Helen's kind of life

helen nameplate.jpgCrotchety, 86-year-old liberal journalist Helen Thomas is completely undeserving of her front row seat in the White House press room. Some elders don't deserve respect. She recently spoke at a Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa fundraiser.

Reported Lynda Waddington of Helen's speech at RH (Reproductive Health) Reality Check today:

"It seems the present conservative [U.S. Supreme] Court is targeting Roe v. Wade and there's not much you can do about it unless Congress is willing to deal with these touchy subjects," she said. "Without pressure, I doubt they will."...

Thomas also admits that when she was originally told the conservatives' plans for the court, she didn't fully understand the implications.

"People were saying during the [Ronald] Reagan administration that this was about the Supreme Court," she said. "I wasn't sure at that time what they meant. But the truth is that the court is their one last resort to push their agenda. It is their one last resort to prevail."...

"Let's return to the true ideals of the Bill of Rights," she said. "The issue is not the right to live. The issue is the kind of life. The issue is freedom without government or outside interference."

helen thomas.jpgWe're pushing our agenda through the courts?

The issue is not the right to life but the kind of life? What goes around comes around, Helen. In that circle of life, you're a little too close to a time when you're going to be as helpless as those preborns you advocate killing. And by "kind of life," you must mean one's caregiver?

The New York Times reported July 17 that while the number of baby boomer elderly people is increasing, "the number of doctors trained in geriatric medicine is declining." Wonder why.

The first question elderly people seeking medical treatment should be asked is if they are pro-life or pro-choice. If they answer the latter, they should be moved to the back of the line.

[Hat tip: Reader jasper; photo of Helen's nameplate from front row center of the new White House news room was taken by me last week.]


Comments:

Pregnant women should be asked if they are right-to-life or pro-choice. If they answer the former, they should be forced to have their pregnancies aborted. You're against reproductive freedom, so no reproductive freedom for you!

Posted by: SoMG at July 27, 2007 8:04 PM


I have nothing to add on this post other than that I've see Helen speak. She was a guest speaker at my very small college. She was a very bitter woman, even amongst an audiance of feminists.

Posted by: lauren at July 27, 2007 8:06 PM


SoMG,
By all means don't reproduce!

Posted by: Rosie at July 27, 2007 8:36 PM


She's definitely a creeper...I think she would have been better at playing "Delores Umbridge" in Harry Potter. :-p

Posted by: Rae at July 27, 2007 10:12 PM


Anyone see the Stephen Colbert horror film about her?

PS It's my 20th bday!

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 2:06 AM


"The first question elderly people seeking medical treatment should be asked is if they are pro-life or pro-choice. If they answer the latter, they should be moved to the back of the line."

Pro-choice means you get to choose, hence pro-CHOICE. So pro-life they should all be kept on life support well into their hundreds at the expense of their caregiver even if they are completely brain dead because they don't agree with abortion? Do you know how stupid that sounds? You really aren't pro-life, but pro-pregnancy.

Posted by: Rose at July 28, 2007 2:12 AM


Happy Birthday prettyinpink!

As far as Helen Thomas' ability to portray Dolores Umbridge, I disagree, I don't think she could pull off that disgustingly sweet fake voice. I also couldn't see her sitting in a bubble gum pink room surrounded by pictures of frolicking kittens. ;-)

Posted by: JK at July 28, 2007 6:28 AM


Check this out! http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/7/23/9838/02697

When right-to-lifers have abortions.

Posted by: SoMG at July 28, 2007 7:03 AM


No Rose, pro-choice does not mean CHOICE, especially to the unborn child. Where is the choice there? None.

Pro-life is not about keeping the brain dead elderly on life support well into their hundreds or indefinitely. That's an absurd analogy. But no one has the right to decide who is worth keeping, and who is "at the expense of the caregiver". Propaganda like that was used in Nazi Germany. First it was the retarded, than the handicapped, and then the elderly that were put down like animals, because people were told and then convinced, that they were a drain on caregivers and the economy. Is it surprising that afterwards, it became easy to label the Jews as lesser forms of human life? Where does it stop?

In all patriarchal unjust systems, weaker forms and orders of human life are granted rights only when wanted or chosen by the more powerful other. Be very careful and weigh the possibility that any inequalities inherent in our society's practices may rebound upon YOU in the worst conceivable way.

What pro-life believes is that human life, from the beginning to the end has intrinsic value, which should not depend on meeting the selective criteria or test set up by powerful others. In a sound moral tradition, human rights arise from human need, which protects the weak of our society.

Do you know how stupid it sounds when people refer to the murder of millions of unborn children as nothing more than a "right" and "choice"? Pitting women against their own offspring is not only morally offensive, it is politically and socially destructive to society.

Posted by: J.J. at July 28, 2007 7:10 AM


PIP, happy birthday! No, I haven't seen the Colbert film. (Actually, I've only seen two Colbert interviews.)

Rose, 2:12a, said: "Pro-choice means you get to choose, hence pro-CHOICE. So pro-life they should all be kept on life support well into their hundreds at the expense of their caregiver even if they are completely brain dead because they don't agree with abortion? Do you know how stupid that sounds? You really aren't pro-life, but pro-pregnancy."

Rose, you missed the point. You cannot deny that a major reason there is a shortage of geriatric doctors is because between 1/4 and 1/3 of all children since 1973 have been aborted. So those people who saw to that should reap what they've sown, or tilled under, actually.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 7:12 AM


Jill, you wrote: "You cannot deny that a major reason there is a shortage of geriatric doctors is because between 1/4 and 1/3 of all children since 1973 have been aborted."

That's stupid. The shortange has nothing to do with overall population size, it's caused by the limited availability of training programs that would train geriatricians, and by the fact that primary care docs (which geriatricians are) have difficulty paying off their student loans because they don't get paid enough.

Posted by: SoMG at July 28, 2007 7:31 AM


Don't you remember? We had this same conversation some weeks ago about the nursing shortage.

Posted by: SoMG at July 28, 2007 7:37 AM


HAPPY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY PIP!

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 7:53 AM


Happy Birthday pip! Mine was on the 18th.

Posted by: lauren at July 28, 2007 8:43 AM


Happy b-day PIP and MK. Somg, would you please get off this crapola about RTL women having abortions! Obviously they were confused on their position. Stop glorifying abortion. I have seen the videos with my own 2 eyes. Little hands and feet being scraped out. The look of the cervix..yikes! The look of this lady...double yikes!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 28, 2007 9:26 AM


oops, I meant happy b-day Lauren.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 28, 2007 9:30 AM


I thought MK had a July b-day too! I was going to say "wow, there are alot of us on here!".

Posted by: lauren at July 28, 2007 9:36 AM


"The first question elderly people seeking medical treatment should be asked is if they are pro-life or pro-choice. If they answer the latter, they should be moved to the back of the line."

Yes, Jill, deny the elderly medical care because of their political beliefs. What a very pro-LIFE thing of you to say ... or something ...

Posted by: Leah at July 28, 2007 11:20 AM


"Yes, Jill, deny the elderly medical care because of their political beliefs"

Well, Leah, you would deny an unborn child life because of how wanted they are.

which is worse?

Posted by: jasper at July 28, 2007 11:46 AM


@Jasper: I think both situations are unfair.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 11:56 AM


Rose hurls out the label "pro-pregnancy" like it is an insult. Who would want to be "anti-pregnancy?"

Posted by: Lynn at July 28, 2007 1:35 PM


SoMG:

Reproduction is a natural process and a God-given right. In fact, He commands us to be fruitful and multiply.

To kill unborn babies is in direct opposition to that God-given right and is therefore wrong. Can you understand that or have you so fallen so far that you can't see through the darkness of the spiritual abyss you abide in?

To equate the God-given right to reproduce to a non-existent right to murder an unborn child indicates your lack of understanding of the universe and the God that created it.

Posted by: HisMan at July 28, 2007 1:39 PM


"@Jasper: I think both situations are unfair."

Really Rae? you think denying an unborn child life because of how wanted they are is unfair? ...So, why do support it then?

Posted by: jasper at July 28, 2007 2:02 PM


@Jasper: It's because it's more complicated than people like to think. I think it's unfair that people abort because they want to avoid taking responsibility for their own idiotic actions. But on the other hand I can see why they do what they do even though I don't like it.

*sigh*

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 2:45 PM


Rae, let me ask you a question. Would you support abortion had it never been legalized? How do you think the world would be different?

Posted by: lauren at July 28, 2007 2:58 PM


@Lauren: I'm not sure how I would feel about abortion had it never been legalized. I mean, before Roe v. Wade abortion was already legal in some states (which I'm not sure) and it wasn't banned if the mother's life was at risk. I think I would only support it being allowed in cases of rape (even if it is a grey area) and if the mother's life was at risk or her health was to be VERY severely compromised (and I'm not talking "the blues").

I don't think the world would be any different though, we just wouldn't have people waving coathangers around and people blowing up abortion clinics.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 3:06 PM


Rae, I was refering to generalized legalization as we know it. Medical care that, in the process of saving one life, ends the life of the child is not "abortion" as we know it.

I believe the effects of legalized abortion go far beyond the reach of "abortion politics". Were abortion never legal, I believe the way women entered the work force would have been dramatically different. Remember it was two men who sold NOW the bill of goods that they must abort to "compeat" with men.

How much of your support for legalized abortion is a result of status quo?

Posted by: lauren at July 28, 2007 3:34 PM


@Lauren: I have no idea. I never really thought about it. As y'all know I was raised in a very non-political family, we NEVER discussed politics EVER, so obviously abortion never came up so I never really learned about it until I was in junior high and I was at my Catholic "Faith Formation" classes and the topic came up.

I don't think my views come from the fact that abortion is legal in the United States, I am pretty sure that had nothing to do with it. If anything, it was because when abortion was addressed in my Faith Formation class and the way they treated women who got abortions (more or less called them evil and that they deserve to burn in hell and that they have no chance at repentance) really made me feel more pity for the woman and the social scorn she faces rather than the fetus/baby even though the baby dies. I also feel the issue of abortion is more complicated than many people like to make it seem...which is more or less why I don't really consider myself "pro-choice".

I think it's terribly unfair that women feel they need to abort in order to enter the working world. I don't think they should have to choose between the two and I think the working world should get it's head out of it's collective bum and realize that women are valuable to the workforce in many ways and that they should stop giving the impression that mothers cannot work when they are perfectly capable of doing so.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 3:46 PM


Thanks everyone!

Jill: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 4:04 PM


@Rae: I can understand what you are saying and in many ways, you are correct. Abortion is for more complicated than most people realize. I guess that is why there are so many different opinions. I am sorry that your Faith Formation class mistreated women who got abortions. This is not what Catholicism teaches. It teaches that we are all sinners. No repentance? What do you think confession is all about? Again the Church has always taught about the forgiveness of sins. Some of our most beloved saints were terrible sinners at one time. I don't know who was teaching you otherwise, but unfortunately, a lot of Catholics have been lead astray from those who teach heresy. I'm sorry you didn't have the experience of being taught by someone more honest about the faith.

I do recognize your commitment to finding the truth. And, I applaud your wiliness to learn more by keeping an open mind.

Posted by: J.J. at July 28, 2007 4:26 PM


But please note, while I don't exactly consider myself "pro-choice", I don't consider myself "pro-life" either.

*sigh*

Labels are so limiting in these debates.

@J.J.: I know now that what I was taught in my Faith Formation classes were wrong and it does frustrate me that my teacher was such a...witch with a "B" for lack of a better word to describe her. I think she purposely said those things because I asked what God thinks of women who get abortions and that teacher NEVER liked me (she had been my teacher on and off since I was 9 and she hated that I always questioned her). I know the Catholic church preaches forgiveness, though to be honest sometimes I wonder, especially with some of the things the Vatican says or does. Please note now that I don't feel like getting into a debate on Catholic theology because a) I don't care and b) It's kind of a waste of time.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 4:34 PM


Rae, I guess my point is that we're influenced by society's acceptance of abortion regardless of our personal exposure.

Because abortion has been legal since you or I have been alive, we obiously are more likely to initially embrace the concept of "choice".

I know I used to believe that abortion was "wrong" but, due to my national environment, believed that we had no right to deny women the "choice". Just something to think about.

Posted by: lauren at July 28, 2007 4:45 PM


@Rae: Thanks for the note. No, I don't want to debate Catholic theology either, I just wanted to say that what you were taught about no repentance was not true, but I guess you already knew that.

And your teacher was definitely being a witch with a B. :))

Posted by: J.J. at July 28, 2007 5:36 PM


Rae:"Labels are so limiting in these debates."

No, they fit perfectly. Rae, you are Pro-death. You believe it's OK to rip the limbs, poke, stab and crush an innocent unborn baby to it's bloody death. There's no two ways about it, you agree that this should be legal.

Rae:"(more or less called them evil and that they deserve to burn in hell and that they have no chance at repentance)"

I don't believe you Rae, the church doesn't teach that people go to hell if they repented.

Posted by: jasper at July 28, 2007 10:09 PM


@Jasper: I really don't care if you believe me or not, but it's true. It happened.

Nice emotional appeal though. :) Very touching. Care to insult me a bit more? Perhaps a little bit of self-righteous condemnation?

But no, I don't think it's "OK" to "rip the limbs, poke, stab, and crush an innocent unborn baby to its bloody death."

But whatever Jasper, as I really should learn not to take anything you say to be worth more than the bacteria I kill everyday at work.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 10:14 PM


"But no, I don't think it's "OK" to "rip the limbs, poke, stab, and crush an innocent unborn baby to its bloody death."

You don't think it's OK, but it should OK (legal) for others to do, correct?

Posted by: jasper at July 28, 2007 11:14 PM


@Jasper: Not necessarily. I think we should be looking for alternatives.

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 11:20 PM


"Care to insult me a bit more?"

I'm not insulting you, I just simply stated what you think should be legal to do. Please, correct me if I'm wrong or mis-stated anything.

Posted by: jasper at July 28, 2007 11:22 PM


Jasper,

Rae didn't say the church taught her that, she said a really bad, uninformed, teacher taught her that.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 11:30 PM


You know, the last time we commented on the way someone looked, we got called on it...and usually I would agree. Attacking a person's looks is not nice.

BUT, I gotta tell ya, the woman in that picture scares me...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 28, 2007 11:33 PM


@Jasper: By calling me "pro-death" and a "liar" really sound like "insults" to me.

But no, I don't think it should be legal to do those things, however, just making it illegal is NOT going to solve the problem. That's what I've been trying to get at. Just by illegalizing abortion, you are NOT going to solve a darned thing. I would LOVE abortion not to be necessary anymore, and that's what needs to be done, preventing abortion from even being wanted or needed!

Posted by: Rae at July 28, 2007 11:36 PM


@Rae: But no, I don't think it should be legal to do those things, however, just making it illegal is NOT going to solve the problem. That's what I've been trying to get at. Just by illegalizing stealing, you are NOT going to solve a darned thing. I would LOVE stealing not to be necessary anymore, and that's what needs to be done, preventing stealing from even being necessary!

Posted by: jasper at July 29, 2007 12:01 AM


@Jasper: That doesn't even make sense. I think there should be a "multiple front attack" on getting rid of abortion, you can't just make it illegal and hope that solves everything and you know it.

You obviously are not even trying to understand what I am saying and are instead doing those ridiculous "comparison/analogy" arguments to prove nothing. You are NOT even seeing what I am saying you fool! I DON'T LIKE ABORTION. I THINK IT IS WRONG. WE NEED TO WORK MANY ANGLES TO GET RID OF ABORTION. Is that CLEAR enough for you? I do think at some time in the future we can make abortion illegal, and I do think we should work to that goal through several means.

Posted by: Rae at July 29, 2007 12:09 AM


Can anyone say "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane"?

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 29, 2007 12:18 AM


MK,LOL!!!

Posted by: Heather4life at July 29, 2007 7:17 AM


No Rae,

abortion is an horrendous evil that should be made illegal, believe me, making it illegal is the first big step in reducing the number of abortions. You're willing to agree how bad and wrong abortion is but at the same time you think it should be legal for abortionists to rip babies apart in the womb. My analogy above applies perfectly, if you have people running around murdering and stealing, the first thing a government should do is make it illegal, thus protecting the safety of others. The same goes for the victims of abortion. Your approach is very weak and cowardly and lacks empathy for the victims of abortion.

Posted by: jasper at July 29, 2007 10:49 AM


Bugger off Jasper. Just bugger off. I'm done posting here. I've had it. Good. Bye.

Posted by: Rae at July 29, 2007 11:00 AM


Jasper said: "Well, Leah, you would deny an unborn child life because of how wanted they are."

Yes. It's called the gift of life. The elderly are already living. They have already received that gift. To take it away because they are pro-choice is just idiotic.

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 11:23 AM


For the love of God, a fetus is already alive.

Posted by: Oliver at July 29, 2007 11:37 AM


Conscious, though? My blood cells are alive as well, and my skin cells--they die all the time.

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 2:03 PM


Yes your cells are alive, hence why a fetus/zygote is also alive. Please lets not use false rhetoric such as saying that they are not.

If the question is about conciousness, then say that.

Posted by: Oliver at July 29, 2007 2:11 PM


Oliver,

Both Dan L. and Leah seem to believe that there is no difference between being a human being and being part of a human being. Dan believes cancer cells are human beings. Leah believes that if it can't talk and walk it must be no more than a blood cell...

It's hard to keep a straight face sometimes.

I know you're new here (and welcome, welcome, welcome!) so I'll give you a list of things that an unborn baby have been called on this site (and everyone was serious)

Fetus
Fetii (we think this means more than one baby)
freeloaders
a leech
a parasite
a disease to be cured
a punishment
a zit
a virus
little sh&*ts
Pains in the a*&
and who could forget "lunch"
and now we can add cancer cells

But never, ever, ever make the mistake of calling them babies...

Just thought you should know where this conversation goes given enough rope...you're new, Jon is new, Dan L is new and Leah...well Leah isn't new, she just can't seem to move on from the "it's not a person" argument.

I must say, for awhile the discussions were actually quite enlightening, civil, and interesting. Most of us had moved beyond the basics.

If Jon and Dan L are going to stick around I fear that we'll have to regress...ahhh the price of being right...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 29, 2007 3:30 PM


No, MK. It isn't that I can't get away from it--it's just that it applied to my argument at the time.

I don't think anyone has ever called a baby (there, I said it--happy?) a cancer cell. The comparison has been made, but no one has ever said, "A fetus is a cancer cell!!"

And I think the lunch thing was in jest. Just a hunch.

Oh, and just to let you know, I really don't have any problem calling a fetus a baby or an unborn child. I just avoid it because when I did, I got jaspered with "If it's a child, do you have a problem killing it?" and I just about went insane.

Cheerio!

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 4:47 PM


Thats all fine and dandy, I just like straight forward debate. If you want to say that a fetus is "not alive" yet, then please expect me to be alarmed. If you mean that a fetus is not concious, then please say this, we might have a reasonable debate about it starting from there...who knows.

Oh hi MK.

Posted by: Oliver at July 29, 2007 5:33 PM


I never said a fetus isn't alive. Reread my post. You interpreted what I said to mean that--that's YOU not being straightforward, buddy.

Perhaps if you read the posts correctly, we could have a reasonable debate ... who knows.

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 5:44 PM


Jasper said: "Well, Leah, you would deny an unborn child life because of how wanted they are."

Leah said: Yes. It's called the gift of life. The elderly are already living.....

I was actually responding to both you and Jaspar. Jasper seemed to imply that unborn children are not alive, then you responded by agreeing with that notion calling birth "the gift of life" and then reenforcing the notion that fetuses are not alive by contrasting them with the elderly that "are already living."

I dont like to be nitpicky, lets just drop it. Just from now on lets try to be straight forward please.

Posted by: Oliver at July 29, 2007 5:52 PM


Oy vey. I've got such a headache. I cannot possibly bear to rethink ANY exchange I've had with Jasper because it just makes my head spin with all the twisty turny back-you-into-a-corner logic that goes on.

Whatever. Consider it dropped. Here's my statement:

I support a woman's right to an abortion. Period.

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 6:02 PM


Leah,

ACTUALLY, Cancer is a separate life form from its host, it is organic, containing human DNA and genetic codes. The only difference between a fetus
and cancer is that the fetus is not attacking your living tissue.... all the time.

this was recently posted by Jon...

as was this...

Actually, Something being both alive and genetically human does NOT make it a person.
Cancer is alive and human. So is your hair.
A PERSON has rights, human cells do not.

Sounds an awful lot like saying that hair and cancer are the same as humans. Just not the same as persons...


As for Lunch, that was because an abortion Doctor was accused of eating the fetuses aborted...and because of the post on China using fetuses as beauty supplements.

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 29, 2007 6:07 PM


Leah- You say "I support a woman's right to an abortion. Period."

Where to believe the "right to abortion" is found constitutionally?

Posted by: Lauren at July 29, 2007 6:11 PM


Jasper,

Can you answer a quick question for me?

Do you get off on making feel bad about themselves or feeling like they are lower than you?.

You remind me of all the stuck up snotty bit$#es I went to high school with. Does it make you feel good to think that you higher or better than someone else? Do you make it your life's mission to insult people and make them feel like they are $hit? B/c I've got news for you buddy, you are no better than anyone else in this world (and especially NOT Rae)!!

You twist people's words around to make you sound smarter and "godlier" than anyone who disagrees with you. And that is truly pathetic. You call them cowards and insult them to the best of your ability, and why? To make you feel better about yourself, to think you are going to Heaven, or is it to impress other people on here?

You truly deserve to burn in Hades for the things you said to Rae (and to me in the past), and I hope you feel like utter $hit for the rest of your life.

And I could have sworn you called yourself a "Christian".

Posted by: midnite678 Author Profile Page at July 29, 2007 6:26 PM


Ahh! I have to go to bed!!!

Lauren--I'll admit it, I'm not all that Constitution-savvy. I could read through it and site passages to back myself up, but seeing as it is past midnight where I am, I'm going to take a raincheck on that. Besides, I don't call it a "right" because of what the Constitution says--I call it a right because I believe it to be a right.

Similar (though not exactly the same as) to the way that pro-lifers call abortion "murder" when even though it legally is not.

Goodnight all! I'm probably the only crazy person still awake.

Posted by: Leah at July 29, 2007 11:28 PM


Yes. It's called the gift of life. The elderly are already living. They have already received that gift. To take it away because they are pro-choice is just idiotic.

Leah, How doesn't this imply that the unborn children are not already alive? If you say that the elderly have already been given the gift of life, and to take it away would be wrong, then you are absolutely implying here that the unborn child does not have the gift of life, and therefore is not already living.

But this is scientifically and biologically untrue. From the time of conception, the unborn child is a complete, living, human organism, just needing nutrition and oxygen to survive (just like us). There is absolutely no biological difference, only a developmental difference.

If the idea is that it is okay because they are not conscious yet, then why is infanticide wrong? Newborn babies are not conscious, as we are. They are not really considered self aware until 18 months.

There is no Biblical basis for abortion being allright with God. God is the author of life. The entire Bible is filled with life giving principles. Children are considered a blessing in the Bible, they are never referred to as a curse.

However, miscarriage and a barren womb are considered a curse. Why do you think this is, if abortion is okay with God? Would he reward someone for bringing a curse upon themselves? This makes no sense.

"Children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. "

Why would we kill what God has given to us as a gift? All human beings are created for a purpose.

"I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them. "

If God sees us when we are still unformed, in the womb, and knows who we are, and has ordained our life and what we will be, why would he then be okay with us being killed before our time?

"Thou shalt not kill" How do you kill something that is biologically a living human being, and innocent, and not be going against God's word?
'kill' in the Bible, comes from the word "ratsach", meaning to commit premeditated murder; to slay, or to kill as an avenger; an intentional slayer; to assassinate.

An abortion is premeditated. You must think about having an abortion before you do it...you must sign papers, and lie on the table, willingly, to allow the doctor to remove the baby from your belly.
An abortion is the intentional slaying of human life. Whether you believe the unborn is human or not, does not take away from the scientific evidence which proves that they are biologically alive, human, and complete from the moment of conception.

There is no right to abortion in the Bible. So I do not know what you base this right on, but it is not on the principles of the Word of God.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 7:56 AM


I don't think anyone has ever called a baby (there, I said it--happy?) a cancer cell. The comparison has been made, but no one has ever said, "A fetus is a cancer cell!!"

If someone said to you, that there is no difference between a newborn baby and a cockroach, how would you respond?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:10 AM


test post... I just junked one of my comments and want to see if I can still post.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2007 8:19 AM