and personhood. It is also not solely a question of “rights or not” for the unborn, since there’s also the pregnant woman to consider.
Not when she wants to kill her little one. Then we have to step in. We’d do it in any other case. Wish you could’ve met me and my newborn Blaise. NEVER stopeed screaming. Didn’t shower for a week. REALLY CRAMPED MY LIFESTYLE. Had a couple moments there where I wanted to put him in the dumpster.
Alexandra: I was not referring to philosophies or beliefs, just semantics. Whatever you or anyone else calls a person. :P So, ie, you’re a person. If your family, at your wake, said you weren’t, would that mean you weren’t? Anybody can say anything – but is anything anybody says true?
Does anybody really know what time it is? :)
Okay, I gotcha now. Two things – one is that if the family said I wasn’t, then in there opinion I would not be.
The second is that their opinion would not change the fact that rights and personhood were attributed to me at birth.
Who attributed those to you?
I can’t figure out why TMZ or any other site pixilated Jubilee’s tiny hand. Good grief! What’s “disturbing” about a tiny baby’s hand..alive OR dead? I mean, it’s not like her little hand was bloody, or her tiny fingers chopped off or anything!
It’s only “disturbing” to those who don’t want other people to see that tiny Jubilee’s hand is attached to a fully formed HUMAN BEING.
Just because she’s dead doesn’t make the sight of her tiny little hand in her mommy’s any LESS precious!
Alice: That question is precisely what the article is exploring. What conclusions can be drawn from these reactions? What do they indicate about people’s thoughts with regards to the life and dignity of the Jubilee as a child? Not because those thoughts translate into anything relevant in terms of what the Duggars should or shouldn’t do, but because they speak to what people think–in broad strokes–about the life and dignity of unborn persons in general. The indignation of random strangers on Jubilee’s behalf is utterly irrelevant to the Duggar’s specific situation. The point the article speaks to is that people, in general, seem to feel that Jubilee was a person worth being indignant for, even though she had not been born. And that is a significant observation, in terms of the socio-cultural view of the unborn.
Alice, I read through the posts at Jezebel, and yeah – nobody was arguing about “child” or “baby.” Rather, if it was creepy or not to show the pictures, have the pictures, etc., and how times have changed since before photography was so cheap, easy, and available as today. I saw nothing in the context of the abortion argument. The pictures *are* after being out of the womb, right?
As far as the “form” of the fetus and how “unborn babies” look, it’s not been in doubt that I can remember. Well before Roe, in the mid-1960s, we could see the Lennart Nilsson photographs of gestational development. Surely that, or earlier things, would have left little doubt about how embryos and fetuses look.
On “people feeling that Jubillee was a person worth being indignant for,” I saw nothing to that effect at Jezebel. Same as for the abortion debate, it didn’t come up. However, maybe the other websites do make a case for some change in the socio-cultural view of the unborn.
“Does anybody really know what time it is?”
When I was a kid I used to flip out wondering about colors. What if everyone else sees blue as green but they call it blue so we think we’re seeing the same thing, etc etc etc. ;)
Pamela: I can’t figure out why TMZ or any other site pixilated Jubilee’s tiny hand. Good grief! What’s “disturbing” about a tiny baby’s hand..alive OR dead? I mean, it’s not like her little hand was bloody, or her tiny fingers chopped off or anything!
It’s only “disturbing” to those who don’t want other people to see that tiny Jubilee’s hand is attached to a fully formed HUMAN BEING.
In looking at the TMZ site comments, I’m not seeing anybody disturbed about “fully-formed human being.” But they sure are hard on the Duggars…yee-ouch! I fully agree that they don’t need to pixilate the picture.
When I was a kid I used to flip out wondering about colors. What if everyone else sees blue as green but they call it blue so we think we’re seeing the same thing, etc etc etc. ;)
Me too, Alexandra. Same for tastes, smells, all the senses, really. Other than some sort of “mind-link” where brains really would be “wired together,” or having one person’s cerebral cortex (and perhaps some other parts of the brain) “plugged in” to another’s sensory apparatus and/or brain, we can’t directly experience what someone else does.
Doug wrote:
Paladin, I’ve seen the same definitions you have. “Fetus” is still not Latin for “young one,” or “little one.”
Er… what, exactly, do you suppose “offspring” would mean, if not a young one who is the (small) biological product (forgive the crass word) of his/her biological parents? As for “little”, I’ll challenge you to show me an unborn child who is larger than his/her mother! :)
I fail to see how anyone could reasonably say, “All right, I’ll accept that the term ‘fetus’ means ‘young offspring’, but I refuse to concede that the term ‘little one’ would ever apply to such a being!” Surely you’ve heard “little one” and “young one” used interchangeably, even in the case of children who are already born? As it is: Heather’s point (and mine) is that the word “fetus”, so treasured by the abortion-tolerant for its apparent dehumanising, clinical-sounding effect, was never meant to “dehumanise” at all… any more than I would be dehumanising a child to say, “Come here, little one!” (Heavens, the father of St. Therese of Lisieux called her that, all the time… and he would be the last one to dehumanise her!) I think that’s been established fairly solidly.
Who cares what the word “fetus” means in Latin? I mean, really? I could point out hundreds of words with Latin (or Greek, or Germanic) roots that have different meanings to modern English speakers than they originally had to native speakers thousands of years ago.
Thanks for the Christmas greetings, Doug. :) Same to you.
Pregnant women and their children should both be accorded rights, most especially the right to life. They are not enemies to be pitted against each other in a competition for rights. They are mother and child.
Well, obviously a lot of people care what “fetus” actually means, joan, since it’s obvious that a changing of the terms and use of dehumanizing language has been a large part of the “choice” movement.
well then joan im sure if you dont give a crud about meanings then you wont be upset when i say ” every abortion causes adead baby.”
cuz joan you can keep your fetus or embryo. i will say dead baby and we will agree.
Hey, where’s Duck?
Pamela: I can’t figure out why TMZ or any other site pixilated Jubilee’s tiny hand. Good grief! What’s “disturbing” about a tiny baby’s hand..alive OR dead? I mean, it’s not like her little hand was bloody, or her tiny fingers chopped off or anything!
It’s only “disturbing” to those who don’t want other people to see that tiny Jubilee’s hand is attached to a fully formed HUMAN BEING.
In looking at the TMZ site comments, I’m not seeing anybody disturbed about “fully-formed human being.” But they sure are hard on the Duggars…yee-ouch! I fully agree that they don’t need to pixilate the picture.
______________________________________________
That’s what TMZ and others had said about the pictures,Doug.
It said “WARNING: Disturbing Images.
You can go to the movies or turn on the TV at any given time and see people shot in the face at point blank range, but a baby’s hand is a ‘disturbing image’? Would that same hand attached to a preemie that survived also be deemed ‘disturbing?’ The only disturbing thing I see is our society’s recoiling from the truth. We gave our daughter a funeral after I miscarried at 7 months. To proaborts, that’s ghoulish, but had that same baby been dismembered in an abortion they would have called ir ‘reproductive justice.’ SMH @ the stupid.
Joan: only disturbing if its portrayed in a movie, like, let’s say, WEEKEND AT BERNIE’S.
btw weekend at bernies was a dumb movie for teenage boys. its also for the braindead and drunks. which are you joan?
its sad AND disturbing that some find the tiny hand being held by her mother disturbing….its not disturbing! Its showing a HUMAN BEING!
Did they blur out pictures of the holocaust? Did they blur out the picture of EMMETT TILL, who was beaten to death for being a black man?
Then why censor a picture of a tiny baby who died in the womb naturally at 20 weeks….is it because it shows the truth that Jubilee was HUMAN? That babies that age are ABORTED?
I doubt that even 400 years ago people thought a fetus was a member of the cephalopod family. They would quite likely have thought it was ‘human’. So is a sperm, a liver or an elbow according to dna.
Some people who miscarry go through the process the Duggars chose to. Others choose to just walk away and leave the miscarried fetus as medical waste. Just like some are aghast at abortion and others don’t give it a second thought.
Its always a matter of choice. Peoples opinions, thoughts and feelings in regard to these matters are subjective and based on personal experiences.
Stating that a fetus is human won’t change that. We already know that.
The Duggars are obviously anti-choice. They want a large family. They have mostly had successful pregnancies. This one wasn’t and they are dealing with it as they choose. But that’s not good enough for you, you need to turn it into a propaganda exercise.
So is a sperm, a liver or an elbow according to dna.
No, Reality. A human being, not just “human”. Sperm is not its own organism. A liver is not its own organism. DNA is not the ONLY deciding factor in determining whether a gestating human being is their own unique member of our species. You’re either profoundly ignorant of basic biology, or being disingenuous.
‘Human’, ‘human being’ , whatever, my point is still the same.
Paladin, I’ve seen the same definitions you have. “Fetus” is still not Latin for “young one,” or “little one.”
Er… what, exactly, do you suppose “offspring” would mean, if not a young one who is the (small) biological product (forgive the crass word) of his/her biological parents? As for “little”, I’ll challenge you to show me an unborn child who is larger than his/her mother!
Oy vey, ask a Latin speaker to translate “young one” and “little one” into English. If the answer is “fetus” then okay. Or, have “fetus” translated into English. That “offspring” tend to be relatively smaller than something else in no way means that what the coo-coo for cocoa puffs websites say is correct.
Latin for “young one” and “little one” is gonna be something like the roots of “juvenile” or “adolescent” or “infant” with an article, or “unum paulum.”
Pamela: That’s what TMZ and others had said about the pictures,Doug. It said “WARNING: Disturbing Images.
True, Pamela – I saw that too. That’s not the commenters, though. FWIW I don’t see why TMZ would censor it. Okay, it’s the hand of a 20 week baby (without arguing about “baby” and no point in that anyway), and for dang near a half century (or more) we’ve been able to see gestational development
Who attributed those to you?
The Pan-Galactic Straw Boss, of course. ;)
Society.
Doug:
Dictionary.com is your friend
FETUS: the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
I’ve never been to a FETUS SHOWER, just BABY SHOWERS!
“Not when she wants to kill her little one. Then we have to step in.”
What exactly do you mean by “step in?” Are you saying that you have the right to physically stop a woman from aborting? Isn’t that the same as forcing a woman to have an abortion? Are you saying that the rights of a fetus supersede the rights of the woman who is carrying it? Would you say that you have the right to arrest a pregnant woman who is smoking or drinking? If so, does the state take custody of both the woman and the fetus? Bottom line – what right do you have to tell women what they can do with their body which is their personal property.
Re “pre-born babies”- Love how the anti-choicers have changed the medical lexicon to suit their propaganda. Despite their claim that “science” is on their side, science does not refer to fetuses as “pre-born babies.” But as a way to equate abortion with the killing of post-born children, it has a certain emotional appeal. Emotion, however, has nothing to do with science which deals with facts and it has not been established, as fact, that fetuses are “persons” entitled to all the rights of the post-born. The voters in Mississippi don’t think so!
“I generally don’t have any interest in responding to the rantings of a subliterate moron.”
The folks I work with that have lower IQs call people they disagree with “retards.” The folks I work with that have high IQs sound just like joan. All of these folks are in a program for the emotionally disturbed.
At least you’ve got the high IQ thang going for you, joan.
heather says, “well then joan im sure if you dont give a crud about meanings then you wont be upset when i say ” every abortion causes adead baby.”
Huzzah Heather, I thought the same thing when joan asked “who cares” what fetus means. If terms aren’t important, than I don’t really see the point of pro-choicers saying, “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus!”
joan says, “…I generally don’t have any interest in responding to the rantings of a subliterate moron.”
joan, your rudeness and name calling do not convince me of your pro-choice arguments, only of well, your rudeness.
Reality says, “The Duggars are obviously anti-choice. They want a large family.”
Reality, why do you say the Duggars anti-choice for making a choice to have a large family? Whether you intended to or not, your comments suggest it is you are anti-choice against people who choose to have large families.
Not at all Eric. I don’t assume they are anti-choice because they have a large family, I wouldn’t assume that of anyone. It is all the various things I have read about them – apart from their desire for a large family per se – which leads me to that conclusion.
“Huzzah Heather, I thought the same thing when joan asked “who cares” what fetus means. If terms aren’t important, than I don’t really see the point of pro-choicers saying, “It’s not a baby, it’s a fetus!”
To clarify, I asked “who cares?” regarding the Latin definition of “fetus”. The English language has adopted many Latin and Greek words and it has not always retained the original meanings of those words in the process. Whatever “fetus” might have meant to native speakers thousands of years ago is irrelevant.
“joan, your rudeness and name calling do not convince me of your pro-choice arguments, only of well, your rudeness.”
Eric, there is making an argument and then there is swatting a fly. Only one of them calls for grace.
Liz: Dictionary.com is your friend
Much like coffee, then. :)
____
FETUS: the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
Yeah, so what? That does not mean that “fetus” is Latin for “young one” or “little one.”
You have a latindictionary.com or anything in your knapsack? ;)
Liz: Dictionary.com is your friend
Like coffee, then. :)
____
FETUS: the young of an animal in the womb or egg, especially in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.
That still doesn’t mean that “fetus” is Latin for “young one” or “little one.”
You got a latindictionary.com in your knapsack? ;)
joan june whatever at least i dont watch weekend at bernies. i prefer class not trash. im typing from a tiny phone and i didnt know or care that you were grading. anyway sticks n stones ya know. now tell me…..what did your abortion solve again?
yes and joan how could anyone expect you to be nice after what you did to your own baby? you havent repented and your bitterness is showing. btw i cant help but notice that you dont address anyone when they ask you what your abortion solved. my guess is NOTHING!
@ doug…then if you apply fetus to an animal only then please explain to me why doctors say both fetus and baby?????? are you a doctor? not one doctor has ever said “lets listen to the animals heartbeat.” why is there a giant sign in the hospital that says ” fetal diagnostics ahead” its a hospital not a vets office.
“btw i cant help but notice that you dont address anyone when they ask you what your abortion solved. my guess is NOTHING!”
I noticed that too, heather. Joan is filled with such grace though, isn’t she? At least in her own mind she is.
SWAT!
yes praxedes….also hahaha joan is seeking out a pro life web site. yet i seek her out? moonbat! yeah thats why i troll around pro choice sites. uh hu. maybe her abortion freed her up to watch more dumb movies. what a waste. joan you had that coming.
I, too, would like to know what joan’s abortion solved. Also, why do you keep coming here, joan?
it just reminds me of when people say ” (oh wasnt that movie “meet the faulkers side splitting”???? yeah a real scream i think with an eyeroll to boot. i just tell them “nah i thought it was stupid.”
Courtnay says, “I, too, would like to know what joan’s abortion solved. Also, why do you keep coming here, joan?”
Joan keeps coming here because she feels she has something to say. She has a right to be here and should be treated with respect by those of us who are pro-life, but I wish that she and others who use pejoratives would stop. As the rules say: attack the idea, not the person. As for abortion, it solves an apparent “problem” only to create bigger and real ones down the road. Let us pray that we may cease to see children as problems, and abortion as a solution.
No, John. Joan sweeps in here, tries to do a little damage, and then leaves. Unlike Doug or even Duck, who at least struggle and wrestle with some of the issues, all Joan wants to do to spread a bit of her vitriol and bolt.
Respect is a two way street.
oh yes cortnay i agree. i refuse to take abuse! want respect? SHOW SOME!!!!!
It’s been too long since this reminder came up, re: joan [sic]:
oh and fyi i dont take their abuse on the sidewalks either. some pro choicers have actually bullied pro lifers exited their cars and ripped up their signs. this has not personally happened to me and if any pro deather ever threw dog poop at me id make them eat it!!!!!!!!!
Ergh… I’m afraid the editor is not being very friendly. Jill and/or mods: has anyone else gotten issues such as the following?
1) “count-down” for 5 minutes of editing counts down by 2 seconds per second.\, if not faster (and displays the text for the “time remaining” erratically)
2) the “rich text” buttons are no longer visible, but the “plain text with HTML” editing window is visible
3) there is no longer a “request deletion” button
Perhaps it’s simply my computer/browser? (I use Firefox 8, currently.)
Ah, yes… and when I click to edit, nothing loads in the “Ajax editor”; it says “loading”, but it never loads! Am I doing something incorrectly?
oh yeah and btw john…..my 20 year old almost died from leukemia. my 81 year old mom has breast cancer ( not good odds at 81) and im on myway to divorce court. can i use my abuse excuse card today?
@ paladin….im having the same problems. @ john should have specified that my daughter beat leukemia as a kid. you want to talk about suffering? i cannot help joans abusive nature but im also not going to invest too much time in her either.
‘Human’, ‘human being’ , whatever, my point is still the same.
No, actually. That changes your argument substantially.
It’s the difference between a drunk guy waking up in a bathtub full of ice in Tijuana 1 kidney short with a note taped to his chest that says, “SEE A DOCTOR!”, and taking a toddler into the back yard and drowning them intentionally and forcefully in the pool. BIIIG difference between “human” and “a human being”. HUGE, even. But thanks for prominently displaying the disingenuous nature required to support your position! ^_^
Courtnay, although I cannot begin to understand the conclusions to which Doug and Duck arrive, I too have noticed that they attempt to discuss the issues maturely.
“I noticed that too, heather. Joan is filled with such grace though, isn’t she? At least in her own mind she is.”
I have refused to address that “question” when asked because it is sexist innuendo at its very worst. A woman who defends her autonomy and self-ownership is in reality a guilt-ridden, post-abortive trainwreck trying to justify some past transgression. If my name here was instead “Jim” I wouldn’t have to suffer a single one of these gendered insults to my character, but because it isn’t, I have imbeciles like Courtnay and Heather nipping at my heels with their pathetic, catty bullsh*t. Why dignify and elevate that behavior, and its underlying “reasoning”, if you can call it that, with a response?
But, in the vain hope of putting this nonsense to bed, I will say this, and I will say it only once: I have not had an abortion.
“Also, why do you keep coming here, joan?”
That’s a good question. Time was, you could have a decent discussion with some smart people here who could competently and respectfully make and defend an argument. (Smarter than me, apparently, because they’re mostly gone and I’m still here for some reason.) Then morons like you showed up and brought the quality of discussion down to your own level, and this is the result.
And somehow, I’m the troll.
I have refused to address that “question” when asked because it is sexist innuendo at its very worst. A woman who defends her autonomy and self-ownership is in reality a guilt-ridden, post-abortive trainwreck trying to justify some past transgression. If my name here was instead “Jim” I wouldn’t have to suffer a single one of these gendered insults to my character, but because it isn’t, I have imbeciles like Courtnay and Heather nipping at my heels with their pathetic, catty bullsh*t.
HA. Yes, joan, it’s just because you’re a woman. It’s not like we don’t suppose the same about MEN who come here, and even if we did, we’d give them a pat on the back and a “Congratulations! It’s an Abortion!” cigar if we found them to be post-abortive. This is the most ignorant, presumptive, and asinine assumption I’ve EVER seen. We hate women? No. We hate abortion. We hate it because it kills children. Before you came here, there was a lawyer who used to trek around these parts sometimes, who went by the name of Hal. We found out that HE was a father to at least one child who died in an abortion much the same way it would appear that we are learning something similar about you. But…but…we must’ve just been being catty to him…because…he was…a..woman? OH, WAIT, YOUR “bullsh*t” just fell apart!
In your world, joan, where black is white, up is down, and muder is choice, I wear your epithets as badges of honor.Bring it on.
“No, actually. That changes your argument substantially” – what rubbish xalisae, look them up.
nah joan just found people to debate her in the “oh abortion is like having a tooth pulled” “its like a kidney transplant” “body autonomy debates. now she doesnt have a leg to stand on because im waaaaay beyond those silly debates.
excuse me the movie is “meet the fockers” and blythe danner is martha focker. comedy at its worst right up there with weekend at bernies.
Seeing that delicate little hand makes me want to kiss it. Anyone feel the same?
The Duggars are “anti choice” because they want a large family? That sounds like making a choice!