Pro-aborts try to remake Obama as soft on abortion

slide 1 obama centrist.JPG

slide 2 obama centrist.JPG

Pro-abort bloggers Christina Page on the Huffington Post and Scott Swenson on RH Reality Check are attempting to spin Barack Obama as "centrist" on abortion, or even "pro-life."

Beyond the fact that this is a wild lie, the question is why, according to them, would this be a good thing?...

If pro-aborts are so proud of abortion, why not sell their candidate just the way he is, so supportive of abortion he condones infanticide?

Did Page and Swenson mean to admit abortion support isn't mainstream and fabulous?

The thrust of Page's column:

Obama has a huge opportunity to win over an unlikely voting bloc: pro-life voters... The data show that the pro-choice approach is more effective at achieving what the American public views as "pro-life" goals i.e. reducing the number of abortions, preventing late term abortion, than the so-called "pro-life" approach.

According to Page, the "pro-choice approach" is pushing comprehensive sex ed and contraception.

First, the data certainly does not bear out Page's contention. Comprehensive sex ed is taught in 75% of our schools according to Guttmacher, with the percentage much higher for at least 20 years.

guttmacher comprehensive.jpg

In fact, comprehensive sex ed has been taught to American adolescents and teens for 40 years, and where is any proof it has been other than a dismal failure?

nyc condom.jpgAnd contraception? It is now available to anyone anytime. NYC workers even hand out condoms at subway stations.

By Page's own words, 89% of the female population uses contraception, accounting for half of all abortions:

Obama could remind the voter that only 11% of sexually active women don't use contraception and from this 11% comes 50% of the nation's abortions.

I don't know if Page's statistics were correct, but if she was trying to use them to make her case, she failed.

Further, why care about "reduc[ing] unintended pregnancy and abortion"? Page unwittingly plays into our hands. The obvious response is: What's wrong with abortion that one would want to prevent it?

Swenson's piece was more troublesome. Turns out Max Lucado, Franklin Graham and other conservative pastors attended Obama's meeting for them the other day, although Graham did appear to distance himself afterward, arguing he hadn't hugged Obama but merely shook his hand. (Sheesh.)

Swenson highjacked a section of Charisma magazine founder Steve Strang's blog report of the meeting, particularly the "more centrist than expected" phrase so he had a good title for his column. But here are some of Strang's additional thoughts Swenson unsurprisingly omitted:

Since I am opposed to the leftist political stands of the Democratic Party and of Obama specifically, I didn't really want to attend....

I said, "Senator... I want to ask what your stand on abortion is and if you believe what I think you believe, how you justify that with your Christian faith and why you think we should vote for you."...

[O]ther than his demeanor and obvious attempt to win over the Christian leaders in the room, he didn't say anything new....

Whether Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton or any of the other Democrats had gotten the nomination, I believe the policies they espouse are dangerous....

Strang did have one ominous reflection:

I returned from the meeting very concerned. Here is a liberal - Obama - reaching out to the Christian community at a time the conservative - Sen. John McCain - seems to be distancing himself from the so-called "Christian Right." I think McCain has a lot of work to do to get the support of the Christian community. Obama seemed to have the support of at least half of the 43 leaders who attended the Chicago meeting. And in my opinion, he "made points" with the rest....

[HT for Page column: Phil at RockForLife]


Comments:

Pro-aborts lying about Obama's hardcore stand on abortion to reach out for pro-lifers' votes??

..and he's ok with this?

man..what would they want him to do next, attend a pro-life rally in front of a PP abortuary to get more pro-lifers to vote for him??

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 11:37 AM


Jill, the vast majority of pro-choice people view abortion as the last alternative, after abstinence, comprehensive sex education, contraception, having the child and giving it up for adoption or keeping the child have failed or been rejected by the mother.

Since this position is supported by Obama, he is in fact "in the center" on the issue.

Obviously, that is contrary to your extremist agenda, but it is a fact. Deal with it.

Posted by: Bystander at June 13, 2008 11:46 AM


Google Barack Hussein Obama's voting record. Kind of speaks for itself.

Posted by: Carla at June 13, 2008 11:47 AM


"..he is in fact "in the center" on the issue. "
------------------------------

There is NO center on the abortion issue..either you are for it or against it...

He is being hypocritical if he takes this "centrist" view/ stand.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 11:51 AM


Redefining well established words and terms is a favorite tactic of the proaborts, so it's no surprise that they would try to redefine "prolife" to fit Obama. The term means one who "opposes the legality of elective abortion".

Look it up, bystander, it does NOT fit your candidate.

Posted by: Doyle at June 13, 2008 12:06 PM


RSD, it is only extremists like you and Jill who claim there is no "center on the issue". The vast majority of Americans are within that "center", and you anti-choice, anti-birth control extremists represent maybe 5% of the population.

Obviously to be in a tiny minority is very upsetting to you extremists, but it is a fact.

Posted by: Bystander at June 13, 2008 12:09 PM


Doyle, are you saying if someone could eliminate all abortions by changing people's hearts and minds, better contraception, less sex, and more adoption, but kept abortion as a legal alternative, that person would not be "pro life?"

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 12:11 PM


By the way, the linked articles in the Huffington Post and Reality Check are very interesting and well worth reading.

To encourage policies that reduce abortion is in fact a pro-life position, in spite of the hijacking of that term by extremists, whose policies of abstinence-only education and restrictions on access to contraception have increased abortion.

RSD, Jill, Doyle, Carla I am sorry these facts make you furious. Fortunately, the issues will be decided by the majority of "centerists" and not by the small minority of extremists.

Posted by: Bystander at June 13, 2008 12:17 PM


"The vast majority of Americans are within that "center".
---------------------------------------
Typical pro-abort, leftist,liberal rhetoric...

and, Hal...if you "eliminate all abortions" why would it need to be legal?

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:19 PM


RSD, just trying to make a point. According to Doyle "pro life" can only mean a government ban of abortion. i think the term is broader than that.

Of course, abortion will never be completely eliminated, ban or no ban.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 12:23 PM


Bystander,

We could also apply the statement to "Slavery"...

Either you're for slavery or against it...there is no "center" except in your pro-abort minds

We all know slavery was legal back then...look where it is now.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:23 PM


...oops sorry for the dup post...Mods can you delete?

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:25 PM


Mods can you delete?

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:25 PM


Done.

Posted by: carder at June 13, 2008 12:30 PM


and, Hal...if you "eliminate all abortions" why would it need to be legal?

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'd love to eliminate the need for root canals, but it should be a legal option for those who need it.

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 12:31 PM


"I'd love to eliminate the need for root canals, but it should be a legal option for those who need it.

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 12:31 PM"
-------------------------------

If you brush regularly there would not be need to do a root canal ;-)

..and root canal procedures don't take the life of a patient...

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:33 PM


The people who are for a decision to kill a human being,(pro choice) are for/pro killing a human being.
It's that simple.
They think, decide, and kill a human being.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 12:38 PM


Not everyone will always brush regularly or effectively. Let's educate, provide electric toothbrushes, and high quality root canels for those few that still need them.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 12:39 PM


Approximately 150,000,000 females in US.
How much of that population is fertile? 60% or so?
That's 90 million sexually active * 11% = 9.9 million.

Where in the world is Page getting her 50% figure from? Thin air?

I know the repeat rate for abortion (2nd+ abortion) is around 50%.

But how does that relate to contraceptive efficacy?

it doesn't.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 12:42 PM


...and don't kill your patients.

Hal..you forgot that one.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:43 PM


You know of course all my numbers above are guestimates, except the top number comes from US Census population clock and strangely a very close synch between male and female offspring.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 12:46 PM


"How much of that population is fertile? 60% or so?
That's 90 million sexually active"

big difference between fertile and sexually active.

many many of that 90 million are not having sex I would assume.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 12:49 PM


"RSD, it is only extremists like you and Jill who claim there is no "center on the issue".
----------------------------------

I thought I was just a "conservative" but now I am labeled as an "extremist" for standing up for the life and wellness of the unborn and its mother?

So be it.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 12:52 PM


The anti-abortion AND anti-contraception folks are most certainly extremists.

Considering over 90% of Americans are sexually active before marriage, and over 95% of fertile women use birth control at some point in their lives, opposition to both is, even just statistically speaking, an extreme view point.

I've encountered far more pro lifers who are more concerned with eliminating abortion, as opposed to eliminating sex. You can certainly argue from a pro life view point that contraception and pre marital sex are not inherently bad, but that people who choose to partake should do so with the possibility of pregnancy in mind, sans the option of abortion.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:05 PM


"I've encountered far more pro lifers who are more concerned with eliminating abortion, as opposed to eliminating sex"
-----------------------------

Because abortion KILLS a human life...its as simple as that.

And guess what? Your 90% sexually active before marriage results in more than HALF of marriages ending in divorce.

Check the stats on marriages that did not start with pre-marital sex.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 1:18 PM


Bystander, you said:

Jill, the vast majority of pro-choice people view abortion as the last alternative, after abstinence, comprehensive sex education, contraception, having the child and giving it up for adoption or keeping the child have failed or been rejected by the mother.

Since this position is supported by Obama, he is in fact "in the center" on the issue.

Obviously, that is contrary to your extremist agenda, but it is a fact. Deal with it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Call me crazy, Bystander, but I'm, not sure there is much middle ground here. You either support the murder of an innocent life or you don't -- unless, that is, you can commit half a murder, or a woman can be half pregnant.

Posted by: Charles at June 13, 2008 1:18 PM


If Obama is soft on abortion then where does this story come from:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061010.html

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:24 PM


"And guess what? Your 90% sexually active before marriage results in more than HALF of marriages ending in divorce. "


Ohhhh so THATS what does it! Not the increased affordability and social acceptance of divorce, the high rate of infidelity, financial stress, or falling out of love. Its the fact that they had the EVIL DIRTY SEXORZZZZ before they said their vows!!

LOL.

Correlation does not equal causation, RSD. Marriages between people who didn't have premarital sex are less likely to end in divorce, because they are typically very relgious people who don't believe in divorce, no matter how miserable they are.

No thanks.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:27 PM


Amanda, you call being committed to your spouse and being true to the marriage vows of "in sickness and in health, in good times and bad.." a miserable marriage?

I guess you would also call that "extreme".

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 1:33 PM


Hal @ 12:49 PM

I agree - it's a really hard figure to find, but the first thing you do is eliminate those who can't get pregnant. That was my shot at that: to find a ballpark.

One could do an industry analysis to try to get some numbers, but my point is - Page is playing a shell game with responsibility by associating the 11% with 50% of the abortions, because she's also saying the other 50% of abortions - 600,000, come from contraceptive failure!

Whatever the numbers are, it doesn't change the fact they are human beings who are killed on a rather massive scale.

No matter how you play the numbers, it's still wrong. "Legal", but wrong.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:33 PM


RSD: you might find this article on cohabitation and the myths surrounding it quite interesting!

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=10218&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:36 PM


Here's another one with stats on the success rate of marriages starting out as cohabitating relationships:
http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=842&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary

Note although the website is conservative the numbers come from the CDC.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:38 PM


Of course this might be of interest to some as well:

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=838&department=BLI&categoryid=dotcommentary&subcategoryid=blicul

It's about why men would rather cohabitate than marry.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:40 PM


Great article, Patricia.

If only people will realize that marriage is a decision/ commitment that both of them do with God...and not something you "try out" like a pair of pants before buying.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 1:42 PM


Amanda @ 1:27PM

You can certainly argue from a pro life view point that contraception and pre marital sex are not inherently bad, but that people who choose to partake should do so with the possibility of pregnancy in mind, sans the option of abortion.

Amanda, are you're saying people need to be procreatively responsible? Doesn't such responsibility include marriage?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:42 PM


Cohabitation is not the same as sex.

And no, Chris. I don't think getting married just because you got pregnant is responsible. There are plenty of single parents out there who do JUST fine.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:46 PM


Well, RSD, I think that since it's probably fair to say that most people don't believe God has anything to do with it, that this might be the root of the problem.
That's why I'm against couples marrying in a church if don't believe in this. It begs the question why is the church location so important.
But, I digress!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:48 PM


And no, Chris. I don't think getting married just because you got pregnant is responsible. There are plenty of single parents out there who do JUST fine.

Are you calling me irresponsible?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:48 PM


"Cohabitation is not the same as sex. "
--------------------------------

Gee...what an interesting theory...

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 1:49 PM


Amanda @ 1:46 PM

I can tell you all about it Amanda - been there done that, got the t-shirt in all sizes.

Cohabitate, pregnant before marriage and surprise! still married - quite happily too.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:50 PM


RSD: Umm... my boyfriend and I are sexually active. We don't live together. SO.... not a theory, its my life. They're not the same thing. End of story.

Chris: word twisting. WOOT! Good one! Never said that.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:51 PM


Cohabitation is not the same as sex. Of course not, but it almost always involves sex. It is two people "pretending" to be married. The promise of free sex without committment is one of the strongest reasons why men are so eager to cohabitate.
If you don't want to marry, save the sex for when you are ready to marry.
As one of these articles points out, men are human beings. They will take the path of least resistence and get what they can. (So will women, I might add).

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:52 PM


Hi Bystander,
Not furious at all. Honest.

Posted by: Carla at June 13, 2008 1:53 PM


Cohabitation is not the same as sex.
That's right - cohabitation is not the same as sex at her place.

You could be co-habitating and both be celibate.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:53 PM


"Cohabitate, pregnant before marriage and surprise! still married - quite happily too."

Sooo... you just proved RSD's point wrong. Thank you.

I said I don't think its responsible to get married JUST because you got pregnant. I didn't say its irresponsible to get married WHEN you get pregnant. HUUUUUUGE difference.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:53 PM


(In fact, Chris, thats probably what he and I will do... get married when we're ready to have kids - for insurance and legal and last name purposes. We're both happy for now and in no rush)

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 1:56 PM


You could be co-habitating and both be celibate.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:53 PM

Yes, but that it USUALLY not the norm Chris.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 1:57 PM


And no, Chris. I don't think getting married just because you got pregnant is responsible.

Chris: word twisting. WOOT! Good one! Never said that.

Tell me how I'm supposed to take that statement Amanda, other than people who chose to get married because of a pregnancy is being irresponsible. That's rather insulting to many people, especially men, who stepped up to their procreative results.

So tell me what you were saying....

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 1:57 PM


"RSD: Umm... my boyfriend and I are sexually active. We don't live together. "
---------------------------

Reminds me of the old saying.."why buy the farm when you can get the milk for free..."

Congratulations. Your bf must be very happy with the situation...ALL that sex and ZERO responsibility.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 1:57 PM


Amanda @ 1:53 PM

I said I don't think its responsible to get married JUST because you got pregnant. I didn't say its irresponsible to get married WHEN you get pregnant. HUUUUUUGE difference.

As I said, other than your semantics, what's the difference? Tell me.

I want to see if you know.....

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 2:00 PM


Nope RSD: it's why buy the COW when you can get the milk for free,
but I understand your meaning :-D

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:02 PM


Chris - see 1:53 post, I clarified. Theres a big differnce between being in love with someone, getting pregnant, and getting married when that happens, vs. having casual sex with someone or having a relationship go sour afterwards, and still getting married JUST because you're pregnant. I don't think that does your child ANY favors.

RSD - Yes dear. He's working 2 jobs plus contract work to save up to buy a condo for us because he has ZERO sense of responsibility. He's getting another degree so that he can earn enough for me not to need to work when we have kids because he has ZERO responsibility. So yes, he is very happy with our situation. So am I.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 2:02 PM


Patricia @ 1:57 PM - Right! I forgot to include my tags. ;-)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 2:03 PM


If only people will realize that marriage is a decision/ commitment that both of them do with God...and not something you "try out" like a pair of pants before buying.

Congratulations. Your bf must be very happy with the situation...ALL that sex and ZERO responsibility.

Thanks, RSD, for once again demonstrating that the real goal of the anti movement is the imposition of Christianist morality on the rest of us, whether you admit it or not.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:04 PM


Amanda,

Good for you. Just a reality check...ask him WHEN you you will be able to get married.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:05 PM


Amanda @ 2:02 PM

So you're advocating procreative responsibility by saying sex should only be reserved for one you'll marry?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 2:06 PM


"Thanks, RSD, for once again demonstrating that the real goal of the anti movement is the imposition of Christianist morality on the rest of us, whether you admit it or not.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:04 PM"
-------------------------------

Sure RAY, I'll admit it...I only want the BEST for everybody. And that would be to be with Christ in heaven when THIS temporary life is over.

I shudder at the other option.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:09 PM


Only liberals can claim Obama is "centrist" on abortion. It is considered "centrist" to the liberal platform to be as extreme as possible. Cause their whole strategy is to be so irrational ("extreme fringe ideas are called centrist") in their arguments to the point where logic or reason of the simplest of concepts can be categorically discarded. They get people so used to the smell that they can't even tell they are standing in $h!t. What more can you say about a political platform where being AGAINST the born-alive infant Act or against partial birth abortion is considered "extreme".

Posted by: truthseeker at June 13, 2008 2:10 PM


Thanks, RSD, for once again demonstrating that the real goal of the anti movement is the imposition of Christianist morality on the rest of us, whether you admit it or not.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:04 PM

What's your problem Ray. For the past 40 years we've had liberal humanism stuffed down our throats and we ARE forced to live with it.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:11 PM


Poor Amanda.
Sex is one the cause's of divorce. You agree in your reasons given for divorce. What is this "evil" you write about?
Then "she" correlates "less likely to divorce" to religion. Where is the correlation Amanda? Your assumption of religious people "don't believe in divorce" makes/equals misery is quite a hasty generalization, specifically a causal fallacy yourself. Another words, you just committed a fallacy of which you state RSD has committed.
P.s. Did you notice I wrote the word "she" in the above paragraph? Now, "she" is a amphiboly or ambigous since "she" may referr to you Amanda, or RSD. That is the fallacy you committed when trying to propagandize a Bozell article the other day. You wrote "he" said " dancing simulates anal sex". Now, "he" is a ambiguous word, since "he" may mean Bozell, or another "he". The other "he" is a principal in West Virgina. And "he" said "dancing simulates anal sex". Not Bozell.
Now, I give you a "D" in agitational propaganda since you are obviously just learning how to be a progagandist. Tighten up the fallacies and tell more half truths without the logical errors A man DA. Hope that helps you get a job for Obama spreading propaganda for Obama being for the decision to kill human beings.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 2:12 PM


RSD - Yes dear. He's working 2 jobs plus contract work to save up to buy a condo for us because he has ZERO sense of responsibility.

Two pieces of advice Amanda, then I'm going back to work:

1. If a man has no sense of responsibility, don't tell the world about that.

2. You may want to have a deep intimate conversation about that responsibility with him, but before you do, you might want to get a perspective about how men think, and how they need respect.

That advice comes from experience, you can disregard it at your own loss.

Later.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 2:12 PM


Yllas..I'm a HE not a she...been one for years now and have no intention of changing...*LOL*

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:14 PM


Sure RAY, I'll admit it...I only want the BEST for everybody. And that would be to be with Christ in heaven when THIS temporary life is over.

RSD, I believe in an afterlife, but neither Christ nor heaven are part of it. I don't pretend to be certain about what I believe, but that is only because I think that NONE of us can truly know what lies beyond, and that anyone who is 100% certain about their beliefs is simply deluded.

In any case, opposition to BOTH abortion AND birth control amounts to an attempt to impose your religion's morality on others, which violates one of the founding principles of this nation. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:18 PM


Yllas..I'm a HE not a she...been one for years now and have no intention of changing...*LOL*

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:14 PM

Well at least you're not afraid to ADMIT to it RSD, unlike SoMG. ;-D

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:21 PM


For the past 40 years we've had liberal humanism stuffed down our throats and we ARE forced to live with it.

Things that your religion opposes aren't illegal, although you are completely free to practice your religion in any way that does not infringe on the rights of others, and this is liberal humanism stuffed down your throat? Forgive me if I don't shed a tear, Patricia.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:21 PM


Haha, Chris... in case it wasn't blatently obvious, I was being very sarcastic. He is one of the most responsible people I've ever known. He always has a plan, far further in to the future than I'm thinking. God, he's already talking about school systems. Thats part of what I love so much about him.

And RSD, we'll get married when we're ready for kids or kids decide they're ready for us. Neither of us see any reason to do it until then.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 2:22 PM


In any case, opposition to BOTH abortion AND birth control amounts to an attempt to impose your religion's morality on others, which violates one of the founding principles of this nation. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:18 PM

Wow. I didn't know that the American constitution had both ABORTION and BC enshrined as rights. The founding father's were very far sighted, weren't they.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:23 PM


Sex is one the cause's of divorce.

Actually, yllas, I think it could be argued that LACK of sex is one of the causes of divorce.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 2:23 PM


"opposition to BOTH abortion AND birth control amounts to an attempt to impose your religion's morality on others"
--------------

That's not just my faith's morality but a NATURAL one...you (and the rest of the pro-abort group) are going against nature.

And I don't think that violates the constitution nor the principles of this country's founding.

Where does it say in the constitution people have a RIGHT to abortion and/or BC? That was a fabrication on the pro-abort side.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:26 PM


Uh-Oh.

Another pro-lifer gnawed through her restraints:

Planned Parenthood Attack

The woman entered the Planned Parenthood behind a staff member coming to work.

Story written by Jacqueline Lapine
Story posted on June 11, 2008

A Columbia woman is free after an attack at the local Planned Parenthood this morning.

42-year-old Alexis Keiser violated a restraining order against the business for the second time Wednesday, causing considerable damage and injuring staff.

Keiser was released on a summons.

The woman entered the Planned Parenthood behind a staff member coming to work.

There are cameras in place along with other measures including security staff. After Wednesday's incident, security at the Columbia location will be tightened.

Keiser went unnoticed until she started throwing tables and chairs, ransacking clinic rooms and destroying medical equipment. Three staff members restrained her until police arrived. Two patients were asked to come back later and the clinic carried on business as usual.

Keiser is a frequent protestor and has continued to cause problems over the past year. ABC 17 has learned she spent time as a patient at Mid-Missouri Mental Health earlier this year.

Keiser faces charges for property damage, assault and trespassing.

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 2:26 PM


Whoops, dag gum ambiguous of "me"
to write a "he" for a "she"
and not know what a RSD be.


Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 2:28 PM


Laura, What's your point? She was mentally unstable.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:28 PM


Things that your religion opposes aren't illegal, although you are completely free to practice your religion in any way that does not infringe on the rights of others, and this is liberal humanism stuffed down your throat?

Oh but you see that's the kicker isn't it? Your religion, and make NO mistake about it, it IS a religion, won't allow people who believe what MY religion holds true to actually practice their religion according to their conscience. IF you don't think this is true, try being a Catholic pharmacist who happens to believe that BC pills are morally wrong. Not prescribing BC pills does not infringe on the rights of others, since it would likely be easy enough to find a pharmacy that would prescribe them. But no, people like you Ray, force your beliefs on others in this situation.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:34 PM


"And RSD, we'll get married when we're ready for kids or kids decide they're ready for us. Neither of us see any reason to do it until then. "
-----------------------------

Sure, Amanda..and as McCain said to Ellen
"I wish you all the happiness"...

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:38 PM


Ah Laura,
Is Keiser your sister?
But, you gotta hand it to those Nazi Doktors, niether thrown chairs, ransacked rooms and destroyed killing equipment, can keep a professional killer, from killing.
Next, you'll be offering propaganda that a, healing by killing doktor, performed a healing by killing, with nothing but "improvised killing equipment". Otherwise known as a IEQ.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 2:45 PM


Ah Laura,
Is Keiser your sister?
But, you gotta hand it to those Nazi Doktors, niether thrown chairs, ransacked rooms and destroyed killing equipment, can keep a professional killer, from killing.
Next, you'll be offering propaganda that a, healing by killing doktor, performed a healing by killing, with nothing but "improvised killing equipment". Otherwise known as a IEQ.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 2:46 PM


RSD: What I find interesting about Amanda's situation (and it is similar to many other women) is that her bf has given her a list of things needed BEFORE marriage:
a condo
a second degree
then only when kids come

It's usually the case that when the conditions are all fulfilled, the bf takes off or more requirements appear.

It's like having kids - there's really never a perfect time to have them - you just have to do!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 2:48 PM


"RSD: What I find interesting about Amanda's situation (and it is similar to many other women) is that her bf has given her a list of things needed BEFORE marriage:
a condo
a second degree
then only when kids come

It's usually the case that when the conditions are all fulfilled, the bf takes off or more requirements appear."


AHAHHAHAHAHA. You're such a man hater, its hysterical! Did it occur to you for a second, in the midst of ignoring the parts where I said "WE" aren't in any rush, that its just as much my idea as it is his? You really like to relish in the notion that all men are like your ex and continue predicting other people's future misery. Tell you what Patricia, I'll send you a wedding invitation.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 2:54 PM


Agreed, Patricia...but hey, it's their CHOICE, their life, right?

As my Godfather said to us (when we were still single)...there is no such thing as a "perfect time" to get married...when you're of legal age and of sound mind, you do all you can do, Trust in the Lord and dive in...

It's the Trust in Divine Providence that's generally lacking in life choices.

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 2:56 PM


I am heartbroken over the loss of Tim Russert.

(This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but my fellow news junkies on this board must be shaken, and there are cable news anchors crying on air...)

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 2:58 PM


I know Laura. I'm sorry. I just heard.

Posted by: Carla at June 13, 2008 3:02 PM


Tell you what Patricia, I'll send you a wedding invitation.


Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 2:54 PM

No thank-you but I appreciate the thought!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 3:05 PM


Well Ray,
That's the penalty for vice. A divorce, from not getting your pleasure sated. Of course, maybe the future reasons for divorce will be from glutony and sloth.
She/he failed to meet my taste bud demands daily and often, till I cheated at a Dairy Queen. I had my pleasure with a Hungerbuster. Divorce granted.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 3:06 PM


Well, folks....gotta finish up on work and go home.

Happy Father's Day to all Fathers out there!

(ps...am not discriminating, even those who aborted their kids are, technically, fathers, too!)

Posted by: RSD at June 13, 2008 3:11 PM


AHAHHAHAHAHA. You're such a man hater, its hysterical! Did it occur to you for a second, in the midst of ignoring the parts where I said "WE" aren't in any rush, that its just as much my idea as it is his? You really like to relish in the notion that all men are like your ex and continue predicting other people's future misery.....


Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 2:54 PM

You are right Amanda. I've completely misunderstood you. Based on what you've posted here, neither of you are committed to marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if the two of you come up with yet another obstacle to marriage in the future.

I sincerely pray, that you are not the one hurt Amanda and that you don't find that you've wasted many good years with a man who leaves you in the end. If in your opinion that's being a man-hater then so be it. However, as Chris has mentioned earlier you need to understand that men think VERY differently about sex, marriage and children.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 3:29 PM


"I sincerely pray, that you are not the one hurt Amanda and that you don't find that you've wasted many good years with a man who leaves you in the end"

Lots of relationships end for lots of reasons. That doesn't mean the years spent together were "wasted." Common misconception.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 3:39 PM


Lots of relationships end for lots of reasons. That doesn't mean the years spent together were "wasted." Common misconception.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 3:39 PM

Yes that's quite true Hal. However, spoken like a man. This is not how the women describe them, post-relationship. Especially if she's been with the same man for 8 or 10 years and is now 35!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 3:42 PM


how old would she be if she hadn't been with that man?

The time is only "wasted" if it doesn't move you down the road of life with personal growth and fulfilling moments.

I had some wonderful relationships before I got married that I don't think either of us would consider "wasted time."

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 3:53 PM


Hal: that's your opinion. However, women do not see it that way.
You can still have children at 45. A woman who has been in two or three long term relationships, soon finds herself too old to have a family. She was led to believe that cohabitation was leading to marriage. This scenario is very very common today. Singles sites are full of women in these predicaments.
As I said, most women view it very differently.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 3:57 PM


Your religion, and make NO mistake about it, it IS a religion

My religion has nothing to do with my advocacy for and defending of the human rights set forth by the founders in the Constitution.

...won't allow people who believe what MY religion holds true to actually practice their religion according to their conscience.

This is simply not true. You are completely free to go to church, pray, wear, eat, or drink anything you like, abort, use birth control, have sex, OR NOT.

IF you don't think this is true, try being a Catholic pharmacist who happens to believe that BC pills are morally wrong.

Sorry, Patricia, but if pharmacists are permitted to pull stunts like this, then what is to stop a Jew or Muslim from getting a job on the line at a pork processing plant, and only then announcing that it is against his or her religion to handle swine? You can wear whatever you want at work...a habit, yarmulk, turban, whatever, but you have to do the job you were hired to do, having know FULL WELL what the requirements were BEFORE you took the job.

And yes, failing to fulfill the prescription infringes on customer's right to health care that they are legally entitled to receive, ESPECIALLY in the case of EC, where time is critical.

Posted by: Ray at June 13, 2008 4:00 PM


Amanda,

I wish you and your guy all the best. He sounds like a great guy and like he makes you very happy! You can send me an invitation if/when you guys get married. IN FACT, if it's not for a couple years, I would have the cuuuuutest little flower girl for you. (Right now, she'd probably just dump all the flowers out before she made it down the aisle) :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 13, 2008 4:15 PM


Hey Amanda:

Wouldn't want you to go through a weekend with your wonderful guy with Patricia's nastiness or Chris's patriarchristianist nonsense being the last post you read.

Sounds like you and your guy have your heads on straight. You could assume that those two are just jealous because they're missing out on living in this life, the only one we can be certain of having. It's frustrating sometimes, like trying to describe colors to a blind man - they think this about us, too. But while we're content to enjoy each rainbow as it comes, they keep telling us to wait for some perfect, dazzling rainbow that may never be or perhaps never was.

Good health, good life and great sex, Amanda. Now that's a prayer!

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 4:16 PM


Some of these posts are really funny:

Hal asks: "Doyle, are you saying if someone could eliminate all abortions by changing people's hearts and minds, better contraception, less sex, and more adoption, but kept abortion as a legal alternative, that person would not be "pro life?"

Hal, argue with the dictionary, not me. I just read them and quote them. What do you do, use whiteout to change them?

Bystander says: "RSD, Jill, Doyle, Carla I am sorry these facts make you furious."

Bystander, what gave me away? Did I use too many punctuation marks, or what? :-D

Posted by: Doyle at June 13, 2008 4:24 PM


Amanda @ 2:22 PM

Given our discussion was about procreative responsibility and shacking up, yeah - your sarcasm was missed - since you're both playing house without formally acknowledging it via marriage, and clearly there is fornication going on, who's to say if he's responsible or not?

Remember you're arguing that sexual abuse is permissible, because you said I don't think its responsible to get married JUST because you got pregnant.

You're making arguments about responsibility based on your own standard. Kill or Keep - woman's choice. I'd say that's abusive to men - and women, and particularly children.

Would you abort his child?

Men don't really know Amanda, because our part in children is detached, and the Supreme Court has said it's okay for the women to have sole discretion in kill a child they only had one half part in creating.

That doesn't look too responsible or fair to me.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 4:30 PM



Ray,

In any case, opposition to BOTH abortion AND birth control amounts to an attempt to impose your religion's morality on others, which violates one of the founding principles of this nation. Thanks, but no thanks.

Really???? Simply being opposed to something that you believe is morally wrong violates our founding principles???

Now see, if that were true, we would need to have a freedom of speech amendment, would we?

Think about that statement Ray. Maybe you meant something else, but it seems to me that having a right to voice your opposition to things is one of the single MOST important principles of our country...don't you?

Posted by: mk at June 13, 2008 4:33 PM


My religion has nothing to do with my advocacy for and defending of the human rights set forth by the founders in the Constitution.

Except that the so-called right to abortion and BC are NOT in the American constitution. And YOUR religion IS attempting to portray these "rights" as existent in your country's constitution.

As for your last point Ray, EVERYONE has the right to live their lives according to their conscience. However, increasingly today, this those with Christian values are under attack and cannot live according to their consciences - they are forced by draconian laws to live their lives and practice their jobs under the relativistic ethics of "tolerance". There is zero tolerance for Christian ethics.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:37 PM


Good health, good life and great sex, Amanda. Now that's a prayer!

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 4:16 PM

No phylosopher, a real prayer would be

"good health, good life and many blessings that God will open your heart to the truth Amanda."

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:40 PM


And phylosopher: I was not in any way "nasty" to Amanda. In fact, I believe she was one who once again called me names.
Once again you demonstrate the liberal bias as to what is tolerance. It's okay for you to be "nasty" when crticizing Christian values but when you liberals are challenged on your values suddenly we are being "nasty". Good grief.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:44 PM


"You can still have children at 45. A woman who has been in two or three long term relationships, soon finds herself too old to have a family."

Then she doesn't "have a family." Big deal.

I'm assuming she was in these long term relationships knowing the years were going by without babies. She had options at the time, and apparently decided she'd rather do what she was doing and perhaps never "have a family." Some women, I hear, break up with guys who aren't interested in starting a family and find others who are. I just don't think it's accurate to call that "wasted" time if she was doing what she wanted all along.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 4:47 PM


I don't know if Page's statistics were correct, but if she was trying to use them to make her case, she failed.

Seriously, Jill? You don't care that 50% of abortions come from the 11% of women who don't want children and DO NOT use contraception? That statistic doesn't bother you at all?

Women who use contraception are less likely to have abortions. If we could get that last 11% of women who don't want children to use contraception, we could cut the abortion rate nearly in HALF. So why isn't that a pro-life goal? Why aren't pro-life people working to ensure that all women have consistent, uninterrupted access to all forms of contraception?

Why, it's almost as if pro-lifers don't really care about preventing abortion.

Posted by: reality at June 13, 2008 4:49 PM


phylosopher @ 4:16 PM said You could assume that those two are just jealous because they're missing out on living in this life, the only one we can be certain of having.

Making assumptions on several levels here phylosopher. Pitiful.

I'm jealous? For what - a great relationship, romance and spontaneous lovemaking in the afternoon? Oh yeah, I'm jealous. hehe

You also assume this is the only life, that there is no other. Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

Who would the prayer you suggest be to?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 4:50 PM


Then she doesn't "have a family." Big deal.

This IS exactly a man's point of view, Hal. However, it is NOT how women think. It IS a big deal to the woman.
How many women get sent the subtle message that children are NOT welcome in the cohabitating relationship? I'd say the fact that they are usually using some form (and maybe more than one) of BC, sends a big message to the woman that children are NOT welcome by the man. Many women go along with state of affairs for years before they realize they are in a "dead-ender".

Studies show that men and women view cohabitation differently. Men usually do not plan to marry the women they cohabitate with. Women see cohabitation leading to marriage.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:53 PM


reality @ 4:49 PM

Go see my post at 1:33 PM.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 4:53 PM


Chris --

Page is playing a shell game with responsibility by associating the 11% with 50% of the abortions, because she's also saying the other 50% of abortions - 600,000, come from contraceptive failure!

...

If the remaining 11% of women who don't want children right now was using contraception, there would be something like 650,000 abortions per year instead of more than a million. Doesn't that shock you?

Whatever the numbers are, it doesn't change the fact they are human beings who are killed on a rather massive scale.

It would be a much less massive scale if more women had consistent access to contraception. So why isn't that a pro-life goal?

Posted by: reality at June 13, 2008 5:00 PM


Phylosophery: I also am not "jealous" of Amanda's life or yours. I never regret remaining chaste until my marriage. I have 4 beautiful talented children from that marriage and I hope to remarry someday, God willing. I consider this life a journey to the next which will be perfect and in God's love.
Instead of making Chris's, RSD and my posts into messages of hate you might consider that we are concerned for Amanda.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:00 PM


Chris -

"Given our discussion was about procreative responsibility and shacking up, yeah - your sarcasm was missed - since you're both playing house without formally acknowledging it via marriage, and clearly there is fornication going on, who's to say if he's responsible or not?"

I'll repeat this for the zillionth time. WE. DON'T. LIVE. TOGETHER. Hard to be "playing house" when we both pay our own rent in TWO DIFFERENT APARTMENTS in TWO DIFFERENT TOWNS.

"Remember you're arguing that sexual abuse is permissible, because you said I don't think its responsible to get married JUST because you got pregnant."

Ummm... WHAT?!?! Sexual abuse is permissible because I don't think there's anything responsible about marrying someone just for the sake of the kids when its loveless?? That makes nooooooooo sense.

"You're making arguments about responsibility based on your own standard. Kill or Keep - woman's choice. I'd say that's abusive to men - and women, and particularly children.

Would you abort his child?"


Again...WHAT??? Dude...WHERE are you getting this crap from? I was talking about SINGLE PARENTHOOD. No where did I mention killing anyone or anything. I have absolutely NO clue where you got any of that from, because it certainly wasn't a response to anything I actually said.

"Men don't really know Amanda, because our part in children is detached, and the Supreme Court has said it's okay for the women to have sole discretion in kill a child they only had one half part in creating."

If a man doesn't know what a woman would do in the event of a pregnancy BEFORE he has sex with her, thats his fault. My boyfriend knew long before pregnancy became a possibility that I'd never have an abortion.

That doesn't look too responsible or fair to me.

Phylo and Elizabeth: Thank you both for your kind words. Elizabeth, all my cousins are teenagers now, so unless one of Michael's siblings has a baby, Gabriella is first in line! =) I wish you lived closer to Minnie. I'm going to hang out with Rae when I go out there this summer to meet Mike's family, but I know thats quite a hike for you...

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 5:01 PM


Pascal's wager has been debunked as morally corrupt and ineffective. You can pretend to believe to fool god?

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 5:04 PM


Studies show that men and women view cohabitation differently. Men usually do not plan to marry the women they cohabitate with. Women see cohabitation leading to marriage.
Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:53 PM

Live and learn.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 5:06 PM


Studies show that men and women view cohabitation differently. Men usually do not plan to marry the women they cohabitate with. Women see cohabitation leading to marriage.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:53 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given your history, why do you feel qualified to hand out relationship advice?

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 5:10 PM


Studies show that men and women view cohabitation differently. Men usually do not plan to marry the women they cohabitate with. Women see cohabitation leading to marriage.
Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 4:53 PM

Live and learn.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 5:06 PM

By this post, you've merely demonstrated Hal, all of my above points but especially why women should not shack up. Thank-you! :-D

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:11 PM


Given your history, why do you feel qualified to hand out relationship advice?

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 5:10 PM

I was not giving relationship advice Laura. It's quite evident you cannot read properly. I was stating, based on studies (not my personal experience because I have never cohabitated) the difference between men and women view's on cohabitation.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:14 PM


Women who don't want to shack up should not shack up. Women who want to, should. And neither should consider their time wasted.

These women are adults and should take responsibility for the decisions they make. Have a discussion about why you are living together, whether it may or may not lead to marriage, and whether you do or do not want a family. Women and men make decisions and live with the consequences. Happens every day. If one consequence is no babies (or marriage) for you, then no babies (or marriage) for you. Life goes on, and it's too short for regrets.

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 5:17 PM


By your 5:06 and 5:17 posts, you continue to demonstrate Hal, all of my above points but especially why women should not shack up and why men don't get it. Thank-you! :-D

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:20 PM


my pleasure. Glad we could have a good exchange. Some women (and men) certainly should not "shack up."

PS: That we don't agree doesn't mean I "don't get it."

Posted by: Hal at June 13, 2008 5:24 PM


Hal:not necessarily you but men in general, although I have my reservations about you.
:-(

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:29 PM


No Patricia, Hal is demonstrating why YOU should not shack up. His philosophy is identical to that of most people I'm close to, including my parents and grandparents who both tell me about all the things they wish they could have done, that I have the opportunity to do. I can't imagine reaching old age, and looking back at all the things I didn't do because of the possibility of it not turning out well. I spent 2 years with a guy who was cheating on me. I don't consider it a waste. I don't consider myself a victim. It's all been part of my path.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 5:29 PM


Amanda, 2:39 p.m.

That's a very good philosophy to have. Life is full of "learning experiences." We all have to have our own.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 13, 2008 5:35 PM


That's fine Amanda. But that is NOT the experience of most women. It's not that they consider themselves victims, however, they do feel the man was being less than honest about the status of the relationship. And the men themselves admitted to leaving many things unsaid or to giving the impression they were open to marriage.
I'm glad you think you may be the exception, but the facts remain as I've stated them.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:37 PM


Elizabeth: I've forgotten! How old is Gabriella?

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:42 PM


I'm not an exception, not at all, not even close actually. Most women of my generation have been raised to be far more independent than women of previous generations. We make decisions on our own, and we own them - good or bad. In fact, I think women who drown themselves in self pity and place all the blame on the man being dishonest are the exceptions.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 5:45 PM


I'm not an exception, not at all, not even close actually. Most women of my generation have been raised to be far more independent than women of previous generations. We make decisions on our own, and we own them - good or bad. In fact, I think women who drown themselves in self pity and place all the blame on the man being dishonest are the exceptions.

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 5:45 PM

Sorry, but the research doesn't prove this POV. Women do not have this detached view of cohabitation. We are emotionally built to form attachments. It has nothing to do self-pity.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:48 PM


She'll be 2 1/2 in August Patricia.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 13, 2008 5:50 PM


Patricia, you said that you married a man you didn't know.

There's a really good way to avoid that - especially before you lock into a marriage and four kids.

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 5:50 PM


The reason I ask Elizabeth is that I read a really lovely picture book yesterday called,"Fancy Nancy and the Posh Puppy" by Jane O'Connor.
It was absolutely wonderful. It's about a little girl who wants to get a dog, but not just any dog - a papillon! The drawings are hilarious as this little girl is the ultimate princess! At any rate, I really enjoyed the book. Thought your little girl might just like to have it read to her and to look at the interesting illustrations!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 5:55 PM


Patricia,

Do they sell it here? It sounds cute and Gabriella loves all animals..especially dogs.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 13, 2008 5:58 PM


Elizabeth: Uhm, lets see. It's published by harpercollins publishers in the us.
I'm betting you could get it at a bookstore: Amazon or indigo books?
Hey, Elizabeth, go to your library if you have one nearby.
Oh gosh, I just checked on Chapters and there's a whole series of these books. I will check them out at work tomorrow! So maybe your nearest library will have them!

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 6:03 PM


Amanda -

I'm not trying to be mean to you - actually I think you're quite intellectually honest.

My boyfriend knew long before pregnancy became a possibility that I'd never have an abortion.

Okay, I'm sorry, you're not cohabitating - you're fornicating.
(It's so hard to keep track of all these details!)

Sexual abuse is permissible because I don't think there's anything responsible about marrying someone just for the sake of the kids when its loveless.

If people are fornicating and there's no love - yeah, I'd call that sexual abuse. It's idolatry, because it objectifies the other person. I don't think anyone wants to be used, or abused - right?

I know you were talking about SINGLE PARENTHOOD.

Tell me if I wrong - aren't you pro-choice?

So, if I understood you correctly, you're saying that a man is unnecessary because:

I said I don't think its responsible to get married JUST because you got pregnant.

So there's alleged loveless fornication going on, and if there's conception and pregnancy, the man can't choose to be responsible, and want the child?

The law doesn't allow that right now.

From a social perspective, the possibility of pregnancy would seem to be desirable after the commitment was made, not before, don't you think?

You're telling me you didn't understand I was making that point?

Amanda - I actually like you - you're tough, engaging and as I said, intellectually honest. I really do wish you the best with your boyfriend. I would have imagined if you were engaged, he would be your fiance.

Love is not a feeling - it's an action. That's true. If you're truly committed to one another, there's no reason not to get married.

But I wonder now in this culture of ours, if people really understand what commitment actually means - no reflection on you, but bringing it back to the thread topic. People spin things the way they want, and see reality the way they want.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 6:32 PM


reality @ 5:00 PM

reality - approximately 50% of the abortions are repeats - would you work to remove abortion as a method of "birth control" by voting for legislation where only one abortion be allowed?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 6:37 PM


Chris:
The way I look at situations which involve premarital sex and cohabitation is that in essence these couples have one foot in the relationship and one foot out of it.
They are experiencing some of the benefits which were once considered within the realm of marriage but none of the responsibilities to one another and certainly not the committment. If these latter were there, they would marry.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 6:42 PM


Hal - your expert first begs the question, then goes circular. Pascal's wager is about Truth. Of course it's bifurcated - to argue any other way says there is more than one absolute truth.

So he assumes there is a transcendent absolute truth which is not God. Your expert must be omniscient! or not.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 6:50 PM


Patricia @ 6:42 PM

Patricia, I agree - and sadly, many seem hellbent on learning hard lessons on their own instead of looking for wisdom from those who've been there. My wife and I had a relationship, and pregnancy forced the issue. My intentions were marriage, but prior relationships need to be cleared out of the way completely, because they are like an infection that's never treated. Eventually things will fester underneath and impact the marriage.

It took a work of the Lord to really get to grips with issues that should have been discussed, and done long before.

However once done, the level of intimacy has been like night and day - truly.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 13, 2008 6:58 PM


"If people are fornicating and there's no love - yeah, I'd call that sexual abuse. It's idolatry, because it objectifies the other person. I don't think anyone wants to be used, or abused - right?"

No, I don't think so. Two consenting adults both opting to have sex is about as far from sexual abuse as you can get. If one person is being manipulated, that's different of course. But many people enter in to relationships with the best of intentions, and regardless of whether or not they're sexually active, some times it just doesn't work out. People DO fall out of love. Legitimately. It's not always that someone was used and then ditched.

"Tell me if I wrong - aren't you pro-choice?"

I'm about as pro choice as I am pro life. I would like to eliminate abortion. Just not through laws or condemning birth control. I compared it to cigarette smoking. People know its bad, they do it anyway. If we made it illegal, people would just find another way to get their cigarettes. Instead, the Surgeon Generals for the past couple of decades have focused on changing the ATTITUDE about smoking. And even with tobacco being legal, it is highly restricted, AND the attitude has changed - smoking is now a social stigma, and rates are WAAAAAAY down. Abortion could be the same. Regulate and restrict it. And work on changing the factors and attitudes that lead people to think its the best option for them. Because 99% of the time, I personally don't think it is the best option. But that has everything to do with my attitude, and the attitude of my loved ones...and nothing to do with laws.

"So, if I understood you correctly, you're saying that a man is unnecessary because"

Not unnecessary at all. But if the choice is to marry a man you don't love JUST because you're pregnant vs. being a single parent, I think being a single parent is the better option.

"So there's alleged loveless fornication going on, and if there's conception and pregnancy, the man can't choose to be responsible, and want the child?

The law doesn't allow that right now."


Well like I said, if a man is opposed to abortion, if its something he feels strongly about, he should get to know the girl he wants to sleep with enough to know she wouldn't have an abortion if she got pregnant. Just like if a girl is worried about it, she should make sure she knows the guy she wants to sleep with isn't a sleaze who would try to talk her in to having one. Forget about the laws for a second, because they're not ALWAYS looking out for us... a lot of times we have to look out for ourselves.

"From a social perspective, the possibility of pregnancy would seem to be desirable after the commitment was made, not before, don't you think?"

Well yeah, for me at least. I dont think marriage is a requirement for sex, but I believe love and commitment is. But some guys AND girls like casual sex, and I don't think that makes them bad people if that sex is consensual. And I don't think they should feel obligated to get married, because that Prrrrobably wont be a very happy marriage.

"If you're truly committed to one another, there's no reason not to get married. "

We just want to have all our ducks in a row first. Home ownership is a big factor to making him feel secure as a husband. We also don't like the idea of latchkey kids. If we wait, he'll be able to support us financially so I could stay home for a few years. But if I got pregnant in the mean time, we'd get married. We both have friends who married young and are already getting divorced...neither of us want to go that route.

All the responsibility is there. The commitment is there, which is WHY we're fine with waiting until we're both ready.

(also, thank you - and same to you.)

Posted by: Amanda at June 13, 2008 7:13 PM


God bless you Chris and your wife too.
Many of my friends have told me they were very promiscuous prior to their marriages & have admitted that those earlier relationships greatly impacted their marriages and affected intimacy with their spouse. I certainly wasn't aware of this aspect and obviously neither were they. It was something they became aware of over time.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 7:19 PM


Amanda: Home ownership is a big factor to making him feel secure as a husband.

My question: why? I don't understand this statement.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 7:27 PM


Many of my friends have told me they were very promiscuous prior to their marriages & have admitted that those earlier relationships greatly impacted their marriages and affected intimacy with their spouse.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 7:19 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Why can I hear the Eric "The Quack" Keroack's oxytocin theory in the distance?)

Posted by: Laura at June 13, 2008 7:47 PM


And there you have it.
When there is no health, no good life(whatever that is defined as) and no great sex, there is no reason for being married to such a human being. And remember, those are three main reasons for divorce, or "lovers" leaving each other. I bet there is/are several divorces ahead for Phylospher, being that is a principle of the "good" life. Others must suffer for the hedonist phylosopher to "live and learn".
When "things change", Phylosopher stays the same, and leaves the sick, non-pleasure giving object, who has changed into those qualities. And it might just take one qualitative change for hedonist phylosophers to leave human beings to their misery. Or is miserably unhealthy that "good life" phylosopher? Take the pleasure of sex, and when a person "gives" another person the gift that keeps on giving to death, HIV, has that person lost good health, and has then lost, one quality to a hedonist? And away the hedonist phylosopher goes, to find another person to satisfy his phylosophy.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 8:03 PM


I predict that Amanda will be divorced when they lose a house from always buying more then they can afford, on one salary. In fact, Amanda will not keep the house in a divorce, from not being able to financially afford the house on her own. But, the male mate is actually setting up a win-win situation for himself by his motivation of not getting a house until HE can afford the house, ON HIS OWN. I predict a 50% chance of Amanda being divorced from reason of health,wealth and the will power to get a divorce, for any reason where Amanda lacks the quality of "good". One in two marriages end in divorce.

Posted by: yllas at June 13, 2008 8:18 PM



Patricia said: IF you don't think this is true, try being a Catholic pharmacist who happens to believe that BC pills are morally wrong.

Ray said:4:00: Sorry, Patricia, but if pharmacists are permitted to pull stunts like this, then what is to stop a Jew or Muslim from getting a job on the line at a pork processing plant, and only then announcing that it is against his or her religion to handle swine? You can wear whatever you want at work...a habit, yarmulk, turban, whatever, but you have to do the job you were hired to do, having know FULL WELL what the requirements were BEFORE you took the job.

A pharmacist dispensing BC would be more like a Muslim selling pork among many other groceries in a grocery store, not processing it in the pork plant.

Posted by: Janet at June 13, 2008 8:58 PM


janet: exactly. the analogy doesn't fit which is why I didn't respond to it.
a pharmacist doesn't just dispense BC pills but other medications and they have the right not to dispense a medication that may end up killing another human being. A Catholic pharmacist would not go and work for PP dispensing morning after pills , BC pills, condoms etc.
A muslim working in a pork factory KNOWS that the factory handles only pigs, therefore he would likely not apply for the job.

Posted by: Patricia at June 13, 2008 9:03 PM


Patricia: 9:03:
Yes. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: Janet at June 13, 2008 9:15 PM


The definition of blasphemy:

The sin of so often and so consistently denying the truth that in the end it cannot be recognized.

Posted by: HisMan at June 13, 2008 9:58 PM


Patricia:

Will you please acknowledge that you do not speak for all women, not even for most, maybe only for Catholic conservative anti-choice and anti bc women - a subset of a subset of a subset of women.

Gender is not a dichotomy, but a continuum. So there are a range of views among men and women.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 10:20 PM


Perhaps Phylo, Patrica speaks the truth which most people can't fathom, don't obey and don't seek, you know, like you.

By the way, the truth is not an opinion or determined by a show of hands.

Truth is determined by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. I don't expect you do understand or even be able to grasp the meaning of that, however.

Posted by: HisMan at June 13, 2008 10:24 PM


Yes, Patricia, it is nasty to threaten to "pray" for someone in a way that implies a control. It's like a little kid on a playground realizing he can't make his buddies do what he wants, so threatens to run home and get his big brother to come back and "make'em." Perhaps this isn't visible from your perspective, but that is how it sounds from the opposing one.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 10:26 PM


Chris A wrote;
"Making assumptions on several levels here phylosopher. Pitiful."

Phylosopher: I know you only by your posts - most anything about you would be an assumption - as in, I assume you are a human male. In reality you could be a male cross dresser impersonating a butch lesbian passing as male trying to infiltrate a homophobic conservative group. But I'm fine with the assumption in cyber world.

Chris again: "I'm jealous? For what - a great relationship, romance and spontaneous lovemaking in the afternoon? Oh yeah, I'm jealous. hehe"

Phylosopher: Let's just say a lifetime of observation has shown this to very often be the case with religious moralists. Dog in the manger.

The Chris questioned: "You also assume this is the only life, that there is no other. Ever hear of Pascal's wager?

Phylosopher answered:
Studied, discussed and debunked it before you learned how to pronounce Socrates. (and the post with link below is a pretty good primer on the debunking, though it suffers a bit in the translation/ESL.)

Then Chris queried;
Who would the prayer you suggest be to?

Phylosopher explained "The Great Spaghetti Monster" - he of the multitudinous noodley appendages and their many delicious uses. - Who else?

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 10:56 PM


Hal wrote:
Then she doesn't "have a family." Big deal.

One word seems to be lacking in that statement, Hal. It should read: "Then she doesn't have a biologial family."

But many folks who don't have children, or siblings, or living parents can form very strong bonds and may even cohabit with non-biologically related individuals. (Even if someone has biological sibs, kids, etc, one may not necessarily get along with or live in proximity to them.) It's a created, not a biological family, but just as much a family.


Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 11:06 PM


Patricia wrote:
"The drawings are hilarious as this little girl is the ultimate princess!"

Do you see the irony of this book recommendation when it is juxtaposed to your other post about "women being emotionally built to form attachments."

Many parents today lean towards a much more androgynous or at least independent and feminist model of daughter rearing.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 13, 2008 11:33 PM


Gender is a invention of the mind. A word, is a thought of the mind explaining/describing physical reality.
Truth, is the mind/thoughts conforming to physical reality.
A man who "thinks" he is "female gender"(a mental construction), but is male physical matter, is making his thoughts bend/match/change physical reality, to his thoughts.
Reality does not depend on minds to exist.
In fact, a person who "thinks" they are a female, and has the physical matter of a male, have formed a hallucination, a profound distortion of a person's preception of reality. Is the hallucination permanent, and continuous at all times of the the person? Does a single thought/second, enter the mind of a person, who supports his hallucination of a non-existent physical matter, which creats a "mind doubt" of his/her hallucination of the mind? Another words, how continuous must a mind think, to make physical matter, conform to their perception of physical matter, that doesn't exist in physical matter?
Thinking your a duck, does not make you a duck, no matter how continuous your mind thinks to itself, and others, you are a duck , if the physical material, is not duck physical material.
Gender is a construction of the mind used to support a perception of physical matter, that is a hallucination.


People, who think they are males, "trapped in a female body",or vice versa, are given psychoactive drugs to enforce the "reality of the hallucination", by making the mind reduced to physical reality/perceptions. From mood stabilizers,anti depressants,antianxiety, anti-obsessive, to the ultimate reality perception drugs known as antipsychotics. Nothing changes the decision of the mind, to make reality conform to a hallucination, once a person has decided to make reality their own mental invention. You may only make the mind "quite to the hallucination", through psychoactive drugs, but the mind persist in the truth of the hallucination.



Posted by: yllas at June 14, 2008 12:24 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "the truth is not an opinion or determined by a show of hands."

Absolutely right.

But then you wrote: "Truth is determined by every word that proceeds from the mouth of [my imaginary friend]."

No comment.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 12:31 AM


Patricia, you wrote: "A muslim working in a pork factory KNOWS that the factory handles only pigs, therefore he would likely not apply for the job."

Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 12:34 AM


Pascal's Wager is pragmatic.

Posted by: phylosopher at June 14, 2008 12:37 AM


Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.
Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 12:34 AM

SoMG, would you take this one step further and say that a person who doesn;t wish to perform abortions should not be a gynecologist?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 14, 2008 1:07 AM


SoMG:
Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.

What if they have a mid-life conversion? Must they quit their job ?

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 1:35 AM


Chris A., you wrote "I know the repeat rate for abortion (2nd+ abortion) is around 50%."

That's an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that among women having abortions, 50% have already had a previous abortion? (If this is what you mean, you are right, according to Guttmacher, see link below.) Or do you mean that 50% of women who have one abortion will go on to have another one? These are different questions.

Patricia, or Mary, or Carder or whoever it was with whom I was talking on a previous thread about how the medical community keeps track of abortion rates, this report will interest you too. Item: "*During 1973–1997, data were received from or estimated for 52 reporting
areas in the United States: 50 states, the District of Columbia and
New York City. In 1998 and 1999, CDC compiled abortion data from only
48 reporting areas. Alaska, California, New Hampshire and Oklahoma did
not report, and data for these states were not estimated. For 2000–2002,
Oklahoma again reported these data, increasing the number of reporting
areas to 49."

Lots more interesting stuff on repeat abortion, on abortion generally, and on collecting data on abortion:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/11/21/or29.pdf

Interesting: "the 11% of all sexually active
women who were not using contraceptives accounted
for almost one-half of abortions."

They found no association between religious affiliation and repeat abortion.

Guttmacher’s 2004 Abortion Reasons and Logistics
Survey did ask women obtaining abortions if one reason they were terminating the pregnancy was because their partner was abusive. Only 5% of women indicated that an abusive partner was a contributing factor
and there was no significant difference between first time
and repeat abortion patients indicating this response."

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 1:39 AM


Janet, you wrote: "SoMG:
Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.

What if they have a mid-life conversion? Must they quit their job ?"

Suppose a deli worker converts to Islam, must HE quit HIS job or should the deli be made to accomodate him (by ceasing to sell pork products)?

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 1:50 AM


SoMG:

If God is my imaginary friend, then you must be Peter Pan or should I say Captain Hook (no pun intended)?

It must be miserable to know, based on your persepctive, that 1,000 years from now no one will know that you existed, no one will know what you did, and that existence for you was for the most part, meaningless. I mean you do kill the future don't you?

And, if I'm right about God, you'll be wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth with endless personal regret with no resolution of the issue, ever.

Either way, you lose.

Why do you bother?

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 2:26 AM


Truthseeker, you wrote: "SoMG, would you take this one step further and say that a person who doesn;t wish to perform abortions should not be a gynecologist?"

In the USA we can afford to have right-to-life gyns and family practicioners because professional abortion is legal and available to just about everyone.

However, if there were a genuine shortage of abortion providers--by which I mean, if there were a significant number of women to whom legal professional abortion was really unavailable (unlike, say, Ireland, where abortion is illegal but available to everyone by visiting England) and women were growing pregnancies against their wills and giving birth to babies they didn't want in measurable numbers, then if you were a gyn or primary-care doc and you refused to do or arrange abortions sooner or later one of your patients would die or be maimed in a self-abortion attempt or a black-market abortion or whatever and you would bear a burden of guilt for having failed to prevent your patient's death or maiming. It doesn't even have to be a death or even an injury to have adverse moral consequences for you-- if you allow a patient to be forced to grow a pregnancy against her will and give birth to a baby she doesn't want, then you have harmed and wronged your patient. Being forced to give birth is harm in itself. You should seek out someone who has survived the experience and talk with them. This means a trip abroad, I am happy and proud to say.

So, no, there's currently no need to force gyns to be involved in abortions and we should be careful to ensure that this remains so by continuing to cultivate an abortion industry sufficiently robust to meet the entire demand for its services.

I guess the same principle applies to the pharmacist. I would not object to a non-contraceptive pharmacy (or non-abortifacient pharmacy) somewhere like NYC where I know that contraceptive pharmacies are available to everybody. In that case I'd say let the free market decide. But if you're the only pharmacist available to a community, then you have a professional responsibility to your community which includes providing contraceptives.

Of course, the fact that contraceptives and abortifacients can be purchased by mail pretty much makes the question entirely symbolic.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 2:30 AM


SoMG: Suppose a deli worker converts to Islam, must HE quit HIS job or should the deli be made to accomodate him (by ceasing to sell pork products)?

Pharmacist? (Years of schooling)

Deli worker? (No schooling)

I don't know all the rules of Islam, but maybe he could find a job at a bakery instead?

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 2:41 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "It must be miserable to know, based on your persepctive, that 1,000 years from now no one will know that you existed, no one will know what you did, and that existence for you was for the most part, meaningless. I mean you do kill the future don't you?"

Two points. First, you are wrong-- 1000 years from now, unless civilization destroys itself before then or we get hit by an asteroid or something, someone will read one of my scientific publications and know some of what I did. Not a lot of people but someone. Secondly, while I expect my situation 1000 years from now to be grim indeed, this is not a good reason for attributing literal truth to a comforting fantasy, which is what you do.

By the way, you said before that you were intending to contribute generously to Kline's campaign. You would prevent a much larger number of killings of unborn human babies if you gave the money to these people instead:

http://www.archfoundation.com/

You must realize that it is extremely unlikely even if Kline is elected that anything he does will ever prevent a single abortion.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 2:54 AM


Somg: 2:30: However, if there were a genuine shortage of abortion providers--by which I mean, if there were a significant number of women to whom legal professional abortion was really unavailable (unlike, say, Ireland, where abortion is illegal but available to everyone by visiting England) and women were growing pregnancies against their wills and giving birth to babies they didn't want in measurable numbers, then if you were a gyn or primary-care doc and you refused to do or arrange abortions sooner or later one of your patients would die or be maimed in a self-abortion attempt or a black-market abortion or whatever and you would bear a burden of guilt for having failed to prevent your patient's death or maiming.

It doesn't even have to be a death or even an injury to have adverse moral consequences for you-- if you allow a patient to be forced to grow a pregnancy against her will and give birth to a baby she doesn't want, then you have harmed and wronged your patient.

"adverse moral consequence" ? Why care at this point? This is the saddest sentence I've read in a long, long time. I'm still praying.

How many self-abortion attempts are reported by hospitals? I find it so hard to believe anyone would be so reckless, but then again, they want to kill their baby, so why would they care if they kill themself while they are at it? These people need professional help from a psychiatrist. I hope they get it. So sad. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an abortuary in close proximity in most cases, but they don't even have the where with all to go there.

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 2:56 AM


Janet, by the same token, the pharmacist can find a job in drug sales, technical writing, pharmaceutical advertising, or industrial research. One whose responsibilities don't conflict with his religion.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 3:04 AM


Janet, by "adverse moral consequences" I mean circumstances that cause you to be guilty of something. A primary-care doctor who allows his patient to be forced to grow a pregnancy against her will and give birth to a baby she doesn't want is morally and professionally guilty of harming and wronging a patient. That's what I mean by adverse moral consequences.

I don't know of any reported self-abort attempts. I think they're pretty rare in the USA. I've never seen one here. I'm sure there are some because people do everything you can think of to their bodies and things you can't think of as well but I'm also sure they're rare.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 3:17 AM


Janet, (rolls eyes) you wrote: "they want to kill their baby, so why would they care if they kill themself while they are at it? "

In my experience most abortion patients prefer to remain alive. It's this sort of silly ranting that contributes to the stereotype (deserved, I'm afraid) of right-to-lifers as nutty and detatched from reality. It does not help your cause.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 3:31 AM


SoMG:3:17: I don't know of any reported self-abort attempts. I think they're pretty rare in the USA. I've never seen one here. I'm sure there are some because people do everything you can think of to their bodies and things you can't think of as well but I'm also sure they're rare.

You'd think there were many self-abort attempt, the way people talk about how under served the US population is in terms of abortion.

We have different definitions of adverse moral consequences in that case.

+++++++++++++++++++++++

SoMG:3:04: Janet, by the same token, the pharmacist can find a job in drug sales, technical writing, pharmaceutical advertising, or industrial research. One whose responsibilities don't conflict with his religion.

A bit more inconvenient than switching from a deli to a bakery. And if he's the only Pharmacist in town, shouldn't he at least serve the population he is able to? If he leaves, they have no one. Think of all the sick children who would have no medicines.

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 3:34 AM


Hee hee--the Guttmacher report I linked to above footnotes a paper by DC Reardon. Who says his name never appears in the respectable academic press?

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 3:39 AM


SoMG: 3:31: Janet, (rolls eyes) you wrote: "they want to kill their baby, so why would they care if they kill themself while they are at it? "

In my experience most abortion patients prefer to remain alive. It's this sort of silly ranting that contributes to the stereotype (deserved, I'm afraid) of right-to-lifers as nutty and detatched from reality. It does not help your cause.

If you read further, you would have noted that I was also commenting on the poor state of mental health these women (who try to self-abort) sadly must be in to mutilate their bodies and risk dying. I don't think I am as detached from reality as you may think. I don't like knowing babies are dying from abortions. Unfortunately, I roll my eyes a lot too, I just don't mention it.

Nutty? -I can handle that. At least you didn't call me an extremist, fanatical, terrorist, *bleep*.

I thank you for that.
:)

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 3:46 AM


SoMG: 3:39: Hee hee--the Guttmacher report I linked to above footnotes a paper by DC Reardon. Who says his name never appears in the respectable academic press?

Hmmm....I don't know. YOU? :)

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 3:53 AM


Somg: You would prevent a much larger number of killings of unborn human babies if you gave the money to these people instead:

Since you provided the link, I thought I'd put some info here from the site for anyone interested.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What is the ARCH Foundation?

The ARCH Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation established to assist low income patients who do not have insurance coverage for the Mirena® intrauterine contraceptive system.

For patients such as these who meet specific eligibility criteria, the ARCH Foundation may be able to provide Mirena free of charge.

Assistance is provided on a patient-specific basis according to predetermined eligibility criteria. Patients and providers must complete a one page application form prior to purchase to be considered for assistance. Retroactive assistance is not available.

Assistance may also be available for qualified patients who require removal of Mirena.

The ARCH Foundation is funded in its entirety by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

http://www.archfoundation.com/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 4:00 AM


Yes, Janet, I agree, there is a persistant myth of a shortage of abortion providers in the USA. Feminist propagandists promote it to raise money. But in fact we have just about as many abortion docs and abortion providers as we need. Feminists complain that 83% of counties have no visible abortion provider--well if every county had one, most of them would sit idle most of the time. There aren't that many abortion patients. We meet the demand. The important thing is that it should remain so. There was a short time in the late '80s and early 90s when some people were worried about the future, with some reason. I have few fears because of the national organization Medical Students for Choice which represents thousands of med students and residents at more than a hundred med schools and the sister organization Nursing Students for Choice.

You know of course that Medical Students for Choice was founded as a direct response to a set of pamphlets that Jill's pal Mark Crutcher (author of Lime 5) sent to med students all over the country, pamphlets which contained jokes, mostly recycled lawyer-jokes, denegrating and to some extent threatening abortion docs. So in a way Mark Crutcher is responsible for our not having to worry too much about the next generation of abortion docs (who may increasingly not be docs but lower-ranking health-care professionals with docs on call, this trend toward non-doctors doing abortions is just getting started and I expect it will spread rapidly, widely, and soon). Be sure to thank him for me next time you see him, Jill.

Janet, you wrote: "If he's the only Pharmacist in town, shouldn't he at least serve the population he is able to? If he leaves, they have no one. "

He'd be replaced pretty quickly. The position carries monopoly power, right? which makes it attractive no matter where it is. Preferably it would be filled by a recently-graduated member of Pharmaceutical Students for Choice.

Yes it would be inconvenient for the poor right-to-life pharmacist but lots of business-owning health-professionals are changing their fields these days. Those that don't get swallowed by big corporations which are always just one step behind you. Remember when you could own your own business, with an office, an examining room, and a secretary, as an optician? Change is inconvenient.

Anyway as I said it's all a fantasy because you can do your pharmaceutical shopping by mail, via phone or internet. There is no such thing as a monopoly pharmacist anymore.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 4:30 AM


Janet, the reference to DC Reardon is as an instance of negative public reaction against repeat abortions, not for data or scholarship or anything like that.

And I guess HisMan would not be able to contribute money to ARCH since they are funded entirely by Bayer.

Well, HisMan, you won't like this, but the fact is, in order to maximize the number of abortions prevented by your charity dollars, to use your dollars to lower the number of abortions actually performed in the USA by as much as possible, probably the most effective thing you can do with them is give them to Planned Parenthood. Unlike Phil Kline, who will eventually end his career without ever having prevented a single abortion, PP will use your money to actually lower the number of abortions performed in the USA. For each dollar you give, the number of unborn babies killed will actually be a little bit lower.

An organization that ONLY provided contraceptives free to indigent women--PP also treats sexually-transmitted infections and does a lot of other stuff which doesn't prevent abortions--would be better. Remember I'm not saying morally better or anything like that, just that it would result in the greatest possible lowering of the number of abortions done in the USA.

Unfortunately the only organization I know of that ONLY provides contraception, and only to indigent women, is ARCH.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 5:06 AM


Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.


Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 12:34 AM

Out of all the garbage posted last night and there was a lot, to this one post I will respond:
Person who wilfully intend to do harm to another as in the prescribing of BC pills and other abortifacients are the ones who should NEVER be pharmacists. It is people like you SoMG who have distorted the "life" sciences and turned them into the science of death.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 6:30 AM


Anyway as I said it's all a fantasy because you can do your pharmaceutical shopping by mail, via phone or internet. There is no such thing as a monopoly pharmacist anymore.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 4:30 AM

Oh, sorry I missed this little gem. If this is the case then there should be absolutely no objection to prolife pharmacists. Women have a plethora of opportunities to obtain the neccessary drugs to kill their unwanted offspring after a night's "romp in the sack" as Laura so crudely described it on another thread. You've just shown that the pharmacy debate is about ideology, control and social engineering. It's about attempting to FORCE everyone in EVERY profession to support abortion on demand.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 6:34 AM


The gory details of SoMG's Medical Students For Choice:

PPNYC Clinician Training Initiative:
Trainees learn pregnancy diagnosis, preoperative operations, review of sonogram and products of conception, follow-up care, counseling skills that focus on sensitivity to patient needs and circumstances, and hands-on surgical training in first-trimester abortion.

How many abortionists have you heard that do follow up care and counselling?

Graduates receive a certificate of proficiency in performing first-trimester abortion.

Well, hats off to them!

Dr. Barnett A. Slepian Memorial Fund Clinical Training Grant
A grant award of up to $2,500 may be used in any manner necessary to support a physician, resident or medical student's training in the abortion procedure.

I find it amazing that with the billions of dollars the abortion industry makes, they can afford only $2500 in grant money in the name of a "martyr" to their cause.
I would imagine they are too interested in buying vintage cars etc...

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 6:48 AM


Amanda @ 7:13 PM

Thanks for the thoughtful reply - commitments keep me from continuing this conversation, but just there's two critical things that did happen within our marriage that profoundly altered our perceptions and truly changed the level of intimacy - one was giving our lives to the Lord, the second was my rejecting the idea that no matter what happened in the past or future, divorce was not going to be an option.

Though in the eyes of the world we were married and had three children, it was at that moment, of full, unadulterated commitment, that in my heart, we were married.

Had to share that, because had I made that pure level of commitment many years ago, there would have been more joy in our lives. It's a great gift to have that kind of joy, and I want your boyfriend to have a pure commitment to you.

Have a great weekend!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 14, 2008 7:01 AM


phylosopher @ 10:56 PM "The Great Spaghetti Monster"
Don't you mean the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you're going to worship idols, you might as well get their names straight!

I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 14, 2008 7:13 AM


There is NO way that Obama is a pro LIFE candidate. He said he would SIGN the FOCA which would basically negate any pro life laws that pro lifers have desperately fought for. These laws are crucial because one of them may even be for helping prevent coercion (a woman being PRESSURED by her boyfriend, parents, employer, etc, to ABORT). There is NO right to abortion in the Constitution.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at June 14, 2008 7:42 AM


1)Similarly, a person who does not wish to dispense contraceptives (because of religion or for any other reason) should not become a pharmacist.
Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 12:34 AM

2)Anyway as I said it's all a fantasy because you can do your pharmaceutical shopping by mail, via phone or internet. There is no such thing as a monopoly pharmacist anymore.
Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 4:30 AM

SoMG,
ou give two diametrically opposed opinions here. First you said people should not be pharmacists unless thye are willing to prescribe BC. Next you said people can always get their prescriptions online so I pharmacist should NOT have to prescribe BC. Which is it? Is it cause after thoughtful consideration you changed your position on forcing pharmacists to prescribe BC?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 14, 2008 9:15 AM


SoMG @ 1:49 AM - Right - from Guttmacher report.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 14, 2008 10:18 AM


Patricia, you said some really interesting things earlier. Like...

It is two people "pretending" to be married. The promise of free sex without committment is one of the strongest reasons why men are so eager to cohabitate.

My boyfriend and I have lived together for over a year now, and we're not "pretending" to be married in the least. If anything, we pretend our cats are our kids, but there's nothing dangerous about that, is there? And my boyfriend and I did not want to cohabitate, but I was homeless and sleeping on couches for months, and he was struggling to pay rent, so it worked out better for both of us. People don't decide to live together for the "free sex." That's ridiculous. It's way easier to date someone and sleep around with them, and then go home and behave any way you want. But with cohabitating couples, you have to learn to work with each other and behave respectfully all the time.

Also, if anything, I'm the one who demands more sex in the relationship. The boyfriend's the one who keeps hinting at marriage. But like Amanda, we're waiting until we get our ducks in a row before we move to that level. And since he wants to propose to me on HBO for some reason, I guess we might wait awhile.

those with Christian values are under attack and cannot live according to their consciences - they are forced by draconian laws to live their lives and practice their jobs under the relativistic ethics of "tolerance". There is zero tolerance for Christian ethics.

Not true. I have plenty of tolerance for Christian ethics. I see nothing wrong with you waiting until marriage to have sex. I do, however, see something wrong with you telling others what they should do with their lives when they are perfectly happy with what they have. Christians are the majority in America, and they have a lot of control over society. It's not unreasonable to say their control cannot legally extend into other people's personal lives. Does living under your conscience force you to control others?

Hal:Then she doesn't "have a family." Big deal.

Patricia: This IS exactly a man's point of view, Hal. However, it is NOT how women think. It IS a big deal to the woman.

Not true. I have no desire to have a family, I'm not living with my bf to get married or have kids. There's no "goal" in my relationship, and I think that's partly why I enjoy it so much. I am perfectly content to live with the man I love in a respectful, honest, loyal, and affectionate relationship as long as it lasts.

I believe people change, and sometimes they fall out of love. I believe people can turn out to be someone you didn't think they were. I believe you can realize you aren't compatible too late, or you can have different life paths that eventually turn different directions. So I'm okay with divorce and people having several long-term relationships (you used the term serial monogamy) and then breaking up and going separate ways. I don't see anything wrong with living your life to the fullest and surrounding yourself with people who love you.

Patricia, it's more important to love and be loved than it is to get married and have kids.

Posted by: Edyt at June 14, 2008 12:48 PM


Divorce, breaking up, serial monogamy.......sounds lonely and lost. A wandering, of sorts. If that is your desire Edyt and you are fine with it. Ok.

I am just thankful for a committed marriage and children to raise in this crazy world of divorce, breaking up and serial monogamy.

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2008 2:03 PM


OK SoMG:

Here's a chance to leave a legacy: Give us a link to one of your so-called research papers. I doubt you will.

What a laugh you are. If we still have a planet 1000 years from now, I am absolutely positive that science would then be able to assert that a baby in the womb is not just non-viable, insentient globs of tissue and cells. You see, God is the Author of Science SoMG and you are an abuser of Science. Science confirms God's truth, you use science to destroy God's truth. In fact, you hold science up as a god. I call that idiocy.

And your future collegues will judge you, and all the garbage you spewed about abortion will actually be demonized and categorized as the quackery it was. Your papers will be thrown on the same trash heap that you are now so willing to throw precious human beings onto. Perhaps you will be excused as a victim of the ignorance of the times.

You are one pitiful human being who is in utter bondage to the evil one without a way of escape save for calling out to the Lord Jesus Christ.

How does it feel to offer death and destruction as a solution to life? You don't even realize that you live and breath a life of blasphemy:

The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the sin of so often and so consistently refusing God's will, that in the end, it cannot be recognized.

Are you there yet SoMG? Has the light totally gone out? Not one tinge of guilt or regret; for all the lives you have snuffed out? Have you succeeded in turning that callous around your heart into stone yet? I pray not for your sake.

And as for as your depiction of my beliefs as fantasy SoMG, they are, in actuality, more real than what you believe. You see, SoMG, the spiritual transcends the physical. As a scientist you know this, you sense this, you even understand this. What is so puzzling SoMG is that you deny it.

And I know why. It's an inability to trust in anything but yourself driven by a deep seated insecurity. It's called pride and self-worship. The same sin that got Lucifer kicked out of heaven. And what was his goal upon realizing his utter failure? To try to convince as many angels as possible to follow him. You see the parallel SoMG? You trying to convince us all that abortion is OK (i.e. separation from the Author of Life) from your pedastal of self-importance. The only difference is that you haven't yet realized your own insanity.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 2:08 PM


Edyt:

It's amazing Edyt that Jill allows your heresy, your lies, the error of your ways to post on this site. I mean, she risks allowing other young girls to be influenced by your sick view of life.

Let me tell you this all you young kids out there. There is one God. He is the God of the Bible. Life and true love are ONLY foound in the knowledge of the Son of God, jesus Christ. Do not listen to the way that brings death, Edyt's way..

Back to you Edyt:

Your posts and opinions are utterly devoid of any understanding of love and marriage and relationship.

Love is not a feeling and marriage is not an arbitrarily executed agreement. What if your other half does not want to get divorced when you do? What sort of destruction does that reap on them? How is that loving to always be seeking of what pleases you?

What happens when you're old and unattactive Edyt? Where's the tie that binds? You're headed for disaster.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 2:19 PM


You are one pitiful human being who is in utter bondage to the evil one

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 2:08 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ryan Seacrest? Kevin Federline? Vanilla Ice?

Posted by: Laura at June 14, 2008 2:31 PM


"My boyfriend and I have lived together for over a year now, and we're not "pretending" to be married in the least."

Sorry Edyt, but you're in denial and you are pretending you are married. Marriage is much more than just a piece of paper as you cohabitating couples so often like to claim.

"And since he wants to propose to me on HBO for some reason....

Yup, and just like Amanda's dearly beloved who doesn't "feel secure as a husband" unless he has a house, you've both emplaced ridiculous obstacles to marriage. He doesn't need to propose to you on HBO and Amanda's lover REALLY doesn't need a house to feel secure, he just needs her love and committment to him within marriage.

Patricia, it's more important to love and be loved than it is to get married and have kids.

Edyt, it's more important that the love between a man and woman be expressed fully within marriage and that that love be open to children.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 2:47 PM


Edyt, it's more important that the love between a man and woman be expressed fully within marriage and that that love be open to children.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 2:47 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tell us how well that worked out for you.

Posted by: Laura at June 14, 2008 2:58 PM


Sure. Marriage comes with benefits and is the promise to love someone for the rest of your life. I have made no such promise and receive no such benefits, therefore, I am not pretending to be married.

Oh please, the HBO thing is just a joke we share. Lighten up. If he wants to propose to me, he's going to do it regardless of whether he's on TV or not. It's not dumb for a couple to save up money for a house before getting married, especially in this economy and with all the foreclosures. They're being economically smart, which will benefit their marriage considering economic problems are a big cause for divorce.

Carla,

Divorce, breaking up, serial monogamy.......sounds lonely and lost. A wandering, of sorts.

Ah, but we travelers love to wander.

For all I know, the guy I'm with right now could be the one I spend the rest of my life with. He might not. While it feels natural, comfortable, and right, I'm not someone to dash off into marriage, or any major commitment of that kind while I'm still figuring out my life and where it's headed. It's unwise to simply decide to marry out of loneliness or feeling "lost", and I don't plan on ever getting divorced, so I take this marriage choice quite seriously.

I would much much much rather date 100 guys for 20 years of my life and live happily with the best match until death than marry the first person I fall in love with and end up miserable. Like Patricia.

HisMan,

Careful now. You're resorting to insulting people again.

Posted by: Edyt at June 14, 2008 3:08 PM


Laura:7:47: (Why can I hear the Eric "The Quack" Keroack's oxytocin theory in the distance?)

What theory is that?
- - - - - - - - - - -
Laura: 2:58: Tell us how well that worked out for you.

Don't you know the answer to that by now?

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 3:08 PM


And HisMan,

If young and attractive are the only requirements for finding a mate, than I would rather not have one at all. Your misogyny milk shines through your ChristChex in every bowl.

Posted by: Edyt at June 14, 2008 3:13 PM


"It's not dumb for a couple to save up money for a house before getting married, especially in this economy and with all the foreclosures."

Edyt: My point is that it shouldn't be a requirement for marriage. How many years does it take to save for a downpayment? 5? 10?
It was good enough for previous generations to rent and not own homes prior to marriage.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 3:28 PM


Edyt; I'm not miserable and you have no idea as to whether I'm alone or not! BTW, my ex was not the first person I was in love with.
You need to chill out.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 3:29 PM


"Your misogyny milk shines through your ChristChex in every bowl."

*puts on lollerskates*

@Edyt: May I post that in my "quotes" section on Facebook? I honestly smirked out loud (I don't laugh- I smirk). :)

Posted by: Rae at June 14, 2008 3:43 PM


Edyt:

And your blaspemous witch's brew spews from your words.

Excuse me? AGAIN, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, YOU REVEAL YOUR UTTER IGNORANCE (this is not an insult but a statement of fact and truth) BY POSTING LIKE THIS:

"If young and attractive are the only requirements for finding a mate, than I would rather not have one at all. Your misogyny milk shines through your ChristChex in every bowl."

That's exactly my point! You equate love with feeling and outward appearance and circumstance and not agape love or the love that seeks the good of the other person over your own no matter what the situation. I am sure there are many times when my wife and I did not feel any love for each other based on our circumstances, however, during those hard times we stuck it out. The world's way and your way Edyt, is always to jump ship if it feels like it, without regards to the destruction it causes and without regards to the fact that it simply is always the wrong thing to do.

What happens Edyt if you "fall out of love" as if love were some state one was in. THIS IS NOT LOVE. THIS IS HOLLYWWOD LOVE. THIS IS FAKE LOVE. THIS IS LUST, BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY SELF-CENTERED AND BASED ON HOW ONE FEELS AT ANY ONE POINT IN TIME. And your posts consistently evidence this because you're always providing yourself a way out of a relationship....if this, if I, if, if, if. It's always about you Edyt, isn't it? When will you stop sucking your thumbs and grow up and leave the immoral world you have constructed for yourself, built on the foundations of self-deceipt, selfishness, and immorality.

The type of love you believe in nevers lasts because it's based on feelings and feelings change like shadows. My point is that you set yourself up for disaster. You think happiness is based on pleasing yourself. No happiness is found in serving others.

And who is insulting who Edyt? Blaspheming Christ is the utter insult! Whether it be referring to doctors with crosses around their necks cutting women's heads off or mockingly using Christ's name in a cereal description, your rants are totally and absolutely insulting.

It is in fact you who are insulting, blasphemous, decadent, immoral, lost and alone.

It's always amazing how pro-abort Liberals always percieve the statement of truth as insulting. Well so be it, God's principlas can be very insulting to those that are perishing. I'll keep speaking it if it causes just one person not to listen to your lies.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 3:43 PM


"Truthseeker", you wrote: "First you said people should not be pharmacists unless thye are willing to prescribe BC. Next you said people can always get their prescriptions online so I pharmacist should NOT have to prescribe BC. Which is it? Is it cause after thoughtful consideration you changed your position on forcing pharmacists to prescribe BC?"

That's right. Sometimes I change my mind. As long as abortifacients and contraceptives are available to everyone by mail, there is no need to require pharmacists to sell them.

LizfromNebraska, you wrote: "[Obama] said he would SIGN the FOCA which would basically negate any pro life laws that pro lifers have desperately fought for. These laws are crucial because one of them may even be for helping prevent coercion (a woman being PRESSURED by her boyfriend, parents, employer, etc, to ABORT). There is NO right to abortion in the Constitution. "

There is also no right in the Constitution to keep your pregnancy and be free from coerced abortion--if there is such a right, it's in a penumbra like Roe vs Wade. The Freedom of Choice Act would guarantee on the federal level your right to keep your pregnancy and have a baby. (If you don't believe me, go read the text of the act.) If you are really concerned about coerced abortions, you should support the Freedom of Choice Act.

HisMan, you wrote: "Here's a chance to leave a legacy: Give us a link to one of your so-called research papers. I doubt you will. "

You're right--that would reveal my name, which I am not going to do on a right-to-life site. But I will tell you that my favorite of my scientific publications, the one I am most proud of, was published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. In it I named a drug I created after a character in an opera I like.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 4:48 PM


SoMG: There is also no right in the Constitution to keep your pregnancy and be free from coerced abortion--if there is such a right, it's in a penumbra like Roe vs Wade. The Freedom of Choice Act would guarantee on the federal level your right to keep your pregnancy and have a baby. (If you don't believe me, go read the text of the act.) If you are really concerned about coerced abortions, you should support the Freedom of Choice Act.

So you are saying we need a new law to prosecute someone who forces an abortion? Isn't there a remedy already in place that would suffice? Sounds fishy....

And what would the penalty be for a coerced abortion if the FOC law was passed?

Posted by: Janet at June 14, 2008 5:48 PM


SoMG:

I want you to know that I have the ability to decipher algorithms as a hobby and am somewhat of an opera buff. In my younger years as an aerospace engineer I had a top secret clearance and was used quite heavily in decoding algorithsms used in enemy avionics and counter-warfare mechanisms.

If you are indeed telling the truth about the paper you published, I will find you. Just give me some time.

Cameron gave me one clue to who he was and poof, there he was, in all his cowardly regalia just waiting for me to expose him to his the head of the faculty department of the Missouri school he was attending.

He no longer posts on this site.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 7:17 PM


SoMG:

Are you one of these dudes?

Tamara I. A. Roach, Robert A. Rebres, Iain D. C. Fraser, Dianne L. DeCamp, Keng-Mean Lin, Paul C. Sternweis, Mel I. Simon, and William E. Seaman

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 7:41 PM


Hisman,

So YOU'RE the one who dethroned His Royal Nastiness!!

Ha!

I've always wondered what hole he crawled under.

Is his faculty aware of his, um, lively internet exchanges?

Start googling.

Posted by: carder at June 14, 2008 7:46 PM


"If you are indeed telling the truth about the paper you published, I will find you."

How would this action, which I view as petty and vindictive, be consistent with one's Christian views? Please, explain this.

Pro-life posters complain about how unwelcome they are on pro-choice blogs. Yet here are people relishing the thought of exposing a pro-choice poster, perhaps with the intent of at least embarrassing him or ruining him professionally.

This is what Christian people do? Again, please explain.

Posted by: Fair Play at June 14, 2008 8:22 PM


carder: who was Cameron?
I think he might have been before my time.

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 8:27 PM


Hey Somg.
Pride is a deadly sin.

Posted by: yllas at June 14, 2008 9:08 PM


Cameron gave me one clue to who he was and poof, there he was, in all his cowardly regalia just waiting for me to expose him to his the head of the faculty department of the Missouri school he was attending.

He no longer posts on this site.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 7:17 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, I wonder if the member of the church you attend might like to see your recent diatribes?
How about your family?

Posted by: Laura at June 14, 2008 9:24 PM


HisMan:

If you just want to say, "I believe in using any means, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, to further the pro-life movement," that would be fine. At least you would be honest, as opposed to the stuff you usually write.

Posted by: Fair Play at June 14, 2008 10:02 PM


Ah Laura,
your such a pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: yllas at June 14, 2008 10:15 PM


HisMan, you're an opera buff? Which are your favorite operas? Who are your favorite opera singers? Do you sing yourself? What range?

My father was also a military cryptanalyst. He deciphered an intercepted Russian message and was awarded some kind of official recognition, a certificate of merit or whatever but because of security he is not allowed to show it to anyone!

When he first arrived at the high-security site, a general made a speech to the new arrivals encouraging them to undertake personal efforts to improve security. Well, my Dad was friends with the guy who made up the photo ID cards and he got this guy to make him an ID with a picture of Stalin, and he wore this card for six months before anyone noticed. And then it was only because he didn't have a moustache. That's a true story. When they berated him for doing this, he explained that it was a personal effort to improve security as encouraged by the general.

No I'm not any of the people whose names you listed.

Janet, I should have written more clearly. The Freedom of Choice Act won't protect you from being coerced by a person into having an abortion or punish a person who tries to coerce you. As you suggested you are already protected from that by the laws against threatening to do whatever the person threatens to do in order to coerce you--if (s)he threatens to hurt you physically you are protected by the law against assault.

FOCA will protect you from being coerced BY THE GOVERNMENT into having an abortion. To be perfectly accurate, it will nullify any law (federal, state, or local) which interferes with your right to choose to bear a child. Sorry for the confusion, which in this case is my fault.

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 10:21 PM


Oh brother. Janet, my last post immediately above this one may be wrong because FOCA also states: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, ...."

So it establishes a right to bear a child as well as nullifying laws which interfere with that right. Does this mean it also criminalizes individual efforts to interfere with that right? I'm not a lawyer but my guess would be yes.

Posted by: SoGM at June 14, 2008 10:27 PM


Now Now Fairplay,
Play fair with yourself and admit a person should never write a word he/she may not want others to know about.
Afterall, that is the reason for writing. It's a physical record of your thinking. Are you suggesting Somg is not proud of his writing here? Somg wants no one to know if his pride and joyous thinking on killing human beings? I'm sure where Somg works, they all agree with his deepest thoughts expressed through writing his thoughts to this site.

Posted by: yllas at June 14, 2008 10:27 PM


SoMG: Do you listen to opera while you do abortions?

Posted by: Patricia at June 14, 2008 10:44 PM


No, Patricia, for work you pipe the blandest musical junk you can find. Patients prefer it. You want your patients to be bored. The music is one of the worst things about work.

I am at least as much into oratorio as opera. I often listen to Haydn's Creation (DIE SCHOPFUNG) which gives a Biblical account of the creation with intersperced choruses in praise of the Creator, while reading or writing about evolution. It's one of the few oratorios whose sentiments can be enjoyed equally by Jews and Christians, and I bet muslims would like it too if they weren't forbidden to enjoy music. The recording to own is of a live performance conducted by Eugen Jochum in 1951, published by the saints who work for Melodram, with soloists Hans Hotter, Walther Ludwig, and Irmgard Seefried, all three of whom were true geniuses of vocal technique. You know how some people are physical geniuses, more in touch with their anatomy than ordinary people? Like Magic Johnson or Roy Jones Jr. It's very rare to capture three of them singing together like this. Especially listen for moments when Hans Hotter, who was one of the loudest voices ever, sinks to a whisper.

http://www.amazon.com/Die-Schopfung-Creation-Haydn/dp/B000083MFW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1213504252&sr=8-1

Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 11:44 PM


Yllas:

This is a comments section on a blog. We don't use our real names. It's not real life. What we write here won't change anybody's mind on the issue. No matter why any of us reads this blog or posts to it, we have a set opinion on the issue and it's likely not to change. We play verbal games with the opposition, and this makes us feel better about ourselves. We feel like we've "won" in some way. In truth none of it makes a difference.

Tonight SoMG pushed HisMan, and it appears that HisMan got mad about it. He implied that he could find out SoMG's identity. What purpose would that serve? Seems to me to embarrass SoMG, or try to hurt him professionally.

So I'll ask the question again: Is this what Christians do? Is it moral to "out" a person and cause him harm, in the pursuit of a goal? Is it OK to use any means necessary to advance what you think is a just cause?

If that's the case, just say so.

To me, as a Christian, the answer is no.

Posted by: Fair Play at June 14, 2008 11:51 PM


Chris A., you are wrong to mistrust Guttmacher. They are the leading authority for these types of numbers. If you don't trust them to gather and report their numbers honestly, then whom DO you trust? Do you really think they'd conspire to violate the Federal mandate that comes with their grant money?

Or to put the same thing another way: If you want to know about illness of the heart, you consult a cardiologist. If you want to know about illness of the eye, you consult an ophthalmologist. If you want to know about bone injuries you consult an orthopedic surgeon. If you want to know about birth you consult an obstetrician. So whom are you going to consult if you want to know about abortion?

Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 12:10 AM


Christian?
What denomination of "christians" are you refering too?
Is this what Muslims do?
Is this what Jews do?
Is it what atheist do?
Is it what secular humanist do?
Is this what abortionist do?
Is this what you would do?
To defend your pov, you will answer no, of course.
I don't speak for "Christians" and neither do you. You speak for yourself period. So do I.
If a person does not want his thoughts to be recorded, don't write them in a public forum.
Your right is my wrong, and my wrong is your right. Get it FP? Whose to say what is right, and what is wrong? You? The new morality cop named fairplay? Ain't that a bit of oxymoronic titling of yourself, Fairplay? If Hisman wants to "out" Somg, that's his personal decision.
His religion must have the famous lines, which are always quoted, to deride his "Christianity" which refer to "outing" a person who kills human beings for blood money. Care to direct me to the biblical lines about "outing" a murderer of human beings?
This appeal to private morality by you and then tagging it to "Chrsitianty" is actually bad logic. From a individual to ALL in a group. Get it oxymorn, self named Fairplay?
All's fair in love and war.

Somg, should be able to

Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 12:16 AM


Christian?
What denomination of "christians" are you refering too?
Is this what Muslims do?
Is this what Jews do?
Is it what atheist do?
Is it what secular humanist do?
Is this what abortionist do?
Is this what you would do?
To defend your pov, you will answer no, of course.
I don't speak for "Christians" and neither do you. You speak for yourself period. So do I.
If a person does not want his thoughts to be recorded, don't write them in a public forum.
Your right is my wrong, and my wrong is your right. Get it FP? Whose to say what is right, and what is wrong? You? The new morality cop named fairplay? Ain't that a bit of oxymoronic titling of yourself, Fairplay? If Hisman wants to "out" Somg, that's his personal decision.
His religion must have the famous lines, which are always quoted, to deride his "Christianity" which refer to "outing" a person who kills human beings for blood money. Care to direct me to the biblical lines about "outing" a murderer of human beings?
This appeal to private morality by you and then tagging it to "Chrsitianty" is actually bad logic. From a individual to ALL in a group. Get it oxymorn, self named Fairplay?
All's fair in love and war.



Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 12:17 AM


@HisMan: Cameron doesn't go to school in Missouri, O Mighty Genius.

Posted by: Rae at June 15, 2008 12:26 AM


BTW, Fairplay,
Just as many "Christians" are being told to take their religious values/beliefs/thoughts/decisons out of work, such as a pharmacist, and then being ridiculed in public by Somg's intellectual allies, may I ask if that is fairplay,since it is done in public? Christians are being removed from the workforce by Somg's intellectual thugs.
The public morality of abortionist is trumphed over "public religious morality" in this nation, as if it was no better then Stalinist Russia.
Think that's fairplay? By force of law, "abortion morals" are enforced.
And once "abortion morality" was forced upon this nation, by no vote, a dictatorship of abortion morality has been enforced through making Christians decide to NOT take jobs, through public ridicule daily.
This site being a perfect example.


Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 12:39 AM


That's right. Sometimes I change my mind. As long as abortifacients and contraceptives are available to everyone by mail, there is no need to require pharmacists to sell them.
Posted by: SoMG at June 14, 2008 4:48 PM

SoMG,
It is heartening to me my dialogue with you was enough to change your mind about wether or not pharmacists should be forced to prescribe birth control. Praise God! There is hope in understanding.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 15, 2008 12:52 AM


And so Somg,
fits the description of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, upon which The Creation by Hayden, is partially based upon. "Tis better to rule in hell, then serve in heaven.?

Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 12:56 AM


And so Somg,
fits the description of Lucifer in Paradise Lost, upon which The Creation by Hayden, is partially based upon. "Tis better to rule in hell, then serve in heaven.?

Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 12:57 AM


SoMG,
Wether they are available other places or not you still do NOT have any right insisting anybody who thinks the personhood begins at conception to sell them to you. Just like the government has no right forcing a draft and making people kill other people. See?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 15, 2008 1:20 AM


clarification of above post:
SoMG,
Wether they are available other places or not you still do NOT have any right insisting anybody who thinks the personhood begins at conception to sell "abortificients". Just like the government has no right forcing a draft and making people kill other people. Why would a person like you who says they respect freedom force another person to kill?

Posted by: ts at June 15, 2008 1:25 AM


With monopoly power comes professional responsibility to the community.

Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 2:00 AM


SoMG,
How is that different then the government saying they have a professional responsibility to draft citizens to kill in order to meet the national security needs of the community?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 15, 2008 3:34 AM


I'm sorry "Truthseeker" but I don't see any similarity or connection between the professional ethical obligation not to abuse monopoly power and an obligation (if there is one) to obey a draft order. The two types of obligation seem to me entirely different.

Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 4:04 AM


Mifepristone - RU 486

Mephistopheles - satan, Faust, Gretchen, etc....opera

Is this the drug you named SoMG?

Posted by: HisMan at June 15, 2008 4:05 AM


Nope.

Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 4:06 AM


Although I do admire Boris Christoff and he often sang Mephistophiles. For me his best role was Philip II.

Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 4:11 AM


No, Patricia, for work you pipe the blandest musical junk you can find. Patients prefer it. You want your patients to be bored. The music is one of the worst things about work.

I"m actually not surprised. Since classical music tends to feed the soul and raise the mind, I would think it would be actually quite difficult to commit abortions in this atmosphere. Something that doesn't bring to mind heaven and beauty in any way while you are scouring out the guts of a baby is the most logical.
What does surprise me (or maybe not) is that a man of your credentials and background can be so utterly blind to the truth and reality. It's quite a shame, but there are many, many like yourself today.

Posted by: Patricia at June 15, 2008 7:40 AM


Hey Somg,
Do you know,worked with, or have met Stephen H. Curry? He enjoys the opera.

Posted by: yllas at June 15, 2008 7:51 AM


I am getting tire of these peesumptuous, ridiculous and disingenuous comparisons between abortion and slavery, and the offensive notion that if one is pro-choice, it's as morally reprehensible as approving of slavery.
Also, when slavery was abolished in America, it ceased. But abortion cannot be stopped by being made illegal.
And I agree that those who are unwilling to provide birth control have no business working as pharmacists.
Can you imagine a waiter in a non-kosher restaurant who happened to be an observant Jew, and who refused to bring Pork dishes to restaurant patrons? I don't think he would keep his job for a long time.
I am a professional classical musician, and have actually played a performance of Haydn's masterpiece the Creation. It's just plain great music, no matter what your religious beliefs are. And so are the religious works of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, and Bruckner etc.

Posted by: robert berger at June 15, 2008 9:44 AM


I am a professional classical musician, and have actually played a performance of Haydn's masterpiece the Creation. It's just plain great music, no matter what your religious beliefs are. And so are the religious works of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, and Bruckner etc.

Posted by: robert berger at June 15, 2008 9:44 AM

I would totally agree with you robert, but what does this have to do with anything.

Posted by: Patricia at June 15, 2008 9:49 AM


Yllas:

I'm not talking about anything beyond the questions I posed. I'm just giving my opinion, like everyone else does. I don't have an agenda. I read this blog, and many other blogs, for entertainment. I'm just passing the time by reading blogs and occasionally posting comments.

I agree with you about HisMan. If he wants to out SoMG, that's his decision. We take risks when posting on the internet, and I'm sure SoMG understands this.

I've never said that that HisMan doesn't have the right to do this. I've just asked a simple question. Is it the right thing to do? Is it ethical or moral? Is is consistent with a Christian worldview? Does it advance the pro-life cause?

I've already given my answer. What's yours?

Posted by: Fair Play at June 15, 2008 10:16 AM


Guess you've got me stumped SoMG....for now. I'm sure I could find you given enough time, however, for now it would just be to answer a challenge and really serve no purpose. I defer to someone who's got more time than I do to find you.

I know some pro-life doctors that are drug researchers though and I'm going to start asking some questions. It appears though, like a killer in the night that you are, that you've covered your tracks well.

I'm curious though. If you're so proud of your achievements in naming a drug in the JBC, and I'm sure everyone that knows you knows this, why don't you want us to know who you are? How could us knowing who you are hurt you? Do you work at a Catholic Hospital or for the Bush Administration?

Or perhaps where you work, i.e., at an abortion mill or hospital that provides abortion, it's their policy to not allow employees who kill children for a living to post their contact info.

I mean, since your such a pillar in the baby mudrering industry, I'd think you'd be proud to let us all know who you are.

In any event, I realized this, by reading many of the asbstracts in the JBC about abortifacients, how heartless most of you researchers are. I mean you take a gift from God and use if for absolutely evil purposes. And then, you being an opera enthusiast, it's difficult to understand how yoou can, in good conscience, so easily deny the same privilege of hearing the miracle and transcendence of music to anyone, including a child in the womb.

You know, St. Paul was a murderer too. He had a personal encounter with the King of Kings one day. I'm afraid, based on the level of your professional entrenchement/reputation/personal cost of turning away from your hideous carrer, that apart from such an encounter, you are without hope.

Happy Father's Day, SoMG. I'm sure that there are some men out there, who you've denied the privilege of enjoying the honor today.

Posted by: HisMan at June 15, 2008 12:33 PM


"The music is one of the worst things about work."

What else do you dislike about your profession? What do you like about work?

Most health facilities I go to lack any music whatsoever. Is that a Pennsylvanina thing? Sorry, or maybe it's a Massachusetts thing. I'm getting your states mixed up.

Posted by: carder at June 15, 2008 1:03 PM


I'm not an opera buff, but my sister is an opera singer. She's had a number of performances at the Met. No major breakthrough yet, but she's persistent.

Posted by: carder at June 15, 2008 1:13 PM


"Cameron gave me one clue to who he was and poof, there he was, in all his cowardly regalia just waiting for me to expose him to his the head of the faculty department of the Missouri school he was attending.

He no longer posts on this site.

Posted by: HisMan at June 14, 2008 7:17 PM"


AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ HisMan pretending to be THE ULTIMATE internet detective...thinking he is the reason Cam stopped posting here, and AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA times 10 at you LYING and telling people here you have any clue where you went to school (psstt... not Missouri, but good try, 49 states to go!)

Pahhhhh thettttic.

Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2008 2:21 PM


*where HE (Cam) went to school

Posted by: Amanda at June 15, 2008 2:22 PM


Carder: he's in NYC

That's very cool! Does she study with an opera company?

Posted by: Patricia at June 15, 2008 2:25 PM


That's exactly my point! You equate love with feeling and outward appearance and circumstance and not agape love or the love that seeks the good of the other person over your own no matter what the situation.

You misunderstood what I said, HisMan.

You made a statement about how if I grew old and ugly no one would want to love me. Well, I don't believe love is based on age or level of attractiveness. You're the one that had that opinion, and I said that if love was only about attractiveness or age, then I want nothing to do with it because I want a love deeper than that.

The world's way and your way Edyt, is always to jump ship if it feels like it, without regards to the destruction it causes and without regards to the fact that it simply is always the wrong thing to do.

Right, because you know SO much about my life. I could have broken up with my boyfriend quite a few times already if I had gone with my "feelings." But then again, I have pretty good instincts when it comes to people, so I'm sticking it out with this one.

What happens Edyt if you "fall out of love" as if love were some state one was in. THIS IS NOT LOVE. THIS IS HOLLYWWOD LOVE. THIS IS FAKE LOVE. THIS IS LUST, BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY SELF-CENTERED AND BASED ON HOW ONE FEELS AT ANY ONE POINT IN TIME.

Umm... no, it isn't. People do fall out of love, for one reason or another. Some people can rekindle that love, others cannot. If I were to fall out of love, I'd work as hard as I could to keep it going, but I would not spend the rest of my life making myself miserable over a person who no longer loved me.

Please stop presuming you know how my relationship works. You have not met me or my boyfriend.

And your posts consistently evidence this because you're always providing yourself a way out of a relationship....if this, if I, if, if, if. It's always about you Edyt, isn't it? When will you stop sucking your thumbs and grow up and leave the immoral world you have constructed for yourself, built on the foundations of self-deceipt, selfishness, and immorality.

Why shouldn't a person have a way out of a relationship? Love isn't slavery. If my boyfriend ever hit me, or abused me, or raped me, I would end the relationship immediately. That's not immoral, that's smart. And I wish all women had that escape if their loved ones stopped respecting their body and wishes.

The type of love you believe in nevers lasts because it's based on feelings and feelings change like shadows. My point is that you set yourself up for disaster. You think happiness is based on pleasing yourself. No happiness is found in serving others.

I really wish you could show as much respect to people as my boyfriend does. But time and time again, you have proven that your way of ministering to people is by insulting them and spreading hateful lies about people. Very "Christlike," HisMan. And no, I don't hold you to a higher standard for being a Christian, because I know Christians make mistakes and do bad things just as often as atheists or Muslims or Jews do. That's part of being human. But you don't radiate Christ's love in the way that MK or Janet or Elizabeth do, so I feel sorry that you have not been touched in a way that you feel the need to love others rather than hate them, despite how much you may know and understand the Bible.

I hope that someday you can find peace, love, and happiness and let go of the anger and hate that has built up within yourself. I do mean that sincerely.

Posted by: Edyt at June 15, 2008 3:43 PM


I'm sorry "Truthseeker" but I don't see any similarity or connection between the professional ethical obligation not to abuse monopoly power and an obligation (if there is one) to obey a draft order. The two types of obligation seem to me entirely different.
Posted by: SoMG at June 15, 2008 4:04 AM

SoMG, They are both situations where a person is forcing somebody who does not want to volunteer to kill against their will.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 15, 2008 3:49 PM


Edyt:

Unfortunatley, many in the world today cannot take listening to the truth. We substitute political correctness for love. It's called "Churchianity" and "namby-pamby Christiniaty". The church has been feminized and that's why the message is failing (and do not for once assume that I want to minimize the role woman play in the church, I just want it to be more in line with the teachings of Scirprute and not the blowing wind).

For examlple: If I said there's was only one way to heaven and that was through Jesus Christ and based on your own posts and decription of your lifestyle (and not on any assumptions I've made) that in no way would you make it.

or...

abortion is murder

or...

the pro-choice position is anything but

or...

homosexuality is an abomination to God

or...

that there's no such thing as gay marriage

or...

any sex outside of marriage is sinful

or...

your lifestyle will send you to hell...

or..

we sow what we reap.....

or...

God hates divorce and divorce brings violence on a man and his family...

Those would all be taken as insults by you instead of the truths that they are. What am I supposed to say to you Edyt? Just keep going as you will and you will be fine? Keep living with your boyfriend unmarried, that's OK, God doesn't care, just keep being a nice person. Well that's a lie. And I would be utterly evil to not counter virtually everything you believe when I know for a rock solid fact that if you continue you will be lost forever. I do not want that to happen to you.

And I care more about people like you than those that would stroke and soothe your ego. The fact is Edyt, one of the best things that could happen to me is for soneone like you to say one day on this site..."Hey, I realize what you say about Jesus and heaven and hell are true and the lifestyle that I lead are in direct opposition to God's will. Thank you for standing firm in the truth despite all the abuse and insults I directed at you". Do you have any idea what I would give for SoMG, or Laura, or Amanda to humble themselves before the Creator of the Universe and admit wrong, admit that abortion is a heinous evil and to divest themselves from it?

Perhaps someday you will understand that, perhaps not.

And please Edyt. My cup runneth over. I have a beautiful wife of 32 years and have raised five beautiful, wonderful Christian children and I have need of nothing. I don't mean that I have everything I want, however, every need that I have is taken care of. God is my whole life and I love Him. If you choose to see and interpret my expressions of the truth as anger and bitterness, well I can't change that.

And yes, killing babies in the womb does anger me. The injustice angers me. The inability to do much about it angers me. It angers me like being able to rescue a child from being hit by a car would angry me. Like being angry over a teenager being killed by a drunk drive would angry me. Like a bank robber shooting an innocent mother and killing her baby in the womb and having our governemnt say that was not murder would anger me. Does that mean I am a hateful and angry person? No, it means that I care deeply about people, especially innocent and
vulnerable people.

I could care less about what non-believers on this site think about me, after all, this is not about me. By the way, the Savior wasn't crucified because He was the most popular guy on the block. In fact, He angered most people that heard him, especially those who thought they had it all fugured out. He never once compromised the truth, for He knew what the consequences of that would be. He truly understood the holiness and magnitude of who His Father was and would never cross that line in order to be liked by a mere mortal and risk the rejection of His Father.

The other Christians on this site should take note.


Posted by: HisMan at June 15, 2008 6:07 PM


SoMG @ 12:10 AM

I wasn't mistrusting the Guttmacher report - I was agreeing with what you posted:

That's an ambiguous statement. Do you mean that among women having abortions, 50% have already had a previous abortion? (If this is what you mean, you are right, according to Guttmacher, see link below.)

I probably should have used the word - "correct" instead of right. I wasn't being sarcastic.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 15, 2008 6:45 PM


HisMan:
Today at Mass just as Father commenced his homily about whether or not Jesus was a nice guy who tried to make everyone happy, 3 different car alarms went off in the parking lot. That's alot of noise for one man to yell over but Father was up to it!
Anyway after about 10 minutes they stopped but
your statement below made me think of his homily:

By the way, the Savior wasn't crucified because He was the most popular guy on the block. In fact, He angered most people that heard him, especially those who thought they had it all fugured out. He never once compromised the truth, for He knew what the consequences of that would be. He truly understood the holiness and magnitude of who His Father was and would never cross that line in order to be liked by a mere mortal and risk the rejection of His Father.
God bless!

Posted by: Patricia at June 15, 2008 7:18 PM


Patricia,
My sister is not with an opera company at present. She's currently performing with a chorale at Lincoln Center. A Stravinsky performance that's currently playing.

Who's Cameron? He was here a year ago. He was one of the most profane, sinister posters that I had seen. But at times he could be really funny. MK and JIll had great jabbing matches with him. Calling him Cambo and Camchilla and such.

Quite the character.

Posted by: carder at June 15, 2008 9:06 PM


Fairplay.
Read Hisman's post and his reply is my reply.
Somg is not worth the time or effort to find his real identity. But, if Somg keeps going, he/she is going to reveal his id anyway.

Posted by: uspsgirl@gmail.com at June 15, 2008 11:18 PM


HisMan,

I do not expect you to condone my lifestyle. However, if you disagree, you can do so without insulting me, saying you know what my life is like (when you don't) and how I think or feel (which you don't) or what kind of person I am.

I do not direct insults and abuse at you. I have been very courteous. You are the one that is abusive toward me, and the moderators allow you to do so, for whatever reason. You make it sound like you are spewing the truth, but read over your words! If you believe this is the truth, you need not be abrasive and rude.

I'm just letting you know that your behavior and words don't give me any inclination toward the God you worship. More and more people on this site every day have been pushing you away because you say nasty things about others. You've insulted pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike. If anyone disagrees with you, rather than hold an argument, you tear that person down.

I'm not a Christian. And maybe, if hell exists, I'll go to it. But at least in my lifetime, I loved other people and helped them up, rather than tear them down and break their spirits. That's what you do, HisMan. I'm sorry you feel that it is part of your job to do so.

Posted by: Edyt at June 16, 2008 12:22 AM


Edyt,
You often direct insults at "God". You fail to see how that is more insulting to HisMan and many others on this site then even if you had directed your insults at them personally.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 1:01 AM


Edyt:

Either you didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. Now that's not an insult but a conclusion based on your response. For just one moment just try to think about what is being said and let down the shield. You've got to let some light in before you go totally blind or lose the ability to see.

I'm not on this site to make nice-nice. I'm on this site to counter lies by speaking truth.

If I speak the truth, the purpose is not to insult you. However, I see that if you take it that way that there is still hope for you.

You see, the Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit and it dvides down to the innermost parts of the soul. The truth I speak, which is God's truth, cuts you to the core and that is why you see everything I post as a personal insult.

Let me speak the truth to you again:

abortion is murder,
the pro-choice position is anything but,
homosexuality is an abomination to God,
there's no such thing as gay marriage ,
any sex outside of marriage is sinful,
your lifestyle will send you to hell...,
we sow what we reap.....,
God hates divorce and divorce brings violence on a man and his family...,

Let me also say this:

God's love is unconditional but His promises are conditional.
God loves you too much to let you stay where you are.
Jesus Christ gave His life for you because of His infinite love for you.
No person, no religion, no thing on earth can save you from your sin except Jesus Christ.
God wants to bless you more than you can ask or imagine if you only obey him in love and faith.
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
While God is all powerful, all-knowing, and can do anything, there's one thing he won't do....force you to love Him.
There's only one thing on earth that God wants from you.....your heart, all of you.
All that you are, all that you have is from God.
In Him you live and move and have your being.
The best life that you could possibly lead is in God's hands and he will give it to you if you open your heart.
He will never leave you or forsake you if you ask Him to come live inside of you.
Apart from Him you can do nothing.
A life built on anything but Him is a life lived in vain.
He presents before you life and death and begs you to choose life.
He will forgive you of anything and though your sin be as red as crimson, will make you as white as snow placing all the wrong you have done into the sea of forgetfulness and casting it as far as the east is from the west.

Edyt:

That's the Gospel. Please stop running from God.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 2:26 AM


"Truthseeker, you wrote: "You often direct insults at "God". "

Is it an insult to call someone a fantasy whose characteristics (including existance or non-existance) cannot be determined?

Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 3:01 AM


Wow! That's great news, Patricia. Here, I'm so happy to read this article (somehow I missed it) that I'll link to it again for you:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08061010.html

I'm not sure whether or not it's true that FOCA will nullify state bans on "partial-birth" abortion. It nullifies any law that "interferes" with the right to choose abortion but it's not clear that a ban on "partial-birth" abortion necessarily "interferes" with that right. You can still choose abortion, just not "partial-birth" abortion. Does "interference" include sensible regulation?

But it (FOCA) would mean that if the long-term strategy of banning abortion procedure-by-procedure until all methods were unavailable started to succeed, FOCA would kick in and start nullifying those anti-abortion laws until there was no longer interference with anyone's basic right to choose abortion.

One more prediction: just as religious people are now grateful for the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) because it protects religious institutions as well as abortion clinics, so you will end up liking the Freedom of Choice Act after it becomes law because it will enshrine in federal law the right to keep a pregnancy and bear a child, which currently is not a constitutional or federal right.

Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 3:36 AM


Berger.
The comparison of abortion to slavery, is from the human being, being "owned". In the Creation, God is the "creator" of human beings. In a decision of thinking about who owns creation, you make yourself, Robert, the creator, and then assume "ownership" over the creation of human beings.
Is abortion ownership of physical matter? Yes, or No, Robert. In fact, a birth certificate is nothingmore then a paper describing who the "owner" of a person is. Think not? The state of Texas, is trying to find the "owners" of human beings, to prosecute those "owners" of those babies born to someone!!!!
Seems through the logic of abortion, repeating the often heard conclusion of "it's my body, and I shall do as I want with my body", that abortion reveals the same principle as chattel slavery.
Defintion of chattel slavery. The enforced serving of a person to another, or one group to another group. A slave has no personal(body) rights, and is decided the property of another person through birth, purchase, or capture.
Property is owned through title, deed, or other forms of legal recording, or personal record keeping.
Now, Robert, say a slave women said to the slave owner, That is my fetus/baby, and not yours master Robert, until this baby, is brought forth through me, the slave, to hear the sounds of creation imitated by musical instrument.
And your answer Robert, as the owner of the non- person, human being?
Of course your reply is , That fetus(the slave girl puzzlingly laughs in the desciption of her baby being named somethingelse then a baby) is my property, to do as I want, or wish to decide with the baby in your womb, Slave Girl.
So, as a women looks down at herself, and thinks what is inside her and growing, she decides a right of owning the baby, and doing as she wants(Dogma Doug appears in my mind as a great "horned instrument", a double bass tuba, "bombarding dogmatism" above the chaos of agnosticism), to that baby.
Make no doubt about it, Roberto, your a present day decision to make human beings slaves again.


Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 4:46 AM


HisMan, you wrote: "... you being an opera enthusiast, it's difficult to understand how yoou can, in good conscience, so easily deny the same privilege of hearing the miracle and transcendence of music to anyone, including a child in the womb."

That's up to the womb's owner. The patient.

Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 4:47 AM


Hey Somg?
Do you know, work with, or have met Stephen Curry?
Founding partner of PharmaNova? He enjoys the opera, and wrote a article about "drug representation" in operetic works.

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 4:56 AM


You wrote: "Happy Father's Day, SoMG. ".

Thanks but in my family (my Dad always insisted on this) we do not celebrate commercial holidays.

Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 5:01 AM


make human beings slaves again.

yllas, Robert made some observations and points you cannot refute nor counter, so once again you launch into your complaining fantasies. I doubt that Robert is worried about any of your conjurings, though.

If you want the slave anology, slaveowners wanted the will of the slaves subverted to their own, and you want the will of pregnant women subverted to yours. Carry on....

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 6:26 AM


Hi Edyt,
I know that HisMan has the best of intentions. He is speaking the truth. Maybe not in the way you want to hear it, it rubs you the wrong way etc. But it is The Truth.
I personally believe that telling everyone that they are going to hell if they don't accept Christ, although true, can serve to alienate those you want to reach. I was never moved by that. I surrendered at the age of 28 when the suffering over my choices became too great. I was lost and I knew it. I was at the end of myself.

I just want you to know that there are many people praying for you and caring for you and HisMan is one of them. We all long for relationships and we all suffer in this life. It is this commonality that can draw us ALL toward the light of God's love and His saving grace.

Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2008 6:48 AM


Silly Doug.
Will has nothing to do with property ownership, except for the will power to own property. How silly, now the slaveowner is "subverting the will" of the slave. Fact is, slaves accepted slavery as a fact of their cultural morality. Or, slave owning of human beings is natural. You know, moral relativism brought home for you Doug.That's the thinking or moral decisions of a group of people driven by making human beings property. The only will involved in slavery is the will to decide human beings are property.
Your dogmatism is blocking your ability to think again Dogma Doug.
By definition of chattel slavery, will and the non-sentient matter of the will, the neuron, has nothing to do with property. Property does not have a "will," Dogma Doug.What a slave thought, is of no concern to those that owned human beings. A slave is property. What a fetus does, or not do, or if the fetus is sentient matters nothing to a person who has decided that the fetus is "owned" by them, or her individualy. Your analogy for slavery and abortion is concerned with a quality that does not exist in property. The so called will.
Question. Is a fetus owned by anyone Dogma Doug? Yes or No? If no one "owns" the fetus, who does, or what does?
The will of a human being to kill/murder another human being, is reasoned on a principle of power. The power to murder, or kill another human being. Your for the will of human beings, to kill other human beings, Dogma Doug. That is your dogma. It ain't no simpler then that. Which is why I ask you if you would perform a killing of a non-sentient human being yourself, Dogma Doug, given the training to perform a abortion. You never answered.
Roberto is the decision to make chattel slaves of human beings, again.
Ps. Dogma Doug, after a human being murders another human being, the "murder" is said to have "owned the life" of the murdered human being.

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 7:22 AM


"...in my family (my Dad always insisted on this) we do not celebrate commercial holidays."

For religious reasons?

Posted by: carder at June 16, 2008 7:51 AM


yllas" Will has nothing to do with property ownership, except for the will power to own property. How silly, now the slaveowner is "subverting the will" of the slave.

It's not silly, it's fact - you want the will of pregnant women subverted to yours, while slaveowners want the will of slaves subverted to theirs. Pro-Choicers don't want you to have a say in it; they want the pregnant woman to be the one to decide, the same as for the people who don't want the will of the slaveowners to prevail over that of the slaves. We leave the dogma, if any, to you.

The silly part is you saying that "slaves accepted slavery..."
.....


Is a fetus owned by anyone? Yes or No? If no one "owns" the fetus, who does, or what does?

To a point in gestation, it's up to the woman whether the fetus lives or not. Is that what you mean by "owned"? If so, then obviously, it's yes. If not, then what do you mean?
......


would you perform a killing of a non-sentient human being yourself, given the training to perform a abortion?

If the question is really just if I'd perform abortions, then if I was a doctor and if I did abortions, then yes, same as for everybody.

I'm not a doctor, due in part to being a bit squeamish about blood, etc.
.....

Robert is the decision to make chattel slaves of human beings, again.

That's the kind of nonsensical thing we often see from you.

"If everybody who claimed to be "pro-life" was like yllas, then women would not have to worry about the issue, and pro-choicers would be pretty much uncontested in argument."

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 7:56 AM


SoMG: 5:01: Thanks but in my family (my Dad always insisted on this) we do not celebrate commercial holidays.

What DO you celebrate? Anything?

Posted by: Janet at June 16, 2008 8:21 AM


SoMg: 3:01: "Truthseeker, you wrote: "You often direct insults at "God". "

Is it an insult to call someone a fantasy whose characteristics (including existance or non-existance) cannot be determined?

Yes. It is very much an insult to those who believe. Thanks for asking.

Posted by: Janet at June 16, 2008 8:24 AM


"I just want you to know that there are many people praying for you and caring for you and HisMan is one of them. "

I don't believe for a mili-second he has EVER prayed for Edyt or anyone else on this site who doesn't agree with everything he says. He is arrogant, nasty, and in constant need of self validation. We know ALLLLLL about how important he is and how many famous people he's met (oooooh impressive!), now we know he thinks he's a super internet detective and has "sources", we know his kids are SOOO good looking (we hear that about every week) and his wife is hot and wears lots of make up. We know ALL about how gosh darn SPECIAL he is.

What usually impresses me about people of deep faith is their HUMBLENESS and KINDNESS. Neither of those attributes describe HisMan.

The true concept of Christianty as I've been raised to undestand it is the life-long commitment to live as much like Christ as you can. No where in the Bible have I ever read about Jesus bragging, calling people ugly, telling people they make him "wretch", insulting them for their political beliefs, threatening them, or predicting their future misery or damnation. I've seen HisMan do all of these things, sometimes all at once. If Jesus acted as HisMan acts, I don't think Christianity would even exist today... because rather than reaching out to the masses with compassion and humbleness, he would have alienated them and turned them away, even if despite it all, his teachings were good and true...because we all know the only thing more important than the lessons we learn are the people we learn them from.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 8:41 AM


Janet, Truthseeker, I agree wholeheartedly. Insulting our God is more insulting to us, than if one directly insults us. Edyt knows this.

Yllas, you made some really great posts today and yesterday! Fantastic point at 4:46!

Posted by: Bethany at June 16, 2008 8:44 AM


Is the fetus owned by a human being Dogma Doug? Yes or no? Do I need to give you the definition of own? If the word "own" is confusing to you Dogma Doug, pick a term to your liking.
But, since you admit the women "owns" the fetus up to a point, I must ask, to what point is ownership of the fetus does the women "own the fetus"? Second. Slavery is a accepted right of certain societies and still practiced to this day.
A chattel slave accepts his/her condition of not owning their body, from being raised in a society that values/thinks/decided by conscience, slavery as the natural condition and morality of that society. You are now trying to restrict your mind to your morality, and not accepting "relative/situational morality", Dogma Doug. Hillarity follows. Just as the fetus is a slave of the man and women who "owns" the fetus. Like you Dogma Doug, you accept chattel slavery because you deny the definition of chattel slavery by mixing "will" into property. More hillarity follows, as the term chattel slave is made into a discussion of body and mind, when everyone knows, property does not contain the physical matter of a will.

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 8:44 AM


The true concept of Christianty as I've been raised to undestand it is the life-long commitment to live as much like Christ as you can. No where in the Bible have I ever read about Jesus bragging, calling people ugly, telling people they make him "wretch", insulting them for their political beliefs, threatening them, or predicting their future misery or damnation.

Amanda, you are right about a couple of those, but Jesus did predict misery and damnation on people:

42 "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.

43 "Woe to you Pharisees! For you love the best seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces.

44 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like graves which are not seen, and the men who walk over them are not aware of them."

45 Then one of the lawyers answered and said to Him, "Teacher, by saying these things You reproach us also."

46 And He said, "Woe to you also, lawyers! For you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.

48 "In fact, you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs.

49 "Therefore the wisdom of God also said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and persecute,'

50 "that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation,

51 "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple. Yes, I say to you, it shall be required of this generation.

52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered."

And


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

***

He did tell people that they disgusted him (or made him want to "wretch"):

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev. 3:16

*********

He did threaten people:

Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Posted by: Bethany at June 16, 2008 8:57 AM


For the Dogma Doug that can't understand simple principles in more then one sentence.
A human being doesn't have the right to murder/kill another human being from reasons based upon "owning" another human being.
Question. Do you have the right to kill your dog Dogma Doug? Yes or No?
Question. Are you the "owner" of the dog, Dogma Doug? Yes or No?
PS. Dogma Doug, you now admit, by your searching the better part of conscience, and deciding, that you also can "heal a human being" by killing another human being . Congratulations Dogma Doug, your a wanna be "professional killer", ala those Nazi Doktors, as well as a "killing professionl propagandist".
Hey, there is another comparision/analogy to human beings "owning" the body of other human beings, and rationalizing away the human being they owned, for the "healing science of medicine".

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 9:04 AM


"Matthew 23:33
Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"

Ehh.. thats not a threat. Thats asking how Hell can be avoided. Not quite the same as "I'm going to tell your faculty director on you!!!!!! I KNOW PEOPLE!!!!!"


There's also a distinct differnce in tone between Jesus' words and "you people make me wretch". I also think the word "woe" shows that he was sad for them, sad for the choices they made - rather than full of hostility and rage.

But most importantly, as I said, is humbleness. A quality which has completely escaped HisMan.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 9:05 AM


I think that Hisman is struggling with this issue, and has many times apologized for his tone on the blog.

We all have particular things about our personalities that are, well- not so great (I know I do anyway!), and the fact that Hisman has been able to humble himself and apologize for his shortcomings is the reason I feel he is sincere, and truly does care about the people he talks to.

Posted by: Bethany at June 16, 2008 9:34 AM


Bethany.
Dogma Doug would have made a "good" chattel slaveowner, since Dogma Doug can't stand the sight of blood.
He would have told those slaves, that thinking about the right and wrong of their women "owning" those fetus's in them, was nonsensical, a nope, your wrong, a matter of attributing to a matter, that was of no matter of no attributes to him, and of course, "to a point" of ownership. Ain't this fun Bethany, writing in the "non-sensical writing style" of Dogma Doug, to you?
Do you think Dogma Doug would have been a "good" chattel slave possesor, or a "normal" possesor of the fetus of female human beings, with the quality of being non person human beings "owning" no rights to their sentient bodies?

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 9:37 AM


Bethany -

I certainly agree with you that we are all flawed. Part of being flawed is also knowing what barriers our flaws put up for us. I do recognize and respect that HisMan sometimes apologizes for his words, but I don't see that he has recognized the barrier he puts up... instead, earlier in this thread, he was suggesting that the rest of you "take note" of his methods. That suggests to me he sees no flaw in his attitude - in fact he thinks you all should be more like him - and thats what I have a problem with, rather than the flaw itself.

On a mostly unrelated note, this made my morning:

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/lesbian-couple-of-55-years-to-marry/20080616064109990001

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 9:57 AM


Amanda:

Jesus had no time for political correctness.

No matter how I spoke the truth you would twist it as something else. You don't want to hear the truth, believe the truth, know the truth or be changed by the truth. If you did, you would at least listen to the truth.

And the things pro-aborts do and believe does make me wretch. Why, because I know the eventual destruction it will reap on their lives and that makes me very, very heart sick.

I'm not sure how anyone would desribe the feeling, when SoMG says things like "it's up to the owner of the womb, the patient", as if he has no culpability in the matter. It's like a Nazi saying, "I was just following orders". Pitiful to be so cavlier about ending a human life.

So, I'll keep posting and keep wretching in order to get the truth out.

And the only barrier I see is the barrier you place on your heart to admit the truth.

As far as a lesbian couple finally being able to marry after 55 years. This is truly an abomination in God's sight.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 10:34 AM


As far as a lesbian couple finally being able to marry after 55 years. This is truly an abomination in God's sight.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 10:34 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
Lynn Lavner

Posted by: Laura at June 16, 2008 10:40 AM


Is the fetus owned by a human being Dogma Doug?

yllas, you're the one with the dogma. I answer questions honestly, and identify it when it's my opinion. If you too were honest, it'd be a different deal, but you so frequently hide behind outright lies, things taken out of context, and your own confused fantasies.

As far as "owning" the embryo/fetus, it's inside the woman's body, and to a point in gestation, anyway, she is the one that decides if it lives or dies, and what more do you really need, there? I realize you may not like the way things are, but there it is.
......

You're right that there is still slavery in the world, and that in some societies it's practiced and accepted (to varying degrees), but you still made a silly generalization that "slaves accepted slavery." In no way is that true in the unqualified way you stated it.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 10:51 AM


He would have told those slaves, that thinking about the right and wrong of their women "owning" those fetus's in them, was nonsensical

Wrong again, yllas. You're the one who talks of slaves "accepting slavery." Pro-Choicers neither want slaves subjected to the will of slaveowners nor do they want pregnant women subjected to your will.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 10:55 AM


Doug,

Pro lifers neither want slaved subjected to the will of slaveowners nor do they want unborn children subjected to the will of their mothers, abortionists or pro choicers...

Posted by: mk at June 16, 2008 11:00 AM


Question. Do you have the right to kill your dog? Yes or No?

In some situations, yes, yllas. Even somebody as frequently willfully blind to the obvious as you knows that.
....


A human being doesn't have the right to murder/kill another human being from reasons based upon "owning" another human being.

You're right about murder, but of course abortion is not murder. In the case of legal abortion, the pregnant woman does have the right to end the life of the embryo/fetus. It is that fact that has you dissatisfied with the way things are.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 11:00 AM


MK, the difference is that the unborn are inside the body of the pregnant women, while the slaves are not inside the body of a person.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 11:02 AM


"No matter how I spoke the truth you would twist it as something else. You don't want to hear the truth, believe the truth, know the truth or be changed by the truth. If you did, you would at least listen to the truth."

Wrong. That's just what you need to convince yourself to justify your behavior. I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to hear the ideas of others. And none of that explains all the bragging and verbal masturbation you post on here.

Also, just in case you missed it the first time, Cam doesn't go to school in Missouri.

As for the lesbian couple, you believe in a vengeful God who punishes people for their sins. What better proof that two people being in love is NOT an abominiation than for two people to spend 55 years together and be rewarded for it in the twilight of their long, healthy lives.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 11:06 AM


They "married" four years ago. So now are they "remarried?"

I know God to be just. Lying is a sin. So is homosexuality. He judges us all. He also tells us to go and sin no more. Happiness, love, feeling good in your twilight years have nothing to do with it.

We can agree to disagree. We will get nowhere fast talking about homosexuality, Amanda.

Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2008 11:38 AM


Amanda:
Just because something "feels" right or good doesn't make it right.
The shame here is that these two people have perpetuated this sin for 55 years.
Only God can judge them, but one has to wonder how many others this couple has led down this path.

Posted by: Patricia at June 16, 2008 12:04 PM


How is two people in a loving relationship for 55 years a "sin" of any kind?

Remember the song? "If loving you is wrong, I don't want to be right."

Posted by: Hal at June 16, 2008 12:27 PM


Barbara Mandrell? Am I right?!

Yes, that song was about adultery but ok.

Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2008 12:56 PM


Okay, I'm going to maybe try to clarify what Amanda is saying minus the sarcasm. (No offense Amanda)

Basically, all the damnation that HisMan speaks about MAY be the truth, BUT it doesn't get the end result that HisMan wishes. It doesn't change hearts towards God and Christ, and it doesn't make anyone want to be a part of Christianity because if THAT'S what Christianity is, who really wants to be like THAT?

Carla, you even stated that all the "oooh, you're going to hell because of the way you live" didn't really ever do anything for you. I would venture to say it is the same way for most non-Christians. You had to come to it on your own. That's how you know it's real..you can't do it for anyone else, and no amount of condemnation will bring anyone towards Christ. It will probably do the exact opposite.

So HisMan, maybe the way Edyt lives her life and what she believes realllllly bothers you. I'm almost positive I don't agree with everything Edyt says/does. I'm sure NO ONE on this site agrees ALL THE TIME with anyone else. Disagreeing with YOU, HisMan, does not mean anyone disagrees with God no matter how much you may think it does. I peronally think that people would be more receptive to YOUR beliefs if they didn't include so much condemnation/damnation.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 1:40 PM


Hi Elizabeth,
Very thoughtful post!!

Posted by: Carla at June 16, 2008 1:45 PM


Thanks, Carla. I did think about it for a while as I was reading all the recent posts on here. :)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 1:55 PM


Dogma Doug.
Why do you have a right to kill your dog?
Since you may kill your dog, by what reason do you have to own the right of/to life of the dog?
A. owner/possessor of dog
B. owner up to a point. which needs to be defined fully and rationally, the term, "up to a point".
C. not a owner and able to possess/own a "life", which you don't own.
D, other reason as you may list.

Now, Dogma Doug, since you accuse me of a "silly generalization", so may you now understand the silly generalization of you Dogma Doug, that "abortion has ALWAYS existed,even before written history". Of course, your "myth statement" was, and is, a absolute statment, and hasty generalization, from the word ALWAYS and generalizing about abortion and human beings.
. And you don't think there is absolute truth, A contradiction again in the philosophy of Dogma Doug again, when failing to understand simple words of the English language.
But, if you notice my sentence on slaves accepting their becoming "living property", I used the word "A". A slave, (single slave), in a society(group of more then one) where humans are "living property" accepts his state of being "living property". I didn't make a hasty generalization, since I qualified it in terms of the individual versus the group. Try again Dogma Doug. If you try being a logic cop, try finding the right flaw in my writings and not a mistaken flaw of hasty generalization.
And now the joke of Dogma Doug's ambiguous terms and definitions brought home for Dogma Doug's mind to see how silly you are.
"Do you own the dog, DOGma Doug", says the dog catcher"
"Uh, up to a point, senor Dog Catcher", replies the suddenly, up to a point owner, of his dog.
"What are you DOGma Doug, some kinda wise guy", says the Dog Catcher.
"Here's a ticket Dogma Doug, and next time, keep that "living property" inside your property.
BTW, Dogma Doug, since a fetus is inside of a women, and she owns the fetus, what "part of her body" is the fetus? I know a female owns her body parts, such as her liver and spleen, and they are parts of her body. What "part of the body" of a women, is the fetus?

Posted by: yllas at June 16, 2008 2:18 PM


How is two people in a loving relationship for 55 years a "sin" of any kind?

Because although from outward appearances the relationship is loving, it is not in the true sense of the meaning of spousal love. Spousal love can only be between a husband and a wife because of the complementarity of the opposite sexes which is completely lacking in any homosexual relationship. They do not complement one another physically, emotionally or spiritually since they are of the same sex.

I do not deny that two people of the same sex can "love" one another, it is just that it is not the same as the spousal love between husband and wife.

They are claiming to be as a married couple (I mean when they get married) but they will not in fact be a married couple no matter what the law of the land states. They are two people of the same sex pretending to have spousal love and pretending to be married.
It is a "sin" because this is contrary to God's laws on marital love and they are harming one another, even though they believe they are not.

Posted by: Patricia at June 16, 2008 2:19 PM


Elizabeth:

MY WISHES? HUH?

1 Corinthians 3 " 5What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. 7So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. 9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."

I speak the whole truth and not just part of the truth. I speak about God's forgiveness and love AND God's justice - the full Gospel. Let's not leave out the justice part of the Gospel as if it didn't exist. And you saying that hell and damnation is all I speak about it is a gross lie. It's just that you can't stand any mention of it.

Besides, God's word will not return to Him void but accomplish the purpose for which it is sent. Stop judging that purpose as if you were some all-knowing saint. You have no idea who needs to hear the truth I express about judgement and hell. In fact, you hinder God's Word, I don't.

And it's very hard for me to understand your response, if you look at my most recent post. It was truly balanced with justice and love and not to satisfy your demands - sorry.

I am sorry for you Elizabeth because you have been brainwashed by "Churchianity", all things nice. Perhaps you will realize this.

Let me tell you this, when the end comes, it's going to be a literal hell. If you believe that and you truly love people you should warn them that there's a cliff at the end of the road instead of filling their car with perfume, lulling them to sleep. Perhaps you should read and study the Bible more often and you would get one more glimpse of what I am saying. The Books of James and Jude would be a great and somber start for you.

And please don't tear out the pages that talk about all that you don't want me to talk about. God knows what He is doing and I am not going to be an arbiter of that. Speaking the truth in love means speaking the truth without fear of the consequences or for no self-driven motive, even if it gets one crucified. And I suspect that one day, if they keep going like they're going, I'll be killed for speaking the truth and that would be fine with me. If it was good enough for the apostles to speak the truth and be killed for it, it's good enough for me.

You want to see the result of your type of Christianity? Well he's one of the candidates. A pro-abort, pro-gay, anti-traditonal marriage, liberal rerpobate who hasn't got a clue as to who the real Jesus is. Christianity is not a religion of compromise. There's one way and it's God's way, not subject to the blowing wind, shifting shadow or popular opinion. That's an abomination to God.

There's no lack of intent when God uses words like rock and solid foundation as matepahors to describe who He is.

Jesus spoke about hell and judgement, I will too. I will also presnet a way out of that destiny. A watered down message leads to water downed, lukewarm Chrsitians. If people "feel" bad when hell and damnation are mentioned, well, guess what, that's what is supposed to happen or haven't you read this passage yet? Hebrews 4
"12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. 13Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."

Besides, the Bible speaks that knowlege begins with the fear of God, not the niceness of God. One cannot ever truly know who God is until they understand who He is in the fullest sense of the Word. God is a consuming fire. He is also love. He is just not fire and not just love. Jesus demonstrated love and judgement. To ask Jesus to compromise His word by just speaking love and not jusdgment is satnnic.

John 15:10
When you obey my commandments, you remain in my love, just as I obey my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.

(That's called a conditonal promise Liz)

John 15:23
Anyone who hates me also hates my Father.

(That's a declaritive Liz - you like that one I bet)

John 15:24
If I hadn’t done such miraculous signs among them that no one else could do, they would not be guilty. But as it is, they have seen everything I did, yet they still hate me and my Father.

(Yes Liz, no matter what is said or how it is said, there will always be those who absolutely hate Christ and therefore hate the Father and are thereby eternally condemned).

You think God is joking about sin? Well, tell me this, if He was, how could he let His own Son die on the cross to redeem it? That was real nice wasn't it. Sin is so absolutely heinous to God that the way He deals with it is to destroy it eternally, and that includes those who commit sin and are not redeemed by the Savior. How do you say that in a politically correct way Liz?

I say this, the talk about judgement and sin and punishment needs to increase in our feminized, namby-pamby, water downed version of the false Christianity that is practiced in most churches today.

I don't compromise when it comes to God's Word Elizabeth. And a healthy dose of it would be good medicine for you.

2 Corinthians 11
1 I hope you will put up with a little more of my foolishness. Please bear with me. 2 For I am jealous for you with the jealousy of God himself. I promised you as a pure bride[a] to one husband—Christ. 3 But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. 4 You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed.

Galations 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ."

Finally Liz: Focus on verse 10.


Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 3:04 PM


yllas: Why do you have a right to kill your dog?

Here is what I said:

"In some situations, yes, yllas. Even somebody as frequently willfully blind to the obvious as you knows that."

If the dog is doing certain things, attacking people, for example, then it may be legally killed.


Since you may kill your dog, by what reason do you have to own the right of/to life of the dog? A. owner/possessor of dog B. owner up to a point. which needs to be defined fully and rationally, the term, "up to a point". C. not a owner and able to possess/own a "life", which you don't own. D, other reason as you may list.

It's not only the dog's owner, it's anybody on the scene, really. Yeah, the "up to a point" can certainly be applied, i.e. it's situational.
......

the silly generalization that "abortion has ALWAYS existed, even before written history".

I didn't say that, yllas. You did. You're back to making up stuff again.
....


And you don't think there is absolute truth

Nope, just another lame lie from you. There certainly is absolute truth, as far as physical existence, logic, etc. Again, you seem compelled to not only lie but to generalize incorrectly yet again.
.....


since a fetus is inside of a women, and she owns the fetus, what "part of her body" is the fetus?,/i>

I didn't say it was. Here was the exchange:

A human being doesn't have the right to murder/kill another human being from reasons based upon "owning" another human being.

"You're right about murder, but of course abortion is not murder. In the case of legal abortion, the pregnant woman does have the right to end the life of the embryo/fetus. It is that fact that has you dissatisfied with the way things are."

In the case of legal abortion, if you want to say that is the woman "owning the fetus," okay, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's "part of her body" in the way you mean it.
.....


But, if you notice my sentence on slaves accepting their becoming "living property", I used the word "A". A slave, (single slave), in a society(group of more then one) where humans are "living property" accepts his state of being "living property".

No, what I disagreed with was where you said:

Fact is, slaves accepted slavery as a fact of their cultural morality.

In no way is that true in the unqualified way you stated it. Perhaps "a slave" felt as you describe somewhere along the line, and if you'd said that it'd be different.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 3:17 PM


I do not deny that two people of the same sex can "love" one another, it is just that it is not the same as the spousal love between husband and wife.

Patricia, you could also say that the spousal love of heterosexual couple A is not the same as that for heterosexual couple B. It's never going to be exactly the same between any two couples, regardless of the sexes involved.

There was all manner of hand-wringing and people being bummed out about interracial marriage but it died down after awhile and it's not that big a deal anymore. The same will happen with gay marriage.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 3:22 PM


Laura:

You were right about Cam. I got Minnesota confused with Missouri, again if I am remembering correctly.

I was going on memory since my computer crashed a while back and I have misplaced (not lost) all my Cameron files, links to his papers, a resume, etc. He's a smart guy in biology anyway, but so is SoMG.

When I find the file I will expound so as to be absolutely 100% correct. Don't dare want to give you any fodder. After all, millions of unborn lives are on the line that I need to protect....from you of course.

No matter. I hope Cam is doing well. I kind of liked him.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 3:31 PM


Oh so self-assured Doug, little grasshoppa.

To be against inter-racial marriage was culturual in nature with racism as it's foundation.

Gay marriage is a moral issue and opposes Christianity and transcends culture. I would say the majority of the world is against gay marriage.

It's not a good analogy.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 3:35 PM


:Yawns:

HisMan,

I was really trying to be nice, and you were your usual condescending, I know everything self.

I should have known THAT'S what I get when I try to explain things that I think to you.

God and I have a lovely relationship, even with all my "Churchianity brainwashing" as you called it.

Jesus demonstrated love and judgement. To ask Jesus to compromise His word by just speaking love and not jusdgment is satnnic.

You mean like when he asked for His Father to forgive his persecutors when he was dying on the cross? Yeah, that's some REAL judgement right there. And where in any of my statements did I ask JESUS to compromise His Word? Unless you think YOU are JESUS..because my whole post was about YOU, NOT JESUS. But as per usual, you missed the point again.

Respond if you must have the last word cause I think I'm done addressing you. It obviously does no good since you are soooo perfect and I am suuuuch a sinner.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 4:00 PM


Elizabeth FTW.

=)


PS - HisMan, you "kinda" liked him?? Thats why in this very thread you attributed his no longer posting here to your silly empty threats at emailing his faculty director? PLEASE. Spare us all your self-important babble. No one is buying it.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 4:13 PM


Laura:

You were right about Cam. I got Minnesota confused with Missouri, again if I am remembering correctly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hisman, I have no clue what you're talking about.

Posted by: Laura at June 16, 2008 4:40 PM


Janet, you wrote: "Yes. It [calling someone a fantasy whose characteristics (including existance or non-existance) cannot be determined] is very much an insult to those who believe. "

How do you figure that? To insult someone means, attributing to him characteristics which are negative or shameful. However, claiming that no characteristics whatsoever can be reliably attributed to a person does not attribute any negative or shameful characteristics to him, and therefore does not insult him, unless you think that unknowability is itself a negative or shameful characteristic.

Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 4:40 PM


Laura:

What's your point?

One expressed abomination by God against any behavior is enough for me.

Look, we all sin. The difference is those who recognize their sin, turn away from it, and fight the temptation and those who simply ignore the the fact that anything is a sin.

And the time that something lasts does not signify the approval of God. How long did the slavery of Black-Africans exist before men had courage enough to die for it's abolishment?

God presents before us life or death. And He warns that the "the wages of sin is death". The longer we wait, the more likey we will make the wrong choice.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 5:31 PM


Nope. Not Minnesota either. Two down, 48 to go!

Tell me again how you knew what school he went to, and about how you were all set to email his faculty director... and yet you have no idea what STATE the college is even in.

Or since that would just make you look silly, you can remind us for the 3948453rd time how hot your wife is and how you've met lots of famous people.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 5:31 PM


How long did the slavery of Black-Africans exist before men had courage enough to die for it's abolishment?


Umm, AND WOMEN.

Harriet Tubman anyone?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 5:42 PM


How long did the slavery of Black-Africans exist before men had courage enough to die for it's abolishment?


Umm, AND WOMEN.

Harriet Tubman anyone?

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 5:43 PM


Amamda:

Like I said before when I find the file I'll fill you in, partially anyway. I wouldn't want to compromise Cameron's privacy. I looked for it last night and couldn't find it. Data Doctors has a way of burying stuff in archived files that I don't know how to access. I recalled something about Missouri and then Missisippi. Honestly, I cannot remember exactly if what you're saying is true. Then again, maybe I had the wrong guy. That is a possibility.

You sound jealous though. Why is that?

Yep, not only is my wife absolutely georgeous on the outside, she's brilliant on the inside, slender, blond, wonderful figure, smart, gret mother, and oh does she love God. And I literally have 5 GQ looking kids. If you don't believe me, ask MK. I think she's seen photos of my kids. Can't help it that God blessed me. I thank him every day.

It's not my fault I know all these famous people. God has a way of giving faithful men favor with all kinds of people.

I know a lot of poor people too. Now is that OK with you, is that equal equal enough?

To me it makes no difference.

If I knew Bill Clinton it would not be something I would be proud of..... Same goes for Barack and Hillary and Harry Reid and Pelosi, and fill in the Liberal blank.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 5:57 PM


AAAAAnnnnd he takes the verbal masterbation bait, hook line and sinker.

You may as well be screaming "PLEASE VALIDATE ME!!!!" from the top of your roof.


Cam and I are friends. We talk often. Don't you worry your GQ little self about his privacy, because you don't have an ounce of information accurate enough to invade anything, especially his privacy.

But thats not important anyway. Whats REALLY important to life and faith and politics is that your kids are better looking than ANYONE else on here (probably on the whole planet!), and Chelsea Clinton is ugly.

Have a good night!!

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 6:04 PM


Nope. Not Minnesota either. Two down, 48 to go!
Tell me again how you knew what school he went to, and about how you were all set to email his faculty director... and yet you have no idea what STATE the college is even in.
Or since that would just make you look silly, you can remind us for the 3948453rd time how hot your wife is and how you've met lots of famous people.

Amanda, it's an M state... I think you know as well as I do that it has been a while (about a year) since it happened and that he probably forgot exactly what state it was. Heck, I don't even remember which one it was, and I'm much younger than him. Give him a break, I would really appreciate it.

As for him bragging on his wife and kids, come on Amanda, he's proud of them. Wouldn't you be proud of your children?

It may rub you the wrong way, but why does it matter so much? He's proud of his family. What is really so wrong about that?

Posted by: Bethany at June 16, 2008 6:06 PM


Theres a big difference between being proud of your kids for who they are vs. bragging constantly about how good looking they are, as though he had any control over how the DNA worked out. Pride is one thing, complete lack of anything resembling humility is a another thing.

MK, Elizabeth, and all the other moms and dads on here are no doubt equally proud of their children. Yet NO ONE puts on such a gross display of ego and self importance, especially about trite things like physical appearance.

If he wants to be who he is fine, but when he starts lecturing the kinder, more humble, and patient people on this site that they're fake Christians, practicing fake religion, thats where I lose any tidbit of respect I had for him. Think I'm being ridiculous? Look how he just went after Elizabeth. It doesn't matter to him if someone is pro life or pro choice, he only treats people with dignity as long as they don't dare to disagree with ANYTHING he says.

And the empty threats towards Cam? I wouldn't have dreamed of bringing that up if he hadn't ...with this typical arrogance, that turned out to be wrong, and I called him on it. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 6:23 PM


HisMan: Oh so self-assured Doug, little grasshoppa.

I grant you nobody knows exactly how things will work out, and that was also true with interracial marriage.
.....


To be against inter-racial marriage was culturual in nature with racism as it's foundation. Gay marriage is a moral issue and opposes Christianity and transcends culture. I would say the majority of the world is against gay marriage.

There were plenty of people against interracial marriage on the grounds that it was "immoral." Prejudice on either racial or sexual grounds isn't much different. There are some Christians against gay marriage, sure, and that's part of their "culture" - it's not "outside" it.

You may be right about the majority of the world being against gay marriage, and it may have been so with respect to interracial marriage too. Things are changing, however, and we shall see.

Posted by: Doug at June 16, 2008 6:26 PM


Bethany,

I agree with Amanda's 6:23 p.m. post.

If you read what I wrote to HisMan at 1:40 p.m. I was very respectful and trying to talk to him in a different way than Amanda and Edyt were. I was trying to not use sarcasm or be on the defensive because I think that was where they were butting heads in their communication. I was trying to get HisMan to look at things in a different way and was being very passive in my comment.

And then he comes at me with that post which pretty much had NOTHING to do with what I actually said, and said I was brainwashed. I guess his ego felt challenged, as it does I'm sure when anyone disagrees with him about ANYTHING. While I may not agree with what he says all the time, I tried to talk to him respectfully and he was just rude and insulting. Amanda may have less patience than I when it comes to him, but her portrayal of him is not inaccurate. (From what we know via the internet of course)

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 6:31 PM


HisMan,

I understand that we have a lot of differences, particularly in our opinions and our religious beliefs. I am not calling you out on that. There's nothing wrong with you disagreeing with me!

What I found insulting were phrases like: When will you stop sucking your thumbs and grow up and leave the immoral world you have constructed for yourself, built on the foundations of self-deceipt, selfishness, and immorality and It is in fact you who are insulting, blasphemous, decadent, immoral, lost and alone.

I also was insulted that you decided you knew more about me and my relationships than I do myself. That's rude, condescending, and insulting. Not to mention unnecessary. I can understand another person's point of view, but I have very little inclination to do so when they insist on demeaning me and my boyfriend.

I believe you should have the right to your opinion, and I'm sorry that my statements about religion have offended you.

I stand by my earlier statement: I hope some day you let go of all the anger and hatred you hold in your heart for people who are not like you, and find peace, love and happiness.

Posted by: Edyt at June 16, 2008 8:19 PM


Patricia, you could also say that the spousal love of heterosexual couple A is not the same as that for heterosexual couple B. It's never going to be exactly the same between any two couples, regardless of the sexes involved.

NOpe. Spousal love is a term to describe the love between a husband and a wife (regardless of race) and has as it's basis the complementarity of the sexes. This is why homosexuals can never have a spousal love. It is also why their love can never be expressed in the flesh by way of a new human life (IVF and artificial insemination do not count).

Posted by: Patricia at June 16, 2008 8:48 PM


Elizaebth:

You said this to me: "So HisMan, maybe the way Edyt lives her life and what she believes realllllly bothers you. I'm almost positive I don't agree with everything Edyt says/does. I'm sure NO ONE on this site agrees ALL THE TIME with anyone else. Disagreeing with YOU, HisMan, does not mean anyone disagrees with God no matter how much you may think it does. I peronally think that people would be more receptive to YOUR beliefs if they didn't include so much condemnation/damnation."

You were trying to correct me on how I post. You have no business doing that and if you decide to I'll will take the liberty of rebuking, admonishing, and correcting you. Am I always right? No I am not. Amanda is trying to question my integrity and you my method. Do you not know that light has no fellowship with darkness?

I totally disagree with what you said especially, "people would be more receptive to YOUR beliefs if they didn't include so much condemnation/damnation". You have no right making that judgement.

And I was trying to explain to you why I post like I do and why you can't seem to understand that. Perhaps you would have chosen to correct Jesus when he turned over the tables in the Temple or called the Pharisees a brood of vipers? Ot told Peter, "get thee behind me Satan"? Or, "unless ye repent, ye shall surely perish".

And Jesus aksed His Father, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". Well what if they did know what they were doing as most of the pro-aborts on this site know what they are doing? They've been exposed to Jesus Christ and they've made a conscience decsion to demonize Him, blaspheme Him, mischaracterize Him, etc. And you don't want me to respond to that stuff from the pit of hell?

You know the reason most men don't go to church? It's because they can't stand the thought of a feminized Jesus. However, I want you to understand that Jesus was not the wimp that many churches portray Him to be.

Jesus was anything but effeminate. He was a man's man. A carpenter. A man that a bunch of swearing, rugged, hateful and hopeless breakers of the Law, fisherman could leave everything to follow and then die for. He was unlike the perfectionist politically correct Pharisees of the day.

Look, I've spoken the truth to my family like I do on this site. I was always being admonished and being chided for it by woman in the church. My family knows I mean business. They know where I stand. They know that Dad does not mess with His faith nor does He allow others to mess with his faith or the faith of his family. I've said "NO" a thousand times when the easy way would have been to say "Yes". Somehow, through all that pain of being alone following God's Word, my family are all believers, in the church, on fire for God, marrying or looking for Christian mates. You want me to tell you the condition of the families who were always trying to correct me? Chaos and destruction. Divorce, molestation, drugs, adultery and the like.

Woman today hate men like me. They hate men that can't be manipiulated, that stand firm. They hate strong men because the woman's movement has demonized men and you have bought into the lie, that "being strong is wrong". Well, that's one of the biggest sins of this age. To demonzie men to their children deprives children of a father. A father that a woman can't replace.

I'm sorry Elizabeth, but you were cheated somewhere along the line and probably by a man. A man that lied to you, a man that you trusted, a man that broke your heart. And I know you are valiantly trying to bring up your daughter as a single mom. I can't imagine how tough that is. If I could I would help, but I can't. If what happened to you happened to my daughter, I would be right there. She knows that.

Having said that, and for the sake of the women on this site, I will not bend, I will not break, I will not compromise my faith or my values for anyone.

If a lifestyle unrepented of leads to death, I will speak that. If someone spews a lie for young ones to read I will counter it. If politicians are supported who are reprobate I will speak against them. If my Savior is attacked I will respond.

Following God's Word is the most difficult undertaking a person can do in this life. When aperson tries to do this, satan goes into overtime trying to defeat that person, becuase he knows the power of an uncompromising Christian. The rewards of floowing God's Word are infinite, like having a saved family.

I don't know exactly why you can't stand me, however, I have an inkling that it's something to do with your father or a man that you trusted and hurt you. Again, I might be wrong, but that is my sense. I am not that man nor anything like that man.

When my daughter was very little and growing up she was always in my arms. I absolutely poured love into her to overflowing. The bond between me and her was unbreakable and I was her protector and shield. Why did I do this? Because I knew that someday I would send her into the world and she would need a strong father figure planted in her mind so that she could say "NO" to the men that would try to use and abuse her. I love my daughter too much too let some bozo do anything bad to her. Besides, he would have hell to pay for hurting my daughter. I suppose you might have an issue with me saying that?

As she got older, she tried to do the same type of manipulative tricks that the other girls on this site try, mostly to get her way and very normal. I've got to say I never gave in, ever. She was testing me to see if I believed what I said so she could make it her own, if she could live by it. I'll tell you that Mary is the most sweet, yet fearsome woman I know. She does NOT compromise her values. She will be a Proverbs 31 woman of God and will make a tremendous difference in this world. She IS gorgeous inside and out.

Elizabeth, if I could be your dad for a moment, if I could, I would look into your eyes and tell you that God loves you and that he forgives you and that you no longer have to compromise. I would tell you that with Him at your side you could do anything and be anything and soar to great heights and I would tell you that I would never leave you as long as the Lord allowed. I would tell you that He is your everything. He is your life, He is your all in all. I would tell you that if you follow Him, that you would find your dream. I would not however, condone any bad behavior or your willingness to compromise your values.

As far as my sons were concerned...they got the same treatment. I poured myself into them. I gave up lucrative job offers involving travel to be able to work out of my house. I could probably be a corporate type with all kinds of perks, but, would I still have my family? I was there when they got home from school, I coached them, I trained them, I discplined them. I said "NO" when mom wanted me to say "YES". I spent many nights in the resentment dog house because I gave my word to God that I would obey Him and bring my kids up the way He wanted me to and not the way pop-pshycologists said I should.

What's the result? Four sons that love God. My oldest son will be marrying in July to a girl that I swear was made for Him. He persevered through 4 years at the Air Force Academy, 2 years in pilot training, 4 years in the Middle East attaining Captain and earning numerous combat medals. All the while saving himself for the woman He knew God was preparing for him. My hope someday is that he will be a US Senator. Down the line, my kids are all champions.

Amanda: Am I bragging? Nope, just testifying how a little dark, poor Italian kid from a New York ghetto, a punk, when he was confronted and came to fear the living God, and then trusted Him, was blessed beyond measure for just trying to obey Him to the best of His ability. You seem to have a problem with that and yes I am filled with pride and joy as to what God has done for me, things I could never have done for myself.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 9:09 PM


That is honestly one of the creepiest things I've ever read. I need to go take a shower.

*shudder*

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 9:22 PM


@HisMan: You must be a pretty weak individual for not being able to accomplish all that you've accomplished on your own and you need to depend on something that cannot be proven to exist or not exist.

Me? I prefer to do things on my own and on my own "steam" so to speak. And own up to my own mistakes and accept my own accomplishments.

I was raised to depend on myself- not others, and rightly so.

Posted by: Rae at June 16, 2008 9:43 PM


Amanda:

You need a baptism, not a shower.

Edyt:

My wish for you is just the best. You are right, I don't know you as an individual. I'm sure that I would like you.

However, the life you lead, which I would not have known about unless you had described, is not pleasing to God.

I could say to you, as long as you're happy, you're OK. That would be a lie.

You told me you were doing X and based on my study of God's Word, Y is the result.

And thank you for apologizing. You are a very smart woman and I hope that one day that you find God. I know He's waiting.

If you really loved your boyfriend, the greatest act of love would be to lead Him to Christ.

Peace.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 9:49 PM


Already baptized. But thanks anyway.

Posted by: Amanda at June 16, 2008 9:54 PM


Actually, HisMan, what I was trying to do was not so much correct you on the way you post, but encourage a better discussion between you and Edyt. You guys seem to butt heads a lot and I just thought I would give it a shot. I never asked you to compromise your faith or your values for anyone on this site. All I did was try to help you communicate in a way that Edyt may be more receptive of. I communicate differently with certain people here than I do with others because I realize all people are different, and one blanket method of communicating will not work with all people.

Another thing:

1.) My dad is the greatest dad in the world. He has done nothing but support me and pick me up when I have fallen through my own poor decisions. He is the hardest worker I know STILL. He is the man who drove a limo when I was 12 just so my 3 brothers and I could eat our next meal. He is also the man who does whatever is necessary to make sure I can go to school and get my degree, and have my daughter in a loving environment. I hate to disappoint you, but no man has ever destroyed my poor, fragile, female soul that makes me think the way I do about things. I came to these conclusions all on my own with my own small, female mind. :)

2.) While you seem to think I compromise my own personal values in life, I do not. You are mistaken there again. Just because I encourage productive communication and compromise on this site does not mean I compromise my values for anyone. Especially a man. Not that it's anyone's business, but I have not had sex in 3 years since becoming pregnant with my daughter. That doesn't leave me with a lot of dating options, but my serious trepidation of being a single mom of 2 kids has officially super-glued my legs closed until marriage. That's a little blessing God has given me. It has also allowed me to be honest with what I want in a potential husband. I know that I want our views on religion to be the same.(Catholic) There are other qualities but I won't list them all here but him being the same religion as me is very important to me. I don't know why you seem to think it is that I've lost my way or that I am a weak, puppy dog of a girl that needs someone to love her. I don't. I'm very strong and know what I want in this life.

Oh, and my brothers don't like going to church because they'd rather be in dance class or playing Guitar Hero. I don't think it has anything to do with the so-called feminizing of Jesus. It has to do with they want to do what they want to do, and that they're lazy when it comes to things they don't want to do.

I see your most recent post as sincere and kind and I thank you for that. I really wasn't trying to get you to compromise your faith or anything like that, just show you that different people are more receptive to certain kinds of communication.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at June 16, 2008 10:14 PM


Hi Rae:

You're right. I'm a feeble, do-nothing, pro-life Christian who should just stop speaking about heaven and hell.

I should stop talking about my family and how God has blessed me and of course, never mention my beautiful wife or all the famous (and very, very poor) people I know for fear of insulting Amanda.

I just sit here all day and God just gives me all these blessings and I should be ashmaed for that. I need to be as misreable as everyone else.

Rae, you should try the magic words, Jesus save me from myself........from my pride...from my inability to save myself.

Lord Jesus, I just want to thank you for all you have done for me. You have truly given me more than I could ask or imagine. Most of all Lord, without you I would be nothing and without you all ths worldy stuff would be meaningless. Al I want forever is you Lord. I praise you and give you all of the Glory, in Jesus' mighty name, Amen.

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 10:24 PM


HisMan, thou art full of pryde. Perhaps a scarlet "P" shoulde be your punishmente? Yea verily.

Posted by: Hester Prynne at June 16, 2008 10:37 PM


And I was trying to explain to you why I post like I do and why you can't seem to understand that. Perhaps you would have chosen to correct Jesus when he turned over the tables in the Temple or called the Pharisees a brood of vipers? Ot told Peter, "get thee behind me Satan"? Or, "unless ye repent, ye shall surely perish".

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

You aren't Jesus dude. Your rants scream schizophrenia.
No one can see things as well and as clear as you do. If everyone could live inside your head, everyone would know how special you are.
God speaks to you and you alone doesn't he. Maybe not always directly, but only you can understand the special meanings written just for you in the Bible.
You must save souls with your superior insight or God will take away your super hero powers as well as downgrade you from the Penthouse to a cardboard box in heaven.


Posted by: Sally at June 16, 2008 10:50 PM


Don't tell me, Hester the Molester? Or Sloth the Goth? Or are you Benny the Censor? Or, Slater the Christian hater. Perhap, Amanda has called forth the spirit of Cameron ...............oooooh.

No Sally, I'm not special, just saved. How 'bout you? You're right though, haven't noticed any nail scarred hands, or a side wound lately. Nor have I lived perfectly yet or died for mankind. Last I knew I was a punk like you.

And everyone can't live in my head? Gee, I'm destroyed.

Nope, I've never claimed to be able to save souls. Only the Lord of Heaven can do that or perhaps, Barack Obama, as you pro-aborts believe.

And a cardboard box in Heaven would be just fine with me. Better that than an eternity in a garbage filled hell-hole.

And actually, I have a few friends that claim God speaks to them too, through the Bible of course, you know, kind of like how your laptop speaks to you. You'd love them too!

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 11:19 PM


HisMan, thou art not familiare with the storey of "The Scarlet Letter"?

For shame, goode Sir.

Posted by: Hester Prynne at June 16, 2008 11:23 PM


Is it an insult to call someone a fantasy whose characteristics (including existance or non-existance) cannot be determined?
Posted by: SoMG at June 16, 2008 3:01 AM

SoMG, With Edyt it is not just questioning God's existence. Edyt goes a lot further than that when she calls God a rapist and a narcissist etc.....

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 11:27 PM


I was raised to depend on myself- not others, and rightly so.
Posted by: Rae at June 16, 2008 9:43 PM

Rae, It is good not to put your "trust in other people but God is not "others".

Question: Have you found any "others" in your life who you love more then yourself?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 11:34 PM


Amanda,
Though I do not always agre with, I would just like to say I think you have a good heart.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 11:37 PM


@Truthseeker: I don't love myself. I depend on myself- but it's not out of "like". I do it because it's the responsible thing to do. Depending solely on myself allows me to take responsibility for my own actions and not lay blame on others when things go wrong. When I fark up- it's my bad because I made a poor decision, it's not "Satan's" fault I screwed up. I screwed up because I used poor judgment. And when things go right- it's not God's doing- it's my own for using good judgment and making a good decision. I prefer to be held accountable for my own actions instead of passing off my failures and successes on others.

And no- I haven't. It's hard to love others when you hate yourself.

Posted by: Rae at June 16, 2008 11:41 PM


"I Can Do All Things Through Christ Who Strengthens Me"
Philippians 4:13

...."God places you in situations where you are able to grow. God is looking for people who He may work through. I am not just talking about pastors and preachers. God is looking for people that He may use and will let Him be a vessel in their lives. God isn't about to intrude on your life. He is there and He wants in. When He made people He was looking for something that could willingly respond. We train dogs not to bark and we train birds to speak. God wasn't wanting to train us. He was wanting a special relationship. He opened the door and you have responded. We find ourselves in so many positions. Some of you may be in a place where you are serving the Lord and He is blessing you. Numbers may not be an issue to God, but what is going on in your heart is. Some of you may be in a position where you are receiving from the Lord and at this time you aren't pouring into others. We find ourselves at different places. We are all working to move closer to Jesus. If this is your season where God is wor We need to realize something. It is that God is your source. God is your source of finances. God is your source of employment and the activities you involve yourself in. Because God is your source you are able to come to Him and pray that you need more money to meet your bills. You would be surprised what He will do when your sights are set on Him. When you are able to acknowledge that He is your source, He is able to work through you in mighty ways. God isn't out to destroy you. God the Father is the ideal parent. Pride trips people up. God may be protecting you from giving you more until you deal with pride or things in your life that would block Him from being the source."....

http://www.actsministries.org/discipleship/I_can_do_all_things_through_Christ_who_strengthens_me.html

Posted by: Janet at June 16, 2008 11:42 PM


Do you believe your actions lead people to repentance? You seem to spend an awful lot of time on this site berating people.
Posted by: Edyt at June 15, 2008 3:47 PM

Edyt,
Perhaps berartion comes across more often in my posts with you because your past posts have so often berated God. Not until you cease to berate God can repentance come.

To answer your question; I have been able to bring repentance to some people who have known God but lost their way. But it has been my experience that repentance is not possible for those who refuse to submit themselves to God. To deny God is to refuse repentance and to lose salvation.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 11:43 PM


And no- I haven't. It's hard to love others when you hate yourself.
Posted by: Rae at June 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Rae, when you do, you will find a piece of God.

Posted by: truthseeker at June 16, 2008 11:46 PM


It is Hester the Molester!!! Seriously, I mostly hated literature in hign school, however, Catcher in the Rye was cool and the Lord of the Flies. I went to Catholic High School, and never would they have allowed us to read of the "A".

Aced liteautre in college though, however, mostly, ancient Near East philosphy. Sorry, I don't read pornography or blasphemy any more.

I prefer C.S Lewis' works. The Screwtape Letters would be a good one for you. Would help you get your mind out of the gutter.

One good thing about you Hester. You didn't abort.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 11:48 PM


HisMan:
I must be the only person in the world who hasn't read Catcher in the Rye. You hated literature in H.S.? Why?

What did you read in Near East Philosophy?

Posted by: Janet at June 16, 2008 11:55 PM


Janet:

100% right on target.

TruthyToothy:

You have the gift of reconciliation.

Rae:

Hating oneself is often the result of believing a lie like you did something you couldn't be forgiven for. God will forgive us of anything.

Or, hating oneself may be the result of us comparing ourselves to others. The fact is there is only one Rae and it's a Rae who has a purpose that only Rae can fulfill. He's rooting for you. "Go Rae, you can do it."

I often compare myself to men that are more successful than me. That's wrong. Some may be more successful but I am the only one who could have raised the kids God let me raise.

God's got a purpose for you Rae. Ask Him, He will in no way cast you out.

Posted by: HisMan at June 17, 2008 12:01 AM


HisMan, thou art nothinge than an insolente man-childe.

Do you not knowe that the "Scarlet Letter" was aboute redemption and forgivenesse adn cominge to terms with thou's own faults?

Posted by: Hester Prynne at June 17, 2008 12:02 AM


Lester:

Like I said I hated literature and got an F in comic relief. I like to watch movies though. Can I get a attaboy for that please?

I liked working on 600HP Chevy's and running cops more than reading those wack job stories when I was in high school. Save for the kind graces of me Lord am I allowed to breathith. See what I mean?

Rae:

Forgive me. I didn't mean to say that you hated yourself when what you really said was that you didn't love yourself. I know there's a difference. If you've sent a nasty reply to me in the meantime I forgive you in advnance.

Darn, Elizbeth's scolding of me is gettin' to me brain.

Hester lady, what should be me recompense?

Yes, thou are rightest. I am a wank wonka whirly bird schizoid, bi-polar, tilly woo.

Does Cliff notes count?

Posted by: HisMan at June 17, 2008 12:12 AM


Nah HisMan- hating yourself and not loving yourself are pretty much the same. :)

Posted by: Rae at June 17, 2008 12:15 AM


Janet,

I think I was ADD. I just didn't have the attention span to spend hours reading. I was an ace at math and science and could write well, however, I just never liked reading fictional novels unless they were science fiction.

I do remember now I did like "To Kill a Mockingbird". And Amanda's gonna hate this one. I met Gregory Peck in front of the Golden Nugget Casino about 15 years ago. My wife and I and my sister and her husband were on our way in when the valet tipped us off and said, hey, wait, some celebrities are coming out. Poof, Frank Sinatra, his wife, Gregory Peck, John Madden (the Coach), Richard Moore (007), also the guy who did that Hands Around America event, and that old guy who used to own the California Angels are standing there talking to us like we were old friends. My sister planted one on Frank's cheek.

As far as Ancient Near East Philosophy/Literature goes, it was mostly Greek Philosophy. Oedipus, etc. and stuff prior. It was a 500 level course and I really needed to get my GPA up so I worked extra hard and aced it. I think it raised my overall GPA by 0.1. I don't remember too much though.

The last thirty years have been spent mostly reading Theological Books. As you can see, it didn't help me one bit.

And Hester:

Yes, mine thine faults are as stars in the Heavens. Such sweetness to know of thine Saviour's love and poor memory, I mean forgiveness. Mine only redemption hope lies wonton in in His mercy, forever lingering, waiting to be realised.

Do not go see the movie "The Happening". Better to go spend your money on a Whopper.

Posted by: Tarzan at June 17, 2008 12:38 AM


Janet:

Just a little attempt at comedy. Tarzan and HisMan are the same man.

Rae:

I'm going to pray for you tonight. I'm going to pray that God show you how much you are worth to him. I'm going to pray that you relize that your worth does not come from anything you do, but simply because you are.

Posted by: HisMan at June 17, 2008 1:04 AM


Dogma Doug.
A slave accepted the state of slavery amongst a slave owning group. As you have written, Dogma Doug, the idea of "right and wrong", or otherwise known as morality, have nothing to do with abortion many times, much less the idea of good and bad. And to use your own words. It just is.
It just is, and was, that some slaves accepted the state of being living property, when living in a group of humans that had/has "living property". Get outside your moral box Dogma Doug, and quit thinking that living property, and those that owned living property, thought that living property was right or wrong, good or bad, as living property is neither good or bad, right or wrong. Just as abortion, just is, and always has been, according to your myths of abortion, so living property, just was.
In fact, we may say that living property was not sentient of being living property, just as the fetus is not sentient of being the living property of a women, or a "part of a women" she owns. You just can't think Dogma Doug, property does not have sentience to the owner of living property. But, if living property did, or does have the quality and sufficient quantity of sentience, the owner still owned the living property with sentience. Kill/murder or let live, was determined by the owner of the living property. It matters not. It just is.
Which is your basis for killing/murdering the fetus, Dogma Doug, since the fetus is owned, and not sentient of being "living property".
Or, what "living property" thinks, has sentience, awareness, etc, is of no matter, in matters of abortion, which is exactly what a slaveowner of slaves thought of his "living property".



Posted by: yllas at June 17, 2008 3:22 AM


A slave accepted the state of slavery amongst a slave owning group. As you have written, Dogma Doug, the idea of "right and wrong", or otherwise known as morality, have nothing to do with abortion many times, much less the idea of good and bad. And to use your own words. It just is.

Yllas, some slaves may have felt that way, but you still were generalizing incorrectly, and that was what I disagreed with. There's nothing "magical" that somehow made all the slaves accept their situation.

You're also mischaracterizing what I've said. Ideas of right and wrong have LOTS to do with abortion - heck, it gets people really fired up, in fact. Yes, the fact is that now some people have abortions, i.e. the action "just is" in that respect, but in no way is that to say that people don't have strong feelings of many rights and wrongs on and surrounding the issue.
.....


It just is, and was, that some slaves accepted the state of being living property, when living in a group of humans that had/has "living property".

Okay, "some slaves." Now you're qualifying things enough to be true. So yeah, I agree with you there. I think it's a matter of "nurture" - being conditioned to accept that status, as well as "nature," i.e. some weren't going to be okay with it "from birth" if you will, i.e. there are some inborn tendencies, while others
......


Get outside your moral box Dogma Doug, and quit thinking that living property, and those that owned living property, thought that living property was right or wrong, good or bad, as living property is neither good or bad, right or wrong. Just as abortion, just is, and always has been, according to your myths of abortion, so living property, just was.

Again, those are your words, not mine. Have to laugh, also - if there is a box, here, it's you that's in it, thinking with respect to a "fixed point," (how Cartesian is that? ; ) i.e. the notion of a supreme being. You're the one with the dogma, here.

Anyway, I don't want people to suffer, and I don't want sentient, aware people made to suffer on the basis of what others want, all other things being equal. The rub comes late in gestation when some awareness is likely there on the part of the fetus, and thus I'm not for elective abortion in the third trimester or after viability.

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 6:59 AM


And no- I haven't. It's hard to love others when you hate yourself.

Rae, there are so many people here who really care about you and love who you are- the way you are right now. Not the Rae the could be, or the Rae that might be, but the Rae we know today.

I know I do.

I hope that you'll start seeing what other people see in you, instead of what you see in you, soon.

Remember that we're always more critical of ourselves than others are of us! I think Hisman's last posts were right on target, especially this part:

"I'm going to pray that God show you how much you are worth to him. I'm going to pray that you relize that your worth does not come from anything you do, but simply because you are".

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 7:08 AM


Theology books for the past thirty years?

Is the Collected Works of St. John of the Cross among them?

How about The Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila?

Or the Story of a Soul by Therese of Lisieux?

Talk about lifting up the soul.

Posted by: carder at June 17, 2008 7:54 AM


Doug, I think what you may not understand is that a dogma doesn't have to be religious, and doesn't have to include a supreme being.

By definition it can simply be "a code of beliefs accepted as authoritative"

Therefore, by definition, you do adhere to and preach a dogma, and this is your dogma:

1.) That people should not suffer (utilitarianism)

2.) That conscious people should not have to suffer so that unborn children can continue living.

3.) That unborn children cannot feel pain until the third trimester.

4.) That making abortion illegal is akin to making women slaves.

5.) That no one has a good argument for making abortion illegal.

6.) That the more sentient you are, the more human you are, at least, within the womb.

And of course there is much more, but this is the basic gist of it.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 8:21 AM


What's the result? Four sons that love God. My oldest son will be marrying in July to a girl that I swear was made for Him. He persevered through 4 years at the Air Force Academy, 2 years in pilot training, 4 years in the Middle East attaining Captain and earning numerous combat medals.
Posted by: HisMan at June 16, 2008 9:09 PM

Hisman,
I have a "hardball" question for you and I am asking in all sincerity since my eldest sons are just coming into military-eligible age. I had a discussion yesterday with my oldest boy and he mentioned he was thinking of possibly joining the military. I told him that it is good to server his coun try but that I personally could only do it in a non-combat role because too often in combat you are called on to kill innocents and disregard them as "collateral damage. How do you justify killing innocents with your Christian faith?

Posted by: truthseeker at June 17, 2008 10:06 AM


1.) That people should not suffer (utilitarianism)

Bethany, yeah, to some extent.
.....


2.) That conscious people should not have to suffer so that unborn children can continue living.

That's quite general. I'm not saying that a guy shouldn't support his pregnant wife because it's "suffering" to have to earn a living, I'm saying that she should not be legally prevented from ending the pregnancy to viability because of the opinions of other people.
.....


3.) That unborn children cannot feel pain until the third trimester.

Close, but weeks 24-26 certainly are up for argument, and even 23 and 22, I'd say.
.....


4.) That making abortion illegal is akin to making women slaves.

Not really. It's just a more-applicable counterpoint to what we sometimes see - the comparison of slavery with abortion, the Holocaust with abortion, etc.
......


5.) That no one has a good argument for making abortion illegal.

They certainly don't have a good enough argument prior to viability, and that's my opinion, as I've said.
.....


6.) That the more sentient you are, the more human you are, at least, within the womb.

Nope, you're just wrong there. The non-sentient unborn in this argument are just as human as you and me. When it comes to personality, personhood, awareness, etc., then sentience makes a difference IMO.
.....


By definition it can simply be "a code of beliefs accepted as authoritative" Therefore, by definition, you do adhere to and preach a dogma, and this is your dogma

No, I don't say it's "authoritative," I say it's my opinion.

I believe that you believe as you say, but you claim external sources, while I do not - I just note how I (and many others) feel.

If you see me firing up the logical fallacy of Appealing to Authority, just warm up that newfangled trash-compactor of yours.

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 4:08 PM


Rae, there are so many people here who really care about you and love who you are- the way you are right now. Not the Rae the could be, or the Rae that might be, but the Rae we know today.

I know I do.

Beautifully said, Bethany, and right on.

Me too, Rae.

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 4:11 PM


I believe that you believe as you say, but you claim external sources, while I do not - I just note how I (and many others) feel.
If you see me firing up the logical fallacy of Appealing to Authority, just warm up that newfangled trash-compactor of yours.

But you do, Doug. You appeal to society as authority, all the time.

Well, you asked for it:

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 4:31 PM


Oops, I almost forgot.... you also appeal to the law as an authority on a continual basis. Out the window you go.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 4:35 PM


Hey, shut that dang thing off.

I don't "appeal" to society or the law, I just note how they are. I don't say it "has" to be as the law or society says, in any external way.

Damn, that window's gonna leave a mark...

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 4:56 PM


Well I just note how it is, too, Doug.

By the way, I only bring up God when you or someone else brings Him up. If you can show me where I have told you, "You should be pro-life because God said so", let me see it. You won't find me doing that, will you?

My arguments for pro-life are something that many atheists on this blog do just fine without appealing to God's authority (although, for me, His authority does come into play), and I can do so just as well.

It is a human issue, not a religious issue, although my faith and my pro-life stance do go hand in hand. My religion is not the "cause" of my pro-life position, in other words.

There are several atheists and agnostics on this blog who can attest to the fact that you do not have to be religious in order to be pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at June 17, 2008 5:43 PM


With Edyt it is not just questioning God's existence. Edyt goes a lot further than that when she calls God a rapist and a narcissist etc.....

Wow, you're both lying and taking my words out of context at once!

First of all, never called God a rapist.

Second of all, I was having a respectful conversation with JLM when I mentioned that the behavior of God according to the Bible IMPLIED narcissism. That is, he isn't comfortable with people being good people and not sinning, they have to worship him and still can sin.

TS, with how much you fail to understand in the context of basic human interaction, I have my doubts that you truly understand the Bible better than any other scholar. Get off your high horse.

Posted by: Edyt at June 17, 2008 8:57 PM


By the way, I only bring up God when you or someone else brings Him up. If you can show me where I have told you, "You should be pro-life because God said so", let me see it. You won't find me doing that, will you?

Dang, Bethany, now we're getting all reasonable and stuff.... Agreed - you don't push religion that way.
......


My arguments for pro-life are something that many atheists on this blog do just fine without appealing to God's authority (although, for me, His authority does come into play), and I can do so just as well.

I'd just say that you do appeal to the "outside" as far as presumed external morality, whether involved with religion or not.

Posted by: Doug at June 17, 2008 10:52 PM


Edyt, Look, I'm not going to go back and search through all your posts. Maybe it was something along the lines that God ordered people to rape or something. Let's start over here. You post without insulting God or Christianity and I'll try not to berate your posts. :

Posted by: truthseeker at June 17, 2008 11:16 PM


ts: You post without insulting God or Christianity and I'll try not to berate your posts.

Amen.

Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 7:09 AM


Doug, is rape absolutely wrong, in your opinion? If a culture accepts it, is it okay?

Just curious.

Posted by: Bethany at June 18, 2008 9:44 AM


Bethany, nothing is "absolutely wrong." There has to be an opinion there in the first place. I'm saying there has to be "somebody" there in the first place to care, one way or another, at the least.

If a culture accepts it, it's okay in the opinion of that culture - that's as far as it does.

Posted by: Doug at June 18, 2008 9:04 PM


Let's start over here. You post without insulting God or Christianity and I'll try not to berate your posts.

HA! Either do or don't.

If you'll try not to berate my posts, I'll try not to insult God or Christianity.

Now it's a fair deal.

But I still get to debate religion with the folks here. Disagreements with your religion aren't always insults, despite how much you try to make them seem so.

Posted by: Edyt at June 18, 2008 9:33 PM


Bethany, nothing is "absolutely wrong." There has to be an opinion there in the first place. I'm saying there has to be "somebody" there in the first place to care, one way or another, at the least.

If a culture accepts it, it's okay in the opinion of that culture - that's as far as it does.

Posted by: Doug at June 18, 2008 9:04 PM

Burning the towers of the WTC wasn't absolutely wrong?


Posted by: Janet at June 18, 2008 11:45 PM


Burning the towers of the WTC wasn't absolutely wrong?

No, Janet, there'd have to be "somebody" caring about it one way or another before there would be any thoughts of it being "right" or "wrong" in the moral realm.

Posted by: Doug at June 20, 2008 2:42 PM


How about YOU being that someone?

Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 9:29 PM


"the moral realm"

How does one get there?

Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 9:29 PM


Doug, I think you're so far wrong on this one, it's ridiculous. Round and round you go.......where it all stops nobody knows...

Posted by: Janet at June 23, 2008 9:33 PM


How about YOU being that someone?

I am, Janet.
......


"the moral realm"

How does one get there?

On has desires about actions. One wants things to go one way or another. One feels that there are "shoulds" and "should nots" that apply to certain behaviors.
......

Doug, I think you're so far wrong on this one, it's ridiculous. Round and round you go.......where it all stops nobody knows...

It would help if you could at least refute something I've said about it...


Posted by: Doug at June 28, 2008 11:31 PM