At first I thought this must be a human natural history museum, preserving for posterity the memory these small endangered creatures. In some countries, like Russia, they're all but extinct.

LOL, oh Jill, Russia's birth rate is higher than that of Japan, Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Germany and many other countries. Don't worry: Russians aren't going extinct any time soon.

The facility isn't scheduled to open until Spring 2009, and it has hired the equivalent of a Nazi prison guard to raise funds for a Holocaust museum.

LOLOL, your overheated rhetoric is hilarious. You consider most of America the equivalent of Nazis.

The board has to be stocked with pro-aborts. Otherwise, there is just no way they would have hired Williams. So this is a liberal feel good endeavor to assuage guilt or build resumes. When it opens, watch for liberal doctrine spread throughout.

AAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAH!!!! OMG, liberal children's museums are spreading liberal doctrine!!!! LOLOLOL

Hey Jill, did you know that wearing a tinfoil hat will protect you from liberal pro-abort mind rays? This seems like information you'd find very useful.

Well, hey, if a PP graduate is going to direct the development of a "wanted" children's museum, then it's high time we respond with a children's museum of our own. Name it after St. Nicholas, the patron saint of children.

Reality:"liberal children's museums are spreading liberal doctrine!!!! LOLOLOL"

It may have been a comedic moment, but considering PP's infant apparel, it's not too far out.

They're building a children's museum - FOR LITTLE CHILDREN!

Can you be happy about ANYTHING?

Here; flowers, puppies, sunshine.

Not all flowers are opium poppies leading to heroin-related deaths.
Not all puppies grow into man-eating pit bulls.
Sunshine doesn't always result in malignant melanoma.

CHEER UP!

Better raising funds for this than Planned Parenthood.

But look at the silhouette of the child on the homepage. THAT is freakin' weird. Either something took a bite out of her chest or she someone through a baseball at her and she broke.

All the "wanted" perfect children can hang out
together.

Where does it say that the exterior of the building is "Noah-themed?"

Or is that an wishful assumption since it appears to have a nautical theme?

This is their ad copy: "This is foreseen as a place that reaches beyond traditional borders. We will collaborate in partnership with other institutions that serve children, families and educators, facilitating experiences through which all our visitors can learn by themselves and from one another."

I assume other institutions that "serve" include Planned Parenthhod?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Yeah, I don't really see the Noah-theme either.

Reality said: "LOL, oh Jill, Russia's birth rate is higher than that of Japan, Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Germany and many other countries. Don't worry: Russians aren't going extinct any time soon."

Reality, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. The population of all the countries you named are also in dire straits, particularly Japan.

The CIA World Factbook ranks fertility rates. A country has to have a rate of 2.1 children per woman to sustain a population, never mind grow it. This is necessary so the population doesn't become top-heavy and/or die off. Check the fertility rate of all the countries you listed:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

The Factbook further states:

Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.

Back to Russia, google "Russia abortion rate" for grim statistics. It aborts more than it bears children:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3093152.stm

Tinfoil hat signing off...

And it sure looks like an ark to me... that would also be nautical themed

Why is this so unusual?

Money that parents and grandparents spend on "The Polar Express" and other books by Chris Van Allsburg is used by his wife and daughter to support Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island.

Mes Aieux (My Ancestors), a Quebec folk band, came out with a song called
Degeneration which has a strong pro-life messsage, but after it hit #1 in Canada on iTunes and contributed to much album sales etc, the band got indignant through it's lawyer and made it known it wasn't to be "used" by "anti-choicers".

I am curious to know if Myra Williams is the same one who has a pharmaceutical sales consulting firm in Naples Florida.

One last point - it is possible for people to have a true repentant change of heart. I wouldn't count a 180 out of the realm of possibilities.

It looks more like a Funship Cruise ship to me. I didn't know Noah decorated in primary colors and whimsical shapes.

I also don't see any animals.

hehehehehe...I find it ironic that the acronym for their museum is: C'MON

lol!!!

On another note, maybe this is Myra's way of "giving back" to the world for promoting the slaughter of so many. Maybe her conscience is weighing on her. I see hope for Myra in this museum. Maybe seeing how precious each and every child is that walks through those doors, her heart will change.

I'd much rather see Myra promoting good for children than the slaughter of them. Maybe her PP days will be over soon.

just a thought!

Just sounds like a non-profit fundrasier changing jobs. Unless you think people who work for Planned Parenthood are evil, there's no story here.

It's tough to comment on this one. I hope for their sake, C'MON has thought this one through. Will Williams be welcomed and supported with open arms by the community?

I would hope that C'MON wouldn't take a penny from PP or anyone who supports PP.

Give her a break Hal... Monica Miller has taken a break from dumpster diving, and there needs to be at least 48 hours between Obama cartoons.

Conspiracy theories are ALWAYS a dependable story.

In all fairness, when it comes to this nonsense, extremist lefty blogs are the same as extremist righty blogs. Only its whenever a week passes without Bush doing/saying something ignorant or a Christian fundamentalist getting busted in sex scandal, they post another article about 9/11 being an inside job. *eyeroll*

Reality, anon, Amanda: I can handle ribbing, but ridiculing one's host is never good form.

Jill,
I agree. Personally, I thought Amanda would be the type of person that would be above that sort of thing. She seems intelligent in her posts, but when ridiculing you I see a totally different side of her.

It's a shame. She'd be much more credible, at least to me, if she didn't ridicule you and roll her eyes so much as well. From all of her "worldy experiences", I would think that she would have learned by now that there are many more opinions out there other than her own and how to handle them with respect.

I didn't see my posts are ridiculing you, Jill.

Amanda, I'm surprised at today's behavior. I'd seen your debate style improve over the months. The moderators have grown to think highly of you as a commenter from the other side.

So Jill -

we're back to deleting my posts rather than answering my questions? cool!

And I'm not sure what else (other than ridicule) you'd expect after making yet another absurd connection to Nazis.

And JLM, for the record, the eyeroll was directed at 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists.

Unless you think people who work for Planned Parenthood are evil, there's no story here.

Posted by: Hal at May 27, 2008 10:43 AM

WEll, uhmmm, they are not evil but they do co-operate with evil in this situation.

Reality, please be REAL! Russia has 700,000 deaths per year, an abortion: birth ratio of 2:1
No country can sustain these kinds of population losses for very long.

Patricia, I posted an answer to your post about the 1990 anti-RU486 report from Necker Hospital in the "What Obama Supports" thread. Go read it.

SoMG
no thanks. I'm done with that issue as it's apparent you are not open to honest discussion.

Patricia, of course I am open to honest discussion. What you really mean is that the facts support my position, not yours, and my reasoning is better than yours, but you don't want to admit that you have lost the argument.

Patricia, of course I am open to honest discussion. What you really mean is that the facts support my position, not yours, and my reasoning is better than yours, but you don't want to admit that you have lost the argument.

Posted by: SoMG at May 27, 2008 2:03 PM

Once again SoMG you show what you really are - a paragon of virtue and humility.
No actually it gets rather tiresome when you constantly twist facts to suit your own position and can't seem to understand the results of a scientific research paper. It's also very tiresome when you make silly statements about pregnancy, fetal development and women's health.
On the contrary, your position is irrational and illogical - I think you know it and this is why you try so darn hard. Have a nice evening.

Patricia, just for self-indulgence, since I don't like to write a long post just to see it disappear off the screen, I will reproduce the section about the Necker report here so you don't have to go poking through the archives:

You quoted the 1990 anti-RU486 report from Necker Hospital. Let me point out that copying their arguments from their web site onto this one does not make those arguments any more convincing. You quoted:

"1.The major side effect observed up to date remains the uterine metrorrhagia which develops in more than 90 % of the cases, after administration of RU 486, and can last up to more than one week (from 1 to 35 days). In many cases an emergency "Révision Utérine" was necessary to contain the hemorrhaging. In certain cases, the only recourse was an emergency blood transfusion, with all the risks this involves."

Mild bleeding, rarely requiring transfusion, is not a good reason to withhold RU486 from the market. It occurs sometimes with surgical abortion too. The extremely large majority of cases of post-abortion bleeding (medical OR surgical) are mild.

Continuing: "2.It is therefore incorrect to say that the abortive effect is provoked by RU 486 since, administered alone, it works in only 60 % of the cases. Moreover, this last figure varies a lot (+/-20 %), for unexplained reasons, from one experimental center to another. They speak of an "apprenticeship effect" from the experimenter..."

Here they are talking about using RU486 ALONE, without the misoprostol follow-up. No one does this. Even bringing it up is disingenuous.

Going on: "3.Under these conditions, where is then the "authentic medicinal" alternative to a surgical termination? Beyond far heavier risks than by the surgical method (in which all is finished in 6 hours with little complications at 7 weeks amenorrhea) there is - with the medicinal method - an uncertainty about the result during 5 to 12 days.
In any case, she has to undergo a surgical termination if the RU 486 does not function as an abortive..."

The risks of medical abortion are NOT "far heavier" than the risks of surgical abortion. For the authors to say they are suggests that they may have a desire to deceive the reader or at least to exaggerate their case.

The fact that 5% (or whatever the number is--I know it's AROUND 5%) of medical abortions are incomplete and have to be followed by curettage is not a good reason to keep RU-486 off the market or to avoid medical abortion. It IS a reason to make sure that surgical facilities are available when providing medical abortion in case they are needed. This caution is part of the standard instructions that come with RU-486, and it was included as a caveat by the FDA when they approved it.

More: "4.We are also told that RU 486 could be a therapeutic agent in the treatment of breast cancer, neuro-psychiatric troubles, "stress" and... difficult birth. Where are the experimental proofs?"

The fact that additional uses for RU-486 besides abortion have not yet been discovered or validated is not a reason to keep it off the market.

More: "In fact, a work recently published in a well-known international scientific magazine, proved the contrary, i.e. a strong stimulating effect by RU 486 on the growth of a breast cancerous cellular line (line T 47D) (Endocrinology, 124, 1989, pp.2642-2644)."

An effect on one cell line proves nothing. If there were no such cell line, it would probably be possible to create one by fusing the progesterone receptor to a endogenous proliferation-signalling molecule, thereby constructing a complex molecule which would activate an internal proliferation-signalling pathway in response to treatment with RU486. You can find or create cell lines that are stimulated to proliferate by almost any given molecule using a similar approach. It doesn't by itself say anything about what the molecule does in vivo.

"5.Contrary to the allegation that the understanding of its action mechanism led to the selection of this product, it remains obvious that the action mechanism(s) of RU 486, which leads to the elimination of the fetus, are far from being clear. In brief, the molecule does not function except in the presence of a sufficient concentration of progesteron and, furthermore as in the case of the corticotrop axis, RU 486 disturbs the function of the gonadotrop axis, in animals as well as in man."

The possiblilty that RU-486 may have additional mechanisms of action besides being a progesterone antagonist is not a reason to keep it off the market unless those additional mechanisms are shown to be dangerous. In fact we know it also functions as a glucocorticoid antagonist; that was its first known function--the progesterone antagonism was discovered later.

How many drugs are there whose mechanisms of action we fully understand? Sure we know aspirin functions by inhibiting COX enzymes, but do we know for sure that that's ALL it does? No.

In summary, none of the arguments in the Necker group's report constitute convincing reasons to withdraw RU486 from the market. The fact that the Necker group tried to present them as if they WERE good reasons makes me suspect that the Necker group may have been motivated by a political agenda, rather than a medical or scientific one.

You concluded, sarcastically: "While you, in your infinite wisdom and obvious greater medical expertise than these scientists who have 20 years or more of experience in this field, see no reason to restrict the use of RU-486, they do.

Who should we believe SoMG? You?"

Well, the French government agreed with me. They did not withdraw RU486 from the market in spite of the Necker group's recommendation that they should do so. And nature agrees with me too--no significant bad side effects of RU-486 have been discovered, after several million successful and uneventful RU-486 abortions.

Jill:
take that darn tinfoil hat off NOW! Let someone else wear it!

"we're back to deleting my posts rather than answering my questions? cool!"

when did we ever delete your posts Amanda? must have been a long time ago..

Before your time Jasper.

Jill did not want to answer my question about whether or not she supported Muslims having abortions. So she deleted the question about a dozen times before deciding to answer it when a bunch of other chimed in upon seeing my posts vanishing.

For the record, she said no. But I have now repeated questions for her regarding the GINA bill, and she is refusing to answer.

Chris,

Money that parents and grandparents spend on "The Polar Express" and other books by Chris Van Allsburg is used by his wife and daughter to support Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island.

I sure wish you hadn't told me that! Dang. I loved Harris Burdick!

I never liked the Polar Express much and read a few reviews of the movie that were not positive.

Patricia @ 3:00 PM

We happened to buy some his books BC - (Before Christ). Looking at them now - the messages are really confused, and not all that positive.

The movie was a little strange in the technique that it used, a bit on the creepy side. I think it's because the closer you get to human looking characters that are animated, the stranger things look.

Chris,
Well, it's hard to determine how good a book is going to be until you read it. Just get a copy before hand from your library then you'll know for sure! Or read reviews on blogs!

A bit off topic but:
Have you seen Narnia-Prince Caspian? We saw it on the weekend. I'm not a fan of the movies. The most important points are really lost in the movies. But I wasn't too hopeful anyways, after the Lord of the Rings.
Just curious - have your kids even listened to Focus on the Family's Narnia theatre tapes?

Amanda, on the Muslim thing, your question was ridiculous. Then you brought in several troll friends who along with you kept me up half the night deleting your parrot questions before I finally had to shut the site down. Not nice.

The next day or so blog friends of mine began receiving emails from a "Mary" wanting them to know I wished Muslims dead or something like that. Wonder who that was?

And now you've been conversing here again for several months, and I've been nice about it. Haven't said anything.

But now I am. As I said before, it's bad form to ridicule one's host. It's not often a guest has to be reminded. I wonder what that indicates about the guest?

So please stop it.

@SoMG,

"Well, the French government agreed with me. They did not withdraw RU486 from the market in spite of the Necker group's recommendation that they should do so. And nature agrees with me too--no significant bad side effects of RU-486 have been discovered, after several million successful and uneventful RU-486 abortions."

I guess 'no significant bad side effects' and 'several million successful' deaths of human beings = 'uneventful RU-486 abortions'. Gee, how could I think there was a 'problem' here. Silly me!

Patricia @ 5:06 PM Just curious - have your kids even listened to Focus on the Family's Narnia theatre tapes?

No - the younger ones are mid-teens - it's multiple iPods and Christian & experimental music.

John McD, I'm glad you admit that your opposition to RU486 is based on your opposition to abortion generally and not on the myth that it's a dangerous drug.

I bet CS Lewis would have HATED Focus on the Family.

I can't imagine him being too thrilled with the idea of a "Chronicles of Narnia" video game either.

@SogMG,

not so fast .... The French law system is quite different than the USA-Canadian-UK systems and is based on Napoleonic law ... which may have a role to play in this drug's continued tolerance in France. The continuing tolerance of smoking in public places, may also be a result of this legal framework.

This is pure conjecture: the biochemical name for RU-486 is Cytotec(?) a PgE1 analog which is very helpful in repairing troubled digestive tracts and stomachs (R. Bates).

I've got two chronicles of Narnia audio books - one on CD and one on tape (need to upgrade that one to CD soon). One is read by Michael York (LWTW) and the other by Derek Jacob (Voyage of the Dawn Treader). Both are UNabridged and I really like these versions of the audio versions.

No, Lewis probably would have liked Focus on The Family. He loved children - one of the pop up facts on the LWTW DVD says that he wanted to write moralistic fairy tales that have the battle of good versus evil, right and wrong and good manners, for children. He even housed children during the London air raids (like how the professor does in the book).

John McD, you wrote : "This is pure conjecture: the biochemical name for RU-486 is Cytotec(?) a PgE1 analog which is very helpful in repairing troubled digestive tracts and stomachs (R. Bates)."

No, Cytotec is misoprostol, the drug you take a few days after RU486 to empty the uterus. The biochemical name of RU486 is mifepristone. You are right that Cytotec (misoprostol) is used for ulcers (not during pregnancy!).

You wrote: "The French law system is quite different than the USA-Canadian-UK systems and is based on Napoleonic law ... which may have a role to play in this drug's continued tolerance in France."

What about its continued tolerance in United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden, Greece, Spain, Tunisia and New Zealand? This by the way is not a complete list of the countries that use RU486.

According to the Public Health Association of Australia by January 2006 approximately twemty-one million women world wide had had RU486-plus-misoprostol abortions.

John McDonell @ 8:53 PM

As SoMG said - Cytotec (misprosotol) is Pfizer's drug for stomach ulcers. Any use of the drug for it's unintended side-effect (in this case thinning and sloughing of the uterine wall to expel the dead embryo/fetus (under 8 weeks)) is called an "off-label" application.

Pfizer warns pretty strictly, right on their label, that any use after that time can cause serious problems - like uterine ruptures, or tearing.

While off-label use isn't illegal, it's not exactly cleanly above board either because the FDA approval is based on testing only for the approved use. It doesn't take a lawyer to see that the company doesn't mind selling their drugs for such off-label use (knowing enough to put a warning on the label) but should something happen, can also claim that the sole responsibility any consequences lie with the prescribing doctor.

If what SoMG said is true re: usage of misoprostol, long term, multiple exposure studies should be done, specifically because of this wide-spread off-label use. With abortion and big pharma, little likelihood that will happen.

"Amanda, on the Muslim thing, your question was ridiculous"

If it was SO ridiculous Jill, why wouldn't you just answer it? It was after you posted an angry rant about the Muslim population growing because they don't abort like Christians do. If the answer was an automatic no, why did you have to delete it a dozen times before you answered it?

"Then you brought in several troll friends who along with you kept me up half the night deleting your parrot questions before I finally had to shut the site down. Not nice. "

I brought NO ONE. I simply posted a link to the conversation I was having with you on my facebook group. They came here on their own volition. I'd be lying to myself if I thought for a second I had enough influence to "bring in" anyone. They clicked a link. Thats how MOST people find your site, no?

"The next day or so blog friends of mine began receiving emails from a "Mary" wanting them to know I wished Muslims dead or something like that. Wonder who that was? "

Not me. Are you really that paranoid? I keep everything on the blog, and when I've emailed you, its been with the only email address I have, which has my full name in it, and you know this.

"And now you've been conversing here again for several months, and I've been nice about it. Haven't said anything. "

Uhh Jill, I think you're suffering from selective memory here. I posted for several months AFTER that whole post deleting frenzy. I stopped reading this blog after the whole conversation about it being better to starve to death in Darfur than be raised by gay parents. And what do you mean you're "nice" about it? Calling me an idiot and a chicken is nice? Refusing to answer my questions is nice? What would not be nice, banning me for asking you a question?

"But now I am. As I said before, it's bad form to ridicule one's host. It's not often a guest has to be reminded. I wonder what that indicates about the guest? "

Well if you don't want to be ridiculed, don't say ridiculous things. Comparing everything to Nazis IS ridiculous and thus deserving of ridicule. Looking for conspiracy when there is none is ridiculous and thus deserving of ridicule. You made several implications in that post yesterday with no evidence what so ever. I'll break some of them down for you:

1. That the board must be pro-aborts because they hired her. How do you know that she, like me, worked for PP for a few years and then realized she didn't like some of their practices? How do you know that she didn't mention that in her interview process? Or what if many of the board are pro life and just have the capacity to separate her OLD career with her NEW one? If she LEFT PP, why would you assume she would still support them or be involved with them? Do you have any evidence to back this claim?

2. That the museum is "Noah" themed. It isn't. End of story. You just made that up. I checked the website and googled articles. There is NO Noah theme.

3. That the musuem will have a liberal agenda and push liberal doctrines. You made that up too. There is nothing in any of the articles about the musuem that discusses the types of exhibits that will be there, nor any indication that they will recieve funding from PP.

4. That a woman changing careers from PP to a Childrens Museum is like a Nazi working for a Holocaust Museum. Really Jill? After your memorial day post do you REALLY want to go and compare a CAREER CHANGE to THE HOLOCAUST? Thousands of people gave their lives to stop the Nazis - and you make light of it.

Now again, for the FOURTH time, I will ask you...

Why did you intentionally leave out the fact that the only dissenters to the GINA bill were PRO LIFE REPUBLICANS? Why did you frame it as though the bill was secretly pushed through to "protect" it from a percieved attack that never existed? Why did you leave out the fact that it had FULL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT and try to frame it like a pro life victory? These are not ridiculous questions. Why can't you just answer them?

If it was SO ridiculous Jill, why wouldn't you just answer it? It was after you posted an angry rant about the Muslim population growing because they don't abort like Christians do. If the answer was an automatic no, why did you have to delete it a dozen times before you answered it?

Amanda, I am saddened you have brought this up again. Jill answered your question...why can't you let it go?

I brought NO ONE. I simply posted a link to the conversation I was having with you on my facebook group. They came here on their own volition. I'd be lying to myself if I thought for a second I had enough influence to "bring in" anyone. They clicked a link. Thats how MOST people find your site, no?

Amanda, they all came from your group (A woman's right to choose) on Facebook. They all were on at the same time as you, overwhelming the blog with their posts, which we moderators had to delete and eventually had to shut down the site for a period of time. I think you did understand what Jill was talking about. They did come from your group, and they were indeed trolling and causing much strife.

Amanda, the question was so ridiculous, I was offended and ignored it. When you blew it into a Monumental Event and started spreading your ridiculous assumption, I finally had to respond. You won by spreading innuendo. Good for you.

You linked your assumption on your Facebook page and then were surprised your troll friends piled on? Please.

I am "paranoid" given your obsession to consider you the "Mary" who sent the same accusatory email to several blog friends?

And you only consider it ridiculous to compare the Holocaust to abortion because you're involved in abortion. Well, duh. But you've taken your thought too far and personally attacked me. We have an incredible difference of opinion here. But I don't attack you personally about it.

As for GINA, as I said in my last comment, to think the added pro-life language couldn't or wouldn't have blown up into something huge if pro-lifers had drawn attention to it is simply naive.

And it WAS a pro-life victory. GINA's language originally omitted preborns and children in the process of being adopted. A pro-life congressman saw to it that language was added.

I didn't intentionally leave any information out, in particular that 3 pro-life congressmen were the only ones voting against GINA. I reported that it passed. I didn't look at any votes. Nor am I now going to analyze why they voted against it. Since they were pro-life, their rationale had nothing to do with that issue.

"You linked your assumption on your Facebook page and then were surprised your troll friends piled on? Please.

I am "paranoid" given your obsession to consider you the "Mary" who sent the same accusatory email to several blog friends? "

I never said I was surprised. But I certainly did not "bring anyone" here. If you have a website, people are going to post links to it. Thats all I did. Anything that follows is not my responsibility. Your website is a PUBLIC PLACE. Unless I ASKED people to come here, which I did not, I don't see how their actions have anything to do with me.

And yes, if after over a year of knowing how I function, you really think I'd send stupid emails under a false name, when I've put myself out there - first name, last name, pictures, and email address - then you are paranoid.

"And you only consider it ridiculous to compare the Holocaust to abortion because you're involved in abortion. "

I am? Really? Care to explain how I am in ANY way "involved with abortion"? That would be news to me!! And I believe I've stated repeatedly that comparing ANYTHING to the Holocaust is a desperate appeal to emotion. There is NO comparison. End of story.

"But you've taken your thought too far and personally attacked me."

And you never do that. Calling me an idiot and a chicken was just a figment of my imagination I guess. And calling things you say ridiculous is "personally attacking" you?

"As for GINA, as I said in my last comment, to think the added pro-life language couldn't or wouldn't have blown up into something huge if pro-lifers had drawn attention to it is simply naive. "

Ohhhh. Because only pro lifers knew about it?? You guys had some BIG HUSH SECRET that no pro choicers knew about? How did I know about it then? Come on Jill. This is what I'm talking about. NO ONE WAS AGAINST IT!!! What would it have "blown up" in to when it had full support from Pro Choice dems?

"And it WAS a pro-life victory"

....even though the only people voting against it were Pro Life, and it was fully supported by every Pro Choice member of congress. That makes tons of sense...

I never said I was surprised. But I certainly did not "bring anyone" here. If you have a website, people are going to post links to it. Thats all I did. Anything that follows is not my responsibility. Your website is a PUBLIC PLACE. Unless I ASKED people to come here, which I did not, I don't see how their actions have anything to do with me.

Amanda, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Jill posting the names of "students for choice" at this link:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/abortionist_alb.html

Jill did not ASK anyone to do anything with their names, as you can see. Do you think that if anyone emailed these people, telling them what they thought of their actions, on what they learned through Jill's site, would it or would it not have anything to do with Jill?

I am? Really? Care to explain how I am in ANY way "involved with abortion"?

If you defend abortion, does that not make you involved in the topic?

"Amanda, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Jill posting the names of "students for choice" at this link:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/abortionist_alb.html

Jill did not ASK anyone to do anything with their names, as you can see. Do you think that if anyone emailed these people, telling them what they thought of their actions, on what they learned through Jill's site, would it or would it not have anything to do with Jill? "

Depends. If that email the names were on was a public release, than reposting it puts no responsibility on Jill at all for the actions of others.

If, however, that email was only meant to be viewed by certain people, and Jill accessed it through someone forwarding it without permission, that's a very different story.

Likewise, there are no restrictions for re-posting links to this website. If there were, and I did it anyway, I could be responsible for what others do as a result of me posting something without permission.

"If you defend abortion, does that not make you involved in the topic? "

Involved in the TOPIC, sure. But involved WITH ABORTION? No. And I know plenty of pro lifers (on this site and not) who do not take kindly to the CONSTANT comparisons made by Jill or anyone else to Nazis and the Holocaust.

Amanda, on Nazi's and the Holocaust, read Jill's newest thread with the pictures of the premature baby who could have been left to die or could have been pulled apart piece by piece by a D and E abortion or could have been injected in the heart with poison to die. How you can keep getting offended by the comparison of the holocaust and abortion is beyond me. In my mind, they are one and the same evil.

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/obama_and_the_h.html

Amanda, the point Jill made was that they came through your link. And they did.
You are making it into a much bigger deal than what she intended. The point was that if you hadn't posted the link, they wouldn't have come through it to bombard her with antagonistic posts.

"the premature baby who could have been left to die or could have been pulled apart piece by piece by a D and E abortion or could have been injected in the heart with poison to die."

But it wasn't. And regardless of how I feel about late term abortions, I fail to see the connection to the torture and enslavement of people because of their religion. One of the most crucial differences is that no woman has an abortion because she WANTS to KILL A BABY. She may be all sorts of things - irresponsible, immature, selfish, confused - whatever you wish to call her. But to compare a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy with a Nazi who WANTED to KILL and TORTURE PEOPLE is absurd.

"Amanda, the point Jill made was that they came through your link. And they did.
You are making it into a much bigger deal than what she intended. "

She was insinuating that I "brought them here" like I asked them to come post here. That was not the case. Unless MY posts were antagonistic, which they were not, I'm not in charge of what other people do. And in the same post, she started accusing me with no evidence at all of sending emails under a false name, I'm going to vehemently defend myself against false accuations. That IS a big deal to me.

But it wasn't. And regardless of how I feel about late term abortions, I fail to see the connection to the torture and enslavement of people because of their religion. One of the most crucial differences is that no woman has an abortion because she WANTS to KILL A BABY. She may be all sorts of things - irresponsible, immature, selfish, confused - whatever you wish to call her. But to compare a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy with a Nazi who WANTED to KILL and TORTURE PEOPLE is absurd.

Not all Nazi's "wanted" to kill people. Some of the time, they felt they had no other "choice".

I don't think the horror of the holocaust was that they killed them based on religion. I think the horror of the holocaust was killing people because they didn't see them as human beings, worthy of protection. I don't care what their specific reasoning was. Killing innocent human beings for ANY reason is just as horrific, no matter what particular reason you may have for doing so!

Amanda,

Two things (out of curiosity):

1. When you posted the link to Jill's on your website, was there any stories or comments that you attached to it that may have PROVOKED your loyal commenters/readers to come here?

and...

2. In Jill's defense, when she called you a chicken, she wasn't calling "Amanda" a chicken, she was calling "anonymous" a chicken. From what I recall, it was the anon post that provoked it...not "Amanda".

"I think the horror of the holocaust was killing people because they didn't see them as human beings, worthy of protection."

I don't buy that for a second. And I guess thats where we differ. I think they all knew PERFECTLY well that they were killing human beings. Saying they didn't see them as human beings was just one of the many BS lines they used to try to excuse their behavior after the fact.

Its also well documented that they were tortured and enslaved by Nazis. I think we'd be hard pressed to find an aborting mother who WANTED to inflict pain and suffering.

Amanda,

Here...this may clear some things up for you. I understand that abortion is not THE holocaust, but I do believe it IS a holocaust.

There are two definitions in the dictionary for holcaust. Here they are:

This one is THE holocaust:

Holocaust (noun) : Encarta Dictionary:

Genocide of European Jews and others: the systematic extermination of millions of European Jews, as well as Roma, Slavs, intellectuals, gay people, and political dissidents, by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. In popular usage, Holocaust refers particularly to the extermination of European Jews.

This one IS a holocaust:

Holocaust (noun) : Encarta Dictionary:

1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life

2. complete destruction by fire: complete consumption by fire, especially of a large number of human beings or animals

3. burnt offering: a religious sacrifice that is totally consumed by fire.

Okay, now do you see the relevance when Jill refers to abortion as a holocaust??? I do, and I hope you do as well now. In no way does she minimize the pain people feel about THE holocaust...but can you see the pain that she feels about abortion being A holocaust????

What is the origin of the word "Holocaust"?

The word holocaust comes from the ancient Greek, olos meaning "whole" and kaustos or kautos meaning "burnt." Appearing as early as the fifth century B.C.E., the term can mean a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire or a great destruction of life, especially by fire.

While the word holocaust, with a meaning of a burnt sacrificial offering, does not have a specifically religious connotation, it appeared widely in religious writings through the centuries, particularly for descriptions of "pagan" rituals involving burnt sacrifices.

In secular writings, holocaust most commonly came to mean "a complete or wholesale destruction," a connotation particularly dominant from the late nineteenth century through the nuclear arms race of the mid-twentieth century. During this time, the word was applied to a variety of disastrous events ranging from pogroms against Jews in Russia, to the persecution and murder of Armenians by Turks during World War I, to the attack by Japan on Chinese cities, to large-scale fires where hundreds were killed.

Early references to the Nazi murder of the Jews of Europe continued this usage. As early as 1941, writers occasionally employed the term holocaust with regard to the Nazi crimes against the Jews, but in these early cases, they did not ascribe exclusivity to the term. Instead of "the holocaust," writers referred to "a holocaust," one of many through the centuries.

Even when employed by Jewish writers, the term was not reserved to a single horrific event but retained its broader meaning of large-scale destruction.

http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=01#02

I don't buy that for a second. And I guess thats where we differ. I think they all knew PERFECTLY well that they were killing human beings. Saying they didn't see them as human beings was just one of the many BS lines they used to try to excuse their behavior after the fact.
Its also well documented that they were tortured and enslaved by Nazis. I think we'd be hard pressed to find an aborting mother who WANTED to inflict pain and suffering

What does it matter if they "want" to inflict pain and suffering or not? The fact is, they do.

And by the way, abortionists know very well that they are killing human beings, and saying they are not human is a BS line as you said. But it doesn't stop them from claiming it, and as Hitler said, if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, etc, people will believe it. That's why black people were considered non persons and allowed to be treated as property and objects when slavery was legal. One and the same mindset causes all of this evil on humanity.

JLM excellent posts! Thank you!

"Okay, now do you see the relevance when Jill refers to abortion as a holocaust??? I do, and I hope you do as well now. In no way does she minimize the pain people feel about THE holocaust...but can you see the pain that she feels about abortion being A holocaust????"

JLM - From the pro life perspective, I see that and agree completely. But thats not what Jill is doing. She is CONSTANTLY comparing abortion to THE Holocaust, and CONSTANTLY comparing anyone she disagrees with to Nazis. I think that is very very different from what you are saying.

As for your previous post, I made a post on the pro choice board titled "Pro Life Blogger" and wrote something to the effect of "Ms. Stanek is VERY upset by the growth of Muslim populations across the globe and points out that there is far less abortion in their culture than in the Judeo-Christian culture. I asked her if because of her obvious disdain for Muslims, if she supported Muslims having abortions, similar to the way Pat Robertson supported Chinese having abortions, and not only did she refuse to answer me, but has continued deleting the question each time I ask. See link:". I did not tell anyone to post anything nasty. Thats not my style.

And I know she thought she was insulting an "anon" poster and not me. But namecalling like that is against her own rules. She certainly knew it was me afterwards, and never responded or acknowledged that fact, or her actions, which directly violate her own rules.

Bethany,

Thank you. I just find it hypocritical for someone who is pro-abortion...who dedicates time to a site "A woman's right to choose"....to abhor THE holocaust, but promote A holocaust.

I think that whether or not we are pro-life or pro-choice, the thing we can all agree on is that it IS a human life, and a human life is being destroyed...millions and millions of human lives.

Our society gave it a cutesy name called "choice", when it reality, it IS a holocaust.

How these people can sleep at night is beyond me.

JLM - From the pro life perspective, I see that and agree completely. But thats not what Jill is doing. She is CONSTANTLY comparing abortion to THE Holocaust, and CONSTANTLY comparing anyone she disagrees with to Nazis. I think that is very very different from what you are saying.

The comparison is BEYOND accurate. Are you saying that with abortion, human life is NOT being destroyed in mass numbers???? Are the people that ARE destroying innocent human life any different FROM the Nazis???

I think you are seeing it from the single lens disguised as choice. If you look through a second lens of "human life", you'll see the perspective that we see.

btw...I agree that it's never in good taste to call someone a name, even an "anon". But that's just me, and it isn't my site. I'm a guest here. If I don't like something that is directed to me, I have every right to leave. It's kindof like employment by will.

Thanks for answering my questions. You didn't have to, but you did and I appreciate that.

JLM, the suffering of one prison camp inmate could be more than in a vast number of abortions.

The victims of the Holocaust were thinking, feeling people. I realize there is disagreement about when awareness is present for the unborn, but to a point in gestation I think it's silly to presume any similar thing.

I'm not for treating the inmates that way, against their will, nor for trying to force women, legally, one way or another, against their will, in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies, to viability.

The comparison is BEYOND accurate. Are you saying that with abortion, human life is NOT being destroyed in mass numbers???? Are the people that ARE destroying innocent human life any different FROM the Nazis???

What it sounds like to me is that Amanda seems to think that the intent of the Nazis (DESIRING to cause pain and suffering) is what makes the holocaust bad...NOT the fact that those innocent people died unjustly.

To me, the intent doesn't matter NEARLY as much as the fact that an innocent human life is killed. It doesn't matter to me if the person thought of it as a "choice" or if they laughed maniacally at the thought of the limbs being torn into pieces. Either way is JUST as tragic. The deed has been done.

Doug,
My posts had absolutely nothing to do with "feelings" or viability. Read them again.

They had to do with the concept of this thing called "human life". Abortion IS destroying human life. That we can all agree on. Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it's plant life!

Abortion supporters suppport a holocaust.

Period.

Bethany,

I agree. There may be many methods, reasons and justifications for the extermination of human life, but in the end, it's all the same. Extermination of human life.

Extermination of human life = holocaust.

JLM: My posts had absolutely nothing to do with "feelings" or viability. Read them again.

Well, when you say, "How these people can sleep at night is beyond me," the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.

Should we go with your opinion, or should we go with the opinion of the woman who is the one pregnant? Many people sleep better knowing we go with the pregnant woman.
....

They had to do with the concept of this thing called "human life". Abortion IS destroying human life. That we can all agree on. Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it's plant life!

("Plant life" - you should see some of my co-workers.)

Anyway, certainly agreed there - yes, human life is destroyed in abortion. But most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. Do we have to have every pregnancy continued? Many people say no. Do we have a demonstrable need for more "human life," per se, to the point that we would deny a legal abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Many people say no.

Well, when you say, "How these people can sleep at night is beyond me," the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.

This is justification of an act...not the definition of the act. People arn't stupid, Doug. Ever hear of people talking themselves into believing their lies? People know that they are exterminating human life. They justify the act by saying that the baby couldn't feel it, or the baby wasn't viable. They all know that they are exterminating a human life, though.

Should we go with your opinion, or should we go with the opinion of the woman who is the one pregnant? Many people sleep better knowing we go with the pregnant woman.

Yes, and the Nazi's justified it as well. They all had their reasons why they were more supreme beings than their victims as well. Again, it's all about justifying an action. Still the same in the end....human life was exterminated.

Anyway, certainly agreed there - yes, human life is destroyed in abortion. But most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. Do we have to have every pregnancy continued? Many people say no. Do we have a demonstrable need for more "human life," per se, to the point that we would deny a legal abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Many people say no.

Again...justification. I get that many people feel that the pregnant woman's body or lifestyle trumps the body of the unborn. I'll say it again...it's just people justifying that they are more of a supreme being, or their lifestyles are more supreme than the unborn human being. Human life is being exterminated. It's a holocaust.

Well, when you say, "How these people can sleep at night is beyond me," the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.

When slavery was legal, feelings and color made a great deal of difference to many people...

When the holocaust was going on, feelings and religion made a great deal of difference to many people...

Having a certain skin color or religion is not a biological requirement to sustain life outside the womb. Viability is.

So? It's just a justification for killing, and nothing more. Doesn't change the fact that the unborn are human beings.

Oh and by the way, Amanda, maybe you could tell me the exact point at which "viability" happens, since it seems to be a requirement for being persons. It's an arbitrary standard, and is just ridiculous. Maybe you could explain exactly what viability is too, because there are children who are born full term and are still not viable. Are they non-persons?
Also, people like Steven Hawking come to mind, as they are not able to sustain life on their own without the help of machines...are they persons?

I guess Matt Hampson is not a person. See, Matt Hampson doesn't fit the requirement for personhood, which is, being able to sustain life on your own, outside the womb. Matt has to use a breathing machine in order to stay alive.

I'm sure he'd be surprised to know he's not a person!

oh wait...does that (viability) only work for babies?

People know that they are exterminating human life. They justify the act by saying that the baby couldn't feel it, or the baby wasn't viable. They all know that they are exterminating a human life, though.

JLM, I don't disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.

You talk about "justification," and yes - that is the deal - is abortion justified and if so in what circumstances and also is it justifiable to try and legally prevent women from having abortions?

The "holocaust" talk is trying for a good bit on spin, like saying pro-lifers want "to enslave women."

JLM, I don't disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.

Jews weren't wanted in the holocaust...

JLM, I don't disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.

That wasn't the point, Doug. Talk about "spin"! You brought up the viability nonsense, and now the "wanted" nonsense, when all along we were discussing why abortion IS considered a holocaust. I must admit though, you are very, very good at spin!

The "holocaust" talk is trying for a good bit on spin, like saying pro-lifers want "to enslave women."

How do you figure???? Do we really need to look at the definition of holocaust AGAIN? Seriously, I don't get why you can't understand the definition. The only conclusion that I can surmise is that you don't WANT to...otherwise you'd have to deal with the fact that you support a holocaust. Hard to come to that cold, hard fact, isn't it?

Tell me...is it warm, cozy & safe in your bubble?

I must admit though, you are very, very good at spin!

no kidding! He's a pro!

And honestly, Doug, we can go back and forth for hours and still be in the same place we were when we started. I'll continue to use a dictionary, and you will continue to use the Dougtionary.

It's really a pointless conversation.

I'll continue to use a dictionary, and you will continue to use the Dougtionary.

hehe, JLM, you've been cracking me up lately! :)

Snaps to you JLM for sticking with it for so long with Doug. He makes my head spin with his spin!! :)
He is one of the most frustrating posters here, I think although he comes off as charming.
I do agree with you that abortion is A holocaust not THE holocaust. Thank you for the definitions as well.

I think although he comes off as charming.

I don't think he comes off as charming, I think he's a genuinely sweet guy. :)

We just happen to disagree, but I still think he's a very nice person.

Thanks Carla & Elizabeth!

Carla,
I'm dizzy enough as it is! I just try to stay focused! lol!!! (it helps with the motion sickness!)

Elizabeth,
I have to disagree. I don't think people who justify (whatever reason they use) supporting the killing of innocent human beings are sweet or charming. I didn't think Hitler was, and I don't think Doug is either.

Well, that's too bad. I really like Doug, even though we don't agree on everything. I don't agree with you on everything either, but I wouldn't compare you to Hitler, so maybe we can leave that comparison alone. I wouldn't put Doug and Hitler in the same category at all, because Doug, while I may find him misguided with his logic, isn't inherently evil or has a desire to hurt anyone. Hitler definitely was evil and had the desire to hurt anyone and everyone who didn't agree with him.

Elizabeth,

On another thought, when I think about how many forums over the years Doug has posted his thoughts about abortion on...how many women/girls, that maybe were contemplating abortion decided to go ahead and have the abortion because of something Doug wrote that they "connected" with.

It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night.

When you look at it in that perspective, I don't know about you, but I see something totally different in Doug than you do.

It's sickens me.

Oh please,

Doug can no more make/convince a woman to have an abortion than the man in the moon can. If somebody was supposedly "contemplating" abortion and something somebody out in cyberspace helped "seal the deal" for them, I'm pretty sure they already had it in their mind they were going to get an abortion.

You don't agree with him, that's fine. That doesn't make him evil or a bad person. He's entitled to his opinions just as you are, and you aren't going to "convert" him by comparing him to Hitler.

nowww bethany you're being silly.

I very clearly stated "LIFE OUTSIDE THE WOMB". Not "LIFE".

Steven Hawking and Matt Hampson are quite clearly NOT INSIDE OF A WOMB. They do NOT require the involuntary use of someone else's body to survive.

That difference makes the two completely incomparable.

"It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night."

JLM - Ohhhh for Gods sake that is BEYOND ridiculous. You can find people advocating just about ANYTHING on the internet, from abortion, to rape, to self mutilation, to murder. If someone does something they would otherwise believe to be wrong because some dude on the internet said it wasn't wrong, they clearly had something wrong with them from the get go.

Thats the same rationale as blaming video games for shooting sprees instead of parents who weren't keeping enough of an eye on their kids to notice the fact that they had rifles in their bedrooms.

Amanda, 3:32 p.m.

Exactly!!!

Doug can no more make/convince a woman to have an abortion than the man in the moon can. If somebody was supposedly "contemplating" abortion and something somebody out in cyberspace helped "seal the deal" for them, I'm pretty sure they already had it in their mind they were going to get an abortion.

Really? Then tell all of the pro-lifers to stop standing in front of abortion clinics, because the girls going in have definitely done their research and are in no way, shape or form going to change their minds byy the opinions of pro-lifers outside the clinics. THAT could NEVER happen!

Are you really that naive to think that girls who are confused about their situation will not look to other people's opinions to infulence their own decisions? Elizabeth, not every girl is you. Some people actually look to other people's opinions, on the internet, for advice. When I was younger, I'd go to the library for researching a topic. These days, people turn to the internet for it. You really mean to tell me that after the twelve years or so that Doug has been supporting abortion vocally that there isn't ONE girl who he may have influenced?

You don't agree with him, that's fine. That doesn't make him evil or a bad person. He's entitled to his opinions just as you are, and you aren't going to "convert" him by comparing him to Hitler.

Doug is wearing the "it's ok to exterminate human life" shoes...not me. Of course he's entitled to his own opinios, just as I am. Don't come down on me for expressing mine about Doug, then. If I choose to compare Doug to Hitler (because both support extermination of human life) it's my "choice". My "choices" and differences in opinion don't kill humans. His do. If he ever comes to that point of realization, he will convert. How is telling him that he's charming and sweet for supporting human extermination going to slap him with reality?

I'm curious...really.

Hi Elizabeth,
Yes, Doug is a very nice person. I pray for him quite a bit. Hoping that he SEES the unborn. That someday he protects them and fights for their little lives.
He just goes on and on and on about viability and a woman's right to choose.......I find that very frustrating. Pointless to get into it with him, ya know?
He remains unmoved.

Thats the same rationale as blaming video games for shooting sprees instead of parents who weren't keeping enough of an eye on their kids to notice the fact that they had rifles in their bedrooms.

No it's not. You and Elizabeth are totally missing my rationale from my posts. I never said Doug was to BLAME for MAYBE some abortions. I said he was a collaborator (must I pull out a dictionary AGAIN???)...his voice, along with all of your collective pro-choice voices....are collaborators in the extermination (holocaust) of human life. Like it or not....that's the reality of each and every one of your voices.

JLM,

ACTUAL people in front of a clinic extending their hand to you is WAY different than somebody chatting on the internet.

I'm not saying his being "sweet and charming" reflect his position on abortion. But I am capable of separating who people ARE from what their OPINIONS are. I have had nice conversations with Doug that don't have anything to do with abortion, and even when he's talking on here, he's always civil and doesn't name-call. That's how I can tell he's a nice person. My determination of someone isn't based off of one thing or one opinion that they have that I don't agree with. And I'm not saying you can't compare Doug to Hitler. Go ahead. But I'll disagree with you and defend it. You think comparing him to Hitler will turn him pro-life, go ahead. I'll continue to debate with him logically and not resort to comparing him to Hitler because he doesn't see things my way.

nowww bethany you're being silly.
I very clearly stated "LIFE OUTSIDE THE WOMB". Not "LIFE".
Steven Hawking and Matt Hampson are quite clearly NOT INSIDE OF A WOMB. They do NOT require the involuntary use of someone else's body to survive.
That difference makes the two completely incomparable.

Oh Amanda, no no, I get it. The arbitrary value of "viability" only applies to babies, in your mind.

Now, can you please explain to me the when the precise moment of "viability" occurs, and then please tell all the abortionists, so that no mistakes will be made, and no "viable" babies will be mistakenly killed while being considered "non-viable"?

P.S. Yeah, I'm in a snarky mood but you have riled me up with some of your comments today.

Carla,

Yes, I understand. I have even gotten frustrated because of the circles I feel I go around in with him. I still find him to be very nice when he is conversing on here whether we're talking about abortion or not. I pray that he comes over to our side too. :)

JLM -

If someone's mind is changed because of someone elses OPINION, especially someone they don't even know, rather than a presentation of facts they may have been unaware of, then their mind was never made up very resolutely in the first place.

You're treading on very shaky ground if you make the assertion that people who express their opinions are "collaborating" with any actions committed by people who have voluntarily read the opinions of others. Do you believe in censoring speech? I certainly don't.

Elizabeth, you have witnessed (at least I think you have...not really sure exactly when you started posting here) a few people who were 'on the fence' about abortion, having actually changed their minds over the comments of some pro-lifers here on the internet. Some of them were actually very pro-abortion and completely did a change over. Words can really be persuasive.

In the same way that we have been able to convince a few people to stop advocating for abortion, the flip side can also be true, unfortunately. Doug, while charming in his writing style, by continually posting abortion advocacy in the very manipulative way he does, can actually persuade someone who was undecided to actually choose abortion with his words. It's not farfetched at all, to think that a woman would use his words as a justification for her actions. Women in a crisis pregnancy are many times desperately searching for answers, and sometimes, the answer that seems easiest will be the way they will go. Dougs answer is "take the easy way out." The only problem is, it only sounds easy. In reality, it has life long impact.

Our words here really, truly do have an impact on others, and can change minds.

Amanda, 3:49 p.m.

I agree with you.

My "best friend" at the time I got pregnant CRIED because I wouldn't have an abortion. She was a little bit older than me and I looked up to her. She told me that I would be setting a bad example for my brothers, and that I would be frowned upon because of my Catholic beliefs. (only don't Catholics frown on abortion??)

If I wasn't deterred by HER, my decisions certainly wouldn't be affected by some ya-hoo on the internet spouting off. Anybody who lets that happen is pretty weak-minded if you ask me. OTHER people shouldn't be held responsible because they have opinions. That's a ludicrous idea. There's some pretty ridiculous stuff out there on the internet, and people really need to take it with a grain of salt if you know what I mean.

Saying nothing or acting as though it couldn't possibly affect you or life in any way while thousands of babies are murdered each day speaks volumes as well.

Amanda,

If someone's mind is changed because of someone elses OPINION, especially someone they don't even know, rather than a presentation of facts they may have been unaware of, then their mind was never made up very resolutely in the first place.

EXACTLY! That's exactly what I was trying to say. I was under the impression that both you and Elizabeth thought this could NEVER happen...that this WAS never, and WILL never be the case. That, I find hard to believe, which was my point in the beginning of my posts.

You're treading on very shaky ground if you make the assertion that people who express their opinions are "collaborating" with any actions committed by people who have voluntarily read the opinions of others. Do you believe in censoring speech? I certainly don't.

No, I don't believe in censoring speech...thank God it isn't!!! Are you saying, though, that COLLECTIVE voices of the pro-choice body DOES NOT in any way (even on the internet) have ANY type of influence on the people somewhere in the middle? Because if you say "no", then we are all wasting our time.

How is viability in any way "arbitrary"? You know perfectly well there is a HUGE distinction between the inability to live outside of a womb vs. the inability to live without medical intervention. So for you to insinuate I wouldn't think a person needing medical intervention to live is not a person IS indeed snarky and unwarranted, especially considering I've never said that I don't think a fetus isn't a person.

If you remove a fetus from a womb, and it dies, it clearly wasn't viable. I don't see how dead vs. not dead is arbitrary.

I've said a million and a half times that unless there's a valid medical reason not to, anyone wishing to end a pregnancy after 23 weeks gestation should either have a C section or induced labor. If the baby lives, it was viable. If it dies, it wasn't viable. End of story. There is absolutely NO WAY a 1-20 week old fetus is viable - theres nothing arbitrary about that. The ones that fall in the blurred line, as I said, should be given a shot. But unless the parent consents to having the baby put on life support (as a parent of a child of ANY age gets to decide), its up to God and nature to determine viability.

Elizabeth, 3:55 for a person with principle (ie. You and I), it is easy to stay resolute within your convictions that life is precious and that your baby doesn't deserve to die. However, for a women who doesn't have those deeply embedded principles, that woman can indeed be swayed much more easily on the abortion issue.

When someone (in general) is tempted to do something wrong, their mind automatically seeks out justification for it. If they find that justification in someone, they can latch onto that justification and feel more validated in their decision to do that thing they know is wrong.

,i>If you remove a fetus from a womb, and it dies, it clearly wasn't viable. I don't see how dead vs. not dead is arbitrary.

If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren't viable.

Amanda & Elizabeth,

Rae, a poster here that we are all familiar with, told a story once of a guy, of Mormon faith, on another board, that never used religion as an argument. However, his line of thinking and expressing his thoughts left no room for arguement from Rae. She said (if I remember correctly), that it was this man's posts that made her "convert" from being pro-choice to being not really pro-life, but anti-stupidity.

Given that story, don't you think that maybe a pro-life individual could have a similar experience with a person like Doug's posts, that would convert them to the pro-choice side? I've read of several instances of that by posters on this board.

Now, given that, if you have someone who is pro-life, that wouldn't have an abortion, converting over to the pro-choice side, then finding themselves pregnant....is there even a remote possibility that that individual may have an abortion if they don't want their child now...due, of course, to ONE individual whose thoughts posted on the internet infulenced them to convert in the first place?

Or the flipside....would Rae maybe have had an abortion if she were in that situation when she was pro-choice, but because of the man who influenced her conversion, wouldn't now?

JLM -

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.

If you were claiming that Doug may have influenced people to be pro choice, I may be less inclined to vehemently disagree with you. But to say that by his expression of pro choice beliefs he may have actually influenced someone to HAVE an abortion.... I think that's just very far fetched.

That was TOTALLY a hypothetical, by the way. Since I'm on the internet, you never know how someone might take something. lol

Bethany,

It wasn't people's words alone here that changed other's opinions and I think you know that. It was probably a combination of people's opinions backed up by actual evidence and facts. I know that words are persuasive, BUT as you can see, none of you have changed my opinion on homosexuality and evolution. You probably won't either. Because I have a strong belief based on my own personal experiences and research on those 2 things.

BUT, to imply that Doug is evil or even comparable to Hitler because he has an opinion and expresses it is just ridiculous to me. The ability to discuss our differing opinions is what makes this a great country, and what makes THIS SITE a great thing. And now, you and JLM are saying that those opinions that are not in compliance with your own, the SAME opinions that keep these discussions going, are harmful?

Let's say for a minute that, hypothetically, Doug's words have encouraged some woman to get an abortion. (Not that I actually believe they have) Does that mean Doug should not share his opinion or say what he thinks? My answer would always be NO, because you, JLM, nor I have the right to censor anyone else's opinion because we don't agree with it. And it doesn't mean that HE is responsible for numerous abortions.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.

Exactly. One is a choice made quickly out of fear, and one is a choice made out of plenty of time to think about things and make a logical decision.

"If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren't viable. "

Clearly we're done talking for the day Bethany. You're just being ridiculous now. Have a good one.

If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren't viable.

yep...make you think about it, doesn't it?

Clearly we're done talking for the day Bethany. You're just being ridiculous now. Have a good one.

How is that any more ridiculous than your example of "in the womb, out of the womb"? Please explain the difference.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.

Huh? I'm sorry. I'm not seeing this one. Aren't MOST people who abort pro-choice? I mean, isn't it the whole "choice" thing why they abort in the first place?

"yep...make you think about it, doesn't it? "

Umm.. No actually. It makes me think Bethany just feels like being snarky today. But for the sake of fairness, I'll explain why it doesn't make me think about anything else.

If I am alive outside of the womb, I'm viable.

If I am removed from a womb, and I die because my development is not compatible with life, I'm not viable.

Anything that happens to me AFTER I'm out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.

If I am alive outside of the womb, I'm viable.If I am removed from a womb, and I die because my development is not compatible with life, I'm not viable.

If I'm alive outside a lake, I'm viable. If I'm taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I'm not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person.

"Huh? I'm sorry. I'm not seeing this one. Aren't MOST people who abort pro-choice? I mean, isn't it the whole "choice" thing why they abort in the first place? "

JLM - lets clarify here... are you asserting that anyone who happens to be pro choice would have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy? I know I'm not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.

And now, you and JLM are saying that those opinions that are not in compliance with your own, the SAME opinions that keep these discussions going, are harmful?

I can't speak for Bethany, but yes...it is harmful. My words don't inadvertently support the extermination of human life in the womb. It's not harmful to HAVE the discussions, but the baby that may very well be exterminated by certain words or opinions of someone who is giving their opinion is harmed.

Elizabeth....you're smart, you're strong, you have a moral grounding, you are a leader and not a follower. Please, please, please understand that not everyone is you. Some people's decisions are indeed swayed by peer pressure. Where do you think these ideas come from? I honestly don't see many young kids in the library these days. They formulate many opinions based on other's opinions. These are followers...not leaders. These people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and may not have a moral grounding. Many are weak and scared and go into the privacy of the internet where they can share their thoughts and ideas anonymously...and, without anyone knowing at all.

Does that make sense?

Anything that happens to me AFTER I'm out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.

And can you please explain to me how one can change from being a non-viable biologically living, growing and developing human organism that somehow is NOT a person, to all of a sudden, in this magical instant of "viability" being a person, (and yet, no one knows how to calculate "viability" accurately while the baby is still in the womb,amazingly).

Anything that happens to me AFTER I'm out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.

Even if you're in a tragic accident and need to be put on a respirator...even for a couple of days? During those couple of days are you viable?

"If I'm alive outside a lake, I'm viable. If I'm taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I'm not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person. "

Are you a fish? A whale? Are you SUPPOSED to live in water?

Why would you develop to become viable in an environment you're not designed to live in? Thats absurd.

Humans develop in a womb to reach a point where they are VIABLE or ABLE TO LIVE in the environment they're designed to live in. If they DIE when they're put in that environment TOO EARLY, they are not viable.

There is no point of development that would make you able to live in water unless you are a sea creature. Are you a sea creature? If you develop to live under water, you're right. You ARE a non-person, because people don't live under water.

I know I'm not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.

Why would you never consider it, Amanda?

"Even if you're in a tragic accident and need to be put on a respirator...even for a couple of days? During those couple of days are you viable?"

Of course! You may be seriously injured and in need of life support, but you have certainly developed to the point of being able to live outside of a womb!

JLM - lets clarify here... are you asserting that anyone who happens to be pro choice would have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy? I know I'm not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.

No. That's why I said, "Aren't MOST people who abort pro-choice?". I didn't say all.

That would be ridiculous on my part, because that's like saying no pro-life person would ever have an abortion.

HOWEVER....the moment they choose to abort, they ARE pro-choice, no? I mean, they are saying that their "choice" trumps life, right? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an abortion mother CHOOSING to abort? Hence, pro-CHOICE...at least for that moment?

"If I'm alive outside a lake, I'm viable. If I'm taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I'm not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person. "
Are you a fish? A whale? Are you SUPPOSED to live in water?

EXACTLY! An unborn child is not SUPPOSED to live outside the womb until the child is developed fully. This does not in ANY way take away from the fact that the child is a human being deserving of protection, and thus far you have not given me any reasoning whatsoever that babies turn from non-persons to persons upon "viability", simply because removing it from where it is SUPPOSED to be would kill it!

My words don't inadvertently support the extermination of human life in the womb.

Directly, no they don't.

But let's say someone reads what you write, and looks at it as self-righteous or something like that and decides, "I'm going to have an abortion and be okay with it, because that person doesn't know me, I'm going to prove her wrong."

Well, your words just influenced somebody to have an abortion.

Do you get what I'm saying here?

ANYTHING that anybody says can be construed in a way that has an influence on another person. That doesn't mean you meant it to be harmful, as I'm sure Doug doesn't view his words or his opinions as harmful.

Does that mean we should not engage in these discussions because somebody might be influenced by something written by someone they don't even know?

NO! And I don't think that Doug's opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.

That is like saying that because people have done bad things in the name of the Bible, that the Bible ITSELF is harmful. Which, I think we know, it's not.

JLM: You brought up the viability nonsense, and now the "wanted" nonsense, when all along we were discussing why abortion IS considered a holocaust.

Oh Please. You mentioned, How these people can sleep at night is beyond me and the answer is that for many people pre-viability abortions are not "bad" and/or they don't favor more restrictions on abortion than we now have.

And later you said, Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it's plant life!

I agreed that it's "human life," and noted that that's not what the argument is really about. It's about valuation.

If legal abortion was intended to end all pregnancies or kill the unborn "en masse" then you'd have a case for "holocaust." In reality, we are allowing the individual pregnant women to decide whether to continue or end pregnancies, and even if the choice is to end one, it's not like the woman is doing it "to eradicate the human race" or "kill all the babies," etc.

Because I am healthy mentally and physically, I have health insurance, a family that would support me, an environment around me that would be safe for my pregnancy, and the intuition that would stop me from having sex with any guy who wouldn't be a supportive and wonderful dad.

Of course! You may be seriously injured and in need of life support, but you have certainly developed to the point of being able to live outside of a womb!

But you're not now. Things have changed. Like the unborn, you have a CHANCE...even a good chance...of reaching viability. What does the womb have to do with a human being human or not?

NO! And I don't think that Doug's opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.

Y la lengua es un fuego, un mundo de maldad. Juan 3:6

Because I am healthy mentally and physically, I have health insurance, a family that would support me, an environment around me that would be safe for my pregnancy, and the intuition that would stop me from having sex with any guy who wouldn't be a supportive and wonderful dad.

But do you think it would be wrong for you to have an abortion, should you have all of those factors and still desire to not be pregnant anymore?

Oh Please. You mentioned, How these people can sleep at night is beyond me and the answer is that for many people pre-viability abortions are not "bad" and/or they don't favor more restrictions on abortion than we now have.

Yes Doug, I did ask that. and I'll ask it again....How can YOU sleep at night supporting a HOLOCAUST????????? We agreed that it's human life that is being exterminated....right?????

"EXACTLY! An unborn child is not SUPPOSED to live outside the womb until the child is developed fully. This does not in ANY way take away from the fact that the child is a human being deserving of protection, and thus far you have not given me any reasoning whatsoever that babies turn from non-persons to persons upon "viability", simply because removing it from where it is SUPPOSED to be would kill it! "

1. Never said it wasn't a person. EVER. Don't put words in my mouth.

2. Its just as worthy of protection as its mother. If the mother REQUIRED the fetus to live, the situation would be reversed, as neither has more of a right to its own body than the other.

3. If the mother does not consent to her pregnancy, I believe she has the right, whether I personally agreee with it or not, to remove it. If it isn't viable, it has no chance of living outside of the womb. The vast majority of abortions in the US take place at that level of development. Killing, rather than simply removing, a fetus AFTER the point of viability, is a very different story.

Bethany,

Okay, I'm going to go murder a gay person and then say that because I found the WBC website, and according to them "God hates fags" that I am justified in killing them. Who gets put on trial? WBC? NO?!! Oh I do? Okay, just checking...

:: Twilight Zone music ::

JLM: It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night.

Amanda: "JLM - Ohhhh for Gods sake that is BEYOND ridiculous. You can find people advocating just about ANYTHING on the internet, from abortion, to rape, to self mutilation, to murder. If someone does something they would otherwise believe to be wrong because some dude on the internet said it wasn't wrong, they clearly had something wrong with them from the get go."
....

Amanda, and Elizabeth, thanks for your replies to JLM. I guess you can find just about anything on the internet. ; )

Doug...while we've got you here..would you care to answer these two questions for me??? Please???

1. Do you think that there is a remote chance, even a miniscule chance, that one of your posts throughout the years may have influenced a woman/girl to get an abortion she may have contemplated getting, but wasn't sure if it were the "right thing" to do?

2. If yes, why? If no, why not?

Oh Amanda, no no, I get it. The arbitrary value of "viability" only applies to babies, in your mind.

P.S. Yeah, I'm in a snarky mood but you have riled me up with some of your comments today.

Bethany, you do know that in the context of the abortion debate, "viability" means having developed enough to be able to live outside the womb, right?

P.S. Snark.

Okay, I'm going to go murder a gay person and then say that because I found the WBC website, and according to them "God hates fags" that I am justified in killing them. Who gets put on trial? WBC? NO?!! Oh I do? Okay, just checking...

Elizabeth, you're taking this a lot farther than we were trying to take it. We NEVER said that a woman who chooses to abort based on Doug's suggestion would suddenly be justified, but simply that (spiritually speaking), he is partially accountable because of his purposeful advocacy of abortion, masked as something else.

The purpose of this whole discussion was to explain that while he may appear charming on the outside, he can be a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are not saying that he's not likeable and friendly. But his advocacy for abortion in the deceptive way that he does it, can certainly convince an unresolved woman to have an abortion.

Why do you compare him to the phelps, of all people? They aren't manipulative or sneaky. They are openly aggressive and hostile and they don't hide how they really feel.

Doug masks his true intent with words like "choice" and "freedom", and to many people, his thoughts could "seem" logical and nice to a woman who is seeking answers and the easy way out. The words "choice" and "freedom", "rights", those are just coverups for the real issue which is abortion, and I know you of all people understand this.

Doug knows this, and he continues to push it on a pro-life blog,and yes, I do think that spiritually speaking he is accountable partially for anything negative that results from his words. As am I.

JLM: Aren't MOST people who abort pro-choice?

If nothing else, they see that in their situation having an abortion is the best thing. That includes many people who would formerly, (and possibly in general), call themselves pro-life.

Among fundamentalist Christian women who describe themselves as "born again," the rate of having abortions is 15 - 20%. Lower than the general population but still significant.
......

I mean, isn't it the whole "choice" thing why they abort in the first place?

No, they have abortions because for whatever reasons the pregnancy is unwanted.

Bethany, you do know that in the context of the abortion debate, "viability" means having developed enough to be able to live outside the womb, right?

Yes, but I'm trying to prove a larger point by using those examples.

P.S. Snark.

The girl that is snarky is not always full of malarky. ;-)

Doug,
Can you please respond to my May 28, 2008 4:44 PM post???

I do think that spiritually speaking he is accountable partially for anything negative that results from his words. As am I.

So, if someone interprets from your words that gay people are committing an abomination against God, and this justifies the violence against them, then you are held accountable for that Bethany? Spiritually speaking of course.

Dougs answer is "take the easy way out." The only problem is, it only sounds easy. In reality, it has life long impact.

Bethany, my answer is to take the best course of action for the woman, and sometimes that means ending the pregnancy. Not always, no, of course not. And sometimes there will be regrets, later on - no argument there.

Given a woman's family life, etc., continuing the pregnancy could be "taking the easy way out," and still not be the best thing for her.

So, if someone interprets from your words that gay people are committing an abomination against God, and this justifies the violence against them, then you are held accountable for that Bethany? Spiritually speaking of course.

No, because my intent is not to promote violence against gays. Doug's intent is quite obviously to keep abortion (violence against babies) legal.

NO! And I don't think that Doug's opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.

Then why do cigarette companies get sued? AND LOSE???

Why are they NOT able to use certain "mascots" to promote their product that may INFLUENCE children under the age of 18??? Isn't this the same age group that is having abortions?

P.S.

I do not think of Doug as a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think he is a good person who has an opinion that, while I may find it to be misguided, is rooted in the fact that he doesn't think it's his place to tell someone else what to do with their body. (Not that I believe we as pro-lifers are telling people what to do with their body)

Isn't this the same age group that is having abortions?

There are lots of age groups having abortions if I'm not mistaken.