Unsafely safe abortions
For two weeks, pro-abort bloggers have been trying to turn this Washington Post quote on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban by Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family into one of glee at the prospect women may die from unsafe alternative abortions:
The old procedure, which is still legal, involves using forceps to pull the baby apart in utero, which means there is greater legal liability and danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus. So we firmly believe there will be fewer later-term abortions as a result of this ruling.
Translated pro-abort blogger Marty Lederman at Balkinization:
Got that?….
[A]ccording to Focus on the Family, the remaining procedure is markedly less safe for the mother, and that’s precisely why the law is a good thing – because it leaves in place only a procedure that carries a higher risk of danger of internal bleeding from a perforated uterus… which in turn leads to “greater legal liability” for the doctors, and, as a result, fewer abortions.
And Jill at Feministe…
[I]t is incredibly telling that anti-choicers are excited about the prospects of women having their uteruses perforated just so doctors can be sued out of terminating pregnancies….
And Ampersand at Alas a Blog:
For years pro-lifers have been pushing the same lie: they’ve claimed that a procedure that involves inserting forceps into a woman’s uterus as many as a dozen times over (a standard D&E) has no greater chance of causing injury than a procedure which requires only a single insertion (a D&X, which is more-or-less the procedure that’s been banned by the Partial Birth Abortion ban).
These pro-abort blogging amateurs have ventured into dicey territory, Ampersand leaping from dicey to dangerous (underlines mine; italics his):
What’s interesting is that some of the pro-lifers are admitting to the truth about the… PBA ban… truths that leaders of the pro-life movement have been blatantly lying about for years. In this story, pro-lifers admit… the alternative procedures are more dangerous for women [and] some alternative procedures doctors will use now are if anything more brutal from a fetus-centric point of view.
Did Ampersand really mean to trumpet the “truth” that there are “dangerous” abortion procedures, some of which are “brutal” to preborn children?
Do they really want to go there?
Bless her heart, Jill tried to pull back, albeit nonsensically:
It should be pointed out that the procedure which is still legal is very safe – safer than most surgical procedures, and a hell of a lot safer than illegal abortion. So we shouldn’t get ourselves into a panic over the idea that this procedure is unsafe, because that simply isn’t true. What is true is that the banned procedure, wherein the fetus was removed intact, was the safer procedure for some pregnant women, given their physical condition. It’s abhorrent that “pro-life” groups and the Supreme Court took that option away. This will make abortion more dangerous for some women.
In actuality, pro-lifers do not pit one abortion procedure against another as more or less safe. All have unsafe components, more or less.
And if pro-aborts really want to discuss this, sure, let’s.
[Cartoon courtesy of Alas a Blog; hat tip for that: Bethany]
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.
In actuality, the original point (anti-choicers relishing perferated uteruses), which you clearly articulate at the top of the post, isn’t countered by your strawman at the end (that you all don’t pit techniques against one another).
Nice try.
Maybe you should try actually defending or explaining what Tom realy meant to say by invoking such an unsavory scenario.
While what Tom is saying may be true, it is disgusting for him to actually use it as a “good” thing. I havn’t read the whole article, but somehow this doesn’t seem like it would be good in any context.
I don’t think he meant that this is a good thing that woman will have their uterus perforated. I think he meant that it is a good thing that women will see the dangers in late term abortions and opt out of it. Remember, life of mother and extreme deformities of the baby are done in hospitals with constant care of the mother and more than likely an overnight stay as a precaution. Unlike in abortion mills where a saline solution (or the like) is injected into the uterus and meds are given to start labor. Then the mother goes to a ‘hotel’ and stays overnight with no medical care until morning to ‘naturally deliver’ her dead baby. oh, wait, you mean there is another form of late term abortions rather than using forceps to dismember the baby. Amazing! However the situation doesn’t change if the forceps version is used. The mother still doesn’t get proper care nor an overnight stay at an abortion mill.
Banning PBA doesn’t change that much about performing a late term abortion. If you think about it, PBA is easier on the doctor and requires more meds be given to the mother which means more money can be charged. Gee, wonder why some doctors perferred this method?
Seems like a pretty interesting game of telephone.
I think internally the pro-life movement is attempting to find unity with respect to the pba ban. This is an attempt to justify it as preventing abortions. It would be nice if we could stop trying to justify history and put that energy into actual progress.
You know, I’d be mighty happy if these people would focus on their own families and leave the rest of us out of it. If everyone minded their own business the world would be a hell of a better place.
Will Jill, or someone else please deal with the fact that Planned Parenthood recorded a record number of abortions last year? The 30 year strategy of the pro-life movement is obviously not working.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html
Jill failed to mention this in her “Planned Parenthood’s 2005-06 report out” thread.
“Did Ampersand really mean to trumpet the “truth” that there are “dangerous” abortion procedures, some of which are “brutal” to preborn children?”
Jill, do you have a problem understanding comparatives? I note you omit them when interpreting the blogger’s statement. And I have a feeling that glossing over them is exactly why you claim that her further statement is “non-sensical”.
She said “MORE dangerous”. It’s pretty clear to me that something can be safe and yet be more dangerous than something else. Driving in a car is safe, but its still more dangerous than flying in a plane. I’m sure the same is the case with differing medical procedures.
Of course all medical procedures have risks, but I find it very odd to claim “we don’t pit one procedure against another as more or less safe”. Really? Do you extend that to other medical procedures? Trepanation and taking an asprin both have risks, both have unsafe components. Are you going to tell me that you don’t pit these two headache relief methods against each other as more or less safe?
Cameron, if a doctor handed you a live aborted baby and asked you to put him/her on a shelf to die, would you?
This whole post kind of freaks me out. Or at least, it confuses me.
Firstly, I’m not a big fan of “Focus on the Family” because they feel they know everything about raising a family–at least for the upstanding Republican household–like how spanking is okay, and how controlling how you think on political issues is important to how you raise children (as in, only conservative thought would bring about good children). They just need to call themselves something else. Why not just leave it at Christian Coalition? It’s more descriptive of their rantings and ravings.
Second, I disagree with this statement: “In actuality, pro-lifers do not pit one abortion procedure against another as more or less safe. All have unsafe components, more or less.”
I’m a prolifer and studying to become a medical professional so every procedure, including termination of pregnancies, most definately have different levels of safety and risk attached. It’s safe to say that pro-lifers don’t APPROVE of any abortion method, it doesn’t mean we can’t say that one procedure is safer than the other. We don’t need to abandon common sense to analyze the situations at hand.
Third, I don’t know a whole lot about the PBA ban in respect to the procedures it bans or doesn’t. But for the most part, I think most pro-lifers and pro-choicers agreed that it may not reduce the amount of abortions, but is a step closer to other abortion bans in the future. So this is where I’m confused. Is Focus on the Family the only coalition that believes this bill will actually change anything? If not, who else?
PIP, You’re the best! I too am in the medical profession. We work to preserve life. Not snuff it out. I also get a bit confused about the ban and what is and isn’t allowed.
“You know, I’d be mighty happy if these people would focus on their own families and leave the rest of us out of it. If everyone minded their own business the world would be a hell of a better place.”
Posted by: Less at June 18, 2007 02:49 PM
Less,
You’re right. I will quit sending money to organizations that help in Darfur. I guess I shouldn’t be bothered that hundreds of thousands of innocent people are being tortured and killed.
It doesn’t really affect me personally. So it’s really none of my business.
I will quit volunteering to mentor children that need help. My kids are fine. So I guess it’s really none of my business.
I will quit checking in on my elderly neighbor to make sure she’s ok. since her family live nowhere near. It’s really none of my business.
I will quit donating money to the animal humane society because starving animals are none of my business.
The next time I see a dog locked in a hot car, I will ignore it. I guess if it dies, it dies. It’s really none of my business.
I think I will quit giving money to the American Cancer society to help fund research and cures. It’s really none of my business. It’s not my problem.
I will stop volunteering a school functions and quit giving additional money to intercity schools to buy needed books, I guess that’s really not my problem and certainly none of my business.
I will stop giving money to fund raisers that help AIDS and HIV patients find decent housing and health care. It’s really none of my business.
I will quit volunteering to buy and give gifts to families that don’t have the means to celebrate holidays. If the kids wake up on Christmas without any gifts under the tree. So what. It’s really none of my business.
I will also stop giving food to families at Thanksgiving so they can have a meal to enjoy with their families. Since I will be enjoying my own meal; too bad for them. It’s really none of my business.
I am going to call the American Red Cross and ask for all of the money back that I donated to help the victims of Katrina. I will just explain that Less said that if we all minded our own business the world would be a better place.
I am also going to quit giving to the alumni fund at the college I graduated from. I got my degree, so I guess whether my alma mater can continue to educate young minds is really none of my business.
Wow. I am soooo glad you enlightened me Less.
I feel so much better. More money in my pocket, more free time for me too.
Oh, by the way Less, why don’t you mind your own business and quit posting on this site. The por-life movement is really none of your business.
Sandy, yay!!!!
The next time I see someone collapsed on a sidewalk somewhere I can’t call 911. I guess I’ll just have to walk on by. Why? It’s none of my business.
Now I think I know how organizations like NOW and NARAL think. They ignore the women who claim that they were raped, molested and stalked by abortion doctor quacks. It’s simply none of their business!
I will quit sending money to organizations that help in Darfur.
Since sending money to an organization that helps people who actually, you know, need help, is far different from sending money to an organization that judges people, I think you
Wow Sandy, I think you should get a couple of Jesus Virtue Badges.
Less,
Also, remember that MY hard earned tax dollars along with everyone else’s in the pro-life movement goes to unwillingly fund this so called “right”. Don’t EVER tell anyone it’s none of their business.
Less Unless,
Again you speak with ignorance and an obvious narcisstic bent. One definition of narcissism contains the comment that those with such a condition are just unable to see the world without themselves being at the center of it. In my opinion narcissists never progressed beyond the thumb sucking stage of their development.
Apparently you have never read the parable of the “Good Samaritan”.
Guess we should have just let Hitler take over the world, let slavery continue, etc., etc., oh and just let babies die in the womb.
Ever heard this? “No man is an island”.
The level of your selfishness is amazing.
Sandy dear, you have no place to tell me what to do or say, thank Gods.
Let
HisMan, I
Why not go to a pro choice site. Now that’s entertaining!
Heather, I do go to pro-choice sites. They’re enjoyable, but not quite the debate I crave.
LOL @ Less… I love the “Have you seen the light of JAAAAAAY-SUS!?” line…tres fabboo. :D
In other news, my dad is politically moderate, my mom is politically apathetic (she literally couldn’t give a crud about politics), and both of them think Focus on the Family is a bunch of lunatics. Especially my dad as he actually has an opinion on these things. I’m going to have to agree with my father’s assessment of Focus on the Family as pretty much a bunch of right-wing nutjobs who really ought to just mind their own business and quit dinkin’ around in people’s private home lives and how they raise their kids.
Because gee willakers, I turned out alright and I was allowed to actually think for myself because my parents allowed me to develop my own opinions on things…which more or less completely goes against everything “Focus on the Family” stands for.
JAAAAAY SUSSSS … He said to me…
LOL
JAAAAY SUSSS WILL SAAAAAAAY VA YA. HEEEEEEEEL SAAAAAY VA YA SOOOOOOOOOUL.
I think that’s it. I just have to say it like that and then I understand. I see the light. Who’d a thunk that Less would save my soul.
God bless you less. I can now comfortably subjugate women, justify my name calling with JAAAAAYSUS, and generally make an ass of myself…. so long as IIIZZZZZZ SAAAAAAAY VUD.
@Cameron: Just keep sinning, just keep sinning, just keep sinning, sinning sinning. :-p
Oy, Cameron, what level of Hell are you going to based on the Dante’s Inferno Quiz? I’m going to the beautifully heretical 6th Level, the City of Dis. :D
Why is it okay for all of you to bash my belief’s but the minute someone says something other than what you believe, then everyone needs to mind their own business?
Exactly, Valerie. It’s like a rule athiests all seem to adhere to. “All religions and beliefs, and ways of life, are to be respected, with one exception- Christianity.”
Heather4life,
NARAL and NOW also ignore women who claim they were raped, molested, and stalked by politicians these organizations support.
Bethany –
For some reason, just because I am conservative this means that I am going to forbid my children to think. I can’t get over the ignorance that these people have shown. My Mother was a republican and my Father is a libertarian and they never onced forced a political opinion on me. but I guess when one person erronously interprets the goals of an organization, then we all are bad.
Less, what do you care about?
Let’s say for the sake of arugment that it is animal rights.
In our country it is illegal to beat your dog, but let’s pretend for a moment that someone swept in and put “animal cruelty” under the umbrella of “privacy”.
So now it’s legal to beat fuzzy into a bloody pulp with a wire and a faucet. Or perhaps you must actually take Fuzzy to the vet for this to be done. Regardless the simple euthenasia of yesterday has been cast aside for a good ‘ol fashioned beating.
How would you feel, Less?
Would you stand aside and let it happen? Would you listen when pet owners said “Don’t like animal cruelty? Don’t hit Spike with a hammer!”
Would you enjoy when people told you of their harrowing doggy death experiences without a sign of remorse? Would you enjoy being cast as an evil control freak when you spoke out against the violence?
Bethany –
For some reason, just because I am conservative this means that I am going to forbid my children to think. I can’t get over the ignorance that these people have shown. My Mother was a republican and my Father is a libertarian and they never onced forced a political opinion on me. but I guess when one person erronously interprets the goals of an organization, then we all are bad.
Crazy huh?
Like I mentioned the other day…if one repeats a lie long enough, and loud enough…
Heather4life and Mary –
NOW and NARAL have also looked the other way when abortion clinics hurt women. (EX: MMR in NJ)They also have advocated against laws that will make abortion clinics follow all state licensure regulations that are in place for the safety of the patience. They only support something that will give them money, not take their money. (EX: New Missouri law that is about to be signed.)
Last time I checked ladies, I never said I was atheist.
But I suppose if Christianity can’t be insulted, then it would be prudent if people stopped referring to atheists, agnostics and Deists as “immoral, satan-worshippers” or that just because we don’t agree with your (in the general sense) interpretation of the Bible and God does not mean “satan speaks through us”.
Anyway…
Rae, Satan speaks through all of us, especially when we are not serving God. We are all fallen sinners. It’s not just “Rae” it’s “Lauren” and “Bethany” and “Hisman” and “Jill” and everyone else on the board.
We are all damned by our nature. Thankfully God does not want for any of His children and has given us an easy way to be saved.
All we need do is acknowledge our need of a savior and ask.
I don’t believe you worship Satan, but I believe you have been deceived by him. We all have. God wants nothing more than for you to come to Him. Ask and it shall be given.
Don’t look to man’s corruption for God. Look to God himself. He has called men in India off a noose after the man simply asked for the true God to show Himself. Why should you be any different?
And for the record, I don’t approve of what NOW and NARAL do, as far as I’m concerned, they are just a bunch of whiny, selfish children who really don’t care about anybody else and just enjoy making arses of themselves.
To be quite frank, I’m not impressed with Planned Parenthood either. They could do A LOT better if they truly wanted to help people, especially with all the government funding they get. For one thing, they could DEFINITELY offer better Birth Control pills instead of the crap lo-dose ones (which have been shown to be less effective at preventing pregnancy and should really only be used for the regulation of periods) and better condoms instead of the cheap crappy ones they hand out.
Instead of whining about the abortion laws getting restricted or whatever, they should instead be working on better ways to PREVENT abortions in the first place. My idea for comprehensive sex education goes like this:
-Teach kids that sex is a much bigger deal than the media portrays it and that it is in fact a big responsibility both physically and emotionally.
-Tell the kids if they are too irresponsible to have sex safely using BC and protection, then they really shouldn’t be having it at all because there is nothing more stupid and irresponsible than having unsafe sex (this is what is taught in Europe, and it’s quite successful, if you want studies I can post some sources and abstracts for you).
-Tell kids that the best thing way to prevent pregnancy and/or STDs is to save it, but if you don’t “save it” at least be responsible about it.
– Go into explicit detail about STDs and HIV/AIDS…I don’t know how this would fly, but I think it would be very eye-opening (to say the least) to have personal testimony from somebody who currently had AIDS and was dying.
– Talk about pregnancy in detail and how you get pregnant and then all the stages of pregnancy. There will also be detailed discussion on fetal development.
-Discuss what to do in the event of “irresponsibility” ie unplanned pregnancy and bring in various governmental agency representatives to discuss adoption (explain the process of how to put the child up for adoption, and mostly discuss “open adoptions” which I think are the best kind and have been proven to be quite beneficial for the child as well as the biological parents), and what to do if they choose to keep the child talk about how to go about setting up various assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid etc. Lastly, discuss abortion but emphasize it as an absolutely LAST RESORT and go into both sides of the issue (pro-choice and pro-life) as neutrally and as evenly as possible…if it is possible. :) Haven’t completely thought out how to deal with that one yet.
-Discuss the emotions and feelings associated with sexual activity both the positives and negatives.
Anyway, there’s my two (worthless I suppose…) cents.
Once again Less,
Your selfish immaturaty shows through and you missed the whole point of my argument. I don’t even want to take the time to address all your comments as they are so completely frick’n off-base so I will start with the first two.
I will quit volunteering to mentor children that need help.
Per Less:
“Depends on if the kids want to be mentored, and what you
Cameron,
You are lucky there are Christians in this world who are around to aid and assist people in need.
What have you done for someone lately??
Rae, great post! You raised some excellent points.
Agreed rae.
“For some reason, just because I am conservative this means that I am going to forbid my children to think. I can’t get over the ignorance that these people have shown. My Mother was a republican and my Father is a libertarian and they never onced forced a political opinion on me. but I guess when one person erronously interprets the goals of an organization, then we all are bad.”
Valerie, our disgust is not with Republican upbringing, as my mom is a (centrist) Republican herself, but with Focus on the Family’s aggressive campaign to weed out any liberal or somewhat compassionate influence. I do think this is somewhat recent. I remember Focus on the Family being a little conservative but not unnecessarily so. Now it’s like Dobson’s on the warpath. Maybe they’ve always been like this and I haven’t paid attention, but nowadays everything they spout is so extreme. It used to exist to help set guidelines for childrearing and now they have turned into their own political lobbyist. Give me a break.
I second what Rae said. We can be called
I forgot to add to my sex-ed plan: Discuss in detail the benefits of using contraception and demonstrate how to use birth control pills, condoms and spermicide correctly. Also discuss the fact that even when using contraception correctly, accidents happen. So a discussion on contraception failure as well. Morning After Pills will also be discussed (because, medically and scientifically, MAPs are *not* abortifacient…however this will be mentioned as a possibility during the pro-life/pro-choice abortion discussion).
Rae –
I agree! When I was in High School the big thing was drugs in my town. What they did is bring in some people who had gone through rehab and we got to see what happened to them. They also went into detail of what the drugs did to the body and how they made you feel high. The drug use in our school (small Catholic school) went down tremendously and the public school did the same program and drug use went down by over 1/2 in just a couple year. Amazing what happened when we were all taught the scientific facts. I have no problems with sex ed as long as the truth and all sides are told.
on a side note – stop feeling worthless! You have brought up some very interesting points and some really good opinions!
Less, you missed the point.
The point isn’t animal cruelty, the point is for you to internalize something you hold dear being subject to torture and death.
Be it animals, your Aunt Mae or your child, the point is that it is someone you care about is subjegated and marginalized and you are a fool for caring.
The point isn’t “well that probably wouldn’t happen”. The point is that, in this hypothetical, it did.
Less –
” but the moment we start sniping back, we
Sandy, dear, if you
Rae, excellent points. I don’t have any respect for NOW and NARAL. Mary, could you please elaborate on your post. I always enjoy them!
Less, you havn’t shown yourself very far from “constant intolerance and shrewish generalities” in your last few posts.
Aside from that…
Why does it offend you that there might be only one way to God? I’m asking honestly, not trying to “trick” you.
Valerie, JAAAAY-SUUS is a parody of the views and pronunciation of evangelical preachers. I have no problem with Jesus. I have issues with Pop Christianity, and people who use Christianity as an excuse to be intolerant, bigoted, jerks. That’s the difference. Pro-abort doesn’t make sense, anyway: I am not encouraging every pregnant woman to have an abortion. I’m encouraging women to make the choice that’s best for them: thus, pro-choice.
Lauren, generally when you make a hypothetical question there
Lauren, I have a great amount of tolerance for Christianity: just not intolerant Christians, as I have previously stated. Please show me where I
Valerie, you are so right. You see all of these NOW and NARAL supporters at the DC marches. They proudly wave their signs and chant “Keep Abortion Legal” They wave their coat hangers. They look furious. Especially all of these celebrities in attendance. Where were Whoopi Goldberg, Susan Sarandon, Cybil Shepard, Ashley Judd, and Kathleen Turner when Rasheeda Dinkins almost died from a botched legal abortion in NJ? Where was their outrage when Holly Patterson died from a legal abortion? They all seemed to crawl back into the woodwork. Typical. However, they will still wave around the sign with a picture of Becky Bell on it! The girl DID NOT die from an illegal abortion as they so claim. I guess nobody clued them in. The double standard is appalling!
”
Lauren, generally when you make a hypothetical question there
Less- “Sandy, dear, if you
Less, God gives us free will right?
Would we have free will were unable to turn away from Him?
This is why we must accept God. Anything else would make us puppets.
Of course you feel as though an injustice is being done. I recognize that. I just don’t agree. There is no legal foundation for animal abuse, however: there are legal foundations for abortion, whether they be privacy based, medically based, bodily integrity based, or simply based on the idea that women should not be slaves to their wombs.
You could say that animal abuse could have legal foundations in the idea that a pet is the owner’s possession: that would be countered by the idea that you cannot legally own another living being.
Oh, it isn’t that Christians shouldn’t mentor. Intolerant people shouldn’t mentor, religion doesn’t matter. If you teach that worshiping Thor is the only way to get to Valhalla and all others will suffer the horrors of Ragnar
Here is another point. We don’t want to ignore abortion because babies are being treated like disposable garbage. This is a human being. Once all of these heinous stories are made public, it becomes our business.
Less, we choose to be separated from Him.
Hell is eternal separation from God. If we choose to be separated on Earth, why should it be different in Heaven?
Anyways, I’m going to bed. Sorry I’ve been a bitch today but I really havn’t been in the mood to read about the “burden” of children by women who have never been pregnant.
Heather4life,
Thank you for the compliment. When the women accusing Bill Clinton, who NOW and NARAL supported, of everything from exposing himself to rape were attacked as liars, bimboes, psychotics, and trailer trash, NOW and NARAL did not speak out on behalf of these women or express an iota of outrage. When Ted Kennedy’s nephew was accused of rape, an incident stemming from a night of tomcatting with Uncle Ted, NOW and NARAL did not go to her defense either, despite the fact she was up against the powerful Kennedy family and fortune. They also had no problem with Uncle Ted, who one would think a tad old to be out romping like a college boy, trying to hustle women in the bar along with his nephew. Coincidentally, Uncle Ted was also a supporter of the NOW and NARAL political agenda.
It was especially laughable that at this time Uncle Ted was on the panel judging Clarence Thomas, a conservative, upon whom NARAL and NOW pounced like a pack of hyenas supposedly because of, at worst, some lousy pickup lines. His accuser Anita Hill was elevated to Patron Saint of the Sexually Harassed. This champion of sexually harassed women also never spoke up on behalf of the women accusing Clinton, women to whom you would think she would be especially sympathetic.
The moral of this story is that the political agenda of NOW and NARAL, not the protection of women, comes first.
Arizona abortionist Brian Finkle molested and raped several of his abortion patients. This went on and on for years! Women were afraid and ashamed to tell on him. When the women did begin to step forward, they were not believed. Finkle simply said that they were all a bunch of drug addicts that had it out for him because he refused to write them prescriptions for narcotics. Several more years went by, and finally the state began to investigate the complaints. While one girl tearfully testified, Finkle whistled the tune from the Wizard of Oz…’If I Only Had A Brain’ He received a 35 year prison sentence. He reportedly told a few fellow inmates that “All abortion patients are flaky tramps.” and added “They deserved it.” I never heard a word about it from NOW or NARAL. He was supposed to be an excellent physician.
@Mary: And that is bull crap. It should not be that way. I am ashamed of those organizations and I am annoyed at how politics can destroy an organization that may have had good intentions in the beginning. Liberal or conservative, any man who sexually harasses or rapes a woman is scum and they deserve equal treatment by NOW and NARAL.
Seriously, if I were ruler of the world, or at least the leader of those organizations, there would be one heck of a “purge” to turn them around, that’s for certain.
Per Less:
“You could say that animal abuse could have legal foundations in the idea that a pet is the owner’s possession: that would be countered by the idea that you cannot legally own another living being.”
Well, well, well, if you can’t legally own another living being, what gives to the legal right to kill it??
You put this living being in your womb.
The idea that you didn’t invite this someone into your all forever sacred womb is a lie. The idea that someone accidently gets pregnant is absurd.
Accidental pregnancy 101:
I accidently started intimate relations with a guy and accidently took my clothes off, and then he accidently took his clothes off, and then he accidently got turned on and then accidently the guy’s penis accidently slid into my accidental vagina and then he accidently started ejaculating accidental sperm into my accidental body. There was nothing I could do to prevent this accident from happening.
Did I mention it was just an accident????
No birth control method is 100% effective.
Mary, thank you for your post. Rae, right on!
Rae,
How unfortunate for women that you are not the leader of these organizations! I agree that sexual harassers and predators are the lowest forms of scum suckers.
I also wanted to add that there are several more abortionists out there just like Finkle. This was no isolated incident. Abortionist Lawrence Reich was allowed to remain in practice after several accusations of rape and molestation. NOW and NARAL turned a blind eye. A lady by the name of Yvette Chambers said that he invited her out to lunch after a pelvic exam. His license was finally revoked.
@Mary: I consider child molesters, rapists (of either gender and children) and murderers to be the lowest of the low. Personally, in some ways, I think rape is worse than murder because the victim is still alive and they have to deal with what happened to them for the rest of their lives and it also severely impacts their family about as much as murder does (if not worse).
But that’s just my opinion.
You can only pray that if you are in a car accident and lay bleeding on the side of the road that Less is not the one who comes to your assistance. After all, how does she know you want her to call 911?
Less, do us all a favor and visit a nursing home and get to know real people with real problems. Maybe this will help you get out of the incredibly narcissistic only-goal-in-life-is-the-strongest-orgasm-possible mindset that you continuily exhibit on this web site.
Rae,
Another issue with rape is the Neanderthal mentality toward rape victims that is still alive and doing very well in our society. This is the mentality that victims “ask for it” or “entice” their attackers. I still hear, and angrily respond to comments about how a victim was sexually active or “asked for it” by reminding the person commenting that I don’t care if the woman is the Whore of Babylon, she has the right to say no! It enrages me that comments like these are even made! This mentality only adds to the victim’s trauma. While great strides have been made in my lifetime, this mentality is a long way from dead.
Rae and Heather4life,
On the lighter side. Concerning our discussion on sexual harassment. My mother worked in the office of a war plant during WW2. Her boss approached her at her desk and made a lewd comment about going to a hotel with him. In a voice just slightly under thunder that reverberated through the large cavernous office area, my mother said “I beg your pardon Mr. Jones but what was that you said again?”. About 50 other people working in this area lifted up their heads in response to my mother. “Mr. Jones” turned a darker shade of crimson and retreated to his office. He also never made another lewd comment to my mother.
@Mary: Hahaha! That’s awesome. I give your ma props! :D
And it does depress me how rape victims are treated, in fact, it does more than depress me, it royally pisses me off. I know Law and Order SVU is a fictional show, but some of the things that they show on there most likely has truth to it, especially the way rape victims are questioned by defense attorneys. They try to make the rape victim look as though she wanted to have sex and that she deserved to be raped, it sickens me to no end that people feel it’s ok to treat rape victims like that in order to get their client off.
Ohhh the feminist bloggers, again have to watch their comments, it gets tough defending the death mills…
Less –
“JAAAAY-SUUS is a parody of the views and pronunciation of evangelical preachers. I have no problem with Jesus. I have issues with Pop Christianity, and people who use Christianity as an excuse to be intolerant, bigoted, jerks. That’s the difference. Pro-abort doesn’t make sense, anyway: I am not encouraging every pregnant woman to have an abortion. ”
I see no difference. Sorry. It is blasphamous and you don’t give a rats bottom who it offends, just as long as you get your laugh at us bigoted, jerk Christians who are intolerant. Exactly who is the judge and jury in your little scenario. Who decideds when a Christian is tolerant or intolerant. I don’t believe in taking the bible literally, but some do. Does that mean that I am intorlerant of those that do, or that they are intolerant of me?
I see no difference between pro-abort and pro-choice. The ‘choice’ is abortion. It makes sense to me, but doesn’t to you and some (many here) find it offensive. I respect that and try not to use that term. Who is the intollerant one in that scenerio? I have commented on the Jaaaysus thing on several posts, but you don’t stop. It still amazes me that I am suppose to be tollerant of your views but you can trample all over mine. I don’t care what your excuse is, just as you don’t care what my excuse is for using pro-abort. If offends me that you use blasphamous language and be intollerant of the evangelicals all the while telling me to be tollerant.
Hypocrisy.
Per Andrew
“You can only pray that if you are in a car accident and lay bleeding on the side of the road that Less is not the one who comes to your assistance. After all, how does she know you want her to call 911?”
Good one!! I Love it!
Andrew,
I wonder if the Jews in the concentration camps were asked by their liberators if they really wanted to be helped or saved first before they were rescued. Maybe in Less’s world they should have been. Who knows if the liberators were Christians….well cuz you know what happens when Christians try to help out; they just get all preachy and judgemental.
Maybe the people of Darfur really don’t want to be saved. (or at least saved by any Christian do-gooders) I guess I never thought to ask.
I got to thinking. Maybe the victims of Hurricane Katrina really didn’t want or need my money. I guess they could have made it on their own. I really never thought to ask. Maybe I should have specified that I only want my money to go to Christian hurrican victims. That would have avoided any non-Christian from getting help they may have not wanted from some christian do-gooder.
The government should have forms with check boxs asking if we only want our tax money to be spent on Christians, well since the non-religious types needing governmental assistance may take offense to Christian dollars. Maybe there could be check boxs for the persons needing government assistance asking if they are willing to accept money from Christian tax payers or if they just want to receive money from atheists, agnostics and non-religious types.
Per Less:
“If I ever need help, I
Lauren, why should separation be bad?
Sandy, I do legally own my body, and should be able to legally decide what I put in or take out of it. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy: consent to penis in vagina is not consent to sperm in vagina; condoms have been invented to prevent that. Consent to sperm in vagina is not consent to sperm in uterus; cervical caps have been invented to prevent that. Consent to sperm in uterus is not consent to fertilization; birth control pills have been invented to prevent that. You
Silly Sandy, you just aren’t getting it, are you? There’s a HUGE difference between helping people legitimately and ranting and raving about other people’s beliefs under the guise of help. Helping Katrina victims? Legitimately helping. HisMan yelling about how I’m going to hell because I read Tarot cards? Ranting and raving about my beliefs under the guise of help. Helping someone who’s lying bleeding under the street? Legitimately helping. Falwell commenting that 9/11 was caused by feminists and homosexuals? Ranting and raving.
See the difference now?
Less “You could say that animal abuse could have legal foundations in the idea that a pet is the owner’s possession: that would be countered by the idea that you cannot legally own another living being.”
except when that living being is a womb? Correct Less. Than it’s Ok to kill it?
Sandy, Lauren, and Heather4Life:
Why bother?
Exactly, jasper! Why should I be forced to involuntarily donate my womb to a living thing? Now you’re getting it! ; )
I would like to know why the whole animal thing isn’t an issue of privacy. Someone “chooses” to kill their baby or someone “chooses” to beat their dog. What is the difference to pro-choicers? Isn’t it the same?
Just because I gave birth to a baby, does that mean that I have to take care of him? Can’t I just put him on the street for someone else to take care of? I didn’t want him, I just wanted to go through the pregnancy and the delivery, it gives me a rush. Why do I have to be responsible for him now?
luv- the existence of a functioning nervous system that registers pain and consciousness?
nobody can prove that baby can’t feel pain, i’d rather assume it can just in case I was wrong. When you put stress on a baby in utero, the baby shows responds negatively to that stress, that tells me something. You?
luv, you don’t have to be responsible for him now. It’s called adoption.
why do I have to put him up for adoption? I’ll just leave him on the street side and let someone else take care of the adoption thing.
ugh!
sorry
There’s always safe havens, so in some places that’d work too. : )
why? why can’t I leave him on the street? He’s my kid. it’s my right!
Because, you see, there are other options for you. You can give the kid up for adoption, or leave it at a safe haven: both give you what you want (no kid) and end up with the kid being taken care of. A woman who wants to end her pregnancy has only one option.
Diana, 3:42p, said (first quoting me): “‘Did Ampersand really mean to trumpet the ‘truth’ that there are ‘dangerous’ abortion procedures, some of which are ‘brutal’ to preborn children?’
“Jill, do you have a problem understanding comparatives? I note you omit them when interpreting the blogger’s statement. And I have a feeling that glossing over them is exactly why you claim that her further statement is ‘non-sensical’.”
Diana, he dug a pit and fell in by launching his own glossed, vague conversation on comparatives.
Ok, Ampersand, let’s analyze your apparent agreement that some abortions are dangerous. Which ones? How?
Ampersand also psychologically slipped by using the word “brutal” as it pertains to blobs of tissue being aborted.
How specifically can abortions be “brutal” to blobs of tissue? Surgery to remove gallbladders isn’t considered “brutal” to the gallbladder, even if it’s hacked up.
Pip, 4:55p, said: “I disagree with this statement: ‘In actuality, pro-lifers do not pit one abortion procedure against another as more or less safe. All have unsafe components, more or less.’
“I’m a prolifer and studying to become a medical professional so every procedure, including termination of pregnancies, most definately have different levels of safety and risk attached. It’s safe to say that pro-lifers don’t APPROVE of any abortion method, it doesn’t mean we can’t say that one procedure is safer than the other. We don’t need to abandon common sense to analyze the situations at hand.”
PIP, a pro-lifer won’t say, “This abortion procedure is dangerous, and this one is less dangerous.” That would be the abortion industry’s job. That would be recommending one abortion procedure over another.
A pro-lifer will analyze each procedure on its own merits.
Cameron, 1:19p, said: “Nice try. Maybe you should try actually defending or explaining what Tom realy meant to say by invoking such an unsavory scenario.”
Excuse me? The onus is on pro-lifers to explain what a pro-abort meant by admitting abortions are dangerous and can be “brutal” to preborns?
Haha. Those words came from your camp, Cameron. They’re yours to explain.
Excellent point, Lauren! And Sandy, I really enjoyed all of your posts last night too.
Why would we care what the vile pro-aborts say or think??
I don’t know if you’ve noticed this or not, Quinn..but one of the reasons for this blog is to help pro-abortion supporters to convert to pro-life.
We care what they say and think because if we can understand why they feel abortion is justified, we can work with that and hopefully change their mind using facts and logic.
There have been two people who posted here as pro-choice and converted to pro-life. Click the category “conversion stories” on this blog, and you’ll get to meet the two ladies who post here and have converted from pro-choice to pro-life.
Thanks Bethany!
Bethany,
Thanks for that post to Quinn.
Jill,
“he dug a pit and fell in by launching his own glossed, vague conversation on comparatives.”
No. He used a comparative, saying that some procedures are MORE dangerous than others. Then you proceded to misconstrue what he said by ignoring the comparative. And now, rather than dealing with that, you’re dodging the point completely. But let’s have fun with the dodge anyway.
“Ok, Ampersand, let’s analyze your apparent agreement that some abortions are dangerous. Which ones? How?”
See, here you go again. He said MORE dangerous, which does not imply that it is actually dangerous. Now, this is not to say that there are not risks involved. Driving a car is more dangerous than flying in a plane, but that doesn’t mean that driving in a car is dangerous. Still, there are risks. But just because there are risks does not make something dangerous. Now, presumably, later term procedures that are more invasive are MORE dangerous than vacuum aspiration. I’d have to see the data. I don’t see why he has to have this discussion with you, however, when you could probably just look up the same data he could.
“Ampersand also psychologically slipped by using the word “brutal” as it pertains to blobs of tissue being aborted.”
I can’t speak for Ampersand, but I don’t think anyone would claim that a late term fetus is a blob of tissue. It’s a fetus. And I also find it interesting how you cut off the rest of the statement. He said “more brutral from a fetus centric point-of-view” that is – from YOUR point of view. Now, if he’s wrong, by all means correct him. But quit with the strawmen.
“How specifically can abortions be “brutal” to blobs of tissue? Surgery to remove gallbladders isn’t considered “brutal” to the gallbladder, even if it’s hacked up.”
It’s brutal from a gallblader-centric point of view. And I could probably be brutal to an amoeba from an amoeba-centric point of view. But that has nothing to do with whether or not I have a *right* to be brutal to the gallbladder or brutal to the amoeba.
there should be quotation marks around those last two “brutals”
“The void of alternative does not make an action moral.
If I’m sailing around the world with my son and suddenly decide I don’t want to take care of him, I can’t simply stop feeding him and leave him to the eliments.
I must wait the several months it will take for me to get to land and then give him up for adoption.
This is the exact situation during pregnancy.”
YES! Thank you lauren!
No prob, Luv.
I get so frustrated by the “no alternative” logic. It doesn’t apply anywhere else in society so why would it apply to pregnancy?
Less –
“I do not understand how it is blasphemous. As I said, I have absolute respect for Jesus.”
Exactly how self centered are you? Just because YOU don’t see the blasphemy than it isn’t? Give me a break. It doesn’t matter the content in which you say it, what matters is that you are using the Son of God’s name in an insulting manner.
Blasphemy – 1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable
Take a good hard look at 1a and 2. That is where you are blasphemous.
“Intolerance comes beyond simple disagreement. Intolerance is when you vocally and frequently insult, curse, or decry the evils of a particular group. ”
Intolerant – 1 : unable or unwilling to endure
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b : unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights
Check out 2a. And then think about what you have said about the Evangelical Christians. You don’t like the way an organization expresses their religion and so you use JAAAYYSUS as a way of being intolerant. You are right, it does go both ways.
“Have I ever done that regarding Christianity, or any other religion for that matter? ”
Since you need proof –
“not to ?Christian? organizations that care firstly about their agenda and secondly about the people. ”
“Since sending money to an organization that helps people who actually, you know, need help, is far different from sending money to an organization that judges people, ”
“There?s a large large difference between giving aid to those who legitimately need it (getting Hitler out of Europe, the case of the Good Samaritan) and giving ?aid? to those who ?haven?t seen the light of JAAAAAY-SUUUS.?”
“JAAAAAAY-SUUS is an entity who seems to stand for the subjugation of women, the patriarchy, intolerance, bigotry, racism, wishing harm upon women who have abortions, etc.”
You are intorlerant as the above expressions have shown. You don’t like the way they view their religion. So you have deemed them bigoted, racist, wanting harm to be done to women….etc. And you continually post hatred towards them. But what you don’t seem to understand is that your making fun of them is also blasphemous to my religion.
“Pro-choice and pro-abortion are radically different”
That is YOUR opinion. You claim us to be anti-choice, but the only choice we disagree on is abortion. So your whole Pro-choice ideology is based on one decision of choice and not all. That one decision is abortion, hence you are pro-abortion.
Does this make sense to you? More than likely no, just as you making fun of evangelicals being blasphemous doesn’t make sense. I, however, have respected your belief’s and try to avoid using terminology that bothers you and others here. But you don’t want to show the same respect to me. Therefore you are intolerant of my belief’s.
Diana:
You made a statement that: “Driving a car is more dangerous than flying in a plane, but that doesn’t mean that driving in a car is dangerous.”
No, both are very dangerous. Statistically, flying is safer, however, not in actuality. You have simply accepted what others have told you about flying, and rather than question it in detail, you accepted it. It’s kind of how you have bought into the pro-abort lies by making a totally erroneous conclusion based on limited knowledge and false assumptions. You know, the blind leading the blind.
As an aerospace engineer let me explain.
Airplanes are designed based on one of two philosophies: Redundancy or reliability (probability of failure).
Boeing for example designs based on redundancy, i.e., they use two wholly separate systems with a reliability of let’s say 0.9999 each (failure rate 1 in 10,000), be they engine (power), hydraulic, electrical, fuel, instrumentation, etc. They think that it is less probable for two critical, flight dependant systems to fail simultaneously than to have one high reliability system fail at all (1 in 10,000 x 1 in 10,000 is an extremely small number).
McDonald Douglas and Airbus and many other aircraft manufacturers
Rae,
“Oy, Cameron, what level of Hell are you going to based on the Dante’s Inferno Quiz? I’m going to the beautifully heretical 6th Level, the City of Dis. :D”
I missed that non-christian “limbo” level by a point or two. Probably because I enjoy some porn on occasions… otherwise, barring my inability to embrace comformist religion as a proxy for spirituality, i’m mostly doing the right thing… and nothing excessively wrong.
What about you? Are you like Kira, wanting to bash some faces in on occasion? Slipping into level 7 with the gays?
Beth and Val,
Respect has to been earned. Not demanded. I you want people to respect your faith, the onus is on you not to brandish it in such disrespectful ways… like telling other’s there’s something fundamentally wrong with them for not sharing your faith. People embracing religion in general though are kind of souless, and require that sort of crutch to cope with their own doubts.
HisMan, Thanks for the lesson in airplanes. I was speaking about levels of safety statistically, since that’s basically how we judge the safety of most things, you know, based on probabilities. So, given that you admit the statistics, my point holds.
*groans* Thanks, HisMan. I already throw up on airplanes.
And Valerie, it’s a matter of fundamentalism. Do you respect the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers? No. Would you respect a nice neighbor who went to mosque every few days and brought you a nice welcome basket when you moved into the neighborhood? I hope so. That’s the difference.
Jill,
“Excuse me? The onus is on pro-lifers to explain what a pro-abort meant by admitting abortions are dangerous and can be “brutal” to preborns? Haha. Those words came from your camp, Cameron. They’re yours to explain.”
Excuse you, for the continued strawman. We’re talking about prolifers saying they prefer perforated uteruses. Well at least that’s what you were pretending to talk about initially.
Is this your way of conceding that Tom M. and your ilk do indeed want to see women getting perforated utersuses?
You need to explain what you all have said. Check around for the definition of strawman if you don’t even have the capacity to understand your own foolishness.
“Oh, and the next time you try to tell people about abortion, be sure to tell them ALL the facts since they need to make an informed decision about it. It should include one critical piece of information that many like Planned Parenthood choose to omit or hide which is that they risk their eternal soul in having one, denying that it is wrong, and grossly insulting the Creator.”
Eh… first of all, I wasn’t telling anyone anything about abortion. Second of all, I’d say that someone’s “risking their eternal soul” is between them and their god. I don’t see any reason why I should have to push YOUR religious views on other people when I personally think its all a crock. Quit violating the first I’d Really Rather You Didn’t or you’ll never see the beer volcano.
HisMan,
ROFLMAO
I don’t think anybody needs to read your blithering beyond… “Statistically, flying is safer, however…[insert appeal to authority here]”
Priceless.
Diana,
Even faced with physical evidence and an explanation, you still can’t admit truth.
I think that is defined as stupidity at best or psychopathism at worst. I’m not sure what it will take to wake you up from your demonically inspired spiritual stupor.
No your point holds nothing except the lies you spew.
What do the cards say goddess Diana? Oooooooooh!
Self-deception in probably more dangerous than driving, or flying, or abortion.
Wt…what physical evidence? I wonder what it will take to wake HisMan up from his spiritually inspired bigoted stupor.
Diane,
Now that HisMan has found convoluted fault with your safety analogy, are your ready to accept that there is no such thing as variation in degree of safety?
*giggling.
I think HisMan presents a strong argument for not even bothering with seat belts and such. He should be on a deregulation commitee.
Cameron,
Well spoken by a true defender of women, defender of the right to murder, blasphemer par excellence, promoter of unborn demise and just one plain spoiled brat punk.
Yes, one who demands respect but gives none. I think that’s the definition of a tyrant.
What an ass you are.
HisMan, Did you or did you not admit that statistically flying is safer. Then I proceeded to tell you that the statistics are what I’m interested in. How is that ignoring facts? We judge the safety of almost everything based on statistics!
What lies? Pinpoint a lie.
And I don’t read Tarot cards. I read peer-reviewed journals. So what is it going to take to put me to sleep after having decided that the search for truth through epistemically sound methods far surpasses blind obedience to inconsistent dogma? You’ll have to kill me.
Here, HisMan, I’ll make it easy for you. I deny the holy spirit. I’m saying it aloud as I type it. I can never be forgiven. Now you can stop trying to convert me and perhaps engage me in a real rational debate. Or are you going to continue with personal attacks and rhetoric?
“Even faced with physical evidence and an explanation, you still can’t admit truth.”
Truth is, a woman can have an abortion and is still saved just so long as she repents and gets a refill of jesus juice. That’s the beauty of born-again BS… sin all you want… we’ll make more forgiveness.
“I don’t see any reason why I should have to push YOUR religious views on other people when I personally think its all a crock”
“Wt…what physical evidence? I wonder what it will take to wake HisMan up from his spiritually inspired bigoted stupor.”
….this from the “open minded” “tolerant” people.
Hey, guess what, guess what!
I don’t believe in God…AND I’m a good person.
*watches that not compute for half the people on the site*
Oh my HisMan,
Does thumbody need a widdle nap. What’s the matter, can’t defend your faulty logic anymore? Gotta switch to name-calling now??
I love how beautiful and wonderful you make christians look…. just oozing love.
“Now that HisMan has found convoluted fault with your safety analogy, are your ready to accept that there is no such thing as variation in degree of safety?”
Oh yes! I’m totally convinced! There is no way that there are differences in degrees of safety!
(Hey Cameron, I hate to be a punk, but my name is Diana, not Diane. I don’t mean to be mean, it’s just a crazy pet peeve)
jasper- I was mimicking HisMan. “I’m not sure what it will take to wake you up from your demonically inspired spiritual stupor.”
Hi Erin, how are you doing? haven’t talked to you in a while…
Jasper, I’m completely tolerant of those who have religious faith. I do not have to tolerate those who insist that I must live by the edicts of that faith. Tolerance isn’t about tolerating everything. Nor does tolerance require deference or respect. I can be tolerant of furries, fight for their rights to do what they want, and still think they’re crazy and say so.
jasper- I’m fine, been working. I’m waitressing- and actually, I think it’s fun. I don’t get the fuss. How are you?
I don’t know Jasper…
…stupidity at best or psychopathism at worst. I’m not sure what it will take to wake you up from your demonically inspired spiritual stupor.”
Is this tollerance and what not.. oops guess you don’t have a monopoly on anything.
Or maybe it’s this..
“ust one plain spoiled brat punk. ”
Could it be this…
“one who demands respect but gives none. I think that’s the definition of a tyrant. What an ass you are.”
Gosh… I think in the civility realm…
Prochoice 5
Prolife 0
And I’ll notch it up to a 6 for my team… with
Best,
Cameron
Cameron –
“I you want people to respect your faith, the onus is on you not to brandish it in such disrespectful ways… like telling other’s there’s something fundamentally wrong with them for not sharing your faith. ”
I have no problems with people of other faiths. I have quoted Gandhi, who is Hindu, and have said that I believe him to be a prophet. I have discussed with Less the times that I didn’t have faith and encouraged her to never stop questioning and always search for an answer that works for her. I am Catholic, and my father married a Baptist and I have no problems with that. My brother-n-law is an athiest and I have never said he was going to hell.
I have never demanded respect for myself but have requested that my faith be tolerated. Huge differenct.
Just because you have problems with one or two Christians on this blog doesn’t mean that you have the right to generalize us ALL in that intolerance.
Erin –
“Do you respect the terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers? No. Would you respect a nice neighbor who went to mosque every few days and brought you a nice welcome basket when you moved into the neighborhood? I hope so. That’s the difference.”
Are you comparing Evangelical Christians to the 9/11 terrorists? I certainly hope not. I am discussing the intolerance that Less has shown to Evangelicalism and how that intolerance affects me. How comparing anything in that conversation to the 9/11 terrorist is rediculous.
To all posting this morning:
You have given me a perfect example and I would like to appologize to HisMan before I begin.
You are having problems with how HisMan follows his faith. You are being intolerant of HisMan’s belief’s but not all Christians. You are directing comments to HisMan and Leaving generalized religion out of it.
This is being tolerant of me, and being intolerant to how HisMan convey’s his belief’s.
Do we understand each other now?
Valerie- I’m comparing religious extremism and intolerance. In my mind, extremism is dangerous no matter what religion it it. Christianity is no more ‘peaceful’ than Islam. My comparison is a Christian who is a wonderful person but does not judge or try to convert those who don’t believe as they do to one who goes around crying fire and brimstone for their neighbors.
Val,
“Just because you have problems with one or two Christians on this blog doesn’t mean that you have the right to generalize us ALL in that intolerance.”
lolololol
… so I should then have generalized respect for Christianity in general because you’re so darned respectful??
Erin, thanks, I’m doing OK, been busy with work lately…. I like your major (History), good-luck with it….
…I hope you’ll all return to the church someday, Cam (not sure if Cam was part any religon before) and Diana…
Cam, there’s a difference, we’re on the side of Thruth and trying get you to see that Truth, and yes, we are sinners as well and do get fustrated…
To all those posting this morning,
I’m still waiting for a defense/explaination of what Tom M. meant about perforated uteruses.
If anyone actually has some defense/explaination, just e-mail me or something. I do enjoy the defensive antics here, but I’ve stuff to do.
Besitos,
Cameron
Valerie, I guess we sort of understand each other. At the end of the day, though, I think there is a big difference between having respect for a person, and having respect for their beliefs. For example, I’m pretty sure that a few of the pro-life posters around here respect some of the pro-choice posters (and the other way around), but they don’t have respect for each other’s beliefs. And I wouldn’t expect them too.
But it’s the same with religious belief. HisMan doesn’t have to respect my belief that science is the best method for getting at the truth, but failing to have respect for that belief is not the same as failing to have respect for me (which is also demonstrates). In reverse, then, I may have respect for you or other posters on this site without respecting your religious beliefs. That is not to say that I am not tolerant of them. I firmly believe that you should be able to believe what you wish and worship how you please. I would fight for your right to do so.
Does that make sense? I’m not sure I’m being all that clear this morning.
!Besitos a ti, Cameron!
Now, with Dr.McHugh courageously stepping forward, there is new hope that Dr.Tiller can he stopped. But we need your help to apply addition
pressure to Attorney General Paul Morrison to charge George Tiller.Remember, Paul Morrison is a pro-abortion catholic who received up to one million dollars in abortion industry money to unseat Phill Kline in order to keep George Tiller in the baby killing business. Please take a moment and call or email Paul Morrison and tell him to Charge Tiller its the Law. Let him know that all eyes are on him as he evaluates the McHugh evidence that should be closely considered in
this case against Tiller. Morrison anouncement is expected by the end of June and we suspect he will try to bury the charges for Tiller as a political payback. Please take a minute to call or write. Thank
you!
Contact Attorney General Paul Morrison:
Attorney General Paul Morrison
Phone: (785) 296-2215
Fax: (785) 296-6296
E-mail: general@ksag.org
“It’s like a rule athiests all seem to adhere to. “All religions and beliefs, and ways of life, are to be respected, with one exception- Christianity.”
I have to at least comment on this little blurb before my job interview. I’ve never, ever once put down Christianity on this site, or any other religion for that matter. In my personal opinion, organized religion is a bane unto itself. However, I HAVE put down radicals and religious extremists [Jasper and HisMan, for example]. It’s this kind of extremism that makes for the kind of people who would kill an abortion doctor or blow up a clinic in the name of whatever religious diety you pray to. Can you see where the danger lies? I’m not saying HisMan or Jasper would do that, but the extremes they go to is the exact thing that endangers both sides of this argument.
On the flipside, who is to say that I’m not an extremist as well? I’ve fought for my beliefs, and sometimes not in the nicest of manners. I know that I can be called a hypocrite, so I’m just going to stop talking. Just my thoughts on this particular subject ^_^\/
Erin and Diana –
OY! Have you two missed my point completely. Do I agree with what you two have said in the above posts, of course. But this is not what I am talking about. Please, try to see this from my point of view.
Less and some others (sorry to pick on you Less, but you’re the one that did it this time) like to defame the name of Jesus as a joke and as an insult to what they view as radicals. However in doing this they are being blasphemous to the person I view as my Savior. And then when I ask them not to do this, I get the explaination that it isn’t all religions just a particular one they are making fun of. What many are failing to realize is that one of the ways Christians are different from other religions is how we view Jesus. (Just as Islam is different because of how they view Muhammad…etc…you get the point, I hope) So, when Jesus’ name is used that way, it doesn’t matter the context it was spoken in, it is still blasphamous and still making a stab at ALL Christians.
Cameron –
“so I should then have generalized respect for Christianity in general because you’re so darned respectful??”
Yes. I’m glad you finally get it.
Just as I have generalized respect for the Pro-Choice movement because they are so darned respectful of infant lives.
Amazing how intollerance can be turned around to show intollerance. You have shown that you are not that ignorant, why start back up now?
Also –
If you read the beginning of this post you will see where people have answered your Tom M. question. Just because you didn’t like the answer or didn’t agree with it doesn’t mean it wasn’t done. I see answers from both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice people.
@ Cameron – “so I should then have generalized respect for Christianity in general because you’re so darned respectful??”
I think it all depends on circumstance, personally. If Christianity as a whole bothers you or you have had a bad experience with the faith, then respecting it is wholly up to you. I myself got locked away because of a nosy pastor who didn’t know what was good for me, but decided it was God’s will that he have me locked away from general society. Because of him, I have an intense distrust and dislike of most Christian people. Maybe it’s not right or warranted, but you can see where I’m coming from, yes?
Stick to what you believe to be right. That’s all I can really say.
Well Dan,
I really don’t consider myself disrespectful of people of faith in general. The reality is that the anti-choicers here on Jill’s blog are a bunch of whinning babies that can’t handle their own medicine. There’s two types of anti-choice people here; relatively polite but hugely hypocritical, and relatively impolite and slightly hostile. For example, you won’t see the big hypocrites, such as Val and Bethany, actually telling people like HisMan that his comments are impolite and that he’s being disrespectful… no matter how bad it makes them look to others.
Like I said before. Respect has to be earned, and it’s clearly been abondoned here, long before any prochoicer popped in. I think it’s entirely hypocritical, not to mention a disengenous red herring, when people like Val deride others for a lack of respect. I also think they do it when they can no longer advance their own notions legitimately, and finding fault with others is just their trite little shell game.
Everyone here is more or less a toad. If Val’s really that sensitive about people’s faith, she should’ve went elsewhere long ago, or at least piss and whine just as loudly when her fellow fruits abandon all civility and respect.
Pro-aborts,
every once in while I think it’s important to display what you’re fighting for….
Here is your demonic “choice”
http://www.holylamb.com/abortion3b.htm
Thanks for the reminder Jasper! You are so thoughtful sometimes.
enough already!
for some time I was not too pleased with some of the very core beliefs of the Catholic religion and I have found alternate answers over those decades, but these do not come by easily even if they seem simple.
Christ Himself does not only head His church, in many ways He IS the church. One of these ways is Jesus claim that He is the Truth. So truth is not the what – object – of philosophy but a very active, living person, by the name of Jesus. [Sorry Diana and Cam but Jesus is a direct opposite/affront to any notion of truth postulated by humans.]
This concept does indeed take some getting used to because Truth(Jesus) is abused and killed by power(Pilate; zealots, etc). [American culture … when you view wealth as power; strength as power eg. weapons, is at its very core anti-Christian or questionably Christian.] The apostle Paul had a similar response from Rome’s intelligentsia. So point #1: when HisMan is talking about Truth, he is writing about a person and not a relativistic ideal. [It is precisely because of this, that I appreciate his voice here.]
The Christian faith as has been taught to you may indeed be unbelievable. But that does not call you to throw away Truth because many practices do not make sense. Ask He who is Truth to lead you to Him. Too many (especially Catholics) have replaced an active relationship with a much easier to follow set-of-rules. It is often this set that is called Christianity.
Following a living person it is a tough go … following a set of rules is a snap (in comparison). Rule #2 – we are through and through beginners because a living Truth is more of a dance than a set-of-principles ….
hope this makes some sense …….
John,
I can’t help but wonder if you’ve posted on the wrong thread.
Is it OK then for HisMan to wield a person like a relativistic ideal?
Cameron,
You accuse others of lack of civility and respect and then refer to everyone on this site as more or less a toad. What is that saying about glass houses and stones?
Hey Valerie, guess what? I
Bethany,
Thanks for that post to Quinn.
Diana… I am starting to realize now why you feel that some pro-lifers may actually feel a certain way against you personally, as opposed to against the abortion itself. I’m very sorry that we might come across in this manner. I know I don’t feel any hatred towards you.
For example, you won’t see the big hypocrites, such as Val and Bethany, actually telling people like HisMan that his comments are impolite and that he’s being disrespectful… no matter how bad it makes them look to others.
Cameron, do I hold other posters here personally responsible for every word that comes out of your mouth? Of course not. Because I realize you are all individuals, and everything you say is not always representative of everyone else’s opinions on your side.
Now, I don’t think I should be held accountable for every word from other posters on this blog either. Remember that I am an individual as well, thank you.
Hi Cam,
I don’t think (I hope not, anyway) that I did post in the wrong place. My post was a surprise (maybe out-of-left-field) because I thought you, Diana, Erin, JK, Less and others very much misread HisMan’s words. [Think of them as his attempt at being corrective. To his mind he has an obligation to point out a very different path.] I, for one, tend to very much agree with him.
Case in point: [to you] Rule #1 … ‘all is relative’ … except the Rule – so the proposal is self-deceptive. One cannot claim a rule for relativism. There ‘HAS TO BE A FOUNDATION WITH NO RELATIVISM’ … this foundation is the person, Jesus.
John, not to jump in or to speak for anyone else, but I don’t believe it is his place to do the “correcting,” and I am tired of being subject to it. He’s a stranger on the internet. He knows nothing about me other than what I type here, and has no idea of how I interact with my religion, how I behave around others, anything. I do not know this man, and here he is ranting and raving about my religion. Disconnect much?
Further, I have repeatedly stated that I have my beliefs, I’ve believed as such for the majority of my life, I have no desire to change, that he ought to knock it off because it’s annoying, etc. After a simple request to stoppit, there really isn’t anything defendable about repeatedly beating someone over the head with Jesus.
Less –
“Hey Valerie, guess what? I
*claps* for Val!
Cameron –
“the big hypocrites, such as Val ”
AWWW! you think I’m a hypocrite! You sweet talker. Thanks. Coming from YOU it means alot.
“actually telling people like HisMan that his comments are impolite and that he’s being disrespectful… no matter how bad it makes them look to others. ”
Why does HisMan upset you so? I know you two had that little tiff, but you even admitted that you egged it on for your own personal enjoyment. If you look at my post on June 19, 2007 11:09 AM you will see that I did not defend HisMan. I used that as an example to show others that they could chastised HisMan and his belief’s without being blasphamous to mine. I did not redicule them nor did I ridicule HisMan, I think that is called being fair. I did back up HisMan during your little tiff with him, and I fully admitted that I was taking sides. I felt your behavior was far worse than his and I explained why. I was honest with my feelings and emotions, I do not see that as hypocritical. I do not believe I was ever blasphamous or dishonest.
“I also think they do it when they can no longer advance their own notions legitimately, and finding fault with others is just their trite little shell game. ”
I believe I have always backed up my belief’s and opinions. If you think I have found fault with others just because I couldn’t answer a question then I believe there has been a miscommunication. Point out what questions you feel I have not answered, and I will do my best to do so.
” If Val’s really that sensitive about people’s faith, she should’ve went elsewhere long ago, or at least piss and whine just as loudly when her fellow fruits abandon all civility and respect. ”
Why should I go anywhere? I am on a pro-life blog that is run by an active Christian. I think I am where I should be. Just because you want everyone to respect you all the while not respecting me, that is your problem. I have not seen you coming up to the moral plate when your fellow fruits are uncivil and disrespectful.
Hi Less read very carefully what Valerie has written,
you are one smart lady but you are among an awful lot of very clever people here on both sides of the argument. Maybe you have to jettison your journalistic tendencies (if any @ speed reading) and understand that many of us here approach questions from an entirely different concept than the ones you are familiar with. This is a way that I can see you often mis-reading what has been written.
I have yet (after some months) to read anyone ‘sending a person to hell’. Although I admit that from a cursory reading you may have devolved this. HisMan’s vocabulary usage is anything but ‘normal’, so instead of dismissing what he said (as even many pro-lifers) did, a very special effort was made to understand this fellow.
After a very careful reading of his early posts, we found that the man was not just insightful but truly brilliant. At the same time, he raises all kinds of hackles … people dead-in-sleep kinda get grumpy by HisMan’s trumpet in their ears.
But HisMan is just one …. Cameron, Diana, Rae, Dan (now skinhead Dan), JK, Leah …… etc;
Jasper, Lauren, Bethany, Andrew, MK and many others bring a very different perspective to what may have been thought cut-&-dried! It may prove to be extremely involving.
As just one small example …. more than a few have rejected the faith they were formed with as a child. Many pro-lifers decided to seek out radically new faith and they continue to grow in it. [Christianity is itself ‘radical’ and not comfortable … comforting certainly!] Aside from Amanda, for many pro-choicers faith (if any at all) seems about as equivalent as involving as some new threads. Dan is working on it … and does not seem to mind being a ‘beginner’. [I personally love Dan’s integrity.]
It might be helpful for you to attempt to understand why any of HisMan’s words ‘bug’/haunt you. You ain’t the first and I’m sure you’ll not be the last one reading him this way.
Less, you are an EXTREMELEY dangerous person since what you say has the potential of leading so many to hell.
A quote by HisMan. Now, please explain to me how, exactly, this isn
“At the same time, he raises all kinds of hackles … people dead-in-sleep kinda get grumpy by HisMan’s trumpet…”
HisMan’s trumpeting because we raise his hackles. HisMan is clearly a grump and is pretty much offended that any pro-choice proponent would interupt their lil’ self-righteous-back-slapping fest.
Sooner or later John, you and HisMan will discover a discord, and you will also be condemned to burn in hell.
Less both you and Diana reslly scare/scared me,
and I understood such was HisMqan’s words. Both you two are brilliant folks and very articulate. But you are both very wrong … and others not so discerning may follow your lead,
[Its kind of a back-handed compliment, the way I read it.]
We who have been around spiritual people all ouir lives, know that one of the key characteristics of any faith is growth. For anyone (at any age) to be settled in their God is problematic in their understanding of faith, because I’m not #1. God is #1. For you to be comfortable in your faith (at your age) is for me a red flag. I would say ‘Huh?’
John, you saw my discussion with Bethany. I’ve been around religious people all my life. And having been around them, having experienced the worship and learned the views of numerous denominations, having read the bible several times and read other works of theology, I’ve made a decision to let science and reason be my guides.
This does not mean I do not question both science and my own reasoning on a regular bases. True epistemic enterprises like science are a whole lot like fixing a boat while still at sea. I have no god. I have no faith to be comfortable in. I trust science, but I do not have blind faith in it. Were *evidence* to come my way, my mind would be completely open to it. Just as I am open to multiple universe theory. I find that unlikely to happen, however.
Why is that frightening?
basis*
Bethany,
“I am starting to realize now why you feel that some pro-lifers may actually feel a certain way against you personally, as opposed to against the abortion itself. I’m very sorry that we might come across in this manner. I know I don’t feel any hatred towards you.”
I can’t tell you how happy it makes me to hear you say that, and it makes me even happier to see your posts calling certain people (I won’t name names) out on that. And I want you to know that I feel that I have a better idea of where you’re coming from, and I feel confident that you don’t hate me. And just so you know, I happen to like you! :)
wonderful Diana,
especially that image of science …. never heard it explained quite that way.
All folks are a part of my family including you, so fear is being replaced by caution. We all love to be in control and have some semblance of mastery … I know this first-hand because what happens to me is diametrically opposite this. A very good friend has always been perplexed by my trust. Upon reflection I HAVE TO trust and that trust is in other people, in life itself … I have come too close to death to welcome it as Sr Francis did – a Brother. And I am not very good at trusting a leaky boat. [Know a wee bit too much science.]
But I am no relativist. My foundation who harbours my trust and my life is Jesus Himself. I am of significance only because of Him. I do understand there is a big gap between rituals and who the rituals are about. My life is far too short to waste on a treadmill. Is it to be … YES or no? Jesus answered YES …. and its been downhill ever since, but I find this weird journey so incredibly delightful.
Many years ago (before I knew I was sick) I was asked about my faith …. “its like twirling around a tree, with your hands clasped around the trunk … so happy … not to have to be in control… a kid once again!”
Faith is more like: ‘was blind and now I see’ … hard to explain the wonderful joy of …
Hope these few silly words resonate deep in your being … Jesus called Lazarus to “Come forth …”. He does the same to all of us …
Less –
“I have made it perfectly clear that I am not Christian, have no desire to be Christian, and am perfectly at peace in my own religion/spirituality. Why, then, is it acceptable for HisMan, a person I don
Diana –
I’m really curious what your opinion is on the history’s channel shows that try to disprove or prove stories in the bible? I have found many of them the facinating. My Aunt, who is in a Church that I think is more of a cult, obsolutely hates them! Especially the ones that try to disprove the stories. I always found the different perspective interesting.
As an example of what I am talking about, I saw one that was talking about Noah’s Ark. They showed a timeline of human’s excistance on earth. There was a section of time where the population massively decreased. And, according to the show, there is no explaination for this. So, many theologans believe that this is proof that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.
As a person who views science as you do, what do you think of this type of study? I am not trying to ‘catch’ you and show you the ‘error’ of your ways. I have been back and forth on this and I have plenty of opinions from Christians. I do not have an opinion from someone that views science as more truthful.
If you haven’t seen them, try to watch them. I especially like the ones that talk about Sodom and Gomorrah.
John,
At the end of the day, I think you and I have just chosen to put our trust in different places. I’ll be the first to admit that science is not perfect, and that human reasoning is flawed. But as far as I can see, it’s the best we’ve got for getting at the truth. And as long as we keep working at it, we’ll keep getting closer and closer to our destination.
I’ve had experiences that I might deem as spiritual. I’ve found myself in utter amazement at the world, at the fact that everything around us, and us included, is at its core nothing more than energy. That facisnates me. But christianity is not the way for me. I see too many inconsistencies that I cannot ignore. And I see no search for truth there – no continuing adaptation of views in a move toward greater understanding. And that’s because there is no evidence to force one to change one’s view. I can’t believe that we’ve got it 100% right already, with inconsistencies included. After all, we’re not perfect.
Valerie,
I love those shows! I haven’t seen the ones about Sodom and Gomorrah, but anytime I catch one on, I watch it. I’m such a nerd.
You have to be careful to stay attuned to whether or not there is a bias (for one side or the other) at work with shows like that, but I get a big kick out of them. After all, while I undoubtedly don’t place as much weight on the bible as you do, since I’m not a christian, I see no reason why all the different men who authored the various books would have just sat around making EVERYTHING up. I’m sure that there are historical events recorded in the bible, and it’s cool to see what other historical and archeological evidence they can find of the events and places recounted. Plus, I have a big interest in how people’s perpectives (including their socioeconomic status and religious beliefs) impacts how they perceive the world (and as a result, how they record historical events).
I’m not sure I may have fully answered your question there, Valerie. I love the shows. At the same time I always keep in mind that certain sciences are not as “exact” as others. Archeology and the like, for example, involve a lot of inferences based on other information. And that allows room for bias and mistakes. That’s not the case with, say, basic physics (well, it sort of is, but to a far less worrisome degree). As a result, what the various studies purport to show is not as certain as the result of a something like a theoretical physics experiment (and that holds whether they’ve shown the story true or false – same basic margin of error). Nonetheless, it’s evidence one way or the other, and that’s what it’s all about.
I’m curious, though, other than your aunt, what have the christians you’ve talked to thought about the shows?
Oh, and John, just so we’re clear on this point, I’m not a relativist either. I’m 100% realist.
Oh! Oh! The Sodom and Gomorrah episode was the absolute TOPS. It was absolutely FASCINATING. I thought I was the only person in the world who watched those things! The History Channel is the only thing my dad and I can watch without arguing, and those things facilitate such amazing discussions! Valerie, have you seen the one about Moses and the Egyptians? There
Diana –
Thanks for answering. I am glad to see the people who view science as you do understand that anthropology can be purely speculation and educated guesses. Actually, your answer resembles how I feel about it. I guess I needed some justification or somehthing. ;-)
The Christians I have talked to about this have a varying degree of opinions. It seems to depend what type of Christian you are. The ones that take the bible literally, word for word, do not like the show and some have said it is the devil at work. Others, like me, who believes the bible was written for primarily uneducated farmers in the BC era is full of symbolism and story telling. (referring to the Old Testement, I believe the New Testement to be less symbolism and more factual) The truth is told completely, but in a way that the people of that time could understand. These people like me believe that the show is facinating and seem to take it like I do. The ones that are agnostic/atheist seem to have a “take it or leave it” type attitude. Watch the Sodom and Gommarah one! It is even worth renting if you can find it.
I have to say that I don’t understand why some people get so worked up about this sort of thing. It’s like the Da Vinci Code. My reaction: Who cares? I mean, if Jesus was married and had a child what does that change? His teachings are still the truth, his life was lived and how he died is still for our sins. Nothing changes. His Word is still there and hasn’t changed. Same thing with these shows (I used the Da Vinci code for people that may be reading this and have no clue what we are talking about with the shows.) Nothing they have found changes anything. AND some of them have almost PROVED many aspects of both Testements. I watched one, I can’t remember if it was history channel, discovery, TLC…I watch them all, Nerd alert! The show went through the order that the earth was created….well it seems that the order that is described in the Old Testement is correct.
Less –
You are the third person to tell me to read that book! I think something is telling me I have to read it now! The one’s on Moses are great! The story of Moses is one of my favorites, so I am glued to the TV when they are on.
Now, on the intolerant subject. In your thinking someone who uses the “N” word to describe African Americans is not intolerant. People who tell you that you are going to hell are not being intolerant. People who use the term “Wet Backs” to describe Mexican Immigrants are not being intolerant…etc…. People who just SAY they don’t like this or that are not being intolerant. The verbal form of communication can be the most damaging.
When you use the JJAAYYSSUSS thing it is intimitdating to some and these people may be less likely to post their feelings for fear of being chastised. There freedom of expression has just been muted. When I first saw something like that, I left the post and didn’t respond to a question directed towards me because I didn’t want to end up being rediculed and attacked like HisMan is. Look at what happened to me just because I asked you to stop.
“People embracing religion in general though are kind of souless, and require that sort of crutch to cope with their own doubts. ”
“Is this tollerance and what not.. oops guess you don’t have a monopoly on anything. ” (this one is in direction to Jasper, but is a definate stab at what I was saying)
“so I should then have generalized respect for Christianity in general because you’re so darned respectful??”
“you won’t see the big hypocrites, such as Val and Bethany”
“not to mention a disengenous red herring, when people like Val deride others for a lack of respect.”
“If Val’s really that sensitive about people’s faith, she should’ve went elsewhere long ago, or at least piss and whine just as loudly when her fellow fruits abandon all civility and respect. ”
“Oh Gods, am I being intolerant of your definitions now TOO!?”
“Don
Less –
I forgot. If your cat likes to play with your keyboard then you need to get him his own computer. Geesh! How cruel are you? He just wants to post on here with the rest of us. hmmm… maybe you don’t want him to post for fear he is pro-life?
;-)
Less, I think you have a gross misunderstanding about what evangelicals are really like. I’m pentecostal, we’re about as evangelical as they come.
Last Sunday our pastor’s sermon was on accepting people where they are and preaching the love of God instead of reminding everyone they’re sinners while forgetting that we are the same.
We had a ladies meeting on Saturday where we watched a Beth Moore video on love and played Never Have I Ever.
We weren’t sitting around condemning people to Hell and plotting our next judgement attack on our neighbors. We were having a fellowship together, playing games, eating food, and praying.
question for Diana …
the word ‘realist’ is so fraught with difficulties that is almost as problematic as the term ‘natural’. We do have a problem these days I feel between the ‘actual’ and the ‘virtual’. Care to comment?
Sad as it is, Valerie, it
Less, some pentecostal denominations have strict gender roles, some do not.
The upci has standards for both sexes, though the women’s standards are quite a bit more restrictive.
I don’t have much experience with other offshoots, but I know most apostolic churches are fairly traditional.
My church is x-upci. Basically we reject the standards as matters of salvation. We’re definitely not a “mega-church” by any strech of the imagination. We have about 80 people.
I agree that mega-churches can often be a bit low on spirituality and a bit high on tithers. Of course, my complaint on mega-churches is that they rarely give good biblical teaching, but are instead focused on “prosperity” ministry. I know there are wonderful big churches, but it seems that falling away from scripture is something that they struggle with.
Of course, what you must remember about any church is that it is made up by people. People will always disappoint. It is only God who gives real hope.
Less –
I give up. I have done everything I can to understand where you come from and do not use the words and expressions that you do not like. However, you seem to think that just because you do not agree with me than it doesn’t matter what your attitude is and can say anything you want without any respect.
I, however, will continue to respect what you believe and will try not to be disrespectful to you and the other Pro-Choicers on here.
” I don
You know, I agree Lauren. I don
” I don
Less, I hope you are done with your JAAAYYSUS rant. That was so stupid!