by Jill Stanek

Hey Jill, that was a great little montage, and the music was easy to listen to also. You are a good photographer and editor. I see you were up half the night doing this as well. God bless you and I'm sorry I didn't get to meet you yesterday. I hope to meet you and maybe MK as well someday. You are both great pro-lifers!

Jill,

That was Great! It really captured the day. And you must be exhausted!

“Couples who view anything as "SACRED" , but most especially "sex" and marriage, do usually stay together...unless you have a different definition of sacred?”

This may be true but it is not necessary for a couple to view sex as sacred in order to stay together. Depending on one’s definition of sacred, it may or may not be necessary to view marriage as sacred.

To me, sacred means something that is treasured and should be preserved at all costs. It should be inviolable and, for lack of a better word, should be considered holy.

“If babies weren't dying as a result of these "dirty homes", I would agree with you. But they are, and when that happens at the rate of 1 and a half million a year, their dirty homes become my business...”

I may disagree with this but I think at some level that I do understand it. It is unreasonable to expect those who believe that abortion is murder to sit by idly while others seek to end their pregnancies through the use of abortion.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:42 PM

Some really good discussions were taking place on the proliferations post so I moved them here...

Hello Everybody,

Thanks for the warm greetings. I feel far more welcome here than anywhere else I’ve tried to debate these topics. Thanks also for the compliments on my debating skills. I’ve been trying to hone them for the past year or so.

“I hope that we will give you some good discussions, and things to think in the future, as I am sure you will give us much to think about as well!”

This is my hope as well.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:34 PM

Some really good discussions were going on on the pro liferations post...moved them here...

John: Doug - last week I told you that there was a way out of the Cartesian-box ... so here it is:

Some points to remember - 1) this Cartesian way of observation of reality IS very powerful and many people are here. 2) it is a defensive posture - the outside world is 'outside'. There is no 'superiority' involved. A person in our modern world is very fortunate, if they have managed to avoid this completely.
3) There is absolutely no proof that the Cartesian-box exists or that this works for you. If it does work, enjoy the freedom, please! You will be one of the first ones to attempt it! 4) This method is somewhat unusual. I am a wee bit mathematically inclined: to solve a very difficult puzzle, I'd often look up the answer and often the 'answer' yielded enough of a clue as to how I should proceed to 'solve the problem'. In retrospect much of what I've done here is very similar to that.

I hear that, John, and I've done the same thing as far as learning how to solve a problem. I still don't really know what you mean by the "Cartesian Box," in plain language. You seem to think it would be a bad thing, though.

........

The motive for wanting out of my 'box' was that I knew it too well and I was dying inside ... and I did not want to die! The key then to change this outlook was to live a free life. So how does a person become free? ... with laws, and rules and a seemingly hostile environment .... How to, how to ... ???

Sounds to me like the feeling of "I need something more.." Lots of people feel that way.

........

Understand what free means ... not just the dictionary stuff about 'choosing', but how do humans experience freedom ... watching an eagle soar, a good belly-laugh; weeping intensely at perverse injustice; reading to overcome ignorance; sailing ; a quiet vacation hike; seeing majestic mountains; riding out a hurricane ... etc, etc. Then I realized the concept of 'choice' (the dictionary view) had a very little grasp of what my experience of freedom was.

At roughly the same time, I started to understand that one of the key aspects of love is one-ness. [Every expression we have re. affection involves this whether it be a kiss, a hug, a handshake, we 'touch' someone, sexual intercourse, etc, etc] Could these two fit together - freedom and love? On-the-surface there is no way, especially if one enjoys the Cartesian-box life. But these two do indeed fit, but a person must be willing to change notions of what 'freedom' means. How about 'freedom is: an extension of being'? With such an understanding even the concept of choice is freed.

I don't think that freedom is an extention of being. "Being," alone, implies no freedom, necessarily. However, that is not to say that most of us aren't actually more free than we are aware of, in our daily lives. Also, I'd say that the human mind can "travel" quite a ways, even in the mere contemplation of things - some of which you mention above - while the body is quite limited (or our physical choices are quite limited).

........

By becoming-one with/in another (love) a human truly becomes 'the other'. So such an extension to the world of things (see below), transforms our concepts of ............ there are just too many! Such an extension to another (limited) human being, a person becomes freer in marriage [the two become one] ... and children are not burdens-to-stifle-self-expression but opportunities to embrace and enter into a life that is not me. [[ FOR STILL MORE ]] there comes a time when an urge beckons a person yet deeper. Same process, but this time the target is God - by definition both unlimited and Himself free. To extend ourselves to Him is the ultimate in 'freedom'; if He extends Himself to you, this is liberation - not here myself but have only read about it! And very little (almost none of it), is in the least bit verifiable. Does such need to be? The Cartesian box is only a 'bad' memory and has little to do with shaping perspective!

For a given person to benefit philosophically from believing this type of thing, I don't think it has to be verifiable. Yet to base telling a given woman that she can't end an unwanted pregnancy per such is the same as telling a woman with an wanted pregnancy that she should end it - "because of my faith." Well, her faith may be different from the speaker's.

My wife and I don't have any kids. We got married fairly "late" - she was 38, I was 41. There are lots of nieces and nephews, though, and to an extent they can be our "kids." My wife, as a teacher, also gets 150 kids every year, and over the years I've had my share in the course of my employment - it's now 23 years that I've been doing the same thing.

........

This is a very simple exercise but for me was highly transformational :::

Lie on a carpeted floor without a pillow and no music/sound - be quiet. Lie on your back; legs together and arms tucked next to your body. Within a very short while certain areas will become very painful. Right at these points, picture your body slowly descending into the floor ... eventually, it will feel like your pain is a tether to hold you. You will release this too ... and just float ... for me at least my mind did a 'flip' and I became very much more aware of what a pure gift living is. Believe me, you will not snooze, if you have no comfort like a pillow.

I always wondered what it would be like to perform such a ritual within marriage. My brother (moved by my experience), could not even fathom what this would do inside marriage. I am not married and so have not tried this here: so caution ... it will uncover all kinds of stuff. [This is not for a dilettante.]

Cool, John. I will try it. The only thing I've ever done that seems similar is a "shamanic journey" where you imagine yourself going "down" to another realm. No "shaman" is really required for it - easy to do by oneself. It was quite moving for me. Also have stared at my own face in the mirror for long enough that things seem to "change" - there is a morphing that goes on.

I will copy your instructions and e-mail them to myself so I won't forget.

Thanks,

More from the proliferations post...

Mary,

Okay, I have a confession to make. I am not an expert on climate change. Yes, volcanoes have been spewing pollution into the air for millennia. I will not dispute that. However, this gets back to the issues of pollution that is a natural part of nature and pollution that is artificially created. Volcanoes can and do pollute, but the pollutants that they inject into the atmosphere were naturally created. They came from the earth. The earth can deal with them more easily than it can with artificially created elements. There is also the issue of the amount of pollutants in the air. Volcanoes continue to erupt and they have for centuries. But volcanoes do not do what factories and auto emissions do. They do not spew a constant level of pollution into the air. They erupt infrequently and the earth is able to absorb such insults. The carbon cycle is necessary for life. The problem is when the earth is asked to absorb a constant cycle of insult that it may not be able to sustain.

I’d never want to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The plants would have nothing left to breathe. Without plants, animals would then have nothing to breathe and we’d all die (well, except for the anaerobic organisms). The issue relates to balance. Too much carbon dioxide in the air is not good. Neither is too little. A healthy balance must be maintained.
Posted by: Enigma at August 25, 2007 11:52 PM

Bethany,

“I don't understand why any of these things [fossils and the polar ice caps melting] could possibly mean that the world is being destroyed?”

The fossil record was not meant to indicate that. I was trying (and apparently to ask) what individuals who do not believe in evolution felt that the fossil record was.

If the polar ice caps completely melt the world will be in trouble. I don’t have the exact figures on hand, but a good segment of land that we have now would end up underwater.

“But there is evidence of an intelligent designer as well. It's real, and one can either deny it or accept it, but the simple fact of the matter is that evidence exists that we were created by an intelligent designer.”

This is something that I’ve never really understood. I know that people who believe in intelligent design or creationism argue that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe either in an intelligent designer or in biblical creationism. Do you think that you might be able to explain to me how you think that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer/creationism? (I’m not trying to imply that those two beliefs are the same, here I have put a slash between them to indicate that I view them similarly as to me they both seem to endorse a faith and a creator. If you believe that my perception is wrong on this issue, please tell me).

“I am not talking about a religion...Intelligent design isn't even a religion. I am talking about an alternate explanation of how the world came to be.”

I have always felt that intelligent design implies religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood intelligent design to mean that evolution did take place but that a higher power either set it in motion or guided the process. Thus intelligent design teaches that there is some higher power out there which has created everything. To me, this attempts to mix the supernatural (which cannot be proven) with science. Scientific evidence and theories can be tested..

“By concrete evidence do you mean proof? And if so, can you share with me some proofs of evolution?”

Proof is kind of what I mean when I say concrete evidence. To be more precise, I guess I mean something tangible. Something real.

I would offer the fossil record as evidence for evolution. I would also offer the discoveries of humanoid skeletons. Some of these skeletons, while clearly not Homo sapiens, appear to be our predecessors. I would offer the age of the earth. I would offer how closely different animal species are genetically linked.

“My belief in God is taken on by faith alone, but I can also see evidence of His creation and design...there's no way for me not to see this.”

My beliefs about matters of faith are complex. As I said, for me, faith means that there is no evidence to support one’s belief. I suppose the best example distinguishing the two would be to say that I do not have faith in myself, I believe in myself. It isn’t faith because I base my beliefs off past experience. You do raise a valid point. To a large extent, people see what they want to see and interpret what they see in ways that support their preconceived notions and other beliefs. When you look at the world, you see evidence of His creation and design because you have faith. When I look at the world, I do not see what you see because I do not have faith.
Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 12:23 AM

Bethany,

For starters, I would like to offer my deepest condolences for your loss. Miscarriage is never easy to bear and I hope that you are doing alright. Those are lovely pictures. Who wrote the poem at the bottom of that one?

“I don't see how that could possible be true since before there was such great access to contraceptives, and before there was sex ed, unwanted pregnancies were much, much rarer.”

This could be another example of the changes of the modern age. It is possible that greater access to contraceptives, sex ed., and sexual promiscuity are all products of the modern era. Correlation is not causation.

“It seems to me that sex ed is only titilating teenagers and teens being teens are taking chances, when they already know full well the consequences of those chances.”

I disagree. I have personally found that education allows for informed decisions. For me, having someone simply tell me, “no, don’t do this, it’s bad” was not an effective deterrent. I needed to know the risks and the whys of why I should not engage in a certain behavior.

It’s late. I need to go. I know that I haven’t answered everything, but I really need to go. I’ll try to get to everything later.
Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 12:43 AM

Gee...

I wonder what 1000 people with too much time on their hands could have done to help the flood victims in your state?
It's not like I'm sayin' the "mind your vagina" festival was pointless... Wait - yes I am...

Laura,

I would say that most people on your side of the fence felt the same way. As only 23 of them showed up to show their support for choice. Perhaps they were all in Darfur?

Laura,

Still avoiding the videos?

Awesome and informative video...on PBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I

Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:08 PM

For everyone who doesn't believe that these babies suffer during abortion...Hal, Leah, Laura, Erin, Doug...I offer this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0L3ni9Hs&NR=1

Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:29 PM

wow, nice job Jill....

..the pro-life side dominated the hopeless pro-abort side. That was a nice picture of you and MK at the end.

..regarding the Chicago Trib. article...quote from Illinois NOW president Bonnie Grabenhofer:

"They [abortion protesters] know that it is futile to try to stop the clinic," she said. "They come here to harass women."

..oh yea, alot of women harassing going on there!!

Jill,
I loved the montage and background music. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Hey, you got shots of my husband, sister in-law and my nephew!!! What about me?*pouts*

Reading through some of the news coverage, the pro-abortion side made the accusation that most of the protesters were from out of state, whereas "all of us" (those supporting the PP clinic) were from the community. Now the Chicago Tribune is saying that another county's NOW chapter was present, as well as the Socialist Worker's Party (a JOKE among serious radicals, and their pro-abortion protest projects have continually been short lived) - which is from Chicago.

Jasper,

..oh yea, alot of women harassing going on there!!

Didn't we tell you that we rounded up the women and put them in stocks?!?!?!

"Didn't we tell you that we rounded up the women and put them in stocks?!?!?!"

LOL!

Hi Enigma,

I'm afraid I responded to your post on the wrong thread. Anyway,
My point is that volcanoes have been spewing tons and tons of ash, debris, and poisonous gas into the atmosphere for as long as the earth has been here and continue to do so. Volcanoes have also created temporary climate change. Our ancestors polluted for centuries with their wood,coal, and dung fires and their less than desirable sanitation. The climate and any changes taking place are so complex experts can't even agree among themselves and are making new discoveries as to how the climate is influenced. Rmember our old saying "the more we learn the less we know"? That certainly applies to the climate.
The politicians and Hollywood hobnobs who want to salve their consciences for using private jets, owning fleets of cars, and using massive amounts of energy to maintain their numerous estates, while preaching to the rest of us about our SUVs and toilet paper usage, have come up with this notion of "carbon credits". They pay some company to grow tree and absorb their extra carbon. Needless to say there's plenty of entrepeneurs who will grow rich off of these suckers and others like them. Some of these trees were being planted in some remote corner of Uganda where destitute farmers, people who would just like to eat and survive, are competing with these tree planting companies for land.

Excellent work Jill.

Vagina festival? What would a man know about that?

Man, I had so much fun harassing women yesterday! Especially when I told them that Pro-Choice or Die was my personal motto, and that abortion was healthy for you! WEE!

Sadly, as much as I would've loved to play sociopath, I didn't. I was pretty low-key, for the most part.

Jill,

This video was excellent!!

Just think Planned Parenthood is a Billion Dollar Industry and all they could get was 17 Pro-Aborts to defend killing babies (I love that sign "Keep Murder Legal" in the video. Was that Fins holding the sign?).

The Local Community/PLAL/and others in less than a week got over 1,200 Protesters againt Planned Parenthood in Aurora.

The 40 Days of Prayer has done tremendous deeds already.

The POWER OF PRAYER is AMAZING!

Please everyone KEEP PRAYING TO END ABORTION!

As you can see in Aurora, OUR PRAYERS ARE WORKING!

Mike

I'm reading the press coverage, and it is absurd.

They are acting as though 20 prochoicers are equal to over 1000 pro-lifers.

They have a quote from a woman with NOW talking about how they were proud of their turnout because it showed that "not everyone" is against the clinic.

It is so sickening how the press treats pro-lifers. The rhetoric is ridiculous. They actually call us "abortion foes" and the pro-choicers "women's right activists".

I want to scream!

Paul, Ellie, MK, Mike, jasper, Dan: Thanks! I was indeed up til 5a, when I'm usually getting up! But I loved putting that together.

Paul, sorry we missed you, too!

Danny, I think you have a problem with boundaries.

Rosie... hm... when did I snap their photo?

It was a bit absurd. However, keep in mind that there were CHILDREN there for the protest, and half of them didn't even know what was going on. I asked a young man who was holding a sign the advertised Roe VS Wade, and all he knew was that his parents told him abortion was bad! I mean, c'mon now! The other PCs that were there, that I didn't meet, maybe they acted like jerks, but at least they didn't bring little kids into it! I had one guy pointing out Ron and I to his kids and telling his children that we were Satan's Helpers for being pro-choice. Seriously.

Educate the kids, let them get into high school, then have them protest. I mean, seeing as how they don't legally have a say until they're 18, it doesn't really matter what they say. More power to them for coming out and supporting your cause, but make sure they know what they're supporting before they start picketing.

PS Also keep in mind that if you ban abortion, you're going to see a rise in those home-made abortions that normally kill women. Just a bit for thought.

I don't agree with taking children to protests. My mom did it to me and I resented it. I thIink still might have my "mother's against guns" shirt. LOL.

As for the do-it-yourselfers. We have created a society dependant on abortion. Women my age consider it their "right". I'm sure if we outlawed it tomorrow there would be a surge in self-inductions (most likely in the form of a surge of teenage girls with ulsers (RU 486))

We need to somehow counteract 34 years of brainwashing during the time abortion is banned.

Mary, I posted my reply in the wrong thread as well. So I'll just repost it here.

I don't think that it's fanatical to believe that humans could be impacting the environment and could be contributing to wide scale climate change.

You do raise good points. (I have to check the volcano thing). Climate change is extremely complex and it is clear that mass climate change had occurred before on this planet. (Well, if one believes in evolution and trusts the fossil record.) Supposedly it was a change in the climate that killed of the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to become more dominant.

Simply because we do not know everything that there is to know about a topic is not, in my opinion, a good reason to disregard research and factual data. Having said this, I recognize that there are climatologists who do not believe in global warming and have conducted research which supports their viewpoint. Since you seem to have conducted research on other topics that we've debated, I will assume that you've researched this as well and have come to an informed decision. My research that led me to a conclusion in the opposite direction. This may be another one of those "let's agree to disagree things."

Have a good day.

Oops, I meant to sign that.

Bethany

“Because it's a culture of death...don't you read the newspapers...”

That is a matter of perception. Those quotes that you offered were uttered by great men and women (well, a great man and a great women). Even though I view both of these individuals with deep respect, I do not share their views. Their beliefs do not make something a reality.

“Well there you go...the state of denial.”

How is that a state of denial? I know that you believe I am in denial because I am denying something which you hold to be true. Since I do not hold it to be true, I do not consider myself to be in denial.

“By the way, at which moment does this ficticious non person suddenly become "a full fledged human individual"...what, day 21 he's not a person...day 21 1/2 - BINGO! - Houston we have the right level of brain development?”

At the age of viability.

“Psssst...the truth doesn't require your consent. Whether or not you believe it to be true, has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You just don't have that much power...just sayin'”

I am slowly beginning to learn that truths and even facts in some cases do not stand alone. They are subject to our perceptions. Truth is not an objective concept. What is true for one may not be true for another.

John,

“maybe you can help me ... a few decades back, I thought that THE solution to abortion was information ... really good visual information.”

“In the last few years, the doctors in the UK(England) have developed the ultrasound greatly. The image is filtered through a computer and some amazing 4D-footage shows a highly active pre-born child.”

“Here is where you come-in - what do we do now? - if 'choice' means ignorance over knowledge; 'choice in-action' means going along with the stupidities of the crowd.”

The problem you raise is simply a matter of perception. To you, the truths that matter deal with the development of the fetus. You believe that if someone knows about the development of the fetus and can see that it isn’t simply a “blob of cells” that they will realize that the fetus is a human child and that abortion is murder.

These are not necessarily the truths that matter to others. To others (here I speak of the abortion rights crowd), the truths that matter deal with the woman and the effects and risks that go along with pregnancy. They do not view abortion as murder because they feel that a woman who gets an abortion is merely asserting her rights to control her own body.

What you see as stupidities others see as wisdom. What you believe to be true others may see as stupidity.

Jill,

I was being sarcastic. I didn't actually say anything like that to anyone. The most I did was quote the Bible when people yelled at me, and I did a benediction and a prayer when a lady kept yelling Hail Mary's and praying that St. Michael take me.

Or are we talking about a different boundary?

A continuation from my previous answer to John.

For me, personally, abortion should be a woman's choice. Even though I believe that abortion is a terrible thing and that no woman should ever have to make that choice, I recognize that a woman deserves the right to make the decision that she thinks is best for her body.

I do not think that the anti-abortion argument is stupid. For the most part, I believe in the sincerity of those who make it. And I do understand the difficult position that "pro-lifers" are in. An oft-cited argument is "don't like abortion, don't get one." That view trivializes the anti-abortion argument and misconstrues what this camp stands for. If one believes abortion is murder, it is akin to asking one who believes this to stand by idly while his neighbors are murdered to ask him to respect the right of women to "kill" their fetuses.

At the same time, I believe that the anti-abortion argument, while sincere, is misguided. For me the issue is not about the life/potential life of the fetus and about the right of the woman to control her body. I do not deny that potential lives are destroyed through abortion. I believe that this is a tragedy and that hopefully, the future will see a decrease in need for abortion.

The right to self-determination is one of the greatest gifts that we have. I would go so far as to argue that life is meaningless without it. Women should not be denied the right to control their bodies simply because they have become pregnant. Having sex is not consent to pregnancy. To me, telling a woman that she must carry an unintended pregnancy to term is akin to telling all women that they are somehow less important than the children that they can bring into the world. It is like telling all women that they do not have sole right to their bodies and that the government can seize possession of them for a little while in order to help another. If that occurs, I believe that it will be a far greater tragedy than abortion ever could be.

Enigma: "What is true for one may not be true for another."

what do mean by this? doesn't 2+2=4 ? do mean in your world 2+2 could equal 5 ?

wow.

Enigma,

You state that " To me, telling a woman that she must carry an unintended pregnancy to term is akin to telling all women that they are somehow less important than the children that they can bring into the world. It is like telling all women that they do not have sole right to their bodies and that the government can seize possession of them for a little while in order to help another."

Our government tells us constantly that we must forfit some of our rights in order to help another. Parents forfit their rights to privacy and self-determination in order for thier children to avoid neglect. Simply stated, the child's right to not be neglected overrides the parents' right to self-determination.

A mother can not simply tell her daughter "Lizzy, I realize that it is -49 outside, and that you are only 2 years old, but mommy really needs the house to be empty right now because I need to study for an exam".

How is abortion any different? If born children have the right to impose on their parents rights, why should unborn children not be afforded the same right?

"what do mean by this? doesn't 2+2=4 ? do mean in your world 2+2 could equal 5 ?"

Not at all. There are absolutes in this world. Moral absolutes, however, are far trickier than mathematical certainties. A person' perception of a "moral absolute" is based on how that person was raised and what that person believes. This does not mean that I do not believe that certain moral absolutes are, in fact, absolute, but that I am cautious. Belief does not equal truth.

In this comment I was also trying to indicate how, over the years, I have come to realize that certain facts that I accept as gospel truth and as completely objective have impartial undertones.

"Our government tells us constantly that we must forfeit some of our rights in order to help another. Parents forfeit their rights to privacy and self-determination in order for their children to avoid neglect. Simply stated, the child's right to not be neglected overrides the parents' right to self-determination."

Not really. A parent has already consented to having a child and to accepting all of the responsibilities that having a child entails. Parents have voluntarily given up some of their rights. A women who has not consented to being pregnant has done none of these things. She has no obligations whatsoever to the fetus.

"If born children have the right to impose on their parents rights, why should unborn children not be afforded the same right?"

For starters, "unborn child" is a fictitious term. Medically, a being in the womb is known as either an embryo or a fetus. Obligation is only assumed through consent. Thus parents who have consented to having children have obligations to those children. A woman who has not consented to being pregnant has no obligation to continue her pregnancy.

Blast, I forgot to sign that again.

"A person' perception of a "moral absolute" is based on how that person was raised and what that person believes. "

no, this is the problem with our society, taking prayer out of schools, birh control for unmarried couples, abortion, pornography.... leads to the sick culture that we live in.

"A women who has not consented to being pregnant has done none of these things. She has no obligations whatsoever to the fetus."

wrong, she volunteered when she had sex, as there is a risk of getting pregnant. This is not the unborn babys fault, thus ending his/her life is lawless and barbaric.

"For starters, "unborn child" is a fictitious term."

only in the mind of a savage.

"Medically, a being in the womb is known as either an embryo or a fetus."

really? what does a pregnany mother call her unborn baby when it kicks? the fetus or baby. Do use medical terms for everything? what do call a heart attack? this is not a medical term.

"A woman who has not consented to being pregnant has no obligation to continue her pregnancy."

she already consented by having sex, because when you have sex, you could get pregnant. once life is created at conception, one does not have the right to end that life. Murder is against the law.

Enigma, sorry. You are just resorting to what most other pro choicers do. Diversion tactics. They just don't work. Sorry.

Enigma. One attacks words when they cannot attack ideas. You're smart enough to debate without going into the "but unborn isn't a correct medical or legal term speal".

You obviously understood the coloquialism. In my
example, the differnece between the groups of children was their birth status. Because birth is the contended marker of rights, it is useful to distinguish between the two using it as a term.

Regardless, (for honestly, was this really a necessary deversion from the debate) it seems your main contention that it is consent which requires us to forfit rights for another.

This,however, is inacurate. We are required to render aid to someone hurt in an accident, even if we did not "agree" to put the person in the situation. We must surrender our rights in order to help the person who we have (accidentally) put into a situation where they are reliant on us for their survival.

Should I hit a man with my car, take him off my bumper, and drive away, I will be charged with several crimes. Indeed, even should I strike a man who is J-walking, I am still required to stop and render aid. Whether the driver caused the accident or whether it was caused by another person's negligence, the duty to stop, report, and render aid is required. If the driver willfully fails to perform these legally required duties, they are guilty of the crime of hit and run.

You no more consented to the accident than one consents to pregnancy. You simply drove knowing that with driving comes the risk of accidents. Likewise with pregnancy, you have sex, knowing that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy.

Blast, I forgot to sign that again.

Posted by: Enigma at August 26, 2007 4:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AAAAAAAAARGH!
I've been having the same problem.
I'd like to assure the board that I'm not trying to represent myself as two pro-choicers, but that my signature doesn't always get picked up - particularly if I'm impatient.

mk loves to post some odds and ends so I thought I would post a very few 'guess-tamates' just to give a little clue (and another perspective) as to what we are talking about .......

@Doug,

sure glad you found my post ... hope you and others can benefit from this simple trick ... must keep reminding myself that the Cartesian-box is very pervasive in our modern world and is the term coined to illustrate the world-view espoused by Réné Descartes in the 15th Century. It probably is because this view was the perspective that not only dominated the French Revolution ... but much of the 'independence' thought in the American Constitution ... and likely the backdrop for Nazism and communism - so, this is not a little thing.

Enigma has some problems with evolution vs creationism ... so, here's a little of my take on this. Maybe what we need is a little dose of humility ... everyone - we get so caught-up in ourselves .... in we measured significance by weight then ALL life would weigh about 2 ounces next to the 'things' of this world like rocks and water - weigh @1 billion TONS .... now our planet's weight (inside our solar system is) probably smaller than 2 grains vs 1 billion tons ... and the whole amount is 100% 'THINGS' (mostly rocks and gas). Within our galaxy, our solar system is very, very small [the nearest star is only 3,000 light years away .... a light year = distance traveled if one travels at the speed of light for 1 year ... at that speed we reach our sun in @8 minutes ... The Hubble telescope found a star-cloud formation that likely gives birth to stars. It is only 150 light years across.] On the grand scale our galaxy is just one of many and hardly visible in the whole physical universe.

This whole bit can be repeated for the micro universe too. All living humans are a very small fraction of all life ... probably a very small fraction of 1%. On top of that, all our physical-being is composed of molecules- which in-turn are well-spaced atoms. Now, if it were possible to remove all the space within atoms, then 13 tons of matter would be put in 1/3 teaspoon.

Our 'physicality' does not amount to very much ... mostly space ... inside a physical universe so large, that our whole species would be hard to locate. [And there's more. It seems like the author of this site http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ thinks galaxies are large-scale atoms.]

So evolution is only about biological species ... very small but unique in this massive universe according to Teilhard de Chardin in his "Divine Millieu" [he was part of the team that uncovered the Peking-Man.] It is important for biology, but says nothing at all about things (by far the largest part of the universe) ... there is so much more to uncover ... we should NOT get bogged down in trivialities (a word specifically chosen) like evolution.

Have you guys used the remember me button?

Danny,

So many things, so little time...

First:
I mean, seeing as how they don't legally have a say until they're 18, it doesn't really matter what they say.

They may not have a say, but they can have an abortion at 14!!!! If Obama wants to "educate" them on sex in kindergarten why wouldn't we want to "pre-educate" them before the likes of the secular, hyper-sexed school system gets to them...

Next:
PS Also keep in mind that if you ban abortion, you're going to see a rise in those home-made abortions that normally kill women. Just a bit for thought.

Thought in the wrong hands is a dangerous thing...
I have posted (so many times I can't count), and so recently so did (Lauren?) the accounts by Bernard Nathanson on how they MADE UP THOSE NUMBERS!

Why is it you guys don't read or watch the stuff we post? When you don't read or watch it, but then comment on it's contents with misinformation you sound really lame. Watch the video, read Bernard Nathansons account and then get back to me...

BERNARD NATHANSONS ACCOUNT:

The "pro-choice movement's" emotionally compelling slogans -- fierce rallying cries of the most successful political marketing campaign in modern history, which made abortion-on-demand legal in the U.S. -- have been powerful rhetorical weapons for fighting off efforts to reverse Roe v. Wade, coming up on its 30th anniversary next month.

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard Nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the pro-abortion movement in the late '60s and early '70s.

"We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL -- originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League -- as well as its medical committee, Nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story.

"In 1968 I met Lawrence Lader," says Nathanson. "Lader had just finished a book called Abortion, and in it had made the audacious demand that abortion should be legalized throughout the country. I had just finished a residency in obstetrics and gynecology and was impressed with the number of women who were coming into our clinics, wards and hospitals suffering from illegal, infected, botched abortions."

"Lader and I were perfect for each other. We sat down and plotted out the organization now known as NARAL. With Betty Friedan, we set up this organization and began working on the strategy."

"We persuaded the media that the cause of permissive abortion was a liberal, enlightened, sophisticated one," recalls the movement's co-founder. "Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls. We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000."

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

"Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization."

What was the result of NARAL's brilliantly deceitful marketing campaign, bolstered by thoroughly fraudulent research? In New York, the law outlawing abortion had been on the books for 140 years. "In two years of work, we at NARAL struck that law down," says Nathanson. "We lobbied the legislature, we captured the media, we spent money on public relations. … Our first year's budget was $7,500. Of that, $5,000 was allotted to a public relations firm to persuade the media of the correctness of our position. That was in 1969."

New York immediately became the abortion capital for the eastern half of the United States.

"We were inundated with applicants for abortion," says Nathanson. "To that end, I set up a clinic, the Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (C.R.A.S.H.), which operated in the east side of Manhattan. It had 10 operating rooms, 35 doctors, 85 nurses. It operated seven days a week, from 8 am to midnight. We did 120 abortions every day in that clinic. At the end of the two years that I was the director, we had done 60,000 abortions. I myself, with my own hands, have done 5,000 abortions. I have supervised another 10,000 that residents have done under my direction. So I have 75,000 abortions in my life. Those are pretty good credentials to speak on the subject of abortion."

But something happened to Nathanson -- something profound. Just as it happened to countless other abortion practitioners, abortion facility owners and staffers. Just as it happened to Norma McCorvey -- the real name for "Jane Roe," the plaintiff in the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision.

These pioneers of the pro-abortion movement have all arrived at the same conclusion -- that abortion is the unjust killing of a human baby -- and have come over to the other side of the raging abortion debate.

Awesome and informative video...on PBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_W75zh1j2I
Posted by: mk at August 24, 2007 8:08 PM

For everyone who doesn't believe that these babies suffer during abortion...Hal, Leah, Laura, Erin, Doug...I offer this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aos0L3ni9Hs&NR=1

OH sorry, Enigma, I thought I posted it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42462

The actual article is much longer than what I posted.

Nathanson has also written several books.

Here's a brief wiki

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

Nathanson found himself in a deep dark place. He wanted to kill himself before he converted.

John,
My John took the car to work, but there was stuff in it I wanted to post for you...I was just reading about all the stuff you wrote about in my Angels and Demons book...(I've been reading it during my hour in the adoration chapel, as well as discussing all of you guys with The Man)...

But one of the things that it said, and this pertains to the person vs human being thing, is:

We have it backwards. Just like dog is a subclass of animals, human being is a subclass of 'persons'

In other words, all human beings are persons but not all persons are human beings. That would be like saying that all animals are dogs, instead of all dogs are animals. If we accept that angels exist (and I'm willing to bet that more people here that don't believe in God, do believe in Angels), then it stands to reason that these angels are persons, albeit not human beings. If you believe in extra terrestrials, (and I'm willing to be that more people here believe in extraterrestrials than God or angels) then it stands to reason that they would be persons, albeit not human beings.

Hence, all human beings are persons, but not all persons are human beings. Persons is a larger category.

The unborn, are human beings and persons.

Which brings us to the second misrepresentation.
Most people believe that the body encompasses the soul. But this is backwards also.

The soul encompasses the body. The soul is pure spirit, and it "surrounds" the body. Not the other way around.

Just as a School Building contains the classroom, but the classroom does not contain the school building.

Hence, the "person" or soul exists outside of the body. Not in it. This is why the unborn is a person as well as a human being, even if it hasn't taken a breath yet. Limiting people to the physical world and it's parameters, is to not understand the nature of persons, human beings or life. I believe in all that is seen and unseen...

By the way, have you started your novena? I emailed you again, but never heard back...did you not get it, not read it or just not respond to it?

Laura and Enigma,

AAAAAAAAARGH!
I've been having the same problem.
I'd like to assure the board that I'm not trying to represent myself as two pro-choicers, but that my signature doesn't always get picked up - particularly if I'm impatient.

I know what you mean...sometimes I have 3 or 4 windows open at a time, all with Jill's site on them, so I can continue reading while waiting for something to post. Cursed computers! I second the AAAAAAARRRRGHHHHH!

Hmm... Nathanson seems pretty messed up. He sounds like the old leader of a Neo Nazi gang who used to make up numbers for how many immigrants were "taking the white man's jobs." Seriously. Sounds exactly like him.

Ah well... To each their own, I guess. I still stand by my beliefs, and I support what I support.

Danny,

But tell the truth and shame the devil...doesn't it make you feel a little tiny bit duped to realize that you've been played?

Played by Nathanson? It slightly annoys me, like having an itch on my butt that I can't scratch, or having a burn on my finger.

MK, I've been getting played by women all my life, and that's major playing. You know where the last play was made, too. However, for someone to lie to the media and cause me to be a bit misinformed only irritates me. Nathanson switched sides, jumped ship, etc. Good for him. However, if he doesn't have the willpower and guts to stand by his beliefs, what makes you so sure he's going to hang around the pro-life side? Can you trust him to support you fully? No, because he's already shown that he'll abandon his beliefs for something else.

I'm not putting down pro-lifers. If anything, I give you guys credit for pulling out the stops. However, I'm starting to think that I'm gonna be Swiss and stay neutral in this argument, because there are no winners. It's a constant battle, and I personally have better things to devote my time to, like the wars in the streets, racism, unity, bigotry, etc.

sorry mk,

forgot to answer you re. the novena - have indeed started - superb prayers!

and about the 'person' insights .... never thought of it this way, but is making much more sense now ... I get tied to the physicality of thing-ness and seem-to-be-mesmerized and fixated by it! "How we do hate to venture out of our truths, eh?"

thanks

Danny,

Showing up yesterday and standing on the pro choice side hardly qualifies as neutral.

Mr. Nathanson is now 80 years old and has been actively pro-life for the last thirty. He is the guy responsible for "The Silent Scream" movie, and has done ENORMOUS work for our side. He changed his mind, because he had a change of heart. Ultrasound and science finally won out. He had actually aborted two of his own children. No, I don't think he'll be flippin' sides anytime soon.

And don't you think it is nobler to admit when you have been wrong than to stubbornly "stick to your guns" just because you don't want to be known as a "flipflopper"? Look at Saint Paul! Heck, look at me!

Just wanted you to be aware that much of what you believe you have been fed through the media and it is based on tricks.

Jill,
"Rosie... hm... when did I snap their photo?"

guy with glasses holding a sign and the woman in a pink shirt.

John,

I've come to LOVE Margaret...she is awesome.

I have more about atoms and space and such, but like I said, it is in the missing car...but I'll get it to you.

Oh wait i'm behind him on the left!! you can see my eyes:) (picket line)

Behind who on the left Rosie????

Oh, Oh, Oh...I see you...awesome!

MK, I understand where you're coming from, and yes, I do understand what you're saying on the media.

Also, I didn't try to stand on any side, yesterday. You guys took over the entire place, so Ron, Amanda and I were the floating trio, and after seeing how some PC and PL people were acting yesterday, I am considering becoming a neutral. Like I said, this is a losing battle that no one is going to win. As long as there's Pl, there'll be a PC. As long as there's good, there'll be evil. That's just the way it balances out.

Nathanson can be pro-life. Good for him. He did, however, betray his ideals. He lied to get what he wanted, then undermined all his work by jumping ship. It's counterproductive, and dishonorable. If we had someone who was a SHARP that went Neo, they'd probably get beaten like a red-headed stepchild, and that's being nice about it.

Danny,

That's because going NEO would be a step down, not up or sideways.

You keep telling me that you are working on being a better person, controlling the anger...

Aren't these changes for the positive. Could'nt I say that you are jumping ship...becoming peaceful, when before you were all about violence? Think about that.

And yes, of course, there will always be evil and good. But what defines a man, is which side he is willing to fight for. Not whether the man will "perfectly" represent his side (ie pro-lifers that act badly) but which side he stands for.

And if his heart is not pure, then his actions will out him.

"And gentlemen now aged in England who were not there, will think themselves accursed, and hold their manhood cheap, when any speaks who fought with us upon St. Crispin's day."

And how about this? I hated skinheads. Why? Because I was misinformed, just like you and just like Mr. Nathanson. But when I came to learn the truth, I changed my views. Should I cling to my previous views because to now appreciate the skinhead movement is counterproductive and dishonorable.

No Danny, honor is found in the man willing to admit he had it wrong. True honor, anyway.

Unfortunately MK, that's where you're wrong. I've never advocated violence. I fought because it was necessary, and I fought because it's what I had to do. I've never liked fighting, but its something I'm good at, and something that I did to protect people. That's it.

You want to know the truth? I'd rather just say I'm both. I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, but I realize there is a necessity for it at times. I'd love to do what I do best for both sides, but sadly, I'd rather not.

My sister is on the phone from Australia so I'll have to say good bye for now...more tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to it, MK. Have fun talking to your sis, Momma!

This was a bulletin insert this week for all Parishes in the Diocese of Joliet

------------

FROM MOST REVEREND J. PETER SARTAIN (BISHOP OF JOLIET, IL

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

You may be aware that Planned Parenthood will soon open a clinic that will provide abortions within the boundaries of the Diocese of Joliet. Located on the border of Naperville and Aurora, this will be the second abortion clinic to open in DuPage County in the past five years. I am deeply saddened that DuPage County will soon hold the distinction of hosting five abortion clinics within its borders.

The proposed opening of the new clinic is a troubling development. For everyone concerned, abortion is a source of great suffering and sorrow. As Catholics, we hope in the Lord of Life. Made in his image and likeness, we know that human life is sacred. At times like this, it is important to remember that our lives are not our own. Each of us belongs to Christ, and he asks us to serve him in one another and to show particular concern for the most vulnerable among us.

As Catholics, we will stand proudly and consistently “For Life” in our diocese. Rather than collapsing in negativity, we call on all people of good will to respond with positive action. Every step we take must be peaceful.

Prayer is our most powerful weapon. Pray that the Gospel of Life will take root and flourish in the seven counties that make up our diocese. Pray for all pregnant women in need, particularly those who find themselves in seemingly desperate situations. Pray for a conversion of heart in those who support and work at abortion facilities. Pray for healing of those who suffer the impact of abortion.

Work through your parish and area Pro-Life organizations to make known your Pro-Life convictions. Do what you can to offer support to pregnant women in need. Write letters to the editor of the local newspapers and to elected officials expressing opposition and concern, and always do so in a peace-filled, respectful manner. Our peaceful demeanor is one way we will consistently demonstrate our love and respect for all life.

PLEASE JOIN ME ON FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 7 IN A DAY OF PRAYER AND PENANCE FOR THE PROMOTION OF A CULTURE OF LIFE AND AN END TO ABORTION. Pray in the manner of your choosing – perhaps attend Mass that day, pray the rosary or other favorite prayers, for the intention of an increased respect for the sacredness of life. Choose a simple penance in keeping with your health and daily duties – abstain from meat or sweets that day, or refrain from television or other entertainment. Such simple efforts on our part can be a powerful witness to our neighbors and a sign to our Heavenly Father that we love the life – the lives – he has given us.

May we never tire of proclaiming the dignity and worth of every human life. May we never tire of serving the vulnerable and their caregivers with generous hearts. And may we never cease to pray for the day when all people, and all societies, will defend the life of every human from conception to natural death.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend J. Peter Sartain
Bishop of Joliet

http://www.catholicexplorer.com/explore4325/atd/life-crusaders-bombard-new-clinic-with-prayers.shtml#letter

Danny - I was talking about posting boundaries. I'm not quite sure what to do about you.

You've promised to vacate the site out of respect for Erin at least 3 times now. I understood you coming back to post on the photo I posted of you and us, and gave the green light for that. You expressed understanding.

Now here you are. When you're not spouting skinhead violence talk, you're fine, great, but if we have to make a "choice," Erin was here first and considers this a safe place to talk to people who care about her and know her history.

Sigh. What to do, what to do.

Mike wrote: "Just think Planned Parenthood is a Billion Dollar Industry and all they could get was 17 Pro-Aborts to defend killing babies "

Maybe they just don't care very much about these demonstrations. Why would they?

MK, it's worth remembering that Bernard Nathanson made quite a lot of money from book sales and speaking fees after he became a right-to-lifer. He was a very busy speaker in the 1980s and his book was a must-read/must-have-on-your-bookshelf among republicans during the Reagan years.

It's a joke among abortion docs--They say, any of them could "convert" to right-to-lifism and go on the lecture circuit as a former abortionist convert like Nathanson. You can make a comfortable living off right-wing granting agencies funded by guys like Richard Mellon Scaife--as David Reardon for instance does today. You can collect fat consulting fees from speaking to right-wing think tanks.

SOMG, please give me an idea of your connection to the abortion industry. You obviously are on the inside.

"It's a joke among abortion docs--They say, any of them could "convert" to right-to-lifism and go on the lecture circuit as a former abortionist convert like Nathanson."

He was sincere about it though SoMG. Maybe one day you will do the same. I Hope.

Jill,

If we put Erin and Danny in separate corners can we keep them both?

Also, I think the low number of pro choicers at the protest might have had something to do with the fact that there really wasn't anything for a pro choicer to protest against. There seem to always be less counter protesters than protesters at every protest you see. (And now I've exhausted the word "protest") You all were angry about the new Planned Parenthood, thats why so many of you were there, it was something urgent that you all believe you need to change, so naturally you all were more passionate about your protesting (see, thats that word again!).

That's the best you can do, MK? I'm not impressed.

You mean like these bastions of brilliance?

but here, for the feeble minded (like Heather),

Google his name, you illiterate dummy.

I know I've pointed this out to you before. Do you have trouble with your memory? I'm starting to suspect you may be stupid.

Although to be fair, Heather was pushing your buttons, and for the most part, you show remarkable restraint when I'm "stickin'" you.

But I still say you lack creativity...

Why don't you open up to us a little? You've been posting here forever, and you hide yourself away like a hermit. I know you and I aren't ever going to get engaged, but what do you say we make an effort to "get along"...(although I would miss all the jabbing...which I hope you know is "mostly" in fun and rarely is it truly mean spirited.) Tell me something about yourself. You've already heard my life story numerous times and know more intimate details about me than you probably wanted to...so c'mon, get on the disclosure wagon...
Posted by: mk at August 26, 2007 12:42 PM

SoMG,

I love computer games and one of my favorites was "Monkey Island"...

In these games instead of killing each other with swords, when the pirates would fight, they would trade insults. You had to match the correct snappy comeback with a given insult, and if you matched them all correctly, you won the "sword" fight.

I want you to know, that all the times I "insult" you, that game is always what I'm thinking of...

I really, really, really hope that I have never actually hurt your feelings and that you have been taking these in the vein they have been meant...
Posted by: mk at August 26, 2007 12:46 PM

Maybe they just don't care very much about these demonstrations. Why would they?

Well if they don't care about Planned Parenthood and Pro-Lifers don't care about Planned Parenthood, then let's all put a stop to sending our tax dollars to PP!

Mike

Jasper,

“no, this is the problem with our society, taking prayer out of schools, birth control for unmarried couples, abortion, pornography.... leads to the sick culture that we live in.”

The problem with this is that people have different definitions of morality and different ideas about what a moral absolute is. What makes yours right as opposed to someone else’s?

“wrong, she volunteered when she had sex, as there is a risk of getting pregnant. This is not the unborn babys fault, thus ending his/her life is lawless and barbaric.”

There is a difference between volunteering for something and engaging in an activity that may result in the realization of a specific risk. Do people who drive cars “volunteer” to get into accidents? Do swimmers “volunteer” to drown? Did Christopher Reeve “volunteer” to break his spine?

“only in the mind of a savage.”

The only reason to resort to insults in an argument is because one has run out of intelligent, logical arguments.

“Do use medical terms for everything?”

Of course not. An expectant mother who is happy to be pregnant calls her fetus a “baby.” She is not using academically accurate terminology. She is not required to because she is not engaging in an academic debate. When one is engaging in an academic debate, one should adhere to academic standards. These standards do not include the term “unborn baby.”

“she already consented by having sex, because when you have sex, you could get pregnant.”

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Just because sex carries a risk of pregnancy does not mean that one who engages in sex has consented to becoming pregnant. Let’s use an example. Suppose I and a friend are driving somewhere on Saint Patrick’s Day. Now, since it is SPD, we know that there will probably be drunks on the road and that there is a risk we will be in an accident caused by a drunk driver. Now let’s suppose that my friend and I are in a head-on collision and are both killed. Did we consent to die? Of course not. It’s the same for a woman and pregnancy.

Heather, I could say the same to you. You aren’t addressing the real issues, which is a woman’s right to control her body.

JK, re: Danny and Erin, I don't think that will work. As you likely know, they're a post-abortive couple who split up. For a reason I don't understand but appreciate, Erin finds this a safe place, and I want to keep this place safe for her. And Danny has promised her and us at least three times to honor Erin's request to vacate these premises, and he has not. That says something about Danny's character. We shouldn't be having this discussion. We shouldn't have this quandary.

I don't know if it was noted yet, but what Danny (and I) think of when we hear "skinhead" is different than the common definition. Skinheads aren't necessarily Nazi-esque thugs.....Danny can probably offer a better history of the issue, but from my own understanding, hate-mongers in England saw the skinhead movement as a place to find fresh converts, and adopted many things normative to the movement.

Now, when you hear "skinhead," you most likely will think Nazi.

“Enigma. One attacks words when they cannot attack ideas. You're smart enough to debate without going into the "but unborn isn't a correct medical or legal term speal".”

And sometimes the words represent the idea that one is attacking. A colloquialism has no place in a debate. In a debate, one should strive to avoid colloquialism and layman’s terms. One should be as factual and accurate as possible.

“your main contention that it is consent which requires us to forfeit rights for another.”

Yes and no. There is a difference between forfeiting the rights that one has to one’s body and forfeiting less central rights. If one has no right to one’s own body, one literally has nothing.

“We must surrender our rights in order to help the person who we have (accidentally) put into a situation where they are reliant on us for their survival.”

Actually, we’ve already consented to this, even before the accident. It’s called tacit consent and the rules of the system. The system which we all live and function within requires its members to act in the manner in which you have described in order to maintain and preserve the system. We have obligations to the system and to these laws but we have already consented through participation. We have consented by paying taxes and by voluntarily residing within the system, thus receiving all of the benefits that the system can offer.

“You no more consented to the accident than one consents to pregnancy. You simply drove knowing that with driving comes the risk of accidents. Likewise with pregnancy, you have sex, knowing that with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy.”

Incorrect. There are no “laws” that govern sexual contact. One has agreed to nothing. Knowing that an action carries a particular risk does not mean that one has consented to the risk if such a risk is realized.

JK, 9:11p, said: "Also, I think the low number of pro choicers at the protest might have had something to do with the fact that there really wasn't anything for a pro choicer to protest against."

Yes, I'm sure the only reason they pulled something together was to have a media presence to counter what we said to the press.

Still, you never ever see a pro-abortion rally. They can only manage to scrape one (pun intended) together every 10-20 years or so in DC by combining forces with the gay and socialist lobbies, shipping in their paid workers, and paying bus/travel expenses for volunteers. (Yes, every time I do see one of their pathetic little counter-protests, there is at least one socialist party sign.)

I told one of their 70-year-old protesters what a waste of a Saturday I thought it was to spend defending a woman's "right" to kill her baby. Pathetic. There's not much energy for that.

MK,

Thanks for posting the link.

And I do agree with you. True honor is found when one can admit one's mistakes. (I just wish politicians agreed).

By his own account, he was deceitful and manipulative in pushing the "pro-choice" agenda. How can we be sure that he isn't being deceitful and manipulative now?

"The problem with this is that people have different definitions of morality and different ideas about what a moral absolute is. What makes yours right as opposed to someone else’s?"

From all of the facts I gave you describing the decay of society, which you could not refute.

"Do people who drive cars “volunteer” to get into accidents? Do swimmers “volunteer” to drown? Did Christopher Reeve “volunteer” to break his spine?"

No, they did not volunteer. But they also did not create another human life, thats why when one has sex, it must be taken very seriously.

"The only reason to resort to insults in an argument is because one has run out of intelligent, logical arguments."

sorry, i didn't mean to refer to you as a "savage", I don't think you are one. It's just frustruting when one cannot see the how awful abortion is.

"When one is engaging in an academic debate, one should adhere to academic standards."

This is not a pre-med classroom discussion, it's a discussion about life and death. Should we now refer to heart attacks as "myocardial infarctions" on this blog?

"Now let’s suppose that my friend and I are in a head-on collision and are both killed. Did we consent to die? Of course not. It’s the same for a woman and pregnancy."

No, it's not. The difference is that with pregnancy, another life is created and that created life did not consent to death.

Mike, I didn't say they don't care about Planned Parenthood. I said they probably don't care about the right-to-life demonstrations AT Planned Parenthood.

"Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy."

Enigma, are you sure you're not Diana coming back for more? She endlessly posted that mantra as well as others you have stated.

Just finished reading "The Hand of God" by none other than our celebrated Bernie Nathanson himself, and I must say, it was incredibly revealing. Regardless of your position, it is a must read for anyone involved in the abortion spectrum. Heads up: have a dictionary handy. He's got some serious vocabulary!

"It's worth remembering that Bernard Nathanson made quite a lot of money from book sales and speaking fees after he became a right-to-lifer"

It's also worth noting, SoMG, that he made a killing (pardon the pun) as the director of the world's largest abortion facility at that time. Prior to him taking over "business was booming". When he became the head honcho, he did some staff 'housecleaning' and hired "clean, competent, industrious medical staff." He goes on to say...

"The physicians, who performed ten or fifteen abortions daily, were paid at the rate of $70 to $90 per hour. One obstetrician-gynecologist would practice his specialty in Lexington Kentucky, from Monday to Friday, then fly up to New York City, work five shifts of eight hours each at the clinic over the weekend, and then fly back to resume his practice on Monday mornng. He earned $185,000 in the one year he worked at the clinic."

That was just the regular vacuum docs. Bernie made $30,000 annually as director, not bad for New York in 1971. He could have made a HECK of alot more if he just took up the curette and flicked the switch.

"By his own account, he was deceitful and manipulative in pushing the "pro-choice" agenda. How can we be sure that he isn't being deceitful and manipulative now? "

I'll withold comment until you answer this question: Have you read his writings? Watched his documentaries?

Jill,

Abortion is legal. That's why there are few big pro choice protests. We have nothing yet to protest. If abortion were illegal you all wouldn't protest outside abortion mills because there would be no abortion mills (visible public ones, anyway) to protest. People who are not getting what they want tend to be more motivated to change that situation than people who are getting what they want.

Jasper,

“From all of the facts I gave you describing the decay of society, which you could not refute.”

I did not refute the “facts” you gave me describing the decay of society because I do not believe that the list you gave me (prayer removed from school, contraception to unmarried couples, abortion) is indicative of decay in society.

In any case, a list of ways in which you have perceived the change in society does not mean that your standards of morality are (or should be) universal.

“No, they did not volunteer. But they also did not create another human life, thats why when one has sex, it must be taken very seriously.”

Change the life to potential life and I would agree with you. Human life, even only potential life, should be taken seriously.

“sorry, i didn't mean to refer to you as a "savage", I don't think you are one. It's just frustruting when one cannot see the how awful abortion is.”

And it’s frustrating for me when people do not perceive of how misogynistic it is to say that a woman should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Nevertheless, I accept your apology.

“This is not a pre-med classroom discussion, it's a discussion about life and death. Should we now refer to heart attacks as "myocardial infarctions" on this blog?”

One should still strive for accuracy. The problem with the “unborn child/baby” label is that it changes the tone of the debate. One has shifted the language of the conversation towards emotionally charged language instead of what is factual. Playing on emotions does not lead to high-quality debate.

“No, it's not. The difference is that with pregnancy, another life is created and that created life did not consent to death.”

Okay, I’m not going to argue the merits of potential life versus life. It’s superfluous here. The life/potential life did not consent to death, that is true. But neither did the woman consent to creating life. Since she never consented to creating life, she has no obligations to sustain that life. The simple fact that the fetus needs to have access to the woman’s body in order to survive does not mean that the woman is required to provide the fetus with access to her body. Need does not necessarily entail obligation.

Blast, I did it again. I really did mean to sign that.

"Enigma, are you sure you're not Diana coming back for more? She endlessly posted that mantra as well as others you have stated."

Yep, I'm sure.

I'll withhold comment until you answer this question: Have you read his writings? Watched his documentaries?"

I have read nothing but the article posted. I am naturally suspicious of people who claim to undergo a life-altering conversion, especially when the individual blithely discusses how easily they lied and manipulated people beforehand. A leopard never changes its spots.

That was supposed to be addressed to Carter, not by Carter. When I am going to get this "you type the name in the name box" thing?

Enigma, please stop!.......enough!!!

Enigma,
Fair enough. I invite you, then, to read some of his works and view his documentaries and then judge for yourself how much of a leopard he is.

It's interesting to note how the trend seems to be pro-choicers jumping ship and coming over to pro-life; rarely does one see it the other way around. NOrma McCorvey, Nathanson, the docs in the "Meet the Abortion Providers" conference. these guys are big fish. And if I may push the envelope further, some have not only ditched pro-choice, but then head straight to the Roman Catholic church, THEE enemy of choice according to ya'll. Randall Terry, while always prolife, has recently come home to Rome.

I'm sure there has been some side-switching from life to death, I mean, choice, but it's not an overriding trend. Can someone correct me on this?

::Slaps forehead:: D'oh!

Sorry Jill, I got carried away. You're right though, I do need to honor my word. Please don't question my character, though. That's not too nice. I know you can come back with something dealing with my not leaving, but I'm asking respectfully for you not to question it. Were my character bad, I would've been a jerk to you on Saturday instead of polite.

But, you're right. I'll stay on the one thread until it becomes a thing of the past, and then bye bye for my posting. I'll still check back every now and then. Ron swears upon his life that he will own this website within a day ;-)

Have a good one, Jill! Phil, feel free to email me at D-Postlewaite@cornellcollege.edu. You obviously have a good knowledge of skinheads and the whole punk scene, and it would be nice to talk to someone from the site with a knowledge of that side of life.

Oh, and you're semi-right. Pakistani-hating skins who thought themselves to be nationalists were pretty much the start of the Nazi skin movement. Have you ever watched This Is England?

"The simple fact that the fetus needs to have access to the woman’s body in order to survive does not mean that the woman is required to provide the fetus with access to her body."

Yes, she is. Anthing less results in the death of human being. If you can prove to me that abortion is not killing human life then I'll switch to pro-choice. All evidence weighs in our favor. Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life...and certainly it's right to life is a greater right than a right for one not to be inconvienced for 9 months especially when said one created that new life.

Enigma, I guess our beliefs, morals, views on human dignity, etc, are much too different for us to come to any agreement.

Jasper, you wrote: "Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life"

Yes, it does. Because the womb in question belongs to the mother. It's part of the mother's body. You can't occupy another person's body without her continuing consent. And you can't force her to undergo serious preventable medical/surgical trauma (childbirth) on your behalf. For the same reason that you cannot force your mother to donate a kidney to you even if you'll die without it--it's HER kidney. Even if you're a human baby. Even if you're life is at stake.(And BTW donating one kidney is less dangerous than childbirth.)

Note that this argument does not require the premise of fetal inferiority. The fetus is human, and entitled to all the rights that born children enjoy, but not to SPECIAL rights. It has no right to occupy a womb where it is not welcome.

Carder, you wrote: "Randall Terry, while always prolife, has recently come home to Rome [converted to Catholicism]. "

Randall Terry was kicked out of his church for a pattern of repeat adultries with multiple partners. Do you really WANT him in your church?

What if he gets someone's daughter pregnant?

If a fetus is a person, then abortion by the woman's choice is justifiable homicide.

The pregnant woman owns her life support functions. Not "own" as we own property but "own" as we own our arms and legs.

She's entitled to switch them on or off if and when she chooses, for any reason or for no reason.

Because they're HER life support functions. Not the fetus's and not Jill Stanek's and not George Bush's and not yours.

And not your God's, unless she shares your belief in him.

And not the father's.

Right-to-lifers often argue that by consenting to sex and therefore the risk that life will form she incurs an obligation to grow her fetus and that this obligation should be legally enforced.

This raises the question of whether it's better to be a fetus that enjoys a short intrauterine life, and is then aborted, or never to be conceived at all because the woman decides to be celibate.

If it were me, I'd go for the short intrauterine life over never being conceived.

Enigma,

If one has no right to one’s own body, one literally has nothing.

If one has no right to life, one won't be around to have a right to one's own body. Besides, don't the unborn have a right to their own body...literally?

SoMG,

If it were me, I'd go for the short intrauterine life over never being conceived.

That's a very interesting statement. Please expound.

If a fetus/baby isn't sentient (as Doug and so many others use as an argument) then why would you want to be one for such a short period of time? And if it is sentient, then why would you want to be ripped apart limb by limb in the womb?

By the way SoMG,

You've become positively verbose! And I am trying very hard not to engage in verbal "fencing"...and you don't believe in miracles! HAH!

Enigma,

When Diana was on here (and I miss her) she gave many, many, many of the same arguments that you do...

The one that drives me most nuts, is the "I didn't give consent" argument.

Here's a rebuttal I gave her once.

If you eat 6 chocolate cakes a day, and begin to gain tremendous amounts of weight, you could say that you consented to eating the cake but not to gaining the weight. (Having your cake and eating it too?) But you'd have to be mentally deficient not to understand the connection.

Everytime you take "your clothes off" you run the risk of pregnancy and STD's. While you may not have "given" permission per se, you have definitely agreed to the terms of the agreement.

Standing outside in a thunderstorm is not giving lightening permission to strike you, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to act surprised when it did. Especially if you are holding Danny's proverbial nine iron!

The point is, that when you engage in risky behavior, you are consenting to the understanding of said risks. Parachuters sign waivers. Kids on field trips need parents permission in the form of consent with the knowledge that "things happen".

Entering into a sexual relationship is a consensual contract. If you aren't willing to take responsibility for the result of your actions, then you need to refrain from that activity.

Your car analogy would work better if you and your friend were the ones driving drunk on SPD.

Yes, in essence, every time you get behind the wheel of a car, you are agreeing that there are risks involved and you are willing to take them.

Perhaps you haven't consented to a car accident, but you HAVE consented to the risk of one.

Pregnancy is unique in that the "risk" involved concerns the creation of a new life. And it's subsequent death. Your right to autonomy should be forfieted if it was your behavior, choice and free will that caused that life to exist. You agreed to the risk. Now live up to the responsibility.

Enigma,

You and Doug and others often say that the "humanity/personhood" of the baby isn't at issue.

I'm sorry, but from where I stand, that is the ONLY issue.

You accuse us of attributing emotion to our arguments by calling the "fetus" a baby. Well, you are reducing the child to a thing when you call it a fetus. It is a diversionary tactic that strips the baby of it's rightful title. It makes it easy to discuss it as if it were an inanimate object. Calling it a baby simply gives it back it's humanness. Something that you wish to avoid, but that we see as the entire argument in a nutshell.

If it was true that these children were as alive as rocks, we'd all be pro-choice. It is the very fact that they ARE alive that presents the problem, and to claim otherwise is to engage in a dishonest debate.

Enigma, I'm sorry I wasn't here over the weekend. I wanted to reply to your posts but have been busy.

I have one question for you though. I asked this to Diana before she left, but she never would give me a reply.

Suppose there are two siamese twins. One of these is the stronger twin, the other is weaker. They both know that if they were separated, the stronger one would live, and the weaker one would die.
Suppose the stronger siamese twin had had enough of having to be stuck to her sister all the time, and she wanted to have full bodily autonomy, free of her sister.
Suppose she said that she wanted to have the operation done so that her sister would die and she could live, free of her sister.

Would you agree she has the right to do so? With or without her sister's consent? Because, does it even matter if the other sister desires to live, since she is invading the other sister's bodily autonomy? Or perhaps the weaker twin is bothered by having to share HER body with her other twin. What do you suggest should be done here? Do you think that ensuring full bodily autonomy is always possible or the correct solution to a problem?

Bethany,

I missed you! Great post! (Which is exactly why I missed you...

The fossil record was not meant to indicate that. I was trying (and apparently to ask) what individuals who do not believe in evolution felt that the fossil record was.

Evidence of God's creation. That's how I view fossils...I haven't ever seen any that disproved God, only confirmation of God's intelligent design.

This is something that I�ve never really understood. I know that people who believe in intelligent design or creationism argue that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe either in an intelligent designer or in biblical creationism. Do you think that you might be able to explain to me how you think that it takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in an intelligent designer/creationism?

Actually, a little farther down, you actually answered this question for me. Here is what you wrote:
"When you look at the world, you see evidence of His creation and design because you have faith. When I look at the world, I do not see what you see because I do not have faith."

Absolutely correct. However, you do have faith. It just happens to lie in another view of how the world came to be. And because of your faith, you see the evidence you want to see, according to the faith that you have. When you look at the world, you choose not to see evidence of a creator, and instead choose to see evidence of evolution. I do not see what you see because I do not have faith in that. And also, because there is no proof of evolution. There may be things that you consider evidence, but they are not concrete. They are ever changing. The one thing about my faith that differs from yours is that it never changes...it's the same thousands of years ago as it is today.

I have always felt that intelligent design implies religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood intelligent design to mean that evolution did take place but that a higher power either set it in motion or guided the process. Thus intelligent design teaches that there is some higher power out there which has created everything. To me, this attempts to mix the supernatural (which cannot be proven) with science. Scientific evidence and theories can be tested..

For something to be a religion there must be something that you worship. One can believe that a God exists without worshiping Him.

Proof is kind of what I mean when I say concrete evidence. To be more precise, I guess I mean something tangible. Something real.

How do you explain that the Golden ratio exists throughout nature? How do you explain the absolutes of mathematics? How did these come to be without an intelligent designer? How do you explain to yourself the fact that order exists?
How can these things randomly occur out of nothing, with no intelligent designer? It makes absolutely no sense. Have you ever really studied the complexities of nature? Have you ever noticed how wonderfully your body is designed? Organs that scientists deemed "vestigial" in earlier years have had to admit later on ashamedly that these organs actually do serve some purpose. Everything in our bodies serves some purpose. How could this happen randomly? I don't see any reason to believe that anything happened randomly, because I see nothing truly random in nature. While many things appear random on the surface, they seem to always have some kind of highly developed mathematical precision behind them in reality. To not see God's hand in the beauty of this world is to not even take a really close look at the world.

I would offer the fossil record as evidence for evolution. I would also offer the discoveries of humanoid skeletons. Some of these skeletons, while clearly not Homo sapiens, appear to be our predecessors. I would offer the age of the earth. I would offer how closely different animal species are genetically linked.

Many, if not all, of these skeletons have been proved to be fabricated...so I am not sure which ones you are referring to. Maybe you could point me in that direction by a link?

My beliefs about matters of faith are complex. As I said, for me, faith means that there is no evidence to support one�s belief.

No, it doesn't mean there is no evidence. Simply that one believes without needing the evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence is there, simply that you believe regardless of whether you see it or not. The Bible says that "The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth His handiwork." If we weren't supposed to recognize God's hand in the world, then verses like this wouldn't exist.

For starters, I would like to offer my deepest condolences for your loss. Miscarriage is never easy to bear and I hope that you are doing alright. Those are lovely pictures. Who wrote the poem at the bottom of that one?

Thank you so much for the kind condolences. The poem on the bottom is actually a verse in Psalms.

"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb. I Praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139:13-16

This could be another example of the changes of the modern age. It is possible that greater access to contraceptives, sex ed., and sexual promiscuity are all products of the modern era.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I disagree. I have personally found that education allows for informed decisions. For me, having someone simply tell me, �no, don�t do this, it�s bad� was not an effective deterrent. I needed to know the risks and the whys of why I should not engage in a certain behavior.

I have no problems whatsoever with educating children about what sex is, and how to prevent STD's. This is a good thing. What I do have a problem with is telling them, "Oh if you mess up and get pregnant, you can erase the consequences by aborting it.", or lying to them and making them feel as though STD's can completely be prevented by Condom usage, which is false.
And telling them the "how tos" of sex, and homosexual sex, such as teaching them "fisting", how to use grape jelly as a lubricant, different ways to masturbate, etc etc. I do NOT think that my children should ever be taught stuff like that, and especially not at such a young age. Teenwire.com, planned parenthood's website for teens disgusts me, and I would never, ever let my child go there.

Awww thank you, MK! I missed you too! (((hugs)))

Enigma, also, have you ever tried to explain to yourself the eye? How can something so perfectly designed have happened without a creator?
Here is Charles Darwin's opinion about the eye:

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. "

...another thing that puzzles me about the whole evolution theory. Why don't we see any half humans/half apes today? Or any half species of any kind? Wouldn't it make sense that there would be some still evolving today, who had not yet completed their transition?

Another question... these keep coming to mind...
Why have there been findings of red blood cells in a Tyrannosaurus Rex, in your opinion? Aren't they supposed to be over 65 million years old? How could this be possible?

welcome back Bethany, great post about the twins....I'll be listening for the bodily autonomy people to respond.

Thank you, Jasper! I swear, I am so addicted to this site, it was almost unbearable being away for a whole weekend. LOL Someone needs to take me to JillStanek Addicts Anonymous.

Bethany, LOL! Me too!

Good morning everyone,
I need to write this post super quick. Sorry it will be rushed.

The pro-choice side is constantly changing their stories for reasons to keep aborton legal.

First it was because so many women were dying from illegal abortions or self induced coat hanger abortions, which we come to find out they did not.

Then...
They needed clean safe access to abortion which they are not getting. Any studies that tell you abortion is safe compared to other sugical procdures are way flawed due to the fact that the reasons for death of a woman due to an abortion are probably listed for "other" medical reasons. A former abortionist admitted she wouldn't even be able to estimate how many women they services that probably wound up infertile or died later after being released without proper follow-up.

Then we heard.....
It' just a blob of tissue. Which tehnology has disproven.

Then we head....
the whole ridiculous argument of body autonomy. If they want body autonomy, then keep the penis out. Keep the sperm out.

Then we heard that consensual sex does not equate to a consensual pregnancy. I will say it again. No form of birth control is 100% effective. It says it on the pack, the box, the container.

Now they are comparing a child created by consensual sex to a kidney.

What next???????????

Sandy, you're right about that. Their arguments many times seem to change over and over, to suit their needs at the time. I'm sure there will be even more crazy arguments as time goes on.

"SOMG, please give me an idea of your connection to the abortion industry. You obviously are on the inside."

Jill, SoMG is an abortionist as he has admitted to us, he (or she?)has been open about talking about it.

SoMG, can you give a little more info on how many abortions you've done? I know you've only witnessed one 2nd trimester abortion.

jasper, creepy isn't it? He's a total quack!

SOMG, you ought to change your screen name to SOTB............Spirit of Ted Bundy.

Jasper,

Actually I think SoMG said he was a nurse practioner
who aspires to being an abortionist. Hasn't quite made it. He said he had assisted at the 2nd trimester abortion, and basically only watched.

Jasper,

“Just because an unborn child cannot survive outside of the womb does mean it has any less of a right to life...”

Actually yes it does. As a general rule, people are able to deny other people access to their bodies even if such access is necessary to sustain life. If I need a liver transplant immediately or I am going to die (let’s say that I’m in a hospital with a failing liver) and there’s only one other person who’s capable of giving my a new liver (because they match me genetically and have already had the tests one would need to be an organ donor due to whatever medical procedure they were in the hospital for.) I can’t forcibly take this person’s liver because that would violate that individual’s right to bodily autonomy. That person has no obligations to me, despite being the only person who could save my life. I just don’t understand why the fetus should be granted rights that other humans do not have.

“Enigma, I guess our beliefs, morals, views on human dignity, etc, are much too different for us to come to any agreement.

Probably.

MK,

“If one has no right to life, one won't be around to have a right to one's own body.”

A good point. It’s a question of whether that one condition alone is sufficient to produce the conditions necessary for one to have a meaningful life. The answer is no. The right to life is necessary in order for the rights to self-determination and liberty to exist but the right to life does not supersede them. Since the former right (the right to life) is meaningless without the latter rights (liberty and self-determination) the latter rights are more important than the former.

“Besides, don't the unborn have a right to their own body...literally?”

Fetuses are entitled to their own bodies, that is true. What they are not entitled to is being able to use the woman’s.

MK

“I'm sorry, but from where I stand, that is the ONLY issue (humanity/personhood of the fetus).”
I’m sorry but from where I stand the only issue is the right of a woman to decide what she wants to do with her body. Even if one is going to argue that the fetus is a person and has a human life (as I used to before encountering one argument that made me think), I see no reason why the fetus should be granted rights that are denied to other individuals.

“You accuse us of attributing emotion to our arguments by calling the "fetus" a baby. Well, you are reducing the child to a thing when you call it a fetus. It is a diversionary tactic that strips the baby of it's rightful title. It makes it easy to discuss it as if it were an inanimate object. Calling it a baby simply gives it back it's humanness. Something that you wish to avoid, but that we see as the entire argument in a nutshell.”

A thing? I’m sorry, but saying that calling a “child” a fetus (which is the medically correct) reduces the child to the status of a semi-inanimate object begs the question of whether of not you have read the definition of a fetus. A fetus is “the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind.” How does that reduce anything to being inanimate or a thing? It is the correct terminology for the state of development at which the human “child” is in.

“If it was true that these children were as alive as rocks, we'd all be pro-choice. It is the very fact that they ARE alive that presents the problem, and to claim otherwise is to engage in a dishonest debate.”

By your standards. I have never argued that the cells which make up a fetus are alive, I have simply argued that the fetus itself only possess potential human life until the point of viability.

I know I haven't gotten to everything, but I really do need to get started on the stuff I have to get done today.

I'll try to get back on later and finish responding to these.

Actually yes it does. As a general rule, people are able to deny other people access to their bodies even if such access is necessary to sustain life