Pills or dinner?

"Pills or dinner?" was the subject heading of Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards' email alert yesterday.

The premise is ridiculous: that due to rising prices of artificial female steroids, i.e., birth control pills, college nyphomaniacs are being forced to choose between illicit sex and eating.

bc pp.jpgHere's what happened. Legislators passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 to save $40 billion over 5 years. A consequence, according to U.S. News & World Report:

A quirk in a new federal law, designed to save taxpayers money on Medicaid reimbursements for drugs, has effectively persuaded pharmaceutical companies to stop selling their products to these [university] pharmacies at deeply discounted rates. (If companies continue to offer such discounts, the law stipulates, they will also receive lower payments from Medicaid.)

Shock: the government isn't buying the whining. In response to one request to restore the loophole, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid wrote, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette...

We believe that there are already programs in place by which manufacturers can continue to make available drugs to the indigent and underinsured ...

Absolutely true.

One school, Carnegie Mellon, switched to offering generics, which cost about 1/4 what brand names do.

Why doesn't PP go the generics route? Because it wouldn't make as much profit, perhaps?

Anyway, here's Cecile's letter. Note the sexism. She places the entire financial responsibility for contraception on women. Why doesn't she demand that studs subsidize their sexual proclivities rather than see their muses starve to death?

Thanks to the spike in bc costs, another spike we may see here is in grades, the reason people attended college originally.

pp cecile pill.jpg

[HT: John Jansen of Pro-Life Action League]


Comments:

The premise is ridiculous: that due to rising prices of artificial female steroids, i.e., birth control pills, college nyphomaniacs are being forced to choose between illicit sex and eating.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"College nymphomaniacs?"

You got pregnant as an unwed 19-year-old, why are you so bitter towards women who are trying to be responsible?

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 4:39 PM


Oh, Cecile. I pray for you daily...

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 4:39 PM


You got pregnant as an unwed 19-year-old, why are you so bitter towards women who are trying to be responsible?

Popping a pill doesn't make unmarried sex responsible, rather it opens you up to a host of diseases, drama and heartache that is completely avoidable by choosing abstinence.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 4:41 PM


So why doesn't PP buy the generic and sell it anyway at the regular price of twenty to fifty bucks a pack? Then they make bigger profits.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 29, 2008 4:42 PM


So why doesn't PP buy the generic and sell it anyway at the regular price of twenty to fifty bucks a pack? Then they make bigger profits.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If we are using a brand name - rather than a generic - where I work, it's because the only competitive generic is produced someplace like China, and doesn't conform to the same quality standards.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 4:50 PM


What do they need pills for? What about condoms? Pills don't protect against STDs! Shouldn't they be using condoms instead?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 4:53 PM


Popping a pill doesn't make unmarried sex responsible, rather it opens you up to a host of diseases, drama and heartache that is completely avoidable by choosing abstinence.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 4:41 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, because we all know that a marriage certificate protects you from any kind of disease, drama and heartache.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 4:53 PM


Since when have students had the free time to mess around anyway? Or are American Colleges and Universities slacking off? Oh wait. What's that movie where there were no students in the classroom but only tape recorders... and there was no teacher... only a reel-to-reel machine playing the day's lecture?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 29, 2008 5:02 PM


Laura, I thought you knew that birth control pills don't block STDs. Are you spreading false medical information to women, resulting in them getting infected? Why are you so anti-science? Why are you so anti-woman? Think of the children, Laura, the children!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:08 PM


BTW, potential solution to the problem:

Birth Control - It's what's for dinner!

Just turn the BC pills into a meal. Like a diet milk shake! Yeah! I can just see the ads now:

"That's right, one shake a day is all you need to keep inconvenient babies out of your uterus! Keep those unwanted children away from you, and lose some of those unwanted pounds, too!"

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:12 PM


You got pregnant as an unwed 19-year-old, why are you so bitter towards women who are trying to be responsible?

Popping a pill doesn't make unmarried sex responsible, rather it opens you up to a host of diseases, drama and heartache that is completely avoidable by choosing abstinence.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 4:41 PM
.................

Sure Jackie. No female student could possibly be married. Any female that wishes to succeed in life has to be a nymphomaniac. You of course you will be dropping out just as soon as you find a man.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 5:13 PM


You of course you will be dropping out just as soon as you find a man.

Thanks, Sally. I love how you imply that the only reason I kick ass in the working and academic world is because I'm not yet married and how the second I get married, I will cease to be smarter and more successful than you.

Keep on dreaming, Sally. Keep on dreamin'...

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 5:18 PM


So why doesn't PP buy the generic and sell it anyway at the regular price of twenty to fifty bucks a pack? Then they make bigger profits.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at April 29, 2008 4:42 PM
.....................................................

It is illegal to produce generics before the patent runs out. Newer, more effective and safer BC will not have a generic. Even when a generic is available, only the A rated generic will be tested and approved as a bioequivalent.
If you have a bitch with profits from prescription drugs, your bitch is with the manufacturers holding the patents.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 5:23 PM


Ahhh yes, I love this mantra of Jills... ALL unmarried people who have sex are just nymphomaniacs. Its completely unfathomable that they are in healthy, loving, monogamous relationships.

And poor people should just NOT have sex ever. Because they shouldn't get cheap birth control to prevent having children they can't feed, but if they do have children, tough luck, because we all know welfare is just for lazy unemployed leeches, right?

John - myself and several other girls I know use condoms AND birth control. Its extra protection, so that we don't end up pregnant and perhaps seeking an abortion.

As for the "sexism" in placing financial responsibility on the girl to pay for birth control pills, I would ever even consider needing to be that dependent on a guy. I have my own job, I have my own money - and I'll take care of my own body and what I want to put in to it. If things were tough for me financially but I still wanted to take the pill, that would be MY burden to address. If I decide to stop taking it for whatever reason, and because of that, I have sex less often or not at all, tough patooties for him.

I lost my pill pack in Spain just 2 weeks ago on vacation, so I have to start over next week. So no sex on vacation, and no sex for another month. MY decision to make. Not his. Is that really sexist?

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 5:25 PM


Gee, Sally, I would have thought that the '100% effective' BC pills from 10 years ago would be just as effective as the '100% effective' BC pills from today. And I thought they were all safe? Holy cow...! Thanks for informing us that not only were BC pills less effective 10 years ago, they were also less safe!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:28 PM


Laura, I thought you knew that birth control pills don't block STDs. Are you spreading false medical information to women, resulting in them getting infected? Why are you so anti-science? Why are you so anti-woman? Think of the children, Laura, the children!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:08 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What the hell are you talking about?
When did I sat that birth control pills prevented STDs?

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 5:32 PM



Thanks, Sally. I love how you imply that the only reason I kick ass in the working and academic world is because I'm not yet married and how the second I get married, I will cease to be smarter and more successful than you.

Keep on dreaming, Sally. Keep on dreamin'...

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 5:18 PM
.........................................................................

Well Jackie, since I had to put school off until I had successfuly raised my children, there may never be a comparison between my life and yours. You may never have children. You may remain a virgin the rest of your life and never experience the demands of a committed relationship.
Your lack of experiences in life hardly make you the spokesperson for female students or their needs.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 5:34 PM


Amen, Amanda, Amen. :)

EXACTLY how I feel. And with that new male birth control pill coming out, we'll see how men "step up". I know, personally, if my significant other won't step up and be a man and take a hit to his swimmers, no booty for him....whether or not we're married. It's never going to be him dealing with pregnancy, so I have the right to control when the action that leads to it occurs. If he misses a pill, he misses out on booty. Too bad. But I'll always have my pill to back it up, even if something goes wrong with his or vice versa. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 5:35 PM


Holy cow, Laura made a coherent post! I'm shocked - shocked!

Laura, you disagreed with Jacqueline's post in which she said that BC pills DON'T prevent disease!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:38 PM


Lyssie said: "I know, personally, if my significant other won't step up and be a man and take a hit to his swimmers, no booty for him...."

At least not from YOU... dun dun DUN!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:41 PM


Laura, you disagreed with Jacqueline's post in which she said that BC pills DON'T prevent disease!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:38 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, she said that unmarried sex opens you up to disease, drama and heartache.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 5:44 PM


haha Lyssie

I mentioned that to the bf... he says he's willing to try it. Like you though, I wouldn't go off of mine no matter how effective the male pill is. In addition to the extra peace of mind, you couldn't pay me enough money to go back to the cramps I used to have before I went on the pill. I used to end up missing 2 days of school curled up in a ball, and not even vicodin would help - I'd just throw it up.

Now that I have a real job I can't call out sick from 2 days a month, I can't even imagine...Uhhgg.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 5:45 PM


Its completely unfathomable that they are in healthy, loving, monogamous relationships.

Uh-huh. Sure, that's who Planned Parenthood targets! Monogamous people. Because those are the ones that require STD tests...

By the way, monogamous relationships are typically marriages. Just having sex with one person at a time is not monogamy- it's going steady.

I lost my pill pack in Spain just 2 weeks ago on vacation, so I have to start over next week. So no sex on vacation, and no sex for another month. MY decision to make.

No sex for a whole month? That's the first I've heard of a pro-choicer saying anything that implies that human beings could act rationally.

I thought pro-choicers believed that abstaining for any reason and any length of time would cause one's flesh to eat itself and limbs falling off and the whole universe screeching to a halt. Abstinence is against human nature! That we can't expect anyone to exercise control or restraint- especially not minors.

And poor people should just NOT have sex ever.

Your cycle is artificial, but mine is real and I know exactly when I could get pregnant and exactly when it's unlikely. A thermometer, a piece of paper and a pencil is better birth control than any pill, and significantly cheaper.

Because they shouldn't get cheap birth control to prevent having children they can't feed, but if they do have children, tough luck, because we all know welfare is just for lazy unemployed leeches, right?

So before cheap birth control, the world was in chaos with greater concentrations of poverty? No- people married and had a team to provide for the family.

Look at the rate of unmarried mothers of multiple children, who have to work at underpaid jobs and give 70% to day care. This age of legitimizing extramarital sex, even with the availability of birth control and condoms in gas station restrooms, has just led to more impoverished women.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2008 5:47 PM


The only responsible thing for PP - go generic. It's a no brainer, Cecile Richards.

Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2008 5:47 PM


Laura, are you feeling OK? You just made two reasonable, sane posts in a row.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:48 PM


Oh, John, you have such little regard for a woman who'd be assertive for what she believes is her right to prevent pregnancy. I'm sorry you'd cheat on a woman because she'd expect you to value her wishes to not be pregnant and wouldn't want to follow her rules for entering a sexual relationship, but I have faith that I have a man who's got a little bit more moral fortitude than you. In fact, HE'S the one who brought up the idea of the male birth control pill, and was rather excited to give thought to the idea of using it after I told him how it worked. Huh...a man that respects my wishes and wants to do everything in his power to protect me. The very same man that talks about our future and wants only the very best for our educations and career opportunities. Sorry, John, but you're way out of line on this one.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 5:48 PM


Gee, Sally, I would have thought that the '100% effective' BC pills from 10 years ago would be just as effective as the '100% effective' BC pills from today. And I thought they were all safe? Holy cow...! Thanks for informing us that not only were BC pills less effective 10 years ago, they were also less safe!

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:28 PM
........................................

Gee golly wiz John! See what happens when you get your information from polluted PL sources. Most people know that no medication of any kind is 100% effective for what they are intended. Most people also know that manufactures make no money when their patents run out therefore new and improved is a necessity. Obviously John Jansen doesn't understand issues that he feels qualified to remark upon. You playing dumb doesn't fix the ignorance.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 5:48 PM


Looks like I struck a nerve, Lyssie!

Yes, a virgin like me can't wait to cheat on a woman. How hilarious is that?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:50 PM


Actually, Sally, it's the pro-aborts (you guys) who have been saying for years that all you have to do is puts the kids on birth control and all will be fine. That's why it's funny that now you're telling us that these pills were even capable of being made "more effective" and "more safe". Capiche?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM


"Uh-huh. Sure, that's who Planned Parenthood targets! Monogamous people. Because those are the ones that require STD tests...

By the way, monogamous relationships are typically marriages. Just having sex with one person at a time is not monogamy- it's going steady. "


Uhh...right. Unmarried people can't be monogamous? So the fact that I've been with my boyfriend for several years, and neither us have been with another person makes us what exactly? While 1/4 of American men admit cheating on their WIVES? So noooo, no married people EVER need STD tests! Having a piece of paper makes them ...

INVINNNNNNNCIBLEE!

Its a bird
Its a plane

No... its..... SUPER MARRIAGE!!!!

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM


People taking birth control faithfully produce way less pregnancies, which means many less abortions and unwanted children. You guys should be GIVING away BC.

Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM


* for some reaso my (letter betwee M ad B) is messed up

I said *ever

but you get what i said

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 5:58 PM


Erin, surgical sterilization produces way fewer pregnancies, too. Should we support that?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:58 PM


Actually, Sally, it's the pro-aborts (you guys) who have been saying for years that all you have to do is puts the kids on birth control and all will be fine.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. No one has ever said that.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 6:00 PM


Oh, John, you'd say you'd struck a nerve whether or not I responded. You're the kind of people always saying that feminists hate men, but you're the one putting down your own sex by saying that any man who isn't a virgin is going to cheat on his partner. Because I happen to love the man I'm with, and he chooses to protect and value my opinions and body (which is apparently too much for your mind to handle-OMGZ ANY SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WIF TEH BIRTH CONTROLZ HAZ TEH PROMISCUOUS CHEATING PARTNERS OMGZ), you're automatically going to judge. Unfortunately, your rude quips just made you look the fool, and your preconceived judgments of people reveal your bias. I'm sorry you don't believe you have a duty to someday respect the wishes of the woman you have sex with (and I don't judge you for wanting to remain a virgin, good for you), but whether you like it or not, she is the one dealing with the reality of pregnancy. She has a right to determine when the act that leads to it happens. And for someone who believes that NFP is the only viable option for controlling when pregnancy occurs, your notion of denying sex to the man in the relationship still applies. What keeps a man using NFP in the relationship with his wife (who tells him "no, we're not having sex tonight"), from cheating as well? Sorry, I don't buy the idea that a woman who says "no, not tonight honey, you forgot to take your pill" is any different than the woman who denies sex in NFP to her partner.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:02 PM


Erin, surgical sterilization produces way fewer pregnancies, too. Should we support that?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:58 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Absolutely!

Right now it's nigh near impossible to get a tubal ligation or vasectomy is you're childless and/or under 35.
A recent survey showed that over 20% of female college students would get a TL if it was available. Why that option isn't availably to any American over 18 baffles me.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 6:05 PM


Last time I checked, Abstinence was free, there is little risk of STDs, AND you save a LOT of $ to buy food, which is a necessity of LIFE.

Promiscuous sex is NOT a necessity of LIFE.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 6:07 PM


Well Jackie, since I had to put school off until I had successfuly raised my children, there may never be a comparison between my life and yours.

Thank God! If my life looked like yours, that wouldn't say much about me.

You say that we can't compare our lives, but you can't accept the fact that perhaps I have just made better choices than you have. My life might be significantly easier than yours wasv since I will have children post-doc rather than raising them without the benefits of my education, but that doesn't proclude me from suggesting that it's not a good idea for others. It's worked quite well for me.

You may never have children.

So what...

You may remain a virgin the rest of your life

I reitterate- so what?

and never experience the demands of a committed relationship.

I've had several committed relationships, but if you mean marriage, maybe so. But I conclude with another hearty, "so what."

Not having yet had children or been married at 27 doesn't denengrate my life at all. Indeed, I'd rather be the way I am rather than like my classmates who all married and birthed in their teens and are all divorced, struggling single parents (as you probably were/are). I'm better off as I am than I could be if I made the short-sided choices you have.

Your lack of experiences in life hardly make you the spokesperson for female students or their needs.

Not all experiences are good. I haven't experienced crack whoredom, but I don't intend to start. I also haven't experienced recovering from an abortion, taking once daily valtrex, raising a child without an absentee father or a host of other complications that you invite when you choose to have sex outside of marriage. This doesn't make me inexperienced- It only makes me smarter than you.

By the way, I have been a female student for 4 years bachelors, 1.5 years masters and almost 2 years Ph.D., so I think I know what it's like to be a female student. Your bitterness about choices you've made and how that has made your life more of an unnecessary struggle than mine doesn't imply that I am inexperienced, only that you've jealous that I haven't had to sleep in the type of bed you made for yourself.

Having survived your bad choices doesn't entitle you to a cookie, Sally, or make you some expert on life. It only provides an example of what not to do.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 6:09 PM


"Erin, surgical sterilization produces way fewer pregnancies, too. Should we support that?"

For people who want it! Of course!!

every single male in my family had a vasectomy when they felt they had the number of kids they wanted... no complaints from anyone, AND it saves all of us from opening up the wrong drawer looking to borrow a pair of Mom's socks and finding condoms or pills...hahhaha

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 6:10 PM


Liz- Sex is, though.

John- why not? I'd like to have a tubal litigation, but I'd NEVER be able to acquire one right now.

Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2008 6:10 PM


Laura, I find it ridiculous and condescending that someone can get breast implants when they turn 18 but aren't allowed to decide they want to have a tubal ligation, because society "knows better". There are a few women I know that would get a tubal ligation in a heartbeat (one of which is my roommate). Her reason is a good one-her job, and her dream, is to travel ALL OVER THE WORLD, hardly conducive to bearing and raising children. She doesn't discount marrying one day, but she has never entertained the possibility of children. But since she's 20, no one would ever consider letting her have a tubal ligation so that she can make sure her career is uninterrupted, even if she gets married.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:11 PM


Deliberate sterilization is a VERY selfish motive. Its all about the ME ME ME world.

Sex to reproduce to continue the human race is necessary, sex without TRUE LOVE (promiscuity) is NOT.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 6:15 PM


Your bitterness about choices you've made and how that has made your life more of an unnecessary struggle than mine doesn't imply that I am inexperienced, only that you've jealous that I haven't had to sleep in the type of bed you made for yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sally's stupid choice?

She believed all of that moronic "mommy daddy baby" crap, became a stay-at-home mom, and believed that her husband would honor his marriage vows.
I know many women who also made that stupid mistake and are truly sorry they did.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 6:19 PM


Actually, Sally, it's the pro-aborts (you guys) who have been saying for years that all you have to do is puts the kids on birth control and all will be fine. That's why it's funny that now you're telling us that these pills were even capable of being made "more effective" and "more safe". Capiche?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM
..................................

You apparently do some very selective reading. All BC has a failure rate. It is a portion of PL that insist that no one using it correctly could ever get pregnant. The rest of you would simply wish to outlaw sex outside of marriage and mandate any conception within marriage be gestated regardless of the wishes concerning the actual people involved. Just imagine the drop in marriages and birth rates if you got your way. Not to mention divorces and illegal abortions. It sure would give you morality Nazis busy work.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 6:21 PM


So someone in a marriage who has a tubal ligation is selfish, even if both partners are in agreement and are happy with the decision...oh, I get it. Liz, there will always be people who want to get pregnant and have children. The human race is in NO DANGER of dying out. Sorry, but saying that a couple who decides not to have kids is "selfish"...(selfish to whom? There isn't a child to be SELFISH toward!), is extraordinarily judgmental. Selfish to the human race to not procreate? Then start yelling at nuns and priests...they're not even having sex! How selfish to exist and not procreate! "YOU SHOULD HAVE KIDS BECAUSE IT'S YOUR DUTY TO THE HUMAN RACE, YOU SELFISH *SSHOLE!" Can't you see how insulting that is?

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:22 PM


Lyssie and Laura -

my sister was able to get one this year (she's 24), though she started bringing it up to my parents when she was probably 19.

the doctor made her go to a counselor first though - because you know - women who don't want children need to be psychoanalyzed... but women who want fake boobs, a fake nose, and fake lips are just perfectly fine.

Anyways - in the end, it was a positive experience for her.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 6:23 PM


Omg, Amanda, I KNOW! That's so ridiculous... OF COURSE WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT KIDS ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS. They definitely need counseling....but step right up for your "wham bam thank you ma'am" nose job, because society socializes you to think you're not "good enough" and you need to change the way you look to be acceptable. Sorry, someone who undergoes plastic surgery to look more like a movie star has a lot more issues than someone who undergoes a tubal ligation to prevent something that can throw off their entire lives.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:27 PM


Liz.........erm......I don't even know what to say to that. We aren't anywhere on the same level.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2008 6:27 PM


Liz- wouldn't you say sterilization is a better choice than not using any form of protection or birth control?

Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2008 6:28 PM


Yes Liz...

my parents deciding together that after 3 kids, having another one would make it impossible for them to do horrible selfish things like keeping us all fed and clothed, pay their mortgage in a town with good schools, provide experiences which have enriched our lives and bonded us as a family, put us all through college, and help us out whenever we needed anything...

God...what a bunch of selfish, self absorbed evil people my parents are...

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 6:29 PM


Deliberate sterilization is a VERY selfish motive. Its all about the ME ME ME world.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 6:15 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

...And why did you have kids?
Because YOU wanted them? Because YOU love them? Because they make YOU happy?
Sounds like it's all about YOU.
How selfish.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 6:31 PM


Yeah, Amanda....my parents are evil, selfish bastards too...they waited TEN YEARS AFTER BEING MARRIED to have me, because they couldn't afford it. Just think of all the kids they could have had in that time if they hadn't been so evil and self-centered! I could have 7 more siblings, and my 'rents would be better people, with no money, no business, no accomplishments, and no ability to put my brother and I through college. I hate my parents for their selfishness!!

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:34 PM


my parents deciding together that after 3 kids, having another one would make it impossible for them to do horrible selfish things like keeping us all fed and clothed, pay their mortgage in a town with good schools, provide experiences which have enriched our lives and bonded us as a family, put us all through college, and help us out whenever we needed anything...

Amanda, that's a bad trade-off. You don't realize it, but it's true. Yep, you had worldly comforts, but siblings last forever. And you might justify their unwillingness to share themselves with more children by the fact that they could give you more, but the things you got were temporary.

I was raised in a family of 4 with plenty of money. We traveled constantly, experienced other cultures, had money for college and money to bail us out of our troubles and irresponsibilities if we needed it.

So what? Siblings are forever- they're priceless. No worldly luxury could replace them.

My friends raised in large families but dirt poor are wealthier than I, because they have eachother. They work for what they earn- college included, and are all the better for it. My sister went to college on my parents till she was 28. She'd wreck a car, they'd provide her a new one. How is this good?

My ex-boyfriend who has 5 sibling has a house are full of laughter and grandbabies and neices and nephews and cousins. My friends with 9 boys have the same thing.

You and I might have memories and photos of exotic vacations and other worldly comforts, but we don't have lots of family to stick by us, help us care for our parents as they age and know us since birth.

Your parents chose less work (less children) and financial comfort for themselves and you and your siblings. Even if you don't believe in an eternity where only your soul goes with you, it's still a foolish trade-off to pick a career, money or worldly comforts that last a short while over a lifetime of love.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2008 6:44 PM



Having survived your bad choices doesn't entitle you to a cookie, Sally, or make you some expert on life. It only provides an example of what not to do.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 6:09 PM

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

Bingo Jackie! I advise every young woman to attain self sufficiency before having children. Married or not. Abortion may at some point become an option to that goal. Not everyone manages to avoid emotional intimacy until education goals are accomplished. Most would not want to. Because you have, doesn't earn you a cookie either darling. Being fearful of commitments and unwilling to risk rejection doesn't make you smart.
No one is jealous of you Jackie. What do you believe that you have that anyone would want?
And your lack of life experience doesn't make you smarter for having avoided life. It just makes you less experienced.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 6:46 PM


LOL - yeah Anon, because my life is SO robbed of love having ONLY two siblings... if I had 9 and lived in a double wide and never got to go to college, my life would be SOOOO much better.

Thats great that lots of people you know had lots of money. My parents didn't.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 6:47 PM


they waited TEN YEARS AFTER BEING MARRIED to have me, because they couldn't afford it.

It depends on how much you think you need. If they thought you two had to have your own rooms and they had to put you through college, then they couldn't afford it...But those things aren't necessary.

Some people don't want to have babies unless they can do it with financial ease and comfort. This doesn't mean they can't afford it.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 6:48 PM


My dad was working two full-time jobs (because as a machinist in the 80's, work was hard to come by and lay-offs were a constant worry). In between two jobs, he'd come home to lay foundations for the business he and my mother were starting. She had the only job with benefits, working late into her pregnancy with me (prior to her pregnancy, life was still hard-knocks). My first room as a baby was shared with my grandmother. Too bad my parents couldn't have worked harder, they could have had a bunch of babies sooner! (Actually, it was the priest my father consulted that told him to stop working so hard, and to delay any added stressors, such as getting my mom pregnant.)

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:53 PM


LOL - yeah Anon, because my life is SO robbed of love having ONLY two siblings... if I had 9 and lived in a double wide and never got to go to college, my life would be SOOOO much better.

Anon was me. I never said your life is robbed of love, only that more siblings could love you more than your college education or any comforts you may have had.

Yanno, people go to college without paying having others pay for it. I didn't, but many did and those that did tend to value it more. You could have worked your way through like my father or my friends did. I'm sorry that you think sharing your parent's money with more siblings would have been so traumatic.

Likewise- I'd take a double-wide full of people who love eachother with no frills than a nice, plush house devoid of family, where every man snips himself rather than having to share any of his money.

Thats great that lots of people you know had lots of money. My parents didn't.

I never implied these big families are rich. They're not. They make sacrifices for eachother- share rooms and clothes, take care of one another and pay for their own luxuries. And they're better for it.

If your parents could pay for your college and all of these activities to bond you as a family, don't claim that you were raised poor.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 6:57 PM


Jacquie, nothing wrong with wanting to provide your children with the best in life, even if that means providing for their education.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2008 6:57 PM


This is such a strange way to phrase the problem that PP believes exists, even from the point of view of the pro-choicer. If one can barely afford to eat, they're on an extremely tight budget. Even with perfect pill use, break through ovulation is still possible and hence pregnancy is possible. So then, what, you have to shell out $300 for an abortion? How can someone who barely has enough money to eat afford $300 for an abortion? It's like the idea of not having sex just simply isn't an option. It's totally not even on the radar. If money is so tight, why even in the first place engage in unnecessary behavior that could result in having to pay $300 or more? I mean, if I can't afford health care at the moment, I"m not going to continue playing football or wrestling or some other activity that could result in injury if the activity isn't necessary. I really feel like this is common sense that anyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue, can get behind.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2008 6:59 PM


"Anon was me. I never said your life is robbed of love, only that more siblings could love you more than your college education or any comforts you may have had."


Yes, because clearly the love I get from my two siblings isn't enough... I need MORE LOVE!!! Love to pay my rent!! OH WAIT!! Life doesn't work that way, awww shucks! Guess I'll have to get a job, and gosh, that required one of those gosh darned edumacations. Can I get a bachelors degree in extra sibling love to get a job that will allow me to become independent and have a family of my own some day?? Please??

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 7:04 PM


Sex is always on the menu. People are biologically inclined to want to have sex pretty much all the time. They're trying to help prevent situations where a pregnancy could spell disaster. Because people are ALWAYS going to have sex with each other, whether they're poor, or married, or not.

People like sex. You can't forbid it. So better to make it safe than just let preventable issues reign.

Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2008 7:05 PM


The voice of calm reasoning has finally sounded.

Thank you, Bambino.


Things were getting a little shrill here.

Posted by: carder at April 29, 2008 7:06 PM


Bingo Jackie! I advise every young woman to attain self sufficiency before having children.

Really? Because you attempt to degrade and condascend me and claim I haven't experienced life because I've made this choice that you advise. Had I chosen to have sex, have babies, put off school, etc. you'd have no means with which to debunk my arguments.

Not everyone manages to avoid emotional intimacy until education goals are accomplished.

I haven't. Because I haven't married doesn't mean I haven't loved or been loved. It means that I haven't found everything I want. I certainly could have married someone I loved that I wasn't sure was right for me and gotten cheated on like you. How would that be wise?

Because you have, doesn't earn you a cookie either darling.

I haven't.

Being fearful of commitments and unwilling to risk rejection doesn't make you smart.

I'm not- I just don't make commitments lightly, since divorce is not something I want to endure. I don't want to end up like you did, cheated on, bitter and divorced. Once again, this just makes me smarter than you.

No one is jealous of you Jackie. What do you believe that you have that anyone would want?

See, that's what I want to know about you! Why do you think I envy your "experiences" that caused you to become so bitter? I assumed you think I want kids and were trying to rub it in my face that you have kids and I don't. I was merely pointing out that anything you have, I can have to, only without the dried up angst and emotional scarring.

And your lack of life experience doesn't make you smarter for having avoided life.

I haven't avoided life, just the problems associated with the poor choices you made.

It just makes you less experienced.

Okay- you're old and been around the block. I'm young and conscientious, so I'm less experienced. Fine with me.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 7:08 PM


John - myself and several other girls I know use condoms AND birth control. Its extra protection, so that we don't end up pregnant and perhaps seeking an abortion.


Amanda,
Maybe I am getting you confused with someone else, but didn't you have an abortion???

Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 7:10 PM


Jacquie, nothing wrong with wanting to provide your children with the best in life, even if that means providing for their education.

I agree! But I don't think people should act like providing a child with the best "stuff" is more virtuous than providing them with more family.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 7:10 PM


Bobby -

I agree that its not too bright to have unprotected sex just because you can't afford the pill, and I think, as I've said repeatedly, NARAL and who ever is in charge of the PP press releases just LOVE to make everything sound like a panic situation...most of the time, its not.

that being said though, in this particular case, its no more silly than people complaining about gas prices. When something is affordable for a long time, and then suddenly the price goes through the roof - people are going to get upset and bitch about it. I think thats just a natural reaction.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 7:12 PM


Sandy -

Nope. Never been pregnant.

I worked with high risk teens though, some pregnant and keeping their babies, others who'd had abortions, and I mention them a lot so thats what might have you confused.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 7:14 PM


Yes, because clearly the love I get from my two siblings isn't enough... I need MORE LOVE!!! Love to pay my rent!! OH WAIT!! Life doesn't work that way, awww shucks! Guess I'll have to get a job, and gosh, that required one of those gosh darned edumacations. Can I get a bachelors degree in extra sibling love to get a job that will allow me to become independent and have a family of my own some day?? Please??

Amanda, you brag about your self-sufficiency. Surely you could have gotten an education on your own withour your parents paying for it! Siblings don't threaten your ability to pay rent. Mine has even helped me a time or two.

Amanda, it's clear what you value. We have different values. You see sharing with siblings as a threat to you having the stuff you want. I see having siblings as a blessing and I'd have been delighted to share. Yes, not having all the money and having to work my way through school might not have been as much fun or comfortable, but I'd trade those comforts for siblings relationships. You might can make good friends, but they'll never know you as long or as well as your siblings do.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 7:18 PM


I said deliberately sterilizing yourself, and I meant for NON medical reasons. Wanting to advance a career and not have a pregnancy interrupt your plans to buy a luxury car and/or go to Europe every year would be a selfish reason.

I have a cousin who had to have a hysterectomy (4 months ago) at age 28 because she was given a cancer causing STD by a former boyfriend. She's very lucky she was able to have three children before she had to have the surgery.


There's a difference between providing a house and food and clothing for a family (necessities) and not being able to control yourself because you're addicted to sex (what planned parenthood sells) and desperately need a pill because you're afraid you'll get pregnant. (Referring to the topic of this blog post about the desperate need for pills because college aged women can't control themselves).


My dad and my mom both grew up in families with 7 children. My dad grew up on a farm and learned to be a hard worker from an early age.

My mom grew up in a small town and had maybe one indoor bathroom for all of them (her youngest brother was born when she was 15 I think).


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 7:20 PM


Right, because its all about the quantity of siblings you have, and not the relationship you develop with how ever many you may have.

Because I'm glad my parents could put me through college and help me see the world, and I'm not weeping over my mom's wasted eggs, I am selfish and only value "stuff"

Boy you've really got me figured out.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 7:22 PM



Omg, Amanda, I KNOW! That's so ridiculous... OF COURSE WOMEN WHO DON'T WANT KIDS ARE ABSOLUTELY NUTS. They definitely need counseling....but step right up for your "wham bam thank you ma'am" nose job, because society socializes you to think you're not "good enough" and you need to change the way you look to be acceptable. Sorry, someone who undergoes plastic surgery to look more like a movie star has a lot more issues than someone who undergoes a tubal ligation to prevent something that can throw off their entire lives.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 6:27 PM

Gee, how about the "wham bam thank you ma'am" abortion? Did you forget about that?

I find it interesting that if a woman wants plastic surgery, she must go in for a consultation, and btw, counseling, then a pre-op appointment, etc... but if you want an abortion, (which is a life changing experience) you just show up on a Tuesday and voila, instant abortion.

Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 7:25 PM


This is such a strange way to phrase the problem that PP believes exists, even from the point of view of the pro-choicer. If one can barely afford to eat, they're on an extremely tight budget. Even with perfect pill use, break through ovulation is still possible and hence pregnancy is possible. So then, what, you have to shell out $300 for an abortion? How can someone who barely has enough money to eat afford $300 for an abortion? It's like the idea of not having sex just simply isn't an option. It's totally not even on the radar. If money is so tight, why even in the first place engage in unnecessary behavior that could result in having to pay $300 or more? I mean, if I can't afford health care at the moment, I"m not going to continue playing football or wrestling or some other activity that could result in injury if the activity isn't necessary. I really feel like this is common sense that anyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue, can get behind.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2008 6:59 PM
................................................................................

Interesting that you equate pregnancy to a sports injury. Strange but interesting.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 7:27 PM


Not quite Sally. I'm making a comparison of cost-risk management that I was hoping a pro-choicer could relate to.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2008 7:32 PM


(Off-Topic but Satisfying)
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/596178.html

Court tosses outs Kline subpoena for abortion reports from Planned Parenthood
By DIANE CARROLL
The Kansas City Star
Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline lost his bid Monday to obtain state abortion reports, but he said that would not stop his criminal prosecution of Planned Parenthood.

At the request of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, District Judge Stephen Tatum quashed a subpoena Kline served on the department on March 24.

Under the law, Tatum said, the information Kline sought can be disclosed only to the state attorney general or the state Board of Healing Arts for use in a criminal or disciplinary investigation.

“The court finds that the subpoena at issue here would require the disclosure of privileged or protected matter and that no exception or waiver applies,” Tatum stated. “As a result the court must quash the subpoena.”

Kline had subpoenaed 23 reports regarding late-term abortions performed in 2003 at Planned Parenthood’s Comprehensive Health clinic in Overland Park. He wanted the department to provide them or to authenticate a copy he already has from his investigation of Planned Parenthood while state attorney general.

Planned Parenthood President Peter Brownlie, who contends that the case is politically motivated, praised the ruling.

“We believe that it will make it very difficult for this prosecution to continue,” Brownlie said, “and we hope it will end sooner rather than later.”

Kline, however, said Planned Parenthood officials had called his case dead many times. But each time he has presented it, he said, a judge has found probable cause to proceed.

At a news conference in his office, Kline contended that the statute did not prohibit district attorneys from receiving the information. He said the information in the reports should not be considered privileged because the reports did not have identifying patient information.

Planned Parenthood attorneys contend that the records need to be protected even with the names and dates of birth redacted.

Kline, who began investigating Planned Parenthood five years ago while state attorney general, filed criminal charges last fall. The 107-count complaint accuses Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid Missouri and its Comprehensive Health clinic of falsifying abortion records, failing to maintain records, failing to determine the viability of fetuses before abortions and providing illegal late-term abortions in 2003.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 27 and 28.

Getting the Department of Health and Environment reports would have been convenient, Kline said. However, he said, he can proceed without them because he already has a copy that is legally in his possession. Kline said he transferred those reports to the Johnson County District attorney’s office in January 2007 with the permission of Shawnee County District Judge Richard Anderson.

Anderson, who oversaw Kline’s investigation of Planned Parenthood while Kline was attorney general, testified earlier this year in Tatum’s court that he had suspected that the records provided by Planned Parenthood had been falsified.

Planned Parenthood attorney Pedro Irigonegaray said the Department of Health and Environment reports in Kline’s possession were never authenticated. And because the department never verified them, he said, Kline cannot introduce them as evidence.

Kline disagrees. He said he can lay the legal foundation for the documents through testimony from witnesses who handled them.

In court, Irigonegaray told Tatum that he planned to introduce a motion this week asking for the dismissal all felony charges and some of the misdemeanor charges.


Next page >

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 7:36 PM


Okay- you're old and been around the block. I'm young and conscientious, so I'm less experienced. Fine with me.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 7:08 PM
......................................

You sound bitterly afraid of life in general Jackie. Like if you follow all the rules nothing icky will ever happen to you. It doesn't work like that. Things will happen to you that are out of your control.
I regret nothing in my life. Everything I have gone through has added to the complexity of who I am. That you assume to judge my choices as being bad, really makes you a fool. You haven't the experience or the wisdom to speak to my generation.
Thankfully even snarky little girls today have more choices than I did. Including remaining a virgin the rest of your life without being sent off to a convent.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 7:42 PM


I know what you're saying, Amanda. I guess I was just trying to point out the absurdity of the way PP is dealing with this, which apparently you somewhat agree. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2008 7:44 PM


The Republican Party Platform's right-to-life plank logically implies that women who have abortions should be executed for first-degree murder.

Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2008 8:01 PM


Laura,
Why do you automatically take the position that PP has done nothing wrong? Why is this article satisfying to you? If you have ever read any of the testimonies from former abortion clinic owners, they fess up to the fact that they falsified records all the time. If you want safe legal abortions and an abortion clinic is breaking the law I would think you would be the first to rally behind making sure these clinics were operating above the law.

Lila Rose has outted PP twice now.

But go ahead and continue to drink the kool-aid.

BTW, why are you here again? Still can't figure out why you came back.

Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 8:09 PM


Oh yes, because all college girls who use birth control are total nymphos.

How funny.

I can list about 5 people off the top of my head who are...VIRGINS...and use the pill to regulate their periods, myself included.

Honestly Jill...*shakes head*

Posted by: Rae at April 29, 2008 8:11 PM


Many women who have abortions are victims (Told they won't be able to complete college, coerced by parents or the father of the baby, maybe by the father's parents). Some women suffer health side effects like subsequent pregnancies being premature births.

I'm not republican or democrat (I hate the junk mail I receive during election time.) (I am a registered voter, though, with no affiliation).

It's the money hungry doctors that should go to jail. And I don't know any pro-lifers that believe a woman should be executed for abortion. I think the women who suffers after abortion (emotionally, physically, mentally) has suffered enough.

The abortionist on the other hand, is in it to make $, not to help women. They should go to jail for life.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 8:12 PM


And the reason I can only list 5 people is because I don't know a lot of people. :D 5 people for me is a lot of people...lol.

Posted by: Rae at April 29, 2008 8:13 PM


While PP is at it, maybe they should tag team with college bar owners and have congress pass a law that would basically cover the cost of alcohol. Top shelf preferable. I would hate to see college students have to pass a night of binge drinking just because they can't afford it.

Many women graduate without the need of birth control pills, never get pregnant or wind up with and STD?

Shocking!!!!!

Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 8:16 PM


Hey Rae,
Have Bethany give you my e-mail or visa versa.
Can't wait to meet you! We need to connect with Carla too!

Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 8:20 PM


Rae,

I know, right?

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2008 8:25 PM


Canada.

That is all. :)

Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2008 8:35 PM


Our home and native land!

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 29, 2008 8:42 PM


Wait a minute here! I didn't read the fine print!

What is this, Jill? Is it true? I am on the pill and having sex outside of marriage... and that means I am a nymphomaniac?

I should see someone about this. I had no idea it was this serious! I had no idea about... about... ANYTHING!!!! *sobs*

I think I have never been so astounded with a person's horrifying blanket judgments since the whole "the Jews caused the depression in Germany" thing back in the day. Sheesh.

Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2008 8:48 PM


@Sandy: kendranoelle@hotmail.com

Posted by: Rae at April 29, 2008 8:50 PM


Bobby... if you weren't married and if I weren't in a serious relationship, I would SO fall in love with you. :)

Posted by: Leah at April 29, 2008 8:52 PM


Lyssie said: "Sorry, I don't buy the idea that a woman who says "no, not tonight honey, you forgot to take your pill" is any different than the woman who denies sex in NFP to her partner."


I got a pro-abort to defend NFP. I think hell just froze over.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 9:07 PM


John, you honestly have nothing to refute my statements with, so you resort to unfounded name calling. In fact, and it is about time I said something, my views are much in parallel with our lovely Rae's, and I hold nothing against people who wish to use NFP. In fact, I'm as pro-choice as it comes when it comes to PREVENTING pregnancy, but if you know anything about Rae, I pretty much agree with her about the ways one deals with pregnancy when it has already happened. But as I said, you can't refute my logic, in which a woman who decides to assert herself and withhold sex in a relationship should be able to for whatever reason, including during fertile times in NFP or when her partner or herself forgets to take the pill. As she is the only one who intimately deals with the rigors of pregnancy, she has the right to control when the act that leads to it happens. Sorry if men can't handle that...apparently you don't believe they can. I have a little more faith in the decency of men, but if it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, so-to-speak, should I really be afraid?

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 10:01 PM


A recent survey showed that over 20% of female college students would get a TL if it was available. Why that option isn't availably to any American over 18 baffles me.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 6:05 PM

My understanding is that doctors are very reluctant to do this to young women because many women later change their minds. This operation is not so successfully reversed. It is also not without complications.

Posted by: Patricia at April 29, 2008 10:04 PM


A recent survey showed that over 20% of female college students would get a TL if it was available. Why that option isn't availably to any American over 18 baffles me.

Laura, where did you see this survey? Do they NEVER want to have kids, or just plan to deal with that problem later?

Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2008 10:24 PM


Sheesh, Lyssie, defensive much? Of course I believe that men can control themselves - I believe in NFP, don't I?

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 29, 2008 10:32 PM


*nudge*

By the way, John, that's impetus for an apology. You can even ask MK. Show me one "pro-abortion" post I've made in the past three months and I'll give you a pat on the back (although I'm not sure how close I want to get....you don't seem to have had much female interaction). You've been a real ass here lately, and I don't appreciate it as you're obviously too incompetent and blinded by your "if it supports birth control, it's a pro-abort" logic. Get over yourself, good for you that you're a virgin (getting kind of tired of your constant reminders that you're pure as the driven snow...really, good for you, should I give you a lollipop for being a good boy?), and quit being a rotten asshole. Capiche?

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 10:33 PM


Lyssie,

In John's mind, unless you feel EXACTLY the same way he does about these things, you're just a rotten pro abort who is lying if you say you have ANY views that lean towards opposing abortion.

You're opinions aren't actually complex or multi dimensional and worthy of legitimate debate Lyssie, you're just being dishonest.

Oh, and if you feel strongly about anything, you're just "hyperventilating" and "insane".

Isn't it reassuring to just know that whatever you say, you already know that you are wrong and John is right?

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 10:44 PM


Of course, Amanda, I see the light.

But I still want an answer as to the question that if a man in an NFP relationship can deal with not having sex, why can't a man in a relationship with dual birth control methods control himself? (Because anyone who uses birth control is immoral already, and has no trouble cheating? Sure, THAT'S a gross lumping of all BC users together.) In both, the woman has the right to put the kibosh on sexual activity until she is comfortable. Both have failure rates. Yet in only one, to John, is the man trustworthy. I'm calling one hundred percent bullsh*t on that.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 10:52 PM


Laura, where did you see this survey? Do they NEVER want to have kids, or just plan to deal with that problem later?

Posted by: Janet at April 29, 2008 10:24 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There's just a lot of women who don't want children.
The numbers for American women in their 40s who have never given birth hovers around 20%
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/24/national/main579973.shtml
If you break it down by the latest census numbers, the number of childless White American women over 45 is close to 30%, and for Asian American women it's over 30%.
For the first time in American history, there are more homes with no children under 18 than there are homes with childen:
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/column-one/07-16-07-adult-focused.htm
There are just a lot of us out there.

Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 10:59 PM


Thanks for that survey, Laura. Very informative. Although the second might be somewhat biased.

Posted by: Lyssie at April 29, 2008 11:01 PM


Lyssie - I'd like that answer too, not just from John, but also Jill, who claims its "sexist" that responsibility is put on women to be in charge of contraception.

So lets get this straight:

A woman choosing to take birth control pills who takes the responsibility to pay for them herself = sexist

A woman choosing to use NFP as contraception who takes the responsibility to monitor her cycle herself = WAAAYYYY more moral than all of those "nymphomaniacs" on birth control pills.

Birth control failure rate = a reason not to take birth control

NFP failure rate = psshht....what failure rate?? you doubt the infallible power of NFP? You must just be a rotten pro abort.

Posted by: Amanda at April 29, 2008 11:07 PM


LizfromNebraska, you wrote: "Some women suffer health side effects like subsequent pregnancies being premature births. "

Not from having abortions. Abortion does not increase the likelihood of subsequent premature birth. You are repeating a right-to-life myth.

You wrote: "Many women who have abortions are victims (Told they won't be able to complete college, coerced by parents or the father of the baby, maybe by the father's parents)."

This should excuse them from guilt for killing their babies? Many murderers have very convincing reasons for committing murder. It doesn't excuse them from guilt.

If abortion is murder, why not execute the woman who procures one like any other murderer?

Posted by: SoMG at April 29, 2008 11:12 PM


LOL Amanda, right on!

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 29, 2008 11:14 PM


SOMG wrote: "Abortion does not increase the likelihood of subsequent premature birth. You are repeating a right-to-life myth."

Well, shall we change the terminology, then? One of the causes of cervical incompetence listed ALL OVER the internet is a D&C.
One site I found (vhi healthcare) says this: "Trauma to the cervix such as might be caused during a dilatation and curettage (D&C - where the lining of the uterus is lightly scraped away) or induced abortion."

The 2005 Moreau study was reported on not just in pro-life circles, but across the globe. The Telegraph (UK) said the following:
"Dr Moreau said: 'Clearly there is a link. The results suggest that induced abortion can damage the cervix in some way that makes a premature birth more likely in subsequent pregnancies."

Her study compared the medical histories of 2,219 women with babies born at less than 34 weeks with another 618 who had given birth at full term. Overall, women who had had an abortion were 40 per cent more likely to have a very pre-term delivery (less than 33 weeks) than those without such a history. The risk of an extremely premature baby - one born at less than 28 weeks - was raised even more sharply, by 70 per cent. Abortion appeared to increase the risk of most major causes of premature birth, including premature rupture of membranes, incorrect position of the foetus on the placenta and spontaneous early labour. The only common cause of premature birth not linked to abortion was high blood pressure.'"

Posted by: Kel at April 30, 2008 1:02 AM


Kel, when you're dealing with small numbers you get statistical noise. There's probably another small study somewhere that shows abortion PROTECTS subsequent pregnancies from premature birth. Also statistical noise.

To get meaningful results on a question like this you'd have to follow a whole country like the Melbye breast cancer study.

Posted by: SoMG at April 30, 2008 1:32 AM


From the NYTimes:

Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”

Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. [Probably many more than that --SoMG]If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all.”

Or consider, he said, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates’ genitals, along with all their other parts.

For the midges, Dr. Ayala said, “it makes evolutionary sense. If you are a male and you have mated, the best thing you can do for your genes is to be eaten.” But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”

Posted by: SoMG at April 30, 2008 1:44 AM



Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest,.......

Say no more......biased source.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 1:50 AM


Hmm... I'd get a TL if I could. I don't think it makes me selfish in the least. And if I ever regretted my situation, I could always adopt. Right now though, I'm relying on a combo of BC and condoms, and in the... umm... let's see now, 5 or so years I've been sexually active, I've never had an STD or gotten pregnant. I'm not "bitter" about any of my past relationships or sexual partners. I wish them all the best. :)

I really don't see what the big deal about sex is anyway. For all the dramatics about it, it's quite a natural experience. It's not life shaking. You don't turn into a different person afterward. Nothing really happens at all ... except ... you lose your "virginity." Wow. (According to proper translations of the Bible, "virgin" was a term for an unmarried woman or young woman, not a woman who hasn't had sex. Silly how we distort translations to fit our aims...)

Besides, I would rather get in all the sex I want before I get married. I hear the sex life kinda dies down after that... sucky.

When I think about my sexual history, I feel really happy, actually. I wish I could be all devastated and like "OMG SEX RUINED ME" but it didn't. I think I'm less stressed out, calmer, healthier and well... just happier! Although maybe that explains why I've been grumpy lately. Time to pounce the BF!

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:53 AM


(Lolz, did I gross out the PLers or should I be more explicit next time?)

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:55 AM


Edyt: According to proper translations of the Bible, "virgin" was a term for an unmarried woman or young woman, not a woman who hasn't had sex. Silly how we distort translations to fit our aims...)

There's logic to it, look at it this way: In biblical days girls married at 12 or 14 years old. A virgin was a term for an unmarried woman or young woman, OK. Girls were so young when they married, they were almost without a doubt not having sex before marriage. This may explain how the term may have evolved to it's current usage to describe a woman of any age who hasn't had sex.

Besides, I would rather get in all the sex I want before I get married. I hear the sex life kinda dies down after that... sucky.

It doesn't have to be that way. Marriage brings change to the relationship, but that's all part of the maturing process of a loving relationship. The sex part may become a little less important, but the marital bond becomes stronger as time passes. Have you ever seen a couple who've been married 50 years sitting next to each other smiling, holding hands? Now, that's true love.


Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 2:20 AM


Edyt: Explicit about what?

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 2:22 AM


There's logic to it, look at it this way: In biblical days girls married at 12 or 14 years old. A virgin was a term for an unmarried woman or young woman, OK. Girls were so young when they married, they were almost without a doubt not having sex before marriage. This may explain how the term may have evolved to it's current usage to describe a woman of any age who hasn't had sex.

Hmm... that explanation makes sense, Janet. Was Mary 12-14 when she gave birth? (Perhaps we should make the movies more historically accurate and use younger actresses) And what about some of the unmarried, older women? If they were (by our standards) virgins, would they not be labeled so just because they were older?

It doesn't have to be that way. Marriage brings change to the relationship, but that's all part of the maturing process of a loving relationship. The sex part may become a little less important, but the marital bond becomes stronger as time passes. Have you ever seen a couple who've been married 50 years sitting next to each other smiling, holding hands? Now, that's true love.

And I admire them for it. :) I feel kinda like that in my relationship now. Of course, it's not as deep as someone who's been married 50 years, but I really consider this guy my best friend on top of lover/great cook/comedian/geek/other endearing traits.

You know, some nights just playing video games together is a form of intimacy. I don't really rate sex as being more intimate than things like that, or kissing, or anything, because what's important is the intention behind it. That's why an elderly married couple can be completely intimate just holding hands, and they don't need to have sex to prove that.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:38 AM


Edyt:
I'm glad something I said today made some sense. Lol.:) Maybe someone who has more knowledge of biblical translation could check the translation of "virgin" in the bible. (Re: your 1:53 post)

I'm glad you have a boyfriend who's your best friend. That's a good thing! It's late. Good night!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 2:56 AM


Laura, 4/9, 4:50p, said: "If we are using a brand name - rather than a generic - where I work, it's because the only competitive generic is produced someplace like China, and doesn't conform to the same quality standards."

Oh, really, Laura? Do you hold the same concern for RU-486, which is produced by a Chinese manufacturing plant recently embroiled in a tainted drug scandal?

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/01/breaking_news_c.html

Posted by: Jill Stanek at April 30, 2008 4:03 AM


Lyssie,

YEAH HOORAY HURRAH HUZZAH...does this mean I can finally speak openly about your views on abortion???


Hey everyone, READ LYSSIES POSTS CAREFULLY...

Man, I've been waiting months to be able to say something.

Hey Lyssie,
I love you!!!!!

Posted by: mk at April 30, 2008 6:10 AM


Oh, MK....

keep it down, will ya? :P

I'm surprised no one guessed by now....either way, you don't have to broadcast it. :) (Actually I'd prefer you didn't, final exams are next week and I have stuff to do...heehee).

Posted by: Lyssie at April 30, 2008 7:34 AM


Ah yes, I just caught it after re-reading your posts, Lyssie... quite subtle, actually...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 30, 2008 7:39 AM


Lyssie,

I'll say no more. But it's out there now, and I can breathe a sigh of relief. I thought I was gonna burst!

Posted by: mk at April 30, 2008 8:09 AM


Lyssie, I have been suspecting something for months! I have noticed your tone changing a lot, and I can't tell you how happy I am to know that it wasn't just my imagination!
I am so thankful for you, Lyssie! :)

(by the way, I am still anxiously awaiting the pictures of your murals and ping pong table. I know they're going to look great. And a video of you singing one day would be great too! ;) I think you promised that one WAY back! LOL I know you're busy though so I'll give you some more time.)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 8:15 AM


"And a video of you singing one day would be great too!"

This is why God created YouTube, Lyssie...

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 30, 2008 8:48 AM


Ooh, Lyssie! Awesome!

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 8:55 AM


Oh, really, Laura? Do you hold the same concern for RU-486, which is produced by a Chinese manufacturing plant recently embroiled in a tainted drug scandal?

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/01/breaking_news_c.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Absolutely. It's the same reason we won't use generic Heparin.

Posted by: Laura at April 30, 2008 9:48 AM


Posted by: Laura at April 29, 2008 7:36 PM


Laura you're a fool. The names and DOB would be eliminated but you're STILL against a criminal investigation of something that is being done ILLEGALLY.

Argue all you want about right to privacy or whatever the flavor of the day is with you. Yippee! They found in favor of the criminal! Hooray! They're on par with all the slimy judges in Vermont that let child molesters walk free. Let's all go dance in the streets!

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 10:48 AM


The premise is ridiculous: that due to rising prices of artificial female steroids, i.e., birth control pills, college nyphomaniacs are being forced to choose between illicit sex and eating.

*******************
Could you get any more ridiculous and sound any more absurdly hysterical if you really worked at it? Nymphomaniacs? Someone is apparently ignorant of what the word means. 'Illicit' sex? Again - melodramatic idiocy.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:03 AM


Lyssie:

Congratulations!

My son who is now 29 and could model in a GQ magazine decided to save himself for marriage long ago.

It was very trying as, being a military pilot, being stationed in the Middle East made it difficult for him to maintain relationships, however, he persevered in faith that God would answer him.

I remember praying with him numerous times about this asking God to protect the wife that was out there, saving herself as well.

Phil met a beautiful girl who he will be marrying this summer. Her dad is a Pastor and she comes from an awesome family. God rewards those who trust him and wait on Him, so keep up the good work. You will be richly blessed.

Posted by: HisMan at April 30, 2008 11:04 AM


You got pregnant as an unwed 19-year-old, why are you so bitter towards women who are trying to be responsible?

Popping a pill doesn't make unmarried sex responsible, rather it opens you up to a host of diseases, drama and heartache that is completely avoidable by choosing abstinence.

Posted by: Jacqueline at April 29, 2008 4:41 PM
*****************
Back to the absurdity that sex is bad, only married couples should have sex, and they shouldnt have sex unless they are willing to make babies.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:05 AM


Sure Jackie. No female student could possibly be married. Any female that wishes to succeed in life has to be a nymphomaniac. You of course you will be dropping out just as soon as you find a man.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 5:13 PM
******************
I was married the whole time I was going to college and you can bet your fanny that my birth control pills were very important to me. If Id gotten pregnant I would have lost my scholarship.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:07 AM


People taking birth control faithfully produce way less pregnancies, which means many less abortions and unwanted children. You guys should be GIVING away BC.

Posted by: Erin at April 29, 2008 5:55 PM
************
Yup!
But pregnancy isnt what is really bothering them.
Its all those college nymphomaniacs having illicit sex!
*Gasp*

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:11 AM


Last time I checked, Abstinence was free, there is little risk of STDs, AND you save a LOT of $ to buy food, which is a necessity of LIFE.

Promiscuous sex is NOT a necessity of LIFE.


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 6:07 PM
**************
Why dont you explain to all of us how you *know* that these women are promiscious?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:13 AM


Deliberate sterilization is a VERY selfish motive. Its all about the ME ME ME world. (back to the imbecilic delusion that there is something 'wrong' with people who dont want children)

Sex to reproduce to continue the human race is necessary, sex without TRUE LOVE (promiscuity) is NOT.(back to the demented idiocy that sex is only for reproduction and having sex without wanting children is 'selfish')


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at April 29, 2008 6:15 PM
************
Your arguments are positively demented and deranged

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:17 AM


And your lack of life experience doesn't make you smarter for having avoided life. It just makes you less experienced.

Posted by: Sally at April 29, 2008 6:46 PM
********************
It most certainly doesnt put her in a position to be giving out advice on subjects about which she knows absolutely nothing.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:18 AM


I find it interesting that if a woman wants plastic surgery, she must go in for a consultation, and btw, counseling, then a pre-op appointment, etc... but if you want an abortion, (which is a life changing experience) you just show up on a Tuesday and voila, instant abortion.


Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 7:25 PM
***********
you dont know what youre talking about

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:21 AM


Jackie -

Go out and have sex immediately! TR and Sally say that's the ONLY way to get life experience and have a "fulfilled" life.

You know, forget all the traveling, study, education, friends. Go get yourself a boy toy and all the answers to life will come to you!

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:23 AM


Your parents chose less work (less children) and financial comfort for themselves and you and your siblings. Even if you don't believe in an eternity where only your soul goes with you, it's still a foolish trade-off to pick a career, money or worldly comforts that last a short while over a lifetime of love.


Posted by: Anonymous at April 29, 2008 6:44 PM
******************
Thats about as moronic an argument as anyone could come up with. There is nothing noble about having more children than you can take care of, there is nothing noble about making your children do without because youve had more children than you can afford, and there is nothing selfish about limiting family size. There isnt even any guarantee you WILL love your siblings.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:25 AM


Jackie -

Then you can be as HAPPY as TR and Sally are!


ROFL! I SLAY me!

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:25 AM


Oh yes, because all college girls who use birth control are total nymphos.

How funny.

I can list about 5 people off the top of my head who are...VIRGINS...and use the pill to regulate their periods, myself included.

Honestly Jill...*shakes head*

Posted by: Rae at April 29, 2008 8:11 PM
********************
Some women who are into competitive sports take the pill so they arent having a period when they are having to compete.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:29 AM


Liz, you are an absolute fount of misinformation.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:35 AM


Erin:5:55: People taking birth control faithfully produce way less pregnancies, which means many less abortions and unwanted children. You guys should be GIVING away BC.

But, people who don't take BC produce the fewest pregnancies by far when they are not having sex.

Hmmmm...maybe less BC means less sex....less abortions? No, that's too easy.....

According to Dr. Ray Guarendi at Relevant Radio, high parental expectations are the most effective deterrent to teen pregnancy.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:37 AM


Jackie -

Go out and have sex immediately! TR and Sally say that's the ONLY way to get life experience and have a "fulfilled" life.

You know, forget all the traveling, study, education, friends. Go get yourself a boy toy and all the answers to life will come to you!

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:23 AM
**********************
Why do you find it necessary to lie?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:39 AM


Jackie -

Then you can be as HAPPY as TR and Sally are!


ROFL! I SLAY me!

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:25 AM
***************
Why dont you tell us all how you know so 'much' about our private lives? I fail to see how making idiotic unfounded dishonest statements makes you so proud of yourself.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:41 AM


TR,
I am sitting on the edge of my seat!! Puhlease, perty puhlease use the word misogynistic today! Don't forget insensitive or idiotic. Oh, and you could also try ugly, lazy and stupid.

DO NOT DISAPPOINT ME........

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 11:42 AM


Hmmmm...maybe less BC means less sex....less abortions? No, that's too easy.....

According to Dr. Ray Guarendi at Relevant Radio, high parental expectations are the most effective deterrent to teen pregnancy.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:37 AM
************************
So preventing pregnancy doesnt reduce the number of abortions performed? Your argument is just plain stupid. Would you like to tell us where Ray Guarendi got his information? Cite a study or two? a few references? something along those lines?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:43 AM


I had to have c sections. That was back when if you had one c section then all your subsecquent births would have to be c sections too. My sons are just under 20 months apart. Both pregnancies were planned. We discussed having a third child but recovering from major surgery, taking care of an infant, and taking care of two toddlers with no help except my husband was just more than I thought I could handle and we decided a TL would be a good idea. How is this 'selfish'? I wound up having to have a partial hyst so the TL became a moot point but we still had decided to stop at 2 children. The fantasy that it made us 'bad people' is laughable.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:47 AM


TR,
I am sitting on the edge of my seat!! Puhlease, perty puhlease use the word misogynistic today! Don't forget insensitive or idiotic. Oh, and you could also try ugly, lazy and stupid.

DO NOT DISAPPOINT ME........

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 11:42 AM
******************
You live with it every day.
And its certainly not my fault.
I also notice you arent able to honestly address the subject or your own attitudes, or what those ugly attitudes say about you.
That's not my fault either.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:49 AM


Carla,

Fourteen posts in the last hour. One direct response so far...Let's keep it that way:)

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:49 AM


I know Janet. :) So entirely predictable...

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 11:51 AM


,i>Jackie -
Go out and have sex immediately! TR and Sally say that's the ONLY way to get life experience and have a "fulfilled" life.
You know, forget all the traveling, study, education, friends. Go get yourself a boy toy and all the answers to life will come to you!
Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:23 AM

Then you can be as HAPPY as TR and Sally are!

Kristen, LOL!!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 11:54 AM


TR,
I am sitting on the edge of my seat!! Puhlease, perty puhlease use the word misogynistic today! Don't forget insensitive or idiotic. Oh, and you could also try ugly, lazy and stupid.
DO NOT DISAPPOINT ME........

Yes, TexasRed, I like that idea. And just for me, could you please throw in the words, "imbecile", and "delusional"?


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 11:56 AM


Carla, Do you ever listen to Dr. Ray on Relevant Radio? He is so on target! Talking to your kids about premarital sex...For 2000 years Christianity has stood for sex within the marital relationship, have they been wrong have they been wrong for all this time?


Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:58 AM


oops, too many "have they been wrongs" above!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:59 AM


B*tch fest! Yay!

Let's be constructive, ladies (I say as I leave a post completely devoid of anything constructive... will be back after lunch)

Posted by: Leah at April 30, 2008 12:04 PM


Janet:11:37: According to Dr. Ray Guarendi at Relevant Radio, high parental expectations are the most effective deterrent to teen pregnancy.

Would it not follow that the most effective deterrent to abortion might be high societal expectations?

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 12:07 PM


I know Janet. :) So entirely predictable...

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 11:51 AM
***************
your inability to defend or support your position isnt my fault either - stick your fingers in your ears and whimper 'lalalala I cant hear you' - its your only option

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:11 PM


TR,
I am sitting on the edge of my seat!! Puhlease, perty puhlease use the word misogynistic today! Don't forget insensitive or idiotic. Oh, and you could also try ugly, lazy and stupid.
DO NOT DISAPPOINT ME........

Yes, TexasRed, I like that idea. And just for me, could you please throw in the words, "imbecile", and "delusional"?


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 11:56 AM
********************
You cant deal with any point made. You cant defend your position. Youre the one who is predictable.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:12 PM


Janet:11:37: According to Dr. Ray Guarendi at Relevant Radio, high parental expectations are the most effective deterrent to teen pregnancy.

Would it not follow that the most effective deterrent to abortion might be high societal expectations?

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 12:07 PM
*******************
Why would it?
If anything, it might encourage someone to end a pregnancy in order to fulfill 'societal expectations' rather than having a child. Does Dr Guarendi have any research, studies, factual information to back up his assertion? I know that sort of thing means nothing at all to you, and the concept of actually being able to support an argument is a foreign concept. 'Everyone knows' and 'it was something I heard on the radio' is all you need.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:15 PM


Janet,
I do not know Dr. Ray but I hear what you are saying. Parents have the greatest influence in their children's lives especially in discouraging high risk behavior. Thankful that my husband and I agree on this as we raise 3 boys and 1 girl.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 12:15 PM


Texasred, do you feel that I can't deal with the points you make? It almost sounds like you feel that I can't defend my position, and that you feel that I am predictable. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

By the way, I'm disappointed, you didn't even call me a megalomaniac. Sniff.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:17 PM


Carla, Do you ever listen to Dr. Ray on Relevant Radio? He is so on target! Talking to your kids about premarital sex...For 2000 years Christianity has stood for sex within the marital relationship, have they been wrong have they been wrong for all this time?


Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 11:58 AM
******************
And there are plenty of christians who do not share the RCCs archaic irrational attitudes towards sex in or out of marriage.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:18 PM


Texasred, do you feel that I can't deal with the points you make? It almost sounds like you feel that I can't defend my position, and that you feel that I am predictable. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

By the way, I'm disappointed, you didn't even call me a megalomaniac. Sniff.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:17 PM
***************
Keep proving how right I am.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:19 PM


,i>Jackie -
Go out and have sex immediately! TR and Sally say that's the ONLY way to get life experience and have a "fulfilled" life.
You know, forget all the traveling, study, education, friends. Go get yourself a boy toy and all the answers to life will come to you!
Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 11:23 AM

Then you can be as HAPPY as TR and Sally are!


Kristen, LOL!!!!!


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 11:54 AM
**************
So why dont YOU tell us how YOU know so much about our private lives?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:21 PM


Keep proving how right I am.

Are you trying to tell me that I am proving how right you are?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:21 PM


So why dont YOU tell us how YOU know so much about our private lives?

Are you trying to tell me that you believe I am able to see into your private life?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:23 PM


Would it not follow that the most effective deterrent to abortion might be high societal expectations?

Yes, Janet. But we haven't done that. What we have done is made sex a taboo. Of course, whenever you repress something, it becomes an obsession, which is why our country has more porn stores per capita than most developed nations. When other countries don't obsess about sex, they don't feel the need to make it a big deal.

So a more effective treatment is to have comprehensive sex ed, not promote or shun sex at all, let people make their own decisions and have high expectations for their contribution to society.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 12:28 PM


Are you trying to tell me that you believe I am able to see into your private life?

Of course TR doesn't think you can. But your behavior is indicative that you think you know all about our happiness and health and personal lives, which is downright wrong. You can't judge another person's happiness. Making it sound like you know all pro-choicers are miserable sluts is just downright ignorant.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 12:32 PM


Of course TR doesn't think you can. But your behavior is indicative that you think you know all about our happiness and health and personal lives, which is downright wrong. You can't judge another person's happiness. Making it sound like you know all pro-choicers are miserable sluts is just downright ignorant.

Who made it sound like all pro-choicers are miserable sluts? I certainly didn't.
Maybe it is Edyt who feels she can see into my private life and even read my mind.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:36 PM


So why dont YOU tell us how YOU know so much about our private lives?

Are you trying to tell me that you believe I am able to see into your private life?


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:23 PM
***************
you seem to harbor the fantasy that you can and can comment on how happy we are
Trying to use 'client centered therapy' just makes you look foolish Bethany - its not even a good technique in counseling and in this context its merely stupid

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:38 PM


I take issue with out-of-wedlock sex being automatically labeled as being "promiscuous." I am not married nor have I ever been. I have had sex. It has never been promiscuous. I don't sleep around or have one-night stands or whatever. The one time I did not use protection and thought I was pregnant was with the same guy I am in a relationship with now. I have had sex with a grand total of two people. As of now, I have not had sex at all in nearly three months.

Am I a slut? Am I a nymphomaniac? Does this make me evil or godless or whorish? I don't think so. But a lot of you seem to think it would... because I am not married.

Posted by: Leah at April 30, 2008 12:42 PM


Who made it sound like all pro-choicers are miserable sluts? I certainly didn't.
Maybe it is Edyt who feels she can see into my private life and even read my mind.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:36 PM
*************
What was Jills comment about 'nymphomaniacs' and 'illicit sex'? Are you willing to admit these young women may be fabulously happy and never have any problems as a result of BEING nymphomaniacs and enjoying illicit sex? You dont like your own words and attitudes being thrown back in your face. I dont blame you.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:42 PM


I take issue with out-of-wedlock sex being automatically labeled as being "promiscuous." I am not married nor have I ever been. I have had sex. It has never been promiscuous. I don't sleep around or have one-night stands or whatever. The one time I did not use protection and thought I was pregnant was with the same guy I am in a relationship with now. I have had sex with a grand total of two people. As of now, I have not had sex at all in nearly three months.

Am I a slut? Am I a nymphomaniac? Does this make me evil or godless or whorish? I don't think so. But a lot of you seem to think it would... because I am not married.

Posted by: Leah at April 30, 2008 12:42 PM
**************
When I first started dating after my divorce I probably could have been called 'promiscuous' and if someone wanted to throw around names and call me a slut or even a nymphomaniac then I couldnt care less. But I find the whined assumption that I cant be happy more than a little amusing. And I find it hilarious that anyone can try to pretend that the only happy people in the world subscribe to the 'sex is wrong - sex is dirty - sex is only for married people and then only when they want to have children' attitude shown by so many here. If any group seems terminally unhappy it seems to be those on the antichoice side, given their chronic frustration in not being able to run the lives of total strangers.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:48 PM


Are you trying to tell me that you believe I am able to see into your private life?

Of course TR doesn't think you can. But your behavior is indicative that you think you know all about our happiness and health and personal lives, which is downright wrong. You can't judge another person's happiness. Making it sound like you know all pro-choicers are miserable sluts is just downright ignorant.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 12:32 PM
**********
yup

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 12:49 PM


you seem to harbor the fantasy that you can and can comment on how happy we are
Trying to use 'client centered therapy' just makes you look foolish Bethany - its not even a good technique in counseling and in this context its merely stupid


Well, can you help us for not seeing the joyful, happy side of you? :-)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:50 PM


What was Jills comment about 'nymphomaniacs' and 'illicit sex'? Are you willing to admit these young women may be fabulously happy and never have any problems as a result of BEING nymphomaniacs and enjoying illicit sex? You dont like your own words and attitudes being thrown back in your face. I dont blame you.

What does what Jill said at any time have to do with me? I asked where *I* gave any implication that I feel that all pro-choicers are "sluts"? My own words? So Jill and I are one and the same person? Amazing! I better let her know.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:53 PM


Bethany, I haven't seen anything that indicates TR is unhappy with her life.

I've seen a lot of frustration with pro-lifer arguments, but I haven't seen her rant about her miserable life or anything like that.

Yet you would draw that conclusion.

However, I've seen HisMan say many hateful things that would have me assume he's angry all the time, yet I don't think that because I don't know him.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:02 PM


Well, can you help us for not seeing the joyful, happy side of you? :-)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:50 PM
***********
Youre the one who is blind

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:03 PM


Bethany, I haven't seen anything that indicates TR is unhappy with her life.

No one said she was unhappy "with her life". She just doesn't appear to be a generally happy person.
There's a difference there.

I've seen a lot of frustration with pro-lifer arguments, but I haven't seen her rant about her miserable life or anything like that.

Do you know any happy people who go around calling people imbeciles, morons, delusional, idiotic, megalomaniacs, etc on a daily basis, yet are very happy people? If you have, I would venture to say they are out of the ordinary. Most people I know who are happy say happier things.

However, I've seen HisMan say many hateful things that would have me assume he's angry all the time, yet I don't think that because I don't know him.

Well, you could assume that, and many people have. What exactly is the problem with assuming how someone feels based on the way they express their feelings?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:05 PM


What was Jills comment about 'nymphomaniacs' and 'illicit sex'? Are you willing to admit these young women may be fabulously happy and never have any problems as a result of BEING nymphomaniacs and enjoying illicit sex? You dont like your own words and attitudes being thrown back in your face. I dont blame you.

What does what Jill said at any time have to do with me? I asked where *I* gave any implication that I feel that all pro-choicers are "sluts"? My own words? So Jill and I are one and the same person? Amazing! I better let her know.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:53 PM
********************
Then you admit you think Jill is wrong and you admit that nymphomaniacs having illicit sex can be wonderfully happy people.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:06 PM


Youre the one who is blind

Oh, okay.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:06 PM


OMGOSH everyone, especially Bethany, I will get those mural pics to you as soon as possible. Plus, I could always sing with my friend Toby and put it on YouTube.....He's an awesome guitar player and singer himself. :)

Well, back to the grindstone....only another week and a half before I'm free!! :)

Posted by: lyssie at April 30, 2008 1:07 PM


Then you admit you think Jill is wrong and you admit that nymphomaniacs having illicit sex can be wonderfully happy people.

Are you trying to say that pro-choicers ARE nymphomaniacs? Or are you only asking about nymphomaniacs in general?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:07 PM


What was Jills comment about 'nymphomaniacs' and 'illicit sex'? Are you willing to admit these young women may be fabulously happy and never have any problems as a result of BEING nymphomaniacs and enjoying illicit sex? You dont like your own words and attitudes being thrown back in your face. I dont blame you.

What does what Jill said at any time have to do with me? I asked where *I* gave any implication that I feel that all pro-choicers are "sluts"? My own words? So Jill and I are one and the same person? Amazing! I better let her know.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 12:53 PM
******************
Your words AND your attitudes. Your comment to Kristen proved your attitude in this context. Your words have done the same thing over and over again. You dont like your own attitude and your own comments being thrown back in your face and I dont blame you. It cant be very pleasant.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:08 PM


OMGOSH everyone, especially Bethany, I will get those mural pics to you as soon as possible. Plus, I could always sing with my friend Toby and put it on YouTube.....He's an awesome guitar player and singer himself. :)

That would be awesome, Lyssie! I'm totally anxious to see it! :)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:08 PM


Your words AND your attitudes. Your comment to Kristen proved your attitude in this context. Your words have done the same thing over and over again. You dont like your own attitude and your own comments being thrown back in your face and I dont blame you. It cant be very pleasant.

I thought it was quite funny, what she said, TR.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:10 PM


Well, you could assume that, and many people have. What exactly is the problem with assuming how someone feels based on the way they express their feelings?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:05 PM
************
Because your assumptions dont have anything to do with the other person - those are fabrications you come up with because they let you be comfortable with what you tell yourself about them. Pretending that someone cant be happy, has to be angry, etc etc etc is what you need to hide behind. It has nothing to do with them.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:10 PM


Your words AND your attitudes. Your comment to Kristen proved your attitude in this context. Your words have done the same thing over and over again. You dont like your own attitude and your own comments being thrown back in your face and I dont blame you. It cant be very pleasant.

I thought it was quite funny, what she said, TR.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:10 PM
*************
And you wouldnt have laughed if you hadnt agreed with her. If you didnt agree with her then it wouldnt have been funny to you.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:12 PM


Your comment to Kristen proved your attitude in this context

So, let me get this straight, Edyt and Texasred:

Texas red is allowed to make assumptions about my attitude based on things that I say.

But I am not allowed to make assumptions on Texas Red's attitude based on things she says.

Okay, I gotcha.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:12 PM


And you wouldnt have laughed if you hadnt agreed with her. If you didnt agree with her then it wouldnt have been funny to you.

Yes, I agreed that your attitude about sex is very much like what Kristen's joke implied.

And btw, her comment didn't make you out to be a slut, but simply one whos attitude encourages "slut-itis".

In that context, I did agree with Kristen and thought her comment was hilarious.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:15 PM


Bethany, I haven't seen anything that indicates TR is unhappy with her life.

No one said she was unhappy "with her life". She just doesn't appear to be a generally happy person.
There's a difference there. (then what does all your ranting and raving about 'people who murder babies' and those 'terrible people' who have abortions, and those 'terrible people' who perform abortions' say about you?)

I've seen a lot of frustration with pro-lifer arguments, but I haven't seen her rant about her miserable life or anything like that.

Do you know any happy people who go around calling people imbeciles, morons, delusional, idiotic, megalomaniacs, etc on a daily basis, yet are very happy people? If you have, I would venture to say they are out of the ordinary. Most people I know who are happy say happier things. (In this context thats a laughable invention - the antichoicers reveal their own shortcomings in their attitudes and you resent having them pointed out)

However, I've seen HisMan say many hateful things that would have me assume he's angry all the time, yet I don't think that because I don't know him.

Well, you could assume that, and many people have. What exactly is the problem with assuming how someone feels based on the way they express their feelings?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:05 PM
*********
Your inventions dont have anything to do with me - they are what you have to make up so you can be comfortable yourself

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:16 PM


We're not making assumptions, Bethany. You are being deliberately rude by assuming how pro-choicers or people who choose to have sex out of marriage feel. You've done it plenty of times and we're calling you out on it.

It's not an assumption when you DO IT.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:16 PM


Then you admit you think Jill is wrong and you admit that nymphomaniacs having illicit sex can be wonderfully happy people.

Are you trying to say that pro-choicers ARE nymphomaniacs? Or are you only asking about nymphomaniacs in general?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:07 PM
**************
Jill was the one gibbering about 'nymphomaniacs' having 'illicit' sex. You were the one making assumptions about how happy other people are. You seem to have a serious problem keeping track of your own arguments.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:17 PM


We're not making assumptions, Bethany. You are being deliberately rude by assuming how pro-choicers or people who choose to have sex out of marriage feel. You've done it plenty of times and we're calling you out on it
It's not an assumption when you DO IT.

Then it's not an assumption when i say Texasred is not a happy person. She "DOES IT". She says unhappy things all the time. she's done it plenty of times and I'm calling her out on it.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:18 PM


Jill was the one gibbering about 'nymphomaniacs' having 'illicit' sex. You were the one making assumptions about how happy other people are. You seem to have a serious problem keeping track of your own arguments.

Hmm, I'm not following.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:19 PM


Your comment to Kristen proved your attitude in this context

So, let me get this straight, Edyt and Texasred:

Texas red is allowed to make assumptions about my attitude based on things that I say.

But I am not allowed to make assumptions on Texas Red's attitude based on things she says.

Okay, I gotcha.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:12 PM
************
Not really. Youre still having profound comprehension problems. I point out that your attitude towards other women is misogynistic. You whine that I cant be a happy person. Im making an observation based on the evidence you provide. Youre fabricating something because its the only way you can be comfortable in the context of the discussion.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:20 PM


Then it's not an assumption when i say Texasred is not a happy person. She "DOES IT". She says unhappy things all the time. she's done it plenty of times and I'm calling her out on it.

Lol, look up "assumption" in the dictionary, sweetie.

You and I can think a bunch of people are idiots without feeling miserable about our own lives. I don't think TR calling you guys names is reflective of her own personal happiness, and you are insisting it is.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:21 PM


Jill was the one gibbering about 'nymphomaniacs' having 'illicit' sex. You were the one making assumptions about how happy other people are. You seem to have a serious problem keeping track of your own arguments.

Hmm, I'm not following.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:19 PM
**************
Obviously.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:21 PM


Not really. Youre still having profound comprehension problems. I point out that your attitude towards other women is misogynistic. You whine that I cant be a happy person. Im making an observation based on the evidence you provide. Youre fabricating something because its the only way you can be comfortable in the context of the discussion.

Exactly, TR. That is what I do. I make observations based on the evidence you provide. You provide evidence that you are an unhappy person. I merely point that fact out. :-)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:22 PM


And you wouldnt have laughed if you hadnt agreed with her. If you didnt agree with her then it wouldnt have been funny to you.

Yes, I agreed that your attitude about sex is very much like what Kristen's joke implied. (how does my attitude towards sex 'prove' Im not happy?)

And btw, her comment didn't make you out to be a slut, but simply one whos attitude encourages "slut-itis". (Would you like to point out where I have ever encouraged anyone to be promiscuous? quote me? provide a link to the post? just for starters?)

In that context, I did agree with Kristen and thought her comment was hilarious.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:15 PM
*************
Then answer the question - would you like to tell us all how you know so much about our private lives, particularly how happy we are? or how promiscuous?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:25 PM


This whole thread is full of horrible assumptions about people and after reading it I feel kind of gross. I guess I could have been tipped off by Jill's "nymphomaniac" comments.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 30, 2008 1:26 PM


Not really. Youre still having profound comprehension problems. I point out that your attitude towards other women is misogynistic. You whine that I cant be a happy person. Im making an observation based on the evidence you provide. Youre fabricating something because its the only way you can be comfortable in the context of the discussion.

Exactly, TR. That is what I do. I make observations based on the evidence you provide. You provide evidence that you are an unhappy person. I merely point that fact out. :-)

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:22 PM
**************
I dont provide any 'evidence' of being 'unhappy'. Those are lies you need to tell yourself. Your hateful attitude towards women who have abortions is well established. Thats no invention. Youre the one who has provided the proof. Your own hatefilled comments are the evidence.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:27 PM


You and I can think a bunch of people are idiots without feeling miserable about our own lives. I don't think TR calling you guys names is reflective of her own personal happiness, and you are insisting it is.

Okay... so if someone call me a fat ugly slut, I guess it would probably be wrong to draw any assumptions from that then. I should probably just assume they're probably just really nice people until they prove otherwise, cause the name isn't enough to prove anything. That makes a lot of sense. I'll be sure to remember that.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:27 PM


Then answer the question - would you like to tell us all how you know so much about our private lives, particularly how happy we are? or how promiscuous?

When did I say I knew anything about your private life, Tr? How happy you are is reflected in your words. That's all I have to glean information about you on. You want me to assume you're a happy person? Say happy (or at least neutral) things.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:29 PM


I dont provide any 'evidence' of being 'unhappy'. Those are lies you need to tell yourself. Your hateful attitude towards women who have abortions is well established. Thats no invention. Youre the one who has provided the proof. Your own hatefilled comments are the evidence.

Oh okay.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:30 PM


Okay... so if someone call me a fat ugly slut, I guess it would probably be wrong to draw any assumptions from that then. I should probably just assume they're probably just really nice people until they prove otherwise, cause the name isn't enough to prove anything. That makes a lot of sense. I'll be sure to remember that.

Did you ever go to public school? Or school with any other kids at all?

Okay, let's go over the basics. If someone calls you a fat ugly slut, you can assume they probably don't like you. It is not indicative of their personal happiness, health, or sex life.

It's a bit of a myth mothers tell their bullied kids that "those bullies are just unhappy people" so that their bullied kids don't feel bad about themselves.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:32 PM


We're not making assumptions, Bethany. You are being deliberately rude by assuming how pro-choicers or people who choose to have sex out of marriage feel. You've done it plenty of times and we're calling you out on it
It's not an assumption when you DO IT.

Then it's not an assumption when i say Texasred is not a happy person. She "DOES IT". She says unhappy things all the time. she's done it plenty of times and I'm calling her out on it.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:18 PM
**************
No, I dont. You need the lie that I cant be a happy person and be pro choice and point out all the ugliness and inconsistancies and ignorance about the antichoice position. You need to lie and pretend it "must mean" Im not a happy person. It doesnt have anything to do with me. Its your fabrication. Your own words about women who have abortions prove your misogyny. No one had to fabricate anything about that. Youre the one providing the evidence.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:34 PM


Did you ever go to public school? Or school with any other kids at all?
Okay, let's go over the basics. If someone calls you a fat ugly slut, you can assume they probably don't like you. It is not indicative of their personal happiness, health, or sex life.

I've been around enough people to know that the type of language you use is indicative of what type of person you are.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:35 PM


We're not making assumptions, Bethany. You are being deliberately rude by assuming how pro-choicers or people who choose to have sex out of marriage feel. You've done it plenty of times and we're calling you out on it
It's not an assumption when you DO IT.

Then it's not an assumption when i say Texasred is not a happy person. She "DOES IT". She says unhappy things all the time. she's done it plenty of times and I'm calling her out on it.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:18 PM
**************
No, I dont. You need the lie that I cant be a happy person and be pro choice and point out all the ugliness and inconsistancies and ignorance about the antichoice position. You need to lie and pretend it "must mean" Im not a happy person. It doesnt have anything to do with me. Its your fabrication. Your own words about women who have abortions prove your misogyny. No one had to fabricate anything about that. Youre the one providing the evidence.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:36 PM


I've been around enough people to know that the type of language you use is indicative of what type of person you are.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:35 PM
***************|
No, those are the fabrications you need in order to feel good about yourself. They have nothing to do with the other person.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:37 PM


It's a bit of a myth mothers tell their bullied kids that "those bullies are just unhappy people" so that their bullied kids don't feel bad about themselves.

No, it isn't. Bullies are people who use and torment others in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. A truly happy person does not belittle others in order to make themselves feel good. I'm guessing you were never bullied.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:39 PM


No, those are the fabrications you need in order to feel good about yourself. They have nothing to do with the other person.

oh okay.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:40 PM


No, I dont. You need the lie that I cant be a happy person and be pro choice and point out all the ugliness and inconsistancies and ignorance about the antichoice position. You need to lie and pretend it "must mean" Im not a happy person. It doesnt have anything to do with me. Its your fabrication. Your own words about women who have abortions prove your misogyny. No one had to fabricate anything about that. Youre the one providing the evidence.

oh okay.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:40 PM


Okay... so if someone call me a fat ugly slut, I guess it would probably be wrong to draw any assumptions from that then. I should probably just assume they're probably just really nice people until they prove otherwise, cause the name isn't enough to prove anything. That makes a lot of sense. I'll be sure to remember that.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:27 PM
***************
The only ones calling women 'sluts' are the ones on the antichoice side. The antichoicers are the ones who have problems with sex and problems with women who have consentual sex without any intention of having children. Just where did anyone call you fat or ugly? And what would that have to do with this discussion? If someone IS fat or ugly would that make their arguments somehow less valid than a slender attractive person? Youve shown a hateful attitude towards women who have had abortions and pro choice women in general. What does that have to do with you needing to lie to yourself about someone else not being "happy"?

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:45 PM


Bullies are people who use and torment others in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.

That's the myth, Bethany.

In nearly all cases of bullying, it's about power: bullies are people who have had power taken away from them at some point and are exerting power over another person.

However, bullies often have friends and consider themselves happy. They just express that need for power by harming others. It's not healthy, certainly, but you can't say they're "trying to make themselves feel better" because most bullies have average or above average self esteem.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:47 PM


Then answer the question - would you like to tell us all how you know so much about our private lives, particularly how happy we are? or how promiscuous?

When did I say I knew anything about your private life, Tr? How happy you are is reflected in your words. That's all I have to glean information about you on. You want me to assume you're a happy person? Say happy (or at least neutral) things.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:29 PM
****************
Then you admit the only thing youre doing is telling lies that make you feel better and lies that youre comfortable with.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:47 PM


Bullies are people who use and torment others in order to make themselves feel better about themselves.

That's the myth, Bethany.

In nearly all cases of bullying, it's about power: bullies are people who have had power taken away from them at some point and are exerting power over another person.

However, bullies often have friends and consider themselves happy. They just express that need for power by harming others. It's not healthy, certainly, but you can't say they're "trying to make themselves feel better" because most bullies have average or above average self esteem.


Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:47 PM
***********
Yup
Often enough bullies treat younger or smaller kids the same way bigger older people treat them. To an extent its learned behavior. And as you said, they exert power because it was taken away from them in another context. But that doesnt mean they are unhappy or lacking in self esteem or they bully to 'feel better'.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:52 PM


In nearly all cases of bullying, it's about power: bullies are people who have had power taken away from them at some point and are exerting power over another person.

However, bullies often have friends and consider themselves happy. They just express that need for power by harming others. It's not healthy, certainly, but you can't say they're "trying to make themselves feel better" because most bullies have average or above average self esteem.

No, Edyt, they really don't. Have you ever actually met any of these people in real life? One boy who bullied me on a constant basis, telling me how ugly I was and then finally having to prove it by having another boy hold my arms behind my back while he punched me in the stomach, was a very low self esteemed boy, who was overweight, and had relationship issues with his mother and father. Now that I look back at the situation, I feel sorry for him. That's just one example of many.

By the way, my mom was NEVER one to tell me that bullies do that just ot make themselves feel better. Want to know what my mom told me? Here, put some makeup on, then they won't call you ugly anymore. Here, let's fix your hair differently, let's do something to make sure that those people don't treat you that way. So no, I didn't learn this idea from my mother, I learned it from experience and from actually learning about the lives of these people after they had gotten older and grown up.

You may be right that it is partially due to a need for power. But where do you think this need for power comes from, exactly?
I know where it comes from. The child didn't get love at home. He seeks approval from his peers.
Sometimes getting that approval means belittling and hurting someone else who is weaker.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:54 PM


Wow, I wonder if we could apply it to pro-lifers.

Bethany, have you felt pressured to remain a virgin or otherwise be considered a promiscuous slut? Did you get bullied into being pro-life?

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 1:55 PM


It's a bit of a myth mothers tell their bullied kids that "those bullies are just unhappy people" so that their bullied kids don't feel bad about themselves.

No, it isn't. Bullies are people who use and torment others in order to make themselves feel better about themselves. A truly happy person does not belittle others in order to make themselves feel good. I'm guessing you were never bullied.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:39 PM
**********************
Ive never had any trouble at all standing up for myself, or standing up for my friends if the need arose. But if a truly happy person 'doesnt have to belittle others' then youre admitting that antichoicers are not happy people. Happy people dont try to use extortion to bully contractors into not working on a building. Happy people do not try to bully women into not walking into a clinic. Youve proven that antichoicers are fundamentally unhappy people, and bullies - or want to be bullies.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 1:57 PM


Yup
Often enough bullies treat younger or smaller kids the same way bigger older people treat them. To an extent its learned behavior. And as you said, they exert power because it was taken away from them in another context. But that doesnt mean they are unhappy or lacking in self esteem or they bully to 'feel better'.

First part of your paragraph, EXACTLY. This is a learned behavior because they were treated badly, and they feel the need to treat others badly in return. At the time that kids who bully bully, they do feel superficially happy for a moment. It is like a temporary high. They have never been taught how to really love and care about others.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:57 PM


Ive never had any trouble at all standing up for myself, or standing up for my friends if the need arose. But if a truly happy person 'doesnt have to belittle others' then youre admitting that antichoicers are not happy people. Happy people dont try to use extortion to bully contractors into not working on a building. Happy people do not try to bully women into not walking into a clinic. Youve proven that antichoicers are fundamentally unhappy people, and bullies - or want to be bullies.

Strawman.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:59 PM


Bethany, have you felt pressured to remain a virgin or otherwise be considered a promiscuous slut? Did you get bullied into being pro-life?

No, and no.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:59 PM


"Despite popular perceptions of bullies, students who bully generally have average to high self-esteem, may be popular with both teachers and classmates, and may also do well in school"

"The student may believe that he or she is superior to other students, or blame others for being smaller, physically weaker, or different; students who bully 'may brag about their actual or imagined superiority over other students'"

Via.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:00 PM



"Despite popular perceptions of bullies, students who bully generally have average to high self-esteem, may be popular with both teachers and classmates, and may also do well in school"
"The student may believe that he or she is superior to other students, or blame others for being smaller, physically weaker, or different; students who bully 'may brag about their actual or imagined superiority over other students'"

So by self esteem you mean a false sense of superiority?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:02 PM


Why would a bully need to make himself feel better if he already has a high sense of self-esteem?

Studies suggest bullying has more to do with aggressive tendencies perpetrated from one person, and those who were bullied are more likely TO bully... which explains why you're trying to demean TR by saying she can't be a happy person.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:04 PM


WOW, you really DO think having self esteem is synonymous with superficial feelings of superiority??

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:06 PM


.. which explains why you're trying to demean TR by saying she can't be a happy person.

Ah, I see. When Tr calls me an idiot, she's merely observing the facts. When I call her unhappy as a result of her calling me an idiot, I am demeaning her. lol

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:09 PM


Well, denying the facts makes you sound like an idiot, so I'd say that's probable cause. Assuming someone is unhappy because they think someone else is an idiot is baseless.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:10 PM


What a double standard. At least you are admitting it though .

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:13 PM


Boy! I take the kids to the playland and I miss all the fun.


TR, since it obviously escaped you my point was that you made the assumption that Jackie was either not happy, not fulfilled, not experience, or all (or any combination) of the above.

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous yours and Sally's statements were. But really you knew that, you were just trying to divert and make my statements into something they weren't - true to form.

Bethany - glad I made you chuckle! :)

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:14 PM


Okay, I'll simplify:

1. You're not God, so you don't have the secret powers to knowing how another person feels unless that person tells you. Therefore, when you assume another person's feelings or personal life, you are making things up.

2. I would assume you have a brain (though I could be wrong) so with your brain you can form opinions based on what other people say. Therefore, when you make a judgment based on what someone tells you, you are forming an opinion.


Do you see the difference? (If not, I'll just assume you're an idiot, based on 2)

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:17 PM


BTW TR. I gather that you aren't a happy person by your posts and nothing else. I have nothing to go by but that.

Doug is pro-choice but I'm guessing a relatively happy guy. Dan as well. There are plenty of pro-choicers that seem fine and dandy. It has nothing to do with what side of the issue you're on. It's the hate that you spew here on a daily basis.

Really, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:19 PM


Careful Edyt, or I'll have to lump you in with TR and Sally.

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:20 PM


Lol, Kristen, don't worry about it. Bethany's been evading the facts I've been giving her for about a week now. As far as I'm concerned, if you purposefully ignore real studies and results or draw the wrong conclusions by skewing data, then you are an idiot. Feel free to join her, if you'd like.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:25 PM


I think I already have, Kristen. What's funny is, when Edyt first came here, I really liked her, and thought she had a nice personality. She's making it pretty difficult for me to see it that way anymore.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:26 PM


Lol, Kristen, don't worry about it. Bethany's been evading the facts I've been giving her for about a week now. As far as I'm concerned, if you purposefully ignore real studies and results or draw the wrong conclusions by skewing data, then you are an idiot. Feel free to join her, if you'd like.

I haven't yet seen any facts from you, Edyt, so how can I evade them?

Now, let's get back to the question I asked, which you never responded to. Do you think that a false sense of superiority is the same thing as self esteem?

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:27 PM


Yeah, well, you get a bit tired of being dicked around. For the first few months I was here, I was constantly patient, I'd listen and do research, I'd explain my side.... and I just got attacked. No one would even refute my arguments. They'd just say I was wrong, going to hell, evil, etc.

So why should I be nice to people who haven't been nice? That's ridiculous.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:29 PM


You were only superficially nice then, Edyt, and your true colors shone through. I have been here being personally attacked for years in the abortion debate, and I don't treat others the way you do. I have never once resorted to calling you an idiot because you don't agree with me. It shows your character.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:30 PM


Hisman: Phil met a beautiful girl who he will be marrying this summer.

Excellent news!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 2:31 PM


I really don't see what the big deal about sex is anyway. For all the dramatics about it, it's quite a natural experience. It's not life shaking. You don't turn into a different person afterward. Nothing really happens at all ... except ... you lose your "virginity." Wow.

Besides, I would rather get in all the sex I want before I get married. I hear the sex life kinda dies down after that... sucky.
*************

So, sex before marriage isn't life shaking, nothing really happens at all afterward, and it isn't a big deal.

Wow, am I glad I waited for marraige!

I wouldn't know if it dies down after marriage if you had it before hand, but from someone who's only had it in marraige (8 years this July), well, it isn't at all how you describe your experiences with it!

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 30, 2008 2:32 PM


How about the study I presented about the liberal media? Instead of reading the study, you said "Watching TV is enough for me." By that conclusion, you could say all black people are violent and like rap, since that's how it looks on TV.

It doesn't matter whether you have superiority or not. Self-esteem is intrinsic. Superiority is extrinsic. They're two different things. That's why bullies can feel powerful and exert power over others without actually having any power. When they exert power, it's a bit of a self-fulfilling act because it reaffirms that they have power, in turn, making them feel more powerful.

Whether or not they are unhappy is not what causes them to bully.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:33 PM


Bethany, I'd have to agree. It's so trite to call someone an idiot, and shows an enormous amount of immaturity.

Take heart, I hear Lyssie was won over. Edyt and the like aren't winning anyone to their side with their "facts."

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:33 PM


Sorry girls, I gotta run for a while. My daughter wants me to play on the trampoline with her little brother.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:34 PM


*sigh* I don't care whether or not you agree with me Bethany. The point is that you will intentionally ignore or distort facts to suit your aims. That's idiotic. If pro-choicers do it, it's idiotic. If pro-lifers do it, it's idiotic. If you intentionally ignore evidence than you are an idiot.

And the reason the pro-life movement doesn't have more power is because people can so easily dismantle your arguments.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:35 PM


And the reason the pro-life movement doesn't have more power is because people can so easily dismantle your arguments.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:35 PM

Edyt, Lyssie seems to have converted. Who have you won over?

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:37 PM


Oops, gotta say one more thing LOL

Besides, I would rather get in all the sex I want before I get married. I hear the sex life kinda dies down after that... sucky.

Someone told you wrong!! It only gets BETTER!

*********************************************

And Kristen, I totally agree. And I am so thankful for people like Lyssie...I have ALWAYS loved her!

**********************

Okay, Bonnie's calling me. TTYS!

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:37 PM


And the reason the pro-life movement doesn't have more power is because people can so easily dismantle your arguments.
*******

Lol, is this real power or the false "power" that bullies feel that is being discussed? I'm just gently teasing, it was an easy setup and tickled me.

Posted by: Elizabeth G at April 30, 2008 2:40 PM


Yup
Often enough bullies treat younger or smaller kids the same way bigger older people treat them. To an extent its learned behavior. And as you said, they exert power because it was taken away from them in another context. But that doesnt mean they are unhappy or lacking in self esteem or they bully to 'feel better'.

First part of your paragraph, EXACTLY. This is a learned behavior because they were treated badly, and they feel the need to treat others badly in return. At the time that kids who bully bully, they do feel superficially happy for a moment. It is like a temporary high. They have never been taught how to really love and care about others.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:57 PM
****************
No. It doesnt mean they feel bad about themselves. It doesnt mean that they act that way just to 'try to feel better'. And it doesnt mean that they 'dont really know' how to love and care about others.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:42 PM


"And the reason the pro-life movement doesn't have more power is because people can so easily dismantle your arguments."

Edyt,

I don't know what kind of arguments you usually hear, but I highly HIGHLY recommend the book "Defending Life" by Frank Beckwith. He argues from a completely philosophical and scientific point of view. The point is that the only time he mentions God or religion is at the beginning to point out that he will never mention God or religion, hehe. I think it may be worth looking into.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at April 30, 2008 2:44 PM


Ive never had any trouble at all standing up for myself, or standing up for my friends if the need arose. But if a truly happy person 'doesnt have to belittle others' then youre admitting that antichoicers are not happy people. Happy people dont try to use extortion to bully contractors into not working on a building. Happy people do not try to bully women into not walking into a clinic. Youve proven that antichoicers are fundamentally unhappy people, and bullies - or want to be bullies.

Strawman.


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 1:59 PM
******************
Not even remotely so. Youve proven that antichoicers have to be unhappy people.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:44 PM


@Kristen: Please stop using Lyssie as an example for your cause. She's a person, a human being, not a poster child to be used for "the cause:.

Thanks. I don't mean to be abrupt or rude, that is not my intention.

Posted by: Rae at April 30, 2008 2:47 PM


.. which explains why you're trying to demean TR by saying she can't be a happy person.

Ah, I see. When Tr calls me an idiot, she's merely observing the facts. When I call her unhappy as a result of her calling me an idiot, I am demeaning her. lol


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:09 PM
****************
No, youre merely lying to yourself because your lies are comfortable. The truth isnt.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:47 PM


So by self esteem you mean a false sense of superiority?


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:02 PM
***********************
It may not be 'false'. In highschool we had a couple of bullies who were football players. They were taller, stronger, could run faster than most of the other boys in the school. Physically they WERE superior. The problem comes when they think this entitles them to certain things. But they still are superior.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:53 PM


Imagine you're standing around a room with a bunch of people who are pointing at a grape and saying "Yup, it's a square alright."

And you say, "Actually, I'd say it's more circular, perhaps ovoid."

And they say, "No, it's a square. I read it in The Book of Grapes."

And you say, "That book was written by someone who'd never seen, eaten, or touched a grape."

They say, "It is the only book about grapes."

So you go, "Look, I can prove it's not a square." And you take out measuring tape and write calculations about circumference and you compare it to other circular objects, but they keep saying, "Nope nope, it is definitely square. On top of that, it's bigger than an elephant."

So on top of that, you're trying to say, "actually, grapes are quite small, compared to an elephant" and "it's really more ovoid than square" and despite your calculations, conclusions, and even some very well researched articles about grapes, these people do nothing but stand around and say "Definitely a square. Definitely. Definitely."

They don't even try to dispute your argument. At best, they squish the grape a little bit, and stick it in a matchbox to prove it's square shaped. After awhile they get tired of you and say you're going to spend the rest of your life getting trampled by chickens and that the person who wrote the Book of Grapes knows all about grapes and apples and oranges too, even though you know he's never spent a day of his life outside a small closet, and eventually you get tired and fed up and feel like people are being intentionally mean for no good reason, so you say.

"FINE, IT'S A SQUARE, YOU IDIOTS."

And they say, "You'll never win anyone over to your side by calling them an idiot."

So you sigh and throw up your hands and leave.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 2:53 PM


TR, since it obviously escaped you my point was that you made the assumption that Jackie was either not happy, not fulfilled, not experience, or all (or any combination) of the above.

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous yours and Sally's statements were. But really you knew that, you were just trying to divert and make my statements into something they weren't - true to form.

Bethany - glad I made you chuckle! :)

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:14 PM
************************
No one made your statements into anything 'they werent'. It was very obvious what you were trying to say and it was also an idiotic invention on your part.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:55 PM


Bethany, I'd have to agree. It's so trite to call someone an idiot, and shows an enormous amount of immaturity.

Take heart, I hear Lyssie was won over. Edyt and the like aren't winning anyone to their side with their "facts."

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 2:33 PM
********************
Youre a poster child for immaturity. Your initial little bungle and your ongoing tapdance proves that.
And saying someone is behaving like an idiot or saying that their comment or argument is idiotic is hardly synonymous with being 'immature'.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 2:59 PM


Posted by: Rae at April 30, 2008 2:47 PM

Yes Rae, I realize she’s a person that's why I said it. I'm not using her as a "poster child" for "the cause." We don't need another poster child I think we have plenty of those. It's the fact that she is a real person that makes it momentous.

I don't mean to be rude.

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 3:00 PM


So, sex before marriage isn't life shaking, nothing really happens at all afterward, and it isn't a big deal.

******************
Sex during marriage wasnt that impressive.
Sex after marriage turned out to be absolutely awesome.
Its the difference between having a self centered partner who thinks of no one but themselves, and a partner who is interested in what YOU feel, like and want.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:01 PM


What a double standard. At least you are admitting it though .


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:13 PM
************
There is a huge difference between saying something that is really stupid and whining that someone just 'cant be a happy person'.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:03 PM


What a double standard. At least you are admitting it though .


Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 2:13 PM
************
There is a huge difference between saying something that is really stupid and whining that someone just 'cant be a happy person'.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:03 PM


Forgive me Rae but I've heard MK say the same thing about you more times than I can count. So if you thought what I was doing was wrong I apologize to you (and Lyssie if she's offended.)

It wasn't my intention to insult her.

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 3:05 PM


I don't know what kind of arguments you usually hear, but I highly HIGHLY recommend the book "Defending Life" by Frank Beckwith. He argues from a completely philosophical and scientific point of view. The point is that the only time he mentions God or religion is at the beginning to point out that he will never mention God or religion, hehe. I think it may be worth looking into.

*****************
It still comes down to the argument that the woman doesnt matter.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:06 PM


@Kristen: My only thing is, Lyssie told MK not to make a big deal out of it. Lyssie has also talked to me personally and made it clear she doesn't want people making a big deal out of it and using her as an example.

I know it wasn't intentional, so don't worry. I should have worded that much differently than I did, I was far to abrupt and rude.

And to be honest, I wish MK didn't make such a big deal about me and I would much prefer that she didn't.

Posted by: Rae at April 30, 2008 3:10 PM


I don't know what kind of arguments you usually hear, but I highly HIGHLY recommend the book "Defending Life" by Frank Beckwith. He argues from a completely philosophical and scientific point of view. The point is that the only time he mentions God or religion is at the beginning to point out that he will never mention God or religion, hehe. I think it may be worth looking into.

Bobby, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I would be pro-life if conditions were better for women, if contraceptives were readily available and sex was not a taboo. I'd be pro-life if I didn't think the movement was all about controlling someone else's sex life. I'd be pro-life if there were exceptions made for women at risk, and if our foster care and adoption system was reformed. I'd be pro-life if pro-lifers weren't Bible-beating conservatives who want to deny homosexuals rights and staple the 10 Commandments to our courtrooms. I'd be pro-life if our society was welcoming to children, if women weren't stigmatized and shamed and paid less, if they had the ability to continue going to school and fulfill their dreams (which I don't consider selfish at all!) without being overburdened by a child. I'd be pro-life if we had more child care options, if health insurance was cheap or free, if daily expenses for single mothers didn't force them to overwork themselves just to get by. I'd be pro-life if employers had daycares and flexible hours for working moms, if they didn't care whether you were a man or a woman or if you had kids. I'd be pro-life if there was any indication at all that our society actually cared about the well-being of young people.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 3:13 PM


Understood. ;)

Posted by: Kristen at April 30, 2008 3:14 PM


TR: Are you STILL whining and refuting every assertion that comes your way? You are trouble, with a capital T.

Here are Dr. Ray Guarendi's credentials which you asked for. He's been on Springer, so you might know him?

http://www.drray.com/assets/vitae.pdf

Now, he is Catholic, so please, feel free to knock him down after you have read his impressive resume.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 3:16 PM


Edyt: 3:13: I love your post. Who doesn't want all that, really? You are looking for a perfect world before taking the leap. Why not take the leap and then work on the rest with the rest of us? :)

P.S. I don't want to fight with you, and I don't think anyone here wants to. Some days, it just takes some seemingly innocuous thing to turn things upside down around here!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 3:22 PM


Hi Edyt,
I would love all that as well!! :)
Curious...are your parents prolife? Your siblings? Did they raise you prolife?

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 3:24 PM


I love your post. Who doesn't want all that, really? You are looking for a perfect world before taking the leap. Why not take the leap and then work on the rest with the rest of us? :)

Because the results of doing so before we reach that place has been devastating. Please take some time to study some other countries where abortion is banned and you'll see that misogyny is even worse there and women are dying and suffering from dangerous and illegal abortions anyway.

I've traveled in Central America, and Latin America is particularly bad when it comes to women's rights. Not only do they have few opportunities, but men often leave to come to America or Europe for work and send back NOTHING. If a woman is pregnant and her husband leaves, she may have 3 children to take care of already and no resources to care for them and a newborn. So she seeks an abortion so that she can work. If all goes well, she may be okay. If not, she could wind up in the hospital. If doctors discover she got an abortion, she winds up in jail.

Now her three children are practically orphans, and other family members or friends scramble to take care of them. Some may go into prostitution.

I'd be nice to assume if we ban abortion, all those things will follow. But that hasn't been the case. So what I am doing is working toward reaching those goals rather than simply believing it'll all be better once the babies get to live. That's ridiculous.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 3:27 PM


Yes, I was raised pro-life. I don't speak with my older brother and my younger brothers are all adolescent, so I don't believe they have chosen a stance. Of course, being boys and all, I don't think it's high on their priorities list. ;)

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 3:28 PM


Do you talk with your parents about it? I mean your turning from the faith they raised you in and their prolife views?

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 3:33 PM


Ehhh... a couple weeks ago I spoke with my mother about her religious views. She knows I'm not a church-goer, and she probably thinks I'm pro-choice based on the fact that I take contraceptives and live with my boyfriend and do other "liberal" type things.

They didn't instill strong pro-life values in me though. I never had intense conversations about it, it was always pretty mild and I simply assumed the view without thinking or talking about it.

I don't think she knows about my atheism though.


But you have to understand, I've had a VERY shaky relationship with my family, so I don't exactly share a lot of my life with them.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 3:39 PM


I hear ya. I haven't seen my family in 6 years.
Oooooooo...rebels are we??

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 3:43 PM


TR: Are you STILL whining and refuting every assertion that comes your way? You are trouble, with a capital T.

Here are Dr. Ray Guarendi's credentials which you asked for. He's been on Springer, so you might know him?

http://www.drray.com/assets/vitae.pdf

Now, he is Catholic, so please, feel free to knock him down after you have read his impressive resume.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 3:16 PM
************
Thinking 'well everybody knows it and 'well it must be true because I heard it on the radio' are your idea of 'supporting' and argument, not mind. I find it amusing that you think expecting something more than that makes me 'trouble'. I didnt ask about his credentials. I asked where he got his information, studies, research, papers, that sort of thing. You dont understand the difference? I didnt expect you to.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 3:44 PM


More on this from yesterday at http://www.lifenews.com/nat3900.html

Posted by: Steve Ertelt at April 30, 2008 3:47 PM


My mother was devoutly religious. She was also pro choice. As far as I know, so were her 7 sisters. I remember six of them talking and all being pro choice but I really dont remember the two older ones ever saying anything one way or the other. They were all devoutly religious too - southern baptists, two methodists and one episcopalian. Later the subject came up during a family gathering when Roe had just been decided and about half a dozen of the women cousins talked about it briefly (there are 22 first cousins) - all of them were pro choice. These women were all close to my age. I couldnt speak for some of the older women. But being religious didnt keep them from believing the decision needed to be left up to the woman.

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 4:17 PM


Edyt,

You just described a lot of the Feminists for Life philosophy..you should check them out.

Posted by: prettyinpink at April 30, 2008 4:23 PM


SOMG said: "Kel, when you're dealing with small numbers you get statistical noise. There's probably another small study somewhere that shows abortion PROTECTS subsequent pregnancies from premature birth. Also statistical noise.

To get meaningful results on a question like this you'd have to follow a whole country like the Melbye breast cancer study."

How interesting that you would point me to a study on a completely different topic than early miscarriage and cervical incompetence, which is what we were discussing.

So, instead of "right to life MYTH" what you MEANT to say was "statistical noise?"

Oh, and I'm still hunting for the opposite statistical "noise" studies showing how abortion might PROTECT a woman from a future premature birth. So far, no luck. Only a bunch of non-biased health websites stating that there is a link. But what do they know?

Posted by: Kel at April 30, 2008 5:10 PM


PIP, I don't believe all those changes will be made within my lifetime, and the last thing I want to do is hand the reigns over to pro-lifers to decide women's lives for them. So I will not side with pro-lifers because I think they are intentionally being harmful towards women and others they disagree with.

Besides, I don't think abortion should be made illegal simply because I don't think I should have the right to tell someone what's best for their health. Even if I was pro-life, I would never ever try to create legislature forcing my views on others.

Posted by: Edyt at April 30, 2008 5:28 PM


Edyt said: "I would be pro-life if..."

Edyt, that is outrageous! You refuse to defend the right of unborn children to live because our society isn't ordered exactly as you like, and because people who are pro-life are icky? That's appalling. What other deeply held convictions of yours do you flush down the toilet just because other people in society don't behave as YOU believe they should?

I'm a conservative, but I do take some liberal positions. Like, for example, when it comes to cigarettes. I'm in favor of banning them from public places, which is a liberal point of view. A lot of my fellow conservatives say that people who hold anti-smoking views like mine are "zealots" or "Nazis". Does that mean I should stop being pro-life, because my fellow pro-life conservatives who happen to support smoking rights are calling me names? Yeah, I might do that... if I had no heart, no mind, and no soul of my own.

If I were to make an argument like yours, I could say that I would be anti-smoking if only anti-smoking people weren't a bunch of whiny godless progressives who think society owes them something for doing nothing. But that would be completely ridiculous.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at April 30, 2008 5:40 PM


PIP, I don't believe all those changes will be made within my lifetime, and the last thing I want to do is hand the reigns over to pro-lifers to decide women's lives for them. So I will not side with pro-lifers because I think they are intentionally being harmful towards women and others they disagree with.

Besides, I don't think abortion should be made illegal simply because I don't think I should have the right to tell someone what's best for their health. Even if I was pro-life, I would never ever try to create legislature forcing my views on others.

Edyt: The way you think, you will never be pro-life. It's not a "choice" like abortion. It's part of who you are.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 6:01 PM


John, Janet, well said.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 6:06 PM


Why is just prolife legislation considered "forcing my views on others?"
Same sex marriage legislation is forcing views on others, right??
What about Roe V Wade? Oh, that's right. It's The Law of The Land.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 6:11 PM



Edyt 3:27: I've traveled in Central America, and Latin America is particularly bad when it comes to women's rights. Not only do they have few opportunities, but men often leave to come to America or Europe for work and send back NOTHING. If a woman is pregnant and her husband leaves, she may have 3 children to take care of already and no resources to care for them and a newborn. So she seeks an abortion so that she can work. If all goes well, she may be okay. If not, she could wind up in the hospital. If doctors discover she got an abortion, she winds up in jail.

Now her three children are practically orphans, and other family members or friends scramble to take care of them. Some may go into prostitution.

I'd be nice to assume if we ban abortion, all those things will follow. But that hasn't been the case. So what I am doing is working toward reaching those goals rather than simply believing it'll all be better once the babies get to live. That's ridiculous.

I'd be nice to assume if we ban abortion, all those things will follow. But that hasn't been the case. So what I am doing is working toward reaching those goals rather than simply believing it'll all be better once the babies get to live. That's ridiculous.

Let's throw the baby out with the bath water because the bath water stinks? Who is going to take care of women today when they get old if there are no children?

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 6:11 PM


Why is just prolife legislation considered "forcing my views on others?"
Same sex marriage legislation is forcing views on others, right??
What about Roe V Wade? Oh, that's right. It's The Law of The Land.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 6:11 PM

Carla,

All common sense has gone out the window today. Lord have mercy on us all.

"We can't have babies, the world isn't perfect (yet)!

Let's put it on a T-shirt, it'll sell millions.

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 6:15 PM


Yes, good post, John L.

"I would be pro-life if..."

This would make an effective Pro-life T-shirt too! (List all the problems on the back of the shirt that need to be solved before we can be pro-life...)

Bethany, Should we start our own company? :)

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 6:20 PM


I find it interesting that if a woman wants plastic surgery, she must go in for a consultation, and btw, counseling, then a pre-op appointment, etc... but if you want an abortion, (which is a life changing experience) you just show up on a Tuesday and voila, instant abortion.


Posted by: Sandy at April 29, 2008 7:25 PM
***********
you dont know what youre talking about

Posted by: TexasRed at April 30, 2008 11:21 AM

TR,
Any why don't I know what I am talking about?

Posted by: Sandy at April 30, 2008 8:07 PM


Janet,
Careful, don't give Planned Parenthood any ideas!

Actually, Bethany and I had mused over the t-shirt industry last year.

But, alas. It never got beyond the keyboard.

Posted by: carder at April 30, 2008 8:57 PM


Carder,
Ha ha! I don't think my ideas would interest PP. They're not in poor taste. Do you remember any of your ideas?

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 9:23 PM


carder: sounds like a good title for a country song. Now if I could only write music and lyrics...

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 9:27 PM


Oops, I lost my song title on that last post (9:27). Here it is:

"We can't have babies, the world isn't (ain't) perfect (yet)!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 9:29 PM


Why is just prolife legislation considered "forcing my views on others?"
Same sex marriage legislation is forcing views on others, right??
What about Roe V Wade? Oh, that's right. It's The Law of The Land.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 6:11 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, Carla.
If same-sex marriage becomes law, you won't be forced to marry a women.
When Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, nobody was forced to have an abortion.

Posted by: Laura at April 30, 2008 9:59 PM


True. I won't be marrying a woman. But a view is forced on me isn't it? A view that I disagree with.
Please, not going there tonight.

Roe v Wade forces a view, not an abortion. A view that says it's okey dokey to kill the child you having living and growing inside of you.

Doesn't the dog law in my town force a view on me? A view that says leash your dog and pick up your dog bombs. The nerve.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 10:22 PM


No, Carla.
If same-sex marriage becomes law, you won't be forced to marry a women.
When Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, nobody was forced to have an abortion.

Oh good grief, Laura. When Roe Vs. Wade became the law of the land, 100 percent of unborn children were at the mercy of their parents as to whether they would be forced to die or not. Your comparison is so way off it's scary.

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 10:26 PM


Janet, Carder's ideas were AWESOME!!! And I like your tshirt idea too!
Here is where you'll find some of Carder's ideas:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/05/weekend_questio_3.html#comments

Posted by: Bethany at April 30, 2008 10:29 PM


Bethany, Thanks for the link! I'll check it out!

Posted by: Janet at April 30, 2008 10:57 PM


Roe v Wade forces a view, not an abortion. A view that says it's okey dokey to kill the child you having living and growing inside of you.

Posted by: Carla at April 30, 2008 10:22 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No one forced that view on you. You chose abortion because you wanted to be free of an unwanted pregnancy, and now you'd deny that privledge to other women.

Posted by: Laura at April 30, 2008 11:37 PM


Let's throw the baby out with the bath water because the bath water stinks? Who is going to take care of women today when they get old if there are no children?

There are plenty of people having children. Abortion is no major threat to our survival as a species.

And it's about not putting the cart before the horse. You want change, you have to do it in the right order otherwise the cart or the horse or both will be destroyed in the process of trying to make it work.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 12:04 AM


Roe v Wade forces a view, not an abortion. A view that says it's okey dokey to kill the child you having living and growing inside of you.

Obviously it doesn't, since you have a different opinion.


The only difference is that you now don't have the right to force your opinion on someone else. There is no view forced on you. Rather, your opinion has been rendered moot in the face of someone else's.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 12:07 AM


Edyt: The way you think, you will never be pro-life. It's not a "choice" like abortion. It's part of who you are.

Janet: Then why do pro-lifers get abortions?

You can't say ALL of those thousands of abortions are being done on pro-choicers...

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 12:39 AM


Edyt, no doubt - many, many pro-lifers have abortions, because when they are in the actual situation they see that despite the "party line" it may be best for them to end a particular pregnancy.

Even among those who describe themselves as "fundamentalist" Christians and "born again" the rate is 15 - 20% that have abortions.

Posted by: Doug at May 1, 2008 6:22 AM


Rae and Alyssa,

I realize that putting you front and center can be uncomfortable and that was never my intention...but you gotta realize that some of us have been praying and hoping and eating, sleeping and breathing the pro choice people on this site, and it's important for some of us to know that our passion is not in vain. Alyssa told me months ago, and I never said a word. She is the one that made it public. I just acknowledged it.

And Rae, I don't think I've said a word about it in ages...have I?

Hundreds of Thousands of people read this blog everyday, and when they see our arguments and they see people switch sides it gives them hope and incentive to carry on the fight.

I wont' say another word about it. And I am really, really sorry if any of this has upset you.

I love you guys. You know that. Forgive me.

Posted by: mk at May 1, 2008 6:42 AM


I have never thought of my having abortion as a "privilege."

Posted by: Carla at May 1, 2008 7:19 AM


Oh, pshaw..... MK, I'm not angry at all. I just don't want big hoopla. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at May 1, 2008 7:43 AM


@MK: I'm not angry either. I'm sorry if I upset you.

Posted by: Rae at May 1, 2008 7:47 AM


Rae!!!! *tacklehugs*

(I'm at work, looking busy on the computer). :D

Posted by: Lyssie at May 1, 2008 7:52 AM


@Lyssie: And I just woke up so I'm watching the news! :D

Posted by: Rae at May 1, 2008 7:56 AM


The only difference is that you now don't have the right to force your opinion on someone else. There is no view forced on you. Rather, your opinion has been rendered moot in the face of someone else's.

Edyt, are you saying that we cannot legislate morality?

Every single one of our laws are based on morality. Every single law we have is morality being "forced" on us by someone else.

I am "forced" by law not to use my body for prostitution. That is someone else's view on prostitution "forced" on me about what I can or cannot do with my body.

So what logically could be a reason not to make a law to "force" women not to kill their babies in their womb? (By the way, using the term "force" in that sentence is so absurd it kind of makes me laugh. It's like saying that we're "forcing" men not to rape when we have laws against rape. Does not compute.)

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 8:02 AM


Rae, Lyssie, Carla, Marykay, good morning!!


Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 8:04 AM


*gets up and looks around*

*coast is clear*

*shakes her groove thing*

*groove thing in all its massive glory knocks things off of desk*

*quick cleanup before boss gets here*

*back to "work"*

:D

Posted by: Lyssie at May 1, 2008 8:21 AM


Good morning! I will shake my groove thing all the way to the grocery store!
Look at you Bethany, all snappy with emoticons! :)

Posted by: Carla at May 1, 2008 8:37 AM



Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 8:49 AM


Bethany, 8:49: how cute!!!!

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 8:52 AM


Lyssie:8:21: Hilarious!

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 8:53 AM


Edyt:12:04:
There are plenty of people having children. Abortion is no major threat to our survival as a species.

You don't know how heartless that sounds. No clue.

Children have become nothing more than a disposable commodity to the so called "enlightened" of our society. It is pathetic. God help us all.

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 9:00 AM


Janet said:: The way you think, you will never be pro-life. It's not a "choice" like abortion. It's part of who you are.

Edyt said: Then why do pro-lifers get abortions?

You can't say ALL of those thousands of abortions are being done on pro-choicers...

Your questions are pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. You are not even close to being pro-life because you don't believe in the sanctity of life. A baby isn't a choice. Ever. Your leanings are closer to pro-abortion, because you seem to have no reservations about abortion what-so-ever.

Even so-called "pro-lifers" make mistakes and have abortions....but then their leanings would more likely be pro-choice, not pro-life.

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 9:12 AM


Lyssie, *groove thing in all its massive glory knocks things off of desk*

LOL!

Janet, I completely agree with your previous two post.

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 9:42 AM


The only difference is that you now don't have the right to force your opinion on someone else. There is no view forced on you. Rather, your opinion has been rendered moot in the face of someone else's.

Edyt, are you saying that we cannot legislate morality?

No Bethany, read that again.

The only difference is that NOW as in right now when abortion is legal... YOU don't have the right to force your OPINION (that abortion is wrong) on someone ELSE. You are not being forced to AGREE with it. But you do not get the option to take away a person's decision because YOUR OPINION is that they shouldn't have that decision.

I'm talking about abortion.

And btw, I think legalizing prostitution and regulating it would help a lot of people, particularly sex workers.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 10:18 AM


Your leanings are closer to pro-abortion, because you seem to have no reservations about abortion what-so-ever.

I do, but I'm not about to make my opinions lord over another person's body in such a manner.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 10:20 AM


The only difference is that NOW as in right now when abortion is legal... YOU don't have the right to force your OPINION (that abortion is wrong) on someone ELSE. You are not being forced to AGREE with it. But you do not get the option to take away a person's decision because YOUR OPINION is that they shouldn't have that decision.

My opinion has never "forced" anyone to do anything, or to believe anything, Edyt. Now you're just being silly.

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 10:29 AM


I do, but I'm not about to make my opinions lord over another person's body in such a manner.

Hmm, yet you don't mind making your opinions lord over what *I* (and others here) should do and say and think.

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 10:30 AM


(In other words, your insistence that I must agree with what you say, or else I'm an idiot! ) 2:17

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 11:10 AM


"And btw, I think legalizing prostitution and regulating it would help a lot of people, particularly sex workers."

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 10:18 AM

Fine, just keep the prostitutes on your side of town.

Hey, why don't we just create a "Disneyland" for sex-o-philes, call it "Sexyland". Think of all the jobs it would create. We could put it in the Nevada desert right near Las Vegas. You could run for mayor, and we'd all live happily ever after. Perfect.:)

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 11:15 AM


Posted by: Anon at May 1, 2008 11:49 AM


[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][img]http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/64370427e1.gif[/img][/url]

Posted by: Anon at May 1, 2008 11:51 AM


[url=http://www.freeimagehosting.net/][img=http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/64370427e1.gif][/url]

Posted by: Anon at May 1, 2008 11:52 AM


http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?64370427e1.gif

Posted by: Anon at May 1, 2008 11:53 AM


http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/64370427e1.gif

Posted by: Anon at May 1, 2008 11:54 AM


Anon, use the html version and it will work. I think you were using BBcode. :) Here you go! :)

Cute!! :)

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 11:55 AM


Edyt,

No sooner had I read the "I would be pro-life if" litany when I came across Fr. Pavone's newsletter that boldly stated, "Abortion is driven by fear and despair".

Seems you hit it right on the mark.

Posted by: carder at May 1, 2008 2:10 PM


Edyt,

With all due respect, if you would be pro-life only if those conditions are met, but then say your reason for pro-choice has to do with not "forcing" pregnancy on another woman, then regardless, you would still be pro-choice. If every single one of those would be met, your argument would still be about letting a woman choose to keep or kill her baby...so honestly I don't think you ever plan or would be pro-life, until you look at the situation differently.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 1, 2008 4:47 PM


Oh Bethany, you are terrible at understanding things.

Okay... here we go again...

You can have whatever OPINION you want about ANYTHING you want. Got it? I can state my opinions as well.

When you decide that your opinion should be law even though a large amount of people disagree with you, then your opinion is lording over other people.

Even though I am pro-choice, I do not get to have my opinion dominate other people BECAUSE you are still allowed to have the opinion that people should not have abortions. However, if YOUR opinion becomes law, then your opinion will lord over other people's, since that is the nature of this type of law.

Does that make sense or should I simplify even further?

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 8:00 PM


PIP, I guess I can't really say. I'd like to think I'd become pro-life, but then again, I can't see those conditions ever really being fulfilled. Sorry. :(

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 8:01 PM


When you decide that your opinion should be law even though a large amount of people disagree with you, then your opinion is lording over other people.Even though I am pro-choice, I do not get to have my opinion dominate other people BECAUSE you are still allowed to have the opinion that people should not have abortions. However, if YOUR opinion becomes law, then your opinion will lord over other people's, since that is the nature of this type of law.

Ah! Yes, I see. Therefore, Roe Vs. Wade was an unjust ruling, because even though a large amount of people disagreed, a law was passed allowing babies to die at the will of their mothers. When pro-abortionist views became law, their opinions became lord over our views (and babys'lives), since that is the nature of that law.

Thanks, Edyt. That cleared things up for me. (Even though I had already suspected this might just be the case.)

Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 8:16 PM


PIP, I guess I can't really say. I'd like to think I'd become pro-life, but then again, I can't see those conditions ever really being fulfilled. Sorry. :(

Why do you feel the need to lie? You don't want to be pro-life. You don't even know what it means.


Posted by: Bethany at May 1, 2008 8:18 PM


Okay, you keep distorting my words, so here we go again.

Four people in the room say blue M&Ms should be the only kind of M&M that exists because they're the best.

Three people say there should be all colors of M&Ms because they want to have a choice.

The second group of people did not say the first group should eat all M&M colors. They just said they want that choice to be available in case someone wants a red or green M&M. Therefore, they're making it possible for people to only eat blue M&Ms (if anyone should wish) but also saying it's okay to eat brown or yellow or any other color M&M.

However, the first group of people wanted all people to have only blue M&Ms. Their opinion would dominate others who don't agree, while the second group would just allow for people to make up their own minds about which M&Ms to eat.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 8:51 PM


Why do you feel the need to lie? You don't want to be pro-life. You don't even know what it means.

How could I not know what it means? You and others here are constantly telling me what it is.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 8:53 PM


@Edyt: All that talk of M&Ms makes me hungry.

Boo-hiss! :-p

Posted by: Rae at May 1, 2008 9:02 PM


Rae, please tell me you understood what I was trying to say. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall and I need to know if I'm just not being clear enough.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 9:11 PM


do unborn children get to choose what m&m's they want to eat too? ...what? no they don't?

Posted by: Jasper at May 1, 2008 9:12 PM


Of course not, Jasper. They don't have any teeth. Seriously. They'd probably kill themselves trying to eat an M&M anyway.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 9:14 PM


I see, only certain humans get to choose what m&m's they will eat.

Posted by: Jasper at May 1, 2008 9:23 PM


We kill them before they ever get to choose an M&M.

Posted by: Carla at May 1, 2008 9:32 PM


We kill them before they ever get to choose an M&M.

Posted by: Carla at May 1, 2008 9:32 PM


Guys, guys, I'm not talking about the unborn here. I'm differentiating between forcing your opinion on others and allowing a person to chose.

We can discuss abortion later, but I want to make sure Bethany understands this concept first, okay? :)

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 9:35 PM


@Edyt: I did get what you tried to say. I also understood your grape analogy (I actually found that one very funny and clever).

Posted by: Rae at May 1, 2008 9:40 PM


Edyt,

I understand what you're trying to say...only some people get to force their opinions on others...

Posted by: Jasper at May 1, 2008 9:50 PM


Uh huh. EXACTLY. That is EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING. Someone get this guy some M&Ms.

/sarcasm

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 9:58 PM


Edyt,

Thanks for explaining that only some people should get to force their opinions on others.

I believe otherwise, especially when it comes to life.

Posted by: Jasper at May 1, 2008 10:33 PM


Edyt: Bethany knows full well what you are saying and I think you understand her too, but don't want to admit it because you'd have to answer her next question whatever that might be.

YOU see choosing to kill a baby as good, so the choice to do it is even better. What's the problem with that logic, right? According to you, CHOICE IS EVERYTHING.

You are missing her point because your brain doesn't understand her point of view. If you did, you'd be agreeing with her.

BETHANY says LIFE is EVERYTHING.

By supporting a law which says choice reigns supreme over life, you seem to be lording your values over hers and that of other pro-lifers.

Do you see the conflicting view points? It's not that she isn't understanding you. She's just disagreeing with you!

Posted by: Janet at May 1, 2008 10:50 PM


"PIP, I guess I can't really say. I'd like to think I'd become pro-life, but then again, I can't see those conditions ever really being fulfilled. Sorry. :("

I understand that, but I still think the attitude is defeatist. The majority of those conditions don't seem impossible. Why fight for feminism in this society at all?

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 1, 2008 10:53 PM


Why fight for human rights across the globe? There will probably not be world peace in your lifetime. Maybe not even ever. Is fighting for human rights pointless?

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 1, 2008 11:01 PM


I don't think it's pointless, PIP. But like I said earlier, you don't put the cart before the horse. So I'm fighting for those things to be filled first. Then we can worry about abortion. But if you make abortion illegal before making women equal, you'll just further demean them as human beings.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 11:37 PM


Janet, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I am totally open to answering whatever following questions Bethany has.

What she's arguing is that she can't maintain her viewpoint when mine (that abortion should be legal) is in place. She can. She can see abortion as wrong. So can you. Hell, I can see abortion as wrong. But the difference is, I don't think my viewpoint about whether abortion is right or wrong should have the ability to overrule another person's viewpoint.

If you make abortion illegal, then no one is allowed to dissent.

And you can compare that argument to any number of scenarios. When the ruling body decides for all -- that all should do a certain way, the choice is taken away. When the ruling body leaves the choice up to the people, you can go pro or anti.

But when you (and Bethany) are speaking about abortion, it isn't just that you are speaking about whether abortion is right or wrong. We can argue that without it being made illegal. But, you are speaking about legalized abortion ... which is an important distinction to make.

Posted by: Edyt at May 1, 2008 11:44 PM


Edyt, I understand what you are saying perfectly. There is no need to clarify. Like Janet said, my posts are a disagreement, not confusion. My post about Roe Vs. Wade, I assumed it was obvious that I was being facetious, but I think I will try to put a note at the end of my posts like that in order to help you see this.

She can see abortion as wrong. So can you. Hell, I can see abortion as wrong.

Really? So, why is abortion wrong, Edyt?

Guys, guys, I'm not talking about the unborn here. I'm differentiating between forcing your opinion on others and allowing a person to chose.

Do you differentiate between forcing our opinion on rapists, and allowing rapists to "choose" rape as well? Does your logic apply to all other injustices or just this one?

And you can compare that argument to any number of scenarios.

Yes, like rape, and domestic abuse. The best thing for everyone is to allow freedom of choice in these situations, obviously. *note, sarcasm*

If you make abortion illegal, then no one is allowed to dissent.

When you made abortion legal, no unborn child was allowed to dissent. They were killed before they had the opportunity.

How could I not know what it [being pro-life] means? You and others here are constantly telling me what it is.

Okay, Edyt. Enlighten me as to what you believe pro-life is. What does pro-life mean to you?

And please do explain "why" abortion is wrong, in your opinion.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 6:33 AM


PIP, you made some excellent points last night!

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 6:44 AM


Bethany,

Exactly. I was going to say the same thing.

Rapists want all colors of M & M's also. Do we make rape legal, and let them eat red M & M's? Or by taking away their choice, are we taking away the red M & M's...

We can talk about whether rape is right or wrong later. You can have an opinion on rape, and I can have an opinion on rape. But if we make rape illegal, then we are forcing our "opinion" on another group of people. By making it legal, we are simply allowing each individual the "Choice" of whether or not they want to be rapists.

The problem with Edyts analogy is that she is forgetting that harm is coming to another person, who has NO CHOICE in what happens to them.

And continuing with the flaws in Edyt's thinking...do we first try to reason with rapists, teach rape in schools, and eliminate the "need" for rape, before we make it illegal.

Isn't the point of creating a law banning a certain action, that people aren't always capable of making moral decisions? Isn't that why there are speeding laws? We all know speeding is bad and can potentially harm another person, but people speed anyway. So we had to make laws saying that if you speed, you will have to be disciplined.

We all know rape is wrong. But people still rape. So, for those who can't control their impulses, we have made laws, punishing those that give in to their desires.

If we followed Edyts line of thinking there would be NO laws, ever. We would simply try to "REASON" with the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world. Try to address their MOTIVES for killing and eating people. Jeffrey has the right to his candy, after all.

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 6:57 AM


We can discuss abortion later, but I want to make sure Bethany understands this concept first, okay? :

Edyt, do you really, really believe that your position on abortion is so unique that we haven't heard it all before, and that we do not understand the concept?

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 7:03 AM


Good morning, Marykay!

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 7:08 AM


Edyt,

Why not introduce these measures simultaneously? I currently support pro-life legislation, but I also write letters to my college leaders urging them to help pregnant women more (etc).

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 2, 2008 8:39 AM


MK, 6:57 a.m.

Amen, amen, amen. Logical even early in the morning...you're so talented!

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 2, 2008 10:15 AM


Imagine you're standing around a room with a bunch of people who are pointing at a baby and saying "Yup, it's a grape alright."

And you say, "Actually, I'd say it's more baby like, perhaps a human being."

And they say, "No, it's a grape. I read it in my horticulture class (and we all know that everything you learn in college is absolute truth)."

And you say, "That book was written by someone who'd never seen, touched, or held a baby."

They say, "It is the only valid source of information on grapes."

So you go, "Look, I can prove it's not a grape." And you take out a sonogram, point to the arms, legs and head, and it's sucking it's thumb. We show a DNA chart, proving it's human, and show them from the dictionary the definition of "baby", but they keep saying, "Nope nope, it is definitely a grape. On top of that, it's inside the woman and you can't see it."

So on top of that, you're trying to say, "actually, babies are still human beings, despite the fact that they are living inside the woman. They have their own separate DNA and genetic code, and even their own separate blood type.", and "besides, they don't even look like grapes. They look like babies., and despite your calculations, conclusions, and even some very well researched articles about babies and grapes, and how completely opposite they are, these people do nothing but stand around and say "Definitely a grape. Definitely. Definitely."

They don't even try to dispute your argument. At best, they remind you that the baby is inside the womb, to prove it's not a person.

After awhile they get tired of you and say you're going to spend the rest of your life trying to assign personhood to nonviable, insensate, mindless grapes, and that the horticulture class has ALL information about all about grapes and wouldn't make a mistake about them not being babies if they really were, and eventually you get tired and fed up and feel like people are being intentionally mean for no good reason, so you say.

"FINE, BELIEVE IT'S JUST MINDLESS INSENSATE NON-VIABLE GRAPES, YOU IDIOTS."

And they say, "You'll never win anyone over to your side by calling them an idiot."

So you sigh and throw up your hands and leave.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 11:50 AM


Why doesn't she demand that studs subsidize their sexual proclivities rather than see their muses starve to death?

Hmmmm... You get to have responsibility-free sex with a woman whose ass is getting smaller. Sounds like a win/win to me.

Posted by: Selfish Stud at May 2, 2008 3:20 PM


Yeah, because we all know that a marriage certificate protects you from any kind of disease, drama and heartache.

It protected me.

Posted by: Tony at May 2, 2008 3:23 PM


Edyt: But when you (and Bethany) are speaking about abortion, it isn't just that you are speaking about whether abortion is right or wrong. We can argue that without it being made illegal. But, you are speaking about legalized abortion ... which is an important distinction to make.

So right and wrong are not absolute, because courts can change that by creating laws. With that kind of reasoning, we can do what ever we want as long as we don't get caught. Right or wrong. "As long as it's legal, hey...."

When the ruling body decides for all -- that all should do a certain way, the choice is taken away. When the ruling body leaves the choice up to the people, you can go pro or anti.

No kidding. A three year old would understand that statement. If Mom decides to tell Johhny it's OK to touch a hot stove, because he should have a choice, is it automatically ok if he does and gets burned? NO!! ( Johhny's Mom must have a screw loose, or be lacking in common sense.) Same with the courts concerning abortion. Just because they say it's ok and give women the choice doesn't make it OK to kill an unborn baby. (The Supreme court that legalized abortion was lacking in common sense.)

Do you see the parallels?

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 3:27 PM


So right and wrong are not absolute, because courts can change that by creating laws. With that kind of reasoning, we can do what ever we want as long as we don't get caught. Right or wrong. "As long as it's legal, hey...."

Well, Janet, you indeed can do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught - that's the way it is now, regardless of whether one imagines "external morality" or not.

"Legal" or not isn't the issue, there - if the possibility of getting caught is real, then the act must already be against the law/rules.
......

If Mom decides to tell Johhny it's OK to touch a hot stove, because he should have a choice, is it automatically ok if he does and gets burned? NO!! ( Johhny's Mom must have a screw loose, or be lacking in common sense.) Same with the courts concerning abortion. Just because they say it's ok and give women the choice doesn't make it OK to kill an unborn baby. (The Supreme court that legalized abortion was lacking in common sense.)

No, it wasn't "lacking in common sense." At the most that's your opinion.

For Johnny, no it's not okay to touch the stove, if the desire is for him not to get burned. If one wants him to learn a lesson, then maybe it's okay. Same for many other things, including those where he wouldn't be really injured.

The Supreme Court did not say "All women should have abortions." It realized that it's a matter of personal privacy, since the unborn are inside the body of a woman.

On the "ruling body deciding for all," when we are talking about taking away freedoms, then I think it should be unanimous or nearly so. The vast disagreement over the abortion issue shows that in no way is there such sentiment, and thus it's much better to leave it as the decision of the individual.

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 5:09 PM


Imagine you're standing around a room with a bunch of people who are pointing at a baby and saying "Yup, it's a grape alright."

Bethany, if it's actually a born infant, then the example is exceedingly farfetched.

Heck, even for the unborn it's farfetched. But, with the unborn then "baby" or not has much less agreement than after birth.

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 5:13 PM


And, after birth, there's a point where 50% of people are going to feel it's no longer a baby. It's quite a subjective deal.

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 5:14 PM


Doug, my post was a parody of Edyt's 2:53 PM post.
:)

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 5:36 PM


And, after birth, there's a point where 50% of people are going to feel it's no longer a baby. It's quite a subjective deal.

what?

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 5:47 PM


And, after birth, there's a point where 50% of people are going to feel it's no longer a baby. It's quite a subjective deal.

Lol, too true.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 8:16 PM


So right and wrong are not absolute, because courts can change that by creating laws.

Exactly. Homosexuality is a prime example. Some find it wrong. Some find it right. Some states have laws against it, others have laws giving them the right to marry. No, your morals are not absolute. Over time, societies shift their perspectives of right and wrong.

No kidding. A three year old would understand that statement.

Well, then it's not my fault that Bethany cannot understand it or that she pretends to not understand.

If Mom decides to tell Johhny it's OK to touch a hot stove, because he should have a choice, is it automatically ok if he does and gets burned? NO!! ( Johhny's Mom must have a screw loose, or be lacking in common sense.) Same with the courts concerning abortion. Just because they say it's ok and give women the choice doesn't make it OK to kill an unborn baby. (The Supreme court that legalized abortion was lacking in common sense.)

He does have a choice. But ... there will be consequences. Just like a thief can choose to steal or not. Is it morally wrong? That's debatable. Legally? Yes. And if he gets caught, he'll be punished. The little boy will suffer immediate consequences from touching the stove.

But his mother is looking out for his best interests by saying "don't touch the stove" the same way the law is looking out for people by saying "don't steal." When everyone abides by a certain code of conduct, we have a peaceful society. Likewise, there may be societies where "stealing" is not considered wrong because everything is shared among the community. It's a matter of perspective.

Because there are so many dissenting opinions on whether abortion should be legal or not, the court decided to do what it felt was best for the people by making the choice personal, rather than legal. And like Doug said, it didn't say everyone should have an abortion. That's a critical part of this discussion, because no one's views are being trampled on. You can still dissent to abortion, you can protest in front of clinics and offer to help women who are thinking about getting abortions. But you cannot make that decision for someone else, and I'm sorry if you think that is taking away your right to an opinion.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 8:26 PM


Edyt,

Are you ignoring me?

Posted by: mk at May 2, 2008 8:58 PM


No, was there a certain post you wanted me to respond to?

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 9:00 PM


But you cannot make that decision for someone else, and I'm sorry if you think that is taking away your right to an opinion.

It isn't about "our opinion". It's about a baby's life.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:00 PM


Edyt: Don't be sorry for me, this isn't about me. I'm sorry for all those babies who won't see the light of day because of the abortion laws in this country.

the court decided to do what it felt was best for the people

Feelings are not normally what good law is based on. Any lawyers in the house?

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:08 PM


Bethany: 9:00: great minds think alike. Lol.
:)


Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:10 PM


What Edyt doesn't seem to understand is that it isn't a situation like smoking, or homosexuality, where someone can be against it but still support the right of people do do those things.

Abortion victimizes an actual person. Edyt seems to overlook this fact and use analogies that compare abortion to something as simple as smoking, which only affects the person who smokes. Abortion affects two people, not just one.

This is the biggest reason why she doesn't understand our arguments, and feels that we are ignoring or misunderstanding her points. But we don't misunderstand what she's saying- we see perfectly what she's saying, and we simply disagree.

Janet, hope you're having a good evening.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:15 PM


No, Bethany, I understand you perspective. But you were deliberately distorting my statements and I called you out on it. I'm not overlooking the death of a person. I'm speaking about how and why laws are made and who they affect and how.

You want to make this a "moral" issue and the fact is, most laws aren't moral laws. They may be based off morals, but their purpose is not to create a system of morality. They're creating a working system of people.

I fully understand abortion kills a human being. I'm not ignoring that point at all. However, you don't make a law just because 50% of people want it to be made, and you don't make a law simply because it's a moral issue. Those are the points I'm trying to make.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 9:23 PM


Edyt, you have a good evening too!

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:24 PM


Bethany-I'm having a good night. Hope you are too!

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:27 PM


No, Bethany, I understand you perspective. But you were deliberately distorting my statements and I called you out on it. I'm not overlooking the death of a person. I'm speaking about how and why laws are made and who they affect and how.
You want to make this a "moral" issue and the fact is, most laws aren't moral laws. They may be based off morals, but their purpose is not to create a system of morality. They're creating a working system of people.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, you don't allow people to kill other people in order to "create a working system of people." It doesn't work, Edyt. Never has, never will. It didn't work with slavery, when slavery was legal, and black people were considered sub humans (according to the LAW). And it doesn't work today.

I fully understand abortion kills a human being. I'm not ignoring that point at all.

How are you not? When you say that certain conditions must be met before you can even think of protecting human life, I do not think you realize or acknowledge that they are truly human beings worthy of protection. In your mind, they are sub-human, just as black people used to be when slavery was legal.

However, you don't make a law just because 50% of people want it to be made, and you don't make a law simply because it's a moral issue. Those are the points I'm trying to make.

I understand, I just disagree.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:29 PM


Thanks, Janet. I have a few pencil drawings I should be working on now. I am working on a really sad one this week. A woman who had a miscarriage at 15 weeks sent me pictures of her babies and wanted me to draw a memorial for them. It breaks my heart imagining what she must have gone through, losing them. Especially when I remember that these babies could have been killed legally and no justice would have been served. These babies are so lucky that while they were alive, they were loved by their mommy.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:35 PM


Oops, I forgot to mention they were twin boys. :(

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:36 PM


You know, it's a lot less frustrating when you say things indicating you understand what I'm saying rather than mock it.

Nevertheless, I'm done for today. Maybe I'll respond tomorrow, maybe not.

Take care.

Posted by: Edyt at May 2, 2008 9:37 PM


Edyt, I didn't realize I wasn't communicating well enough with you before. I will try better from now on.

Posted by: Bethany at May 2, 2008 9:39 PM


Edyt: Point taken.We disagree

You want to make this a "moral" issue and the fact is, most laws aren't moral laws. They may be based off morals, but their purpose is not to create a system of morality. They're creating a working system of people.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

They're creating a working system of people.

A who? I've never heard the phrase before.


Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:42 PM


Edyt:

Bethany doesn't mock people. She is one of the kindest people I know. Have a good evening:)

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:44 PM


Bethany,
I'm sure she will appreciate your drawing of her miscarried babies.
How wonderful that you can do that for her. God bless you!

Posted by: Janet at May 2, 2008 9:46 PM


:: Bowing low to Bethany's artistic skill. ::

Posted by: Doug at May 2, 2008 10:20 PM


Abortion is fantastic. I'm a huge fan.

Posted by: Mary at October 1, 2008 11:18 PM