Sweet and Sour Fetus: Chinese cannibalism

The following, if true, is what abortion and the dehumanization of preborn babies has wrought. It is the most despicable outcome of abortion I have ever seen or reported.

Yet, if one is "pro-choice" and denies that preborn humans are human, there is nothing wrong with this whatsoever. It can't even be considered cannibalism.

Reported The Epoch Times on March 29....

[Article and video on page 2]

The Next Magazine, a weekly publication from Hong Kong, reported that infant corpses and fetuses have become the newest supplements for health and beauty in China. Not only is the placenta considered a beauty remedy, but also aborted fetuses are much sought after delicacies. In Guangdong, gourmet body parts are in high demand and can even be purchased through hospitals. The magazine's investigations into this form of cannibalism took them to Liaoning province.

According to The Next Magazine, during a banquet hosted by a Taiwanese businessman, a servant Ms Liu from Liaoning province on the mainland inadvertently revealed the habit of eating infants/fetuses in Liaoning province and her intention to return for the supplement due to health concerns. The Taiwanese women present were horrified.

Ms Liu also disclosed that even though people can afford the human parts there are still waiting lists and those with the right connections get the "highest quality" human parts, which translates to the more mature fetuses. A male fetus is considered the "prime" human part.

At the The Next Magazine's request, Ms Liu personally escorted the reporter to a location where a fetus was being prepared. The reporter observed a woman chopping up a male fetus and making soup from the placenta. During the process, the woman even tried to comfort everyone by saying, "Don't be afraid, this is just the flesh of a higher animal."

The boy's remains were cremated in the mountains in accordance with the customs of the region.

In fact, in China, reports about meals made from infant flesh have surfaced from time to time. A video is on the Internet for people to view. In the introduction, the Chinese claim that eating a human fetus is an art form.

On March 22, 2003, police in Bingyan, Guangxi Province seized 28 female babies smuggled in a truck from Yulin, Guangxi Province going to Houzhou in Anhui Province. The oldest baby was only three months old. The babies were packed three or four to a bag and many of them were near death - one were claimed by their parents.

On the morning of October 9, 2004, a person rifling through the garbage on the outskirts of Jiuquan city in the Suzhou region, found dismembered babies in a dumpster. There were two heads, two torsos, four arms, and six legs. According to the investigation, these corpses were no more than a week old and they had been dismembered after cooking.

Although China has laws that prohibit the eating of human fetus, the regime's forced abortions to ensure the one child policy is strictly adhered to thereby creating many opportunities for these sorts of atrocities to occur.

What would make people do such a thing without any fear of condemnation? Since Mao's Cultural Revolution, a complete lack of morality and respect for human life has become the norm in China. Over time, domination by the Chinese Communist regime has led to inhuman behavior and human rights violations resulting in abnormal practices such as cannibalism.

Click here to read the original article in Chinese.

I have tracked down the video, which is extremely graphic.

[Hat tip: MK]


Comments:

Oh I am so so so so disgusted and my stomach is queasy from seeing this. It was almost too painful to bear. This is sickening and barbaric.
I just want to cry.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:55 AM


Bethany, Im with you.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 9:29 AM


A few pro-choice arguments which could be used to justify this atrocity:

1.) If the babies are being aborted anyway, why not put them to good use, to better human life and to give treatment to others who need it? (correlation: embryonic stem cell justification)

2.) Why put the rights of a fetus above an adult who could use the nutrients from the baby to live a longer and more healthy life and thus be benefited from it?

3.) The fetus is not a person.

4.) The fetus has no rights.

5.) The fetus has no soul, therefore eating it is the same as eating an animal.

6.) You just care about a fetus more than you care about people's health.

7.) You hate people, and you love fetuses.

8.) If you're opposed to eating fetuses, don't eat one. Eating fetuses is a personal choice that each person should have the choice to make.

9.) You don't support fetuses being eaten but you support capital punishment. You're a hypocrite.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:49 AM


I made a mistake and wrote used the word baby interchangably with fetus. The term "baby" would not be used in the arguments listed above.


Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:52 AM


Wow!Well,one more good reason to be pro-life and STAY pro life. Jill,unfortunately I've seen pictures like these on many,many pro-life sites.Babies in containers,on shelves,and in boxes,etc.The only difference is the good old USA just throws them in the garbage.This was the quote of one abortionist.He simply said "That's all aborted babies are,garbage."

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 10:07 AM


PS.From what the pro-choice side tells me,it's only a baby if I WANT it and intend to KEEP it.The word baby will be applied if there is emotional attachment. If not,I could go to a heartless bastard abortionist and allow him to tell me [if I were really gullible] that it's a bloodclot.Last time I saw a bloodclot,it didn't contain any bones or human organs.It had no form .It truely was a blob!These are babies.No doubt about it!

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 10:19 AM


Jill,

I consider myself a strong man, however, I sit here at my desk weeping.

If a pro-deather watches this video and won't change their view on abortion, they really have to question the condition of their heart.

Only a person, devoid of God in their heart, could condone the choice that would allow this type of barbarism to continue, in China or anywhere.

Yes, we are in the last days for the fury of satan is all around us.

May God have mercy on China and the US.

Stop ALL abortion NOW!!!!!!!!

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:46 AM


There are no words.

I can only pray that this is not true.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:24 AM


http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa080601a.htm


I don't think it's true.

It it is, rest assured that even us pro-choice, pro-death people find it appalling.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2007 11:35 AM


Jill - I just wanted to point out an inaccuracy in your blog today. You claimed that pro-choicers couldn't even consider this cannibalism. I beg to differ. According to dictionary.com, cannibalism is the eating of human flesh by another human being.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cannibalism

I don't know of a single pro-choicer who doesn't consider a fetus human, and hence would not consider this cannibalism. There is a difference between being human and being a person with rights. These fetii are human. Thus eating them is cannibalism, and horribly disgusting, not to mention unhealthy.

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 11:35 AM


There is a difference between being human and being a person with rights. These fetii are human. Thus eating them is cannibalism, and horribly disgusting, not to mention unhealthy.

So do you then think that eating placentas should be made illegal? Because there are women here who eat them (gross as that sounds).

"Then comes the practice of placentophagia, eating the placenta, is also practiced in some parts of the world. There are even meal like recipes for cooking placentas, including placenta stew, placenta lasagna, power drinks with blended placenta and others. Though some mothers have been reported to eat placenta raw.

There are many reasons listed for eating the placenta, including it helping stem postpartum depression and it supposedly helps to contract the uterus after the birth. We know that many animals eat their own placenta, including as a means to hide the scent from predators.

http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/placentas/a/placenta.htm


Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:43 AM


Does anyone know the policy in China when it comes to having children? Are they only allowed 1 per family? If this is the case,why wouldn't a woman just have a tubal ligation?

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 12:01 PM


Yes, its one per family. But in remote areas and other areas not kept a close eye on my the government people usually have as many children as they wish.

Posted by: JK at April 9, 2007 12:03 PM


Hal, 11:35a, linked to an urban legend that had none of the components of this story, i.e., it was not about this article.

Diana, 11:35a, stated: "I don't know of a single pro-choicer who doesn't consider a fetus human, and hence would not consider this cannibalism."

Diana, you may not know one personally, but they are certainly out there:

"However, anti-choicers insist not only that a fetus is a human being, but that this status is an objective scientific fact. Unfortunately, they are assuming the very thing that requires proving, thereby committing the logical fallacy of 'begging the question.' Biology, medicine, law, philosophy, and theology have no consensus on the issue, and neither does society as a whole. There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights. " (http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/fetusperson.html

"Planned Parenthood's written arguments say use of the term "human being" would be unconstitutional. The law could require doctors to convey a message that is ideological, misleading or untrue, and doctors could have trouble telling women they disagree with the statements required by the law, the organization contends." (www.siouxcityjournal.com)

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 12:03 PM


sorry that "my" was supposed to be "by"

Posted by: JK at April 9, 2007 12:04 PM


First of all, this is disgusting if true. Secondly however, consider the source.

From a review of the source of your information: "The magazine is known for its aggressive and flamboyant reporting styles. Their gossip-cooking stories and paparazzi pictures have often been criticised by celebrities. This style has led the magazine to being involved in many court cases and its stories have given rise to many controversies. At times, their "reports" are embroidered in such a manner that readers merely regard them as semi-fabricated stories containing the names of well-known personalities rather than serious pieces of jouranlistic writing. Though the magazine has a large circulation, its credibility rating is low."

"Credibility rating is low" seems to be the key phrase here.

Finally, human cannibalism has been around for a lot longer than legalized abortion. To make the claim that "abortion and the dehumanization of preborn babies has wrought" cannibalism is false. Just read 2 Kings 6:25-30. I don't think ancient Samaria had a Planned Parenthood.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 12:06 PM


Joy, 12:06p, at least be honest and cite your source. Your source was Wikipedia, which anyone can hack, including the Chinese government.

That said, I said at the onset "if true" about the story, although this isn't the first one of its sort. And the photos appear valid, particularly the last one. Furthermore, there is news from legitimate sources that the Chinese are doing strange things with embryos.

Cannibalism has been around for a long time, certainly. But the availability of preborn babies as well as their dehumanization has apparently legitimized this practice in some circles.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 12:16 PM


Hey momof3, in reference to your question about the one child law in China -- it is true that in many parts of the country, the policy is not enforced. Also, it is usually enforced by economic incentives, not as if they go about kidnapping women and forcing them to abort. For instance, the government provides significant financial support to families who abide by the policy, like paying for the child's education, providing monthly stipends, etc. But if the family has a second child, the government can make them repay some of the money they were given, impose fines, etc. Also, there are many exceptions to the rule. For instance, if the wife was an only child, and the husband was an only child, they may be allowed to have two children. Also, I think farmers are permitted to have more than one child. As a pro-choicer, I am very against the one child policy, even with these exceptions, because it restricts choice and personal autonomy. But I still think it's interesting to know.

Posted by: Ashlee at April 9, 2007 12:20 PM


Diana,

I love that name, it was my mother's maiden name and my beloved niece's name.

The truth is hard to argue with unless the person you arguing with does not want to be confused with the facts.

You said: "There is a difference between being human and being a person with rights. These fetii are human. Thus eating them is cannibalism, and horribly disgusting, not to mention unhealthy."

If I agree with you that this is indeed cannibalism and I do (of the worst kind), how is throwing fetii into the garbage any different? No service, no funeral, no respect, no memorial, just some PP Waste Management or Allied Waste contracted dumpster. I mean according to you they're only human blobs so their ultimate method of transformation into dust should be no different if it's via the intestines of a human being or through a maggot. Ultimatley ending up is a landfill with a gravestone marked by a discarded porno tape or MacDonald's Big Mac container or fill in the blank.

By the way to be human is to possess all the qualities a human being possesses including an immortal soul. So by your own declaration that these "fetii" are human means they are humans in the fullest sense. To say that any human has no rights is absurd. Sorry, you can't have it any other way.

And if it is not human, what is it?

What is correct is that humans who decide that other human don't have rights, i.e., pro-deathers, should have their right taken away like any other common criminal. That means that abortion should be made illegal, always, everywhere, under all crcumstances and all who participate in such heinous behavior should be dealt with accordingly.

So pro-lifers, when are we going to take a stand and do something about this?

I say now is the time.

Jill, this has given me an idea. It's time we started boycotting all waste companies that dispose of biological waste, i.e., "fetii" (why is using that word so dehumanizing) and are contracted with death mills like Planned Parenthood. Letters to Allied Waste and Waste Mangement would be good places to start. I understand that most of their management teams are Christian. Time to hold them accountable.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 12:23 PM


Ugh. This is sick. I think I'll go throw up now.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 9, 2007 12:35 PM


I wasn't trying to be disingenuous by not posting a source for that review. It was simply an oversight on my part. However, are we really arguing which is more credible - a Chinese tabloid or Wikipedia? Seems sort of silly, doesn't it? If I cited the National Enquirer, that would be about on par with your source.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 12:37 PM


http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp

^_^

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 12:39 PM


Danielle, 12:39p, I have the same response for you I had for Hal, 11:35a: You both linked to an urban legend that had none of the components of this story, i.e., it was not about this article.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 12:45 PM


"What is correct is that humans who decide that other human don't have rights, i.e., pro-deathers, should have their right taken away like any other common criminal."

Actually, criminals still have basic human rights. At least in the United States. Much to the chagrin of conservatives, I'm sure.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 12:48 PM


Oh, I'm so glad this is false. Whew.

My chinese roommate said the magazine is a gossip magazine, btw. They like to take pictures of celebrities and write articles about them.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 9, 2007 12:48 PM


cold, cold ....................who ever thought of hell being 'hot'?

reminds me of the photo of a Parisian model (some decades ago) who went to an 'in' party with one earring. Her earring was the taxidermied corpse of an aborted baby - some 5-6" long.

Hal, true about eating these babies ????????????? inclined to believe this is true .... a peasant would likely get more than a full year's pay for her baby. It would likely be alive too (prior to cooking), just to keep it fresh!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 12:55 PM


PiP, please ask your roommate if she's aware of China's one child policy. I met a Chinese foreign exchange student who didn't know about it and didn't believe it. She said although all the families she knew only had one child, it was not so d/t government coercion. It was voluntary.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 1:01 PM


Whoaaa...

I admit that Chinese and Taiwanese people eat strange things in the eyes of most Americans, but fetii? That's news to me.

That video was rather grody, but I still haven't changed my stance on abortion.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2007 1:03 PM


And Elvis is likely alive and living in the subway with Batboy, John. I read it in the Weekly World News.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 1:11 PM


Hi Joy,

my pamphlet was @1974 ... was the Weekly World News even operational then? Were you operational, then?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 1:21 PM


Samantha T and PIP -

Hey! We finally agree on something without having to debate it to death!

I had to come up with something positive because I feel like I'm going to vomit.

After 1st reading this I woke up my daughter from her nap so I could hug her.

As for the magazine, although it is a rag mag, The National Enquirer usually has elements of truth to it. So is this magazine more like The National Enquirer or Weekly World News - That is the one that always has 'bat boy' sightings right?
(I'm not being sarcastic here, there is a difference between these two. The National Enquirer has even acurately reported on several criminal cases that helped the police. I don't think Bat boy has a criminal past.)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 1:25 PM


I haven't watched the video. Don't have the courage I suppose. My youngest son was born in Guangxi(mentioned in the article) in 2004. He was abandoned a block away from a hospital three days after his birth(hospital tag was found with him). We're glad to have him as part of our family especially considering what his fate could have been.

The one child policy in not enforced as strongly as it was once was in the early 80's. Now a family that has a girl first is allowed a second child to "try" for a boy. Also the government is trying to promote the idea that girls are as good as boys. A family that has two girls but has no more children will be entitled to government retirement benefits. Thereby eliminating the financial need for a son. Unfortunately the desire for a son is also cultural, so people especially in remote regions still want a son. Most of the incentives for over the limit children are financial like paying a fine which usually equates to a years salary. Or the child would not receive government benefits(schooling, healthcare). There was a man arrested and jailed in the past year for protesting the one child policy because a relative was forced into an abortion. I'll have to search for the article. So it appears forced abortions are still taking place.

When we were in Guangzhou, a man we met at our hotel was surprised that we had adopted a boy. He commented that foreigners come to China and only "want" to adopt girls because girls are more compliant. It seems that the average citizen seems to be unaware of the result of the one child policy as least in regards to abandonment of babies.

Posted by: Cassidee at April 9, 2007 1:36 PM


Here are two links for the man arrested for protesting/calling attention to forced abortions and sterilization.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1564718,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p01s04-woap.html

Posted by: Cassidee at April 9, 2007 1:45 PM


Jill, in rereading the article, I was confused by some of the terminology. When they stated that babies were found, the oldest being three months--were they talking about pre-term fetuses, or post-birth infants? Not that it makes the concept less disgusting.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 1:45 PM


I'll boycott with you His Man.Let me know how.

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 1:55 PM


Wikipedia - The Epoch Times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

This is the newspaper that ran the Next Magazine article. They do have an agenda, not likeing the Chinese government and supporting Falun Gong. But here are a few things said in Wikipedia.

"According to their own statement the founding Chinese-language Epoch Times started publishing in response to the growing demand for uncensored coverage of events in China and has been in continuous publication since May 2000.

The Epoch Times maintains editions in English and Chinese as well as nine other languages in print, and 17 languages on the web.

Its reports on China are highly critical of the government. It often refers to China as "Communist China" in its reports, including non-political articles, as it does not recognise the CPC as the legitimate government of China. It has since grown to report on civil rights issues worldwide, and now appeals to a somewhat wider audience. It sometimes also publishes articles accusing overseas Chinese personalities and media of alleged pro-CPC or anti-Falun Gong bias.

A large number of practitioners were also instrumental in the paper's founding and continue to be in its current operations. Because of this, the paper has over the years been accused by the Chinese government as well as some people[citation needed] outside of China of being a propaganda mouthpiece of Falun Gong. The newspaper and Falun Gong practitioners dispute this, saying that such covert operations are unnecessary considering Falun Gong already has publications to represent itself openly, and that some practitioners promote the paper because of its coverage of their cause. However according to tax records, the chairman of the paper's board, Kangang Xu, is a top Falun Gong spokesperson.[19] The paper's Chinese editions tend to carry a large number of articles promoting heavily edited traditional Chinese mythology and Biblical stories, not just Falun Gong doctrines, in a way that reinforces the paper's stance against the CPC.

According to the paper, its goal in reporting is to accurately inform its readers about events in China, particularly those stories that remain censored. For example, it was one of the first newspapers to carry in-depth coverage of SARS, well before the Chinese government publicly admitted that there was an epidemic that went on to cause some 350 deaths.


There is a section on wikipedia talking about critisim of the paper, but there are no citations to provide any proof.

This is just an FYI as I continue to research this....

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 2:11 PM


"my pamphlet was @1974 ... was the Weekly World News even operational then? Were you operational, then?"

It was a joke, John. Is that supposed to be a dig at my presumed age or something? And what pamphlet are you referring to? All I was replying to was this: "a peasant would likely get more than a full year's pay for her baby. It would likely be alive too (prior to cooking), just to keep it fresh!"

P.S. WWN launched its hilarious run in 1979.

P.P.S. Valerie - Batboy does have a criminal record. LOL. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Batboy_Steals_MINI.jpg

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 2:41 PM


Did anyone else read ALL of Danielle's article? It explains it away pretty well and certainly covers the bases, it is an urban legend, nothing more. It mentions solely taiwan at first, but if you keep reading the rumours with China are also mentioned and said to be just as false

Posted by: Dan at April 9, 2007 2:44 PM


I did, Dan. Hopefully Danielle's article was correct and this was all just a rumor.

Jill, my roommate will be in later tonight so I'll ask her then.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 9, 2007 2:56 PM


Joy -

Batboy was framed! He would never do anything like that! LOL

Dan - I am researching The Epoch Times, they are not a rag tag newspaper. They have an agenda, one agenda is to expose China's censoring of news. I don't think they would print something without doing a bit of research first. But I am still checking.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 2:58 PM


Samantha, 1:45p, asked: "I was confused by some of the terminology. When they stated that babies were found, the oldest being three months--were they talking about pre-term fetuses, or post-birth infants? Not that it makes the concept less disgusting."

Because that paragraph discussed three month old babies, I thought at that point they were talking about post-born babies.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 3:01 PM


Dan, I'll repeat for the third time, the urban legend links Hal and Danielle provided have nothing to do with this story. The Snopes link was written in 2001 and last updated Feb. 3, 2007.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 3:21 PM


Hi Joy,

the pamphlet(a single sheet really) I got, was from a whole slew(@300 pages) of material when I began a small local pro-life group then.

it was a real shocker (just like the video above) ... I didn't laugh then, and still feel this as numbing cold.

Only years later, when I heard of children laughing when a motorcyclist rammed into a stalled school-bus did I begin to understand. The cyclist smashing into the back of the bus, and all that blood likely traumatized the kids. Laughter was their only release ....

the questions about age are very important ... I know too many teens willing to dismiss a very sobering reality ... especially an in-your-face one. This is not the same as a horror movie ... twists much deeper!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 3:35 PM


Joy,

(just re-read your earlier post) .... the words I used were sarcastic - but they were meant to show that someone can override the mother-baby bond. [this 'indifference' may stem from multiple abortions ... the only birth-control method available to her!]

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 3:51 PM


I find it amazing that although the pro-abortion supporters here find the idea of this (eating fetuses) absolutely disgusting, they still support abortion of babies- babies just exactly like these in the video- and don't seem to think that throwing a baby in the garbage, down a disposal, or using their body parts for the advancement of science, is just as disrespectful and disgusting as someone eating it, regardless of whether the story is true or not.

It's incredible to think there are people out there that cold-hearted and irrational, and so unwilling to accept the fact that abortion is wrong, and it is murder. Even when the evidence is right before their eyes.


Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 4:25 PM


I'm not laughing at cannibalism (I don't see anybody else doing it either), though I do find it amusing that people are so ready to believe something pulled from a tabloid magazine. If it's true, it's horrific, but I tend to view stories such as this, especially from sources such as this, with a healthy dose of skepticism. It also seems as if some of the people posting here WANT this story to be true; I'd rather have more proof.

I'm not a teenager and haven't been for a while; sorry to disappoint if you were looking forward to writing off my opinion based on age.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 4:31 PM


I'm not laughing at cannibalism (I don't see anybody else doing it either), though I do find it amusing that people are so ready to believe something pulled from a tabloid magazine. If it's true, it's horrific, but I tend to view stories such as this, especially from sources such as this, with a healthy dose of skepticism. It also seems as if some of the people posting here WANT this story to be true; I'd rather have more proof.

I'm not a teenager and haven't been for a while; sorry to disappoint if you were looking forward to writing off my opinion based on age.
Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 04:31 PM

You're totally missing the point, Joy. It doesn't matter whether the story is true or not. The thing that is so amazing is that you are disgusted by this idea, are you not? Just the thought of someone eating an unborn child, and seeing it lay there on a chopping block, it literally grossed you out. However, you dont seem to have a problem with the fact that babies like these are having their brains suctioned out every day?
What if you can't see it, it's not as disgusting or what?

You think it'd be any more disrespectful for a person to eat a fetus than it would be to shove that little baby down a garbage disposal or stuff it into a plastic biohazard bag???

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 4:40 PM


ok, been scouring the net, and according to one source, it appears that the video may actually come from this horror flick :

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/48/dumplings.htm

still searching for confirmation though

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 4:58 PM


Yes Bethany,to add to what you said:Several abortionists were putting fetal remains down garbage disposals. Talk about an outrage!!

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 5:04 PM


Look, no one claimed it was absolutely true. Jill even wrote at the top of the page, "This story, IF true...."

Anyone who tries to "prove" it's wrong, is entirely missing the point.

While it's kind of nice to know that it might not be true, it doesn't really make it any better that they're killing babies and throwing them away at that very age all the time. I don't see it as being any more disgusting or any more abominable...each is equally sickening.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:09 PM


I know, momof3...the thought just makes me want to puke! I can't believe that any person, man or woman, can get to the point where they can throw a human (who they just killed) down a drain and let it chop them to bits. It's much worse than a horror flick. It's real life. And it's horrid.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:11 PM


Joy,

One right that criminals don't have is the right to vote.

Therefore, all abortionists and those that support them, i.e., murdereres, should be criminalized and their right to vote taken away.

This would prevent the return to office of the godless liberal types that took God out of schools, allowed Roe v. Wade to become law, and now promote homosexual marriage.

John, love your posts, however, they would be easier to read and understand without the use of so many parentheses. Please don't be insulted. I was told that I use run-on sentences and I do, so now I'm sensitive to that (see). However, as pro-lifers, we must show every degree of modicum excellence and not give any pro-murderers any cause to lift their noses up at us. (You'd think they'd be afraid we'd see their nose hairs and boogera). I will say that you are brilliant, however. So please keep it simple for guys like me and, of course, the pro-deathers. I mean, I've been told by Less or some other pro-deather 20something that my reading comprehension skills needed work too. Thanks.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:23 PM


MomOf3 and Bethany:

You have to realize that pro-deathers are not driven by logic. They are driven by the lust for power. They reject anyone or anything that would tell them how to live including God Himself and it's masked in the facade of women's rights.

So, when they acknowledge the horror of the above video, be it real or not, they really are acknowledging the horror of abortion. What they fail to realize is that in doing so, they remove their masks, and their K-9 fangs show through the sheepskin.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:31 PM


HisMan, I'm glad that the America you envision, one where a person's opinions on a subject (not even their action, no, just their opinions) would prevent them the right to participate in the Democratic process, is one which I do not see most rational people allowing to come into existence. Thank the heavens that most Americans would probably find your proposal, denying the right to vote to those who hold a particular view, pretty much the antithesis of what this country stands for.

I'd like to hear what other people on this blog think. Should people who hold a pro-choice viewpoint be denied the right to vote? What about those who aren't Christian, since HisMan bemoans the removal of prayer from schools? What about gay people? It seems that HisMan would be happy denying rights to anyone who disagrees with him.

I'm reminded of the phrase, "I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend with my life your right to say it." That goes for you too, HisMan. Too bad you can't grant others the same courtesy. Oh well.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 5:35 PM


Joy,

If abortion is murder and abortionts are murderers then they should be treated as such. If the laws of the land include taking the voting rights of murderes, hence abortioinists away, then so be it. Seems to me this would be for the good of society. Just being consistent.

Don't twist my words to your own liberal ends.

Somehow, I just don't believe your statement that you would defend my right to say something. No, abortion is done by cowards, cowards that choose it and cowards that would kill a defenseless child in the womb. Abortion by definition is a colossal act of cowardice, based on fear and not faith in God or anyone else. So, please be consistent.

Abortion is an affront to the creative nature of God, it negates God as Creator.
Abortion denies the power of God to right a wrong, to show forth His glory, it negates God as redeemer.
Abortion makes that which is good, the birth of human life, into that which is evil, the death of human life, and then calls it good, the very definition of blasphemy.
Abortion negates the resurrection power of God as it takes flesh that is alive in it's earthly abode (the womb) and kills it, while God takes that flesh which is dead in it's earthly abode (the grave) and desires to make it alive. Abortion's desire is to take that which was composed from the chaotic array of elemental molecules into a symphony of life infused with an eternal soul, and turn it back to the entropy of randomness, chaos, nothingness, uselessness, decay, death.
Abortion is against all that is hopeful, all that requires faith for success; for it's solution; annihilation, it's goal; death, it's dream; breaking God's heart, it's vision, satan's ultimate power. Abortion is a counterfeit, for the clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in its performance; Abortion disguises hate as love, bondage as freedom, choice as maturity, sin as righteousness, political correctness as wisdom.
Abortion pits men against women, mothers against their children, fathers against God.
Yes, abortion is satan's feeble attempt at killing God himself, for abortion is a metaphor for satan; it is his coat of arms, his family crest, his logo, his brand, it belongs to him......for he laughs at its willing proponents as they craft their own self-destruction, mantled in self-deception.
It did not work at Calvary. It will not work here.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:47 PM


Boy I missed a lot.

Jill - Your second link did not work (I'd have to have a subscription), but the first quote that you posted seems to be using the phrase "human being" to mean what I take to mean "person". That is, I believe, poor word choice. But I will grant that there are likely people out there who say that an embryo/fetus is not human. They are wrong. Of course it's human, what else would it be?

Bethany - no, I don't believe that we should make the eating of the placenta illegal. I think it's gross, although it is probably healthier than eating other forms of human flesh. But I really don't care what other people put in their bodies, as long as they don't infringe on my rights.

His Man - you asked how throwing fetii in the garbage is different? Well, it doesn't involve the consumption of human flesh, which is nasty and in most cases unhealthy. But as I just said to Bethany, I don't care what people put in their bodies, I just happen to think that cannibalism is pretty sick. As for the way that these remains are handled, I personally don't care how we dispose of corpses, as long as it doesn't become a health hazard. I understand that many people gain comfort from the respectful burial of their loved one's remains, and that's fine and beautiful, but it's also not necessary for any reason other than safety of the community and comfort of those that are still alive.

You further stated: "By the way to be human is to possess all the qualities a human being possesses including an immortal soul. So by your own declaration that these "fetii" are human means they are humans in the fullest sense. To say that any human has no rights is absurd. Sorry, you can't have it any other way."

You've skirted my claim rather than addressing it. I claimed that there is a difference between being human and being a person with rights. A corpse is human (what else would it be?) but it is not a person with rights. A baby born without a brain is human, but it's not a person with rights, even if it is kept breathing by artificial means. And since I don't believe in souls, I don't think that the alleged possession of something that doesn't exist could change the status of a fetus.

You also said: "What is correct is that humans who decide that other human don't have rights, i.e., pro-deathers, should have their right taken away like any other common criminal."

I personally believe that if the fetus is a person (which I don't believe it is until a certain point), it would in fact have rights, but even then those rights do not supercede a woman's right to bodily autonomy any more than your rights supercede my rights to bodily autonomy. Even if I was the only person in the world who could give you an organ to save your life, I don't have an obligation to do it. You do not have the right to force me. It would be nice of me, but my right to bodily autonomy supercedes your right to life.

I also find it interesting that you claim that those who support the right to choose should "have their rights taken away like any other common criminal". You obviously aren't a supporter of free speech. Are you claiming that all those people who have never performed or had an abortion should be locked up for excercising a constitutional right?

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 5:47 PM


"This would prevent the return to office of the godless liberal types that took God out of schools, allowed Roe v. Wade to become law, and now promote homosexual marriage."

I really don't like you His Man. I really don't.

It appears to me, that you wouldn't mind it if all "godless liberals" would be put to death wouldn't you? I bet you'd enjoy that, basking in your self-righteousness, thinking about how "wonderful and moral" you are.

To be quite honest, you make me want to vomit and I pray that I never have to meet you or anybody like you in person as I'd have to restrain myself from slugging you across the face.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 5:48 PM


His Man, I am thoroughly offended by much of that statement, and some of your facts are certainly twisted. Liberals didnt take God out of schools, the founders did through a separation of church and state, a school is a state institution, thus no religion. As for lust for power, I dont like being in positions of power, in fact I hate it, if you mean in terms of running an organization or something of that sort. Not to mention, abortion is legal, therefore doctors cannot be arrested for performing them. No one with any view can be arrested due to freedom of speech. What you seem to be describing is a dictatorship or oligarchy.

"godless liberal types"

so much for a godless liberal being told he should become a priest, and its still something my friends dont seem to want to let go (an idea which I scoffed at for your comfort His Man, simply because I think the Churhc has screwed up far too often and too much, and the Bible has been affected by the Church, which doesnt exactly make it completely reliable in my eyes) I view things how I view them, you view them how you do, trying to force your thoughts on me will only succeed in holding on to mine even more and the gradual closure of my mind, which Id rather not see happen.

and His Man, I must say I agree with that reading comprehension comment simply because of the comment you made about the treaty of tripoli in another story, and then proceeded to post the treaty of paris, though thats more a mistake of history than anything else XD

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 5:48 PM


His Man- On the line that Joy was taking, I know that I personally would defend to the death your right to practice your religion freely and express your views, even though they are contrary to my own. I think the ACLU was right to defend the Nazis rights to free speech and protest in Skokie, even though I think Nazis are evil, nasty, horrible (I wish I could use profanity) people. So, consistency is not a problem for me. I'd defend your rights like anyone else's

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 5:53 PM


1. "Therefore, all abortionists and those that support them, i.e., murdereres, should be criminalized and their right to vote taken away."

Key phrase: those that support them. This phrase, to me, suggests that you would be happy with denying voting rights to anyone who holds a pro-choice view. Not twisting your words, just quoting them at face value, Phil.

2. I've never said I'm a liberal. But feel free to assume things about me. It's very telling.

3. "Abortion is done by cowards." Well, I've never done an abortion or procured one for myself, so I assume this statement wasn't directed at me. You're free to think what you want, though. I'm sure nothing I say will change your mind; I've followed your posts on this blog and you're very close-minded and seem quite comfortable just painting every one who doesn't agree with your every word with the same brush.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 5:53 PM


His Man,

Let me get this straight... god can't make torn-up gummy pre-babies into ressurected zombies, because, unlike corpses in the grave, their more dead? or torn-up??

I really don't understand what the hell you're trying to say. Ultimately, it would appear you are suggesting that abortion results in god having to deny the fetus eternal life.

You shouldn't drink so early in the day.

Posted by: Cameron at April 9, 2007 5:58 PM


Diana,

A corpse by definition is dead and still has rights? My God, have you never heard of a will? Try, as an executor of that person's estate, to counter that corpse's rights and you'll see how fast your liberal politicians make a Federal case out of it.

Are you trying to tell me that a perfectly healty baby in the womb can be equated to a baby born without a brain? Tell the parents of that baby wihout a brain. If it was born without a brain (and not because it was sucked out by some coward abortionist) and the brain deformity was due to let's say a drug manaufacturer, that baby's inferred right to life would be expressed in the millions of dollars the parents would win in a tort case.

As usual, and what I find to be very common with pro-deathers, is their absolute willingness to use any sort of twisted logic to justify abortion. It simply is insanity gone wild and if I made a video of it I'd own a private jet! What's also amazing is that anyone listens to any of you.

It must be the water.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:03 PM


I went to the "shockingchinatrade" website...

All I found was a video about dog and cat fur trade.

Who the heck cares about animal rights when abominable acts like this are being committed!?!

Posted by: Ryan at April 9, 2007 6:04 PM


His Man:

I hope you realize, that without liberals, you would not be living in the country that you do. America would not exist as the democracy it is today. Without liberals, you wouldn't have the freedom of speech and freedom to practice the religion that you do.

I'm glad you respect the Founding Fathers as much as you do.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 6:18 PM


Diana, so you are perfectly fine with cannibalism (as you defined it), and you would be totally okay with it if US residents were eating fetuses after they aborted them?


Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:19 PM


Joy, don't be stupid.........

Rae, I'm not sure about letting a coward pro-deather slug me. Let me think about it. Put liberals to death? No, just out of office which for them would be kind of a death sentence. I mean, what else could they do with their lives?

Cameron...not worth a response.

Diana, don't need you to defend my rights, my Air Force pilot son is already doing so.

Dan.....Tripoli, Paris, please don't try to rewrite the truth.

It's a laugh to think that our founding fathers wanted there to be a separation of church and state. No, they wanted the state to be without power with regards to the church and not vice-versa. And we see their wisdom in trying to prevent such as demonstrated by you and all like you who are willing to kill unborn babies and that at the sanction of the state.

All of you prove my point: You can't argue with those who don't want to be confused with he facts.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:25 PM


Without liberals... of cours all babies would be born then, and we could promptly send them to work at the factory/mine as soon as they walking and talking. After loosing fingers and limbs for lack of OSHA laws, we could farm em out to scientific research to the big biotech companies. Of course... since their dismembered now... can god "save" them?

Posted by: Cameron at April 9, 2007 6:26 PM


His Man,

Just one thing I would like to ask. Whenever you refer to doctors that perform abortions, you call them "cowards". Why is this so?

Rae:
"To be quite honest, you make me want to vomit and I pray that I never have to meet you or anybody like you in person as I'd have to restrain myself from slugging you across the face."

You're one-up on His Man, at any rate. I don't think he'd bother to even restrain himself. If someone said something he didn't like, he said he would "kick their ass".

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2007 6:26 PM


His Man -

"A corpse by definition is dead and still has rights? My God, have you never heard of a will? Try, as an executor of that person's estate, to counter that corpse's rights and you'll see how fast your liberal politicians make a Federal case out of it."

You think that the proper execution of an estate has to do with the rights of a corpse? I have to ask what's in your water. I'm not claiming that people's rights aren't respected after they are dead. I was merely demonstrating that being human is not equivalent to being a person with rights.

"Are you trying to tell me that a perfectly healty baby in the womb can be equated to a baby born without a brain? Tell the parents of that baby wihout a brain. If it was born without a brain (and not because it was sucked out by some coward abortionist) and the brain deformity was due to let's say a drug manaufacturer, that baby's inferred right to life would be expressed in the millions of dollars the parents would win in a tort case."

First of all, I never said any such thing. Would I equate a first trimester embryo with a baby born without a brain? Yup. But, as I posted earlier (and you conveniently ignored), I also don't think personhood has anything to do with abortion rights. I believe it has to do with whether or not an abortion is a selfish or mean thing to do. And that tort case would have nothing to do with the baby's right to life, it would have to do with the parent's pain and suffering, medical costs, etc, etc. You wouldn't charge the drug company with murder (because, guess what?! there wasn't a person to be murdered to begin with)

"As usual, and what I find to be very common with pro-deathers, is their absolute willingness to use any sort of twisted logic to justify abortion."

His man, just so you know, I have a masters in philosophy (currently working on my PhD). I teach logic to college students at a well respected university. I'm currently helping to edit my professor's logic textbook, which will be used in schools across the nation. So, if you think my logic is twisted, I seriously suggest that you examine your own. At the very least, go get a graduate education in philosophy, teach a few classes, help edit a book on the subject, and then you can come challenge my logic or use of philosophical argumentation.

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 6:27 PM


"Joy, don't be stupid........."

I guess if you can't debate rationally and with intelligence, personally attacking your opponent is more appropriate. Nicely done, HisMan. Thanks for sharing the love of Christ in such an eloquent way with me.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 6:28 PM


I didnt rewrite the truth, you posted the completely wrong treaty! go look for yourself, your post even says at the top its the treaty of Paris! There is a HUGE difference between the two, the one you posted seemed to be the one that ended the revolutionary war, not the war with the Barbary pirates!

Conservatives today are the liberals of yesterday, simply put, if one were to really think about it.


http://photos-517.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v49/55/96/144300272/n144300272_30177517_712.jpg

very good comic.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:28 PM


HisMan this is a democratic country, which means that liberals are going to be elected if enough people vote for them. I realize that destroys your hope for a return to archaic values to have to admit that the majority of voters selected a liberal, but the whole point of the freedom enjoyed in the US is to have many different viewpoints represented in office. If it were run the way you see fit, we would be a Christian counterpart to the Taliban-run Afghaninstan. My little brother is fighting so that people like you can have your opinion, not so that you can force it onto everyone you come across.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 6:29 PM


"not worth a response."

*takes a bow!

I really don't get your point there though... what the hell are you trying to say with regard to ressurection and abortion???

Posted by: Cameron at April 9, 2007 6:29 PM


HisMan,

I'm sure you're proud of your son, and rightfully so. But if you think military might is the only way to defend one's rights, or even the main way that they need to be defended in the world today, then you are sorely mistaken. Our own government is more likely to take those rights from us than anyone else. They have to be defended from within our society, via our democratic system. And I will defend your rights that way, whether you like it or not.

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 6:30 PM


Dan, HisMan is simply unwilling to admit he made a mistake. I don't think you're going to get anything out of him beyond a "Don't be stupid..." or a similar sentiment. Shame, really.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 6:31 PM


"It's a laugh to think that our founding fathers wanted there to be a separation of church and state. "

Is that so hard to believe considering many of them think God simply abandoned the world after creating it?

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:31 PM


Rae,

I think the comment about His Man's son was a bit much. I don't like His Man much either, but there's no need to bring in his family.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2007 6:32 PM


Stephanie:

I suppose that's true. How do I delete my own comments?

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 6:35 PM


I saw that too Ryan, and just shook my head...

I've kind of just been listening for the last few hours.

Don't really have much to say.

When you hear people say that even if a "thing" is human and even if it is a person you can still kill it because of personal autonomy, and that while cannibalism is "gross" it isn't wrong because nobody has the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body...

well, I've sort of been left speechless.

Think I'll go watch some gay men dressed as nuns sing the Hallelujah Chorus while I sip some placenta tea and eat some french fried fetii. Then I'll snort some coke and put my feet up on a brain dead almost-corpse and maybe call SOMG for some conversation...

Because after this, I'm almost ready to throw in the towel !
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:37 PM


dont think you can, oh the wonders of blog technology

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:38 PM


Bethany,

Sorry, I missed your post. Would I have a problem with it? Yeah, I would think it's absolutely disgusting and unhealthy and would support efforts to inform people that they are exposing themselves to a health risk. Do I think that we should have laws telling people what they can and cannot put in their body? No. Not unless it somehow infringes on my rights or the rights of others.

This can be turned around, though. I don't see why you can claim that it should be legal to eat a placenta, and not legal to eat a severed arm. What's the difference? Both are instances of cannibalism. Or are you just going to fall back on "Well, people have been doing it for a long time, and animals do it"? The tradition argument doesn't get much bite for me... lots of things were tradition for long periods and were wrong. And the fact that animals do it doesn't say much more to me. Lions and Gorillas kill all the babies when they take over a pride or heirem. Doesn't make it right. Preying mantis's kill their mates. Doesn't mean we should do it.

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 6:39 PM


Diana

We have laws in this country that say you can't use recreational drugs (as in putting them in your body). So apparently we can tell people what they can and cannot put into their own bodies.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:49 PM


MK, that is because those substances pose a danger to the person themselves readily causing health issues. The country tries to protect peoplefrom themselves as well as people around them, though by that logic marijuana would be legal, but the government is mum whenever theres a contradiction,so we;ll see where that goes.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:52 PM


MK:

And I whole-heartedly disagree with banning recreational drugs. I say make them legal and tax the living daylights out of them.

If people want to screw with their bodies, I say let them. Afterall, alcohol and cigarettes are both deadly/dangerous and they are legal...why not legalize heroin or crack or pot?

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 6:52 PM


Yep,

Thanks George, Abe, Ike, for being liberal.

And Truman and Roosevelt, thanks for liberally negotitiating with Hitler, Japan and Mussolini. The world is a better place for it. Too bad today's kids are taught that negotiating means surrender, cowardice and capitualtion. Something about a spell checker error on Word, I think? Mr. Gates, you reading this?

And JFK, you do like MM's don't you even if you're not married to 'em. Gotta hand it to you John, I think even you would disagree with most of today's liberals. You should have been given more time.

And Ted, you whiskey sucking rascal, been over any bridges lately?

I met Bobby and I liked him. OK, one, just one for the libs. I don't think he could have even spelled abortion let alone make it legal. How many kids did he have?

LBJ, where have all the Cambodians gone...is that an S&G tune? PIP, where are you when I need you? LBJ, heard any tunes lately like, "Strawberry fields for....I mean....Killing fields forever, hmmmmm?"

Carter, you give the definition of cowardice new meaning. Palestians and apartheid? How's your 14 member board doing, heard they all resigned? Did they take your AMEX card away yet? The Billy beer is sour by now and you should have known better that sucking it down will cause brain damage.

Bill, sorry you have to deal with the It or is it is it is is? Can you spell P-E-R-J-U-R-Y? I can see how her becoming President would be her ultimate revenge. I mean, she might leave a legacy, and not a stain on a dress. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! How's that law practice going or was that a bribe mill?

Gore, I almost bought into your BS. I think you should have stayed in seminary and studied Gensis a little bit more, you know the part about dominion.

And Pelosi, you give new meaning to the word treason.

Don't ever, ever tell me that my freedon is due to anything a liberal ever did for me, ever. No, my freedom comes from real men, God-fearing men.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:56 PM


Rae and Diana,

At the risk of inciting a riot, and I don't mean to come across as nasty, I am sincerely asking you guys...Is there anything, anything at all, that you would consider flat out, absolutely, postively, inherently, unquestionably and completely morally wrong?

Not wrong because it would infringe on your rights or well-being, but wrong simply because it is wrong?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 6:57 PM


Rae,

I agree. At least it will take drug dealing out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of the government where it can be regulated.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2007 6:58 PM


Rape, pedophilia, physical/emotional/psychological/verbal/sexual abuse, murder (note, this does not apply to abortion for me as I don't see it as murder), robbery, racism, sexism, homophobia.

This what I think is wrong.


Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 7:02 PM


MK, here is a list of things I find morally wrong:

1) Stealing something that isn't yours.
2) Going up to someone and punching them in the face because you didn't like what they said.
3) Murdering people
4) A 40 year old man raping a 10 year old child (just picking ages at random here).
5) Abuse of any kind.
6) Racism

The list goes on and on.

Posted by: Stephanie at April 9, 2007 7:10 PM


Joy,

I don't debate, I don't cave, I don't negotiate with murderers.

That's what pro-deathers and abortionists are...murderers.

Been to any prisons lately sharing the love of Christ with I guess what you would define as real murderers?

With regards to intelligence, don't be stupid means, don't ever use my name again. That's for me to decide when to disclose. So I'll warn you again, don't be stupid.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:11 PM


Funny MK-Funny! Sorry,but you can take the word legal and twist it and turn it anyway you want to.It still is, and always will be murder. Remember the one about the pig in the suit?

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 7:12 PM


His man is really going to town today. "real men," and "god fearing men" and "godless liberal types," etc:

It's hard to take him seriously. So I won't. I also won't attack him, cause he's so tough and has God on his side.

"And Pelosi, you give new meaning to the word treason."

So, it turns out today that Pelosi told Bush she was going to Syria, and he had no ojection, and that Bush State Department officials were at every meeting in Syria. It's all damage control because Pelosi looks good and Bush looks bad.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2007 7:14 PM


Rae, I deleted your post, per your request.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:16 PM


Thank you Jill. I do recognize I went a bit too far with that comment. I allowed my temper to get the better of me.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 7:16 PM


Hal,it really isn't hard to take him seriously. It's hard to take you seriously.Do you think you have God on your side?

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 7:19 PM


Rae, believe me, I know that happens.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:22 PM


"I don't debate, I don't cave, I don't negotiate with murderers."

And I don't debate with arrogant, self-righteous, CONSERVATIVE women-killers.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 7:23 PM


Stephanie:

I agree with your post on the list of things that are morally wrong. How could any sane person not?

But with regards to your "David Letterman Top-Six-Things-That-Are-Morally-Wrong-List", No 1. stands out in which you said: "1) Stealing something that isn't yours."

Thank you so much for that Stephanie. Let me begin:

What makes anyone think that an unborn baby in the womb belongs to anyone but God himself? And if abortion isn't the poster child for what the ultimate thief would do, I don't know what is.

And assuming you don't believe in God, let's base your argument in humanistic thinking then...

Since it took a sperm and an egg to make the zygote gote, I would assume that at least half the baby belonged to the you got it...sperm donor. Anyone know a guy named Solomon? If I remember correctly there was these two women. One wanted......

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:24 PM


His Man, Abe Lincoln today would be considered a social moderate, not a republican, sorry.

As for Bush, keep him, the only good thing he did was keep the country together after 9/11, other than that, nada.

Negotiation in world war 2? are you kidding? the terms were, and Im quoting, "unconditional surrender", which was achieved, the Allies as whole then decided what happened to the Axis.

as for the kennedy's, plenty of liberals dont like them overall, they are that group where people love them or hate 'em, and there are plenty on both sides.

yeah, johnson was horrible, he only managed to get the civil rights act passed despite resistance, not to mention help public education, age a "war on poverty", added a medicare ammendment to the social security act.

dont know much about scandals with carter, but he did help create the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He signed the camp david accords, the Panama canal treaties, and helped limit arms. He also tried to advance human rights, hmmmm


Bill was horrible too, sure adulturey, ok, not too moral a guy, but at least he made companies paid time off to workers who got pregnant or who were seriously injured, then there was the free trade agreement with mexico and canada,

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:24 PM


Momof3, I don't think I have God on my side. I don't think you have God on your side. I don't think there is a God. If there was, I think he (or she) would have little trouble stopping abortion, if he were really that offended by it.

So, 1) there is no God, or 2) God doesn't mind abortion, or 3)God doesn't like abortion but isn't powerful enough to stop it or 4) --and perhaps the worst--God doesn't like abortion and is powerful enough to stop it but lets it go on and mysterious reasons we'll understand someday after we die.

Posted by: Hal at April 9, 2007 7:25 PM


not to mention a surplus

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:25 PM


Okay...so God is the same God who created the flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and yet abortion is such an abomination to Him and He has failed to stop its occurrence? If God is all-powerful, omnipotent, and omniscient, then He is certainly capable of smiting sinners. Most assuredly, He would never allow a person to be aborted who was crucial to His master plan.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 7:28 PM


4) A 40 year old man raping a 10 year old child (just picking ages at random here).

What about a 40 year old man having consensual sex with a 10 year old?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:29 PM


Momof3, can you prove that you have God on yours?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:29 PM


MK, children cannot consent to sex, they do not understand what sex realy is and psychologically/socially damages the child.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:34 PM


Bush says he has God on his side because God told him so.

"When you talk to God, you are religious. But when God talks to you, you're psychotic."
-Dr. Gregory House, "House, MD"

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 7:34 PM


Jill,

Wow, Rae is really angry. You had to delete his post or is he a her? Doesn't take too much to get their real natures to show does it? I mean the other day he was asking me what denomination I belonged to. Maybe he is or knows SOMG? I knew it was a set up.

Guess I should put on the nice blue-eyed, blond Jesus and take off the carpenter, rough hand, crucifixion/beating taking manly Jesus? Joy would like that. Give me a call Joy, you obviously know who I am and I'd like to have a talk with you.

I mean Rae really scares me, Jill. I think I'll cave now. You know, like the Supreme Court did back in 1973.

And Rae, seems to me that the only women killers on this blog are pro-abortion murderers. Difference is they aren't conservatively killing women but very liberally killing women and...a lot of men too. I see the logic though, killing more men, less of 'em to kill women. Makes sense....to a liberal.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:38 PM


Samantha,

Okay...so God is the same God who created the flood and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and yet abortion is such an abomination to Him and He has failed to stop its occurrence? If God is all-powerful, omnipotent, and omniscient, then He is certainly capable of smiting sinners. Most assuredly, He would never allow a person to be aborted who was crucial to His master plan.

God never interferes with free will...
And remember, God is not limited by time.

At the time He created the babies who are going to be aborted He was also watching them be aborted, and He was also creating the mothers who were going to abort them at the same time He was listening to this discussion on this website...

It's all happening at the same time...

Bishop Fulton Sheen (Don't you just love this guy?) says that if God doesn't do something soon, he's going to have a lot of apologizing to do to Sodom and Gomorrah...

So, you see, it's only a matter of time. Remember Divine Mercy. God the Father's hand is being held back by the pleas and supplications of Our Lady and Our Lord...but they say they can only stay His hand for so long.

They plead for more time so that each and every soul has a chance to convert and "squeak" through.
Once His justice begins, there is no turning back.

It is said that just before His Justice begins, there will be a warning which takes place in the form of every soul on earth seeing Himself the way God sees him. After that it's 'sorry Charlie, but you were warned over and over and over".

This is the point of all the apparitions. To get us to see the errors that we are making and change while there is still time.

If not for the millions of rosaries, masses, prayers and sacrifices made each day for the aborted, the mothers who abort and all the other grave sin, Justice would already have begun.

We get NOTHING out of making these sacrifices, saying these rosaries and offering these masses except the knowledge that one more soul might not have to suffer the torments of hell.

We don't get a commission. We don't get brownie points.


When I pray for you and all my other "girls", it is not for my benefit. I get nothing. Just the hope, that all of you, will come home. I would love to see each of you walk up to me at the end and say "I made it". That's all. No Oscar. No medal of honor. Just the joy of knowing that one more soul is free.

I know you all think that HisMan is a joke, but he's not. His form may not be to your liking, but believe it or not, he is doing the same thing, for the same reasons, and he will never be rewarded for his efforts. Unless, one of you hears him, and he knows you are safe.

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:44 PM


His Man, she wanted it to be deleted, she posted something in anger. she realized her mistake and requested the deletion. She at least has the guts to come out and say she screwed up.

"I think I'll cave now. You know, like the Supreme Court did back in 1973."

You mean like the majority of states who had already liberalized abortion laws before Roe v Wade?

and His Man, dont know where you see any killers, none of us here have killed anyone, guess thats coming out of thin air trying to annoy us.

My turn: http://photos-517.ak.facebook.com/ip002/v49/55/96/144300272/n144300272_30177517_712.jpg

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:45 PM


Hi His Man,

even though many folks here take shots at you, you've got a superb mind .... I'm loving your posts!

Diana, your still on that autonomy-bit, eh? Let's go over this one more time: a woman has bought a midway ticket (has sex - protected/unprotected) walks over to the fellow at the ride and hands in her ticket (finds out typically in 5-6 weeks AFTER sex that she is pregnant & has been pregnant with a leech for that long already) ... next she gets on the ride and it begins to spin fast - too fast! So, wishes to stop (have an abortion) ... she could jump, but this would likely kill her or seriously injure herself. OPTION: Do not give in to panic! Wait until the ride ends and safety harness unbuckled (birth - responsibility).

Isn't there a significant time between her getting pregnant and finding out she is pregnant? Based on this confirmation of pregnancy do her emotions work overtime. Is abortion a response to a panic attack and not to a need for autonomy?
Won't she still be a mom - just of her dead baby/child?
And that word is the proper one for the human species. The term 'fetus' is only time-specific, not species-specific.

Dan, you are gifted with a logical brain. The US Constitution is not based on any religion but it strongly leans on the underpinnings of Western (Christian) philosophy ... an extremely old, and much-worked on ethic. Begun by pre-Christian Plato and Aristotle; expanded by Thomas Aquinas ... and worked on for centuries before this constitution was even thought off .... it is not a one-shot deal! This separation of church and state is the separation of religion from state ... not philosophy from state. I think you mix Christian-philosophy and Christian-religion. These are NOT the same, at all.
The East does have many religions, but there is not one that has anything near the philosophic background that the West enjoys.
As just one very small corner of this ... Aquinas proposed 6 proofs of God's existence. This is not religion but philosophy. Looking around he said that all things are classified either as animate(living) or non-animate. Since only animate beings move, how does non-animate beings move. He called God - the Prime-Mover.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:45 PM


Dan,

MK, children cannot consent to sex, they do not understand what sex realy is and psychologically/socially damages the child.

Why?

At what point does a "child" become able to determine what is "right" for him?

Who are you to say that a 10 year old doesn't know what he wants?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:46 PM


Don't use your name? Does this mean I can request that you not use mine?

And you don't debate because you can't. You can only name-call, belittle, and harangue, all while claiming the love of Christ is in your heart. Funny. I don't see it in your words, but I suppose the self-righteous will always blame the recipient of the message, not themselves.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 7:46 PM


"Wow, Rae is really angry. You had to delete his post or is he a her? Doesn't take too much to get their real natures to show does it? I mean the other day he was asking me what denomination I belonged to. Maybe he is or knows SOMG? I knew it was a set up."

Actually, I asked her to delete my post as I made a pot-shot at you and it was pointed out to me that it was a low blow, to which I agreed and then asked Jill to delete it for me.

And with all the "liberal" name-calling crap, grow up. You're supposed to be a grown-man yet you seem to LOVE using name-calling to get your point across.

I was only asking you which denomination you were out of mere curiousity, no need to get your undies in a bundle. As much as religion irks me, I do have an interest in learning about them.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 7:48 PM


MK, children cannot consent to sex, they do not understand what sex realy is and psychologically/socially damages the child.

And now that I think of it, what exactly is it about sex that they don't understand that you do understand?

And what are these social and psychological damages that will be done. If the child feels loved and the 40 year really cares about him, where's the harm?

MK

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:48 PM


MK, let me answer your question with a question. Why is the voting age at 18? how is it determined that only at that point children are responsible and educated on their opinions?

John,

Principles =/= religion. If something is entirely based on religion, it has no merit in a court of law, and thus no legal standing. Abortion does not fall under murder for the simple fact that it legally does not fall under that category. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, yet the law allows for killing in self defense or in war (within combat). The basis on Christian principles really would essentially mean nothing to this country in terms of law. If it has christian principles behind it, great, but it cannot be legalized simply because of that reason, there must be secular reasoning/evidence behind it as well.

And I must say I am interested in religions as a whole (taking a semester course on world religions next year, woo hoo!). I find all the philosophies fascinating, there are historians out there who do argue the opposite you do John, it all comes down to preference and belief system.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:52 PM


"Guess I should put on the nice blue-eyed, blond Jesus and take off the carpenter, rough hand, crucifixion/beating taking manly Jesus? Joy would like that. Give me a call Joy, you obviously know who I am and I'd like to have a talk with you."

This doesn't make the least bit of sense. What about this situation would I like? And how do I know your phone number? I'm perfectly content discussing matters with you here... Oh that's right. You don't discuss things with liberal, godless murderers or whatever it is you're planning on calling me next (all untrue and way off base, but you're free to assume all you want - it only makes one of us look foolish...).

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 7:53 PM


FYI "Ray" is a man's name (traditionally). "Rae" is always female.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 7:55 PM


MK, ever asked a ten year old what an STD is? Sure, they might mindlessly repeat that you get it having sex, but they can't comprehend what life altering affects having herpes can have, or how it feels to be made infertile by HPV. That's not something you're going to know until you've got maturity and knowledge: while I accept that every case is different, no ten year old is going to understand fully.

It's like fully indoctrinating a child into a religion. No ten year old is going to fully understand all the dogma of any given religion.It would be like having a ten year old go through confirmation.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:56 PM


How did pedophilia come up? Jeez. 1.) a 40 year old having sex is against the law 2.) have you ever talked to someone who had sex at that age with an older person? Even just say 19? They normally aren't too pleased that it happened 3.) a pedophile cannot have a real relationship with a child. Why? Because soon that child will out grow their tastes.

Having to make pedophilia legal if gay marriage becomes legal always seems to come up as an argument (that and people being allowed to marry their pets). But they are children for a reason. Many children are desperate for love at that age and would *believe* that the older man really loves them (when in truth it's attraction).

What do children not understand about sex? Your joking right? Ten year olds know the same things about sex as a 40 year old? Really, MK? Have you ever taken a psychology course? Because this is nonsense.

You think that we're the ones with twisted minds? Just look at the stuff that pro-life/conservatives come up with to try and make something look wrong and then think of who has the twisted minds.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 7:57 PM


"And now that I think of it, what exactly is it about sex that they don't understand that you do understand?"

MK, at 10, kids rarely, if any understand anything about sex, what a penis does or is in sex, the role of the vagina, STDs, etc. I probably know far less than you know about it, and i freely admit that, but simply put they know next to nothing about sex.

"And what are these social and psychological damages that will be done. If the child feels loved and the 40 year really cares about him, where's the harm?"

social/psycological harm - confusion of the authority aduilts have, leads to child abuse. Unable to understand what correct social interaction would be between two people if they are friends, not knowing that sex isnt a common occurence, unable to tell the difference between a healthy/unhealthy sexual relationship, etc

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 7:57 PM


Edit:

1.) a 40 year old having sex with a child is against the law

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 7:59 PM


Dan--on the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing, God gave those commandments to Moses. Then not forty years later, He told Joshua to kill the people who were living in the promised land. Not to try to convert them, but to slaughter everything that was living (that included pregnant women and their unborn children). So I would have to extrapolate that as long as we liberals are "godless" it would be okay for us to kill as well as be killed by the Christians in the name of the divinity.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 8:01 PM


Dan:

Please take a literature class. Also, look up the word chronology. I tried to list all those guys in order so as to not let anyone be confused. I mean wasn't George the 1st Prez? Any revisionist opines on that libs?

And you thought I was referring to W? No silly boy. Remember that guy who had an aversion to telling lies...you know...George W........... Washington not Bush my friend. Or did Bush cross the Delaware too?

You didn't get the negotiating joke? Sorry, I'll tone down the IQ rating on my posts. (I do admit it was sarcastic).

And for the record I was responding to a post that made the claim that liberals made me free. No, liberals don't make people free, only people with values and Godly principles can do that. However, I'll agree with you that they are experts at coerced social change, when of course, it's convenient and doing so keeps them in power.

By the way. Johnson instituted the 501(c)3 tax provision that has given liberals more power over the church than any war, coercion, imprisonment, etc., could have ever done. Now that was a stroke of liberal genius.

For it alone has silenced the church and the voices that would have stood against the murder of the unborn, taking God out of school and now the homosexual agenda.

Hey church, your slip is showing.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:03 PM


"on the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing, God gave those commandments to Moses. Then not forty years later, He told Joshua to kill the people who were living in the promised land. Not to try to convert them, but to slaughter everything that was living (that included pregnant women and their unborn children)."

Uhhh...wow. Loving God though. Riiight. Things like this is why I don't understand how anyone can take the Bible seriously. Do they really not see the flaws?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:03 PM


Samantha, I know, lol. I got through most of the old testament before giving up and skipping to the new, which was far more fascinating :)

I was surprised the most violent half was so incredibly dull >

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:03 PM


"homosexual agenda"??

What? To live, be happy, and marry the one that they love? You have an issue with that?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:06 PM


HisMan,

And you claim to not be homophobic? HA! Going around saying that homosexuals have an agenda. You make me giggle. Go back to your cave, ogre.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:07 PM


His Man, I know the word chronology, I automatically assumed the worst of you, as you seem to do for us and Ill fully admit my mistake, though you seem completely unwilling to admit any of yours.

Washington rarely attended church, he wasnt exactly "god fearing". Didnt really like church at all actually, wasnt a big fan. As for never telling a lie, Im sure your aware that that is complete and utter urban myth at its best, kinda like the cherry tree.

Sorry, i missed the sarcasm, once again I returned the favor of assuming the worst. You seem to be the only one calling me stupid here His Man, maybe you should take a look at yourself before insulting everyone else.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:08 PM


Dan,

I never understood why people need to be God FEARing. I mean, He's an all love God so why fear him?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:10 PM


and His Man, that is called keeping a separation between church and state.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:10 PM


He is feared because He can condemn you or save you, that simple. His love should be what saves you, and that love should be returned more than fearing Him quite simply. Fear of Him would alienate Him far too much to the point where He may suspect that your love comes from that fear, which I would think is a big no no

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:13 PM


Joy, sorry, you used my first name in a blog post. You use your name Joy as your handle, right? I mean it's at the end of every one of your posts, no? That's why I called you Joy. Aren't you Joy? Maybe you're SOMG? Do you want me to instead call you Malehatinginsolentrebelionlovinggodlesspro-deathclosetmurderercoward instead? I know, that's a lot different than Joy, a lot different. Sorry, just guessing.

Ok my first name is Phil. You used that and how would you have known that unless you knew who I was? I haven't ever disclosed that so I'm not sure what's going on here.

Assumed you knew who it was because my skills at debate have an audience. Just thought you may have been a turncoat type.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:16 PM


All, can we get back to discussing Life issues? I don't generally curtail how comments evolve, but I don't like all this God-bashing. Thanks.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:17 PM


"I don't generally curtail how comments evolve"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I guess you just delete comments.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:20 PM


I seem to remember a simple question being repeatedly deleted a while back. Something about Muslims and abortion, I believe it was.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 8:23 PM


Jill, it isnt so much God bashing, I would be saying something about it too if it were that bad, it is more breaking down His Man's posts and saying how they dont make sense, are needlessly insulting, or just plain wrong.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:24 PM


Um... it's at the end of every one of your posts, HisMan. I'm not clairvoyent or anything. It's right there. I assumed since you have it in your typekey signature, it was no secret.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 8:24 PM


Danielle, as I've explained numerous times, I delete posts that contain swear words - most of which you have authored, incidentally - posts that defame God, which some of these are doing, and the worst of the worst, as far as viciousness goes. And no, to preempt your next comment, I don't consider His Man's vicious, as I've also mentioned before.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:24 PM


I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that at least two of the people who claimed they were "Christians" or said they had an extreme faith in God, would be expressing their obvious hatred for God and the Bible (and so strongly!) on this topic. It does make me a little sad though.

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:25 PM


I personally am not trying to bash God...I am just pointing out how it is a little inconsistent to use the phrase "thou shalt not kill" as Biblical support for the pro-life stance. Sorry if it was offensive...

MK, new saint?

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 8:26 PM


Bethany, to whom are you referring?

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:27 PM


"I don't consider His Man's vicious, as I've also mentioned before."

Of course you don't. You're just as twisted as he is.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 8:27 PM


Dan,

nable to understand what correct social interaction

What is correct social interaction?

Why couldn't the 40 year old teach the child about sex?
Danielle,

1.) a 40 year old having sex with a child is against the law

I didn't ask what was legal, I asked what Rae and Diana thought would be unequivocally immoral.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:28 PM


Rae, yes, I am, thank you, although not as equipped.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:28 PM


"I don't consider His Man's vicious, as I've also mentioned before."

Uh, so insulting us and our beliefs is okay, but we can't insult him and his beliefs? I see.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:29 PM


Dan,

MK, let me answer your question with a question. Why is the voting age at 18? how is it determined that only at that point children are responsible and educated on their opinions?

Sorry, no can do. Answer my question. Who are you to say that you know better than a 10 year old what is best for him. If a 40 year old adult is willing to walk him through the steps, love him, protect and be there for him, and the 10 year wants this, then why is it wrong?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:30 PM


MK, that is where you get into psychology, sociology, etc. neither of which I have studied( I wanted to, but it didnt fit into my schedule for next year)

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:30 PM


ok MK, then who are you to say what is right for the woman to go through with the pregnancy? Its all the same.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:31 PM


So we can't call him homophobic, but he's certainly allowed to call us Godless liberals? You're allowed to say that I worship a god of sex and HisMan is allowed to say that I'm going to hell, but the moment we "bash God" we're in the wrong? Hm.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:32 PM


Less,

It's like fully indoctrinating a child into a religion. No ten year old is going to fully understand all the dogma of any given religion.It would be like having a ten year old go through confirmation.

How do you know what a 10 year old is capable of understanding? Perhaps you don't think he is a person yet? Capable of thought? Why not? He's taken his first breath hasn't he? He's not brain damaged, right? So why can't he do what feels good to him? I just don't get it?

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:33 PM


I'm sorry you guys (not in the mood to name names), I thought you really had it in you to actually give a crap about something besides yourselves, and I kept hoping that you actually were decent people, and you just have to keep proving that you really don't care, you just don't, and all your nicey-nice and very carefully chosen words are all lies. When push comes to shove you show your true colors. You say you love God, but if you loved God would you really say the things you do? Especially the things you say ABOUT God? And would you really support killing what God gives freely and calls a blessing?

I'm very discouraged. :-(

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:33 PM


MK,

So you knew all about the world when you were ten? You the same person then as you are now? You haven't grown or matured at all?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:34 PM


"You say you love God, but if you loved God would you really say the things you do? Especially the things you say ABOUT God?"

Yes, I would, and if it is something I must repent for, so be it, and if it is something I feel I shouldnt apologize for, then Ill probably end up in hell, and ive already submitted my prediction on that matter and whatnot. As for about God, I say nothing bad about Him, sure I wonder why He does nothing about stuff just as often as the next person, but other than that, maybe the occasional anger at how my life is going. I dont believe I've said anything to defame God.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:37 PM


To all,

I'm tired. Sorry, don't have the energy of a 20something any more. Plus, I've got of ton of work to do. Been nice jousting with you.

Really, I would be the least person to say I am perfect in any way. I've done drugs, had illicit sex, gotten drunk too many times to mention, lied numerous times, still swear, etc., etc., etc. I even admit that in 1975, when I found out that my girlfriend missed her period that the first thing that I thought of telling her was to get an abortion. Now, that was back in 1975, 32 years ago, and then Christ mercifully found me.

Difference is, I didn't stay there, where a lot of you reside right now. And none of you have to either. Please, as sarastic as I have been, and that's not good either, God does exist, He loves us, He wants us to love each other, however, none of us could stand before Him without Jesus Christ. He is the very definiton of life and as much as I know he would have compassion on any woman who was pregnant that didn't want to be, He would give her a way to do the right thing. Might not be overnight, might take years, but 32 years later they would be able to look back and smile and not be full of regret. I want that for all of you. If it takes calling abortion what it is and telling the truth without compormise, then that's what I'll do.

You've got to understand. Abortion is murder. A lot of effort is spent trying to redefine that fact. All in vain. It's very hard for someone who loves God as much as I try to and see so much just plain bad stuff going on to sit back and say nothing. I wouldn't be a man if I let that happen. What would I say to my beloved Savior? I was afraid, I didn't care? I didn't say what you gave me to speak? No, I couldn't look into His eyes and say that, it would be too painful.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:38 PM


MK, that is where you get into psychology, sociology, etc. neither of which I have studied( I wanted to, but it didnt fit into my schedule for next year)

But Dan,
you're the one that said he would be socially and psychologically harmed.

I'm just asking you to clarify.

And you still have told me why it would be wrong.

You've asked me a question, then you turned the situation around on me, but you have still not told me why it would be wrong...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:39 PM


"You say you love God, but if you loved God would you really say the things you do?"

Would HisMan? I guess it's all well and good to point fingers, but when they start pointing back, then it's suddenly inappropriate. I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to love God so fervently would say the things HisMan does. I guess HisMan's God is just a different God; a God of insults and attacks.

I find it hard to believe Jesus would go around calling people stupid, godless, babykilling, indecent loose women. All things I've heard HisMan say to posters on this blog.

Maybe I just learned of a different Jesus.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 8:40 PM


Obviously this should read: And you still have not told me why this would be wrong.

not: And you still have told me why it would be wrong.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:40 PM


Mk, I know what a ten year old is capable of understanding because I've been through basic psychology classes. It isn't until twelve or so that the brain is mature enough to understand the implications of sexual activity. Furthermore, such activites between a child and an adult can permanently distort the child's view of authority, sexuality, and adulthood.

Bethany: I don't understand how HisMan can claim to be loving and call us stupid Godless liberals in the same breath, so I guess we're even.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:40 PM


"I've done drugs, had illicit sex, gotten drunk too many times to mention"

Seems that a lot of Christians are running from a bad past.

As an atheist, I've never done drugs, never drank anything alcohol (except for a sip of wine on New Year's that I sip out everywhere. Blargh, nasty stuff), and I've only had sex with one person (as well as only kissed on person. I've only had one boyfriend). But atheists are evil and corrupt people.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:42 PM


MK, I posted numerous effects that I have picked up from various areas. It is understood that children at that point havent even begun the process of sexual maturity, so there is no way they can yet grasp the idea of sex.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:42 PM


HisMan, it's nice to see a little humility from you for once. I can't imagine it will be long-lived, but it's refreshing. And hopeful.

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 8:43 PM


MK,

You never answered my questions?

"So you knew all about the world when you were ten? You the same person then as you are now? You haven't grown or matured at all?
Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 08:34 PM"

If you answer no, then even without getting into sociology/psychology, you've answered your own question.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:44 PM


His Man,I absolutely love reading your posts!I am here to learn myself,and I used to consider myself pro-choice.I am now ashamed to admit this.I had to educate myself on what abortion really was,and what the abortion industry was all about.Luckily,it didn't take me long.

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 8:45 PM


Less,

And you still have told me why it would be wrong.

distort them how. A man loves a boy. A boy loves a man. The boy grows up believing that men and boys can love each other. Is that so wrong?

Why can't this man be the one that takes him into adulthood and teach him about std's and sexuality? What is it about sexuality that this child won't learn?

What is the big mystery? Explain this sexuality as you see it...Tell me what this boy is going to grow up and believe that would be so harmful.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:47 PM


MK,

What you just explained above is what they did in ancient Greece. Older men taught the younger boys about sexuality. But in today's society that wouldn't flow.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 8:49 PM


Bethany, I think there is a difference in insulting God and stating what is plainly present. I dont think He condones ignorance, but I also dont believe that the rules He gave the Israelites under Moses are necessarily in totality the same rules He would give Americans today.

Posted by: SamanthaT at April 9, 2007 8:49 PM


Wow, mom o' 3, we aren't so different. I used to consider myself Pro-Life. Hell, I was a rising star in the youth Pro-Life movement. I wrote essays and went to Pro-Life day in my diocese...

I am now ashamed to admit this, I had to educate myself on what the Pro-Life movement really was, and what it was all about. Didn't take me long, either.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 8:49 PM


Danielle,

"So you knew all about the world when you were ten? You the same person then as you are now? You haven't grown or matured at all?

So let me see if I understand what you're saying...

If you learn something at one age, experience and maturity might lead you to believe that what you learned was wrong? And you would have to change what you believe because now that you are older you realize that people might have mislead you?

Is that right?
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:50 PM


Joy, to speak the truth is to have humility.

So, whether I'm calling abortion murder or an abortionist a muderer or, admitting the truth about myself, or calling people what they are based on their own statements, they are....all acts of humility.

However, never confuse being able to do either as a sign of weakness or capitualtion. I will never compromise and I will die to end abortion if I have to.

Besides, the blog started this morning about some Chinese who do heinouse things with unborn children.

It's not surprising that the posts merge or digress into a discussion about God because you see, it is all about Him anyway.

So, having said that,

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:53 PM


MK - I agree with several others here who said that they do not think there should be laws banning recreational drugs. Just because the government does do something doesn't mean that it should.

As for whether or not I find things morally wrong, well, of course I do. Murder, abuse of another person, theft, bigotry, tyranny, the list goes on. Don't think that just because you and I have different views on how free individuals ought to be that I have no morals.

John - Yes I'm on the autonomy bit. And I won't get off it, since that is what this is all about. I responded to your ride analogy the last time you posted it. It's not clear to me how the case is analogous. Where is the violation of bodily autonomy? If you're claiming that the violation of her bodily autonomy is in that she cannot throw herself off the ride, well, I think that she can. It may be silly; it may be stupid, but it's her body and she has the right to do what she wants with it.

Posted by: Diana at April 9, 2007 8:53 PM


Danielle,

MK,

What you just explained above is what they did in ancient Greece. Older men taught the younger boys about sexuality. But in today's society that wouldn't flow.

Maybe not in 2007, but possibly in 2015?

Things change. What was once considered morally wrong can suddenly be considered morally right.

I mean, just look at 1930. In 1930 people would never have believed that abortion would be morally acceptable.

In 1972 it was morally unacceptable. But, *poof*, just like that, in a matter of one year, what was morally reprehensible was suddenly in vogue.

Go figure.

Who's to say that in 2007 sex between men and boys is thought to wrong but in 2008 and it will be perfectly fine.

Hey Dan,

Cat got your tongue?
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:54 PM


Diana,

MK - I agree with several others here who said that they do not think there should be laws banning recreational drugs. Just because the government does do something doesn't mean that it should.

You mean like, oh say, maybe...making abortion legal?
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:55 PM


MK, I believe Ive answered to the best of my ability at this point in time, but the wheels are working, well at least partially.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:55 PM


MK, abortion has been legal in the U.S. for far longer than one would think.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 8:58 PM


It was legal throughout the majority of the 1800's, to be exact.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 8:59 PM


So Lando what happened to you??

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 8:59 PM


Dan,

Try a little oil.

Or logic.

You see, you answered to the best of your ability, because you have no logical concrete answer.

That's because you still have some functioning conscience left.

Morality is written on the heart of every man, and you can "feel" that it is wrong. If you use logic, suddenly it doesn't appear to be wrong. But in your heart of hearts, you know it is.

This is the same with abortion. When you analyze it, it becomes sterile and you can use all kinds of phrases and words to make it appear to be perfectly acceptable.

But if you listen with your heart, where it is written sans logic, then you understand. It is wrong, because it is wrong.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:00 PM


I guess we operate on different definitions of humility. Calling people stupid and constantly berating others while putting on airs of self-importance, and judging people for mistakes you yourself now admit you've made... that's pretty much the opposite of being humble.

But like I said, different definitions, I guess...

Posted by: Joy at April 9, 2007 9:03 PM


MK, I would most likely (I say that as no one ever knows what will happen in any given situation) not want a gf/wife get an abortion, though it his her choice, shes the one risking her life, not me. That is why I have few qualms with abortion, they are risking their own life to give birth, not me. It takes a lot for someone to risk their life for another, and sometimes it simply just wont work or people are unwilling to do so.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:04 PM


Dan,

It may have been legal, but people still thought it was wrong. There weren't a million and a half abortions in 1800.

There are today because it was made socially acceptable.

And it was made socially acceptable because of Roe vs Wade.

People would have scoffed at you in 1950 if you told them that in 30 years Americans would be aborting their children at the rate of 4,000 a day.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:04 PM


If abortion has always been legal, and always will be legal, then what are you guys so worried about? All I am saying is that just because it's legal doesn't make it morally right!!

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:06 PM


MK, only because of restrictive laws, only reason, or they went unreported, wasnt difficult to get one illegally then I would imagine, but rates certainly climbed up until the point that roe v wade overturned most restrictive laws.

In 150s, there was a stigma attached to it, but the stigma was beginning to decrease at that point, abortion rates went up leading to the 70s. People simply would not mention it. It is like pre marital sex. It is frowned uon by most of scoiety and has a social stigma against it, people just dont always publicly discuss it.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:08 PM


"So Lando what happened to you?"

Well, mom o' 3, I started to get interested in law and the constitution. I also began to notice that the Pro-Lifers around me simply railed about how evil abortion was, but never gave me a good answer as to why anyone would ever have one.

Therefore, I took it upon myself to find out what reasons women had for having abortions. As Fate would have it, a person I am very close to was raped and impregnated, and I was forced to see why such choices must be made. What I found led me to conclude that, as a decent band once said, "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes, 'cause then you really might know what it's like to have to choose."

In addition, my switch to Pro-Choice ideology coincided with my falling out with Catholicism. From the earliest times I can remember, everything about theology struck me as insufficient. I still believe personal religious beliefs are fine, but because Pro-Life arguments are almost exclusively based on religious concepts, the question of legality really does not come into play, and religious groups can condemn the practice if they choose, but that should have no bearing on government.

After looking at the Constitution and reading relevant cases and legal ideas, I decided that women's rights to have abortions fall in line with the 13th and 14th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude, and that the 9th, tenth, and the principles of the Bill of Rights hold that women must have sovereignty over their bodies.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:09 PM


So why is it that so many Christians have skeletons in the closet about drugs, lots of sex, and partying it up with alcohol?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 9:10 PM


Dan or Lando,with 4000 abortions performed every day in the US,are you telling me that these abortions are being performed on women whose lives are endangered by pregnancy...or could it be something else?

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:10 PM


Dan,

It takes a lot for someone to risk their life for another, and sometimes it simply just wont work or people are unwilling to do so.

Then those people will have to answer for themselves and live with themselves.

I will not take away their guilt by enabling them.

Abortion is wrong. And I am on the record as being on the side of life.

I can't control what everyone else is doing. I can only control me. I am pro-life. And I can live with that.

My son is an addict. I cannot stop him from using drugs if he chooses to do so.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to tell him it's okay by me if he does.

I'll tell him he's an idiot. And if he's using he'll have to take it elsewhere. When he's clean he can come home. But I will not clean up his vomit, and feed him a good hot meal all the time telling him and myself that "Well, it's a hard decision for him. I wouldn't use drugs, but I can't tell him not to"

Of course I can tell him not to. And I have. And I will if the occasion ever arises again.

Then he can do what he wants, but by God, he'll know where I stand.

I will never condone, or turn my back on the evil of abortion. I will not cover my eyes, or hold my ears or bite my tongue. Because if I do, then I might as well be having an abortion myself. I have become part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:11 PM


"All I am saying is that just because it's legal doesn't make it morally right!!"

Possibly, but we can let each woman make that moral decision for herself.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:11 PM


"are you telling me that these abortions are being performed on women whose lives are endangered by pregnancy...or could it be something else?"

It is almost surely "something else." It doesn't really matter what those reasons are. Each woman has a right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have to harbor a fetus if she does not wish to.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:13 PM


mom, ALL pregnancies can lead to death if the birth process goes wrong, etc. some women are unwilling to take that risk. No, it isnt usually for the life of the mother (1% of which tend to be), but the mother should be able to choose whether or not she is willing to risk her life for someone else.

there is a large difference between drug use and abortion imo. It affects not just you but the people around you directly, abortion only affects you directly, no one else.

In terms of drug use, thats a sad story. My mom was an alcoholic. She went through treatment and has been sober for somewhere around 10 years. I assume it is just as hard to get and stay clean if not harder. My congratulations go to him for getting and staying clean.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:15 PM


Danielle,

So why is it that so many Christians have skeletons in the closet about drugs, lots of sex, and partying it up with alcohol?

Because we were desperately trying to fill a void with anything and everything, and suddenly we realized the emptiness and hopelessness of it all.

When we filled it up with God, we found we were full, and content beyond our wildest dreams. And it lasted. And we never felt empty again. I hated that "empty" feeling. That lonely feeling.
I hated myself. I hated my life. I just wanted to love me again. And now I do. And because I love me, I can love others. And all because I first, loved Him.
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:15 PM


This is a rather sick story but a true one.A friend of mine had an abortion 14 years ago.She told me that her private OBGYN did the procedure in his office.I asked her why she had it done[in a very non-judgemental tone]She smirked a bit and told me that she had to lie and tell him that she was a suicidal mess.Were you? I asked."Hell no."she replied while laughing"I had to SAY that so I could get my abortion."Stories like these put me on the pro-life road.

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:18 PM


So as an atheist why have I not gone through this stage of searching? Even at my most depressed I never turned to alcohol or drugs.

As I responded to HisMan:

""I've done drugs, had illicit sex, gotten drunk too many times to mention"

Seems that a lot of Christians are running from a bad past.

As an atheist, I've never done drugs, never drank anything alcohol (except for a sip of wine on New Year's that I sip out everywhere. Blargh, nasty stuff), and I've only had sex with one person (as well as only kissed on person. I've only had one boyfriend). But atheists are evil and corrupt people."

:-/ I feel like God is just a cover up to try and act like you've always been a morally good person. You found God so that made you a better person. I've never "found" God nor felt the need to yet I've never done any of those things. And I'm an atheist. So do you really need God to be a good person?

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 9:19 PM


Lando,

Possibly, but we can let each woman make that moral decision for herself.

Legal or Illegal, each woman will always make the moral decision for herself.

If she chooses abortion she is choosing an immorality.

I will fight to make it illegal. She can still choose to have one if she can find someone who will be complicit with her desire.

But I hate the fact that the country that I live in, and the country that I love, condone and permit this horrible thing called abortion.

Standing up and saying something is wrong will not stop the most determined of people from doing what they want, but it will make the country as a whole stand on firm moral ground.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:20 PM


Danielle, 9:10p, asked: "So why is it that so many Christians have skeletons in the closet about drugs, lots of sex, and partying it up with alcohol?"

Christians are like everyone else. All have sinned. As for me, I was raised a Christian, fell away when I was 17, got pregnant, got married, got divorced, wandered for 13 more years, was miserable, came back to God and His ways, and have since lived a life of freedom, purpose, and knowledge that when I die I'll go to heaven. I still sin terribly when I wander off, hurting myself and others every time.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:20 PM


Dan,abortion can cause death too!

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:20 PM


mom o' 3,

While I agree that was an underhanded tactic, that really does not change the fact that she has a right to have an abortion if she wants one. Her personal reasons and motives are just that: Her own.

Still, that story did warrant an eyebrow raise.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:20 PM


Jill,

I think it's sad that you need a God to keep you in check. Sorry if that's too brutally honest, but its how I feel.

Posted by: Danielle at April 9, 2007 9:22 PM


I find it fascinating how different people find meaning and freedom in different ways.

After I came to the realization that religion is a pleasant fiction and bailed on Catholicism, I have found more freedom and meaning living my own life as I see best than I ever did thinking that I was just another way for God to get an ego boost.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:23 PM


yeah mom, it can, but as said risks vs benefits, each woman makes that decision and decides the benefits of abortion outweigh the risks, or vice versa. It is for the woman to choose when and how to risk her life.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:23 PM


Danielle,

No you don't need God to be a good person. You need Him to be a complete person.

I am no more "good" now then when I was using. I'm just in a relationship with someone who has all the answers. Someone I can trust. Someone who cares about more than I care about myself. Someone who thinks of "worth it".

And that gave me dignity. And an absolute truth. And a moral compass that always faces north. So when issues like this come up, I know which direction to go.

You may not have used drugs, but you have admitted to cutting yourself. Sounds like the actions of an empty person to me. Cutting yourself to make yourself feel alive? That doesn't sound empty. Having only a few friends because you have a hard time trusting? That doesn't sound lonely?

Thank God you never turned to drugs. But you turn to your own brand of numbing the pain.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:25 PM


As I said before, I find more meaning and fulfillment without a god. But that's just me.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:27 PM


Jill,me too! This is what I wanted to point out to you last time Danielle.I wasn't trying to be hurtful,just honest.Me perfect? Hell No!Not even close.A good Christian friend of mine told me I'd have to learn to crawl before I'd learn to walk[in faith, that is]I wanted NO part of it! I found out the hard way.Try it on your own.It just never seems to work.

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:28 PM


"Having only a few friends because you have a hard time trusting? That doesn't sound lonely?"

Many people have trust issues, I among them. I have friends per se, but I dont trust them with much overall. Many dont really know much about my past or anything of that sort. Ive been friends with some of these people for 5 or so years, and they are just getting a glimpse of my past and some of what I do when Im on my own.

I also have trust issues in the opposite direction, I trust people far more than I should and give the benefit of the doubt far too often.

And thats with God in my life

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:29 PM


Lando,

In your world it's OK to sentence a baby to death because of the act of a rapist? I mean I completely understand the heinity of the act. If that happend to my daughter or wife, they would have the baby and we would love it as our own, understanding, of course, the obvious difficulty. There are numerous great people in the world who were born under such circumstances before abortion was made legal.

For argument's sake, let's say a breeder took his unwilling female dog to have her impregnated by a stud, kind of like a dog rape.

If the female dog then somehow got the right to kill the puppy inside her, you would be OK with that?

What did the pre-born puppy have to do with its own conception? Why does it deserve death? And do you think the mother dog would reject the puppy if it were allowed to live and would maternal instincts not kick in?

And I know you're a lawyer type and you try to separate God/religion and law, but where did our laws/morailty come from. Yes, remove religion and God from law and what do you have, a house of cards.

Lando, you seem to be wise (emphasis on seem), however, the foundations for your arguments are very, very weak. I suggest you go back your roots and start over.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:29 PM


I'm perfectly content with not having God in my life. I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I don't have sex. I'm not a social person, so I don't have a lot of friends and I'm fine with that. The only reason I'm depressed is because of my crappy genes.

I felt worse as a Catholic than I did afterwards. The only thing I had issues with was the whole "disappointing" my parents by no longer believing in God, but that has cleared up as my parents tell me are proud of me and still love me anyway.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 9:30 PM


His man, as I said to John, big difference between principles and using religion to form laws. If its a religious principle, great, but you need secular reasoning to pass the law.

Posted by: Dan Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:31 PM


Ditto Lando. I've found more meaning and feel more alive since I've come to peace with my spirituality. I'm quite a happy, fufilled person, believe it or not.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:32 PM


Sorry Lando.[double eyebrow raise]You sound as odd as my girlfriend.You will never convince me that abortion is okay. I'm done speaking to you.

Posted by: momof3 at April 9, 2007 9:32 PM


"I'm just in a relationship with someone who has all the answers. Someone I can trust. Someone who cares about more than I care about myself. Someone who thinks of "worth it"."

You just described my boyfriend right there. He doesn't have all the answers, but he sure helps me find them. We find the answers together.

On the cutting. I only cut (or more like scratch with a pin which makes me bleed) at my lowest moments. Which I don't really have anymore being on meds. Before I let your comments get to me, I hadn't cut in over five months. I was on a roll and then I crashed. Thanks for that by the way...

I'm not an empty person when I'm happy which I am a majority of the time now. But when I was being harassed by my mom 24/7, yeah I was pretty empty and felt worthless. But now that I'm at college, I'm growing as a person.

Thanks to my up bringing however, I have trouble meeting people, yes, but that just let's me know who true friends are. The ones who walk away when I'm in a low mood are ones that I know not to hang around or trust, but the ones that stay no matter what have proven themselves to me to be kind and caring people.

I don't need a God to compete me. I need people that I trust and I *have* found that in people here at college. And I did that without God. I am living a wonderful life now. I reached my lowest point a year and a half ago and have been going up ever since even without this God of yours.

Posted by: Danielle Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 9:35 PM


Okay His Man, let's start at the beginning.

"In your world it's OK to sentence a baby to death because of the act of a rapist? "

That is a loaded statement containing several factual and logical fallacies.

1. No one is sentencing anyone for anything. Sentencing to death implies punishing someone for a crime. In the case of a rape-caused abortion, no one is being punished, certainly not a fetus, which leads me to number two.

2. A fetus is not a baby. It has a chance of eventually being one, but I have the chance of eventually being dead, but I am not treated as such yet. There is an enormous legal, logical, and I daresay moral difference between aborting a 10-week fetus and killing an infant. I won't get into the physiological and development differences, because I believe they would mean nothing to you, but suffice to say that when the fetus is inhabiting a woman's body, regardless of how it got there, she cannot be required to sacrifice herself to become an involuntary servant of it.

"If that happend to my daughter or wife, they would have the baby and we would love it as our own"

That is the beauty of choice. If you are a person who believes you can make something good happen through an atrocity, by all means, you can keep the pregnancy. However, that is not possible for all. In the case I know best, the psychological and physical damage of the attack let the women incapable of carrying the pregnancy. To do so, to her, would have been equivalent to the rapist constantly haunting her through his spawn. Not to mention, the results of the attack would have forced her to give up everything she was in school for and working to do in her life.

That is why people must have choice, to make the best out of a bad situation. Forcing women to become unwilling hosts to a fetus violates every right the American legal system stands for. Yes, it dies as a result of removal, but even if the "needy" party will die, no one can be forced to sacrifice their body or parts of their body for that party.

"unwilling female dog"

Well, this is a side issue, really. Dogs have much different cognitive capacities than humans. Indeed, dogs reproduce during estrus cycles, also known as "heat." Dogs and other animals do not engage in "rape" as humans know it. Only cognitively advanced animals such as dolphins and chimpanzees have been known th do so. Dogs cannot be compared to humans.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 9:42 PM


Hisman, I missed this post till just now:

MomOf3 and Bethany:
You have to realize that pro-deathers are not driven by logic. They are driven by the lust for power. They reject anyone or anything that would tell them how to live including God Himself and it's masked in the facade of women's rights.
So, when they acknowledge the horror of the above video, be it real or not, they really are acknowledging the horror of abortion. What they fail to realize is that in doing so, they remove their masks, and their K-9 fangs show through the sheepskin.

Thank you, Hisman. (EPH 6:12) (Proverbs 8:36)

Posted by: Bethany Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:13 PM


Dan,

And thats with God in my life

Try putting Him at the center of your life instead of just in your life...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:17 PM


Danielle,

You never answered me...

Danielle,

"So you knew all about the world when you were ten? You the same person then as you are now? You haven't grown or matured at all?

So let me see if I understand what you're saying...

If you learn something at one age, experience and maturity might lead you to believe that what you learned was wrong? And you would have to change what you believe because now that you are older you realize that people might have mislead you?

Is that right?
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:17 PM


Danielle,

Methinks you made a Freudian slip...

I don't need a God to compete me.

I know you meant to say complete, but it's funny how it reads the way you wrote it, isn't it?

We've been saying for a month now that the biggest problem in this world is that people keep trying to compete with God.

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:20 PM


Lando:

I will quote you, then answer:

"1. No one is sentencing anyone for anything. Sentencing to death implies punishing someone for a crime. In the case of a rape-caused abortion, no one is being punished, certainly not a fetus, which leads me to number two."

Excuse me, killing a baby in the womb by virtue of the action is the sentence of death, no pronouncement is needed to define the act, the act defines itself. And killing a baby in the womb is not punishment? Whoa, that's about as ignorant a statement as anything anyone has said on this site. Hitler sentenced many Jews to death simply because they were Jews. Were they guilty of a crime? Obvioulsy not, Hitler was simply wrong and as were the laws that he lived by. Were not those laws condemned and changed when the world came to its senses? The same thing will happen to abortion. You should know Pointedexter that laws change and they represent no more truth than the people enforcing them unless those laws are bassed on moral truth and priciples. Killing a baby in the womb is no different than Hitler killing a Jew. They are innocent but are suffering the consequences of an act that required a decison to me made by a raving lunatic, that is, a sentence of death.

"2. A fetus is not a baby. It has a chance of eventually being one, but I have the chance of eventually being dead, but I am not treated as such yet. There is an enormous legal, logical, and I daresay moral difference between aborting a 10-week fetus and killing an infant. I won't get into the physiological and development differences, because I believe they would mean nothing to you, but suffice to say that when the fetus is inhabiting a woman's body, regardless of how it got there, she cannot be required to sacrifice herself to become an involuntary servant of it."

Sorry, the analogy doesn't hold water. And it's not a chance, someday you will be dead and whether or you know it or not you are dead while you live if you don't have Christ. However, employing your logic, one has to be alive before they "have a chance" at being dead. Does that mean the baby has to be alive before they have a chance at being alive? If a baby in the womb is not alive, what is it? Ever heard of a preemy?

And please don't patronize me. The science of prenatology is advancing faster and farther than you can keep up with in your law journals. Someday, it will be proven that babies in the womb are as much human as you or me.

The issue with dogs was a ruse man. Sounded to me you were a PETA type and I felt maybe, just maybe, I could pull on your heart strings.

Sorry, Lando (been watching too many Star War movies I think), God doesn't make mistakes and all humans conceived in the womb have Godly intent and their murder is simply an interruption of that plan.

I think you're a fake.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:21 PM


"Methinks you made a Freudian slip..."

Ugh, Freud's a joke. He also thinks that all woman have penis envy... All of this theories were based on things that had happened to him and he had very little empirical evidence to back up his claims.

Posted by: Danielle Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:24 PM


Danielle,

. I am living a wonderful life now. I reached my lowest point a year and a half ago and have been going up ever since even without this God of yours.

Perhaps you've done it without God, or perhaps you've done it without recognizing God's hand in it...

Don't you think that that is an awful lot of pressure to put on your boyfriend. What if (and I hope it doesn't) something happens and you don't have your boyfriend anymore.

What happens the next time you crash. Remember? Yes there is light at the end of the tunnel, but there's always a tunnel at end of every light?

Do you really believe that you'll never crash again? I hope you don't, but odds are you will, because we all do. Then what?

It sounds to me like you're in a good place now, but it appears to be a good place that requires the cooperation of another "person". And persons can fail.

I'm glad you're growing. I just hope your not growing "suckers" like on a rosebush. These "suck" all of the energy out of the rosebush and there's no energy left to make roses...just a lot of useless, empty stems preventing the rose bush from doing what it was meant to do...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:26 PM


Rae, you said "I felt worse as a Catholic than I did afterwards. The only thing I had issues with was the whole "disappointing" my parents by no longer believing in God, but that has cleared up as my parents tell me are proud of me and still love me anyway."

Your parents are good people.

I was raised Catholic, more like, I was forced to be Catholic. It was very hard and I didn't understand anything. I found out later that I didn't want to understand. When I got older I started to talk to my sister (who should have been a nun with how much faith she has!) and she explained things that made things clearer. But then I was more open to them.

I have no idea if this is your situation or not, I just thought I would share. Never stop searching or asking questions though. In my opinion our lives are based on questioning everything. If you didn't question then it would be 'blind faith' and to me that is worse than no faith at all.


Danielle - you said - "The ones who walk away when I'm in a low mood are ones that I know not to hang around or trust, but the ones that stay no matter what have proven themselves to me to be kind and caring people."
oh- do I know how that feels! The trick is figuring out which ones will leave before you need a friend. I haven't mastered it totally yet but I'm working on it. Don't you find it amazing how people come back when you are better and they act like they never abandoned you? I just don't get that.

Anyway - to get to my point of the post. First - we are all hear for one reason, or maybe two. The first one is to learn. The possible second is to 'convert'. We need to remember that some people 'teach' differently than others. If you don't like the way someone teaches, then move on. It really isn't worth it in the long run to continue a conversation if no one gets taught and no one is listening. I kind of think of it like school. If you don't like the teacher, re-arrange the schedule and take the class at another time or another semester.

Second point - There has been alot of talk about the bible. Especially the Old Testament (my favorite by the way) Don't get discouraged by the inconsistancies. Just keep reading. In my opinion it is up to you to interpret. Again, asking questions along the way. Some faiths take the bible literally, some do not. Some people use it as a historical guide, others think of it as total fiction. Try to get through it and read it from beginning to end. And think for yourselves how to use it in your life. Even if you still think of it as fiction, you will still have read some of the best stories based on people's lives. (A good number of fiction that is written today comes from plots of the bible. It is fun to be reading it and say "Hey! That was a Stephen King book!"

I am a pacifist. I hate it when all the posts are fighting. We dont' accomplish anything when we do that. All we get is hurt feelings. And I hate that.

okay - I'm done with my preaching... you may continue now.

;-)

Love to all.... Smooch!

(I got to go to bed, I need sleep!)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:28 PM


Danielle,

nonetheless...compete/complete....

You don't have to like Freud to make a slip...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:28 PM


God means different things to different people. Morally, everybody is in the same boat. That's why there are so many "skeletons," we all have the same temptations and everything. Many people like to think of their "before and after" lives because becoming a Christian is a turning point for them.

Jesus Christ offers salvation, a lift above Earthly desires and onto spiritual fulfillment.

At the same time, it is a choice. It is up to each person whether they want to be a Christian or not. I'm not going to be there, screaming and insulting, whining and being self-righteous, and expect people to hop onto my side. I try to keep my actions as Christ-like as possible and if people want to talk about religion to me, we'll talk.

HisMan, you seem very open to honest Christian inquiery. But I highly disapprove of your mode of debate and "persuasion." When I came here I said I was a Christian, I liked so-and-so kind of music etc. I said practically nothing that was offensive. And you went on a tirade based on presuppositions about me and my life. Nobody appreciates that, and it only it makes them turn away from anything about Christ you may want to teach them. Opposition will only make someone stop listening rather than finding common ground first.

I was just reading this paper, called "Beyond Dialogue" by John Cobb. It's kind of interesting. You Christian cats should check it out.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 9, 2007 10:33 PM


Todays been a very weird day. Is it a full moon? First, Samantha T and I have been agreeing on things. Now PIP and I posted the same type of 'idea' at the same time.

I'm not going crazy, am I?

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:36 PM


"Killing a baby in the womb is no different than Hitler killing a Jew. "

Considering you just Godwinned, I could simply call off that whole section, but I will indulge in an answer.

One cannot compare the issue of abortion to the Holocaust, or any other genocide. No one is killing fetii simply because they are fetii. There is no systematic attempt through a governing authority to kill all fetii or remove them from the world. All we have is each woman making a decision on if she wants to remain pregnant or not. I have Jewish friends who would be very angry at you manipulating the suffering of their people in such a light.

" Does that mean the baby has to be alive before they have a chance at being alive?"

I never said the fetus is alive. I think it is quite obvious that it is, at least in a rudimentary way. It is unfortunate that abortion results in the death of the fetus, but the alternative (a return to a form of slavery) is something I find much worse. If a method is ever developed to safely remove a fetus and keep it alive and developing, I would support that. Until that day, I must place the rights of the woman, a citizen and a person, ahead of the those of a fetus, which is neither.

"And please don't patronize me. "

My apologies. I simply meant that no matter what i said about development, you would still think they are just as "human" as any one of us. To an extent, you are right. Human fetii are...well...human. They are however, not people until birth, or until they become biologically independent of the mother. In the eyes of the law, personhood and citizenship are established at birth.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 10:36 PM


Valerie, I'm sure we have a lot in common. This devisive issue just gets the best of us!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 9, 2007 10:38 PM


"I never said the fetus is alive. "

Amend this to "isn't alive"

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 10:39 PM


Valerie,

No. You were already crazy...:)

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:43 PM


MK -

oh - Thank goodness.

At least I won't have too far to go when I totally loose it then!

;-)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:47 PM


Thank you Valerie. My parents are wonderful people, I finally had the chance to really talk to them this weekend about my mom's troubles having kids before I was born and all that stuff, it was very enlightening.

My dad and I always talk about religion and what not and it's very enlightening.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 10:47 PM


Diana,

many moons ago someone posted about the unity-theory. Most people understand this as the psychological word called bonding - in philosophy and religion: love. Thomas Merton (a Catholic monk wrote a book called 'No Man is an Island' to counter Jean-Paul Sartre's isolationist thinking.

Perhaps neither one sufficiently grasped the range of human 'oneness'. There is kissing, holding hands, hugging, patting a loved one, stroking a cheek, sexual intercourse, sharing a meal; sharing with someone weaker/less-fortunate; gift giving to another; dancing - sharing joy ... but THE greatest of these is wasting time together ... and speaking words/tunes. All these and others, tell us when we experience full-humanity .... it is when we are inside the bond - are connected. Your concept of autonomy is that of an isolate. And is likely making THE most in-human choice of her whole life and disregarding the mother-child bond that has already begun.

You being an American, English speaking, woman already have operating a number of these bonds - this is what law is. Now you demand that she be fulfilled by being an isolate .... we are pack animals.

I guess you don't see an analogy because her womb is pregnant, not her. So abortion = evacuation of her womb - right. If she gets off the ride early - why there are always restraints - she will get killed. In an abortion the other half of her bond gets killed .... time for a hurray!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:49 PM


Lando:

Thank you for more absolutely ignorant pronouncements from on high in which you said:
"There is no systematic attempt through a governing authority to kill all fetii or remove them from the world."

Really? The clawprints of satan are everywhere to be found in abortion's performance. The Bible says that satan himself is prince of this world.

Lando, you are so deceived and have bought into his lies that it's almost laughable. In fact, he's probably laughing at you as you walk towards hell into his arms. No, it's pitiful. I cry for you.

The worse part is that now you're trying to decive others, I think and I hope unintentionally. Yes, satan does come as an angel of light.

Lando, you're not great, you're lost.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:49 PM


Hey Val,

Weren't you and I going to bed...?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:50 PM


HisMan,

Land O' the Great is what he means I believe and I have a sneaking suspicion that he is closely related to someone else on this blog...

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:53 PM


Valerie, you absolutely made my night. Your post seriously gave me a bit more hope that, despite our differences on this issue, we can perhaps find a solution to the greater problem: unwanted pregnancies.

Honestly, Christians like you are few and far between, and it makes my day when one of you guys pop up. You really show the light of faith in the world. I disagree with you on abortion, but your post was right on.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:56 PM


MK -

Can't. I'm addicted to this blog.

Is there a support group for that?

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:56 PM


John = Genius. It's a priviledge to read your posts.

PiP: You know I don't mince words and I know you're young and impressionable, however, you have a great heart, are extremely intelligent, and need to hear this from someone who cares about you and who has been where you are. Stop trying to play both sides. Make a choice to live for God and Him alone, and stop trying to please everyone, especially your folks. You'll be much happier, confident, and I am sure will grow into a great Christian woman of God who will lead many, you're on your way!

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 10:56 PM


Valerie,

No, but if you start one I'll join. And my husband, who thinks I'm nuts, will pay for it !

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:00 PM


I'm wondering why God doesn't just slap Satan back down or make him dissolve into nothingness or cast him beyond the plane of the universe or something.

God does not exist. Satan does not, either. I wish I could place people I disagree with into the category of "Tricked by the Devil", but reality is much more complex.

Posted by: Lando the Great at April 9, 2007 11:00 PM


Did everyone hear that? What a relief !!!!

God doesn't exist!!! Either does Satan !!!

How do I know ???? Because Lando said so !!!!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:03 PM


That wasn't any new information to me.

Hasn't been new information since I was 12.

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 11:04 PM


MK:

Sorry, I gave John a compliment but ignored you.

I am amazed by your vast knowledge of Catholcism and abilty to write. I will be asking you a lot of questions in the future as I was considered ADD when I attended Catholic grammar school and that to my demise (before people knew there was ADD and tried to medicate kids through it).

You walk with God my friend.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:05 PM


Lando:

God exists alright. There's no way you could have been an accident.

And satan, well, I don't worry about him.

You however, scare me.

So what's your life plan, serial killer or abortion doctor oh, I'm sorry, gynecologist?

I was right, you are a fake. Thanks for showing us all your ID.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:13 PM


Less -

Thanks!

I needed that. My Mom raised me to never judge no matter the cost. I don't always follow that advice but I try.

It's good advice in my opinion.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:17 PM


Less,

Ask yourself this question after you read the Gospels. Would you have been part of the mob that wanted to crucify Him or the few that courageously followed Him?

To be honest, it was a mix for me, initially. Mostly because I didn't understand much. However, this Man so intrigued me I couldn't let go. Press on, the reward is beyond your wildest dreams.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:19 PM


Hey Rae -

I keep forgetting to tell you. I love your name. I named my daughter Catherine Rae.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:21 PM


His Man -

Trying to answer that questions actually helped me to move along spiritually.

When I was truthful, and had to answer that I would be in the mob, I realized that I was just a follower who had no where to go. That was the blind faith I was talking about earlier.

I like it better here. I'm still searching. Still asking questions, but it is far better than yelling "crucify him!" when I don't know who I'm saying that about.

Life is one big school lesson. I hope I get an A.

;-)

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:27 PM


Valerie:

Thank you, it's actually my middle name as I don't feel too terribly comfortable using my real name on here. I like it too, which is why I'm using it on here.

Oh, did you see my music recommendation for you? Since you liked Evanescence I thought you might also like "Within Temptation". The "Birthday Massacre" is also good...a bizarre name yes, but they have really good music (it's not violent or anything).

Posted by: Rae at April 9, 2007 11:30 PM


Rae is my middle name too. :)

Posted by: Alyssa at April 9, 2007 11:45 PM


HisMan, as I've explained many times, Jesus was an amazing man. I would have no problem following Him: His teachings were incredible, and I give Him the highest respect.

I do not consider myself Christian for many reasons, one being my dislike the dogma of self sacrifice: I live to serve my Divinity, I do not deny myself the fruits of the earth created. I also believe that, while there is one Divinity, we are too small to comprehend this Divinity. For this reason, there are many religions, each with a different reflection of the same great being.

I once said that my beliefs were too complex without a long post; here I summarized them. Feel better,HisMan? Find anything to condemn there? I believe in God and Jesus, feel better?

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:49 PM


Valerie:

You're a very sensitive person. In my experience that's usually because a person has suffered a lot at the hands of some one else, or, is just an exceptional person.

So, if I disagree with you on some issues, please don't be offended. My daughter and I, and my sons, disagree on a lot of God issues, i.e., once saved always saved, the need for baptism, etc. and we challenge each other, you know, iron sharpening iron. So look at it that way. I'm trying to help. You said our number one purpose in life was to learn. That's part of it. The purpose of life is to love God with out whole hearts, souls, and minds. Yes that takes learning, however, we really can't even do that without knowing Christ. So, the primary focus on life should be to know Christ. Selah.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 9, 2007 11:51 PM


Less,

No condemnation here. God said He doesn't want our sacrifce but our love. You're talking about religion, yuk!

Yes, God is all knowing, and by giving Him all your knowledge and wisdom, it wouldn't make Him any smarter.

Yes, God owns the cattle on a thousand hills and by giving Him all you have you couldn't make Him any richer.

Did you know that God is all powerful but there are some things He just can't do. He can't make you love Him.

There's one thing that God has given you, your heart. You can choose to keep it or give it to Him. I assure you, He knows what to do with it.

As far as self-sacrifice. I'm not sure what you mean. I do know that you can't outgive Him. I think this stuff about sacrifice is a huge misunderstanding and has to do alot with man made religion and is satan's attmepts at decieving you and keeping you from your destiny.

Many of us really don't know the true and living God, therefore, our rejection of what we think He is, is quite logical. We're not rejecting Him but who we think He is. Only an insane person could reject the true Christ.

So, a problems exists. How can I get to know this God who claims to love me beyond understanding, who would die for me, only me, and wants to be with me forever?

The first place to start is to ask Him. He'll answer and in ways that only a lover can delight.

No, God doesn't want anything you have, He wants you, your whole heart, all of you. That my friend is the secret of life and the reason for which you were created, born, and are now alive.

That's why abortion is so abhorrent to me. God Bless.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 12:12 AM


Rae - Yes I did see the recommendations. I forgot to reply. Sorry! I wrote down the first one and will add Birthday Massacre (?) weird name. I'll check thme out and when I get a chance I'll let you know what I think. Thanks!

HisMan - I know your message is not to offend. I will admit, it took me awhile to get that though. ;-) I am sensitive and it does come from putting myself in my own hell and then clawing my way out. Even though I was miserable, I think I would do it again. I ended up with a great husband and wonderful children and they are worth it.

Less - you said "I also believe that, while there is one Divinity, we are too small to comprehend this Divinity. For this reason, there are many religions, each with a different reflection of the same great being. "
I like the way you put that. This is why I think we are all on a continuous learning session. When I studied alot of different religions outside of Christianity, I realized the message was pretty much the same. So it had to be the truth (in my mind at least.) Have you read much on Mahatma Gandhi? His life was amazing. I also like to read the quotes of Mother Teresa. Her life is inspirational.

okay - Now I'm really going to bed!

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 12:14 AM


Less and Valerie:

I have to disagree that all religions say about the same thing. No, please no.

None of those other dudes claimed to be God, not Buddha, not Confucius, not Mohammend, not fill in the blank.

Jesus did not mince words. He said he was God and proved it by His life, miracles and resurrection. I'll guarantee you that Buddha and Mohammend are still in their graves. Jesus Christ was not just an amazing man. No, if He wasn't God, he was a lunatic, there's no middle ground. The first step is to make that choice. Until then, the ground you stand on is not firm.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 12:39 AM


Less,

I do not consider myself Christian for many reasons, one being my dislike the dogma of self sacrifice:

But if you follow Christ you know that self-sacrifice is the ultimate sign of love.

He taught us that by His own self sacrifice...

How can we do any less, Less (Couldn't help myself...less, Less? ahhhh, I kill myself...)

mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 6:05 AM


Valerie, 4/10, 12:12a (how can you old people stay up so late?!), said: "When I studied alot of different religions outside of Christianity, I realized the message was pretty much the same."

Hitchhiking on His Man's response, Christianity is different from all religions in another unique way.

In all other religions, people do good works to earn their way to heaven/nirvana. In other words, people do good works for selfish motives, whether or not they realize it.

In Christianity, we do good works as thanks for what Jesus did on the cross. We know we are already going to heaven, thanks to Jesus. So we do good works purely out of gratitude and to emulate Him.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 6:59 AM


Ha,I went to bed last night and missed it. I knew someone was going to put Lando-Lakes in his place. He's way too phoney!

Posted by: momof3 at April 10, 2007 8:18 AM


Maybe I should clarified myself a bit.

When I said "I realized the message was pretty much the same. " I meant the message behind the correct way to live.

They all have the 'concept' of The Golden Rule, The Beatitudes, The Ten Commandments (actually many have the commandments), the seven deadly sins etc.. The way to worship is drastically different. I was responding to Less' comment "I also believe that, while there is one Divinity, we are too small to comprehend this Divinity. For this reason, there are many religions, each with a different reflection of the same great being. "

We were discussing Christianity and she said she wasn't comfortable with this. Education is the key here. In my opinion, when someone is searching for answers and your mind is already 'closed off' to one idea it doesn't make sense to be in the dark. Yes, Jesus is VERY different from other prophets and I believe in the Christian teachings of Jesus.Less has a belief in God; she has an understanding/belief of Jesus, so why keep turing her away from religion?

In another post on this blog I told Less that she sounded alot like me years ago. And on this post she continues to amaze me by using the words I used long ago. I searched other religions, realized that the 'way to live' was the same, God was pretty much the same (I do understand how much I am simplifing); it is the prophets and the worship that is different. The reason behind living a good life is different. This knowledge began my very first relationship with Jesus.

I have no idea if her search will have the same outcome. But stopping a relationship with God would be far worse. We also have to remember that she said this: "I would have no problem following Him (Jesus): His teachings were incredible, and I give Him the highest respect." And she said "Honestly, Christians like you are few and far between, and it makes my day when one of you guys pop up."

I do not believe it is Christianity that she has a problem with, I believe the problem is with Christians. Once I got a complete understanding of what religion is, I began to see Christians in a different way. I began to realize what Love is all about. And I began to realize, as an example, that HisMan says what he does out of Love. I don't think many people on here understand just how much Love is in his posts. Once you get an understanding of religion in general, this kind of Love can be understood.

I mentioned Muhatma Gandhi because he had a great understanding of religion. He lived an adult life of self sacrafice and explained very well why he did it. I mentioned Mother Teresa because, in my mind, you can't get a better example of what a true Christian is.


Okay - it took me over an hour to write this so I could get my words right. Hopefully I did a good job.

Posted by: Valerie Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 9:13 AM


"In Christianity, we do good works as thanks for what Jesus did on the cross. We know we are already going to heaven, thanks to Jesus. So we do good works purely out of gratitude and to emulate Him."

Wrong. As far as I see it, Christians do good works to get a "Get out of Hell Free" card.

Posted by: Rae at April 10, 2007 9:36 AM


Valerie, thanks so much for taking the time to flush out your thoughts. I get what you meant now.

Rae, the most basic tenet of Christianity is that we can do nothing to earn our way into heaven. Jesus lived a sinless life to be the sacrifice to do that for us. Why? John 3:16.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 9:55 AM


Hisman,

MK:

Sorry, I gave John a compliment but ignored you.

I am amazed by your vast knowledge of Catholcism and abilty to write. I will be asking you a lot of questions in the future as I was considered ADD when I attended Catholic grammar school and that to my demise (before people knew there was ADD and tried to medicate kids through it).

You walk with God my friend.

And the same to you my friend, the same to you.
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 11:01 AM


Valerie, you are somewhat correct. I have several problems with Christianity, but by and far my largest problem is with Christians. "Christians" like HisMan, who are far more interested in condemnations than love. "Christians" like Jill, who are content to imagine that anyone who doesn't follow the perfect dogma is going to Hell. I refuse to participate in a religion that would condemn people who had been shining examples of humanity simply because they didn't believe in Jesus. I refuse to believe that any loving divinity could be so cruel.

In the ancient Egyptian religion, there were several Gods who sacrificed their lives for their people. The Egyptians, recognizing this sacrifice, lived happily and vivaciously: a god had died to give them life, why not embrace that life? This is the priciple I follow. If Jesus died for me, why not enjoy the life he died to protect? I live fully and without regrets, as I feel as though anything else would be an affront to the life that Jesus died to save.

As previously stated, I do believe in Jesus: I can't remember a time when I haven't. Heck, I even believe in his divinity. Because I believe the Old Testament to be a reprehensable work of fiction, however, and the fact that I have no desire to live a sterile life worrying about how many sins I've committed that day, I do not consider myself Christian.

And Valerie, no worries, that was a well thought-out post. You did good!

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 11:20 AM


Less,

Kudos to you for realizing the difference between believing in Christ's divinity and being Christian.

Too often, the complain I hear, (on this site as a matter of fact) is that people who say they are Christian really aren't.

We've had this argument before (although I'm not arguing now, I'm agreeing) that people can call themselves anything they want, but that doesn't make it true.

I think it's great that you have enough respect for the Church and her teachings not to call yourself a member. That takes some kind of courage.

Just thought I'd let you know.
mk

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 11:40 AM


Mk,

Thanks! I understand that there is a huge difference, and as I don't believe in the traditional Christian concept of Jesus or God, I'd feel quite awkward calling myself something I'm not.

I love going to church with my fiance and even occasionally with my parents, and I think that the New Testament is absolutely facinating. The Eucharist, I think, is a sublime way to acknowledge the divinity and love of God and Jesus. But despite this, I don't fit into the Christian mold, and I highly doubt I ever will. I'm okay with this, my family is okay with this, my fiance is okay with this, but I don't think that most Christian churches would be.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 10, 2007 11:51 AM


Thanks Valerie, and you did a great job on your post that took you an hour to write. Wow, what patience and persaverance and you have kids too?

I have enough trouble trying to make sense all by my lonesome here.

Only a Godly woman could do that and take care of her family too!

Your husband is a blessed man for the Bible says that a man who finds a wife, find a good thing.

Please read Proverbs 31 as my gift to you.

By the way, for all of you, did you know that there are 31 Proverbs in the Bible? If we read the Proverb in the morning that corresponded to that day of the month and did this for 12 months, I guarantee that you would be a different, much wiser and better person.

Perhaps many would change their views on life issues.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 11, 2007 12:30 AM


For those who may not have a Bible I have posted Proverbs 31. I think this is what God thinks a good woman is and also how He thinks we should treat the "least of these", babies in the womb. Who of us will speak for those who have no voice? Oh, whose voices do I hear? Is it Jill, MomOf3, MK, and Valerie? Yes, God still makes Proverbs 31 woman, real woman.

Proverbs 31
Sayings of King Lemuel
1 The sayings of King Lemuel—an oracle [a] his mother taught him:

2 "O my son, O son of my womb, O son of my vows,

3 do not spend your strength on women, your vigor on those who ruin kings.

4 "It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,

5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.

6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish;

7 let them drink and forget their poverty
and remember their misery no more.

8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.

9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."

Epilogue: The Wife of Noble Character

10 A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

12 She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.

13 She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.

14 She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.

15 She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.

16 She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.

18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.

19 In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

20 She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.

21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household; for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

22 She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

26 She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

27 She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:

29 "Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all."

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

31 Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

By the way, I forgot to tell you about my wife Ginny, shes a Proverbs 31 gal too!

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 11, 2007 12:44 AM


Thank you His Man.Looking back on the posts I realize that this is why I left the CHOICE side and vow never to return. A little self education and prayer is all it took to get me here.Well,not to mention my conscience was eating away at me.I never took a stand on abortion before, because it always seemed to bring me too much grief.Friends and other females usually became defensive immediatly.Now,my attitude is; if you don't like it,too bad!

Posted by: momof at April 11, 2007 9:59 AM


HisMan: I've read all the Proverbs. I've read all the Psalms too. Haven't changed my position on any of my life issues, actually.

Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at April 11, 2007 10:43 AM


John,

I'm very confused now. I have to say, however, that I very much disagree with Sarte, Nietzsche and other radical individualists. I am well aware of the fact that we are social animals that require society to live and flourish.

That said, I've no idea what "half" of the woman who jumps off the train dies. I'm just completely lost. I'm sorry. Indulge me and explain again?

Posted by: Diana at April 11, 2007 12:40 PM


Don't worry. Chinese people don't eat babies. This "film" and all the shots you see are a hoax. We wrote about the baby-eating myth and how many mainland Chinese people believe it at our site:
http://peer-see.com/blog/korean-fan-death-and-baby-soup/2006/08/11/
There is also some great background on blood libel at:
http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/sex/chinese_eating_fetuses.html

Posted by: Josh at April 11, 2007 9:30 PM


Josh - You can actually assure us that NO ONE is China is eating human fetus soup? How many times have you been outside the U.S. huh?

You're going to need to find some more convincing evidence than that for me to ignore what I saw in that video.

Posted by: ryanj Author Profile Page at April 12, 2007 9:03 PM


ryanj,

To answer your question, I'm a native-born American of non-Chinese ancestry. I live in the People's Republic of China. Those pictures are old and they were bogus to begin with. Yes, I can assure you that nobody in China is eating fetus soup.

If you really think they are, answer these questions for me. How much does they cost? Where is the supply of babies coming from? Do the mothers sell them? What is the profit motive? Do you have any idea how much Westerners would pay to get that child? The Chinese government is making it harder to adopt because demand is up and supply is down. Are we to assume that supply is down because the unwanted babies are all being made into soup?

And tell me, what is it called on the menu? Is there a euphemism for cooked baby?

Do women sell their foeti? Or is it the hospitals? Doctors? Do you have any idea how many abortions are performed in this country in a year? The market would be saturated with baby soup.

The pictures in that "film" male it look like a cooking show. Who made it? You can find a link to the stills on our site.

It's a bogus story. Check out Poppy Dixon's explanation of the roots of this story. It's worth a read. This faux-scandal was broken years ago by Bruce Gilley.

Then come over to peer-see to check out our post on Baby Soup and Korean Fan Death.

The Chinese just aren't as different as you think.

Posted by: Josh at April 13, 2007 10:17 AM


@HisMan: I should like to point out that anyone who suggests that a woman should not be allowed to have an abortion ever at any time under any circumstance is not in accordance with either the Biblical view of an unborn baby, nor by either Biblical or modern views of saving the life of a person who is already born. If you think a mother whose life is at stake because of her pregnancy, should have to die before having an abortion, you are not "pro-life," you are "pro-death," especially since often such an unborn baby will not live anyway.

The Bible clearly indicates the unborn person does not have the same status as a born person; causing a woman to miscarry through injury does not draw the death penalty (as would murder), but a fine. Please refer to Exodus 21:12 and to Exodus 21:22.


In honesty, you should admit that you are against a woman acting in defense of her own life in order to avoid having an abortion, then admit that you favor laws that are more strict than and are counter to what the Bible says.


Shame on you for having zero compassion for those who are already conscious and in the world, that you would refuse a poor girl who has been raped (especially by a close relative) and force her to carry the baby that some evil person has forced on her to term. I pray that none of you ever has to think about that choice for your own little girl, but you should still imagine what it would be like for you AND for her.


Lastly, I am very unhappy by the vast majority of so-called "pro-Life" people because never do I see any of you demanding funding for research on a way to medically save and be able to transfer an unwanted, unborn child to a set of parents who is unable to conceive. Think of what this could achieve - there would be no need for an abortion, ever. We could take the fetus out and carefully preserve any baby so that someone else could be his or her parents at some later date. No child would ever be unwanted, and no unborn child would ever need to die.

Posted by: Squeedle at April 23, 2007 6:26 PM


By the way, to spread false rumors is considered akin to murder in the Bible - "character assassination." I will illustrate with a classic story: A man spread scandalous and false rumors about a rabbi, and later, before Yom Kippur came to ask for his forgiveness. The man said, how can I atone for the wrong I have done you? The rabbi replied, first take a sack of feathers and rip it open, scattering the feathers to the winds. Then, go and find every single feather and put it back into the sack. The man said, "but that's impossible! How will I find every feather?" The rabbi replied, "this is the same effect of the rumors you have spread."


Here is another, respected site that explains this hoax.


http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/fetus.asp


Jill should either retract this article entirely or edit it to make it immediately clear that it is unsubstantiated. She ought to apologize for easily she is willing to believe something so horrible about other people. Not that there are no horrible people, but you should be a LOT more careful about levying accusations like this. It is literally accusations like this which caused massacres against Jews and Christians alike.


Shame on you, and shame on all of you who did not judge with a generous heart.

Posted by: Squeedle at April 23, 2007 6:41 PM


Sqeedle,

Satan uses the Bible for his evil purposes too.

To use any part of the Bible as an excuse for any unjustifiable death is simply ignorant of the Bible's overwhelming message of life.

Perhaps you think God is an imbecile and doesn't know what His own intent is in allowing a woman to concieve. I can assure you, Jesus Christ especially values children and will deal extraordinarily harsh with any that mess with these innocent ones.

Matthew 18:1-11, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" He called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. "See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

I have included almost the full text of Chapter 21 of Exodus and how anyone can conclude from this chapter that God allows abortion is beyond me and I've got to say blaphemous. And then my commentary on each verse and a final comment.

Exodus 21
1 "These are the laws you are to set before them: 2 "If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. 5 "But if the servant declares, 'I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,' 6 then his master must take him before the judges. [a] He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. 7 "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [b] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. 12 "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death. 15 "Anyone who attacks [c] his father or his mother must be put to death. 16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death. 17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. 18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [d] and he does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed. 20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. 26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth. 28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels [f] of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned. 33 "If a man uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or a donkey falls into it, 34 the owner of the pit must pay for the loss; he must pay its owner, and the dead animal will be his.
35 "If a man's bull injures the bull of another and it dies, they are to sell the live one and divide both the money and the dead animal equally. 36 However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his.

Let's verse by verse use your logic and see if it makes sanse, starting with 2:

2. Have any Hebrew servants? Let any go lately?
3. Make sure you let go of him adn his wife.
4. If you gave your Hebrew slave a wife, his children belong to you.
5. Help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. You can take him to the mall to do that today.
7. Sorry dads.
8. If the show fits.......
9. Meet the parents?
10,11. Get out of jail free card.
12. Since the word woman is not mentioned, based on your logic, the killing of a woman has no penalty.
13. Murder v. Manslaughter.
14. Ditto to 12.
15. Obvious.
16. Kidnapping deserves death.
17. Don't swear kiddies or it's off with your head.
18-19. Ah, tort is born.
20-21. Slaves not worth much either I guess. This work for you?
22. "whatever". If I were the husband, I'd want the SOB that killed my baby executed. Any self-respecting man would. This is your argument for abortion? Try again, Rasputin.
23-25. Tit for tat. You'd like that too I guess?
26-27. Sounds fair but where's the dentist and opthamologist?
28. Guess the woman and man in this case have no value either, huh?
24. Guess so,if the owner was stupid.
ad infintum....

Seems like the point of this chapter is, you guessed it, the measure of intentions?

Intentional killing or unintentionnal killing.

Seems to me like every abortion is intentional if there was a way of avoiding it. Abortion for convenience or just plain choice is never an excuse or any other reason in 99.99999% of the time. Abortion is murder every time, everywhere, under all circumstances by definition since it is always intentioanl. If a baby in the womb dies unintentinonally as a result of trying to save the mother's life, that is not an abortion, it is an unintentional result of an unfortunate circumstance.

Keep doing Satan's work Sqeegie.

Posted by: His Man Author Profile Page at April 23, 2007 9:33 PM


Re: The debate on wether or not this is true....well...as horrible and disgusting as it is...I found out from family that live in China that it IS true. Fetuses are being sold in the underground market as well.

Posted by: me at July 13, 2007 9:54 AM