John Jansen at Lunch Break reports that infamous Princeton University bioethics professor Peter Singer will speak tonight at the 18th Annual Chicago Humanities Festival. Writes John:

Yes, that Peter Singer - Peter "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all" Singer.

Singer advocates parents having the right to euthanize handicapped postborn babies up to one month of age.

Singer wrote in Practical Ethics...

[W]e have already looked beyond abortion to infanticide. In so doing we will have confirmed the suspicion of supporters of the sanctity of human life that once abortion is accepted, euthanasia lurks around the next comer - and for them, euthanasia is an unequivocal evil....

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror....

Singer is right. If pro-lifers think euthanasiaistic infanticide is an extension of abortion and both are evil, the case for the opposite is "strong": pro-aborts should see euthanasiaistic infanticide is an extension of abortion and find both acceptable.

I don't want to deviate from the specific point of the rationale for aborting preborn handicapped children, which is no different than the rationale for euthanizing postborn handicapped children.

I don't know what to think of Peter Singer. On one hand, he is extremely consistent and follows the abortion mentality to its logical conclusion. On the other hand, I mean, my goodness. What does someone like, say Doug, think of this? You're quite consistent, too. How do you feel about killing born babies if it's in the "best interest" of the parents?

Peter Singer also advocates sex with animals as long as the animal enjoys it. I don't know how one can know this. I don't think animals can form a response for "Was it good for you?" Bark once for no, bark twice for yes???

Jill -

As much as Singer disgusts me, he has a point. If you think it is morally acceptable to kill disabled children in the womb, it is not a stetch to say it is okay to kill them once they are born. He really would make a great Nazi. I can't wait to hear how pro-aborts respond to this. I think we should be asking them if they agree with Singer. If you follow the logic, abortion is acceptable for the health of the mother, so having a disabled child can be stressful on a mother's health. So we should make sure that she doesn't endure the stress. Afterall, diabled children aren't "productive", and hence has no value in a "civilized" society. Just like the elderly have no place in society after they can no longer be productive, or people who are permenantly disabled after a accident or injury. So we have the right to kill them too.

It's just disgusting. This is why our society continues to destroy itself. If we don't value and protect the most vulnerable, then life is cheap. We can throw away and discard anyone who isn't "perfect". I bet PP would offer killing postborn babies as a service if it was allowed.

When I hear Singer talk I get mad. I have friends who are disabled, who contribute more to this world than someone like Singer ever will. When I go out with them, some people are uncomfortable. I say good!! They chanllenge us to look inside and search for what being "normal" or "perfect" is. They challenge our conception of what having a fulfilling and happy life is. It is God's way of revealing to those of us who are not disabled, if we can trully care and love someone who isn't like us. To step outside of our comfort zones. That's the challange isn't it? This world would be worse off if it weren't for those who are disabled.

And as the Germans proved, it is a very short step from accepting killing disabled children to murdering anyone you define as not "up to snuff". If you think it was only the Nazis, and not the prevalent culture of apathy for life among Germany in general then you need to read “Architects of Annihilation” The whole thing started with German parents of handicapped children allowing (yes ALLOWING) the state to murder their children in the name of “quality of life”….the authors do a fantastic job of tying that cultural acceptance to the future Nazi boldness. The eugenics pogroms would have never gotten a foothold if those parents had revolted instead of accepted.

How quickly we forget....

Jacquie,

I have friends who are disabled, who contribute more to this world than someone like Singer ever will. When I go out with them, some people are uncomfortable. I say good!! They chanllenge us to look inside and search for what being "normal" or "perfect" is.

Doesn't parading your "disabled" friends around rank right up there with showing pictures of aborted fetuses? I mean why should we force people to look at them (either one). They are ugly, and gross and scare little children!

I mean if you want to look at them, fine. But why should you be able to "wave" them around to the public?

Singer is an apostate. He claims that we must treat animals ethically, and espouses a vegan diet....yet thinks its perfectly fine to eat animal products when presented with them. He's an ethical hypocrite, reasoning away his moral conscience whenever it suits him.

What does someone like, say Doug, think of this? You're quite consistent, too. How do you feel about killing born babies if it's in the "best interest" of the parents?

Doug has already explained to me that he feels that it would be okay to kill a newborn, as long as you anesthetized it first, and it was the mother's wish, and no one else knew about it. :(

Hey, MK, Nice parallel. Way to show people their sick, twisted thinking. It makes me sick to hear it, but it needs to be acknowledged.

My response to that Esther-esque logic would be a hearty, "Bite me." :) Aren't I eloquent?

My sister is a director for a disability services non-profit (she also worked as a primary caregiver in college and did respite care). After a few more years of administration are tucked under her belt, she wants to start and run her own respite house.

I was the childcare person for ARC meetings when I was in college, attended dances at the state school, and worked in a special-needs Sunday school class. I also hope to one day foster or adopt children with chronic illnesses or disabilities.

Since both my sister and I worked with people with disabilities and choose to continue doing so, apparently anyone that has ever been in a close proximity to such individuals does not find these people to be ugly, gross or scary. As a matter of fact, not to stereotype, but they give the firmest hugs. I miss those hugs.

I think that anyone bigotted towards the disabled should be forced to spend any amount of time in any of those venues, look someone right, smack in the eyes and say such things. It reminds me of a poster that feminists for life created. You can access it here.

Current attitudes towards human life nauseate me. Lord, have mercy. Christ have mercy!

Which leads me into a great segue for continuing this discussion with Esther...

If it bothers you to see those pictures, ask yourself why.

Posted by: Jacqueline at October 31, 2007 9:13 AM

The pictures don't bother me beyond the fact that I think it's rude and weird to wave those gross signs in people's faces. Besides, young children exposed to graphic pictures of blood and guts over and over eventually become immune to seeing it. So, ironically, you're not doing your side any favors in the long run.
*********************************************************************

Honey, I don't own a gun. And I am certainly not violent. So I fail to see how I could/would possibly "Force" anyone to have an illegal abortion. Just like I didn't "force" them to get pregnant.

Sweetheart, if abortion is illegal, women who want to terminate their pregnancies will be forced to have ILLEGAL abortions.

Are women such complete idiots that you don't believe they make any choices for themselves.

That's what you think. You think women are deluded into thinking they need abortions.

Do you honestly think that they only do things because they are "forced".

If a pregnant woman wants an abortion, she will be forced to have one illegally if the procedure is ever banned. She certainly won't have the option of obtaining it legally.

Actually, women who want to terminate their pregnancies will CHOOSE to have an ILLEGAL abortion.

Rape is illegal. Are we forcing men to rape illegally?

Do we force men to diddle young boys illegally?

Do we force men to ride motorcycles without helmets, illegally?

Do we force people to drive the speed limit?

NO! We make it very unpleasant to get caught doing these things. We certainly take away their legal options.

But whether or not they do these things ALWAYS comes down to (as Doug would say) whether or not they DESIRE the illegal thing more than the legal thing.

And then they make a CHOICE. No force. Choice.

That's what you think. You think women are deluded into thinking they need abortions.

No Esther, deluded and forced are two different words.

I believe that the women are feeling desperate and what appears to be a viable option is placed before them. I believe that they are lied to, and buy into the lies, because they need to.

But I do not believe they are forced.

And I don't think they are deluded into thinking that they need abortions. I think they are deluded into thinking that abortions will solve their problems. Deluded into believing that their unborn child is not a person. Deluded into believing that they are for "choice" when they don't express what that "choice" is. Believe they are deluded into thinking that there will be no repercussions for choosing an abortion. And deluded into believing that having sex is not consent to the possibility of pregnancy.

I believe you are deluded into believing these things

Then you're not promoting a viable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy. Geeze. Talk about unoriginal angles! People ARE going to have sex when they aren't ready for procreation. They always have, and they always will.

And men ARE going to rape women.

And men ARE going to diddle young boys.

And people ARE going to rob convenience stores.

And people ARE going to murder each other.

They always have and they always will.

That's why we have laws. Because, even tho it is obvious to us that murder, rape, pedophilia and theft are wrong, there are enough people out there that think otherwise that we must make laws to deter them.

Geez! Talk about unoriginal angles!

Then you're not promoting a viable solution to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.

No, you're right, I'm not. I'm talking about a viable "prevention" of an unwanted pregnancy.

Adoption is a viable "solution" to an unwanted pregnancy.

MK,

Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther. I can't muster up a reasonable amount of courtesy towards her (in part, because I'm offended on how her attitudes and behavior shame her Biblical namesake).

Ohhhhh Jacquie,

Powerful Ad! Can you find a way to post it here?

It'll be big. Let me try:

It's a PDF, not a GIF. Let me try something else.

I agree completely, Jaqueline. I have also started recently working at residential facility for children and adolescents(ages 6-20) with autism spectrum disorders, moderate to severe developmental disorders (mental retardation, pervasive developmental disorder, oppositional defiant disorder) and mental illness. The quality of life they live is not based on other's perception of their worth, but rather the simple joys they enjoy everyday (such as outings and last night we took them trick or treating around campus) and the joy and challenges they contribute to our lives.

Okay, I zoomed out, took a screen shot, pasted it into Paint, cut out the image, pasted into a new file, saved the file as a BMP, uploaded it to a hosting service and here it is:

I told you all the steps it took so you can see how much I love you, MK. :)

Jacquie,

Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther.

In Esther's defense she is new here, and hasn't yet realized that she can put her guns away...nobody here bites.

Many of the pro-choicers here are unrecognizable now. When they first came on, they came on expecting us to be like every other pro life site. So they come on defensive. It doesn't take to long to realize that "We come in Peace"...

Don't give up on her. If she is sincerely here with an open mind and an open heart she will mellow eventually, and if she is hell bent on simply causing trouble she will eventually get bored and move on.

Until then, try to read between the lines and not let her get you too upset. It ain't easy but just ask Midnite, Alyssa and Rae. They were hellions that firsts week or two and now they are my dear friends...

The quality of life they live is not based on other's perception of their worth, but rather the simple joys they enjoy everyday (such as outings and last night we took them trick or treating around campus) and the joy and challenges they contribute to our lives.

Nicely put, Rachael S.

Hey, wait. Aren't you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)

Jacquie,

WOW! That was like listening to Rae when she explains what she does at her job...

You can't know how impressed I am...and grateful.

Thanks!

"Doug has already explained to me that he feels that it would be okay to kill a newborn"

Ah, thanks Bethany. I figured he might. He is quite consistent, and I do respect him for that, although it is quite disturbing. God love you, MK.

nobody here bites.

I wish I could say that I haven't been biting.

and if she is hell bent on simply causing trouble she will eventually get bored and move on.

With all due respect, Sally and Laura haven't.

Hey, wait. Aren't you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)

I was wondering the same thing!!!!!

*******CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!********

Now bring on them babies!

Jacquie,

But Laura has mellowed considerably. Sally? Well, personally I think she drinks (or something). Sometimes she is actually civil, and then sometimes at night she just goes on and on, stabbing and stabbing. I think she needs a friend.

I've actually grown fond of Laura. She certainly keeps you on your toes. I wish she was on our side. Her wit is wicked!

Jacquie,

Hey wouldn't you like to see our man in the ad take on Pete Singer...sort of like Ali and what's his name?

WOW! That was like listening to Rae when she explains what she does at her job...

What does Rae do? Inquiring minds want to know...

He is quite consistent, and I do respect him for that, although it is quite disturbing.

Consistency is something we don't get much from the pro-choice side in this debate, so I appreciate it. It entails logical thought. What disturbs me as well is that it's consistent, but consistently EVIL. It's just as easy to be consistently good and doesn't involve killing your conscience and walking headforth into eternal damnation.

P.S. Bobby, did you shave today?

I shaved last night. I even took pics! Now for a full month of no shaving!

But Laura has mellowed considerably.

This is mellowed? D@mn. What was she like before?

Hey wouldn't you like to see our man in the ad take on Pete Singer...sort of like Ali and what's his name?

Yep, even without the use of his legs, our dude could whip Singer's scrawny Ivy League butt.

*******CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!********

I concur! Much love, Rachael!

I've actually grown fond of Laura. She certainly keeps you on your toes. I wish she was on our side. Her wit is wicked!

I've yet to find her amusing. Perhaps someday I will.

I shaved last night. I even took pics! Now for a full month of no shaving!

I'm not taking pictures. That's be gross. But I am participating!

Viva la Sasquatch!

Nicely put, Rachael S.

Hey, wait. Aren't you Rachael C. now? MRS. Rachael C? :)

LOL, you caught on! :-P I didn't think anyone had noticed yet, so I was still signing with my maiden name. But yep, the wedding was back in September. In fact, if you'd like to see some pictures (be warned, there's a lot ;-) ), my younger sister posted a bunch on the Photobucket site: http://s220.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/tjsnider/wedding/

I gotta have before and after pics.

And we went from Laura to Sasquatch, why?

What did I miss? Why isn't Bobby shaving?
Do I even want to know?

Thanks Jacqueline and MK, you're hilarious! :-P

Off-topic, now when I think of the Sasquatch, I think of beef jerky! LOL!

Jacquie,

I wish I still had the email where Rae went on about her work...it's all science stuff. Makes me feel smart just havin' it in my email box. But I understood absolutely zippo about it. Except she works in a lab. Did you know that she knows 6 syllable words? lol

Beef jerky? Sasquatch? I'm so lost....

Rachel,

Good Lord Woman, it looks like the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir stood up for the wedding!

How man people were in the bridal party?!?

"What did I miss? Why isn't Bobby shaving?
Do I even want to know?"

It's the eighth annual No-Shave-November, MK. I'll give you the synopsis:

"In the year 2000, it took almost 2 months for a president to be picked. During that time, I was experimenting with facial hair growing, and had grown a beard. I decided not to shave my beard until the government picked a president. Several others joined me in my cause. Now, every year, a large group of the American people (read: me and Josh Knox) shave our faces completely on Oct. 31 and do not touch a razor to our faces until at least December 1 to remind the government that if they do not pick a president in future years, the public will not stand for it, and there will be many hairy people walking around the United States. Women, of course, are also encouraged to participate in No-Shave November by not shaving either their face or legs. So join me this November for the 8th annual No-Shave November by growing a huge beard and sending a message to our government officials; pick a president or face our faces!"

That's from the facebook page I made for it. We've got over 50 people nationwide joining the effort! Fun stuff, I must say.

I want to know 6 syllable words!

By the way, No-Shave November is Bobby's thing. Here's a link, which you may or may not be able to see.

Basically, we don't shave for the entire month of November, rendering us Sasquatch-like.

By the way, Rachael. You looked lovely. I love the cake pictures!

Crud. You have to have a facebook account to see that page.

Tis a shame. It's friggin' hilarious!

"I want to know 6 syllable words!"

Sesquipedalian.

I doesn't help if I don't know what it means, Bobby.

That wasn't on the GRE!

Rachel,

You looked BEAUTIFUL!!!! I adore your bouquet! What were the green flower? They looked like "Bells of Ireland"....

Jacquie,

I think we need to chip in and get them their very own "Chucky Cheese Ball Pit", just to start them out...;)

I looked it up. Very clever, Bobby. The best I could do in that genre is "Your epidermis is showing!"

I think we need to chip in and get them their very own "Chucky Cheese Ball Pit", just to start them out...;)

LOL!!!! It's the ideal wedding gift, I'm tellin' ya!

Hey, MK- and that way, you'll get those babies! :)

Jacquie,

With all due respect, you'll never find Mr. Right if you're sporting a beard...

A job in the circus maybe, but not Mr. Right. Although you will probably intimidate the government.

http://tinyurl.com/28dspt

This is what it's all about, MK.

MK,

Do you have grandbabies at all?

If not, you and my mom should form a club. My mother is quite upset with me that I haven't paired off and given her bundles of joy. Yet, she doesn't condemn my ridiculously high standards, either, which I appreciate.

I'm not even the oldest! I'm the youngest, but my sister has sworn off kids and I'm the quiver-full Catholic that keeps abandoned orphan animals I care for in my bra for warmth, so I think she thinks I'm her best bet. :)

In fact, when I got together when my ex, she said, "He's a Catholic! Oh boy, I'm going to have a grandbaby every year!" I didn't work out and I was more sorry for my mom than for myself. :)

Sesquipedalian.

makes me want to kick someone butt in scrabble!

A job in the circus maybe, but not Mr. Right. Although you will probably intimidate the government.

Well, if he can't appreciate that intimidating the government is priority one, then he's not really Mr. Right, is he?

;P

Jacquie,

I have two grandbabies...Charlott (1 1/2) and Joseph (4 weeks)...I'm getting ready to go with their mother to the pediatrician right now. She's the same doc that the kids father went too...I'm getting sooooo old.

My youngest is 7, so while the grandbabies are great they came awfully close to my own. Johnny was an uncle at 5! There's 19 years difference between the first and the last...How's that for Catholic?

This is what it's all about, MK.

Okay. Waaaaaayyyy too much time on their hands...!

I gotta save that and show it to the son I'm always trying to auction off. Although, these days, I think he might pull in a pretty penny. He's matured in Australia. I actually miss him!

Jacquie,

Well, if he can't appreciate that intimidating the government is priority one, then he's not really Mr. Right, is he?

good point!

Tell me, which mustache are you going for?

Thanks for all the kind words concerning people with disabilities. It great to know that there are some people out there who value them. I encounter alot of horrendous attitudes when I am out with my son. I have had someone say, "Does It talk?". Some moms grab their child's hand and quickly move away as he approaches. There are many who want the disabled to go away. Trust me, I have had more than one showdown over this. Now that he is a teen and pretty big it is worse. There are probably more people that support what Singer says than any of us would like to believe.

Carrie...

There are probably more people that support what Singer says than any of us would like to believe.

Yeah well, not all "handicaps" are visible to the eye...who is really disabled here?

*should read It is great*

MK,
Have you ever seen the commercials or packaging for the Jack Links brand of beef jerky? They play the commericals all the time around here and the Sasquatch is their current icon.

LOL, MK, there were 4 bridesmaids, 4 groomsmen two pastors (one is from our church, but we also wanted to to be married by a close friend of his family who is also a pastor) two flower girls (I couldn't decided between my best friend's daughter whom is like a niece and my sister's daughter so I included them both), my ring bearer, and 3 ushers. If my husband and I had it our way, we'd just had an intiment ceremony in a log cabin in Pigeon Forge (where we honeymooned) with only the parents, immediate family, grandparents, and bridal party and then had a large reception for extended family and friends when we got home. But you see, I come from a large extended family and my mom didn't want to leave any aunts and uncles out, which then includes the cousins and by this point, you mine as well invite extended family and friends. We had a total of 250 guests at the wedding.

I can't quite remember, but I think the greenery in my bouquet is a breed of fern.

LOL, at the cheeseball comment. But hey, we did get a traditional foundue pot, LOL!

Jacqueline,
Thank you! The flavors of the cake were chocolate, vanilla, and bannana. The flowers on the cake actually came from a small local nursery my mom found through the local farmers market. And the cake designer as well as the photographer were recommended by friends or family members who'd had good experiences with them and were locally owned.

MK,

I'm going for a handlebar mustache with some sideburns. I'll let you know how that works out.

My mom would be jealous of you, and your kids are very blessed. You know you've got someone to take care of your youngest if ever it is needed and a wide spread of ages. I'm so happy for you.

So you just want Danny married off so someone will take care of him, not cause you'll jonesing for a baby. I see! He sounds like quite a catch. His standards are likely ridiculously high, too. The perk to that is that you're going to like her when she comes along. Is he sure his vocation is marriage?

God told me my vocation years ago (and years before I became Catholic), otherwise I would be seriously considering consecrated virginity or other Holy Orders. My vocation makes sense since I will be in the world so much as a lobbyist, being cloistered isn't really to our advantage in God's purposes for my life. It has a downside, though- I love Jesus madly and it's very much a romance. I could see considering Him a spouse. I looked at confirmation as my spiritual wedding, where I went from a non-physical relationship with Jesus to vowing my fidelty and finally having a physical relationship with Him in the Eucharist. I felt like we were consecrating our relationship after years of torrid romance, and we'd finally get to be physically close. In fact, I didn't know how little girls dressed for their first communion, but I dressed myself in all white linen, top and skirt, with white ballet flats, and a white scarf in my hair and draped over my shoulders. I looked like every little girl there, just 20 years older. I regret not gathering them together with me for a picture.

That all has deep spiritual significance, actually that bear mention, if you'll indulge me. :)

My patroness Saint, Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla, who picked me out years before confirmation (I fell in love with her the moment I saw her picture as a sidewalk counselor and the moment in RCIA that I was told to pick a confirmation Saint, the Holy Spirit brought her to mind). She was told her vocation long before she married at 32. She was also a avid pro-lifer, a doctor who had to work hard to do well in school (like me), and she referred to her children as "my little treasures." I once referred to my kids that I taught in pre-school as "my little lovesongs." So I see a lot of similarities in us, but I didn't until I finally learned about her after I knew she was going to be my Patroness. So you can love Jesus passionately and be a wife and mother. She proved that. That makes me happy.

Beyond that, I thought the fact that I looked like every other little girl is because God the Father treats me like one. I'm eternally His 7-year-old. It's like covering the eyes and ears of a child to shield them from violence or profanity, God does that to me. Like in 2005 when I was about to hop a plane to attend Terri Schiavo's vigil (for the second time), He told me to stay. All my friends were calling me telling me that they praised God that I wasn't there, because I could not have handled the evil. I know it's true because I had a hard time enduring the evil and hatemail from Dallas. God does that for me A LOT. He also talks to me like I'm 7 and treats me like it, too. He says, "If you'll obey Me, I'll do [this] for you." Much like, "if you clean your room, you can have ice cream." but divine. Sometime I wonder if I'll ever grow up spiritually or if I'll eternally remain His little girl. I kind of hope to stay this way. I really like it. My looking like every other little girl at confirmation (unwittingly) brought me a ton of joy because I understood the significance.

So my relationship with Jesus is like a romance, my relationship with God is like a little child and a Father- And the Holy Spirit and I just have FUN (I obey Him, too, but most of the time we just have fun). It's 3 separate and distinct relationships and they were all there at confirmation. That's why I adore evening masses. Sitting there in the dim reminds me of my Easter vigil confirmation. It was indescribably amazing.

Alrighty! I've revealed the most personal aspects of my soul. [Enter Sally and Laura to attempt to make fun of me].

:)

Jacqueline, I've got your back if Sally or Laura start some nonsense.

I've got your back if Sally or Laura start some nonsense.

Thanks, Carrie. I'm pretty secure. It doesn't really bother me. It's just infuriating because they try to attack me to circumvent real discourse on the issues.

I just said that because of many threads when they can't form a response, they say something like, "What do you know, VIRGIN?!?" As if having sex imparts some sort of knowledge. I wish I'd have known- I'd have skipped all that college and gone straight to the brothel. :)

I have a question that isn't really related to the matter at hand, but I just thought about it while I was in the shower for some reason.

Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to 'cure' them...would you?

sure.

Jacqueline, maybe I should stop reading so much and just have more sex with my husband. Hubby would probably endorse the idea that sex imparts knowledge.

Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to 'cure' them...would you?

Absolutely, I'd cure them. But killing them is not curing them.

Erin, we're not saying that disabilities are great, grand and wonderful. We're saying that a person's value isn't dependent on what they can or can not do. If you lost the ability to walk, Erin, you'd still be just as much a human being as you were when you could walk. Likewise with all physical and mental abilities- They don't make us human, and the absence of them doesn't nullify our humanity, either.

Jacqueline, maybe I should stop reading so much and just have more sex with my husband. Hubby would probably endorse the idea that sex imparts knowledge.

Sex also CURES headaches. We're plumb out of excuses, eh? :)

Erin, my immediate response would be no. My son has autism and I love him just like he is. I can't picture him any other way. I strive to make his life better, but I don't want to change who he is. Good question.

Say you have a son or daughter who is blind. Or crippled. Some form of life-altering disability. If you had the power to 'cure' them...would you?

I think the question you're leading to is, "Would we accept our own children with disabilities as they are?"

In response, in a parent's love, I think no parent wants to see their child suffer pain or struggle with everyday tasks and would want to take away the struggle and the pain, however we'd not value them less or see them as less of a child if they had a disability and to "cure" implies these children are imperfect or less worthy because of an inperfection.

Erin,

The flipside of that question is, "If your perfect child developed a disability for which there is no cure, would you cease to love them? Would you kill them?"

Oops, the anonymous was me, forgot to sign.

Jaqueline said it best: "We're saying that a person's value isn't dependent on what they can or can not do. Likewise with all physical and mental abilities- They don't make us human, and the absence of them doesn't nullify our humanity, either."

I have been married for 16 years and I haven't run out of excuses yet.

It's like asking a paralyzed person if he/she would ever want to walk again. I'm sure that lots of them would say yes.

MK: But whether or not they do these things ALWAYS comes down to (as Doug would say) whether or not they DESIRE the illegal thing more than the legal thing.

And then they make a CHOICE. No force. Choice.

As history shows, women desire abortions regardless of the legality. So, if the abortion procedure is ever banned, women who desire not to gestate will be forced to obtain their abortions illegally.

They won't be forced, it will be their choice.

Adoption is a viable "solution" to an unwanted pregnancy.

Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 10:45 AM

Adoption is a viable solution for SOME women to their unwanted pregnancies. Just because YOU declare it's a viable solution for everyone doesn't make it true.

Just because you say adoption isn't viable doesn't make it so.

Esther, how old are you?

Esther, I can't force anyone to have an abortion.

Perhaps I should stop talking to Esther. I can't muster up a reasonable amount of courtesy towards her (in part, because I'm offended on how her attitudes and behavior shame her Biblical namesake).

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 10:49 AM

Now that's just being silly and petty.

hi Bobby,

is it T-7 days ?

Adoption is a viable solution for SOME women to their unwanted pregnancies. Just because YOU declare it's a viable solution for everyone doesn't make it true.

Wait- are some women physically incapable or placing a child for adoption? What does abortion solve that adoption can not (besides a few months of accepting responsibility for one's own actions)?

As history shows, women desire abortions regardless of the legality. So, if the abortion procedure is ever banned, women who desire not to gestate will be forced to obtain their abortions illegally.

History does NOT show that. Simply because there is a small faction of society that is deviant and decides to break the law makes does not make it the norm. And the fraction of women that abort despite the fact that it is illegal is a tiny, tiny percentage. Bernard Nathanson admitted that his 10,000 women a year figure was a total lie and even so, it doesn't compare to the 1.3 million women a year who submit to abortions in the U.S.

Most people are restrained by the law and abide by it. Anyone who has sat at a red light an egregiously long time when there were no cars in any direction just waiting for that green light can attest to the fact that most people follow the law (if for no other reason, the fear of prosecution).

Even if some women make criminals of themselves and have their children dismembered, many would not. And that means everything to those whole children laughing on the playground at recess that would have otherwise been put down a garbage disposal.

Beyond that, women abort out of selfishness and self-interest. If they perceive that they might suffer legal or physical harm from killing their kids, I sooner see them painting a nursery pink or blue than risk their own lives. Sure, they'll take their babies' lives, but their lives are far too precious to risk.

1 week from today...

Just because you say adoption isn't viable doesn't make it so.

Posted by: hippie at November 1, 2007 2:20 PM

I didn't say adoption isn't viable. I said adoption isn't a viable solution for ALL women. It is a viable soution for SOME -- not all.

Now that's just being silly and petty.

Have you read about Esther? She risked her own life to save her people. You are all about killing the lives of others to protect selfish lifestyles. Do you not see this?

Esther, how old are you?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 1, 2007 2:22 PM

Why are you asking?

Sure, they'll take their babies' lives, but their lives are far too precious to risk.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:26 PM

Excellent point.

If abortions were illegal, women would think twice before sleeping around. If you get caught giving yourself a criminal abortion, you deserve to be punished!

I didn't say adoption isn't viable. I said adoption isn't a viable solution for ALL women. It is a viable soution for SOME -- not all.

All women can place for adoption. No agency refuses a woman or a baby. These women CAN. Perhaps they choose not to.

Not that I blame them. I wouldn't choose to place for adoption, and I worked at an adoption agency.

I had boys but if I ever had a girl she would be named Esther.

Love the name. It means lucky in Persian.

bye now

Hey folks,

I was curious how you'd handle Peter Singer's ideas. For those who don't know, I'm one of Jerry's kids, but tend to think like the folks at http://www.notdeadyet.org .

In case you're wondering, Doug does now and this fact (that he willingly tolerates my input and is not harsh) makes him a friend extraordinaire. Last week, we talked about the power that comes from believing in someone ... our ancestors to us. Haven't we all thrived on such heritage? And it doesn't stop ... except for abortion. What is murdered is hope.

In fact, the power of our faith stems from the fact that God believes in me/us to share this love with each other. I mean, just look at the scene of raising Lazarus from the dead. Jesus says, "Unbind him and let him go free!" Like Jesus has just brought Lazarus to life ... (jaw dropping) BIG, BIG, BIG, HUGE, BIG-MAGNIFICENT .... we are: TO TAKE HIS DEATH-WRAPPINGS OFF // remove-this-burden .... tiny small but necessary. Aren't pro-lifers called to this task too?

Jacque, you're the best!!!

"Why are you asking?"

It's nice to know a little bit about the people on this blog.

Now that's just being silly and petty.

Have you read about Esther? She risked her own life to save her people. You are all about killing the lives of others to protect selfish lifestyles. Do you not see this?

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:29 PM

Of course, I've read Esther. And, no, I am not "all about" killing the lives of others.

Hippie,

I wish I bought the whole line about deceived, desperate women who don't know what they're doing and are afraid and abort out of fear for themselves.

Unfortunately, I've done too much sidewalk counseling to believe that anymore. All of these women have their reasons to abort, all of which can be solved with placing for adoption. They MUST abort. They MUST because they're not ready to parent. They MUST because they don't have enough money, etc. Those that accept an invitation to a free ultrasound and see their babies moving on the screen often have a change of heart. And nearly 100%, if not 100% choose to KEEP their babies. So those reasons dire enough to choose to kill the baby are not dire enough to place the baby for adoption. It's all about whether they want a baby or not. It's really all about them, never the best interests of the child.

I do beleive women are coerced into aborting babies they want or intimidated by the birthfather's reaction and abort to save the relationship. I beleive a large facet of women feel like they must choose between abortion or homelessness, abortion or abuse. But look at average, everyday women you know who have aborted. Why did they do it? Because they didn't want to be pregnant. And that's pretty much it.

Aren't I a ray of sunshine?

And, no, I am not "all about" killing the lives of others.

What do you think an abortion is? Who do you think those little arms and legs in those abortion pictures you hate so much belong to? It's not the woman.

Oh MK, you flatter me far too much. I do not know 6-syllable words, or if I do, I certainly don't know a lot of them (can't even think of any right now).

Did you know there is a genus of bacteria called, "Wolbachia" which is a bacteria that infects arthropods (particularly insects) which feminizes male insects by producing proteins that destroy male hormone-producing glands and promotes female hormone production to the point where a genetically male insect can produce eggs (via parthenogenesis...a 5 syllable word).

Rawk.

Jacque, I agree. Not a single woman I knew ever aborted d/t feeling scared or alone. You mean to tell me that after abortion #8,9 and 10 they still can't figure out where babies come from? That doesn't wash with me either.

Right, Heather. 48% of abortions are repeats. Apparently all that fear and desperation didn't quite sink in, eh?

Jacque, no. They see it as a "right" and a "choice." Trust me, plenty of them were using the abortion clinic as their B/Control.

I also think that abortion diminishes self esteem and self worth. This is why most post abortive women cycle back into dysfunctional, meaningless, relationships. You know the drill! Have sex, get pregnant, abort, have sex, get pregnant, abort.

Maybe we need to place importance on motherhood and family values. Young girls see plenty of examples of sexuality to emulate and chastity is a word seldom heard.
Sex is emphasized everywhere you look, and attracting the opposite sex is foremost in a lot of girls mind. And then of course, they have to figure out how to keep the guy. Motherhood is something they figure will happen at the end. Since marriage is not as popular or necessary for a sexual relationship, girls are desperate to find a means to maintain a relationship. Men do not have to commit to a relationship because sex is so readily available. Everyone has suffered the consequences of the freedom of our modern day thinking. The family as we once knew it has disintegrated. The one thing that hasn't changed, babies are created from these uncertain relationships which noone wants to take responsibility for.
Casual sex is at the root of the problem. If girls were taught to value themselves more, maybe they wouldn't be giving their bodies to just anyone. Lack of self esteem in young girls is more rampant than ever. If freedom of choice is so popular, why do women feel so badly about theselves? We have created a no boundaries mentality,
and as a result the respect for women no longer exists.
Although women should have the same rights as men, the feminist movement has reduced our society to a degregation of women, motherhood and family in general.
Now, anything goes! Women have bought into the idea.
They don't seem to know any better today; that their bodies are a temple of God, bought and paid for with the price of Jesus blood. Most would laugh at that. How can men respect women when they so easily succumb to easy sex and abortion on demand. Men have no reason to get married, and they especially don?t want the responsibility of a child from a casual sexual experience. The babies suffer the consequences of our immorality. If people feel they must engage in this lifestyle, they need to make sure they do not conceive a life. Babies should not be punished for the irresponsibility of our actions. Yes, I do believe we are becoming less patient and understanding of mothers who give their bodies over for illicit sex and then to the abortionist. The issue is that sex is so exalted in our world and the importance of motherhood and family is devalued. The emphasis should be on teaching young girls that they are special and worthy of being treated with respect. To provide birth control and assume that all girls are going to have sex, only promotes the idea that they are already devalued and it is permissable for the guys to go ahead and use them for the only thing they are worth. Sex without commitment only leaves women feeling alone and insecure, no matter what their age. Committment is the basis for conceiving a child. There is none, so that's why we have abortion. Abortion is only the result of our years of conditioning that women should enjoy the same sexual freedom as men, and men have taken advantage of that. How is it that women have aquired the idea that a man is more important than a baby? Have you ever noticed how they actually run into the abortion clinic? Often the man drives off and comes back after it is all over! I presume all she is thinking of, is getting back to her lifestyle, uninterrupted. Promotion of better self esteem in girls should be part of the sex education received. Recognition of basic family values and the importance of motherhood needs to be emphasized. If one so chooses to indulge in premarital sex, use contraception. Why not? It's better than abortion!

Ahh, the dulcet tones of Ester on a wonderful fall day.

This above post was written by a pro life nurse. I think it sums up abortion quite well.

I agree with everything but this last line, which stepped on everything she was trying to say previously:

If one so chooses to indulge in premarital sex, use contraception.

There is no right way to do a wrong thing.

What's this lady saying? Let's ENABLE sin?

Erin, I have been thinking about your question some more. There is controversy within the hearing-impared community regarding cochlear implants. So, I guess in the case of hearing imparement some parents would and some wouldn't. It is a hard question for me to answer because I accept him completely and totally.

Esther: And, no, I am not "all about" killing the lives of others.

What do you think an abortion is? Who do you think those little arms and legs in those abortion pictures you hate so much belong to? It's not the woman.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 2:39 PM

You said I am "all about killing" which was, quite frankly, a lie.

I know what abortion is.

I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence. I know that when abortion was mostly illegal, women aborted later in pregnancy under unsafe conditions. Now, it will be less difficult (not necessarily safer) than it was prior to 1973 for women to gain access to abortion using the resources of the Internet.

I know that banning abortion again is a stupid idea.

Ester, care to back your post with actual facts?

Jacque, I knew you would disagree with the last line. I think she is throwing up her hans as if to say "Use a rubber, at least!" What can we do? People cannot control themselves.

I realize that she did contradict herself. OOps meant *hands*

Heather: How can men respect women when they so easily succumb to easy sex and abortion on demand.

So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?

Esther, abortion is not safe. Who told you that??

Esther, back to basics. Men who can easily get sex from a female, don't respect her.

Esther, abstaining from sex is a good thing. I want to make sure that I'm not going to "bed down" with someone who just wants to use me for sex. For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.

Esther,

I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence.

Well, there you go! I told you women who abort are duped!

Imagine paying $500.00 to abort a child when you're not even pregnant. What is that, like a preventative abortion. Abort now, get pregnant later?

What will they think of next?

For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.

Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 3:28 PM

So true.

There are very nice, cool, good looking, respectful men who are looking for the same.

They do not want to date women who will have sex outside marriage because they are looking for wives not girlfriends and don't want to waste time getting to know someone that is not really a marriage candidate.

As soon as they find out she has had a sexual relationship, she is in his mind moved into the category of friend, not potential mate.

These are real people. They only want someone who values what they value. I know plenty of them. So do you. You just may not know that is what they think.

MK, LOL!

Jacquie,

I loved your post! I think Chesterton sums it up perfectly...

Chastity does not mean abstention from sexual wrong; it means something flaming, like Joan of Arc.

I know exactly how you feel. I too, feel like a 7 year old. Everyday is new. Every morning I wake up and say "Well, what surprises do you have for me?"

I just had a birthday, and I couldn't even recount the hundreds of little tiny things that he did for me, from my favorite priest saying mass to a phone call from my son, where he actually told me that he was proud of me. A girlfriend gave me doll that I have been searching for for over a year, and she had no idea. Just thought it was cute and knew that I collected dolls. My homemade bread turned out perfectly and on and on...nothing huge, just little present after little present. Some I can't tell you about, but they made me very, very happy! (Alyssa, you know what I'm talking about).

Sometimes I feel like I'm His only child, because He dotes on me so much. I have to remind myself that He has lots and lots of kids. And Herself...don't even get me started! The laughs we have. And the secrets we share. As the Mother of a son, I can count on her to understand the shenanigans that boys get up to...

Yep, if I didn't know I was chosen to be a mother (from the age of three mind you), I too would have chosen to be a nun. And I taught pre-school, like you, and have worked with the disabled as well.

The more I know you girl, the more I've got to get you together with my Danny. They say boys marry their mothers, don't they? lol

Where did you say you lived again? The first question he asked me was, "Does she have a tan?".

Don't know if that's cuz he's into tans or that it means you live in a warm climate!

Erin,

Chesterton has an answer to your question too...
Of course Chesterton has an answer to every question, so I'm not surprised...

"Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump; you may be freeing him from being a camel."

Gilbert K. Chesterton

MK, we all love you here! Well, I do! Happy birthday, and don't ever leave. I consider you to be my friend!

.........MK, you came to Jill's blog around the same time that I did. You, Jill, and John McDonnell were the reason I stayed.

oops, and Bethany!

Esther, back to basics. Men who can easily get sex from a female, don't respect her.

Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 3:25 PM

Yeah, back to the studly male/whorish woman basics. No thanks.

So the men "getting" the sex from these females are in a position to feel morally superior to these females somehow? Why?

So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?

Silly girl! I would never respect or desire the respect of men that would have sex with me prior to marriage. I don't date such men.

And it's not about men respecting women. I am a woman and I don't respect women who don't respect themselves enough not to treat their bodies like public property.

I wouldn't respect myself if I acted that way.

For that matter, there are also men who choose abstinance.

Indeed there are. I can list them. Almost every guy I've dated would qualify.

These are real people. They only want someone who values what they value. I know plenty of them. So do you. You just may not know that is what they think.

My last boyfriend was a virgin. Most of them have been virgins. They're also smoking HOT.

Jacqueline: Where do you find these smoking hot boys? I cannot find any where I live. :( I are mucho jealous-o.

So the men "getting" the sex from these females are in a position to feel morally superior to these females somehow? Why?

They shouldn't. Like I said, I think men who sleep around are not virile, but the absence of a man.

I went to see my friend this weekend who I met sidewalk counseling (she worked inside the abortion clinic). I was holding her 8 week baby daughter, whose father has 10 children by 10 different women (6 living, 4 aborted). He abandoned them when he found out my friend was pregnant. He pushed abortion; she refused. He makes 2200 a month and pays 1400 in child support, THUS FAR. He's NOT a man. In my opinion, he's lost the privilege of having a penis because of his failure to be responsible with it.

My friend was complaining about how men that don't pay child support should be sterilized. Her sister, who also got pregnant by a no-good man, "amen"ed heartily in agreement. And I kept thinking, "Ladies, when you have sex with a no good man who you didn't marry, what leads you to beleive you're going to have a "wine and roses" life?"

Frankly, for every man that exploits a woman, there's a woman out their that lets him. He's not morally superior, but she's not a "victim" either.

Esther, don't give men the opportunity to use you for sex. Yes. I balked at that once too. "Ha!" "How old fashioned!" "Stupid!" I listened to "friends" instead. Hey, do it if it feels good. WRONG! These were the same women B lining to the abortion clinics. No thanks.

Jacqueline: Where do you find these smoking hot boys? I cannot find any where I live. :( I are mucho jealous-o.

I have a thing for virtuous pro-lifers. The sexiest thing I've seen in a while is when my good looking guy friends had sleveless shirts and belts full of powertools, making cribs for expectant moms. That was sexy as hell.

Jacque, I'll bet it was!

Esther,

I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence.

Well, there you go! I told you women who abort are duped!

Imagine paying $500.00 to abort a child when you're not even pregnant. What is that, like a preventative abortion. Abort now, get pregnant later?

What will they think of next?

Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 3:40 PM

Human development is a process. A baby doesn't poof into existence upon conception. An embryo isn't a baby.

If embryos were babies, IVF would be illegal as is infanticide, and nobody would advocate abortion be allowed in cases of pregnancies due to rape, molestation, or life threatening circumstances.

Now, YOU may feel that women shouldn't be allowed to terminate under any circumstances, but most people do not hold that view, else the use of IVF would not be so prevalent, for example.

Happy Birthday, MK!!! You have your choice of birthday songs*: I know Pancho's Mexican Buffet song, Chili's Bar & Grill song, Olive Garden Italian Restaurant song and good old fashioned Happy Birthday. (*Note: I can't sing). :)

I agree. This relationship with God makes life worth living. Even if we had no hope of Heaven and no afterlife at all, this relationship is the way I'd choose to live my life. It's abundant living. I'm glad God isn't limited by time and space as Earthly parents are. That way He can dote on us all that we'll let Him. :) He had to teach me how to let Him love me more. That was a FUN lesson. A perfect example of this is that I used to not ever want to marry, seeing so many amazing women in bad marriages (I thought for a while that I could be a single woman that took care of foster kids). He had to teach me that He only wants good gifts for me and to trust Him in that. Now I'm looking forward to my nuptials, whenever they may be.:)

The more I know you girl, the more I've got to get you together with my Danny. They say boys marry their mothers, don't they? lol

He'd be lucky to marry someone just like you. But if I married him, that whole cliche of hating your mother-in-law wouldn't work. I adore you!

P.S. I live in Dallas, and sorry to say, I'm marshmellowy white. There's a picture on my myspace. Rae! Click that and add me if you have myspace.

Human development is a process. A baby doesn't poof into existence upon conception. An embryo isn't a baby.

And exactly what part after conception does a baby poof into existence? Human development IS a process, and the human starts developing at conception and doesn't stop until death. You want to pick an arbitrary point between the two to announce when a baby has magically formed. We believe in protecting humans in all stages of development, from embryo to elderly. You are for killing humans until they meet your criteria. Exactly when did you become God?

If embryos were babies, IVF would be illegal as is infanticide, and nobody would advocate abortion be allowed in cases of pregnancies due to rape, molestation, or life threatening circumstances.

Since when does the law decide what is and what is not? The law is not science. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a black man was not a person. They ruled that slaves were not people. At the Emancipation Proclamation, did slaves magically become people? You can't base reality on the law.

Oh, and ask me how I feel about IVF.

Now, YOU may feel that women shouldn't be allowed to terminate under any circumstances, but most people do not hold that view, else the use of IVF would not be so prevalent, for example.

Since when is popular opinion the standard of correctness? For thousands of years, people thought the Earth was flat. Since a majority thought that was so, did that make it so?

What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular.

@Jacqueline: I added you on myspace...though I rarely ever use it (music only on there...and I highly suggest you try listening to Levi Weaver, he's gorgeous, a wonderful singer, AND quite Christian, I think you'd enjoy him mucho).

You da MAN, Jacqueline!

Bobby-

Clarify- The MAN as in the good thing or the Man as in "Let's stick it to the man!" ??? I had to clear that up with Bethany this morning.

I'm fine with either, by the way. Since I'm aspiring to world domination, I'd better be. :)

Esther,

What Jacquie said.

Jacquie,

Those are the mother in laws that want to keep their sons at home forever and don't think any girl is good enough.

I can't wait to get rid of him and pawn him off on some other woman. I'd adore you too.

(The poor kid is actually quite wonderful...i just can't help having a little fun at his expense...)

MK,

Would you get us a ballpit as a wedding present? That would be ballsy. Or dysfunctional. Maybe both!

MK, if you don't pick a birthday song I'm going to spin the wheel o' corniness and sing one at random.

Too late. You get Olive Garden.

**a-hem**

Bona festa! What a joyous day!
Life's good fortune's sure to come your way!
Come on, sit back and then relax
We'll fill your plate the Italian Way!
We're so glad you came to celebrate with us today!

HEY!

I'll buy you the biggest ball pit on the face of the earth. Heck, we can have the wedding reception at Chucky Cheese and I'll pay to have new balls and the pit cleaned. Better yet, I'll buy your very own chucky cheese for a wedding present. Then you two can fill it with kids!

Thank you veddy, veddy much for my *cough, cough* lovely birthday song.

I'm hoping this will bring up a picture of him...let's see.

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/012_9A.jpg

Yeah!!!! It worked (see, yet another little gift) He's the one in blue...

Hahhaha, Jacquie...that is pretty hot....not gonna lie...

I constantly think that my boyfriend is good "breeding" material. Mwahahahahahahaha. I saw him protecting a little girl (probably about 1 1/2 years old) from bumping her head at his sister's baby shower and felt the animalistic need to procreate with him (alright, I was a female at a baby shower in which two other babies were in attendance, one of which was being coddled by my boyfriend....*thinks impure thoughts about him*)....but that's not a good idea right now, as I'm 19 and need to finish school, get married, and rake in some dough before I start poppin out chitlins....

But it ain't bad to look, damnit!

Jacquie, that comment above was in response to your "men making cribs" story. Mmmmm.

And here is one when all the boys were in there "Ain't gonna comb my hair for no man phase..." They look like the Brady Bunch gone postal...

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x282/mkhastings/TandS124.jpg

Just to let you know, MK...your sons are pretty easy on the eyes. :P

Even with the hair?
You are too kind Alyssa.

I mean tooooo kind.

Ok Jacqueline, I'll bite - how do you feel about IVF?

I have another question for you, though. If full human rights (or personhood) starts at conception, why don't sexually active women who believe this hold funerals for their used tampons and Kotex? I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?

I'll admit it, MK, I like the shaggy look now and then. :D

I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?

Huh?

Esther, don't give men the opportunity to use you for sex. Yes. I balked at that once too. "Ha!" "How old fashioned!" "Stupid!" I listened to "friends" instead. Hey, do it if it feels good. WRONG! These were the same women B lining to the abortion clinics. No thanks.

Posted by: heather at November 1, 2007 4:49 PM

Why do you think I need a lesson from you on sexual conduct? Why do you assume I've been a "victim" of casual sex because I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of men who lose respect for women after having sex with them?

I can't stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.

Why does a man who has sex with a woman and then turns around and calls her a slut as if HE is the paragon of virtue deserve anyone's respect? Why do you want women to conform to twisted, hypocritical logic like this?

I believe, MK, that what phylosopher is trying to say is that an embryo may not implant in time to stop the process of menses, and be washed away during the menstrual period, or not implant correctly, and be lost to the same reason. Therefore the potential exists for there to be a human on every tampon, etc...lol...

Lyssie,

Well he stated that EVERY menstrual period was the potential of a miscarried baby. That would only be true if you had had sex prior to the period.

Someone like Jacquie for instance could throw away all of her tampons worry free...

Either way...it was a stupid statement.

I can't stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.

Wow! And we thought Jacquie was finicky!

Tell me Esther, are you ever happy?

Since when is popular opinion the standard of correctness? For thousands of years, people thought the Earth was flat. Since a majority thought that was so, did that make it so?

What's popular isn't always right and what's right isn't always popular.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 5:20 PM

I agree that popular opinion doesn't make something right, which is why I'm so grateful to be living in a constitution-based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition as opposed to a theocracy, dictatorship or some other such horror.

People didn't KNOW the world was round; they were ignorant. We know that an embryo isn't a baby, which is why most of us are fine with IVF.

Esther: I can't stand self-righteous male hypocrites and have never had anything to do with such men.

Wow! And we thought Jacquie was finicky!

Tell me Esther, are you ever happy?

Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:07 PM

What's wrong with being finicky about one's sexual partner?

Well if it's not a baby and EVERYONE is clear on this, why are there laws prohibiting their sale, and use for experimentation. Why would anyone care?

Esther,

I'd rather you have answered "Are you ever happy"?

I gotta put the kids to bed, but before I go, I gotta tell you Esther, you seriously need to work on your sense of humor. You're bringin me down girl...waaaaaaaayyyyyy down. Lighten up. No one here is out to get you. We're just talkin' and sharin' and gettin' to know one another...

Seriously, chill.

Since when does the law decide what is and what is not? The law is not science. In 1856, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott, a black man was not a person. They ruled that slaves were not people. At the Emancipation Proclamation, did slaves magically become people? You can't base reality on the law.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Catholic or other religious beliefs about fertilized eggs also do not qualify as science.

Esther,

Where in that post did Jacquie say a single word about the Catholic Faith, let alone that we use it as scientific fact? Do you hear yourself?

I need a negativity shower.

Well if it's not a baby and EVERYONE is clear on this, why are there laws prohibiting their sale, and use for experimentation. Why would anyone care?

Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:17 PM

Making laws prohibiting the sale of embryos and their use for experimentation doesn't mean EVERYONE thinks embryos are babies. Besides, I didn't say EVERYONE is clear on this. Obviously, they aren't. Most people are, however.

Esther,

I'd rather you have answered "Are you ever happy"?

Posted by: mk at November 1, 2007 7:18 PM

I've been happily married to a great guy for 25 years. Some days more so than others, but, overall, very happily.

What's wrong about being finicky about one's sexual partner?

Jacqueline: And exactly what part after conception does a baby poof into existence? Human development IS a process, and the human starts developing at conception and doesn't stop until death. You want to pick an arbitrary point between the two to announce when a baby has magically formed. We believe in protecting humans in all stages of development, from embryo to elderly. You are for killing humans until they meet your criteria. Exactly when did you become God?

You're not exactly for protecting women and young girls or else you wouldn't be advocating that elective abortion be banned. I am not FOR killing humans, and I don't think I'm god. And, yes, I feel a woman should have the CHOICE to terminate a pregnancy early in gestation for any reason BEFORE a baby has developed.

@phylosopher,

sure wish you'd been around some earlier. Personhood, and a whole slew of rights begin at birth. What does begin at conception though is humanness (and that young being has HUMAN rights). Please note that HUMAN rights and person/birth rights are not the same though the second set does depend on the first set ... the very first is 'the right to life'.

Esther, 7:23PM

Please answer Jacque's question since I'm a little curious myself. The Supreme Court declared black people as non-persons, or 3/5 persons, whatever that means. When did black people turn into persons and what happened to cause this change?

Frankly, for every man that exploits a woman, there's a woman out there that lets him. He's not morally superior, but she's not a "victim" either.

Posted by: Jacqueline at November 1, 2007 4:47 PM

I agree, but society in general tolerates men who "think" they are morally superior and excuses their bad behavior much more so than society tolerates "loose" women. Take, for example, how Paris Hilton's behavior is vilified in the media. How many male celebrities who do much worse are criticized to that extent?

TWO SINNERS (excerpt) by Ella Wheeler Wilcox

And boys will be boys, the old folks say,
And a man is the better who's had his day

For this is the law of the earth, we know:
That the woman is stoned, while the man may go.

MK - Would you please read the posts carefully before you respond? Note, I said "sexually active women."

Talk about classic straw man fallacies - misread the post, go for the ad hominem - calling the poster stupid when you have misread! - and then change the subject.

Try again please! Or, Lyssie, since you read the post - I'd welcome your reply, too.

Ester: "I know most women abort long before there is a baby in extistence. "

I actually wasn't asking that question as a way to make a point or anything. There's a whole gray area in between thing at a certain point...between being able to give a blind person their sight and a crippled person their legs, but at the same time taking away an aspect of themselves, but then how fair is it to deprive them of that, and so on and so forth. More proof that everything can't just be black and white.

Erin, geez you're stubborn. You can't live in denial forever. Become pro-life.

And even though MK is already off for the night, I have to do my special family birthday song!

Today is a birthday we wonder for who!
She's laughing and smiling, my goodness, it's YOU!
Happy birthday, MK, from all of us to you!
Happy birthday, MK, from your guardian angel too!
May the good Lord bless you! May all your dreams come true!
Happy birthday MK, from all of us to you!

jasper- I didn't even SAY anything regarding abortion today. Geroff.

@ John:

We differ. A brain dead adult does not have a right to be kept alive indefinitely, though we could probably do that given today's technology. Even most interpretations of the latest word from the Vatican concur on that. We do make arbitrary distinctions about when a person receives various rights, and when we curtail them. Most benchmarks are arbitrary chronological ages. School 7, driving 16, sexual consent 17/18 and full adulthood 21, some credit/rental 25.

With all the technology of neonatology, I think that birth is somewhat arbitrary. C-sections, in utero surgery, etc. Using brain activity, actually extends the pre-birth time of personhood and full rights, and, would be less arbitrary and subject to the uncertainties of "guesstational age."

But, from your comment, I'll assume this is a rehash, then? No need to revisit further.

phylosopher: "I have another question for you, though. If full human rights (or personhood) starts at conception, why don't sexually active women who believe this hold funerals for their used tampons and Kotex? I mean, logically, that would be morally required, right, as every menstrual period could contain a baby?"

because this is nature taking its course. You or any other pro-deather do not have the right end to end a human being's life.

btw: The abortionist George "the baby killer" Tiller does hold funerals for the babies he kills.

Please answer Jacque's question since I'm a little curious myself. The Supreme Court declared black people as non-persons, or 3/5 persons, whatever that means. When did black people turn into persons and what happened to cause this change?

Posted by: Mary at November 1, 2007 8:07 PM

The Supreme Court didn't declare that a black person is three fifths of a person. The three fifths designation was actually insisted upon by the states with FEW SLAVES for counting purposes in order to reduce the states with LARGE slave populations representation in Congress and to secure ratification in the South. It was a compromise made by the Constitution writers.

The Constitution euphemistically refers to slaves as "persons held to servitude" or "all other persons."

Esther: So, women should abstain from sex with MEN so they can gain the respect of the very same men who want to have illicit sex with them?

Jacqueline: Silly girl! I would never respect or desire the respect of men that would have sex with me prior to marriage. I don't date such men.

And it's not about men respecting women. I am a woman and I don't respect women who don't respect themselves enough not to treat their bodies like public property. I wouldn't respect myself if I acted that way.

Silly girl! Most men and women have sex before marriage. Gosh, you must not respect MOST women, then.

December 21, 2006

Almost all Americans Have Sex before Marriage and Have for Decades

Even 9 of 10 of today's senior women born in 40's did it

Public opinion polls over the last 20 years have consistently shown that about 35% of adults say premarital sex is always or almost always wrong, according to the author. In the same vein, there is a common popular perception that most or all of those who came of age before the ¡°sexual revolution¡± of the 1960s and 1970s waited until they married to have sex, and that it is necessary to revert to the behaviors of that earlier time in order to eliminate the problems of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

However, research has questioned whether such a chaste period ever existed.

According to this analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to ¡°Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954¨C2003,¡± by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports.

The study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time.

¡°This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,¡± says study author Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute.

¡°The data clearly show that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government¡¯s funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12¨C29-year-olds. It would be more effective to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active¡ªwhich nearly everyone eventually will.¡±

Indeed, while the likelihood that Americans will have sex before marriage has remained virtually unchanged since the 1950s, people now wait longer to get married, so they are sexually active and unmarried for much longer than in the past. During this period, Dr. Finer concludes, young adults have an especially great need for accurate information about how to protect themselves against unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections.

Highlights

¡ñ The results of the analysis indicate that premarital sex is highly normative behavior.

¡ñ Almost all individuals of both sexes have intercourse before marrying, and the proportion has been roughly similar for the past 40 years.

¡ñ The increase seen beginning with the 1964¨C73 cohort may be partly due to increased availability of effective contraception (in particular, the pill), which made it less likely that sex would lead to pregnancy; but even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in ten had had premarital sex by age 44.

¡ñ Among those who did not have sex at all during their teen years, eight in ten eventually had premarital sex.

¡ñ Premarital sex as normative behavior is not surprising in an era when men and women typically marry in their mid-to-late twenties. Indeed, not only is premarital sex nearly universal by age 30, but it is also very common at much younger ages.

¡ñ Evidence from the past 50 years suggests that establishing abstinence until marriage as normative behavior is a challenging policy goal.

Esther the Pesterer is quite concerned with respect. And that word hypocrisy comes forth from Esther with a vengence.
"I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of men who lose respect for women after having pleasure(see realistic defintion of "sex" by Esther, since sex is only for pleasure, right Esther?) with them".
Let's look at what Esther said in that sentence through a dictionary definition of the words, respect and hypocrisy.
Respect; to FEEL deferential REGARD for;esteem. houghton miflin. Now, for Esther, the word "deferential" might not be defined well enough for Esther, due to a lack of education. So we may have to get a dictionary definition for deferential before we procede.
Deference; submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes, or JUDGEMENT of another. Now, We must hope Esther knows the definition of regard, but let us define the word anyway;1. to look at attentively, observe closely.2.to look upon or consider in a particualr way.3 to relate or refer to.4. to take into account.
So Esther, the definition of respect is ; to FEEL submission or courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or JUDGEMENT of another and to take into account.
But, the main definition of respect is; to FEEL SUBMISSION, or COURTEOUS yielding to the opinion, wishes, or JUDGEMENT.
For hypocrisy , maybe a very simple defintion is needed, since Esther and her fellow abortionist, always use the crude defintion for that word; one who doesn't practice what one preaches.
So, let us review the sentence of Esther the Pesterer. I, Esther, am pointing out(a suggestion for Esther, maybe "am accusing" is a better word selection) the men who do not practice what they preach and lose the feeling of submission or courteous yielding to the opinion,wishes or JUDGEMENT of another, after they have had pleasure with them.
So Esther, the Pesterer, how do you know these men, you accuse, have no feelings of submission and courteous yielding to wishes for another, after they have had pleasure?
Do you read the "feelings of a mind" Esther by looking at faces during acts of sexual pleasure? Or after your pleasure is satisfied, do you become a "psychic", and then KNOWS the feelings of submission to you, are not true feelings of courteous yielding to your opinions or wishes. Or do you know BEFORE you have pleasure with this man, he has no feelings of submission to your opinions?
So, Esther the Pesterer, just where is that accused man who fails to practice his feelings of submission and courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or judgement of you, fail to practice his feelings of yielding to your wishes?
Have you not got your wishes met Esther?
Have you not got submission Esther, from this man you accuse of not submitting to your desires?
And finally, Esther the Pesterer, do you get this upset about having pleasure with another person, if it was a women ? Say, a women who fed you the pleasure of a meal of macaroni and cheese, from being courteous and yielding to your opinion that you were hungry, and wished to eat. Then told you she has no feelings of submission or courteous yielding to your(ESTHER) opinions, or judgements, simply because she was a waitress giving you a meal you ordered?
Gee Esther, would that make her a hypocritical waitress? According to Esther it would. She gives you pleasure Esther, and then does not submit or yield to you, Esther, after she served you what you wished for. After all, Esther, she does have to pleasure others, and you would respect that, wouldn't you Esther?

yllas: So, Esther the Pesterer, just where is that accused man who fails to practice his feelings of submission and courteous yielding to the opinion, wishes or judgement of you, fail to practice his feelings of yielding to your wishes?
Have you not got your wishes met Esther?

So, as long as a man is giving a woman pleasure, his virtue remains intact, but hers doesn't?

I am happy to say that I have been having my wishes met quite nicely by my HUSBAND for more than a quarter of a century. Imagine that!

And, yes, a man who thinks HE'S in any position to lose respect for a woman HE sleeps as if HE'S lily white himself, is a hypocrite. If he thinks SHE'S a "loose" woman, and HE sleeps with her, what does that make him? After all, HE slept with HER, didn't he? I'm sorry you're unable to see the hypocrisy.

Esther,

I've been happily married to a great guy for 25 years. Some days more so than others, but, overall, very happily.

That's great. Except, I didn't ask you if you were happily married. I asked you if you were ever happy.

BTW, Esther, just so you get the point.
To paraphrase your slut logic about men and women, I will insert the waitress for men.
Esther's sentence; Why does a man who has "sex" with a women and then calls her a slut as if he is a paragon of virtue deserve anyone's respect.
Paraphrase; Why does a waitress who has served a meal to Esther and then calls Esther "cheap" as if the waitress is a paragon of virtue deserve anyone's feelings of submission and courteous yielding to opinons or wishes of the waitress?
Why simply because Esther deserves to be called cheap, since Esther is cheap. Esther left a tip of a quarter, and two pennies.
See, Esther, sometimes your judgement of yourself is false, but others know your just a cheap, pro abortionist who does not submit and yield to the wishes of the waitress to leave more then a cheap tip.
I agree with the waitress, your just a person who goes from one waitress to another, kind of like a "waitress slut", not being able to yield courteously to the opinion of the waitress, and leaves cheap tips to those waitresses, and not big tips, which the waitress would respect.
And if a man called you a cheap "waitress slutter", would he not be telling the truth about you Esther?
And Esther, remember the time you told that male waitress, you would submit to his wishes(respect him), and not have any other waitresses except him when you went to that macaroni and cheese bar?
How the male waitress believed your judgement towards him, and wished to submit to your judgement about him? That no other male waitress could deliver your pleasure for macaroni and chesse as that male waitress did?
Then he found you with another waitress, and a female waitress at that? Then other waitresses by the dozen, and all from being unable to submit to your own opinion about being courteous and yield to the feelings of that special male waitress.
See, now you know why you were called a slut, a waitress slut.

Phylosopher,

#1 I didn't call you stupid. I'm very careful about that. Please read the entire post before you respond. I called the argument stupid.

#2 I apologize for misreading the post. I still think it's a ridiculous question. Although I have often said a small prayer for any babies that I may have lost without realizing it. No full out funerals however. I'm sure God doesn't require a box and flowers.

The whole point of abortion is the "intent" and the intent is the destruction of a human life. The intent with a menstrual period is, well there is no intent. I can't be responsible for that which I am unaware or did not cause.

Esther, you don't have a clue about the definition of "respect" or "hypocrisy".
First, how do you know what a man "thinks" when he sleeps with her? If a man calls a women "loose", it has nothing to do with respect or hypocrisy.. A man can still feel submission and courteous yielding to HER WISHES OPINIONS AND JUDGEMENTS. That is the definition of RESPECT, Esther. Even if he says she is loose, it does not change the man's feelings of submitting to her wishes, judgement, or opinions, Esther.
Next time you use the word "respect". use the dictionary definition to avoid humpty dumptyism. A disease of Erin. Communication is only possible by two, or more people having the same definitions of words, Esther.
Since your failing to use the official definition of respect, make up a humpty dumpty definition and I'll see if we can agree on it, Esther.
Which leads one to your understanding of hypocrisy. Where is the man's hypocrisy if the definition of hypocrisy is ; to not practice what one preaches. What is the man preaching Esther? What is the man's practice, Esther? Name calling is now a practice and preaching, Esther?
You see Esther, maybe your trying to convey a idea that might be considered in this manner.
A man calls a women a loose slut, which upon the women responds. Do not call me a loose slut, as I wish you to submit to my judgement, that I am not a loose slut. If the man does not call her a loose slut again, that is a feeling to submit courteously and yield to her judgement. That is RESPECT.
Your sentence containing respect and hypocrisy is pure humpty dumptyism from ignorance of the definition of those two words.
At first glance, it makes you a pure propagandist of feminism who has never thought about the definition of respect and hypocrisy.
And as for hypocrisy, it actually does not mean a failure to practice what one preaches, but a practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues which one does not hold or possess.
Because Erin is ignorant of the exact definition of the word hypocrisy, he gets pounded by me for being a hypocrite, and trys to deny her hypocrisy by appealing to more Humpty Dumptyism. Such as shame, If only Erin knew how to get the stain of being a hypocrite removed from Erin, by knowing the definition of hypocrisy. Tis the mark of bad education or pure propagandist owning her mind.

I wouldn't imagine that any puny human would have knowledge of the omniscient mind of God. So that claim seems a bit farfetched, what hubris - and irrelevant anyway.

It's the inconsistency I'm pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident? If a chid dies tragically but accidentally does one just leave the body where it lies?

Why would intent matter when we have a recognized "right way" to treat human remains - with dignity and respect.

BTW,you did say the post was stupid. I like having my writing called stupid but little less than would enjoy having my self called so, at least without further elucidation. It's intellectually lazy to dismiss with such a characterization and not submit reasons.

Yllas,

Women who have premarital sex are not cheap. They have made choices about their lives that should be respected. Who are you to judge? You do not have a monopoly on the ability to define how others should live their lives. You don't condone what women who have premarital sex are doing. So what? It's not your life and you have no right to judge.

It's the inconsistency I'm pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident? If a chid dies tragically but accidentally does one just leave the body where it lies?

Phylosopher, if a child dies in the woods, and someone drives by the woods but is unaware that the child is there, do they leave the child where he or she lies? Yes.

Likewise, if a woman miscarries and does not know it, or cannot find her baby, it is impossible for her to move the child's body to have a funeral for that child.

And if she is unaware that she was pregnant, how can you possibly think that she would need to hold a funeral for someone she doesn't even know she lost?

However, many women do still hold funerals after they miscarry, even if they cannot find their baby.

It all depends on whether they are aware of it, and whether they regard life in the womb as sacred or not.

It's not your life and you have no right to judge.

Is that absolute, Enigma?

Phylospher,

BTW,you did say the post was stupid.
Which I admitted, why is this important to you?

And as you made so clear, I claimed the post was stupid because I misread it. I still think it's ridiculous to expect us to properly bury all of our tampons...and I refuse to dignify your point by taking it seriously. I answered you by saying that I do pray for any babies that "might" be lost, and that's as far as I'm willing to go...

I wouldn't imagine that any puny human would have knowledge of the omniscient mind of God.

This is most likely because you have a very small imagination, a closed mind and a closed heart. You can't see if you are blind. I wouldn't expect you to understand the concept of the soul. Certainly not on any deep level.

It's the inconsistency I'm pointing out here. If one accidentally hits a child with a car, is it acceptable to leave the accident

You're analogy is flawed. To work, the person would have to be completely unaware that they had hit a child, accidentally or otherwise.

Good morning, MK!

Esther,

In the Dred Scott decision 7 out of 9 Supreme Court justices declared that no slave or descendent of a slave could be a US citizen, or had ever been one, and as such had no rights. The chief justice, Roger Taney, was a former slave owner.
All African-Americans, free or enslaved, were stripped of all rights, even the voting rights of free black men in the five original states who had been considered citizens since the Declaration of Independence.
On the basis of race, an entire group of people were stripped of all rights and legal protection.
In effect, they were legal non-persons.

Concerning 3/5th personhood for census purposes. Interesting how someone can be almost a person or less of a person on the whim of the state.