The good, the bad, and the sad

I mentioned yesterday I had been inundated with responses to my column Thursday, most in agreement or close to it but some hostile. I wrote I would try to address the haters today.

abortion ban no.jpgI still may do that, although I know they just want to spew, not dialogue. Or I may just post some of their emails to give glimpses into their souls.

But my mind since Thursday has been on one particular email from a "no exceptions" pro-lifer that has made me very sad, broke my heart actually, particularly since I count this person as a friend....

Purists believe any pro-life law with exceptions such as for rape and incest means, "and then you can kill certain babies." They believe any regulation giving aborting mothers pause before aborting to change their minds, like parental notification or women's right-to-know, is a form of permission.

Arguments against saving babies when we can are not theory to me. I'd like my friend to hold his new baby and tell me her particular life wouldn't have been worth saving in lieu of advancing pro-life perfectionism.

Nevertheless, that is the backdrop for a public email my purist friend wrote Thursday. I'll leave off his name and names he pointed fingers at, and I'll only post excerpts on the first page with comment. You can read the entire email below. The email began:

The truth of the Republican Party and all its 'pro-life with exceptions' members is finally exposed. President George W. Bush is not pro-life. He felt the need to publicly come out against the South Dakota abortion ban in 2006, because it did not contain his "exceptions." (Interpretation: Bush - "If I cannot kill these few babies, I'd rather keep it legal to kill them all.")

My friend, his friends, and a couple pro-life organizations joined with pro-abortion organizations to oppose the 2008 SD abortion ban. Pro-life purists opposed it because it contained exceptions for rape and incest that were omitted from the 2006 ban that failed. (Repeat: Pro-lifers tried to pass a perfect ban and it failed.) The exceptions were very tightly worded, forcing abortionists to retrieve the dna of the aborted baby's father, for instance.

SD has perhaps the strictest abortion laws in the country. In 1974 there were 1601 abortions among a population of 665,507. In 2006 the number had dropped by more than half to 748 abortions among a population of 754,844. Some of those abortions were from out-of-staters, so this isn't an exact comparison, but it provides reference points. In a country where abortion is completely legal throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, abortion restrictions decrease the number of babies who are aborted.

If a high of 1% of all 2006 SD abortions were for rape and incest - 75 - the ban in place that year would have rescued 673 babies from abortion, real babies who would be 2 years old this year.

I would apply my friend's interpretation of President Bush to him: "Interpretation: Purist - 'If I cannot save these few babies, I'd rather keep it legal to kill them all.'"

Moving on...

South Dakota's 'pro-life with exceptions' Republican voters said in 2006 that they voted "No" because the ban did not contain their "exceptions." These Republicans are not pro-life. South Dakota gave their Republican voters exactly what they wanted. They did not care. They didn't even vote for it. The measure failed by more votes than the first ban without exceptions. (Interpretation: "Pro-life with exceptions" is just a Republican Party line.) When push comes to shove, these supposed 'pro-lifers' are not pro-life at all. They say they have exceptions to wiggle out of supporting a statewide Personhood amendment (Colorado 2008) or a statewide abortion ban (South Dakota 2006). When given what they want, like their exceptions, they are nowhere to be found. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES.

My friend wants it both ways. As I said, some pro-lifers and organizations actively opposed the SD ban, sadly even providing quotes in the same newspaper articles as pro-aborts taking the same position. So the ban lost in part thanks to their efforts dissuading pro-lifers from voting for it. Thus, to argue the ban's failure shows "THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES" is an indictment against oneself if one opposed the ban.

Finally, the paragraph that broke my heart:

The bad news is Obama won. The good news is McCain lost. The bad news is that the Personhood amendment failed. The good news is that the South Dakota abortion "ban" failed. The bad news is that Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. The good news is that California's parental notification law failed. The bad news is that Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The good news is that more and more pro-lifers are unwilling to waiver on their pro-life stance. Amen!

I've deleted my thoughts on that last paragraph 3x. Nevermind.

Moderators, please delete comments disparaging any organization or person by name.

[Photo of pro-abortion opponents claiming victory in the defeat of Initiative 11, SD's abortion ban, courtesy of AmericanProgress.org]

Unexcerpted email from pro-lifer without exceptions:

The truth of the Republican Party and all its 'pro-life with exceptions' members is finally exposed. President George W. Bush is not pro-life. He felt the need to publicly come out against the South Dakota abortion ban in 2006, because it did not contain his "exceptions." (Interpretation: Bush - "If I cannot kill these few babies, I'd rather keep it legal to kill them all.") South Dakota gave President Bush what he said he wanted. He did not care. He did not support it, he did not endorse it. He doesn't care because he is not pro-life. South Dakota's 'pro-life with exceptions' Republican voters said in 2006 that they voted "No" because the ban did not contain their "exceptions." These Republicans are not pro-life. South Dakota gave their Republican voters exactly what they wanted. They did not care. They didn't even vote for it. The measure failed by more votes than the first ban without exceptions. (Interpretation: "Pro-life with exceptions" is just a Republican Party line.) When push comes to shove, these supposed 'pro-lifers' are not pro-life at all. They say they have exceptions to wiggle out of supporting a statewide Personhood amendment (Colorado 2008) or a statewide abortion ban (South Dakota 2006). When given what they want, like their exceptions, they are nowhere to be found. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BABIES.

[Name deleted], [name deleted], and the rest of the Republican Party 'pro-life with exceptions' cheerleaders are hindering our progress in this country. We need to stop referring to them as 'pro-life with exceptions' because they're not pro-life at all. They're 'pro-choice with exceptions.' The proof is right before your eyes. Just look at President Bush and look at the results of the South Dakota initiative on Tuesday. They are pro-choice, they do not care about one innocent child and are not worthy of our support. If pro-lifers continue to support these pro-choice Republicans, we will continue to fail. MoveOn.org's strategy is to never compromise and they succeeded. They got the most radical left pro-abortion candidate ever in Barack Obama. Only when the pro-life movement and Christians across this country take the same stand, will we make progress to end this holocaust. Only then.

To be pro-life means only thing: That you believe an unborn child is a person. That's it. If you don't believe a black man is a person, you are evil. If you don't believe a Jew is a person,you are evil. If you do not believe that an unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life. [Name deleted] and [name deleted] will not convince me otherwise. If you do not believe an unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life.

The bad news is Obama won. The good news is McCain lost. The bad news is that the Personhood amendment failed. The good news is that the South Dakota abortion "ban" failed. The bad news is that Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. The good news is that California's parental notification law failed. The bad news is that Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The good news is that more and more pro-lifers are unwilling to waiver on their pro-life stance. Amen!


Comments:

No matter what these people say remember Jill, you most of all have dedicated years of your life solely to the pro-life cause, and there is no reason for anyone to ever accuse you of not loving babies. There should be no doubt in ANYONE's mind that you are 100 percent pro-life.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 7:32 AM


The good news is that the South Dakota abortion "ban" failed.

How is it good news to know that FEWER babies would have been killed?

The good news is that California's parental notification law failed.

How is it good news that abortions would have been reduced because parents would not be hidden from their children's abortions???

You're willing to let them ALL die, just because you're too proud to imagine saving a few for now!

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 7:46 AM


The TRUTH is that they are right. Trying to stop "Christians" from compromising on LIFE is not a bad thing. If there is ONE thing to NOT comprimise on, this is it!
If we all agreed on that, we could really make big changes. But as long as there are those who consider themselves "prolife with exception", the heart and mind of the people of this country will be numbed to TRUTH that ALL unborn children are persons with a GOD-given (not government given) right to life, EVEN the ones with criminal fathers.
Compromising on murder for the "hard cases" undermines the personhood of the child and hardens the hearts of the people against them.

Posted by: Lindsay at November 8, 2008 7:53 AM


Lindsay, what you are doing is compromising, when you tell them, "AND YOU CAN KILL THE BABY BECAUSE WE WONT DO A THING TO REDUCE THEM".
Anytime you oppose a bill that could reduce abortions, you are saying, "AND YOU CAN KILL THEM ALL". Now THAT is a compromise.

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 7:57 AM


By the way, Lindsay, I am pro-life with NO exceptions. But I do favor anything that will reduce abortions NOW, and then will continue pursuing more laws to restrict it until it is gone.

To me, it is the same thing as rescuing as many children as I can, who are trapped in a burning building. I don't let them ALL die, just because I can't save them all!

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 8:00 AM


Would you consider a fireman who fought to rescue as many children out of a burning building someone who "doesn't care about the children"? Would you say he "compromised"?

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 8:12 AM


Hollywood is the root of the sex lifestyles. It is slipping a little to the porn trades. The deal now is for celebrities to claim heir righteousness by driving hybrids and worship he green movement. It is a distraction. A loss of abortion posses a dead end for sex that resuklts in pregnancy.
If the celebrities can show we are not good because we do not join their cause to save the planet, we need to focus on life and show it as a cause that begins at conception. Obama shows pregnancy as punishment. we need to see it as a gift and beauty. We also need more pictures of marriage.
The extremists hated more than you can imagine a picture of the todd Palin family.

Pick on the one some more. Obama is not a real genuine family guy. don't buy his wife and daughters only picture.

There are zero 0 pictures of Obama with grannie that are not at least 25 years old. There are none of course with Michelle and grannie. NONE

Obama parses some glimpses to try to fake a non dysfunctional family.

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 8:23 AM



I suppose we could argue that Oskar Schindler of "Schindler's List" fame, who saved 1100 Polish Jews from the death camps, was totally insignificant. After all, what was 1100 compared to millions that were dying? If he couldn't save them all then he shouldn't have bothered saving any.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:05 AM


Attention artificial flowers of political correctness. Time to get your feined indignance on.

The o'bama (pbuh) has tossed another grandmother, former first lady Nancy Reagan, under his campaign bus.

I thought the campaign was over and the campaign bus was parked.

------------------------------------------------

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081108/D94AI09O0.html

"At a news conference in Chicago, Obama said he had spoken with all the living presidents as he prepares to take office in January. Then he smiled and said, "I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."

It actually wasn't Nancy Reagan who was linked to conversations with the dead; it was Obama's top Democratic challenger for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y."

------------------------------------------------

Isn't change refreshing?

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 9:06 AM


Purists play into the anti-life strategy. They fully understand that all they have to do is push for a few small (reasonable sounding to the average voter) exceptions and a significant number of pro lifers will fight right along side them to defeat the bill. In the mean time, more babies die, more teens are victimized and Planned Parenthood laughs at the stupidity of pro-lifers all the way to the bank.

As was reiterated on the teleconference the other night, this battle will not be won on the political/legislative level until it is won in the hearts and minds of the people, and that will only be done one baby at a time, with loving outreach to those faced with a crisis pregnancy and continuing education on the brutality of abortion for both the child and his/her parents.

Just as the fragmentation and bickering within the Church has caused great harm to Christ's mission and costs souls, disunity within the pro-life movement is defeating its mission at the price of over a million innocent human lives per year.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:12 AM


I, for one, stand by the principle that either ALL babies are worth saving, or NONE of them are. Voting for an initiative that explicitly says some babies may live and others may die, to me, is not a noble cause.

For over thirty years we've been compromising on our principle that ALL babies are worth saving. And all we have to show for it is to see how many babies lives we've managed to save by evidence of the reduction in abortion rates.

Supporting a state abortion ban with exceptions for rape and incest makes the presumption that abortionists are honest. Are we so desperate for some victory that we're willing to put our faith in honest abortionists?

Speaking only for myself, I personally believe that had all pro-lifers stuck with principle year after year, and pounded away at a Constitutional amendment recognizing the humanity of the preborn baby, we wouldn't be having this debate today. And instead of fifty million dead children, perhaps we would have only had five million. And instead of the McCain and Bush-types in government we'd have strong pro-life defenders of life because they would know exactly where pro-lifers stand in regard to the sanctity of ALL life.

We didn't win a state abortion ban in SD 2006). I never expected it to pass the very first time. But we're required to be faithful (not successful) and stand by principle and do it again and again and again until it is done. First you get 55-45, then again its 55-45, then maybe it's 53-47 and you keep going.

This debate comes forth repeatedly on Jill's blog, and no doubt it will continue. And I mean to pass no judgment or condemnation on those who vote 'yes' for these initiatives. I only wish to express my own personal opinion that I in good conscience cannot support such measures.

...an amendment which would generally prohibit abortion but permit it in certain exceptional circumstances, such as when a woman's life is considered to be threatened, the Catholic Conference does not endorse such an approach in principle and could not conscientiously support it. - His Eminence Humberto Cardinal Medeiros, Archbishop of Boston, March 7, 1974

(I'm sorry for hogging so much space for comments.)

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 8, 2008 9:19 AM


xppc,

I didn't see the acceptance speech by I heard his wife and children were not present. Isn't that odd? I've never seen a candidate give a victory speech without his family present. Even the media commented on this, as well as his "singularity" and "cult of personality". How he "ascended" and seemed to study them all. Also terms such as "creepy" and "elusive" were used. Hey, you media folks had two years to do your jobs. You spent them fawning over Obama and getting tingles up your legs instead.

Grannie has died. I can understand if he couldn't make it to her funeral, but is there a memorial service Obama and his family plan to attend? Does he plan to pay his respects in any way?

Also the selection of Rahm Emmanuel, a Chicago political thug, as chief of staff. Makes me think of the mafia don who maintains his repectable and clean hands facade by having underlings do his dirty work.

All of this only reinforces my conviction that Obama is a sociopath.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:19 AM


Excellent point, Mary.

Or perhaps the men, women and families who risked everything to help runaway slaves on the underground railroad were "compromising their principles". After all, they obviously couldn't save them all, so why not just leave all of them in slavery until they could?

If this thinking wasn't so fatal, it would be laughable.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:21 AM


kbhvac, 9:06am

And what class too, right? This is the very elderly widow of a former president. I think a little respect is due. I couldn't even imagine Bill or Hillary Clinton being this tacky.
But what do you expect from a guy who flips the finger at his opponents?
Obama, your facade is breaking down bit by bit and the Chicago thug is slowly emerging.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:24 AM


CrankyCatholic: Are we so desperate for some victory that we're willing to put our faith in honest abortionists?

If "some victory" means that 999,999 babies die as opposed to 1,000,000, I'll take that, for now. And for that one baby who lives, the willingness to compromise means everything.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:25 AM


I'm strapped here to comment because you said we can't name names or organizations. What is the abortion debate if we can't keep a face on it?

I won't name names but would you tolerate a few photos of SD "pro-lifers" who opposed us? Just kidding.

Thanks for your post here!

Posted by: Steve Hickey at November 8, 2008 9:28 AM


Mary,
You mean that mild mannered Rahm Emanuel who one by one listed Bill Clinton's political "enemies" while stabbing steak knives into the table and proclaiming them "Dead!". How dare you refer to him as a "thug". By the way, that's racist, you know.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:29 AM


DeeL,

Thank you. A very good point about the slaves. I understand British politician Wilberforce, who was determined to end the African slave trade, got a law passed at the beginning of his efforts that restricted the number of African captives that could be put on a slave ship. Well what good did that do? What about the captives who could be put on the ship? If he couldn't stop the trade dead in its tracks then why bother doing anything at all, expecially something this trivial?
Thankfully this argument didn't deter Wilberforce, an Evangelical Christian, and other British abolitionists. Eventually slavery was abolished in most of the British empire.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:33 AM


DeeL 9:29am

It must be anti-semitic too since I apply it to Emmanuel who is Jewish. The irony is that the term never had any racial connotation. Its derived from "thugee", which were Asian Indians who were thieves and killers. Contrary to popular misconception, Indians are Caucasion people, i.e. they're white.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:37 AM


A glimpse into life in Obamanation. Can anyone cay "Civil Defense Force? Propoganda Ministry ring any bells?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80405

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80424

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:38 AM


xppx: We also need more pictures of marriage.

Real marriages. Not the disposable, Hollywood marriages of the week.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 9:41 AM


This is the problem of the unforgivable sin.

Yet a "Sophie's Choice" comes to mind with what's presented to the pro-life believer today.

Does being "purely" pro-life mean you restrict what you do to stop murder from happening?

So as I see it, using that logic, both sides are guilty of sinning. One for failing to take the "right" action, and the other for taking the "wrong" action.

So upon the heads of those who opposed SD's proposition will blood be spilled?

Perhaps instead of using an incremental approach, William Wilberforce should have "gone for the gold" of abolishing all slavery across the entire British Empire, because passing laws to simply stop the shipment of slaves was an unacceptable "compromise", because it allowed beatings and death to continue.

How tightly is sin bound to the sinner?

In the case of abortion, the choice to abort is personal, while the law is not. So saying what is lawful is legal guidance, while the actual activity - the abortion, is a personal decision - yes?

Our laws are imperfect (God knows!) - and we will continue to write imperfect laws in the USA. Is that a sin in God's eyes?

Do we even have a choice, or has God done this to expose hypocrisy?

Such pondering seems to raise questions like whether it was right or wrong to sit down with the tax collectors and prostitutes.

Only Christ is the fulfillment of all law.

If we say that Christ has not paid for all our sins, including voting for legislation that might permit death, but does not mandate it, but neither denies such activity, then we're saying Christ's redemptive work is insufficient, and that such a "sin" is unforgivable. Yet, with a clear conscience, only because of His sacrifice, can I claim to say that I did everything I could to honor Him, and know that all of us are truly at his grace and mercy in all things.

To me, this is moral case of double effect - I am not condemning the lives of those in such situations that arose from rape, but rather trying to save the lives of others who are not.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 9:46 AM


Anyone who would rather have a woman die then get an abortion isn't pro-life. They aren't "purist pro-life" they aren't "pro-life with exceptions" they are just angry people who care more about fame in their cause then about actual human lives. Especially in cases like ectopic pregnancies where the baby would not survive anyway. Kill two instead of killing one? Yeah you aren't comprising and look where it got you, two dead people.

You aren't pro-life if you're willing to kill someone's wife, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, just for your pride.

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 9:46 AM


DeeL,

The Fairness Doctrine? Is this the United States or Stalinist Russia?

Obama has indeed advocated a "civilian security force" which would be just as powerful and well funded as the military. Did our police depts and nationl guard go on strike? You can check it out on Youtube. I would remind people who downplay this as talk that everything begins as "just talk". Why is he even saying it?

It reminds me of the movie I saw 40 years ago called "Shadow on the Land". The US was under a dictatorship and the "security force" keeping "the leader" in power and the population in line was the "internal security force". Kind of sounds like the "civilian security force. But that was just a movie and not something that could actually ever happen in the United States, at least that's what I thought then.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:49 AM


What DeeL? Like this:
http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/relationships/

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 9:50 AM


You aren't pro-life if you're willing to kill someone's wife, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, just for your pride.

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 9:46 AM
---

Jess - just so you know, most states, and Christians agree with an exception for the life of the mother, under the principle of double effect. Such a case is not intended to kill the child, although that happens, but it is intended to save the life of the mother. The preferred mechanism for an ectopic pregnancy is a salpingostomy, which is an endocscopic procedure.

The brief way to describe such action in a moral sense is that it's better to save one life than lose both.

One of the things that has to be remembered is that such a decision is hardly "elective".

(Also the converse is not true, regarding using that argument for abortion, because birth is not a known terminal condition for the mother.)

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 10:10 AM


I have always felt that, first and foremost, abortion is a human issue not a political one. We need to change peoples' hearts; then the laws will naturally follow.

Lord have mercy on our nation.

Posted by: Janet at November 8, 2008 10:14 AM


Jess, why would you post that in the context that we need to see more healthy marriages? Obviously if your spouse is raping you, you don't have a healthy marriage.

Are you trying to imply that most marriages involve spousal rape? I find that offensive. Just because there are some crappy men in the world doesn't mean that the institution of marriage is something that we should mock.

Posted by: Lauren at November 8, 2008 10:17 AM


Also the selection of Rahm Emmanuel, a Chicago political thug, as chief of staff. Makes me think of the mafia don who maintains his repectable and clean hands facade by having underlings do his dirty work.

All of this only reinforces my conviction that Obama is a sociopath.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:19 AM


Very well said. Research shows Obama wrote his book to sanitize and cover the dysfunctional family which raised him. He will have an extended dysfunctional family in the whitehoouse

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 10:23 AM



The bad news is Obama won. The good news is McCain lost. The bad news is that the Personhood amendment failed. The good news is that the South Dakota abortion "ban" failed. The bad news is that Michigan voted to allow stem cell research. The good news is that California's parental notification law failed. The bad news is that Washington voted to allow doctor-assisted suicide. The good news is that more and more pro-lifers are unwilling to waiver on their pro-life stance. Amen!

Jill,

I think this person can't "see the forest for the trees", as the saying goes. They could probably use a good break from working in the pro-life movement. As this last paragraph shows, they are a bit convoluted in their thinking about what is important here. Perhaps they need more time spent in front of abortion clinics and crisis pregnancy centers talking to real women and less time in the courtrooms and legal offices..



Posted by: Janet at November 8, 2008 10:37 AM


Jess 9:46am

In fact, even when abortion laws were at their strictest, exceptions were always made for a woman who's health or life was truly endangered by pregnancy.
Today, pregnant women can, as they always could, seek whatever help is necessary to preserve their health and/or life.
I cannot imagine how anyone could advocate any different, especially with ectopic pregnancy where the baby has zero chance of survival and will dies as soon as the Fallopian tube ruptures.
Tragically so will the mother if she doesn't get to a hospital.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 10:41 AM


Hi All,
This has been a grueling week for many of us. Don't forget to take time to enjoy your family, the outdoors, or whatever makes you happy! God bless you all! Peace.

Posted by: Janet at November 8, 2008 10:48 AM


Chris 9:46am

Yes, ideally Wilberforce should have "gone for the gold" but he had to be realistic. Slavery was deeply entrenched, people saw nothing wrong with it, and he started with everything against him. He didn't have a snowball's chance if he tried to outlaw slavery in one fell swoop. Certainly increments were better than nothing at all, especially for the Africans who would not be captured and put on slave ships. He had to start somewhere, no matter how trivial.
Just like Schindler who could "only" save 1100 Jews, or for American abolitionists who could "only" help a limited number of slaves escape.
Should these individuals have not even wasted their time and effort?

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 10:57 AM



Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:49 AM

A civilian secuity force that is equal in power to the military.

That is a paraphrase but it is very close to the o'bamas (pbuh) own words.

Hey, do not pay any mind. That was just a 'throw away line' as one of our fellow bloggers excused it.

I have to confess the 'Department of Homeland Security' still sounds a little reminiscent of the German Fatherland Nazi thing.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 11:00 AM


Mary- Obama's wife and children were indeed with him for his acceptance speech. They walked out on the stage with him. There is a memorial service for his grandmother scheduled for next month in Hawaii that is intended to be very private and very low key.

You shouldn't make assumptions about things you're clueless about.

Posted by: Erin at November 8, 2008 11:04 AM


Cranky Catholic, 9:19a, wrote: "I, for one, stand by the principle that either ALL babies are worth saving, or NONE of them are."

Cranky, you're a pro-life friend but I gotta say I find that statement heartless and disturbing. Why you stand by that principle, babies are being slaughtered, and you're saying, for instance, you oppose sidewalk counseling because not every baby can be saved?

I am distressed by this logic, which makes increasingly less sense

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 8, 2008 11:07 AM


Excuse me Mary and xppc,

Can either of you provide a news source that confirms that the o'bama (pbuh) did not or is not going to attend some sort of memorial service for his grandmother?

I am not questioning your veracity.

People complained that I was being insensitive and that I had crossed the line for suggesting that the o'bama (pbuh) cared more about his political career than he did for his own grandmother.

God bless her.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 11:10 AM


"Purists":

All prolife laws are incremental. A complete ban in one state will not save babies in the next state. Even if we succeed someday in a complete ban in the US, there will still be countries where abortion will be illegal.

Should we stop all efforts until the time that we can guarantee that abortions will be banned everywhere?

All prolife laws are incremental. You just refuse to see it.

Posted by: Carrie at November 8, 2008 11:15 AM


Jess,
That's the point. I said "real marriages". Your link is not about real marriages, in fact it is much more representative of the Hollywood marriages I was referring to. Marriages entered into lightly because people want a license to use each other sexually.

Genuine marriage is not about a license for sex. It is about seeing the other as person, and as such, possessing the inherent right to respect and dignity. It never uses the other for self gratification (even mutual, consensual self gratification), which is an act of taking, but rather, spouses in genuine marriages come together sexually as total gift (including the gift of their fertility) to each other, which is an act of sacrificial giving.

That being said, it is unfortunate that the majority of couples entering marriage either simply fall into it after cohabiting for several years, " we've been together awhile and the sex is still okay, so we might as well get married", or for some who abstain until marriage, to receive permission to finally act on their desires. When sex is about giving into lust, it is self gratification at the expense of the other (rape), whether it is performed inside of marriage or out, and whether it is entered into with or without consent.

By the way, that is why the Catholic Church teaches against contraception and same sex marriage. Both of those behaviors withhold the gift of fertility from the union, thereby making the "gift of self" partial, rather than total, thus undermining the foundation of the marriage.

That has been our point all along. Thank you for bringing this forward.


Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 11:17 AM


should read "countries where abortion will be legal."

If unborn babies are granted personhood in the US, what about unborn babies in other countries? Personhood is also incremental. Should we wait on Personhood admendments until we can pass them in every state, every country???

Posted by: Carrie at November 8, 2008 11:24 AM


kbhvac: I have to confess the 'Department of Homeland Security' still sounds a little reminiscent of the German Fatherland Nazi thing.

Ken,
Indeed, it is a very narrow line we tread when attempting to balance security with freedom.

In any case, I haven't heard of any O disciples being rounded up by DHS and jailed for wearing the Messiah's t-shirts.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 11:25 AM


Can either of you provide a news source that confirms that the o'bama (pbuh) did not or is not going to attend some sort of memorial service for his grandmother?

I am not questioning your veracity.


yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 11:10 AM

Silence is so loud. The fact he has NOT announced anything but us yapping up about a mutt for his daughters tells us a lot. His slur of nancy regan tells us a lot. I suspect he was glad she died because you know they can talk. He is known for secretive and sneaky tactics.

I suspect he will show up out there. He has to be dramatic of course. We know there is another court hearing regarding his birth certificate soon. There was one last time he went.


http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/
This lawyer has a lot of dirt coming out on Obama.

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 11:26 AM


Martin has a court hearing Tuesday, November 18th in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawai’i at 10:30 A.M. to force release of Obama’s original birth files.

http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/363/newsid363/314/Default.aspx

Obama faces abortion in his career if he can't cooperate and show he is American born. The supreme court deadline is December 1

Obama is acting busy and dramatic to distract from some massive personal problems.

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 11:29 AM


I was curious about the grandmother thing, simply because the only reason I knew she had died was a comment made (Hal, maybe?) on one of the other threads.

It is odd that the media made such a big show of him going to visit her several days after she became critically ill, but have made little mention of her passing nor his intentions for paying his last respects. Unfortunately it lends credence to those who wish to portray his visit to Hawaii as a campaign ploy to garner the sympathy vote.

Despite my dislike for the man, I suggest we give him the benefit of the doubt and respect his grief. May his grandmother have eternal rest granted unto her, and may perpetual light shine upon her.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 11:42 AM


Obama is very deceptive. Andrew Martin an attorney from chicago wrote a book exposing Baracks filthy tracks 4 years ago. He has investigated Barack and found a longer list of discrepancies that are coming out. He sued in hawaaii for a vault birth certificate a few weeks ago and suddenlty barack says his mother is gravely ill and must see her. She of course had been dismissed from the hospital for an orthopaedic procedure the week before and Barcks visit was not only extremely urgent, but he waited 4 days to leave. so it was not urgent. Now she dies of cancer which is new info and her surgery was not the problem he said it was in the first place. Nov 18 is the next court date. Unless there is a continuance, i suspect he may go back to the neighborhood around then and make a cover story.

Stay tuned for more partial truths from Obama.

google Frank Marshal Davis a registered communist, poet and sex offender that obama refers to as Frank in his book.

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 11:56 AM


The surgery for ecoptic pregnancy, by the way, which involves removing the infected tube, is not considered an abortion because at the moment, there is no way to save the little baby.


That surgery is NOT forbidden.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 8, 2008 11:58 AM


As a Pro-Life prayer activist in South Dakota, I can unequivocally say that it was the schism in the LIFE movement in South Dakota, caused by SD "Right" to Life's position which is parroted by the "Friend of Jill" she mentions in her posting today and also by Crabby Catholic, that has led to the confusion in the movement and - more significantly - to the death of thousands more babies in South Dakota. Deaths that would have been prevented by the 2006 ban and the 2008 initiated measure. Oh, didn't you know SDRTL fought the 2006 total ban because the "Time wasn't right." Perhaps they meant to say the time wasn't right for them to have to find something else to do for a job.

Their thinking is darkened by their self-serving pride. I pray every one of these "purist" would humble themselves under the hand of God and ask for revelation.

I am grieved and sick at heart over what has happened here in South Dakota. We would have prevailed if we had not been slain by our own. God have mercy.

Did you notice the "Freak Storm" of a blizzard that came out of nowhere and knocked out over half our state, with power still off in many places? Coincidence? I fear we are in for much more of the same, as a state and as a nation.

God have mercy, indeed.

Posted by: Amy at November 8, 2008 12:10 PM


Obama still may not take power.

The Supreme Court MAY require him to prove he is a natural born citizen. If it does, I do NOT believe he can do it. An intellectually honest Court would then HAVE to throw out his election and the electoral college would then vote for either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.

So this immoral politician may yet not be President.

Posted by: Joe at November 8, 2008 12:10 PM


Go to:

WWW.OBAMACRIMES.COM

to keep up with Phil Berg's lawsuit which is now before the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Joe at November 8, 2008 12:13 PM


LizFromNebraska at November 8, 2008 11:58 AM

Liz - not all of them involve removal of the fallopian tube - if caught early, there is a procedure which can remove the growing embryo.

It's called a salpingostomy.

BTW - I think you meant to say "effected" tube and not "infected".

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 12:13 PM


Thank you to the following for their kind remarks and encouragement to stay on this blog: Bobby Bambino, Carla, PrettyinPink, DeeL, and Chris Arsenault. I appreciate intelligent and civil discourse wherever I find it.

Thank you to Jill for her comment to CrankyCatholic about the extreme rhetoric. There is a ton of extreme rhetoric on this blog and I hope Jill will discontinue her use of "barbarian" and "Nazi" in describing the future president. It simply doesn't achieve anything constructive in doing so.

Thank you to Ezek13:19 and John Lewandoski for their comments. I'm not quite sure they realize I'm pro-life but among some of the pro-lifers on this blog, it would appear that they eat their young like some wild animals do (I'm speaking figuratively but I can imagine the retorts this line will garner).

Thank you to Truthseeker. You made me laugh, brother, when you said you were pro-choice when it came to me deciding whether or not to stay on this blog. That was a really funny thing to say and I'm still laughing about it as I type this. And I will also do as you suggest. :)

I'm still confused by HisMan, however. He appears to be very knowledgeable of Scripture, working towards a doctorate in theology, a great family man with many interesting things to say. But I'm hopeful that in person he is a different kind of person than how he presents himself on this blog.

In one of his last postings he told somebody to "shove it". That is just incredibly rude and must of been said in anger. I can't find a single justification for that kind of remark by a Christian EVER. I checked my Strong's and NASB Concordance and I can't find a Bible verse that approves of our saying that to anyone. Perhaps HisMan's Bible can explain his biblical justification for such a remark (hint: THERE ISN'T ANY).

Perhaps he forgets Jesus' statement: "Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!" shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!" shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matt 5:22).

I know for a fact that many who write in this blog neglect this exhortation from the apostle Paul: "Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned as it were with salt, so that you may know how to respond to each person." (Colossians 4:6) and the preceeding verse: "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity." (Colossians 4:5).

To John Lewandoski: Doesn't appear you've read all my posts. You quote Jesus correctly as he condemned the Pharisees and religious leaders of his day. He always criticized them because of their HYPOCRISY, a lesson which many on this blog might do well to learn.

One of my points in an earlier post is that Jesus had both the authority and the wisdom to criticize the religious leaders of his day. But I also imagine that those responding to this post in a negative manner will be far too busy trying to remove the splinters in my eyes to focus on the logs in their own.

Although Christians have authority, very few have the wisdom to be making judgmental pronouncements as demonstrated by the abuse they heap on their brothers and sisters in Christ. Quite simply, wisdom is not demonstrated by telling someone to "shove it".

I encourage everyone to study the Book of Proverbs. Especially those portions of Proverbs that concern speech, wisdom and they way we conduct ourselves. Please don't wrap yourselves in the robes of Christ then make personal attacks against those whose opinions differ from your own.

Like the vast majority of you, I oppose abortion in any form. But unlike some of you, I'm not willing to resort to name calling or rudeness to support a pro-life agenda. In order to be "lights of the world" and "salt of the earth" we need to not act like the world.

I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AND A CHALLENGE FOR HISMAN AND TRUTHSEEKER WHICH I HOPE THEY WILL ACCEPT:

Make copies of your posts and take them to your pastor and ask him what he thinks of them. Don't be selective, give him copies of everything you can find. If you believe you are smarter or more spiritually mature than your pastor, then take them to someone you believe is your spiritual mentor and who resonates Christ in his life; then ask his or her opinion of what you've written. To demonstrate that I'm practicing what I've preached, I'm making copies today and giving them to my pastor tomorrow and asking him what he thinks of what I've written.

I expect to have what I just wrote picked apart by HisMan, Truthseeker and others. I'm afraid they just haven't understood ANYTHING I've written or the spirit in which it was written.

But that won't stop me from praying for them so that they write Psalm 139:23, 24 on their hearts:

"Search me, O God, and know my heart; try me and know my anxious thoughts; and see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way." :)

Peace and love to all the brethen...

Posted by: CaryChristian at November 8, 2008 12:17 PM


Should these individuals have not even wasted their time and effort?

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 10:57 AM
---

Mary - I believe we're in agreement, and hopefully what is seen is that Grace and Mercy are poured out slowly - lives are changed and saved in God's time, but we're only called to be faithful.

Any effort made on behalf of saving someone, any, from perishing, honors them, and God.

Earlier on the Weekend Question thread, Danielle was offended by my use of photos from the Holocaust when I compared it to what happens to the unborn. She didn't consider that if such people could have a say of what's going on today, that they would want to see every innocent human being loved and cherished, and saved from death.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 12:23 PM


Chris,
That's awesome that they no longer always have to remove the fallopian tube!

Either way, neither surgery constitutes elective abortion. Nor does medical treatment to a pregnant mother which results in the death of the child, even when the treatment renders that death inevitable.

Jess, no one wants pregnant women to die and this has been explained to you before. It is a nonsensical statement repeated by "PC"s do deflect from the real issue which is a culture of rampant self centered sexual activity that is no longer restrained by any expectation of responsibility for its natural consequences.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 12:32 PM


My previous comment should read

It is a nonsensical argument *to* deflect, not do deflect.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 12:36 PM


Cary, your sanctimonious nonsense is boring.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 8, 2008 12:48 PM


CaryChristian,
I for one am guilty of getting caught up in the heat of things, especially these past weeks. In fact, I refrained from posting for the week or two before the election because although I believed everything I said, I did not like the way in which I was saying it.

Thank you for your reminder to treat each other with charity.

God bless.

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 12:59 PM


"I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."


Senator Barack Obama [pbuh]
A More Perfect Union Speech
March 18, 2008


There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.


Reverend Jesse Jackson, as quoted in US News, 3/10/96

Did the o'bama's (pbuh) grandmother, the late Madelynn Dunham, and Jesse Jackson once unknowingly cross paths like two ships in the night?

None of ms. Dunham's peers that were interviewed, some who worked with her for more than 10 years, could remember her uttering a single racist sentiment. One former co-worker said he never recalled her even swearing. And this was before she passed away, not after, when out of respect for the living, we do not speak ill of the dead.

Contrast this with the o'bama (pbuh) who had a 20 year association with the racist everRANT Jeremiah Wright who's swearing and racist epithets are documented in video and in print that were marketed in the church.

But the o'bama (pbuh) never heard or does not recall Wright saying anything improper. But his grandmother's language made him 'cringe'.

[Maybe there were other reasons children made fun of the o'bama's ears. Maybe they were/are tuned to a different frequency where he only hears what he wants to hear or, what is poltically expedient.]

Both ms. Dunham and Jeremiah Wright were discarded when they had served the purposes of the o'bama.

These are the tactics of good ole Joe Stalin.

Rohm Emmanuel, you better get and keep the equivalent of a semen stained blue dress, or you will find yourself keeping company all those other former passengers who have been thrown under the o'bama (pbuh) bus.

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 1:12 PM


Bobby,
You mentioned that MK is going to be leading a book discussion on "The Theology of the Body for Beginners". I've had the privilege of studying with Christopher West a few times, including his week long Heart and Head Immersion Course in Pennsylvania, and have worked my way through about 2/3 of "Man and Woman, He Created Them" by JP II. Is it an open discussion or by invitation? If open, I would love to participate!

Posted by: DeeL at November 8, 2008 1:23 PM


DeeL -- it is an open discussion, I'm sure.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at November 8, 2008 1:45 PM


Mary,

I did a paper on Schindler's List and indeed I saw that criticism being written out. I read a critique that complained how the movie focused too much on Schindler's Jews and not the rest (I responded that they clearly missed the point-inherent in the title itself); that Spielberg painted him as too saintly and ignored his complicitness through association with the party doing the killing (I responded that they clearly showed character flaws-selfishness, love of drink and women, etc). So, that stuff is there.

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 8, 2008 1:45 PM


CaryChristian

der Widerstand

German for resistance. A named given to the german people who chose to remain in the government during the Hitler years in order to frustrate the implementation of the NAZI policies. Many young germans were member of an organization that in English was called the White Rose.

"Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us can imagine the degree of shame that will come upon us and our children when the veil falls from our faces and the awful crimes that infinitely exceed any human measure are exposed to the light of day?" — From the first leaflet of the White Rose.
"
Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals … Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty!" — From the second leaflet of the White Rose.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 2:08 PM


"We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace!"

from the 4th leaflet of the White Rose.

The duly elected government imprisoned and executed most of the leadership of this college student group for criticizing the policies of said government.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 2:24 PM


Chris:

How dare you show those photos.

How dare you show me what an abortion is.

I know what an abortion is.

I am offended that you think you need to show me and the world what the truth is about abortion. The bloody, wretched, evil truth that it is.

Don't you think the world knows that killing a baby in the womb is killing an innocent, defenseless, sinless, prescious child? We know this.

Hal knows this. PPC knows this. Danielle knows this. Reality knows this. PIP knows this. SoMG knows this. Cameron knows this. Texas Red knows this. Sally knows this. John knows this. I know this.

But Christ, they don't care. They just don't care. They really don't care.

Photos of abortion are like sunlight to a vampire.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 2:35 PM


Erin 11:04am

I made no assumptions. I asked if there was a memorial service that Obama and family planned to attend.

The family stepped out on stage with Obama but were they with him throughout speech? The news media, which is very supportive of Obama, is the source I am quoting in saying they did not and who found this strange and "creepy".

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 2:41 PM


Hisman

You are correct. They do not care.

But we, you and I, and many others as imperfect as we are, we care.

We do not wear ribbons on our shirt, or bands on our wrist, but we do care.

We will do good where we are empowered and enabled to do good. We will not be saddled with guilt and condemnation for what we are not able to do.

Raise your children to love God and to love their brother and leave it up to God work out the details. Encourage them in the way they are to go. Encourage them in the gifts that God has given them. Love them more when they are wrong. That is where love proves itself. Not when are right, but when we are wrong.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 2:46 PM


kbhvac,

I never said he didn't attend a service for his grandmother. I asked if he planned to.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 2:47 PM


Abortion will not end until we get serious about ending it. This is the message of this election.

A few of us men are going to get together and pray while we are watching Schindler's list in the hope that God will give us new strategys on dealing with the abortion holocaust.

God is calling us to turn up the heat to a raging fire. If we have to give our lives we must make this option open to our Lord.

Slavery was not ended in this country until blood was shed during the civil war.

It is time that we be willing to shed our blood so that innocents may be saved.

It's time that we start marching on Washington in numbers that will overwhelm that city of iniquity and blasphemy. It's time we use the tacttcs of the left wing war protestors. The time is now. Or will we wait like cowards for another 50,000,000 inncoent children to be slaughtered?

I call for a march on Washington. I call on 10,000,000 Christians and Por-lifers to march on Washington this summer. The biggest march for life ever. We will show Obama the ferocity of a holy God.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 2:47 PM


Erin

Jon Meachem, Evan Thomas, and Charlie Rose were the three newsmen discussing the acceptance speech and Obama's "creepy" behavior. Meachem and Thomas are from Newsweek, which in my opinion was heavily biased in favor of Obama.

Posted by: crna920@yahoo.com at November 8, 2008 2:51 PM


Transcripts of conversation between Charlie Rose, and Newsweek's, Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham.

THOMAS: Saul Alinsky is, uh, really was a model from this, er, famous community organizer in Chicago, and this whole idea that Alinsky had that it's not gonna work if you offend large groups of people. You know, we think of community organizers as having their fist out and, you know? Ah, no, no, no, no, no. You have to win over the majority by being peaceful and nonthreatening. Saul Alinsky used the word "nonthreatening." This is key to Obama. There's no militancy involved. This is very important and -- and his chief strategist, Axelrod, really understood this. Especially if you're running a black guy for president, you cannot threaten the whites.

MEACHAM: He's very elusive, Obama, which is fascinating for a man who's written two memoirs. At Grant Park he walks out with the family, and then they go away.

ROSE: Mmm. Mmm-hmm.

MEACHAM: Biden's back, you know, locked in the bar or something.

ROSE: (haughty chuckle)

MEACHAM: You know, they don't let him out. And have you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage?

ROSE: Mmm.

MEACHAM: No adoring wife, no cute kid. He is the messenger.

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all this. I mean, he's such an admirable --

ROSE: Slightly. Creepy. Cult of personality.

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What's slightly creepy about it?

THOMAS: It -- it -- it just makes me a little uneasy that he's so singular. He's clearly managing his own spectacle. He's a deeply manipulative guy.


ROSE: Watching him last night in that speech, he finishes --

MEACHAM: Yeah.

ROSE: -- and he sort of -- it's almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance.

MEACHAM: He watches us watching him.

THOMAS: Watching him!

ROSE: Exactly!

THOMAS: He does --

MEACHAM: It's amazing.

ROSE: It is amazing.

THOMAS: He writes about this metaphor being a screen upon which Americans will project. He said they want of Barack Obama; I'm not sure I am Barack Obama.

ROSE: Mmm.

THOMAS: He has the self-awareness to know that this creature he's designed isn't necessarily a real person, and he's self-aware enough --

ROSE: Ahhhhhh.

-----------------------------------------------

Quote: "'I, I, I actually believe my own rhetoric,' Obama stammered, uncharacteristically, in an interview with NEWSWEEK in the spring of 2008." Also from this story: "Barack Obama can be cocky about his star power." Here is another excerpt: "Obama was growing accustomed to adulation. ... At Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, 'The torch is being passed to you.' 'A chill went up my spine,' Obama told an aide."

"Obama understood that he had become a giant screen upon which Americans projected their hopes and fears, dreams and frustrations. Maybe such a person never really existed, couldn't exist, but people wanted a savior nonetheless." [That's not Obama; that's Newsweek writing about Obama. Finally this:] "As a bestselling memoirist he had created a mythic figure, a man named Barack Obama who had searched and quested and overcome travails, who had found an identity and a calling in public service. Obama recalled that he often joked with his team, 'This Barack Obama sounds like a great guy. Now I'm not sure that I am Barack Obama, right?' He added, pointedly, 'It wasn't entirely a joke.'

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 2:57 PM


Hi Jon, John Lewandoski and Truthseeker,

I concur that Luther definitely had his rough edges. It wasn't very Christian-like that he railed against the Jews and even suggested their synagogues be burned. It didn't help when when he gave the Landgrave Philip of Hesse a pass on his bigamy, either.

All of our human heroes have flaws and shortcomings. Part and parcel of being human, I suppose.

We need to be careful not to place ANYONE we admire too high on a pedestal. Jesus is the only one who doesn't disappoint.

Truthseeker mentions King David. Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David wrote wonderful psalms but he was also an adulterer who had the husband of the woman he cheated with sent to the front lines of battle to be killed. He covered up his sin and the prophet Nathan confronted David and exposed his sin.

The apostle Peter sometimes seems like a walking time bomb in Scripture. He boasts, he lies, he acts violently and impulsively. Galatians records how Peter allied with the judaizers who believed that gentile converts needed to be circumcized until the apostle Paul confronted him.

The apostle Paul had issues, as well. He stood by holding the cloaks of others while Stephen was stoned to death. He and Barnabas couldn't agree on the utilization of John Mark in their ministry, so they parted ways for a time.

We all have issues and problems in our lives that we struggle with. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

I used to be a pretty difficult person. I made life difficult for my wife and children when I suffered from the stresses of my employment. My wife felt like she had to act as an intermediary between me and the kids because she knew I could snap. And I've had to deal with the affects of depression for many years.

Because of the way I was, I managed to alienate my children and my wife. Nine years ago, my wife sought solace in the arms of another man and cheated on me. The man she cheated with was our music pastor. She got pregnant from that liaison although she miscarried after about a month.

The affair went over for about a year. The man made her feel appreciated in ways that I didn't. Sad to say he was married to another woman and had three children of his own. Even more sad is that he had affairs with many women during this time and was eventually fired from our church when it was discovered that he had molested a 13 year old boy from our church. He just finished six years in prison as a sex offender.

My wife didn't reveal her affair until months afterwards. When she told me about her affair and miscarriage, she said she didn't want to tell me because I once boasted that I would murder any man that she cheated with and she was genuinely worried that I would do just that.

It would have been easy for me to get angry with my wife. It would have been easy to divorce her. It would have been easy to go kill the former music pastor. It would have been easy to hate both of them and to move on with my life.

I chose instead to love my wife in spite of what she had done and forgive the music pastor. I realized how I had contributed to what she had done by my anger and insensitivity. I began to realize how I had hurt her and my children, not physically but verbally, and how I had done so for years. It seemed as though God took the sword out of my hands, the anger that I had suffered from for years, and healed our entire family.

My wife and I went to marriage counseling. After four sessions, the marriage counselor told us, "I've been counseling couples for other twenty years and I have never seen such a complete healing and forgiveness between a couple in such a short time in my entire career (just four sessions)."

We renewed our wedding vows just a month later. We sat our children down and told them what happened and they saw the healing that occurred between us. We both spent a great deal of time getting to know our children again.

Danielle and I have now been married almost 26 years. Our children are very close to the two of us and to each other.

My life experience has taught me that just being a Christian doesn't automatically transform me into a Christ-like man, in either word of deed.

I've failed more often than I have succeeded in life. I've failed people that were and are dear to me, unleashed anger on people that had opposing opinions, and I used to be convinced I was a pretty righteous guy. I've been rude, angry, nasty, argumentative and sometimes just plain evil, all the time thinking I was a pretty nice guy.

I've made a conscious effort to be a different person as a way to make amends. I hope this is reflected in my blogs.

C

Posted by: CaryChristian at November 8, 2008 3:01 PM


PIP 1:45PM

Interesting. I have read some background on him and like all of us, he definitely had his failings. I agree that this does not take away from what he did accomplish in saving what lives he could.
A sidenote. I understand that years ago some Muslim countries were willing to show this movie but the sex scenes had to be removed. Spielberg refused to remove the scenes. Why they were relevant is beyond me. Here may have been a golden opportunity to help mend the rift between Jews and Muslims that Spielberg, in his refusal to to remove the scenes, passed up. I'm afraid I don't have a source. It was an article I read in the paper.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 3:02 PM


hisman

Tap the breaks brother. There were some WWI veterans who tried that and an army officer named Douglas McArthur ordered his troops to open fire on them. I believe it is known as the Bonus Rebellion.

To paraphrase King David, 'There is no glory in dying like a fool.'

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:03 PM


CaryChristian

I can relate to your experience in many ways. Thanks for having the courage to share who you are with us.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:08 PM


kbhvac 2:57PM

Excellent. Thank you.

I wonder if Ethel Kennedy was aware that Bill Ayers, the man from who's living room Obama launched his political career, dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the killer of her husband Senator Robert Kennedy.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 3:09 PM


Jill, I'm referring to legislative and ballot initiatives that single out a select group of babies as dispensable. SD Measure 11 is a ban on killing preborn children just as long as they're not conceived in rape or incest. Measure 11 says that children conceived in a sexual assault are different and not worth saving until later.

They are NOT different. They are ALL worth saving. And personally, I can't in good conscience vote 'yes' on a measure that classifies children this way.

If a Measure was written to ban all third trimester abortions I might stand behind it provided it doesn't contain language legitimizing the killing of first and second trimester babies.

Sidewalk counselors do the greatest life-saving work. They're trying to save ALL the babies scheduled to die on any particular day. What they are certainly NOT doing is compromising on principle and singling out particular children as dispensable. If sidewalk counselors screened mothers for children conceived in rape and said, "Sorry to bother you. Go on in.", no doubt all of us would take issue with that.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 8, 2008 3:21 PM


Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 3:09 PM

It seems that no one except Ayers and the o'bama (pbuh) know the depth of their relationship.

Suggest you read my post at 2:57.

The delusion is pretty strong. People choose to remain ignorant because they do not want to jeopardise theri ignorance.

The Bush Derangement Syndrome (BSD) contributes to the confusion. There is a significant number of people who hate Bush so much they are incapable of ration thought. It is really difficult to thing straight when you are mad as hell. We can all relate to that. Right?

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:29 PM


kbhvac 2:57PM

Excellent. Thank you.

I wonder if Ethel Kennedy was aware that Bill Ayers, the man from who's living room Obama launched his political career, dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, the killer of her husband Senator Robert Kennedy.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 3:09 PM

What irony. Ayers was a killer and got off the hook by reason of illeggally taped phone calls?

Abortion law was written by reason of right to privacy?

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 3:34 PM


Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:29 PM

Perdonamé!

I made some typo's. They are now corrected.


The delusion is pretty strong. People choose to remain ignorant because they do not want to jeopardise their bliss.

The Bush Derangement Syndrome (BSD) contributes to the confusion. There are significant numbers of people who hate Bush so much they are incapable of rational thought.

It is really difficult to think straight when you are mad as hell.

We can all relate to that. Right?

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:41 PM


"A sidenote. I understand that years ago some Muslim countries were willing to show this movie but the sex scenes had to be removed. Spielberg refused to remove the scenes. Why they were relevant is beyond me. Here may have been a golden opportunity to help mend the rift between Jews and Muslims that Spielberg, in his refusal to to remove the scenes, passed up. I'm afraid I don't have a source. It was an article I read in the paper."

Very interesting. Was it just the sex scenes that were actual sex scenes, or did they consider a scene that eludes to sex being a sex scene? Perhaps if it were the latter, Spielberg thought it removed a part of Schindler's character, but if it is only the "graphic" ones, those are what, 2 scenes? Think it would be interesting if we could track down the reasons for his refusal!

Posted by: prettyinpink at November 8, 2008 3:42 PM


http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-whitewashes-another-obama-mentor

You all want a little on Obama's father/mentor bisexual upbringing. Obama was highly infuenced by a communist named Frank Marshal davis. These reports are common in europe but the fond American press won't cover them. This man probably influenced Obama's lascivious values.
also some articles on his other crackpot mentors and Ayers.

Posted by: xppc at November 8, 2008 3:49 PM


General Eisenhower made the German civilians tour the concentration camps so they could not ever say again that they did not know.

I would say after 30 years, no adult american can say he/she does not know what abortion is unless they choose to remain willfully ignorant to maintain their state of denial (the sargeant Schulze defense) or they are deliberately dishonest.

Lack of accurate information or the intelligence to accurately interpret the data is not the problem.

HisMan got it right earlier, they just do not care and they can not even see the negative demographic and accompanying economic implications.

But they have the o'bama (pbuh)to save them from the consequences of their folly/sin.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 3:52 PM


PIP,

I think the Muslim countries would be pretty rigid about it so any sex scene or sexually suggestive scene might be axed. If memory serves me right Spielberg felt this would take away from the movie in some way. Its realism or something. I would think if the Muslim countries could make a concession, so could he. I don't think that was asking a lot. Personally I would have just removed the sex scenes. I would consider it too great an opportunity to pass up for any reason.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 3:53 PM


It's funny that you chose to use racially charged language, calling Obama a "barbarian". Either you have a small vocabulary or a poor command of the english language, but name calling is hardly a tool one intelligent person should use to win over the hearts and minds of others to her point of view.

It's this type of shallow discourse that stands in marked contrast to everything the Obama presidency stands for. The anti-choice movement looses the moral high-ground every time one of its supporters bows to jingoism,islamophobia or outright racism. If you would like to critique a policy, do so in a way befitting someone of dignity, for your own dignity and the dignity of those you are critiquing. Stomping your feet or rolling on the ground having a tantrum is not acceptable behavior for someone over the age of two.

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 8, 2008 4:14 PM


I call for a march on Washington. I call on 10,000,000 Christians and Por-lifers to march on Washington this summer. The biggest march for life ever. We will show Obama the ferocity of a holy God.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 2:47 PM

YeeHah! A marching we will go.

Posted by: truthseeker at November 8, 2008 4:16 PM


"You mentioned that MK is going to be leading a book discussion on "The Theology of the Body for Beginners". I've had the privilege of studying with Christopher West a few times, including his week long Heart and Head Immersion Course in Pennsylvania, and have worked my way through about 2/3 of "Man and Woman, He Created Them" by JP II. Is it an open discussion or by invitation? If open, I would love to participate!"

Yes indeed, Deel!! It'll be great. Please join us. It's at the blog 2 Seconds Faster. It'll start up next week.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 8, 2008 4:28 PM


Jill: "If a high of 1% of all 2006 SD abortions were for rape and incest - 75 - the ban in place that year would have rescued 673 babies from abortion, real babies who would be 2 years old this year."

well, I'm quite sure a few hundred of those women would cross state lines to get their abortion, or international lines.

Posted by: hal at November 8, 2008 4:31 PM


YLT,

LOL. Barbarian is hardly "racially charged". Do a little research. They were an Indo-
Aryan people who migrated from the Near East. They were tall, fierce, fair haired(!) and fair skinned(!). They were reviled by the Greeks and feared by the Romans, with whom they would conflict. In Northern Europe they became known as Celts, Teutons, Norse, and Goths. Guess what color "barbarians' were YLT. Any white person posting on this site is probably a descendent. "Barbarian" meant both wanderer and illiterate.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 4:40 PM


Jill,

I cautioned you not to insult the o'bama (pbuh).

That is a job for artisans and experts.

They get indignant, because you misspell a word,

or use the wrong syntax or use word that is

insufficient.

Leave pointed barbs up to the maestros.

[Think of Keith Blowharderman here.]

Now yo la is has gone incontinent and will have change her adult depends and the only one she has left is the o'bama (pbuh) autographed one with the president elect seal on it.

yor bor ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 4:48 PM


Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 8, 2008 4:14 PM

It's this type of shallow discourse that stands in marked contrast to everything the Obama presidency stands for. The anti-choice movement looses the moral high-ground every time one of its supporters bows to jingoism,islamophobia or outright racism. If you would like to critique a policy, do so in a way befitting someone of dignity, for your own dignity and the dignity of those you are critiquing. Stomping your feet or rolling on the ground having a tantrum is not acceptable behavior for someone over the age of two.
---------------------------------------------------
yo la

My knuckles have been draggin the ground so long it is really hard for me to type, and then posts like this get me to laughing so hard I almost have to change my depends.

Us neanderthals are such a target rich environment for lofty intellectuals such as yourself I would think it would be beneath you to even come around here.

But what the heck we all need someone less than ourselves to look down on.

I think I will go over to the cro magnon web site and take some shots at them.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 5:01 PM


Jill

Here is link to training video on how to properly insult great minds such as the o'bama (pbuh).

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/funny/affleck_as_olbermann_it_is_the_fear_and_the_tyranny_up_with_which_we_dare_no_longer_put_99327.asp?c=rss


yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at November 8, 2008 5:11 PM


By the way, Lindsay, I am pro-life with NO exceptions. But I do favor anything that will reduce abortions NOW, and then will continue pursuing more laws to restrict it until it is gone.

To me, it is the same thing as rescuing as many children as I can, who are trapped in a burning building. I don't let them ALL die, just because I can't save them all!

Posted by: Bethany at November 8, 2008 8:00 AM

I liked this post very much. I agree with you Bethany.

Posted by: Patricia at November 8, 2008 5:43 PM


Cranky, 3:21p, said: "Jill, I'm referring to legislative and ballot initiatives that single out a select group of babies as dispensable. SD Measure 11 is a ban on killing preborn children just as long as they're not conceived in rape or incest. Measure 11 says that children conceived in a sexual assault are different and not worth saving until later."

CC, that's not what it said. In SD, all babies are currently dispensable. This bill would have saved 99% of them. Recall the perfect bill failed.

But it doesn't matter. Your side won. You fought the imperfect bill and from what I read from at least one insider can take credit for its failure and for the continued killing of that 99%. Congrats.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 8, 2008 6:27 PM


I am new here. I just wanted to say that I think there is a lot of ignorance in the general population about abortion. I used to be pro-choice until I became pregnant and saw the ultrasounds (sonograms) in the doctor's office and realized that there is a beating heart and living human inside. I honestly think ultrasounds and maybe more films about babies in the womb will change people's minds more than anything else.

Posted by: Natalie at November 8, 2008 6:50 PM


I am new here. I just wanted to say that I think there is a lot of ignorance in the general population about abortion. I used to be pro-choice until I became pregnant and saw the ultrasounds (sonograms) in the doctor's office and realized that there is a beating heart and living human inside. I honestly think ultrasounds and maybe more films about babies in the womb will change people's minds more than anything else.

Posted by: Natalie at November 8, 2008 6:53 PM


I feel the same way Natalie. I am pro-choice, I believe women aren't given the oppertunity to really know their choices, they just have these things thrust at them (oh well I'm young I have to have an abortion, etc...).

I believe every pregnant woman should have the option of seeing an ultrasound, of knowing exactly what an abortion is and what stage of development a baby is at in her pregnancy.

What types of films do you think we could make about babies in the womb? Do you mean main stream or educational?

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 6:55 PM


Hi Natalie. Welcome. I agree, there is a tremendous amount of ignorance about the issues. Nice to have you on the blog. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 8, 2008 7:02 PM


Natalie: I am curious. What did you think was there in the early stages of pregnancy before you saw the ultrasounds?

Posted by: Patricia at November 8, 2008 7:03 PM


Jill this is so weird, I had a dream the other night that we actually agreed on something, and now it's happening.

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 7:10 PM


>>So upon the heads of those who opposed SD's proposition will blood be spilled?]

What?!

It was a wasteful attempt at a grandstanding law that would have been grossly unconstitutional, and then the state would be forced to pay for its defence. Lunacy!

Posted by: Theresa at November 8, 2008 7:24 PM


Jess,

what do you agree with Jill on? She is for the abortion ban in SD, you're pro-choice.

Posted by: Jasper at November 8, 2008 7:25 PM


An act to protect the lives of unborn children, and the interests in health of pregnant mothers, by prohibiting abortions except in cases where the mother's life or health is at risk, and in cases of rape and incest.

Any abortion (under rape or incest) must be performed before the completion of the twentieth week...

This is a permission-to-kill initiative on babies conceived in rape and incest. If I lived in SD, I would not add my 'yes' to this. And if passed, I have no doubt that there would be a peculiar increase in the cases of rape and incest the following year.

2006 should have motivated pro-lifers to aggressively educate SD citizens regarding why rape and incest exceptions are never a good thing. And why health exceptions are a sham. 6% is all that was needed that year!
It's just so heartbreaking when pro-lifers concede to putting faith in man's public opinions rather than faith in the Lord. With much prayer and hard work and even more prayer, South Dakota could have gained that six percent.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 8, 2008 7:43 PM


"Health exceptions are a sham"? You don't know what you're talking about Cranky, and hopefully you won't have to learn firsthand.

Posted by: Jess at November 8, 2008 7:57 PM


On the topic of the barbarian label, even a cursory understanding of the way in which that term has evolved over time would give a true polished writer pause before choosing it as a descriptive term for another person. I would expect someone who is so skilled and knowlegeable about the effects of dominant language on a discourse to be more careful with her terminology. If language need not be precise why the care in labeling yourself "pro-life", why not "anti-choice", if language doesn't matter.

For a more intellectual treatment on the meaning of the term Barbarian and how it figures into the construction of "otherness" goto page 3 of http://www.nu.ac.za/CCS/files/Racist1.pdf

Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 8, 2008 8:01 PM


Cranky:

HOW DARE YOU!

Do you really think that we sat on our hands for two years and did not pray or seek God concerning the ending of abortion in South Dakota? Your arrogance and insensitivity is astounding.

Do you know we were outspent 3 to 1 by Planned Parenthood? How much money have you sent to South Dakota to help combat abortion? How much did you send us in 2006 when we had the "perfect ban?" Do you know our Bishop Swain supported the initiated measure 11 and he prays with us at Planned Parenthood on a regular basis?

It will suck to be you when God starts correcting pride and arrogance in the Body of Christ.

Posted by: Amy at November 8, 2008 8:18 PM


YLT,

Please, there is nothing racist about the term "barbarian". It is still used to describe the white tribes that threatened Rome.
It meant "wanderer" or "illiterate".
Barbarian has been used to describe any number of people, such as the Mongol hordes of Ghengis Khan.
You can turn any word or phrase into a "racist" term if you try hard enough.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 8:21 PM


Natalie at November 8, 2008 6:50 PM

Hi Natalie - I agree with you completely - we need to display everything about the growth of human beings in a non-threatening way.

However, one of the big problems we face (as the pro-life cause) is that the educational system in the US has pretty much been taken over by the NEA, which of course is in league with both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

(I'm sure I'll hear from teachers...)

Anyhow, my teen daughter, who is extremely conversant regarding the entire gestational development of humans, finds that our own district has been studiously avoiding discussing factual human growth. Frogs, critters, you name it, but a showing an ultrasound in school - absolutely forbidden.

Even more remarkable than an ultrasound is something called an embryoscopy, where an endoscopic video is made. The quality and visual imagery not only shows the humanity of our smallest and weakest, but also a remarkable degree of sentience.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 8:51 PM


Mary,
Liberals are constantly using the accusation of racism to intimidate and to stifle any real debate concerning Obama and his past, his associations, his policies, etc.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at November 8, 2008 8:59 PM


Cranky Catholic,

I see your point, but we have to take what we can to limit the evil done.

Posted by: Jasper at November 8, 2008 8:59 PM


Eileen #2,

How true. The real irony is that the original "barbarians" were white people! For that matter so were the original "thugs".
Since the Vandals were a white Germanic tribe, I suppose that being of German ancestry, I can howl "racism" every time the term "vandal" or "vandalism" is used.

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:06 PM


Jasper,

Very true. Do we argue that American abolitionists should have shut down the Underground Railroad since they weren't freeing every slave and slavery was still legal?

Posted by: Mary at November 8, 2008 9:08 PM


This subject certainly drew a lot of responses, of which I have read only a few. Most of what I would have said has already been said, I come down on the side of those who think that the SD measure ought to have been approved, but not celebrated. It would've been a small step in the right direction, and no prolifer should have actively opposed it, IMO. It's just sad that some would put "purity of principle" above the lives of the babies that might have been saved eventually by this measure.

This reminds me of what Jefferson Davis said about the refusal of North Carolina to share their surplus of military uniforms with the rest of the confederacy: "We may become the movement that died of a theory (state's rights)."

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at November 8, 2008 9:52 PM


Even more remarkable than an ultrasound is something called an embryoscopy, where an endoscopic video is made. The quality and visual imagery not only shows the humanity of our smallest and weakest, but also a remarkable degree of sentience.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 8:51 PM

Do they write their names on the walls in there?

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2008 9:59 PM


Understanding Obama:
The Making of a Fuehrer
By Ali Sina
I must confess, I was not impressed by Sen. Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident, a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was
unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such a quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total
incognito with zero accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact, he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of "Malignant Self Love," also believes, "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist."

Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands it and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, nearest and dearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko
Asahara, Joe Stalin, Saddam, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong IL, and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a
tremendous influence over their fanciers and followers. They created a personality cult around themselves, and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirer's souls, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. Those men gave their followers hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, they invariably brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of
personality, you don't know it until it is too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
"Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations," says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an
infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. His mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised
by a stepfather. He was raised as an only child, full of himself and no others. He never had to share the spotlight with any siblings. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents.

He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995."

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around him and
reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality; his admirers become his co-dependents.

Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objectives. They are focused on one thing alone, and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to
waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention. If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "Present" vote is a safe vote; he used the "Present" all the time as a member of the Illinois legislature. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Why should he implicate himself in issues that may become controversial when they don't help him personally?

Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and an advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him with a fellowship and an office to work on his book. The book took him a lot longer than expected and at the end it devolved into…, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book "Dreams from My Father."

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as
important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the
norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly a half billion dollars for his campaign (something
unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? His brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A
narcissist cares for no one but himself.
This election is like no other election in the history of America . The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of a conscience, a serial liar, and one
who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?
I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self-serving and selfish. [Witness Al Gore's Income Tax; it reveals that he gave away NO MONEY to charities, not even to a church!] Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the
run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental
health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. [Look up the word 'treachery.']
Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party [and to this great nation]. The great
majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven.

Let us call a spade a spade [No pun intended]. This is racism, pure and simple. The truth is that, while everyone carries a misconceived
collective guilt towards blacks for wrongs done centuries ago by a bygone people to a bygone people, the blacks carry a collective rancor, enmity or vendetta towards non-blacks, and to this day want to "stand up" to the white man. They seem to be stuck in 19th century [encouraged by race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and others].

The downside of this is, that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four
years, racial tensions will increase to levels not seen since the turbulent 1960s. Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the
bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez,
the Maoist Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so
thrilled by the prospect of "their man" in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 10:05 PM


The real irony is that the original "barbarians" were white people! For that matter so were the original "thugs".

The word "thug" comes from the British meeting worshippers of the God named Kali. A Hindu God.

Even in his early years in India, Sleeman must have wondered at the peculiar practices of those Hindus who worshiped the goddess Kali, the dark consort of Shiva who is said to feed on the blood of mortals and to haunt the burning-grounds (or ghats) where Hindus are cremated. Her hideous image is to be seen in temples throughout India. She is typically represented as black (one of her epithets, Kali Ma, means "black mother"), many-armed, and garlanded with human skulls with a long red tongue protruding from a screaming mouth. In temples dedicated to Kali, human sacrifices were once carried out, though by Sleeman's time they had been discontinued in favor of goats. Worshipers invoked her with the words: "Terrific-faced Kali, holding a drawn sword and a noose and a club, wreathed with human skulls, lean, emaciated, and terrible, wide-mouthed, tongue dreadfully protruded, maddened, blood red-eyed, and filling the four quarters of the globe with hideous cries...."


In 1816, an article appeared in the Madras Literary Gazette, authored by Dr. Robert C. Sherwood. Sherwood, like Sleeman, was well-versed in Hinduism, and had gotten wind of a mysterious society of assassins from a gang of suspects who had been arrested and then released by an unbelieving judge in Madras in 1815. Sherwood's article was the first major testimony confirming the existence of a cult which committed murder in the name of Kali, and it attracted Sleeman's immediate attention. Among other things, Sherwood wrote:

While Europeans have journeyed through the extensive territories subject to the Government of Fort St. George, with a degree of security nowhere surpassed, the path of the native traveller has been beset with perils little known or suspected, into which numbers annually falling, have mysteriously disappeared, the victims of villains as subtle, rapacious and cruel as any who are to be met with in the records of human depravity. The Phansigars, or stranglers, are thus designated from the Hindustani word Phansi a noose. In the more northern parts of India, these murderers are called Thugs, signifying deceivers: in the Tamul language, they are called Ari Tulucar, or Mussulman noosers: in Canarese, Tanti Calleru, implying thieves, who use a wire or cat-gut noose.... Skilled in the arts of deception, Phansigars enter into conversation and insinuate themselves, by obsequious attentions, into the confidence of travellers of all descriptions.... When the Phansigars determine . to attack a traveller, they usually propose to him, under the specious plea of mutual safety or for the sake of society, to travel together . and on arriving at a convenient place and a fit opportunity presenting . one of the gang puts a rope or sash round the neck of the unfortunate persons, while others assist in depriving him of his life.


Thus an account of the Thugs, as they came to be known, and Thugee, their body of secret beliefs and practices, was first made available to outsiders. Perhaps not surprisingly, the account was all but ignored by British officialdom. Who could give credence to such extravagant rumors? And even if there was an element of truth to them, surely this was a matter for the Indians to resolve among themselves.

The British met and were not thugs. The word originates from the "whiteman of Britain" appropriating a word from a religion of the Hindus and the translation of thugge was shortened to what we have today. "Thug".

Now, you know the real story and white people are not the "original thugs". A group of religious worshippers of a Hindu God named Kali, within India were the "original "thugs".

Posted by: yllas at November 8, 2008 10:23 PM


It is so frustrating to see pro-life people failing to understand the logic and ethics of the abortion situation. Yes, it would be preferable to save all babies. No, it is not wrong to save as many as we can. Yes, it is wrong to refrain from saving as many as we can simply because we are, at present, unable to save them all.

My family had to shovel out from two feet of snow today. And I'm not talking about a 25' driveway. I'm talking about 3/4 of a mile. We used a combination of our poor, over-strapped 4-wheeler, us pushing the 4-wheeler, and us using the snow shovels. It was a lot of work. Some of the snow we pushed, sometimes we had to dig out the plow. Sometimes we had to shovel. It would sure have been nice to do the whole thing in one fell swoop, but we had to do it one shovel-full at a time.

Do you think we said, "Well, if we can't take out all the snow in one scoop, we're not going to compromise?" Do you think that, because we only got a little bit of snow in the shovel that we were going to quit after that and no more snow would be moved? No. We fully intended to clear the whole roadway and we did clear it. But we did it one shovel-full at a time.

That is, unfortunately, how abortion must be fought. Alas, we cannot save all the babies, but it is immoral, unloving, and foolish to refuse to save as many as we can as soon as we can. Now more babies will die because we weren't humble enough to move the snow one shovel-full at a time. We had to have it all disappear instantly. Not going to happen. I sure wished it would today, and I wish it infinitely more for the killing of our children, but we have to save as many as we can and keep fighting for the rest.

God bless,

Cindy in RC, SD

Posted by: Cindy in SD at November 8, 2008 10:40 PM


Do they write their names on the walls in there?

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2008 9:59 PM
_______________________________________

Bart:

Probably not.

However, I doubt if you'll find your name in the Book of Life.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 10:42 PM


Cindy:

You are right on.

St. Paul said this: "I am all things to all men....so that I may save some....."

Perfectionist thinking is a loser and self-serving.

The cause becomes more important than the object of the cause. It's all about them and not the precious babies being slaughtered in the womb.

Posted by: HisMan at November 8, 2008 11:10 PM


HisMan at November 8, 2008 10:05 PM
----

Interesting - this morning we watched the series on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPkAoQ1GdN8&feature=related

Inside the Mind of Adolph Hitler.

HisMan, if these people are correct, there are some serious similarities there.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 8, 2008 11:13 PM


Dear Jill
It's Okay. Eventually the Pro Life movement will win, because ALWAYS LIFE triumphs over death. Take care of yourself, please, sometimes I worry about you. I pray that through the love of our LORD he gives you eternal peace in your life. I love you and I ADMIRE your inner strength. I wish I could do more for you. I promise you that I will dedicate my music and upcoming albums to LIFE and I will also, through music, help you in this movement and also help all WOMEN that silently suffer because of ABORTION. WE ALL LOVE YOU. And in regards to hate mail, please don't even read it, nor should you answer any of this CHILDISH emails. LET'S FOCUS ON THE POSITIVE. WE ALL LOVE YOU. FOREVER AND EVER . We love you and I will ALWAYS REMIND YOU. Please be safe, rest, eat well and remember to drink water.

Your friend in MIAMI, FL. Elsa Marina Cruz

Posted by: Elsa Marina Cruz at November 8, 2008 11:23 PM


Shades of post modern, relativist minded, pro- abortion Christians, before such words were invented.


A true conversation between a Thugee and a British magistrate who was responsible for stopping the widespread act of robbery, and the ritual strangling of their victims.


Thugee completely transcended both religion and caste, normally insurmountable barriers in Indian society. The following remarkable exchange, which took place between Sleeman and a Muslim Thug named Sahib Khan, is revealing in this connection:

Sleeman: You are a Musulman?

Khan: Yes, most of the Thugs of the south are Musulmans.

S: And you still marry; inherit; pray; eat and drink according to the Koran; and your paradise is to be the paradise promised by Mahommud?

K: Yes, all, all.

S: Has Bhowanee [Kali] been anywhere named in the Koran?

K: Nowhere.

S: Then has Bhowanee anything to do with your paradise?

K: Nothing.

S: She has no influence upon your future state?

K: None.

S: Does Mahommud, your prophet, anywhere sanction crimes like yours; the murder in cold blood of your fellow creatures for the sake of money?

K: No.

S: Does he not say that such crimes will be punished by God in the next world?

K: Yes.

S: Then do you never feel any dread of punishment hereafter?

K: Never; we never murder unless the omens are favourable; we consider favourable omens as the mandates of the deity.

S: What deity?

K: Bhowanee.

S: But Bhowanee, you say, has no influence upon the welfare or otherwise of your soul hereafter?

K: None, we believe; but she influences our fates in this world and what she orders in this world, we believe that God will not punish in the next.


Hmm? I think I have met this type of mind at this site and tryed to inform them that they worship a God of Murder and they then write that they are a good Christian wishing mercy and goodness to all.

But, it could be a conversation with Doug also. .

Posted by: yllas at November 8, 2008 11:52 PM


Alright, I'm going to make my last remark on this point. It is legitimate and moral to to save as many babies as you can. I'm not against saving as many as you can. If an initiative was written so as to ban all third trimester abortions, or... banning abortions after brainwaves can be detected, I would be fine with that.

What I'm not fine with are bans written in such a way as to explicitly target some babies as abort-able. Why do we have to treat children conceived in rape differently than children conceived by two careless teenagers? Because that's what the public wants?

Amy... I gave $200 to the SD campaign in 2006.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at November 8, 2008 11:54 PM


"If an initiative was written so as to ban all third trimester abortions, or... banning abortions after brainwaves can be detected, I would be fine with that."


But then wouldn't that make any other baby abortable??

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


Dear Jill,
I just wanted to say, "Thank you", for your courageous work for the Lord, His unborn and born alive babies.
Your videos and the information on this site have been weapons of truth to help people understand Obama (I totally agree he IS a barbarian) and abortion.
May the Lord Jesus continue to strengthen and help you in all He gives you to do.
Sincerely,
Lily

Posted by: Lily at November 9, 2008 3:36 AM


Dear Jill,
I just wanted to say, "Thank you", for your courageous work for the Lord, His unborn and born alive babies.
Your videos and the information on this site have been weapons of truth to help people understand Obama (I totally agree he IS a barbarian) and abortion.
May the Lord Jesus continue to strengthen and help you in all He gives you to do.
Sincerely,
Lily

Posted by: Lily at November 9, 2008 3:37 AM


I too am 100% pro-life, but cannot fathom voting against the SD abortion ban just because of the "exceptions". How ridiculous! If we can't save ALL the babies then we don't want to save ANY?? Where on earth is the logic in that?

Posted by: Allison at November 9, 2008 6:02 AM


Elsa, 11:23p, wrote: "Dear Jill It's Okay.It's Okay. Eventually the Pro Life movement will win, because ALWAYS LIFE triumphs over death. Take care of yourself, please, sometimes I worry about you. I pray that through the love of our LORD he gives you eternal peace in your life."

Elsa, thank you for your prayers and concern. Honestly, I need them.

I know I have a responsibility to preach hope (the real hope, Jesus) and that ultimately things will work out.

But I see judgments coming. And we deserve them. By and large the people in the Church have ignored the plight of the preborn. By and large supposedly pro-life politicians have, too. Had both taken abortion seriously, abortion would have stopped.

It seems to me our fate has been sealed by self-righteous pro-lifers who ignore preborns dying all around them, and wretchedly go so far as to fight attempts to save them - all in the name of a legalistic theory of demanding perfectionism in an imperfect world.

Not only them, on the other end are certain incrementalists who wretchedly go so far as to fight attempts to save preborns dying all around them - all in the name of legalistic theory that will not allow deviations from their plan according to the future they think they can forecast.

The smart people boast and bicker while today babies will continue to die, one every 20 seconds in America.

And so I fight internal battles of knowing I have nothing on this earth to fear while sensing coming doom.

But I have a responsibility. I must remain calm and clear headed and must not overreact.

So the burden of writing while thinking all that I think becomes greater.

Yes, thank you for your prayers.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 9, 2008 6:03 AM


Jill, you are right about the two extremes of the prolife movement. And there's no need to name names, we all know who they are. So, we are left in the middle, caught in the crossfire between the two extremes of a movement that is supposed to be saving babies any way they can.

My solution is to remain silent about the errors of the extremists most of the time, and just go about the business of speaking out for babies who cannot speak, or even cry out. Being openly critical of them would just be like throwing gasoline on a fire.

Posted by: Doyle Chadwick at November 9, 2008 8:05 AM


HisMan,

An interesting article. Narcissism and sociopathy are very closely related, in fact people can be both, and are in a "cluster" of personality disorders which makes their symptoms interchangable and often confused with each other.
Martha Stout wrote "The Sociopath Next Door" and in it she states the slighter difference between a narcissist and sociopath. I may have to correct myself later but I believe it was the Narcissists desperate need for love and inablity to understand why they are not. Dr. Stout maintains that one in four Americans are sociopaths.
One outstanding trait of both Narcissism/sociopathy is a complete lack of empathy for other humans. Humans are objects.
These are very cruel and hurtful people.
This is frightening indeed. These are potentially very dangerous and destructive people, and sadly just the people who others can be so manipulated by.
Sociopaths are especially adept at being what you want them to be. The caring lover, the sympathetic friend, the philosopher, or... the messiah. They are very adept at assuming any "identity" they need to get them what they want.
I'm personally convinced that people are born narcisstic/sociopathic. I see it in my own family, I'm sorry to say. I'm convinced my sister is an NPD. My father was a borderline personality disorder, part of the same "cluster" as narcissism and sociopathy, and my daughter is so much like my father its eerie. I knew she was "different" from her infancy.
Narcissistic/sociopathic, this guy is dangerous.


Posted by: Mary at November 9, 2008 8:18 AM


Jill.

You and a famous poet named Yeats are thinking alike.


THE SECOND COMING

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?



So the burden of writing while thinking all that I think becomes greater.

What you saw in a hospital is why you write.

By and large the people in the Church have ignored the plight of the preborn.

That is true.

As Chesterton wrote, when the Church was split into Catholics and Protestants, not only were vices let lose, but virtues were then allowed to wander also. Settling on one Church and not the other.

None of which is your doings Jill, and which do influence how committed a Christian Church is to abortion, because of not being able to order the virtues, or a virtue which might have not settled on that church, but a vice.

Catholics have got their problems too, and are entering a time where decisions will be made that most probably ends in the church losing money and membership for their beliefs, as stated in their catechism concerning abortion, or become a church that doesn't believe what they profess, by their parishoners practicing abortion on demand too.
Which is the true definition of hypocrisy.

None of which is your doings too, Jill.


What doom approaches is the doom of Republicans being abandoned in playing off pro lifers in a legalist way against each other.

Or is it the Democrats that play pro lifers off against each other?

Or a united mixing of those two political parties, playing pro-lifers off against each
other?




Posted by: yllas at November 9, 2008 8:26 AM


Thanks Bobby and Eileen,
I look forward to joining in!

Posted by: DeeL at November 9, 2008 9:25 AM


HisMan,

I'm afraid I had to write my last post in a hurry. Dr. Stout has pointed out the traits of sociopathy and that is why I remained convinced Obama is first and foremost a sociopath.

1. Lying. Obama didn't know what his pastor said, he barely knew Bill Ayers, his deal with Tony Rezko was just naivete on his part. Horse puckey.

2. Great charisma and an ability to manipulate others. Obama's huge smile, "desire" to get along, and ability to charm so many millions is a huge red flag to me. I don't see this so much as Obama's desire to create a cult of personality as it is an ability to get him what he wants.

3. Facades and superficial emotions. A sociopath can be whatever the occasion calls for. They learn this by studying others for the appropriate emotional responses, they are not innate. They know exactly what you're looking for and what your needs are. They can turn the tears off and on.
Obama's not so subtle "finger" to McCain and Hillary, as well as his snide comment about Nancy Reagan shows his very superficial facade of "niceness" doesn't always hold. Its hiding a meanness, another side that Obama wants to keep hidden but breaks through now and then.

4. They have no conscience and no empathy. Obama's ability to lie, toss his associates under the bus when politically expedient, his association with Tony Rezko, who was under indictment at the time Obama, a US senator consulted him about buying a home. How would Obama even know such a character and why would he involve himself in a questionable transaction? A little shadiness here you think? Couldn't he consult a real estate agent?

5. His appointing Rahm Emmanuel, a vicious political pit bull, as chief of staff. So much for reaching across the aisle and "getting along". Like the mafia don who can keep his hands clean, maintain the air of respectability, and look like the all around nice guy, Obama will have his underling to do his dirty work.

6. Some of these are also considered Narcisstic traits. The two disorders share many traits.

Also, there is evidence that personality disorders such as borderline, narcissistic, histrionic and sociopathy, which are all very closely related, may indeed be inborn, even genetic. Looking at my family I am convinced they are.

Also, do not expect these people to change. Dr. Stout recommends that once you determine you're dealing with a sociopath, keep your distance, never trust them, and be very wary of their on going efforts to manipulate you.
I have pointed out before that I've determined a long time friend of mine is a sociopath. I never forget this fact whenever I have any dealings with him and keep my guard up.

Posted by: Mary at November 9, 2008 10:49 AM


Hello again,

Someone here asked what I thought was inside me when I was first pregnant, before I had my first ultrasound.

I guess I had never realized before that even at 6 weeks, a baby already has a heartbeat. I'll never forget seeing the little flicker. Up until that point, I guess I thought it took several months before a baby was developed.

I'm embarrassed to admit how uninformed I was about human development, esp. Since I had what would be considered a good education.

I grew up in the Northeast in a very liberal city. There was so much rage about Sarah Palin from the women here, I think because so many women (and men) are pro-choice. I never realized it before. I thought women here would be happy to support a woman for Vice President but most of the women I know absolutely hated her.

I have several friends who had abortions in their late teens/early 2O's. Now, many years later, they are childless and desperately want a baby. For many of them it is too late biologically.

I am very new to all of this and just found this website, partly because of the recent election, but I think more films, educational or mainstream, showing babies in the first trimester, would make a difference.

One thing that also had a huge effect on me was the Gianna Jessen (sp?) Ads and her interviews on Fox News. Until I saw her, I had no idea that babies had ever survived abortions. Her story is incredibly powerful. Also - I heard a radio show once (Focus on the Family) with mothers and the kids they'd raised after being raped or victims of incest. It made me realize something beautiful can come out of something tragic.

The problem is it's difficult to get "mainstream media" to cover a lot of these stories.

This is making me realize that I would like to get involved with a pregnancy support center.

Posted by: Natalie at November 9, 2008 1:28 PM


Welcome Natalie. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I never knew much about fetal development either so when I was told it was a bunch of cells, a clump, a blob before my abortion I believed it.

Years later,I delivered a baby into my hand at 10 weeks and learned the truth.

I applaud your decision to get involved!!! God bless you. I am glad you stopped by.

Posted by: Carla at November 9, 2008 1:34 PM


It always amazes me how politicians with children can even fathom supporting a bill that supports any kind of abortion which is baby killing. I have seen all 4 of my children on ultrasounds since the very beginning of their conceptions and knew there was a life there. We were in danger of losing my 3rd child and had to go to the emergency room because I was bleeding in the middle of the night. We had our 2 children with us and the dr said, "Well if you lose this baby, you already have 2 children." The drs and nurses had already given up on my baby before finding out the cause of the bleeding! The next week, my dr found out it was because the placenta was lying low and he was just going to have to keep an eye on me. Because of my faith and God's care, I am blessed to have 4 wonderful children and I would never deny them the right to live. How insensitive our society has become when our government leaders do not treasure the value of a life.

Posted by: Nicki at November 9, 2008 4:00 PM


Jill said, "It seems to me our fate has been sealed by self-righteous pro-lifers who ignore preborns dying all around them, and wretchedly go so far as to fight attempts to save them - all in the name of a legalistic theory of demanding perfectionism in an imperfect world."

Jill, for you to blame us is ludicrous. The compromised incremental strategy has been in play since Roe V Wade. Tell me when do the pro-abortion folks compromise? Their goal was abortion on demand, all nine months with someone else picking up the tab. They have almost ALL of that. Their is some taxpayer funding of abortion not complete. But the wicked don't waiver but, God's people do. Jesus never compromised and nowhere in the Bible will you find compromise on God's principles. The first post said it the best (by Lindsay).

IF God's people stood fast and hard for the truth God will carry the water to get it done. Abortion would end. OUR people think abortion needs to here for some of those hard cases so we can never completely get rid of it.

Mr. Schindler never went to Herr Hitler requesting that a law be made that Jews could only be killed Monday through Thursday. You save the ones you can at the clinic or wherever you encounter an aborting mother but, you don't codify into law that some babies are people worthy of protection and others are not. I have asked numerous times on this site for those who support for example, the S Dakota ban to substitute a different word for fetus like Black or Jew and see if you still want to support that law. THE ONLY ANSWER I GET ON THIS IS SILENCIO!!!!!

William Wilberforce came to this conclusion before he won the battle to end slavery. He basically realized that laws regulating slavery and ownership of blacks further entrenched the slavery mindset and its acceptability in the culture, absolute abolition was what he set his mind on from then on.

If Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act, what will be left for you incremental people to do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The only thing to end abortion would be a Federal and/or state human life amendment. Which McCain did not support. The author of that Federal Human Life Amendment did win his race though.

Posted by: Lolita at November 9, 2008 4:30 PM


I have asked numerous times on this site for those who support for example, the S Dakota ban to substitute a different word for fetus like Black or Jew and see if you still want to support that law. THE ONLY ANSWER I GET ON THIS IS SILENCIO!!!!!

I'll answer, Lolita.

YES, if the situation was the same...that black people were being legally killed in America today, that Jews were being legally killed here in America legally today, I WOULD support ANY laws which prevented as many deaths as we could possibly save.

I would support any law which reduced their killings, until we could further enact laws that would protect ALL of them.

So substitute the word Jew or Black, add in the analogous circumstance, and YES, without hesitating I would support those laws!

Posted by: Bethany at November 9, 2008 5:49 PM


If Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act, what will be left for you incremental people to do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The only thing to end abortion would be a Federal and/or state human life amendment.

Posted by: Lolita at November 9, 2008 4:30 PM
-----

You can't legislate morality. Passing laws won't stop abortion.

It must be a complete social rejection of abortion as a valid solution.

We've been systematically de-"moral"-ised over multiple generations. Ever draw a correlation between the rise of Planned Parenthood and the existence of communism as a political ideology? Take a good look at how communism works and you'll see they use abortion as an emotional population control mechanism. The tactics used by PPA and communism are exactly the same.

We cannot "install" morals in those who've been demoralized.
We can inspire and instill morals into children.

That's actually the strategy being used against us.

We have 13 year olds getting on board city buses and asking where the local abortion clinic is. Not just one, but many.

The most threatening thing to an abortionist is having a majority of his former patients, telling him he's completely wrong in what he does, and what they did.

We have to love others more than we love ourselves.

Until we understand our own complicity in not providing a completely compassionate and merciful environment for healing, and an open encouragement for victims to speak publicly about their abortion experiences, we'll fail to make real progress.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at November 9, 2008 6:03 PM


Lolita,

There is no evidence of the murder of a fetus. The baby is gone. This makes abortion different from other murder. The fear of prosecution is not as acute with aborting mothers. There are so many more murders of the born than unborn, why not try to minimize as many as we can instead of saying "all or nothing?" That's not to minimize the horror of any murder, but I think you get my point.

I think it is partially the pride of those who will settle for "all or nothing" that is contributing to the killing of babies as we speak. When God asks "Why did you let those babies die in South Dakota?" will he accept our answer? - "I wanted to do it my way!! I WAS RIGHT!!"


Posted by: Janet at November 9, 2008 6:23 PM


Natalie: Good for you. Start with your local right to life group -- if there are any crisis pregnancy centers in your area, they will be able to help you volunteer, since they will probably have a contact # (I know the sidewalk counselors in my local right to life group have the phone # for the local CPC handy if a woman changes her mind).

Amazingly true: Ultrasounds technology came to be 3 years AFTER R vs. W

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 9, 2008 6:40 PM


CORRECTION, Of course this should read:


*** There are so many more murders of the UNBORN THAN BORN,

Posted by: Janet at November 9, 2008 6:52 PM


Yllas at November 9, 2008 8:26 AM

"As Chesterton wrote, when the Church was split into Catholics and Protestants, not only were vices let lose, but virtues were then allowed to wander also. Settling on one Church and not the other."

_____


Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2008 7:20 PM


Barack Obama is a natural for the Catholic vote.

"My dear late mother would say: "Steer clear of mixing religion and politics in public discussions." Sorry, Mom, but the mix is unavoidable. Religion shapes us, and politics is our addictive national reality show. In any event, my faith, Catholicism, teaches that pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religions talk to one another.

Apparently, we're pretty persuasive. Catholics have been on the side of the top vote-getter (who, as we know from playing hanging chad, is not always the winner) in the last nine presidential elections. The Electoral College and the Supreme Court threw us a curve in 2000, but many Catholics probably put their choice of Al Gore in the "you can't blame us" department. Unlike our Jewish brothers and sisters who trend Democratic, and our Protestant friends who regularly populate Republican ranks, we're the ultimate flip-floppers, picking Republicans five times and Democrats four since 1972. Naturally, this led me straight to supporting Mitt Romney, whom McCain once snidely called "the real candidate of change," claiming that the governor changed positions more often than the rest of them (which from where I sit is a bit like asserting the Atlantic is wetter than the Pacific).

Once Romney was out, whom might Catholics turn to? Don't worry about McCain's conservative lapses, says President Bush, the foremost expert on lapsed conservativism. There is no gainsaying that McCain is a military hero deserving of salute. But McCain seems fixated on just taking the next hill in Iraq. His Iraqi military objective is laudable, but it assumes good reasons to be there in the first place. It also ignores that Catholics are looking to bless the peacemakers.

Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." Notwithstanding all of Bill Clinton's self-possessed heckling to the contrary, Obama was right—Reagan was a "transformative" president. Reagan liked to tell us he was proudest of his ability to make America feel good about itself. He did. Catholic sensibility tells me Obama wants it to deserve that feeling.

Much of the Catholic primary vote has been in the Democratic column, going at first to Hillary Clinton over Obama, as in New Hampshire, where she won 44 percent to 27 percent. But lately, Obama has been narrowing the gap, using the Catholic vote to vault to victory. In the Illinois primary, where Obama bested Clinton 65 percent to 33 percent, he attracted 48 percent of the Catholic vote. When Obama's share of the Catholic vote drops, the races tighten: In still-undecided New Mexico, only 39 percent of Catholic voters went for Obama.

Clinton lost to Obama in Maryland, the first Catholic settlement in America, but also in Virginia, where the number of Catholic households in the burgeoning northern section of the commonwealth is up more than 67 percent over the last decade. However hard-working, intelligent, and policy savvy she may be (and she is), Clinton seldom inspires even the so-called "social justice" Catholics or reveals that rare gift of empathy that defined Reagan and that one glimpses in Obama. Say what you will about not preferring style over substance, modern leadership requires both, especially now when the international community—whose help we need to arrest terrorism—seldom gives us the benefit of the doubt."

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2008 7:37 PM


Amy at November 8, 2008 12:10 PM

"I am grieved and sick atheart over what has happened here in South Dakota. We would haveprevailed if we had not been slain by our own. God have mercy."

____

Now just hold the phone - it was poorly written and would have been found unconstitutional right off the bat. Then South Dakota would have been stuck trying to defend it in court, wasting a whole bunch of money. Why not get together a decent law before going down the path?

"Did you notice the "Freak Storm" of a blizzard that came out ofnowhere and knocked out over half our state, with power still off inmany places? Coincidence?"

You have got to be kidding...

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2008 7:48 PM



Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.
Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2008 7:20 PM

Josh, be prepared for the predictable response: "Then they're not Catholics." "Anyone call call themselves a Catholic--or go to Mass every week--but no real Catholic could ever support Abortion being legal or vote for Obama."

Posted by: hal at November 9, 2008 7:53 PM


People need to start thinking things through. I would like to see a 100% ban on abortion. I would like abortion to be completely illegal in all cases. However, it can only be achieved, politically, by rolling back current abortion laws, bit by bit.

What's hard to understand about that?

Posted by: Louise at November 9, 2008 7:58 PM


*rolls eyes at hal*

Josh -- there are some that call themselves 'catholic' but they PICK and CHOOSE what they choose to believe. Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, are a few of these.

On the other foot are the Catholics who sidewalk counsel, pray weekly for the mothers going into abortuaries, volunteer at CPCs, provide financial support for those who continue the pregnancies and give birth to their babies, or they donate much needed baby items like diapers, formula, car seats, and baby clothes.

Just because someone lists 'catholic' as their religion doesn't mean they ACT Catholic.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 9, 2008 8:18 PM


Josh, be prepared for the predictable response: "Then they're not Catholics." "Anyone call call themselves a Catholic--or go to Mass every week--but no real Catholic could ever support Abortion being legal or vote for Obama."

Posted by: hal at November 9, 2008 7:53 PM


In the real world, lots and lots of Catholics have unwanted pregnancies and abortions, and they sometimes vote pro-choice. They're just as good people as the nay-sayers.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2008 8:58 PM


They're just as good people as the nay-sayers.
Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2008 8:58 PM

or better perhaps.

Posted by: hal at November 9, 2008 9:13 PM


Whether they are as good or not is not the point. The point is that if you call yourself a Catholic, then you must assent to the doctrines of the Church and Church teaching. The Pope and the Bishops in union with him, made it clear that life is the preeminent issue in voting for a political candidate. Those Catholics, who were aware of this, and voted for Obama anyway are in serious error.

Posted by: Eileen #2 at November 9, 2008 9:56 PM


Is it just possible that the first SD law failed
because the pure bill was compromised by
the campaign advertising for Plan B toward the end?

Rather than standing firm, they accommodated the polling,
which indicated rape was a sticking point.

Did advertising Plan B, point out pro-life hypocrisy - a willingness
to violate God's enduring command, "Thou shall not murder."

Posted by: lesforlife at November 9, 2008 10:36 PM


"Thou shall not murder."

Certainly has nothing to do with abortion.

Let's maintain women's rights and not let the haters take them away, whether they hide behind a mask of religion or not.

Posted by: John at November 9, 2008 10:55 PM


They're just as good people as the nay-sayers.

Chris 8:58 PM


or better perhaps.

hal 9:13 PM

Using religion to oppress women is a bad thing, no matter how "holier-than-thou" somebody tries to act.

Posted by: John at November 9, 2008 11:00 PM


Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians.

Posted by: Josh at November 9, 2008 7:20 PM

Who are and were the dominant culture in American politics and government since this nation was founded?

Let's see, one Catholic president, who was assassinated and all the rest were Protestants of some form.

Who controls the goverment at its highest level when we look for their religious affiliations?

Well, lets see, A Protestant vs a Protestant just finished telling the nation their views on abortion and their differences on abortion?

What was their differences dude? McCain, and Bush were blowing smoke over the fact that abortion is permited in their religion and culture.

The issue of abortion was decided before you were born by the Protestant religion in the 1920's at Lambeth. From religion, to wide spread culture of all Protestants in any nation of the world where they are the dominant religion and dominant in Government.

But, tell me dude, where and what study done, that was capable of actually knowing the person polled was telling the truth in any or all matters of abortion?

Or, when a Protestant president, who actually had more Armed Forces die(500,000) for the Protestant nation that he presided over, said to his economic adviser; "His comment to Leo Crowley", a Catholic economist, that, "this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and Jews are here under sufferance," and that it was up to Crowley and Morgenthau "to go along with anything that I want".

Which leads to Catholics marrying by the millions into Protestant families and deluting their faith.


It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, and why Catholics were second class citizens by the dominant culture and politics of Protestants. Who would imitate the dominant Protestant culture today, or yesterday, and if agreeing with those aborting Protestants is the price to pay to be allowed into that dominant Protestant culture, so be it.

Kmiec, being the last Catholic who actually displayed his imitation of Protestant envy, from being and knowing his second class position in the dominant Protestant culture.

He was a admirer and propagandist for Reagan as a legal counsel to that smoke blowing Reagan, who appointed O'Conner to the SCOTUS.


BTW, was, and is there any Protestant national crime family in this Protestant nation dude, as was and is endlessly written about Catholics and those Catholics in movies, books, and that latest TV series devoted to those Catholic crime family, The Sopranos? Name me one book about Protestant organized crime dude, which set up more prejudice towards Protestants as generational organized crime, such as, The Godfather?

Gee, who wants to be a Catholic after those movies and books, taken as truth of course by Protestants to assure themselves that they were "right all along about those Dago Catholics".

Why, if one was a Catholic watching those Catholic murdering machines(murdering while your child is being baptised as in those Godfather movies), you would marry a upstanding, culturally superior Protestant too.

Or at least come ot the conclusion that abortion ain't as bad as it was portrayed in your faith, while your fellow Catholics are murdering their way to the top of the multi-billlion dollar crime industry.

And when the Protestants are bored with that narrative, they replace Catholics of one nation with another nation, such as Mexico.


Another words dude, your a typical programmed outcome of a Catholic, such as Kmiec, or just another Protestant displaying your bigoted studies to enforce your dominant Protestant culture on others by any means.

Or your a Catholic, who was formally a Protestant, marrying into those second class, mafia invested Catholics, to beat them into submission, by way of just being Protestant, and knowing that Catholics "are here under the sufferance of those Proteatants".

Posted by: yllas at November 10, 2008 2:38 AM


John@10:55

The first authentic Feminists like Susan B. Anthony wanted the right to vote for women and equal opportunity for jobs. They were also against ABORTION.

Abortion does NOT liberate women -- it enslaves women. We have several post abortive women on this blog that deeply regret their abortions -- and they were all either lied to about the development of their baby or coerced into the abortion.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 10, 2008 6:46 AM


These pro-lifers are like a willful child stating: "If I can't have a whole bowl of ice cream I don't want ANY".

Why can't we take advantage of the creeping incrementalism that our opponents are so adept at. Why do we keep trying to "boil the frog" and are surprised when it keeps "jumping out of the pan"?

Posted by: Tony at November 10, 2008 8:49 AM


Tony, I'm Pro-Choice but I agree - standing on idealism is fine as far as it goes, but in the real world it's achieving nothing.

Most Pro-Lifers are willing to seek a middle ground, a compromise, and so are most Pro-Choicers.

Posted by: Doug at November 10, 2008 8:55 AM


Doug,

Wrong! There is no compromise between life and death.
Please demonstrate what pro-aborts have or are willing
to compromise on.

There is no end to their blood lust.

Posted by: lesforlife at November 10, 2008 9:21 AM


John, saying "certainly" in front of your statement doesn't actually make it an argument.

Posted by: Lauren at November 10, 2008 10:35 AM


Jills's email friend gets it.

In Nazi Germany, the chemical being used to exterminate the Jewish people was known as Zyclon A. This chemcial was successfully banned. Victory? The Nazi's merely began using Zyclon B in the extermination camps.

Pro-Life industry leaders, like Focus on the Family, and National Right to Life, proudly proclaimed that after some 15-20 years of fundraising of $250,000,000+ dollars to persuade politicians to outlaw partial birth abortion, babies were given a new and revised death sentence in Gonzales V. Carhart (Supreme Court decision April 18, 2007).

If you haven't read it, please do before you unknowingly lash out. These are Republican appointees to the Supreme Court that wrote this horror story into the annals of U.S. history. Instead of partial birth abortion (Zyklon A) the baby killers use any of 12 other methods (Zyklon B).

Why is this so hard to understand? Pro-Life means NO EXCEPTIONS. Why is it so hard to let your Yes be Yes and your No be No. Stop lying to yourself! Exceptions equals compromise. And compromise means death to these defenseless babies.

Just compare the success that Focus and NRTL claim their fundraising and lobbying achieve to the successes of countless individuals that counsel and witness outside of abortuaries everday and really do SAVE BABIES!

Posted by: theonlything2fear at November 10, 2008 11:53 AM


I wrote this email to Jill, and for the record, I did not accuse her as being pro-life with exceptions. She is not.

Points I would like refuted:

1. If you do not believe a Jew is a person, you are evil.
If you do not believe a black is a person, you are evil.
If you do not believe an unborn baby is a person, you are not pro-life. (Bush does not, McCain does not, anyone that is "pro-life with exceptions" does not.)

2. When Bush came out against the South Dakota abortion ban, he was saying, "If I can't kill these few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all."

3. Bush is not pro-life and did nothing to save babies during his 8 years as President.
If Bush was Chancellor of Germany, where Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, here is the equivalent of what Bush did for babies in the US:
He signed a law making it illegal to re-heat the ovens in Auschwitz, if a child survived the first baking. Also, it would be illegal to re-gas a Jew if one survived the gassing in the gas chamber.
He funded the grisly medical research on little Jewish boys and girls, but only from 60 particular families. (He also never condemned the grisly medical research on other Jewish boys and girls.)
The last thing he did in Germany as Chancellor was to oppose a state who tried to make it illegal to kill Jews, because he didn't believe Jews were persons and wanted it to remain legal to kill some of them.

Is that pro-Jew?

Posted by: Will D at November 10, 2008 3:10 PM


How many pro-life "incrementalists" would support these incremental laws that would save some babies?

A law limiting women to only 1 abortion in their lifetime.
A law tripling the price of abortions.
A law limiting the number of abortions that occur each year in the US.

And the devil's favorite...

A law making it illegal to kill any unborn children as long as one Christian would have one abortion.

Posted by: Will D at November 10, 2008 3:51 PM



Why are you concerned about these incremental laws? Obama will pass FOCA and you won't need to worry about them any more. They'll be gone. Sounds great doesn't it?

Posted by: Janet at November 10, 2008 8:13 PM


Les: Wrong! There is no compromise between life and death.
Please demonstrate what pro-aborts have or are willing to compromise on.

I don't think they'd be willing, since they are just as anti-choice as you.

Pro-Choicers, now, are okay in general with the restrictions we have on abortion.

There's quite a bit of support for restricting abortions to viability or even earlier, perhaps for the entire 2nd trimester.

Posted by: Doug at November 11, 2008 10:59 AM


Will: If you do not believe an unborn baby is a person, you are not pro-life.

Being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice doesn't matter, there. Personhood is an attributed status, and at present we don't grant it to the unborn. One can realize that regardless of one's moral beliefs.

Posted by: Doug at November 11, 2008 11:03 AM


Doug: Being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice doesn't matter, there. Personhood is an attributed status, and at present we don't grant it to the unborn. One can realize that regardless of one's moral beliefs.

I don't really understand your post, and I'm guessing your missing my point. Pro-lifers do not act like they really believe the unborn are people. They say they believe it and then their actions show otherwise. If they wouldn't vote for McCain if he said blacks or Jews weren't people, why would they vote for him when he doesn't believe an unborn child is a person?

Posted by: Will D at November 11, 2008 11:43 AM


Josh - "Catholics support abortion being legal in all cases or legal in most cases (roughly 50%) to a higher percent than Protestants in general, and to a much greater extent than evengelical Christians."


by: yllas at November 10, 2008 2:38 AM - "Who are and were the dominant culture in American politics and government since this nation was founded?"

"Let's see, one Catholic president, who was assassinated and all the rest were Protestants of some form."

___


What does that have to do with it? Catholics in large numbers still feel that abortion should be available.

Posted by: Josh at November 11, 2008 4:26 PM


I don't really understand your post, and I'm guessing your missing my point. Pro-lifers do not act like they really believe the unborn are people. They say they believe it and then their actions show otherwise. If they wouldn't vote for McCain if he said blacks or Jews weren't people, why would they vote for him when he doesn't believe an unborn child is a person?

Will, if I had a choice between a candidate who "wasn't sure" whether a particular race of people were people...

....and another candidate who said that if he became president, he'd see to it that ANYONE had the chance to kill that particular race of people, no matter what;

and if these two candidates were the only two options I had,

and if by voting for a third party I would actually make the chances of the latter candidate higher for winning,

I would absolutely vote for the former.

Posted by: Bethany at November 11, 2008 5:12 PM


Bethany: "Will, if I had a choice between a candidate who "wasn't sure" whether a particular race of people were people...

....and another candidate who said that if he became president, he'd see to it that ANYONE had the chance to kill that particular race of people, no matter what;

and if these two candidates were the only two options I had,

and if by voting for a third party I would actually make the chances of the latter candidate higher for winning,

I would absolutely vote for the former."

First-off, I still contend that if you do not believe a black or Jew is a person, you are not pro-black, pro-Jew, you are evil. I think we can all agree on that. In that same vain, if you do not believe the unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life. If you can admit that Bush and McCain are not pro-life, that would be a giant first step.

Okay, now you said you would vote for the former. That abyss has no bottom. The National Socialists (Nazi) actually ran against the Marxist Party (Stalin) in Germany. You would vote for which? If, for the sake of argument, the Republican nominee for the next Presidential election is worse on the abortion issue than Obama, can you please admit that you would vote for Obama? Your principles are not biblically or morally based, but are based on your fear of man.

Posted by: Will D at November 11, 2008 5:50 PM


Bethany, what about these 2 points?

2. When Bush came out against the South Dakota abortion ban, he was saying, "If I can't kill these few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all."

3. Bush is not pro-life and did nothing to save babies during his 8 years as President.
If Bush was Chancellor of Germany, where Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, here is the equivalent of what Bush did for babies in the US:
He signed a law making it illegal to re-heat the ovens in Auschwitz, if a child survived the first baking. Also, it would be illegal to re-gas a Jew if one survived the gassing in the gas chamber.
He funded the grisly medical research on little Jewish boys and girls, but only from 60 particular families. (He also never condemned the grisly medical research on other Jewish boys and girls.)
The last thing he did in Germany as Chancellor was to oppose a state who tried to make it illegal to kill Jews, because he didn't believe Jews were persons and wanted it to remain legal to kill some of them.

Is that pro-Jew?

And this one...

How many pro-life "incrementalists" would support these incremental laws that would save some babies?

A law limiting women to only 1 abortion in their lifetime.
A law tripling the price of abortions.
A law limiting the number of abortions that occur each year in the US.

And the devil's favorite...

A law making it illegal to kill any unborn children as long as one Christian would have one abortion.

Posted by: Will D at November 11, 2008 5:53 PM


Doug: "Being Pro-Life or Pro-Choice doesn't matter, there. Personhood is an attributed status, and at present we don't grant it to the unborn. One can realize that regardless of one's moral beliefs."

I don't really understand your post, and I'm guessing your missing my point. Pro-lifers do not act like they really believe the unborn are people. They say they believe it and then their actions show otherwise. If they wouldn't vote for McCain if he said blacks or Jews weren't people, why would they vote for him when he doesn't believe an unborn child is a person?

Will, I think Pro-Lifers, in general, want the unborn to have the status we give to "people."

Personhood is a legal status. Blacks and Jews have it, so saying they are "not people" does not make sense.

I think most Pro-Lifers, like most Pro-Choicers, believe there is personality, some awareness, etc., on the part of the unborn, especially late enough in gestation.

I don't know what McCain really thinks of the unborn in what we're talking about.

I really don't think you differ from most Pro-Lifers in how you view the unborn. But if your position is that "the unborn are people," then that contradicts what you want, here - that we grant the same status to the unborn that we do to the born. I'm saying that the physical reality of the unborn really isn't the issue, while public policy and the status we deem to be present is.

Posted by: Doug at November 11, 2008 7:36 PM


What does that have to do with it? Catholics in large numbers still feel that abortion should be available.

Posted by: Josh at November 11, 2008 4:26 PM

Catholics are second class citizens in matters of culture since the founding of this nation. The USA is a Protestant nation and the Protestant culture, which flows from their religious beliefs.

Protestants are a thinking religion, where thinking about God and abortion was discussed and found to be a matter of individual choice since the 1920 Lambeth Conference.

The source of moral relativism is from Protestantism making every person a source of morality by the authority of their exegesis of the bible.

You see it here every day.

You obviously have no idea of how things become part of a nation, or culture, and what a dominant culture demands of those outside that mainline culture.

Kennedy was HATED by a certain religious culture in this nation, until he had to publically state that his religion is second class to Protestantism, which represents the culture and morals of the USA.

The FBI, was "watching certain Protestant religions", which were publishing Catholic hate speech, and calling for his assassination before he was assassinated. Do you deny that the KKK is associated with certain Protestant religions dude?

That the FBI agent in Dallas, whose job was to be aware of the potential assassins, admited he was "watching" those Protestant religious dudes, which approved of segregation and Catholics being agents of the Pope. He was told to shut up and admitted to being fooled by his watching the KKK as assassins of that Popish President, and never saw it coming that a left wing extremist was what he should have been watching for assassination of that Popish President.

So, what does that have to do with Catholics becoming Protestants in belief, and Catholics in name only?

Well, you can imagine the psychological damage to a group/religion of citizens, if their first
chance at being acccepted into the highest office, which confers acceptance into that dominant Protestant culture also, is shown having his head blown off, over and over, and over for years, in some form or fashion by the dominant culture, playing off some theory of conspiracy.

Which leads to the present President elect, being a person who is fashioning a presidency imitating that first Catholic President.

Care to deny that fact jack?

The Camelot wife, and children of the first "black President" in this nation's history.

The adoration, and tears shed in joy, for another game changing President whose name is Obama.

After the murder in plain site, in a public place, in full view for all to see, the first Catholic president was murdered with impunity for all those Catholics to see what becomes of such Catholics being confered upon their religion in the most holy of holies, the President of the USA.

What was mourned in the Kennedy assassination was his being the first Cafeteria Catholic that was to unite the two distinct cultures in this nation, Protestantism and Catholics.

He showed a way to millions of Catholics, that to be Catholic in this nation, was to reject what made you a individual and distinct from that religion which is the dominant culture to this day.

That many imitate "that way to be accepted into a dominant culture" is hardly astonishing dude.

Or, didn't you hear dude? God is dead. So what's your point dude?

What is one to do? Why drop your differences toward the mainline Protestant culture, that murdered that Popish Catholic, and put another Protestant in office to replace that first in the nation president who was also about CHANGE.

Or, become like Sean Hannity, or Billbo Oreilly being in name only Catholics, and actually becoming blathering, bloviating for their personal form of Catholicism, which is nothingmore then a Protestant in fact.

What ignorance hole are you emegering from dude?

That such hate speech is written here and allowed to be posted with the approval of moderators at this site is prove of such hate of Catholics still existing. Sally, which I take my name from, being one such poster who was finally banned from insulting the person that owns this site, but not for her obvious Catholic hate speech spewed here ad nausem.

Speeks volumes of Jill, and her offering a forum for Catholic hate speech at this site, and the same resoning of those posters here, can found at a KKK rally/website, or Jack Chick's site.

When a person or group/religion/culture is allowed to be publicly attacked and degraded for centuries, that religion's followers are existing in a culture as dhimmis, and are finally accepted into that dominant culture when they covert themselves to the dominant culture, which is Protestantism.



Posted by: yllas at November 11, 2008 10:53 PM


Doug stated, "I don't know what McCain really thinks of the unborn in what we're talking about."

Just look at how the media fawned over McCain when he attacked Republicans and their agenda while wearing the "R" on his lapel. Just look at how the media attacked McCain when he acceptaed the "R" party's nomination for President. Just look at how McCain's rhetoric and slogans moved right along with Obama's to persuade you to accept their platform. Just look at what we got. Just look at what we didn't get. You will know them by their fruit.

You will know either Obama, or McCain by his fruit. Doug, just look up the bills John McCain voted in favor of for funding child killing, and the research on the tiniest of babies. This takes some time and effort.

I'm curious, Doug, do you ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing, or do you ask how her fetus, blob of tissue, or potential are doing? Person, people, human.

Is the fertilized human egg,

A. living
B. dead
C. I don't know

Posted by: theonlything2fear at November 11, 2008 11:23 PM


Doug: Will, I think Pro-Lifers, in general, want the unborn to have the status we give to "people."

Personhood is a legal status. Blacks and Jews have it, so saying they are "not people" does not make sense.

I think most Pro-Lifers, like most Pro-Choicers, believe there is personality, some awareness, etc., on the part of the unborn, especially late enough in gestation.

I don't know what McCain really thinks of the unborn in what we're talking about.

I really don't think you differ from most Pro-Lifers in how you view the unborn. But if your position is that "the unborn are people," then that contradicts what you want, here - that we grant the same status to the unborn that we do to the born. I'm saying that the physical reality of the unborn really isn't the issue, while public policy and the status we deem to be present is.

Doug, you are so lost and don't make a lot of sense. Blacks and Jews have always been persons, with a God-given right to life. When the US constitution said blacks were not persons, they were still persons with a God-given right to life and the US constitution was wrong. The unborn are persons with a God-given right to life, despite how they are treated under our current laws. McCain can disagree with current laws, no? He can disagree that blacks are persons, because his personal belief is that blacks shouldn't be recognized as persons by the US government, because they're not persons. That would be evil. He does not believe the unborn child is a person and is therefore not pro-life, pro-baby, etc.

Posted by: Will D at November 12, 2008 1:01 AM




The lunacy of Protestants, or exegesis and the intelligence of Clinton, a Protestant.


Clinton did not have sex with that women.

Because Clinton was using the Doug exegesis of the Holy Book that reduces a defintion to what a Protestant means "sex" or "abortion" to be in the Holy Book.

I did not have sex with that women because sex is reduced to intercourse, or fornication in proper "bible speak" for Clinton.

Therefore I did not have sex with that women is biblically true to Clinton, and the nation laughed, and still laughs, at such a lunatic justification for his not having sex with that women.

And for those bigots who will bring up some Catholic priest and molestation.

Did they really have sex with those young males, using the correct Clinton interpretation/exegesis of the Holy Book?

If you agreed with Clinton that he didn't have sex with that women, which was his secular defence for his actions, based on his Protestant religious interpretations of the Bible,then you must conclude that using the bible as the source for your not having sex with a women, can also apply to those priest not having sex with those young males.

And if my Protestant compass is pointing to truth, those same Protestants, that defended Clinton are also are pro choice too.

Or is there a Protestant pro lifer here ready to defend the Biblical exegesis of Clinton?

Like Doug, who was raised a Protestant and was inculcated as a boy, that if you don't have intercourse with a person, you ain't having sex dude. Right Doug?

Hey, bet McCain and the Bush's have used that bible exegesis to defend their not having sex with a women defence, since they became to know sex as a Protestant.

P.S, Doug, you do know the definition of know, you know dude?


Posted by: yllas at November 12, 2008 4:20 AM


President Bush comes out AGAINST the 2006 SD law and he is in good standing? No broken hearts? No tears? No anger? He is silent in 2008.

When Republicans help DEFEAT pro-life laws, they can still be pro-lifers in good standing? I keep bringing up the Santorum endorsement of Spectre.

But when pro-life groups work to defeat a compromised bill (ask yourself are the "exceptions" likely to be closed or expanded over time), they are in league with the devil.

People should go back and read the history of the US in particular the Abolitionist movement (I think From Sea to Shining Sea is a christian take). What worked? What didn't? What price was ultimately paid? It was a generational moral war then too. With many political compromises like the Fugitive Slave Act.

We might wish evil would disappear in a flash like the vampires at dawn, but the darkness is still too deep. And too often we wish to fight evil with evil.

Too many people were scared of the killing of a few thousand seven years ago to hold Bush and the republicans accountable for their weak stands on the life issue - we watched as Terri Schiavo was starved - Imagine if those two planes headed toward the WTC were in slow motion over two weeks and people argued about doing something.

Yet does the pro-life movement hold any politician to account, or do they try to destroy their allies?

If you are so hungry for victory that you would settle for crumbs, you should exit the battle. And there is reason to be angry, heartbroken, and fearful, but I thought love and faith and hope should drive these vices out. Don't let your broken heart break your head too.

St. Paul talks about quarreling among the early christians. But there are two problems to being unified. The first is the quarreling about how to do something. But the second is that groups will go ahead and do their own thing without trying to get support or even asking what other groups may think. There is pride in both going ahead with what you think is right, and in opposing it because you don't think it is right.

To correct that we must look inward. How can we fight the horde of demons when we aren't pure enough to see the truth. And I don't claim to know which side is right in this battle. Yet there has to be one truth instead of two or more opinions.

Holding high the standard? When we don't know what that standard is? Or how can anyone try to hold people to account when there is no standard? Or when everyone picks their own standard.

Let us first come together in love and respect and forgiveness. Then let us reason together - and let reason and not passion reign. And then our Lord will bless us with an answer and victory.

Posted by: tz at November 12, 2008 8:12 AM


I'm a little late chiming in here but I think every pro-lifer should carry a Prolife GPS. That what that can see where they are standing when they cast their vote. If a prolifers is casting the same vote as Planned Parenthood, if a prolifer is standing on the same ground as the ACLU, if a prolifer is using the same talking points as NARAL, then they just might be in the wrong place. Then that little voice inside the GPS could say, "turn right, turn right, arriving at destination on right."

Posted by: troy at November 12, 2008 8:23 AM


The reason true pro-lifers opposed this measure and CO (and the one in GA) was that they STARTED from a position of weakness and compromise not that they ENDED there after much debate and discussion. No true pro-lifers want to be on the side of lefty Clinonista John Podesta EVER, but this time some found themselves there.

Not discussed in this blog was that the SD Issue 11 would have also allowed the death of 1000s of babies created artificially in labs, IVF centers, etc. The fake science of the past 40 years was again embraced by the misguided folks pushing this issue in SD and CO.

For an excellent scientific treatment of why Issue 11 and the CO issue were not pro-life, see:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_29sdakotaabortionban.html

The writer to Jill was wrong, but so was promotion of 11 as "saving babies". It would've legitimized killing thousands, not just 1-2% as wrongly posited here.

Posted by: BoMeister at November 12, 2008 8:28 AM


First-off, I still contend that if you do not believe a black or Jew is a person, you are not pro-black, pro-Jew, you are evil. I think we can all agree on that.

I am totally with you on that.

In that same vain, if you do not believe the unborn child is a person, you are not pro-life. If you can admit that Bush and McCain are not pro-life, that would be a giant first step.

I admit that they are both not pro-life enough for me. I think to be pro-life you have to consider the fetus from the moment of conception a full person deserving of life, liberty, and justice.

Okay, now you said you would vote for the former. That abyss has no bottom. The National Socialists (Nazi) actually ran against the Marxist Party (Stalin) in Germany. You would vote for which?

Neither. I would just stay home and pray. What would be the point of voting then?

If, for the sake of argument, the Republican nominee for the next Presidential election is worse on the abortion issue than Obama, can you please admit that you would vote for Obama?

No absolutely not. At least McCain had a somewhat pro-life voting record. Obama did not. If it weren't for Sarah Palin who actually lifted my spirits during the campaign, I would have never voted for McCain.

Your principles are not biblically or morally based, but are based on your fear of man.

I was not afraid of what a man was going to do to me. I was choosing a man based on how much of a threat he was to the unborn (and on other issues, but this was the most important to me). Not out of fear, but out of what I thought was better for my country. Obama was such a threat to the unborn. He is also a threat to 2nd amendment rights and many other important issues.

I saw a vote for a third party as a vote for Obama.

If I had voted for Alan Keyes, unfortunately, I might as well have been voting for Obama. If I had had ANY belief that Alan keyes had a shot at becoming president, he would have been my choice, hands down.

I couldn't pick Obama. I couldn't let my vote be a vote for him. I had to pick McCain in order to try to stop Obama.

Bethany, what about these 2 points?
2. When Bush came out against the South Dakota abortion ban, he was saying, "If I can't kill these few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all."
3. Bush is not pro-life and did nothing to save babies during his 8 years as President.
If Bush was Chancellor of Germany, where Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, here is the equivalent of what Bush did for babies in the US:
He signed a law making it illegal to re-heat the ovens in Auschwitz, if a child survived the first baking. Also, it would be illegal to re-gas a Jew if one survived the gassing in the gas chamber.
He funded the grisly medical research on little Jewish boys and girls, but only from 60 particular families. (He also never condemned the grisly medical research on other Jewish boys and girls.)
The last thing he did in Germany as Chancellor was to oppose a state who tried to make it illegal to kill Jews, because he didn't believe Jews were persons and wanted it to remain legal to kill some of them.Is that pro-Jew?

Wouldn't those Jews who would have been saved under those laws be worth saving, if they were the only ones that COULD possibly be saved at that particular time?

If I went to a burning building full of children, and I said, "okay, I have to make a choice. I don't have time to go to all of the rooms to save all the children. I want to so bad but I just can't physically do it. I am going to try to get the children in room B". THIS is how I picture incremental laws. I can't imagine saying, "well, I can't save all of the children. So I will not do anything at all unless there is some way I can get every last one." This would be a death sentence for every child in the building!

It is TERRIBLE that we have to make these choices and that we can't save them all. But I don't think that ALL of the children should have to die because only some would be saved under further measures.

I want a personhood amendment just as badly as you! I fully support it. I fully support a ban on abortion with NO exceptions. I support ANYTHING that restricts or hinders abortion in any way. I support closing down abortion clinics one by one. I support Crisis Pregnancy Centers (and volunteer at one).

And I think many, if not most, incremental would agree with me. It is insulting and hurtful for you and others to continue to believe that you think you know how we feel about the unborn; to insinuate that we do not see them as full persons.

I see the unborn just as human as me, and just as worthy, if not moreso, of life than I.

I buried my own 6 week old child through miscarriage and it impacted me just as much as if one of my born children had died, for goodness sakes.

Will, I want to do whatever is possible to save whatever children I can right now. I want to continue working until I can save them all. But why do the children in between our battle and the win have to be doomed because of our pride and perfectionism? Gianna Jensen is alive today because someone decided that she should be 'pulled out of the gas chamber', so to speak, and saved. That person who took her to the hospital couldn't save all of the babies who survived abortion. In fact, that person who took her to the hospital was helping to kill her. But you know what? Gianna's life was WORTH SAVING, even if other lives weren't saved that day!

Do you really think that EVERY child should die if you can't save ALL of them at once? I just don't understand that.

If I had a vaccine that would eliminate cancer, but only had enough to save 100,000 people, but there was no more to help anyone else....I would give it to those people that could get it - even if that meant that some of them would not get the vaccine and some would die as a result!

Okay I have to stop talking now before I get all emotional.

Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2008 4:09 PM


I'm curious, Doug, do you ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing, or do you ask how her fetus, blob of tissue, or potential are doing? Person, people, human.

"Unborn baby" is fine with me.

That is not the same thing as attributing personhood, rights, etc.

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 6:31 PM


Will: Doug, you are so lost and don't make a lot of sense.

I make perfect sense. It's not being "lost" to note that what you want is poblic policy change - you want the unborn to have rights attributed to them, you want laws to be changed, etc.
....


Blacks and Jews have always been persons, with a God-given right to life.

You cannot prove that, though. I accept that you have the beliefs you do, but they aren't provable; they don't apply to other people, necessarily.

.....


When the US constitution said blacks were not persons, they were still persons with a God-given right to life and the US constitution was wrong.

Sigh. It never said that. There were some Supreme Court decisions that affirmed slavery along the way, that's all.
....


The unborn are persons with a God-given right to life, despite how they are treated under our current laws.

You saying that doesn't make it so. Meanwhile, in the real world the debate goes on...

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 6:35 PM


Like Doug, who was raised a Protestant and was inculcated as a boy, that if you don't have intercourse with a person, you ain't having sex dude. Right Doug?

:: laughing ::

No, yllas. That's just one more of the absurd, confused fantasies you conjure up in your twisted synapses.

I wasn't raised a Protestant, in the first place. And "sex" includes more than intercourse, and we knew that as kids.

Now then, your childhood - that's the interesting thing - and we can make some guesses about some of the stuff that went on, from what you've posted.

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 6:38 PM


Sigh. It never said that. There were some Supreme Court decisions that affirmed slavery along the way, that's all.

Doug, many times in our nations history, there have been human beings not considered "persons", for some reason or the other. How can you possibly deny it?

"In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) the United States Supreme Court—drawing upon the concepts “nonpeople” and noncitizens”—reaffirmed the denial of fundamental rights to black people and sanctioned the expansion of the slave system westward. Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney asserted that Negroes are not “constituent members” of the “sovereign people” and “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizen’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 404 (1857))

Throughout the opinion rendered in Dred Scott, the terms “people” and “citizens” are “synonymous terms, and mean the same thing” and therefore often appear together. Taney highlighted those clauses in the Constitution that, he maintained, indicated that members of “the negro race” were “not regarded as a portion of the people or citizens of the Government.” He added that “it is too plain for argument, that they have never been regarded as part of the people or citizens of the State” (ibid., 404, 411, 412).

There is a striking resemblance between the above constructs and the “person” and “nonperson” designations that operated and deny legal rights to today’s unborn victims. The Roe v. Wade assertion that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” is closely related to the Dred Scott declaration that blacks are excluded from membership in the “sovereign people” and “are not included, or were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizen’ in the Constitution.” Just as exclusion of unborn children from the constitutionally protected category of “person” relegates them to the rightless state of “nonperson,” the exclusion of blacks from the constitutionally secure classification of “sovereign people” or “citizens” reduced them to the rightless status of “nonpeople” or “noncitizens.”

Borrowing a page directly from Roe (“the unborn have never been recognized in the law as a person in the whole sense”, federal circuit court judge and former law professor John T. Noonan characterized the plight of blacks under the Dred Scott ruling in the following manner: “Nowhere henceforth could a black in the United States be protected by federal law as person I the whole sense of the term” (1979, 81).

"

" In Commonwealth v. Walosky (1931) the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided that women could not serve on juries because they were not persons according to state law. In the words of Judge C.J. Rugg, who authored this decision: “The intention of the Legislature must have been, in using the word ‘person’ in statutes concerning jurors and jury lists, to confine its meaning to men.” Moreover, he declared: “It is unthinkable that those who first framed and selected the words for this statute … had any design that it should ever include women within its scope” (Ibid., 660-661)."

Writing in The American Law Review of 1881, George Canfield summed up the precarious legal standing of Indians that permitted the wholesale assaults on Indian lands and lives: “An Indian is not a person within the meaning of the Constitution” (1881, 28)

http://www.tldm.org/News9/AbortionNonPerson.htm

Posted by: Bethany at November 12, 2008 6:41 PM



Jill, I understand your sorrow,I cried as if someone had died the night of the election.I lost heart at the thought of all those innocent little babies continueing to be slaughtered.
I too, sat in my church where nothing was mention about the election or the fact that the pro-life movement suffered a great loss.God has restored my confidence in a dream.
I was in a room filled with people that I did not recognize. Some were sitting in rocking chairs, some standing rocking back and forth, but they all held blankets in their arms.It wasn't until someone handed me a blanket and I looked down, did I realize, that we were all holding aborted babies. Someone pointed me to a rocking chair, as I cuddled what looked to be about a 26 week old baby with the umbilical cord still attached to them. No one spoke a word as we all comforted these innocent little angels,that is,until the baby that I was holding raised his little hand and rubbed the sides of my face. As a look of surprize came upon my face,as he seemed so weak to lift his arms, I then heard a voice,coming from out of nowhere, telling me that the baby's was thanking me for loving him and working hard to help save his and all the other babies lives. I suddenly awoke from this dream and could truly feel God's presence.
Let's don't give up, for we are never alone in this battle to save His beautiful little angels lives.I wanted to share this dream with you and let you know that you will be blest beyound all measures. May God bless and protect us all!
Mary Ann McAndrew

Posted by: Mary Ann McAndrew at November 12, 2008 9:39 PM


Now then, your childhood - that's the interesting thing - and we can make some guesses about some of the stuff that went on, from what you've posted.

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 6:38 PM

****

That's what I thought too.

When Yllas got out of control with Hal, she started talking about adults having sex with kids.

When Yllas totally lost it with Jess, she went on and on about parents having sex with kids.

There's something there...

Posted by: Heather at November 12, 2008 9:48 PM


Doug, many times in our nations history, there have been human beings not considered "persons", for some reason or the other. How can you possibly deny it?

I'm not denying that, Bethany. The point is that the US Constitution did not say that blacks were not persons.

As I said - there were some Supreme Court decisions that affirmed slavery along the way
.....


There is a striking resemblance between the above constructs and the “person” and “nonperson” designations that operated and deny legal rights to today’s unborn victims. The Roe v. Wade assertion that “the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn” is closely related to the Dred Scott declaration that blacks are excluded from membership in the “sovereign people” and “are not included, or were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizen’ in the Constitution.” Just as exclusion of unborn children from the constitutionally protected category of “person” relegates them to the rightless state of “nonperson,” the exclusion of blacks from the constitutionally secure classification of “sovereign people” or “citizens” reduced them to the rightless status of “nonpeople” or “noncitizens.”

I don't disagree with that. Blacks were not really accorded rights until the 13th Amendment and the Emancipation Proclamation came around, and the Civl War ended. And that wasn't even full rights, in practice.

Same for women not having the right to vote for quite a while, etc.

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 10:27 PM


When Yllas totally lost it with Jess, she went on and on about parents having sex with kids.

Heather, that would be it....

Posted by: Doug at November 12, 2008 10:29 PM


The point is that the US Constitution did not say that blacks were not persons.

Can't you see the connection here?

Blacks were not mentioned in the constitution, so people decided they could interpret the constitution in the way they saw fit, and did not give blacks full rights as persons.

Same with women, and American Indians.

What makes it any different than the situation with the unborn?

The unborn are just another victim of this irresponsible and heartless semantics game that people have been playing for centuries.

The term "Personhood" has no real meaning. It just means whatever people want it to mean at any particular time.

The unborn are human beings, and that in itself should be enough.

When we decide that people have worth, based on something as arbitrary as "personhood", you end up with slavery, the holocaust, women being denied rights, and unborn babies being slaughtered by the millions.

Posted by: Bethany at November 13, 2008 7:44 AM


Bethany: I admit that they are both not pro-life enough for me. I think to be pro-life you have to consider the fetus from the moment of conception a full person deserving of life, liberty, and justice.

Will: The pro-life movement likes using percentages, which is a disgrace. There's no such thing as being 76% against killing Jews, or 99% against slavery. If McCain or Bush were either, they wouldn't receive one vote. According to your definition, neither are pro-life and I agree with your definition.

Bethany: Neither. I would just stay home and pray. What would be the point of voting then?

Will: Exactly. I'm sure they debated which party was the "lesser of two evils", and you would be surprised how many Re-publicans would have fallen into the same trap. In this election, we had 2 men who both wanted to kill kids. My answer: Neither.

Bethany: No absolutely not. At least McCain had a somewhat pro-life voting record. Obama did not. If it weren't for Sarah Palin who actually lifted my spirits during the campaign, I would have never voted for McCain.

Will: You missed my point and also proved it. If we are going to vote for the lesser of two evils, why would that change? Remember, pro-lifers cannot act like there's such a thing as "somewhat pro-life." There's not. You can't be somewhat against killing Jews or somewhat against slavery. You're either for it or against it. In this past election we had pro-choice party A and pro-choice party B. Pro-choice party A (McCain) was pro-choice with some exceptions, and pro-choice party B (Obama) was pro-choice without exceptions.

Bethany: I was not afraid of what a man was going to do to me. I was choosing a man based on how much of a threat he was to the unborn (and on other issues, but this was the most important to me). Not out of fear, but out of what I thought was better for my country. Obama was such a threat to the unborn. He is also a threat to 2nd amendment rights and many other important issues.

Will: Exactly, your principles on voting are not biblically or morally based. The Bible says, "Do not do evil that good may come of it." Voting for a man who wants to kill kids is evil, plain and simple. The Republican party has turned the debate into this: Let's compare how many kids they each want to kill, and by what methods.

Bethany: I saw a vote for a third party as a vote for Obama.

Will: That's your mistake. A vote for Obama increases his vote total by one and doesn't affect anyone else's vote total. A vote for McCain increases his vote total by one and doesn't affect anyone else's vote total. A vote for Keyes increases his vote total by one and doesn't affect anyone else's vote total. We all knew that Obama would slaughter McCain, so if you can only vote for someone who has a chance at winning, then a vote for McCain was a wasted vote. Bethany, if Jesus ran third party in this election, you and Jill would have still voted for McCain out of fear of Obama as president. Leaders don't fight wars only if they know they will win. They do what's right no matter what. If McCain had all the third party votes, he still would have lost. Isn't that telling of something?

Bethany: Wouldn't those Jews who would have been saved under those laws be worth saving, if they were the only ones that COULD possibly be saved at that particular time?

Will: Can't you see and admit that Bush did nothing for the babies? The best evidence you have is that Bush said, "If you gas a group of Jews and as you're removing the bodies, one didn't quite die as a result of the gassing, you are not allowed to gas them again."

THEY'RE KILLING JEWS!!! This is evil!

Bush signed a law that will not save one baby, as Jill would admit, but helps the abortionist make sure the baby is dead before removal and ensures the Nazi leaves the ovens on long enough to kill the kids inside.

Bethany: If I went to a burning building full of children, and I said, "okay, I have to make a choice. I don't have time to go to all of the rooms to save all the children. I want to so bad but I just can't physically do it. I am going to try to get the children in room B". THIS is how I picture incremental laws. I can't imagine saying, "well, I can't save all of the children. So I will not do anything at all unless there is some way I can get every last one." This would be a death sentence for every child in the building!

Will: This is comparing apples and oranges. Let me explain. When Bush came out against the SD ban, it would be like him saying, "You can't save any of the kids in the burning building unless you promise to let the kids on the 3rd floor die. Those are my exceptions." To compare this burning building analogy to an incremental law, would be to say, you can only save kids in the building if you promise to let these certain kids die. I would disobey that law and try to save them all, which is what we are doing. If you people think we are sitting at home doing NOTHING waiting for the next personhood amendment, you're a fool. We do something everyday because kids are dying. The only people helping babies right now are sidewalk counselors and crisis pregnancy centers. That's it.

Bethany: I support ANYTHING that restricts or hinders abortion in any way.

Will: This is the worst thing a pro-lifer can say...Do not do evil that good may come of it. Killing abortionists is wrong, child-sacrifice is wrong, and these incremental laws are wrong:
A law limiting women to only 1 abortion in their lifetime.
A law tripling the price of abortions.
A law limiting the number of abortions that occur each year in the US.

And the devil's favorite...

A law making it illegal to kill any unborn children as long as one Christian would have one abortion.

Bethany: Gianna Jensen is alive today because someone decided that she should be 'pulled out of the gas chamber', so to speak, and saved. That person who took her to the hospital couldn't save all of the babies who survived abortion. In fact, that person who took her to the hospital was helping to kill her. But you know what? Gianna's life was WORTH SAVING, even if other lives weren't saved that day!

Agreed. The next Gianna Jessen will not survive because of the BAIPA. Just ask Jill.

Bethany: Do you really think that EVERY child should die if you can't save ALL of them at once? I just don't understand that.

No one has said this, not even me. Read carefully.

Bethany: If I had a vaccine that would eliminate cancer, but only had enough to save 100,000 people, but there was no more to help anyone else....I would give it to those people that could get it - even if that meant that some of them would not get the vaccine and some would die as a result!

Will: Of course I would too. I will leave it at this very simple truth - Would you get this vaccine if it could only be obtained by an extraction from one human child, resulting in that child losing his/her life?

Posted by: Will D at November 13, 2008 12:49 PM


Will: Blacks and Jews have always been persons...

Doug: You cannot prove that, though.

Will: Wow...

One question for you to expose you. Is a black man a person? If yes, how do you know?

Posted by: Will D at November 13, 2008 12:56 PM


Will, I can see exactly where you are coming from, and I think you are actually right.

I just feel pulled from one direction to the other, and I truly do care for the unborn. I'm trying my best to do what I can to help them, and I want to support anything that can save them.

Maybe one of my problems is not fully understanding how laws work- and because of that, I tend to rely on what others I respect say is the best idea, instead of voting fully with my convictions, and like you said, one mistake could be seeing a vote for someone else as a vote for Obama. I probably was wrong about that.

You make some very good points and have left me with much to think about. Thanks, Will.

Posted by: Bethany at November 13, 2008 4:25 PM


And no, in answer to your question, I would never knowingly give a vaccine if a child had to die for it.

Which is one reason why when I realized that there were aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines (among other things but this was the big one), I made the decision never to vaccinate my children again. I only wish I had known before my first son was born!

Posted by: Bethany at November 13, 2008 4:57 PM


"What does that have to do with it? Catholics in large numbers still feel that abortion should be available."

Posted by: Josh at November 11, 2008 4:26 PM

~~

"Catholics are second class citizens in matters of culture since the founding of this nation. The USA is a Protestant nation and the Protestant culture, which flows from their religious beliefs."

yllas at November 11, 2008 10:53 PM

~~

That big long post you wrote makes you sound crazy.

What do you want me to say for you - boo hoo hoo? Are you worried about abortion or not? More Catholics support abortion rights than do Protestants, and when you get to evangelicals it's not even a close thing. Wake up and smell the reality.

Posted by: Josh at November 13, 2008 6:42 PM


"That such hate speech is written here and allowed to be posted with the approval of moderators at this site is prove of such hate of Catholics still existing. Sally, which I take my name from, being one such poster who was finally banned from insulting the person that owns this site, but not for her obvious Catholic hate speech spewed here ad nausem."

Posted by: yllas

~~

Whoa. Once again: more Catholics are for abortion rights than are Protestants, and for evangelicals it's no contest.

That's not "running down" Catholics, that's just seeing how they feel.

Why are you worried about it, anyway? If you claim to be Catholic, your posts do more harm than good, and more harm than anybody else does or even intends for Catholicism. You're just a big ball of hate.

Posted by: Josh at November 13, 2008 6:48 PM


"That big long post you wrote makes you sound crazy."

The smoker you drink, the player you get.

Posted by: Therence at November 13, 2008 11:26 PM


Will: Blacks and Jews have always been persons...

Doug: "You cannot prove that, though."

Will: Wow...

:: snicker ::

Yeah, "Wow" - you can quote in an exceedingly selective manner

Here is the actual exchange:

Blacks and Jews have always been persons, with a God-given right to life.

"You cannot prove that, though. I accept that you have the beliefs you do, but they aren't provable; they don't apply to other people, necessarily."

The "God-given right" part is what you cannot prove.
.....

One question for you to expose you. Is a black man a person? If yes, how do you know?

Yes - rights were attributed at birth.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 12:35 AM


I just feel pulled from one direction to the other, and I truly do care for the unborn. I'm trying my best to do what I can to help them, and I want to support anything that can save them.

Bethany, that may be the most powerful testimony I have ever seen from the Pro-Life side.

It's been a pleasure getting to know you a little over the past year plus.

No question that you believe what you say, and that you fully "walk the walk" in all this stuff.

If there were no unwanted pregnancies we'd both be satisfied.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 12:39 AM


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/snowandski/734079/The-naked-Father-Christmas.html

We had spent a couple of nights in Ylläs, a small ski centre about an hour to the north-west; and a couple more at the larger resort of Levi.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 12:45 AM


Doug stated to Will's challenge..."One question for you to expose you. Is a black man a person? If yes, how do you know?

Doug..."Yes - rights were attributed at birth."

Doug, are you an ostrich? How do you know? I suggest I can tell by your head being buried in the sand. Just say it. You belive your right to life comes from man's government. That man's government defines what is and is not life.

The problem with your position is how would you define the right to a human being to live prior to the establishment of man's government?

Consider this definition of the word you used "attribute". 'to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc.,'

Can this mean that life began at the moment of fertilization, and therefeore the right to that life came from what or whom?

Posted by: theonlything2fear at November 14, 2008 10:51 AM


Bethany: You make some very good points and have left me with much to think about. Thanks, Will.

Will: No, thank you. I wasn't sure if you would read everything I wrote as it was long, so thank you for doing so.

Bethany: And no, in answer to your question, I would never knowingly give a vaccine if a child had to die for it.

Which is one reason why when I realized that there were aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines (among other things but this was the big one), I made the decision never to vaccinate my children again. I only wish I had known before my first son was born!

Will: I just recently learned about that too, and so I'm with you, no vaccines! Hey Bethany, can you help me learn how to use HTML on this site? Thanks!

Posted by: Will D at November 14, 2008 11:22 AM


Doug: The "God-given right" part is what you cannot prove.

Will: Then where does the black man's right to life come from? The government? That is evil Doug...

Doug: Yes - rights were attributed at birth.

Will: At birth? Why not from the moment of his/her creation like the Declaration of Independence says? "All men are created equal..." When were you created Doug? Not at birth!

The government cannot attribute or take away a black man's right to life like you believe. You should be ashamed of yourself. When the US Constitution said a black man was only 3/5 of a person that was wrong. You think that it was right because you think the right to life comes from man. You're absolutely wrong...

Posted by: Will D at November 14, 2008 11:30 AM


Doug: If there were no unwanted pregnancies we'd both be satisfied.

Will: That's like a Nazi saying, "If there were just no more Jews, we'd both be satisfied."

If it's not a baby, then a woman is not pregnant. Being pregnant means you're with child. It doesn't matter if a woman doesn't want her unborn child or her born child, she doesn't have the right to kill him/her.

Posted by: Will D at November 14, 2008 11:33 AM


This is very nice article.Its having lot of good ideas. its lot of funny. thanks..........
------------------
Muthu

south dakota drug rehab

Posted by: muthu Author Profile Page at November 14, 2008 1:05 PM


Doug..."Yes - rights were attributed at birth."

theonlything2fear: Doug, are you an ostrich? How do you know? I suggest I can tell by your head being buried in the sand. Just say it. You belive your right to life comes from man's government. That man's government defines what is and is not life.

How do I know? It's fact that we attribute rights at birth. At that point, the baby is a full legal human being. It's not "life" that is being defined - if there is a "head in the sand" here it's you pretending that. Status changes at birth. It doesn't "have" to be that way, but it is that way. Once the baby is out, then we say that full rights are there. Prior to that, an argument for a limited form of rights at viability could be made, I guess.

And what you want in the first place is a change in public policy. You want society to attribute rights at conception. You want the status accorded sooner.
.....


The problem with your position is how would you define the right to a human being to live prior to the establishment of man's government?

Well, when do you see "the establishment of man's government"? Prior to that, I'd bet there were still societal rules, even on a tribe-by-tribe basis. After all, rights are an idea, and there were very likely rules derived from those ideas of what was wanted and what was unwanted.

It's the same as all morality - it's ideas of what is wanted and unwanted, all the "good/bad/right/wrong" of the moral realm. If there is "nobody" to care one way or another, then there would be no morality. This isn't ruling out gods or "higher" beings than us earthly humans, either, if they would exist. They too could have their opinions.
.....


Consider this definition of the word you used "attribute". 'to regard as produced by or originating in the time, period, place, etc.,' Can this mean that life began at the moment of fertilization, and therefeore the right to that life came from what or whom?

No, that meaning is deeming the origin to be in a particluar time in history, or location, etc.

Life is there at conception, no doubt about it, but the physical reality is not at issue. Granted that "human" and alive, and an organism, etc.. That, of course, is a much different thing than saying that a status belongs to an individual or group with regard to the actions of others.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 2:03 PM


Doug: "If there were no unwanted pregnancies we'd both be satisfied."

Will: That's like a Nazi saying, "If there were just no more Jews, we'd both be satisfied."

No, because I don't want there to be "no more babies." I meant that if nobody wanted abortions, then Bethany would be satisfied (no willing abortions), and so would I since no women had legal force against what they wanted in the matter.
.....


If it's not a baby, then a woman is not pregnant

"Unborn baby" is fine with me. No argument there - pregnant is pregnant; but of course that's not the argument.
.....


Being pregnant means you're with child.

That's based on the vagaries of the language, and isn't a meaningful item for debate. One can likewise say, "She's going to have a baby" - the event will occur in the future when the pregnancy ends.

Same with people saying, "Today I became a father..." Or mother, or aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc., - it's at birth.
.....


It doesn't matter if a woman doesn't want her unborn child or her born child, she doesn't have the right to kill him/her.

All that's there is your opinion that it should not be that way. I don't think your desire trumps the desire of the woman who is actually pregnant, anymore than I think somebody should be able to tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion. I also don't think you desire trumps my desire for women to keep the freedom they now have.

And they do have the right. Here too - it doesn't "have" to be that way in any external or absolute sense, but it is that way.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 2:10 PM


Wow! I saw that Bethany acknowledged Will D's powerful argument, but it seems that NO ONE has been able to rebut Will D's startling points:

Points I would like refuted:

2. When Bush came out against the South Dakota abortion ban, he was saying, "If I can't kill these few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all."

3. Bush is not pro-life and did nothing to save babies during his 8 years as President.
If Bush was Chancellor of Germany, where Hitler made it legal to kill Jews, here is the equivalent of what Bush did for babies in the US:
He signed a law making it illegal to re-heat the ovens in Auschwitz, if a child survived the first baking. Also, it would be illegal to re-gas a Jew if one survived the gassing in the gas chamber.
He funded the grisly medical research on little Jewish boys and girls, but only from 60 particular families. (He also never condemned the grisly medical research on other Jewish boys and girls.)
The last thing he did in Germany as Chancellor was to oppose a state who tried to make it illegal to kill Jews, because he didn't believe Jews were persons and wanted it to remain legal to kill some of them.

Is that pro-Jew?

Wow. Great job Will.

Posted by: BobEnyart at November 14, 2008 6:40 PM


When Bush came out against the South Dakota abortion ban, he was saying, "If I can't kill these few babies, I'd rather it be legal to kill them all."

No, he was saying there needs to be provisions made for the health of the woman. In no way is it only a question of the baby.

Posted by: Doug at November 14, 2008 7:23 PM


Will: I just recently learned about that too, and so I'm with you, no vaccines! Hey Bethany, can you help me learn how to use HTML on this site? Thanks!

Sure! If you'll go to this website, it has step by step instructions:

For underlining text:
http://ilovethecode.com/HTML/HTML-Tutorials-How_To-Easy/HTML_Underline_Text.shtml

To make italic font:
http://ilovethecode.com/HTML/HTML-Tutorials-How_To-Easy/Make_Italic_Text_Using_HTML.shtml

To make bold font:
http://ilovethecode.com/HTML/HTML-Tutorials-How_To-Easy/Make_Text_Bold_Using_HTML.shtml

Posted by: Bethany at November 15, 2008 9:16 AM


Wow! I saw that Bethany acknowledged Will D's powerful argument, but it seems that NO ONE has been able to rebut Will D's startling points:
Wow. Great job Will.

Bob,

I can't remember what exactly we were speaking about at the time, but I do remember that on another topic Will was able to change my mind and convict my heart using God's Word, just as he did here.

One thing that separates Will from some others who are within his group is his humility. I can definitely see Christ through his actions.

There are some others who have come here who have been trying to prove the same points, and have not been able to change any hearts because they are too proud and arrogant and they only insult those who disagree with them. They seem to come from hate and not love. It has made me want to distance myself from your group very much.

Will stands out as being different from them, and I appreciate that. He has helped me be more open to understanding more clearly what you are all trying to say.

Posted by: Bethany at November 15, 2008 9:26 AM


The part that really convicted me was this statement:

"Bethany, if Jesus ran third party in this election, you and Jill would have still voted for McCain out of fear of Obama as president. Leaders don't fight wars only if they know they will win. They do what's right no matter what. If McCain had all the third party votes, he still would have lost. Isn't that telling of something?"

I now understand what the problem is. And next time I will vote my convictions and not out of fear.

Posted by: Bethany at November 15, 2008 9:31 AM


""Bethany, if Jesus ran third party in this election, you and Jill would have still voted for McCain out of fear of Obama as president. Leaders don't fight wars only if they know they will win. They do what's right no matter what. If McCain had all the third party votes, he still would have lost. Isn't that telling of something?"

I now understand what the problem is. And next time I will vote my convictions and not out of fear. "

Wow, yes, that is a good point. A while back, Bob Kyffin wrote a BEAUTIFUL and strong argument for me as to why incramentalism will not work. So I too, Bethany, am struggling with all of this, trying to figure out what the correct course of action is. And I as well, appreciated the fact that Bob Kyffin was kind and argued his point without being condescending.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 15, 2008 10:35 AM


Doug, you didn't even attempt to answer the tough questions, because there are no answers. You believe the black man's right to life comes from the government. You're wrong. Here's an easy way to prove that. For the sake of argument, if the government said I had the right to kill you, would you protest? Of course...

Doug, the Dec. of Ind. says "all men are created equal." When were you created? You didn't answer this same question before, because you know you were created at the moment of fertilization.

No, because I don't want there to be "no more babies." I meant that if nobody wanted abortions, then Bethany would be satisfied (no willing abortions), and so would I since no women had legal force against what they wanted in the matter.

There should be legal force when any woman wants to kill her child, born or unborn. If a woman wanted to kill her born child, I'm sure you would argue that sometimes you think it's okay. It's not!

"Unborn baby" is fine with me. No argument there - pregnant is pregnant; but of course that's not the argument.

It's never okay to kill a baby, right Doug? A baby is always innocent.

That's based on the vagaries of the language, and isn't a meaningful item for debate. One can likewise say, "She's going to have a baby" - the event will occur in the future when the pregnancy ends.

Same with people saying, "Today I became a father..." Or mother, or aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc., - it's at birth.

Being pregnant means your with child, no matter what people say. That's why they call it "giving birth." The woman gives something, birth, to her unborn living child.

All that's there is your opinion that it should not be that way. I don't think your desire trumps the desire of the woman who is actually pregnant, anymore than I think somebody should be able to tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion. I also don't think you desire trumps my desire for women to keep the freedom they now have.

And they do have the right. Here too - it doesn't "have" to be that way in any external or absolute sense, but it is that way.

It's not my opinion. That truth would exist even if I didn't exist. A woman doesn't have the right to kill a child, whether it's hers or not, born or unborn. You can't beat the truth Doug. Here's an easy way to show this. PLEASE admit this to the reading audience. Since you believe that a woman's right to kill her child comes from the government, then please admit that if the US Constitution is amended to protect the unborn, that you will then fight against any woman desiring an abortion. Of course you will say no, proving you contradict yourself and proving that you really don't think women's rights come from the government. Then for the million dollar question, where do women's rights come from?

Posted by: Will D at November 16, 2008 5:23 PM


Will:Doug, you didn't even attempt to answer the tough questions, because there are no answers. You believe the black man's right to life comes from the government. You're wrong. Here's an easy way to prove that. For the sake of argument, if the government said I had the right to kill you, would you protest? Of course...

Sure, if I wanted to live I'd protest. The fact remains that rights come from society.
....


Doug, the Dec. of Ind. says "all men are created equal." When were you created? You didn't answer this same question before, because you know you were created at the moment of fertilization.

I agree that yes - there was the zygote there, sure. However, the DOI was about white, male landowners telling England and King George to go screw off. It wasn't really about women and minorities, for example - in no way were they equal then. And it certainly wasn't about the unborn. Abortion was legal to quickening before, during and after the writing of the DOI.
.....


"No, because I don't want there to be "no more babies." I meant that if nobody wanted abortions, then Bethany would be satisfied (no willing abortions), and so would I since no women had legal force against what they wanted in the matter."

There should be legal force when any woman wants to kill her child, born or unborn. If a woman wanted to kill her born child, I'm sure you would argue that sometimes you think it's okay. It's not!

That's your opinion on the "child" in the first place. And no, once born the baby has rights and there's no good argument for killing it. I also support the restrictions we've got on abortions past viability.
.....


"Unborn baby" is fine with me. No argument there - pregnant is pregnant; but of course that's not the argument."

It's never okay to kill a baby, right Doug? A baby is always innocent.

I don't think you really need every pregnancy to be continued. People end pregnancies because they are unwanted, not because the unborn are "guilty." There's no capacity for guilt in the first place.
.....


"That's based on the vagaries of the language, and isn't a meaningful item for debate. One can likewise say, "She's going to have a baby" - the event will occur in the future when the pregnancy ends."

Same with people saying, "Today I became a father..." Or mother, or aunt, uncle, grandparent, etc., - it's at birth."

Being pregnant means your with child, no matter what people say. That's why they call it "giving birth." The woman gives something, birth, to her unborn living child.

It's a subjective thing, though. "Child or not" is in the eye of the beholder.
....


"All that's there is your opinion that it should not be that way. I don't think your desire trumps the desire of the woman who is actually pregnant, anymore than I think somebody should be able to tell a woman with a wanted pregnancy to have an abortion. I also don't think you desire trumps my desire for women to keep the freedom they now have.

And they do have the right. Here too - it doesn't "have" to be that way in any external or absolute sense, but it is that way."

It's not my opinion.

Oh yes it is.
.....


That truth would exist even if I didn't exist.

Yes, there are things like logic and physical reality that are that way, but morality and all the "shoulds" and "should nots" in the moral realm are not that way.
.....


A woman doesn't have the right to kill a child, whether it's hers or not, born or unborn.

Well, she has the right to have an abortion, to viability, anyway, and it's that fact that has you upset.
.....


You can't beat the truth Doug. Here's an easy way to show this. PLEASE admit this to the reading audience. Since you believe that a woman's right to kill her child comes from the government, then please admit that if the US Constitution is amended to protect the unborn, that you will then fight against any woman desiring an abortion.

You are presuming I would always agree with the gov't, though, and that's your error.
.....


Of course you will say no, proving you contradict yourself and proving that you really don't think women's rights come from the government. Then for the million dollar question, where do women's rights come from?

Rights do come from the gov't/society, but if the gov't said that blacks no longer had rights, I would not agree with it. Nor would I agree with taking away the rights that women now have.

In the US, women's rights come from the principles of liberty and freedom found in the Constitution.

Posted by: Doug at November 18, 2008 10:48 AM


Will,

I am really ashamed of myself. I was a little too hasty in conceding the other day. I thought about it and prayed about it, talked to my husband about it, and I realized that although your ideals sound logical and correct, they just aren't...at least, not from where I am standing.

I don't want you to take what I'm saying the wrong way. I believe that you're really trying to do what you think is best, and I appreciate that and I know that you will continue to fight for the unborn.

I completely understand where you are coming from on this, and I have struggled with the purist/incremental strategies ever since I found out there even existed such a debate about a year ago.

Here is my problem. I cannot fathom it being okay to let children that could be saved in the meantime (while we are working towards a total ban on abortion), being let to die because we are too stubborn to allow them to be saved while we work on perfect laws.

I think that the burning building analogy still fits. I really don't think that it can be like the analogy you presented, although I carefully thought about it and even agreed with you for a little while.

Why would we allow some children to continue burning, just so that we could one day save ALL other children in other burning buildings? Those children in the first burning building matter too. In other words, the children who could have been saved by the South Dakota abortion ban mattered, and now they are going to die in the meantime while some people fought to allow them to die because they wanted to have a perfect ban. They could have been saved. Not all of the children could have, but SOME of them could have been saved!

This hurts me more than I can tell you. How could someone fight against something that could have saved so many lives RIGHT NOW? I feel that THAT is evil, and not the other. But I understand that your ideas are much different and that you have your reasons for believing what you do.

I understand that you see a law as selecting some children to save and some not to save. However, the law, as it is today is saying, "You can kill ALL unborn children, from conception to term (and even beyond)". That isn't our fault. And that isn't George Bush's fault. The supreme court ruled in 1973 that all babies can be killed.

What we (incrementals) are trying to do, is take away some of those who would be killed under the law, until the day that we can ban ALL abortions. And we ARE fighting towards banning them all.

We are not saying "and then you can kill the baby".. it is much more likely that fighting against such a ban is saying, "And you can kill ALL of them until we have our perfect ban".

I understand that you disagree with me on this. You see it as us compromising but that is not what this is about.

This is about saving the ones we can, when we can. These are real lives, real babies. Just imagine that you are seeing these groups of babies laying there, ready to be killed.

Imagine that you could only save some of these babies. No matter what you WANTED to do, this was all you COULD do, legally. I can't imagine anyone would would stand there and not try to save the ones they could, even if they couldn't save them all.

I will continue to work to support saving ANY babies that I can save, right now. I just can't imagine giving up on those babies. I can't do it.

I heard something the other day that didn't settle right with me...and I just wanted to get you to clarify it for me so I can know if it's true or not. Does your group support a ban on all third trimester abortions?

If that is true, then isn't it also true that this would be an incremental law? An incremental law which one could interpret to mean "and you can kill all of the 1st and 2nd trimester babies"?

If this is true, then I think that the Colorado Right to Life group is being hypocritical in condemning pro-lifers for doing something that they themselves do.

Another thing I have been thinking about this week. No matter WHO you vote for, they are going to have sin in their life, and some part of their life will be evil. That is because we are a fallen creation.

If a person who is completely pro-life with no exceptions was running for president, but he was also an adulterer, would that make it evil to vote for him? What if he was a liar? What if he was a thief, but was completely pro-life?

I think in theory your ideas do work. But in practice, many babies are destroyed while we wait for these perfect laws to pass. And there are no perfect people to vote for as president.

I'm very sorry for having conceded the other day, Will. I respect you very highly, and would never want to hurt you. But I just can't agree with you on this topic, even though for a moment there I did think I could. Again, I'm sorry.

Posted by: Bethany at November 18, 2008 4:58 PM


Wow, that too was beautiful, and some great points.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at November 18, 2008 5:17 PM


Bethany, that was one heck of a post.

Posted by: Doug at November 20, 2008 3:47 PM


Dear Bethany, Quoting you..."I think in theory your ideas do work. But in practice, many babies are destroyed while we wait for these perfect laws to pass. And there are no perfect people to vote for as president."

Child, time for a new hobby. Just listen to yourself. Have someone read aloud to you a post you disagree with, and then have them read aloud to you your response.

Is God's enduring command Do Not Murder a theory?

Did God really need to tell us Do Not Murder to know it is WRONG to kill an innocent human life?

When 9 men on the Supreme Court heard the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, and the majority came to the conclusion that murdering a human child in the womb is, well, a right to privacy, DID THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

Most babies are destroyed whether you "wait", or are actively witnessing to a mother with a death wish. The mother allows the murder of her child. If she believes that this is legal, DOES THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

WE DON'T NEED A NEW PERFECT LAW, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. People are not basically good, we are basically evil. THAT IS WHY MOST CHOOSE WHAT IS WRONG, CHOOSE WHAT IS EVIL.

If a mother with child signs the informed consent documents and then, after 24 hours, kills her baby, DOES THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

Show me any President in the last 100 years who is 100% Pro-Life, without exceptions, and I'll show you a two-faced liar propped up, or put down by the media.

Show me just ONE Supreme Court Justice, appointed by the so-called Pro-Life Republican party, that is Pro-Life and I'll open the blinds so that you might begin to see. Politicians and laws are NOT the answer. Just an excuse to sit at a computer and emote about things you are passionate about.

Go convince a murderous mother to not kill her baby, and maybe, just maybe, when you hold that baby for the first time you'll hear the breath of life, and feel the heart beat of life, and see the joy in the child's eyes for you helping to cancel her silent scream for help.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 27, 2008 1:08 AM


When "choice" was redefined as ripping the arms and legs off of a sleeping, dreaming, precious and innocent baby in the womb, I became anti-choice.

If you claim to be pro-choice and enjoy killing babies, can you be pro-choice and choose life?

Why is a baby killer at Planned Parenthood called a doctor? All the doctors I know take a sick baby under their care and help them to become well. Whereas the "doc" at PP takes a healthy baby and makes them sick, then dead.

Killing your pre-born child does not stop you from becoming a mother, it just makes you the mother of your dead baby.

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 27, 2008 1:19 AM


Dear Bethany, Quoting you..."I think in theory your ideas do work. But in practice, many babies are destroyed while we wait for these perfect laws to pass. And there are no perfect people to vote for as president."
Child, time for a new hobby. Just listen to yourself. Have someone read aloud to you a post you disagree with, and then have them read aloud to you your response.

I've read my responses aloud to my husband, and I'm well aware of what they say, GINW.

Is God's enduring command Do Not Murder a theory?

No.


Did God really need to tell us Do Not Murder to know it is WRONG to kill an innocent human life?

Yes.

When 9 men on the Supreme Court heard the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, and the majority came to the conclusion that murdering a human child in the womb is, well, a right to privacy, DID THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

Nope. Preaching to the choir here.

Most babies are destroyed whether you "wait", or are actively witnessing to a mother with a death wish. The mother allows the murder of her child. If she believes that this is legal, DOES THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

No. Where have I ever implied it does?

WE DON'T NEED A NEW PERFECT LAW, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. People are not basically good, we are basically evil. THAT IS WHY MOST CHOOSE WHAT IS WRONG, CHOOSE WHAT IS EVIL.

I'm honestly failing to see your point.

If a mother with child signs the informed consent documents and then, after 24 hours, kills her baby, DOES THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT?

No.

Show me any President in the last 100 years who is 100% Pro-Life, without exceptions, and I'll show you a two-faced liar propped up, or put down by the media.

Like I said before, you'll never find a president who is perfect. We live in a fallen creation, and you will never see a single person who is perfect.

Show me just ONE Supreme Court Justice, appointed by the so-called Pro-Life Republican party, that is Pro-Life and I'll open the blinds so that you might begin to see. Politicians and laws are NOT the answer. Just an excuse to sit at a computer and emote about things you are passionate about.

So what is the answer then, if not a law?

Go convince a murderous mother to not kill her baby, and maybe, just maybe, when you hold that baby for the first time you'll hear the breath of life, and feel the heart beat of life, and see the joy in the child's eyes for you helping to cancel her silent scream for help.

I still am not understanding what your point is.

I have held a tiny helpless baby in my arms ...my own, who died in miscarriage. I have not canceled any child's screams for help. I work every day against abortion.

Where am I ignoring a child's screams for help? You know what I hear right now? Over 700 babies in SD crying because they have not been saved when they could have been- and not of my doing. That is what I hear.

When "choice" was redefined as ripping the arms and legs off of a sleeping, dreaming, precious and innocent baby in the womb, I became anti-choice.

I did too. Preaching to the choir.

If you claim to be pro-choice and enjoy killing babies, can you be pro-choice and choose life?

Wait a minute- so you think I'm pro-abortion?? Really? Please take a look at my posts again. I, like you, am anti-choice when the choice is abortion.

Why is a baby killer at Planned Parenthood called a doctor?

I call them abortionists or murderers.

All the doctors I know take a sick baby under their care and help them to become well. Whereas the "doc" at PP takes a healthy baby and makes them sick, then dead.

I agree!

Killing your pre-born child does not stop you from becoming a mother, it just makes you the mother of your dead baby.

I am not sure whether you actually read my post because I have not once advocated abortion. Not even the remotest chance that I would ever support it. Please re-read and try to understand what I was actually saying.

Posted by: Bethany at November 27, 2008 11:30 AM


Bethany, admit one thing:

We don't have one Supreme Court justice that believes in Personhood. That means that SCOTUS is more likely to overturn Roe and give it back to the states, then overturning Roe with a personhood amendment. Knowing that, can you agree that the SD law that you and Jill supported would authorize abortion in SD if SCOTUS overturned Roe? This means that you and Jill would have to fight the overturning of Roe to escape guilt for helping to authorize the murder of innocent children in SD.

Posted by: Will D at November 28, 2008 2:21 PM


Bethany stated..."I've read my responses aloud to my husband, and I'm well aware of what they say, GINW."

You did not follow the directions. I believe that if you heard aloud an opposite point of view, then heard aloud your actual response to that, this might reveal why you are OK with some babies being killed. Or, have a contrary point of view read aloud to you and then tape your immediate verbal response, as if in an actual debate, might be even more revealing.

Bethany stated..."I think in theory your ideas do work." at 11/18 4:58 PM. I asked if God's enduring command DO NOT MURDER is a theory, and Bethany responded with, "No." Will D stands firm on Do NOT Murder, thus obeying God and not evil. You, nor Will D are responsible for the mother that kills her precious child in the womb. But, what if we had an army of Pro-Life Christians that took Will D's stand and that army could witness to every mother before she walked into her babies death chamber?

Bethany stated..."But in practice, many babies are destroyed while we wait for these perfect laws to pass." I commented...Most babies are destroyed whether you "wait", or are actively witnessing to a mother with a death wish. The mother allows the murder of her child. If she believes that this is legal, DOES THAT MAKE THE MURDER OF A CHILD RIGHT? Bethany took this personally and replied, "No. Where have I ever implied it does?"

I commented..."WE DON'T NEED A NEW PERFECT LAW, WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. People are not basically good, we are basically evil. THAT IS WHY MOST CHOOSE WHAT IS WRONG, CHOOSE WHAT IS EVIL. Bethany replied with, "I'm honestly failing to see your point."

That's it. If you really fail to see the morality of that statement. That's it. It seems, as I read how you respond to many on this blog, that you take personally that which you have no ownership of. Perhaps Will D has reached your heart and you realized that you can get out of your head to make these moral decisions. I'd say, just as Jesus touched your heart, we must also touch the hearts of the women who would destroy their child.

Bethany stated..."I have held a tiny helpless baby in my arms ...my own, who died in miscarriage. I have not canceled any child's screams for help. I work every day against abortion." I am deeply sorry your child did not come to know your love for him, or her. I am confident, your baby is with Jesus!

BTW, what do you do every day "against abortion"?

I commented..."If you claim to be pro-choice and enjoy killing babies, can you be pro-choice and choose life? and Bethany replied, "Wait a minute-so you think I'm pro-abortion?? Really? Please take a look at my posts again. I, like you, am anti-choice when the choice is abortion." It was a general statement to help you realize that using any of the terminology of those who support killing babies is wrong. A med student gets a job at PP, and believe they are now a doctor. Their practice is killing babies. Thus, they are a baby killer. Not a pro-choice med student, not a doctor, not an abortionist. These terms are invented and sold for consumption to lessen the evil of what they are doing. And the Pro-Life community swallows this bait, hook, line, and sinker.

I commented..."Why is a baby killer at Planned Parenthood called a doctor? And Bethany replied,..."I call them abortionists or murderers."

I suggest murderer will suffice.


Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 28, 2008 10:29 PM


Will D stated..."We don't have one Supreme Court justice that believes in Personhood. That means that SCOTUS is more likely to overturn Roe and give it back to the states, then overturning Roe with a personhood amendment. Knowing that, can you agree that the SD law that you and Jill supported would authorize abortion in SD if SCOTUS overturned Roe? This means that you and Jill would have to fight the overturning of Roe to escape guilt for helping to authorize the murder of innocent children in SD."

Yes!

I have challenged many on this blog to read Gonzales v. Carhart, of April 2007, where the majority on the current, Republican majority appointed Supreme Court justices, ruled that partial birth abortion could only be performed if the medical practitioner did not actually mean to allow the baby to deliver past the naval, and that a less shocking method of killing the partially born baby would be more palatable to the American public, and then proceeded to give some recommendations of what might be considered more palatable. I suggested having Kleenex, a pillow to punch, and a vomit bag handy while reading this ruling that, yes John Roberts and Sam Alito ruled in favor of.

To this day, not one has responded. The silence is deafening. And this ruling was praised by Dr. James Dobson as a victory! That is until American Right to Life had the guts to call upon Dr. Dobson to repent, which he did, and even went as far as admitting that "this ruling did not have the legal authority to save the life of even one unborn child".

What Dr. Dobson failed to do, in my opinion, was apologize for the fundraising of $250,000,000.00, and lobbying of politicians that care more about their own career than the life of a precious, defenseless baby that is being ripped apart in horror. After all, they don't hear their silent screams. But, hey some people got a seat at the political table, and are politely told to shut their mouths.

And yes, Dr. Dobson's admissions, in writing, would not have been complete without the all too familiar donation card. If $250,000,000.00 could not save the life of even one unborn child, but a sidewalk counselor, or crisis pregnancy counselor can, then ask yourself, why would I support a Pro-Life Industry of professional fundraisers, when I could be out on the front lines where babies and mothers are being saved from the horror so many just cheaply call "abortion"?

Posted by: GODISNOWHERE at November 28, 2008 10:49 PM


You did not follow the directions. I believe that if you heard aloud an opposite point of view, then heard aloud your actual response to that, this might reveal why you are OK with some babies being killed.

But I am NOT okay with some babies being killed! I am not okay with even one being killed. Ever. And I most certainly am not okay with 100 percent being killed (which is what is obviously happening now) while we wait for a future day when all future babies could be saved. I care about the present babies too. They are just as important as the ones which will be conceived in the future.

But, what if we had an army of Pro-Life Christians that took Will D's stand and that army could witness to every mother before she walked into her babies death chamber?

I hope that one day this will be the case (that every woman walking into an abortion clinic will be witnessed to and their minds changed, and given help). There are many pro-lifers doing this every day, and hopefully the number of people doing this will continue to grow.

That's it. If you really fail to see the morality of that statement. That's it.

No. I did not fail to see the morality in the statement. I failed to see how it applied to me, and my arguments.

It seems, as I read how you respond to many on this blog, that you take personally that which you have no ownership of.

I don't understand what you mean here either? Do you mean I am blaming myself for something I am not guilty of? I'm really not sure what you are trying to say.

I am deeply sorry your child did not come to know your love for him, or her. I am confident, your baby is with Jesus!

I am too...thank you so much for the kind words of condolences. One blessing that has come out of my miscarriage is that some people after seeing images of my baby, and hearing my story, have chosen to not have abortion. I got an email just a few months ago from a woman who actually had an appointment set for abortion and she canceled it after reading my story and seeing the pictures- and now she is looking forward to having her baby. God works in mysterious ways.
If you haven't seen them before, you can see them here:
http://www.misdiagnosedmiscarriage.com/mycommunity/viewtopic.php?t=8339&sid=2fc2df47081608af11fbf377ee294e63

BTW, what do you do every day "against abortion"?

I don't do as much as some people... but here are a few things I do:

One of them is sharing my miscarriage story, and I am actually working on a book which will hopefully cover everything I can possibly think of about miscarriage, comforting women who have had them, giving validation to their loss, and letting them know that their little one is in heaven. I think that this is an important step in the abortion battle, as so many women who miscarry are led to feel guilty for grieving their baby, because it's just a "blob of tissue" etc. It is just another way that the abortion crowd is devaluing life in the womb. People who actually grieve their miscarriages are mistreated and told to "get over it". It's just not right, and I want to do something about that.

Another thing I do is volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center...it's a wonderful little place. I am hoping that we will get more counselors soon so we will be able to reach more people.

I sign petitions, send letters to congressmen, have been to one pro-life demonstration in our town. We have no abortion clinics to protest here so I have never done that.

I offer to adopt children from women who are abortion minded. And that offer stands to anyone who posts here and is considering abortion too. I'd be more than happy to take in any child that is destined to abortion otherwise.

I also try to change minds on this blog.

I teach my 3 children about the value of life.

I know this is not much but this is what I do every day in an effort to put an end to abortion.

It was a general statement to help you realize that using any of the terminology of those who support killing babies is wrong.

But that is what is confusing me. I already know those things and agree with you. You are trying to convince someone who is already on your side.

A med student gets a job at PP, and believe they are now a doctor.

I agree that they are not doctors in any sense of the word. Doctors heal, abortionists kill.

Their practice is killing babies. Thus, they are a baby killer. Not a pro-choice med student, not a doctor, not an abortionist.

I know! Believe me, I know. I don't think you really realize what my beliefs are.

These terms are invented and sold for consumption to lessen the evil of what they are doing. And the Pro-Life community swallows this bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Not this pro-lifer.

Posted by: Bethany at November 29, 2008 1:53 PM