Blacks and evangelicals: both used and abused

jackson.jpgAt least four points can be drawn from this Washington Post article today, with a disclaimer it was written through an MSM prism and may not accurately reflect the situation.

  • Black evangelicals care about abortion, but it may not stand out to them from other social justice issues.

  • The Republican Party is losing whatever gains among black conservatives it made in the 2000 and 2004 elections for two of the major reasons it is losing white conservatives: fear of Giuliani and scandals.

  • Blacks feels as used by Dems as conservatives do by the GOP.

  • The concerns black conservatives identify as important have the same root as concerns white conservatives identify: breakdown of the family. I don't want to insult black conservative leaders by saying they don't get that. It just wasn't brought out in this article....

    Pastor Harry R. Jackson Jr. [pictured right] will often exhort his congregation to "stand against" abortion and same-sex marriage....

    Blacks overwhelmingly identify themselves as Democrats and typically support Democratic candidates, but optimists in the GOP think one way to become a majority party is to peel off a sizable segment of black voters by finding common ground on social issues....

    In the 2004 election, there was evidence that an appeal aimed at those differences could work. President Bush nearly doubled his share of the black vote in Ohio.... But it's unlikely that the 2008 Republican presidential candidate will be able to consolidate those gains....

    During the last presidential election cycle, Jackson prayed for Bush and crisscrossed the country pressing conservative social issues. Now he's pushing an issues agenda rather than "carrying the water for the Republican party," he said. "They are not reliable enough."...

    [R]eligious conservatives, black and white... fear that Republican voters will nominate pro-choice candidate and former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and are still chafing at the headline-grabbing sex and ethics scandals involving Republicans....

    Other conservative black preachers raise a different issue.

    "Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge.... "[W]e also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."...

    Bishop Timothy J. Clarke, leader of the 5,000-member First Church of God in Columbus, Ohio, said... he and his members care as much about health care and livable wages as they do about conservative social issues....

    Stephen Peagler, 27, said he is a faithful churchgoer who believes that abortion and same-sex marriage are wrong. But... he's looking for a candidate who will address issues that are more relevant in his everyday life....

    Only 5% of blacks in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll called abortion or moral or family-values issues their top concerns for the upcoming presidential election. By contrast, more than four in 10 highlighted the war in Iraq, 38% health care and 33% the economy and jobs....

    "One of the misnomers that we labor under is the line of demarcation between social issues and moral issues," Clarke said. "For us, they are almost one and the same."...

    Jackson... thinks the GOP pays attention to evangelicals when it needs their votes but has not delivered when it comes to advancing their causes.... [A]fter the 2004 election, he attended a White House meeting of evangelical leaders and listened as Rove said he didn't think the church vote had won the election for Bush.

    Jackson told him: "I am a registered Democrat. The only reason I am here is because I thought you were working on issues of faith and that it would be better for my folks than the promises, promises of the Democratic party."

    Democrats, he said, "come to us under the cloak of darkness at the last hour, get what they want and then act like they don't know us the next day."

    That got a big laugh from the conservatives, he recalled. Then Jackson said he told Rove: "You all are doing the same thing to the evangelicals."

    HT: Family Research Council, which added this editorial comment:

    While the Republicans experienced the powerful pull of social issues on African-Americans in 2004 because of the marriage issue, they are increasingly distancing themselves from these key issues that speak the true language of faith and bring Christian voters into the fold. If issues that are important to so many Christians, both black and white, are ignored by both parties then ultimately both parties may find they are ignored by many Christians.

  • Comments:

    You have got to read "Tempting Faith" by David Kuo.

    Posted by: Laura at November 27, 2007 9:18 AM


    I work for a black evangelical mega-church. They are all up-in-arms about protecting marriage, and yet still have OBAMA 08 stickers on their cars.

    Posted by: Jacqueline at November 27, 2007 11:13 AM


    Jacqueline, that's like the headquarters parking lot of the USCCB filled with cars that had Kerry 04 stickers on them. Just disgusting...

    Posted by: Andrew at November 27, 2007 12:04 PM


    "Morality is different in terms of the way we see it and white evangelicals see it," said Pastor Lyle Dukes of Harvest Life Changers Church in Woodbridge.... "[W]e also think equal education is a moral issue. We think discrimination is immoral."...

    Good point, Pastor Dukes. What a lot of self-styled "values voters" don't seem to understand is that people who vote differently than they do *also* are voting our values.

    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 12:07 PM


    I think most people are in the middle about issues, and are deciding between two candidates-one that have some values in common and the other the same way.

    It's about which politician you can trust to make the right decision the most.

    Posted by: prettyinpink at November 27, 2007 1:00 PM


    And sometimes is just picking the lesser of two evils!

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 1:04 PM


    Exactly, Laura!

    Posted by: prettyinpink at November 27, 2007 1:06 PM


    Abortion is not the top political concern for a lot of people. You pick a political candidate who is in line with MOST of your views. I personally would never knowingly vote for an antichoice polititian. How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions? But thats how I see things. I know many people who are pro choice and will still vote Republican simply because the GOP reflects their views more than the Democrats do.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 27, 2007 1:13 PM


    How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions?

    I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.

    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 1:47 PM


    Jen R. said, "I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make."

    I agree...I don't think there are any! But, if there was one, I'd bet his name would be Satan something or another.....

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 2:04 PM


    Jen R. wrote:
    I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.

    Exactly! One of the main purposes of government is to protect society by restricting some personal freedoms. My right to have sex stops at your right to say No, for example.

    The whole complaint of "Why don't you trust me to make my own decisions?" is just a foolish strawman. I trust you to make all sorts of decisions, including:
    * whether or not to own a gun (!)
    * how to educate your children, including homeschooling
    * what sort of medical care you want
    * how to manage your retirement (AKA privatize Social Security!)
    * how to spend the majority of your money (Cut taxes now!)
    * and many more!

    I don't trust you to make life-and-death decisions for other people under most circumstances. It's nothing personal. I wouldn't trust anyone with such power. Nobody should have the power to kill another human being simply because that human being is inconvenient. The Right to Life is the foundation of all other rights. Without it, we are on the twilight road to utter tyranny.

    Posted by: Naaman at November 27, 2007 2:36 PM


    Naaman,

    Amen to that!

    Posted by: Tara at November 27, 2007 3:02 PM


    How can someone rationally ask for my vote when they admit up front they do not trust my judgment and believe I shouldnt be allowed to make my own decisions?

    I doubt you find many candidates to vote for who believe there should be no restrictions whatsoever on what you do or what decisions you make.


    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 1:47 PM
    ********************************************
    Thats a profoundly idiotic 'answer' to the point I made. You also didnt address what I did say. That doesnt surprise me.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 27, 2007 3:11 PM


    Nobody should have the power to kill another human being simply because that human being is inconvenient. The Right to Life is the foundation of all other rights. Without it, we are on the twilight road to utter tyranny.
    ***********************************************
    Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human" and even a PERSON doesnt have the right to part of my body without my permission. Whining about 'the right to life' is antichoice bull. You slobber and drool over mindless tissue and cell structure but you have no trouble at all 'rationalizing' robbing women of THEIR right to life and the right to live their life as they see best. You harbor the egocentric delusion that you know what is 'best' and eveyone else has some obligation to obey you and fall into line. Get over yourself. Its not going to happen. Mindless nonviable tissue doesnt have 'rights' nor should it have 'rights'.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 27, 2007 3:15 PM


    TexasRed,
    That's how I and many others read it to. If you care to re-phrase your thoughts, I, for one, will be more than happy to comment on the revisions!

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 3:15 PM


    TexasRed,
    That's how I and many others read it to. If you care to re-phrase your thoughts, I, for one, will be more than happy to comment on the revisions!

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 27, 2007 3:15 PM
    *****************************************
    Abortion is legal. Antichoice polititians are certain it shouldnt be because women just are not capable of making good decisions. Womens judgment is flawed. They dont 'really' know what they are doing. They need someone else to tell them what they 'should' do. An antichoice polititian is admitting up front that he / she does not trust my judgment and doesnt believe Im capable of making good decisions. I need HIM or HER to take that matter out of MY hands and make the decision for me.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 27, 2007 3:42 PM


    TexasRed, what is the difference between the kinds of decisions governments *should* keep people from making, and the kind they should not?

    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 4:04 PM


    TexasRed,

    The government doesn't allow you to choose how much tax to pay either. They don't trust your judgment with your own money that you worked for. We the people, as a group, get to pass laws that control the behaviour of individuals over their own bodies, money and property. That is what government doesl.

    Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2007 4:42 PM



    TexasRed,

    The government doesn't allow you to choose how much tax to pay either. They don't trust your judgment with your own money that you worked for. We the people, as a group, get to pass laws that control the behaviour of individuals over their own bodies, money and property. That is what government doesl.

    Posted by: Anonymous at November 27, 2007 4:42 PM
    ......................................
    Government does not have the right to dictate medical decisions.

    Posted by: Sally at November 27, 2007 5:54 PM


    That's not really true, though. For instance, in most states, parents are required to seek medical care for their children if the children have life-threatening illnesses, even if the parents' religious beliefs would dictate relying on prayer instead.

    If your medical decision hurts another person, it is the government's business. So just saying "it's a medical decision" isn't enough.

    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 8:11 PM


    If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.

    Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.

    If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

    God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...

    Sorry, you lose on that one.

    Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 8:28 PM


    Woo Hoo! Another 5 points to MK for a fabulous post! You're on a roll today lady!

    Posted by: Elizabeth at November 27, 2007 11:08 PM


    TexasRed wrote:
    Antichoice polititians are certain it shouldnt be because women just are not capable of making good decisions. Womens judgment is flawed. They dont 'really' know what they are doing. They need someone else to tell them what they 'should' do.

    This "argument" is a strawman. I'm not questioning your judgment or your ability to reason. I don't actually know you. You might be quite intelligent and wise, or you might not be. I have no way of knowing....

    The root of the Pro-Life position is the moral imperative to protect innocent human life. Period. I don't care how wise or intelligent you are, you simply don't have the moral right to kill an innocent child. It's not about YOU; it's about the child who you (or someone else) wants to kill.

    Perhaps your strawman is referring to the growing post-abortion concern among many pro-lifers. It is true that many pro-lifers are aware (some from sad personal experience) that abortion can have some horrible consequences for the woman who aborts. Pro-lifers are spreading the news about these consequences for two main reasons.

    First, because someone has to do it. Millions of women are suffering, and someone needs to help them. Someone also needs to warn the millions of women who might join the suffering. Pro-choicers won't do it -- because the pro-choice agenda has blinded them to real women's suffering -- so pro-lifers have stepped into the gap. In spite of the pro-choice propaganda, real pro-lifers do care about women.

    Second, because it proves that the most popular pro-choice arguments are based on lies. Abortion is not the unmitigated good that the American people were promised. Abortion is not necessary for women to have equal rights, and it can even be a method for exploiting women. NOW and similar "feminist" organizations sold us a slick promise about how wonderful abortion would be. 34 years later, there is overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.

    However -- and please note this point -- even if abortion really was some candy-coated NARAL fantasy cure-all that made every woman's life better, it would still be wrong, and pro-lifers would still oppose it. We believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. Period. The supposed benefits of the killing don't matter. It's still wrong.

    Posted by: Naaman at November 28, 2007 9:14 AM


    That's not really true, though. For instance, in most states, parents are required to seek medical care for their children if the children have life-threatening illnesses, even if the parents' religious beliefs would dictate relying on prayer instead.

    If your medical decision hurts another person, it is the government's business. So just saying "it's a medical decision" isn't enough.


    Posted by: Jen R at November 27, 2007 8:11 PM
    ************
    But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:32 AM


    The root of the Pro-Life position is the moral imperative to protect innocent human life. Period. I don't care how wise or intelligent you are, you simply don't have the moral right to kill an innocent child. It's not about YOU; it's about the child who you (or someone else) wants to kill.

    *****************************
    Then the root of the antichoice position is melodramatic hysteria. Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is 'innocent' is melodramatic hysteria. Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is an 'innocent child' is melodramatic hysteria. Whining that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'child' is melodramatic hysteria. And thats the point. You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there. You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important. THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:37 AM


    If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.

    Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.

    If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

    God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...

    Sorry, you lose on that one.

    Posted by: mk at November 27, 2007 8:28 PM
    *****************************
    No, she doesnt. You threw up a bunch of strawmen which have nothing to do with THIS discussion. A person wont be committed unless they are a danger to themselves or others. Kids dont have to be vaccinated - they can be home schooled. The issue is going to public schools, not being forced to have innoculations. Communicable diseases are only relevant when other people are involved. Antichoicers say women cant be trusted to make good decisions for themselves. Antichoicers insist they do not trust womens judgment.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:41 AM


    First, because someone has to do it. Millions of women are suffering, and someone needs to help them. Someone also needs to warn the millions of women who might join the suffering. Pro-choicers won't do it -- because the pro-choice agenda has blinded them to real women's suffering -- so pro-lifers have stepped into the gap. In spite of the pro-choice propaganda, real pro-lifers do care about women.

    *****************************************
    PAS is an antichoice myth. Even Koop had to admit there was no evidence to support its existance. But trying to pretend 'I cant let you do that because you might regret it later' is a valid excuse to be antichoice is laughable. But its back to the insistance that womens judgment is somehow inferior and cannot be trusted.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:44 AM


    Second, because it proves that the most popular pro-choice arguments are based on lies. Abortion is not the unmitigated good that the American people were promised. Abortion is not necessary for women to have equal rights, and it can even be a method for exploiting women. NOW and similar "feminist" organizations sold us a slick promise about how wonderful abortion would be. 34 years later, there is overwhelming evidence that they were wrong.
    **********************************
    Bullscat.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:45 AM


    However -- and please note this point -- even if abortion really was some candy-coated NARAL fantasy cure-all that made every woman's life better, it would still be wrong, and pro-lifers would still oppose it. We believe that it is wrong to kill innocent human life. Period. The supposed benefits of the killing don't matter. It's still wrong.
    ****************************************
    That is YOUR opinion. Why dont you explain to us all why your opinion should contradict and override the opinion of the woman who will actually be dealing with the pregnancy?

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 9:47 AM


    TR,

    Better yet, why don't you explain why your opinion that a woman's perceived right to abort overrides a child's right to live? After all, it's your opinion.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:54 AM


    TR,

    But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

    This too is your opinion. It is our opinion that the father of the child, the grandparents of the child, society and of course the child himself is being harmed.

    And in the case of mental illness, you need only be a threat to yourself.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:56 AM


    TR,

    You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important.

    Aren't you doing the same thing?

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:58 AM


    TR,

    You slobber and drool over mindless tissue and cell structure

    Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

    Mindless nonviable tissue doesnt have 'rights' nor should it have 'rights'.

    You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there.

    Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is 'innocent' is melodramatic hysteria.

    You are talking about mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure in the uterus of a woman who doesnt want it there.

    Whimpering that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is an 'innocent child' is melodramatic hysteria. Whining that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'child' is melodramatic hysteria.

    You're being kind of vague here...are you saying that you don't view the unborn as living human beings?

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:09 AM


    TR,

    No, she doesnt. You threw up a bunch of strawmen which have nothing to do with THIS discussion.


    Government does not have the right to dictate medical decisions.
    Posted by: Sally at November 27, 2007 5:54 PM

    If you are deemed to be a threat to yourself or others you can be committed due to mental illness, which is a medical condition.
    *
    Kids have to be vaccinated in order to get into public schools. This is a medical decision.
    *
    If you have a serious communicable disease like TB you can be quarantined. This would be called a medical decision.

    Looking...looking...nope, don't see a straw man here.

    God forbid if the bird flu ever makes the jump...then you'll see the government making medical decisions for us left and right...


    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:14 AM


    TR,

    Bullscat.

    Great comeback. Well thought out. Articulate. You're getting good at this.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:15 AM


    TR,

    Bullscat.

    Great comeback. Well thought out. Articulate. You're getting good at this.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 10:15 AM
    ****************************************
    It was the best you deserved.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:06 AM


    TR,

    Better yet, why don't you explain why your opinion that a woman's perceived right to abort overrides a child's right to live? After all, it's your opinion.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:54 AM
    ***********************************************
    Mindless insensate nonviable tissue isnt a child. Mindless insensate nonviable tissue doesnt have any rights. If a woman gives birth to mindless insensate nonviable tissue then she doesnt have a child - she has a miscarriage. No 'child' involved - it didnt develop to that point. If its your opinion that abortion is wrong then dont have one. If its my opinion that abortion is not wrong then I can have one and its really none of your business. Thats the point. No one is trying to force women to abort - not in the US. But youd be happy to force women to gestate and you couldnt care less how they feel about it. I dont have any problem respecting your opinion. Youre too egocentric and self absorbed and self centered to respect anyone else.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:10 AM


    TR,

    But there is no 'other person' involved in an abortion. There is only one person directly involved and thats the woman pregnant.

    This too is your opinion. It is our opinion that the father of the child, the grandparents of the child, society and of course the child himself is being harmed.

    And in the case of mental illness, you need only be a threat to yourself.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:56 AM
    *******************************
    No, it is not just my opinion. There is no child involved and the woman can have an abortion and the would be father and the would be grandparents may not even know about it. The only person DIRECTLY involved is the woman who is pregnant. And if there isnt someone ELSE involved then there is no way to determine if you are a danger to 'yourself'or not.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:13 AM


    TR,

    You insist that YOUR view of this tissue somehow justifies robbing the woman of her right to bodily autonomy and self determination and what SHE thinks, feels, believes, needs, wants and what is best for her doesnt matter because what YOU think is more important.

    Aren't you doing the same thing?

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 9:58 AM
    *****************************************
    And how do you fantasize 'let each woman make her own decision' is doing that?

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:15 AM


    Looking...looking...nope, don't see a straw man here.

    ********************************
    And you imagine your problems with reading comprehension are my problem for what reason?

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:16 AM


    All hail TexasRed! The greatest debater know to man!

    Posted by: Anonymous at November 28, 2007 11:20 AM


    Thanks, TR, for the anon post above..
    Good to know you think that highly of yourself!

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 11:28 AM


    Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

    You say "mindless," I say, "in the process of building his or her own brain."

    You say "insensate," I say, "in the process of building his or her own sensory organs." Also, the senses do develop well before birth.

    You say "tissue and cell structure," I say, "individual organism" (Unlike the others, this one's not just a matter of perspective. You're incorrect.)

    You say "isn't a 'human'," I say, "what else do you call an organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens?"

    Posted by: Jen R at November 28, 2007 11:37 AM


    Thanks, TR, for the anon post above..
    Good to know you think that highly of yourself!

    Posted by: AB Laura at November 28, 2007 11:28 AM
    **************************
    Since I didnt post that, youve got your hoof in your maw. But maybe thats how you do things so it never occurred to you that someone else wouldnt.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:37 AM


    Mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure isnt "a human"

    You say "mindless," I say, "in the process of building his or her own brain."

    You say "insensate," I say, "in the process of building his or her own sensory organs." Also, the senses do develop well before birth.

    You say "tissue and cell structure," I say, "individual organism" (Unlike the others, this one's not just a matter of perspective. You're incorrect.)

    You say "isn't a 'human'," I say, "what else do you call an organism that is a member of the species Homo sapiens?"
    Posted by: Jen R at November 28, 2007 11:37 AM
    ************************************************
    The embryo/fetus is mindless until it has a functional cerebral cortex. Thats fact no matter how much you whine. Until the central nervous system is functional the embryo/fetus IS insensate and until there is a functional cerebral cortex there is 'no one there' TO sense anything. The fetus is mindless and insensate until about the same point in gestation as potential viability. This is true no matter how you would 'rather' phrase it. No, I am not incorrect unless you think what you pretend is an 'individual organism' is made up of something OTHER than tissue and cells. Since 'an organism' depends on its own organs for survival I doubt if an embryo/fetus early in gestation is technically even 'an organism'. And trying to pretend that mindless insensate nonviable tissue is a 'member' of anything is laughable. No doubt you want to pretend a fertilized egg is 'a member' of a species too. Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 11:45 AM


    TexasRed, were you once an embryo?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 12:14 PM


    So many comments from TexasRed....

    Then the root of the antichoice position is melodramatic hysteria.

    That's not an argument; it's an insult. Do you actually have an argument to make?

    Here's the pro-life argument in a nutshell:
    1. From the moment of conception, the unborn child is a human being. This is a scientific definition, not a philosophical one. A human zygote is both genetically human (i.e. a member of the species homo sapiens) and a unique organism. It is human. It is a living being. Therefore, it is a living human being.
    2. Based on #1, the unborn child has certain rights, namely the right to not be killed. This is a philosophical question. How do we determine who has human rights? Pro-lifers believe that history has demonstrated that bad stuff (like slavery and the Holocaust) happens when we try to designate certain classes of human beings as "non-persons". Therefore, we reject such sophistry and try to stick to ontology.
    3. The Right to Life (AKA the right to not be killed) is of primary importance in the hierarchy of rights. All other rights are not possible when one is dead.
    4. Based on #1, #2, and #3 above, the unborn child's Right to Life must take priority over a pregnant woman's right to self-determination, education, employment, etcetera.
    5. Based on #4, abortion must be illegal in all cases when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

    Please note that no part of this argument references God, Holy Scripture, or the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many pro-lifers are Christian -- including me -- but being pro-life does not require any particular faith.

    PAS is an antichoice myth.

    You wouldn't say that if you knew anyone who suffered abortion-related PTSD. Personally, I know several women who have suffered from their abortions. Your attempt to dismiss their pain as a "myth" is profoundly disrespectful and ignorant.

    Also, you should know there is at least one pro-choice after-abortion counseling service: Exhale
    http://www.4exhale.org/
    Exhale's Board of Directors includes an Associate Vice President from Planned Parenthood, which is not know to be an "antichoice" organization.

    THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told.

    Do you think you know my own motives better than I do? Do you think I am lying? What possible justification could you have to utterly reject the pro-life position as explained to you by a pro-lifer ... in favor of your own wacky conspiracy theories?

    For the record, none of your accusations are true. I don't think my opinion is somehow more important than yours, nor do I think you have to obey me. I am not God. God alone is God, and I am utterly unqualified to take His place.

    I do believe that I am correct about the Right to Life, which is why I am pro-life. I also believe that you are wrong to ignore the facts of human embryology and attempt to pass off the unborn child as mere "tissue and cell structure". And I am still looking for some actual argument from you that supports your position....

    Posted by: Naaman at November 28, 2007 12:20 PM


    I just noticed TexasRed's response to Jen R....

    The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....

    TexasRed also tried to claim that the unborn child is not an organism. This is false. Look up the definition of organism for yourself:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=define:organism

    Finally, TexasRed tried to dispute that the unborn child is not a member of the human species, homo sapiens. This one is a real puzzler. The unborn child is genetically human. What other criterion should we use?

    If allowed to live and grow, an unborn child will develop into an entity who even the most ardent pro-choicer must identify as human. It will get a job, pay taxes, and possibly even correspond on blogs. How is it possible for a non-human organism to transform itself into a human being? The unborn child must be human.

    Finally, it's a basic principle of biology that living beings reproduce their own kind. Mice do not give birth to cats. Chicken eggs do not hatch into baby ostriches. Each organism will reproduce its own kind. Therefore, the offspring of human beings must be a human being. Either that, or there's some kind of genuine miracle afoot....

    Posted by: Naaman at November 28, 2007 12:41 PM


    Naaman, I read your story yesterday. Praise the Lord, brother!

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 1:18 PM


    Finally, TexasRed tried to dispute that the unborn child is not a member of the human species, homo sapiens. This one is a real puzzler. The unborn child is genetically human. What other criterion should we use?

    *******************
    I pointed out there is a difference between an adjective and a noun. What part of that confuses you? Its genetically human. But I do not agree anyone can rationally and intelligently call mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure a 'member' of anything. Its a human embryo or fetus.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 1:48 PM


    TexasRed, were you once an embryo?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 12:14 PM
    ************************
    Its this kind of question that makes antichoicers look like idiots. Yes, I was once an embryo. So were the two feti my mother miscarried. Both my sons were embryo at one time. I also miscarried two embryo. There is a big difference.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 1:50 PM


    Remember Texas, I'm a moronic anti-choice hypocrite; could you explain the difference to me?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 1:57 PM


    Here's the pro-life argument in a nutshell:
    1. From the moment of conception, the unborn child is a human being. This is a scientific definition, not a philosophical one. A human zygote is both genetically human (i.e. a member of the species homo sapiens) and a unique organism. It is human. It is a living being. Therefore, it is a living human being.
    2. Based on #1, the unborn child has certain rights, namely the right to not be killed. This is a philosophical question. How do we determine who has human rights? Pro-lifers believe that history has demonstrated that bad stuff (like slavery and the Holocaust) happens when we try to designate certain classes of human beings as "non-persons". Therefore, we reject such sophistry and try to stick to ontology.
    3. The Right to Life (AKA the right to not be killed) is of primary importance in the hierarchy of rights. All other rights are not possible when one is dead.
    4. Based on #1, #2, and #3 above, the unborn child's Right to Life must take priority over a pregnant woman's right to self-determination, education, employment, etcetera.
    5. Based on #4, abortion must be illegal in all cases when it is not necessary to save the life of the mother.

    ************************************************
    1)Youre talking about mindless insensate nonviable tissue and cell structure. You can whimper its an 'innocent unborn child' but its still mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure until so late in gestation as to make abortion a moot point. It may be genetically human but that doesnt make it 'a human' nor does it make it 'a human being'. There is a huge difference between using the word human as an adjective and using it as a noun.
    2) unborn child is more melodramatic hysteria - it has no rights nor should it have rights and it certainly doesnt have more rights than the woman who is pregnant. That takes care of 3) too.
    4)No, mindless insensate nonviable tissue does not have 'more' rights than the woman pregnant and 5)abortion is legal, it will remain legal and it should remain legal. Women have every right to bodily autonomy, self determination, and to have mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure removed from their uterus if they dont want it there. It is your OPINION abortion is 'wrong'. Based on 1 - 5 if YOURE not the one pregnant YOU are not part of the decision making process. And thats not opinion. Thats fact.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:06 PM


    This is Websters definition of an organism:

    Main Entry: or·gan·ism
    Pronunciation: \ˈȯr-gə-ˌni-zəm\
    Function: noun
    Date: circa 1774
    1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
    2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being
    **********************************************
    As far as Im concerned, if the fetus is not developed enough for its OWN organs to 'carry on the activities of life' then it cannot rationally and intelligently be considered an 'organism'.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:09 PM


    PAS is an antichoice myth.

    You wouldn't say that if you knew anyone who suffered abortion-related PTSD. Personally, I know several women who have suffered from their abortions. Your attempt to dismiss their pain as a "myth" is profoundly disrespectful and ignorant.

    ***************************************
    There is nothing disrespectful or ignorant about facts. The disrespect shown is from the antichoice side in trying to pretend women somehow dont 'really' know what they are doing and need to be 'protected' from 'bad' decisions. Study after study has shown that PAS is an antichoice myth. Women who have emotional problems after an abortion typically had those same issues before they ever got pregnant. Even C Everett Koop had to admit there was no evidence to support the existance of PAS. Yes some women DO regret having a wanted abortion (as opposed to having to end a wanted pregnancy) but they make up only a tiny percentage of the whole and certainly are not any kind of justification to make abortion illegal.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:13 PM


    I do believe that I am correct about the Right to Life, which is why I am pro-life. I also believe that you are wrong to ignore the facts of human embryology and attempt to pass off the unborn child as mere "tissue and cell structure". And I am still looking for some actual argument from you that supports your position....
    **************************
    As I pointed out - THAT is the root of the antichoice movement - the arrogant egocentric control freak megalomaniacal delusion that YOUR opinion is more important than anyone elses and the rest of us should just 'have to' obey you and do as we are told. All youve given is your opinion and your egocentric delusion that YOUR opinion should carry more weight than that of the womaon pregnant. YOU just proved my point.


    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:16 PM


    The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....
    ******************
    Thats one more incredibly stupid argument to make. 'unborn child' is more melodramatic hysteria and what the embroy/fetus MAY develop INTO does not change what it IS - mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure, regardless of the potential. When you nap youre not attached to the body of someone who doesnt want you there, and your cerebral cortex is still functional even if youre sleeping. No one is talking about killing people. If you had the 'brain activity' of a first trimester embryo / fetus you'd have a functional brain stem and thats all and you could be considered a potential 'organ donor'.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:21 PM


    The points about mindlessness I will ignore. As Jen R. wrote, the unborn child is in the process of developing its mind ... if we don't kill it. The mindlessness of a human zygote is a temporary condition. Temporary conditions are not sufficient reason to kill people. Otherwise, my family would try to "pull the plug" on me the next time I take a nap....
    ******************
    Thats one more incredibly stupid argument to make. 'unborn child' is more melodramatic hysteria and what the embroy/fetus MAY develop INTO does not change what it IS - mindless insensate nonviable oblivious tissue and cell structure, regardless of the potential. When you nap youre not attached to the body of someone who doesnt want you there, and your cerebral cortex is still functional even if youre sleeping. No one is talking about killing people. If you had the 'brain activity' of a first trimester embryo / fetus you'd have a functional brain stem and thats all and you could be considered a potential 'organ donor'.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:21 PM


    Remember Texas, I'm a moronic anti-choice hypocrite; could you explain the difference to me?

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 1:57 PM
    *****************************
    Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:23 PM


    http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/myths/post_abortion_syndrome....


    POST-ABORTION SYNDROME


    Many people are interested in learning about the possible effects of
    abortion on women's emotional well-being, and several hundred studies
    have been conducted on this issue since the late 1970s. Unfortunately,
    much of the research on women's psychological responses to abortion can
    be confusing. Nonetheless, mainstream medical opinions, like that of the
    American Psychological Association, agree there is no such thing as
    "post-abortion syndrome."


    A Summary of the Scientific Research


    Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to
    document the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which they claim has
    traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated by
    some war veterans. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA)
    convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this
    field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most
    scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of
    "post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is
    scientifically or medically recognized.1


    The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different
    measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to
    similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be
    before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare
    and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life
    stress."2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness
    or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and
    happiness.3


    In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women,
    not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions
    between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The
    researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both
    before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the
    eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional
    well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the
    abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be
    most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of
    how many years passed since the abortion.4


    Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in
    comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an
    unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been
    little scientific research about the psychological consequences of
    adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely "that the
    psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for
    abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress
    associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the
    procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the
    stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of
    the child."5


    What the Experts Say


    In a commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Nada
    Stotland, M.D., former president of the Association of Women
    Psychiatrists, stated:


    "Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented
    in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United
    States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this
    literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The
    incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is
    considerably lower following abortion than following
    childbirth...Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs
    most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in
    those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in
    those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example,
    abandonment."6


    Henry P. David, PhD, an internationally known scholar in this area of
    research, reported the following at an international conference.


    "Severe psychological reactions after abortion are infrequent...[T]he
    number of such cases is very small, and has been characterized by former
    U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as 'miniscule from a public health
    perspective'...For the vast majority of women, an abortion will be
    followed by a mixture of emotions, with a predominance of positive
    feelings. This holds immediately after abortion and for some time
    afterward...[T]he positive picture reported up to eight years after
    abortion makes it unlikely that more negative responses will emerge later."7


    Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in
    Professional Psychology:


    "Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted,
    controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black
    women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and
    women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent:
    The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any,
    independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or
    religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion,
    regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming
    pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including
    the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth
    repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the
    existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no
    scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though
    abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted
    pregnancy."8 (emphasis added)


    The Impact of Anti-Choice Activities


    Russo and Dabul8 point out that when women in their study were
    interviewed from 1979 to 1987, anti-choice efforts to stigmatize
    abortion had not yet reached prominent levels. Today, anti-choice groups
    regularly harass clinic staff, intimidate patients at clinics, and use
    graphic language designed to punish women (e.g. "abortion is murder,"
    "women are baby-killers"). Additionally, the past few years have
    revealed a new anti-choice strategy of offering "counseling" services to
    women. Rather than exploring the roots of a woman's psychological
    distress and providing unbiased therapy, anti-choice counselors tend to
    direct her anger towards the abortion provider by claiming that women
    are misinformed about the psychological trauma that abortion inflicts.
    Due to the political bias of these counselors and their misuse of
    psychological services, women can be left feeling angry and betrayed.


    Russo and Dabul8 concluded that practitioners should acknowledge the
    detrimental effects of the social ostracism felt by abortion patients.
    Some post-abortion difficulties may result from a lack of social support
    because women are expected to bear the brunt of unplanned and unwanted
    childbearing. The researchers encouraged all practitioners to continue
    to provide accurate information since many women have been misled by
    anti-choice sources which may contribute to concerns if they choose
    abortion. Further, women who have concerns after an abortion should be
    encouraged to see a professional psychologist or join a support group
    supervised by a professional mental health provider, rather than one
    sponsored by any anti-choice organization.


    Reply to author Forward


    You must Sign in before you can post messages.
    To post a message you must first join this group.
    Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
    You do not have the permission required to post.



    james g. keegan jr. View profile
    More options Aug 8, 10:11 am

    Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
    From: "james g. keegan jr."
    Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:11:14 -0400
    Local: Wed, Aug 8 2007 10:11 am
    Subject: Re: Abortion Myths: Post-Abortion Syndrome
    Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
    In article , Osprey
    wrote:


    > POST-ABORTION SYNDROME


    Myth: Many women experience mental health problems known as
    "post-abortion stress syndrome" after having an abortion.

    Fact: According to research by the American Psychological
    Association, there is no evidence that post-abortion stress syndrome
    exists, or that women's mental health is put at risk by having an
    abortion. Research shows that 76% of women report feeling relief
    after an abortion, while 17% of women report feelings of guilt.


    http://ga1.org/prch/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=4120372


    --


    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:44 PM


    Yes, by the way, the information was from a pro choice site but that doesnt change the research or the references

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 2:59 PM


    Texas Red Neck...you are very anti choice.

    Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 3:01 PM


    Texas Red Neck...you are very anti choice.

    Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 3:01 PM
    ************************************
    Thats one insult, and two lies. And no surprise at all coming from you.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 28, 2007 3:10 PM


    Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

    Well, since you only seem to know 10 words, 7 of which are insults to us and the other 3, insults to unborn children, I'd reckon yer right. You would have a hard time explaining anything...

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:09 PM


    "Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent."

    I understand. Brilliance is a curse.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 28, 2007 4:11 PM


    Bobbie my Love,

    How goes the parenting thing? If you play your cards right she could be sleeping 6 or 7 hours a night by 8 weeks. Joseph turned 8 weeks today and he slept 9 hours the other night and 10 the night before that!

    It only seems like it will never end. In 6 weeks she'll smile at you, and in 5 you can start making her a brother...:)

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:23 PM


    Hi there Bobby and MK! Bobby, lol!

    Posted by: heather at November 28, 2007 4:28 PM


    Hi Heather! Looks like Red was stirrin' up quite a ruckus the last two days. Ah well, keeps things from getting dull.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:56 PM


    As far as Im concerned, if the fetus is not developed enough for its OWN organs to 'carry on the activities of life' then it cannot rationally and intelligently be considered an 'organism'.

    Which activities of life does the embryo or fetus not carry out? Respiration? Digestion? Growth and development? Maintenance of homeostasis?

    I can quote you embryology texts that refer to the new organism that is created at fertilization. Are their authors irrational and unintelligent, or do they perhaps know more about the subject than you do?

    Posted by: Jen R at November 28, 2007 5:03 PM


    "Learn the difference between an adjective and a noun."

    I keep trying to explain that to people who insist on saying "Democrat Party" but I never seem to get very far.

    Posted by: Jen R at November 28, 2007 5:16 PM


    Hey MK.

    "How goes the parenting thing? If you play your cards right she could be sleeping 6 or 7 hours a night by 8 weeks. Joseph turned 8 weeks today and he slept 9 hours the other night and 10 the night before that!

    It only seems like it will never end. In 6 weeks she'll smile at you, and in 5 you can start making her a brother...:)"

    Parenting is wonderful so far! What a blessing to be able to share in our Lord's divine Fatherhood. We've got a decent system worked out where I watch Gianna in the evenings while Jennifer sleeps, and she gets up during the late night to take care of her so I can sleep. The idea of Gianna sleeping for 7 straight hours though is quite refreshing! I remember sleeping for a good 10-11 hours some nights before. Those days are long gone.

    And of course, I'm already excited about giving her siblings, but right now we're just taking things one day at a time. We'll see what's happening in, what did you say, 6 weeks plus 5 more weeks? Excellent. God love you, MK.

    Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 29, 2007 8:36 AM


    Hi Heather! Looks like Red was stirrin' up quite a ruckus the last two days. Ah well, keeps things from getting dull.

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:56 PM
    ************************************
    I notice youre not saying a thing to yllas about the incessant pointless insults and personal attacks - as I said before, I can always bank on your hypocricy.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 2:24 PM


    Probably not. I doubt if I could simplify my vocabulary to that extent.

    Well, since you only seem to know 10 words, 7 of which are insults to us and the other 3, insults to unborn children, I'd reckon yer right. You would have a hard time explaining anything...

    Posted by: mk at November 28, 2007 4:09 PM
    ************************************************
    Thank you for proving that youre both a hypocrite and a liar.

    Posted by: TexasRed at November 29, 2007 2:34 PM


    hmtn vbmahxswo wjiolnycb dwhe qvcgour gwtufb qrofb

    Posted by: iwgjvmxyz iakd at December 2, 2007 10:58 AM


    sghl gtqdxlzuy hpcugnjqw muawgfinv mrhos cunpajyiw npyt http://www.gnehk.lcdk.com

    Posted by: lihv mtxcjuqh at December 2, 2007 10:58 AM


    Good site. Thanks.
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmaswreath christmas wreaths

    Posted by: christmas wreaths at December 4, 2007 5:15 PM


    Good site. Thanks:-)
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=giftsforkids christmas gifts for kids

    Posted by: christmas gifts for kids at December 4, 2007 6:29 PM


    Good site. Thanks!!!
    http://www.mfbb.net/?mforum=outdoorchristma outdoor christmas decorations

    Posted by: outdoor christmas decorations at December 4, 2007 9:00 PM


    Cool site. Thanks.
    http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

    Posted by: christmas gifts for men at December 4, 2007 9:35 PM


    Cool site. Thanks.
    http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

    Posted by: christmas gifts for men at December 4, 2007 9:35 PM


    Nice site. Thanks!
    http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgiftsf christmas gifts for men

    Posted by: christmas gifts for men at December 4, 2007 9:44 PM


    Good site. Thank you!!!
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=inexpensive christmas gift ideas

    Posted by: christmas gift ideas at December 6, 2007 10:00 PM


    Good site. Thank you!!!
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=xmaspictures christmas pictures

    Posted by: free christmas pictures at December 6, 2007 11:19 PM


    Cool site. Thanks!
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=xmaspictures free christmas pictures

    Posted by: christmas pictures at December 6, 2007 11:58 PM


    Cool site. Thanks!
    http://christmasornaments.pbbgc.net unique christmas ornaments

    Posted by: unique christmas ornaments at December 7, 2007 1:23 AM


    Very good site. Thank you.
    http://outdoorchristmaslights.pbbgc.net outdoor christmas lights

    Posted by: outdoor christmas lights at December 7, 2007 1:55 AM


    Good site. Thanks!!!
    http://ledchristmaslights.pbbgc.net led christmas lights

    Posted by: led christmas lights at December 7, 2007 3:47 AM


    Nice site. Thanks.
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascards personalized christmas cards

    Posted by: personalized christmas cards at December 7, 2007 5:33 AM


    Good site. Thank you!
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascards personalized christmas cards

    Posted by: personalized christmas cards at December 7, 2007 6:52 AM


    Very good site. Thank you.
    http://decoratedchristmastrees.pbbgc.net decorated christmas trees

    Posted by: decorated christmas trees at December 9, 2007 8:54 PM


    Nice site. Thank you!!!
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascarols christmas carols

    Posted by: christmas carols at December 9, 2007 9:13 PM


    Nice site. Thank you.
    http://forum.freeboards.net/?mforum=christmascarols christmas carols

    Posted by: christmas carols at December 9, 2007 10:44 PM


    Good site. Thanks!
    http://outdoorchristmaslightsus.pbbgc.net outdoor christmas lights

    Posted by: outdoor christmas lights at December 9, 2007 11:59 PM


    Very good site. Thank you!!!
    http://www.mfipb.com/?mforum=christmasgames CHRISTMAS PARTY GAMES

    Posted by: CHRISTMAS PARTY GAMES at December 10, 2007 4:40 AM