Pro-life bill boom continues in 2012
2011 was a banner year for the passage of pro-life legislation in the states. According to the pro-abortion research group Guttmacher Institute:
By almost any measure, 2011 saw unprecedented attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level…. The 92 new abortion restrictions shattered the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions adopted in 2005.
Although I was braced for a dip in 2012, since it’s an election year, I’m happy to report the number of pro-life legislation being enacted into law in 2012 remains strong.
By the end of March, the number stood at 16 for the first quarter. That number for the same time period in 2011 was 19.
Today I spoke with Elizabeth Nash, State Issues Manager at Guttmacher, who acknowledged her side was not seeing “the decrease we would have expected.”
The bulk of pro-life legislation in 2011 was passed in April (34) and May (39), so it is still unknown whether the pace can stay strong.
But significant pieces of pro-life legislation have been signed into law in April or are awaiting signature at the desk of pro-life governors.
Even if the number of pro-life laws drops, the impact of a couple of these laws will be huge. One will likely shut down the last standing abortion mill in its state, and another will stop late-term abortions in a state with the second highest number of reported abortions past 20 weeks in the country.
- In Mississippi, Republican Gov. Phil Bryant “is poised” to sign a bill into law that would require abortionists to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. This would likely result in the closure of Jackson Women’s Health Center, the state’s sole abortion mill, where only one of its abortionists would fit that common sense criteria.
- Georgia Republican Gov. Nathan Deal “is expected” to sign a fetal bill that would ban abortions past 20 weeks. According to the latest statistics from the Centers for Disease Control, Georgia ranked second (1,208) only to New York (2,708) as having the most abortions committed past 20 weeks in 2008. While six other states have passed similar fetal pain bans (Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma), their late-term abortion statistics were negligible by comparison. A fetal pain ban in Georgia will more likely trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade than the others.
- Last week Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed a fetal pain ban on abortions past 20 weeks in Arizona.
- Also last week Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed two pro-life bills in Wisconsin – a webcam abortion ban and a ban on insurance coverage in the Obamacare exchange plan.
- Also last week Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Haslam signed a bill into law bumping up the effective date of the state’s ban on telemed abortions from January 1, 2013, to July 1, 2012.
What a difference pro-life majorities make. These legislative successes are linked in large part back to our sweeping political victories in 2010.
Pro-lifers who may grow tired of the political grind should be encouraged.
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.
Great to hear! Wonder why so many late-term abortions in Georgia, one would expect the late term abortionists to set up in more liberal states.
Best news ever.
Shhh! Don’t tell Ex-RINO. He still thinks conservative politicians don’t do anything for the unborn and just pay the issue lip service.
I can’t wait until they start enacting legislation restricting rape, murder, and theft.
By the way, Jill, speaking of pro-life bills, are you going to answer Dan D’s questions in the “Stanek Endorses Romney” thread anytime soon? Dan D wrote:
Jill, you’re absolutely killing me here. Setting aside the life issue for a second, there are other disqualifying issues besides abortion. You do know that right? Mitt Romney is a cult member. He also singlehandedly instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. On the contrary, Obama claims to be a Christian and also openly opposes gay marriage. Let’s take a look at the whole lesser of two evils approach:
Candidate AChristianAgainst gay marriage
Candidate BCultistSupports gay marriage
Who should I pick Jill? Please answer.
Getting to the abortion issue. Since you think Romney is a convert, can you please answer 2 questions?1. What month and year did he convert?2. Has he done anything pro-abortion since then?
@Scott: Considering rape, murder, and theft are already illegal in all the states mentioned, I’m not seeing your point.
That’s fine, Alice. Thanks for letting me know. I’ll wait for someone who does see my point.
Scott, Dan D: I can’t set aside the life issue. The life issue is our #1 priority.
^ This.
So when women, past 20 weeks, find out that they’re carrying a severely medically compromised fetus, they should be forced to carry it to term so that they can have the wonderful experience of seeing the forcibly delivered child die in their arms. The reality based community says that’s sick. But you folks say it’s wonderful. No wonder the reality based community, in educated and enlightened states, thinks that you people are sick. (Right, abortion is barbaric, yadda yadda yadda)
And do you folks think it’s just marvelous that poor women in Mississippi will have to travel to other states to terminate their pregnancy? Really? Mississippi, is the poorest and one of the least educated states in the country. Do you actually think that forcing poor women to give birth is a good thing? Do you have lots of rich childless folks lined up to adopt these kids? And for those kids who don’t get adopted – will MS be able to fund state orphanages. Oh, right. The churches will take care of things.
BTW, thankfully I live in an relatively enlightened state in which the mandatory sonogram bill is going nowhere.
Jill, no one asked you set aside the life issue. Please answer the 3 questions.
Would you pick Candidate A or B?
What month and year did Romney convert?
Has he done anything pro-abortion since then? (By which we can test to see if his conversion was authentic.)
Good luck with Romney, Ms. Stanek. If he panders to the forced birth crowd, it doesn’t help him with the independents and he so needs them to win. If he doesn’t, good luck with getting your agenda in the future. If past is prologue, he will do whatever he thinks is pragmatic. He was pro-choice in MA. He could go back to that despite your contention that his conversion is permanent. With Mitt, you just don’t know…
And BTW, your “banner year” for forced birth legislation is seen as part of the GOP war on women which is why your beloved Romney lags so far behind the President.
”He also singlehandedly instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusetts”
Actually, it was the court.
CC said, “Actually, it was the court.”
Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? How much do you want to bet? Proceeds go to the winner’s favorite pro-life group. Look forward to your reply.
Dan, try “Goodrich v Dept. of Health.” As I said, it was judicial decision (and a great one) which Mitt Romney had no control of. But I’m curious to read your conspiracy theories.
CC doesn’t have a “favorite Pro-Life group”. If you’d notice, she is scathingly pro-legal-abortion. Reading comprehension-do you have it?
That’s fine, Alice. Thanks for letting me know. I’ll wait for someone who does see my point.
I hope you’re not planning on holding your breath.
CC-
how about Romney comes out in favor of birth control (to rob you guys of your red herring) and stays Pro-Life, since polls show that the majority of Americans favor abortion restrictions? I’d prefer that, myself.
CC doesn’t have a “favorite Pro-Life group”
Right you are, I’ve been unabashedly pro-choice since I was a young Catholic junior high school student back in the early 60’s. Always was and always will be and proud of it.
“how about Romney comes out in favor of birth control (to rob you guys of your red herring) and stays Pro-Life, since polls show that the majority of Americans favor abortion restrictions? ”
I can live with that! Birth control is something the vast majority approves of. Abortion is more evenly split and the voters can decide that issue on its merits.
“reality based community”
And then
“GOP war on women”
My brain hurts…
Thanks, CC. I’m glad we agree on the strategy to best defeat you and your ilk. ^_^
X, please don’t insult ilk. Some of my best friends are ilk.
;>) !
All kidding aside, tell us cc, why do so many affluent families have to wait for years and years for babies? There are at least a million families in the United States that would LOVE to adopt a genetically-unrelated-to-them baby. Sandra Bullock, for example, waited FOUR, count them 4!!, years to adopt Louis. Did she reject him because his mother might have been poor? Did she reject him because he wasn’t the same color as herself? No? Then, why would you rather choice a child to death than let him live?
cc, it’s almost as if you believe in the Hindu caste system: if you’re born poor, you are untouchable. Is that it, cc? Are you a backsliding Hindu????
Finally cc, tell us all, I’m dying to know: since poor children don’t deserve to live, what was your families income level the year YOU were born? Were your own parents affluent enough to DESERVE children??
Dan, you see, cc believes that only the Reptillian Power Elite is allowed to reproduce.
CC 6:47PM
Please, these arguments are old and recycled time and again.
Maybe the problem is poverty, not lack of abortion. How about addressing the real issues that lead to poverty, i.e. family breakdown, bad economy, etc., since abortion doesn’t seem to be solving the problem? Also, haven’t you noticed that “clinics” that cater to poor women are the ones being shut down for violations? Where are you PA people when this happens? I thought you claimed that when abortion was legal, poor women would be protected and treated more equally.
Rich women continue to have their abortions discreetly and privately done. Poor women continue to go to the ratholes like those run by Kermit Gosnell.
I think the mystery is solved. CC is a backsliding ilk-Hindu.
This explains so much!
“Rich women continue to have their abortions discreetly and privately done. Poor women continue to go to the ratholes like those run by Kermit Gosnell.”
Which would remain so even after Roe were overturned. It is hypothesized 50-60% of states would band all abortion, and the others would have some form allowable.
Women with the means available can simply fly/drive out of Texas or Tennessee to NY or NJ. There are no Constitutional *laws* any State nor the Federal government can enact to stop that, except a Constitutional Amendment that strictly narrows the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Constitution. Even the highly abused “Commerce Clause” cannot be stretched that far as to allow the Federal Government to stop a woman traveling from Texas to NJ to evade abortion restriction in Texas. Evading laws we don’t like by going elsewhere is the foundation of Federalism.
Attempting to use “long-arm” jurisdiction Statues of the States such as Texas to prosecute abortion doctors in NJ would almost certainly result in the Supreme Court severely limiting long-arm jurisdiction, possibly with pretty bad unintended consequences.
In fact, right now a woman at 21 weeks in a State where the limit for abortion is 20 weeks – can make a call to a NY abortion doctor, drive or fly to NY, have the late-term abortion, and drive back to her home State without ANY legal consequences for ANYONE. In a post-Roe era, the same would be true.
All the more reason to ban it in New York too :)
CC, I’ve actually read the decision. You obviously haven’t. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or not?
“All the more reason to ban it in New York too”
They just passed same-sex Marriage there. I highly doubt an abortion ban would ever make it out of either State house, let alone not set on fire by the Governor…
That is a reality pro-life people will have to deal with. You can try long-arm Statues, long-arm civil liability for out of state abortion doctors, preemptive restraining orders on pregnant women ect ect.
Hate to agree with CC, but yeah, it was the court. In Goodridge v. Department of public Health, the court found the state may not ”deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry.” That’s right from the decision you claim to have read.
Oh well Dave, lets just stop trying to save peoples lives then!
@Dave: If your point is that eradicating abortion altogether in the United States may take a very long time, then I actually agree. Barring the Supreme Court doing something like declaring the unborn persons under the Fourteenth (which, let’s face it, they should) or a Constitutional Personhood amendment, abolishing abortion may be a very long haul indeed.
And I can go that distance. So can everyone else here. If that’s what it takes, then that’s what we’ll do.
I say Dave makes a great argument for a Constitutional Amendment recognizing the lives of gestating human beings and granting them protection by law in every state.
Oh, and Dan D, I actually support same sex marriage so I don’t consider myself to be standing up for Romney or whatever on that point, just standing up for accuracy. In fact, if if was pro gay marriage and prolife that would make him an even more attractive canidate from my point of view.
JDC, you and CC are both wrong. Courts do not make laws. Did you know that?
Feeling a little better today, so willing to take another try at this commenting thing.
I believe Scott is saying that he feels restricting abortion is not enough. Just as laws would not merely restrict rape to some allowable instances, but would forbid it outright.
Dan D, in countries with a common law system, courts do make laws, in a sense. Seriously, were you asleep that day in civics class? They interpret the constitution, and these interpretations are a source of law. In this case, they determined that the state’s constitution did not allow the government to exclude same sex couples from marriage. How is this Romney’s fault again?
Scott Evans: “That’s fine, Alice. Thanks for letting me know. I’ll wait for someone who does see my point.”
Alice: ”I hope you’re not planning on holding your breath.”
Elizabeth G: ”I believe Scott is saying that he feels restricting abortion is not enough. Just as laws would not merely restrict rape to some allowable instances, but would forbid it outright.”
Exactly Elizabeth, along with murder and theft. And after all, taking the life of an innocent preborn human being is, in fact, murder. Does anyone disagree with that fact who isn’t a liberal pro-abort?
See Alice, it wasn’t that difficult after all. I hope you learned something.
Because we would never go along with legislation that merely restricted rape, murder, and theft, why do so many “pro-life” Christians go along with legislation that merely restricts preborn baby murder?
Mitt Romney needs to grow a spine, and get out there and quote Hilaire Belloc:
“If you reject me on account of my religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of being your representative!”
I can’t believe these people who say they’re not voting Romney because he’s a cultist, or he doesn’t believe in the Trinity so he’s not a real Christian. Barack Obama, WHO IS AN ATHEIST, is the worst piece of trash to ever infest the White House. He does NOTHING but grow the government and wage war on babies and Catholics. Utter and complete trash. Almost anyone would be better than him. I say “almost” because there’s always Hitler. Of course, the left never wasted a chance to say that Bush was somehow worse than Hitler.
Those who are willing to support Romney now will have to support someone just like Barack Obama down the road if someone’s running against him who is even worse than he is. This is a downward spiral. If “the lesser of two evils” supporters were a football team, you’d be going toward the wrong end zone.
We don’t believe that abortion cures birth defects.
We don’t believe that abortion solves poverty.
And we don’t trust the “reality-based” community to know squat about the reality of things. Their ultimate realities are nothing more than their unfounded opinions and convenience. For these people, there is no such thing as justice for the severely handicapped or charity for the poor – not if it inconveniences them in any way.
Here’s our ultimate reality: That every human person has an unalienable right to life until his or her natural death. Thus, every human person has the unavoidable duty to protect innocent persons from those who would do harm.
And if we hope to call ourselves “good,” we must make extra sacrifices to help the most helpless — the poor and the handicapped.
When we tell poor women that they are not worth our special care, we do evil.
When we tell poor women that they are not worthy of being mothers, we do evil.
And when we urge the premature killing of handicapped children, we do murder.
Yet these things are exactly what CC’s “reality based community” wants.
Jill Stanek: “Scott, Dan D: I can’t set aside the life issue. The life issue is our #1 priority.”
Jill, how long will it take to answer Dan D’s questions? So here they are again:
Would you pick Candidate A or B?
What month and year did Romney convert?
Has he done anything pro-abortion since then? (By which we can test to see if his conversion was authentic.)
See Alice, it wasn’t that difficult after all. I hope you learned something.
As opposed to you learning to communicate clearly, which would be too much actual progress for you to accept, I suppose. *eyeroll*
Because we would never go along with legislation that merely restricted rape, murder, and theft, why do so many “pro-life” Christians go along with legislation that merely restricts preborn baby murder?
Okay, see, here’s the problem I have with this. William Wilberforce (remember him?) tried something similar for a long time. And never got anywhere. You know when he finally started down the road that led to the end of slavery? When he tackled the issue incrementally. First, get rid of the slave trade; then end slavery altogether. Obviously people should have all been on board with ending slavery immediately and entirely. Practically, the culture did not change as fast as it should have. Clearly we do accept the incremental approach sometimes. We even lionize it.
We don’t live in 1800s England. It may be that a Personhood amendment gets abortion ended faster than all the incremental efforts that gain ground by painful inches. This is a perfectly legitimate possibility and frankly, I hope that is the case. Which is why I don’t go around trying to shame supporters of the Personhood movement for “going to fast” or “spooking people” or whattheheckever catch-phrase folks are using this week. But we could end up, like Wilberforce, having to take a more incremental approach. Gain bits and pieces until eventually the whole battle is won. This takes longer, it’s messier, and it’s an indication that the culture you’re working with is very broken. But this is how most social change has happened historically, including the abolition of the practice of slavery in Britain. That’s why you need to back off of the incremental people. Some social changes have been ushered in in massive, sweeping overhauls. Most are the result of slow, painful nudges that add up to a cumulative result.
You may not like this (in fact, I know you won’t; you’re fixing to come back with some self-righteous rant about compromise and such designed to try and shame others into your point-of-view), but this is the world we live in. It isn’t perfect, and we can’t always save everyone at once. And that not only sucks, it’s wrong. But, even if you choose a holistic strategy, if you aren’t willing to accept that sometimes you have to save as many people as you can and let those who have chosen that do so, then you are not helping. You are just being divisive, arrogant, and unnecessarily argumentative in order to make yourself feel better. Your comments here may have served your ego, but I’m frankly not concerned about the life of your vanity.
The “A or B” thing was addressed here. Self-explanatory really, and a rather silly question:
http://www.jillstanek.com/2012/04/pro-life-bill-boom-continues-in-2012/comment-page-1/#comment-403735
As for the details of Mitt Romney’s conversion, I believe this site and Lifenews.com have discussed both of those thoroughly. If you’re going to deliberately derail multiple discussion threads on this site asking the same loaded questions, doing your research beforehand isn’t such a bad idea.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-mitt-romney-supports/
Alice said it well regarding legislative strategy. I’d like to add the following thought experiment: It’s legal (and widely practiced) for parents to kill their children before or after birth, up to the age of five. We have the political capital to end infanticide and provide legal protection to all children after birth, but not before. Based on your reasoning, we should leave infanticide legal until we can pass a total ban on abortion and protect every human life.
While I would certainly support the total ban, I see absolutely no reason to pass up on an opportunity to save the lives that we can. We can still work towards the total ban after we take the low hanging fruit. Isn’t this strategy more pro-life than allowing all abortions until we can completely end it?
Recall that abortion on demand throughout all nine months for any reason in all 50 states is the status quo. Banning some abortions means that some human lives would be protected. If the situation were reversed (ie abortion is always illegal, as in Ireland), I would of course oppose a measure to legalize some abortions. But it isn’t. Legalizing abortion at 20 weeks in Ireland is essentially saying “If you’re less than 20 weeks pregnant, then you can kill the baby”. Banning abortion after 20 weeks in the U.S. is saying “If you’re more than 20 weeks pregnant, then you can’t kill the baby”.
One is pro-life. The other is not. Context matters.
Hate to break it to you Scott, but we have this thing called a two party system. Either you can vote for Abortion King Obama or you can vote for wishy-washy Romney, who is at least as prolife as John McCain. Sure, you can vote for some nutjob who claims that if elected he will outlaw abortion on Day 1 of his presidency (and spend Day 2 in a mental hospital I suppose) if you would like to join a few thousand people in that silliness. Or you can drop the mindless bigotry and vote for the “cultist” who is a thousand times better than Obama.
In state after state pro-life legislation is passed, but how long will it stand if Barack Hussein Obama infects the Supreme Court with more appointees?
This is THE crucial issue facing us in the upcoming election…the selection of justices throughout the land and especially for Supreme Court vacancies. As of this moment a one person majority in the court is the only thing standing in the way of Obama’s crude effort to “fundamentally transform America” into a Chicago politics thug regime that rules with an iron fist.
Many are saying that they will hold their nose and vote Romney now that it looks like we are going to end up with him as the alternative to our devious mocker and divider-in-chief. Most of us here know that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate but with all his imperfections I will be happy to vote for the only thing standing between Obama and his diabolical vision for America.
Why does this have to be such a hard concept? This video really epitomizes what I get from reading some of these comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIKPrwErF1I&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Del,
Your comment is so awesome I want to read it out loud with trumpets playing and flags waving.
“what was your families income level the year YOU were born? Were your own parents affluent enough to DESERVE children??”
They were comfortable but hardly affluent. But I was a wanted child. After my birth, my mother practiced contraception because another child would have been a burden both financially and psychologically for both her and my father. When she went back to work, she had a “D & C” which I suspect was an abortion. (that’s what good Catholic women with resources did in the late fifties) And good for her. Oh, right, she’s another ruthless “baby killer.” Right…
But nice to know that women who, in a pro-life world, will be forced to bear children will be doing it for those who want children. Women as incubators – yay! Meanwhile, what will you do with the leftovers? Will we become another Romania – a country that, under its dictator, banned abortions with the result being a large population of very poor and sick children many of whom ended up on the streets? Is that the kind of ”pro-life” society that you desire?
Hi Dave 8:46PM
Exactly my point. Did anyone ever think the CEO’s wife or daughter or the Hollywood celebrity would sit in the same abortion clinic waiting room as the woman from the housing projects or low rent trailer court? The previous mentioned would do what they did before…and after…Roe. Arrange for discreet and quiet abortions in the best facilities, preferably in another location or in a doctor’s office where they would not be seen or recognized.
I read that the Alabama hole that recently closed, New Woman All Women, had a two tiered system. Pay a little more and you have a private waiting area and better medication. If you can’t pay, well you sit in the waiting room with the rest of the peasantry. A poor woman who wants to protect her privacy is just SOL.
So much for “concern” for the poor and “fairness”.
Well CC,
Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you? How do you know for certain you were “wanted”? A very much loved and wanted child may have started out a very much unplanned and unwanted pregnancy. I’ve seen it happen many times.
Oh, and would your life have any less value had you not been “wanted” by your mother? How about now, does your life become worthless because someone decides they don’t “want” you?
Also, how about unwanted old people. spouses, neighbors, etc. Are their lives also not worth living?
JDC, courts make opinions, not laws. http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/ Clink on that link for the most detailed explanation I’ve seen of what happened in Massachusetts. Please let me know if you see anything wrong.
John Lewandowski, you have a chance to do something incredible here. I will show you that you’re wrong about Romney and Obama. And to prove me wrong, that I believe this is only about party, you can withdraw your support for Romney. If you don’t, then I guess I was right all along.
You said, “I can’t believe these people who say they’re not voting Romney because he’s a cultist, or he doesn’t believe in the Trinity so he’s not a real Christian.”
That’s just one minor reason. You agree that Mormonism is a cult, right?
You said, “Barack Obama, WHO IS AN ATHEIST, is the worst piece of trash to ever infest the White House.”
You appear pretty ignorant with this comment. Show me one piece of evidence that he’s an atheist. If I’m supposed to throw away everything Mitt Romney has ever done or said, because he claims to be “pro-life” on his current campaign trail, then shouldn’t we apply the same standard to Obama, who claims to be a Christian? (BTW, he baptized his kids as well in the Christian church. Do atheists do that?)
You said, “He does NOTHING but grow the government and wage war on babies and Catholics.”
Ummmm…actually that would be Romney. I’m sure you weren’t aware that Romney forced Catholic hospitals to issue chemical abortion pills including RU-486, even though religious institutions/hospitals were exempt by Massachusetts law which even uber-liberal former governor Mike Dukakis acknowledged publicly. (BTW, this was 3 years after his fake pro-life conversion.)
John, now that you know the truth, are you willing to withdraw your support for this wicked man? I’m not a lesser of two evils kind of person, but I haven’t heard anyone make a good case that Romney is the lesser of two evils. It’s actually Obama that is the lesser of two evils. That is, if you care about the truth.
Navi said, “The “A or B” thing was addressed here. Self-explanatory really, and a rather silly question:”
Navi, it was not addressed. If that was all you knew about the candidates, which one would you vote for? Please answer.
And please encourage Jill to answer as well. She responded and intentionally dodged all 3 questions.
Would you please let me know what year Romney converted? And then would you let me know if he’d done anything pro-abortion since then?
It appears others on this site want answers to these questions too. I’ll stop asking when Jill answers.
Oh, please, Dan. Don’t pretend that your opposition to Romney is anything more than religious bigotry. Dishonesty is tiresome.
Obama is not a Christian but an atheist. He attended a black liberation theology “church” for 20 years. Black liberation theology sure didn’t come from Christ. It’s a political rabble rousing philosophy that really has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. If they perform Baptisms it is only for show.
And considering that no member of the church has come forward to say that they remember seeing Obama there when Rev. Wright was condemning America to hell, that church would seem to be far more secretive and cultish than LDS.
What Romney forced Catholic hospitals to do is provide emergency contraceptives to rape victims. Not RU-486. Do I agree with that? No. Catholic hospitals should not be forced to provide EC when they oppose contraception generally AND EC can prevent implantation, essentially causing an abortion. Yet Romney now says that he opposes this decision. As I said, he’s wishy-washy, and only slightly more prolife than John McCain.
BUT, Does this even come close to what Obama intends to force Catholic organizations to do? Absolutely not. Obviously the issue of rape is difficult, and that’s what Romney was dealing with. But with Obama, he simply demands that all Catholic organizations, from hospitals to charities to schools, must provide all manner of contraceptive and sterilization services to everyone. This isn’t a tough case like rape. It’s not as if these services are not available elsewhere. This is nothing but Obama being a tyrant and forcing the Catholic church to do what he wants for no good reason.
Romney wrestles over tough issues like treatment of rape victims. Obama makes open war on the Catholic church without a second thought. Gee, I wonder which one I’ll vote for in the general election.
Dan D
Ronald Reagan signed “The Therapeutic Abortion Act” as governor of California in 1967, resulting in an explosion of the abortion rate. He would be supported by PL people when running for president in 1980. Did he have a “conversion”? PL people could only take him at his word, certainly not his record.
I understand that Santorum as senator allowed for funding of Planned Parenthood in a bill. Newt Gingrich shmoozed Nancy Pelosi, as PA as they come.
If we’re looking for perfection and a pristine record, we should have given up long before now.
Yes, CC> Please answer. If you hadn’t been wanted, is your life worth less than it is now?
Yes, CC> Please answer. If you hadn’t been wanted, is your life worth less than it is now?
Depends on what you mean by worth which is a relative term depending on what’s being appraised and how much one wants to pay for it. If I hadn’t been wanted, I probably would have spent my life in therapy as a result of anger and rejection issues. A wanted child has a much better chance to be a stable adult. My father wasn’t wanted (his sister was) and he had a lifetime of issues relating to that. In real life, mommies don’t always love their babies.
“It’s not as if these services are not available elsewhere”
Wrong. There are places where the Catholic hospital is the only game in town. And BTW, California Catholic Charities was ordered, by the court, to provide birth control through their health care plan because of the contraceptive equity law in California. And did you know that a number of Catholic colleges provide birth control through their health plans? If that’s such an intrinsic evil, why haven’t the priests at Georgetown and DePaul been excommunicated?
But if a baby isn’t particularly wanted, why would his life be less protected by law?
I was wanted, and I still had plenty of therapy. LOL! My mother wasn’t a particularly good mom, and I suffered a bunch as a child. Would my mom have been doing me a favor if she had killed me?
REALLY? That’s where you want to take this??
Depends on what you mean by worth which is a relative term depending on what’s being appraised and how much one wants to pay for it.
Let’s talk about all human lives being equal. Forget religion. Let’s focus on the social justice aspect of it. What other creatures who share human DNA are you willing to put down because of “wantedness”?
CC 12:29PM
Please spare us the pscyhobabble and answer the question. Is your life only worth something, and was it always worth something, only because your mother “wanted” you. Also, what happens if other people in your life decide they don’t want you? Does your worth diminish?
I’m very curious about this concept of the worth of our lives being based on ”wantedness” and if this applies throughout our lifetimes, as we age, experience troubled relationships, etc.
Mary–she can’t answer this.
Wow. Great comments, Mary and Courtnay. I’m seeing a familiar thread in one of our new visitor’s comments. She also sees “worth” as just an idea to bop around and can’t understand why each and every human being is worth protecting. I’m amazed that these spoiled entitled people think that anything less than a life of comfort and entitlement is not worth living. Some children on our planet are poor, that’s true. But, there has never been, and there will never be a species or society that murdered itself to prosperity.
Survival of the fittest is true, and people who choose life are the fittest.
You appear pretty ignorant with this comment. Show me one piece of evidence that he’s an atheist. If I’m supposed to throw away everything Mitt Romney has ever done or said, because he claims to be “pro-life” on his current campaign trail, then shouldn’t we apply the same standard to Obama, who claims to be a Christian? (BTW, he baptized his kids as well in the Christian church. Do atheists do that?)
Firstly, I couldn’t care less about Obama or Romney’s religion. I care about policies. I would much sooner vote for a pro-life atheist than a pro-abortion Christian (assuming those aren’t mutually exclusive).
Secondly, Obama’s religion has been called into doubt by both Franklin Graham and Bill Maher. Some do believe that he’s really a closet atheist:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-doesnt-think-obama-is-a-christian/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/franklin-graham-questions-obamas-christian-faith/
Also, Romney is running on a pro-life platform. Obama is running on a pro-choice platform. This is stated on their respective websites. Platform does matter.
I’m sure you weren’t aware that Romney forced Catholic hospitals to issue chemical abortion pills including RU-486
No.
http://factcheck.org/2012/02/pac-strains-abortion-facts/
Navi, it was not addressed. If that was all you knew about the candidates, which one would you vote for? Please answer.
Personally? I support gay marriage and am not particularly concerned with candidates’ religious affiliations. As far as I know, Jill Stanek does not support legally recognizing it. But I strongly doubt that she (or any other credible pro-lifer) would vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life candidate based on that issue, even if it was their second most important issue, regardless of their stance on it. If that was all I knew about the candidates, I would learn more about each candidate or not vote at all. “Mormon + supports SSM” vs. “Christian + opposes SSM” is not enough information for me to make an informed decision. You assume both candidates are equally pro-life, and this isn’t even close to the truth.
And please encourage Jill to answer as well. She responded and intentionally dodged all 3 questions.
Responding the first time was very generous of her IMO. Look, it’s not Jill’s job or mine to do your research for you when it’s readily available on her site and others. Waltzing into someone else’s blog and loudly making such demands on multiple threads is incredibly rude and arrogant. When you make a claim (Romney is insincere in his pro-life stance and Obama would be a better candidate on this issue), you carry the burden of proof.
This site has already discussed Romney at length. If you read the articles, you’ll notice that they never claim that he is perfect or that he should be a pro-life voter’s first choice in the primary. I would suggest reading them and highlighting specific points if you have something to add.
Thanks, Ninek. I really see this idea of wantedness as it confers humanity, personhood, worth, whatever you want to call it as THE achilles’ heel of the proabortion movement. I think we see how absurd this is whenever Connor’s Law or a similar law is brought to bear. So the same unborn baby you can be arrested for killing can be legally killed by his own mother?? What if she was on the way to her abortion appointment???? HMMMMMMMMMM.
Ridiculous.
Thank you as well Ninek. I appreciate your kind words.
Plus the “wanted-ness” of a child can change throughout his or her life. I know mothers who did not want their children at all when they found out they were pregnant, and then grew to love and want them either later on in the pregnancy or after birth. I also know a married, upper-class woman whose unborn child was greatly wanted. Now that she has given birth, she is experiencing postpartum depression and doesn’t seem to really like her child at all. Does that child still count as an almighty “wanted” child or is she now one of those piece of trash, pointless unwanted children?
Adair, you make a great point. I wanted my second child, but after he was into his 3rd month of a 2year crying jag, I didn’t really want him anymore. I am very glad I didn’t have the “choice” to change my mind. Fast forward, he’s 12 years old and easily my easiest child!
Hey Alice, here are some questions for you to answer:
1) how many so-called pro-life laws are on the books right now?
2) how many of those laws have the authority to save even one of the 3,000 to 4,000 babies who will be murdered in their mothers’ wombs today?
3) and how many of those laws have the authority to save even one of the 3,000 to 4,000 babies who will be murdered in their mothers’ wombs every day after today?
Here, I’ll be like a government school teacher and give you the two-part answer: NONE. ZERO.
Not one of those laws can stop even one of the abortion-minded girls and women who headed to Planned Parenthood today or any other day. In the end, it’s still their CHOICE. So, as hopefully you can see, they actually are not pro-life laws, but pro-CHOICE laws, because the mother still, always, “legally” possesses the CHOICE to kill her child. Should I say CHOICE a few more times so it will sink in? And every person who supports pro-CHOICE laws is, actually, pro-CHOICE themselves because they support laws that still give the mother the CHOICE to hire a hit man to murder her child. Not even one of those laws can legally stop her. And that’s the fact of the matter.
Oh, and you should study William Wilberforce better. Your depiction of him is not factual.
“All kidding aside, tell us cc, why do so many affluent families have to wait for years and years for babies? There are at least a million families in the United States that would LOVE to adopt a genetically-unrelated-to-them baby. Sandra Bullock, for example, waited FOUR, count them 4!!, years to adopt Louis. Did she reject him because his mother might have been poor? Did she reject him because he wasn’t the same color as herself? No? Then, why would you rather choice a child to death than let him live?”
I think that those affluent couples would do well to adopt an older child whose parents abandoned or abused them, and had their parental rights terminated. http://www.adoptuskids.org/ But, it seems as though they want to wait for a perfect brand new baby. And I think it’s foolhardy to think that race doesn’t play a role in adoption, it does. It shouldn’t, but it does. Jacqueline who used to post here a lot was telling me about her experiences in domestic adoption, there were two little black twin girl babies up for adoption that were rejected for their race. It happens. I think people look at the adoption industry with rose-tinted glasses and it’s a bit foolhardy to do so, it has problems like anything else. Obviously, killing these babies isn’t remotely the answer, but there are some real issues with adoption.
@Scott: You know, if you’re going to try and snarkily school someone, you need to do two things. One, be funny. Snark without humor is just condescension. Two, actually respond at some juncture to the points presented you. Otherwise you’re being condescending and wrong, which undoes any mileage you might get out of being funny. You have done neither of these two things. The unfortunate truth is that no Personhood amendment anywhere has saved so much as one child because none of them have been enacted. You have no reason to be patting yourself on the back over the fact you’ve never compromised. It will be something on the order of the Best Day Ever when Personhood legislation finally does get voted in somewhere, but right this second they aren’t getting it done. The incremental efforts in the meantime are setting the stage for a Personhood amendment to finally finish abortion off for good. Believe me, everyone here is hoping that day comes soon, but until it does, I do not apologize–not to you, and not to anyone–for supporting legislation that will save some children, even if it can’t save all of them.
As far as Wilberforce goes, I absolutely deny that I misrepresented him. In fact, let me share some facts. After almost twenty years of fruitlessly trying to abolish the British slave trade all at once, presenting bill after bill to the Commons, loosing by big margins and small, Wilberforce started collaborating with some folks in 1806 and they came up with an idea. They introduced a bill to prevent British subjects from aiding or participating in slave trading with French colonies. This got rid of the “anti-slavery = pro-French” PR problem they were having, and severely reduced the ability of the British ships to make money off of slaving. But, as you’ll note, it didn’t abolish the practice totally. It added hoops to jump through, but the British could still trade slaves. According to you, this was an unforgivable moral compromise and we should all hate Wilberforce for it. According to history, it was the stepping stone that allowed the Slave Trade Act, abolishing the slave trade, to get through Parliament in 1807.
Wilberforce tried the Personhood approach, so to speak, for years and got nowhere. Not one slave was freed anywhere by all his efforts. With an incremental approach, it rid of the slave trade two years (though the practice of slavery remained legal until 1833, after several more years of work on a lot of people’s parts). I flat reject your accusation that I misrepresented Wilberforce in any way. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
The Hyde Amendment prevents one in four abortion-minded women on Medicaid from obtaining one:
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2009/07/08/index.html
While I object to their negative language (“forcing a pregnant woman” to do something her body does automatically after nine months, as opposed to preventing her from killing her child) and policy recommendations (repealing it, as opposed to further restricting taxpayer funded abortion), I think the point stands that at least one pro-life law has saved at least one baby from abortion.
Q.E.D.
Alice, because you have some sort of problem answering direct questions, I’ll try again (without much hope of a direct answer from you): How many of the hundreds of the so-called pro-life laws on the books right now has the authority to save even one baby?
Pro-life laws that don’t render abortion illegal are pro-choice laws and should not be supported or celebrated by Christians. God’s 6th commandment says, “Thou shall not murder.” It does not say, “Thou shall murder some until you an figure out a way how not to murder any.” Pro-choice laws are in direct violation of God’s 6th commandment.
You have it exactly backward. William Wilberforce tried the incremental approach for years, but being you don’t see incrementalism as a bad thing when it comes to preborn baby murder, I’m not surprised you don’t recognize that fact about Wilberforce, either.
Alice: “I do not apologize–not to you, and not to anyone–for supporting legislation that will save some children, even if it can’t save all of them.”
I’m glad it’s you and not me who will have to answer for that to the author of the 6th commandment.
Alice, think about this if you would. If Roe v. Wade were overturned on Monday morning, what would happen to the practice of preborn baby murder in this country?
Scott, you are basically wanting pro-lifers to stamp our feet and hold our breath like little kids throwing tantrums, rather than trying to save as many humans as possible while also trying to make abortion illegal overall. Fact is, about half the country doesn’t want abortion illegal, and a good portion don’t want it restricted. Now, we can work on changing that, overturning Roe v Wade, etc. But in the mean time I will support whatever defunding measures, fetal pain restrictions on abortion, etc. I am not going to have some dead kids on my conscience because I didn’t have a bill that banned *all* abortions to vote on.
@Scott: You know what? No. Put up or shut up. You think I’ve got Wilberforce wrong, you get some freaking facts and prove it to me. Otherwise, you’re just being petulant.
Given that Navi has already pointed out that the Hyde Amendment–which only restricts the use of money for abortion rather than banning it–does indeed prevent abortions, you can consider that question officially dispensed with. Nor am I frightened by your insinuation that God will condemn me straight to Hell for not agreeing with you on the best legal strategy. And I am side-eyeing you pretty hard for the cowardly way you decided to just imply it rather than saying it straight out. You don’t think I’m a Christian. You are wrong, but if you’re going to say something like that, own it. Say it boldly and unflinchingly. Don’t hunker down behind half-measures like that last smarmy little post.
If Roe were overturned Monday, provided that it were not reversed into its polar opposite, the legalization of abortion would return to the jurisdiction of the states. Under such a landscape, abortion would be nearly or totally eradicated in ~20 states including my own. Four states, have enacted “trigger” bans that will become active when Roe is overturned. I suspect you are trying to insinuate that pro-life laws passed in the meantime would be binding above bans in place at the state level, but there is no legal reason to assume this is the case. That is you telling ghost stories. And with 30% of the nation becoming pro-life overnight, pro-lifers would be free to concentrate their efforts more heavily on swing states.
I wanted to give you credit for simply being passionate, but I am increasingly convinced you live in a fantasy world where you think a Personhood amendment will be enacted somewhere on Monday. Despite the fact that none of them are up for a vote next week. I want to live in that world, because that world would be awesome. But I don’t. And whether you choose to recognize it or not, neither do you.
Alice, calm down. If I can’t prove to you that your position on compromising on preborn baby murder is wrong, how can you expect me to do so with the facts of how William Wilberforce ended slavery? I only have so much time in the day.
I didn’t say God would send you to Hell and I didn’t say you’re not a Christian. How did you come to those conclusions? Now you’ve become hysterical. Just because you have to answer to God for compromising on preborn baby murder, which is in direct violation of His 6th commandment, that doesn’t mean you’re not a Christian. You do know there will be tears in Heaven and Jesus Christ will wipe away every tear, do you not? Christians are guilty of all kinds of messed up thinking. But if they’re truly Christians, of course they will not go to hell, despite their messed up thinking.
You’re dead wrong about states eradicating abortion when Roe v Wade is overturned. There are no trigger bans that would make abortion 100% illegal in any state, including the four you referred to. And “nearly” is good enough for you? Well, of course it is. You’re willing to compromise on child killing after all.
As far as personhood is concerned, when have I ever indicated in this thread that I believe that’s the complete answer? Why are you pinning that on me? Don’t you know that assuming is a bad debate strategy? You assumed I thought you weren’t a Christian and you assumed I’m a personhood fanatic. First of all, personhood is far from being passed in any state. Secondly, even if it is, there will still be a battle and I and others will still be going to the abortion mill in Denver trying to talk moms and dads out of paying a hit man to murder their children. The only solution is to have some legislator with the fortitude to propose a complete ban on abortion, and keep proposing it until it passes. Why propose child-killing regulations that don’t work anyway? Just come out with an outright ban. If a state did so, they could tell Roe v Wade to take a hike because it’s not law, it’s an unconstitutional, ungodly Supreme Court Decision. Since when do states have to abide by those? But legislators see what happened to Phil Kline in Kansas and they retreat from the battle in fear.
When Christians compromise on child killing, we’re saying, in effect, that we don’t believe every child has the right to life from the moment of conception. We’re willing to “let some go” for some perceived “greater good.” Well, Christians have been compromising for over 40 years now, Alice, and where’s it gotten us and where’s it gotten the 3,000 to 4,000 preborn babies who were murdered today, and who will be murdered every day after today, ad nauseum? They’re counting on Christians to save them and we’ve let over 50 million of them down so far.
All compromising on child killing has done is prune the abortion weed and it’s gotten stronger as a result, not weaker. Despite all those so-called pro-life laws on the books right now, preborn baby murder is alive and well in the good ol’ USA because of Christians like you who are willing to make side deals with man which are in direct violation of God’s enduring command, “Thou shall not murder.” Notice the period at the end of that?
Our God isn’t willing to compromise, so why are His people willing to?
If a legislator continually puts up total ban legislation that gets knocked down, again and again, for his/her entire six years in office or whatever, but it never gets passed… you bet your a$$ I would blame him/her for the babies that died that could have been saved from easier to pass restrictions. I don’t follow your Bible, but I fail to see how God would be happy that you “didn’t compromise” and let babies die while trying to pass legislation that fails. It seems like you want to make a “principle” stand, and refuse to actually consider that we can save some babies WHILE working on saving all babies.
“ Why propose child-killing regulations that don’t work anyway? Just come out with an outright ban. If a state did so, they could tell Roe v Wade to take a hike because it’s not law, it’s an unconstitutional, ungodly Supreme Court Decision. ”
You are living in a fantasy world. While Roe stands, total bans by state can’t be enforced. Several states already have “bans” that aren’t in effect because they can’t go over Roe. It doesn’t matter, at the moment, that us pro-lifers think that it’s a bad law and needs to go, fact is that it is the law of the land and we have to work with it until we can get it overturned.
Jack Borsch: “I don’t follow your Bible,” Thanks for proving my point that Christians think like non-Christians when it comes to compromising on child killing. I couldn’t have made a better case for that myself.
So, Scott just to recap. The proper Christian thing to do is to allow all baby killing until we can get an absolute ban. That makes sense. *eyeroll*
Don’t worry, JDC, it’s us non-Christians who are the bad ones in every situation ever. ;)
Christians should never “allow” any child killing. If one child isn’t valuable, no child is valuable. Christians have been “allowing” child killing for over 40 years now. IT’S NOT WORKING! Check this out: ”Thou shall not murder.” There’s a period at the end. Christians who compromise on child killing remind me of what Satan said to Eve: “Has God indeed said…?”
You were right, JDC. He does think that we all should sit twiddling our thumbs while legislators try to pass failed bill after failed bill. Because “principles” are more important than saving some kids from being killed.
Name one law in existence that has the authority to save preborn children.
Bans pass the point of viability do, for one. And, as Navi pointed out, the Hyde Amendment has the effect of saving lives, though I guess you don’t count that because it’s not a stated goal. Defunding measures are shutting clinics down all over the place, which leaves less places and doctors to perform abortions.
Great list, Jack. Studies have also found that parental consent laws reduce the abortion rate among minors. So a few preborn children saved there.
For all you supporters of regulating child killing as opposed to banning child killing, here’s the dilemma you and others could conceivably find yourself in:
“Mom, dad, I’m pregnant and I want an abortion.”
“That’s out of the question. We’re pro-life Christians and we won’t allow it.”
“But mom and dad, there’s no heartbeat. You both support the law that says abortions are legal until there is a heartbeat, correct?”
“Yes, you know we support that law. We’ve talked about it quite often.”
“OK, well, my embryo has not developed a heartbeat yet, so I want to have a legal abortion.”
“No, sweetie. Again, we’re pro-life Christians and we won’t allow it.”
“Oh, I see, mom and dad. By supporting the heartbeat bill, you don’t care if other peoples’ grandbabies are killed before they possess a heartbeat, as long is it’s not your grandbaby that’s being killed. Mom and dad, that makes you hypocrites. After all, Christians support that law so why are you applying a different standard to me? Now will you give me a ride to the abortion clinic or should I ask a friend to take me?”
Which states have bans after viability and how are those laws enforced?
Which states have parental consent laws and how are those laws enforced?
Check out http://childpredators.com/ to become enlightened on how effective parental consent laws are. Prepare to feel foolish for bringing it up.
I regret a quick-on-the-draw “like” of one of Scott’s comments. All or nothing does not work well among humans. Not without a heck of a lot of conflict and bloodshed (See: The War Between the States).
You’re gonna have to wait for the Boss to come down and stop all abortion immedeiately. Much as is pictured in my icon.
Scott, you are deliberately ignoring the fact that every. single. one. of. us. would gladly support a total abortion ban if we could get one passed and enforced. However, we realize that it ain’t gonna happen, at least not quite yet, and we are struggling to save as many babies as possible with legislation and other work. I can see that you are too stuck on what you think is moral to look at it in a realistic perspective. I don’t see any of the other Christians on the board complaining that some babies are being saved, that’s the freaking strangest thing to complain about.
I am not sure which states have viability bans or upper limit bans. I don’t have any stats at the moment and I am not going to search around to have you ignore them. But I DO know that because of regulation and stigma, we have very few late term abortion providers in the US now. I guess that’s a bad thing too, somehow.
No, Jack. Not that “Boss”. :)
Dangit, Hans, you have destroyed my fantasy of Springsteen abolishing abortion. :)
Scott, here is info on abortion limitations by state. I may be a dirty heathen, lol, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t look at things practically and do my best to save babies while still trying to get abortion abolished all together.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf
We should hope for the day when all are allowed to be “Born In The U.SA.” ;)
Alice, calm down.
Wow. Okay. So, you spend a whole thread of being as rude and condescending to me as possible, calling my Christianity into question, and flat refusing to actually respond to the points I’m making. And now you come over all bewildered, as if the hostility and anger you’re getting from me for behaving as offensively as you possibly could is somehow inexplicably coming out of left field. All before you launch into a “I didn’t actually say anything that I said,” post. This is the part where I throw my hands up and walk away from you. If you petulantly stomp your foot and say it’s too hard to Google a historical figure, rational debate is clearly years beyond you.
But I am very pleased to see you disavow connection to the Personhood movement. I have a lot of respect for those folks, and it was killing me to think you represented any part of that movement, mainstream, fringe, or otherwise. I am glad to find out that you don’t, because they get enough crap as it is. They don’t deserve to have to deal with people like you.
@Hans: “All or nothing does not work well among humans. Not without a heck of a lot of conflict and bloodshed.”
So what do you call preborn baby murder if it’s not conflict and bloodshed every single day for 40 years?
@Alice, please show me where I called your Christianity into question. Flat out, I did no such thing. I clearly explained what I meant after you accused me of something I didn’t do.
What I meant by not having time to get into Wilberforce is getting into a debate about him with you.
And also, please tell me where I disavowed connection to the personhood movement. My wife and I gathered over 1500 signatures in the 2010 campaign, and we’re hoping to get that many this time. What I actually did say is, it’s far from being passed in any state (even Mississippi last time), and even if it does pass, there will be a battle and it will still be necessary for me and others to go to the abortion mills to plead for the lives of babies. Do you ever do that, Alice?
So, being you weren’t able to pick up on the obvious point I was making in my first post, which Elizabeth was able to do quite nicely, I’m not surprised you’re not able to pick up on the obvious points I’ve made since then. I’m sorry I wasted your time and mine. But you will have to answer to God one day for having compromised on His enduring command, “Thou shall not murder.” Christians should not compromise when it comes to the murder of the innocent. Remember what God said to Noah when God instituted the death penalty after the Flood, Alice?: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.” – Genesis 9:6. God intends for those who shed innocent blood to be arrested, tried, and swiftly executed by the government. That’s how seriously God takes the shedding of the blood of the innocent, and that’s how seriously Christians should take it as well. There is no compromise in that passage anywhere.
Alice, until you and others align yourselves with God and stop being willing to compromise on the shedding of innocent blood, it will never end. And ultimately we don’t want it to continue to a lesser degree (which pro-life, really, pro-choice laws don’t accomplish anyway.) We want it to stop!
And much of this legislation will be overruled in the courts (that’s part of the checks and balances), or amended to include “every sperm is sacred”.
What a bunch of hypocrites you phonies are. You jerk off to fetuses, but most of you couldn’t care less what happens to born little boys in the parishes where your vile, filthy priests have raped them.
Women are still going to have abortions. They may do them on their own. And, guess what–it still results in a dead “baby”. And the thing is you can’t stop those women from doing their own abortions.
And, child rapists have been recycled within the Catholic Church. Isn’t that wonderful. The priest may never rape again in your parish, but in another parish, little Eddie or little Jane will be violated, thanks to the sickness of the bishops and cardinals who protected these vermin. Meanwhile, the sick Catholic Church wants to interfere in the lives of non-Catholics.
Keep your stench out of the lives of others.
Just think how all those victims of priest rape felt while those sick, disgusting vermin were raping those altar boys.
Yet the Catholic Church cult diverts with opposition to birth control.
Really? Is that all you’ve got? My grandpa could troll better than you guys, and he barely knows how to turn a computer on let alone use one to annoy people. At least come up with something original…
Wow, march of the trolls…wonder what bridge (pro-choice website) they’re crawling out from underneath. I thought about responding to the logical fallacies and ad hominem attacks, but they’re probably not coming back (drive by fruiting, so-to-speak). I know, I know, if we ignore them, they’ll eventually go away.
Honestly, these types probably know whats wrong with their comments, but comment anyways. They just want to piss us off.
Too bad for them most Pro-Lifers commenting on this thread currently seem to be entirely secular and not Catholic at all. Whoopsie!
When she went back to work, she had a “D & C” which I suspect was an abortion.
If I hadn’t been wanted, I probably would have spent my life in therapy as a result of anger and rejection issues. A wanted child has a much better chance to be a stable adult. My father wasn’t wanted (his sister was) and he had a lifetime of issues relating to that. In real life, mommies don’t always love their babies.
There you have it. Messed-up moms make for messed-up people. We now get to be a party to CC’s coping mechanism to try and prevent any survivor’s guilt she might develop. SHE was one of those super-precious WANTED BABIES, and her sibling was a twisted, evil, disgusting and not-wanted non-person. That is why it was okay for mommy dearest to kill sis/bro, and why it would not be ok for mommy dearest to kill CC. She HAS to tell herself that, because otherwise she might have to accept the truth of what was done, and we can’t have that.
CC, nobody asked you if you would have to go to therapy, or how screwed-up you would be (“would be”, lol, as if you aren’t!). We asked you that what if your mom said after she aborted your sibling, “Whoops! I missed! I got the wrong kid, and it turns out I actually don’t want CC!” if that day makes your life worthless. Since your dad was unwanted, should he have killed himself? If your mom decided that you were unwanted when you were 4, would you go play in traffic if she asked you to, to rectify the situation?
Scott Evans says:
For all you supporters of regulating child killing as opposed to banning child killing,
Seems you’re starting with a faulty premise Scott. I don’t know a single pro-lifer on this site that is opposed to banning abortion.
I’m in favor of the incremental approach because lives have been saved by the laws regulating abortion. If you could prove to me that this approach is actually destructive to the goal of making abortion illegal, then I would have to reconsider. Do you have such proof?
As annoyingly priggish as Scott comes off, he was followed by three straight mega-trolls who remind you of the types you would really cross the street to avoid.
Rachel C, I crawled out of the dioecese of LA.
What in the world do the Catholic sex abuse scandals have to do with pro-life legislation? Fail, trolls.
JackBorsh, they have to do with hypocrisy.
An interesting fact:
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen has outgrossed October Baby by just under 50%. Should tell you something.
Larry, plenty of us pro-lifers aren’t Catholic. I’m not even religious. I don’t see how you can hang the abuses that happened in the Church on us. And even for the Catholic pro-lifers, I don’t think you will find any that will justify sexual abuse. I think that you are letting your grudge against Catholicism apparently blind you to reality.
An interesting fact:
Salmon Fishing in the Yemen has outgrossed October Baby by just under 50%. Should tell you something.
Coolstorybro.
Steve,
Yeah. A single movie that required very little investment actually generated enough revenue to be a comparable fraction of a certain country’s entire industry. That’s pretty cool. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I heard the movie only cost 50,000 dollars to make. How much do you think the entire fishing industry in Yemen costs to run?
50k to make October Baby? Someone would have to be lying. Did the cast work for nothing? It opened in nearly 400 theaters. Did they all download it from a file sharing website? Or is there fuzzy math involved like right wingers do with book sales by someone like Newsmax “buying” 50,000 copies at 50 cents apiece to give away with subscriptions?
Xaliese, my comment about Fishing in the Yemen was more about comparisons of interest in subject matters. The Three Stooges in one weekend outdid October Baby in four, even though The Three Stooges is not a documentary about Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.
Then once again, I second Navi’s sentiment of “Coolstorybro.”
Since it really has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here, why the non sequitur? If you want to talk about October Baby, why don’t you go find the thread talking about October Baby? Reading comprehension not your strong suit? :(
xalisae, old threads are not worth posting on. But I did find out the production costs for October Baby is somewhere just under a million.
So much for the $50,000 cost.
Where’d you find that out? And, is that the production cost, or the advertising budget? They are two different things, you realize.
But hey, you want to talk about October Baby, we’ll talk about October Baby. What do you think of the subject matter? Gianna Jessen has always had such a compelling story, don’t you think?
Rachael C. wrote:
I know, I know, if we ignore them, they’ll eventually go away.
:) I couldn’t have said it better, myself! (Don’t feed the trolls, y’all!)
Especially those three-headed ones (9:58 to 10:03 a.m. yesterday).
xalisae, I googled October Baby production costs and got a few sources, all of whom agreed. Try it.