In Chicago we have tailgate parties before Bears games. In Colorado pro-lifers have tailgate parties at protests. Major hoot.

Here's the report from Leslie Hanks:

On November 18, 30-40 Denver pro-life activists enjoyed hot dogs and hamburgers at a protest and BBQ in front of the Cherry Hills Village home of Weitz Construction executive, Bill Hornaday.

Although it appeared that the Hornadays were not home, most of his neighbors saw the signs of aborted babies and "Abortion is always wrong" signs Planned Parenthood opponents carried. The youngest protester was a 5 day old baby boy....

One forlorn young woman... sat in her front yard with a hand made sign indicating her family will donate to Planned Parenthood every time there is a protest of the new super death camp's construction company executive. Ironically, she told pro-lifers she was adopted, but she sadly championed a woman's right to "choose."

See more photos, including that sign, on page 2.

The West is certainly wild... :)

That's what we're mising here in Aurora...a BBQ for our protests! I'm sure if we had some good fixins, Chief Powell may actuall take a likin' to us!

AB,

He also might kick yer kiester! But it would be fun wouldn't it?

mk,
As Jill put it, 'twood be a hoot!

mmmmmm, bring on the chow!

"Every day you're here, we donate to Planned Parenthood."

Then prepare to become BROKE, lady!

LOL, Jacq....by the looks of the quality of her sign, it seems she's already there!

If building a Planned Parenthood makes you a babykiller, then doesn't contributing to the RCC make you a child molester?

Laura,
I believe building a PP does NOT per se make you a baby killer, but it contributes to the killing of babies. "If you build it, they will come (or kill).

What's the point? I really don't get why the protesters are outside the homes of the construction company execs. It sounds like they're just pissing off the neighbors and generally hardening sentiment against the protesters. I don't see how that's a good strategy.

A little off topic...

When I was at the pro-life rally at PP last time there was a guy, Sean O'something, that was going to run against Judy Biggert (R - IL representative.) He was saying that she was very pro-abortion and asked me for my vote.

I just researched her voting record on abortion and this is her record since 1999. (There might be more.)

Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted YES on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted NO on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted NO on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

What's even worse is that NARAL considers her to have a PRO-LIFE voting record! Can you imagine!?

I can't imagine that harrassing a Lakewood neighborhood will do much to erase the image of PLers being radical thugs. Everyone knows that the PL movement attracts dangerous and demented folks. I'd be concerned for the safety of the neighborhood's citizens with such a group loitering about.

"Every day you're here, we donate to Planned Parenthood."

Jacqueline: Then prepare to become BROKE, lady!

Ha! Gotta love some of this stuff....

Golly, Jill. If you think that BBQ's are wild, well, I think you need to get out more.

Laura,

If building a Planned Parenthood makes you a babykiller, then doesn't contributing to the RCC make you a child molester?

It would indeed if the Catholic Church was promoting such behavior. If she put up churches that were specifically built to house molesters and children were brought there for the sole purpose of being assaulted.

But it's not. The church knows that what those few (and I emphasize few) priests did was horrible. They don't condone it, and they shouldn't have hidden it. If I thought for one minute that the tenets of the Catholic Church were such that child molestation was considered good, I'd become a buddhist tomorrow.

But nice try.

It would indeed if the Catholic Church was promoting such behavior. If she put up churches that were specifically built to house molesters and children were brought there for the sole purpose of being assaulted.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are plenty of Planned Parenthood affiliates that don't perform abortions, and NO Planned Parenthood clinic is soley used for abortions.

F-you

Posted by: jasper at November 19, 2007 6:56 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Our moderator has spoken!
I'll be using that expression from now on.

Thank you Mr. Role Model...

sorry about that Laura, I deleted my comment.

Sally said, "I can't imagine that harrassing a Lakewood neighborhood will do much to erase the image of PLers being radical thugs. Everyone knows that the PL movement attracts dangerous and demented folks. I'd be concerned for the safety of the neighborhood's citizens with such a group loitering about."
................................
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
I'd be concerned with anyone who takes the bait from this comment.......-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-h
a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-h
a-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
good one, Sally!

Oh, & one more thing, Sally: -ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-
ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

Oh, & one more thing, Sally: -ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
-ha-ha

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 7:47 PM

...........................
Stoned again Laura?

Do some of the readers think that people who
profit from building killing centers should do
so in peace and tranquility?

The neighborhood had several police cars
present and they were obviously aware of
our First Amendment rights.

Posted by: lesforlife at November 19, 2007 8:10 PM

Were you there?

Only dangerous and demented folks support dismembering unborn children, stabbing forks into the back of their skulls to suck out their brains, pickling them alive, etc.; and the pro-abortion movement is their movement.

"There are plenty of Planned Parenthood affiliates that don't perform abortions, and NO Planned Parenthood clinic is soley used for abortions."

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

Yes there are, I have said many times that I used to go to a PP that did not perform abortions. Anti-choicers don't seem care though. I was able to get my yearly exams there because I couldn't afford to go anywhere else. I got to have my exam for free. They don't care about that Laura, all PP are bad because some perform abortions, does that mean we should say all priests are bad because some molest children?

Do some of the readers think that people who
profit from building killing centers should do
so in peace and tranquility?

The neighborhood had several police cars
present and they were obviously aware of
our First Amendment rights.

Posted by: lesforlife at November 19, 2007 8:10 PM
.................................

Sorry dear. I pay taxes and don't want loiterers littering my sidewalk with their presence. Don't care why you feel the need to do so.

JM,
Please re-read Laura's statement again...
p.s. (she's on your side!)

Only dangerous and demented folks support dismembering unborn children, stabbing forks into the back of their skulls to suck out their brains, pickling them alive, etc.; and the pro-abortion movement is their movement.

Posted by: the obvious at November 19, 2007 8:28 PM
..............................................

No worries nut job. You won't find me loitering around your slum any time soon.

I believe they should have the right to protest whatever they want on public property.

Just like anyone else.

Thing is, humans have the right to make up their own minds about issues that matter to them. So as long as you have a peaceful protest based on educating and informing, well, that's fine. It's when you resort to violence, harassment, stalking, and so on, when you're not just protesting, you're invading another person's privacy and infringing upon their right to free thought and free speech.

And I don't just mean pro-lifers. Pro-choicers have been violent too. Sadly.

(ugh) Sally said, "Sorry dear. I pay taxes and don't want loiterers littering my sidewalk with their presence. Don't care why you feel the need to do so. "

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 9:03 PM

Why are you sorry, Sally? They pay taxes, too, and are protected by the First Ammendment, just like you!
So, let's see...you compare unborn children to garbage, and pro-lifers to litter...I see a trend here! Does the earth revolve around you too, Sally?

"Anti-choicers don't seem care though. I was able to get my yearly exams there because I couldn't afford to go anywhere else. I got to have my exam for free. They don't care about that Laura, all PP are bad because some perform abortions"

Where do they get the money to do your exam for free?
I would LOVE LOVE LOVE PP if they didn't do abortions. Sadly though, they need the cash from abortions to hold up shop.

If a guy who robbed a bunch of banks and killed all the tellers gave most of his money to charity, would it make those robberies and murders okay? Or even allowable?

The reason why pro-lifers care is because it's blood money. We'd rather send our donations to a free clinic that would provide you your exams without having to get money from killing babies.

"does that mean we should say all priests are bad because some molest children"
That's an invalid comparison.

Yes I was there.

The PP affiliates that don't kill dispense
birth control, which teens don't use properly.

Hence a steady stream of future customers whose
posterity they'll happily destroy for $$.

Prettyinpink,

Animal shelters often kill animals that don't get adopted. Does that mean you shouldn't donate to animal shelters, because they're animal killers? No.

Your tax dollars are being spent to kill thousands of people in Iraq. Protest that if you're so against murder.

Well, speaking of donating to planned parenthood.

We did a project in Spanish on AIDS, and had to come up with a group to donate to with respect to our topic (ours was AIDS prevention among teens in America).

Well, essentially it came down to a question of sex ed, (abstinence only vs comprehensive) so we opted to go for pitching a fund raiser for planned parenthood for their push for comprehensive sex ed.

If my group wins we actually perform the fund raiser and give the money to PP. I bet that makes you all happy ;)

and on another school-related note, I got my first college acceptance letter today! It was one of my safety schools (U of Hartford), but I offically can go to college! WOOO!

Dan,
Try going on PP's website for teens (teenwire.com)..remember, this is what you will be donating to...Jr. High kids, 11-13..yes, 11-year olds will be viewing this. Is this something you really want to support. BTW...when your older & wiser, you may have regrets that you funded the killing of innocent babies...or maybe not....is this a chance you really want to take? No offense, but I pray that your group doesn't win so that some innocent lives may...
Congrats, though, on the acceptance to U of Hartford!

lesforlife,

That is so great! Please let everyone there (including yourself) know that they are in my prayers! I live in Aurora, a couple of blocks away from the mill, and I can only imagine how difficult it is for you guys. Stay strong in God...he is there with you & will protect you all! God bless you guys!!!

first off, it says teens right in the url.

2nd, if they are in a sex ed program, they should be learning about abstinence, condoms, the pill, STDs/STIs, puberty, etc. If they are already questioning sex at 11, some of those questions certainly should be answered.

And the money goes to their sex ed program. But even if it just goes to the organization in general (which pushes for sex ed), I'd be fine with it.

And regrets are a part of life, whether I regret my views or not is really of no importance to me, because I know I will regret some things, and others I will not. It happens and is a part of life. So be it.

And thank you for the congratulations.

Dan,

After you look at teenwire like AB Laura suggested, then go to www.positive.org. This is another site PP tells kids 10-16 to go. This should never be seen by young kids. This site even advocates that girls go to states where there is no parental notification or consent laws. That's great advice - NOT!!

AB Laura, have you seen this site? I have a whole list of just fabulous sites that PP wants our children to go to. I would NEVER allow my kids to see these garbage. It's just another way to get kids to engage in dangerous behavior, so they will come to PP for "health care". I'd rather be pregnant for nine months, then to get an STD.

PIP, High 5!

Tara,
No, I haven't seen this site yet...I'm still trying to recover after teenwire.com! If you'd like to post the sites, I'd love to do more research! :)

(ugh) Sally said, "Sorry dear. I pay taxes and don't want loiterers littering my sidewalk with their presence. Don't care why you feel the need to do so. "

Posted by: Sally at November 19, 2007 9:03 PM

Why are you sorry, Sally? They pay taxes, too, and are protected by the First Ammendment, just like you!
So, let's see...you compare unborn children to garbage, and pro-lifers to litter...I see a trend here! Does the earth revolve around you too, Sally?

Posted by: AB Laura at November 19, 2007 9:25 PM
..............................

Laura, if I'm comparing anything to garbage it would be ridiculous people making a nuisance of themselves in residential neighborhoods. Someone might actually want to walk down their own sidewalk for pitty's sake. There might be an ill person on the street who would enjoy peace and quiet.
As for paying taxes, it's questionable that these PL folks have jobs if they have so much time to loiter around.

AB Laura,

Here are the sites:

www.safeteens.org
www.sexetc.org
www.itsyoursexlife.com
www.iwannaknow.org

I'm not sure how much you are going to love this, but it sure puts things in perspective. These sites are promoted for kids 10-17.

Dan,

After you look at teenwire like AB Laura suggested, then go to www.positive.org. This is another site PP tells kids 10-16 to go. This should never be seen by young kids. This site even advocates that girls go to states where there is no parental notification or consent laws. That's great advice - NOT!!

AB Laura, have you seen this site? I have a whole list of just fabulous sites that PP wants our children to go to. I would NEVER allow my kids to see these garbage. It's just another way to get kids to engage in dangerous behavior, so they will come to PP for "health care". I'd rather be pregnant for nine months, then to get an STD.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 9:59 PM
........................

Without good sex ed you could become pregnant and get an STD at the same time.
If kids are visiting the PP site, than they are already engaging in 'dangerous' behavior or considering it. If you think that you can give them better information, put up your own site.

"JM,
Please re-read Laura's statement again...
p.s. (she's on your side!)"

I know that. That post was more for everyone else, not her. I thought that might happen. I apologize laura.

Sally,

You and your PC friends don't want us to teach kids not to get pregnant or get STDs. When we try PP and the other pro-aborts jump in and cry foul! Abortion is a multi million dollor industry. If kids stop having sex outside of marriage, then they are out of business. The only 100% effective way of not getting pregnant or an STD is by not having sex.

Teaching kids to abstain is not stupid nor putting our heads in the sand. Why not set a high standard with sexual behavior. We do it with our kids for education, sports, and hobbies. Why not for sexual behavior?

We want to protect our kids, then we should be telling them that sex is a great thing, but only in a marriage. Studies show that kids who are sexually active early have more emotional and behavioral problems. They tend to have drug and alcohol problems. They learn not to respect themselves or others. And we wonder why we say what's wrong with kids today that they have no respect. Why should they, we don't repect and protect life, we don't hold ourselves, let alone our kids responsible for our/their behavior. It is always someone elses fault. We've been told do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone. Well people do get hurt girls, boys and unborn children. It's time to stop the, "it's all about me" crap and start taking responsiblity.

Dan: "Well, essentially it came down to a question of sex ed, (abstinence only vs comprehensive) so we opted to go for pitching a fund raiser for planned parenthood for their push for comprehensive sex ed."

silly.

"Animal shelters often kill animals that don't get adopted. Does that mean you shouldn't donate to animal shelters, because they're animal killers? No.
A. Do animal shelters get paid 400 bucks for each animal killed?
B. People are not puppies. Although I used to volunteer at the SPCA, because I love animals very much. But they aren't the same. I hope you wouldn't euthanize people if they were bringing down the economy?
C. I still don't like the fact that they euthanize animals. However, the comparison still doesn't work. I don't see people going to the shelters and paying them 400 bucks for them to kill their puppy.
If they did work that way, would you want to accept vet services from such a place?

"Your tax dollars are being spent to kill thousands of people in Iraq. Protest that if you're so against murder."
I actually am against the war. But thanks for the assumption. May I please have another?

Sally,

That's quite an interesting assumption you make about PLer's not having jobs because they have so much time to "loiter around." For your info Sally, a lot of these protests/rallies are held on the weekends so if you have a weekday, 9-5 job you can still be at the rallies. I also know quite a few people who go BEFORE work too to pray. Besides that, I didn't know you had to pay taxes to WALK on a public street/sidewalk. The homeless seem to do a lot of sleeping on sidewalks that they don't seem to pay for. But nice job with the ignorant hurl of insults/assumptions. Glad to see you're back to your normal self.:)

Sally,

You and your PC friends don't want us to teach kids not to get pregnant or get STDs. When we try PP and the other pro-aborts jump in and cry foul! Abortion is a multi million dollor industry. If kids stop having sex outside of marriage, then they are out of business. The only 100% effective way of not getting pregnant or an STD is by not having sex.

Teaching kids to abstain is not stupid nor putting our heads in the sand. Why not set a high standard with sexual behavior. We do it with our kids for education, sports, and hobbies. Why not for sexual behavior?

We want to protect our kids, then we should be telling them that sex is a great thing, but only in a marriage. Studies show that kids who are sexually active early have more emotional and behavioral problems. They tend to have drug and alcohol problems. They learn not to respect themselves or others. And we wonder why we say what's wrong with kids today that they have no respect. Why should they, we don't repect and protect life, we don't hold ourselves, let alone our kids responsible for our/their behavior. It is always someone elses fault. We've been told do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone. Well people do get hurt girls, boys and unborn children. It's time to stop the, "it's all about me" crap and start taking responsiblity.

Posted by: Tara at November 19, 2007 11:08 PM

................................................

Tara, I'm pretty sure that my children are older than you.
I didn't raise my children with your freaks and I'd be willing to bet the farm that they are happier and healthier than yourself.
They are busy working on degrees, running marathons...........
while you are attempting to tell their mom how stupid you view women.
Pick up your toys and go to your room.

Sally,

Who you calling a freak? what's wrong with you? You're awful immature for someone your age.

Sally,

That's quite an interesting assumption you make about PLer's not having jobs because they have so much time to "loiter around." For your info Sally, a lot of these protests/rallies are held on the weekends so if you have a weekday, 9-5 job you can still be at the rallies. I also know quite a few people who go BEFORE work too to pray. Besides that, I didn't know you had to pay taxes to WALK on a public street/sidewalk. The homeless seem to do a lot of sleeping on sidewalks that they don't seem to pay for. But nice job with the ignorant hurl of insults/assumptions. Glad to see you're back to your normal self.:)

Posted by: Elizabeth at November 20, 2007 12:00 AM
...........................................................

Hurl of insults? Oh the drama! Name an insult. You can't but like to use the ---look over there------ dodge to avoid facing facts.
Interesting that you would compare supposedly gainfully employed individuals hanging around on the streets to the homeless sleeping on them. Kinda accentuates your lacking concept of empathy and sense of humanity.

Sally,

lay off the booze for a while....

Sally,

Who you calling a freak? what's wrong with you? You're awful immature for someone your age.

Posted by: jasper at November 20, 2007 12:10 AM
...................................

What kind of drugs are you on? You are very lacking in intelligence for anyone of any age. Pretty much explains why Jill made you a moderater for her blog. Keep it stupid.

Sally,

lay off the booze for a while....

Posted by: jasper at November 20, 2007 12:23 AM

......................................
Get your hand out of your pants. Jerking off will make you blind right before you go to hell.

Sally,

Seriously, go take your meds now...cause your concept of reality is REALLY shrinking tonight. I hope your family has hidden all the sharp objects or we might be hearing about you on the news soon. A person who finds it acceptable to kill unborn children questioning my concept of humanity is laughable. As are most of your comments.

Pip,

I am over here clapping at your comment:

I actually am against the war. But thanks for the assumption. May I please have another?

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 19, 2007 11:38 PM

Why do folks think prolifers are prowar?!!! Makes no sense!!!!!

hippie-

have no idea. If I had a nickel...

So Sally is bragging about running kids and still going to school. Now, that's a accomplishment. Next thing you know, Paris Hilton will show up and Sally will have love in her eye.

Why do folks think prolifers are prowar?!!! Makes no sense!!!!!

Maybe it is because you seem to have cast your lot with a political party that loves war and especially its profits. Aside from as many as a million deaths in Iraq thus far, your "pro-life" votes for Republicans tend also to be votes against civil rights and liberties, responsible stewardship of the environment (ironic, as this is what "conservative" used to mean), aid to the poor both in this country and abroad, and enforcement of food and product safety regulations. Those votes have also vastly redistributed wealth upward instead of downward in the past decade.

In light of all this, I have to wonder...how would Jesus vote? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you would like it to be.

Does this site really need a schill like Sally this bad?
Can't she be replaced easily?
Or is it her refined sense of sex causing death her claim to being allowed to post here?
Tell us again Sally how having sex has left you with dead tissue in you, and your family.
Maybe it would have been better if you jerked off more and avoided the dreaded deathsex you have experienced.

Gee Ray,
Those Democrats have got a hugh start on wars and killing the innocent. Remember, only a Democrat can nuke a city....or two. 450,000 American soldiers dead from their war lust in 1941.
And a mere 150,000 dead American soldiers in "the war to end all wars". Liars.

@Dan:

Bravo on your choice and your sense of realism as well as your activism. Congrats on your first university acceptance - and many more!

@ Tara
Do we really need to explain the difference between correlation and causation yet again?

BTW, Ray.
60 million died in the Democratic Party inspired WW2.
And here is the best part Ray, the reason the Japanese went to war was for oil and steel. That and our policy of denying them food and fishing rights till they would have starved to death.
30 years latter, Japanese steel and automobiles flooded this nation and Democrats controlled both houses. Their excuse was to stop steel production in the USA from being polluters of the enviroment. Same thing for automobiles, which made Detroit into a ghetto and destroyed the middle class, who worked in steel and automotive production.
Forward to 1993 and the Democratic president naed Bill Clinton passed Nafta which put te final nail in manufacturing in the USA. Who owned the house and Senate Ray?

Gee Ray,
Those Democrats have got a hugh start on wars and killing the innocent.

Posted by: yllas at November 20, 2007 1:08 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We Democrats use Hugh to start all of our wars.
...And here's Hugh now, throwing a grenade cleverly disguised as a can of baked beans:

http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/GrantBeansGOF_468x456.jpg

Yllas, making an occasional provocative statement is one thing, but with you being a consistent attack dog, foaming at the mouth for an opportunity to pounce on someone, it kind of takes the fun out of debating here.

I am not saying the Democrats have a perfect historical record, but looking over the past dozen years, my original list of shameful Republican achievements brought about in part by pro-life votes stands, and the fact remains that a Republican president and congress dragged us into an unprovoked war that has killed as many as a million Iraqis by some estimates, not to mention thousands of Americans, and is bankrupting us, with no end in sight.

Incidentally, regarding WWII, are you suggesting we should not have fought it at all? Do you think Hitler could have been defeated if, without our assistance, Britain had fallen, and without our massive aid to the Russians? How many millions more Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and Catholics would have been sent to the ovens? Are you suggesting we should have allowed the Japanese to rape (both literally and figuratively) all of Asia, and perhaps even Australia?

You blow smoke about millions dying in Iraq from being a loon. Show me the grave sites which the NYT has not even headlined.
Why the propaganda Ray?
Only because of your foolish petty political party needs and wants huh?
AS for WW2, it was a failure of STATEMANSHIP. Just as Powell failed to stop the war in Iraq.
But, Ray, the fact that the Democratic party killed 60 million in total, and 450,000 American lifes, then got the survivors of their failed statemanship in the 1930'S to 1940, to lose their job to the former enemy, is about as low as one political party can get. And remember, Jimma Carter was in the pocket of the Yakuza(Ryoichi Sasakawa) so deep, he got Atlanta a bone... Makita.
And yes, I'll defend the fact that the USA should not have gone to war in the mid 20th century.
Shall we begin with the Treaty of Versailles, and the betrayal of the terms of that treaty. That Germany would have finished paying reparations 60 years later,which was not within the terms of the treaty? And why would a ally in 1917, the Japanese, become enemies in just 20 years?
It begins with deceit and lies, just as Afghanistan was used and abused for cheap political reasons, which your being used for Ray, by quoting unsubstantiated numbers of the dead in Iraq.
There would have been no rise in nationalism/Hitler, without the Democrat Wilson, lying and deceiving Japan and Germany.
To put it so you may understand Ray, by what right did Britian, the USA have to declare war when the "other side" was only doing what they were doing? Building empires and colonies. The Japanese were only "doing" what they learned from those "barbarians" from the West.
And here is a bonus point Ray, how did the Roosevelt clan get rich? Which is why their butts were on the line, along with hundreds of other Yankee traders that fed death to those "yellow people". Gee, Ray, selling opium to those "yellow people", might make one get angry and decide that the only defence is to become like the barbarians and do what they do....

And a bonus point Ray. Who was T.V. Soong, Julian Carr, and their relationship to Duke university.
Imagine, a university founded on dope and cigarettes!!!!
And as for gays and Nazi's. Tell me Ray, that symbol on the flag of those, Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party, , was it not a pagan symbol?
Name me one pagan culture which does not condone homosexual acts? Just one ray. Romans? Vandals? Visigoths? and don't leave out those Huns?

Don't take it sooo hard Ray.
Sally and Laura make me look like a amateur when it comes to insults and propaganda. Why Jill allows those low form of agitational propagandist to lower the bar of her blog can only be explained by needing schills and examples of closed minded pro abortionist.
But, let us discuss war and Christianty losing its moral authority in the 20th century from taking Christians and making them kill millions of other Christians.
How each death from the mass murdering war's of the 20th century has decreased the authority of Christianity from being held hostage to nationalism and its brother, secularism.
And no century tops the 20th century for blind mass murder Ray.
One might make a connection to abortion and the history of legalized killing, sanctioned by war.
Ain't nothing like losing a family member to some war, and the affect on the mother, a traditional source of spreading Christianity to the next generation. Take a look at Cindy Sheehan, used and abuse by both sides, and having nothing to show for it in truth. It broke her. When this war is over, the lasting effects is on the future generation represented by his brother and sister.
But, let us not leave out those easily broke atheist parents either, such as the Tillman's. Adios, Tillman family. Just as those atheist Russians are disappearing from practicing against(contra) life(conception) sex.
Or the millions of male Christians who have fought for this nation during the mid 20th century.
The toll is soo huge on morality that abortion can be taken as killing lite, in the minds of millions.
And Ray, I might vote Republican, but they ain't fooling me anymore then a Democrat.

Laura,

There are plenty of Planned Parenthood affiliates that don't perform abortions, and NO Planned Parenthood clinic is soley used for abortions.

So tell me, if some of the Catholic Churches did not allow their priests to molest children, but most of them did, would you say that was okay? After all there would be "plenty of Catholic Churches affiliates the didn't perform sex acts, and no Catholic Church would be Solely for the abuse of children"...

Ray-

I have never voted Republican.

ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.....

And then:

ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.....

And then:

ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.....

Laura, your sides must be aching today ; )

Ray, on yllas: foaming at the mouth

:: laughing :: Best example of it ever, and that's in eleven years of being online and many thousands of hours on message boards.

It takes all kinds.... : )

Doug

Doug,
LOL! Feeling a bit "dizzy" today, but otherwise, OK!

Ray, the problems in the Middle East started when Carter (a Democrat for those too young to remember) was president. Can anyone give Ray a history lesson?

Well here's the beginning, I've got to get to work so I'll just start, others can add...

See Iran, during Carter's presidency, was an ally of the US. The Shah of Iran was our greatest ally in the Muslim world. (No, we didn't just start concerning ourselves with Muslims since 9/11 contrary to popular opinion.)The ayatollah Khomeini was living in exile already but planning an Islamic Revolution in Iran. He knew that it had virtually no chance of success because of the US support of the Shah, but when Carter came to office he saw his chance.

Carter called Khomeini a man of "impeccable integrity and honesty." (Right! He was exiled by Iran years before!) And thought that since Khomeini was a "religious" man he was better fit to rule Iran and removed the US support of the Shah,AGAINST the adamant warnings of the US military liaison in Iran. The Shah was terrified of Carter and was worried about "what kind of calamity he (Carter) would unleash on the world."

Khomeini had spent his years in Iraq proclaiming "The West killed God and they want us to bury him." Without the US support the Shah was assassinated. And Osama's terrorist group was born.

We are still feeling the aftershocks of Carter's decision. A decision that his own Sec. of State pleaded with him against. Had he kept the status quo the last three wars (Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq) had a huge probability of NEVER happening. Saddam's party followed the Islamic Revolution when no one was minding Iran. And Iran - the stabilizing force in the Middle East at the time -was dealing with the revolution made possible by Carter.

Anyone care to continue the education of Ray?

So tell me, if some of the Catholic Churches did not allow their priests to molest children, but most of them did, would you say that was okay? After all there would be "plenty of Catholic Churches affiliates the didn't perform sex acts, and no Catholic Church would be Solely for the abuse of children"...

Posted by: mk at November 20, 2007 6:22 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You do realize that abortion is legal in this country? That the vast majority of Americans are just fine with it? That clean, safe abortion is totally victimless.
Child molesting is BAD.

Ray:"Maybe it is because you seem to have cast your lot with a political party that loves war and especially its profits. Aside from as many as a million deaths in Iraq thus far,"

Loves war? a million deaths? where do you get your stats?

"your "pro-life" votes for Republicans tend also to be votes against civil rights and liberties,"

\what civil liberties have you loss?

"responsible stewardship of the environment (ironic, as this is what "conservative" used to mean), aid to the poor both in this country and abroad, and enforcement of food and product safety regulations. Those votes have also vastly redistributed wealth upward instead of downward in the past decade."

aid to the poor? President Bush gave more money to Africa than all other pressidents combined.

"In light of all this, I have to wonder...how would Jesus vote? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you would like it to be."
\
Republican.

pip: "I have never voted Republican."

calls herself pro-life but votes pro-death.

Animal shelters often kill animals that don't get adopted. Does that mean you shouldn't donate to animal shelters, because they're animal killers? No.
A. Do animal shelters get paid 400 bucks for each animal killed?
B. People are not puppies. Although I used to volunteer at the SPCA, because I love animals very much. But they aren't the same. I hope you wouldn't euthanize people if they were bringing down the economy?
C. I still don't like the fact that they euthanize animals. However, the comparison still doesn't work. I don't see people going to the shelters and paying them 400 bucks for them to kill their puppy.
If they did work that way, would you want to accept vet services from such a place?

PIP- Oh, PIP. I love you so. This is incredible. The only way I can explain it properly is that you made her argument your b!tch.

Yes Laura, I realize it's legal.
No Laura, it isn't victimnless.

And I wasn't arguing about the legal right to abortion, but about the comparison to the Catholic Church. If child molestation suddenly became legal, and Catholic Churches everywhere were practicing it, would that make it "good"...would it be victimless simply because a portion of the population refuses to face reality? Does living in a state of denial, actually produce the delusion that one suffers from? Or does it remain, just that? A delusion.

Claiming there are no victims in abortion is, in my humble opinion, delusional. If 99.9% of the population buys into this delusion, it doesn't make it any more real. It just adds to the population growth of the land of la la. Talk about a population explosion! Now there's a "country" that needs thinning out.

You do realize that abortion is legal in this country? That the vast majority of Americans are just fine with it? That clean, safe abortion is totally victimless.

Oh yeah, totally victimless.

More on "totally victimless" abortions:

This is my friend Christina with her sign showing some victims of totally victimless abortions.

In light of all this, I have to wonder...how would Jesus vote? I don't think the answer is as clear cut as you would like it to be."

Jesus would not cast a vote to murder in utero the people He suffered and died to save.

No worries nut job. You won't find me loitering around your slum any time soon.

Do you PROMISE?

Oh Jacquie,

Get real! That "fetus" wasn't sentient. He didn't even have a head! How can he be a victim? How can he perceive the harm being done to him if his brain has been removed?

Silly Girl!

MK-

I'm sorry. I forgot that the head develops right before birth, maybe even during birth.

Claiming there are no victims in abortion is, in my humble opinion, delusional. If 99.9% of the population buys into this delusion, it doesn't make it any more real. It just adds to the population growth of the land of la la. Talk about a population explosion! Now there's a "country" that needs thinning out.

MK, it's like saying "victim" in a miscarriage. The word usually includes the meaning of suffering. That the unborn die in an abortion (or miscarriage) isn't at issue. With almost all abortions the feeling of "victim" is really in the minds of those who think abortion is wrong.

I don't think 99.9% of people think one way or the other on this stuff.

Doug

Doug,
Is it not a victim of abortion, though?

jasper, I wouldn't say Republicans are pro-life, for several reasons. I also doubt that any politician will actually do anything about it; we need to start going at it from the ground up rather than top down.

Didn't you learn anything from Iraq?

And hey, if Guiliani wins the primaries, can I count you down for a non-voter?

Jacq-

I try :)

MK, it's like saying "victim" in a miscarriage. The word usually includes the meaning of suffering. That the unborn die in an abortion (or miscarriage) isn't at issue. With almost all abortions the feeling of "victim" is really in the minds of those who think abortion is wrong.

Not true. If I anestheized you prior to killing you, you'd still be a murder victim. If I had congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA), and someone maimed and killed me, I'd still be a victim.

Unborn babies may not know what is happening to them, but they are still victims. They's been killed, had their lives and futures stolen. They're very much victims.

On parental notification, I like the way Delaware does it. It applies for girls under 16 years old - I don't think that just because one is just under 18 one should be subject to it, and it does not have to be the parents - could be a grandparent or counselor. There are situations where that'd be best. Also, a doctor can bypass it, which wouldn't take as long as judicial bypass.

Doug

There are situations where that'd be best.

1. As a general rule, do you think school counselors love those children as much as the parents do? While some parents are crap, most genuinely love and desire what's best for their daughters and unborn grandchildren.

2. Are counselors going to be close enough to the girl to make sure she doesn't suffer some complications? Mom and Dad LIVE with the girl. Counselor doesn't see her much.

3. Don't you think a doctor who is set to gain a couple hundred bucks for a 10 minute abortion would be quicker to grant a bypass than a judge with no vested interest?

Jacqueline: Not true. If I anestheized you prior to killing you, you'd still be a murder victim. If I had congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA), and someone maimed and killed me, I'd still be a victim.

I did say "usually includes the meaning of suffering." The hypotheticals you mention are anything but usual.

I realize that "victim" can be said regardless, but the same then applies to miscarriages. Even with the sperm and egg, if something happens to prevent conception, perhaps the woman ate something, drank something, etc., then you could say that "the individual's future has been stolen." Whether conception took place or not, the effect is the same, and the feelings here are on the part of us people arguing about it.

Doug

Jacqueline, agreed that most times parents love their kids the most. I think if anything that the average parent in the US needs more involvement with their kids, not less. It's for the exceptions where I think there should be the ability to bypass the parents if it's called for.

Don't you think a doctor who is set to gain a couple hundred bucks for a 10 minute abortion would be quicker to grant a bypass than a judge with no vested interest?

You can say things like that about any doctor who gets paid, and almost all of them do. That said, if judical bypass takes only a day or two, then that sounds decent to me in all but the most extreme situations.

Doug,

Don't you think these girls might want to hide their sexual activity from their parents out of fear of getting in trouble or disappointing them?

Don't you think it's best that mom and dad are aware of their daughter's activities so that they can counsel her on the STD's she exposing herself to?

If the parents are responsible for paying for thier minor child's medical bills, I believe there is no reason why the parent shouldn't know what their kids are doing that may CAUSE a medical concern, like an STD.

I realize that "victim" can be said regardless, but the same then applies to miscarriages>

Sure it can! Same with any natural death, "Cancer Victim, AIDS Victim, Heart Attack Victim" but let's not forget that a miscarriage is a natural death, a tragedy whereas abortion is a violent act pepetrated on an innocent victim. A baby who likely would have lived, been born, and experienced the world is instead violently killed.

Heart attacks, AIDS, and cancer don't compare to dismemberment, poisoning, and lethal injection.

The bottom line, Doug, is that parents are responsible for making the decisions of the minor child because of his/her immaturity and lack of life experience. This isn't absolute, since I know some immature adults and extremely mature children. Nonetheless, minors can't get tattoos for a reason. They can't legally drink alcohol for a reason. They can't submit to elective medical procedures for a reason.

Why don't pro-aborts treat abortion like other elective surgeries? I don't see NARAL fighting age restrictions on nose jobs. I don't see judicial bypass for breast implants, either.

Do some of the readers think that people who
profit from building killing centers should do
so in peace and tranquility?

Posted by: lesforlife at November 19, 2007 8:10 PM

Actually, I do. From what I've read about this situation, the PL group made their concerns known to the construction company and asked them to not work on the project. The construction company disagreed. Obviously, the project isn't going away, and the construction company is going to continue to work on it. It will be finished at some point, and there will be a new PP facility.

Since there is absolutely no purpose to it other than to harass the families of the construction company, standing around outside their houses with your graphic signs only makes you look like petulant children. Not to mention that it gains you absolutely no sympathy for your cause, and in fact probably gets a couple more people on board with the pro-choice side.

Since there is absolutely no purpose to it other than to harass the families of the construction company, standing around outside their houses with your graphic signs only makes you look like petulant children.

Actually, what would look worse is if we approached the builders of the death camps and said, "Please stop building a center that will be used to murder unborn children," they say, "No" and we respond with, "Okay! Go ahead with building your killing chamber!"

Call us children, but I'm not going to take no for an answer, when the question is, "Will you stop participating in the murder of innocent babies."

One forlorn young woman... sat in her front yard with a hand made sign indicating her family will donate to Planned Parenthood every time there is a protest of the new super death camp's construction company executive.

I still can't overcome the ridiculousness of this. I wonder how much she gives? Either way SHE loses.

Think about it: If she gives a large amount, she only bankrupts herself or fails to make good on her pathetic threat. If she only gives a small amount, how is that supposed to discourage pro-life demonstrators.

I guarentee this lady is lower income anyway. PP only builds in low-income neighborhoods.

Don't you think these girls might want to hide their sexual activity from their parents out of fear of getting in trouble or disappointing them?

Jacqueline, yes, sure, and I usually agree with you:

you think it's best that mom and dad are aware of their daughter's activities so that they can counsel her on the STD's she exposing herself to?

Most times, yes, though I think there should be a mechanism for caring for the girl when parental involvement would be a bad thing.
......

Heart attacks, AIDS, and cancer don't compare to dismemberment, poisoning, and lethal injection.

If we are talking about abortion, then I agree with that - abortion almost always includes much less suffering. Additionally, it is not merely a case of an illness or death, there is also the woman to consider.
......

The bottom line, Doug, is that parents are responsible for making the decisions of the minor child because of his/her immaturity and lack of life experience. This isn't absolute, since I know some immature adults and extremely mature children. Nonetheless, minors can't get tattoos for a reason. They can't legally drink alcohol for a reason. They can't submit to elective medical procedures for a reason.

And usually the parents have the kids' best interest at heart. It's the exceptions where I think they should not have total control.
......

Why don't pro-aborts treat abortion like other elective surgeries? I don't see NARAL fighting age restrictions on nose jobs. I don't see judicial bypass for breast implants, either.

If you see a "pro-abort," ask them. I don't think that minors should be allowed to wear backwards baseball caps. Majors neither.

You have a point about nose jobs, etc., but I think it's reasonable to figure that NARAL will be a little more interested in abortion rights. If a 17.5 year old wants a tattoo, I say go for it.

Doug

Jacque, maybe her sign should read "Every day you're here we will donate to PP and help kill more innocent children." That's really more to the point.

Jacque, thank you for posting those pictures. America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.

And usually the parents have the kids' best interest at heart. It's the exceptions where I think they should not have total control.

But you have no standard, Doug. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a small facet of parents are bad parents, you'd oppose allowing the vast majority of good parents to protect their daughters.

You have a point about nose jobs, etc., but I think it's reasonable to figure that NARAL will be a little more interested in abortion rights

My point being- if there were a law on the ballot about eliminating the age of consent for plastic surgery, body piercing and tattooes, I guaran-damn-tee you that they same people that oppose parental notification/consent would be oppose this law.

I'm looking for consistency.
If we are talking about abortion, then I agree with that - abortion almost always includes much less suffering. Additionally, it is not merely a case of an illness or death, there is also the woman to consider.

Amount of pain is irrelevant. The ends are the same.

And the only way you can say their is a woman to consider is if you put the baby and woman on a level playing field: Either woman gets dismembered or baby gets dismembered. Since this is NEVER the case, your "consideration" is invalid.

Also, how can anyone deny that that isn't a tiny person. Look at the tiny feet, legs, hands, and the ripped off head.

Jacque, maybe her sign should read "Every day you're here we will donate to PP and help kill more innocent children." That's really more to the point.

Tis a shame, eh. The very women who loves to write that sign could have been killed by her mother, who instead decided to birth her and place her for adoption.

Jacque, thank you for posting those pictures. America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion.

Let us pray.

Posted by: heather at November 20, 2007 11:30 AM

Yes. Let us.

And usually the parents have the kids' best interest at heart. It's the exceptions where I think they should not have total control.

Posted by Doug.

But you think if the parent disagrees with the child then they shouldn't have to notify. You said if the parents make the girl have the baby and she wants an abortion it's wrong. Essentially you're only for notification IF the parent and child agree.

That's just silly! My mom is ubber religious, (Catholic) daily mass, full rosaries daily, weekly confession, etc... When my 18 year old sister wound up pregnant we thought she'd beat her breast and wail. She did neither, just told my sister she was going to have the baby and she had to make the decision to keep the baby or give her up for adoption. My sister decided on adoption. (My sister never considered abortion, being 18 she would not have needed consent anyway.)

The point is that you really don't know how a parent is going to react and to take the right of notification away from EVERY parent because a few MIGHT react badly is absurd! (And really, WHAT are these parents going to do to their child?) I've known plenty of pregnant teens and have never known a parent to kick their teen out of the home, disown them, force an abortion or to carry to term.

You're entire premise is foolish.

Oops! Typo, I meant "Your entire premise..."

But you have no standard, Doug. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a small facet of parents are bad parents, you'd oppose allowing the vast majority of good parents to protect their daughters.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Question; If a parent can force their daughter to carry a pregnancy to term, shouldn't a parent also be able to force their daugter to have an abortion if they decide it's in her best interest?

Gee, maybe we should leave the decision up to the person who has to deal with it.

PIP: "Didn't you learn anything from Iraq?"

Yes, I learned that Sadaam Hussian will not be able to gas 150,000 kurdish Men, women and children to death. etc, etc....the nuke program will not start up again, the rape and killing rooms have been shut-down, Al-queda is hurting badly, progress is happening. What are your liberals friends going to do with the lack of bad news? I mean, the democrats are counting on Iraq to be failure, what a position to be in.

jasper-

You should have learned that democracy can't come from the top down. It has to go from the bottom up.

PIP,

Also, the Democrats promised to lose the war in Iraq but Hillary or Obama will not guarantee that our troops will be out by 2013 if they're elected? I wonder why.

Gee, maybe we should leave the decision up to the person who has to deal with it.

And the parents of teen moms don't "deal with it?" Who is supporting her and her child?

Because you can't predict what will happen. You don't have to wonder. They've explained it. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

One more thing:

Question; If a parent can force their daughter to carry a pregnancy to term, shouldn't a parent also be able to force their daugter to have an abortion if they decide it's in her best interest?

Let's look at other activities that involve parental consent/notification:

-If a parent can force their daughter to leave her ears unpierced, shouldn't a parent also be able to force their daughter to have her ears pierced if they decide it's in her best interest?

-If a parent can force their daughter to leave her body untattooed, shouldn't a parent also be able to force their daughter to get a tattoo if they decide it's in her best interest?

And the parents of teen moms don't "deal with it?" Who is supporting her and her child?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 12:59 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Precisely.
That's why I asked if you could force your daughter to have an abortion as easily as you want to be able to deny her an abortion.

-If a parent can force their daughter to leave her body untattooed, shouldn't a parent also be able to force their daughter to get a tattoo if they decide it's in her best interest?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 1:05 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's what I'm saying.
You shouldn't be able to force your daughter to carry a pregnancy any more than you can force her to get a tattoo.

I guarentee this lady is lower income anyway. PP only builds in low-income neighborhoods.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 11:19 AM

Well, except for the fact that the protesters aren't anywhere near the PP facility. They're standing in a high-income neighborhood outside the home of one of the construction company's executives, and she is one of the neighbors. I'm thinking she's got some disposable income to spare.

Actually, what would look worse is if we approached the builders of the death camps and said, "Please stop building a center that will be used to murder unborn children," they say, "No" and we respond with, "Okay! Go ahead with building your killing chamber!"

Call us children, but I'm not going to take no for an answer, when the question is, "Will you stop participating in the murder of innocent babies."

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 20, 2007 11:14 AM

I don't think it comes down to that. Refraining from conducting a pointless and counter-productive protest in front of the home of a construction company executive doesn't mean that you approve of abortion. What it could mean is that your energies could be more usefully directed elsewhere.

That's what I'm saying.
You shouldn't be able to force your daughter to carry a pregnancy any more than you can force her to get a tattoo.

Posted by: Laura at November 20, 2007 1:10 PM

Didn't someone post a study not too long ago showing that parental consent laws tend to increase the abortion rate among teens, because parents are more likely to insist that their teen daughters have abortions? I seem to recall reading that somewhere...

Didn't someone post a study not too long ago showing that parental consent laws tend to increase the abortion rate among teens, because parents are more likely to insist that their teen daughters have abortions? I seem to recall reading that somewhere...

Then find it. Our abortion rates in Texas for teens are at a low since we passed our law.

Didn't someone post a study not too long ago showing that parental consent laws tend to increase the abortion rate among teens, because parents are more likely to insist that their teen daughters have abortions? I seem to recall reading that somewhere...

Posted by: Carol at November 20, 2007 1:12 PM

Carol, no. The laws have been shown to DECREASE the numbers. In Texas the abortion rate fell between 11% and 20% depending on age groups.

That's what I'm saying.
You shouldn't be able to force your daughter to carry a pregnancy any more than you can force her to get a tattoo.

And I pointed out that your analogy is ridiculous. Parents can't force abortions now and they won't be given that option because of parental involvement laws.

Laura,

No force is required to carry a pregnancy.

Force is required to end a pregnancy before its natural conclusion.

Jacqueline,

You rock. And that's all I have to say about that.

(Now time for bio homework)

Laura-

Show me one situation where parents forced their underage child to get a tattoo and then you can make your claim about forced abortions cause by parental consent laws.

Elizabeth-

Thanks! You rock, too. You rock squared!

Ray, the problems in the Middle East started when Carter (a Democrat for those too young to remember) was president. Can anyone give Ray a history lesson?

Kristen, if you believe that, then you are the one that needs a history lesson. The current problems in the Middle East started after WWI, when the British created several nation-states there, Iraq prominent among them, with borders that ignored centuries of ethnic and tribal tradition and rivalries.

But to get back to my point, sure, a few of you antis see through the smokescreen and vote Democratic. But a whole lot of antis out there are single issue Republican voters, who would otherwise vote Democratic, but in going Republican on this one issue have unleashed a lot of death, destruction, poverty and misery in the world, especially in the decades since Roe vs. Wade.

Ray, my point is that the Middle East was relatively stable prior to Carter. That Khomeini would never have returned to Iran without Carter's blessing. The Islamic Revolution would have died a silent death and that the turmoil there now would not have happened.

We could go back to the beginning of time and find issues in the ME. They pre-date WWI . I'm speaking of present day problems and what they stem from, Carter's decision to withdraw US support of the Shah of Iran.

But a whole lot of antis out there are single issue Republican voters, who would otherwise vote Democratic, but in going Republican on this one issue have unleashed a lot of death, destruction, poverty and misery in the world, especially in the decades since Roe vs. Wade.

I am one of those people- except, and I bold except since Roe. V. Wade the democratic party has degraded into a rolling pus-filled hell of moral decay. If democrats were the democrats they used to be, champions of the little guy, I'd swing that way- unfortunately, they are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-sexual immorality, pro-institutionalizing sexual immorality, anti-American, anti-national defense, anti-personal responsbility, and anti-middle class (unless of course you want welfare, and then they're all for it).

If democrats could stop supporting everything Christ found abominable, I could vote for them

P.S. How much more death and destruction can you get than 48+ million dead, destroyed children?

Jacqueline: But you have no standard, Doug. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because a small facet of parents are bad parents, you'd oppose allowing the vast majority of good parents to protect their daughters.

My standard is what's best for the girl. Sometimes, that means the parents don't get to decide. Overall, I think that parents need more involvement in their kids' lives, but we need to allow for the exceptions as well.
......

"You have a point about nose jobs, etc., but I think it's reasonable to figure that NARAL will be a little more interested in abortion rights."

My point being- if there were a law on the ballot about eliminating the age of consent for plastic surgery, body piercing and tattooes, I guaran-damn-tee you that they same people that oppose parental notification/consent would be oppose this law.

I'm looking for consistency.

My opinion - you're looking for absolutes that would in the end hurt some girls. Why would NARAL oppose lowering the age of consent for tattoos?
......

"If we are talking about abortion, then I agree with that - abortion almost always includes much less suffering. Additionally, it is not merely a case of an illness or death, there is also the woman to consider."

Amount of pain is irrelevant. The ends are the same.

I suggest that the pain you feel over abortion is not enough to justify taking away the freedom that women have in the matter. A cancer patient, for example, can have more pain and more suffering than occurs in any number of abortions. That does make a difference to a lot of people.
......

And the only way you can say their is a woman to consider is if you put the baby and woman on a level playing field: Either woman gets dismembered or baby gets dismembered. Since this is NEVER the case, your "consideration" is invalid.

No, there is a woman there, period. She had desires and opinions just like you. And, she is the one who is pregnant.

Doug

And, by the way, families were more self-sufficient prior to Johnson.

Democrat Johnson's War on Poverty gave us the poverty we have today.

Kristen: But you think if the parent disagrees with the child then they shouldn't have to notify. You said if the parents make the girl have the baby and she wants an abortion it's wrong. Essentially you're only for notification IF the parent and child agree.

That's just silly! My mom is ubber religious, (Catholic) daily mass, full rosaries daily, weekly confession, etc... When my 18 year old sister wound up pregnant we thought she'd beat her breast and wail. She did neither, just told my sister she was going to have the baby and she had to make the decision to keep the baby or give her up for adoption. My sister decided on adoption. (My sister never considered abortion, being 18 she would not have needed consent anyway.)

The point is that you really don't know how a parent is going to react and to take the right of notification away from EVERY parent because a few MIGHT react badly is absurd! (And really, WHAT are these parents going to do to their child?) I've known plenty of pregnant teens and have never known a parent to kick their teen out of the home, disown them, force an abortion or to carry to term.

Your entire premise is foolish.

Kristen, ya done picked up a false football and ran the entire length of the field the wrong way with it.

No, I am not saying have the child necessarily be a free agent. I am saying that a grandparent, counselor, doctor and/or eventually a judge of some type should be able to help kids where it's not in their best interest to have their parents decide or know.

I'm not talking about all parents and of course not even most parents.

Doug

My standard is what's best for the girl. Sometimes, that means the parents don't get to decide. Overall, I think that parents need more involvement in their kids' lives, but we need to allow for the exceptions as well.

You're not hearing me: LAWS AREN'T BASED ON INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. The standard must be the majority, not denied because we can't know each individual's circumstance.

My opinion - you're looking for absolutes that would in the end hurt some girls.

My opinion- you're willing to hurt a majority of girls to protect some girls. Not a wise trade-off.

Why would NARAL oppose lowering the age of consent for tattoos?

Parents don't want children making permanent decisions about their bodies without involvement. So those people that support abortion on demand for little girls would want to sign a permission slip for a lesser physical act.

I suggest that the pain you feel over abortion is not enough to justify taking away the freedom that women have in the matter.

It's not about me and the emotional pain I feel. It's about the injustice in killing an innocent child. If someone were to murder your wife, it wouldn't be your emotional pain that would justify denying freedom to the murderer, it would be justice for the victim. I am so preventing victimization and being just to all people. Even the tiniest, defenseless ones.

A cancer patient, for example, can have more pain and more suffering than occurs in any number of abortions.

So? Because someone suffers with cancer I have the right to kill someone in a less-painful manner?

No, there is a woman there, period.

A woman who has equal worth with her baby. Humans are equal.

She had desires and opinions just like you.

So do many serial killers. Desires and opinions don't justify killing people.

And, she is the one who is pregnant.

And she is the one who got herself pregnant. There's a baby in there. Don't like it. Too damn bad!

No, I am not saying have the child necessarily be a free agent. I am saying that a grandparent, counselor, doctor and/or eventually a judge of some type should be able to help kids where it's not in their best interest to have their parents decide or know.

And who's to decide it's not in her best interest for her parents to know? A young girl afraid of getting grounded?

Bravo, Jacque!

I'm not talking about all parents and of course not even most parents.

Doug

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2007 3:52 PM

Um, by NOT having a PNL you ARE talking about all parents, whether you want to or not. Without the PNL not even a grandparent, couselor, etc. would have to be notified. No wrong play on my part.

Kristen: We could go back to the beginning of time and find issues in the ME. They pre-date WWI . I'm speaking of present day problems and what they stem from, Carter's decision to withdraw US support of the Shah of Iran.

Kristen, I don't know how new you are here, but I hope you stay - you write good posts.

I think Carter was a nice guy who meant well, though politically unsavvy (compared to a Nixon, for example). I hated that he wanted the US Olympic team to boycott the Moscow Olympics - it didn't do a darn thing and mainly just screwed the athletes over, when they had trained so hard. He's by far the best person that's been President since, again IMO of course.

However, the US has a long history of supporting unpopular leaders. Saddam Hussein was one for a while. In Vietnam "we" wanted people in power who we thought would be friendly to us, but we supported dishonest clowns that the average Vietnamese person hated, so the South Vietnamese military was compromised in its willingness to fight, and there was much more support of the enemy/North Vietnam/Ho Chi Min than there would have been, otherwise.

And - "Uncle Ho" had been supported by us before that, since he'd been anti-Japan in World War II. Crazy....

Anyway, I think the Shah was on his way out eventually, whether we supported him or not.

Unrelated to the argument to this point - yeah, there was certainly trouble pre-WW II in the Middle East. Heck, look at Iraq, with the Sunnis and the Shiites at each other. That's been going on for 1300 or 1400 years, I believe. Ray has a good point about political borders that don't reflect the different tribes and enthicities (and sects).

FWIW, I think we should cut our losses in Iraq. Not saying withdraw tomorrow, but I feel that in the end a civil war will be required to sort things out. The Kurds want to be left alone, and the Shiites are gonna have to open up a can of whoop-ass on the Sunnis, get some recompense for what happened under Saddam, and in the end there may be three separate territories.

Doug

How cool that you have these photos. I'm sitting there with three of my children and the world's youngest protestor, my baby boy at 5 days old. We all had a blast. Thanks for posting this.

Dani-

You have a beautiful family. Congratulations on your newest member!

Doug thanks for the compliment! I agree we have a long history of supporting some not so nice leaders. Really the Shah of Iran was arguably one of them. However, the same people that say we should have let Saddam be, say Carter was right in withdrawing US support of the Shah. (Not here, in general people I've talked to.) It's simply because they are Democrats and to them Dems can do no wrong.

I'm not really a staunch Rep. or Dem. and, like I've said before, I'm not arrogant enough to think I can do better. My point is that abortion is a simple, black and white, moral issue. If you aren't on the right side of that I don't think you can be on the right side of anything.

Bush might have made an incorrect decision about Iraq but I really have a hard time believing he did it out of any kind of malice. I think if he could do it all over he would have made a different decision but hindsight is 20/20.

I'd vote for a Democrat on the right side of abortion.

Ray, my point is that the Middle East was relatively stable prior to Carter.

You are talking about the same Carter who negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel and won the Nobel peace prize? And are you suggesting that it would have been morally superior for him to continue US support for the murderous and corrupt Shah? If anything, his mistake was being too humane, in allowing the Shah to stop here for medical treatment after his exile.

And for the record I think that Carter did have good intentions. Again, hindsight is 20/20.

I just have a problem with Ray (or anyone) saying the problems/wars/my hangnail are because of Republicans.

Jacqueline: You're not hearing me: LAWS AREN'T BASED ON INDIVIDUAL SITUATIONS. The standard must be the majority, not denied because we can't know each individual's circumstance.

There need be no "absolute" standard nor law. Accomodating the majority is fine, and the law can also allow for "bypass" when warranted.
......

"My opinion - you're looking for absolutes that would in the end hurt some girls."

My opinion- you're willing to hurt a majority of girls to protect some girls. Not a wise trade-off.

Agreed that that would be bad, but I'm not advocating that. I want them all to have what is best for them.
......

"I suggest that the pain you feel over abortion is not enough to justify taking away the freedom that women have in the matter."

It's not about me and the emotional pain I feel. It's about the injustice in killing an innocent child.

Yeah, it really is - that's your own emotions, opinion about "injustice" and preferred terminology at work.
......

If someone were to murder your wife, it wouldn't be your emotional pain that would justify denying freedom to the murderer, it would be justice for the victim. I am so preventing victimization and being just to all people. Even the tiniest, defenseless ones.

I'd say that your opinion doesn't justify somebody attacking my wife, taking away her life, nor does it justify taking away the pregnant woman's freedom. My wife is not inside the attacker, and the pregnant woman is not inside you. The unborn indeed are inside the pregnant woman.
......

"A cancer patient, for example, can have more pain and more suffering than occurs in any number of abortions."

So? Because someone suffers with cancer I have the right to kill someone in a less-painful manner?

No, but thus many people don't see abortion nearly as badly as you do.
......

"No, there is a woman there, period."

A woman who has equal worth with her baby. Humans are equal.

No, if that were true this wouldn't even be an issue.
......

"She has desires and opinions just like you."

So do many serial killers. Desires and opinions don't justify killing people.

Those the serial killers attack are not in their body. There isn't the support for serial-killing that there is for legal abortion because they are so different. And actually, it indeed is all desire and opinion that justifies (or not) killing people.
......

"And, she is the one who is pregnant."

And she is the one who got herself pregnant. There's a baby in there. Don't like it. Too damn bad!

She may choose abortion and tell you the same thing. It's her body and it's her decision.

Doug

You are talking about the same Carter who negotiated peace between Egypt and Israel and won the Nobel peace prize? And are you suggesting that it would have been morally superior for him to continue US support for the murderous and corrupt Shah? If anything, his mistake was being too humane, in allowing the Shah to stop here for medical treatment after his exile.

Posted by: Ray at November 20, 2007 4:20 PM

Thank you Ray! Doug, you see my point? We should have left Saddam alone but THANK GOD we got rid of the Shah! :)

Ray, you do know it was a REPUBLICAN that was the driving factor in bringing down the Berlin Wall and the end of the USSR, right?

AGAIN, my point is that BOTH parties have done good and bad things. To blame one for all the world's problems shows a lack of maturity.

Kristen: If you aren't on the right side of that (abortion) I don't think you can be on the right side of anything.

I gotta disagree there too. I'm a social liberal but an economic conservative. I share opinions with vast numbers of pro-lifers about many things, and I think they'd say I'm "right" on them.
.......

Iraq - I have a brother, a Major in the Air Force, who was in both Gulf wars. IMO we and our allies should have gone ahead in 1991 and taken Saddam out. Either out of power or dead. Then, we had world opinion with us much more than was/is the case the second time around. Iran is now much more a factor, which in the long run may really be bad news for us.

Saddam invades Kuwait, we push him back. That's it? Hey man, you broke the peace, don't just expect to get your hand slapped and be sent to your room - I think we should have taken his room away then, not wait through endless UN sanctions violations, etc.

Doug

Thank you Ray! Doug, you see my point? We should have left Saddam alone but THANK GOD we got rid of the Shah! :)

Arrrgh - Kristen, I've said it before - this time around I'm votin' a straight Bull Moose ticket...

Doug

Thank you Ray! Doug, you see my point? We should have left Saddam alone but THANK GOD we got rid of the Shah! :)

Actually, Kristen, there is a world of difference. We stopped supporting the Shah, and rightly so. We had already stopped supporting Saddam, and had him completely contained. In neither case were we justified in "taking him out," and we didn't take out the Shah...his own people did. We had no business going into Iraq.

Yeah, it really is - that's your own emotions, opinion about "injustice" and preferred terminology at work.

No. Doug, whether you recognize it or not, their are absolutes. It's not my opinion that makes right and wrong. It's right and wrong irrelevant to opinion. So I could think abortion is wrong and be wrong myself. You could see it as right and be wrong yourself. The point is: Someone has to be correct and someone else has to be incorrect. Either abortion is the unjust taking of a human life and should not be permitted, or abortion is like pulling a wisdom tooth and it's nobody's damn business but the person seeking to have the tooth pulled. Either way, I am either right or wrong. So are you. But it's not my emotions that make it so.

I'd say that your opinion doesn't justify somebody attacking my wife, taking away her life,

You got it! Nor does your opinion justify a woman taking her child's life. Nor does HER opinion. Once again, opinions are irrelvant. Right and wrong exist, and you and I don't decide what it is. We discern it, not decide it.

My wife is not inside the attacker,

Then you'd have no problem with dismemberment? Furthermore, how's she GET in there. In pregnancy, the women must put the baby inside her through conjugal acts. So it's not some foreign trespasser we're talking about here. It's someone she put inside her body and is now deciding to kill.

and the pregnant woman is not inside you.

If she were, I'd be a ton more merciful to her than she is to her child. Not because I have an obligation, but because I would never kill to suit my own convience.

The unborn indeed are inside the pregnant woman.

Why? So she can carry him/her in safety rather than manning a nest and watching a egg. Carrying our babies inside is great gift- not an excuse to murder.

No, if that were true this wouldn't even be an issue.

It is true. It was true in times of slavery and gender oppression. We WERE equal then, we just were recognized as so. Babies are equal to women now. Just because you don't recognize the equal worth of all human beings despite race, gender, size, location, stage of development, etc. doesn't mean that humans aren't equal. It means you're a bigot. Think about it.

And actually, it indeed is all desire and opinion that justifies (or not) killing people.

No there is NOT. Your desire to kill me and opinion about my worthiness to live doesn't make you less of a murderer. There ARE absolutes.

She may choose abortion and tell you the same thing. It's her body and it's her decision.

No, actually it's her baby's body and there will be reckoning. No one may decide to kill someone else. That's not her decision to make. Just like it wasn't the decision of slaveowners to control slaves, or husbands to control wives. Just because the backwards thinking allowed it by law, didn't make it correct. Your backwards thinking that supports women making decisions to kill their own offspring will eventually be looked upon by history as a worse crime than slavery and domestic violence.

I guess that depends on your definition of "support." To sit idly by while people are murdered for sport (think Saddam's eldest son) seems pretty supportive to me.

Sally,

I doubt I'm younger then your children. And I don't HATE WOMEN - You do not know what I've been through in my life, but I've been through enough crap to last a life time. For starters I almost lost my life to an abusive boyfriend. You may not see it, but I want to make this world a better place. And killing preborn children helps no one.

I have a degree and am going back to school for another. I've travelled overseas, performed in Europe. I've worked hard to have a very happy, fulfilling and joyful life through obedience to God. I have been given wonderful kids, an amazing husband that supports me 100%, and I have a Savior who loves me and is always by my side. I know that what I stand for really ticks you off, but God made the Commandments not me, and He has set the rules not you. For whatever I do to the least of humanity (ie, the unborn, sick, poor, broken hearted, wounded, elderly, disabled), I do to Jesus himself. And I will stand for those who have no voice. I will not be shaken!

So Sally, you can think I'm a immature, stupid, freak, backwards woman. But I know who I belong to - God and I live for an audience of one. The decisions I make are not based on what the world thinks is right, but what Jesus said was right. The Son of God said I would be hated and persecuted for following Him. Your reaction to me is not surprising, but what I said was truthful.

Doug,

"I suggest that the pain you feel over abortion is not enough to justify taking away the freedom that women have in the matter."

And I suggest the free ride women want is not enough to justify sucking little, teeny, tiny, living human bodies through a vacuum hose, whether those little, teeny, tiny, living human bodies are aware of it or not.

Because, and this is the difference between you and I Doug, it doesn't matter whether or not those little teeny tiny living human beings feel pain, or emotional torment or are even aware that it is happening to them.

I am aware that it is happening. I hear the tree in the woods. It is evil. It exists. And I am aware of it.

If you drive an SUV you are emitting carbon into the atmosphere. A ripple effect. May not be noticeable immediately. In the here and now, it seems like a good thing. Gets me from here to there. But that poison goes out there. And it effects us all.
Abortion may seem like a quick fix at the time. Abortion may seem like it hurts 'no one", but like that carbon, it has a ripple effect. The evil spreads. The poison works on us quietly. We begin to slowly think of life as having less and less value...This is why JPII calls us the culture of death. It is insidious. It is sly. It is silent. But it will kill the humanity in us all...inch by inch.

I am aware of it Doug. And one day you will be too. It doesn't matter if the little teeny tiny living non sentient human being is aware of it at all. I am aware of it. I am aware.

Well said MK. Well said.

Tara,

I was about to say the same thing to you. Excellent post!

I'm trying to figure out who stretched the post!
It's making me crazy.

MK,

Since I'm fairly knew to this blog, is Sally always this angry? Her tone in her blogs makes me wonder.

Tara, usually she is. Sometimes she's more civil than others.

Tara,

I think Sally has two personalities. One when she is up late and perhaps quenching her thirst? and one when she is bright eyed and human.

I genuinely like the human Sally. I don't really know why she appears so angry sometimes. Could be she's not angry with us, but we're her whipping boy. Could be she's lonely and enemies are better than "nobody", could be she drinks and isn't what you call a "happy drunk", could be she has issues from being in an abusive relationship...I just don't know. I try to giver her a wide berth when she's in her "ugly" mode, and try doubly hard to relate when she's in her "human" mood.

I wish she wouldn't be so angry, because when she is in a good mood, she can be quite interesting. Just don't take anything personally, and remember that her need to vent is obviously more important to her right now than your feelings. And if she needs to beat us up, well, I say, let her. We're tough. We can take it. Eventually, she'll realize we like her anyway. Perhaps the best way we can be her friend right now is to let her use us as punching bags. Does that make sense?

MK and Tara,

Your last posts say everything I am thinking, just more eloquently then I ever could. Thank you!

MK, well said. I am actually getting used to Sally's posts. At least she admits to having PTSD. Perhaps that's the reason for her anger. The ones who anger me are these trolls who never open up as human beings, and they proceed to judge others. Why do they feel the need to be here? ....Again, just my opinion.

MK,

Thanks for your insight. I don't take her bursts personally, but I do feel bad when anyone is in a place like that. I will pray for her.

See that Doug,

At least four of us hear the tree, even though we are nowhere near the forest...

Tara,

Exactly. She has to live with herself. We don't.
I pray for her too. I carry a little piece of purple paper around with their names on it and I pray for them all the time...At mass, in the car, in the line at the grocery store, today in the dentists office...

I want so badly for them to "come into the light". Everything is so much clearer here...

But they have to walk their own journey. Prayer helps, but ultimately it is up to them.

Heather,

It always helps when you get a glimpse of them as people...makes it so much easier to take it all with a grain of salt.

That's why I will never, ever, EVER miss Cameron. That man was pure evil. I hope he finds solace, but he used to post pictures of aborted babies. He used to laugh about it, and he constantly mocked God. I cannot take people like that. Cannot take them. Above all, he just posted here to be silly, and when he got onto the good sides of some, he quickly turned. I will say it again. Cameron, I DO NOT miss you.

Cameron, that doesn't mean I won't pray for you.

Elizabeth,

Your posts are very good, and I enjoy them. How is your daughter, and school?

Elizabeth,

I also meant to say you give me hope for the future. God bless.

MK-

You are awesome. I also want to see her and the others "come into the light". I love the fact that you pray for them at the Dentist. That is really cool:) How many people can say they have been prayed for while a dentist is working on them.

Well my husband is coming home from a business trip and I am going to make dinner for my family. May the Peace of Christ be with you and your family tonight and always.

Good Night Tara,
God Bless, and next time you're at a red light, say a prayer for our friends!

MK -

I already do:) Say a prayer for those of us praying at PP. In the last week or so we've seen some pretty bad things.

I already do:) Say a prayer for those of us praying at PP. In the last week or so we've seen some pretty bad things.

Posted by: Tara at November 20, 2007 6:48 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If watching people walk into and out of a building affects you that deeply, perhaps you should pray at home.

Laura,

I would expect that comment from you. Sometimes I wonder if you really are as frigid as you sound. Yes, I do care what happens to these girls and their babies. AND I am not ashamed of it either. I have no intention of just praying at home, which I do everyday.

Obviously from all your posts you don't care about what happens after they leave the abortion mill. But having worked with post abortive women I've seen first hand the problems that arise from this decision. I know you don't believe it and you copy and paste info from any group that is affiliated w/GMI, but they are pro-abortion. You dismiss anyone who doesn't hold to your opinion. Again, not surprising.

So thank you for your thoughts, but I will be out in front of PP like I am doing now. And I will feel sad for those who choose to kill their preborn babies, and I will mourn for those babies who have been lost. There lives were important, and we(PLers) will continue to be witnesses for them, LIKE IT OR NOT!

Tara, pro aborts want us to just go away. We aren't going to.

What I can perceive from Sally, is that it very easy to see from the first post she makes what mood she is in...if she comes off VERY offensive (of course, opposed to her "just a little bit offensive" posts)and then throws in a little hateful, personal attack...stay away..ignore her, laugh, do whatever, but do not reply to her posts. When she is replying to another PC'ers post, she is usually in a "better, less vicious mood. This mood is the only time that we can really "talk" with her.
Just an observation........

Obviously from all your posts you don't care about what happens after they leave the abortion mill. But having worked with post abortive women I've seen first hand the problems that arise from this decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really?
Only a tiny, tiny percentage of women who have abortions ever regret their decision. Virtually all post-adoptive birth mothers are emotionally scarred from their decision to hand over their babies.
Why don't you pray to outlaw adoption if you're SO worried about women?

Heather,

You're abso