If antichoicers could behave like civilized human beings instead of tantrum throwing troglodites then the fence wouldnt be needed.

Aurora becomes Auschwitz -- because of a temporary fence intended to keep people off of someone's private property, not keeping people inside against their will.

You don't shy away from hyperbole, do you, Jill?

are you trying to make a really bad joke? There is no resemblence between the planned parenthood medical facilty and Auschwitz. I'm not talking about what his happening inside, but just the photos and your comments.

Well of course none of you see the comparison. You're abortion Nazis.

actually the fences are to keep the troglodytes INSIDE Aurora PP.
didn't I say, all they needed was the fence, next will be the towers with the guards inside.
after that maybe an incinerator or two.

Yes, they can call George Tiller in Wichita for the how to's. He incinerates on-site. I'm told sometimes the ashes fall on the heads of protesting pro-lifers.

In the case of abortion regulation, I know there is a broad exception for the health of the mother including psychological health.

Has anyone seen any data supporting the notion that abortion actually protects a mother's psychological health in some case?

I am looking for a study, not a story about your "friend"

I ask because generally for procedures to be recommended for conditions, they have to show evidence of effectiveness based on some sort of data.

Hey Jill, I'm on your side but I do think your comparison is not only a stretch, but an insult to those who experienced Auschwitz. I understand the parallels between abortion and the Holocaust, and have done extensive research into the Nazi Eugenics programs on both sides of Hitler’s ethnic divide. I think you should take down your comparison photos and allow the photos of the fenced field to speak for themselves. Renting those fences isn’t cheap…and the fact that the property owner erected it (which is totally within their rights to do) means that they are being hit in the pocketbook by PP’s and (by association) our presence there. There isn’t anything remotely similar between the barbed wire used to hold innocent people prisoner and a rented fence to keep trespassers off your property. No matter how noble our cause is, if we don’t have permission to be there the owner has the right to “fence and defend” their property. Take it for what it is even if you don’t like it….drawing ridiculously stretched parallels doesn’t strengthen our position, or make an effective argument.

Sorry…just my opinion.

Where is your logic? Why would PP want to keep women inside their facility when they could let them leave to go get knocked up again and come back for another abortion?

I want to see how far I can take comparing things to unspeakable tragedies. Hmmmmm....the gardeners at my apartment building just put out new fertilizer, it's like dropping the bomb on Hiroshima all over again! I didn't get off for lunch early enough today, I feel like I'm living in an AIDS ravaged famine stricken African nation! A local store put up a fence to keep me from trespassing on their property, this is just like Auschwitz!.....now where have I heard that before?

Thanks, Theresa. Well put. Jill, I really think that your reference to Auschwitz in this case crosses a line that transcends the PP Aurora debate, and which makes it difficult to take any of your content seriously.

I agree with Theresa, but I think the fence is unattractive.

I feel sorry for Dominicks especially since Bill Weit could have invited their representatives to meet with him and PP reps back in February when he had his secretary set up a time.

Instead Bill Weit sided with PP and gave neither businesses nor residents a fair chance to object.

Uh-oh, Jill. You just did the greatest no-no: you've compared abortion with the holocaust in any fashion. Expect to be flooded by hate mail! :)

You're abortion Nazis.

Why don't you tell us how you really feel, Jill. :)

Theresa, you'll note I didn't say Safeway/Dominick's weren't within their rights to erect that fence. I just made note the area was beginning to resemble Auschwitz.

JK, stick to comparisons about killing innocent people.

Ray said: "Jill, I really think that your reference to Auschwitz in this case crosses a line that transcends the PP Aurora debate, and which makes it difficult to take any of your content seriously."

Ray, how do these not compare?

Nathan, I know. They can't stand the comparison, because if I'm right that makes them hideously, grotesquely, inhumanly Naziesque.

Jacque, it's Friday... :)

As a resident of Oakhurst, I will agree, the fence is horrible. It's not bad enough to have the PP right there in our backyard, but to add to it the eyesore of the fence, as well as the implied judgment by our neighborhood grocer, I think it all stinks.
I know I felt bad for Dominicks up until this point, but now I am insulted and annoyed.

Ray, how do these not compare?

Jill, did you read what Theresa wrote? Read the whole thing, especially this part:

There isn’t anything remotely similar between the barbed wire used to hold innocent people prisoner and a rented fence to keep trespassers off your property. No matter how noble our cause is, if we don’t have permission to be there the owner has the right to “fence and defend” their property. Take it for what it is even if you don’t like it….drawing ridiculously stretched parallels doesn’t strengthen our position, or make an effective argument.

Why???!!! I'm within my rights to make comparisons between anything I choose. Denying me those rights is extremely Naziesque of you, Jill.

Who was against freedom of speech except for what they wanted to say? The Nazis.

TexasRed said: "If antichoicers could behave like civilized human beings instead of tantrum throwing troglodites then the fence wouldnt be needed."

Yeah, and if those Jews would have gone into the gas chamber like they were told, they wouldn't have needed a fence around Auschwitz.

Jill, as we believe that the unborn child is no different from a born child or adult, we see no difference between an abortion mill and a death camp. The pro-aborts are always "outraged" whenever we make comparisons like this, which shows that they truly do not understand our point of view.

Congrats to Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize!

I guess now (well withink the past couple years) lots more people kinda wish they voted for him..

“Theresa, you'll note I didn't say Safeway/Dominick's weren't within their rights to erect that fence. I just made note the area was beginning to resemble Auschwitz.”

Jill, of course I noted that! (Please don’t forget whose side I’m on here.) But I work on a lot of urban land development projects and it looks more like a vacant lot getting ready for construction than a death camp. Believe me, I understand your point….I just think your comparison is in bad taste and not a particularly defendable position. The Holocaust comparisons belong with what’s going on inside that clinic, not with a temporary chain link fence across the street. I just think the comparison makes it look like we are loosing our heads….the fence is a victory because it means that the retailer is also being affected by the lack of public disclosure on the clinic regardless of their official position on abortion.

Yes, yes, y’all….dissention among the ranks. Enjoy!

When does the boycott of Dominicks start?

JKeller said: "Who was against freedom of speech except for what they wanted to say? The Nazis."

Ah, so it was the Nazis who invented the Fairness Doctrine.

As a resident of Oakhurst, I will agree, the fence is horrible. It's not bad enough to have the PP right there in our backyard, but to add to it the eyesore of the fence

The fence is a temporary construction fence, identical to thousands of others in place around the country at any given time. If you have a problem with the aesthetics of it, I would direct you to appeal to the Aurora City Council to enact an ordnance regulating the appearance of all such fences in Aurora. It will cost more, so you will be going up against the construction industry, but you have to do what your heart tells you.

BTW--I'm new to these comment boards...how do you all get your text to italicize??

pip said: "Congrats to Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize!"

I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should win it next year.

Ray, and read what I wrote. I never said Safeway/Dominick's didn't have the right to erect the fence. I just made note that Aurora is beginning to look like Auschwitz. On the other side of the fence, there's lots of killing of innocent people going on. Both Auschwitz and Aurora are equally despicable.

In fact, many more innocent people have killed by abortion than were by the Nazis - 1 billion over the past two decades according to Guttmacher. No human atrocity - humans killing humans - compares to abortion.

JK, you certainly have the right to exaggerate and try to take the conversation away from the topic at hand. I don't blame you.

John L. - roflll

"Well of course none of you see the comparison. You're abortion Nazis."

Jill, I see the comparison you want to make between abortion and the nazis. (I don't agree, but I understand) what I don't understand is why you see any comparison in these photos. The fence on the left is like 1000s of fences in every town in america. The one on the right is a prison fence. They're not the same at all.

Theresa, you'll note I didn't say Safeway/Dominick's weren't within their rights to erect that fence. I just made note the area was beginning to resemble Auschwitz.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 4:06 PM

Yes, of course it does. A flimsy, easily climbed chain link fence around an open field empty of people TOTALLY resembles a barbed-wire fence surrounding an encampment of terrified, undernourished and imprisoned people. You know, my neighbor put in a pool this summer and erected a fence around their property. I see the resemblance to Auschwitz there too! It's a fence! Fences = Auschwitz!

I completely see it now. You make so much sense! You don't sound at all like an hysterical lunatic eager to make the most specious of points!

Hal, Theresa: You're not seeing the big picture, the point. You're getting lost in irrelevancies. Theresa, I appreciate we're on the same side.

PIP,

Hi!

It's a weird contrast isn't it? Of the 2 candidates from the 2000 election, one has spent his time trying to save the planet, the other is trying to do all he can to destroy it.

BTW, have you read "I Am America (And So Can You!)" yet? I'm about halfway through and I've been meaning to ask you about it when you were around.

Anon, "lunatic," relevant word here. Someday we'll see who the real lunatics were in this debate.

This is what you said: "Here, I'll show you. You won't know unless I explain, but Aurora PP is on the left and Auschwitz on the right"

This was YOUR point. that the fences looked similar. If you want to say "On the other side of the fence, there's lots of killing of innocent people going on. Both Auschwitz and Aurora are equally despicable." Fine, but don't say the fences look the same.

Congrats to Al Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize!

I guess now (well withink the past couple years) lots more people kinda wish they voted for him..

I voted against Al Gore because at the time he wanted to retest a bunch of industrial chemicals on literally millions of animals using the horribly cruel "lethal dose 50%" test.

Lost of folks with no love for Bush voted against Al Gore.

I know very few have a soft spot for animals but I do.

Look, Jill, like Theresa I am making a fairly narrow argument here. You have every right to call pro-choicers anything you want. You can call abortion clinics death mills, and abortionists Nazis. But I am telling you that you look patently absurd, and risk insulting a lot of people who survived the holocaust and the memory of those who didn't, by comparing photos of a temporary construction fence on an empty lot to photos of Auschwitz.

Well, Jill I'm sorry you think I'm lost in irrelevancies. I guess that's why I've been spending 30+ hours a week working at/on the local 40 Days of Life. I do see the big picture and I DO see the point you are trying to make....what is unfortunate to me is that I am trying to acknowledge your point while illustrating where we disagree in degree, but you have just flung in my face that my point of view is an irrelevancy to you.

I guess it doesn’t matter if you alienate an ally, as long as you’ve made your point. I find it ironic that Ray treated my input with more respect than you did. I think I’m going to stop trying to participate on this board….thought I was going to find intelligent discourse, but it would seem that’s only as long as I’m in lockstep.

Have fun, y’all...I'm done. And thanks Ray.

In fact, many more innocent people have killed by abortion than were by the Nazis - 1 billion over the past two decades according to Guttmacher. No human atrocity - humans killing humans - compares to abortion.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 4:20 PM

Not to quibble over details, but Guttmacher certainly does NOT say over 1 billion abortions over the past two decades. The number doesn't even come close to reaching 1 billion. It doesn't come close to even reaching a half of a billion, or even a tenth of a billion.

Could you make at least a minimal attempt to get your facts and comparisons straight? I realize that as a blogger you deal in hyperbole and outrage, but geez, at least a little respect for reality might improve your ability to persuade.

I see both Theresa's point and Jill's point. What I would like to add is that I view the PP mill as a latter day Auschwitz. The prochoicers will not agree with me, but that's how I see it. I view abortion as the murder of unborn babies-that's my frame of reference. I see certain groups targeted for murder. The extermination of unborn babies with Down's Syndrome comes to mind. The sex-selective abortions in certain parts of the world come to mind.

Actually Carol,

On average it's 45 million a year. 45 million times 20 equals 900,000,000. That's purty darn close to a billion...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

"• The number of induced abortions declined worldwide between 1995 and 2003, from nearly 46 million to approximately 42 million. About one in five pregnancies worldwide end in abortion. [1]"

Theresa,

I'm sorry that you are not feeling supported by the people that are (supposedly) on your side. I think your point is very valid. I'm sorry to see you go.

My bad MK. I thought we were referring to abortion in the United States.

MK,

Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. You didn't get the memo?

:-)

Is the 1 billion number a worldwide total?

I view abortion as the murder of unborn babies-that's my frame of reference. I see certain groups targeted for murder. The extermination of unborn babies with Down's Syndrome comes to mind. The sex-selective abortions in certain parts of the world come to mind.

Posted by: Carrie at October 12, 2007 4:38 PM

Here, here! Jill, you're right. Keep up the good work.

Now, I see it is

Theresa,

Please don't go. Disagreements are what keep this site interesting. You add a lot to this site. I've been reading your posts, and think it would be a shame if you left.

Truthfully, I myself am not even bothering to weigh in on this one, because I see both sides clearly.

Death Camp? Yes. The place feels like Auschwitz. Does it look like it? Well, the building does. Does the fence? Mmmmmm...not really. And I agree that the fence is for keeping people out, not in.

But Jill is pretty famous for throwin' stuff out there just to get a rise out of everyone.

I guess it worked. lol.

But don't take it too seriously. Your points are most certainly not irrelevant, and I honestly don't think that that is what Jill meant, but I'll let her speak for herself.

Please reconsider...

Carol,

That's cool. It happens to everyone.

JK,
C'mon, give or take a million! I mean they're only babies after all! :)

I guess it doesn’t matter if you alienate an ally, as long as you’ve made your point. I find it ironic that Ray treated my input with more respect than you did. I think I’m going to stop trying to participate on this board….thought I was going to find intelligent discourse, but it would seem that’s only as long as I’m in lockstep.

Have fun, y’all...I'm done. And thanks Ray.

Posted by: Theresa at October 12, 2007 4:37 PM

Theresa, you're acting like you're three. Grow up. You leave because someone disagrees with YOU. Sounds like if they aren't in lockstep with you, you can't support them. If that's you're attitude good riddance.

Wow, anon, that was really pretty mean.

Haha, MK! It's give or take like 100 million, which is a third of the population of the United States, a lot to be off by, even if they're only babies. ;-)

Just tellin' it like it is...

Theresa, I'd like to see you stay-one newbie to another. I appreciate your efforts for 40 Days. Thanks for all your hard work.

...and back to the topic of the fence, I can completely sympathize with Dominick's just wanting to stay out of the whole thing. If they put up the fence, PP and its supporters quit contacting Safeway corporate, and likely the FAPP people complain once or twice and then move on, since Dominick's isn't the real target.

The Nazis enclosed their death camps so no one outside could witness what was going on inside, and so none of the prisoners could escape except as ashes through the chimneys.

Likewise, the Dominick's/Safeway fence will make it more difficult for any effective rescue of those "selected" to be executed at PP Aurora to take place.

The fence, the deceit, and the holocaust comparisons are ALL about what goes on inside.

It is an insult to those victims to NOT call their systematic, deliberate extermination a holocaust, and it is an insult to the 6 million Jews, 12 million Christians, 1,900 priests, and countless other Gypsies, Poles, invalids, etc. not to put an immediate HALT to our goosestepping any further down that bloody, tyrannical path. It all began with a book that deemed some human life "unworthy of life", with exchanging a sanctity of life ethical base for a so-called "quality of life" one.

Whenever the government is allowed, esp. in collusion with the medical profession, to arrogate to themselves the right to kill innocent people based on a "quality of life" search and destroy "ethic", the gates to Auschwitz are reopened.

Abortion on demand was legal in Germany some 30 years prior to the Third Reich. It was discouraged, of course, for Aryans and encouraged for others deemed "dysgenic". The Third Reich operated abortion chambers almost 24/7 emptying one pregnant Jewish womb after another, and Dr. Joseph Mengele, one of the most notorious of the Nazi "doctors", medical director at Auschwitz-Birkenau himself, made his living as an abortionist in South America as a fugitive from justice after WWII.

For more information, visit www.eugenics-watch.com. William Brennan has also published several very well-researched, well-documented, and well-written studies on these links and comparisons: They are "Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives"; "Medical Holocausts: Exterminative Medicine in Nazi Germany and Contemporary America"; and "The Abortion Holocaust: Today's Final Solution".

Yes there are some differences between these two scourges; but there are many more similarities, which any society ignores at its own peril.

Read it and WAKE UP.

Likewise, the Dominick's/Safeway fence will make it more difficult for any effective rescue of those "selected" to be executed at PP Aurora to take place.

Posted by: Wachet Auf at October 12, 2007 5:16 PM

I don't see how that's true. I've been by the site several times since the clinic opened, and I hardly see how three ladies sitting on the property in lawn chairs is an effective "rescue" to begin with. There is still public sidewalk available at the entrance to the private drive, and at any entrance to the parking lot.

I should clarify. I'm referring to the entrances to the entire complex, not the actual entrance to the PP parking lot.

Has anyone noticed that Jill has two legs -
JUST LIKE HITLER!

Coincidence? I don't think so...

HITLER = 6 letters.

STANEK = 6 letters.

Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Laura,

Yes but she's taller and shaves her mustache.

You kill me girl, you absolutely kill me...

Laura,

Are you sure you couldn't switch sides? I rather think I'd enjoy sharing a beverage with you someday.

Laura,

Yes but she's taller and shaves her mustache.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I KNEW IT!

Hitler had one testicle.
Why does Jill shave her mustache?
Jill has one testicle!

Jill and Hitler are the same person! Have YOU ever seen them togethr?
Case closed.

Laura,

Yes, but the one testicle Jill has is the one that Hitler is missing!

This is a perfect comparison:

The commonality language between the Nazi positions and the claims of abortionists and today's "pro-choice" supporters. In Nazi Germany, the killing of Jews was not against the law, the killing centers were "medical centers" that the killers were "doctors" and the killing was done in the name of promoting "health." In pro-choice America, the killing of babies is not against the law, the killing is done at "medical clinics", the killers are "doctors" and abortion is called a woman's "health" issue.

Hmmmm....let's see....

Auschwitz has a fence, PP has a fence, Auschwitz has doors, PP has doors, Auschwitz has floors, PP has floors, Auschwitz has walls, PP has walls, Auschwitz has ceilings, PP has ceilings, Auschwitz has hordes of malnourished, severely mistreated practitioners of Judaism as prisoners, PP has......wait.....ahhhhh....I *almost* succeeded in comparing Auschwitz and PP......sigh

Laura,

I'd love to stick around and discuss Jill's testicles and facial hair, but I have to go to the Shedd Aquarium and sleep with the fishes. (It's a girl scout thing) 30 screaming girls, 4,000 fish, one shark and no cigarettes...talk about suffering.

Yeah Jasper!

Keep trying JKeller...it'll keep you out of trouble tonight...

Laura,

Are you sure you couldn't switch sides? I rather think I'd enjoy sharing a beverage with you someday.

Posted by: mk at October 12, 2007 5:30 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sounds like a plan.

Haha, MK, I can't tonight, I'm going to Big Blue Madness, a celebration of our superiority in college basketball, where 24,000 people gather to watch a practice in the grandest of fashions. Where most would be ecstatic to draw 24,000 people for their most important of games, we draw the same number for practice. This is why we are superior.

Per Carol:
"I realize that as a blogger you deal in hyperbole and outrage, but geez, at least a little respect for reality might improve your ability to persuade."

PLers have always dealt in the within realities of abortion, but the problem is pro-aborts don't want to hear it. You put your head in the sand cover your ears because you don't want to acknowlege the realities of abortion. No matter what is stated, or posted you PCers ALWAYS come back with "I don't believe her", "I won't acknowlege anything that posted from that site", "Those studies are flawed". etc....etc....etc.....

To further my point; the whole pro-choice movement was started based on a bunch of lies to gain acceptance so a round table full of doctors could make oodles of money from women.
The lies (just to name a few)include: The number of women who died as a result of illegal abortions lie, the whole "coat hanger" fallacy, the it's just a blob of tissue lie, the this will solve all your problems lie. There is no such thing as PAS lie, the cover-ups with statutory rape case lies, the false ultrasounds reports stating babies are still within the legal stage to abort, the this clinic offers safe abortions lie, lies lies lies lies all lies. When do PCers ever deal in the realities???

The nazi's burned the children with chemicals just like planned parenthood:

Nazi toture:
http://www.shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/MedExp01.jpg

Planned Parenthood torture:
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/baby-choice.jpg

both are ruthless killers...

Re: 1 billion abortions over the past 2 decades, yes, as MK stated, this is a worldwide statistic. Until only this week, Guttmacher estimated 46 million abortions per year worldwide. This week it lowered that statistic to 42 million since 1995:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So in the past 12 years the revised worldwide abortion figure is 504,000,000. The 8 years before that there were 368,000,000 committed. So the revised total is 872,000,000 not 1,000,000,000. Does that make anyone feel better?

Theresa, I hope you won't leave. You disagreed with my tactic, which I give everyone full reigns to do on this blog. I just disagreed with your disagreement. It wasn't personal. I was not calling your pro-life credentials into question, just as I never thought you were calling mine into question. Peace?

Hey Texas Red:

How can you call us anti-choicers? Please don't call me an anti-choicer. Call me a champion of the unborn, their knight in shining armore, a voice in the vast darkness agains the murder, rape and pillaging of the unborn.

Be corrected my friend...we are anti-abortion, anti-murder. Get the semantics right you self-deceived victim, although willingly and guilty as hell nevertheless.

“Theresa, you're acting like you're three. Grow up. You leave because someone disagrees with YOU. Sounds like if they aren't in lockstep with you, you can't support them. If that's you're attitude good riddance.”

Posted by: Anonymous at October 12, 2007 4:58 PM

Peace Jill. Thank you. But based on the above post, I think I’m still done with this forum. I’m responding to let you know I appreciate your last post to me, but frankly I don’t have the stomach for the above types of posts…I only came here looking for intelligent discourse, not mud slinging and hostility. I think my time is better spent working on 40 day admin and vigil attendance.

Good luck out there in Aurora.

Hal:

I've been away for a few months and you haven't been converted yet? It's amazing that God is so patient with you isn't it. Just think, if we lived in OT times you'd probably be dead for killing your two kids and for the views you hold on murdering the pre-born. Just goes to show you how atheists like yourself confuse the non-existence of God, i.e., His inaction against the likes of you, with His grace and mercy and desire for you not to perish eternally. Somehow you think that because you apparently have gotten away with murder that someday there won't be a day of reckoning. I can assure you with all the faith in my heart....THERE WILL BE. You have gotten away with nothing!

How's your beautiful daughters? I sure hope you see the light someday if for only their sakes. What if your daughters forsake their dad's atheism, become Christians, go to heaven, and then as part of your own self-inflicted punishment, you are separated from them for all eternity? Worse yet, what if they don't become Christians and join you in hell for all eternity. What would be worse?

However, today is the day of salvation my fellow father or should I say farther father. Now is the time to change your evil ways, embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, and fulfill your fatherly duty to bring your children to a loving Savior.

Come back Theresa.

Just watch what happens when Zeke shows up!

Now that's dissent!

Now is the time to change your evil ways

Posted by: Hisman at October 12, 2007 6:30 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh No!
Jill is Hitler, and Hisman is CARLOS SANTANA!!

"Youve got to change your evil ways... baby
Before I stop loving you.
Youve go to change... baby
And every word that I say, its true.
Youve got me running and hiding
All over town.
Youve got me sneaking and peeping
And running you down
This cant go on...
Lord knows you got to change... baby.

When I come home... baby
My house is dark and my pots are cold
Youre hanging round... baby
With jean and joan and a who knows who
Im getting tired of waiting and fooling around
Ill find somebody, who wont make me feel like a clown
This cant go on...
Lord knows you got to change

Organ solo:

(repeat 2nd verse)

Yeah ... yeah ... yeah ..."

"...but frankly I don’t have the stomach for the above types of posts…I only came here looking for intelligent discourse, not mud slinging and hostility."

That's the nature of the beast, Theresa. Welcome to BlogWorld! At times we're civil, at other times we absolutely stun each other with our points of views. Some are intelligent, others, well, not so intelligent.

We'll post things we wish we hadn't posted, and speaking for myself, I wish I could post more. But I have found that the other apologists beat me to it. And to a much better degree.

If this is truly your last posting, (please don't leave!) then God be with you as you defend the unborn.

Peace to you too.

Hey Jasper, how about another please-don't-go video on youtube? Dedicated to Theresa?

If Jill is Hitler, perhaps we should award her the Nobel Peace Prize.

This article from Jews for Life compares abortion at Tiller's mill, not Aurora PP, to Auschwitz

http://www.jewsforlife.org/Article_Detail.cfm?ID=924

An Auschwitz in America

By Bonnie Rogoff

June 4, 2007

I admire George Tiller for two reasons.

1. He's very good at his job. If you're a doctor and you have a patient who needs an abortion late in pregnancy, for whatever reason convinces you and the patient, you can count on Tiller to do the abortion with minimal risk to your patient and minimal stress on her cervix and vagina.

2. He has been shot by a right-to-life terrorist, yet he continues to do abortions. Gotta admire his guts.

Wow, that Tiller fellow never says "Die!" Except maybe during the abortions.

Theresa,

My goodness, on this blog I've been called stupid, patronizing, and told what a faulty and illogical memory I have. Someone even suggested my long dead father, a WW2 veteran, was a fascist. I've had one poster so mad his blathering attack on me sounded almost schizophrenic. Yet here I am. Everyone's not going to love or agree with me at all times. That's life. But I really think if you stay on this blog you will enjoy it and the variety of people and opinions. I really hope you reconsider your decision to leave.

I think the shoddy fence sucks!
Thank God for styrofoam cups!!! We need to make it look good!

Maybe it looks like that to keep insane psychos like you out.

As someone with Jewish ancestors who experienced Auschwitz, I am just flabbergasted. You have demonstrated, yet again, your lack of tact, sympathy and concern for others' feelings.

I guess I was mistaken in my assumption that the pro-life camp was supposed to be compassionate for human suffering.

I hope you enjoy being a souless human being without even an ounce of compassion. You can say that you have all the compassion in the world, but your actions will always speak louder than your words.

I hope God has mercy on you.

Womyn, [sic]

You don't know how to spell, but I won't hold that against you.

BTW, Jews were not the only ones to perish in the Nazi extermination camps. 3 million or more Poles were killed there as well; -Poles, who are over 95% Roman Catholic.

We are not taking anything away from the sufferings of Poles, Jews and many others during the Nazi holocaust by comparing it with the current holocaust of innocent human lives which are systematically destroyed, -mercilessly in their mothers' wombs, every day, in the abortion death camps of this once great country of ours. If you can't see how both holocausts are similar, I pity you.

And may God have mercy on you, on me and on everyone, because we are all sinners in need of God's mercy.

And just for the record, I had a cousin, a Catholic priest, who was brutally murdered during WWII in Poland by Ukrainians, (the UPA), at the instigation of the Nazis.

Theresa, I really hope you will reconsider. I was really digging your posts. I was looking forward to them.

Its a deliberate mispelling.

I'm not an idiot. I know who perished in the Holocaust, I was simply pointing out that as a family member of a Jewish Auschwitz survivor, it offends me, and is also anti-Semetic. I know that blacks, homosexuals and the disabled were also murdered by the Nazis, but I am not related to any of those survivors, so it does not affect me as deeply.

You are directly insulting the survivors of the Holocaust, and those that were murdered and their families by continually comparing the Holocaust to abortion.

Nothing is comparable to either the Holocaust or abortion. There simply are no comparisons, so quit trying to make them, it never works. There are no appropriate analogies either.

You know, I was not aware that abortion doctors perform experiments on fetuses, nor was I aware that they incinerated them alive, or gassed them to death, or put said fetuses to work until they died. I wasn't aware that there were fetus ghettos or fetus labor camps. My bad.

My grandfather was an American soldier who witnessed the suffering at Dachau when he liberated the camp. He was also Jewish.

The difference is that fetuses do not suffer. Fetuses do not think, they have no consciousness. The people that were brutalized in the Holocaust did suffer, did think, and did have consciousness. The people murdered in the Holocaust were not inside the wombs of the Nazis who killed them.

If you had family murdered in the Holocaust, then why aren't you outraged that this "woman" is making a mockery out of their murder?

One thing that I have observed is that the pro-life camp doesnt have a shred of respect for the dead, what with their constant comparisons to the Holocaust and the shameful display of stillborn fetuses, being passed off as aborted fetuses. Have some respect for the dead.

Womyn, are you pro choice?

If antichoicers could behave like civilized human beings instead of tantrum throwing troglodites then the fence wouldnt be needed.

Posted by: TexasRed at October 12, 2007 3:23 PM****************** That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Hal, did you ever get time to watch that video?

Womyn, never mind. I see that you are after going back on your posts.

The difference is that fetuses do not suffer. Fetuses do not think, they have no consciousness. The people that were brutalized in the Holocaust did suffer, did think, and did have consciousness. The people murdered in the Holocaust were not inside the wombs of the Nazis who killed them.

Excuse me? Jill held a live aborted baby. I think you need to take a good look at the pro choice child's mother. She didn't even want to hold him.

Womyn, That child would have been put on a shelf to die. He could have been tossed into a garbage can to die. He was very much alive! He could feel. How dare you speak for that child?? I am outraged at your lack of outrage. You just used Jill's post as an excuse to attack her.

Oh, I almost forgot. Pregnant women were murdered in the Holocaust as well.

"BTW, have you read "I Am America (And So Can You!)" yet?"

OMG I have a story.

So, I preorder it from amazon, one copy for me, and another to send to a friend for his bday. I figured it was like a harry potter deal-you preorder, it gets there on the release day.

the day of, it says that the copy to my friend was shipped.

Two days later, it said that my copy was been DELAYED (?!).

Then finally yesterday or so it was like "yay! it has shipped!" So I won't even get to so much as look at the cover until probably sometime next week. grrr. Have you seen his self interview? How hilarious! Also, I missed him on Larry King and can't find it anywhere, so if you know where I can get my hands on it let me know.

John L-

Concerning Mahmud and Hitler--
really? Why do you think so? Because I totally agree that Al Gore's policy of trying for the extermination of large amount of people and dictatorship is totally consistent with his desire to help people "care for the land" for the benefit of people like in Genesis 2. You sound like you are bitter at this little ol' citizen that shared the prize with an organization. May I ask why?

HIppie-
"I know very few have a soft spot for animals but I do."
Haven't heard of this-but I have a different idea of what animal testing shoudl and shouldn't be. Testing for mice and animals that are necessary for the advancement for science--not a big deal. I like dissecting things. But it should be known that the testing done on animals in the scientific atmosphere is very very specific. They have to be taken care of very well. Routine inspections are necessary and in the case of our fish lab, also quite often.

Little furry dogs, not so much. But I have only heard about that in Legally Blonde 2. Call me heartless-eh, that's the way I look at it. If you do have a chance to let me know if it breaches scientific ethics--let me know.

But in general, you are not going to agree with a person 100% but obviously you have a right to vote on whichever one you agree with more, so I am not trying to downplay your choice. I just think that looking back voting bush into office (twice!) was a bad decision in general by the country.. I would hate to have that one on my conscience considering all the damage Bush has done and all of the damage that Gore is trying to repair.

Everyone-

sorry if this post offended anyone it was not intended. It is quite late, and I am dizzy with tired. Night.

Theresa, Mary and Carder are right. The discourse here as more civil than you'll find on any pro-abort blog. Even so, yesterday I was called a one-testicled Hitler. Beat that!

I think this is the very place you need to be to toughen up your skin. If you're going to dialogue with pro-aborts you'll need that.

Woman,


Sorry you are offended, but the comparison is absolutely valid and real. Babies, before they are born, or "fetuses" as you prefer, are human beings. But you are trying to de-humanize them by using your own arbitrary definition of what a human being is. Can't you see this is exactly what the Nazis did with the Jews and Poles and others? They called them "unter Menschen" - sub-humans. Thus, they had their justification for exterminating them.

No one called or inferred you were an idiot. sic is a Latin legal term that means actual. I used it to mean that you spelled "woman" as "womyn". I've seen that misspelling before. I suppose it means you hate men.

Back to the point: I/we prolife citizens of the United States of America have no intention of dishonoring any innocent victims who died in any holocaust or war. They were innocent victims who were for the most part, helpless - unable to save themselves. This is also the case for the tiny innocent babies, who are completely helpless. They cannot speak, they cannot protest, they cannot do anything but live and grow and be born, just like you and I did many years ago.

You said:

You know, I was not aware that abortion doctors perform experiments on fetuses, nor was I aware that they incinerated them alive, or gassed them to death, or put said fetuses to work until they died. I wasn't aware that there were fetus ghettos or fetus labor camps. My bad.

Are you saying that a person is not worthy to be considered a human being unless they are able to work? Do you consider disabled people who cannot work unworthy of protection?

Jozef Mengele, the infamous Nazi "doctor of death" escaped to Argentina where he became an abortionist.

It seems like no amount of reasoning or arguing will change your mind. Maybe seeing an actual abortion will. I challenge you to view this extremely graphic video of an actual abortion and tell us, tell the whole world that this is not a horror comparable if not worse than the Nazi holocaust:

http://abortionno.org/

CAUTION: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC ABORTION VIDEO!

Heather, That is irrevelant, and it is none of your business.

"Excuse me? Jill held a live aborted baby. I think you need to take a good look at the pro choice child's mother. She didn't even want to hold him"

What makes you think she isn't a huge liar? Oh wait, you believe everything you hear. I get it. Because as we all know the God you so worship named Jill Stanek is infallible.

You need to quit judging women who get abortions. They are people just like you and I are. If you are a Christian, I suggest that you take a leaf out of Jesus' book and act a little more forgiving, sympathetic, and loving. I see no love in the pro-life movement. I said it before, and I will say it again: Actions speak louder than words. You might say and scream over and over that you love these aborted fetuses, but the actions that the pro-life camp does not show an ounce of love or respect or Christlikeness. Showing pictures of stillborn fetuses is not a loving act. Protesting in front of clinics is not a loving act. Threatening women and calling them murderers are not loving acts. You said that some woman didn't want to hold her aborted fetus? SO WHAT! Thats not your business, nor is it Jills. In my upbringing, I was taught that the only person that can ever know me and judge me is God, and it will stay that way. I am very surprised that these so-called Christians that I encounter day in and day out still haven't understood that, and keep pointing fingers at women who have to make one of the hardest decisions of her life.

And yes, pregnant women were murdered in the Holocaust. Your point?

If I were you, and this goes to everyone involved in the abortion debate: Show some love, then people will actually listen to you and take you serious.

But of course, my words will always continue to fall on deaf ears, because hypocrites never want to hear of their hypocrisy. I will continue to hope that you and everyone else who considers themselves to be Christians to practice what they preach, and to take a leaf out of Christ's book, and realize that the worst sinners are simply that: sinners, just like you and me, and they don't deserve to be judged so harshly.

And of course, yet again, since you seem to think I am pro-choice, I am automatically scum. How Christ-like of you. How loving of you.

I think Womyn is actually Sally...

Womyn,

There is love is the PL community, more than you know. We hate the act of abortion, not the one who has an abortion. What you call "fetuses" are humans too and do not deserve to be butchered. If you find us judgemental, I'm sorry, this is what I call judgemental:
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/new-baby1.jpg

Who's Sally?

Anyways, if there is love, they sure like to hide it. Actions speak louder than words, and while your words say you have love, I don't see it. You do not act lovingly.

And Jasper, they are fetuses. I never said that they weren't human. To call it a fetus is the correct medical and scientific term to call a human child in utero. Don't call it something it is not, it takes away from what it really is.

Oh, and for the record, that link you sent me to, that is a stillborn. Not an aborted fetus. And how is that picture judgemental? Do you even know the meaning of the word?

Oh and by the way....there are plenty of things that humans don't "deserve" to happen to them. But you know what? Thats life. And if you dont like it, too bad. People don't deserve to be raped, or get cancer, or get into car accidents, get murdered, or have anything bad happen to them, but that's life. Thats a part of what makes us human.

was he stillborn too:
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more5.jpg

"Oh and by the way....there are plenty of things that humans don't "deserve" to happen to them. But you know what? Thats life. "

Thats life Womyn? No that's death. Please don't tell us you are a christian or I'm going to throw up.

"I just think that looking back voting bush into office (twice!) was a bad decision in general by the country.. I would hate to have that one on my conscience considering all the damage Bush has done and all of the damage that Gore is trying to repair."

PIP, do you know that Ronald Reagan and Margeret Thatcher, who are responsible for stopping the Soviet Union, never received a Nobel Peace prize? but Jimmy Carter did ? The noble peach prize is a joke. Btw: since Bush has been in office, France and Germany have elected conservative leaning Presidents. Go figure.

keep listening to the liberals PIP, you'll be pro-abort in no time.

Womyn,

Like you my father was also an American soldier in WW2, as were many of my male relatives. Something I take great pride in.

You speak of the difference between the Holocaust and abortion as being the fetus does not think,, suffer, and have no conciousness.
Exactly how do you know this for a fact?
Technology is opening many doors into the human brain, and fetal development, and much of what we "knew" is becoming obsolete. I remember visiting an old medical library and being greatly entertained by what medical professionals thought they knew. In fact the more we learn, the more unanswered questions we have.

I think the most important thing to remember about the Holocaust, or any travesty of that order, is that it was justified by the devaluing of human lives and worth. The victims, whoever and wherever they were, were just not seen as lives worth allowing to exist. They were, in a word, unwanted.

Throughout history the unwanted have been denumanized, brutalized and/or disposed of.

We dehumanize our unborn and dispose of them. The difference is what Womyn?

Hey Womyn, three million Polish Catholics were killed by the Nazis. As a Polish Catholic, I not only agree with the comparisons between Nazis and abortionists, I wholeheartedly support the use of such comparisons as they are the only ones which show just how evil abortion really is. As for being Christ-like, here are some words of Christ for you: "Go and sin no more."

And pip, the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke as soon as it was awarded to the terrorist Yasser Arafat. Now it's been given to Al Gore solely as a political message, as Gore has done absolutely nothing for the sake of peace, and the arguments that he has are convoluted to the point of ridiculousness.

PIP

You wrote,

"I know very few have a soft spot for animals but I do."
Haven't heard of this-but I have a different idea of what animal testing shoudl and shouldn't be. Testing for mice and animals that are necessary for the advancement for science--not a big deal. I like dissecting things. But it should be known that the testing done on animals in the scientific atmosphere is very very specific. They have to be taken care of very well. Routine inspections are necessary and in the case of our fish lab, also quite often.
_________________________

Think critically for a moment.

Those who abuse animals are not going to admit to how cruel they are. When they are exposed, people say, that's the exception. It is human nature not to own up to what you have done wrong.

I posted this before, but I have even read articles as recent as last year in the Scientific American criticizing the use of animals as inherently flawed and even dangerous to human health.

Use of animals in labs has increased exponentially without a corresponding exponential increase in human health measures.

I know many support the use of animals in research. However virtually everyone who assures you how "important" it is, makes their living doing it.

If some people support animal research despite the cruelty, that is one thing, but saying it isn't cruel is just baloney.

reference:

"Protecting more than Animals"
Alan M. Goldberg, Thomas Hartung

"Reduced animal suffering often has the unexpected benefit of yielding more rigorous safety tests"

Scientific American, Jan. 2006

I guess Somg would admire Hitler for being so good at his job and continuing after multiple assasination attempts.

Somg could say he had guts.

By this logic Somg could give Hitler applause for his efficiency.

One question though, How is it Somg is so sure that Tiller does such a great job? There is at least some evidence to the contrary.

Womyn,
If we follow your logic; Christians should stand back and let the killing of these little human beings continue?? That doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Mary,
Excellent post!!

PIP,

I think I've found a clip of it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFdboT6Lq4

That sucks about your amazon issues. I just went into a Barnes and Noble and bought mine, sometimes thats just way easier than the supposedly easy "ordering over the internet". I think the way they handled the Harry Potter release was probably a special case since it was so essential that people get theirs at the earliest possible moment.

Here's hoping that you get yours soon!

Womyn, You started by saying that you have some Jewish relatives. Ya, ya. And I have children who are MY relatives. I am offended that you would defend the sluaghter of the unborn. I love my children. Abortion is murder, and abortionists are murderers.

OK, firstly, i agree with the overall idea that abortion is wrong, its murder, and its completely heinous.

That said, to in any way compare the killing of an UNFEELING foetus to the Holocaust sickens me. Those people were starved, tortured, experimented on, gassed, shot, burned, and mutilated. I have visited Auschwitz, and it is THE saddest place on earth.

Oh, and whoever said being uncaring wasnt very christian is right, but judgement is also very unchristian, and im also pretty sure that you dont follow mosaic law (even tho Jesus said to). So get off the high horse.

Jon.

But of course, my words will always continue to fall on deaf ears, because hypocrites never want to hear of their hypocrisy. I will continue to hope that you and everyone else who considers themselves to be Christians to practice what they preach, and to take a leaf out of Christ's book, and realize that the worst sinners are simply that: sinners, just like you and me, and they don't deserve to be judged so harshly.

Posted by: Womyn at October 13, 2007 5:21 AM

Christ judged the sinners. What do you think the whole deal was with him being angry people were selling in the temple? Here's a news flash: CHRIST JUDGES SINNERS! We will ALL BE JUDGED BY HIM! And as far as us mere humans judging people, yes, we all do. It's judgment that keeps society in check. If it wasn't looked down upon to lie why do people try to cover their lies? We have to love the sinner in spite of the sin and that is what Christ says. He doesn't tell us to ignore the sin.

I think the most important thing to remember about the Holocaust, or any travesty of that order, is that it was justified by the devaluing of human lives and worth. The victims, whoever and wherever they were, were just not seen as lives worth allowing to exist. They were, in a word, unwanted.

Throughout history the unwanted have been denumanized, brutalized and/or disposed of.

We dehumanize our unborn and dispose of them. The difference is what Womyn?
Posted by: Mary at October 13, 2007 8:02 AM

Don't you people EVER get tired of lying? It's utterly ridiculous to equate the Holocaust and the murder of JEWS with unwanted pregnancies. As long as there have been wombs, there have been unwanted/unintended pregnancies and abortion. The Nazis murdered the JEWS for being JEWISH.

There has never been a time in history when EVERY pregnant woman has felt safe and secure in bringing a new life into he world.

YOU dehumanize women by reducing them to walking wombs, by claiming there's some organized regime out there whose only goal is to rid the world of fetuses. Each woman makes her decision to terminate or gestate HER pregnancy based on HER unique life situation.

Ridding the world of Hitler ended the Holocaust; making abortion illegal will NOT end unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Oh, but it would make you anti-choicers happy to force women with unwanted pregancies to have to seek illegal, unsafe abortions, wouldn't it? Talk about dehumanization and brutality.

America will not reject abortion until America SEES abortion. No. We will not put our pictures away.

America will not reject abortion until America SEES abortion. No. We will not put our pictures away.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 10:13 AM

People with education and common sense know your dumb pictures don't represent MOST abortions. America will not reject legal, safe abortion when the only alternative is making abortion UNSAFE for women.

Anonymous,

It sounds like we've hit a nerve here.
Ridding the world of legal abortion will not stop illegal abortion, just as ridding the world of Hitler did not end anti-semitism or the notion of racial supremacy.
In what way am I lying Anonymous? Unless you're blissfully ignorant of history, you will realize that one group of people dehumanizing another is as old as the human race. Humanity has long been in the eyes of the beholder.
The Nazis justified their mass slaughter, which involved not only Jews but Slavs, homosexuals, and Gypsies to name a few, by dehumanizing them. They sincerely viewed any non Aryan people as sub human and inferior, and as such deserving of inhumane treatment and death. Sound familiar?
When Hitler got rid of his unwanted, it was called "crimes against humanity". When we get rid of ours its called "the right to choose".

Womyn, one more thing. If what you say about being called names by RTLfers is true, that's unfortunate. However, I have always heard it to be quite the other way around. Have you ever found any solace from the pro choice side? Anyway, I can read between the lines, and it sounds to me as if you are hurting. If care to talk about it, feel free.

Let's say the Aryans murdered Jews for being non-Aryan, and the born murder the unborn for being unborn.

Holocaust: the systematic mass destruction of a targeted people group deemed expendable by their destroyers. Then it was Jews, Christians, and others; now, in America, it is the unborn, the handicapped (such as Terri Schiavo); how long before it includes any one without a champion, like it did then? The ethnicity of the victims is irrelevant; Yes, Hitler hated Jews, and wanted to wipe them all off the face of the earth; but he also hated Christianity, and killed some 12 million Christians as well as Gypsies, and others "unwanted" by the Turd er, Third Reich.

But there's none so blind as those who won't see.

Laura - 5 letters
Lenin - 5 letters.
Both have two legs, both breathe air, both require food and water to live, both are bent on destroying millions of innocent people. Most people have two legs, breathe air, and require food and water to live; but most people aren't bent on murdering millions of innocent people.

First principle:

the line between good and evil does not necessarily run between racial, gender, generational, or national groups; it runs through the middle of every human heart. Laura=Lenin? Lenin has made his statement, as Hitler and Stanek have made their conflicting ones; the rest is up to Laura to continue, or discontinue, her alliance with Lenin regarding the slaughter of the innocent.

Mary, Hitler never actually classified ANYONE as "non-human" or "sub-human".... he actually said the opposite. that aryans were the Ubermann that Nietzsche wrote about. He also justified killing them because they were leeches on society.... but never less then human. Read Mein Kompf. its all in there.

Jon

ummmm, reality...... Lenin wasnt the one who killed millions of people.... that was Stalin.... Lenin was actually leading into a TRUE communism, before he died and Stalin perverted it into his twisted dictatorship.

Jon, you went to Auschwitz? When? Can you tell us more?

People with education and common sense know your dumb pictures don't represent MOST abortions. America will not reject legal, safe abortion when the only alternative is making abortion UNSAFE for women.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2007 10:26 AM******************* Anon. I'll put my pictures away as soon as you stop waving your coat hanger.

Anon. Women are dying in America's abortion clinics today. Have you ever really educated yourself? Women are being molested and raped by abortionists today.

Heather, i went on a trip when i was 17. we toured around from Italy, up to German, over to france, and flew back from Paris.

And it is the most horrid place on earth. i honestly felt ill just being in there, even outside the air is heavy as a led blanket. honestly, i dont think anything will ever compare to the horror of that place. (and i've seen people blown apart before)

i think everyone should go.... i dont think this discussion would be happening if they did tho....

Anonymous,

It sounds like we've hit a nerve here.
Ridding the world of legal abortion will not stop illegal abortion, just as ridding the world of Hitler did not end anti-semitism or the notion of racial supremacy.
In what way am I lying Anonymous? Unless you're blissfully ignorant of history, you will realize that one group of people dehumanizing another is as old as the human race. Humanity has long been in the eyes of the beholder.
The Nazis justified their mass slaughter, which involved not only Jews but Slavs, homosexuals, and Gypsies to name a few, by dehumanizing them. They sincerely viewed any non Aryan people as sub human and inferior, and as such deserving of inhumane treatment and death. Sound familiar?
When Hitler got rid of his unwanted, it was called "crimes against humanity". When we get rid of ours its called "the right to choose".

Posted by: Mary at October 13, 2007 10:27 AM

No, it doesn't sound familiar. The Holocaust ended with Hitler's death. There is no anti-fetusism. Women abort because they don't want to be pregnant and give birth. Abortion has nothing to do with hatred toward fetuses as a unique group.

On the other hand, the anti-choice vilification of those who support legal abortion and the women who choose abortion is similar to anti-Semitic propaganda.

Anti-choicers sincerely view women seeking illegal abortions as sub human murderers and inferior, and as such deserving of inhumane treatment and death. Sound familiar? Anti-choicers don't care that women will suffer if legal abortion is banned, because they deserve to suffer for killing their unborn children, right?

Womyn,

Don't you find it a bit odd that you have come onto this site, without knowing any of us, and have described us as unkind, unchristian, liars, brutal, , hateful, shameful, disrespectful, hypocritical,
*
and
*
wait for it...
*
Judgmental?

This is Jill's website. It is like her home. You have basically, just walked into someones home and insulted them, before you even gave them the courtesy of introducing yourself! And you call us disrespectful?

Perhaps, you meant to say that in the past, you have met people that claimed to be Christian, or who represented the Pro-life movement, that you found to be hyper-critical and unkind. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that we were hypocrites and liars...perhaps not.

But before you go calling others judgmental, methinks there is a plank stickin' out o' yer own eye.

Now, if you'd like to start over, and respectfully share your opinions, we would be happy to hear them. If you have had an abortion, just say so.
If you don't believe that these are truly photos of aborted babies, then give us some proof.

But please don't waste our time attacking us, unprovoked, and then accusing us of being the attackers...

Also, and lastly, ask any pro-choicer on this board if they are content with the way they are treated here, and if they come back precisely because for the most part they are treated with respect, and I'll bet they all answer, "Aye".

God's Peace to You,
You sound like you could use it...
MK

Jon, I have several books on the Holocaust. Those pictures say it all. I must admit that I wasn't prepared for them. I couldn't imagine visiting that camp. Thanks so much for sharing.

Not a problem Heather. I just believe this discussion would be very different if people had "felt" that place.

Its like the patch of land that God forgot.

Jon, The entire thing was horrid. I think that one of the hardest things to read about was the death march.

People with education and common sense know your dumb pictures don't represent MOST abortions. America will not reject legal, safe abortion when the only alternative is making abortion UNSAFE for women.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2007 10:26 AM******************* Anon. I'll put my pictures away as soon as you stop waving your coat hanger.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 10:54 AM

I don't care how many dumb pictures you wave around. It's your choice to look like a lunatic.

Anti-choicers don't care that women will suffer if legal abortion is banned, because they deserve to suffer for killing their unborn children, right?

If abortion is made illegal and women don't have them, then how would they deserve their suffering for having an abortion?

Take a deep breath, think before you type, and ask yourself...who are you really angry with? Because if it's us for feeling you deserve suffering from being forced to carry a pregnacy because abortion is illegal and you think we we think you deserve that suffering for having the abortion you didn't have...well, then you're more confused than I am.

You actually sound like you are in a lot of pain, and harboring a lot of anger with no real outlet.

Heather is right. Do you want to talk about it?

anonymous,

I don't care how many dumb pictures you wave around. It's your choice to look like a lunatic.

As it is yours, to sound like one?

Heather. i agree, the worst for me to see was the trains.... the Cattle cars used to ship people.... and so horridly overloaded.....

Hello MK!!! *clinks coffee cup to screen*

Anon. Women are dying in America's abortion clinics today. Have you ever really educated yourself? Women are being molested and raped by abortionists today.
Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 10:58 AM

How many women are being raped in abortion clinic? Got any statistics? Making abortion illegal wiil prevent abortionists from raping women?

Jonathan,

Not a problem Heather. I just believe this discussion would be very different if people had "felt" that place.
*
Its like the patch of land that God forgot.

If you've ever stood outside of an abortion clinic and watched women walk in only to walk out 3 hours later...knowing that in that three hours a little, tiny, life was ripped apart limb from limb, and that the woman would never be the same again, you'd realize that we know exactly how you "felt"...it is a desolate feeling. A soulless place, a haunted place. Only it's not part of history. It is the present, and we are powerless to stop it.

Jon, OMG. Yes. Jon, have you ever been to Jill's site before? If not, welcome.

Jonathan,

Heather. i agree, the worst for me to see was the trains.... the Cattle cars used to ship people.... and so horridly overloaded.....

probably very similar to the feeling I get when I watch the man on Tuesday mornings, load up his truck with dead babies...boxes and boxes full...horridly overloaded...

anonymous,

(is there a reason you could'nt pick a screen name?)

How many women are being raped in abortion clinic? Got any statistics? Making abortion illegal wiil prevent abortionists from raping women?

You asked for it...Okay, Heather, let 'em roll....

Heather,
Be careful with that coffee mug...monitors are expensive...wait til your father gets home and finds out you've been abusing the computer screen...

and hey to you too! :)

Dear Lord MK, shall I?

This is from the Aurora PP blog...

They probably thought that they were singing PP's praises, but 12 year olds? C'mon...

HT to OBOB for pointing me in the direction of "over my med body!" a blog by Graham Walker, a 5th year med student. He blogged about his rotation at a Planned Parenthood clinic:
*
The patients I’ve seen have been, in general, young, healthy women, ages 12 to 26. They come in primarily for three things:
*
1. annual exams (pap smears, breast exams, etc.),
2. sexually-transmitted infection (STIs) diagnosis and treatment,
3. and birth control.
*
I see patients of all socio-economic statuses, but most are immigrants or lower-middle class women. Their health knowledge runs the gamut, from the highly educated 12 year-old I saw today, who curiously asked “how exactly do the birth control pills work?” to the 23 year-old who shrugs and answers questions with a dull, empty look on her face. Almost every single one uses some form of birth control.

Okay, maybe one or 2. Can't hurt.

Heather,

She asked for it...go ahead...

Abortion doctor gets 34 years for sex abuse of patients

Jan. 2, 2004 11:10 AM

Jurors in the Brian Finkel case deliberated for 14 days before returning a mixed verdict.

Brian Finkel, a once prominent Phoenix abortion doctor, was sentenced to more than 34 years in prison Friday for sexually abusing patients over a span of nearly two decades in his high-profile practice.

Finkel was also ordered to register as a sex offender and placed on lifetime probation should he serve out his 34? -year prison sentence.

A jury convicted the 54-year-old physician last month on 22 counts of sex abuse. It also acquitted him of 34 more counts, including six of the more serious charges of sexual assault.

The sentencing comes after three months of emotion-packed testimony from 32 victims who said the doctor pinched their breasts, or kissed or fondled them during examinations. He denied the charges.

Jurors deliberated 15 days before reaching their verdict. They refused to talk about how they reached the verdict.

Finkel, who performed more than 30,000 abortions over the past 20 years, had become a national figure in the 1990s. He often appeared on network talk shows denouncing the growing violence of abortion protesters, who he compared to terrorists. He wore a bullet-proof vest and patrolled his Phoenix abortion clinic with a gun, saying they were necessary to protect himself and his clients from attacks.
____________________________________________________________________________
By From Staff Reports
East Valley Tribune
Updated: 1:50 p.m. ET Jan. 02, 2004
Valley abortion doctor Brian Finkel was sentenced today to 34 3/4 years for the sexual abuse of
13 women.

Finkel, 53, was sentenced in Maricopa County Superior Court after jurors found him guilty on 22 counts of sexual abuse.

He was acquitted on 34 other sexual offenses and jurors were unable to reach verdicts on four other counts. The jury found Finkel either fondled the breasts or rubbed the genitals of 13 women who went to him as far back as 1986 for abortions or gynecological examinations.

Before grand jury indictments in October 2001 and January 2002 effectively ended his practice, Finkel was an outspoken abortion provider who railed against the anti-abortion movement and even other abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood, which he called "feminine separatists."

He performed abortions with a handgun in a shoulder holster, which he carried after being assaulted by anti-abortion protesters, and his Phoenix clinic was a fortress of magnetically locked doors and bulletproof glass that was situated to be difficult for protesters to get near.

The beginning of the end of Finkel's 30-year practice came in March 2000 when a 39-year-old Scottsdale woman who visited him for an abortion, reported to police that Finkel groped her breasts as she was waking from anesthesia, according to court testimony and records.

The case eventually fell into the hands of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which found other police reports with similar claims by patients.

Media attention on the investigation brought out other women, and eventually two grand juries returned indictments totaling 67 counts and 35 accusers. Maricopa County Attorney Richard Romley said there were 70 other women who made allegations but weren't part of the prosecution.

? 2005 EadsHome Ministries

anonymous,

I don't care how many dumb pictures you wave around. It's your choice to look like a lunatic.

As it is yours, to sound like one?

Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 11:15 AM

I'm not the one equating abortion with the Holocaust, pretending a metal fence around a vacant lot looks like Auschwitz, or defending the displaying of grisly fetus pictures within the view of children. Now that's lunacy!

12/19/2005

Sen. Barbara Boxer Demands Immediate Suspension of Abortionist's License
Operation Rescue Applauds Boxer's Effort to Stop Laurence Reich

PANORAMA CITY, Calif., Dec. 19 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Senator Barbara Boxer, known for her rabidly pro-abortion views, has demanded that the Osteopathic Medical Board of California immediately suspend the license of Abortionist Laurence Reich.

In a strongly worded letter, Boxer referred to a recent CNN report about Reich that detailed Reich's criminal past as a sexual predator, but failed to mention that he is an abortionist.

"I never thought I would agree with Barbara Boxer on anything, but I whole-heartedly support her demand for the immediate suspension of abortionist Laurence Reich's license in the interest of public safety," said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. "If someone like Sen. Boxer can see that this abortionist is a danger to the community, you know he must be a very dangerous man."

Operation Rescue reported on October 31, 2005, that Reich, a frequent focus of Operation Rescue demonstrations, had been convicted of sexually molesting his patients in 2002, but three years later the Osteopathic Medical Board still had not decided upon appropriate discipline. Reich had previously been convicted of sexually abusing his patients in incidents stemming back to the 1970s and was placed on 10 years probation, which was completed in 1994.

Reich is listed as the "medical director" for a small chain of Southern California abortion mills called Clinica Medica Para La Mujer De Hoy. According to the owner of the abortion mills, Bertha Bugarin, the chain targets women in the Hispanic community.

"We believe that Reich has found that the Hispanic Community is the perfect stalking grounds for his sexual attacks," said OR spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger, who has followed Reich's nefarious career and lodged complaints against him. "Women who may be in the U.S. illegally are especially vulnerable to exploitation because they are less likely to report a man like him to the authorities. We applaud Senator Boxer's efforts to stop Reich from further exploiting women."

Anon, Can you please post some documented cases of coat hanger abortion deaths? I am going to back up my posts with facts. I'd like you to back up some of the claims made by the PC side.

Dear Lord MK, shall I?

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:25 AM

Those aren't statistics. Still waiting.

anonymous,

I'm not the one equating abortion with the Holocaust, pretending a metal fence around a vacant lot looks like Auschwitz, or defending the displaying of grisly fetus pictures within the view of children. Now that's lunacy!

The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken...

I'm not the one equating abortion with the Holocaust, pretending a metal fence around a vacant lot looks like Auschwitz, or defending the displaying of grisly fetus pictures within the view of children. Now that's lunacy!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2007 11:30 AM******************* Yes. It's much healthier for children to see livid women waving coat hangers around.

Anon, Can you please post some documented cases of coat hanger abortion deaths? I am going to back up my posts with facts. I'd like you to back up some of the claims made by the PC side.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:35 AM

I havn't mentioned one word about coat hanger deaths. Can you prove making abortion illegal is going to be a GOOD thing for women?

Anon, I figured that this would be your response. Are you saying that somebody made this up?

Heather,

What kills me is they wave plastic coat hangers around!

Which is right up there with us feeling women should suffer from illegal abortions that they didn't have.

This girl is priceless!

Heather. nope, first time here. Thanks.

MK. I believe it would be similar.... but trust me, its not the same. You seem pretty intelligent, so you would know that most abortions take place before the CNS id functional, so you know, as awful as abortion is, the child feels nothing. whereas you know, these people felt what was done to them....

Anon, what are you looking for? Stop wasting my time? What would you like me to post?

I'm not the one equating abortion with the Holocaust, pretending a metal fence around a vacant lot looks like Auschwitz, or defending the displaying of grisly fetus pictures within the view of children. Now that's lunacy!

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2007 11:30 AM******************* Yes. It's much healthier for children to see livid women waving coat hangers around.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:37 AM

Nothing like reducing yourself to the other side's level, eh? Nice work.

Anon,

I can PROVE it will be a good thing for females. Will that do?

Anon,

I can PROVE it will be a good thing for females. Will that do?

Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 11:42 AM

Go ahead.

Anon,

I can PROVE it will be a good thing for females. Will that do?

Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 11:42 AM

Go ahead.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 13, 2007 11:43 AM

And stating that banning legal abortion will be good for female fetuses is untrue. History and examples from countries female fetuses are aborted regardless of the legality of elective abortion.

Anon, what are you looking for? Stop wasting my time? What would you like me to post?

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:41 AM

I asked you for statisics. What percentage of OG-GYNS rape their patients? Is the rate of rape higher for those who perform abortions?

FDA Investigating Two Deaths from Abortion Pill
by Julie Rovner

Weekend Edition Saturday, March 18, 2006 ? The Food and Drug Administration says it is investigating two more deaths associated with the abortion pill RU-486. In the wake of the announcement, Planned Parenthood announced it would change the way it administers drug-induced abortions. And abortion opponents are stepping up their calls for the drug to be pulled from the market.

The latest reports bring to seven the number of reported deaths following drug-induced abortion. That's out of more than half a million performed since the pill was approved in September 2000.

It's not clear what caused the latest two deaths, but four of the five earlier deaths -- all women in California -- were the result of a rare bacterial infection. And in those four cases, the second drug in the two-drug regimen was administered vaginally rather than orally.

"All four cases were women who had received this treatment vaginally, who then all quickly reported back to their physician with very serious, rapidly spreading infection which led to sepsis and death, unfortunately," said a spokeswoman for the FDA. The agency is asking that its spokespeople not be identified by name for personal-safety reasons because of previous threats to FDA staff.

Last fall, the FDA reminded doctors that vaginal use of the second drug, called misoprostol, is not what the agency formally approved. The drug is supposed to be taken orally. On Friday, the agency repeated that directive.

"We felt it was urgent to reiterate yet again what is the only approved method for safe administration of RU-486: oral administration followed carefully by their physicians with follow-up on day 14" to make sure the abortion is complete, said the spokeswoman.

Vanessa Cullins, M.D., Vice President for Medical Affairs for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said there was good reason for the vaginal use that its clinics had been recommending.

"The vaginal route has less side effects and also enables women to have medical abortions up to 63 days, as opposed to the 49 days that the oral route is approved for," she said.

But as of Friday, Cullins said, Planned Parenthood has banned vaginal administration of misoprostol in its clinics.

"We're making this change because we're being very cautious. The health and safety of our patients is Planned Parenthood's top priority," she said.

Cullins stressed that Planned Parenthood will continue to offer medical abortion, but that the misoprostol will be administered orally. She said that even with the risks, medical abortion remains far safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.

But abortion opponents disagree. They've been pushing a bill in Congress that would withdraw approval of RU-486 pending a new safety review. Rep. Chris Smith, (R-NJ) contends that deaths from the drug are being underreported.

"It's being listed as sepsis, or some other infection. In the case of California, we might not have caught that if the coroners were not on the ball about the very serious problems of RU-486, which is just another baby pesticide that's being used," Smith said.

The FDA says it will release details about the circumstances of the latest deaths as soon as it receives them.

Half of the billion babies aborted worldwide in the last twenty years were female. Probably more, because of places like India and China (which by the way, are places where a specific group of people are singled out and killed...you know, like the holocaust?).

So, I'm gonna take a stab here and say that at least 500,000 females would be alive had abortion been illegal. And I'd say being alive was a "good thing" ...wouldn't you?

Voila! Making abortion illegal would be a good thing for unborn females...500 or so thousand of them.

Next question.

Anon, I figured that this would be your response. Are you saying that somebody made this up?

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:39 AM

No.

Half of the billion babies aborted worldwide in the last twenty years were female. Probably more, because of places like India and China (which by the way, are places where a specific group of people are singled out and killed...you know, like the holocaust?).

So, I'm gonna take a stab here and say that at least 500,000 females would be alive had abortion been illegal. And I'd say being alive was a "good thing" ...wouldn't you?

Voila! Making abortion illegal would be a good thing for unborn females...500 or so thousand of them.

Next question.

Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 11:51 AM

Wrong. Women abort regardless of the legality.

Anon, Oh nu, nu, nu, nu no. *shakes finger* You are doing what so many of the other PCers do here. Trying to steer off topic. We are talking about abortionists.

Anon, Oh nu, nu, nu, nu no. *shakes finger* You are doing what so many of the other PCers do here. Trying to steer off topic. We are talking about abortionists.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 11:54 AM

You're being dishonest. I'm not surprised

MK, I'm in a silly mood today. Could we go back to "sound the buzzer and try again??"

Anon, I am being dishonest? Where? To whom? To thine own self be true.

Anonymous,

Drug users use drugs regardless of the legality. But don't you think more would use if it became legal.

There were abortions done before it was illegal, yes, but there were not 9 hundred million of them.
Please!

We actually have no way of knowing how many were done, but we know that the numbers that were put out there back in '73, were false. Straight from the horses mouth.

Shall we lower the drinking age to 11, cuz what the heck, they drink anyway?

Or raise the speed limit to 90, cuz what they heck, they speed anyway?

Or make rape legal, cuz what the heck, there will always be rapists.

You want to give in to that kind of tactic.
Make horrible, dangerous, dispicable things legal, because, heck, they're going to do them anyway?

No thanks. Not me. I judge whether something should be done or not done based on the action itself, not on the number of people who do them.

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." GKChesterton

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it." GKChesterton

Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."

Heather,

Feel free...
But she hasn't actually called you any names. Yet.

When she does...you grab the buzzer and I'll grab the mullet!

Jonathan,

The Nazis most certainly regarded certain racial and ethnic groups as "sub-human" though Hitler may not have said it personally. I would hardly consider Hitler referring to people as "leeches" and "justifying" their killing as respecting their humanity.
The Nazis certainly didn't create the notion of racial superiority. The various European ethnic groups did not like each other and Jews and Gypsies had long been disliked and distrusted. This was not the first time European Jews were persecuted.

Anonymous,

I beg to differ. The unborn have been blamed for social problems, referred to as leeches, and had their destruction viewed as resulting in the betterment of society. Sound familiar?
Anonymous, I would be happy to address the rest of your post but I'm having difficulty understanding your point. I would hardly compare what abortion advocates have endured as anything close to anti-semitism and the horrors it has inflicted.
There are those who maintain the Holocaust never occured or that Jews "received three meals a day and a bed". It just shows Anonymous, one can convince oneself of anything.

Jill Stanek, (I believe) you will rot in Hell for the hate you spew.

I hope one day you actually will have a chance to see Auschwitz, and maybe you'll understand the REAL HORRORS people experienced within those walls. Women in the Aurora clinic go in to get MEDICAL CARE. In Auschwitz, they killed your whole family right in front of you.

Actually Heather,

I am about to partake in a luxury that I don't often get...a nap. Which means my children will also have a luxury that they don't often get...to use the computer. LoL.

I will be back...

Hold down the fort! Or take a nap yourself. Maybe eat a hot fudge sundae. Or take a bubble bath....
mmmmmmm...the possibilities that open up when you leave Jill's are endless...and yet no matter what we do, eventually we hear the siren's song...I will be back.

"
Well of course none of you see the comparison. You're abortion Nazis.
Posted by: Jill Stanek at October 12, 2007 3:30 PM"

And then you wonder why people think you're out of your mind. Because you refuse to pay any respect to the other side but worship the same idiots who spew whatever rhetoric your leaders have been feeding them. Jill Stanek, I didn't know people could live this long being this ignorant and angry. You'll have a heart attack and die from all your anger one day. And then you'll get to go join your good friend Hitler in the Hell you believe in. Have fun!

Anon, I am being dishonest? Where? To whom? To thine own self be true.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 12:03 PM

How many doctors have been harrassed, intimidated, shot, or killed by anti-choicers? Should we outlaw pro-lifers?

Ilana, abortion isn't medical care.

Ahhh Ilana,

I wanted to "crop" your post to remove the actual name calling...but it can't be done. It was one big name calling post...I fear I will have to delete the whole thing...sorry.

*buzzer*

Try again.

Only this time, refrain from direct insults...

Here I'll rewrite it for you...

You sound like an anti-semetic evil piece of hatred and anger, you appear to be a spawn of Satan, and I believe you will reap what you have sown. I look forward to the day I can laugh on your grave.Listening to you I am reminded of pure evil.

And I don't even believe in evil. Congratulations.

signed,
Psycho.

Mary. I already told you, he believed they WERE human. the term is "merely human".... he believed the Aryans were Ubermann, or Above/Over men. Better then human. He refered to all non-aryans as merely humans.

He did not respect them, but he did not say they were less then human (like americans did to blacks and what not).

Abortion is medical care, along with pap-spears, mammograms, STD testing and treatment, prenatal care, birth control, emotional counselling, Sonogram, Vaginal Infection Testing & Treatment, Coloscopy, Cryotherapy, Diabetes Screening, Hepatitis A & B Vaccine...

All that's medical care, all of that is done at Planned Parenthood. Chances are when you're standing outside of Planned Parenthood screaming at "evil murdering whores," you're yelling at someone who's going in to get a pap smear.

First, I will say I am not a big fan of the Auschwitz analogy merely based upon the fence, but I do think there is something that is being missed here.

Several people have commented how there is no anti-fetusism, it is not based upon race, etc.

However, I believe the Planned Parenthood agenda has been shown to be racist, and Planned Parenthood clearly locates in areas where the preponderance of their customers would be African American, or (as in this case in Aurora) Hispanic.

I believe they clearly have a racist agenda. This was stated in several comments at last Tuesday's Aurora City Council meeting.

So I believe the Auschwitz analogy is at least pause for thought. You can decide however you want based upon the facts. But I believe there is a strong argument that Planned Parenthood has a racist agenda, going all the way back to their founder.

There is a very small minority of hard line pro-lifers that will get in your face with a bull horn, pictures, etc. My experience with the clinic on New York Street is that the vast majority of protesters are peaceful, prayerful, and quiet. It was interesting being at the Life Chain in Naperville on Ogden Avenue, where we held simple text signs against abortion for 3 blocks between Loomis and Washington last weekend. It was interesting to see the reaction of the drivers; there were many who honked horns and gave us a thumbs up (probably 70%). But then there were the 5 cars that went by with people flipping up the finger. Now there's intelligent discourse for you.

So I would say by far (at least in my opinion) the pro-lifers, even those who made ad-hoc statements at last week's City Council meeting, are very well spoken, and have their facts together. It's the pro-choicers who seem to get all emotional and foaming when you point out the racist genesis and history of PP.

Aww, some little pro-lifers who call the pro-choicers on this site evil whores and Nazis can't take it when the pro-choicers fight back so they delete there posts. Wah, wah, wah. Hi! My name is MK! I'm pro-life and anti-Freedom of speech! Wah wah wah!

Anonymous,

I beg to differ. The unborn have been blamed for social problems, referred to as leeches, and had their destruction viewed as resulting in the betterment of society. Sound familiar?

Mary

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

No. It doesn't sound familiar. You sound absurd. Nobody is systematically destroying the unborn. Individual women are aborting pregnancies when they don't feel the timing is right to give birth. Period. There is no vast conspiracy to wipe out all the unborn.

Anon,

How many doctors have been harrassed, intimidated, shot, or killed by anti-choicers? Should we outlaw pro-lifers?

You could count them on one hand. And the guys that shot them are dead.

And you're too late. Prolifers that harrass, intimidate, shoot and kill anti-choicers are already outlawed. These things are illegal.

MK: The difference between an insult and simply observing:

I observe that Jill Stanek is evil. So I call her evil. If I were insulting her, I would call her an evil piece of sh** on the floor who needs to be spit on by all who pass.

I didn't. I called her evil.

Now that I've educated you, you can delete this post, even though there are no actual insults in this post. You just hate free speech. Enjoy!

Frank, true. Here's a link. Go to "Black Genocide." The abortion industry has taken 4 billion dollars from the black community.

Ilana, you exude anger. I suggest you get your own house in order before you start judging others. Take a deep breath and count to ten if you are able.

Heather, you are racist by continuing to feed into imaginary and arbitrary racial stereotypes based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin.

Congratulations.

Ilana, If you support abortion, you are the evil one.

Ilana,

Aww, some little pro-lifers who call the pro-choicers on this site evil whores and Nazis can't take it when the pro-choicers fight back so they delete there posts. Wah, wah, wah. Hi! My name is MK! I'm pro-life and anti-Freedom of speech! Wah wah wah!

Much Better! See, I knew you could do it! No direct insults. Good for you!

Now, I can leave that post intact.
But you forgot to sign it "psycho"...

Psssst...the rules for posting on this site can be found on the right hand side of the screen. Take some time to read them. It will save you the trouble of writing those brilliant posts and then having them deleted. Oh, and guess what? This ain't a government run website. It's private, and we get to make and enforce the rules.

Freedom of speech? Absolutely. As long as we say so. :)

Ilana, put a sock in it. Lady, you don't even know a thing about me.

Heather, you don't know what my personal opinions on abortion are, therefore you're just blindly tossing insults.

Hey, MK, she "insulted" me. Make sure you delete her post, too.

Carrie, anger or education? There's a difference.

Heather, funny how you say I know nothing about you a minute after you make a post about what you think you know about me.

You guys are bad at this game. You know, the game of life.

Ilana, slow down. Why would you label me a racist?

"Abortion is medical care"

Ilana,

is this medical care too?
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/22week/01_22.jpg

you're clueless.

You make distinctions about people based on the color of their skin. That guy is "black" because his skin is darker, that guy is "white" because his skin is lighter.

Cut it any way you want, that's flat-out racism.

Heather, you are racist by continuing to feed into imaginary and arbitrary racial stereotypes based on the amount of melanin in a person's skin.

Congratulations.

Posted by: Ilana at October 13, 2007 12:26 PM******************************* Where?

Oh Ilana,

I'm so grateful for all of your insights. I don't know how I made it this far in life without them.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Everyone?
Haven't we benefitted from Ilana's wisdom? Isn't she marvelous? Words cannot express my gratitude.
And to think all this time, I thought I was doing all right, only to find out I was misguides.

All Hail Ilana!!!

Pssst....now will you go away, so I can take my nap?

Ilana is another left-winger from NYC who thinks killing unborn babies is OK.

Jasper,

Thank God! I just want to take a nap and then this charming, irrisistable, young woman came on here, and I am so fascinated that I just can't leave. But now that you're here...?

Ilana, the things we most hate in others are the things that most bother us about ourselves. The way you ramble on about people being angry and hateful makes me think that you see those qualities in yourself and that bothers you. Instead of yelling at yourself(which you wouldn't do because you are sane,right?), you yell at other people for the qualities that you most depise about yourself. You should really get some help for your self-hatred. As far as us being bothered or upset about your statements, you really give yourself too much importance. Meglomania party of one!!!

Ilana, cool off. What the heck are you talking about?...I know several black people who say "The black girl." or "The white girl." It's a descriptive.

Posted by: Mary:

Anonymous, I would be happy to address the rest of your post but I'm having difficulty understanding your point. I would hardly compare what abortion advocates have endured as anything close to anti-semitism and the horrors it has inflicted.
There are those who maintain the Holocaust never occured or that Jews "received three meals a day and a bed". It just shows Anonymous, one can convince oneself of anything.

Mary, you don't need to educate me about the Holocaust. I'm well aware of the atrocities committed by Hitler's regime, which is why I think it's despicable for anti-choicers to draw a comparison between abortion and the senseless mass murder of groups of people.

You don't consider being shot and killed suffering? Doctors who perform abortions are harrassed, threatened, and villified by anti-choicers. Doctors are intimidated by the anti-choice terrorists not to perform abortions.

Please note I was careful not to equate anti-semitism with the attacks against the character of OB-GYNS and pro-choicers. You have to admit though, that the character attacks have certainly stirred up a lot of hatred and has incited acts of violence against OG-GYNS who perform abortions.

Jasper, just the fact that you would use a picture of a fetus aborted at 22 weeks shows me that you are ACTUALLY clueless about abortion.

Please, now, go find me a picture of the average abortion and maybe I'll listen.

Hi MK,

Yes, go take a nap...I'll be on and off today (taking out the air-conditioners at home, etc)

Actually, I'm not a "left-winger" by any mean of the word. I might hate liberals more than you do. You don't know anything about me, sorry.

Descriptive and racist.

"Kyke," "spic," "chink," "nigger," are all descriptive words. Doesn't mean they're not racist.

If there is one thing I HATE, it's people who think that the Holocaust and abortion are even similar. If most of your ancestors were killed in the Holocaust, you'd understand.

Ilana, If you want to watch an actual first trimester abortion, type in "The Choice Blues." Then we can talk about it. It's not even 5 minutes long.

Anonymous,

90% of children with down syndrome are aborted, simply because they have down syndrome. Female babies are aborted or killed after they are born simply because they are female...this is very comparable to the holocaust. Groups of people being singled out simply because they belong to said group.

And no abortion doctor has been killed by a prolifer in 10 years or more. The ones that were (and it is wrong that they were) have seen there murderers executed. Cases closed. You cannot possibly believe that there are many such cases. There are more murders in convenient stores everyday than all the murdered abortionists in history.

Anon,

Nobody is systemically destroying the unborn? Ever hear of abortion clinics? 40+million unborn dead. Legally sanctioned. State funding in some instances. Who needs a vast conspiracy?
Anon, what you seem to think is absurd is how the killing of the unborn has been justified in our society. Much the same way disposing of the unwanted has been "justified" throughout history.

Jon,

Granted, Hitler may not have actually used the term "sub-human". It does sound much more appealling to consider oneself "above" or "over" mere mortals.
I fail to see the difference. Whether I consider myself Over/Above human and others "merely human" is a matter of semantics.
There is still the notion of racial inferiority and I will be treating others as inferior to myself.
Whether Jews and other ethnics were viewed by Nazis and Germans, not just Hitler, as "mere humans" or "sub-humans", the end result was the same.

"The noble peach prize is a joke."
Yeah, you are right. Mother Theresa never deserved that award either. It doesn't even matter right?

Btw: since Bush has been in office, France and Germany have elected conservative leaning Presidents. Go figure."
so what?

"Now it's been given to Al Gore solely as a political message"
How is global warming a political message?

"If some people support animal research despite the cruelty, that is one thing, but saying it isn't cruel is just baloney."
You have a good point. Really, you do. I do think though that stopping animal testing completely will really damage scientific research.

"Here's hoping that you get yours soon!"
Thanks :) It was cheap on Amazon, that was one of the reasons. That link was removed!

Ilana,

go to:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

There are those who maintain the Holocaust never occured or that Jews "received three meals a day and a bed". It just shows Anonymous, one can convince oneself of anything.
-Anon

I know it's kind of OT, but those who do maintain Jews were given a bed to sleep in will find they're not completely off-base. However, it's not like your nice comfy bed at home or even the awful x-long twins they have you sleep in on college campuses. Generally, they were bunk beds that were three wooden platforms stacked one on top of the other, a foot separating each platform, and three or four people would sleep on each platform.

The things the Nazis were able to do, because their leaders told them ... are terrifying, but mostly because the Nazis were people, just like any of us.

Ilana,

and then go to:

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-case.html

Descriptive and racist.

"Kyke," "spic," "chink," "nigger," are all descriptive words. Doesn't mean they're not racist.

Posted by: Ilana at October 13, 2007 12:42 PM*********************** I see you've got it down to a science.

Mary,
Just because abortion clinics exist and multiple abortions take place, legally sanctioned, every day inside their walls, doesn't make it systematic extermination.

If you don't know what systematic extermination is, go back to high school.

Actually, don't. Many high schools in America don't even teach about the Holocaust.

Ilana, Okay. How would you like us to word it? This is getting foolish.

Ilana,

Why couldn't all of your posts have been like this one?

I know it's kind of OT, but those who do maintain Jews were given a bed to sleep in will find they're not completely off-base. However, it's not like your nice comfy bed at home or even the awful x-long twins they have you sleep in on college campuses. Generally, they were bunk beds that were three wooden platforms stacked one on top of the other, a foot separating each platform, and three or four people would sleep on each platform.
*
The things the Nazis were able to do, because their leaders told them ... are terrifying, but mostly because the Nazis were people, just like any of us.

No offense, MK, but I already know all that and more, and I didn't get it from propaganda websites.

Thanks for the links, though, I appreciate your time and effort,

MK, good point. Why don't the proaborts see that the unborn with Down's Syndrome are being targeted for extermination? Why don't they see that unborn women are being targeted in certain parts of the world? Probably because it is hard for them to face the truth about abortion. Please think about. I don't see as many babies with Down's Syndrome. Where are they? Oh yeah, they were probably incinerated in a mill's crematory.

Jasper,

Bless you oh wonderful one! Keep a close eye tho, it feels like trouble's a brewin'!

Heather, if you must...walk away. Don't take the bait. You're better than that!

Ilana,

No problem, you're welcome. And out of curiousity, what websites did you get your info from? They might come in handy. We're always looking for sites that are acceptable to all sides....

Carrie,
If Down's Syndrome babies were really being targeted for extermination, there wouldn't be any more babies born with Down's Syndrome. We live in such a society where people are capable of doing all things, and especially because of what the leadership tells them. If people in power were really handing down orders to "exterminate" those with Down's Syndrome, there wouldn't be anyone with Down's Syndrome anymore. And no one would be born with Down's Syndrome, ever. Since I know of two lovely babies born recently with Down's Syndrome, I know you're being hyperbolic.

It's a fascinating phenomenon, what people will do when those in power tell them to do.

I am almost starting to miss "F the cc" person who posted a few days ago. How's everyone doing?

Anonymous,

You haven't told me yet what the difference was between Hitler disposing of his unwanted and us disposing of ours. One may not like comparisons to the Holocaust, but no one has told me the difference.
If I may point out one more fact, Anonymous, those perpetrating the Holocaust did not view themselves as murderers. They saw themselves as bettering society. No one liked mass killing, just like no one likes abortion. It was just a necessary evil. Sound familiar?

Doctors are intimidated by anti-choice terrorists not to perform abortions. Some examples please. Also, an update on shootings and killings. Of course I consider that suffering. Where did I suggest it wasn't? Do you think it possible that doctors just don't want to perform abortions? I work in the medical area. Abortion performing doctors are still viewed with contempt.
Believe me Anon, you have no concept of terror until you've worked in some of our big city emergency rooms. Yet the best doctors, nurses, and other medical support people work in these areas. Why do you suppose that is?

Most of the information that I have, I got from the clinic where I go for all my lovely feminine services. I ask a lot of questions, and they bring me lots of pamphlets and information packets.

I wish they were online. I can't just stick 'em up, no one will believe me about my sources.

Hi Carrie. MK, I'm A okay. I'm not even going to let it bother me.

naptime/midterm time.

Any more misconceptions about the Holocaust you want cleared up (abortion clinics are not Auschwitz. I've been to both, and they're not the same, sorry), feel free to ask, I'll answer to the best of my ability.

Carrie,

I understand why people would take offense that the holocaust comparison...I really do. BUT, this is because they don't see the unborn the way you and I do. They don't believe that they are actual persons. Of course they are wrong, but if they don't accept that, then it is understandable why they would be offended at comparisons between victims of genocide and what they perceive nothing more than the equivalent of fingernails...

But from our point of view it's almost worse as it isn't 6 million and there is no army going to march in and save our little victims. There is no end in sight to our slaughter...The bodies just keep piling up.

I believe in 20 or 30 years folks will be able to visit these abortuaries and you will hear them say things like...

"Those people were tortured, experimented on, burned, and mutilated. I have visited Planned Parenthood, and it is THE saddest place on earth."

OR

"And it is the most horrid place on earth. i honestly felt ill just being in there, even outside the air is heavy as a lead blanket. honestly, i don't think anything will ever compare to the horror of that place."

Did you look at the links we posted?

what? no you didn't? I see, you follow what Klanned parenthood tells you.

MK, go to Auschwitz then go take a visit in your local PP. If you can't see the difference, you really need to strip your blinders from your eyes.

Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide MOST of the world's abortions, you just pick on it because its a name you know. If you were really being honest, you would say that you believe that in 20-30 years, people will walk into hospitals to visit "abortuaries" and say, "Those people were tortured, experimented on, burned, and mutilated and there are babies being born next door and people being treated for cancer upstairs, and people being treated for broken bones downstairs. I have visited a regular hospital, and it is THE saddest place on earth."

Good Girl Heather!

Ilana,
Good Luck on those mid-terms.

Jasper,
Good night and thanks.

Back in a few hours...

BEHAVE!

Ilana,

Thank you but I am well aware of what systematic extermination is.
So I suppose if we provide the means and financing to one group of people to destroy another, that is not systematic extermination.
After all no one forced these people to destroy another group of people, we merely made it more convenient for them to do so.

Ilana said: "Jill Stanek, (I believe) you will rot in Hell for the hate you spew."

Dang, Jill, I'm jealous. I don't believe any pro-abort has ever wished for me to burn in Hell. That's awesome! Isn't it great wheb atheistic pro-aborts suspend their disbelief in God and the afterlife long enough to condemn their political rivals to eternal damnation? Haha!

Oh yeah, Ilana, in case you missed it earlier, three million of my fellow Polish Catholics were murdered by the Nazis, and I love comparing myself and my brethen to those aborted fetuses. I am no better or worse than those children in the womb, and the same goes for my Polish brothers and sisters who were murdered by Hitler's men.

And no abortion doctor has been killed by a prolifer in 10 years or more. The ones that were (and it is wrong that they were) have seen there murderers executed. Cases closed. You cannot possibly believe that there are many such cases. There are more murders in convenient stores everyday than all the murdered abortionists in history.

Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 12:45 PM

I didn't claim scores of OB-GYNS are being killed.

Ilana, I never said people in power were targeting unborn with Down's Syndrome. I am commenting on the fact that 80-90% of unborns dianosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted. What's your opinion on that? It may not be coming from "mount high", but it is coming from somewhere. Perhaps it has been a gradual shift back to the time when society viewed those with disabilities as disposable. Take a look at George Tiller's website. He aborts post-viability or right at the line of viability unborns with Down's Syndrome. I am glad you know two couples who have decided not to abort their child with Down's Syndrome. They bring alot of joy and unconditional love into society.

Jasper,
I don't believe what Planned Parenthood and NARAL have to say any more than what the NRLC has to say. I think propaganda is immoral, so I reject it, regardless of who is spouting it.

It's sad you can't understand that kind of thing.

Mary, you said this:

Why don't the proaborts see that the unborn with Down's Syndrome are being targeted for extermination?

If that doesn't say, "Unborn with Down's Syndrome are being targeted for extermination," what does it say?

Ilana, I would like to hear your opinions on the sex-selective abortions that take place in China and India. See everyone later. I am going to the park-fall in New England really is a wonderful time. I'll check in later.

Personally, I find sex-selective abortion abhorrent, but more than that, it is a severe indicator of what the mentality of the population is. If and when education changes to teach people to value both sexes equally, maybe sex-selective abortion as a cultural practice will be eliminated.

Most cultures are inherently sexist and biased towards males. When my mother was married to my father, my father's sisters and wedding guests all went to my mother and said by way of congratulations, "We wish you many sons."

Sex-selective abortion is a symptom of the underlying mentality of the nation. Eradicating the practice without fixing the mentality will do nothing.

Read that again.

That's what I think is the biggest flaw with most of the pro-life movement. Most of you are so focused on just STOPPING ABORTION HERE AND NOW, so busy looking at pictures of fake and real abortions and decrying what you see, that you don't stop to think what the underlying social factors are that contribute the continued existence of abortion. Rather than fight abortion, fight the factors that forces abortion to maintain a legal option.

Why did the fetus cross the road?

Because they moved the dumpster.

Posted by: Mary:

Anonymous,

You haven't told me yet what the difference was between Hitler disposing of his unwanted and us disposing of ours. One may not like comparisons to the Holocaust, but no one has told me the difference.
If I may point out one more fact, Anonymous, those perpetrating the Holocaust did not view themselves as murderers. They saw themselves as bettering society. No one liked mass killing, just like no one likes abortion. It was just a necessary evil. Sound familiar?

-------

Again, no, it doesn't sound familiar. Nobody is demanding that ALL unwanted pregnancies MUST be aborted for the betterment of society.
Who is this "us" you're talking about?

Ilana,

I said no such thing.

Carrie,

I saw documentation as far back as 1982 that sex selection abortions were taking place in the United States. In a nursing magazine article Dr. Robert Mendolsohn said as many as 4 out of 5 of the fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex in this country are female.

Excuse me, Mary, I mixed up your name and Carrie's by accident. I apologize for the confusion.

*rolls eyes* This is what happens when people diverge from reasonable informed debate to extremes and hysterics. Honestly, guys.

Ilana: "If Down's Syndrome babies were really being targeted for extermination, there wouldn't be any more babies born with Down's Syndrome."

AFter ACOG's recommendation last January for ALL preganant mothers (really, their babies) tested for Down syndrome, there will be very few babies with DS being born.

The ones who "got away" before were either from:
1. Mothers who refused amnio and would cherish her baby, no matter what
2. Older mothers who found out too late and it was too traumatic to kill a child after she's felt her kicking
3. Younger moms who never got tested because it wasn't recommended

Now, with ACOG's recommenation, those that fall into the second and third category will be killed. That leaves only those mothers who will refuse testing. This will be many less mothers, because the new testing allows for it much earlier in the pregnancy and without the risk of miscarriage that amnio has.

It isn't "a fascinating phenomenon, what people will do when those in power tell them to do." It is a tragedy and it should be illegal.

Posted by: Mary at October 13, 2007 1:01 PM

Doctors are intimidated by anti-choice terrorists not to perform abortions. Some examples please. Also, an update on shootings and killings. Of course I consider that suffering. Where did I suggest it wasn't? Do you think it possible that doctors just don't want to perform abortions? I work in the medical area. Abortion performing doctors are still viewed with contempt.
Believe me Anon, you have no concept of terror until you've worked in some of our big city emergency rooms. Yet the best doctors, nurses, and other medical support people work in these areas. Why do you suppose that is?

Are people standing outside of emergency rooms protesting the work ER docs and nurses do? Do they get hate mail? Threats? No. My sister is a nurse. I'm aware of the varied views on abortion held by people in the medical profession.

Prove that everybody who works in the medical field views docs who perform abortions with contempt.

Ellie,
I must disagree with you. I posted above about two couples that I know who birthed children with Down's Syndrome. Both of them got tested, both knew what was going to happen, and did all they could to prepare. And both of these couples were (gasp) pro-choice.

Also, Ellie, you say tragedy, I say, human nature and therefore fascinating.

Anon., I am in the medical field. I do know of several nurses who REFUSED to watch an abortion, assist with an abortion procedure, and a hell of a lot of them know the obvious, it's murder.

Anonymous,

Your predecessors in the abortion movement argued how society would be better with legal abortion, how social problems would be solved, and women's lives improved. You should have seen them go ballistic when medicaid funding for abortion was cut off around 1977. Abortion advocates had always been great advocates of aborting as many poor women as possible.
I use the term "abortion advocates" because they were called that back then. Also, "pro-abortion" was not a dirty word. "Choice" came into use somewhat later to make abortion more palatable to the public. Abortion advocates argued they didn't support abortion, and admitted no one likes it. They never explained why and none of their media supporters ever asked.
What they supported was choice, not abortion.

Could you please point out the post where I use "us" or what you were specifically referring to. Thank you.

Heather, if it were obvious that abortion were murder, don't you think it would be illegal?

Murder is the illegal, malicious, premediated killing of a human being. Since abortion is not malicious, and in this country legal, it is certainly not murder. It's killing, but killing and murder aren't synonymous. Sorry.

Doctor's know it too. Doctor's who kill are murderers.

Guys, I'm kind of disappointed that none of you have any response to my post about battling the social factors that contribute to abortions continued existence. Can I ask why?

Ilana, your friends should be commended. They have been blessed by their beautiful children with DS (I know, I have a jewel also).

But they fall into the 10% who kept their children.

Of the mothers who go through testing, I predict the number will shrink closer to 0% who will allow them to live, because the testing is done much earlier in the pregancy and the baby is much easier to abort (after all, the fetuses don't feel or think anything, right?)

It is a tragedy, and it should be illegal..

It's not a tragedy, it's simply life. If we stopped viewing death as something to be feared and loathed, you wouldn't be so scared.

Ilana, are you SAWRTC's Ilana?

Stalkerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

(Maaaaaybe)

Ilana, that's the problem. Most women think that because abortion is legalized murder, somehow that makes it more acceptable. Society is catching on. 1.3 MILLION abortions a year is staggering! Who is having these abortions? Why do I meet more and more women who are aborting more than once? I thought the PC mantra was to keep abortion Safe, Legal, and above all, RARE. Sorry, 1.3 million abortions anually doesn't sound rare to me at all.

Ha!

More like lurker. I like to haunt the discussions on there.

Erin, hello. I hope you had a good evening @ work. What is SAWRTC?

Heather, like I said before, if we stopped battling abortion itself and started fighting the social factors that lend to abortion being necessary to some women, abortion would cease to exist. But instead, you sit here spewing numbers that you've memorized and don't take even a second to think about why there are 1.3 million women a year who seek out an abortion. If that why were somehow rectified, we'd all win.

A facebook group, Support a Woman's Right to Choose. When I'm not doing my debating on here, I'm on various facebook groups.

Hey heather. I had an awesome evening, I made almost $100 in tips. Whoohoo! And tonight, I get to go party with my work buddies. We're having a birthday party. Which means lotsa drinking. Yay!

Well, have a Bud Light for me,,,LOL!

Jason got a bottle of Jack just for me. I intend to make it gone before tomorrow morning.

Don't expect to see me much tomorrow, lol!

Anonymous, 1:38PM

No, they have to deal with people lurking outside ERs waiting to mug and kill them. You know, deranged druggies and muggers who will cut your throat as soon as look at you, if they don't have a gun, then they'll just blow your head off. It usually requires an armed guard to get you inside the hospital safely, and you're a damned fool if you try it alone.
Oh, and inside the ER. Your patients might be well armed too and you don't know it. There's also no guarantee they will not attack and kill you with their bare hands, or at very least rearrange your face. Keep in mind, you're not exactly treating people who read Miss Manners.
I worked ER in a midsize city and yes I was subjected to verbal abuse, insults, I was struck, cursed, referred to as an "f------ honkey", and cringed in fear when I saw the police drag in some handcuffed, out of control character. Hey, all in a night's work.

Yes, medical personnel hold varying viewpoints on abortion. I can only talk from my own experience.
One hospital I trained at did a minimal amount of abortions. It was a problem because few OR staff and anesthesia providers would involve themselves in the procedure, and the ones that would resented being "stuck" with them.
Also I have listened to doctors express contempt, though they will tolerate the abortionist, even send the occasional pregnant mistress to be discreetly "handled". While some of the doctors may have supported abortion, no way would they dirty their own hands.
I don't know how better to describe it. Its like you sense someone's dislike of you, I picked up that same undercurrant of contempt for abortion.

gotta run all....see ya later.

Ilana,

Pro-life people have long maintained that we need to address social problems, not kill unborn children. Your predecessors argued that legal abortion would solve social problems. Too many people were only too ready and willing to believe this fallacy.
You're beginning to sound like a pro-lifer!

OOPs, not just yet. Mary, excellent post!!

Ilana, come on over! We would love to have you!

Ilana said: "Guys, I'm kind of disappointed that none of you have any response to my post about battling the social factors that contribute to abortions continued existence. Can I ask why?"

The main "social factor" that contributes to abortion is the notion that it's OK to kill unborn children. If abortion is made illegal most abortions will stop.

The second most major social factor that contributes to abortion is the "Sexual Revolution". We combat this through Abstinence education, since Abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control.

The third most major social factor that contributes to abortion is poverty. Fortunately liberals and conservatives agree that the poor must be helped, and there are many, many charities set up to help poor women in need.

But obviously you don't want to talk about any of that. Your REAL question is as follows: Why aren't any of you campaigning for more condoms and birth control pills to be given to kids by the government? Condoms and BC pills are, at best, 99% effective. If kids are going to be taught to constantly have sex and just use condoms to "protect" themselves, odds are that a pregnancy is still going to "happen". Abstinence is the only way to prevent "unplanned" pregnancies.

Ilana: "...if we stopped battling abortion itself and started fighting the social factors that lend to abortion being necessary to some women"

Actually the Down syndrome situationo proves this mentality wrong. There has never been a better time for having a baby with DS. Amazing medical technology can treat many of the physical ailments if they have any. Most states have early-intervention type programs. People are (supposedly) more accepting of people with disabilities. There is inclusion in schools. There are support groups for parent. There is Special Olympics, etc. etc.

But STILL, 90% of mothers who find out they are carrying a baby with DS have their child killled.

I guess it doesn't matter how much progress we make in making the world a better place, it will not reduce the need for abortion if it is legal.

Of course we should always work on making this world a better place. Let's start by making killling pre-born babies illegal.

John, hello. Nice post. Also, let's not forget that some of the feminists call abortion an "empowering experience." I have yet to hear that from a single post abortive woman that I know. I'd call childbirth and motherhood empowering. Gloria Steinem comes to mind. I hope that lady doesn't go to her grave still believing that her abortion was a good thing.

My 'predecessors'?

To tell you guys the truth, I don't identify with the labels of "pro-choice" or "pro-life," in the same way I don't identify with political labels as "liberal" or "conservative," because, well, I'm not, and the process of reifying myself to fit into one of those statuses isn't appealing to me. I don't like denying one part of my beliefs to fit into the label of a certain idealism.

And, Mary, unfortunately I must disagree with you. People on both sides have been fighting all along to try to fix the social factors involved in abortion. It's not just "the pro-lifers do this while the pro-choicers do that." This kind of talk is polarizing, not at all constructive, and in fact detrimental to the process of identifying and fixing the social factors which enable abortion.

John, your assertion that abstinence is the only way to prevent "unplanned" pregnancies is false. Abstinence does not prevent rape.

And no, that's not my real question. My REAL question has nothing to do with birth control. My real question is: Why do women feel they can't have a baby now? What is it in society that makes a woman feel that abortion is the only necessary option?

Don't put words into my mouth, since you obviously got it wrong anyway.

Ellie, great post!

Ellie, I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. Putting the roof on the house before the foundation is completed is a recipe for failure. Making abortion illegal but not addressing the issues surrounding abortion doesn't help. The end.

And I also think you're wrong about children with Down's Syndrome and other physical and mental developments in regards to abortion. If we lived in a world where education made it possible for us from a young age to understand these differences in people, if the economy was such that people could easily care for their children with serious medical conditions (and I'm not just talking about birth defects here, I'm talking about all kinds of medical conditions, developmental, physical, emotional, mental...), women wouldn't think, "My child has a disability and I can't care for it, so I need to abort." Families would think differently.

But that's not the world we live in. Many people are brought up to believe that illnesses and disabilities are inherently wrong and somehow bad. That comes from our inheritance of the Darwinistic mentality that the strongest survive so the strongest should be the ones who live.

Once again, it all goes back to changing society and changing the way we think and live. Most of us (myself included) have been taught to view life a certain way that is contrary to the actual realities of the world.

Heather,

Thank you. A follow up note. The charming lady in the ER that referred to me as an F.H. was a 90lb grandmother in a drunken rage. We were sewing up the guy who's head she had split open with a bar stool and wanted to sew up hers as well, but she wasn't exactly cooperative.
She stormed out of the ER and the doctor suggested I go after her. I told him he was a damned fool if he thought I was going after her and that HE could go after her. I wasn't about to get a chair across my head.
Anyway, the little charmer showed up a few weeks later with her grandchild, as kindly a grandmother as you could imagine. I wanted to tell her I was that f------ honkey from a few weeks earlier but just smiled politely instead.
Like I said, all in a night's work!

Ilana: "What is it in society that makes a woman feel that abortion is the only necessary option?"

Hmmmm.....could it be that we live in a society that doesn't value all human life?????

Mary, that's interesting about the old lady calling you a (f.h).

When I escorted at my local clinic (not PP, another private one), it was mostly going to the subway station and meeting girls who didn't know how to get to the office so they could have their first pap smears and all kinds of fun things like that, and there was always a crowd of protesters.

One week, a girl threw a shoe at me and screamed, "You're an evil murderer! You're responsible for the death of millions of babies!"

Two weeks later, I escorted that same girl in to have an abortion.

Guess I wasn't such an evil murderer when I was protecting her from the same crowd she was a part of.

Ilana: "Putting the roof on the house before the foundation is completed is a recipe for failure."

Exactly!! Let's start by restoring the value of human life right from its foundation....in the womb.

Ilana: "Putting the roof on the house before the foundation is completed is a recipe for failure."

Exactly!! Let's start by restoring the value of human life right from its foundation....in the womb.

Ellie, you're only acknowledging the rhetoric you're comfortable and not engaging in critical thinking. Throughout ALL of human history, the idea of "valuing all human life" has never existed. Ever. Ever. Ever. Humans are creatures of war. We have always fought, we have always killed. It is inherent in our nature. So, honestly, your point is moot and invalid, and still doesn't do anything to address the underlying social factors that enable women to decide to abort.

Again, Ellie, you can't restore something that's never existed in the first place.

Ilana, we have heard those stories before. The girl wasn't as RTL as she thought she was. Mary, ah yes. The medical profession......How much time have you got?...LOL! I could share a few doozies with you! Too bad I must run soon.

I felt bad for her, honestly.

I don't care whether she was right to life or just brainwashed, no matter what, it's not a fun situation to be in.

It's a true story, it just sucks for her and all involved.

But there again is proof that we're too busy caring about the labels than the people involved.

Ilana,

By predecessors I meant the people who initiated the movement to legalize abortion, which was over a 40 year span. That may have been a poor choice of a word in reference to you.
At this time, abortion was promoted as a means to solve social problems, mainly child abuse. Our society being what its always been, has long preferred simple and instant solutions to problems. Sadly, those do not exist.
However, abortion advocates wanted unfettered legal abortion, and appealling to people's emotions i.e. child abuse, served the purpose. People also sincerely believed this fallacy. Didn't it make sense that fewer "unwanted" children would mean less abuse, poverty, welfare dependency, and cost to the taxpayer. This just hasn't turned out to be the case. Social problems are not solved this simply.

Pro-life people argued from day one that legal abortion would solve none of these problems, but like I said, our society likes simple solutions.
Pro-life people were proven correct over the long run.
Its like what I said concerning medicaid Ilana, PC people went ballistic when it was cut off. They viewed poor women on the abortion tables as a positive social force, and many I talk to today still do. If the poor would just have abortions, is what I often hear. My question is, if abortion solves these problems, why are they still around?

Ilana; "Ellie, you're only acknowledging the rhetoric you're comfortable and not engaging in critical thinking."

BS

" Throughout ALL of human history, the idea of "valuing all human life" has never existed. Ever. Ever. Ever. Humans are creatures of war. We have always fought, we have always killed. It is inherent in our nature.

So why in the world do you think we can improve society to make abortion unneeded. If it has always been like this, why don't you just accept it?

I do agree with you that the world has never valued human life. But there was Someone who came into this world to restore it.

I don't think abortion solves these problems for the women who are involved. The women who choose to have an abortion do so because they feel it will prevent more problems from happening in the future. Usually, it does.

Arguing over the legality of abortion is fruitless and, I think, a complete waste of time. Abortion was 'legalized' although abortions have been performed for millenia. Making abortion illegal now is the same "simplistic" and ultimately useless solution that making abortion legal was then. Therefore, it is obvious that abortion itself is NOT the problem, and that the argument we have all been engaging in is a cover for the real issues, and because the cover is so polarizing, it's hard to get underneath and fight the real thing.

Ellie, I think your attitude is defeatist. You don't seem to care why abortion exists or what the underlying causes of abortion are. It seems to me that you think that as long as the law says abortion is illegal, abortion will cease to exist and that will be the end of all your problems. You're wrong and most of us over in the real world are very well aware of that fact.

So, for the ten-thousandth time, why don't you join us up here on the S.S. Attempting To Make Some Progress For Real Good, and start trying to understand why people do the things they do.

And I extend that invitation to the rest of you (even you, Jill Hitler). If you stop focusing on abortion as the root of all evil and start recognizing that there are other problems BENEATH abortion, you might actually succeed.

Ilana, you were doing so well. Don't put yourself in the sandbox again.

Ilana: "Making abortion illegal now is the same "simplistic" and ultimately useless solution that making abortion legal was then."

Sorry Ilana. Abortion is an injustice, and we always need to fight injustice.

And I believe that someday in this country it will be illegal. Future generatiions will look back on this time just as we look back on slavery and wonder how we could have allowed it.

Carrie,

You wrote,

"Ilana, I never said people in power were targeting unborn with Down's Syndrome. I am commenting on the fact that 80-90% of unborns dianosed with Down's Syndrome are aborted. What's your opinion on that? It may not be coming from "mount high", but it is coming from somewhere. Perhaps it has been a gradual shift back to the time when society viewed those with disabilities as disposable. Take a look at George Tiller's website. He aborts post-viability or right at the line of viability unborns with Down's Syndrome. I am glad you know two couples who have decided not to abort their child with Down's Syndrome. They bring alot of joy and unconditional love into society."

Posted by: Carrie at October 13, 2007 1:12 PM

Of course people in power target people with Down Syndrome.

The technology is marketed and used specifically to detect defects so as to promote the destruction of the defective.

Two weeks later, I escorted that same girl in to have an abortion.

Guess I wasn't such an evil murderer when I was protecting her from the same crowd she was a part of.

Posted by: Ilana at October 13, 2007 2:38 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hon, you are in good company. In my neck of the woods, all of the escorts rotate locations s that they can also act as decoys. Virtually every one of them has a story about a righteous pro-lifer's abortion.
Here's a nice article:
"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"

When the Anti-Choice Choose

By Joyce Arthur

Copyright © September, 2000

Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the solution she would deny to other women -- abortion.

In the spring of 2000, I collected the following anecdotes directly from abortion doctors and other clinic staff in North America, Australia, and Europe. The stories are presented in the providers' own words, with minor editing for grammar, clarity, and brevity. Names have been omitted to protect privacy.

"I have done several abortions on women who have regularly picketed my clinics, including a 16 year old schoolgirl who came back to picket the day after her abortion, about three years ago. During her whole stay at the clinic, we felt that she was not quite right, but there were no real warning bells. She insisted that the abortion was her idea and assured us that all was OK. She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers." (Physician, Australia)

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

"In 1990, in the Boston area, Operation Rescue and other groups were regularly blockading the clinics, and many of us went every Saturday morning for months to help women and staff get in. As a result, we knew many of the 'antis' by face. One morning, a woman who had been a regular 'sidewalk counselor' went into the clinic with a young woman who looked like she was 16-17, and obviously her daughter. When the mother came out about an hour later, I had to go up and ask her if her daughter's situation had caused her to change her mind. 'I don't expect you to understand my daughter's situation!' she angrily replied. The following Saturday, she was back, pleading with women entering the clinic not to 'murder their babies.'" (Clinic escort, Massachusetts)

"We too have seen our share of anti-choice women, ones the counselors usually grit their teeth over. Just last week a woman announced loudly enough for all to hear in the recovery room, that she thought abortion should be illegal. Amazingly, this was her second abortion within the last few months, having gotten pregnant again within a month of the first abortion. The nurse handled it by talking about all the carnage that went on before abortion was legalized and how fortunate she was to be receiving safe, professional care. However, this young woman continued to insist it was wrong and should be made illegal. Finally the nurse said, 'Well, I guess we won't be seeing you here again, not that you're not welcome.' Later on, another patient who had overheard this exchange thanked the nurse for her remarks." (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

"We saw a woman recently who after four attempts and many hours of counseling both at the hospital and our clinic, finally, calmly and uneventfully, had her abortion. Four months later, she called me on Christmas Eve to tell me that she was not and never was pro-choice and that we failed to recognize that she was clinically depressed at the time of her abortion. The purpose of her call was to chastise me for not sending her off to the psych unit instead of the procedure room." (Clinic Administrator, Alberta)

"Recently, we had a patient who had given a history of being a 'pro-life' activist, but who had decided to have an abortion. She was pleasant to me and our initial discussion was mutually respectful. Later, she told someone on my staff that she thought abortion is murder, that she is a murderer, and that she is murdering her baby. So before doing her procedure, I asked her if she thought abortion is murder -- the answer was yes. I asked her if she thought I am a murderer, and if she thought I would be murdering her baby, and she said yes. But murder is a crime, and murderers are executed. Is this a crime? Well, it should be, she said. At that point, she became angry and hostile, and the summary of the conversation was that she regarded me as an abortion-dispensing machine, and how dare I ask her what she thinks. After explaining to her that I do not perform abortions for people who think I am a murderer or people who are angry at me, I declined to provide her with medical care. I do not know whether she found someone else to do her abortion." (Physician, Colorado)

"In 1973, after Roe v. Wade, abortion became legal but had to be performed in a hospital. That of course was changed later. For the first 'legal abortion day' I had scheduled five procedures. While scrubbing between cases, I was accosted by the Chief of the OB/Gyn service. He asked me, 'How many children are you going to kill today?' My response, out of anger, was a familiar vulgar retort. About three months later, this born-again Christian called me to explain that he was against abortion but his daughter was only a junior in high school and was too young to have a baby and he was also afraid that if she did have a baby she would not want to put it up for adoption. I told him he did not need to explain the situation to me. 'All I need to know', I said, 'is that SHE wants an abortion.' Two years later I performed a second abortion on her during her college break. She thanked me and pleaded, 'Please don't tell my dad, he is still anti-abortion.'" (Physician, Washington State)

"The sister of a Dutch bishop in Limburg once visited the abortion clinic in Beek where I used to work in the seventies. After entering the full waiting room she said to me, 'My dear Lord, what are all those young girls doing here?' 'Same as you', I replied. 'Dirty little dames,' she said." (Physician, The Netherlands)

"I had a patient about ten years ago who traveled up to New York City from South Carolina for an abortion. I asked her why she went such a long way to get the procedure. Her answer was that she was a member of a church group that didn't believe in abortion and she didn't want anyone to know she was having one. She planned to return to the group when she went back to South Carolina." (Physician, New York)

"I once had a German client who greatly thanked me at the door, leaving after a difficult 22-week abortion. With a gleaming smile, she added: 'Und doch sind Sie ein Mörderer.' ('And you're still a murderer.')" (Physician, The Netherlands)

"My first encounter with this phenomenon came when I was doing a 2-week follow-up at a family planning clinic. The woman's anti-choice values spoke indirectly through her expression and body language. She told me that she had been offended by the other women in the abortion clinic waiting room because they were using abortion as a form of birth control, but her condom had broken so she had no choice! I had real difficulty not pointing out that she did have a choice, and she had made it! Just like the other women in the waiting room." (Physician, Ontario)

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)

"I had a 37 year old woman just yesterday who was 13 weeks. She said she and her husband had been discussing this pregnancy for 2-3 months. She was strongly opposed to abortion, 'but my husband is forcing me to do it.' Naturally, I told her that no one could force her into an abortion, and that she had to choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important. I told her I only wanted what was best for her, and I would not do the abortion unless she agreed that it was in her best interest. Once she was faced with actually having to voice her own choice, she said 'Well, I made the appointment and I came here, so go ahead and do it. It's what's best.' At last I think she came to grips with the fact that it really was her decision after all." (Physician, Nevada)

"We have anti-choice women in for abortions all the time. Many of them are just naive and ignorant until they find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Many of them are not malicious. They just haven't given it the proper amount of thought until it completely affects them. They can be judgmental about their friends, family, and other women. Then suddenly they become pregnant. Suddenly they see the truth. That it should only be their own choice. Unfortunately, many also think that somehow they are different than everyone else and they deserve to have an abortion, while no one else does." (Physician, Washington State)

Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (1) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally." A 1994/95 survey (2,3) of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians. Many of these women are likely anti-choice. The survey also showed that Catholic women have an abortion rate 29% higher than Protestant women. A Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion notes that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic. (4)

According to a 1987 article, Abortion Clinics' Toughest Cases,(5) "Physicians and clinics frequently terminate pregnancies for women who believe abortion is 'murder' and 'a sin' but who are not anti-abortion activists. Demonstrators, organizers, and leaders in the [anti-abortion] movement are seen less frequently, ranging from perhaps once or twice a month to a few times in the course of a professional career." The article contained the following anecdotes:

An administrator at a Missouri clinic recalled a woman blurting out in the recovery room, "It should be illegal." The other women's mouths fell open, said the administrator. "They couldn't believe it."

The medical director of an Indianapolis clinic recalled one prospective patient who phoned to ask whether the clinic had a back door. He said no. How, she asked, could she get inside without being seen by fellow picketers outside? Pointing out that two orthopedists practiced with him, the doctor told the woman "she could limp and say she was coming to see the orthopods."

The medical director at a Dallas abortion clinic told this story: A white woman from an affluent north Dallas neighborhood brought her black maid in for an abortion and paid for it. While the maid was in a counseling session, a commotion was heard in the waiting room outside. The maid's employer was handing out anti-abortion leaflets to other women waiting for abortions.

From a clinic director in a mid-western state: "One of the most remarkable cases was a woman who came [from another part of the state] and said she was the Right-to-Life president in her county. 'But,' she said, she 'had become pregnant and had to have an abortion.'"

From a counselor in Virginia: "[The patient] was disturbed and upset and insisted she couldn't carry the pregnancy to term. She opposed abortion -- and in fact had picketed this very clinic -- [but] felt the abortion was something she had to do."

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash." Or if they do, they get angry when other patients in the waiting room talk or laugh, because it proves to them that women get abortions casually, for "convenience".

A few behave in a very hostile manner, such as calling clinic staff "murderers." Years ago, a clinic counselor in British Columbia told me that one of her patients went into the procedure room apparently fine with her decision to have an abortion. During the abortion, at a stage when it was too late to stop the procedure, the woman started screaming "You murderers!" and other invectives at everyone in the room.

A few doctors actually refuse to provide abortions to anti-choice women for liability reasons. In the words of a Kansas physician:

"Early in my career, I thought I was obligated to provide an abortion for every woman who arrived at my doorstep requesting an abortion. My experience in general medicine, surgery, and abortion has led me to believe differently. Not inadvertently, women give either me or my staff an uneasy feeling about their ambivalence or their anxiety about the abortion process. Since I have never been sued for an abortion I did not perform, my policy is to acknowledge my gut feeling, which is more often right than wrong."

A clinic counselor from Georgia stated:

"I have long felt that anti-abortionism is a psychological contraindication to the abortion procedure. And that we don't have to give everyone who asks an abortion. An anti-abortion woman is likely to be uncooperative and will probably not follow post-op instructions or instructions on how to deal with complications. There is actually a case where an anti-abortion patient failed to go as directed to Emergency for an unrelated complication. She ended up dying, and her family sued the physician and badgered him publicly. Additionally, if you have a complication that day, it will be the anti-abortionist. I'm not talking about the patient who says, 'I was against abortion until it happened to me', or 'I'm really against abortion, but I have to do this'. I'm talking about the picketer, the activist, the totally anti-creature who will come back to haunt us."

In fact, an anti-abortion organization called Life Dynamics Inc., of Denton Texas, specializes in malpractice suits against abortion providers. They advertise for and exploit women who regret their abortion decision or who had complications, and try and persuade them to file suit against the doctor or clinic. Many of these women are vulnerable and suffer from emotional problems, but others are anti-abortion, or at least very ambivalent about their decision to have an abortion. The message that abortion is murder has had a profound influence on them, and it may leave them with a legacy of guilt and shame after their abortion, too often borne alone and in silence. When these women find themselves unable to cope with their abortions, they may look for somebody else to blame, and doctors become a convenient scapegoat.

At times, clinic staff understandably become frustrated and angry when they have to deal with abusive, hostile, or hypocritical patients. And it is rare for anti-choice women to express appreciation for the service they've received. But most clinics perform abortions on anti-abortion women because they feel it's their obligation to help all women. They provide more thorough and specialized counseling to these women to ensure they take ownership of their decision, as far as possible. Here's a couple of examples of counseling techniques:

"When a patient comes in with my 'favorite' sentiment: 'The only moral abortion is my abortion,' I try to expand her understanding that a few more of us have had and deserve a 'moral' abortion. When a woman expands her need for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'." (Clinic Administrator, Louisiana)

"Sometimes I say to patients who have that 'I have no choice, I know I'll regret it, just do me' attitude: 'You may not care, but we do. We only do abortions on women who want our services. We will not knowingly contribute to any possible trauma of any woman.' They seem surprised that we care how we do our work, but they also accept it." (Counselor, New York)

Some anti-choice women who have abortions do make peace with their decision and even become pro-choice, or at least more forgiving of other women seeking abortions. A Louisiana patient who was anti-choice before her abortion, wrote a warm and grateful thank-you letter to the clinic, admitting that she had been a hypocrite:

"I never dreamed, in my wildest nightmares, that there would ever be a situation where I personally would choose such an act. Of course, we would each like to think that our reasons for a termination are the exception to the rule. But the bottom line is that you people spend your lives, reputations, careers and energy fighting for, maintaining, and providing an option that I needed, while I spent my energy lambasting you. Yet you still allowed me to make use of your services even though I had been one of your enemies. You treated us as kindly and warmly as you did all of your patients and never once pointed an 'I told you so' finger in our direction. I got the impression that you cared equally about each woman in the facility and what each woman was going through, regardless of her reasons for choosing the procedure. I have never met a group of purely non-judgmental people like yourselves."

On occasion, an abortion turns out to be a momentous, life-affirming experience for an anti-choice woman. A doctor from a north-western state shared the following personal story with me:

"I was born into a very Catholic family, and was politically pro-life during college. After dating my first real boyfriend for three years, we broke up, and the day my boyfriend moved out, I discovered I was pregnant. It was an agonizing decision, and something I never thought I would do, but I decided an abortion was the only realistic option. Thanks to Planned Parenthood counseling, I worked through some very tough conflicts within myself. I had to learn that my decision was a loving one. That 'my god' was actually a loving and supportive god. And that men don't have to make this decision, only women do. That it is a very personal, individual decision. I had to own it. I became much more compassionate towards myself and others as a result of my experience. Two years later I began medical school. When it came time to choose a practice, an abortion clinic opportunity came up. In working there, I began to feel that this was my calling. Having been in my patients' shoes, and coming from an unforgiving background, I could honestly say to patients, 'I know how you feel.' Deciding to have an abortion was THE hardest decision I've ever made in my life. Yet it has brought me the greatest transformation, fulfillment, and now joy. I am a more loving person because of it, and a better doctor for having experienced it. I love the work that I do, and the opportunity to support women seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy. My patients and my work are life's gifts to me, and I think my compassion and support are my gifts in return."

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

Ellie,
Well, I hope you're not too disappointed when you look down on earth and realize that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have been eradicated and abortion is perfectly acceptable and rare and the world has changed and other issues are more important now.

Making abortion illegal is an injustice, just like abortion is an injustice. You don't win here. Two injustices, it just seems that those who are pro-life or pro-choice pick whose side to be on: Pro-life choose the fetus, pro-choice choose the mother.

Ilana,

A good point. We certainly agree there are pressing social problems for which there are no quick and simplistic solutions.
I think the problem has been and remains people who will persist in believing abortion will cure social ills. I encounter these people time and again and they set my teeth on edge. All we have to do is get this poor woman or that young girl on the abortion table and her problems are solved.
No, wait a minute, her problems are not solved. Society has just washed its hands of her, that's all.

Ellie, great points. Ilana, I must go. May I ask why supporting abortion is important to you? Have you, or someone close to you ever aborted? I was just curious, because I used to consider myself somewhat pro choice. As for the labels. Well, they are fitting, no? RTL= standing for life. PC=standing for choice.

Ilana: "So, for the ten-thousandth time, why don't you join us up here on the S.S. Attempting To Make Some Progress For Real Good,"

Ilana, I'm on board already. I just happen to be one of those shipmates who believes abortion is an injustice, a tragedy, and ought to be illegal, especially when targeting those with disabilities.

Mary, great points. Another thing we must realize is that these women usually fall into a cycle of pregnancy-abortion, pregnancy-abortion. WHY? The only thing abortion does is return the woman to her dysfunctional lifestyle. If it worked, then why are do women abort again and again?

Mary, I feel the same way. I also feel that way about people who think simply making abortion illegal will cause it all to just go away. Anyone who believes in simplistic and east answers to difficult problems earn my contempt pretty easily.

Heather, as far as defending abortion...

Well, fine, I'll crucify myself for you guys.

Long story short, I was pregnant, and my life was seriously threatened by the pregnancy. If I hadn't had an abortion, I wouldn't be here today to tell you guys why making this issue a polarized issue based on labels is unproductive. I'm still slowly healing, but my body and my health will never be what it was before I was pregnant.

"Ilana, I'm on board already. I just happen to be one of those shipmates who believes abortion is an injustice, a tragedy, and ought to be illegal, especially when targeting those with disabilities."

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, not one original thought, I've heard it all before. Come on, try some critical thinking. I promise it doesn't hurt.

Ilana, thanks for coming clean. We have plenty of people here who have either aborted, or believe in BC and abortion. Stick around. Also, I am very sorry for your loss as well as any pain you may suffer. I hope we see you back. Thanks for a great debate. Good evening all!!

Laura's post 3:05

The only way you could believe this (totally unsupported) stuff is if you desperately want to.

Talk about the willing suspension of disbelief.

This has certainly got to be the most creative blame shifting treatise I have seen.

A clinic counselor from Georgia stated:

"I have long felt that anti-abortionism is a psychological contraindication to the abortion procedure. And that we don't have to give everyone who asks an abortion. An anti-abortion woman is likely to be uncooperative and will probably not follow post-op instructions or instructions on how to deal with complications. There is actually a case where an anti-abortion patient failed to go as directed to Emergency for an unrelated complication. She ended up dying, and her family sued the physician and badgered him publicly. Additionally, if you have a complication that day, it will be the anti-abortionist. I'm not talking about the patient who says, 'I was against abortion until it happened to me', or 'I'm really against abortion, but I have to do this'. I'm talking about the picketer, the activist, the totally anti-creature who will come back to haunt us."

_____________________________

Basically, this says to me that since this woman had a problem, it was because she was a closet (or not so closet) prolifer.

Truly bizarre.

Ilana: "I'm still slowly healing, but my body and my health will never be what it was before I was pregnant."

Ilana, I am sorry for your experience. I hope you continue to heal.

May I ask why your life was threatened by the pregnancy?

Anonymous, 1:38PM

No, they have to deal with people lurking outside ERs waiting to mug and kill them. You know, deranged druggies and muggers who will cut your throat as soon as look at you, if they don't have a gun, then they'll just blow your head off. It usually requires an armed guard to get you inside the hospital safely, and you're a damned fool if you try it alone.
Oh, and inside the ER. Your patients might be well armed too and you don't know it. There's also no guarantee they will not attack and kill you with their bare hands, or at very least rearrange your face. Keep in mind, you're not exactly treating people who read Miss Manners.
I worked ER in a midsize city and yes I was subjected to verbal abuse, insults, I was struck, cursed, referred to as an "f------ honkey", and cringed in fear when I saw the police drag in some handcuffed, out of control character. Hey, all in a night's work.

Yep. The fanatics who threaten abortion docs are on the same par with the creeps you're describing.

Ilana,

My 3:06pm post is in response to your 2:53pm post. I should keep in mind how posts pile up!

About the hypocrisy you and Laura point out. Hypocrisy is hardly new. We have cops "on the take" drug abusing "respectable" people who would never equate themselves with those low-life street junkies, corrupt politicians (imagine!), and "perfect" spouses who dispose of an inconvenient husband or wife. In fact, police will first suspect the "devoted" spouse of a conveniently dead person.
This all proves what? That people can be appalling hypocrites.

Ilana: "Putting the roof on the house before the foundation is completed is a recipe for failure."

Exactly!! Let's start by restoring the value of human life right from its foundation....in the womb.

Posted by: Ellie at October 13, 2007 2:39 PM

Making abortion illegal won't accomplish this.

When abortion on demand was not legal, it was still done to save the mother's life.

I have two friends who are basically prolife but had life saving abortions.

One was had a stroke due to high blood pressure.

The other suffers from a bone defect that made pregnancy life threatening.

Just as before Roe v. Wade, these women could still get abortions if the decision were overturned.

Truthfully, it's was a painful experience, and, not that I doubt that you guys have good intentions, I'm not really comfortable discussing it with many people in my real life, so I don't think I'm comfortable sharing it with people who I don't really know.

Anon., I am in the medical field. I do know of several nurses who REFUSED to watch an abortion, assist with an abortion procedure, and a hell of a lot of them know the obvious, it's murder.

Posted by: heather at October 13, 2007 1:45 PM

Well, my sister is in the medical field and knows lots of medical personnel who support a woman's right to safe, legal abortion. I know several people in the medical field who support abortion rights. Did you have a point?

Anonymous,

Please, some of the latest statistics on abortion docs who have been threatened with knives and guns by pro-lifers.
So if abortion docs are so dedicated, determined, and great in number, why are they so threatened by the supposedly same type of "creeps" that fail to deter medical personnel in our nation's emergency rooms?
I loved what I did and what I described was one of my tamer nights. It certainly didn't make me quit.

Mary,
Were you also threatened at home? I have come across websites that post the full names and addresses of doctors and nurses who work in hospitals and clinics where abortions are performed. I'm sure this information isn't given out so everyone can send them a "thank-you" card.

Anonymous: "Making abortion illegal won't accomplish this."

I disagree with you, but can you explain why you don't think making abortion illegal would accomplish this?

This also from Laura's 3:05 post:

"I had a 37 year old woman just yesterday who was 13 weeks. She said she and her husband had been discussing this pregnancy for 2-3 months. She was strongly opposed to abortion, 'but my husband is forcing me to do it.' Naturally, I told her that no one could force her into an abortion, and that she had to choose whether the pregnancy or her husband were more important. I told her I only wanted what was best for her, and I would not do the abortion unless she agreed that it was in her best interest. Once she was faced with actually having to voice her own choice, she said 'Well, I made the appointment and I came here, so go ahead and do it. It's what's best.' At last I think she came to grips with the fact that it really was her decision after all." (Physician, Nevada)

_____________________________

Although the woman says she is being forced into the abortion, the person talking to her doesn't offer a referal to a women's support service or really support her objections in any way.

It makes me sick to read an exchange like this where a person could go either way and the social pressure pushes for abortion.

I think someone like that is so vulnerable, they can't see what is happening to them.

I remember once a girl wanted to drop out of high school a couple of months before graduation because her family was pressuring her. I told her not to quit even though she was not doing well because if she bowed to that pressure, she would blame them for the rest of her life. She would bow to others again and again. She didn't pass all her classes and had to retake an exam, but at least she didn't let others pressure her into a bad decision. I happened to run into her later and she told me she had finally graduated and had a job and she was so happy.

Sometimes people just need a little nudge, just need to hear that someone believes in them. It can make all the difference.

No,

I never personally was, though I did receive some phone calls from a paramedic that made me uncomfortable. I know of ER personnel who did fear they were being followed home and some were stalked.
If deranged sickos want to find you, they will.

Jill Stanek, (I believe) you will rot in Hell for the hate you spew.

Posted by: Ilana at October 13, 2007 12:10 PM

Funny how you think Jill will rot in Hell for a comparison she made but apparently all the pro-aborts will be sent straight to heaven for protecting a woman's "choice."

Ilana: "I'm not really comfortable discussing it with many people in my real life, so I don't think I'm comfortable sharing it with people who I don't really know."

I respect your decision not to share this info with us.

I wasn't intending to be nosy, but I have always wondered what conditions would require the baby to be delivered before viability to save the mother's life. I know of some conditions later on in pregnancy, but if a delivery were necessary, the baby could survive if it were after viability.

Ilana, thanks for responding to my post re sex-selective abortions. As far as unborns's being targeted for extinction, I think the 90% abortion rate of unborn babies with Down's Syndrome speaks for itself. I never said it was specific persons in power, seems more like an ingrained societal attitude. This wouldn't be happening if it wasn't accepted by society in general. So, I guess we agree on changing society's attitudes towards the disabled is the first step. Have you had a chance to view George Tiller's website yet?

Hippie, good point to my post.

Mary, its called SCIENCE.

This is just getting too ridiculous.

Keep spreading your hate and lies, keep being unforgiving *bleep* , keep being hypocrites. I just think that is extremely sad that the pro-life camp has to resort to lies and scare tactics. There is no point in trying to speak to people who have selective hearing.

Someone once told me a long time ago never to argue with a fool, and they were right.

Ilana, so you want to talk about what we can do to eliminate rape? Well, somehow I doubt that encouraging people to have sex as much as possible is going to help with that.

Also, you said: "Making abortion illegal is an injustice, just like abortion is an injustice. You don't win here. Two injustices, it just seems that those who are pro-life or pro-choice pick whose side to be on: Pro-life choose the fetus, pro-choice choose the mother."

So when a baby is born, the mother dies? Is that how it works? I thought that, you know, the mother usually lived after childbirth. For example, my own mother is still alive. I guess I'm not really her kid, since according to you to be pro-life is to "choose" the fetus over the mother, which in the context of abortion, means that one lives while the other dies.

Ilana said: "Long story short, I was pregnant, and my life was seriously threatened by the pregnancy. If I hadn't had an abortion, I wouldn't be here today to tell you guys why making this issue a polarized issue based on labels is unproductive."

And yet every anti-abortion law allows for abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger, which makes me wonder what the heck you're arguing about in the first place.

Womyn said: "Keep spreading your hate and lies, keep being unforgiving *bleep* , keep being hypocrites."

Repent and you will be forgiven. Simple!

I think the 90% abortion rate of unborn babies with Down's Syndrome speaks for itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It sure does.
A healthy percentage of those people had to be pro-life - right up until it looked like they might be inconvenienced.

Laura: "It sure does.
A healthy percentage of those people had to be pro-life - right up until it looked like they might be inconvenienced."

Laura, What do you mean by this? Why do you think these people are pro-life up until this point?

Laura, What do you mean by this? Why do you think these people are pro-life up until this point?

Posted by: Ellie at October 13, 2007 4:53 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A good percentage of the people who abort Down fetuses must have been pro-lifers.
Look at the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as "pro-life," and the percentage of Downs-based abortions.

It sure does.
A healthy percentage of those people had to be pro-life - right up until it looked like they might be inconvenienced.

Posted by: Laura at October 13, 2007 4:44 PM

Gee Laura,
That sounds quite hitleresque to me. Inconvenienced???? I know families who have children with disabilities in their families and they love and cherish them just like the rest of their children.

One friend said it best. I won't be the one inconvenienced with waiting up late at night for him to come home from a party; I won't be inconvenienced by having to take him to all of the sporting events he may have wanted to participate in. I won't be inconvenienced with having to make sure his homework is done everynight. I won't have to constantly worry that he might get some girl pregnant in high school. The list could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Downs children offer families nothing but love. The reality is that some people are too selfish and don't want their family to look anything other than "perfect".

Laura: "Look at the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as "pro-life," and the percentage of Downs-based abortions."

Well I can't prove you wrong, but I find it hard to believe that anyone who has aborted a baby with Down syndrome would be claiming themselves pro-life.

However, I do know there are many pro-life women who refuse testing and do go on to give birth to babies with DS. These cases are not included in the 10%. The 10% statistic is for those babies who were diagnosed in utero. They are allowed to live only 10% of the time.

Sandy: "I won't be inconvenienced with having to make sure his homework is done everynight."

Sandy, I agreed with your post except for the above sentence. My daughter in in second grade, and she reads, spells, and can do simple Math at this point. I AM incovenienced (happily!) by making sure her homework gets done!

Laura, are you saying that some people who considered themselves prolife changed their stance when confronted with the reality of having a child with disabilities? If that's what you are saying, then I would say that they were not really prolife to begin with.

Carrie: "If that's what you are saying, then I would say that they were not really prolife to begin with."

Carrie, in these cases, they probably thought they were pro-life. In their defense, it can be a shock to learn your babies have DS, and I think sometimes these women think that aborting is what they are "supposed to do."

And unfortunately, our society doesn't give much support. OBGyns often pressure women. It is "expected" that older women get an amnio and everyone knows what the expected "choice" is. When I refused amnio in my late 30's I felt like a fish going upstream in a way. Fortunately for me, my hubby was supportive of not going down the prenatal testing route.

The shock does where off, and most parents of children with DS I have ever met feel very blessed.

in reply to Posted by: mk at October 13, 2007 11:00 AM

MK,

I call things how I see them.

ANd if Jill doesn't want anyone to insult her, then she shouldn't say such ass-backwards and absolutely f*cking stupid things.

And no, I have not had an abortion, I have never been pregnant, and quite frankly, that is none of your f*cking business. I apoligize for the cursing, but who are you to even ASK me that question? Good-ness!

By the way, you need to learn how to differentiate between the individual and the group.

Oh, and Heather, you need to grow a brain. Just because a couple of doctors who performed abortions abused his patients, does not mean that women are being raped and abused by their abortion doctors.

John Lewandowski--I have no words for someone who "loves" to exploit their dead ancestors.

And repent what? My sins? Once again none of your business.

Womyn - Come on now, we could have fun with your sins ;)

John, God has no place in intellectual settings, just like intellect has no place in Religion. so leave him out of this.

and everyone else:

I've said it before, i'll say it again. Go to Auschwitz, and if you STILL think abortion is anything like it, check yourself into a mental health facility... cuz something in your brain isnt working.

Ellie, I agree that they probably thought they were prolife, which doesn't mean they were. Agreed that OB/Gyns may pressure them, but in those cases the couples have to take personal responsibility for their decision to abort. They can't just take the victim mentality and say my OB/GYN made me do it. I have a son with disabilities so I do know what it is like, both the good and the difficult.

Carrie, Does this mean i can rip apart all the people here/other places who CALL themselves christians, but havent read the bible, or know even their own faith properly?

Womyn, are you roaring? "I am Womyn hear me roar." Helen Reddy

Jonathan, I honestly don't care what you do. Isn't that what you have been doing anyways? What's the difference?

Carrie, more like weeping.

I am weeping at the loss of any intelligence life in this entire website (well, there are some exceptions).

Jonathan, I've visited Dachau. And I will tell you one thing: I absolutely agree with you.

No, i merely question, i dont insult. Its pointless, i could tell you my qualifications, but, this being the net, you could assume i was lying.... so it makes no difference.

Religion and God have no place in an intellectual debate. this isnt an attack, merely a fact. you cannot use a self-verifying fact in a proper debate. Its Circular reasoning "The bible is perfect because the bible says so" is a fallacy. and BELIEF does not make fact.

Womyn - Never been to Dachua. and i dont think i ever could. The night after auschwitz we were in Munich. Biggest beer hall in the world.... i got so drunk i couldnt see, and started singing rugby songs in Gaeilge.(i forgot how to speak german)

it was the only way to deal with that place.

Womyn, I am glad you didn't get offended by the joke. I realized I forgot to do an lol after.

Jonathan, I haven't brought religion into this at all. I don't feel qualified to do that. I believe in God, but I am not a follower of any particular religion. I never brought the bible into this either. I am still in the process of figuring out what believe as far as God and religion go. I try to read as many books as I can on the subject. One of my favorite authors is John Dominic Crossan. I also like to read about different belief systems labeled heresies by the church:Catharism is one. Not all prolifers are the same just as not all prochoicers are the same.

Anonymous: "Making abortion illegal won't accomplish this."

I disagree with you, but can you explain why you don't think making abortion illegal would accomplish this?

Posted by: Ellie at October 13, 2007 3:38 PM

Why don't YOU explain how making abortion illegal will restore the value of human life?

Anonymous,

Please, some of the latest statistics on abortion docs who have been threatened with knives and guns by pro-lifers.
So if abortion docs are so dedicated, determined, and great in number, why are they so threatened by the supposedly same type of "creeps" that fail to deter medical personnel in our nation's emergency rooms?
I loved what I did and what I described was one of my tamer nights. It certainly didn't make me quit.

Posted by: Mary at October 13, 2007 3:31 PM

You don't speak for everyone in the medical field.

Carrie:

i was not meaning you about religion, i said that to someone else. and then just wanted to clarify what i meant so it would not be seen as an attack on religion.

Jonathan, no problem. Are you a prolifer or a prochoicer? How would you describe your position regarding abortion?

Carrie;

To be honest, i dont know what i am. I believe abortion is a terrible thing, and should be stopped. but i believe the man reason it is a problem is education, contraceptive availability, and poverty.

At the moment, i cannot argue it should be illegal (tho i would like it to be) because i can forsee even more deaths by that course of action then the current one.

I guess i am a Pro-Lifer, who wishes to see a plausable end to abortion, not the "in a perfect world" one (ie- make it illegal) that many PLers aim for.

Anonymous, 6:35PM

I never said I did and what has that got to do with my post?

Womyn 4:34pm

Exactly what are you ranting about? Would you please directly quote me lying. Also, swearing and name calling is the mark of a fool.

Back to the subject of this post, the extermination of Poles, Jews, and others in Auschwitz (which I have visited) and the senseless slaughter of millions of innocent babies in their mothers' wombs.

The Nazis dehumanized the Poles, Jews, and others in order to justify their extermination.

Unborn babies are dehumanized in so many ways by pro-aborts that eliminating them by means of "surgical procedures" is also justifiable.

Unborn babies not human beings?

That is exactly what the Nazis said of the Jews.

Jonathan, I would also be a prolifer(in case you haven't guessed,lol). I believe abortion should be illegal. I don't agree with you that banning abortion will cause more deaths. Are you refering to illegal back-alley abortions? I read that 90% of abortions done when it was illegal were performed by licensed doctors(Planned Parenthood,1960). I think the average # of deaths from illegal abortions prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year. I don't know how many women die from legal abortions now. Anyways, that number is tragic, but it doesn't come close to the over one million babies that killed every year. I agree with you on birth control, although I know many on this site don't. I don't see it as a poverty problem for the most part. I don't have that stats right now, but I know in MA the majority of women recieving abortions have at least graduated high school and a good portion of them have some college. So we agree on some things and disagree on other things and that's OK. I am signing off and I can post those stats for you tomorrow if you want.

Sorry, but when someone asks me inappropriate questions, like if I have ever gotten an abortion, I'm bound to get upset about it.

The entire basis of the pro-life movement is based on lies.

Tell me, you want abortion to be illegal? Then what shall the penalty be for a woman who obtains an abortion illegally?

Anon 2, good point.

Anon:

for the 5th time today. HITLER DID NOT BELIEVE THE JEWS WERE LESS THEN HUMAN. He believed the Aryans were MORE then human (See; Ubermann, Nietzsche, and Nazism) He believed the Jews were causing all the problems in Germany, and tried to eraticate them. but he clearly states in Mein Kompf that the Jews/Poles/Gypsies and other non-Aryans are "merely HUMAN"

Carrie; night hun, stats would be great. last ones i saw said someone below the poverty line is 300X more likely to have an abortion.... or something to that effect, i'll look again too.

Womyn, I honestly am not sure. I will think about that some more and get back to you. If you are trying to drag me into some death penalty debate, you are barking up the wrong tree. I am against the death penalty.

Yeah, us pro-choice people take a thrill in every fetus that's killed, really.

And let's not kid ourselves: Pro-lifers kill more fetuses per year than anyone. (Don't worry, I can back this up.)

Well of course none of you see the comparison. You're abortion Nazis.

:: laughing ::

@@

Hey Texas Red: How can you call us anti-choicers? Please don't call me an anti-choicer. Call me a champion of the unborn, their knight in shining armore, a voice in the vast darkness agains the murder, rape and pillaging of the unborn.

Dang, HisMan, have you turned over a new leaf?

Doug

Laura wrote,

I think the 90% abortion rate of unborn babies with Down's Syndrome speaks for itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It sure does.
A healthy percentage of those people had to be pro-life - right up until it looked like they might be inconvenienced.

Posted by: Laura at October 13, 2007 4:44 PM

____________________________________

Point of clarification:

90% of the Down Syndrome babies that are DETECTED are aborted not 90% of all babies affected Down Syndrome.

Many people decline the amnio because they know they wouldn't abort anyway.

To thine own self be true.

Heather, yes, and that was Polonius, pretty much a dumb old guy for most of the play, giving his son some good advice, as I remember it. So it is for many women with unwanted pregnancies - ending those pregnancies is the best thing.

Doug

stats would be great. last ones i saw said someone below the poverty line is 300X more likely to have an abortion

Jonathon, it can't be anything like that, based on the number of women above the poverty line who have abortions, alone.

Doug

Womyn wrote,

Tell me, you want abortion to be illegal? Then what shall the penalty be for a woman who obtains an abortion illegally?

Posted by: Womyn at October 13, 2007 7:28 PM

___________________________

The penalty should be for the one performing the abortion since he/she is commiting, promoting, and profitting from the abortion.

Doug;

You're correct, i was combining to statistics in my head.

The abortion rate among women living below poverty level is more than four times that of women above the line. (Guttmacher)

Jonathan wrote,

To be honest, i dont know what i am. I believe abortion is a terrible thing, and should be stopped. but i believe the man reason it is a problem is education, contraceptive availability, and poverty.

______________________

I have posted this before when discussing with Doug.

During the Great Depression the birth rate dropped far lower than it is now all without education, contraception, or abortion and despite abject poverty far worse than we currently have.

Those were people just like we are, and they did it.

Just think of the scientific concept of controlling the variables.

How did the people lower the birthrate during the Great Depression?

I suggest it was conscious choice, just a little earlier in the game.

Carrie,

I understand the year before Roe v Wade,(1972) that the death rate from illegal abortion was 36. It had been steadily declining for years, mostly due to better antibiotic and IV therapy.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL, admits the leadership of the abortion movement in this country deliberately falsified statistics and perpetrated the 10,000/year illegal abortion death fallacy. Even the late pro-abortion statistician, Dr. Christopher Tseitze(sp?) referred to this inflated figure as "unmitigated nonsense".

Another thing Carrie. A post of mine concerning sex selection abortion didn't get through. According to the late Dr. Robert Mendolsohn in an article in a 1982 nursing journal, sex selection abortions were taking place in the United States and 4 out of the 5 fetuses aborted for being the "wrong" sex were female. Since ultra sound and fetal sex determination, unlike then, are routine now, one can only wonder if this practice continues. What's to stop it if it is?
I know of one situation before ultrasound was routine where a woman asked to OB for an amniocentesis to determine the baby's sex. If the baby was female she planned to "get rid of it". The physician refused, telling her she would have to see another doctor. She did give birth to a baby girl.

"The penalty should be for the one performing the abortion since he/she is commiting, promoting, and profitting from the abortion.

Posted by: hippie at October 13, 2007 8:21 PM"

So I guess then there should be no penalty for drug users, and only the drug dealers should get in trouble! Because they are the ones committing, promoting and profiting from drugs. If you break the law, there is a penalty. If GETTING an abortion is illegal (notice, I didn't say PERFORMING an abortion), then any woman who gets an abortion is breaking the law. So what should the punishment be to keep people from breaking the law?

Mary, I said I was signing off for the night, but I guess I couldn't resist. The stats I quoted were from Randy Alcorn's book,Pro-Life Answers to Prochoice Questions. He footnoted Edward Lenoski Heartbeat 3, cited in John Wilke's Abortion Questions and Answers. He states the average death from illegal abortions for the 25 years leading up to 1973 was 250 a year with a high of 388 in 1948. He also states that in 1966 120 mothers died from abortion. By 1972 abortion was still illegal in 80% of the country and the death rate dropped to 39 because of what they say was an increased use of antibiotics. So I guess I was talking about the average of the 25 years leading up to 1973. If I didn't make that clear, sorry.

Womyn,

I think your point is a good one.

Generally drug use or possession is a lesser offense (misdemeanor) than dealing or trafficking in drugs (felony).

I think that drug use is a similar situation. It is hard to abuse drugs if they are not available. It is hard to get an abortion if it is not available. (A very few people will abuse paint or glue just as a very few women would try to abort themselves, but millions? I don't think I have seen any data to support that idea.)

If the punishment for practioners is harsh enough, almost none would risk it.

Womyn, I believe the harshest penalties should go to the abortionist as he or she would be the one committing the murder. I believe the woman should also be charged with at least accessory to murder if not murder. If the father knew about the abortion or facilitated it in any way, he should face the same penalities as the mother. As far as what degree(1st or 2nd or manslaughter), I don't know because I am not a legal eagle obviously. As I said in another post, violence between family members should not be treated any differently than violence between non family members.

Carrie,

Your post was perfectly clear and excellent. I only meant to expand on it. You were right about the decreasing death rate. How could this be? Abortion was illegal and the death rate from illegal abortion was continually going down? I thought we needed legal abortion to keep women from dying by the thousands. Good heavens, did abortion supporters actually lie?
I just thought it was especially ironic the year before Roe v Wade that the death rate from illegal abortion was at an all time low.

Someone on this board once pointed out that had there really been 10,000 deaths from abortion per year in 1972, it would have been the leading cause of death in women. With that in mind, you have to wonder that the justices themselves didn't ask for proof. Was it innumeracy on their part or a lack of critical thinking?

Mary, I totally agree-about my post being clear and excellent that is. Just kidding. I agree with your other points too. The back-alley abortion myth was created to scare people into believing abortion was necessary to save the lives of women.

Jonathan, my stats come from Mass Citizens For Life on which they have a report from Mass. DPH on abortions in 2002. That stats are for educational level: 8th grade or less-281, 9th-12th grade-3130, HS diploma-5245,some college-4327,associates-1360,bachelor's -1715, post-grad-529, and unknown-8662. I do notice that abortions rates decrease as educational levels increase. What I also notice is thousands of women with a diploma and/or college get abortions. I think it is more of a matter of changing hearts, not wallets.

The Stat i was referring to was the one that says almost 50% of abortions are illegally done.

"About 26 million women obtain legal abortions each year, while an additional 20 million abortions are obtained in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law." (M.R.C.I.)

I am signing off for the night. This time I really mean it.

"As I said in another post, violence between family members should not be treated any differently than violence between non family members."

Carrie, what does violence have to do with any of this?

So you think then, that women who get abortions should go to jail? What if they were raped? What if they have other children that they need to take care of? Certainly you do not advocate children being taken away from their mother?

Anon, certainly you are not suggesting that women who commit crimes should not go to jail. There are plenty of mothers in jail. Being a mother does not give one a free pass to commit murder and not face consequences. The mother would be making a CHOICE that she knows could possibly take her away from her born children. Certainly, you are not suggesting that women are not intelligent enough to know the consequences when they break the law. As for the quote, murder of a family member is just as bad as murder of a non-family member and the punishment should be similiar. That's the point I was trying to make with the violence referrence. Women are intelligent enough to know that when you break the law you face the consequences. The murder of a child is a very serious crime and if abortion were made illegal, then the punishment should reflect that.

whoops, that was me above there.

"Being a mother does not give one a free pass to commit murder and not face consequences."

I never said that, and abortion is not murder.

I'll ask again:

what is an APPROPRIATE punishment for an abortion? And, how do you even prove it?

"The murder of a child is a very serious crime and if abortion were made illegal, then the punishment should reflect that."

Which is what? Life in prison? The death penalty? Surely you are not suggesting that the US turn into a totalitarian regime?

""About 26 million women obtain legal abortions each year, while an additional 20 million abortions are obtained in countries where it is restricted or prohibited by law." (M.R.C.I.)"

I think this stat speaks not for abortion but against the circumstances that lead these women to seek it.

You asked me what the punishment should be if abortion is made illegal. You don't view abortion as murder and I do. We will therefore never see eye to eye on this. I thought I answered your question, but I will try again. I am against the death penalty which I have stated previously. I don't know how long the jail sentence should be, but there should be one. You will disagree with me because you don't view abortion as murder, but I do. Having laws and holding people accountable when they break those laws is not a totalitarian regime. How do you prove any crime? You prove a crime with evidence. If the police have reason to believe a crime has been committed,then they have a duty to investigate. I know abortion is not illegal and therefore not a crime-I am just trying to answer your question. I think that abortionist,who are actually doing the murder, should face life in prison. The women-I don't know what the exact charge should be. That's what I said in my previous post. I don't know if it should be accessory to murder, manslaughter, murder 1 or murder 2. You will never see things the way I do because I see abortion as the murder of a child who happens to be unborn and you don't. I appreciate you asking me these questions because it helps me clarify my views. Now, I am really going to bed this time.

Well I'm off to take a cyclobenaprine and go to bed. Maybe then I can move my head more than 3 inches...

Womyn said: "John Lewandowski--I have no words for someone who "loves" to exploit their dead ancestors."

*Gasp* Are you judging me? Haha...

Jill, I'm going to be as nice about this as possible...

You do a great disservice to the pro-life cause when you attempt to marginalize the suffering, systematic torture and killing of 12 million people by comparing it to an action which occurs before the being is capable of detecting pain. It is cheap, it preys solely on emotion and NOT on logic, and it is insulting to God's Jewish children, such as myself.

Please do yourself a favour, and never use the holocaust comparison again. It diminishes the thin veil of empathy that your cause claims as a mainstay and portrays you as an ignorant bigot.

Carrie-

I don't view abortion as murder because I am not an idiot and I know the law, unlike you. Murder is a legal term. Abortion /=/ murder.

"Having laws and holding people accountable when they break those laws is not a totalitarian regime"

Of course not, but forcing women to have babies against their will.....sounds very totalitarian to me.

Lewandowski-

I am not judging you. I am simply saying that I have no answer for someone who loves to exploit their dead ancestors. You said it yourself that you love it.

Where's yllas when we need him? I think yllas should change his name to nymow and have to go.

*should read-have a go*

Scarlette,

How do you know for certain unborn children do not feel pain?
Its obvious the Nazis never concerned themselves with the suffering and pain they inflicted upon those, my Slavic ancestors included, that they viewed as inferior to themselves. If the victims felt pain and suffering, so what? They're inferiors so its irrelevant. Its only the superior race that matters.
We view the unborn as inferior to ourselves and if in fact they do feel pain, so what? Its only us that are already born that matter.

Jonathan,

Religion and God have no place in an intellectual debate. this isnt an attack, merely a fact. you cannot use a self-verifying fact in a proper debate. Its Circular reasoning "The bible is perfect because the bible says so" is a fallacy. and BELIEF does not make fact.

I don't see anywhere on this website where it says we must stick to "intellectual" debate.

First of all, it is your contention, not mine (ours), that intelligence and God and somehow incompatible.

Secondly, it is your contention, not ours, that God has no place in a debate about life...considering he is the author of life.

Thirdly, it is your contention, not ours, that "belief does not make fact"...we could just as easily say that "unbelief does not disprove God's existence".

The post by Ilana(oct.13/ 1:48p.m.)is the result of a Vulcan mind meld with Sally. Ilana, have you seen a hot air balloon "tragedy" lately, where the balloon "fell" into some "wires" and suddenly "rose up and tilted"? Defying physics. Which made a 60year old women "dive" into the ground? Hence, the women was a "groundiver". And maybe a fearless groundiver too.
I bet Ilana has been a "eyewitness" to many deaths of humans, just as her Vulcan sister, Sally has. Ruff, tuff, and hard to bluff a Vulcan, so logical, so fearless towards death, just like a Aryan murdering those Polish subhumans.
How's Erin? Cure that case of hypocrisy yet?
And Doug, I am missing the antenna off my German made, BMW. I think you took it to your sister Ilana, who lost her crack pipe made of elephant tusk. If you need a " improvised medical device" to inhale a cheap version of cocaine, please take a antenna from Ilana's Mercedes Benz.
I was reading "Nazi Doctors; Medical Healing And The Psychology Of Genocide" by Robert Lifton, when I decided to take a break from reading and have my BMW serviced.
That is when I noticed the missing antenna.
So Doug, could you get my antenna back from your Vulcan sister,Ilana? Or at least, buy Ilana a pipe made from your Nazi friends in Germany. They make the most exquisite pipes, as those Germans are into perfection and beauty.
Which reminds me of why those Germans were murdering "defective life" before they began murdering the Polish people for living space. They thought just like Ilana, fear death Polish swine? No German would fear death, we are fearless and brave enough to face death everyday here in swineland Poland, making living space for our Aryan youth of tommorow.
"Healing by death", is the famous words of those Nazi Doctors, when interviewed by Lifton. Sounds like Ilana has been "channeling" with those Nazi Doctors .
And Ilana agreed with those Germans, invading the land of the Polish, until that tricky Hitler "double crossed" her socialist sisters in the U.S.S.R.
So called "race", is always on the mind of a person who thinks "race" is the primary problem of the world. Right Ilana, you did bring up race, didn't you?
Or is the world problem race, poverty, and the new "gender problem", from which springs all evil? A trifecta for SALILANA.

P.s. Does Ilana,Sally, Doug, surname end in "er"? Also, could anyone explain the etymology of the phrase "beyound the Pale", and how it converted many religious people into the greatest mass murder machine of the early 20th century, paling the works of that guy whose name ended in "er" too.? Doug asked me that question after he found my antenna at his sister's house.

Womyn said: "I am not judging you. I am simply saying that I have no answer for someone who loves to exploit their dead ancestors. You said it yourself that you love it."

Well it certainly sounds like you're judging me! Don't be so judgemental and hypocritical! Judge not lest ye be judged, etc, and all that other silly pro-abort jazz!

And if that gets you hot and bothered, this will really push your buttons: just as I think that my fellow Polish Catholics are just as good as and no worse than any unborn child, I also think that all of the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust are no better than those Polish Catholics who were also killed. You hear that? A Catholic is just as good as a Jew, and a Jew is just as good as a Catholic, and both of them are just as good as an unborn child. Now please don't hurt yourself in rage, but that's just the way it is.

"God has no place in intellectual settings, just like intellect has no place in Religion. so leave him out of this."

Um, what was the Renaissance then?

Scarlette, You are doing a huge disservice to the unborn when you attempt to marginalize their suffering. I have children of my own, and I take offense to those who defend abortion.

And let's not kid ourselves: Pro-lifers kill more fetuses per year than anyone. (Don't worry, I can back this up.)

Oh, please do...I can't WAIT to hear.

MK-

I believe in God, but i know that it is faith, not fact, that has me believe in God. To say "Abortion is wrong because it is against God" begs the question "how do you know?" which leads to bible passages; this leads to "and how do you know the Bible is Gods Word".... which then is answered with either "the bible says so" or "i just do". Both of which are severe logical Fallacies.

The reason i thought we had to stick to intellectual conversation here is due to the fact i was told we were in another thread line. (and told i couldnt partake due to my horrid spelling and grammar)

Kristen;

The Renaissance was nogt a religious movement, and in fact many of the biggest discoveries and such of the time were banned by the church. (see Galileo) The one of only a few notable Renaissance works that was strictly religious is Dante's Divine Comedy.

The Renaissance was nogt a religious movement, and in fact many of the biggest discoveries and such of the time were banned by the church. (see Galileo) The one of only a few notable Renaissance works that was strictly religious is Dante's Divine Comedy.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 10:32 AM

Johnathan, your ignorance astounds me. The Church funded the Renaissance. Without the Church the Renaissance wouldn't have happened. Remember all those things called Cathedrals? Renaissance architecture. The Sistine Chapel? Renaissance art. In fact THE most notable art in history was done in the Renaissance and 90% had a religious theme. Ever hear of the Doors of the Baptistery? You know the ones touring the US? Come on give me a break. I'm an Art and Architecture student. I can go on for days...

Scarlette, I also happen to be a female, and I take great offense that you would continue to put my gender at risk by supporting abortion. Have you ever seen the aftermath of how women are suffering?

The Renaissance was nogt a religious movement,

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 10:32 AM

BTW, I never said it was a religious movement. I was simply refuting your point that God has no place with intellect. The Church was the MAIN reason that intellect flourished during that time.

Kristen,

Art? yes. Architecture? sure. i dont know much about either so i will take your word on it.

Music? no. Poetry? no. Science? no. Engineering? no. Medicine? no. Exploration? no. Philosophy? no.

i can also go on for days. but why not leave it at "the church didnt STOP the renaissance, and did infact help in some areas well hindering in others.

Mary,

"How do you know for certain unborn children do not feel pain?"
I know because, until the 24th-28th weeks, the myelinated sheath covering nerve fibres has not formed yet. Hence, the fetus cannot feel anything because the nerves are not formed yet. Abortions done past this point are, with rare exception, done in the cases of health issues.

"We view the unborn as inferior to ourselves and if in fact they do feel pain, so what? Its only us that are already born that matter."

You're overanalyzing the motives of the pro-choice viewpoint. Being pro-choice does not mean we feel superiority to fetuses, it means that we understand the reality of a world with illegal abortions means dangerous health choices to the women who would seek them out, and it's not a reality that we should have to see in the modern world.

Heather-

"Scarlette, You are doing a huge disservice to the unborn when you attempt to marginalize their suffering. I have children of my own, and I take offense to those who defend abortion."
As I've pointed out before, they do not suffer. They are physically incapable of detecting pain in the cases of a majority of abortions. Please do some research before you make such claims, sensationalism does not help your cause.

"Scarlette, I also happen to be a female, and I take great offense that you would continue to put my gender at risk by supporting abortion. Have you ever seen the aftermath of how women are suffering?"

Physically, women are many times more likely to be damaged by pregnancy than by abortion. Mentally, the feelings of guilt and any psychological 'trauma' are more often than not caused by people telling them they should feel guilty. Saying "I accept that I chose to have an abortion" is not a popular viewpoint. Saying "I regret it" is. A lot of women do not regret it, and rather, they feel relieved after it's over. If they say that, they're monsters.

Scarlette, I need to see some proof that the unborn do not feel pain.

Womyn, I believe the harshest penalties should go to the abortionist as he or she would be the one committing the murder. I believe the woman should also be charged with at least accessory to murder if not murder. If the father knew about the abortion or facilitated it in any way, he should face the same penalities as the mother. As far as what degree(1st or 2nd or manslaughter), I don't know because I am not a legal eagle obviously. As I said in another post, violence between family members should not be treated any differently than violence between non family members.

Posted by: Carrie at October 13, 2007 9:17 PM

Thank God you'll never be in charge.

Scarlette, I also happen to be a female, and I take great offense that you would continue to put my gender at risk by supporting abortion. Have you ever seen the aftermath of how women are suffering?

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 10:40 AM

I take offense that you would put my gender at risk by supporting a ban on abortion which would make the procedure extrememely more dangerous for women -- especially for poor women. (look at any country where abortion is banned) I take great offense that you exaggerate and outright lie about the negative effects of abortion (as if pregnancy and chldbirth are safer) in order to further your misguided, hateful anti-choice agenda

Scarlette, I need to see some proof that the unborn do not feel pain.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 12:26 PM

Where's your proof that a ban on elective abortion would HELP women?

Scarlette, You are doing a huge disservice to the unborn when you attempt to marginalize their suffering. I have children of my own, and I take offense to those who defend abortion.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 10:12 AM

As if comparing abortion to the Holocaust isn't offensive and downright stupid, by the way. Doing that just reinforces the perception that you people are fanatics with an agenda devoid of morality.

Music? no. Poetry? no. Science? no. Engineering? no. Medicine? no. Exploration? no. Philosophy? no.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 10:52 AM

You are kidding right? Medicine? Heck yes they helped medicine. There were scores of advancements during that time period. (Although today we know some of them were not helpful, but never-the-less at the time they were considered advancements.) In fact Galen (who was a pagan) insisted that all patients, even terminal ones, be told they were going to recover. It was The Church that felt, with new medical information, the patients should be told if they were terminal so they could use their remaining time wisely. Again these doctors, really not doctors by todays standards since most had no formal training, were under the patronage of the Church.

Music? Again there were composers under the patronage of the Church that composed music for, guess what, MASS as well as entertainment.

Poetry? Hmmm, that's a hard one. But let me try... John Fisher, William Tyndale, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cranmer, John Foxe, Robert Southwall, John Milton, Henry Vaughan, ALL OF WHOM HAD WORK WITH A PREDOMINATELY RELIGIOUS TONE. Oh, one more - SHAKESPEARE ring any bells? Who was not only patronized by the Queen but also by the Church.

Excuse me?
While the jury is still out on whether a fetus can or does feel pain during a third-trimester abortion, we know FOR CERTAIN that the birth process causes pain, stress and trauma.

If you're so intent on outlawing any possible pain to a fetus/infant, wouldn't you outlaw birth?

Is causing fetal/infant agony and trauma OK as long as it suits YOUR agenda?

Music? no. Poetry? no. Science? no. Engineering? no. Medicine? no. Exploration? no. Philosophy? no.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 10:52 AM

Sorry, I forgot a few. Engineering? Well how the heck do you think the Cathedrals were built? You don't think engineers were there overseeing construction? You know the flying buttresses? Who do you think came up with that? Architecture cannot succeed without engineering.

Science? I believe math is a form of science. Bobby Bambino, will you back me on that one? Perspective is a mathematical concept that became BIG in the Renaissance.

Exploration? You've GOT to be joking on this one. Remember the song you learned in kindergarten? In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue?

The fact of the matter is that the THE CHURCH was the force behind the Renaissance. The art and architecture fed into everything else and leaps and bounds were made in all areas. It doesn't change the fact that it happened BECAUSE of the Church. The Church was the reason the Renaissance came about and continued for hundreds of years.

Can anyone post proof about the lack of fetal pain? Don't tell me that a late term abortion wouldn't cause pain. How would you like a pair of scissors jammed into the backs of your skulls? Please spare me! Abortion is murder!

Kristen; i didnt learn that song, im not a yank. LOL

The church did support many different parts of the renaissance, but it also stiffled other parts. Ie- the parts that dont agree with the bible. Things like us not living in a Geocentric Universe were suppressed and those who taught it were imprisoned and killed. This has been a common practice in the church. (See; evolution.)

Heather;

http://www.spine-health.com/news/pregnancy/art532137.html

Excuse me?
While the jury is still out on whether a fetus can or does feel pain during a third-trimester abortion, we know FOR CERTAIN that the birth process causes pain, stress and trauma.

If you're so intent on outlawing any possible pain to a fetus/infant, wouldn't you outlaw birth?

Is causing fetal/infant agony and trauma OK as long as it suits YOUR agenda?

Posted by: Laura at October 14, 2007 12:55 PM

Apparently, it is OK.

Just think of the pain and suffering fetuses will experience if abortion is banned. Women will go right on having abortions but LATER in gestation and most likely under very inferior medical conditions and procedures.

Don't tell me that a late term abortion wouldn't cause pain. How would you like a pair of scissors jammed into the backs of your skulls? Please spare me! Abortion is murder!

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 1:14 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? That type of late-term abortion was performed under general anesthesia that crossed the placenta.
Now that the technique has been outlawed, the fetus is dispatched by injection before it's delivered.
No pain...

Things like us not living in a Geocentric Universe were suppressed and those who taught it were imprisoned and killed.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 1:14 PM

Correct, but let's be fair. For THOUSANDS of years people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Long before Christianity came on the sceen. And there were still people who believed it during the Renaissance.

Again, your original statement said that God and intellect don't belong in the same conversation. And again, I'm telling you without the belief in God we would not have intellect. Even Socrates believed the soul was eternal.

Abortions

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
May 20, 2004

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- New legislation introduced in Congress will focus on an aspect of abortion that normally receives little attention -- the pain that unborn children feel during an abortion. The bill would make certain that those performing abortions inform women of the pain unborn children experience during an abortion, especially later in pregnancy.

The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act would specifically require abortion practitioners to tell women having abortions after 20 weeks that the unborn child feels pain.

Under the bill, women should be given the opportunity to allow her baby to have pain control drugs administered prior to the abortion.

During the recent trials of lawsuits seeking to overturn the federal ban on partial-birth abortions, Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a pain specialist, told a California judge that unborn children feel enormous pain during an abortion.

"There will be pain caused to the fetus. And I believe it will be severe and excruciating pain," Dr. Anand, a pediatrician at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, said.

Dr. Anand said that unborn children show increased heart rate, blood flow, and hormone levels in response to pain.

"The physiological responses have been very clearly studied," he said.

Yet, abortion practitioners are reluctant to tell women that's the case.

Judge Richard Casey in New York asked abortion practitioner Marilynn Fredriksen what she tells women on whom she performs partial-birth abortions.

"Do you tell whether or not it will hurt the fetus," Judge Casey asked.

Fredriksen responded, "The intent [is] that the fetus will die during the process of uterine evacuation."

"Ma'am, I didn't ask you that," Judge Casey persisted. "You will deliver the baby partially and then insert a pair of scissors in the base of the fetus' skull. ... Do you tell them whether or not that hurts the fetus?"

Fredricksen snapped, "I have never talked to a fetus about whether or not they experience pain."

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the evidence is abundant that unborn children feel intense pain during an abortion.

"We cannot deny the medical evidence now before us," Perkins said. "From testimony taken during the recent partial-birth abortion hearings and advancements in the field of in utero technology, science is telling us unborn children as young as 20 weeks old can feel pain. The evidence we have is clear, and we should not keep that evidence from women."

An April Zogby poll shows that 77% of Americans back "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain before having an abortion."

Only 16 percent disagreed with such a proposal, according to the poll, commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee.

Despite the polling results, Perkins said he wouldn't be surprised if abortion advocates opposed the new measure.

"Women have the right to know what happens when they have an abortion and they have a right to know the pain their unborn child will experience when it is being aborted. Anyone who would deny a woman such information is hardly a defender of women's rights," Perkins said.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, two leading pro-life advocates, are the bill's main sponsors.

The Southern Baptist Convention and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have joined NRLC and FRC in endorsing the legislation.

Jon, I thought you were pro life??!!? Thanks for "getting my back".. I know a snake in the grass when I see one. BTW, here is my link.

Jon, I think you are still PC.

Can anyone post proof about the lack of fetal pain? Don't tell me that a late term abortion wouldn't cause pain. How would you like a pair of scissors jammed into the backs of your skulls? Please spare me! Abortion is murder!

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 1:14 PM

Then don't have abortion if you think it's murder. (If you can spew hackneyed anti-abortion sound bites, I can respond in kind.)

Heather, I guess Anon is now the champion of the fetus. She doesn't want abortion outlawed because she feels it might lead to later abortions. She's concerned about increased fetal pain. Anon is the unborn's greatest champion. Anon the Defender of the Unborn *rolls eyes*

Maybe we need to place importance on motherhood and family values. Young girls see plenty of examples of sexuality to emulate and chastity is a word seldom heard.
Sex is emphasized everywhere you look, and attracting the opposite sex is foremost in a lot of girls mind. And then of course, they have to figure out how to ?keep the guy.? Motherhood is something they figure will happen at the end. Since marriage is not as popular or necessary for a sexual relationship, girls are desperate to find a means to maintain a relationship. Men do not have to commit to a relationship because sex is so readily available. Everyone has suffered the consequences of the freedom of our modern day thinking. The family as we once knew it has disintegrated. The one thing that hasn?t changed, babies are created from these uncertain relationships which noone wants to take responsibility for.
Casual sex is at the root of the problem. If girls were taught to value themselves more, maybe they wouldn?t be giving their bodies to just anyone. Lack of self esteem in young girls is more rampant than ever. If ?freedom of choice? is so popular, why do women feel so badly about theselves? We have created a ?no boundaries mentality,?
and as a result the respect for women no longer exists.
Although women should have the same rights as men, the feminist movement has reduced our society to a degregation of women, motherhood and family in general.
Now, anything goes! Women have bought into the idea.
They don?t seem to know any better today; that their bodies are a temple of God, bought and paid for with the price of Jesus blood. Most would laugh at that. How can men respect women when they so easily succumb to easy sex and abortion on demand. Men have no reason to get married, and they especially don?t want the responsibility of a child from a casual sexual experience. The babies suffer the consequences of our immorality. If people feel they must engage in this lifestyle, they need to make sure they do not conceive a life. Babies should not be punished for the irresponsibility of our actions. Yes, I do believe we are becoming less patient and understanding of mothers who give their bodies over for illicit sex and then to the abortionist. The issue is that sex is so exalted in our world and the importance of motherhood and family is devalued. The emphasis should be on teaching young girls that they are special and worthy of being treated with respect. To provide birth control and assume that all girls are going to have sex, only promotes the idea that they are already devalued and it is permissable for the guys to go ahead and use them for the only thing they are worth. Sex without commitment only leaves women feeling alone and insecure, no matter what their age. Committment is the basis for conceiving a child. There is none, so that?s why we have abortion. Abortion is only the result of our years of conditioning that women should enjoy the same sexual freedom as men, and men have taken advantage of that. How is it that women have aquired the idea that a man is more important than a baby? Have you ever noticed how they actually ?run? into the abortion clinic? Often the man drives off and comes back after it is all over! I presume all she is thinking of, is ?getting back to her lifestyle, uninterrupted.? Promotion of better self esteem in girls should be part of the sex education received. Recognition of basic family values and the importance of motherhood needs to be emphasized. If one so chooses to indulge in premarital sex, use contraception. Why not? It?s

Heather;

Maybe i am.

Kristen;

Yes, but we cannot give the church credit for everything people of faith do.

Hitler had faith, So did many of the soldiers on both sides of WW2 (or any war for that matter).

but there is a difference between their faith Causing their actions, and them simply having faith.

I found this post on another web site. It was written by a nurse. I think it pretty much says it all.

Yes, but we cannot give the church credit for everything people of faith do.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 1:37 PM

Again, I am simply saying that your statement of God and intellect not belonging in the same conversation is false, as I have proven.

Carrie, good morning. I think anon is Womyn and Scarlette.

Hi there Kristen! Sorry about all of those ???? in my post.....I don't know why they show up.

Hey Heather... and Carrie...I guess we're holding down the PL side this morning...

Heather, definitely. I wonder which one of her personalities is going to post next.

Heather, definitely. I wonder which one of her personalities is going to post next.

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 1:45 PM

LOL!

Casual sex is at the root of the problem. If girls were taught to value themselves more, maybe they wouldn?t be giving their bodies to just anyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've never "given" my body to anyone.
I've pursued sex because it was hot, rompin' physical joy, but I've never "succumed" to anything.

oops, the end of my post cut off. It says, Why not? It's better than abortion.............

Hi Kristen. This current crop of prochoicers is almost making me miss SoMG.

Kristen; No you havent. you have proven that the church/people with faith are intelligent. i never doubted that. BUT, what i am trying to say is "you cannot USE God as a legitiment argument in a debate" which you have never disproven.

Carrie, say it isn't so!

Kristen, as a matter of fact, I am almost missing Sally, although I still think Womyn might be Sally. Womyn didn't call me chica or honey or compare me to the KKK so maybe she isn't Sally.

Kristen; No you havent. you have proven that the church/people with faith are intelligent. i never doubted that. BUT, what i am trying to say is "you cannot USE God as a legitiment argument in a debate" which you have never disproven.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 1:49 PM

Why would I "use" God? God was a, if not THE, reason for the Renaissance. It was enlightenment that the people pursued to learn more about God, dare I say to prove his existence, not to disprove it. God is not the argument IN the debate, He is the debate. And millions of Christians, Catholic or otherwise, say He is legitimate. Why can you use an argument you choose but I can't? I can't prove the existence of God but you can't prove the reverse. I can't prove fetal pain (according to some) but you can't prove they don't feel pain. There is research to support both sides of every argument in history. You can't say that God can't be used to argue the point.

Carrie, I doubt it. Different typing format.

Kristen, as a matter of fact, I am almost missing Sally, although I still think Womyn might be Sally. Womyn didn't call me chica or honey or compare me to the KKK so maybe she isn't Sally.

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 1:55 PM

I have no respect for Sally since the whole balloon incident. From her first post about the accident I knew her head was going to start spinning around. I was just waiting for the vomit to come out of her mouth, which didn't take long.

Heather, good point.

Kristen;

As i tried to explain before, God is a logical Fallacy. you can use any argument you like. but by saying "God says so in the bible" it leaves open the "and how do we know the bible is fact?" question, which cannot be answered other then "i just DO" or "The bible says so".... both of which are logical Fallacies. God has a place in debates such as we just had (about his role in the Renaissance) but not as a factual source on why something should or should not be legal.

Girls, I'm going to go out and treat myself to a little R and R. Have a great afternoon. I'll be back later.

Kristen, I agree. I tried reaching out to her and she accused me of trying to rack up bonus points for God. She stated that she had suffered from abuse and I reached out to her because I have gone through some things to.

Kristen, my husband took my son out so I could get some rest and I spent almost the whole time on here. I am going to try to rest before they come back. I'll probably be back later.

As i tried to explain before, God is a logical Fallacy. you can use any argument you like. but by saying "God says so in the bible" it leaves open the "and how do we know the bible is fact?" question, which cannot be answered other then "i just DO" or "The bible says so".... both of which are logical Fallacies. God has a place in debates such as we just had (about his role in the Renaissance) but not as a factual source on why something should or should not be legal.

Posted by: Jonathan at October 14, 2007 2:12 PM

I know others have used God as the argument against abortion. I never have. In fact I have given sites and references about atheists opposed to abortion. I simply believe abortion is murder. Being pregnant seven times has led me to this belief regardless of my religion.

Carrie, have a good rest. I'm going to make caramel apples with the kiddies.

But in reference to Sally, I agree. I have a hard time believing that she didn't witness the accident and say "Wow, that sucks." I fail to see how someone can be compassionate about a woman falling to her death and then turn around and spit venom at people offering her sympathy.

Kristen, ok, then we are arguing over nothing.

Jonathan, I still believe that everyone has a right to argue that point. Plenty of people have said "God doesn't exist so abortion isn't a moral question." Why can they argue that but others can't say God is the reason abortion is wrong?

You can respond and I'll check back later but I don't want my caramels to burn..

I really do enjoy this discussion. :)

Kristen;

I would tell them the same thing "leave God out of it"....

There are good points both for and against abortion, "God" simply isnt one of them (for either side)

OOO Caramels.....mmmmmm

I am also enjoying this.

Heather, I guess Anon is now the champion of the fetus. She doesn't want abortion outlawed because she feels it might lead to later abortions. She's concerned about increased fetal pain. Anon is the unborn's greatest champion. Anon the Defender of the Unborn *rolls eyes*

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 1:32 PM

LOL You people certainly aren't champions for women OR fetuses. Making abortion illegal WON'T save fetuses. You've glommed on to the "pro-life" cause because you want to belong to something -- it makes you feel special and morally superior to claim you're pro-life. You don't care about the ramifications of banning elective abortion in much the same way the prohibitionists cared nothing about the negative consequences of banning the production of alcohol.

Jonathan, I can agree with you on that but for many God is the ultimate. I have to say that I am one of them for many other arguments. For me abortion is simpler. Abortion = murder in my mind. God is a big part of my life, more complicated aspects of it, but this issue is black and white to me. I also have the benefit of a sister who gave up a baby for adoption and saw the positive impact that had on her life and, of course, the lives of the couple that adopted her.

Where are you from? Curious since you aren't a "yank."

You've glommed on to the "pro-life" cause because you want to belong to something -- it makes you feel special and morally superior to claim you're pro-life.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 2:51 PM

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone because of my pro-life stance. Unfortunately I have done things in my life that make me physically sick when I think back on them. It is my conscience that prevents me from doing these things again and my Faith in God that I am forgiven them. Morally superior no, I will never say that.

Kristen;

Im Irish. And God plays a large part in my life too. simply not in this part.

Jonathan, I was reading the most recent post by Jill and saw that you were Irish. I am too! Well ancestrally speaking anyway. Third generation to live in America. My dad was really into genealogy before he died and found that a lot of our family lived/lives in County Mayo.

Kristen; Thats cool. Mayo is nice. im from Cork. but love to travel.

"Well it certainly sounds like you're judging me! Don't be so judgemental and hypocritical! Judge not lest ye be judged, etc, and all that other silly pro-abort jazz!

And if that gets you hot and bothered, this will really push your buttons: just as I think that my fellow Polish Catholics are just as good as and no worse than any unborn child, I also think that all of the Jews who were killed in the Holocaust are no better than those Polish Catholics who were also killed. You hear that? A Catholic is just as good as a Jew, and a Jew is just as good as a Catholic, and both of them are just as good as an unborn child. Now please don't hurt yourself in rage, but that's just the way it is.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 14, 2007 8:24 AM"

WTF????

WTF have you been smoking? That made absolutely zero sense.

And Kristen, the church might have funded PART of the Renaissance, but that does not mean anything. They merely funded the ART that was produced. They had nothing to do with the scientific discoveries or the philosophical discoveries.

Sorry, you're wrong. There might have been church involvement in the Renaissance, but it wasn't involved the the INTELLETUAL and scientific aspects.

Oh and about the geocentric universe....i believe it was Aristotle who discovered that the sun was the center.

And Heather:

I am just me. I am no one else, and I accidentally made one anonymous post and I said that it was me. OK?

Carrie:

I am NOT this Sally person you keep talking about.

Womyn,

I am going to make dinner now, and then play Harry Potter with my 7 year old. But I'll be back, and when I am, I'm going to take on your assertion that the Catholic Church was not responsible for scientific or intellectual donations to the Renaissance. They are responsible for the first universities. And a whole lot more...

But later...

Womyn, you are completely wrong about the Renaissance but I'll leave it to MK. She's more than capable to disprove your assertion. Although, come to think of it, why don't you try disproving mine first. Since you won't be able too that'd save MK a lot of time.

Gotta take a break and start dinner.

the church did contribute a great deal to the Renaissance, but the Renaissance was also a time of secular thinking, which evenyually the church did try to put a stop to.

Most of the artwork during the Reniassance was done in or for churches. That isn't to say thinking wasn't secular, it was. And it was strongly influenced by Classic culture, but the church did play a role in that period of history, just not nearly as much of an influence over people's lives and thoughts as it had during the dark ages.

Womyn does have point with the area of the philosophies and science/math. That are was all, or nearly all, Classical influence, and in some cases the influence of Muslims bringing back knowledge that had been lost to Europe during the Dark Ages

yllas: And Doug, I am missing the antenna off my German made, BMW.

I knew there had to be something eating at you something fierce.

Oh and about the geocentric universe....i believe it was Aristotle who discovered that the sun was the center.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 3:40 PM

Nope, but good try. (Well actually not so good since you were about 1800 years off.) Aristotle (300 or so BC) believed in the Earth centered universe along with Ptolemy. It was Copernicus (Renaissance time period) that believe the Sun was the center. Unfortunately he was on his deathbed when his writings were published but others carried on his work.

The church mostly funded the artwork during the Renaissance, and they mostly poo poo'd any scientific discoveries that contradicted what they were telling the public during the Renaissance. The Catholic church has been less than friendly to Classical and Renaissance art since then. There is a storage room in the Vatican museums filled with penises that have been castrated off some very important pieces of artwork.

There is a storage room in the Vatican museums filled with penises that have been castrated off some very important pieces of artwork.

Posted by: JKeller at October 14, 2007 4:41 PM

What are you talking about? Ever see "David" you know the statue by that unknown artist MICHELANGELO? Penis intact.

There is a storage room in the Vatican museums filled with penises that have been castrated off some very important pieces of artwork.

Posted by: JKeller at October 14, 2007 4:41 PM

Oh, and his painting of Adam, the Church didn't put a leaf over his penis either. It's right there so everyone can see, always has been.

I have actually seen the David, the original, in person. And if you have too you would know that Michelangelo's David isn't located in the Vatican museums, but the Accademia in Florence

The church has a history of covering up tons of things.

I didn't say it was located in the Vatican museums. And I do know that's not its location. You said that the Church was "less than friendly" to Renaissance art, hence the castrated statues. I gave you an example of Renaissance art that wasn't castrated.

Since you claim "There is a storage room in the Vatican museums FILLED with penises that have been castrated off some VERY IMPORTANT pieces of artwork" (emphasis mine) please, name a few pieces.

I'll give you examples of castrated art.

http://www.pet-portraitartist.com/old-masters/artists/Michelangelo.htm

"When the work was finished on the Last Judgment in (October 1541), Michelangelo was accused of intolerable obscenity for his depictions of naked figures showing genitals (and inside the private chapel of the Pope). A violent censorship campaign was organized by Cardinal Carafa and Monsignor Sernini (Magntua's ambassador) to remove the frescoes, but the Pope resisted.

In coincidence with Michelangelo's death, a law was issued to cover genitals ("Pictura in Cappella Ap.ca coopriantur"). So Daniele da Volterra, an apprentice of Michelangelo, covered with sort of perizomas (briefs) the genitals, leaving unaltered the complex of bodies. When the work was restored in 1993, the restorers chose not to remove the perizomas of Daniele; however, a faithful uncensored copy of the original, by Marcello Venusti, is now in Naples, at the Capodimonte Museum.

Censorship always followed Michelangelo, once described as "inventor delle porcherie" (inventor of obscenities, in a sense that in Italian sounds like he had created genitals).

The "fig-leaf campaign" of the Counter Reformation to cover all representations of human genitals in paintings and sculptures started with Michelangelo's works. To give two examples, the bronze statue of "Cristo della Minerva" (church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Rome) was covered, as it remains today, and the statue of the naked child Jesus in "Madonna of Bruges" (Belgium) remained covered for several decades. A similar campaign occurred in Victorian Britain. Even today, the genital of 'David' in the Victoria and Albert Museum still gets covered with a stone fig leaf during royal visits."

I dont know any direct statues that were affected by this, but Michaelangelos Last Judgement was. Google "fig-leaf campaign" adn you'll find more.

You've glommed on to the "pro-life" cause because you want to belong to something -- it makes you feel special and morally superior to claim you're pro-life.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 2:51 PM

I certainly don't think I'm morally superior to anyone because of my pro-life stance. Unfortunately I have done things in my life that make me physically sick when I think back on them. It is my conscience that prevents me from doing these things again and my Faith in God that I am forgiven them. Morally superior no, I will never say that.

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 3:04 PM

But you DO consider yourself morally superior, otherwise you wouldn't be supporting the anti-choicers, whose goal is to impose their will/morality on every pregnant woman in the United States. Obviously, you consider your beliefs about embryos and women's reproductive autonomy as the "right" beliefs.

Of course I consider them right. Just as pro-aborts consider their views right. Are they saying they are morally superior to me? I don't believe so. So why are you insisting that I think I am morally superior?

I simply believe abortion is murder. Being pregnant seven times has led me to this belief regardless of my religion.

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 2:22 PM

So being pregnant seven times gives you the moral authority to decide what is right for every other pregnant women in this country?

I've been pregnant five times, and I feel each pregnant woman should decide for HERSELF whether or not to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Of course I consider them right. Just as pro-aborts consider their views right. Are they saying they are morally superior to me? I don't believe so. So why are you insisting that I think I am morally superior?

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 6:10 PM

I have no idea what a proabort is.

Now, as you know, PRO-CHOICE is for letting the pregnant woman decide for HERSELF whether to gestate or terminate.

By my being pro-CHOiCE, how am I imposing my morality on YOUR reproductive autonomy? Isn't that the objective of ANTI-choice? Force and punishment are YOUR goals.

It's a belief I have. I never claimed moral superiority. Just as you have a belief that abortion should be legal. Are you claiming moral superiority to me because you want women to have the option to abort?

Uh oh, Anon, you just uttered the three words that will get you absolutely slaughtered on this website: I am pro-choice.

Now, no one will take you seriously and resort to name-calling simply because your political belief is different from their political belief. Childish.

Actually the objective of PRO-LIFE is to protect all life no matter how small and insignificant others think it may be. That is my goal, simply put.

Uh oh, Anon, you just uttered the three words that will get you absolutely slaughtered on this website: I am pro-choice.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:24 PM

News flash Womyn, I gathered Anon was pro-choice before that post.

Kristen, I dont think you get it.

By being pro-choice, you are simply that: for choice. You are not saying that women should do one thing or the other. You are simply for allowing a woman to choose whatever option she wants in regards to her reproductive choice.

But by being pro-life, you are saying that women shouldn't have abortions, and that abortions are morally wrong and unacceptable, so therefore, women who get abortions are morally wrong and unacceptable. You feel that it is your duty to stop abortions, therefore, stopping women from making their own reproductive choices, and saying that having an abortion, which is a reproductive choice, is wrong.

The pro-choice camp takes no stance whatsoever on the morality of abortion, while the pro-life camp does.

Womyn, why do you consider someone calling you proabort as name-calling?

Kristen, I cannot read your mind. How on EARTH was I supposed to know you already thought Anon was pro-choice? Barking mad, you are.

But Kristen, by wanting to "protect" life, you are telling women that they have to abide by your beliefs, i.e., by not getting an abortion. You want abortions to become illegal? That is imposing your morality on other women, by telling them they can't have reproductive freedom because YOU deem it to be immoral.

I don't think you get it Womyn. For me, morality has nothing to do with it. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It's wrong to be prejudice. That's not a question of morality for me either. Wrong is wrong. Prejudice hurts others. Abortion hurts others. Get it?

When someone calls you something you are not, that is considered to be name-calling.

Simply put, calling someone a "pro-abort" is name-calling at its finest. I am not for abortion. I am for reproductive choice. I do not go around to pregnant women, telling them that they should get abortions. If I did, THEN I would be a, as Jill so eloquently dubbed it, "pro-abort."

Oh, and I also love how you ignored my evidence that the church did go on a "fig-leaf" rampage and cover up the genitals of figures in art.

Womyn, morality is imposed on people all the time.

But Kristen, by wanting to "protect" life, you are telling women that they have to abide by your beliefs, i.e., by not getting an abortion. You want abortions to become illegal? That is imposing your morality on other women, by telling them they can't have reproductive freedom because YOU deem it to be immoral.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:32 PM

You obviously think of it as more of a moral question than I do. Again, it's just wrong to me. Regardless of religion, as I have said before there are groups of athiests that feel the same way. You are the one that keeps bringing up morality.

Sorry, Kristen, but if you say that anything is right or wrong, then it becomes a moral issue.

If you say that abortion is wrong, and that getting an abortion is wrong, for whatever reasons, you are taking a moral standpoint on the issue. You want it outlawed because "abortion hurts others." Ok, it hurts others, but that is not a strong enough reason to make it illegal. Alcohol hurts others. Cigarettes hurts others. Cheating hurts others. Cursing hurts others. Yet, those things are legal.

Tell me, why should abortion be illegal? If you can tell me why it should be illegal, without bringing in morality, then I'll leave and never come back.

Point of Fact - Morality is constantly forced on other. I have no problem with drug use, but i still cannot smoke a joint in peace without the fear of reprisal. We are constantly told what we can/cannot do with/to our own bodies by the fascists who run the government.

It's a belief I have. I never claimed moral superiority. Just as you have a belief that abortion should be legal. Are you claiming moral superiority to me because you want women to have the option to abort?

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 6:22 PM

Nope; just a higher empathy quotient.

Tell me, why should abortion be illegal? If you can tell me why it should be illegal, without bringing in morality, then I'll leave and never come back.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:39 PM

I know a few athiests and they don't believe in a set of "moral standards." Yet there are many against abortion. If you can't believe my view is without a moral ground what about them? Traditionally morality goes along with religion, athiest do not believe there is a God therefore, no religious or moral basis. I cannot force you to see what you do not want to see.

I don't think you get it Womyn. For me, morality has nothing to do with it. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It's wrong to be prejudice. That's not a question of morality for me either. Wrong is wrong. Prejudice hurts others. Abortion hurts others. Get it?

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 6:34 PM

Banning abortion would harm women. Women were harmed when abortion was illegal -- mostly poor women.

Womyn, someone callimg you something you are not isn't necessarily name-calling.

Nope; just a higher empathy quotient.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 6:41 PM

And I have a higher empathy quotient for the child.

Hey Carrie, how's it going?

Womyn, why do you consider someone calling you proabort as name-calling?

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 6:30 PM

Why do you call pro-choicers proaborts?

Kristen, you still have yet to answer my question. Why should abortion be illegal?

You bring in athiets....I dont care about athiests. Its completely irrevelant. I want to know why YOU want it to be illegal. I could care less how athiests get their morals or where morals come from.

Um, Carrie, yes it is.

If I called you pro-choice, you'd be pretty pissed. If I called you a whore, or a slut, or a bitch, or a pro-abort, you'd be pissed because you are not those things.

Calling someone a "pro-abort" is malicious, and is meant to paint them as someone horrible. Its just not a nice thing to say about someone.

I want to know why YOU want it to be illegal.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:46 PM

It's a baby and shouldn't be killed.

Anon, how were mostly poor women harmed when abortion was illegal? Mary and I both posted info about the decline in deaths from illegal abortions leading up to 1973. The death rate was already on a decline before abortion was even legalized.

Why shouldn't the "baby" be killed?

and I suggest you take a biology class. Its a fetus, not a baby. It is a baby when it is born, and when someone kills a baby, it is infanticide, not an abortion, and when a woman removes a fetus from her womb, it is an abortion and not infanticide.

Kristen, I was being specific to artwork in the Vatican. David's penis would not be in the special penis storage room in the Vatican because David is not in the Vatican. EVERY nude male sculpture located in the Vatican has had its penis chopped off and catalogued in a storage room in the Vatican museums.

Michelangelo's David is located in the public sector, therefore it was saved from papal castration. Actually, it was meant to reside in Florence's Duomo, but because of the nudity was deemed too obscene for church and was instead put in Piazza Signoria and later moved to the Accademia.

Womyn, why is painting someone as a proabort horrible?

And that's where we differ. It's life to me. Just because a tadpole isn't yet a frog doesn't mean it's not life.

Wait!! Someone saying "I will decide when to be pregnant." and "I will decide when to carry to term."....This is disturbing. What you are actually saying is this: I AM GOD. I will decide what is best for me. I will KILL when I see it fit to do so!!! Someone asked what the punishment for post abortive women should be.....my opinion Brace yourselves... A life sentence!! I resent the fact that murdering women are returned to society. Why don't you have to face the same consequences that other murderes do??? I don't want you roaming my society.

Nope; just a higher empathy quotient.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 6:41 PM

And I have a higher empathy quotient for the child.

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 6:45 PM

And you're pretending. You're merely projecting your own thoughts and feelings on a fertilized egg. A pregnant woman can ACTUALLY think about her circumstances. I KNOW how it feels to be pregnant and give birth, so I can empathize with a pregnant woman.

Heather, great point.

Because I am not for abortion.

I am not aware of anyone who is for abortion.

So Kristen, I take it you're also a vegetarian?

And that is a completely unacceptable answer, nice cop-out. I never said it wasn't life. Tell me why abortion should be illegal.

And Heather, God gave us free will. So yes, we DO get to decide for ourselves!

And Heather, you are one totalitarian person, and I am so thankful you are not in charge of my country. Abortion is a private matter and you are making it into a public one. Its simply NOT YOUR BUSINESS WHAT A WOMAN DOES WITH HER BODY. Talk about a narcissist!

Michelangelo's David is located in the public sector, therefore it was saved from papal castration. Actually, it was meant to reside in Florence's Duomo, but because of the nudity was deemed too obscene for church and was instead put in Piazza Signoria and later moved to the Accademia.

Posted by: JKeller at October 14, 2007 6:54 PM

It was commissioned by the Florintine Republic and was never meant to be in the Duomo. There were several other places the David resided including the Palazzo Vecchio. (Although Botticelli believed it should be near the cathedral.

The Palazzo Vecchio WAS (and continues to be) in Piazza Signoria.

Womyn ,why is it an insult to say you are for abortion?

Wait!! Someone saying "I will decide when to be pregnant." and "I will decide when to carry to term."....This is disturbing. What you are actually saying is this: I AM GOD. I will decide what is best for me. I will KILL when I see it fit to do so!!! Someone asked what the punishment for post abortive women should be.....my opinion Brace yourselves... A life sentence!! I resent the fact that murdering women are returned to society. Why don't you have to face the same consequences that other murderes do??? I don't want you roaming my society.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 6:58 PM

You are really unbelievable. There is so much irony in the above that I don't even know where to begin.

Anon, how were mostly poor women harmed when abortion was illegal? Mary and I both posted info about the decline in deaths from illegal abortions leading up to 1973. The death rate was already on a decline before abortion was even legalized.

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 6:50 PM

Means nothing. Do some research on Sherry Finkbine. How are wealthier pregnant women going to be prevented from traveling to countries where abortion is legal?

I guess with that reasoning it would make more women want to opt for the 18 year sentence as opposed to the life sentence (unless there's an opportunity for parole or getting off for good behavior?).

The Palazzo Vecchio WAS (and continues to be) in Piazza Signoria.

Posted by: JKeller at October 14, 2007 7:07 PM

Yes, I was pointing out the different areas. As da Vinci thought the statue should be placed at the Loggia dei Lanzi (also in Piazza Signoria) and I believe it was there for awhile. But never in the Duomo.

Carrie,

How would you feel if someone told you that you were for abortion?

Its more people telling me what I believe in. I know what I believe in, and I dont want other people telling me that.

And, someone that is for abortion is generally viewed as a social pariah. Its also a person who is actively trying to push their morality on other people, namely pregnant women, that abortion is good and the right thing to do. I dont believe that.

Womyn ,why is it an insult to say you are for abortion?

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 7:08 PM

Why do you call pro-choiers proaborts?

You are really unbelievable. There is so much irony in the above that I don't even know where to begin.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 7:09 PM*********************************************************************************************** Of course you don't know where to begin. We're talkin baby murder.

Womyn wrote,

Why shouldn't the "baby" be killed?

and I suggest you take a biology class. Its a fetus, not a baby. It is a baby when it is born, and when someone kills a baby, it is infanticide, not an abortion, and when a woman removes a fetus from her womb, it is an abortion and not infanticide.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:53 PM

_______________________________

Womyn, what should be done when the result of an abortion is a living breathing baby?

Heather, I hope you realize the social problems that would arise from placing women who have gotten abortions in jail for life.

First, that would mean roughly 1.3 million new inmates each year. With prisons already over-crowded, we would need to build several more prisons. And guess what? You would be paying for them via taxes. It would be impossible to place that many women in jail each and every year.

Uh oh, Anon, you just uttered the three words that will get you absolutely slaughtered on this website: I am pro-choice.

Now, no one will take you seriously and resort to name-calling simply because your political belief is different from their political belief. Childish.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 6:24 PM

I've noticed. I agree it's extremely childish.

Hippe, then it is an unsuccessful abortion. Its simply that.

You are really unbelievable. There is so much irony in the above that I don't even know where to begin.

This is a typical manipulation tactic. What this means is "Heather, I am surprised that you don't support women wanting to kill their unwanted children." "You're a woman, and why can't you sympathize?"....sorry, you have the wrong person.

Heather, I hope you realize the social problems that would arise from placing women who have gotten abortions in jail for life.

First, that would mean roughly 1.3 million new inmates each year. With prisons already over-crowded, we would need to build several more prisons. And guess what? You would be paying for them via taxes. It would be impossible to place that many women in jail each and every year.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 7:17 PM

I don't believe Heather expect to be taken seriously when she rants fanatically like that? Does she? lol!

And, someone that is for abortion is generally viewed as a social pariah. Its also a person who is actively trying to push their morality on other people, namely pregnant women, that abortion is good and the right thing to do. I dont believe that.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 7:14 PM

That's funny because according to most of the PC crowd PL is the MINORITY. So if it's viewed as a social pariah then PC must think that too. We keep hearing how PLs are the fanatic minority the PCs should have a lot of friends who don't think anything is wrong with abortion so what's the problem?

The history of Michelangelo's David precedes his work on it from 1501-1504, as far back as 1464. At that time the Overseers of the Office of Works of the Duomo (Operai), comprised mostly of members of the influential woolen cloth guild, the Arte della Lana, had plans to commission a series of twelve large Old Testament sculptures for the buttresses of the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

Santa Maria del Fiore is the Duomo.

You are really unbelievable. There is so much irony in the above that I don't even know where to begin.

This is a typical manipulation tactic. What this means is "Heather, I am surprised that you don't support women wanting to kill their unwanted children." "You're a woman, and why can't you sympathize?"....sorry, you have the wrong person.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:20 PM

I have inferred from reading your posts that you are not a very sympathetic sort of person.

LOL @ whatever you want. Abortion is murder. 1.3 million? That will decline after illegalization.

Womyn, why is someone who is viewed as proabort considered a social pariah? Why would that be? You can be pro something without actively pushing your views on someone. We are all pro about something. We all take a stand at some point on something

unbelievable. There is so much irony in the above that I don't even know where to begin.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 14, 2007 7:09 PM*********************************************************************************************** Of course you don't know where to begin. We're talkin baby murder.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:15 PM

NOT WE; YOU. I am talking about women retaining the right to decide for themselves whether or not to continue an unwanted or unintended pregnancy.

That's funny because according to most of the PC crowd PL is the MINORITY. So if it's viewed as a social pariah then PC must think that too. We keep hearing how PLs are the fanatic minority the PCs should have a lot of friends who don't think anything is wrong with abortion so what's the problem?

Posted by: Kristen at October 14, 2007 7:21 PM

Kristen, no one thinks that abortion is a good thing. There probably are a few nutters out there, but it is certainly not the pro-choice view point that abortion is generally a good thing.

Anon, I use the term proabort because I am childish. Actually, I am "extremely childish".

LOL @ whatever you want. Abortion is murder. 1.3 million? That will decline after illegalization.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:23 PM

Funny, thats what they thought with Prohibition. Sadly, the use of alcohol actually increased during that time.

Its still a LOT of women who would be entering the prison system. How do you propose that we care for these women? Remember, prisons are being paid for by your money. Prisoners are being fed by using your money.

And Carrie, I dont know how to drive this through your thick skull......I am NOT for abortion. Plain and simple. Its not an either/or situation. Just because I might be for choice does not mean I am in favor of one choice over the other. Get it?

Also, the only "nuts" I've seen are pro deathers. I'm blessed that God gave me the wisdom to see through you.

Actually, Carrie, you use the term "pro-abort" because you are unable to think for yourself and instead turn to worshipping the Almighty Jill Stanek and using whatever terms she uses.

Womyn, why isn't abortion a good thing? Why would someone be nutters to say it is?

LOL @ whatever you want. Abortion is murder. 1.3 million? That will decline after illegalization.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:23 PM

That's what they said about the Noble Experiment. You'd think people would have learned something from that fiasco.

pro-abortion is a loaded term, same as "anti-choice", I personally like the terms "Pro-Roe" and "anti-Roe"

I will pay the tax dollars to assure that you won't harm/kill anyone else.

LOL @ whatever you want. Abortion is murder. 1.3 million? That will decline after illegalization.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:23 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is that anything like criminalization?

Jon, twisting in the wind.

Womyn, you are right. I am Stanekist. I attend services at the Church of Stanek on Thursday and Saturday.

Because abortion can cause bodily harm and can be a burden on a woman's body. It can possibly cause emotional harm as well as physical harm (just like any other surgical procedure), and I should mention the enormous guilt-trips that the pro-life camp places upon women who have aborted.

Its generally not something that women strive for in this country.

On the other hand, its different in other countries, such as Russia.

And wow, Heather, you would let your family starve in order to keep women who have aborted in prison?

Heather: Pardon? i dont know that expression.

Women is prison....that's not new.

Also, the only "nuts" I've seen are pro deathers. I'm blessed that God gave me the wisdom to see through you.
Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:33 PM

I dunno, we aren't the ones who stalk those who are simply doing what is mandated by their job.

And Im not talking just PP workers, but those who simply accept the required money for their services.

The only nuts I have seen are pro-lifers, Im glad God gave me the wisdom to see that pro-choice was the side to be on, and leave ignorance and hatred behind me.

heather, nor is abortion new.

Laura, I loved your Pug Dog pic!! Got any pictures of Boston Terriers? {sp?] Ah, never mind. I know you won't, cuz you hate me.

Heather, I never said or insinuated that women in prison is a new concept.

"pro-deathers"??????? WTF???????? You've lost it, woman.

Oh, Dan, you know as long as you bow your head every once in a while you can turn "stalking" into "holding a prayer vigil"

Are there any other Stanekists here?

"Stalking", "prayer vigil".... its all the same.

Dan, wrong side. Dan, who likes abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and cowardly men.

No one likes abortion.

Hippe, then it is an unsuccessful abortion. Its simply that.

Posted by: Womyn at October 14, 2007 7:19 PM

::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I am asking what should be done with the baby?

Who likes abortion?

Women who realize they cannot properly care for a child, women who cant afford care, women who aren't ready for a child.

Who are the ones that spit on those who ge abortions, and call them "whoars" "tramps" and sluts"

pro lifers.

Jon, why?

Hippie;

There is always the option of adoption.

Dan, wrong side. Dan, who likes abortion? Answer: Irresponsible women and cowardly men.

Posted by: heather at October 14, 2007 7:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? Do "responsible" women crank out kids they can't afford and can't care for?

that should say "whores" wow, I cant spell tonight.

and JKeller, lol. Nice one.

Heather;

Why what? why dont people like abortion? because its a shitty end to a shitty situation.

Prochoicers, if you think calling prayer vigils stalking is going to bother me you are sadly mistaken. I don't care what a group of strangers say.

Dan, I have news for you. Have you ever read anything about former abortion clinic workers? Please read up. Who is calling the pro aborts "sluts" and "whores?".....GUESS WHO?? Your very own abortion docs. It's a real slap in the face, isn't it??

Heather;

"Dan, I have news for you. Have you ever read anything about former abortion clinic workers? Please read up. Who is calling the pro aborts "sluts" and "whores?".....GUESS WHO?? Your very own abortion docs. It's a real slap in the face, isn't it??"

yes, it is. its incredibly distressful to me that in the US people could do something they hate so much because the money. Your culture is mangled to the point you will rage against something all night, and do it all day for the almight dollar.

sickening.

heather, have you never been to a protest and seen that happen in your camp?

And I bet you those very doctors are pro life but had the training and needed a job.

Like I said, it isnt the pro choice side stalking contractors or clinic workers. It isnt the pro choice side sending in bomb threats or calling women murderers.

Bet its a slap in the face that your own Ann Coulter, a pro-life right-wing fanatic thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

(I had to bring that last piece out somehow, that comment has been ticking me off for I dont know how long)

Your own abortionists don't even like you. ha!

Why would it be a slap in the face to Dan? I'm willing to venture a guess that he's never had an abortion....

Heather, your own advocate and fellow woman thinks you shouldnt even have a voice in this matter through public vote.

In he grand scheme of things it means nothing accept pro lifers will work and perform abortions for cash, and that Ann Coulter is a crazy *****

Dan, I love her.

Heather, your own advocate and fellow woman thinks you shouldnt even have a voice in this matter through public vote.

Dan, who cares?? A lot of women disagree with me. I stand true to what I believe. Abortion IS murder, and abortionists ARE murderers. Case closed.

But if Coulter had her way you wouldn't be allowed to stand true to what you believed in. You would have stand behind your husband and watch with your mouth closed.

Ann Coulter is a complete moron. the "woman" has fewer functional brain cells then a retarded dog thats had a lobotomy.

yup,no voting for you, Ann Coulter says so. In fact its a dream of hers to eliminate the women vote.

Ann Coulter lives in a dream world and is completely out of i. I dont even think she realizes what shes saying anymore

I asked what should be done in the case of an abortion that results in a living breathing baby?

Some say adoption, some like those who worked with Jill left him naked to die in a closet, still other options as cited in this article from Jewish World Review:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen111099.asp

Mona Charen

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --

The firm Kelly worked for collected fetuses from clinics that performed late-term abortions. She would dissect the aborted fetuses in order to obtain "high-quality" parts for sale. They were interested in blood, eyes, livers, brains and thymuses, among other things.

"What we did was to have a contract with an abortion clinic that would allow us to go there on certain days. We would get a generated list each day to tell us what tissue researchers, pharmaceutical companies and universities were looking for. Then we would examine the patient charts. We only wanted the most perfect specimens." That didn't turn out to be difficult. Of the hundreds of late-term fetuses Kelly saw on a weekly basis, only about 2 percent had abnormalities. About 30 to 40 babies per week were around 30 weeks old -- well past the point of viability.

Is this legal? Federal law makes it illegal to buy and sell human body parts. But there are loopholes in the law. Here's how one body parts company -- Opening Lines Inc. -- disguised the trade in a brochure for abortionists: "Turn your patient's decision into something wonderful."

For its buyers, Opening Lines offers "the highest quality, most affordable, freshest tissue prepared to your specifications and delivered in the quantities you need, when you need it." Eyes and ears go for $75, and brains for $999. An "intact trunk" fetches $500, a whole liver $150. To evade the law's prohibition, body-parts dealers like Opening Lines offer to lease space in the abortion clinic to "perform the harvesting," as well as to "offset [the] clinic's overhead." Opening Lines further boasted, "Our daily average case volume exceeds 1500 and we serve clinics across the United States."

Kelly kept at her grisly task until something made her reconsider. One day, "a set of twins at 24 weeks gestation was brought to us in a pan. They were both alive. The doctor came back and said, 'Got you some good specimens -- twins.' I looked at him and said: 'There's something wrong here. They are moving. I can't do this. This is not in my contract.' I told him I would not be part of taking their lives. So he took a bottle of sterile water and poured it in the pan until the fluid came up over their mouths and noses, letting them drown. I left the room because I could not watch this."

But she did go back and dissect them later. The twins were only the beginning. "It happened again and again. At 16 weeks, all the way up to sometimes even 30 weeks, we had live births come back to us. Then the doctor would either break the neck or take a pair of tongs and beat the fetus until it was dead."

American Enterprise asked Kelly if abortion procedures were ever altered to provide specific body parts. "Yes. Before the procedures they would want to see the list of what we wanted to procure. The (abortionist) would get us the most complete, intact specimens that he could. They would be delivered to us completely intact. Sometimes the fetus appeared to be dead, but when we opened up the chest cavity, the heart was still beating."

The magazine pressed Kelly again: Was the type of abortion ever altered to provide an intact specimen, even if it meant producing a live baby? "Yes, that was so we could sell better tissue. At the end of the year, they would give the clinic back more money because we got good specimens."

Some practical souls will probably swallow hard and insist that, well, if these babies are going to be aborted anyway, isn't it better that medical research should benefit? No. This isn't like voluntary organ donation. This reduces human beings to the level of commodities. And it creates of doctors who swore an oath never to kill the kind of people who can beat a breathing child to death with tongs.

Yes, in Ann Coulter's dream world, a debate between Heather and Dan will always be won by Dan because Dan's opinion would be the only one that counted in the situation. (unless of course, Heather, you would like to invite your husband to the forum)

well not necessarily, because see, since I'm a Democrat, I'm not "a real man"

LOL!

The Galileo case is often cited as evidence of Catholic hostility toward science, and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization accordingly takes a closer look at the Galileo matter. For now, just one little-known fact: Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. No more precise instruments for observing the sun’s apparent motion could be found anywhere in the world. When Johannes Kepler posited that planetary orbits were elliptical rather than circular, Catholic astronomer Giovanni Cassini verified Kepler’s position through observations he made in the Basilica of San Petronio in the heart of the Papal States. Cassini, incidentally, was a student of Fr. Riccioli and Fr. Francesco Grimaldi, the great astronomer who also discovered the diffraction of light, and even gave the phenomenon its name.

From: "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization"...

And let us not forget Champgne! God Bless Dom!

Womyn,

Many say that if a baby is born alive he deserves the same rights as everyone else, however not all concur:

As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

MK; welcome back, how was Harry Potter?

One question about your above post; does any of that change the fact the church supressed the things that went against the bible? (things like a geocentric universe).... yes it confirmed elliptical. but the bible doesnt disagree with that. it was against Darwinism, Solo-centric universe, the earth being older then 9000 years... and many other things.

Then again, according to biblical science, Bats are birds, insects have 4 legs, and rabbits chew cud.

the url from my last post

http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=15641

JKeller,

It is true that the church went through a "cover up the body" phase, but John Paul II straightened us out. He removed the loin cloths in the Sistine Chapel and wrote the Theology of the Body, Humana Vitae.

If you want me to defend everything the church has ever done, I won't because I can't. We've been through this before.

Christ promised that His Bride would never be destroyed, and on matters of doctrine the Popes infallibility has never failed. However, in day to day matters, mistakes have been made. These are men after all. Men are not perfect.

But the Church herself still stands, exactly as She did on the day of Her birth.

Dogma, Doctrine...same today as the first day.

Music changes, which way the priest faces, which language the mass is said in...

But not the fundamentals. Not the core teachings.
Not the "Church" herself.

MK;

Some things have changed with the language. For instance, the New Testament has two references to homosexuality in English and Latin, but none in Greek, which was the original language of the NT.

i would say that constitutes a fundamental change in doctrine.

Jonathan,

I'd have to take these things one at a time...

I'm unfamiliar with them and would have to look stuff up...

Let's start with Darwinism. My understanding (Doug? help here) is that even those that accept the evolution theory do not accept Darwins evolution.

The Catholic Church does not oppose the concept of Evolution. Many protestant sects do, but not the Catholic Church.

Hang on...

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago.

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

The contribution made by the physical sciences to examining these questions is stressed by the Catechism, which states, "The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers" (CCC 283).

It is outside the scope of this tract to look at the scientific evidence, but a few words need to be said about the interpretation of Genesis and its six days of creation. While there are many interpretations of these six days, they can be grouped into two basic methods of reading the account—a chronological reading and a topical reading.

Chronological Reading

According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

The Topical Reading

This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

Real History

The argument is that all of this is real history, it is simply ordered topically rather than chronologically, and the ancient audience of Genesis, it is argued, would have understood it as such.

Even if Genesis 1 records God’s work in a topical fashion, it still records God’s work—things God really did.

The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" (CCC 337), but "nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun" (CCC 338).

It is impossible to dismiss the events of Genesis 1 as a mere legend. They are accounts of real history, even if they are told in a style of historical writing that Westerners do not typically use.

Adam and Eve: Real People

It is equally impermissible to dismiss the story of Adam and Eve and the fall (Gen. 2–3) as a fiction. A question often raised in this context is whether the human race descended from an original pair of two human beings (a teaching known as monogenism) or a pool of early human couples (a teaching known as polygenism).

In this regard, Pope Pius XII stated: "When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis 37).

The story of the creation and fall of man is a true one, even if not written entirely according to modern literary techniques. The Catechism states, "The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents" (CCC 390).

Science and Religion

The Catholic Church has always taught that "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

I know that's long, but it covers most of what you asked about....

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Jonathan,

i would say that constitutes a fundamental change in doctrine.

Why would that be a change in doctrine? The has always held that homosexual behavior is disordered.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

There would be no support for it in the NT.

Okay,
First of all, we are not sola scriptura. We have tradition as well as scripture.

Secondly...oh hang on again...

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Is this one of the passages?

The reasons that homosexual "behavior" (and I stress behavior) outside of scripture are many and complicated. Suffice it to say that it goes against natural law. If you have any doubts, look at your parts, then look at your wives. They are meant to compliment each other, just as men and women are meant to complement in each other in all ways.

The parts fit. For a reason.

Yes, in this passage it says "unnatural lusts" which, in Greek the word used means "Weakness of Flesh" and is used (in other greek lit.) to discribe Achilles and Paris, who both committed prideful acts due to the flesh.

Jonathan,

You'll have to give me the whole greek version. I don't see the term unnatural lust in mine, so I don't know where you are plugging it in...

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural for a weakness of flesh: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

Jonathan,

Okaaaaaay...

men with men working that which is unseemly...

sounds like homosexuality to me...whether in Greek, English or Latin.

What are you seeing?

I tried to just plugg it in, and it doesnt look right.... lemme find my greek bible.

Heather wrote: Also, the only "nuts" I've seen are pro deathers.

Pro-deathers? LOL!

Heather wrote: I'm blessed that God gave me the wisdom to see through you.

I'm blessed that God gave ME the wisdom to see through YOU.

Prochoicers, if you think calling prayer vigils stalking is going to bother me you are sadly mistaken. I don't care what a group of strangers say.

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 7:55 PM

You're too busy worrying about the private reproductive choices of strangers.

Step aside anonymous, you're blockin' my view of Jonathans answer...

And when are you gonna get a screen name? You're confusing as all get out, with that name. I never know who I'm talkin' to.

Jonathan,

That dang teenager needs to do homework on the computer again...why doesn't he move out?

I keep tellin' him there are more things to life than good grades...

I'm gonna have to get off now, but I'll check back in the morning for your Greek translation...

Anonymous,
The board is all yours.

Anon, I use the term proabort because I am childish. Actually, I am "extremely childish".

Posted by: Carrie at October 14, 2007 7:31 PM

I see you won't answer the question honestly.

MK; can i answer tomorrow? Sara (my wife) has apparently packed away my Greek and Latin bibles, and since its 430 here, im not about to wake her up.

The Gaelic speaking Communist who lives in Germany and who is a Bible scholar in spite of the fact that basic Catholic theology escapes him says:

"Some things have changed with the language. For instance, the New Testament has two references to homosexuality in English and Latin, but none in Greek, which was the original language of the NT. i would say that constitutes a fundamental change in doctrine."

So where did you pull that one out of? Your rear end, or an even lesser authority on the Bible?

According to the website "Religious Tolerance", which is not exactly a pro-Christian source of information:

"Arsenokoitai" is a Greek word that appears to have been created by Paul when he was writing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. No record remains of any writer having using the term before Paul. It has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in the King James Version (KJV):

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind", Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (Emphasis ours)

The KJV was finished 1611 CE when there was no single word that referred to homosexuals or homosexuality. The translators were forced to use this awkward phrase. The term "homosexual" was only created in the late 19th century. More recent versions of the Bible translate arsenokoitai here as:

"homosexuals," (NASB);
"homosexual perversion," (NEB);
"homosexual offenders," (NIV).

In doing this, they appear to have little respect to the actual meaning of the original Greek verse. By using the term "homosexual" the translators changed the scope of the verse. The original Greek refers to men only; the English translation refers to both males and females; i.e. to gays and lesbians. We suspect that the temptation to attack lesbians overcame the translators' desire to be accurate.

Are all of Ann Coulter's critics insane? I know her language is often over the top, but to say that she truly believes that women shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion when she herself is a woman who gladly spouts off her opinion at every opportunity would seem to me to be a bit ridiculous.

She has lamented that women have the right to vote only because women tend to vote for the Democrat Party while she is a Republican. Obviously she's not wishing that somebody would take away her right to vote. Sheesh.

Womyn said: "WTF???? WTF have you been smoking? That made absolutely zero sense."

Reading comprehension: It does a body good.

How about this? When it comes to the value of their human life... Jews = Catholics = unborn children.

Capiche?

"I am asking what should be done with the baby?

Posted by: hippie at October 14, 2007 7:51 PM"

First of all, that is none of my business and its not my choice to make.

Secondly, then it is the mother's choice, as it is ALWAYS. If she decides to raise it, fine. If she decides to give it up for adoption, fine.

And Lewandowski,

I thought all human life was created equal?

And you know, just because YOU think it makes sense, does not mean another person will read it the way you intended it to. I should know, I am studying to be an editor, and part of my job is to ensure that authors are able to convey what they want to say without confusing their readers.

And all human life is equal. I can guarentee you that if someone decided to attach themselves to your body, draining you of your nutrients and using you for shelter, you would be legally allowed to kill them if that was the only way that they would stop leeching off of your body.

Womyn said: "I should know, I am studying to be an editor, and part of my job is to ensure that authors are able to convey what they want to say without confusing their readers."

God save those readers from the incompetence of their editor. Amen.

Lewandowski,

Personal attacks make you look incredibly immature. Way to go. Nice way to attack my character.

How exactly am I incompetant in the field of editing?

Womyn said: "How exactly am I incompetant in the field of editing?"

I love it when they make it easy.

Oh, so now because I mistype something I am an idiot?

Wow, I didn't know that in order to be credible I have to type perfectly.

Get that huge stick out of your ass, ok? Find something better to criticize me about, because to be quite frank, when you start trying to discredit people based on their typing errors, you have absolutely nothing else to say.

You're right, Womyn. Competent editors never check for typos.

Lewandowski,

It is not my job to check spelling errors on my posts on internet websites. I did say that I am still studying, and I am human and I am not perfect. Even the best editors make mistakes. If I never made any mistakes, then I wouldn't be human, I would be God, isn't that right?

And to be frank, it is quite nice not to have to worry about having perfect spelling and grammar on internet message boards. Sometimes, editors do need time off.

Now would you please stop with the ad hominem attacks? It really makes you look bad. It is quite pathetic that the only thing you can find to argue with me about is one mistyped word.

OK, fine, Womyn. To be honest, I called you incompetent not for your future spelling mistake, but for your insane argument that it's OK to shred unborn children to pieces because they're unjust aggressors. Anyone who can make an argument like that with a straight face is not likely mentally competent to perform any job.

Of course, you could say that you were just joking...

"for your insane argument that it's OK to shred unborn children to pieces because they're unjust aggressors"

When exactly did I ever say that?

Oh, and lovely use of rhetoric.

Hm... reading comprehension issues, poor short term memory... I guess they don't have high standards for editors nowadays.

Tell me when I said it. Show me the post where I said that "it is OK to shred unborn children to pieces because they're unjust aggressors," and I'll shut up.

And yet every anti-abortion law allows for abortion in the case of the mother's life being in danger, which makes me wonder what the heck you're arguing about in the first place.

Not in Nicaragua, John. No exceptions, not even if the mother's life in endangered...how's that for humane? "We won't let you abort this fetus even if your pregnancy kills both of you." It's a lovely example to all of us of what happens when church and state grow overly intimate.

Incidentally, John, isn't picking on people for typos just a bit grade-school for this venue? Even "competent editors" might make mistakes rapidly pounding out comments, especially if they are simultaneously doing more important things.

giving an unborn fetus more rights than a living, fully conscious woman is... well? I'm at a loss for words. It seems so simple to pro choicers. Aren't these religious fanatics just trying to regulate the reproductive functions of women? Why do they care so much? It's not like their own children are dying.. and I know i'm being a bit over-the top but its incredible how much of someone ELSE's life these people try to regulate. If you don't think abortion is right, DONT HAVE AN ABORTION.

Ilana, Womyn, and Sally are Vulcan triplets, born from a misadventure of Daddy Spock and Molly Yard.
Especially when Womyn used the word "childish" in her limited vocabulary of emotive words.
Ilana also has that same Manachaean mind set as Sally with the view of the world that ends in "humans are creatures of war". And of course "It is inherent in our nature". The stuff that Sally is made of somehow appears in Ilana.
Sally disappears from being made a fool of with her scattered logic, and Ilana shows up. But, both exhibit the results of enviroment and heredity when a Vulcan man mated with a human, named Molly Yard. Vulcan Logic, plus a deadly view of human nature as being "natural creatures of war". Ilana is teletransported back to some deep hole of endless war, and suprise, Womyn appears on cue.
Oh, Doug, after you saw your sister and got my antenna back(improvised crack pipe), did you give back her ivory crack pipe? BTW, Doug, did you admit you "borrowed" her ivory crack pipe and had a "fierce" disagreement with her? Ending with you taking her out to "eat" at the local German beer hall/eatery, where offal is served as a delicacy.
Did you ever tell your sister about how no one knows what that symbol on all BMW's represents? A "blue sky" with a "white propeller" within a "black circle". "It is said that the pilot's view through the propeller was alternating white and blue". How many aircraft were painted in regional colors and those of the Bavarian Luftwaffe were the Bayeran white and blue.
And that black cirle represents the fact that BMW was banned from ever making aircraft again?
Admit it Doug, you, Ilana, Sally, and Womyn, are mad at losing two World Wars, which is that "something eating at you something fierce".
Your beyound the Pale, Doug.

Geeze, yllas, I wasn't aware that I would be criticized for my diction on an internet message board.

And what on earth are you rambling about? Did I just smoke something? Ivory crack pipe?

I dont think I have ever been more lost nor confused by someone's incoherent ramblings.

"Your beyound the Pale, Doug."

Hm. You criticize my diction when you have not one, but two grammatical errors in this sentence. Oh, the irony.

Ah, I see....I guess you are the ever-elusive and much talked about "Sally."

BTW, spelling your "name" backwards is neither clever nor is it exactly smart.

Giving a fully conscious women more rights then a growing human is.... well? I'm at a loss for words. It seems so simple for murderers of growing humans. Aren't these pro-growing human fanatics just trying to regulate the murder of growing humans? Why do they care so much? It's not like their children are being murdered... and I know I'm being a bit over- the top but it's incredible how much of someone ELSE'S life these people try and regulate the murder of growing humans. If you don't think murdering growing humans is right, don't think it is murdering a growing human being.

"Posted by: yllas at October 15, 2007 1:47 AM"

In response to that:

Dang, I am stoned and I STILL dont understand what the hecka she's saying.

Sally is that you? Begone childish Womyn, and let Sally appear to answer her post about "planned accidents". It is a law of Vulcan physics that Ilana, Sally, and the childish, moronic, idiot Womyn, cannot post at the same time. BTW, Womyn, the teletransporter is prepared to take you back to shred some more children with your mommy, Molly Yard. Begone, you frustraneous fenks.

It's really quite simple Womyn, sister of Ilana and Sally, born of a Vulcan and a hater of growing humans, named Molly Yard. Nothing that is not a human being, has the potential of becoming a human being, and nothing that has the potential of becoming a human being is not a human being. But, being a Vulcan mixed with a human who enjoyed murdering growing humans for pleasure, makes Womyn neither human nor logical.

Anonymous,

If you don't think abortion is right, DONT HAVE AN ABORTION.

Does this mean I can also say "If you don't think molesting 4 year olds is right, then don't molest a 4 year old?"

Cuz I'm pretty sure that members of NAMBLA think that way.

Yllas,

You're posts are so out there and dare I say "unique" that I am going to leave them up...

BUT,

You are bordering on getting them deleted.
You're starting to attack people on a direct and personal level. Stick to the Vulcan stuff and leave off the " the childish, moronic, idiot Womyn," parts and you'll be okay...

By the way, what is a fenk, anyway?

Womyn,

And all human life is equal. I can guarentee you that if someone decided to attach themselves to your body, draining you of your nutrients and using you for shelter, you would be legally allowed to kill them if that was the only way that they would stop leeching off of your body.

I'm pretty sure this is the post that John was talking about when he said...

To be honest, I called you incompetent not for your future spelling mistake, but for your insane argument that it's OK to shred unborn children to pieces because they're unjust aggressors.

That's pretty much what I got out of your post too.

Womyn,

By the way, your argument works against you.

According to you someone is NOT attaching themselves to your body draining you of your nutrients and using you for shelter. So you would not be legally allowed to kill them to stop them from leeching off of your body.

Because according to you a fetus is not a someone.
It's a something. Therefore you've made it impossible to compare someone doing the leeching to a "fetus"...

Whoops.

MK, right. It's like telling a man, DON'T LIKE RAPE? Don't rape anyone! Another stupid PC slogan.

So, if a man likes rape, is it okay for him to rape someone? You guys can't send these messages to the world.

Ummmmmmmmm - no.

You are not allowed to violate and victimize other people.
You are absolutely entitled to remove tissue from your uterus.

Your beyound the Pale, Doug.

yllas, whatever is tormenting you has affected your mind to the point where even spelling is difficult for you.

"You're"

"beyond"

Now back to our regularly scheduled program. ; )

Has anyone godwinned this yet?

Anon, 10/14 12:05PM

My point in that post was that the lives of the born are considered more important or superior to the lives of the unborn, for whatever reason.
By the way, the death rate from illegal abortion the year before Roe v Wade (1972) was 39, and had been steadily decreasing for years prior to 1972.

10/14 7:12PM

Do you think wealthy women ever sat in the same clinic waiting rooms as women from poor neighborhoods?
What do you think wealthy women have always done and will continue to do when they want abortions, legal or illegal?
You guessed it. Go to another country where they can have them discreetly and quietly done.

Ray said: "Not in Nicaragua, John. No exceptions, not even if the mother's life in endangered...how's that for humane?" "We won't let you abort this fetus even if your pregnancy kills both of you." It's a lovely example to all of us of what happens when church and state grow overly intimate."

Oh, I wasn't aware that people on this board were from Nicaragua, thus making that relevant to the discussion. BTW, if the law bans indirect, unintentional abortion which happens as a result of life-saving surgery, then it is outside of Catholic teaching, which makes your "church and state" argument so much BS.

Ray said: "Incidentally, John, isn't picking on people for typos just a bit grade-school for this venue?"

I am rubber, you are glue...

Womyn said: "BTW, spelling your "name" backwards is neither clever nor is it exactly smart."

Neither is intentionally misspelling "Woman", but I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Cameron said: "Has anyone godwinned this yet?"

You mean aside from the entire thread being a blatant violation of Godwin's Law? Of course when you're talking about the mass killing of millions of people, it's quite easy to compare it to the mass killing of millions of people.

Laura said: "You are not allowed to violate and victimize other people.
You are absolutely entitled to remove tissue from your uterus."

You deny that unborn babies are people. Why can't a rapist deny that you're a person? It's really the same logic.

Anonymous said: "giving an unborn fetus more rights than a living, fully conscious woman is... well? I'm at a loss for words. It seems so simple to pro choicers."

How about giving an unborn child EQUAL rights to a woman, which is what pro-lifers actually want? If you're going to go hysterical, perhaps you should at least attempt to represent the pro-life argument correctly. It's just so ridiculous when you say that because we ask for the unborn's right to life to be protected that we're somehow elevating the unborn above the woman.

CAMERON LIVES!!!!!!!

John Lewandowski,

I deleted your email address and want to send you something. Could you, would you email me?

MK, right. It's like telling a man, DON'T LIKE RAPE? Don't rape anyone! Another stupid PC slogan.

Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 6:31 AM

No. MK is wrong, and here's a really stupid PL slogan: Abortion is murder.

How about giving an unborn child EQUAL rights to a woman, which is what pro-lifers actually want? If you're going to go hysterical, perhaps you should at least attempt to represent the pro-life argument correctly. It's just so ridiculous when you say that because we ask for the unborn's right to life to be protected that we're somehow elevating the unborn above the woman.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 15, 2007 9:30 AM

Embryos will never have equal rights with pregnant women. Pregnant women have relationships, jobs, thoughts, husbands, other children, memories, social security numbers, can feel pain.

YOU pretend embryos are children in order to further your agenda. Most people believe the pregnant woman's desires, life, and future take precedence over her early term pregnancy.

How many pro-lifers think a woman should be denied an abortion if she's impregnated by a rapist?

How many pro-lifers would condone a mother killing her two year old child that was conceived by a rapist?

How many people do you suppose want IVF clinics shut down?

How many people would support banning the use of surrogates?

Ester, nice try, but you lose!

Anonymous 3:37am

I'm sober and I can't make any sense out of it either. I thought you would have the advantage being stoned.

Esther, were you once an embryo?

Do you think wealthy women ever sat in the same clinic waiting rooms as women from poor neighborhoods?
What do you think wealthy women have always done and will continue to do when they want abortions, legal or illegal?
You guessed it. Go to another country where they can have them discreetly and quietly done.

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 9:01 AM

In other words, you don't care squat about the poor women sitting in clinic waiting rooms. After all, they're nothing more than murdering selfish baby killers who should be in prison anyway. (See Heather's posts) Who cares what happens to them if abortion is banned? If they're hurt or die because they procured an illegal abortion, they deserved it.

Those poor, evil women are criminals on a par with rapists and Hitler. Lock 'em all up, and their evil friends and family members too.

Oh, but they'll have the pro-lifers praying for their souls, so at least they'll have THAT going for them. @@

Ester, nice try, but you lose!

Posted by: heather at October 15, 2007 11:25 AM

The great and powerful Oz has spoken.

Esther,

Now that you've finished your blathering, will you please address what I said in my post.

Well, Mk takes the cake in not reading his own post board where all those words, such as childish, moronic, and idiot, were introduced to this board by Sally and then used by me, Yllas. !!!! I learned them from Sally PERSONALLY!!!!! Sally made those "personal attacks" upon posters here. And me also,, with not a peep from you MK.And any deleting of Sally, the resident troll of insults through the emotive words of childish, moron, and idiot which is allowed and strangely tolerated. Is she a shill?
And not one mention to Sally about being banned or deleted when she constantly uses such words and worse.
Excuse me for the lack of education about the etymology of the word phrase" Beyound(British/English spelling of beyond) the Pale".
Catherine the not so great, a czarina of Russia created a region in Russia where Jews were "impaled within". Pale means a "stake or point". I have a stake(pale) in this property, a stake in winning the game,etc. ."Pale" denotes a border marker. "The phrase paling fence is significant as the word pale became to mean the area enclosed by such a fence, and later just the figurative meaning of the "area that is enclosed and safe". "So, to be "beyond the pale" was to be outside the area accepted as home". Jews lived in the "Pale of Settlement" created by Catherine the Great. A region that Jews were to live safely, at the cost of being cut off from trade, education, and the language/grammar of Russia. You might call it a ghetto today, such as the inner cities of the USA, or a barrio where not learning English is a requirement of "authenic" Mongoloid-Caucasians. In referencing Doug, with the words beyond the Pale. I simply see Doug as a Nikoli Gogal character who "buys the souls of dead peasant fetuses" for gain and profit. Who went looking for those who got beyond the pale and returns them to the ghetto world where abortion is desirable. If spelling beyound with a "u" in it offends American pedants, I also find using a "U" in coloUr. Seems your county Cork, court jester, Jonathan, with a expertise in Gaelic, would have known the British spelling includes a "u" in colour or beyound.
Because Jews were victims of the czars "Pale Settlements", which included Russian Orthodox Christianity in the culture of Russia, the Jews hatred of Russian Orthodox Christians is still residing in some Jews. I suspect Ilana of having long gone well known relatives, who were "victims of the Pale". It fuels her hatred of anything associated with the Christer.
Of course Ilana, Doug, Sally, Womyn, knows that many Russian Jews were used by those atheist/materialist Russians to murder "fellow Jews" in the paradise of the U.S.S.R. Things didn't turn out as one might have thought it should have, once one got beyond the pale. Leon Tolstoy, or Kaganovich who murdered and destroyed great art and architecture, and stole some "Fabrege eggs" from the dead enemy of those who lived within the Pale, were Jews. And then there was Aushwitz, with those pale fences around them.
Which leads one to question if it was a forsaken Jew who whispered in the ear of that vicelord Sally, " God's plan is death", who "plans accidents" according to Sally, sister of Ilana and Womyn, birthed from a Vulcan man, and a hater of "growing humanity" named, Molly Yard.
One can understand how one becomes to hate God if one studies the reaction of Jews to their God failing them so often, or actually being ignorant of God's plan to murder them off and often, since it is "God's plan is death" according to Sally. You go Sally, edumacte those Jews about g-d.
Not one person here must have read W.B. Yeats poem, "The Second Coming", or I must assume, ignored the fitting words of Yeats concerning the loss of innocence.
The blood dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
It's a ceremony for Doug, Erin, and those Vulcan sisters, Sally, Ilana, and Womyn, to destroy innocence as early in life as possible. They are that passionate intensity which appeals to the worst in humans to murder for the "accidents" of pleasure, who then appeal to a conviction that "G-d's plan is death". There is the logic of the mixed Vulcan named Sally, where "accidents are planned" are logical and not a contradiction of logic. Right Sally, your " daddy brain" was not writing those words " planned accidents", it was your mommy, Molly Yard, the creature from the Black Lagoon of abortion is virtue.
And finally MK. I asked you a question about why Jesus did not act on Judas or the IMPENITENT thief, who denyed Jesus request to be "saved." The thief never repented for being a thief, he enjoyed the vice of envy and had a right to steal. So, either Jesus is not even embued with the "gospel spirit" to change even a personal meeting with a sinner thief, and is not all powerful, or he chose not to act on the thief with his power to change the sinner thief. "Jesus never freed their souls(Herod, Judas, the IMPENITENT thief) from the appalling darkness in which they were stagnating"
Ever read Vladimir Soloviev MK? A personal friend of Feydor Dostoevsky, who influenced Dostoevsky to reject the Sally's of the world soo elegantly.

Esther, were you once an embryo?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 15, 2007 11:30 AM

Do you support banning legal, elective abortion and imprisioning women who would procure their abortions illegally? Would you support imprisioning family members or others who helped her have an abortion?

I'm just curious if you were an embryo once or not.

Esther,

Now that you've finished your blathering, will you please address what I said in my post.

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 11:44 AM

I DID address what you said. Why don't you address what I said in my response to you?

Obviously, you don't care what happens to poor women who have abortions. Do you think abortion is murder?

Oops. I forgot to type in my name in my response to Mary.

I'm just curious if you were an embryo once or not.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 15, 2007 11:49 AM

Why? Don't you KNOW?

I do. I'm wondering if you do.

Esther said: "Embryos will never have equal rights with pregnant women. Pregnant women have relationships, jobs, thoughts, husbands, other children, memories, social security numbers, can feel pain."

So does that mean that people who don't have relationships, jobs, thoughts, husbands, other children, memories, or social security numbers are inferior to those who do? So, for me, it's very simple. A human life is a human life is a human life. I don't have this tiered system in which one life is superior to another, and it's OK for the superior human to kill the inferior ones.

Esther said: "YOU pretend embryos are children in order to further your agenda. Most people believe the pregnant woman's desires, life, and future take precedence over her early term pregnancy."

What's more valuable, a human's life or a human's convenience? We say that a human life is worth more than nine months of inconvenience. You disagree.

Esther said: "How many pro-lifers think a woman should be denied an abortion if she's impregnated by a rapist?"

How many abortions are the result of rape?

Esther said: "How many pro-lifers would condone a mother killing her two year old child that was conceived by a rapist?"

Well, considering that the two year old child doesn't have a job or a husband, I guess it might be OK to kill him... right?

Esther said: "How many people do you suppose want IVF clinics shut down?"

I would actually be quite glad if all of the IVF clinics were shut down.

Esther said: "How many people would support banning the use of surrogates?"

As if we don't have enough children who need families already. You pro-aborts say that we pro-lifers need to adopt ten kids if we're going to be pro-life because of all the kids without homes. Yet you also advocate IVF, etc... what the heck is up with that?

Bobby said: "Esther, were you once an embryo?"

No, she was born a hysterical adult.

Esther,

Let me make this as simple as I can. In my post I addressed the fact that wealthy women have always had, and will always have, the advantage of privacy and discretion that poor women are unable to afford, and that wealthy women are not likely to sit in the same clinic waiting room as poor women.

I didn't respond to your post because, not to be mean, I couldn't make any sense of it.

Now please Esther, have a glass of red wine(the antioxidants will do wonders for you), calm down and try again.

I promise I'm not the same person as Womyn. You can check our IP addresses.

Sorry MK,

got out of this thread some days ago, but think there is much tidying-up for both PL and PC. In philosophic terms: 'How can any person be unique and equal at the same time?' ... and I will not accept well, we're equal in opportunity ... that's the most blatant bs! To me the 'wrapping-yourself-in-the-American-flag will not keep you warm if you come from where I live! So, Womyn, JohnL and anyone else who talks about rights there IS a huge problem here. The whole egregious-limitation of 'equality' is that it compares. And such comparison is strict. So (in mathematical-terms) 1 = 1; 3 = 3; .... 5,435.74 = 5,435.74. If you transpose this to humans (because everyone has to be equal) then it is OK to kill kids, because your 'equal' thinks its OK.

The big problem I see is a vast tendency to de-value human-living-existence. Over and over PC'ers tend to low-ball human value so that is on a par with garbage (and tends to be wasted as such). Where is the jaw-dropping awe/miracle of ALL-human life, eh? And the PL'ers think they know ... get the silly plank out-of-your a**! We think we are high-balling human life by giving it an '8' or '9'. It should be like: 8,573 .... we ain't even close!

Over and over, I hear admiration for human science. No where, at no time have human scientists ever produced even the simplest living organism from inanimate/dead chemicals. We can kill, but we cannot give anything life. Our nonchalance at living is stupidity unlimited.

Esther,

Let me make this as simple as I can. In my post I addressed the fact that wealthy women have always had, and will always have, the advantage of privacy and discretion that poor women are unable to afford, and that wealthy women are not likely to sit in the same clinic waiting room as poor women.

I didn't respond to your post because, not to be mean, I couldn't make any sense of it.

Now please Esther, have a glass of red wine(the antioxidants will do wonders for you), calm down and try again.

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 12:01 PM

I don't drink alcohol; it makes me sick and gives me horrible heart palpitations. I like wine, but the side effects are just too much for me to take.

I understand what you meant.

My point is: banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women who will be forced to procure their abortions through illegal, unsafe means.

Does this fact bother you or not?

Do you think women who have abortions are no different from armed robbers, rapists, drug dealers, murderers, etc?

I think it's valid question since I've seen various posters on this blog equating abortion with these types of crimes.

Fenks is leftover whale blubber used as manure.
Frustraneous, vain useless.
And Mk, just make that thief into a impenitent abortionist, to update the analogy to today's times. In fact, I am sure there were people who Jesus met who believed in abortion and infanticde.

Why did he not vanquish their wickedness of being pro murder of fetuses, with the power of his gentleness? Why did he not awaken the good that lay dormant in them, why did he not enlighten and generate their minds? In a word, why did he not act on Judas, Herod, the pro abortionist as he acted on the good thief? Once again, he was either unable to do do, or He wished not to. If you answered by the time I finish writing this, please accept my bad manners of impatience, with all the patience you show those who prowl daily at this site which are impenitent abortionist. What have you gained MK?

Esther,

Great. You do sound calmer. Now please address my post.

Esther, just so you know, prior to Roe v Wade the illegal abortion death rate had been steadily declining for years and in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade, it was 39. Contrary to popular misconception, women, poor or otherwise, were not dying by the thousands from illegal abortion in this country.
This "concern" for the poor has more to do with the elitest mentality that poor women are incapable of being good mothers, that they don't love or want their children, and that aborting them will save millions of dollars in welfare, what I suspect to be the real motivating factor for all this "concern". By the way Esther, this is not new or exclusive to you. This was a great emotional ploy utilized for years by abortion advocates. You should have seen how ballistic they went when medicaid funding of abortion was cut off around 1977. They really howled like banshees then. Aborting poor women is so much cheaper than welfare was the favorite battle cry. Their true colors finally showed.
One more thing Esther, please name for me one legitimate spokesperson or organization for poor women that demands abortion for the poor.

From Esther:

banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women who will be forced to procure their abortions through illegal, unsafe means.

Isn't this true of anything illegal? Everything that is legal and illegal disproportionately affects the poor. Consider illegal drugs, health care, living conditions, organ transplants etc. If you have the means, there are more options available to you.

Simply because it would disproportionately affect a section of society doesn�t mean that it should be legal or illegal.

I believe an argument along those lines is without merit.

How many pro-lifers think a woman should be denied an abortion if she's impregnated by a rapist?

I think that a person who condones abortion for rape, is pro-choice.

How many pro-lifers would condone a mother killing her two year old child that was conceived by a rapist?

None.

How many people do you suppose want IVF clinics shut down?

A lot of them, and more as the days go by and more people are educated about how they work. I wasn't against them until I understood how they create and destroy human embryos. I would support IVF clinics being shut down.

How many people would support banning the use of surrogates?

I would support it.

Esther said: "Embryos will never have equal rights with pregnant women. Pregnant women have relationships, jobs, thoughts, husbands, other children, memories, social security numbers, can feel pain."

John's response: So does that mean that people who don't have relationships, jobs, thoughts, husbands, other children, memories, or social security numbers are inferior to those who do? So, for me, it's very simple. A human life is a human life is a human life. I don't have this tiered system in which one life is superior to another, and it's OK for the superior human to kill the inferior ones.

Esther's reply: No. I'm talking about embryos; not people living in US society. So, YOU don't have a tiered system regarding pregnancy? Most people naturally do, which is why most PLers are not protesting outside of IVF clinics.

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

Esther said: "YOU pretend embryos are children in order to further your agenda. Most people believe the pregnant woman's desires, life, and future take precedence over her early term pregnancy."

John's response: What's more valuable, a human's life or a human's convenience? We say that a human life is worth more than nine months of inconvenience. You disagree.

Esther's reply: What's more valuable? YOUR OPINION of what a woman should do in the event of an unwanted pregnancy or her OWN DESIRES for HER LIFE, HER FUTURE? I say let each woman decide for herself whether or not to be subjected to nine months of pregnancy and childbirth. That's all.

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

Esther said: "How many pro-lifers think a woman should be denied an abortion if she's impregnated by a rapist?"

John: How many abortions are the result of rape?

Esther's reply: Irrelevent. PLers object to abortion because they claim it's murder. Wouldn't it also be murder to abort an embryo conceived during a rape?

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

Esther said: "How many pro-lifers would condone a mother killing her two year old child that was conceived by a rapist?"

John: Well, considering that the two year old child doesn't have a job or a husband, I guess it might be OK to kill him... right?

Esther's reply: Wrong. A two year old has thoughts, feelings, sisters, brothers, and some parents even make their two year olds pick up their toys.

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

Esther said: "How many people do you suppose want IVF clinics shut down?"

John: I would actually be quite glad if all of the IVF clinics were shut down.

Esther's reply: So? How many other PLers agree with you?

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

Esther said: "How many people would support banning the use of surrogates?"

John: As if we don't have enough children who need families already. You pro-aborts say that we pro-lifers need to adopt ten kids if we're going to be pro-life because of all the kids without homes. Yet you also advocate IVF, etc... what the heck is up with that?

Esther's reply: I don't know what proaborts say since I've never met one. That's some strange compay you're keeping, John. I support IVF because I feel couples should be free to seek help with infertility. Do you think there's a epidemic of IVF children being abandoned by their parents?

Hi yllas.

"In a word, why did he not act on Judas, Herod, the pro abortionist as he acted on the good thief? Once again, he was either unable to do do, or He wished not to."

P does not imply Q. The good thief was given the necessary grace to repent and he chose to cooperate with that grace. Herod and Judas, as well as the whole world, were given sufficient grace. However, grace is a free gift, which can either be accepted or rejected. This is basic theology. God love you, yllas.

From Esther:
banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women who will be forced to procure their abortions through illegal, unsafe means.

Isn't this true of anything illegal? Everything that is legal and illegal disproportionately affects the poor. Consider illegal drugs, health care, living conditions, organ transplants etc. If you have the means, there are more options available to you.

Simply because it would disproportionately affect a section of society doesn�t mean that it should be legal or illegal.

I believe an argument along those lines is without merit.

Posted by: Charles at October 15, 2007 12:39 PM

Of course, YOU think my argument is without merit, because the odds are you'll never be poor AND pregnant.

I have got to give John Lewendowski credit for patience and mercy. Good job John. "These are the days when the Christian is supposed to praise every creed but his own". G.K. Chesterton, a man with more patience and humor then I.

Of course, YOU think my argument is without merit, because the odds are you'll never be poor AND pregnant.

So?

Esther, just so you know, prior to Roe v Wade the illegal abortion death rate had been steadily declining for years and in 1972, the year before Roe v Wade, it was 39. Contrary to popular misconception, women, poor or otherwise, were not dying by the thousands from illegal abortion in this country.
This "concern" for the poor has more to do with the elitest mentality that poor women are incapable of being good mothers, that they don't love or want their children, and that aborting them will save millions of dollars in welfare, what I suspect to be the real motivating factor for all this "concern". By the way Esther, this is not new or exclusive to you. This was a great emotional ploy utilized for years by abortion advocates. You should have seen how ballistic they went when medicaid funding of abortion was cut off around 1977. They really howled like banshees then. Aborting poor women is so much cheaper than welfare was the favorite battle cry. Their true colors finally showed.
One more thing Esther, please name for me one legitimate spokesperson or organization for poor women that demands abortion for the poor.

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 12:36 PM

My concern for poor women sitting in abortion clinics has nothing to do with saving money.

If pro-lifers were REALLY concerned about poor, pregnant women, they wouldn't be spending millions upon millions of dollars fighting to overturn Roe. That money would be going to the POOR to help them with their contraception, pregnancies, childbirth, and living conditions.

It is the pro-lifers who presume to know what is "best" for poor, pregnant women. No, that's not entirely correct -- the pro-lifers don't really CARE what is BEST for pregnant poor WOMEN, right? They just want those pregnancies gestated.

Of course, YOU think my argument is without merit, because the odds are you'll never be poor AND pregnant.

So?

Posted by: Bethany at October 15, 2007 12:57 PM

So?

How many people would support banning the use of surrogates?

I would support it.

Posted by: Bethany at October 15, 2007 12:44 PM

Good for you.

Now, how many people in the United States do you suppose would support a ban on IVF and surrogacy?

Of course, YOU think my argument is without merit, because the odds are you'll never be poor AND pregnant.
So?
Posted by: Bethany at October 15, 2007 12:57 PM
So?

Esther, my point was, what is your point?

Good for you.
Now, how many people in the United States do you suppose would support a ban on IVF and surrogacy?

More and more as pro-lifers are being more educated. And even more than that once abortion is made illegal. One step at a time, Esther. Beautiful name, by the way.

Esther,

Again, please name for me one legitimate spokesperson or organization of poor women that demand abortion for the poor.
Esther, there are over 3,000 pregnancy crisis centers across the country run by pro-lifers and among the services provided, many of which assist poor women, are free medical care and referrals, infant and maternity clothing and supplies, and emergency shelter.
I have also been involved in mentoring programs which encourage and support young women with parental skills and through their schooling and hopefully keep them out of poverty.
Members of our church and community have donated infant supplies for low income mothers which one local charity distributes.
Our community offers any number of charitable programs such as a free clinic, food pantry, emergency shelters, Christmas gift collection, school supply and clothing assistance, as well as winter coat collections for children. Those are just a few.
We also have mother's and infants homes, where I volunteer, that enable young mothers to get on their feet financially through parenting classes, couselling, education, and housing and job placement assistance.
Scholarships are available and we have excellent advanced schooling in our community. My daughter attended a two year paralegal program and now has a very well paying job.
We also have various services for the physically and mentally challenged of all ages and their families and caregivers.
Yes, I make donations to and volunteer with some of these services, as do any number of pro-life people I know. In all fairness, I am certain PC people in our community do as well.

You also have to keep in mind Esther that there are people who complicate and mess up their own lives, who poorly manage their money, as well as their lives, and do not take advantage of opportunities given them. Sometimes people are responsible for their own poverty. I have seen this time and again.

Concerning contraception. I remember several years ago the president of our local Planned Parenthood howling about "3,000 unwed mothers on welfare" residing in our county. I wanted to ask her why, if her organization is doing the job its supposed to do and contraception and abortion are the solutions to poverty, then why are there 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in our county?

Great points, Mary.

I wanted to ask her why, if her organization is doing the job its supposed to do and contraception and abortion are the solutions to poverty, then why are there 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in our county?

You are asking the wrong question. The relevant question is, "Without the services of Planned Parenthood, how many more unwed mothers on welfare would there be?"

Ray,

The ultimate copout. Sure, I'm not doing anything to solve this very serious problem, but look how much worse it would be otherwise without my efforts.
Sorry Ray, it doesn't wash. If contraception is really the answer, and PP was doing the job it local president claimed it was doing, then there shouldn't have been 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in our county.

Bethany,

Thank you.

When my daughter attended the local tech college, a young woman in her class was pregnant and single. My daughter befriended and encouraged her. Tragically, this young woman delivered prematurely and the baby died several days later. The baby's father also abandoned her. My daughter offered her suppport, compassion, and encouragement through a terrible time.
The young woman continued her schooling and my daughter continued to support and encourage her.
Sometimes we don't have to do anything more than extend our hand in friendship and support.

Thank you Bobby for the answer about rejecting or accepting the free gift of help/grace. What about the person who has no need for voluntary sorrow(repentence) about abortion? Such as Sally, and her Vulco-humanoid sisters, Ilana and Womyn? They have nothing to be sorry(repent) about concerning abortion. It is a good decision that carries no sorrow for Sally. Maybe even a party, to celebrate the gift of being free of a mistake. Your "Good decision" about abortion(not having one) is a "bad decision" about abortion(having a abortion) for Sally. It is a reality of opposites, where right is wrong, and sorrow is happiness to one or the other. How can "sufficent grace" operate/work, where it might be seen as nothing more then a rebuke of one's Good decision about abortion being good.

Hi Yllas. Well, I can not comment on any particular person, but I can give a few principles that hopefully will answer your question. There is objective right and wrong, whether or not one recognizes it. As St. John says, all wrongdoing is sin. However, there is also a subjective aspect to sin, which is a person's culpability or knowledge of their action. So while abortion is always objectively gravely immoral, one's "guiltiness" of the sin can be lessened depending on whether or not they truly believe that it is wrong. I personally believe that many people who support abortion are generally sincere and truly believe that it is not wrong, but that's just my opinion. God love you, yllas.

Esther said: "My point is: banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women who will be forced to procure their abortions through illegal, unsafe means."

Or we could help those women so that they don't have to get abortions. I know, unthinkable to you that we should actually offer women a real choice so that they don't have NO CHOICE but to get an abortion as you said.

How empowering, how pro-woman, how wonderful a right it is when a woman is "forced" to kill her child.

Also, Esther, if you're so certain that the vast majority of Americans is against banning abortions, then you should be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing us to actually vote on the matter. If you're so certain that if it came to a vote, Americans would choose "choice", then you shouldn't be worried about Roe being removed.

Esther,

Again, please name for me one legitimate spokesperson or organization of poor women that demand abortion for the poor.
Esther, there are over 3,000 pregnancy crisis centers across the country run by pro-lifers and among the services provided, many of which assist poor women, are free medical care and referrals, infant and maternity clothing and supplies, and emergency shelter.
I have also been involved in mentoring programs which encourage and support young women with parental skills and through their schooling and hopefully keep them out of poverty.
Members of our church and community have donated infant supplies for low income mothers which one local charity distributes.
Our community offers any number of charitable programs such as a free clinic, food pantry, emergency shelters, Christmas gift collection, school supply and clothing assistance, as well as winter coat collections for children. Those are just a few.
We also have mother's and infants homes, where I volunteer, that enable young mothers to get on their feet financially through parenting classes, couselling, education, and housing and job placement assistance.
Scholarships are available and we have excellent advanced schooling in our community. My daughter attended a two year paralegal program and now has a very well paying job.
We also have various services for the physically and mentally challenged of all ages and their families and caregivers.
Yes, I make donations to and volunteer with some of these services, as do any number of pro-life people I know. In all fairness, I am certain PC people in our community do as well.

Your good works are commendable.

It would much so much more helpful to these poor women sitting in abortion clinics if more people like you focused on charity work rather than standing in front of clinics waving bloody fetus signs harrassing poor women. They're about as despicable and persuasive as those Phelps inbreds.

Also, Esther, if you're so certain that the vast majority of Americans is against banning abortions, then you should be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing us to actually vote on the matter. If you're so certain that if it came to a vote, Americans would choose "choice", then you shouldn't be worried about Roe being removed.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 15, 2007

What? Why would I want fanantics who would place MY daughters in prison for havng an abortion voting on their reproductive rights? The same fanatics who want to overturn Roe also want to infringe upon the rights of fertile women's family members and friends. That faction also wants to infringe upon the rights of infertile couples to use reproductive technology to help them procreate. A good percentage of that same faction would like to see many forms of contraception banned.

No thanks. I don't want the fanatics having any say in my loved ones' reproductive freedoms. I pray it never comes to a vote.

Esther,

Thank you.

People are focusing on charity work. It seems like every time I turn around in our community something else is being done, like huge community Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners for people in need or who would otherwise be alone. I'm glad we agree that assisting poor women and working to alleviate poverty and social problems is where the time and effort needs to be applied.

Despicable is a far too charitable description for the Phelps inbreds who lurk at military funerals and harass the families of military men and women who have died in service to our country.

Esther said: "My point is: banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women who will be forced to procure their abortions through illegal, unsafe means."

Or we could help those women so that they don't have to get abortions. I know, unthinkable to you that we should actually offer women a real choice so that they don't have NO CHOICE but to get an abortion as you said.

How empowering, how pro-woman, how wonderful a right it is when a woman is "forced" to kill her child.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 15, 2007 3:24 PM

How is punishing women for having abortions helping them? Nobody posting here seems to have an explanation.

Good for you.
Now, how many people in the United States do you suppose would support a ban on IVF and surrogacy?

More and more as pro-lifers are being more educated. And even more than that once abortion is made illegal. One step at a time, Esther. Beautiful name, by the way.

Posted by: Bethany at October 15, 2007 1:34 PM

Pro-lifers certainly don't want to educate themselves about the negative consequences of infringing upon the reproductive rights of so many people in this country. Banning abortion won't prevent abortions. Pregnant women will be less apt to approach charities because they won't want to become targets of suspicion. Abortion will go underground and will become much more of a "problem" for society.

Thanks for the compliment. I love the name Esther because the woman I admire (not including my wonderful mom; she's tops) most on this earth my aunt, is named Esther.

"How is punishing women for having abortions helping them?"

In the same way that punishing a child or punishing someone for breaking the law is designed to help them. For one, it shows the severity of the action that you are considering. "If you do A and are caught, you will be punished with B." That is good incentive to not commit a crime. Second, when one is actually punished, it conveys the gravity of the crime to the person who committed it. How does punishing rapists help men? Well, if nothing else, it gives them a reason not to committee such an abomination. In addition, it helps women; namely, the women who aren't being raped while having no protection from the government. In the same way, a law criminalizing abortion helps the human being in the womb to not be killed.

"How is punishing women for having abortions helping them?"

In the same way that punishing a child or punishing someone for breaking the law is designed to help them. For one, it shows the severity of the action that you are considering. "If you do A and are caught, you will be punished with B." That is good incentive to not commit a crime. Second, when one is actually punished, it conveys the gravity of the crime to the person who committed it. How does punishing rapists help men? Well, if nothing else, it gives them a reason not to committee such an abomination. In addition, it helps women; namely, the women who aren't being raped while having no protection from the government. In the same way, a law criminalizing abortion helps the human being in the womb to not be killed.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 15, 2007 4:27 PM

I see you can't answer the question either. Banning abortion won't save fetuses, won't prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Women will abort under unsafe conditions. Placing women and family members in jail will only clog up the justice system. Oh, but it would make pro-lifers feel REALLY good to punish women, wouldn't it?

Concerning contraception. I remember several years ago the president of our local Planned Parenthood howling about "3,000 unwed mothers on welfare" residing in our county. I wanted to ask her why, if her organization is doing the job its supposed to do and contraception and abortion are the solutions to poverty, then why are there 3,000 unwed mothers on welfare in our county?

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 1:36 PM

That's like asking, "Why are there still 4 billion people on earth who don't believe in Jesus?" People have free will. Planned Parenthood can't force poor women not to procreate.

I'm sorry, Esther, but I did answer the question. Anyone can plainly see that it is an answer to the question. You may not agree that it will work, but that is an answer to the question posed.

Esther,

The point I was trying to make is that easily available contraception and abortion is not going to solve the problem of poverty, as many argue it will. It backs up what we have both agreed on, that we need to concentrate on eliminating poverty and assisting women in bettering their lives, not just handing out birth control pills.

It was an excellent and accurate answer, Bobby. Thank you!

Pro-lifers certainly don't want to educate themselves about the negative consequences of infringing upon the reproductive rights of so many people in this country. Banning abortion won't prevent abortions. Pregnant women will be less apt to approach charities because they won't want to become targets of suspicion. Abortion will go underground and will become much more of a "problem" for society.

I see no evidence that that is true, Esther. This is simply your opinion.

Esther,

The point I was trying to make is that easily available contraception and abortion is not going to solve the problem of poverty, as many argue it will. It backs up what we have both agreed on, that we need to concentrate on eliminating poverty and assisting women in bettering their lives, not just handing out birth control pills.

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 5:25 PM

Well, under our present economic system, there's no way we will be able to eliminate poverty.

I have no problem with handing out birth control piils, keeping abortion safe and legal, and assisting poor women and children.

It seems pro-lifers want to make life MORE difficult for poor women by making abortion illegal and unsafe. And life WILL be more difficult a good portion of these women if elective abortion is ever banned. Banning elective abortion won't solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy as many pro-lifers claim.

All you did was compare some pictures of a fence to a Nazi death camp. i could do that at the Church down the street, too. This is just unfounded and ignorant hatred.

Try a reasonable argument next time

Esther,

Well, if we don't eliminate poverty then we will do nothing to help these women will we?

Handing out birth control will not eliminate poverty, as my post about the mothers on welfare in our county shows. Either the women don't care enough to get birth control or they want to have children.

As I've shown you Esther, illegal abortion death rates continually declined for years prior to Roe v Wade. Obviously women, poor or not, were not dying in huge numbers. Life will be more difficult if elective abortion is banned? It doesn't seem life is so great for many of these women even though abortion has been legal for 34 years.
Also, its obvious that making contraception more easily available is doing nothing to curb unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Maybe because women use abortion for birth control?

Let's start with Darwinism. My understanding (Doug? help here) is that even those that accept the evolution theory do not accept Darwins evolution.

MK, evolution isn't in doubt. It's like gravity - we know it operates, we just don't know all the processes involved. I may be wrong, but I don't think there is much debate that Darwin's explanations aren't correct. "Natural selection" does work - we've seen this in the past few centuries alone.

I don't think Darwin dealt with a creator or not - and I may be wrong there too - but as to his ideas about evolution I don't ever remember then going back to "the beginning."

Doug

Because according to you a fetus is not a someone.
It's a something. Therefore you've made it impossible to compare someone doing the leeching to a "fetus"...

Whoops.

Posted by: mk at October 15, 2007 6:22 AM

When did I say that a fetus is a "thing"? Give me my exact post.

yllas,

Well, Mk takes the cake in not reading his own post board where all those words

I just checked. I have a clown car. I'm not a he.

Why did he not vanquish their wickedness of being pro murder of fetuses, with the power of his gentleness? Why did he not awaken the good that lay dormant in them, why did he not enlighten and generate their minds? In a word, why did he not act on Judas, Herod, the pro abortionist as he acted on the good thief? Once again, he was either unable to do do, or He wished not to.

What makes you think that He didn't? Shouldn't the real question you ask be "Why didn't they accept His love, His generosity, His gift, His grace?

If He just forced us to do His bidding then it wouldn't be love. And He desires us to love Him. Not be as the beasts and blindly follow Him. But to choose Him. Jesus is the KING of CHOICE.

What have you gained MK?

PIP, Samantha T., and Rae.

Not to mention the most wonderful friendships with Bethany, Jill, Val, John McD., Heather, Midnite, Alyssa, Bobby, John L., Rae, Erin, JM, JKeller, Danny, Jess, Leah, Rosie, Carder, Lauren and a ton more that I'm forgetting to mention...all people that now live in my heart...(while it might not be reciprocated, I'd have to include Doug, Laura, Cameron and yes, even our beloved SoMG)...The benefits far outweigh the headaches, tears, and sleepless nights. The hours in the Chapel, masses that I've offered up, the stupid knee that I brought to the altar with all of their names, the rosaries...all of it, because I love them. I thank God each and every day for every single one of them...I actually carry a list around with me and pull it out every Sunday at mass and read their names during the offetory...What have I gained?
There's not enough time or space...

MK

My feelings are hurt. You forgot me!

"I see you can't answer the question either. Banning abortion won't save fetuses, won't prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Women will abort under unsafe conditions. Placing women and family members in jail will only clog up the justice system. Oh, but it would make pro-lifers feel REALLY good to punish women, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Esther at October 15, 2007 5:04 PM"

Exactly, Esther.

Banning alcohol didn't stop people from drinking....it actually increased crime rates.

"That's like asking, "Why are there still 4 billion people on earth who don't believe in Jesus?" People have free will. Planned Parenthood can't force poor women not to procreate.

Posted by: Esther at October 15, 2007 5:14 PM"

Plus, birth control fails. People forget to take it. Its not 100%.

Anyways, I think we can all agree that making abortion illegal will not make it go away. I mean, making pot illegal hasnt stopped people from smoking it, and making alcohol illegal definitely didn't stop people from drinking.

So what can we do to make it go away?

And, I hope everyone can quit making brash assumptions.....just bcause someone is pro-choice does NOT believe that it is OK to shred apart a fetus and leave it to die...etc.etc.etc, or that we don't believe that it is a person or a human, OK?

BTW, that was me who posted above.

Anonymous,

I'm sure all of us would also agree that making drunk driving and rape illegal doesn't make them go away either.

So should these be legal?

We shouldn't assume that PC people consider it OK to shred a fetus. Anonymous, exactly what do you think an abortion does?

The difference between abortion and drunk driving and rape are simple:

With drunk driving, there is the possibility of you hurting yourself and other people, who are innocent bystanders. With rape, you are forcing them to have sex with them against their will and without their consent. With every and all crime, you are involving another person who has been born. However, with aboriton, no matter how much you hate it, a feuts/embryo is not born yet, they are not citizens of the world/USA, and when a woman gets an abortion, she is not harming the fetus or doing soemthing against its will. It has no will. it is a DEVELOPING human being, it is not fully human yet.

Thats why the law needs to be careful in making distinctions. Even if a fetus was granted equal rights as everyone else, thats all they would be: Equal. And guess what? No one can use your body without your explicit permission. Having sex does not mean you are giving permission. Rather, its staying pregnant.

"We shouldn't assume that PC people consider it OK to shred a fetus. Anonymous, exactly what do you think an abortion does?"

Which kind of an abortion? There are plenty....for example, RU-486. Give me evidnece that abortions "shred" a fetus. With those exact words. And from a medical website, not some PL propagandistic BS.

As I've shown you Esther, illegal abortion death rates continually declined for years prior to Roe v Wade. Obviously women, poor or not, were not dying in huge numbers. Life will be more difficult if elective abortion is banned? It doesn't seem life is so great for many of these women even though abortion has been legal for 34 years.
Also, its obvious that making contraception more easily available is doing nothing to curb unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Maybe because women use abortion for birth control?

Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2007 7:43 PM

How do you know ending unwanted pregnancies hasn't helped any poor women? Nobody expects to get rich after terminating an unwanted pregnancy. C'mon, get serious.

I'm not claiming abortion is THE solution to poverty for EVERYONE in the United States. That would be absurd. I don't know anyone who believes this.

And it simply isn't true that making cotnraception easily available has done nothing to curb abortions:

Public Funding for Contraception
8. How do poor women afford contraceptives?

More than one-third of U.S. women are eligible for publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies because their income is below 250% of the federal poverty level. Publicly funded family planning services help women to prevent an estimated 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions each year. (15)

Abortion hasn't been a panacea for society's problems, but neither have Jesus and religion. Should we ban Jesus and religion?

Womyn,

Your argument is that making something illegal won't stop it. I agree. So I'm saying this should apply across the board. Making certain crimes illegal doesn't stop them, so why bother?
According to your 10:21 post you also wrote the 10:17 post in which you said we shouldn't assume PC people don't consider a fetus human. Then you say in your 10:53 post the fetus isn't human.
So what is it?
About shredding a fetus. What do you think a suction abortion does? Another method is Dilatation and extraction, aka dilatation and evacuation depending on where you work, that involves pulling the fetus apart piece by piece.
This method was developed to guarantee a dead baby since saline abortions didn't always do the trick and it was quite a nuisance when the fetuses weren't good and dead. You may have heard of Ana Rodriguez who's arm was torn off in utero by this method. Her mother's pregnancy was far more advanced than thought, and Ana wasn't dead as thought when the abortionist started to pull her apart. She was born prematurely and survived, minus an arm.

Esther,

You're not addressing the point I raised in my post, the post which you are supposedly responding to. How could it be that the death rate from illegal abortion was steadily declining long before abortion was legal? Weren't we told women were dying by the thousands? Obviously women, poor and otherwise, were not.
Abortion advocates were the ones desperate to see poor women on the abortion tables. They were the ones who howled about saving the taxpayers millions. Abortion was definitely seen as a panacea by your side, and a solution to poverty.

As for Jesus and religion. Anyone on this site will tell you I never get into religious debates or discussions.

"Making certain crimes illegal doesn't stop them, so why bother?"

Because then that would be anarchy.

Um, and in my 10:53 post, I said it wasn't a fully developed human yet. It isn't. Its still in utero. You can't deny that. yes, it has human DNA, but that doesnt mean that it will grow into a fully grown person some day. You read what I said wrong.

"About shredding a fetus. What do you think a suction abortion does? Another method is Dilatation and extraction, aka dilatation and evacuation depending on where you work, that involves pulling the fetus apart piece by piece."

Ok. Since you continue to refuse to back up your claims, I will prove you wrong with sources.

Firstly, the majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. Would you agree with this?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/abortion/procedures.htm

And the only two methods available in the first trimester are medication and vasuum aspiration. I would hardly say that the sucking "shreds" the fetus apart, and its so tiny, that there is really nothing to shred apart.

What you're talking about is rare. Abortions after the first trimester are very rare. So they dont fall into the norm.

Yes, babies are shredded in abortion...

See for yourself...

http://abortionno.org/

Mary,

I knew that I would forget someone. Can't believe it was you...I promise, you're on the "list"...I adore you! I'm so much "better" in the am. By 9:00 at night, I'm lucky to put myself on the "list"...

What have I gained?

A friendship worth gold with a woman named Mary. She has a heart the size of Texas and way of saying things without offending anyone that most of us could only dream of...

I love you Mar!

Womyn,

or that we don't believe that it is a person or a human, OK?

she is not harming the fetus or doing soemthing against its will. It has no will. it is a DEVELOPING human being, it is not fully human yet.

One of us is confused.

And you wonder why we make "sweeping assumptions".

You can't deny that. yes, it has human DNA, but that doesnt mean that it will grow into a fully grown person some day.

Of course not. It has just as much chance of growing into a fully grown elephant or lobster!

What on earth are you talking about?

Anonymous,

What you're talking about is rare. Abortions after the first trimester are very rare. So they dont fall into the norm.

Define rare. Then define "very rare".

Cuz where I come from 1 is rare. 17,000 is not "very rare" in my world.

Did You Know?
The Centers for Disease Control reports over 17,000 abortions in 1993 done at 21 weeks or later.

The above figures were published by the Alan Guttmacher Institute in Facts in Brief, September 1995. Information from abortionists, clinic employees, and other sources, however, suggests that the figures for later-term abortions are too low. For example:

* In 1984, then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop estimated that about 4,000 "third trimester" (after 26 weeks) abortions occur each year in the United States, and that "less than five percent of that number have induced abortion because of a known defect in the fetus."

* Dr. Martin Haskell, who specializes in partial-birth abortions which are done on late-term babies, reported that he had performed over 1,000 of these abortions himself. The late Dr. James McMahon admitted performing over 2,000.

* An employee of Kansas abortionist George Tiller wrote in 1991, "I saw the medical records of every abortion patient for a period of over six months. At least (conservatively) an average of ten (24-30-week gestation) late-term abortions were done each week" in that facility alone - - which would be over 500 a year.

she is not harming the fetus or doing soemthing against its will. It has no will. it is a DEVELOPING human being, it is not fully human yet.

Oh no! This means that all three of my children are not yet human beings..they haven't finished developing! Whatever shall I do?? I thought I gave birth to human beings but apparently I gave birth to DEVELOPING human beings!

Of course not. It has just as much chance of growing into a fully grown elephant or lobster!
What on earth are you talking about?

Anonymous,

There would be anarchy without laws? But you said laws don't stop illegal activity. You can't have it both ways. We make laws I approve of even if the illegal activity continues, and we don't make laws I disagree with because the illegal activity will go on anyway.
We just accept that laws we like and dislike will be made, and most certainly broken, and our society cannot function without them.

Anonymous 10:17pm post
...just because someone is pro-choice does NOT believe that it is OK to shred apart a fetus and leave it to die..,etc.etc.etc. or that we don't believe it is a person or a human, OK?
I can only draw one conclusion from reading that.

Anonymous, 12:28am
I'm not talking rocket science here. A vacuum aspirator does dismember and shred the fetus, that's the purpose of it. You're making my argument. Most abortions are first trimester and this when vacuum aspiration is used. The purpose of vacuum aspiration is to shred and aspirate the fetus quickly and completely. What exactly do you think it does? Also, check any 9th grade biology book on fetal development and you will find there is indeed something to shred apart.
One of the "problems" with RU486 us that it can expel an intact fetus. This can be very emotionally trying to a woman, especially if it happens at home.
Oh, and you can google "Ana Rosa Rodriguez" and do your own research on the little girl with her arm torn off.

Esther,

Concerning the study you mentioned in support of contraception for poor women.
According to the Center for Disease Control, in 1997 nearly half of all women having abortions reported one previous abortion and 52% had had 2 or more previous abortions.
I don't know the economic status of these women.
For whatever reason, birth control availability didn't appear to be curbing abortion.

MK,
An excellent post on later term abortions.

Also thank you for your very kind words. You've started my day out beautifully, and its rainy and miserable here!!
I hope you and everyone on this blog knows just how much you all mean to me as well.
Now, time for another cup of coffee and trying to get something accomplished. You great people are never any help that way!! Its far more interesting and informative, not to mention addicting, to park at this computer with all of you!

Sorrow and repentence are in order MK, from me to you, for addressing you as a male.
You asked "why didn't they accept his love....?"
Because they hated him soo much, they picked a cruel method of justice to end his life. What did they hate about him soo much MK? Abortion was legal, as was infanticide and suicide was a noble act, which allowed one to save honor. Marriage was anything the Romans decided it was.
But, giving you those facts is obvious to anyone with a minimum of historical facts.
Given that two thousand years later, those "same decisions/issues" are again front and center in the public square. How did it come to this strange paradox, where Jesus' gospel spirit is encouraging abortion, same sex marriage, to "the healing of suffering by death", in the "main line" Protestant Western Christian religions?
Jesus allows himself to promote abortion. Ask Hillary Clinton, or the millions of Methodist Christians. Jesus allows himself to be for homosexual acts and even their "blessing" at his altar. Much less having homosexual bishops being ordained as the official "spokespersons" of Jesus Christ good news/gospel.
In essence, Jesus has become the good news that abortion is right, that marriage is reduced to a pagan rite. That "sex" is promoted by and through Jesus' "church/body" as act no different then the pagans, who enjoyed his being nailed to a cross.
Why does he allow that MK? Seems Jesus is allowing a lot of "wrong decisions" to be made into "right decisions" in HIS NAME. Or Jesus is incapable of acting on them(such as abortion), from not being imbued with the true gospel spirit.
Or his "spirit" promotes today, what got him nailed to a cross for two thousand years ago.
It sure wasn't just a matter of being the King of the Jews, was it MK?

Yllas,

This is the dilemma we have faced for 2000 years.

Come Back Lord and end this nonsense, but wait a while because my brother/daughter/husband hasn't found you yet.

Hurry up and give me patience.

Justice, Mercy, Justice, Mercy...

If he had come back 17 years ago, I would have been consigned to hell. If he comes back today, my 21 year old won't be seeing any pearly gates.

He knows when the game is over. He's known all along. The date was chosen a long time ago.

Again, the burden falls to us, not Him. We must work harder to get as many people through the eye of the needle as we can with what little time we have left.

And we must do it out of love. Never self righteousness. But a sincere desire to spend eternity with those around us...and to remember that There but for the Grace of God, go I.

Yllas,

I never feel like the pro-choicers on this site should be "punished"...I really don't. I pray that will be given the grace to see the truth. But I never desire their unhappiness.

I want desperately to see them all with me in the end.

I've come to love them. I look at Doug and think, "Wow, wouldn't he be great on our team. What patience. What unflappablility. What incredible self control!"

Or Laura. Her insight, sense of humor, strength...what a boon!

And Erin...with her insatiable love of learning.

Or Rae...with her enormous heart, and ability to see through the nonsense of things.

Or Hal...with his tremendous devotion to his wife, and what he believes is right.

All of these guys...I want them with me in heaven. I don't want to see them go the other way. They would enhance my eternity no end. This is what I pray for. Not that God with strike them with lightening, but rather with enlightenment...

Don't you?

Not in Nicaragua, John. No exceptions, not even if the mother's life in endangered...how's that for humane? "We won't let you abort this fetus even if your pregnancy kills both of you." It's a lovely example to all of us of what happens when church and state grow overly intimate.

Posted by: Rays at October 15, 2007 1:04 AM

This is my very favorite argument! Please tell me when a mother's life would be endangered with pregnancy? If she has toxemia a doctor would induce labor, in the hopes of a live birth and the survival of the mother. Cancer? Plenty of women have had chemo with no adverse affects on the baby. Surgery for tennis elbow? Really, what circumstances?

I know someone who went through chemo while pregnant and her, now 8 year old, is perfect. It's under the doctor's recommendation that women abort for chemo.

MK, you are so wonderful. I'll try to be nice for awile....

Anonymous,

You are right to a point. Thanks to modern technology, better medical care, and the virtual elimination of certain diseases such as rheumatic fever, it very rarely comes down to the mother's life versus that of the fetus. Health conditions, that at one time truly threatened a pregnant woman's health and life, can now be better managed.
However, it can and does happen. I personally know of a case where a woman had a very rare, and very early form of toxemia. After all efforts to treat her failed and her blood pressure continued to spin out of control an abortion was performed... in a Catholic hospital.
In another case the fetal and placental anomolies were so severe the mother had to be aborted at 5 months by inducing early labor, also in a local hospital. A normal full term delivery would have been impossible and even a C-section could have been catastrophic. There was no chance of fetal survival after delivery.

These are extreme cases but do point out the fact they can and do happen. What is important to note is that both women were treated at the local hospitals and both received the care they needed to save their lives. The argument that women must go running to Tiller to abort their later term pregnancies to save their lives is total claptrap. If their is any threat to their health or lives, they can receive whatever care is necessary at the nearest facility equipped to handle their needs, that's why we have high risk maternity units.

Prior to Roe v Wade exceptions were always made to protect the life and health of the mother. There was never any need to legalize abortion to save a pregnant woman's life or preserve her health.

Aw shucks Hal,

I'm not wonderful. I can't control how I feel about you guys. I just love you all.

And you already are nice. No need to change a thing.

"Posted by: mk at October 16, 2007 6:03 AM"

Meaning that it might NOT BE BORN.

Dur.

"Cuz where I come from 1 is rare. 17,000 is not "very rare" in my world."

Compared to 1.3 million, you bet your ass its rare. Its less than 1%.

Mary, you just dont get it. I really dont want to waste my time with you anymore.

You will continue to believe your pure bullcrud and insist on using unnecessary rhetoric. I have no use arguing with someone so ignorant as you.

I was the Anonymous person who made those posts...i forgot to put my name.

I freaking hate how you only use one person as an example....so therefore, everything else must be true. It doesnt work that way. Just because one fetus's arm got ripped off accidentally, does not mean that all abortions consist of "shredding" the fetus apart. But, continue to be ignorant, because after all, ignorance is bliss.

Edited by moderator Bethany at 5:10 PM

So, basically a fenced in area makes that area comparable to Auschwitz.

You do realize that's the only point one could discern with this post right?

Just letting you know....

Mk, I don't think those who have come to the conclusion that abortion is "right" should be punished either. Did I write such a thing? At best, and I only quote Socrates about vice and virtue; that vice can know virtue but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there. And what is the full goodness of sex MK? Is it not babies? And what is it when sex is lacking the full goodness, the good that OUGHT to be there but isn't?
Yes,, there have been differences in Christianity since the Nestorians and Pelagians were within the Christian domain. And there are many others.
But, you show me where in the history of Christianity that Christians preached abortion was the word of Jesus, or "approved" word of Jesus through the use of his gospel.
That homosexual marriage is another act blessed by Jesus. Show me where in the history of Christianity such Christians existed. What was their names?
That you face a "dilemma" is from having never had Christians find grace in abortion, grace in acts of sodomy being "blessed" by Chrisitans who are bishops in your Christianity. Name me the time and era when such Christians preaced that good news?
I am not into escatology as truth, but something has come full circle even within the body of Christ. Has it not MK?
And Mk, as for wanting them in heaven, who doesn't?

Turning away from God would not be a defect except in a nature meant to be with God. Even a evil will then is proof of the goodness of nature. Just as God is the most supremely good creator of good natures, so is he the most just ruler of evil wills, so that even though evil wills make a evil use of good natures, God make good use of evil wills. St. Augustine.

Womyn,

If you can prove anything I said was wrong, please do.
By the way, that "fetus" is a grown woman now.
Ignorance is bliss? So I've noticed.

Yllas,

I was disagreeing with you in anyway. You just asked (I thought) why God/Jesus didn't do something about these guys. Why He doesn't change their hearts. Why He didn't/couldn't change the 2nd thiefs heart.

I was just answering the question from my own point of view. We're on the same side.

I just think that God is changing the hearts of men and women. He's just using us to do it. Providing, of course, that we cooperate.

(Of course, it wouldn't hurt if they cooperated a little too :)

"By the way, that "fetus" is a grown woman now"

i dont care....?

"If you can prove anything I said was wrong, please do."

I told you, there is no point. I am not going to waste a minute, because all you do is stick your fingers in your ears and scream bloody murder.

"Ignorance is bliss? So I've noticed."

Good for you for admitting that! Bravo!

Womyn,

Whatever. (smile)

lol

Womyn,
Still waiting to know if you watched this graphic video of a woman's choice:

http://abortionno.org/

CAUTION: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC ABORTION VIDEO!

yllas: It's a ceremony for Doug, Erin, and those Vulcan sisters, Sally, Ilana, and Womyn, to destroy innocence as early in life as possible.

Ahem. We have entered true Fruitballoon territory.

Anonymous Christian, maybe I should post a video of my throidectomy. After all, its gross and it was my choice.

Oh, and btw.....that video is fake.