40 Days of freaking the abortion industry out

The Lufkin Daily News yesterday called it "what may be the largest simultaneous anti-abortion protest in American history." Called 40 Days for Life, it starts this Wednesday in front of an abortion mill near you.

Numbers in the Bible, like 7, 12, and 666, for example, hold meaning. The number 40's signficance offers the introduction to this 1 minute video about 40 Days for Life:

Explained LDN:

The 40 Days for Life event is a nationwide campaign in 90 cities across 33 states....

The vigil is scheduled for Sept. 26 - Nov. 4.

The campaign focuses on 40 days of prayer and fasting, calling for peaceful vigils outside clinics in combination with educational outreach, a campaign press release stated.

super%20heroes2.jpgHeld once a year since 2004, 40 Days for Life has established a great track record, involving four components: prayer and fasting, peaceful vigils in front of abortion mills - around the clock if possible, and a neighborhood door-to-door flyer distribution education drive.

Its success must be why the abortion industry is gearing up against it.

Go to Planned Parenthood Houston's website and click on its Superheroes button warning that "extreme protesters are on the horizon!" and you'll open up this page of anti-40 Days for Life opportunities (click to enlarge)....

Interesting how prayer is "harrass[ment]" and those who pray "extremists." And just what is the "misleading information"? Click here for sample.

Also interesting is how this huge abortion cartel, which garnered nearly $1 billion last year, perpetually tries to bilk supporters into donating money and time. "Put on your cape," all right, your Dracula deathscort cape.

Also interesting is PP's attempt to mainstream itself with letter from donor.

In the LDN article, Lufkin Planned Parenthood's director Michelle Green "said the vigil was no match for Planned Parenthood's 30 years of health care to East Texas families."

Michelle really shouldn't have said that. I'd steer clear of lightning storms the next 40 days if I were her.


Comments:

I am participating in the Dallas vigil, but I was in Waco this weekend and saw a billboard for the Waco vigil. I was so encouraged.

All of these cities, praying and fasting together at one time- the earth will shake.

Remember- even those of you that are not in or close to a participating city, you can pray with us!

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 24, 2007 2:14 PM


Hi Jacqueline!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at September 24, 2007 2:21 PM


Hey, Bobby-

I've been meaning to tell you, your little girl looks lovely in black and white! :)

"what may be the largest simultaneous anti-abortion protest in American history."

Aw, Lufkin! In my shift leader training, I was told to firmly instruct the media and participants that it's a prayer vigil, not a protest. That's such a negative spin on our intent. We're there to make a public, prayerful presence on behalf of women and children- no chanting or signs.

*sigh* Lufkin, Lufkin, Lufkin...

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 24, 2007 2:33 PM


I think that the days of legalized abortion will end soon. I don't care what people say about the majority of folks being PC. Not the people I meet. America is sick of the lies of the abortion industry!!!

Posted by: heather at September 24, 2007 2:35 PM


absurdity....

Elderly Catholic nun being frisked by a Muslim security agent:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/22/photo-of-the-day-9/

Posted by: jasper at September 24, 2007 2:52 PM


hi jasper! *waves*

Posted by: heather at September 24, 2007 2:57 PM


Hi Heather!

Posted by: jasper at September 24, 2007 3:05 PM


what they don't know...even the children of some of our protesters

Actually, that's the exact reason why many of the protesters are there... they, or someone they love, has been harmed by PP.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 24, 2007 3:20 PM


Hey folks,

Here's an update from the trenches in Aurora last night.

Another plastic fence has been put up along the narrow sidewalk on Oakhurst Rd. next to PP.

Now the prayer warriors are boxed-in on both sides. I thought I heard that the fences were erected by PP. In any case, the one on the PP side is on public property and should be removed immediately. They both should be removed.

A young boy riding his bicycle Sunday morning between the two fences had an accident because of the fences and sharp metal posts. He tumbled off his bicycle and injured himself (not seriously). He had cuts. Our people helped him with first aid and bandages. The Aurora police came and made a report. This incident would seem to be reason enough to remove both fences. Come on, are we going to just take all this from PP and the city?



Last evening I stood on the busy corner of New York St. and Oakhurst with my sign that now reads:

CLINIC REMAINS CLOSED !

BABIES STILL LIVE !

As the cars drove by I got more positive responses by far than negative or indifferent ones. A young newlywed Latino couple stopped to talk for a moment with me. They wanted to know if the PP had closed. I explained that it had not yet opened. They are from Aurora and are pro-life, and said they have prayed at our vigil.

There were a good number of people keeping watch in prayer at the vigil last night. Enthusiasm for this effort is still high.

David and Margaret Bereit and their two cute children stopped by the vigil site last evening for a while. They are a wonderful couple and family. Margaret told me their two children are *miracles* - the result of prayer and the expert help of Dr. Thomas Hilgers, MD, of Omaha, who developed NaProTECHNOLOGY - a natural way to enhance fertility in women with problems in that area. (For more info see popepaulvi com and naprotechnology com).

Incidentally, if you go the PP page above and in your browser menu select Edit and Select All, you will see some text that doesn't show up because it was apparentely color-coded white. The text reads:

STAND UP FOR HEALTH CARE WITHOUT HARASSMENT BY
BECOMING A SUPER HERO SUPPORTER!

How they misconstrue everything! Liars.


The 40 Days For Life Prayer and Fasting Campaign is going to be the biggest nation-wide effort of its kind. I encourage everyone to take part locally if there is one in your area, or if not, join in prayer and fasting wherever you are. Let us all be united in prayer to our Lord that the tide of abortion and all the forces of anti-life would begin to turn toward the culture of Life!

Posted by: Paul at September 24, 2007 3:21 PM


Just posting the links in my post of 3:21 PM:

Dr. Thomas Hilgers, MD, of Omaha, developed NaProTECHNOLOGY - a natural way to enhance fertility in women with problems in that area.

For information go to:

www.popepaulvi.com and

www.naprotechnology.com

Posted by: Paul at September 24, 2007 3:24 PM


They will shout at and photograph clients, push misleading information in their faces, and do all they can to stand in the way of clients trying to enter our health centers.


OH MY GOD! THEY'VE BROUGHT THE DREADED, DEADLY CAMERAS! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!

AND THEY'RE (gasp) SHOUTING!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey SoMG,

Maybe you better alert Underdog...

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 4:15 PM


Paul, thanks for the report.

MK, lol!

Posted by: Jill Stanek at September 24, 2007 4:33 PM


Well y'all sure have been busy during my small absence :-)

Posted by: midnite678 at September 24, 2007 5:12 PM


I'm soooo ready for this. I have a mill 5miles in one direction from my house and one 10 miles in the other direction.

Posted by: Carrie at September 24, 2007 5:28 PM


Carrie,

Just wondering, what city do you live in?

God bless you for your efforts in this!

Posted by: Paul at September 24, 2007 6:25 PM


Ah, yes, the dreaded deadly cameras...which really should always be present whenever there are young women entering killing chambers. Good to have a record that she was at that location on that day, especially if she happens to be one of those who come out feet first under a sheet, and the clinic starts denying things...and, there should also be a camera rolling at all times, in case the mills try to trump up false charges against the rescuers, or threaten/attack them. It happens all the time: see abortionviolence.com for documentation.

"Clients"...a more appropriate term would be "quarry".

This super-hero is reminiscent of a cartoon put out a couple of years ago by a PP on the West Coast. It featured a similar "super-hero" type, and encouraged the KILLING of prolifers; much like the anti-Jewish hate propaganda of Der Sturmer. But killing millions of innocent children is not "extreme", just even thinking that the carnage must stop is.

And the dreaded "misinformation": that's really their territory, suppressing any truth that might lead a woman to choose life.

These folks really should begin with simpler exercises in discernment such as learning to distinguish their heads from holes in the ground, their backsides from their elbows, fecal matter from furniture polish, etc., before taking on heavier fare such as rightly discerning light from darkness, truth from error, good from bad, etc.

They should also be behind bars for real hate crimes/speech.

Posted by: jtm at September 24, 2007 6:53 PM


Oh PP...so hysterical, so silly and immature.

Really, if they were so confident that this work was just a bunch of "right wing crazies", why would they be so panicky and begging for public support?

Either they over-react or they know they aren't as "popular" socially and politically as they used to be.

Posted by: Rae at September 24, 2007 6:53 PM


Why Rae,

You sound positively pro life! I'm lovin' it!

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 6:55 PM


@MK: Oh don't get your hopes up. Just statin' what I think is obvious.

I've never been a fan of PP though, even when I was a "radical" PCer (which was a very short period of time).

Posted by: Rae at September 24, 2007 7:01 PM


what they don't know...even the children of some of our protesters

wow, they seem so proud of themselves, it's just as bad as a guy telling another guy that he slept with his wife and then smiles. Ugh, they are so disgusting!

Posted by: rosie at September 24, 2007 7:03 PM


Paul, I live in Attleboro MA. We have a mill in our town of only 40,000 people, plus we have a hospital that performs abortions(the mill is not a PP). I am near the RI border and there is a PP in Providence. Providence is one of the cities participating in the 40 Days for Life. Oddly enough, the mill in my town is in an area with single family residences next door and across the street-I kid you not.

Posted by: Carrie at September 24, 2007 7:04 PM


what they don't know...even the children of some of our protesters

Actually, that's the exact reason why many of the protesters are there... they, or someone they love, has been harmed by PP.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 24, 2007 3:20 PM
...........................................
Oh for sure! Just like all of you PL's on this blog have been harmed by planned parenthood. @@ Only in your imaginations. And those imaginations seem to be quite prolific.

Posted by: Sally at September 24, 2007 7:12 PM


I had a girlfriend, a very close girlfriend, that died at the age of 40 due to mental illness brought on by her abortions. It took the doctors years to put two and two together.

The dearest friend I ever had, aborted 3 of her children and after my conversion she could no longer stand to be around me. My whole life has become the pro life movement, and her whole life has become defending her decision. It's just too painful for us to be around each other. I miss her every day.

I have been harmed by abortion. Because of it I've lost two of my best friends.

I'm sure many other woman on here have been too.

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 7:21 PM


but fear not Jill...cuz you're my NEW BEST FRIEND!!!!

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 7:22 PM


I have been harmed by abortion. Because of it I've lost two of my best friends.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, I'll bite-
How did you lose your two best friends to abortion?

Posted by: Laura at September 24, 2007 8:14 PM


OK, I'll bite-
How did you lose your two best friends to abortion?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK, I tracked back-
1) Abortion does not cause mental illness.
2) You didn't "lose" your friend who had 3 abortions, your preachiness and self-righteousness drove her away.

Posted by: Laura at September 24, 2007 8:50 PM


Laura,

One died. Her father forced her to have an abortion when she was young and then she had two more on her own.
She began making herself vomit, and I don't mean bulimia, I mean violent vomiting, over and over until she would end up in the hospital. No one could figure it out. She must have been hospitalized 200 times over the a 20 year period.

One hospital, Condell, finally refused to admit her. Told her she needed a shrink. Turns out, certain things would trigger her episodes. Often it was her father coming into town. A lot of times it was just getting her period. The psychologist finally told her he thought it was related to her abortions.

About 9 years ago, she called me to tell me she had gone back to the church. We talked for hours. She told me about the abortions, her guilt, her pain...she married (she'd been married twice before that) a man that she had met at work. He was deaf and I believe mentally handicapped. Laura had a way of getting herself into situations that would make her feel trapped and then the cycle would start all over again. She hadn't been doing the forced vomiting thing for awhile, but she began again when she realized that her marriage was a sham. Poor Joey!

Anyway, she was on deaths door, but had no insurance, had run out of meds, he shrink had dropped her because she refused to follow his advice (She was spoking a lot of pot) and had run out of options. I went to her house, cleaned her up and in no uncertain terms told her that she needed to take responsibility for the situation she was in. She had to tell Joey, and she had to get her act together.

She actually got better for a couple of days, but the toll that this particularly bad bout had taken on her body was just too much. Joey's father took her to a doctor (she had never even met the man before that day) telling him she had the flu. She told the doctor the same thing, so he treated her for dehydration. Poor doctor didn't know anything about her history. He gave her an IV of potassium and the shock to her system caused her to have a heart attack...that was 7 years ago. I still miss her.

The other was the girl I told you about in the above post.

She had already had 3 abortions. Her husband wanted a baby so bad. She found herself pregnant. She was fine with it. Told me she was going for amnio in a couple of weeks. I asked what she thought that would do, and she said, and I quote "Well obviously I'm not gonna have it if it's got a club foot or something!" I was so shocked I couldn't say anything. I think we both knew then and there that our friendship was broken beyond repair. She subsequently miscarried. (or at least that's what she said) but our worlds became so far apart, we couldn't find any common ground anymore. I'm out here fighting daily for the lives of babies I don't know, and she's talkin' about killin' hers because it's foot is deformed...I just couldn't look at her the same way. I miss her every day also. We had quite a history together.

Anyway, I doubt you'll understand why I say I lost them to abortion, but I feel that abortion was the key to both separations. Granted, my feelings were key to the second one, but there you have it.

I still love them both. I pray that Laura is in a safe place and I hope my other friend will one day see the errors in her thinking...

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 8:56 PM


wow MK,

...abortion; the great divider, destroyer of life, destroyer of families, destroyer of friends.

Posted by: jasper at September 24, 2007 9:01 PM


Thanks Jasper,

The point is we could argue all day about whether abortion causes mental illness, or whether I'm a preachy self righteous prig, but the bottom line is one girl is dead, and the other has disappeared from my life.

I've lost two friends and I associate their loss with abortion. So I feel that I have been harmed by abortion. I don't need anyone to validate those feelings, because I own them. I certainly didn't expect Laura to say "Oh my, sorry to hear things turned out that way. But remember, not everyone reacts the same way to having an abortion"...my system couldn't have stood the shock anyway.

She gave me exactly the response I expected. But perhaps others would care to share their own stories of how abortion has touched their lives...

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 9:05 PM


And Laura,

For the record, I never preached to my second friend. That's not my way.

Our friendship was based on complete honesty. It always had been. To pretend that her attitude didn't bother me would have been a lie. An elephant in the room. For her to pretend that her attitude was different would also have been a lie.

I guess we both decided that if our relationship couldn't be honest then it wasn't really what defined our relationship. And if it was honest, then it would be too hard to be in the same room.

I'll give you her phone number and I'll bet you a thousand dollars that she'd say she still loves me too. And she'd give you the same reasoning. Our love for each other never ended. Only our ability to share our lives did...

Posted by: mk at September 24, 2007 9:09 PM


Sally -

"Just like all of you PL's on this blog have been harmed by planned parenthood. @@ Only in your imaginations. And those imaginations seem to be quite prolific. "

Planned Parenthood hurt me. And I'm sure many others like me. You see, they were more concerned about getting me on birth control they didn't even bother to do the proper tests.

In college my periods started to show up every 2 weeks. Very heavy and very painful. I was told how wonderful and inexpensive Planned Parenthood was so I went there. Of course, I didn't really have a choice since the PP put the other women's clinic out of business. I went in. Got a Pap. They told me my periods were messed up because of stress. They put me on the birth control pill. This seemed to make things better. Until I went off of the pill. My periods were messed up because of a hormonal imbalance, not stress. One simple, routine blood test would have identified this. I was going to them for a medical problem, not because I was sexually active and doing a blood test is standard practice for medical problems - Unfortuanatly I didn't know that at the time. If they had found out what was wrong, they would have had to send me elsewhere because they do not treat these problems. Would of lost alot of money too. When I went off the pill I had a 2 month period. My body became addicted to the homones in the pill. It took 4 years to get regulated. It took over a year to get pregnant with my son who was born 9 weeks early. And then I had three miscarriages. In order to stay pregnant with my daughter I had to give myself hormone shots along with hormonal suppositories.

Just one blood test. That is all it would have taken. One blood test. I would have gotten the correct treatement. I would not have had to go through all this if the Dr's had followed standard medical care.

Posted by: valerie at September 24, 2007 9:22 PM


Sally,
This is not middle school. Mocking other people's pain will not make you more popular, even if it does temporarily make you feel better.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 24, 2007 9:45 PM


I'm ready for a decision to be made in Aurora...mainly because I am sick of PP's b****ing.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 24, 2007 9:49 PM


A friend of my wifes had an abortion after my wife kindly pleading with her not to do it, the woman aborted her 5 month old because blood tests came back saying the baby has some kind of fatal disease. The autopsy indicated the baby was fine. My wifes friend no longer speaks with my wife.

I just found out in this pass year that my mother was going to abort me ( she told my wife over the phone, not me) but luckly she had a good doctor who talked her out of it. I never knew how close I came to being cut to pieces.

Posted by: jasper at September 24, 2007 9:55 PM


MK and jasper, I have also lost a few friends to abortion. I just couldn't look at them the same way afterwards. I didn't want to be friends with a murderer who refused to repent. I didn't really want to hear the sob stories and excuses. I also didn't want to hear about how they had no regrets over their decisions, and most returned to promiscuous lifestyles.

Posted by: heather at September 25, 2007 4:22 AM


jasper and MK, sad stories! Please pray for a friend of mine. She says she is going to abort this week. I've tried to talk her out of it, but she keeps telling me that "This is for the best."

Posted by: heather at September 25, 2007 4:38 AM


Also, the woman I knew who had 7 abortions attempted suicide by almost drinking herself to death. She was in ICU for a week. It was pretty serious. She had to have a hysterectomy after her 7th abortion. She was constantly bleeding, and the doctors at the hospital told her that her uterus was damaged from the abortions. This depressed her beyond belief. She has major bonding issues with her living child. She used to be so beautiful. Someone showed me a recent picture of her. She's a bloated mess.She looks nothing like she used to. I didn't even believe it was the same woman. The devil comes to rob, kill, and destroy.

Posted by: heather at September 25, 2007 5:10 AM


MK and jasper, I'm willing to bet that Laura won't believe us anyway. She will say that we are going for "shock value" because NOBODY could possibly hurt over abortion, right? My other girlfriend turned to crack after her 2nd abortion. She pulled away from myself as well as others. I wasn't pro life at the time, so don't tell me that I was preaching. I think it was something inside of her that made her feel so low. She never had a history of drug abuse prior to her abortions, and eventually she stopped all contact with me.

Posted by: heather at September 25, 2007 7:32 AM


PIP -

"I'm ready for a decision to be made in Aurora...mainly because I am sick of PP's b****ing."

I second that emotion!

;-)

Posted by: valerie at September 25, 2007 8:04 AM


"I think it was something inside of her that made her feel so low"

yes, the abortion did it to her.

Heather,

I will pray for your friend. Thanks for sharing your stories. It's so obvious the evil that abortion is, how it destroys families and people. Usually within friends and family, it's the big sercret nobody wants to talk about.

Posted by: jasper at September 25, 2007 8:35 AM


Laura,
Your comments are so off-base and reactionary it is hard to know how to respond.

Why are you so ignorant to the fact that there have been thousands of women who have joined the ranks of organizations that will finally acknowledge their pain from abortion.

For someone who will never carry a child in her womb and understand the gift that is and the emotions being a mother can bring, you sure seem to have it all figured out.

Also, why are you so ignorant to the fact that many women have died from legal abortions and left their children and families without a mother.

Posted by: Sandy at September 25, 2007 8:51 AM


Actually, I would consider many of the comments of the PLers on this site to be reactionary, as reactionism is a concept of the ultraconservative (eg: the anti-BC sentiments).

Sandy, why are you ignorant to the fact that many women who have been denied legal abortion have also died as a result of a botched one? Why are you ignorant to the fact that women who are forced to have children against their own will abandon their children and leave them without a mother anyway? Or abuse them?

I was driving through northern Michigan a few weeks ago and I saw a billboard that read "Abortion: the ultimate child abuse." I strongly disagree. The ultimate child abuse is to bring an unwanted child into the world and spend years abusing him emotionally and physically, neglecting him, and completely screwing his life up.

And to support that is so conservative--so reactionary, that it doesn't even fall on the political spectrum.

Posted by: Leah at September 25, 2007 10:07 AM


Many of us are anti-BC because we have a different view of the gifts of human sexuality. Shocking as it may be, there are lots of people who don't think that orgasm is the end-all be-all of sex.

I'm anti-BC because it is a barrier between a man and woman's love - it says "I love you - except your fertility". It says "I want you - except..."

It introduces a fundamental divisiveness into an act that should be unitive.

I'm not anti BC because I hate women; it is because I want women - and men - to experience the wholeness and fullness of the gift of human sexuality.

Not to mention how harmful hormonal BC is to women! That's an entirely different post...

And, BTW, I'm not "ultra conservative" just conservative about some issues, liberal on others, and in the middle on many. I'm a registered "independent" as well.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 25, 2007 10:54 AM


Sandy: Why are you so ignorant to the fact that there have been thousands of women who have joined the ranks of organizations that will finally acknowledge their pain from abortion.

What of it? There are many women who regret giving birth, too. No reason to away the freedom that women have in the matter.
......

For someone who will never carry a child in her womb and understand the gift that is and the emotions being a mother can bring, you sure seem to have it all figured out.

Laura knows that it most certainly is not necessarily a "gift." Some want that, some don't.
.....

Also, why are you so ignorant to the fact that many women have died from legal abortions and left their children and families without a mother.

And many more from giving birth. Any objection to abortion on those grounds can only logically be a much greater condemnation of continuing pregnancies and giving birth.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 11:14 AM


I'm not anti BC because I hate women; it is because I want women - and men - to experience the wholeness and fullness of the gift of human sexuality.

Milehimama, that's wild -- I'd never heard anybody describe it that way. I don't agree, since sex can be just as whole and full, BC or no BC, but it's an interesting viewpoint.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 11:17 AM


Hi Leah. You said, "The ultimate child abuse is to bring an unwanted child into the world and spend years abusing him emotionally and physically, neglecting him, and completely screwing up his life." I'll have to take exception to that. Without going into much of my personal history, I am glad I'm here eventhough I went through certain things as a child. I am glad to be alive. Would I rather have been aborted then experience what i experienced? In a word, no. Also, there are children who start off as wanted and then end up as unwanted due to many circumstances(divorce,drug abuse,etc.) Should we at that point euthanasize the unwanted child to save them from abuse? Or how about the fact that 1 in 3 girls will experience some sort of sexual abuse? Should we encourage sex-selective abortions to prevent girls from being born into a world where they might be abused? I believe your answer to the questions I posed would be no. I'd like to know what you think. Thanks.

Posted by: Carrie at September 25, 2007 11:20 AM


Not all pro-lifers are anti BC. I'm not.

Posted by: prettyinpink at September 25, 2007 12:37 PM


Actually, many more women have died from botched abortions because legal access was granted to them, not because it was withheld from them. For many of their names, see http://www.lifedynamics.com/Pro-life_Group/Pro-choice_Women/. For more, see http://www.realchoice.0catch.com/collateraldamage.htm.

The Center for Disease Control reported, in the early 80's, that seven times more women had been killed by legal abortions than by legal ones. That is probably a very conservative estimate: Life Dynamics, with less access to confidential information than the CDC, uncovered at least 16 maternal deaths from "safe& legal" abortions that never got on the CDC's radar. 80% of respondents to a post-abortion "exit poll" indicated that had abortion been illegal, they would not have considered it; so then 80% of the maternal deaths caused by legal abortion complications/malpractice could have been avoided if abortion were recriminalized.

Abortion is the ultimate child abuse. It's death by multiple injury, and there is no hope of escape or healing for the victim, as there is in other situations. You may not see it that way -- it's so easy to be pro"choice" when you're not the one getting killed-- but the children subjected to it do. See silentscream.org for the evidence.

Many pregnancies, initially unplanned and unprepared for, progress into very welcome children, sparing the child involved a cruel, unnatural, untimely and unjust death and sparing his/her mother a lifetime of grief, regret, guilt, possible physical injury, perhaps even death. (A woman is much more likely to die within a year following an induced abortion than following childbirth).

And not all planned pregnancies necessarily produce wanted children. This is all about attitude; and the "planned parenthood" philosophy actually produces more unwanted children, not more wanted ones. Birth control is all about making children unwanted, about creating a society hostile to children. Put simply, a parent who wants absolute control over when a child can and cannot be conceived will want absolute control over other aspects of that child's life after birth, and a 'planned' child can become very unwanted if by interfering, in any way, with later plans of such parents. The definition of real 'responsible sex' is being willing and ready to take responsibility for committed love to your partner, and for the protection and provision for any children you may conceive.

There is, on any given day, at least one couple wanting and waiting to adopt each of the babies killed in abortion mills. Usually more, and that number is growing due to reproductive damages sustained by women when they submit to abortions.

I am just old enough to remember the pre-Roe propaganda promising us all how legalizing abortion would reduce child abuse. WHAT A CROCK. Aside from the 50 million unborn children killed by this so-called "cure", abuse of born children has actually increased by at least 800%. Yes, it's connected to legalizing the ripping of helpless little unborn boys and girls limb from limb. Violence anywhere is a threat to peace everywhere, and the erosion of the societal taboo against harming others, especially others smaller/weaker than yourself, has contributed significantly to the increas in domestic abuse generally, not just that of children, that has been documented since January 22, 1973. It doesn't take a rocket scientist; just some basic math skills.

And don't try to tell me that you've never experienced rejection (unwantedness) from anyone. But you're still alive. Obviously, if you wanted death as an antidote to the pain of being unwanted by someone, that could've been arranged, but you didn't. Neither do child abuse victims; they want to survive and move on.

WHERE THERE'S LIFE THERE'S HOPE. IF YOU CAN READ THIS, SOMEONE GAVE YOU LIFE, AND YOU HAVE DECIDED TO CONTINUE IT. PROMOTE IT FOR OTHERS. ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE SMALLER AND WEAKER THAN YOURSELF.

Posted by: Wachet Auf at September 25, 2007 12:38 PM


"Aside from the 50 million unborn children killed by this so-called "cure", abuse of born children has actually increased by at least 800%."

@Watchet Auf: I don't think the increase of child abuse has to do with abortion being legalized. The levels of child abuse is probably the same, it's just being more reported now because people actually give a crap about how people treat their children.

For example: Back in the 60's it was okay to make your kid sleep outside if they misbehaved or to slap them silly for talking back or whipping them with belts until they bled. It was accepted, or at least it wasn't discussed. Nowadays if a parent does that to their kid, said kid is taken away (and in some cases, rightfully so) do to the fact that now teachers and other professionals are required to report suspected abuse.

Did you know the first child abuse cases had to be tried on animal-cruelty laws?

Posted by: Rae at September 25, 2007 12:49 PM


Sandy: Why are you so ignorant to the fact that there have been thousands of women who have joined the ranks of organizations that will finally acknowledge their pain from abortion.

What of it? There are many women who regret giving birth, too. No reason to away the freedom that women have in the matter.
......

Doug,
We are not debating that some women regret giving birth. We are debating abortion.
_________________________________
For someone who will never carry a child in her womb and understand the gift that is and the emotions being a mother can bring, you sure seem to have it all figured out.

Laura knows that it most certainly is not necessarily a "gift." Some want that, some don't.
.....
Doug,
Then the women who don't want the gift should take measures to make sure they don't get pregnant. It's that simple. Until Laura is acutally pregnant, she should quit speaking for those who have been.
________________________

Also, why are you so ignorant to the fact that many women have died from legal abortions and left their children and families without a mother.

And many more from giving birth. Any objection to abortion on those grounds can only logically be a much greater condemnation of continuing pregnancies and giving birth.

Doug,
Again we are not debating women who die during pregnancy or childbirth. Try to stay on task.

Posted by: Sandy at September 25, 2007 1:22 PM


Speaking of abuse and mandatory reporting, are you familiar with the sting exposing how abortion profiteers evade mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse of minors?

Check it out at www.childpredators.com.

Posted by: W.A. at September 25, 2007 2:31 PM


Milehimama,

Thank you for poignantly explaining the gift of sexuality better than I could, especially since my attempts to explain it have been met with condascending "how would you know anything about sex, VIRGIN!" instead of critiques about my position. Not that it will stop me...

since sex can be just as whole and full, BC or no BC

Sex with BC is a perversion. It's not whole because it removes a large portion of sex's intent- which is the possible creation of new life. Furthermore it takes the giving out of sex and turns it into taking. You refuse to give all of yourself (your fertility), and instead want to take from your partner what feels good to you and thwart or destroy what doesn't (like her ovulation and endometrium).

And above all- babies are the fruit of love, self-giving and unity between two people. Two people love and give eachother completely produce a unique and precious human life.

I see a strain of selfishness- People are selfish with themselves and their bodies (and do not want to get pregnant) because they are selfish with other things, like their time and money, which babies require. So barrenness is the fruit of selfishness and babies and the fruit of selflessness. So couples that use BS (oops, I mean BC, Freudian slip...) aren't giving all of themselves and only have 2 children so they don't have to give all of their time or all of their money. What an empty life.

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 25, 2007 2:34 PM


PIP: I know not all PLers are anti-BC.

Carrie: I am very sorry to know you went through such things as a child. But given our opposing viewpoints, I'm sure you understand that I still think that child abuse is much more horrible than abortion. Perhaps you don't understand why, but you understand that I do.

Jacqueline: Sex with BC is a perversion.

That is the viewpoint I consider very reactionary. We are not in the middle ages. I am okay if people disagree with the use of BC, but to say it is a perversion is absurd!

Sex can be a wonderful experience and it shouldn't be denied anyone because others think that BC is wrong. And not everyone think that having babies is fulfilling. It is very judgmental of you to say that only having two children gives someone an empty life. Lots of people have wonderful, fully-lived lives with few or no children.

What fulfills you, Jacqueline, may not fulfill others.

Posted by: Leah at September 25, 2007 3:07 PM


Leah, thanks for your very thoughtful response. My thoughts on this aspect of the abortion debate have always been this: if given the chance to go back in time to change things so that I would have never been born, thereby avoiding a bad childhood, I wouldn't. I just saying I am glad to be here and am glad I wasn't aborted. I am also one of the Pler's who is not against birth control, although I respect the opinions of those who are against it.

Posted by: Carrie at September 25, 2007 3:31 PM


Leah,

I am okay if people disagree with the use of BC, but to say it is a perversion is absurd!

People who disagree with BC disagree with it because they think it's a perversion of God's intent for sex. So you have no problem with us thinking it's a perversion- it's just my saying it that bothers you? And while we're at it, how is taking pleasure from sex while denying its unitive and procreative purpose not a perversion?

What fulfills you, Jacqueline, may not fulfill others.

"To each his own" isn't applicable in morality, Leah. You might be fufilled by molesting children-that is wrong. Being married and perverting your marriage bed by denying God the opportunity to create new life is wrong. You'll find that why immorality might be fun and thrilling in the short term, it's not fufilling in the long run. Especially with our eternities at stake. Furthermore, there are going to be some very lonely old childless women rotting in nursing homes because they didn't want to care for children- and thus they have no one to care for them.

Sex can be a wonderful experience and it shouldn't be denied anyone because others think that BC is wrong

Since when did I advocate denying sex? If you are so anti-child that you would rather deny sex than have a baby, that is your issue. Married couples should have all the sex they want- just the holy (and unperverted) sex, not the sliced up, selfish, chemical and latex-laden sex.

Sex is a holy gift, perfect as it is. I don't see why so many people poison it to suit their selfish wants.

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 25, 2007 3:35 PM


Sandy: For someone who will never carry a child in her womb and understand the gift that is and the emotions being a mother can bring, you sure seem to have it all figured out.

"Laura knows that it most certainly is not necessarily a "gift." Some want that, some don't."

Doug, Then the women who don't want the gift should take measures to make sure they don't get pregnant. It's that simple. Until Laura is acutally pregnant, she should quit speaking for those who have been.

Or, if they do have an unwanted pregnancy, then they can have an abortion. Laura is perfectly capable for speaking for huge numbers of women who have been pregnant. It's no secret.
________________________

Also, why are you so ignorant to the fact that many women have died from legal abortions and left their children and families without a mother.

"And many more from giving birth. Any objection to abortion on those grounds can only logically be a much greater condemnation of continuing pregnancies and giving birth."

Doug, Again we are not debating women who die during pregnancy or childbirth. Try to stay on task.

It is "on task." It's the same thing. If the concern is women dying and leaving their kids and families with no mother, then continuing pregnancies and giving birth is much worse than having abortions.

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 3:48 PM


Married couples should have all the sex they want- just the holy (and unperverted) sex, not the sliced up, selfish, chemical and latex-laden sex.

Jacqueline, that's pretty wild.

My mother-in-law had four kids, pretty much boom, boom, boom. My wife's the oldest kid, and it's only 2 years and 11 months from her date of birth to when the youngest was born.

Four was plenty for them, and in no way was it a bad thing to prevent pregnancy thereafter.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 3:54 PM


Jacqueline, Carrie, Milehi, WA, All of you,

Have done a great job expressing our beliefs about sex within a marriage.

In the secular world, people sign a contract. This is what they consider marriage. A contract being an even distribution of material goods.

But in the Catholic "Sacrament" of marriage, we make a covenant...a total and complete giving of not our possessions, but ourselves. The key word there being "TOTAL"...

BC is a perversion of the sexual act. It turns the whole thing into rutting and brings it down to it's most base animalistic form. While I wouldn't fight to criminalize it's use, I would definitely speak out and LOUDLY, about it's downfalls. It saddens me that so many beautiful young girls and women just can't comprehend how they make themselves objects instead of subjects.

How many girls on this site alone have sworn that they "loved" the men/boys they were with and that we didn't understand the depth and trueness of their love...only to break up with the guys months later...some even killing their children.

The divorce rate for Catholic/Christian couples that practice NFP or use no birth control and welcome ALL the children that God gives them in the context of their marriages, is practically nil.

This is also true in the Mormon and Muslim faith. Respecting each other and life, is almost a guarantee that you will still be with your partner many years from now...

Posted by: mk at September 25, 2007 3:57 PM


MK,

Great point! A contract is a secular invention based on mistrust. A covenant is a divine invention based on trust. A contract is to protect partners in some venture from eachother-it is "looking out for number one;" Whereas a convenant is a commitment to look out primarily for the well-being of your partner, not yourself. Here again the selflessness/selfishness dichtomy comes into play.

Rather than marriage being some shallow, mutually advantageous contract that can be broken or renegotiated, a covenant is the total gift of oneselves for the sake of another because of love.

It saddens me that so many beautiful young girls and women just can't comprehend how they make themselves objects instead of subjects.

Precisely. Not only does BC say, "I give myself to you, except for my fertility," it's also a rejection. "I want you, except for your fertility." And they get used- because this is not two people giving themselves completely to eachother for the sake of loving eachother and sharing the pleasures of doing so, but two people taking from eachother. I prefer giving over taking.

Four was plenty for them, and in no way was it a bad thing to prevent pregnancy thereafter.

Doug- Children aren't quantifiable objects. There are never "plenty" of them like there are plenty of apples. Every child changes the dynamic of a family and the world around him/her. They are unique. Suppose you lose your teenager to a car wreck- having two children will never replace that child you lost. There is no such thing as too many children. To quote Mother Theresa, "That's like saying there are too many flowers."

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 25, 2007 4:20 PM


MK: Doug- Children aren't quantifiable objects. There are never "plenty" of them like there are plenty of apples. Every child changes the dynamic of a family and the world around him/her. They are unique. Suppose you lose your teenager to a car wreck- having two children will never replace that child you lost. There is no such thing as too many children. To quote Mother Theresa, "That's like saying there are too many flowers."

Didn't Mo' T like apples? ; )

Yes, everybody is unique, and yes - there's no "replacing" somebody who's gone. However, it's still fully understandable when people don't want more kids, think they have enough, etc.

Dougster

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 4:30 PM


Then the women who don't want the gift should take measures to make sure they don't get pregnant. It's that simple. Until Laura is acutally pregnant, she should quit speaking for those who have been.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Uh, yeah...

...And Jaqueline should stop talking about sex, no?

Posted by: Laura at September 25, 2007 4:37 PM


Mk, I see your point about bc. You definately make a persuasive argument. I am facinated by large families, but that is not for me. That's why I would probably never become a Catholic, eventhough I might want to someday(I was baptized a Catholic and received my First Communion, but never confirmed). I married my first boyfriend and we are still together after many years so using bc doesn't guarantee a problematic relationship.

Posted by: Carrie at September 25, 2007 4:47 PM


...And Jaqueline should stop talking about sex, no?

No.

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 25, 2007 5:03 PM


However, it's still fully understandable when people don't want more kids, think they have enough, etc.

And what is enough? Kids are a blessing, like money and good health. You gratefully accept those that are given to you (in light of those that can not have children). Who are you to tell God, "No."?

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 25, 2007 5:13 PM


@Doug,

a wee quiz for you you: if an addict (say heroin) WANTS a fix .... should we acquiesce to his/her desires? How about a child (born - so has all his/her rights) and WANTS to walk out into car traffic or WANTS to fire a gun just like the cowboys on tv ... do you WANT to be dead, if he fires at you? Shouldn't someone stop this behavior?

Is wantedness THE only criteria? When I was a kid there was a phenomenon known as a 'spoiled brat'. Guess such a thing no longer happens?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 25, 2007 5:38 PM


And what is enough? Kids are a blessing, like money and good health. You gratefully accept those that are given to you (in light of those that can not have children). Who are you to tell God, "No."?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Homes with children under 18 just became the minority in this country. Almost 30% of all American-born White women and over 30% of all American-born Asian women will remain childless by choice.
For a lot of people, kids are no blessing.
I'll tell God "NO!"
If I'm given that gift, I'm sending it back! (Always keep the reciepts...)

Posted by: Laura at September 25, 2007 6:01 PM


"However, it's still fully understandable when people don't want more kids, think they have enough, etc."

Jacqueline: And what is enough? Kids are a blessing, like money and good health. You gratefully accept those that are given to you (in light of those that can not have children). Who are you to tell God, "No."?

What proof of a god do you have?

"Enough" is when the people involved say it. "In light of those that can't have kids" - nobody owes it to them to have kids.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 6:58 PM


Main Man John: a wee quiz for you you: if an addict (say heroin) WANTS a fix .... should we acquiesce to his/her desires? How about a child (born - so has all his/her rights) and WANTS to walk out into car traffic or WANTS to fire a gun just like the cowboys on tv ... do you WANT to be dead, if he fires at you? Shouldn't someone stop this behavior?

Ahoy, Matey, we've come far afield. Most people say don't give the heroin. Very, very relative, of course. If it's anchovies or not on a pizza, then it's not so one-sided. If it's booze or cigarettes then it's more than for the leetle fishies, but not as much as the heroin. What does that have to do with abortion?

No, I'd say it's pretty obvious that if we want to live, we don't want the kid filling us full of lead. And from the standpoint of wanting the kid to live, then ya don't let 'im get into traffic or "Go ahead, punk, make my day." ("Do you feel lucky?") (Or, did you ever see the movie "Predator" where the alien is hunting them in the jungle, and the one guy freaks out with that "mini gun" a General Electric XM214 Automatic Gun - a w e s o m e!)

As per my example of a couple having four kids, what in the heck do those examples of yours have to do with them not wanting more kids? Or with abortion, fo' dat matter? Should someone force the couple to have a fifth kid? A sixth?
......

Is wantedness THE only criteria? When I was a kid there was a phenomenon known as a 'spoiled brat'. Guess such a thing no longer happens?

Nay! Happens all the time. Kids now have TVs, computers and phones in their own rooms! The way things are going, there are going to be McDonald's outlets in them before long. When I was a boy, I washed windows with many panes in them, both sides, and only got ten cents for pay. And of course I walked to school. Good Grief! - now I see buses running even inside the cities and towns! What the heck....?! And you know we walked in the rain, the snow, and sometimes it was tough. After all, it was uphill to school and also uphill to home! Kids today don't know how good they have it....

When a couple has four kids, for example, and they don't want any more, you bet that wantedness is the criteria.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 25, 2007 7:19 PM


Doug,

We're having a party without you...

c'mon over...the cigars are fine!

Posted by: mk at September 25, 2007 7:36 PM


You know, my boyfriend and I have had the whole marriage and kids debate. The thing is, even if we waited until marriage to have sex, and possibly got married within the next five years, we still wouldn't make enough money to raise a child.

Why?

Because both of us have over $50,000 in college loans (each) to pay off, neither of us make more than $15,000 in our current jobs (although in a year I expect to make more) and we don't receive government aid or support from our families, besides the occasional groceries or Christmas presents.

In today's society, saying people shouldn't use birth control because it is detrimental to marriage is completely irrational.

It's not that I don't want to have children. It's that I can't afford them. And to tell me I shouldn't have sex with my husband while using protection is wrong because I'm not "giving" myself fully to him is ridiculous.

I'm being smart about my future by using birth control. I know I can't afford a child. But that doesn't mean I love my significant other any less, and shame on all of you for saying God wouldn't recognize that love.

God knows I can't afford a child and He respects my decision to use birth control, especially in marriage.

Posted by: Edyt at September 26, 2007 12:38 AM


Edyt, not "all of us" said you love your significant other any less because you use birth control. I have no issue with bc at all. I am not afraid to say I use it.

Posted by: Carrie at September 26, 2007 6:31 AM


Edyt,
What are going to do if you have a BC "failure"?

And, not pulling any punches - "can't afford it" is a load of puckey. Most people really mean "can't afford to continue our present lifestyle without stepping out of our comfort zone".

I'm not even going to get into the whole "God knows we can't afford one..." which is what is ridiculous. God knows the perfect timing to create a child, according to HIS will. YOU don't have any idea what that timing might be or what God is doing behind the scenes. Don't project your insecurities on Him!

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 6:41 AM


If I have a "BC failure" (which is highly unlikely, I'm quite responsible and the failure rate for the kind I'm on is rather... well, next to impossible) I'd put the child up for adoption. Just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean I would get an abortion. Is that what you're trying to push on me? That I'm a baby-killer? Well, I'm not. But I respect the legal rights of others to make that choice for themselves because I understand that extrenuating circumstances apply.

Comfort zone? I'm qualified to apply for welfare at this point; I don't consider that a "comfort zone." I'm highly uncomfortable in my present situation and doing all I can to get to a stable place where I can actually start saving money.

We have two cats who make wonderful low-maintenance children, and some months I wonder whether we're going to be able to support litter and cat food. Would I want to raise a child in circumstances where we'd wonder whether we'd get to eat the next day? No, and neither would you, so get off your high horse and accept the fact that there are situations in life where having a child is just plain dumb. I believe a parent should be able to provide food, clothing and an education. If I am hardly supporting myself, how is it possible to support another human being? (If not multiple, considering you don't seem to think BC is a good idea.)

Besides, if I had a child at this point, I'd be forced to quit my job or go on maternity leave, and my boyfriend (presumably husband at the point of having a child) wouldn't make enough to support the two of us. Don't talk to me about comfort zones. It makes you sound ignorant.

Side comment: Infanticide is way on the decline since BC and abortion were legalized. Or did you forget that's how people used to get rid of the children they didn't want?

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 10:02 AM


Almost 30% of all American-born White women and over 30% of all American-born Asian women will remain childless by choice.
For a lot of people, kids are no blessing.
I'll tell God "NO!"
If I'm given that gift, I'm sending it back! (Always keep the reciepts...)

Kids are always a blessing. Just because you and others don't desire to be blessed does not change that. And your telling God No and killing the blessings He gives you is the ultimate depravity. May He have mercy on you.

God knows I can't afford a child and He respects my decision to use birth control, especially in marriage.

No He doesn't. He expressly forbids it, and promises to take care of you and your children. You don't have to worry about affording children. You are not your own provider.

I have a chunk of student loan debt myself (over 46K) and intend to live on a pathetic stipend next semester as a teaching fellow. Even then, I know that any children I might have wouldn't starve to death or go naked. They may not have the finest material goods, but they are going to be just fine (and perhaps have a greater value for things that matter).

In today's society, saying people shouldn't use birth control because it is detrimental to marriage is completely irrational.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use birth control because it's detrimental to marriage- I'm saying you shouldn't use birth control because it's immoral. And that immorality is detrimental to marriages, devalues children and supports the abortion mentality.

Then again- the only people that would oppose BC are those that recognize a certain degree of sexual morality. I don't expect a non-married sexually active couple to oppose BC. I don't expect people that support killing unborn children to oppose BC. I was a hardcore pro-lifer for years before I came to the conclusion that BC was abortive (in cases of hormones) and immoral. And I came to that conclusion because I believe in an unchanging God.

Baby steps.

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 26, 2007 10:04 AM


"YOU don't have any idea what that timing might be or what God is doing behind the scenes."

and you do?

Posted by: Hal at September 26, 2007 10:05 AM


Never claimed to

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 10:26 AM


Edyt,
I was just curious, since you seem to have tried to plan everything in advance.

I am fascinated that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am calling you a baby-killer (which I didn't even insinuate, thankyouverymuch) - a term you *seem* to feel is appropriate to apply to abortion. Then you jump around and say you certainly won't judge any other babykillers, because of extenuating circumstances? It boggles the mind. Either babykilling, as you put it, is wrong or it's not. And if there's nothing wrong with it, why take offense if someone accuses you?

And, you don't know me or my financial situation. Just because I have children does not mean I'm rich or well off. We qualify for free/reduced lunch at the schools. My husband is a construction worker. We've made choices and sacrifices for the children.

And, BTW, the poverty stricken in America are still better off than many middle class people in other countries! We have running, potable water; reliable electricity available, not to mention TV's, internet access, etc. If you break a leg or have a heart attack or lose an arm in a horrible accident - you won't bleed to death in the street because you can't afford to go to the hospital.

I suggest learning about lifestyles around the world and comparing them to your comfort zone. It's all a matter of perspective.

Then again, as was said on another thread - apparently my perspective is different from others. I focus on the destination, not the journey.

I don't believe a parent should hold off on having a child until they can afford an education (I'm assuming you mean college, since K-12 is free in America?)

Hmmm...apparently I *am* quite the radical and never even knew it!

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 10:40 AM


Not supporting birth control does not imply that all couples will have multiple children. Are you familiar with LAM and NFP?

Posted by: Jacqueline at September 26, 2007 10:46 AM


Jaqueline: Kids are always a blessing. Just because you and others don't desire to be blessed does not change that. And your telling God No and killing the blessings He gives you is the ultimate depravity. May He have mercy on you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your god can keep his mercy, I've seen how he treats his "blessings."

http://www.bike4sudan.com/files/images/wanting_a_meal.jpg

Posted by: Laura at September 26, 2007 10:48 AM


Laura,
You are right that Christianity makes no sense if you do not believe in Heaven, life after death, and a God that is all-just. If you believe this life is all tehre is and don't believe in the problem of sin, I can see how suffering would be incomprehensible. Fortunately, there IS a God who is all merciful and all just, and who sees everything. We don't have to rely on the pathetic human created justice systems to see things made right.

However, I think that nihilistic atheism makes no sense either, and in addition is depressing. I'm not saying you're an atheist (I have no idea what you believe except you seem to hate God - which would indicate you believe He exists - which would make you NOT an atheist) but anyway. I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 10:58 AM


MODERATOR:
There is a comment made at 10:02 in response to my comment made at 6:41.

It is signed Milehimama, which is the name I've been using to post. I did not post the 10:02 comment. Can you change it to "anonymous", unless someone else claims it, so as to cause less confusion?
Thanks

Posted by: Milehimama at September 26, 2007 11:08 AM


@Doug,

love to mess-up your intellectual-fortress .... the reason why my examples apply to abortion are two-fold. A) 'wantedness' is NOT a determining factor. [It may be only a very obvious-surface final one.] There are all sorts of things that make such a determination suspect including depression, addiction, maturity etc ............. [What if the 'make-my-day-kid was 6 years old .... or just 2.5 yrs?] B) does freedom lie in the ability to choose or is it in 'what' is being chosen? If the latter, then perhaps you'll have to look elsewhere than the wantedness concept .... like a woman's choosing is not the freedom but the imagined-result. Isn't such 'imagined-future' not error prone?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

now for a bit of biology. @1932 a biochemist (Watson??) stated that ALL biochemical reactions were catalyzed by: 1) ENZYMES; 2)CO-FACTORS and 3) ENERGY. Because of timing, energy was thought to be what Einstein meant via E=mcc. So, the only accepted kind of energy in modern biology tends to be heat(joules). However, there are easily at least 15 non-heat forms of energy .... like magnetism, light, sound, electricity, etc..... So, putting a tv in a kids bedroom will: 1) severally shorten his/her life, 2)cause all sorts of illnesses by short-changing the body's main repair mechanism, which happens at night, during sleep (aka 'Lights Out' by TS Wiley) 3) by producing mood fluctuations ... apart from the hyper-sexualization of programs; 4), 5), 6) ... the self-induced problems (valuations) go on and on .... when you have developed the power to halt a process with your willing-it, then we'll talk about the valuations ... until you can match your will-processing (valuation) with the actual physical processing (called: 'natural'). From any angle 'abortion is NOT natural!'

This same problem occurs with 'safe' cell-phone use. Ever wonder why kids often get leukemia of the brain, nearest the favored ear for cell-phone users. Robert O. Becker 'Cross Currents' says this is not the typical cancer, but completely de-fragments the DNA molecule. [There is no cure at all for this.] "AIN'T TECHNOLOGY WONDERFUL!" Keep it up and we just may eradicate our species from this planet!

Posted by: John McDonell at September 26, 2007 11:29 AM


John McDonell: Ever wonder why kids often get leukemia of the brain, nearest the favored ear for cell-phone users.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Leukemia of the brain?

Posted by: Laura at September 26, 2007 11:45 AM


@Laura,

sorry, wasn't thinking of everything while typing. Leukemia is of course cancer of the blood. And a cancer-mass will often form on the ear-side of the brain. The area that's in closest proximity to frequent cell-phone use. I am not saying there is a necessary causal relationship, but it warrants further study, no?

Posted by: John McDonell at September 26, 2007 12:07 PM


Hi,

Please let all of your readers know that as part of the 40 Days movement, my video blog will be running 40 days of pro life and abortion video posts.

Check it out and let me know what you think.

Thanks & God Bless,

Travis

Posted by: Travis at September 26, 2007 1:02 PM


An agnostc lifestyle would be very depressing!

Posted by: heather at September 26, 2007 1:06 PM


John: Doug, love to mess-up your intellectual-fortress .... the reason why my examples apply to abortion are two-fold. A) 'wantedness' is NOT a determining factor. [It may be only a very obvious-surface final one.] There are all sorts of things that make such a determination suspect including depression, addiction, maturity etc ............. [What if the 'make-my-day-kid was 6 years old .... or just 2.5 yrs?] B) does freedom lie in the ability to choose or is it in 'what' is being chosen? If the latter, then perhaps you'll have to look elsewhere than the wantedness concept .... like a woman's choosing is not the freedom but the imagined-result. Isn't such 'imagined-future' not error prone?

Wanted/unwanted is the primary reason. There may be things like depression, etc., but are we to suspect that no woman can make her own choice? If we think a woman is deficient in vitamins or enzymes, do we not let her continue a pregnancy if she wants to?

The age of the kid with the gun doesn't matter. Freedom is the ability to choose freely, here. In no way is freedom having to end a pregnancy against one's will or continue one against one's will. There's no guarantee that a given decision won't be regretted later on, John. Yes, sometimes people regret abortions and they sometimes regret having kids too. Life is just that way, and it's no reason to take away people's freedom.
......

now for a bit of biology. @1932 a biochemist (Watson??) stated that ALL biochemical reactions were catalyzed by: 1) ENZYMES; 2)CO-FACTORS and 3) ENERGY. Because of timing, energy was thought to be what Einstein meant via E=mcc. So, the only accepted kind of energy in modern biology tends to be heat(joules). However, there are easily at least 15 non-heat forms of energy .... like magnetism, light, sound, electricity, etc..... So, putting a tv in a kids bedroom will: 1) severally shorten his/her life, 2)cause all sorts of illnesses by short-changing the body's main repair mechanism, which happens at night, during sleep (aka 'Lights Out' by TS Wiley) 3) by producing mood fluctuations ... apart from the hyper-sexualization of programs; 4), 5), 6) ... the self-induced problems (valuations) go on and on .... when you have developed the power to halt a process with your willing-it, then we'll talk about the valuations ... until you can match your will-processing (valuation) with the actual physical processing (called: 'natural'). From any angle 'abortion is NOT natural!'

I'd say abortion is entirely natural. Miscarriages are natural. It's natural for some people to want kids and it's natural for others not to. I'm not "in favor" of unwanted pregnancies - I don't "want" them to occur, but it's human nature that they do. It's natural for different people to have different desires.

No argument on TVs in kids' bedrooms.... good grief.

There are some people who can consciously control some stuff which is autonomic for the rest of us, like lowering and raising body temperature. Has nothing to do with valuation, though - we all do that all the time.
......

This same problem occurs with 'safe' cell-phone use. Ever wonder why kids often get leukemia of the brain, nearest the favored ear for cell-phone users. Robert O. Becker 'Cross Currents' says this is not the typical cancer, but completely de-fragments the DNA molecule. [There is no cure at all for this.] "AIN'T TECHNOLOGY WONDERFUL!" Keep it up and we just may eradicate our species from this planet!

I sometimes wish I had a raygun that would raise the temperature of cell phones to 400 or 500 degrees Fahrenheit. That's because some people are extremely poor multi-taskers - they can't talk on the phone and drive at the same time with a diddly. How many people have I seen going slow in the fast lane, yakking, away, etc.?

Doug

Posted by: Doug at September 26, 2007 11:27 PM