Happy Mother's Day from Planned Parenthood

"Happy Mother's Day" greetings from Planned Parenthood are as grotesque as its "Choice on Earth" Christmas greetings.

Today PP CEO Cecile Richards issued an email plea for $ under the guise of a Mother's Day greeting and using her dead mother and daughter as props.

This pathetic woman is so psychologically and emotionally invested in abortion she has no semblance of a conscience left. If and when she has grandchildren, I'm sure she'll use them, too.

Note the numerous purposeful times she - or, rather, PP's pr firm - invokes the words "mother," "daughter," and "grandmother."

"Legacy"? What legacy? Pro-aborts can leave no legacy, another reason we can undoubtedly know our side will eventually win - through attrition.

cecile mother's day.jpg

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


Comments:

"Millions of women and families are without access to health care....Women's rights are suffering."

PP, It's been 35 years since Roe v. Wade. Whatch'all been doing down there in Texas?

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 4:11 PM


Right. Because ALL pro choice women have abortions. That explains 3, and soon enough, 4 generations of my family existing.

Funny that we were just talking about completely ridiculous exaggerations in the previous post.

How about we do some math Jill?

The last estimate of the U.S. population was 301,139,947.

Most studies show that about 60% of Americans are pro choice, but just to be perfectly fair, lets say its half and half. That means about 150,569,973 Americans are pro choice.

Lets say half of them are women. Now we have roughly. 75,284,987 pro choice women in America (if we assume children follow in their parents beliefs which tends to be the case either way).

The current abortion rate in the US hovers around 1 million abortions per year.

The current birth rate in the US hovers around 4.2 million

There is absolutely no statistical possibility that only pro lifers are having children and only pro choicers are aborting.

SO it will take roughly.. uhhh... never... for pro choice women to eliminate themselves.

Good try though.

And I'd love to see you try to explain to my grandmother that her family has no legacy because she is pro choice, while she shows you pictures of her 4 kids and 7 grandchildren. One of whom will be a dad soon. Nope. No legacy at all.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 4:13 PM


Legacy that's a joke! How dumb are these people? you can't leave a legacy if you suck it down the down the sink or continue to use contraceptives. Lord, I can't wait until we pro-lifers overpopulate these nutters!

Oh and in case your wondering pro-aborts I plan (god-willing) to have 14 children. It will be a wonderful day when abortion is finally outlawed. No more killing black babies on account of Klanned Parenthood's racism or leaving women scarred for life with guilt.

Posted by: Adlyn at May 6, 2008 4:16 PM


I saw a bumper sticker yesterday "Smile, your mother was pro-life." Except she isn't. She's pro choice. She had me by choice. I smiled anyway.

Posted by: Hal at May 6, 2008 4:32 PM


Since when can PC people NOT have children? Was a new law passed in my absence that says people who are PC can not have children?

Posted by: midnite678 at May 6, 2008 4:38 PM


Legacy that's a joke! How dumb are these people? you can't leave a legacy if you suck it down the down the sink or continue to use contraceptives. Lord, I can't wait until we pro-lifers overpopulate these nutters!

Oh and in case your wondering pro-aborts I plan (god-willing) to have 14 children. It will be a wonderful day when abortion is finally outlawed. No more killing black babies on account of Klanned Parenthood's racism or leaving women scarred for life with guilt.
Posted by: Adlyn at May 6, 2008 4:16 PM

OMG....Adlyn; Have you lost your mind? Cant leave a legacy if you're PC....Hmmm, so my mother and I are invisible. I guess my children will be invisible too and not count since I am PC. WOW...

Now, please show me something reliable that says the KKK has ANYTHING to do with PP.

Posted by: midnite678 at May 6, 2008 4:43 PM


Amanda your grandmother had 4 children. My grandmothers (on both sides) had 13 and 9 children each. Each of those families had large families as well. I'd say 7 grandchildren from 4 children really isn't alot of children. Proaborts may be having children but they are definitely having them at a much lower rate than prolifers. In fact this is now showing demographically because states that were strongly democratic are turning and will be turning republican in the next 10 to 20 years. The proabort left liberal ideologues recognize this. Many are now saying that in order to prevent themselves from being outbirthed by prolife fecund conservatives, laws should be enacted restricting family size for EVERYONE - not just the proabort liberals who do so out of ideology.

Little Lily is an abortion survivor as is Hal!

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 4:45 PM


I saw a bumper sticker yesterday "Smile, your mother was pro-life." Except she isn't. She's pro choice. She had me by choice. I smiled anyway.

Posted by: Hal at May 6, 2008 4:32 PM

That's a good sign, Hal!

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 4:49 PM


What a bummer for her proud legacy if both daughters and the son turned out pro-life.

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 5:11 PM


Reading about Planned Barrenhood can make me nauseous faster than just about anything. And when they try to be "family oriented", that just about puts me over the edge. How can anyone look at that photo and not wonder where the aborted kids are? Why don't they have them there in a little glass jar, to show us how proud they are of ALL their kids?

Posted by: Doyle at May 6, 2008 5:22 PM


Doyle, I don't like 'em (PP) any better than you do, but let's remember the dignity the aborted babies deserve and not talk about babies in jars, OK?

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 6:42 PM


@Patricia: Okay, so my grandparents came from families of of 13, 15 kids and my dad's parents only had 4 kids (lots of miscarriages), would have been 5 kids but the oldest daughter was killed during birth because of stupid, incompetent doctors and nurses, and my mom's parents only had 6 kids (lots of miscarriages).

Let's see what else...

On my dad's side of the family there are 8 grandkids, and 7-8 great grandkids. One of my aunts was unable to have children, so she adopted.

On my mom's side of the family (the Catholic side) I have ~6-7 cousins (unknown how many children my idiot loser of an uncle has fathered and hasn't told us about). Again, lots of reproductive problems on this side of the family as well. My aunt became infurtile after one child. One uncle was completely sterile (his wife ended up leaving him, and he died of cancer). One aunt had a hell of a time getting pregnant and didn't get pregnant until she was ~35 through IVF.

And guess what? Both sides of the family are pro-life.

Look how many kids they're having...not a lot are there. Keep your generalizations to yourself, thx.

Posted by: Rae at May 6, 2008 7:24 PM


When my mom left us, she was as unrepentant a feminist as any woman who ever lived.

Interesting choice of words- to describe someone as "unrepentant" when they died. Especially since I prayed and prayed that Ann Richards did repent, and I pray that Cecile will as well.

I see progress in Cecile's heart, despite her outward demeanor. I have such hope for her salvation and I pray daily for her conversion. If God could change the heart of the murdering Saul, he can change the heart of the murdering Cecile.

As of right now, my heart breaks for both of them.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2008 7:38 PM


I saw a bumper sticker yesterday "Smile, your mother was pro-life." Except she isn't. She's pro choice. She had me by choice. I smiled anyway.

You neglect to realize that you are only able to smile because she chose life. Being birthed by a mother that would have killed you had she concieved you in different circumstances or simply didn't want to be pregnant or whatever reason- this doesn't make you special, Hal. It makes you damn lucky. You should realize that.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2008 7:42 PM


Explain this, choicers:

This is something I don't understand, feeling like you are special because you were planned or simply not aborted by a mother that would have killed you if it suited her.

Now, I was unplanned (I view it as crashing some big party!), but I was conceived by a woman that would never ever kill me. My mother views all human life as special and regardless of circumstances, she'd never kill her children.

So here's what I don't get: It could have been you. It could not have been me (thanks be to mom), but you narrowly, due to circumstances outside of your control, barely escaped a suction machine.

How do you then justify killing your children when you were spared? You are survivors. I'm not- I was safe, and yet I still crusade for the right to live. You'd think you'd be so overwhelmed with gratitude for not being killed that you'd extend the same mercy to your children.

Hal's mom choose to birth him. His response to being allowed to live was to kill two of his children. How do you justify this? You exist at the mercy of someone, yet you can't extend that mercy? Woe to you.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 6, 2008 7:50 PM


I look at it this way. If my mother never had that abortion in her twenties, she never would have married my father 7 years later, and never would have had me or my four brothers.

I think choice I'm alive.

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 8:02 PM


Edyt: FYI, I left a few comments for you on the May 2, "Shvarts" thread. (Click on the May Archives at the right to access.) ~Janet

Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2008 8:11 PM


You are missing a sibling, Edyt.

Posted by: Carla at May 6, 2008 8:39 PM


Ms Richards is a money hungry woman. Doesn't PP already get $$$$$$ in the millions of Tax Payers money already?

Sheesh.

They're all about denying motherhood, they don't celebrate it!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 6, 2008 8:49 PM


Edyt: Your mother COULD have had that baby and given it up for adoption. She may still have married your father and had her family.

Wow Rae, nasty nasty post eh? Something touched a nerve with you!
The fact is that if a person is prolife they are probably gonna have more kids. Prolifers are generally more conservative folks who have some sort of religious affiliation. Therefore, they tend to have trust in God's providence and are more open to unexpected, unplanned pregnancies. They know God has a plan and will look after them. They might also NOT be popping as many pills as you proaborts.
I think prolifers and proaborts probably both live their ideologies. With proaborts - their ideology doesn't include alot of children. Their more interested in saving the baby seals..

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 8:54 PM


Carla, nah, my parents believe he or she is in heaven, and if that's true then I'm not missing anyone at all. If heaven exists then aborted and miscarried babies are taking the easy road there!

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 8:56 PM


Janet, thanks! I'll head over there. I keep meaning to check back to that thread but things keep coming up. I'll take some time to read those posts and respond now.

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 8:57 PM


Jackie

There is nothing more meaningful to me than knowing my mom WANTED and CHOSE me, and was not forced through fear of punishment to have me.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 8:58 PM


Patricia, I think if my mother had chosen any other way of life I probably would not exist. Knowing my mother, if she went through the pregnancy she probably would've tried to keep the kid and the ex. There's very little chance she would be working the job she had when she met my father, since I don't think they were in the practice of hiring mothers at that time.

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 9:00 PM


Edyt,
Your mom is prolife, am I right? I can't remember. :)
Did she talk about her abortion at all? I know you don't have a very good relationship with her. I am just curious. I too believe the baby I aborted(Aubrey)and the two I miscarried(Jamie and Lee)are in heaven.

Posted by: Carla at May 6, 2008 9:00 PM


Jacqueline: great posts with some interesting ideas!

I'm wondering if it's like the alcoholic family. People grow up in such a family and KNOW first hand the horrors of it, but still are alcoholics or have addictive behaviours. We all are attracted to things that are familiar to us. Hal's mother chose abortion as a way out of her problem and Hal did the same. The same way of coping with a problem - don't face it, just get rid of it, the easiest way possible. Then they have excuses, excuses, excuses.
Reminds me of the mom and 2 daughters I met outside a clinic in here in Canada. The mom had an abortion, the eldest daughter also and they led the youngest in to join them in the slaughter of their own babies. Very tragic, and very very sad. Especially since the third time around, there really was an option available to them.

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 9:01 PM


"If heaven exists then aborted and miscarried babies are taking the easy road there!

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 8:56 PM

What a statement to make. There are nicer ways to get to heaven than having yourself disemboweled and dismembered Edyt.

How do you feel knowing that the life you and your family have was at the expense of the life of a sibling. I know this would really bother me. Did her marriage break up after the abortion?

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 9:07 PM


Ohhhh sorry Patricia, I didn't realize legacy was determined by quantity rather than quality.

I'll tell that to my friends Dad, one of 14, who was shoved on a ship with two of his older brothers from Ireland because his parents couldn't afford to feed all the kids in the house. He worked in a factory in Lawrence Mass. Two more of his brothers came over, and ended up dying in Vietnam. He didn't see his parents again until their funerals. Last year he went over to visit and found out a sister he'd never even met killed herself. Yeah. That sounds SOOO much better than my family. Its ALL about the numbers. You're so right.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 9:08 PM


"Wow Rae, nasty nasty post eh? Something touched a nerve with you!
The fact is that if a person is prolife they are probably gonna have more kids. Prolifers are generally more conservative folks who have some sort of religious affiliation. Therefore, they tend to have trust in God's providence and are more open to unexpected, unplanned pregnancies. They know God has a plan and will look after them. They might also NOT be popping as many pills as you proaborts.
I think prolifers and proaborts probably both live their ideologies. With proaborts - their ideology doesn't include alot of children. Their more interested in saving the baby seals.."

Patricia...KNOCK IT OFF. I wasn't even trying to be "nasty" to you, quit acting like you're so darn persecuted. I was pointing out to you that not ALL PLers are able to reproduce like rabbits and that all choicers have like...1 kid tops. Generalizations are NOT COOL. I was merely trying to illustrate that my family, while PL, was not able to be *big*, even though my grandparents never used BC nor did my grandparents ever abort (in fact...my grandmother's oldest daughter was KILLED due to incompetence).

Do you have any studies or polls that demonstrate that PLers have more kids than PCers? Or do you just have just anecdotal evidence?

First, your generalization about religious people believing God will provide, here's a little tale about that.

My aunt (my dad's sister) and uncle got hitched right after high school graduation because she was knocked up with my cousin Angela. Now, my uncle became an alcoholic shortly after and couldn't hold a job. Eventually he "found God" and became an evangelical Baptist and quit drinking. He STILL couldn't hold a job and the family was flat broke (why my aunt stayed with him is beyond me). Anyway, he always said, "The Lord will provide." everytime he lost a job or something and you know who "the Lord" was? My grandfather. My grandpa didn't like my uncle because he was well...a moron, and he didn't want to see his daughter suffering, so he constantly bailed them out of trouble until my uncle got his act together.

Yeah...God provided alright.

And stop lumping me in with "pro-aborts".

Posted by: Rae at May 6, 2008 9:22 PM


Oh Amanda really!
Your parents couldn't afford to feed their children in Ireland because of the political situation over there and NOT because they had too many children.
The fact is that it is about numbers honey. Prolifers and proaborts live their ideologies. With proaborts - their ideology doesn't include alot of children. Period. It includes recreational and premarital sex (strongly encouraged among teens), contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage (which by the way, doesn't naturally produce children), divorce, over the top environmentalism and a host of other wonderful liberating experiences. None of these really are conducive to producing children (except the teen sex which is usually followed by abortion).
So keep living your ideology Amanda and we'll keep living ours. And our children will fill the empty spots you guys leave in the universities and the government.

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 9:27 PM


Rae,
I'm not interested in your family history, quite frankly.
Go to a prolife rally or a homeschool conference and see all the 15 seater vans that pull up with the family inside Rae. It's a standing joke with home schoolers.
Go to a proabort rally and see the individuals that come.
It's a totally different lifestyle.
By the way, I don't feel persecuted at all. My family too has it's share of horror stories AND couples who could not have children.

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 9:32 PM


First of all, it wasn't my family, it was my friends dad.

Second of all, how dare you make assumptions as to the reason people you don't even know are poor? How the HECK would you know? Seriously?

You're making completely ridiculous assumptions, rude, ignorant generalizations, and grandstanding like you know whats best for everyone.

You DONT.

A family is a family, regardless of how many children a couple decides to have or whether or not they were adopted.

My grandmother had THREE miscarriages, not that you would give a damn what she went through - since her legacy fails because she didn't make enough babies, right?

If you feel that the only way you feel your life is complete is to have 349834243293 kids, GOOD FOR YOU. That's not what everyone wants, regardless of their views of abortion.


Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 9:36 PM


"Being birthed by a mother that would have killed you had she concieved you in different circumstances or simply didn't want to be pregnant or whatever reason- this doesn't make you special, Hal. It makes you damn lucky. You should realize that."

Fine, whatever. I'm lucky. Who cares? There are plenty of people to have some kind of special life here on earth if I had been aborted, (or never conceived). Little fertilized egg Hal could have failed to implant, I would never have known. Should I feel "damn lucky" for that? There are lots of things I am truly grateful for and for which I believe I am lucky. Being born isn't one of them.

Posted by: Hal at May 6, 2008 9:43 PM


Today PP CEO Cecile Richards issued an email plea for $ under the guise of a Mother's Day greeting and using her dead mother and daughter as props.

As an anti-choicer, Jill knows all about using the elderly and children as props.

This pathetic woman is so psychologically and emotionally invested in abortion she has no semblance of a conscience left. If and when she has grandchildren, I'm sure she'll use them, too.

Boy, Jill, you really seem offended that pro-choice women choose to have families. At least Cecile isn't putting her children out on the side of busy streets to hold provocative signs for hours at a time.

"Legacy"? What legacy? Pro-aborts can leave no legacy, another reason we can undoubtedly know our side will eventually win - through attrition.

Planned Parenthood has been operating since 1916, and still going strong. If you want to defeat the pro-reality movement by out-breeding us, you'd better kick your uterus in to high gear.

Posted by: reality at May 6, 2008 9:43 PM


Your mom is prolife, am I right? I can't remember. :)
Did she talk about her abortion at all? I know you don't have a very good relationship with her. I am just curious. I too believe the baby I aborted(Aubrey)and the two I miscarried(Jamie and Lee)are in heaven.

Carla, I've always assumed she was pro-life, but now I wonder if she truly is or if she just said abortion was wrong because she didn't want me to get knocked up..? I don't know for sure, but if I had to guess I'd say she leans pro-life.

She mentioned it a loooooong time ago and I can't remember the exact circumstances around why or when she told me. I just remember judging her very harshly for it, which I now regret.

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 9:45 PM


What a statement to make. There are nicer ways to get to heaven than having yourself disemboweled and dismembered Edyt.

Sure, but if I knew without a doubt I'd be going to the happiest place in existence, I wouldn't care about a little fleeting pain. I mean, think about it: they never have to go through a bad break-up or eat bad food, they don't ever have to worry about sinning or being a good person, they don't have to go through puberty or learn difficult math...

I think life has a lot less to offer than heaven, honestly. What's the problem with me saying that?

How do you feel knowing that the life you and your family have was at the expense of the life of a sibling. I know this would really bother me. Did her marriage break up after the abortion?

She wasn't married. And the relationship broke off after he hit her. I don't know if that was before or after the pregnancy or abortion. Like I said before, I don't exactly have a close relationship with my folks so I don't know details.

How do I feel? Well, I don't really feel much of anything either way. He/she died, the five of us lived. What can I say about it?! That's the way it happened! Am I supposed to go kill myself out of guilt that I'm alive and my half-sibling is not?

Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2008 9:51 PM


"Planned Parenthood has been operating since 1916, and still going strong. If you want to defeat the pro-reality movement by out-breeding us, you'd better kick your uterus in to high gear. "


Yeah! Jill, how many children do you have? Because according to Patricia, 4 isn't enough! A woman only having 4 kids can't possibly have a legacy, she needs to have more!

Better get crackin! Apparently you need to be able to fill a mini-bus to be an adequate parent!!

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 9:53 PM


Rae - I find it fascinating that despite the fact that you are pro life, a select few posters on here regularly lump you in with "pro aborts" because your views differ from theirs on other topics... even though if you asked most of them, they'd say abortion is the most important issue of our time...

the "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us (and therefore you're a pro abort)" mentality is very interesting to me.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 9:57 PM


PP CEO Cecile Richards,

how do you live with yourself? being the head of a corporation that snuffs the life out of unborn children.

Posted by: Jasper at May 6, 2008 10:01 PM


Amanda,
People are not able to feed large families necessarily because of the number of children. They can't feed them because the society around them doesn't see the need to help and because there are many many social injustices.
The fault is not necessarily the parents or the number of children. It's true that sometimes parents would do well to stop having child after child if they cannot support them. But the agencies that were in the business of helping the poor (mainly the Catholic Church through it's system of monasteries) were largely destroyed during the period after the Reformation. It's taken many centuries to replace this. The lot until recently has fallen on other family members and members of the extended family. With the fragmentation of the family today, there is less likely to be someone there to help.


"A family is a family, regardless of how many children a couple decides to have or whether or not they were adopted. "

I've never stated differently, so I don't know where you came up with the idea that I don't support this.


My point Amanda was that liberals do not have the same family size as conservatives. This is borne out by demographic research. Family size is directly correlated with church attendance with those attending church stating that the ideal family size is 3 or more children.Liberals who tend not to be church goers have fewer children on average.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but that is what the demographic research shows.

Posted by: Patricia at May 6, 2008 10:03 PM


@Amanda: *shrugs* I've never noticed that towards me, mostly because I usually don't discuss my views on here anymore. I've noticed it towards a few other people, but those certain people are very good with standing their ground and paying no mind to their detractors.

All that really matters it that the people who I respect, respect me in return. I don't ask for respect from those I don't respect.

Posted by: Rae at May 6, 2008 10:03 PM


Jasper, I think she's like lots of business people and politicians out there. All they see is $$$$.

Whether its abortion, sweat shops, child labor, failure to provide a living wage, maternity benefits, etc... I think the people who run these major corporations stop seeing people and start seeing dots on graphs and whether or not they are helping or hurting the bottom line.

I vehemently disagree with the tone of Jills post that just because someone is Pro Choice they cannot leave a legacy in their family, but as far as Cecile Richards goes, I think she's a liar and I rolled my eyes at this letter just as I'm sure you did. If all that she mentioned was that important to her, she'd be budgeting more than 15k a year to keep college educated employees who want to HELP young moms do the right thing for their kids.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 10:09 PM


Patricia 4:45 PM: Amanda your grandmother had 4 children. My grandmothers (on both sides) had 13 and 9 children each. Each of those families had large families as well. I'd say 7 grandchildren from 4 children really isn't alot of children.

Patricia 10:03 PM: "those attending church stating that the ideal family size is 3 or more children"

Not a math expert here Patricia, but I'm pretty sure that 4 is indeed "3 or more", in fact, its more. So basically it just doesn't count because she's a liberal? (She's not actually. She's a true old school republican who thinks the government shouldn't be in people's personal lives. Despite that, she voted for George Bush in 2000...but no, you're right...no legacy, she's a dirty liberal because she's not pro life. You probably know her better than I do anyway).

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 10:16 PM


@Amanda: You know Patricia doesn't care about your family or their stories. That's not important AT ALL. It's not interesting to her, quite frankly.

Posted by: Rae at May 6, 2008 10:21 PM


Haha, Rae, I thought you were being mean to me and then I scrolled back up and saw what she said to you. Awesome. Well, if I needed to convince myself the generalizations I had in my head were true, I guess I wouldn't be all that interested in people's stories either. That's how I used to be when it came to my generalizations of pro lifers.

Turns out, like ALL generalizations, I was pretty wrong.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 10:31 PM


@Amanda: Eh, perhaps it was immature of me to be catty like that.

Generalizations suck. I still make a lot of them, I try not to though (unless I'm trying to weedle my dad into a fight...er discussion).

But to be honest, as much as this place drives me bonkers most of the time, it really did help me understand many of my old stereotypes and generalizations I used to make were wrong, and I have rectified the situation, or at least, I try to as much as possible.

Posted by: Rae at May 6, 2008 10:41 PM


". I've noticed it towards a few other people, but those certain people are very good with standing their ground and paying no mind to their detractors."

*wink*


BTW, went to a documentary about the death penalty. Pretty much bawled my eyes out.


FOCUS...must study for evolution final.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 6, 2008 10:55 PM


Hey Hal:

I saw a bumper sticker and it said:

"Pro-choice, pro-child"

Now you've got to admit that an aborted baby in heaven might pop a gut over that one.

What do you think Mr. Bumper-Sticker-Afficianado?

Posted by: HisMan at May 6, 2008 11:00 PM


aborted babies in heaven, if they exist (if Heaven exists) probably have such wisdom and understanding of us mere earth-bound humans, that they're just happy and content to watch us struggling through the day.

Posted by: Hal at May 6, 2008 11:05 PM


Make the world a better place...kill a defenseless child.

Happy mother's day, mom. I will always be greatful for your selfless sacrifice of not slaying me in the womb like you did my big sister.

Isa 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Isa 59:14 "And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter."

Posted by: Desley at May 6, 2008 11:17 PM


Desley:

There's only one room for a Bible thumper on this site, got that?

Just kidding....very appropriate. Yep, that oracle in Isaiah became extremly salient when the Pharisees claimed that Jesus healed by the power of Beelzebub. If someone can look at Jesus in the good that he did and call it evil, well, there's a major problem there. Similarly if one can call the murder of a baby in the womb good or somehow justify it, then a twisting of truth has occurred.

Be wary of Hal, he's really got a good heart. He can be brilliantly sarcastic so don't get on his bad side.

Hal, seriously though, in Revelation it talks about those whose innocent blood has been shed crying out to God for vengeance.

Watch this video for the Doctrine of the Shedding of Innocent Blood.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3722098690652929884

Posted by: HisMan at May 6, 2008 11:47 PM


I look at it this way. If my mother never had that abortion in her twenties, she never would have married my father 7 years later, and never would have had me or my four brothers.

I think choice I'm alive.

Ridiculous- There's a difference between never being created and being killed. You think it was okay that your older sibling was killed because you were created. How self-aggrandizing is that, to think that your being concieved and allowed to live justifies your brother/sisters death? So you are more important than he/she is?

Conception is a miracle. So many factors affect whether or not I exist- my parents could have never met- had a fight while dating and never married, had a car accident, anything. A butterfly flaps his wings in China- Any tiny little thing meant the difference between my existence and non-existence- so to credit your brother/sisters murder with your life is like me crediting the person that built the hospital where my parents met, crediting any little thing for my existence.

Your mom killing your sibling isn't justified by the fact that you exist.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 12:28 AM


Fine, whatever. I'm lucky. Who cares?

You don't care? I beg to differ. If I tried to steal your life by dismembering you like you had your kids dismembered, I doubt you'd be like "Fine, whatever. Who cares?" You value your life- so much so that in order to keep it exactly like you want it, you'd kill your kids. So don't act like you're apathetic about being alive. You have that luxury because you are big, able-bodied and protected under the law. If you were vulnerable to the fate your children faced, your tune would change.

There are lots of things I am truly grateful for and for which I believe I am lucky. Being born isn't one of them.

Nothing you value would you have if you had not been born. Yet you deny others their birth and all the subsequent things for which you are grateful.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 12:37 AM


There is nothing more meaningful to me than knowing my mom WANTED and CHOSE me, and was not forced through fear of punishment to have me.

No one implied fear of punishment. I'm saying that your mom, who would have killed you, decided for her own reasons not to, and so you have a life that you would deny to others. Do you think being supposedly "wanted" or "chosen" is so important that death is better alternative?

Beyond that, thinking you are some snowflake because your mom wanted to have you and chose not to kill you is a joke. Your birth has nothing to do with you, and everything to do with your mom. It's not that your mom sensed that you were special and decided not to kill you for that reason, it's because she decided it'd be fun. Choosing to birth you doesn't make you special because she didn't know you. She knew her wants, desires and circumstances and decided to birth you.

So your mom could have killed you but for whatever reasons she had (having nothing to do with you), she didn't. And you think this makes your life more meaningful? Would you rather be dismembered than unwanted and not chosen?

Once again: you are alive at the whim of your mothers and their circumstances. You're lucky, not special. You were spared- shouldn't you spare your children?

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 12:45 AM


to Cecile Richards :
Happy Mother's Day to a woman who gestated globs of cells to some point where they eventually became a lives named Lily and Hanna.

And may you have many more unhappy days of regret for all those mothers whose children you have profited from killing.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:58 AM


Jacqueline, again, what do you expect me to do about it? I lived, he/she died. I didn't say his/her death justified my life. I said if my mother hadn't had an abortion there's a very likely possibility I wouldn't exist. Nor would my four brothers. Perhaps someone else might exist, but we wouldn't. She probably wouldn't have ever MET my father (who is the very reason I made it to adulthood) and probably never would have married him.

And that happened probably about 30-35 years ago. Am I supposed to lament and feel guilty and commit suicide over the fact that I had a sibling that didn't get the life I had? Am I supposed to cry myself to sleep over it? Eventually, you have to look and say, well... some people are here because their parents didn't abort, and some people are here because their parents did. And that's not pro-choice nonsense, that's fact.

Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 1:48 AM


Truthseeker:

When does a mother become a mother? At conception or at birth? If a mother is a mother at conception and then kills her baby in the womb, was she just a potential mother?

A parallel question is, when does a father become a father? Why do we say he fathered a child if he only becomes a father at birth?

Should we now have holidays like, "Potential Mother's Day" and "Potential Father's Day"? At least pro-aborts would get a gift out of the deal. They could announce their potential as parents, have the holiday, get a gift, then kill the kid. Not a bad deal, right? Hallmark are you listening?

There's also the question of birthdays. I guess pro-aborts could celebrate potential birthdays. Heck, they could even start a college fund for the rascal, collect some dough from relatives, kill the kid, and then keep the money. I mean Hillary might be on to something here.

Perhaps insurance companies could sell potential life insurance?

If babies are not human and are just blobs of non-sentient cells and tissue, then why do health insurance companies cover them? It's incongruous. Perhaps we should have health insurance for chicken eggs, I mean why discriminate?

How can a Darwinist be pro-abortion when it flies in the face of "natural selection". What is natural about abortion? It's incongruous.

How can a tree hugger be concerned about the death of a spiny assed spring tail frog and not a baby in the womb? It's incongruous.

How can feminists be pro-aborts when abortions kill more girls than boys? It's incongruous.

How can a vegetarian be pro-abortion. Are babies not meat? It's incongruous.

How can Democrats be supported by the black community when Democrats give millions of dollars to an organization (PP) that supports black genocide? It's incongruous.

How can black support Democrats that do the above? It's incongruous.

How can Planned Parenthood call themselves Planned Parenthood when most of what they do does not result in parenthood? It's incongruous. Wouldn't a better name for them be Parenthood Interruptus, LLC?

And if an atheist believes there is no God, and therefore, there is no afterlife, how can they even think of depriving a baby in the womb at his once chance at life? It's incongruous.

If Mr. Dawkins thinks Mother Nature is really the result of aliens depositing life on this planet, you'd think that he'd be worried about what guys with such big eyes and heads would do to him for killing their progeny. Perhap we are just soylent green food fodder for aliens. Yeah, that the ticket. It's incongruous.

I've got another question, if I am an anti-anti-choicer am I pro-choice, pro-life or a pro-abort? It's incongruous.

If I am anti-choicer should I not clip coupons?

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 1:50 AM


HisMan,
How can anybody call themselves sane and support Planned Barrehood. It is incongruos

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:59 AM


I lived, he/she died.

No- he/she was KILLED, the way you support killing others.

And that happened probably about 30-35 years ago. Am I supposed to lament and feel guilty and commit suicide over the fact that I had a sibling that didn't get the life I had?

No- you didn't kill your sibling- so you have no reason to feel guilty. Where you should feel guilty is that you support the killing of other babies and justify that with the fact that hey- you lived.

Am I supposed to cry myself to sleep over it?

Well, at the least, you'd think you'd not support killing children since you recognize that you got to live at the choice of someone and others do not. This isn't some fate like accidents or illnesses- it's a CHOICE, which you support.

Eventually, you have to look and say, well... some people are here because their parents didn't abort, and some people are here because their parents did. And that's not pro-choice nonsense, that's fact.

And being that you're one of the ones that is alive, you don't feel you owe it to those that are at risk of being robbed of what you have?

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 2:13 AM


Edyt: I guess to answer your question, I expect you to extend to unborn babies the same mercy that you got from your mother in not being killed. I expect you to protect unborn babies as a proper response for being spared yourself.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 2:21 AM


@Amanda
I really don't know what has stuck in your craw. I honestly think that we are having two different discussions here. I'm talking about the fact that proaborts and prolifers live out their ideology. It's not a generalization - demographic research shows this to be true - to the extent that US states that are currently politically democratic may change their political colours in 15 to 20 years. The reason for this thinking: if the birthrates between liberal Democrats (who are usually proabortion) are compared with conservative Republicans are compared the latter have significantly higher birthrates. Since 75 to 80 percent of children keep the beliefs of their parents, it may signal a change in voting patterns for these states.
Your families may not fit this trend, but this is the overall trend.Of course there will always be exceptions. However, I have rarely met a couple with say 6 or 8 children who are proabortion and procontraception. That kind of mentality doesn't fit with the lifestyle and people tend to direct their lives according to what they believe.
The whole legacy thing boggles my mind. If liberal proaborts want to leave a legacy of a proabort culture - well they've done just that. We are living it today. I'm just saying that the proabort legacy will not last if they continue to practice what their ideology teaches.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 6:34 AM


BTW, for those who asked about Jess the other day, she's fine and just talking a break from the blog.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 6:48 AM


Reality: Boy, Jill, you really seem offended that pro-choice women choose to have families. At least Cecile isn't putting her children out on the side of busy streets to hold provocative signs for hours at a time.

Those provocative signs are indicative of Cecile's legacy whether you like them or not, and I'd rather my children were on a sidewalk praying with me outside of a PP than in a cushy office somewhere pushing their pro-death/"let's save the world" agenda.

Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2008 6:53 AM


Reality: many prolifers don't send their children out to picket.
Many prolifers go about quietly living their lives and raising their families.
As to Cecile Richards: It's sort of a disconnect to promote abortion and then use your own child as a poster-child for a movement who's main focus is the destruction of children. Just slightly irrational.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 7:10 AM


"Once again: you are alive at the whim of your mothers and their circumstances. You're lucky, not special. You were spared- shouldn't you spare your children?"

Uhh... No. My mom got pregnant on purpose. I wasn't a whim, and I wasn't lucky. She wanted a kid, so she stopped using birth control. I wasn't "lucky", because there was never any chance of my mom having an abortion, despite the fact that she is pro choice, because (novel concept here) SHE DIDNT WANT ONE, SHE WANTED A KID.

And I'd much rather know I'm here because my mom wanted me, and not because she could have paid a fine or gone to jail if she didn't.

Saying "smile your mom chose life" if abortion is made illegal is like saying "smile your parents paid their taxes". Theres nothing spectacular about doing something you're obligated by law to do.


And again - there you go assuming that because I don't want abortion to be illegal, I plan on not "sparing" my children. My boyfriend is one of 4, and he wants 4. We've compromised to have 2 of our own and adopt 2. But nice job generalizing.


Patricia -

"I honestly think that we are having two different discussions here. I'm talking about the fact that proaborts and prolifers live out their ideology. "

Right. Thats why you specifically stated that 7 grandchildren wasn't a lot because your family had more. Because you were talking about demographics. Yep.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 8:25 AM


I'm not generalizing, Amanda. I don't imply that you'll kill your own kids, but that you support the killing of kids, which you do. That's not a generalization, that's a fact.

I wasn't "lucky", because there was never any chance of my mom having an abortion, despite the fact that she is pro choice, because (novel concept here) SHE DIDNT WANT ONE, SHE WANTED A KID.

And people abort children they concieve on purpose all the time. Your life was on your mom's whim, whether you recognize it or not. Since she was only restrained from killing you by her own desires, her desires could have changed based on circumstances. What if your father lost his income, what if you had some sort of handicap identifyable in utero, what if your father abandoned her what if a thousand different circumstances could have happened that made her no longer desire a kid?

To think you were safe in your pro-choice mother is a delusion. Your mom would have killed you if it suited her- it just didn't suit her because she happened to plan you and escape extraneous circumstances. So yes, you are lucky. What if you'd have been concieved prior to or after her desired window?

My mom would never have killed me, regardless of planning or circumstances. I was safe- you were lucky.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 8:40 AM


My boyfriend is one of 4, and he wants 4. We've compromised to have 2 of our own and adopt 2. But nice job generalizing.

Be honest- you'd not abort if those 2 you planned to have were conceived at an inconvienent time, or you conceived more than 2 children, or finances were stretched, etc. ?

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 7, 2008 8:42 AM


"Legacy"? What legacy? Pro-aborts can leave no legacy, another reason we can undoubtedly know our side will eventually win - through attrition.

********************
Is anyone honestly stupid enough to try to pretend that people who are pro choice dont have children?

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 8:46 AM


And I'd love to see you try to explain to my grandmother that her family has no legacy because she is pro choice, while she shows you pictures of her 4 kids and 7 grandchildren. One of whom will be a dad soon. Nope. No legacy at all.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 4:13 PM
******************
Thank you Amanda. Im not sure how my grandmother would have stood on the issue but she got married in 1906. I do know that six of her 8 daughters are pro choice, and 8 of the 22 cousins are pro choice simply because we talked about it. Those 8 of us have 20 children and most of us are grandmothers by now. Ive got two pro choice sons, a pro choice daughter in law - she has one son, and wants at least 2 more children. Her pro choice sister has 2 and the third is perking. We're back to the idiocy of insisting anyone who is pro choice is pro abortion. Thats an ignorant antichoice lie. Every year over 5,000,000 women in the US make a choice and over 4,000,000 of them choose to continue their pregnancy. And of the 1,000,000 or so who abort, the vast majority already have children or have children later on in life.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 8:51 AM


Legacy that's a joke! How dumb are these people? you can't leave a legacy if you suck it down the down the sink or continue to use contraceptives. Lord, I can't wait until we pro-lifers overpopulate these nutters!

Oh and in case your wondering pro-aborts I plan (god-willing) to have 14 children. It will be a wonderful day when abortion is finally outlawed. No more killing black babies on account of Klanned Parenthood's racism or leaving women scarred for life with guilt.

Posted by: Adlyn at May 6, 2008 4:16 PM
**************************
No one can really be this deranged and out of touch with reality.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 8:52 AM


I saw a bumper sticker yesterday "Smile, your mother was pro-life." Except she isn't. She's pro choice. She had me by choice. I smiled anyway.

Posted by: Hal at May 6, 2008 4:32 PM
*****************
My mother was pro choice. Because of complications in the pregnancy she had the option to have an abortion and this was in 1950. She had already been told she couldnt have children. She decided to continue the pregnancy and here I am. But she was still pro choice even though she was born in 1922 and most abortions were illegal for most of her life.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 8:54 AM


Posted by: Cranky Catholic at May 7, 2008 8:56 AM


Reading about Planned Barrenhood can make me nauseous faster than just about anything. And when they try to be "family oriented", that just about puts me over the edge. How can anyone look at that photo and not wonder where the aborted kids are? Why don't they have them there in a little glass jar, to show us how proud they are of ALL their kids?

Posted by: Doyle at May 6, 2008 5:22 PM
************************
For every 3 women who go to PP for an abortion, 97 go for other health care. Or were you ignorant of that?

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 8:57 AM


If my dad's mom had not had 7 children I probably wouldn't exist - my dad is #5 of 7.

PP tries to convince people that babies and children are bad and won't allow you to have a career - they want to eliminate those they see as "unfit". First it starts with "affordable" health care like pap smears, then once they can afford a real doctor, they make the women feel obligated to keep going there, get donations out of them, etc, etc, etc.

PP is bad for women, bad for motherhood.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 7, 2008 9:20 AM


Oh yeah TR, I don't have the corner on absurdity.
Thinking that unborn babies are insensate oblivious nonviable (WHERE do you get those adjectives anyway??lol) tissue is truly absurd.
:-P
I do SO enjoy your descriptions of unborn babies.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 9:21 AM


"If my dad's mom had not had 7 children I probably wouldn't exist"

why are people so hung up on this. Lots of people don't exist. More than do exist.

Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2008 9:32 AM


"And people abort children they concieve on purpose all the time. " - Jaque

Find me ONE study or journal article that backs that up please.

"Be honest- you'd not abort if those 2 you planned to have were conceived at an inconvienent time, or you conceived more than 2 children, or finances were stretched, etc. ?"

Thats what birth control is for. Pills backed up with condoms. Its been working just fine for me for 8 years now. So I'm not worried about it. And after we have the kids we want to have, he'll be getting a vasectomy - just like his dad, my dad, so on and so forth.

But no, I wouldn't, and if you even have to ask, you haven't been reading much I've said on this board.


Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 9:33 AM


Keep up the rant TR. Sounds great!
By your education, I'm assuming you mean your proabort liberal brainwashing that took place in the US educational system and the bastions of higher learning. Yes, that REALLY teaches you how to THINK, honey.
Myself, I prefer to call a pregnancy what it really is - a developing unborn human child. Your language only obscures the issue so your conscience doesn't feel anything.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 9:41 AM


"If my dad's mom had not had 7 children I probably wouldn't exist"

why are people so hung up on this. Lots of people don't exist. More than do exist.
Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2008 9:32 AM

Hal: I come from a large family. I can't imagine what my life would have been like with out my youngest siblings, and I'm sure there are many people who feel the same as I do.

Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2008 9:49 AM


"By your education, I'm assuming you mean your proabort liberal brainwashing that took place in the US educational system and the bastions of higher learning."

Oh yes, the vast Godless Baby Hating Liberal Conspiracy. Because NO teachers OR students can think for themselves, and ALL of them are liberal. We're all that dumb that we just believe everything we're told.

Also, Elvis is still alive, our government is hiding aliens, and 9/11 was an inside job. *eyeroll*

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 9:52 AM


Thats what birth control is for. Pills backed up with condoms. Its been working just fine for me for 8 years now. So I'm not worried about it. And after we have the kids we want to have, he'll be getting a vasectomy - just like his dad, my dad, so on and so forth.

But no, I wouldn't, and if you even have to ask, you haven't been reading much I've said on this board.


Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 9:33 AM


Well this post explains alot to me.
Your "choice" Amanda is lots of pills and latex along with a little self-mutilation (vasectomy) thrown in.
BTW, did you know BC pills can also act as abortificents? Or do you care?
You just don't want to believe that there are any consequences to your lifestyle. But there are consequences to you personally and to society in general.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 10:00 AM


"and got my degree from a Texas university in '74."

University of Texas at Austin?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 10:05 AM


@Patricia: What would you prefer? "Self-mutilation" (vasectomy) or an abortion?

Good grief, knock it off.

Posted by: Rae at May 7, 2008 10:10 AM


A&M?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 10:13 AM


TR-
YOU ARE BANNED.......FROM MY BRAIN!!!!

Posted by: Carla at May 7, 2008 10:14 AM


"ROFL!
Actually I was raised to be a Southern Baptist, which is anything but liberal. And Texas schools were pretty danged conservative when I was attending. I graduated from high school in '69 and got my degree from a Texas university in '74. "

Hahaha.. Amen TR. My mom and dad were both raised in Catholic homes, and I went to school in a very white collar, middle-of-the-road politics town. My mom was a registered republican until Bush came on the scene. And *gasp* she's a teacher!!

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 10:15 AM


Very good.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 10:21 AM


Rae: I don't believe either are good moral choices. Vasectomy and tubal ligation are a mutilation of the reproductive organs so that they no longer function in the way they were meant to. These operations are not without risk.

TR:birth control pills are abortifacients as you correctly pointed out in that they prevent implantation of the human embryo. That is a very early abortion.
With so many people living this kind of lifestyle no wonder our society is so anti-child. Children stand in the way of convenience, the pursuit of pleasure and the almighty sacred plank in the women's movement of bodily self-autonomy.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 10:22 AM


"Your "choice" Amanda is lots of pills and latex along with a little self-mutilation (vasectomy) thrown in."

Its actually just one pill a day. The average American has half a dozen prescriptions in their home. I only have one. Lots of pills? Not really.

And what's wrong with latex?

Ohhhhh my. Self mutilation? Seriously? So what would you call gastric bypass surgery, deviated septum surgery, knee replacement surgery, or any other elective surgery people opt to have to improve their quality of life?

"BTW, did you know BC pills can also act as abortificents? "

No... they don't. If you're not ovulating, you can't conceive. I've been on birth control since I was 16 - I'm not ovulating. End of story.

"You just don't want to believe that there are any consequences to your lifestyle. But there are consequences to you personally and to society in general"

Name one. Other than that it'll be a few years before I bring a few more Pro Choicers in to the world who will care about stupid things like the environment and health care for the poor.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 10:23 AM


HisMan- panspermia is a rough theory. It's an idea, a concept. Dawkins was explaining it in Expelled, not supporting it.

It's a cool concept though.

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 10:25 AM


Jacqueline, Patricia, Janet, Bobby:

Wow, have you read TR's posts this morning?

It's like she's been intraveneously fed the new Starbucks drink, "Lotta Jolt" all morning, either that or she had a rough night. Perhpas too much Ambien and/or Prozac ingestion and the psychosis is peaking through. I'd be calling the doc.

Insults are flying out of her mouth like vomit from a possessed Linda Blair's mouth in the movie, "The Exorcist". In fact, that's exactly the image that comes to mind when I read her posts.

So, as much as she hates it, keep praying for God's mercy on her as she is a woman who is screaming out for help in a wierd kind of way. What misery!

If any one had a reason to abort a baby it was my mom and dad. My mom was 43 when I was born and my dad was 56. I was the last of 8 kids. Being devout Catholics and really lovers of children, the thought of abortion would have never even entered their minds. Those 8 kids produced 45 grandchildren (5 of which are mine), 20 great grandchldren, and 10 great, great grandchildren, all successful, all God fearing. Yes, children in the womb, are a gift from the Lord and to kill one is an utter insult to the Giver.

And doesn't the word non-viable mean incapable of life? I guess that means that babies in the womb are dead until they miraculously come to life when they take their first breath? Now that's an absolute incongruity. I guess Darwinists are correct in their assumption that life comes from dead matter. It's just about as absured as stating that babies in the womb are "potential" life, a slick phrase coined in the recently published manual on lying, "Clintonese for Dummies".

And TR, I've got to correct your logic in regards to making this statement: "There is nothing irrational about it. The pro choice position simply says that women have a right to make their own decision when it comes to a pregnancy." Why would a woman choose to become pregnant if all she wanted to do was to terminate the pregnancy. Perhaps your reference to pregnancy as a choice is correct, and I agree, if a woman chooses not to get pregnant she shouldn't, however, since it appears that actually becoming pregnancy is really not a choice but an act of God, the choice being made is not becoming pregnant it's about terminating the pregnancy, hence the death of the baby. Can you follow that TR or do I need to draw a flow chart?

Drink up!

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 10:28 AM


This entire thread makes me want to jump off a cliff.
A few thoughts:
I am pro-choice, as is my mother. I wasn't even CLOSE to being 'sucked down a tube'- my parents tried for months to conceive me and were thrilled when my mom got pregnant. Abortion was the last thing on their mind! Being pro-choice does not mean abortion will always, or EVER (in my case), be that choice! Silliness!
PP isn't racist- one incompetent woman either didn't understand the question, wanted to get noticed by her boss for getting a huge donation, or HERSELF was racist- why spread it to the entire organization that does so much good? oh, and please try to tell me that cancer screenings and adoption placements aren't good, because that IS part of the 90% of PP's work that isn't abortion. Seriously. That's like me saying that the small part of the catholic church that molests young boys makes the entire church an abomination on society. Or that Mel Gibson's behavior means that all male actors in Hollywood are anti-semitic drunks. Please.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 10:35 AM


" My education was anything but 'liberal' and on a whole lot of issues Im relatively conservative. I simply respect a womans right to make up her own mind if she is pregnant"

Same. I take crap from both sides, because just like I think making abortion illegal won't stop abortion, I also don't think making guns illegal is going to stop people from shooting each other, which is a viewpoint of mine that gets liberals all p.o'd at me.

To be honest though, I think I am less certain about abortion than you are. I believe the legality should be based on consent, so that a woman who has been raped or otherwise violated should ALWAYS have the right to an abortion. The thing I waver on is whether or not I think sex is consent to pregnancy. For me personally it is, I accept the possibility, and would accept and consent to the pregnancy if it happened. But for women who are using birth control and it fails, who may feel that they did not consent, I'm not sure how I feel. In the case of people who chose not to use birth control at all, I feel like they already made their choice, but at the same time, I have a hard time reconciling that if they didn't want that baby, it would be a punishment to them rather than the joy it should be.

When I talk to people like PIP and Rae, their views make perfect sense to me, even if I disagree a bit or feel unsure. But the generalizing, homophobic, and breeder mentality that seems to be a bit more common, at least here, is and always will be completely foreign and offensive to me.

I guess that just means I'm stuck in the middle and no one likes me. Hahaha. =)

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 10:40 AM


Ali,

"PP isn't racist- one incompetent woman either didn't understand the question, wanted to get noticed by her boss for getting a huge donation, or HERSELF was racist- why spread it to the entire organization that does so much good?"

In all honesty, I will believe this if PP issues a public apology for the woman's actions and says that they as an organization do not support what she said. If you have a link to a public apology from them, I would be happy to read it. All I want is to see them apologize and disavow the actions of that woman. Then I"ll believe it.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 10:47 AM


I like you, Amanda!!

TR- ZOMG. YES.

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 10:48 AM


Hi Amanda,
My fourth baby was a complete surprise to my husband and I. I was going to be 40 and wasn't sure about handling the all day vomiting(4 months worth)with 3 other children to take care of. I wasn't sure I wanted to be pregnant....but I was. :) 9 months for baby to grow and for Momma to get used to the idea of one more. 9 months to fall in love all over again.
I like you.

Posted by: Carla at May 7, 2008 10:49 AM


"You just don't want to believe that there are any consequences to your lifestyle. But there are consequences to you personally and to society in general"

Name one. Other than that it'll be a few years before I bring a few more Pro Choicers in to the world who will care about stupid things like the environment and health care for the poor.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 10:23 AM

I think I already posted the consequences last night but you didn't like them.


TR: a fertilized egg is a human being called by the scientific term,a zygote. Although the zygote contains 23 chromosomes from each parent it is a genetically new human being, different genetically from both parents. Preventing it's implantation in the uterine wall is an abortion.

As for bodily autonomy, I'm all for women having the right to their bodies, but once they are pregnant it is no longer just their body involved but also the body of a little unborn baby.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 10:53 AM


Bobby - I agree 100%.

I think one of the biggest problems in this whole debate is that both sides are so invested in being right, that NEITHER is willing to admit when they're wrong.

Just as examples, on one side, you've got PP refusing to acknowledge something CLEARLY disturbing because they don't want to admit any who works for them might be a racist idiot, and on the other side, you've got Jill, who has repeately accused me of lying every time I've told someone about the things that protesters did/said to me when I was doing my internship, because she doesn't want to admit any pro life protester could be a vindictive idiot.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 10:53 AM


Amanda mentioned pregnancy as punishment rather than a joy.
You have to give it more time than looking at a pregnancy test. As that baby grew and started to kick I realized that the joy came in accepting this gift from God.

So in one instance I chose to let my babies live but 17 years ago I chose to kill my baby through abortion. Yes, congratulations to me. You can't have it both ways, TR. It's a baby, it's a baby, it's a baby.

Posted by: Carla at May 7, 2008 10:57 AM


TR: you're ranting again honey. Are you menopausal today?

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 11:07 AM


My mom is going through menopause right now. She is insanely cranky. All the time. Then she starts crying randomly.

It's frustrating.

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:11 AM


"As for bodily autonomy, I'm all for women having the right to their bodies" - Patricia

Then how do you reconcile that with judging me for taking pills or using condoms, or telling me how many children is or isn't enough, or telling half of the men in this country that choosing to have a vasectomy is "self mutilation"?

"Amanda mentioned pregnancy as punishment rather than a joy.
You have to give it more time than looking at a pregnancy test. " - Carla

Just in case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean that from my own perspective, just what I fear the perception of pregnancy could become if abortion became illegal. As for your second point, I absolutely agree. It should never be a knee-jerk reaction.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 11:14 AM


Erin:

Pan Spermia or the spreading of the seeds of life througout the universe by aliens, is not a cool concept, it's a cold concept, a non-viable, non-sensient concept, a lie being sowed by the devil himself to decieve and take captive innocent souls like you who give up their innocence by letting the seeds of that lie take root in their hearts.

And Dawkins more than explained it, he introduced it as a plausible explanation for the beginning of life on earth in response to a direct question about how he thought life began on this planet. The guy obviously believes this stuff because he chooses to make absolute statements that there is no God, absolute conclusions that require absolute knowledge.

Yes, I guess you could say that with regards to Dawkins' statement about God, that he is "pro-choice" or better stated pantheistic. Again, he's incongruous. And your willingness to defend his incongruity is evidence of your embarrassment towards him at his obvious absurdity.

You see, Erin, all of liberalism is incongruous and the more lies that are told, the more lies are required to sustain it as a philosophy. We believers are not surprised nor shocked by the process. As a fire is never satisfied, liberalism is never satisfied by truth and its appetite is for more and more lies.

Hence we have two political candidates that stand as monuments and poster children to a philiosphy that requires as it's fuel, more and more and more half truths, more and more whole lies, more and more incongruity, with its devout and swooning followers always in search of their Messiah, their deliverer, and never being able to receive him. Why, becasue liberalism's messiah doesn't exist, he's a shadow, a deception, a phantom, an Alien. For a liberal to give up the search is to come off the mountain defeated never finding their abomitable snowman guru, faced with having to admit defeat. Their life is the practice of the denial of truth. When one plants the seeds of deception, their harvest is their own self-deception, as a alcoholic is eventually killed by the very substance he sought solace in.

That's why the Universal Army of Abortionists has to come up with slogans like, "pro-choice" and "Planned Parnenthood", whose root meanings have nothing to do with their intended goal. Yes, the devil does come as an angel of light to even the elect.

Perhaps it's a semantic thing with Dawkins who deep in his heart knows that a higher power is the cause of life and he is merely calling what believers call God with the word Alien. Well, if Dawkins' assertions are correct, who created the Aliens? Super-duper-pooper-scooper Aliens, ad infinitum or Mocha Latte Starbuck Aliens?

However, I urge Dawkins to call Sigourney Weaver and ask her about her encounter with an Alien. These are not nice creatures and they have extremely bad oral habits. I wish liberals would get their stories straight or at least be able to separate myth from reality.

I am not worried though. Truth is its own defender and the Savior knows His sheep for we hear His voice.

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 11:15 AM


HisMan- I'm sorry, I just don't see a problem with a "What If" concept. You cannot empirically prove that aliens seeded life on earth. It has no scientific backing. It's just a "What If". It's speculation. It's interesting.

"The guy obviously believes this stuff because he chooses to make absolute statements that there is no God, absolute conclusions that require absolute knowledge."

I'm sorry, HisMan. I don't understand this. Could you explain it a little better, maybe? Because right now it sounds like if you make a positive assertion then everything you ever say is a positive assertion, which is silly. I am 20 years old. Just because I affirm that I am 20 years old doesn't mean that I can't be undecided on other issues, right?

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:24 AM


"TR: you're ranting again honey. Are you menopausal today?

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 11:07 AM"


Thats cute. Proves you have a lot to say to refute the points she's making.


Erin, my mom too!! She's started going to drum circles and yoga classes and a womans "storytelling therapy" group, and hanging dried lavender and eucalyptus up all over the house and re-arranging the closets every month. My sister and I are thinking uhhh....who are you and where did you put our mom?

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 11:24 AM


Bullscat
Having a child every 18 months isnt a 'celebration of motherhood' - its on par with any other animal whose life is dictated by biology.
Pretending that limiting family size is 'wrong' is irrational and absurd
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 9:01 AM

Red, maybe you should move to China. Your authoritarian communist mentality makes you a erfect candidtae for their "society".

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:24 AM


My story makes a difference to women considering abortion. Dang. I could not ban you from my brain. Toodles.

Posted by: Carla at May 7, 2008 11:26 AM


Erin:

I understand that there are some very effective natural remedies out their for menopuase.

Perhaps there's a health food store in your area that can help your mom.

There's a Dr. Bob Martin in Phoenix that speake every Saturday morning on KFYI radio. This guy helps a lot of people using natural remedies. Remember the time difference, but you can go to www.KFYI.com and look up his schedule and then listen on line. You might even be able to call in for your mom. He's not wierd, his remedies make great sense.

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 11:27 AM


truthseeker- you think that human beings aren't any different from other animals? That we don't have any other drive than "BREED BREED BREED"?

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:29 AM


Carla, you could skip her posts. Try practicing it for a day. You would have only had to read half the posts on this blog this morning. Dang, she would still show up in peoples reponses to her BS

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:30 AM


Thanks HisMan, my mom has been trying lots of vitamins, but I'm thinking something a little more drastic may be in order :-P I will definitely check that out!

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:31 AM


Yes, TR. I forgot you're menopausal most days.my bad.

"Then how do you reconcile that with judging me for taking pills or using condoms, or telling me how many children is or isn't enough, or telling half of the men in this country that choosing to have a vasectomy is "self mutilation"?"

Well, Amanda. First our bodies are not really our own. We cannot do with out bodies anything we want to. God gave us our bodies and he expects us to treat them with dignity. He also expects us to treat other's bodies with dignity. There are limits to what you can do with your body - you can't commit suicide for example.
BC and condoms do not enhance the dignity of men and women. They do the opposite - they thwart the special and beautiful God-given abilities men and women have to be a gift to each other and to create new life. Vasectomy does the same. A woman on the pill lies with her body to her husband. By taking the pill, she tells him "I love you but I fear the fact that we together can make a child. I don't accept the part of you and the part of me that can make a baby. Therefore, I'm going to make sure that this part of us just doesn't work." To really be open and to love another means accepting all of them, even their ability to create a child with you. Because people don't have this total acceptance of their spouse or partner, when they do get pregnant they are not able to be open to accepting a baby. This is why contraception leads to abortion.

BTW: I never stated to you how many children isn't enough. A couple open to God and to the gift of children will be quite able to discern that for themselves. Maybe on some subconscious level you just feel uncomfortable with some of your choices Amanda. Were you raised Catholic?

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 11:31 AM


"First our bodies are not really our own"

perhaps this is the fundamental disagreement from which all others flow.

Too bad I have to run, this could be the start of an interesting discussion. Have fun everyone.

Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2008 11:36 AM


truthseeker- you think that human beings aren't any different from other animals? That we don't have any other drive than "BREED BREED BREED"?
Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:29 AM

On the contrary Erin. I think human beings are differenet than other animals. But killing our children before they are born in order to satisfy our carnal urges over and over again without responsibility for ther lives or to achieve a certain economic status does not fit my definition of "human".

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:36 AM


Birth control GAVE me bodily dignity. I had an irregular period that would come sometimes every three months, sometimes every two weeks. My cramps incapacitated me. It's a sad life when you're afraid to do an activity because you don't know if you're going to get your period and embarass yourself. I apologize to the men on this board who are grossed out or uncomfortable by this. Birth control pills gave me confidence in my body and the ability to live my life without worrying.
Oh, and as soon as I read that our bodies aren't ours, but God's, I gave up- I just can't take seriously arguments that rely on religion, rather than science and logic. This could go around in circles, with some seeing religion as the ultimate truth, but we don't live in a theology, so the arguments for American society are a wee bit useless to me.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 11:39 AM


""I love you but I fear the fact that we together can make a child. I don't accept the part of you and the part of me that can make a baby. Therefore, I'm going to make sure that this part of us just doesn't work." To really be open and to love another means accepting all of them, even their ability to create a child with you. Because people don't have this total acceptance of their spouse or partner, when they do get pregnant they are not able to be open to accepting a baby. This is why contraception leads to abortion. "

That is all completely ridiculous. That insinuates that a couple in which one person may be infertile or sick means they can't be totally in love with each other.

And I dont "fear" anything. My boyfriend and I are in 100% agreement about the number of children we feel we could support. Once we reach that number, we will stop having kids. No one's "afraid" of anything working. The faucet in my bathroom sink works, but I turn it off when I'm done using it. Does that mean I fear tap water?

And I already said that I consider being sexually active to be consent to pregnancy, regardless of my use of contraception, so that nullifies your last point as well.

I attended a Marinite Catholic church until I was 10. After that, we started going to the Unitarian Universalist congregation, and have been since.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 11:40 AM


Eeek- I meant theocracy. I'm a journalist and hate making errors!

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 11:42 AM


This could go around in circles, with some seeing religion as the ultimate truth, but we don't live in a theology, so the arguments for American society are a wee bit useless to me.
Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 11:39 AM

Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life Ali. But for future reference, I think you meant to say theocracy, not theology.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:43 AM


I see you caught that already.

Posted by: ts at May 7, 2008 11:45 AM


A woman on the pill lies with her body to her husband. By taking the pill, she tells him "I love you but I fear the fact that we together can make a child. I don't accept the part of you and the part of me that can make a baby. Therefore, I'm going to make sure that this part of us just doesn't work." To really be open and to love another means accepting all of them, even their ability to create a child with you. Because people don't have this total acceptance of their spouse or partner, when they do get pregnant they are not able to be open to accepting a baby. This is why contraception leads to abortion.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 11:31 AM
************************************************
I accept my sterilized husband totally- my love for him is so complete, as is his for me, that we feel no need to bring a stranger into our family.

Those of us who are childfree are lucky to have complete love with our partners, without bringing others into our relationships.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2008 11:47 AM


What Erin said at 11:39. BRAVA!

Posted by: Rosie at May 7, 2008 11:49 AM


That was 11:29 Rosie not 11:39. And.....
On the contrary Rosie. I think human beings are differenet than other animals. But killing our children before they are born in order to satisfy our carnal urges over and over again without responsibility for ther lives or to achieve a certain economic status does not fit my definition of "human".

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 11:53 AM


TR:

I get it now. You're blaming your inability to express the truth on your over accelerated synapse response and the inability of your wicked 100 wpm fingers to keep up?

We engineers have a term for regulating chaos, it's called, a closed loop control system. It requires a forcing function, a damper, a spring and feedback. Look at it this way. The forcing function is your brain. The damper is your core values. The spring is your emotions. The feedback loop is your will. The model of most rational peoples' brains are indicative of a closed loop system. Based on your own statements however, it appears that your system is represetative of an open loop control system as there appears to be, by your own admission, a disconnect. In general, when a system that was designed to be a closed loop systen becomes an open loop system (and this happens due to the lack of maintenance or the failure to be anointed by the oil of truth), the result is inevitable self-destruction. The Space Shuttle explosion was an example of a closed loop system suddenly becoming an open loop system. Can you imagine the analogy?

Deep cleansing breaths, in through the nose out through the mouth.....imagine whirled peas, Hummmmmmmmmmmm, mummam, mumma, ura dumma. Say this in the mirror, I am OK, I love myself, babies good, planned parenthood bad, babies good, abortion bad, I love me, everyone loves me, liberals bad, conservatives good. Now stay off the Starbucks, the Ambien, and Prozac too.

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 11:53 AM


"That is all completely ridiculous. That insinuates that a couple in which one person may be infertile or sick means they can't be totally in love with each other."

Careful here, Amanda. You seem to be applying a sort of contrapositive to the naturalistic fallacy which says that 'if an action happens in nature, then the action is permissible to perform.' The contrapositive (which is logically equivalent) would say that 'if the action is not permissible to perform, then the action is not found in nature'. In this case, the action is contraception or being infertile, and you are saying that if Patricia's argument is true, then infertility would not be found in nature. So you are using the naturalistic fallacy to argue Patricia's point, but the naturalistic fallacy is just that; a fallacy.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 11:55 AM


That is all completely ridiculous. That insinuates that a couple in which one person may be infertile or sick means they can't be totally in love with each other.

No because a couple who is infertile is not rejecting a part of the other person - their fertility.


I have never attended a Marinite rite, but I hear that it is very beautiful. I've been to the Ukrainian Eastern rite which is also beautiful. Too bad you've left Amanda. I think I do understand why you hold the views you do and why you've made the choices you've made.
God love you Amanda. I have to go now.

Posted by: Patricia at May 7, 2008 11:57 AM


HisMan-

What?? No Starbucks???

But...but...the lattes. The Peppermint Mochas in the winter. The Caramel Apple Ciders in the Fall. THE COFFEE, FOR GOODNESS SAKE! THE COFFEE!

Posted by: Erin at May 7, 2008 11:59 AM


I accept my sterilized husband totally- my love for him is so complete, as is his for me, that we feel no need to bring a stranger into our family.
Those of us who are childfree are lucky to have complete love with our partners, without bringing others into our relationships.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 7, 2008 11:47 AM

No killing "unwanted" babies there so have a nice life together.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:02 PM


"No because a couple who is infertile is not rejecting a part of the other person - their fertility."

But that insinuates that someone who is infertile is an incomplete person! Thats ridiculous!

No one is "rejecting" my fertility, we're just CHOOSING not to use it right now.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 12:09 PM


Any woman who has intercourse with a "pre-conceived" notion that would kill any baby that is conceived should have her reproductive organs "sterilized".

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:12 PM


Oh, but Red. What happened? The above poster stated she was living happily with a sterilized husband. I thought you were all about reducing the number of abortions???? If you don't "want" babies then why would sterilization offend you?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:41 PM


Could it be that the "potential" for life means that much to you? Why do want to keep your ability to grow a blob of cells?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:43 PM


This is fun. I have to post more often during the day when Red is here :)

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:45 PM


Our elder son was born 17 days after our 8th wedding anniversary. I find it just bizarre that anyone would try to say that instead of going to school and getting an education we 'should have been' having 4 or 5 babies during that same time frame and that having children was much more important than going to school
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 12:49 PM

Red, are you saying you had four or five abortions during the first eight years of your marriage?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:07 PM


Erin, Amanda,

My mom is going through that too! She walked 6.5 miles to get our car at the train station one day...from.our.house!

I seriously can't deal with all the crazy up in here!

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 7, 2008 1:08 PM


Since I'm pro choice where the hell did you get the insane idea I have any problem at all with someone choosing to have a tubal ligation or a vasectomy?
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 1:06 PM

Red, Maybe you don't remember your post from 30 minutes ago??? Your post to me at 12:37 where you called me a woman hating control freak for suggesting that women who do not want babies should sterilize their reproductive organs????

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:12 PM


"Oh, but Red. What happened? The above poster stated she was living happily with a sterilized husband. I thought you were all about reducing the number of abortions???? If you don't "want" babies then why would sterilization offend you?"

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Probably because telling someone they SHOULD be sterilized is just as absurd as telling someone they SHOULD have kids, and lots of them, and right now!!

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 1:14 PM


Red, yu just call me a hateful person for suggesting a women who doesn't want babies should have her reproductive organs sterilized. Do you have multiple personalities?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:14 PM


If it makes sense then "should is an appropriate word isn't it Amanda. Perhaps instead it would be more PC if I said "might want to consider it cause it they wouldn't have to kill any blobs of cells"?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:18 PM


Amanda,


The Maronite rite? Was one of your parents Lebanese?

When I'm late for my local parish mass, I'll hop on over to the Maronite parish. The liturgy is so reverent...it's the only rite that still chants the words of Consecration in Jesus' native language: Aramaic. (that's what I've been told)

I appreciate so much the eastern Rites because of their disposition to reverence the Mystical reality of God. I don't know what your religious persuasion, if any, is nowadays, but that's cool that you had a rich heritage from which to remember.

Posted by: carder at May 7, 2008 1:19 PM


No, imbecile, Im not. But Patricia is also against contraceptives and if we hadnt used contraceptives during that 8 years then we would have had several children. I've never had an abortion or been in a position where I needed to consider one.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 1:16 PM
You just said you have never been in a position where you needed to consider an abortion but at the same time said you relied on contraceptive to prevent preganancy. Over 50% of all abortions are commited on women who were using contraception when they got pregnant. It is foolish to say you were not putting yourself in a position where you could have had an unwanted pregnancy. Hmmm....whose the imbecile?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:26 PM


TS, where did you get that statistic? Contraceptives, when used correctly, are up to 99.7% effective. Most women don't use them correctly, but that only brings the effectiveness down to about 92% (for BC pills). When a woman uses birth control correctly, she is taking precautions to ensure she doesn't get pregnant. A woman on birth control pills who uses them correctly does not think she's going to get pregnant. Hold on, question- are you male or female? Just wondering.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 1:42 PM


I don't pray so much for the end to abortion but just for the kids of rabid pro aborts to become pro lifers - poetic justice - then things can change

Posted by: mar at May 7, 2008 1:53 PM


You are, obviously.
You also have the reading comprehension skills of a developmentally challenged 2nd grader.
I said Ive never been in a position where I needed to consider having an abortion.
Thank you so very much for looking so very stupid.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 1:40 PM
Lets try this again slowly once for you Red.
You say that you never put yourself in a position where you needed to consider abortion. You go through eight years of sex with a fertile man while relying on contraception to prevent pregnancy and deny you were putting yourself in a position where you needed to consider abortion? Well heres news for you, again, really slowly, over 50% of all abortions are commited on women who, like you, assumed contraception would prevent pregnancy. Some of them thought about abortion ahead of time and knew they would abort if they ever becme pregnant. Some of them never considered abortion and waited till they got pregnant to decide. Did you seriously never discuss with your husband what you would have done if you became pregnant during those eight years?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 1:59 PM


Carder,

Yes, my great grandmother was born in Lebanon and came over here when she was 11. I'm 1/4 Lebanese.

The church I went to, St. Anothony's, held one mass in Arabic and one in English - not sure if they still do that or not.

As far as my current religious persuasion, I am a Unitarian only because I think that I can be faithful but still be uncertain of any absolute truth when it comes to religion - and that belief doesn't jive with traditional Catholocism, even though I do believe in many other aspects of it.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 2:06 PM


I have seen that statistic over and over Ali. One place is a publication on unicef.org. Please note that 95% effective means 5% of the people will end up pregnant so all women should be aware that pregnancy is still a definite possibility so they should consider what they would do if they became pregnant prior to having sex. If they would not personally choose abortion, then they are accepting a one in twenty chance that they will need to adjust their lives accordingly in order to take responsibility for a child. Also, I never quite understood those percentages that they give out. Doesn't the frequency of sex have anything to do with it? How can they give a generic percentage to women of differing lifestyles. Does a hooker who has sex with twenty men a day have the same percentage as a wife who has sex once month? Just curious. btw - I am a man against abortion. Here is the link to a UNICEF publication that gives the staistic you were asking about.
http://www.unicef-icdc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 2:13 PM


Honestly, I'm not quite sure about the frequency thing. I think it's just averages. But as we all know, it only takes one sperm, one time, to fertilize an egg, so I guess frequency shouldn't matter that much? I don't know, I was never much good at probability. Since you are a man and probably haven't seen a pack of birth control recently, you'll be happy to know that there is tons of info in the pack about the failure rates and how to have the most perfect use possible. So most women should know that it isn't fool-proof, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing!. .03% of a chance is oh-so-small.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 2:24 PM


According to the Guttmacher Institute : Almost 9 out of 10 women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy (women who are sexually active, able to become pregnant, and neither pregnant nor trying to become pregnant) are using a contraceptive method.

Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 2:33 PM


http://www.youngwomenshealth.org/summarychart.html

Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 2:37 PM


Im getting really confused here. If the only 100% way to not get pregnant is through abstinence, aren't ten our of ten sexually active women at risk for an unintended pregnancy? My issue is just that the risk is incredibly low when taking the pill perfectly.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 2:39 PM


I never had an unintended pregnancy when I was using the pill ... Ive also never been killed in a car wreck. Im not about to pretend something cant happen just because it never happened to me!

I've been using various BC methods too and have never gotten pregnant.

Ali, funny how abstinence works... in fact, because some people don't realize that abstinence means no oral or anal sex, no outercourse either... people end up mysteriously "pregnant!" while being "abstinent."

:)

Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 2:44 PM


Honestly, I'm not quite sure about the frequency thing. I think it's just averages. But as we all know, it only takes one sperm, one time, to fertilize an egg, so I guess frequency shouldn't matter that much? I don't know, I was never much good at probability. Since you are a man and probably haven't seen a pack of birth control recently, you'll be happy to know that there is tons of info in the pack about the failure rates and how to have the most perfect use possible. So most women should know that it isn't fool-proof, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing!. .03% of a chance is oh-so-small.
Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 2:24 PM

Ali, for an event as life changing as conceiving a child you should take the responsibility to get better at examining the statistics you promote. Marketers in every field are experts at twisting information to make their product look better than it really is. It makes no sense to me that no woman out there can even explain how frequency of intercourse does not matter. And if it is just an average for people who are using birth control, how do they fit the lenght of time on birth control into the probabilities. The fact is that over 50% of abortions are performed on women who think lik eyou do that ".03% of a chance is oh-so-small." but really don't even understand how the marketers come up with their statistics. That is not sound practice, especially when dealing with your health.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 2:50 PM


"Ali, funny how abstinence works... in fact, because some people don't realize that abstinence means no oral or anal sex, no outercourse either... people end up mysteriously "pregnant!" while being "abstinent."

LOL, Edyt, 2 of the girls in my class still insisted to me that they were virgins.

Which is why, Truthseeker, I don't believe that 50% of women who abort were actually using birth control. I think a lot of them were not, but either lie or are in denial when they're asked.

Also, a lot of girls think a guy putting on a condom for the finale or pulling out is birth control and would check off a box saying that they used birth control if that was the case.

Thats NOT birth control.

I've been sexually active for 7 years. I'll probably be ready to have kids in another 4 or 5. The only people I know of that I know for sure were careful about their birth control and ended up pregnant anyway (2) were using the injection, not the pill and/or condoms.

Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 3:17 PM


Abortion is wrong. there isn't any way around that. I would be willing to bet that Ann Richards is "now" a pro-lifer....just about the time she came face to face with her "legacy" and face to face with her maker.

Posted by: elizabethb at May 7, 2008 3:26 PM


Agreed, Elizabeth!!
How are the Chicago plans coming? :)

Posted by: Carla at May 7, 2008 3:34 PM


I dont know of anyone who is a 'pro abort' - its a dishonest term antichoice liers have come up with. And of course you didnt stop to consider all the antichoice children who can grow up to be pro choice.
Posted by: TexasRed at May 7, 2008 2:03 PM

What a bunch of crap. "I don't know anyone who is pro-abort. How about these people for starters:

1) Have you ever met anybody who chose to have an abortion? If you have then you have met a pro-abort. Although many post-abortive women have become pro-life at some point after their abortion experience. It goes without saying that there may be extenuating circumstances in any individual case. I don't expect there to be a line without exception

2) Have you ever known an abortionist? An abortionist would definitely have to be considered to be a pro-abort.

3)Any man who counsels the mother of his child to commit abortion is definitely pro-abort.

4) People who encourage mothers to abort for economic reasons are pro-abort.

The list could go on but in any case that leaves a huge majority of pro-choice people who are pro-life. But it is a pile of Texas BS that pro-aborts don't exist.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 3:42 PM


I've been sexually active for 7 years. I'll probably be ready to have kids in another 4 or 5. The only people I know of that I know for sure were careful about their birth control and ended up pregnant anyway (2) were using the injection, not the pill and/or condoms.
Posted by: Amanda at May 7, 2008 3:17 PM

o.k. Amanda, so you can't answer my questions about how they come up with the probabilities. And you presume that people were lying to UNICEF.
It looks to me like you would rather live in denial then find out the truth about where the birth control statistics really come from. How come you can't answer the simplest questions about those statistics. I'll ask again.
1) explain how frequency of intercourse does not matter.
2) And if it is just an average for people who are using birth control, how do they fit the lenght of time on birth control into the probabilities?
As someone who took probabilities and statistics in college I find it remarkable that nobody can account for these variables.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 3:54 PM


TS, you're getting a little snarky here with your tone. I admitted I don't know. I admitted that I'm unsure about it and that I don't have the facts. No need to make me feel bad. For the record though, when the FDA approves something written on an insert, I tend to believe it. I tend to believe they've conducted enough tests to assure the statistic is correct. What tests and how, I do not know. Shame shame.
And I forgot who said it up there (amanda maybe?) but I totally agree with you: many people who say they're using contraceptives or having safe sex are using condoms incorrectly (one teensy little wrong move can make the whole practice worthwhile, which is why we need condom demonstrations) or consider "pulling out" to be safe sex (smacks head in frustration). We need better surveys I think.

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 4:19 PM


*worthless, not worthwhile. Where ARE my editing skills today?

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 4:21 PM


Ali, 4:21 p.m.

They're probably off frolicking somewhere with mine. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth at May 7, 2008 4:28 PM


I think I just might be brain dead from editing my boyfriend's 75-page thesis. Yikes!

Posted by: ali at May 7, 2008 4:31 PM


ali,
I did not mean to be snarky or ofensive. It is really important. You should know that marketers of any product stretch the truth. I see it every day in the advertising of the industry I work in. I hope you find it important enough to ask the person who prescribes you these meds to give you an answer. I would also like to know the truth, and without those answers the statistics are almost irrelevant. Thank you for your responses to my posts. I really am finding it constructive and informative. ts

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 5:02 PM


Ali, funny how abstinence works... in fact, because some people don't realize that abstinence means no oral or anal sex, no outercourse either... people end up mysteriously "pregnant!" while being "abstinent."
:)
Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 2:44 PM
What the HELL are you talking about...ROTFLWTIME
Are you saying people can get pregnant from oral or suggested that a woman who has never had intercourse is NOT a virgin?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 5:17 PM


TS,

I think Edyt is saying that seaman can enter the woman without engaging in intercourse; that it could be transfered inside the woman by some other means than intercourse. I don't want to get graphic, but you can probably imagine. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2008 5:26 PM


Erin:

I see you have a sense of humor. That's good, don't ever lose that, it's a gift from God. The alternative is TR.

TR, you might want to go to Ross and get a larger belt size and oh, it's not supposed to go around your neck.

Actually, being insulted by you is an honor. You validate my posts.

Truthseeker:

Don't be offended. She hates everybody, even herself. But, if I were a counselor, like she claims to be, I'd be whacked too so, I guess we should all cut her some slack. I'll bet you anything she's got a twitch. What do you think?

Have you ever seen what a counselor looks like after about 30 years of doing that stuff? It's horrid. Bent over, permanently wrinkled faces with dark bags under the eyes, hair loss, you get the picture. Heck, I'd be pissed off at the world too.

I mean, I thought counselors were supposed to have hearts of compassion. I get it, she went to the Tehran School of Liberal Whack Jobs, Aminejhad Hack 'Em and Stack 'Em Department of Imam Studies. Couldn't find employment there as, during her internship, she made an Ayatollah cry when the Viagra didn't work for him. I mean he thought they were suppositories, she couldn't control herself and called him an idiot, but managed to escape before he could get his Damascus steel dagger out of his vest to wack her head off. She was then blacklisted, couldn't find a job or a single wide Cavco to move in to (all the buildings are stone over there). Then she decided to move to Texas and is now a psychic off I-10 with one of those blinking yellow lights flashing over her mobile home office. Most of her clients are lonely trailer truck drivers. You know, the desperate type.

Posted by: HisMan at May 7, 2008 9:41 PM


TexasRed,

I gift you with all the apostrophes you so obviously lack. Or is it that typing an astonishing 100 wpm is too fast to access the proper keys? ;) You might also want to try using a dictionary; the correct spelling in your above post is "liar," not "lier."

I only wish that I could gift you with a heart open to love, courage to do what is right (not what is easy), and the brains to see that a baby does not suddenly "become" alive at any point along the path of pregnancy, because he/she has been alive from the moment of his/her existence.

I'll keep you in my prayers, TR, as I keep all the sadly misguided anti-lifers.


Patricia,

Keep up the good work. The truth will set us all free (eventually). God bless you and the mothers and babies you seek to save.

Posted by: Meg at May 7, 2008 10:46 PM


HisMan, I was not worried about having offended Texas Bull. I was worried about offending ali cause her posts were genuine genuine.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 7, 2008 10:52 PM


I don't understand how so many pro-lifers are anti-contraception. It doesn't really make sense to me. I understand that it is a religious sentiment but that doesn't mean it should be the pro-life sentiment. Otherwise it DOES seem anti-choice, that is, anti the choice that women can make with their own bodies. Women have the right to have sex, and she has the right to prevent pregnancy.

Of course from the pro-life perspective, there is the agreement that if a baby is in fact made, it can't be killed.

This may seem like it is rambling or doesn't make sense, but let me phrase it the way I've been reading it:

PC: "We can control our family size as we see fit- it is our bodies."
PL: "Not if that means that you are going to kill babies."
PC: "There is birth control too; this limits family size."
PL: "We don't want you to use birth control either."
PC: "Why not? it is our bodies we are dealing with."
PL: "Your body is not yours, it is God's; therefore, you should play by His/our rules."
PC: "But that is absurd. We do not live in a theocracy."
PL: "If only you convert to Jesus you would understand."


Jesus, y'all. Some of the name-calling needs to stop quickly, and so are the insinuations that pro-birth control is anti-life.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 7, 2008 11:44 PM


What the HELL are you talking about...ROTFLWTIME
Are you saying people can get pregnant from oral or suggested that a woman who has never had intercourse is NOT a virgin?

Um, people don't have to have intercourse for sperm to enter the vagina. The bigger issue, naturally, is STDs which can be transferred orally, anally, or by merely touching (I don't want to get too graphic so you can look it up).

Yes, women have gotten pregnant without having intercourse.

Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 11:55 PM


LOL Bobby... "seamen." Cute.

Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 11:56 PM


Have you ever seen what a counselor looks like after about 30 years of doing that stuff? It's horrid. Bent over, permanently wrinkled faces with dark bags under the eyes, hair loss, you get the picture. Heck, I'd be pissed off at the world too.

HisMan, that's such a horrible thing to say. I can't believe you would insult so many people who do their best to help other people. I don't even know what to say because what you said is so .... cruel and heartless.

Does God tell you to say nasty things about people or do you come up with that all on your own?

Posted by: Edyt at May 8, 2008 12:01 AM


PiP, me either. I think it would help the pro-life platform if they ONLY maintained an anti-abortion stance. For the longest time I thought pro-lifers were all about trying to force people into having big families and keeping women at home making babies rather than having a career or accomplishing any of her goals.

Now I know a little differently... but there are still many pro-lifers out there who seem to be trying to control everyone else's home lives.

Posted by: Edyt at May 8, 2008 12:05 AM


Edyt,

I think part of the problem may be that people are voicing opinions on what they feel personally that may be different than what they would want to legally do. Many people here I am sure (hope?) don't want to actually make birth control illegal...but they will get through to you how horrible it is and immoral and all that (after all that I'm up for a discussion about antidepressants....go!).

I also think that so much of their rhetoric lies in their religious perspective, which is fine, but doesn't really work on most of us in this generation. We need practical and secular incentive to believe or want something. Some of their religious perspectives on this issue can spill into others (e.g. gay bashing, science bashing etc), and us liberal pro-lifers are careful to separate the issues.

All in all I think it is from perspective, and it does take all kinds but from where I'm sitting some of the things I've read sounded completely absurd and I had to say something. Generalizations are easy to do, so I try to be one of the pro-life liberal voice for you guys ;)

Of course, this is coming from an evil feminist :P

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 12:49 AM


Edyt,

Surprising that the people you knew were on the shot. I am on the shot. Rae knew someone who got pregnant on the shot also. I have always planned to use a condom or another form of birth control, but seemed odd that you guys all knew people that were on the shot...when it is supposed to be more effective than pills.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 12:53 AM


whoops that should be addressed to AManda.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 1:07 AM


PiP, actually, I am on the shot, haha. I actually love it -- I've had no side effects, don't have to remember to take a pill, and only have to have it every 3 months. The only thing I don't like is that it tends to harm your bones after awhile so I take calcium supplements to offset that.

After more than a year of being on the shot, I still haven't gotten pregnant, but I am thinking about switching BC for awhile, just in case it's damaging my bones.

I've also been looking into Essure, since I don't want to have kids. Have you heard about it? It's relatively new so I'm a little worried about longterm side effects, which haven't been thoroughly documented. But it's a kind of sterilization implant for the fallopian tubes that stops ovulation. I've heard the process takes less than an hour and most people only experience cramping for a day or so. It's much less invasive than tubal litigation, so maybe in a few years I might do it (if nothing bad comes from it).

Posted by: Edyt at May 8, 2008 1:44 AM


"LOL Bobby... "seamen." Cute."

hehe, gotta be as least offensive as possible..

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 8, 2008 6:33 AM


Edyt,

I love being on the shot. The only thing I don't like is that I break out more often, but I have pills for that ;)

Never heard of Essure, surprisingly. The method makes sense, but I'd also be wary of something so new. It's the same principle everywhere...I"m waiting until 3rd generation iphone at least, until they know the long term effects ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 7:39 AM


True I consider myself to be religious pip. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Saviour and try to live acording to God's Word. But my statements on this "Mother's Day" thread had no outward religious references. They were based on scientific inquiries into what birth control companies advertise as a person's probabilities to get pregnant. How can they put out generalized statistics like that, and women like you buy into it, and you can't even answer simple questions about it like:
1) While on birth control do my chances of pregnancy go up is I have sex more often? If they do then that 99.7% effective could be for a woman who is on birth control and only has sex once. Sounds ridiculous but that is the way product maketers work. Consumers never see the "optimum" results that marketers publish from their controlled studies.
2) If Julie is on birth control for three months, and Joan is on birth control for three years, how can they have the same chance of getting pregnant on birth control?

You are relying on that information to prevent pregnancy while you continue your schooling and your life as a "single". You have told me in previous posts that you would likely accept responsibility for the child and not abort if you became pregnant.

Now without regard to religion, don't you think you are placing too much faith in birth control and statistics that you can't even understand or make sense of?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 9:41 AM


Yes, women have gotten pregnant without having intercourse.
Posted by: Edyt at May 7, 2008 11:55 PM

I do see where it is possible. The seamen doesn't necessary have to be ejected from the submarine directly into the gulf of wooly wooly.
He could fins alternate means of transportation.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 9:48 AM


TS,

I was not talking about you specifically; if you had been paying attention though, many of the posts here and in the past have been VERY religiously based. I see no problem with you all's views being religiously based but I think when you guys are talking to people of my generation (especially our libs out there) it is mostly ineffective.

"You are relying on that information to prevent pregnancy while you continue your schooling and your life as a "single". You have told me in previous posts that you would likely accept responsibility for the child and not abort if you became pregnant."

Well of course, I am pro-life and also a smart girl; I take responsibility for the things I do and I care about the lives and dignity of every person born or unborn. Someone who would abort their children in a tough situation is not truly pro-life. Peer pressure is tough though, we need to work on that as a society. People are honestly surprised that I would carry my baby. That's pretty sad to me.


"Now without regard to religion, don't you think you are placing too much faith in birth control and statistics that you can't even understand or make sense of?"

I started to use birth control because I used to get HUGE migraines and when you are dancing 12 hours a week it is not a fun time. I'm on the shot because estrogen levels were affecting lamictal levels, and got tired of switching pill brands. Also if I forgot and took a pill on an empty stomach I will wake up in the middle of the night to throw up. Shot--much easier, very happy with it.

The statistics are not hard. They are based on long term trials. It is determined by how many women that particular year or span of time got pregnant while using that medicine under controlled and uncontrolled circumstances. That is where they get the percentages. If so many women out of this many women get pregnant, they work off of that.
I would imagine that the more you have sex the more likely failures (e.g. things like broken condoms) may occur and the longer time you use them (e.g. maybe getting too relaxed on B.C. times) will affect the rate, that is why they have first year and after-first year averages. But on the whole the basic stats are the same. With birth control use comes less pregnancies and less HIV transmission.
So, the way you were manipulating statistics is misleading. The averages are based over year long trial averages not every single sexual encounter. Besides, I'd take an average of 3% over 15%. 85% of people who don't use birth control get pregnant within the first year. Sounds awesome.

Wouldn't you rather that people having sex take responsibility for their reproductive health? Or just sit there and go, "should have stayed abstinent. That'll learn ya next time around."

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 10:12 AM


That first stat should be 3% over 85%. That 15% is people who DON'T get pregnant the first year.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 10:21 AM


I see no problem with you all's views being religiously based but I think when you guys are talking to people of my generation (especially our libs out there) it is mostly ineffective.

I do understand your point about religion not always being part of an effective argument, but how old are you PiP? I believe the current generation of young people are more religious than say, 10-15 years ago, so the religious argument is still quite valid in this day and age.

Posted by: Janet at May 8, 2008 10:51 AM


Janet, I am in my 20s.

People in our generation are different. You can appeal to Pro-choice Christians, but what about the people who don't have a religious or Christian affiliation? What about the people who are considered outsiders in the Christian religion? There are a lot more open homosexuals for instance, than there was 15-20 years ago. Now gay rights are at the forefront.

Nowadays most people in my generation and below want equal rights for homosexuals. When a group of friends went to the march for life they heard a speaker rail against homosexuals and then went on a tangent on how our country is neglecting God in general and Christianity in particular. Their jaws could have touched the floor.

If we want wide spread appeal we need to get the alliance with people on the left, who in many cases don't want to hear a Christian argument...they want to hear a secular one. Otherwise they can't relate to it. They don't want to be preached to, either, or their ears will close. Trust me, we are working on doing this with the death penalty and are starting to break ground.

Time for a new approach, guys. Seriously.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 11:30 AM


Let me just say, PIP, that I absolutely adore you. :)

Posted by: Lyssie at May 8, 2008 11:40 AM


PiP:

That's what I thought, you're in your twenties....I agree we can take different paths to get to the same goals, and we don't want to alienate people because of other differences. I just would not discount the fact that Christianity is still strong in this country. If many of your acquaintances hold different views, then go for it the best way you know how! You are right that we need to reach out to people where they are. Make sense?

Posted by: Janet at May 8, 2008 12:05 PM


Amanda-

Reasons women abort planned pregnancies:

1. Health Problems
2. Sex-Selection
3. Baby isn't perfect.
4. Partner- changes his mind, never wanted a baby, leaves, dies, woman gets new boyfriend while pregnant who doesn't want her ex's child in the picture
5. Circumstances change- someone loses a job, they lose their home, partners start to fight, adultery, divorce
6. Malice- abort a wanted child to hurt the father, extort the father, etc.
7. Change of Mind- women planned for and wanted a baby and then freaks out and changes her mind.
8. Replacement Babies- women intentionally gets pregnant to replace a baby she aborted, only to discover that the circumstances that caused her to abort still exist, so she aborts again.

I could continue.

So, yes, you and I both know that planned pregnancies get aborted sometimes too and just because a child was planned by a woman that is not morally opposed her killing her babies (like your mom), the fact that the baby was planned doesn't mean he/she was safe.

Your mom would have killed you regardless of the fact that you were planned. So don't think that you were somehow immune from the risks you thrust on unborn children every day.

Posted by: Jacqueline at May 8, 2008 12:14 PM


Janet, yes I do understand. I didn't mean to make the assumption that there aren't Christians out there, just that I think the religious approach isn't working as well anymore.

I love you too Lyssie ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 1:56 PM


The statistics are not hard. They are based on long term trials. It is determined by how many women that particular year or span of time got pregnant while using that medicine under controlled and uncontrolled circumstances. That is where they get the percentages.
Posted by pip at May 8, 2008 10:12 AM

Those questions about the statistics are very straight-forward and not misleading at all.
According to what you say "everybody" is lumped into the same barrel. For example, half of those women who are using birth control may not even be having sex because they are being prescribed the birth control for other medical needs and still being included in the statistics. So that would mean women who are taking birth control would be twice as likely to get pregnant as the study shows. And how many are getting the prescriptions and flushing them but still being included in the statistics etc.

I am not saying if a woman has sex that birth control doesn't reduce their chance of pregnancy. What I am saying is that most women don't think they'll get pregnant while on birth control becuase they look at statistics like 99.7% effective, when those statistics are combining people who don;t even have sex or that may not even be taking the pills at all (like I said earlier, people who are throwing the scripts in the garbage because they are being handed out as samples etc... It is just not right to put out data like that and have people like you or ali buy into it.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 4:36 PM


Time for a new approach, guys. Seriously.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 11:30 AM

pip- the Holy Spirit transcends all faiths and there is no stronger force in the world for peace and compassion. NEVER discard God.

And as far as homosexuality, if you think it growing in your generation then it is only a fad that will not survive. Call it God's plan or call it natures plan. The relationship between two men or two women can NEVER be the same as the relationship between a man and a woman. Men and women are DIFFERENT in complimentary ways. It is what it is. If it wasn't that way we wouldn't need birth control would we?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 4:45 PM


And of course that all goes without saying the possible negative side effects which you and Edyt were talking about earlier. Bone loss sounds bad, so does possible caqncer or other effects of artificial hormones, some of which can actually be deadly. Just google "deadly birth control" pip. The first hit is a 20 something year old dancer like yourself.

There are "plenty" of non-religious reasons to keep away from birth control, if you can.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 5:02 PM


The pill, the patch, the shot, they all have some really serious side effects and probably a lot mnore that will show up over time. You dont need faith in Jesus to know thats a fact Jack

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 5:19 PM


pip,
you really need to take a closer look at those statistics again. We weren't talking about condom use at all. We were talking about the hormone through pill, patch, and shot. The ones that claim 99.7% effectiveness. And I really couldn't follow your percentages. Could you explain it again.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 5:31 PM


Oh shut up already Truthseeker...good grief you rant as much as TR.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2008 6:54 PM


Anonymous,
Which part of honest logic do you have trouble with? I didn't tell you to shut up or call you an imbecile did I?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 7:56 PM


You got to admit, Anon, TS is alot nicer. I don't see the word idiot thrown around as much.

Posted by: carder at May 8, 2008 8:00 PM


Anonymous, what did I say to offend you. Or is it something you want to keep to yourself?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 8:01 PM


No Truthseeker, it's not that you're mean, it's that you go on and on and on and on and on about totally inane things that don't even make sense. It makes me wonder if you honestly have no idea what you're talking about most of the time.

That's the similarity...the meanness vs non-meanness was irrelevant.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2008 9:07 PM


What part of my post was "inane". Do you work for PP or a drug company? Is that why you find discussion of misleading information that hurts women as inane?

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:10 PM


No, I don't work for PP or a drug company. I find PP a revolting, histrionic organization, and I wouldn't work in the pharmaceutical industry if you threatened to kill me.

It's all the "God" crap that's inane. It gets old hearing the same old stuff over and over and over again, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. Not everybody believes in God, and more people will respect your arguments if you left God out of it. Yes, I know you think that without God, there is nothing, BUT you can personally believe God is behind something, but in order to make a sound, well-reasoned argument, leave God out of it and instead use something more broad like human rights or something.

And the ranting about birth control pills being "evil" or what-the-heck-ever. Sure, there are issues with birth control in that it's not 100% effective...and I would be *much* more at ease if we could come up with a 100% effective birth control (something that works for women AND something besides condoms that work for MEN).

Posted by: Rae at May 8, 2008 10:17 PM


Anonymous,
Want me to quit posting about something? Don't tell me "shut up" cause I'm not afraid of you. And don't tell me my posts are inane cause your "opinion" alone does not change my mind. Instead try expressing why you think my posts are inane and refute them. That is a lot more effective way to communicate.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:21 PM


Show me one post where I said birth control was evil Rae. And if you can't, then apologize.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:23 PM


"pip- the Holy Spirit transcends all faiths and there is no stronger force in the world for peace and compassion. NEVER discard God."
Who said God wasn't working? We're talking about discussion here. Issues. Nowhere did I say leave faith out of it; just know who your audience is.

"you really need to take a closer look at those statistics again. We weren't talking about condom use at all. We were talking about the hormone through pill, patch, and shot. The ones that claim 99.7% effectiveness. And I really couldn't follow your percentages. Could you explain it again."
Truthseeker, by 3% I was referring to the discrepancy through "actual use."

When someone is talking about effectiveness they mean "the percentage of women that get pregnant after a year" and in clinical trial results you will see all of them are measured like this.
You will see charts like these (this is a simplified version):
http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/bc_chart.html

They are not measuring percentages PER SEXUAL ENCOUNTER, they are measuring LONG TERM USE, so applying one to the other is misleading.

"The pill, the patch, the shot, they all have some really serious side effects and probably a lot mnore that will show up over time. You dont need faith in Jesus to know thats a fact Jack"
So do a lot of other medications but I don't see the religious demonizing them.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 10:28 PM


Rae, I obviously will not leave God out of any part of my life because I rely on the Holy Spirit as my guide. But I never even brough God up during this birth control discussion, you did.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:28 PM


pip,
that post you just posted again, I did not call birth control evil. And I did not bring God up, you did. My comment about the Holy Spirit wasn't even in any way a part of my discussion about birth control. It was just a response to your "general" comment to leave God out of my discussions about pro-life issues. Again, nowhere in my discussion of birth control did I argue it was evil or that God was a reason for not using it. Wetehr or not I feel birth control is an affront to God is another issue that I haven't posted on.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:41 PM


Rae, I hope you understand my above post. My posts were there for one reason only. To get the "best (most truthful)" available information into the hands of women who are using birth control. I hope when you cool down you can see it that way too.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:47 PM


@TS: I apologize... I shouldn't have snapped at you and tell you to shut-up.

Yes, you annoy me, but yes, it's also your right to post as you wish, and I was wrong to snap and tell you to shut-up.

I don't expect you to be afraid of me.

And I apologize for being a horse's bootie. I had no reason to be.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 8, 2008 10:47 PM


Apology accepted Raenonymous. :)

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 10:54 PM


"that post you just posted again, I did not call birth control evil. And I did not bring God up, you did. My comment about the Holy Spirit wasn't even in any way a part of my discussion about birth control. It was just a response to your "general" comment to leave God out of my discussions about pro-life issues. Again, nowhere in my discussion of birth control did I argue it was evil or that God was a reason for not using it. Wetehr or not I feel birth control is an affront to God is another issue that I haven't posted on."

TS, I wish you would listen to what I'm saying.

The religion thing...that was a GENERAL comment on the commentary here. Don't tell me noone else was using religious arguments. I already told you I was not addressing you specifically, ts.

You did not call birth control evil, but someone said it leads to abortion...which yes I would call that demonization.

I think we are getting confused because I addressed your statistics specifically to you, and then addressed the entire board generally about religious arguments/birth control. Sorry for not making the distinction. Will work better in the future.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 8, 2008 11:14 PM


pip,
That link you sent me to. I had to laugh when I read 85 out of 100 w/o birth control. From my experience it is 100 out of 100 in the first month. Anyway, even though I afriad of the backlash I have to say those statists are pretty useless if you don't even know the frequency of sex. Like I said, people take those scripts for a lot of reasons other than birth control and if frequency of sex isn't factored in then it includes all of them too, which would make the percentages very misleading to say the least.
Like ali said, "A woman on birth control pills who uses them correctly does not think she's going to get pregnant." Ali and women like her desrve honest and complete information about those percentages.

The point I was making was that you should be open to the possibility of a kid if you have sex. Most abortions are commited on women who were using birth control and didn't think they were going to get pregnant.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 11:24 PM


pip,
I know we had a miscommunication which is easy to do on blogs. It happens all the time when people pop in on discussions. No harm done. I love your posts and your work for life. I agree with you completely about the delivery and the need to address your audience without offending or you lose them right off the bat.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 11:31 PM


You did not call birth control evil, but someone said it leads to abortion...which yes I would call that demonization. posted by pip

pip, I don't know who posted that, but what they were probably trying to say is that people who use birth control don't think they will get pregnant when they have sex so it leads to unexpected pregnancy which leads to hardship for the mother cause she was not prepared for a child.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 8, 2008 11:35 PM


"pip, I don't know who posted that, but what they were probably trying to say is that people who use birth control don't think they will get pregnant when they have sex so it leads to unexpected pregnancy which leads to hardship for the mother cause she was not prepared for a child."

That makes sense, but I was offering pro-life perspective:

birth control is taking responsibility for your reproductive health if you have sex. But you also consent to pregnancy should your birth control fail.

I think this is a pretty consistent position. Furthermore, I think the statistics still give a generally accurate idea of how effective the method is. It's used as a guide and recommended that you use at least 2: condom to prevent several STIs and another, if pregnancy really isn't in your plans. So, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I don't know if you have noticed, ts, but Jill blogs substantially against birth control...I would say much of her commentary verges on demonization.

"That link you sent me to. I had to laugh when I read 85 out of 100 w/o birth control. From my experience it is 100 out of 100 in the first month."
LOL that is the same from my experience. The 85 probably takes into account all people from the population, that includes people who are less fertile than others.

"Anyway, even though I afriad of the backlash I have to say those statists are pretty useless if you don't even know the frequency of sex."
Each and every person has a variable amount of sex which factors into the percentages. There may be statistics on that issue though, its something to look into.

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 9, 2008 12:10 AM


I don't understand the purpose of saying BC is horribly damaging to the body.

Sure. It can cause harm. But... all drugs cause harm in some form or another because they're all synthetic. In one study, 39 percent of people who took Tylenol at recommended doses experienced liver damage to the point where doctors typically become concerned about possible liver failure.

Where's the outrage? Where's the proposed ban on Tylenol? I don't see anyone screaming that people should experience pain rather than damage their bodies with drugs! (Tylenol, btw, is OTC, unlike BC)

Yes, I understand being on the shot has risks, and I am minimizing those risks by taking calcium supplements. But ... like I'm not going to go through my life by experiencing every pain to the fullest, I'm not about to go through my life hoping I don't get pregnant.

The fact of the matter remains that people who are against BC are not outraged by other drugs, which leads to the very obvious conclusion that they aren't quite as upset about the drug's side effects as they are something else the drug does ... (and I'm willing to bet that something has to do with sex!)

Posted by: Edyt at May 9, 2008 12:51 AM


thx pip. if I know my marketers those percentages likely included all the people who take birth control for medical reasons other then to prevent pregnancy. Those stats are very relevant and you and the rest of the women deserve them.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 9, 2008 1:00 AM


PiP: 12:10:birth control is taking responsibility for your reproductive health if you have sex. But you also consent to pregnancy should your birth control fail.

If you want to level the playing filed in the abortion/BC arguments to make it palatable to all sides, I would suggest removing the innocuous phrase "reproductive health" from the discussions. The meaning is so vague to me that it distracts from the rest of the argument, no matter how valid it may be. Speak in concrete terms instead.

Take the above quote for example, "birth control is taking responsibility for your reproductive health if you have sex. But you also consent to pregnancy should your birth control fail" and say instead: "using birth control is a responsible way to prevent pregnancy".

Another example: " Abortion must remain legal to ensure women's reproductive health" (in my words). Change to wording to: "Abortion must remain legal so that women may deal with unwanted pregnancies, or whatever medical risk might be involved in continuing the pregnancy."

I'm not saying that I will automatically agree with you if you change the wording (since I'm pro-life), but at least I will know exactly what you are talking about !

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2008 1:08 AM


PiP, I should change the last sentence from "agree with you" to "agree with a PC'r", since you are PL, but I don't think that changes the overall point I am making. Sorry!

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2008 1:11 AM


Rae - I find it fascinating that despite the fact that you are pro life, a select few posters on here regularly lump you in with "pro aborts" because your views differ from theirs on other topics... even though if you asked most of them, they'd say abortion is the most important issue of our time...

the "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us (and therefore you're a pro abort)" mentality is very interesting to me.

Posted by: Amanda at May 6, 2008 9:57 PM

Given the fact that are are so many commenters here, I think It's understandable that we make mistakes. I feel like I need a scorecard most of the time to keep track of everyone, viewpoints, temperaments, etc...so please don't be offended if I get confused at times (see my 1:11 post for example)!

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2008 1:19 AM


Janet,

I agree it's better to be specific because a lot of language is being used to mean things they don't. But I usually mean reproductive health to mean both pregnancy and STI prevention, as well as careful planning, regular checkups and STI screenings, and that is why I figured 2 words would suffice ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 9, 2008 1:22 AM


Edyt,
If people were getting life threatening blood clots or cancer from taking Tylenol the way people do from taking BC hormones then you bet people would be screaming for an alternative. But that wasn't the idea we were discussing here.

Think of it this way. If Tylenol was claiming that it was 99.7% effective in preventing migraines. And Tylenol marketers were putting out their statistics by including the people who never had migraines to begin with but took Tylenol for say fevers. Then that would be misinformation and migraine suffers would deserve to know that wouldn't they?

Same would go for birth control. If those percentages that BC drug companies put on the marketing literature includes all women who use birth control as part of the control group, and does not take into consideration the frequency of sex, then we all have a right to know because that would be a marketing ploy and skew the numbers in order to create a false sense of effectiveness.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 9, 2008 1:41 AM


Janet,

I agree it's better to be specific because a lot of language is being used to mean things they don't. But I usually mean reproductive health to mean both pregnancy and STI prevention, as well as careful planning, regular checkups and STI screenings, and that is why I figured 2 words would suffice ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at May 9, 2008 1:22 AM

I see your point, but I still think that is lumping a bunch of things together and muddying the waters, so to speak - what you are trying to avoid in the abortion argument. I don't think the term reproductive health existed in the mainstream until after after abortion became legal, and I think PL'rs think of it as a term used mostly by PC'rs. Not a good association, obviously (IMO) if you want to promote PL.

Posted by: Janet at May 9, 2008 1:52 AM


This blogline goes off the board tomorrow. It has been enlightening. I would have never gotten a clear way of expressing these things without your help. Thanks to ALL

Posted by: truthseeker at May 9, 2008 2:00 AM


TS, anti-psychotic drugs, such as those used for schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorder, dementia, autism, and other brain disorders, have been linked to blood clots.

Here's a list of 182 drugs known to cause blood clots.

Again, I ask: Where's the outrage?

And I assume you're speaking about the link to breast cancer? The only studies I could turn up supporting the link from BC to breast cancer are from women from the 70s and 80s, when the hormone dosage was about three times higher than it is today. There has been no proven link so far.


To what you're arguing about though -- you're never going to get that marketing aspect to change. Cholesterol medicine, for example, DOES lower cholesterol, but there's no proof that it helps reduce the risk of heart attack or heart disease. Doctors have conveniently overlooked that fact and continue to prescribe it.

The consumer today has to pick and choose. My mom had leukemia and underwent chemotherapy. I don't know how much you know about cancer, but chemo is a known poison.

She chose to poison herself in the chance that she could live. Some women choose to risk blood clots in the chance they won't get pregnant.

No matter what drug you take, there will be risks. They won't always be clear cut (everyone has a different body and a different lifestyle) percentage of how at risk anyone is, so the only thing a person can do is educate his or her self on what the best solution for his or her own body is.

Of course, the FDA is supposed to make this whole thing easier, but we all know they're getting paid off...

Posted by: Edyt at May 9, 2008 2:59 AM


Edyt,
As far as cancer. I know all about it and I talk frequently about my outrage that we don't have better treatments that do less collater damage. Keeping my son on chemo after the CT scans showed the cancer was in remission was one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make. The doctor convinced me to keep him on it. Here was how the conversation went.

Doctor, I can see that the chemotherapy and spinal taps are hurting my son and causing nerve damage and he is walking with a "gait" because of the effects. Since the CT scans show that the cancer is gone I have decided to take him off it.
ts, Look at this way. Would you rather have him alive at age 60 and walking with a gait or risk the cancer coming back and killing him and never knowing if it was cause you stopped the "traetment"?

Well, I left him on the chemo and it is six years later and he is doing great. The difference in this case is would be the drug companies misleading people not about potential side-efects but about it's effectiveness. If it were say blood pressure medicine, then the person could easily see the ineffectiveness and switch medications without much inconvenience. But with birth control, you won't get a chance to see it's ineffectiveness till you get pregnant, so it is vital to demand honesty in order to make informed decisions before we get pregnant. And I can't for the life of me see how frequency of intercourse would not be an important factor in preventing pregnancy.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 9, 2008 8:28 AM


And if it is a relevant factor, then how can their effectiveness statistics not take it into account

Posted by: ts at May 9, 2008 8:31 AM


Personally, my problem with birth control only began recently (about 1-2 years ago), when I realized that it can work as an abortificant.

Posted by: Bethany at May 9, 2008 8:32 AM


I did not realize that Bethany. Thanks for the information. That would make it a big problem for a lot of people and I was not aware of that.

Posted by: truthseeker at May 9, 2008 8:58 AM


Truthseeker, no problem...you can find more information here:

http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html

Or read Randy Alcorn's book, "does the birth control pill cause abortions" for evidence of this too. You can probably get it from the same link I sent you if you navigate around a bit.

Posted by: Bethany at May 9, 2008 11:18 AM


thx again Bethany

Posted by: ts at May 9, 2008 12:52 PM


The reality is individual human beings have their existance ended in abortion. As it is now you can chose to to that to your child.

Posted by: J at May 10, 2008 2:24 PM


HisMan: I've got another question, if I am an anti-anti-choicer am I pro-choice, pro-life or a pro-abort? It's incongruous.

No it's not. We are talking about the choice of abortion - should it be legal or not - that's understood on abortion forums.

In general, pro-lifers will be anti-choice, against the choice of abortion being legal, at least to some extents.

Posted by: Doug at May 12, 2008 12:47 AM


I have been reading all of these discussions. I have 2 sons that are 19 yrs. old. One is my own biological son, my other son is by marriage.I cannot imagine my life without either of them in it. It grieves me to no end that the majority of their peers are without accountability for their actions. What I mean by this is their mindset is on themselves instead of on others. I believe it is a great thing to "invest" in yourself and to plan for your future, however, I have never witnessed a more selfish generation than the one that is next in line to become our leaders. Every word that proceeds out of the mouths of this generation (15 to 25 yrs old) is "me, me, me". As a parent, this is heartbreaking. As a Christian, this is devastating. How can we expect an entire generation of people to somehow begin to care about the lives that have been snuffed out by abortion,(the very definition means to terminate)when they continually show us that the only lives their truly care about are their very own? How prideful and arrogent have we become to ever think that it is completely justifiable to kill an unborn child because it is inconvenient for us to allow he/she to be born! People want to take part in the act of sex without taking the responsibility that comes with it! Even animals care more for their offspring! The only REAL CHANGE that can take place will be a HEART CHANGE. Some of these people need a heart transplant by the Holy Spirit. God help us all and "remove the scales from the eyes of this generation". How did we become a people who did not care about what our Creator thinks? Isn't that what life is all about? Woe be to those of us who genuinely disregard what God's Word says. In the end it is all that will matter, it is all that will remain, eternally.

Posted by: CC at May 16, 2008 10:37 AM


mgiabfn tkms iqtuk

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2008 6:26 AM


mgiabfn tkms iqtuk

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2008 6:27 AM


epvh zrwnvhb

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2008 6:33 AM


ctsea

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2008 8:16 AM


ctsea

Posted by: Anonymous at June 29, 2008 8:16 AM