Increased child abuse among cohabitators
Two points:
From the Associated Press, November 25….
Six-year-old Oscar Jimenez Jr. [pictured below with mom Kathryn] was beaten to death in California, then buried under fertilizer and cement. Two-year-old Devon Shackleford was drowned in an Arizona swimming pool. Jayden Cangro [mom Carly Moore pictured right at grave], also 2, died after being thrown across a room in Utah.
In each case, as in many others every year, the alleged or convicted perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child’s mother – men thrust into father-like roles, which they tragically failed to embrace.
Every family is different. Some single mothers bring men into their lives who lovingly help raise children when the biological father is gone for good.
Nonetheless, many scholars and social workers who monitor America’s families see the abusive-boyfriend syndrome as part of a broader, deeply worrisome trend. They note an ever-increasing share of America’s children grow up in homes without both biological parents, and say the risk of child abuse is markedly higher in the nontraditional family structures.
“This is the dark underbelly of cohabitation,” said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociologist. “Cohabitation has become quite common, and most people think, ‘What’s the harm?’ The harm is we’re increasing a pattern of relationships that’s not good for children.”…
[Oscar’s photo credit: Kansas City Star; Jayden’s photo credit: ABC News]
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.
Jill, thanks for covering this. This connection has been on my mind for a long time.
Cohabitation also makes it much more difficult to leave an abusive relationship. There is much more dependency, both intimately and physically (living in the same home).
Many times we’d be able to see the red flags much earlier while it is much easier to end the relationship if we only didn’t become intimate so quickly.
Simple. Jill wrote it best. Abortion is prenatal homicide. I think that legalized abortion may have actually increased child abuse. There is no respect for life anymore.
There was once a big survey on marriage in the men’s magazine GQ.
It turns out that over 50% of all single men, and a whopping 85% of all college-educated single men refuse to have anything to do with single mothers.
It seemed to me like women who spawn early are the most likely to end up with the dregs, man-wise. Also, women with limited education and cruddy jobs were less likely to have successful men in their social circle.
(I wonder if the local CPC is going to mention THAT little fact…)
Well, Laura, it personally wouldn’t matter to me even if the local CPC did mention that fact. Having my child was not based on having a man around or not. Women who think that are needy, insecure, and need a man to validate their existence. It’s too bad all those supposedly “smart” men don’t want anything to do with single mothers. We’re some pretty strong ladies…oh but yeah I forgot..strength in women intimidates men A LOT.
Ellie, I have also noticed this connection. Just this week, there was an instance of a mom and her live-in boyfriend being arrested for murder. I am referring to Baby Grace,the little girl who was found in a plastic bin that was floating in Galveston Bay. Despicable….
As for this article and the people in it..I’m sure their boyfriend’s didn’t wake up one day and just decide to kill these women’s children. They probably abused them for a period of time before the death actually occurred..so I hold the woman equally responsible for her child’s death. Mothers are supposed to protect their children in and out of the womb. Some dude ever layed a FINGER on my daughter…he would be in for some serious problems.
Well if teaching abstinance is supposed to prevent child abuse, we’ve had increased federal funding of abstinance-only education for seven years under Bush, so where are the reductions in child abuse?
Laura, it is not just the poor and uneducated that are abusers. Child abusers come from all bakcgrounds. The well-off can just cover it up better.
Should be down to zero by now.
This is just a feeling I have so bear with me… I feel that the increases in child abuse rates aren’t just because of increased reporting. I believe that another reason is that abortion has devalued born children. It is the product of the slippery slope society has been on since abortion has been legal.
Mothers are supposed to protect their children in and out of the womb. Some dude ever layed a FINGER on my daughter…he would be in for some serious problems.
Posted by: Elizabeth at November 27, 2007 9:30 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, but women who are financially dependant on abusive losers don’t have that option. I think that’s what causes them to become easy targets.
(Does it ever seem that abusers can SMELL emotionally/financially dependant women at a distance?)
Or maybe a mom with homicidal tendencies can smell a guy with the same violent tendencies at a distance and that’s what attracts her to the guy? Maybe he’s willing to do what she wants done, but can’t quite bring herself to do…….
“It seemed to me like women who spawn early are the most likely to end up with the dregs, man-wise. Also, women with limited education and cruddy jobs were less likely to have successful men in their social circle.”
Wasn’t the whole “we have to have control of our bodies and reproductive systems” mantra by the feminists suppose to stop all this? Wasn’t it suppose to make woman equal to men? Wasn’t it suppose to make us less dependant on men?
Nothing has changed except we are seen more as playthings rather than women – and we have done it to ourselves.
SOMG –
“Well if teaching abstinance is supposed to prevent child abuse, we’ve had increased federal funding of abstinance-only education for seven years under Bush, so where are the reductions in child abuse?”
Increase federal funding yes. However the NOW and Planned Parenthood machine have upped there “they are going to do it anyway” campaign and have placed so much fear into parents that the parents are undermining what the kids are being taught in the abstinence classes. The saying “It takes a village to raise a child” is true. We can’t say one thing in the classroom and then say the exact opposite at home and in society.
In reality we do not have abstinence-only education because society refuses to help guide our children in that direction. Children are vulnerable and will do only what is expected of them. If it is expected that they will “do it anyway” then hey, permission to do it is grand, ain’t it?
Because of this the CDC has just released that STI’s are at an all time high in people aged 15-24. Nice huh? This is a form of child abuse in my opinion.
Now, if society would follow the guidelines of abstinence and promote this then we will see a decrease in child abuse.
Yeah, but women who are financially dependant on abusive losers don’t have that option. I think that’s what causes them to become easy targets.
(Does it ever seem that abusers can SMELL emotionally/financially dependant women at a distance?)
You’re right. Single moms are more likely to be impoverished than any other group. So they move in with some man out of desperation and lack the means to leave the situation when it becomes abusive.
Where does abstinence play in to this?
If you don’t have sex while single:
a. You won’t be an automatic single mother
b. You will have some recourse in help from the father even if there is a divorce. You have a man that had a real commitment to you and the child at some point, as opposed to the guy you picked up at a bar.
Desperation and poverty is no excuse for letting your child be abused.
SOMG,
You don’t quite have your history straight. It was the leaders in the movement to legalize abortion who argued that legal abortion would end child abuse. The very wrong assumption existed that planned and wanted children are never abused. Obviously, that theory has been proven wrong.
SOMG, 9:33am
You’re certainly right. After 34 years of legal abortion, child abuse should be down to zero by now.
Desperation and poverty is no excuse for letting your child be abused.
Agreed. It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation. If it’s the difference between homelessness and letting your boyfriend yell at your kids and smack them around, your mind will justify the boyfriend’s behavior to avoid taking your kids and living in your car.
Jacqueline, good point. An explanation is not the same thing as an excuse. However, not every abusive situation involves people living on the edge without a safety net. Some people are plain ole’ sadistic you-know-whats and that includes the man and the woman.
You’re certainly right. After 34 years of legal abortion, child abuse should be down to zero by now.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 12:03 PM
************************************************
Every one of these women chose to continue their pregnancy. They could have ended the pregnancy but they chose to give birth. Obviously having a child doesnt mean youre going to be able to take care of it. If a woman aborts then there wont be a child TO abuse.
I guess I am just confused about the difference between cohabitators and married couples in terms of abusive relationships. Wouldn’t married couples be just as dependent on each other as cohabitators?
I guess I am just confused about the difference between cohabitators and married couples in terms of abusive relationships. Wouldn’t married couples be just as dependent on each other as cohabitators?
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 27, 2007 1:11 PM
***********************************************
I think they differentiate because of the potential impermanency of two people living together – guys who wouldnt get married may still be more than happy to move in with someone or let her move in with him. But youre right – plenty of husbands have abused children from previous relationships as well.
Elizabeth said, “As for this article and the people in it..I’m sure their boyfriend’s didn’t wake up one day and just decide to kill these women’s children. They probably abused them for a period of time before the death actually occurred..so I hold the woman equally responsible for her child’s death.”
Elizabeth,
I totally agree!
I think 99% of these women knew about these men very early on. However, they were blinded by love, in it for the money, or in love with the idea of having the “perfect family”. They ignored the red flags that were there all along for self-centered reasons.
There are SO many programs and help available to women in these situations, that there is no excuse, other than pure laziness, not to leave the abuser in the first place.
Laura-
delusion/denial does interesting things to people.
AB Laura and Elizabeth, I agree. Many times these women are active participants in the abuse. Even if they weren’t,the abuse often goes on for months or years on end before the child is killed. Baby Grace was tortured for several days before she was killed. The mother was right there the whole time. I think the concept that a mother could be so evil is unthinkable to many people and that’s why they look for explainations for the unexplainable. Remember the case of Lisa Steinberg,Joel Steinberg, and Hedda Nessbaum? She was just as responsible as he was even if he committed the actual physical abuse. Lisa was abused for years.
should read*explanations*
“I think 99% of these women knew about these men very early on.”
I don’t necessarily think this is true in every case. In some… perhaps. But my mother started dating this man (this was before she had children) and he was the nicest, most kindest man. Many of her friends said he was the best boyfriend she had ever had. When my mother decided she wanted to break up with this man and start dating anther man (my father). He became angry and abusive towards her. Throwing her up against the car etc.
“There are SO many programs and help available to women in these situations, that there is no excuse, other than pure laziness, not to leave the abuser in the first place.”
Wow…. thats a little harsh.. to “lazy” to leave????
I think most women that are abused have little self confidence in themselves and their ability to leave the abusive husband. Usually with physical abuse come emotional and verbal abuse. Women start to think things like, “no one else will ever love me but him.” “I’m worthless” or “he’ll change” Sometimes abusive husbands can be very controlling. Controlling every single little thing his wife does. And if she is caught trying to leave, or doing anything he doesn’t want her to do, she is beat to a bloody pulp. I think some women are afraid to leave their husbands, not that they are “too lazy”
I have also heard of many women saying “he wasn’t like this until…..”
JM,
I’m sorry your mom had to go throught that. It’s not right and certainly not deserved.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I believe that the only reason why the woman loses her self-esteem, is because they are choosing to loose it. It’s the “be the victim or the victor” mentality.
Unless the woman is tied down by the man, she cannot leave. Otherwise…it’s a big country…lots of places to go and lots of places to “hide” and lots of places to get help. The woman just needs to get out of the “lazy or comfortable with the way life is” mode, and make a move! What’s the alternative???
“I think some women are afraid to leave their husbands, not that they are “too lazy” ”
I think also that it is just very difficult to break up with someone you are intimately involved with, not even considering the abuse. It is very easy to second guess yourself. Also, even if these men are abusive, sometimes they are charming when they are “on,” funny, thoughtful in some ways, etc. A woman may decide, “ok, I’m going to definitely leave him,” and then second guess herself. She might even leave, but the withdrawal is so painful, that she finds herself back with him.
This is one of the reasons why it is so important not to become sexually active before marriage. The sexual nature of the relationship bonds the couple together in a way that is difficult to separate, and it creates much more jealous feelings on the man’s part. Jennifer Roback Morse writes about the role of oxytocin, the bonding hormone in women, and possesiveness in men in this article:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp//ArticleMorseNoCropsHiRez.pdf
Ellie,
Well said. Thanks for the link!
Whoa Whoa Whoa…can I just say not ALL single mothers are single moms as the result of a guy they picked up in a bar! I get what you are saying Jacqueline with the whole at least if you’re married then there is a REAL commitment there…but saying all single moms are that way because the guy they slept with they didn’t really know is pushin’ it a little. I’m a single mom as a result of a relationship where the guy turned out to be a total ummm a**hole AFTER I got pregnant. He was probably that way before but I rationalized it and his real bad side showed up after I got pregger’s. But my lesson’s been learned….for now..I’m waiting for the ring and the date. :)
The difference between marriage and co-habitation is that marriage requires a higher level of commitment. (Not as high as it should require, but that’s another issue.) Marriage is a public statement that you’re going to stick together, at least for a while, and hopefully for life. On the other hand, co-habitation can simply be a matter of convenience, economics, or plain-old-fashioned lust.
Chaste living (and the lack thereof) is also a part of this equation. How many worthless guys are going to stick with a woman until marriage if she isn’t willing to have sex? Talk about a test of commitment!
—
TexasRed wrote:
If a woman aborts then there wont be a child TO abuse.
Technically true, but only because the abortion killed the child. By that same logic, infanticide is an acceptable method of preventing child abuse.
“If a woman strangles her newborn in the crib, there won’t be a child to abuse.”
See the problem?
Hey Naaman. I like your posts. I haven’t seen you before. Are you new here?
Naaman..those are very good points. After I became a single mother, I vowed no more sex until marriage..I’ve dated guys since who “said” they could handle that..needless to say..they were out pretty quick. It’ll take a pretty special man to put up with me. But I’m okay with that.:)
Whoa, pardner,
Me sees a gathering of shared psychosis, a madness, a folie a trois, between Laura, SoMG(Smith’s old Meat and Garden fame), and the site’s redneck from Texas, Tejasred.
Hold on to your saddle horn, and batten down flank cinch, cause you got a Motel hell relative here, SoMG, a horse lover named Laura, who steals mare pee-pee and ships the worthless horses to be slaughtered in Mexico, and the essential racist redneck from the Friendly state.
You know you like it TexasRedneck, when those beautiful brownskin boyz, abuse their children. And that brownskin poverty, excites you to post about poverty being a cause of child abuse. Remember that time you and Laura changed her “pornmobile” into a “racemobile”, and went through the barrio using the bullhorn mounted on the remodeled “pornmobile” of Laura’s, and announcing. “Your papacito is going to beat and kill you from being poor”. “Your mama is a pendejo, who married a poor boy from the barrio”.
“Your never going to live mijo’s and mijas’s beyond tommorow”.
Then Doug, declared you fighters against poverty and pardigms of virtue and not sheer propagandist for pessimism.
Ah, Texasredneck riding off into the sunset with Laura and SoMG, singing Happy Trails in their folie a trois.
Bambino Papi,
I’ve seen Naaman before, MONTHS ago. Glad to see he’s back.
How is Gianna and wifey? Is the nursing going well?
Ok, back to the debate…
Bobby wrote:
Hey Naaman. I like your posts. I haven’t seen you before. Are you new here?
Thanks for the compliment. Nah, I’m not new. I’m just busy, so I’m not a regular commenter. I’d direct you to my own blog, but I took it down because of the aforementioned busy-ness.
Jill actually published my death-to-life conversion story a while ago:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/conversion_stor.html
Thank you, yllas, for looking like a complete and total idiot yet again. You’re very good at it.
I look forward to reading your story, Naaman. Hi Carder. All the fam is doing well. We’re starting to get the nursing thing down. We don’t get much sleep, though, but that comes with the territory. God love you.
AB Laura –
“I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I believe that the only reason why the woman loses her self-esteem, is because they are choosing to loose it. It’s the “be the victim or the victor” mentality.”
You may not want to sound mean, but you sure do sound it! Most abusive men start breaking away at the self esteem little by little, and they do not choose women with the strongest will anyway. I did not choose to get beat up by my boyfriend and I did not choose to stay with him. When I left him he would follow and beat me again! Restraining order? “What’s that” said the court system. They couldn’t give a rat’s behind that he sent me to the hospital and that he was stalking me! The only way he would have been punished is if he killed me. I was never a “victim” of him, but a “victim” of people who think I choose to be beat and choose to be stalked when I tried to leave.
“Unless the woman is tied down by the man, she cannot leave. Otherwise…it’s a big country…lots of places to go and lots of places to “hide” and lots of places to get help.”
You may not know this but most of the places to “hide” means you have to hide from everyone. You’re family, you’re friends and you have to leave your job. That is not an option for many people. It may sound easy, but it isn’t. Especially when you are broke with no means to get to those places. Also, leaving means you put your family at rist, these men don’t care what they have to do to keep control and will usually start in on your family when they can’t find you.
You need to read up on women like Francine Hughes:
http://www.umich.edu/~clemency/clemency_manual/manual_chapter04.html
“Before 1980, lawyers defending battered women who killed their spouses typically employed an excuse theory of defense. In 1977, a 29 year old housewife, Francine Hughes, was charged with first degree murder for killing her abusive husband. 82 After enduring thirteen years of vicious beatings, death threats, intimidation, and humiliation, Ms. Hughes set fire to the bed in which her husband was sleeping. For years before the murder, Ms. Hughes tried to escape from her husband without success. She actively sought help from lawyers, judges, social service agencies, and the police, all to no avail. Had she not killed her husband, it seems probable that she would have died at his hands. …..
Some critics charge that battered women, like Francine Hughes, who killed their abusive partners in a non-confrontational situation cannot get a fair trial under existing definitions of self defense. For example, Cynthia Gillespie, author of Justifiable Homicide, asserts that because self-defense jurisprudence requires a threat to be imminent, a woman who kills her batterer while he is sleeping is prevented from utilizing the defense. 99 Specifically, Gillespie argues that under self-defense law strictly applied, a woman is not allowed to fight back with a weapon until her batterer actually beats her severely enough to make it clear that death or great bodily harm is imminent. Of course, by that time, she would be rendered helpless. ”
One of the reason Francine did what she did instead of letting him kill her was because she didn’t want her children to be subjected to living with him. She took all the abuse in order to protect them – AND she got pregnant which is why they got married. She may have learned what kind of moron he was if she hadn’t had sex with him.
Being that you did not dispute one word of my post about your motivation and character. One must conclude, you agree with the post offering a explanation of your motivation and condition of being a shared madness with SoMG and Laura.
Nect thing will see from you REDneck, is that you have plenty of brownskin friends.
TexasRed wrote:
If a woman aborts then there wont be a child TO abuse.
Technically true, but only because the abortion killed the child. By that same logic, infanticide is an acceptable method of preventing child abuse.
“If a woman strangles her newborn in the crib, there won’t be a child to abuse.”
See the problem?
Posted by: Naaman at November 27, 2007 2:47 PM
***************************************
I see the problem with your logic. Killing children is against the law. If a woman knows up front that she isnt in a position to continue a pregnancy and take care of a child, who are you to contradict her? Virtually anyone can take care of a child. Once a child is born there is a wide range of options. If the woman is pregnant then she has two options. SHE continues the pregnancy or SHE doesnt. You want to try to pretend YOU know what is ‘best’ for her and know what she ‘should’ do based solely on your egocentricity. You want to pretend she ‘should’ continue the pregnancy and just hope for the best. Attitudes like yours lead to child abuse. The woman hopes for the best and realizes after the fact she made a mistake. As I pointed out, every one of these women DID have the option to end their pregnancies and they chose to continue them. Continuing a pregnancy is no guarantee someone will be a fit mother.
Many of these women grew up in homes where they saw all the women around them being abused and where they were abused as well. If you dont have dinner ready when he comes home and he smacks you upside the head then thats just how it is and you deserve it. Next time have dinner ready. If he slaps your kids around then thats how it is. Kids need to learn how to behave. Thats how you raise kids. This is ‘normal’ for these women. Its heartbreaking but thats still how it is. There are no ‘simple’ answers to the issues of child abuse and domestic violence.
Actually Texasredneck, it is you who are pretending to know what is best for the women. You encourage her choice to murder her baby in the womb from being racist redneck from the friendly state, who appeals to her condition of poverty and skin color. Just like Sanger did.
Texasred:
“SHE continues the pregnancy or SHE doesnt. ”
SHE is the one who willingly had sex (99% of abortion are from willing sexual encounters). SHE is one person who is establishing if another human being is worthy of life based on HER mistake.
Why should one person get to decide if another human being is worthy to live? Science backs me up on this one – the fetus is a human being and the fetus is alive. That has been proven time and time again.
Therefore you support a form of discrimination. The human being is a fetus and cannot be seen therefore one person gets to decide life or death.
Criminals have 12 people that decide life or death. A fetus only gets one person making the decision and that is without a trial.
Valerie,
I never said that you chose to get beat up by your boyfriend. But if you stayed with him, that was your choice.
You said, “When I left him he would follow and beat me again! Restraining order? “What’s that” said the court system. They couldn’t give a rat’s behind that he sent me to the hospital and that he was stalking me! The only way he would have been punished is if he killed me. I was never a “victim” of him, but a “victim” of people who think I choose to be beat and choose to be stalked when I tried to leave.”
I have heard that the court system regarding restraining orders is pretty bad in many situations, but there are other avenues of help available. One can practically walk into ANY Christian church, and the people there would be willing to bend over backwards for the woman and child(ren). This is just one of MANY examples, among the many shelters for battered women, etc.
My post was more directed to a woman with a
child(ren). I don’t care what the excuse may be….get your child out of harm’s way..no matter what it takes…even if it means leaving your family behind. The child is your responsibility and your job is to protect that child.
I’m sure my opinion is not a “one-size fits all” opinion, so please, do not take it personally.
Texasred:
“SHE continues the pregnancy or SHE doesnt. ”
SHE is the one who willingly had sex (99% of abortion are from willing sexual encounters). SHE is one person who is establishing if another human being is worthy of life based on HER mistake.
Why should one person get to decide if another human being is worthy to live? Science backs me up on this one – the fetus is a human being and the fetus is alive. That has been proven time and time again.
Therefore you support a form of discrimination. The human being is a fetus and cannot be seen therefore one person gets to decide life or death.
Criminals have 12 people that decide life or death. A fetus only gets one person making the decision and that is without a trial.
**********************************************
Back to the absurd invention that mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure is a person – its not. Its only tissue and cells in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there. Whimpering that it ‘deserves a trial’ or whining its being ‘discriminated against’ is idiotic. Its not a person. Its not a human being. It doesnt have the same rights as a person nor should it have. Science proves that its living human tissue and cell structure. Thats all science proves. Agreeing to sex isnt agreeing to pregnancy. The woman doesnt have some obligation to be “punished for her mistake” simply because you think she “should” be.
So at what point does it become a person, Tex?
TexasRed,
Science changes…God Word does not!
AB Laura, I’m with you on this one..I don’t care…any mother that allows a man to beat on their kids is JUST as responsible. I mean are these women really in that MUCH denial or do they just plain not care? I’m sorry but like I said before…ONE FINGER! And he’s done…he will be arrested so fast..restraining order..and I’m buying a gun..go ahead and come chase me down and beat me or my kid up again!
As I said, yllas, apparently going out of your way to prove youre an idiot is the only thing for which you are any good at all.
*God’s Word* does not
“Science proves that its living human tissue and cell structure. Thats all science proves.”
No, science unequivocally states that human life begins at conception. Science is on our side.
Thanks, Elizabeth!
Zero tolerance!!!
TexasRed,
Science changes…God Word does not!
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 3:53 PM
********************************************
Not one single solitary word anywhere in the scriptures, old testament or new, condemns the practice of abortion or gives any indication that ‘god’ or the men who wrote the bible thought the practice was murder, was killing, was wrong, or had any problem with it at all. And since the US is not a theocracy, what you fantasize ‘god says’on any subject doesnt mean a single solitary thing to anyone but you.
TexasRed,
Have you read the Bible???
“Science proves that its living human tissue and cell structure. Thats all science proves.”
No, science unequivocally states that human life begins at conception. Science is on our side.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 3:55 PM
*****************************************
No, science doesnt state that. The egg and sperm are living before conception so life does not ‘begin’ at conception. And as I pointed out “Science proves that its living human tissue and cell structure. Thats all science proves.” No ‘science’ is not on your ‘side’. The only thing on the antichoice side is melodramatics, hysteria and emotionalism.
A real Texan would never let his honor be challenged and then run away saying/writing such weak things to the one who has challenged his motivation and character.
Are you a really from Texas, or just another wanna be Rhinestone cowboy?
Then again, being a racist redneck might just be your pride and honor. After all, your moniker is a oxymoron, unless being for murdering babies in the womb is friendly behavior to you Redneck.
So at what point does it become a person, Tex?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 3:53 PM
**********************************************
Its legally recognized as a PERSON at birth
Thanks alot yllas…now I’ve got the “Rhinestone Cowboy” song playing over & over again in my mind!!!
:)
This is just a feeling I have so bear with me… I feel that the increases in child abuse rates aren’t just because of increased reporting. I believe that another reason is that abortion has devalued born children. It is the product of the slippery slope society has been on since abortion has been legal.
Posted by: Carrie at November 27, 2007 9:38 AM
…………………………………………………
I feel quite the opposite. If abused children hadn’t been wanted they would never have been born. Women make an investment by gestating. And hopefully the father to be as well. We tend to take care of that in which we are invested. Having the choice to gestate makes that choice easier to own.
Well, you say science doesn’t state that, so it must be true. What you don’t understand is that once egg and sperm meet, a new entity is formed. Of course egg and sperm are alive before, but science will tell us that egg and sperm cease to exist when they meet, and something new exists. What is that something new? And when does that thing become a person? Tell me the ontological change that occurs between conception and personhood.
TexasRed,
Have you read the Bible???
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 3:59 PM
*********************************
Do you think multiple question marks after a really stupid question makes it somehow less stupid? Why dont you provide book, chapter and verse where abortion IS condemned and the punishments are listed for those who have abortions and those who perform them, just for starters. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to provide them. The FACT is the only law regarding the FETUS says that if someone accidently causes a woman to miscarry but no harm comes to the woman then they will pay a fine to her husband. Only if harm comes to the woman is the punishment greater. The *translation* from miscarriage to ‘premature birth’ and the change in focus from the woman to the fetus very conveniently cropped up right after Roe v Wade.
AB Laura, TexasRed is correct. Nowhere in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament, does it say that abortion is murder or even that abortion is wrong.
If this issue is so important, why didn’t Jesus say anything specifically about abortion?
“Its legally recognized as a PERSON at birth”
So what was it before?
Where in the bible does it say that everything Christians should believe needs to be explicitly stated in the bible? The argument from silence does not hold up.
Sally,
I think it’s more like people like you who put a stigma of value on children…when pro-aborts look at a child that exited the womb, they think of them as the survivor of a choice…We feel that each and every child was precious at the moment of conception, to the moment of death.
It’s the people like you who tend to not value a child for what the child is…a precious gift from God. Abusers do not see a child as precious.
TexasRed, SoMg,
Have either of you read the Bible???
Well, you say science doesn’t state that, so it must be true. What you don’t understand is that once egg and sperm meet, a new entity is formed. Of course egg and sperm are alive before, but science will tell us that egg and sperm cease to exist when they meet, and something new exists. What is that something new? And when does that thing become a person? Tell me the ontological change that occurs between conception and personhood.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:08 PM
*****************************************
Youre really that illiterate when it comes to fetal development?
In the third trimester the fetus has a functional cerebral cortex and has the potential to survive outside the uterus. But if the fetus does not survive birth then it never became a person. Now are you going to start whining about death certificates?
“Its legally recognized as a PERSON at birth”
So what was it before?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:09 PM
***************************************
It was a fetus. Are there any other hairs you want to try to split or are you just having fun looking like an anal retentive whiner?
You see, when you know God, He sends the Holy Spirit to you, to reside in your heart & mind…The Holy Spirit will speak to you and you will know what is right & wrong in God’s eyes, because it will be written on your heart and mind. This IS in the Bible…so, to answer your question…YES…Abortion is the epitome of evil in God’s eye.
So, that would be a No??? You didn’t read the Bible????
So potential to survive on one’s own constitutes personhood? That’s your ontological change? You don’t answer the question. Here are a few embryology quotes. Science clearly shows that human life begins at conception.
“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). … The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.” (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten’s Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
“The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.” [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being.” [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
“Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. … The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.” (O’Rahilly, Ronan and M
Where in the bible does it say that everything Christians should believe needs to be explicitly stated in the bible? The argument from silence does not hold up.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:12 PM
***************************************
Youre whimpering again. You can believe anything you want but refusal to face facts just makes you look absurd. Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Thats fact, not opinion. The men who wrote the bible and ‘god’ knew about the practice of abortion. Thats fact, not opinion. Not one single solitary verse anywhere in the scriptures condemns the practice of abortion. That’s fact, not opinion. If you ‘think’ abortion is wrong then fine. But the fact of the matter is the bible does not say its wrong and YOUR assumptions, inventions, interpretations and translations are not ‘the word of god’.
Me thinks Texasredneck see’s what he wants to see and disregards the rest from madness.
Just last week, the Texas Supreme court upheld that a fetus(a baby in the womb) is a human life and murdering that human being is murder.
Terence Lawrence was convicted of two murders, one being a women, another her 4 to 6 week old, baby in the womb. He lost his appeal that he only murdered one person. It’s over racist Redneck.
All you racist sophistry is just that, racist sophistry which is being seen for what it is worth. Murder.
“It was a fetus. Are there any other hairs you want to try to split or are you just having fun looking like an anal retentive whiner?”
Listen, you are confusing accidents and substance. What is it ontologically? Not what does it look like or what is its stage in life. For example, we call a 3 year old male a boy and a 21 year old male a man, but they are both human beings. We call a male which hasn’t been born yet a fetus, but it is a human being.
You see, when you know God, He sends the Holy Spirit to you, to reside in your heart & mind…The Holy Spirit will speak to you and you will know what is right & wrong in God’s eyes, because it will be written on your heart and mind. This IS in the Bible…so, to answer your question…YES…Abortion is the epitome of evil in God’s eye.
So, that would be a No??? You didn’t read the Bible????
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:19 PM
**********************************
As I pointed out, multiple questioin marks after really stupid questions dont make them look any less stupid and for you to fantasize you speak for god is truly laughable. Your inventions, assumptions, translations and interpretations are not ‘the word of god’. Trying to tell yourself that god somehow waited 3000+ years for YOU to clear up everything and explain what he really “intended” to say but somehow just didnt get around to is hilarious. There are detailed instructions on what to do with feces – the men who wrote the bible took the time to make the rules about what to do with poop but not ONE SINGLE SOLITARY VERSE says that abortion is wrong, abortion is killing, abortion is murder, or that women shouldnt have abortions. What to do with poop mattered MORE to them than telling women they shouldnt abort.
“Where in the bible does it say that everything Christians should believe needs to be explicitly stated in the bible? The argument from silence does not hold up.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:12 PM
***************************************
Youre whimpering again. You can believe anything you want but refusal to face facts just makes you look absurd. Abortion has been around for thousands of years. Thats fact, not opinion. The men who wrote the bible and ‘god’ knew about the practice of abortion. Thats fact, not opinion. Not one single solitary verse anywhere in the scriptures condemns the practice of abortion. That’s fact, not opinion. If you ‘think’ abortion is wrong then fine. But the fact of the matter is the bible does not say its wrong and YOUR assumptions, inventions, interpretations and translations are not ‘the word of god’. ”
How did that address what I wrote?
AB Laura.
Imagine Texasredncek dressed in a rhinestone KKK sheet for more laughs.
Like a rhinestone Klansman
Riding a horse from pee pee stealing Laura
in a star spangled abortion rodeo……
TexasRed,
Well, if I remove the ? marks, will you answer my question?
Have you ever read the bible?
Listen, you are confusing accidents and substance. What is it ontologically? Not what does it look like or what is its stage in life. For example, we call a 3 year old male a boy and a 21 year old male a man, but they are both human beings. We call a male which hasn’t been born yet a fetus, but it is a human being.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:26 PM
**********************************************
Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun. Whining that a fertilized egg is ‘a human’ is absolute idiocy. Youre talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure until so late in gestation as to make abortion a moot point. This is science. This is fact. Whimpering that science ‘proves’ this tissue and cell structure is ‘a human’ is laughable. Its genetically human tissue and cell structure. Thats all. You may SEE it as “a person”. You may SEE it as “a baby”. But science SAYS its only living tissue and cells.
I find nothing amusing about those sheets.
TexasRed,
Well, if I remove the ? marks, will you answer my question?
Have you ever read the bible?
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:32 PM
******************************************
If YOU knew the scriptures then it would already be very obvious from my comments that Im very familiar with the bible, old tesatment and new.
TexasRed 12:46PM
The fact remains that abortion has done nothing to solve the problem of child abuse, as the early abortion rights movement claimed it would.
Maybe even they, and the people in our society who fell for this ploy, have finally come to realize that there is no simple reason for, or solution to, the crime of child abuse.
Did you read the quotes from actual scientists that I posted above? Do you have science references that claim that your position is correct? And let’s cut out all the flippant insults you keep making. It’s very childish.
Keep proving youre an incompetent idiot yllas – keep making a fool of yourself ….. you do it so very very well –
Texasred –
Science has proven:
Human Sperm – is alive but will never grow beyond sperm.
Human Egg – is alive but will never grow beyond sperm.
HOWEVER when the two are combined:
Human Zygote – perfectly intact DNA structure for a human being. This human being can be nothing but a human being. it will not magically change into a cat or a frog or a bird…it is a human being. Not a blob of tissue – that was the sperm and egg before they joined together. If the fetus was just a blob of tissue, then we are also just a blob of tissue. We are the same – science has proven that with DNA. The DNA never changes after fertilization.
You can see proof in the National Geographic show “in the womb”. This is a non biased, scientific source.
channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inthewomb/
Are you saying that national geographic is wrong?
And then there are the photographs taken by Lennart Nilsson which were originally published in Life Magazine in 1965 – before the huge abortion debates.
Here is an interview that Nova on PBS did with him…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/nilsson.html
Here is more information on Nilsson:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Nilsson
His book of photographs is called “A child is Born.” There are many additions and you can see pictures of the beginnings of human life from conception and beyond.
**adding TexasRed to prayer list**
Either do I, AB.
That evil abounds, and that rednecks who are from Texas decide murdering worthless human beings is not a joke. But, if one does not reduce evil into a joke somewhere in one’s life, one becomes exactly what the Klan wanted you to be. A joke to them, worthy of being murdered while joking about the precious life they dehumanized, just as Redneck is doing at this post board.
I only beg your pardon for offending your sensibilities.
yllas said: “Either do I, AB.”
I am SO glad to hear that!
You didn’t offend me…nothing here does!
Thank you, though!
:)
Keep it up Redneck.
Your inability to beg the pardon for murdering what you dehumanize is being typical of mind puppets of Sanger.
Keep it up Redneck.
Your inability to beg the pardon for murdering what you dehumanize is being a typical mind puppet of Sanger.
TexasRed,
I apologize if I was uncharitable above. This subject is obviously very emotional and passions fly when discussing it. I know that you too are very passionate about the subject. Many people are indifferent, and I appreciate your enthusiasm. I must go for the evening, but I”ll talk to you later. Take care.
You know, the article doesn’t actually say that child abuse rates are rising. In fact, it says:
“Existing U.S. data on child abuse is patchwork, making it hard to track national trends with precision.”
For all we know, child abuse rates could be steadily declining just like all other violent crimes in the US. The article is just a mess of statistical trivia.
There’s no evidence to support the idea that abortion has led to “less respect for life.” If anything, life is respected more and more all the time. Less than 100 years ago, there were public lynchings in the US. (People even sold picture postcards of lynching victims.)
Life sure has a lot more respect today.
Good catch, tp.
It seems that Ms. Stanek has again misleadingly excerpted from an article. For those who have a respect for accuracy, first, repeat after me:
Correlation is not causation.
Then read the full, original article.
It clearly states the correlation isn’t even statistically proven in this issue and we don’t have the numbers or reporting mechanism to do so, yet.
Further, to say there is a higher incidence of child abuse among cohabiting couples than among married couples without further differentiation is useless,even if there was a proven correlation. Poverty, joblessness, mental and emotional illness, childhood abuse, addiction have all been determined to be causally related.
Have those married, postpartum depression affected women been forgotten already? Like Andrea Yaeger?
A mentally ill or abused-as-a-child husband is much more likely to abuse than an emotionally stable boyfriend, all assertions of what everyone would like to believe to further their agenda notwithstanding.
Correction : Andrea Yates, not Yeager.
VIDEO: 4D ULTRASOUND
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uKCchuIjM
Mike
TexasRed 12:46PM
The fact remains that abortion has done nothing to solve the problem of child abuse, as the early abortion rights movement claimed it would.
Maybe even they, and the people in our society who fell for this ploy, have finally come to realize that there is no simple reason for, or solution to, the crime of child abuse.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 4:39 PM
…………………………………………………………….
Child abuse was not considered an issue when abortion was illegal. Women and children were the property of men to treat as they saw fit. Mistreatment of women and children became an issue due to the women’s movement. Some churches are starting to pay attention to the issues today but they have a very long way to go.
How do you expect child abuse to cease when every minute of every day a woman is being beaten by a man that has professed to love her? How do you expect the children of women to be respected when there is little concern for women themselves?
The only candidate that I have seen address domestic violence is Biden. Why is that? Why all the fuss over the ‘unborn’ when no one seems to give a rat’s patooty about the already here?
“Nowhere in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament, does it say that abortion is murder or even that abortion is wrong.”
Actually, there are some early Christian documents that include abortion in sorcery (herbal concoctions given to women to induce abortion) or something like that, so although the Bible might not refer to the word abortion, there is evidence that it is included in terms that are definitely forbidden in the Bible.
“The difference between marriage and co-habitation is that marriage requires a higher level of commitment. (Not as high as it should require, but that’s another issue.) Marriage is a public statement that you’re going to stick together, at least for a while, and hopefully for life. On the other hand, co-habitation can simply be a matter of convenience, economics, or plain-old-fashioned lust.”
Thanks for the answer, but my main question was, how does cohab make it worse for the abused child, dependent-wise?
Correlation is not causation. This is true. When there is significant correlation, you can ask if A causes B or if something else is causing both A and B, which would then explain the correlation. Correalation is not irrelevant. The correlation exists for some reason. The reason may be important or not. For example if people under 30 are more likely to cahabit and more likely to abuse, you can’t just say that youth or cohabiting are the cause for the abuse. That does not mean there is no cause. Nor does it mean the cause is indiscernable through statistical inference. That is why so many businesses use multivariate regression analysis.
This is where we focus too much on the victims. It used to be women would be married to an abuser. Now they divorce him and he moves on to the next victim. He doesn’t get treatment and is still a danger to society. We need to focus on the abuser. He won’t get better on his own.
JM,
I’m sorry your mom had to go throught that. It’s not right and certainly not deserved.
I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I believe that the only reason why the woman loses her self-esteem, is because they are choosing to loose it. It’s the “be the victim or the victor” mentality.
Unless the woman is tied down by the man, she cannot leave. Otherwise…it’s a big country…lots of places to go and lots of places to “hide” and lots of places to get help. The woman just needs to get out of the “lazy or comfortable with the way life is” mode, and make a move! What’s the alternative???
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 2:13 PM
……………………………………………………..
I used to belong to a Christian unline support group for DV victims. 3 of the women were wives of ministers. They refused to report their abuse for fear of shaming their husbands and churches. Only one had left her husband and only because he was having an affair with one of the parisheners.
2 women had been beaten severely enough to miscarry. 1 wound up in the hospital. Her husband got a night in jail and a $1000 dollar fine that came out of the household budget making it hard for her to feed her kids. It’s only a misdemeanor you know.
My sisters and myself have all been in abusive relationships. We were taught to be submissive, forgiving and to turn the other cheek rather than stick up for ourselves by our Christian mother.
I had to reparent myself to break free of co-dependency. It wasn’t easy.
And you are wrong about there being lots of places for women to go. Women in rural communities have it very rough. Rural cops are notorious abusers. Not much sympathy for abused women there and very few trained to deal with such situations. Large cities have overflowing shelters. Shoot! My abusive ex used to deliver to the local shelter. Not a safe place for me.
People do not simply choose to loose self esteem. Abusers usually start with the mental brainwashing. They make their victims believe that they are next to nothing and no one else would ever put up with them.
Leaving an abuser can really piss them off. Many many women have been murdered by men after leaving them.
Sorry to make this so long but I think you might do some reading on the subject of abuse rather than joining the blame and shame band wagon.
“I think some women are afraid to leave their husbands, not that they are “too lazy” ”
I think also that it is just very difficult to break up with someone you are intimately involved with, not even considering the abuse. It is very easy to second guess yourself. Also, even if these men are abusive, sometimes they are charming when they are “on,” funny, thoughtful in some ways, etc. A woman may decide, “ok, I’m going to definitely leave him,” and then second guess herself. She might even leave, but the withdrawal is so painful, that she finds herself back with him.
This is one of the reasons why it is so important not to become sexually active before marriage. The sexual nature of the relationship bonds the couple together in a way that is difficult to separate, and it creates much more jealous feelings on the man’s part. Jennifer Roback Morse writes about the role of oxytocin, the bonding hormone in women, and possesiveness in men in this article:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/programs/rlp//ArticleMorseNoCropsHiRez.pdf
Posted by: Ellie at November 27, 2007 2:39 PM
…………………………………….
A marriage ceremony does nothing to stop an abuser from abusing. Possesiveness is not a healthy trait in an abuser. It is much more difficult to get away from an abusive husband than a non husband. Especially if you have children.
One of the reason Francine did what she did instead of letting him kill her was because she didn’t want her children to be subjected to living with him. She took all the abuse in order to protect them – AND she got pregnant which is why they got married. She may have learned what kind of moron he was if she hadn’t had sex with him.
Posted by: valerie at November 27, 2007 3:24 PM
…………………………………….
Pregnancy can trigger an abuser to violence with or without marriage. The abuser feels suddenly more power over the women. Her more dependent upon him.
“Science proves that its living human tissue and cell structure. Thats all science proves.”
No, science unequivocally states that human life begins at conception. Science is on our side.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 3:55 PM
…………………………..
You are mixing philosophy and biology.
Sally, 6:08PM
The issue is not what I expect. The issue is that the early abortion rights movement, I’m talking late 60s, early 70s used the child abuse issue for its emotional appeal. The mentality was that children are abused because they are unwanted. Abortion would eliminate unwanted children so thus, we would have no more child abuse. Sounds simple doesn’t it? The problem is social problems are never this simple, but abortion advocates were appealing to emotion, not reason.
There is really no need to remind me of the situation of abused women and children many years ago. I lived it. We cringed in terror every time my father came home and the police made more than a few visits. I will give the women’s movement credit for bringing attention to domestic violence, but failing grades on the exploitation of child abuse to further their pro-abortion agenda.
Well, you say science doesn’t state that, so it must be true. What you don’t understand is that once egg and sperm meet, a new entity is formed. Of course egg and sperm are alive before, but science will tell us that egg and sperm cease to exist when they meet, and something new exists. What is that something new? And when does that thing become a person? Tell me the ontological change that occurs between conception and personhood.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:08 PM
…………………………
You are mixing philosophy with biology again. A biological entity exists independently. Clearly a great deal more is required than conception for a new entity to fulfill it’s definition.
Sally,
I think it’s more like people like you who put a stigma of value on children…when pro-aborts look at a child that exited the womb, they think of them as the survivor of a choice…We feel that each and every child was precious at the moment of conception, to the moment of death.
It’s the people like you who tend to not value a child for what the child is…a precious gift from God. Abusers do not see a child as precious.
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:13 PM
…………………………………………………….
No Laura. It’s people like you that devalue the woman’s experience of pregnancy by ignoring the fact that God doesn’t gift children. Women gestate them. Your God set it up that way.
You see, when you know God, He sends the Holy Spirit to you, to reside in your heart & mind…The Holy Spirit will speak to you and you will know what is right & wrong in God’s eyes, because it will be written on your heart and mind. This IS in the Bible…so, to answer your question…YES…Abortion is the epitome of evil in God’s eye.
So, that would be a No??? You didn’t read the Bible????
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:19 PM
……………………………………………………………..
I’ve been reading Red’s posts for years. She knows the Bible very well. It is your opinion that abortion is evil. Believing that you have special knowledge of the bible doesn’t make your belief truth. Not that what you think your God thinks has any bearing on US constitutional issues.
“Nowhere in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament, does it say that abortion is murder or even that abortion is wrong.”
Actually, there are some early Christian documents that include abortion in sorcery (herbal concoctions given to women to induce abortion) or something like that, so although the Bible might not refer to the word abortion, there is evidence that it is included in terms that are definitely forbidden in the Bible.
Posted by: Ellie at November 27, 2007 6:12 PM
………………………………
Since when were herbal concoctions considered sorcery? My gr gr gr grandma was a Christian and a midwife. Herbal concoctions were all there was.
Valerie and Sally,
Thank you for backing me up on this topic. Both of you… very well said!
Sally, 6:08PM
The issue is not what I expect. The issue is that the early abortion rights movement, I’m talking late 60s, early 70s used the child abuse issue for its emotional appeal. The mentality was that children are abused because they are unwanted. Abortion would eliminate unwanted children so thus, we would have no more child abuse. Sounds simple doesn’t it? The problem is social problems are never this simple, but abortion advocates were appealing to emotion, not reason.
There is really no need to remind me of the situation of abused women and children many years ago. I lived it. We cringed in terror every time my father came home and the police made more than a few visits. I will give the women’s movement credit for bringing attention to domestic violence, but failing grades on the exploitation of child abuse to further their pro-abortion agenda.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 6:50 PM
……………………………………………………….
Bringing attention to a previously ignored problem is exploitation? You have a warped way of looking at things. Perhaps due to your prejudice against abortion and your abusive agenda to deny women control over their own bodies?
“Correalation is not irrelevant. The correlation exists for some reason. The reason may be important or not. For example if people under 30 are more likely to cahabit and more likely to abuse, you can’t just say that youth or cohabiting are the cause for the abuse.”
Sorry hippie, but this part of your argument still has problems, though your conclusion is correct. Correlation can be irrelevant and contingent. In your example, there may be another unrelated reason that is the cause, such as mental illness, while both cohabiting and youth (under 30 is youth? – interesting) are merely contingent.
It’s the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Perhaps this exmaple may be a bit clearer. Every day before dinner, I clap my hands 3x. An observer (on a 30 day study) concludes that clapping produces dinner – causation, or that the two are somehow correlated. In actuality, clapping 3x is a nervous tic done every 30 minutes regardless of the desire for food. No relationship at all.
And yes, multivariant studies are useful.
But again, the original article points out that not even a correlation has been established.
Here is Scripture that talkes about the unborn:
Sally: “A marriage ceremony does nothing to stop an abuser from abusing. Possesiveness is not a healthy trait in an abuser. It is much more difficult to get away from an abusive husband than a non husband. Especially if you have children.”
Sally, this may be so. But how many of those women in marriages where the husband is abusive slept with their husbands prior to marriage? If they had, they may have “bonded” prior to sensing any red flags. If we take time to get to know a man and enjoy him without the sleeping together, we give ourselves more time to discover the red flags first (as well as not marrying just because the sex is good). It is much easier to end a relationship with someone you’ve gone to the movies with than with someone you’ve slept with.
Of course there will always be cases where the abusiveness was discovered after the wedding even when there was no sleeping together, but I think the chances of marrying an abuser are much less if we do it the more “traditional” way and develop relationships without the sex first.
As far as the possesiveness, the article was saying that a certain level of “possesiveness” is natural and necessary in the right circumstances (marriage). It’s not talking about extreme or abusive possesiveness.
Sally: “Since when were herbal concoctions considered sorcery? My gr gr gr grandma was a Christian and a midwife. Herbal concoctions were all there was.”
Sally, I don’t know that much about it, but I believe the “concoctions” mentioned are those that induce abortion and act as contraceptives:
From http://www.catholiceducation.org on the “Didache” (a first-century Christian document):
Further evidence is found in the Didache, also called the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, written about the year AD 80. This book was the Church’s first manual of morals, liturgical norms, and doctrine. In the first section, two ways are proposed– the way of life and the way of death. In following the way of life, the Didache exhorts, “You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a new-born child. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods….” Again scholars link such phrases as “practice magic” and “use potions” with contraceptives
Sally,
The term seperation of church and state was a sentenced used by Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in a letter. It does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
Article 1 of the Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No where does it say that God should not be in government or the public square. All it says is that Congress shall not endorse a specific religion (like the Church of England). That is why it was put there, so that people wouldn’t be arrested if they did not follow the Church of England’s direction.
On the other hand, the government MAY NOT prohibit a person from exercising their faith in the public arena or government.
It was in 1947 that the phrase seperation of church and state was somehow placed into our understanding of Article 1 of the Constitution.
The case before the Supreme Court was Everson vs. The Board of Education. This ruling then snowballed and allowed for prayer to be taken out of public schools. It also paved the way to prevent students from reading the Bible in public schools. These actions started in the 1950’s.
Sally, 7:13
I said I gave the women’s movement credit for bringing attention to domestic violence. The movement to legalize abortion in this country, which also involved the women’s movement. exploited the issue of child abuse to promote the legalization of abortion, playing on the emotional appeal of child abuse and the simplistic and very flawed notion that child abuse was the result of children being unwanted. They wanted abortion legal and for any reason, and were prepared to stop at nothing to get it. Emotional appeal was their best weapon.
Tara: “The term seperation of church and state was a sentenced used by Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in a letter.”
Tara, just a point of clarification. It was a letter from Jefforson to the Danbury (CT) Baptists….
But you’re right; it is not in the Constitution.
Obviously having a child doesnt mean youre going to be able to take care of it. If a woman aborts then there wont be a child TO abuse.
Oh yeah, now there’s a healthy attitude. Should we take the women out and shoot them too? Then there won’t be any women to abuse. And all the abusers can have the world to themselves…PARTY!
Ellie –
Thanks for the catch. BRAINFREEZE!!:)
Back to the absurd invention that mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure is a person – its not. Its only tissue and cells in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there. Whimpering that it ‘deserves a trial’ or whining its being ‘discriminated against’ is idiotic. Its not a person. Its not a human being. It doesnt have the same rights as a person nor should it have.
Then why are people sent to jail for killing these noviable blobs of tissue? People other than the mother that is? I never heard of anyone going to jail for killing a snail.
Its legally recognized as a PERSON at birth
What happens to your theory when they become recognized as persons at fertilization?
The line right-to-lifers like to quote is : “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”
The trouble is, that line clearly does not refer to the time when the woman is pregnant; rather, it refers to a time BEFORE the woman became pregnant.
Bobby,
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:21 PM
Awesome work!
Tara,
Posted by: Tara at November 27, 2007 7:20 PM
Ditto! Just awesome!
MK 7:52PM
Excellent post. When people have argued with me that abortion will stop child abuse, I ask them if killing engaged women would solve the problem of wife abuse.
Thanks Mar,
I’ve never had a logic course, but sometimes I think 3rd grade logic eludes people.
Anonymous says:
The trouble is, that line clearly does not refer to the time when the woman is pregnant; rather, it refers to a time BEFORE the woman became pregnant.
Yes that is part of the point. God knew us before our parents ever did. HE has a plan for us. He knew you by name before the beginning of time. Life is important to Him. If He knew and loved us before our mother’s became pregnant, then He certain knows and loves us while we are growing in our mother’s wombs. Afterall God created us.
Another point is that Jesus is the Savior of the unborn as well. He died so that they to (the unborn) may have life. Jesus didn’t just save those who are born.
>
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
The phrase “conceived and bore” is used repeatedly (see Genesis 4:1,17) and the individual has the same identity before as after birth. “In sin my mother conceived me,” the repentant psalmist says in Psalm 51:7. The same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, “infant,” is used in Luke 1:41 and Luke 18:15.)
“You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother
Sally said, “I’ve been reading Red’s posts for years. She knows the Bible very well. It is your opinion that abortion is evil. Believing that you have special knowledge of the bible doesn’t make your belief truth. Not that what you think your God thinks has any bearing on US constitutional issues.”
This is great! It’s like being in church!
Sally, I serve God first…and my belief, God’s Word, IS the truth…you know that…deep down inside you know it, Sally…I’m praying for you!
Anyway, my all time favorite, for murderers, which include abortionists, and the likes of PP:
Psalm 10:8-11
He sits in the lurking places of the villages; In the secret places he murders the innocent; His eyes are secretly fixed on the helpless. He lies in wait secretly, as a lion in his den; He lies in wait to catch the poor; He catches the poor when he draws him into his net. So he crouches, he lies low, That the helpless may fall by his strength. He has said in his heart, “God has forgotten; He hides His face; He will never see.”
That may have well been Margaret Sanger’s favorite verse, also (but for very different reasons, of course!)
BTW: In the NIV…..
“Murder” has 32 references
“Murdered” has 18 references
“Murderer” has 20 references
“Murderers” has 6 references
“Murdering” has 2 references
“Murderous” has 1 reference
“Murders” has 4 references
Pretty clear to me!
But wasn’t it okay to have an abortion before quickening in the OT? I thought anti-abortion a more NT idea.
Mary: You’re certainly right. After 34 years of legal abortion, child abuse should be down to zero by now.
Nope. It’s much less than what it would be without legal abortion, but that’s about as good as it gets. If there are kids, period, some are going to be abused.
Doug
Bobby: Listen, you are confusing accidents and substance. What is it ontologically? Not what does it look like or what is its stage in life. For example, we call a 3 year old male a boy and a 21 year old male a man, but they are both human beings. We call a male which hasn’t been born yet a fetus, but it is a human being.
Bobby, “human being” may apply, with a broad, more-inclusive, less-specific definition, sure, but that’s not what the abortion argument is. Physical reality isn’t the debate, while the attributed status we give the unborn is.
Doug
DOUG’S BACK!!!
DOUG’S BACK!!!
DOUG’S BACK!!!
Hey, Doug…where on earth have you been? We’ve been worried about you!!!
“The line right-to-lifers like to quote is : “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.”
Anonymous: The trouble is, that line clearly does not refer to the time when the woman is pregnant; rather, it refers to a time BEFORE the woman became pregnant.
Plus, this is not for “everybody,” – isn’t that for just Jeremiah or some other prophet?
Awww DOUG, I’ve missed you!!!
Doug,
I suppose domestic violence would be a lot less as well if we killed engaged women, right Doug?
So long as there are women, they are going to be abused.
Speaking of domestic violence, I understand a woman is beaten in the USA every five seconds. What I don’t understand is, when does she sleep?
SOMG,
I won’t dignify a despicable comment like that by speculating.
‘Cause if she’s getting beaten every five seconds….
But I was forgetting: Jill supports domestic violence (for instance in the Godfather movies).
SOMG,
I made my feelings known on that thread as well.
A woman beaten every five seconds isn’t the same woman, in case you didn’t know.
Awwww look,
SoMG is trying his hand at being funny…
Doug,
I’ve been looking for you…got a whole new line of thought for you. Let’s start with a question.
When you see a homeless person, do you give him money?
Hey there Doug!
“Bobby, “human being” may apply, with a broad, more-inclusive, less-specific definition, sure, but that’s not what the abortion argument is. Physical reality isn’t the debate, while the attributed status we give the unborn is.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I’m confused by your last line where you contrast physical reality vs. attributed status. Are you saying that while it is a physical reality that the unborn is a human person, there are reasons to not confer the status of human person to the unborn? Let me know.
How did that address what I wrote?
************
What part of ‘the bible doesnt back you up’ confuses you? You can believe abortion is wrong. Thats up to YOU PERSONALLY. But the scriptures do not support your position. And someone else can be pro choice and be as good a christian as you, or even a better one.
Did you read the quotes from actual scientists that I posted above? Do you have science references that claim that your position is correct? And let’s cut out all the flippant insults you keep making. It’s very childish.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 27, 2007 4:39 PM
********************************************
Get past the fantasy that you tell me how I will or will not post. What is childish is the delusion that YOU should be making this decision for some total stranger. And what do you fantasize all your ‘quotes’ proved? No one ever said the embro/fetus isnt genetically human and its living tissue and cell structure. So what?
TexasRed 12:46PM
The fact remains that abortion has done nothing to solve the problem of child abuse, as the early abortion rights movement claimed it would.
Maybe even they, and the people in our society who fell for this ploy, have finally come to realize that there is no simple reason for, or solution to, the crime of child abuse.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 4:39 PM
******************************************
When did anyone ever say that abortion would stop child abuse? But the fact remains – if a woman knows she isnt in a position to deal with the demands of a pregnancy and parenthood and has an abortion then there is no child to BE abused. The women who have children today have the option to end their pregnancy. They dont do it. Just continuing a pregnancy isnt a guarantee someone will be a good mother. But that has nothing to do with a woman choosing to end a pregnancy.
**adding TexasRed to prayer list**
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:44 PM
********************************************
So you want to pretend that god is more likely to listen to you than to me? how predictably arrogant and egotistical –
It’s the people like you who tend to not value a child for what the child is…a precious gift from God. Abusers do not see a child as precious.
Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 4:13 PM
*********************************************
So why doesnt god condemn abortion? As for ‘child abuse’ – you obviously know nothing of the old testament –
Phylosopher – thank you!
Are you saying that national geographic is wrong?
*******************
You really are clueless, arent you?
“Nowhere in the Bible, neither in the Old Testament nor in the New Testament, does it say that abortion is murder or even that abortion is wrong.”
Actually, there are some early Christian documents that include abortion in sorcery (herbal concoctions given to women to induce abortion) or something like that, so although the Bible might not refer to the word abortion, there is evidence that it is included in terms that are definitely forbidden in the Bible.
Posted by: Ellie at November 27, 2007 6:12 PM
*****************************************
So why dont you provide the book, chapter and verse where the practice of abortion is condemned and the punishments are listed for those who have abortions, and those who perform abortion? Youre back to whining ‘well this is how Id interpret it’. Your interpretations assumptions inventions and translations arent ‘the scriptures’
I’ve been reading Red’s posts for years. She knows the Bible very well. It is your opinion that abortion is evil. Believing that you have special knowledge of the bible doesn’t make your belief truth. Not that what you think your God thinks has any bearing on US constitutional issues.
Posted by: Sally at November 27, 2007 7:04 PM
*************************************
Sally, email my AOL address – k? :)
Here is Scripture that talkes about the unborn:
*************************
So what? Not one of those verses gives the merest whisper that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion was wrong. YOUR personal interpretations translations inventions assumptions and guesses arent ‘the word of god’
Obviously having a child doesnt mean youre going to be able to take care of it. If a woman aborts then there wont be a child TO abuse.
Oh yeah, now there’s a healthy attitude. Should we take the women out and shoot them too? Then there won’t be any women to abuse. And all the abusers can have the world to themselves…PARTY!
Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 7:52 PM
***********************************
When all else fails post something thats really stupid – I can always trust you to do that.
Its legally recognized as a PERSON at birth
What happens to your theory when they become recognized as persons at fertilization?
Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 8:04 PM
**************************************
Why dont you hold your breath until that happens?
TR,
When all else fails post something thats really stupid – I can always trust you to do that.
Well Tex, I’m glad to know that you trust someone. I’m glad to be that person. :)
Excellent post. When people have argued with me that abortion will stop child abuse, I ask them if killing engaged women would solve the problem of wife abuse.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 8:29 PM
***********************************
Stupid people say all kinds of stupid things. That doesnt mean I have to be impressed with something thats simple minded idiocy though. But then looking stupid seems to be a source of pride among antichoicers. If a woman ends her pregnancy then there IS no child. Whining that there are parallells between that and spousal abuse suggests you dont have an intelligent argument to offer.
Anyway, my all time favorite, for murderers, which include abortionists, and the likes of PP:
******************
Since not one single verse anywhere in the bible gives any indication that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion WAS murder, or was even killing, thats one more lie from you.
TR,
When all else fails post something thats really stupid – I can always trust you to do that.
Well Tex, I’m glad to know that you trust someone. I’m glad to be that person. :)
Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:22 AM
***********************************************
One more clumsy attempt at insult from you – I enjoy being reminded what a hypocrite you are. I trust many people. I can trust you to say really stupid things and I can trust you to be a petty hypocrite.
Hey Doug! :)
TexasRed 9:59am
Please refer to my post of 11/27 7:38PM
TR,
Its YOUR side that argues that disposing of the possible future victims of violence will eliminate the violence.
But wasn’t it okay to have an abortion before quickening in the OT? I thought anti-abortion a more NT idea.
Posted by: prettyinpink at November 27, 2007 10:16 PM
******************************************
The RCC discussed that – before quickening, after quickening – ensoulement etc – but its not addressed in the OT or NT
Thanks Mar,
I’ve never had a logic course, but sometimes I think 3rd grade logic eludes people.
Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 8:33 PM
***************************
If you ever get to the point where youre CAPABLE of ‘third grade logic’, please let us know. So far youre still throwing kindergarten level temper tantrums.
Its YOUR side that argues that disposing of the possible future victims of violence will eliminate the violence.
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 10:34 AM
******************************************
No, it means there isnt going to be a victim.
You win TexasRed. You win.
TR,
So I’m saying if we kill engaged women, there won’t be a victim of wife abuse either, right?
Is anyone really going to pretend that if women suddenly stopped having abortions and more single women were raising unwanted children in poverty there wouldnt be more child abuse and neglect?
TR,
So I’m saying if we kill engaged women, there won’t be a victim of wife abuse either, right?
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 10:49 AM
************************************
As I pointed out, you can say any really imbecilic you want. No one is going to keep you from looking like an idiot.
I said I gave the women’s movement credit for bringing attention to domestic violence. The movement to legalize abortion in this country, which also involved the women’s movement. exploited the issue of child abuse to promote the legalization of abortion, playing on the emotional appeal of child abuse and the simplistic and very flawed notion that child abuse was the result of children being unwanted. They wanted abortion legal and for any reason, and were prepared to stop at nothing to get it. Emotional appeal was their best weapon.
Posted by: Mary at November 27, 2007 7:38 PM
****************************************
Factual information is the best weapon on the prochoice side. Emotional appeal is whimpering and whining and wailing that mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure is an ‘innocent victim’ or an ‘innocent child’ or a ‘precious baby’ and that abortion is ‘murder’.
TexasRed,
Of course the numbers would go up! If women stopped having abortions, every statistic regarding children would change dramatically.
If women stopped having abortions, we would also have many more successful individuals who could greatly contribute to our society.
What’s your point?
Texas Red, 11:01am
I’m only applying your logic.
TexasRed, 11:04am
It was the early abortion rights and women’s movement that resorted to the emotional appeal of child abuse in order to legalize abortion. You were saying something about whimpering and whining?
I’m just going to throw this out there. The following is a list of pro choicers on this blog that I have had rational, polite conversations with: midnite, Enigma, Doug, Hal, Sally, Erin, Dan, JM, JKeller, phylsopher. I have also witnessed many rational conversations that others have with choicers. I don’t see anything resembling a discussion here.
TexasRed,
Of course the numbers would go up! If women stopped having abortions, every statistic regarding children would change dramatically.
If women stopped having abortions, we would also have many more successful individuals who could greatly contribute to our society.
What’s your point?
Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 11:05 AM
*************************
The discussion IS child abuse. That was my point. Or didnt you grasp that? And the fact of the matter is there is no way of knowing there WOULD be “many more successful individuals” without abortion, but we do KNOW that a woman isnt going to abuse a child she never had.
It was the early abortion rights and women’s movement that resorted to the emotional appeal of child abuse in order to legalize abortion. You were saying something about whimpering and whining?
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 11:29 AM
********************************
You obviously dont know much about the history of reproductive freedom in the US but thats no surprise. And as I pointed out, the attempts to use ’emotional appeal’, the whimpering, and the whining all come from the antichoice side.
I’m just going to throw this out there. The following is a list of pro choicers on this blog that I have had rational, polite conversations with: midnite, Enigma, Doug, Hal, Sally, Erin, Dan, JM, JKeller, phylsopher. I have also witnessed many rational conversations that others have with choicers. I don’t see anything resembling a discussion here.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 11:39 AM
**************************
You see what you are comfortable seeing
Texasredneck has the problem.
The courts recognize the human being in the womb.
Lacy Peterson was just another example.
The same courts that legalized murdering a baby in the womb, now recognize murdering a baby in the womb, is murder by anyone, but the mother.So far.
They have created a dilemma in their logic.It is just a matter of time……and poof, Texasredneck will be a outlaw, arguing for outlaw acts.
That the fetus is a human being is now fact, you Redneck.
You can’t be charged with homicide if you aren’t murdering a human being.
Take your strawman arguments, RedNECK, and ride off into the sunset singing Happy Trails with Somg,Sally the PTSD, and Laura, the kosmic karma lawyer, and enjoy your folie a famille.
Eventually, the logic of the court decisions,demands that not even the mother will be able to murder the human being in her womb.
Which is why your behind the curve of logic,intelligence, Redneck, arguing the past, when your other shared madness pardners, are asking if the pregnant women who procures a abortion, should be charged with homicide.
But, then again, that is what a redneck does, argue about the past, and the glory of redneckism being logical. Just how many couches and refrigerators on your porch do you have REDNECK, from the Friendly State? Or are you a urban redneck and have posters of Willy Nelson,and the boyz smoking that loco weed. And still go to Lukenbach Texas and enjoy the past glories of your abortions when you were a young Redneck.
Take a hint Redneck, time has moved on, your argument is over.
Put a dollar in the juke box,TEXASREDNECK, and play Toby Keith’s song, Good As I Once Was.
You ain’t as good as you once was Redneck.
The discussion IS child abuse. That was my point. Or didnt you grasp that? And the fact of the matter is there is no way of knowing there WOULD be “many more successful individuals” without abortion, but we do KNOW that a woman isnt going to abuse a child she never had.
Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:50 AM
—————-
Oh, I most certainly grasp your “point”, but obviously, you are more concerened with throwing out insults and scientific “speculation” rather than trying to see someone elses. Science changes, God does not. You will never understand the so-called “whining” from anti-choicers, because you refuse to grasp God’s word.
You are more than welcome to share your beliefs as I am also. But the insults to people because of their beliefs is immature and uncalled for.
There are so many kind-loving people on this site that would help you out in a time of need at the drop of a hat. These are good people. So please, grow up, step-up, and have some respect for people that you may or may not agree with.
I think we should ignore She Who Must Not Be Named. That’s just my opinion.
TexasRed,
I know the history well because I lived it.
Bobby and Carrie,
Points well taken
“You see what you are comfortable seeing”
So tell me what I should be seeing, Texas. Brilliant pro choice arguments that I’m too stupid to comprehend? Arguments that while on the surface seem sd hominem are actually legit talking points? Help me out here.
Oh, I most certainly grasp your “point”, but obviously, you are more concerened with throwing out insults and scientific “speculation” rather than trying to see someone elses. Science changes, God does not. You will never understand the so-called “whining” from anti-choicers, because you refuse to grasp God’s word.
You are more than welcome to share your beliefs as I am also. But the insults to people because of their beliefs is immature and uncalled for.
There are so many kind-loving people on this site that would help you out in a time of need at the drop of a hat. These are good people. So please, grow up, step-up, and have some respect for people that you may or may not agree with.
Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 12:10 PM
******************************************
Nowhere in the scriptures is the practice of abortion condemned nor is there any indication given that god or the men who wrote the scriptures thought abortion was murder, was killing, was wrong, or had any problem at all with the practice. This is fact, not opinion. Its also a fact you dont have the guts to come to terms with. Since nothing Ive said has been ‘scientific specualtion’ thats one more idiotic comment from you. What is uncalled for is YOUR egocentric delusion that YOUR beliefs give you the right to ride roughshod over the rights and beliefs of others. Your position is hypocritical and thoroughly predictable. I find it hilarious that you can whine about ‘respect’ when your attitude is the most disrespectful imaginable. I couldnt care less what you decide to do if you find youre pregnant. I respect your right to do what you think is best. But you dont have the integrity to extend that same courtesy to others. You fantasize YOU know what is ‘right’ and what they think feel believe need or want just couldnt possibly mean less. Thats as disrespectful as it gets.
TexasRed,
I know the history well because I lived it.
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 12:43 PM
******************************************
And that means what?
You see what you are comfortable seeing”
So tell me what I should be seeing, Texas. Brilliant pro choice arguments that I’m too stupid to comprehend? Arguments that while on the surface seem sd hominem are actually legit talking points? Help me out here.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 1:10 PM
*********************************
Youre beyond help and willfully so.
Texas Red Neck, what man would ever come near you? Your mouth is the best form of birth control you’ve got:]
TexasRed,
It means that I lived before and during that era and remember it well. I remember the emotional appeals and how people were so taken in by them. It wasn’t just child abuse, but poverty, illegitimacy, welfare dependcy, drug addicted newborns, you name it, that would be eliminated once we had legal abortion.
There was once a big survey on marriage in the men’s magazine GQ.
It turns out that over 50% of all single men, and a whopping 85% of all college-educated single men refuse to have anything to do with single mothers.
It seemed to me like women who spawn early are the most likely to end up with the dregs, man-wise. Also, women with limited education and cruddy jobs were less likely to have successful men in their social circle.
(I wonder if the local CPC is going to mention THAT little fact…)
Posted by: Laura at November 27, 2007 9:14 AM *************************************************************************************************************************************************** LOL! Take a look in the mirror. Your b/f won’t marry you.
Sorry hippie, but this part of your argument still has problems, though your conclusion is correct. Correlation can be irrelevant and contingent. In your example, there may be another unrelated reason that is the cause, such as mental illness, while both cohabiting and youth (under 30 is youth? – interesting) are merely contingent.
It’s the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Perhaps this exmaple may be a bit clearer. Every day before dinner, I clap my hands 3x. An observer (on a 30 day study) concludes that clapping produces dinner – causation, or that the two are somehow correlated. In actuality, clapping 3x is a nervous tic done every 30 minutes regardless of the desire for food. No relationship at all.
Posted by: phylsopher at November 27, 2007 7:19 PM
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I find it strange that you restated what I said and then said I was wrong for saying the same thing you did.
Youre beyond help and willfully so.
Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:37 PM**************** Pot..meet the kettle.
Youre beyond help and willfully so.
Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:37 PM**************** Pot..meet the kettle.
Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 2:55 PM
***********************************************
Not according to anyone who tells the truth and values honesty.
Texas Red Neck, what man would ever come near you? Your mouth is the best form of birth control you’ve got:]
Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 2:47 PM
********************************
Thank you. I do love being reminded what kind of petty petulant incompetent chiennes wind up on the antichoice side. When you cant think of anything else you whine ‘Well I bet you dont have a boy friend’.
LOL! Take a look in the mirror. Your b/f won’t marry you.
Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 2:52 PM
**************************************
Again you prove just what a tantrum throwing little chienne you really are heather – your nastiness and your eagerness to jump to personal insults regarding what you imagine about peoples private lives make you a credit to all the other chiennes on the antichoice side.
TexasRed,
It means that I lived before and during that era and remember it well. I remember the emotional appeals and how people were so taken in by them. It wasn’t just child abuse, but poverty, illegitimacy, welfare dependcy, drug addicted newborns, you name it, that would be eliminated once we had legal abortion.
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 2:47 PM
******************************
No one EVER said those things would be ‘eliminated’ by abortion. But the fact of the matter is abortion has REDUCED every single one of them.
*sticks out tongue @ TR.* Anti choice you are!!!
TR, where is your proof?
*sticks out tongue @ TR.* Anti choice you are!!!
Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 3:27 PM
****************************
Youre a liar. No surprise.
LOL! Take a look in the mirror. Your b/f won’t marry you.
Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 2:52 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What makes you think so?
He asked me to marry him every day when I was undergoing chemo, and I always said yes.
(He’s also bought me several expensive high-end rifles. A smart man would never arm a woman he’s planning to dump.)
“Youre beyond help and willfully so.”
You’re just going to give up on me? Where’s the compassion? Where’s the love?
Laura,
You had to undergo chemo? And the man was proposing while you were wrung out and hairless? That’s love!
Can I come to the wedding?
TexasRed, 3:21PM
People’s emotions, not their rational thinking, was appled to. These social issues were played upon for emotional appeal and people sincerely viewed abortion as solving major social problems, that was its appeal.
Please, some studies to back your claim that social problems have been reduced because of abortion.
@hippie
Please reread. I quoted your post that Corealtion (sic) is not irrelevant. You then went on to say that there is a reason for the correlation. I refuted that claim by counterarguing and supplying an example that correlation can be irrelevant and contingent.
Here’s a quick wiki on it: The conventional dictum that “correlation does not imply causation” means that correlation cannot be validly used to infer a causal relationship between the variables. This dictum should not be taken to mean that correlations cannot indicate causal relations. However, the causes underlying the correlation, if any, may be indirect and unknown. Consequently, establishing a correlation between two variables is not a sufficient condition to establish a causal relationship (in either direction).
Hope this further clarifies my point.
Laura, if he asked you to marry him, and you said “yes” then when is the wedding?
Nowhere in the scriptures is the practice of abortion condemned nor is there any indication given that god or the men who wrote the scriptures thought abortion was murder, was killing, was wrong, or had any problem at all with the practice. This is fact, not opinion. Its also a fact you dont have the guts to come to terms with. Since nothing Ive said has been ‘scientific specualtion’ thats one more idiotic comment from you. What is uncalled for is YOUR egocentric delusion that YOUR beliefs give you the right to ride roughshod over the rights and beliefs of others. Your position is hypocritical and thoroughly predictable. I find it hilarious that you can whine about ‘respect’ when your attitude is the most disrespectful imaginable. I couldnt care less what you decide to do if you find youre pregnant. I respect your right to do what you think is best. But you dont have the integrity to extend that same courtesy to others. You fantasize YOU know what is ‘right’ and what they think feel believe need or want just couldnt possibly mean less. Thats as disrespectful as it gets.
Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:31 PM
Tex …with the above you just lost all level of any kind of credibility of any kind whatsoever as a Bible scholar. How bout you take a 1/2 Step away from the car and think about what you say first. What in the world do you think the whole story of Moses and Jesus started out with. Ignorance is not bliss. So stop attempting to beat up on these people with your derelict responses. You’re getting boring beyond obnoxious!
Tex, you are putting yourself in a light that you may not be noticing. I would like to encourage you to refrain. I don’t know anything about you except what you state pubicly on this blog. Do you realize you’re coming across as nothing more than a tyranical bully. You show signs of being capable of so much more. In some of your posts, you project, it seems, that you think your cute and smart and maybe even funny. Actually, it comes across as someone really begging for attention. Highly insecure. You probably are cute,smart, and funny. But you are wasting your good qualities on the wrong agenda. here’s what’s going on in front of my eyes looking at this blog: You accuse and rip into and whatever else spiteful it appears, to justify yourself and your indulgences that are arid of thought about the consequences of your action. You quote incorrectly and way off base and then bold face lie to say it’s fact. Then in turn you manipulate your so called facts to berate others for being incapable of making justifiable statements about forward results of current actions. What is indeed, funny, frankly saddening, is that you seem to have bought into the western culture of education, like many of us. That system is based upon some of “the most brilliant minds that ever lived” in the estimation of at least men from the last several centuries. ( and of course a lot of their stuff is indeed really good) The issue is that if these are the brilliant ones upon whose thought all of 20th Century wisdom of education is based, then why the following:
“[Politics] is a moral enterprise
Aristotle defined politics as a moral enterprise. Free citizens deliberate the question “How ought we to order our life together?” Political discussions are full of words like “ought,” “should,” “fairness,” “equity,” and “justice.” Aristotle believed in “moral universals”
“Youre beyond help and willfully so.”
You’re just going to give up on me? Where’s the compassion? Where’s the love?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 4:20 PM
*********************************
Bambino, you couldnt handle the love
Try me, please please please!
TexasRed, 3:21PM
People’s emotions, not their rational thinking, was appled to. These social issues were played upon for emotional appeal and people sincerely viewed abortion as solving major social problems, that was its appeal.
Please, some studies to back your claim that social problems have been reduced because of abortion.
Posted by: Mary at November 28, 2007 5:54 PM
*****************************************
As I pointed out, if there is no child then there is not going to be any abuse. Who would need a ‘study’ to prove that obvious fact? And no one EVER said that abortion would ELIMINATE anything. I was born in 1950 and I remember those times too. Youre not being honest.
Tex …with the above you just lost all level of any kind of credibility of any kind whatsoever as a Bible scholar. How bout you take a 1/2 Step away from the car and think about what you say first. What in the world do you think the whole story of Moses and Jesus started out with. Ignorance is not bliss. So stop attempting to beat up on these people with your derelict responses. You’re getting boring beyond obnoxious!
Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2007 1:45 PM
*************************************
What in the world do Moses and Jesus have to do with abortion? Not one word anywhere in the scripture condemns the practice of abortion nor does it give any indication that god or the men who wrote the bible thought abortion was murder, was killing, was wrong, or had any problem with the practice at all. This isnt opinion. This is flat out straight forward fact. And nothing is more obnoxious than someone who refuses to face facts.
So Tex… is there any pettiness you’d like to drop like a heavy weight and experience something different?
Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2007 2:19 PM
***********************
Nonny, get over yourself – there is a location where there is no natural source of illumination. You are welcome to put your opinions, your assumptions, your inventions and warped creations right there – providing you can get your head out of the way first.
Try me, please please please!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 29, 2007 2:39 PM
**************************************
I wouldnt want to be responsible for breaking your heart and bruising your tender little body
Hey, I weigh 148 pounds, lady! I’m a beast!
Sorry but hate to tell ya it wasn’t nonny? only a first time reader. again why be so redundant adn predictable..speaking of warped inventiveness. your reply is exactly so. Again… you’re creativeness could be used in such a more productive way. Don’t mistake patience for stupidity. Your pompous attitude betrays your weakness and insecurity. The harder your verbal blows the easier it is to spot farther away. Ah,hem..your in Texas and I’m on the other side of the states.
TexasRed,
The assumption that abortion would be very beneficial to the poor was very popular at that time. Do you remember the howling when medicaid abortion was cut off? How much cheaper abortion was than welfare payments?
Like I said TR, you do not appeal to rational thinking, you appeal to emotion. People want what they see as simplistic answers. Abortion seemed to offer just that.
Perhaps Ron Weddington, one of the lawyers who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court, said it best when he wrote to then president elect Bill Clinton and urged the use of abortion, and FDA approval of RU486, to “eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor element of our society”.
Hey, I weigh 148 pounds, lady! I’m a beast!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 29, 2007 2:53 PM
*************************
Bambi, Im 5’7″ and I outweigh you. I’d bruise your itty bitty body.
Sorry but hate to tell ya it wasn’t nonny?
**************
Anonymous = Nonny
A Nonny Muss
And as I pointed out, why dont you hold your breath until your opinion matters to me? Make sure you have a soft place to fall when you pass out.
Wow could have heard that in Europe…original ..gotta skill kid! Usin’ it the wrong place. It’s not stupid to be new to your slang.
TexasRed,
The assumption that abortion would be very beneficial to the poor was very popular at that time. Do you remember the howling when medicaid abortion was cut off? How much cheaper abortion was than welfare payments?
Like I said TR, you do not appeal to rational thinking, you appeal to emotion. People want what they see as simplistic answers. Abortion seemed to offer just that.
Perhaps Ron Weddington, one of the lawyers who argued Roe v Wade before the Supreme Court, said it best when he wrote to then president elect Bill Clinton and urged the use of abortion, and FDA approval of RU486, to “eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor element of our society”.
Posted by: Mary at November 29, 2007 3:28 PM
*********************************
Im not the one ‘appealing to emotion’. I find that vastly amusing. You have antichoicers gibbering and drooling over ‘murder’ and ‘innocent victims’ and ‘helpless children’ and then you want to pretend MY argument ‘appeals to emotion’. I pointed out a fact. If a woman has an abortion rather than giving birth then there is not going to be any child TO abuse. How does that ‘appeal to emotion’?
Wow could have heard that in Europe…original ..gotta skill kid! Usin’ it the wrong place. It’s not stupid to be new to your slang.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2007 3:39 PM
**********************
Since its a joke I heard when I was in high school, there is nothing ‘new’ about it.
Because it’s still all about sanctity of life. IT’s not about you. a very emotional issue.
If you were in high school when that came out, would’t that make you rather young? Being that the internet only came out with high enough speed to allow this type of conversation what less than 10 years ago. Wow all your experience and so much youth. You have a lot of time left in your life to make a difference! But we have no guarantee of tomorrow. After all isn’t that the premise of insurance. Actually I like that then about you …you’re a huge risk taker. Go for it! Risk your reputation and put it on the line and break out of your rut of trash talkin’ and try another option in life…couldn’t hurt. Course walking by faith is hard, but it’s a lot more fun!!! Ya get a surprise gift from God himself every time you turn around. Hah -hold your breath until your opinion matters to me- you’re are indeed hilarious.
on your other point….speaking of saving my breath. God Calls himself Jehovah? His name is actually JHVH in Hebrew. (yah – hah – vah – hah) Did you know thatevery time you breath or say a word you speak God’s name. He breathed life into Adam. He gives you each and every breath. He loves you more than you give Him credit for. Think it through a little more; I know you can. I see your raw GOD given talent. Don’t casually look this over!
BTW I’M NEW to YOUR SLANG not your NEW SLANG…simmer down Chica…
Because it’s still all about sanctity of life. IT’s not about you. a very emotional issue.
Posted by: Anonymous at November 29, 2007 3:42 PM
****************************
That may be what its about to YOU. But you dont view the womans life as having any real sanctity. Thats predictably hypocritical. And do tell me how ‘Let each woman make up her own mind’ is anything at ALL about ME? OR is based on ’emotion’? The prochoice position isnt the one throwing around melodramatic hysterical ranting about ‘innocent babies’ and ‘murdered children’ and ‘dismembered victims’. Thats as emotional and dishonest as it gets.
Nonny, I was in high school when I heard the joke – Who wrote that poem? Someone named Nonny! Who? A Nonny Muss! I graduated from highschool in 1969. Youre looking extremely foolish.
How in the God’s green earth did you get I don’t view woman’s life as as having any real sanctity!! Both are intertwined as one and the same. you’re smarter than that. I don’t buy your last statement . Now your fakin it. Do you need me to send a rope off the cliff you just fell off.
What does a womans mind choice – a matter electical snyopsis’in a couple of seconds and an overglorified muscle spasm in an erotic moment have to do with stopping a beating heart of another human beings.
How many wanna be parents who can’t have babies would gladly take the unwanted unborn. Adoption agencies just didn’t sprout up in 1973.
The real answer is What Jennifer Morse, PhD says in her book: Smart Sex: Finding Life-long Love in a Hook-up World.1
I wrote Smart Sex as a protest against all the dumb (ie wouldn’t want to bruise your tender little body)sex that is going on in our world. I have to confess how I got to be an expert on smart sex and its opposite: I
the link is on the blog go for it it a good read
O
who cares how i’m looking every one on this blog knows that’s not the point. get off the attack mode. for petes sakes. you’re more capable than that. I’m not out to impress this blog community…are you?
Ok so if you’re 12-16 years older than me and you have so much experience, why are you so insecure? And how come such a youngster like me can recognize so easily your approach.
“Ok so if you’re 12-16 years older than me and you have so much experience, why are you so insecure?”
Heck, Anon, I’m less than 1/2 her age and she’s threatening to beat me up!
Hey Tex, I like the nonny joke. clever. thanks for making me hip to the jive. I still see more in you than meets the eye and you can blow it off as disingenuous. but you don’t know if I am or not do you.I am not. Tex you are better than you give yourself credit.
Gotta check out…family matters to attend
ACTS 13:32-48,52
MK: I’ve been looking for you…got a whole new line of thought for you. Let’s start with a question.
When you see a homeless person, do you give him money?
I’d guess about 5% of the time, MK. I work so many places and see so many people….
I gave a guy $10 at a truck stop in NC last Sunday morning, about 3:30 a.m. – he was one heck of a good storyteller if not truthful.
Doug
“Bobby, “human being” may apply, with a broad, more-inclusive, less-specific definition, sure, but that’s not what the abortion argument is. Physical reality isn’t the debate, while the attributed status we give the unborn is.”
I’m not sure I understand what you mean. I’m confused by your last line where you contrast physical reality vs. attributed status. Are you saying that while it is a physical reality that the unborn is a human person, there are reasons to not confer the status of human person to the unborn? Let me know.
No – there is no “reality” of personhood outside the attribution of it. It’s an idea – in the eye (or mind) of the beholder.
The physical reality of the unborn is either not at issue, or is a relatively small part of the abortion debate.
Many people see reasons not to grant personood to the unborn, and many don’t. I think it’d be a much vaster can of worms than most realize.
Bobby: Hey, I weigh 148 pounds, lady! I’m a beast!
Dang…. Dude, put some meat on your bones.
Ok so if you’re 12-16 years older than me and you have so much experience, why are you so insecure?”
Heck, Anon, I’m less than 1/2 her age and she’s threatening to beat me up!
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 29, 2007 4:34 PM
***************
you lying little stinkpot – I said you couldnt handle the love!
yllas: Remember that time you and Laura changed her “pornmobile” into a “racemobile”
Ever since you missed out on the part of Darth Vader in that 7th grade school play, you haven’t been the same.