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]

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.

Bethany, Im with you.

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.

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.

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."

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!

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!!!!!!!!

There are no words.

I can only pray that this is not true.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

^_^

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.

"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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Hi Joy,

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

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.)

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.

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

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.

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

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....

"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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!]

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.

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.

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???

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!?!

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.

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?

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.

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?

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".

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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???

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.

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.

"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?

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.

Stephanie:

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

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

dont think you can, oh the wonders of blog technology

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Rae, I deleted your post, per your request.

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.

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?

Rae, believe me, I know that happens.

"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.

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......

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,

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.

not to mention a surplus

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.

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?

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

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

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"

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

"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...).

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

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.

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.

"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

Edit:

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

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.

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.

"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?

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 >

"homosexual agenda"??

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

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.

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.

Dan,

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

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

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

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.

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.

"I don't generally curtail how comments evolve"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No, I guess you just delete comments.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Bethany, to whom are you referring?

"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.

Dan,

nable to understand what correct social interaction

What is correc