Hey FMF, good luck with the protests. Just don't plan any in winter... or when it's raining... or when it's really hot.... or that longer than 30 minutes.... Feminist girls don't like being put out, just putting out. That's what this is all about, right? Their freedom to do that.

I just love this quote. It's so true.

I think it's a horrible thing to say. The snide comments about alleged sexual activity are really unnecessary.

Alexandra, boil it down. Why do college girls want the freedom to abort? Follow the dots backward.

"Feminist girls don't like being put out, just putting out"

True for most girls actually. The smart ones don't get pregnant though! ;)

Alexandra, I think it is really and truly true.

Today's feminists are in a totally different category than true feminists- (like a past true feminist Susan B Anthony, etc).

I think when Jill mentions feminists, she is not talking about feminists that simply believe that women should have equal rights. Wanting women to have equal rights is true feminism.

She is talking about the distorted feminism we see today- particularly in women like in the above video; Women who think women should have extra rights and privileges, who will stop at nothing to get what they want- even if it hurts and destroys others in order to get it.

Alexandra at February 26, 2009 6:22 PM
----

What's snide? Without intercourse there's no pregnancy.

Seriously though... is this a new thing here in the U.S.? Because I remember hearing allegations/warnings against pro-life preganacy centers (actually centres!) in Canada 20 or so years ago.

the CPCs I know of have fetal development information, free ultrasounds, parenting classes, maternity clothes, free baby supplies (all donated by generous supporters of LIFE) and information on adoption. Prenatal and Infant Care Education
Referrals to Community Resources and Agencies
Post-Abortion Counseling and Support Groups (like Project Rachel I am assuming).

And recently, local pro lifers have assisted a young mother with rent and getting her car fixed.

It makes me absolutely furious to see them out there, chanting for truth, in a concerted effort to keep women ignorant and isolated for the benefit of abortion profiteers. I'm biting my tongue into hamburger to stop from hurling at them epithets mainly focused on the part of the anatomy they seem to think with. And it's not the part between the ears.

They just want to keep presenting abortion as some kind of "cure-all", don't they? It's pathetic. There are health risks with every other type of surgery, so why not be real and admit there are health risks with abortion? Kanye West's mother died having plastic surgery, but no, abortion is absolutely risk-free.

The way that a lot of pro-choice people dismiss the link between abortion and mental health issues just sickens me. There are women who are suffering and these people want to paint them as women who were always "unbalanced", or dismiss their problems by saying that if there were no social stigma towards abortion, they wouldn't feel guilty. For anyone who hasn't, I highly recommend reading the book "Forbidden Grief".

These people think they've got the monopoly on "helping women", and pro-lifers are unsympathetic and condemning. Pregnancy care centers mess with their mythology. The "villains" don't look so mean when they're volunteering their own precious time to help women with unexpected pregnancies.

Are there any stories about women who went to, say, Planned Parenthood and were presented with helpful information about all their options? Has anyone ever gone to Planned Parenthood and heard, "If you don't choose abortion but aren't prepared to raise a child, here's information about adoption"? I'm sure that someone has, but for every one of those people there are probably hundreds more who heard "The test is positive, you're definitely pregnant. We can schedule you for an abortion on..." That's if they actually say "abortion", that is. I can't count the number of times I've encountered pro-choice arguments that will only talk about "terminating" or "ending the pregnancy".

This is actually a good sign. It means they are losing. I'd love to have the opportunity to take two video camera out there and interview them - ask them serious thought provoking questions - like this:

http://vimeo.com/3176446

Christina at February 26, 2009 6:52 PM
-----

Christina - don't be angry at them - have sorrow upon them. They're in the dark more than they'll ever know - and still they think they're enlightened.

Christ's righteousness showed the people of Israel just how dark and evil the Pharisees were.

The question is really - how much do the protesters hate women and children? And themselves?

I guess college women who advertise they're pro-birth control and pro-abortion are much in demand on weekends.

Oh my gosh! This may be the most clever quip I have ever heard from you, Jill! I want to steal it and claim it as my own. This is the first time I can write LOL and have actually LOLed.

You so brilliant!

True for most girls actually. The smart ones don't get pregnant though! ;)

So it's not the behavior that's bad- it's the babies? That explains why killing the babies is considered an acceptable answer for you.

You can stereotype "most girls" all you want. I, for one, am not most girls.

Obviously there is no pregnancy without sex. I have never disputed that fact. And criticism of many feminists today is certainly valid. But it certainly doesn't lend you any credibility to use the sex lives of other people as a punch line. I am disgusted by the comments that often come from "feminists" every time the Duggars have another kid -- comments about what sex with her must be like, or how you'd think they'd have figured out by now what causes pregnancy, etc. I loathe when pro-choicers make the same tired comments about pro-lifers being sexually frustrated or unsatisfied or anything like that. What horrible and rude things to say about people you don't even know. And I feel pretty much the same about comments implying that every self-described feminist who is not being seen in public at any given time is off having sex.

That's precisely the sort of thing that made me ignore people like those who post here for such a long time. And there are so many wonderful people who post here -- I'm really better off for knowing just about everyone here. But you know what I was doing in college? Not too much involving any political issue. I was studying. I was working, sometimes part-time and sometimes full-time. I was volunteering. I was playing in orchestra concerts. So I would see people saying something about how "girls like me" were off sleeping around etc and it's like, how wrong can you possibly be? Why should I even bother to read further?

I mean, you basically imply that any girl who isn't explicitly pro-life, and who isn't currently marching in a pro-choice rally, is off having sex. And then you wonder why people think your whole movement is obsessed with the sex lives of others?

If you're going to talk about sex, and the role of irresponsible sex in abortion, then talk about it. That's certainly a valid conversation to have. If you're going to talk about turnout at pro-choice demonstrations, talk about it. But IMO it's pretty lame -- and a pretty good deterrent as far as ever reaching anyone who doesn't already agree with you -- to pull the "hahahaha, I bet she puts out, I bet she was busy this weekend" stuff.

Oh, and asitis, I consider myself of average intelligence, but I got pregnant! That's kind of a crummy thing to say too.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are funded by the federal government? If that's true, I'm impressed with our president's bipartisan outlook. But I don't think it's true... However, since he reversed the Mexico City policy upon entering office, we ARE now funding overseas abortions with our federal tax dollars.

Alexandra, getting back to Jill's question...
Why do college girls want the freedom to abort?

Why do college girls want the freedom to abort?

Most of the ones I knew were pro-choice in the stereotypical "I'd never have an abortion myself, but I don't want to make that choice for other people" way. So they didn't view it as wanting the freedom to abort -- just wanting any hypothetical person to have the freedom to abort. Whether you believe someone espousing that logic or not is another issue.

I knew maybe ten girls who claimed that they would abort if they ever got pregnant. One actually did get pregnant, and didn't abort.

Again, if you want to talk about the role of irresponsible sex in abortion, go for it. I'm not saying irresponsible sex isn't a problem, and I'm not saying that irresponsible sex doesn't contribute to abortion. I'm saying, it's unnecessary to behave like high school boys in a locker room, reducing the discussion to "Do you think she puts out? Haha she puts out." Especially when you're talking about millions of women, the vast majority of whom none of us have ever met.

Jasper, why are so many lesbians pro choice?

I agree, being mentally ill and not having a job make for a far more persistent picketer.

Those who have jobs, go to school, take care of their families and contribute to the community rarely have unlimited time on their hands.

"I knew maybe ten girls who claimed that they would abort if they ever got pregnant"

Thats quite a bit, why do think they wanted the freedom to abort?

"Jasper, why are so many lesbians pro choice?"

I think most of them tend to have liberal social views and they're just following suit, and they tend to hate conservatives in general..

Jasper, I knew hundreds of girls.

"Jasper, I knew hundreds of girls. "

You polled the hundreds of girls you knew on abortion?

No. But when politics comes up -- as it often does on a college campus -- people usually offer their opinion.

Alexandra,

who do you think has more abortions?

Pro-choice women

or

Pro-life women

...of course, pro-choice women do. Why? because they want no responsibily tied to immoral sexual behavoir.

Yes, Jasper, big reveal. Pro-choice women, who do not object to abortion, tend to have more abortions than pro-life women.

That does not, however, mean that all (or even most) pro-choice women spend their lives having casual sex with strangers, or spend their college days "putting out." Why take cheap jabs so easy that 13-year old boys think them up, when you could have a legitimate discussion instead?

and btw jasper, it may be "immoral" sexual behaiour to you, but that doesn't mean it is to them or others.

"Why take cheap jabs so easy that 13-year old boys think them up"

Do have any idea how much pro-lifers have been slandered? treated like 2nd class citizens, libeled, ignored by the media, silenced on college campuses, disrespected by the courts.

..and you're focusing on a little jab at pro-choicers. Yes, we have a right to take a jab once in a while, if you don't mind.

Alexandra said: But it certainly doesn't lend you any credibility to use the sex lives of other people as a punch line.

Why are you offended? Chris Rock used abortion as a punchline and he was charging money:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjW4i67YC04

Jill points out the obvious and suddenly there's a moral superiority?

Someone who defends the brutality of killing innocent human orphans at the consent of their mother has no moral ground to stand on. There's no honor there to defend.

For some reason you don't understand that defending abortion condones immoral behavior. When you're in the dark, there's no difference at all.

..and you're focusing on a little jab at pro-choicers. Yes, we have a right to take a jab once in a while, if you don't mind.

On this site alone I have been called a whore, a used tissue. I have been told that my boyfriend doesn't love me, that my parents hate families. I've been called stupid and immature. People have made jokes about the fact that I'm not married, and comments about my vagina.

It sucks. I don't call pro-lifers names. I don't speculate on the sex lives of pro-lifers. I try very hard not to disrespect anyone. We're all people, and it can be easy to forget that, but I try not to.

While everyone has the "right" to take a jab, that doesn't mean anyone is right to.

BTW Chris, I was offended by Chris Rock's sketch as well. And never once in this thread have I defended abortion. But I suppose that's just more of the same thinking -- marginalizing people and their opinions because of one think you know (or think you know) about them. I have nothing useful to say, feminists do nothing but screw any guy who asks. It's a wonder God didn't just make us all out of paper so we could be physically two-dimensional as well.

There'd be no abortion without sexual immorality. Abortion enables sexual immorality. You can't divorce the two.

Furthermore, really "smart" women understand that no matter how many chemicals/devices you put in and on your bodies, sex causes babies. Those smart women who don't desire babies, simply don't have sex.

Those of us who lack the cop-out of killing our babies and know that we will accept the consequences of our choices make better choices. I guarentee you that if these women waving the signs didn't have pills and patches and forceps, they'd find some way to control themselves.

"On this site alone I have been called a whore, a used tissue. I have been told that my boyfriend doesn't love me, that my parents hate families. I've been called stupid and immature. People have made jokes about the fact that I'm not married, and comments about my vagina."

Are these the people who you just called wonderful a few posts up?

Who called you stupid, a whore, and joked about your private parts? who? name names...

Are these the people who you just called wonderful a few posts up?

No, Jasper. Not them. Some of the comments were anonymous, some were not. I'm not trying to start things -- that's not why I brought it up. I'm saying mud-slinging goes both ways, and it sucks no matter who you are.

"sex causes babies. Those smart women who don't desire babies, simply don't have sex".

No Jacqueline, they simply use contraception and keep having sex. If they do it properly, they likely will not get pregnant.

Unless of course they don't really like sex. Then they "simply don't have sex".

Anyway I'm leaving work in a few minutes (thank heaven) so that might be it for me.

Alexandra,

Ok, email the moderators we will delete the comment and warn (if not ban ) the people who said these things...

if you want to talk about the role of irresponsible sex in abortion, go for it.

Alexandra, I heard Fr Pavone say today that each year in the United States, 64,000 women who've had at least 3 abortions seek another.

I try very hard not to disrespect anyone.

I see that on your comments on this thread, and I appreciate that.

it may be "immoral" sexual behaiour to you, but that doesn't mean it is to them or others.

Behavior that leads to the intentional killing of a child is usually considered immoral, Asitis.

..and you're focusing on a little jab at pro-choicers. Yes, we have a right to take a jab once in a while, if you don't mind.

Okay, but everything Alexandra said upthread was true. If you want to be known for yukking it up over unfunny slut-shaming, that's your choice. (And I definitely do hold pro-choicers to the same standards of fairness for humour.)

But you could try supporting or coming up with an insightful, funny joke instead of one which, in all fairness, could only be entertaining to people who think in terms of stereotypes rather than having much grasp of human nature.

Do have any idea how much pro-lifers have been slandered? treated like 2nd class citizens, libeled, ignored by the media, silenced on college campuses, disrespected by the courts.

Posted by: Jasper at February 26, 2009 9:05 PM

Yes, people do get testy when you try to take away their rights.

Hal, finish your thought.

"People get testy when you try to take away their right...to kill their child"

The CPC I am on the board for is NOT funded by the Federal Government!! Where did they get that??

Alexandra,
I love you. I was stupid once too and got pregnant and then was even stupider and had an abortion. I think you are wonderful, tiny dancer.

Behavior that leads to the intentional killing of a child is usually considered immoral, Asitis.

Posted by: Fed Up at February 26, 2009 9:37 PM

While I appreciate you feel that way Fed Up, not everyone thinks abortion is immoral.

And even if it doesn't result in an abortion there are people here who would say sex outside of marriage is immoral. And again, not everyone feels that way.

That's all I'm saying............

how about you Asitis, do you think abortion is immoral?

Jasper, I think you should know by now my answer to that.How could you not?

Yes, I know you're strongly pro-choice, but do you think abortion is immoral? I don't know...

not everyone thinks abortion is immoral.

How well aware I am of that!

Yes, I am pro-choice and no, I do not think abortion is immoral. Nor do I think IVF, euthanasia, sex without marriage, nor contraception are immoral either.

Okay, time for bed. I have an early morning tomorrow.

Jasper, I think you should know by now my answer to that.How could you not?
Posted by: asitis at February 26, 2009 9:53 PM

I think he's trying out his skills at the Socratic method.

Oh, and I like Obama, the movies and a good martini.

I was outside of a Planned Parenthood for Protest the Pill day last June. That was a hot, sweaty, summer day. Some pro-premarital sex girls knew we would be out there and arrived ahead of us in support of the pill. They stayed maybe fifteen minutes and left for an air-condition Hillary Clinton party.

They have absolutely no stamina.

I think it's a horrible thing to say. The snide comments about alleged sexual activity are really unnecessary.

Except there are only two things which cause demand for abortions: people who have sex who don't want to have babies; and rape.

Louise, there are millions of people who want to have sex and don't want to have babies (at that time)

Hopefully, they'll use birth control. If they do get pregnant and decide they still don't want a baby, they can give the baby up for adoption when it's born, or terminate the pregnancy. Sex should not be restricted to only those who want a baby.

Ya know, when Jesus said love your enemies and forgive those who curse you, He sure knew how difficult that would be.

I'm sure trying Lord, but, without you I could never forgive those who stand for the murder of innocent children in the womb, no, actually go our of their way to stand for the murder, decapitaton, dismemberment, disembowelment and mutilation of perfectly healthy and innocent children all in the name of women's rights. What a totally perverted crock.

It's such cowardice.

And Lord, yes I do understand why you created hell.

Asitis: "I do not think abortion is immoral"

Ok, wow. Even HRC thinks abortion is evil.

Alexandra said: And never once in this thread have I defended abortion.

Alexandra - I'm not trying to be cocky here - have you sincerely had a change of heart?

Jasper, I don't the Secretary of State Clinton every said abortion was "evil." She said "sad and tragic."
Don't think she ever said it was immoral either.

...people who think in terms of stereotypes rather than having much grasp of human nature.

Posted by: Terezia at February 26, 2009 9:37 PM
--------

Let's discuss the human nature shall we?

No Jacqueline, they simply use contraception and keep having sex. If they do it properly, they likely will not get pregnant.

Unless of course they don't really like sex. Then they "simply don't have sex".

No, Astitis, there are a lot of things people like that they simply do not do, because the consequences are disproportionate to the benefits. That's called being an adult.

Marijuana, for instance, can get you a drug conviction- a record to haunt you for life, no more student aid for college, problems securing certain jobs. Even those that take precautions not to get caught are smart to say that all that is simply not worth the fun of getting stoned. Neither is an orgasm. Even if the odds were 99% in someone's favor, they have to see whether their life is worth the 1% in exchange for a high. Sex presents risks of diseases that make you infertile, some even kill. That, in addition to pregnancy make a smart woman stop and think: Is this worth it?

People still get pregnant on birth control quite often- some people don't think that sex is worth the risk to their future or their children's future. To say that women who abstain from sex only do so because they don't like having sex is like saying that only people who don't like to drink are sober. There's a AA meeting across town full of people who would love to have a beer right now but don't- Because they are adults. Because they are smart.

Even those that don't care about their own futures should have enough sense to recognize that single parenthood is unfair to a child, which is what you invite when you have sex while single.

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2009 10:07 PM

Louise said "cause demand for abortions" Hal. Typical avoidance of the issue.

I know some of you commenting on this thread are Christians. You might enjoy reading the transcript of a speech Archbishop Chaput gave a few days ago.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=790

I appreciated what he had to say on separation of church and state, but I thought the best part of his talk was this:

We need to be very forceful in clarifying what the words in our political vocabulary really mean ... When we subvert the meaning of words ... we undermine the language that sustains our thinking about the law. Dishonest language leads to dishonest debate and bad laws.

Here’s an example. We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty – these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.

I've thought a lot today about tolerance not being an end in itself. Next time someone calls me intolerant, I'm going to give myself a pat on the back.

Go ahead, Hal, I'm leaving myself wide open :-)

Yes Hal, I think you're right. Maybe it was somebody else who said it was a 'necessary evil'...

"Tolerance is a virtue of a man without convictions."

GK Chesterton

Jacqueline, some people skydive for pleasure. Some people think "I don't care how much fun it is, I'm not risking death for that kind of fun." Other people ski, although some tragically could run into a tree and die like Sonny Bono.

You can't separate every risk and try to balance the reward, or you won't do too many things. We all draw the line somewhere, depending on how we perceive the risks and the benefits. For me, I doubt that the excitement of skydiving would outweigh the risks. The occasional use of marijuana, however, is worth the risks (to me). Cocaine, for me, not worth the risks.

If you view sex as simply an "orgasm," then of course it's not worth the risks. If you see it as something fundamental to being human, however, then you might be willing to accept some risk. I think that would be the same whether you view abortion as immoral or not. Someone who is against abortion could still enjoy a healthy sex life despite not wanting a child.

Go ahead, Hal, I'm leaving myself wide open :-)
Posted by: Fed Up at February 26, 2009 10:25 PM

I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not that tolerant myself. My support for things I agree with don't require "tolerance." My patience for things I don't agree with is sometimes pretty thin.

Let's discuss the human nature shall we?

Sure, let's.

My patience for things I don't agree with is sometimes pretty thin.

Something we all probably have in common :-)

Thanks for the Chesterton quote, Jacqueline. I couldn't quite remember it.

"But you could try supporting or coming up with an insightful, funny joke instead of one which, in all fairness, could only be entertaining to people who think in terms of stereotypes rather than having much grasp of human nature."

The hubris, coming in here and lecturing us on what is funny and what is not.

Posted by: Terezia at February 26, 2009 10:45 PM

Do the unborn have a human nature?

The hubris, coming in here and lecturing us on what is funny and what is not.
Posted by: Jasper at February 26, 2009 10:49 PM

no offense Jasper, but I don't see much good humor here. Sometimes, but I don't think it's intentional. (Good word "hubris." Did it come up on your "word of the day" calendar?)

Someone who is against abortion could still enjoy a healthy sex life despite not wanting a child.

Doing something which very purposes is creating a child while not wanting a child- that is the antithesis of healthy. Talk about the cognitive dissonance it takes to do the baby-making act while constantly wringing ones hands over the baby-making act actually making a baby. It's illogical.

I take risks all the time- sometimes they are foolish and not worth the payoff. I would put basejumping in that category.

"Hmmmm...Adrenaline rush for a few minutes versus my family and friend's grief and emotional agony if I end up dead." Indeed=Stupid.

Likewise, I take risks with my myself. I just became self-employed and put a lot on the line that I could lose. I deemed it worth the risks. But if I had children that could starve or do without, I would not dare take that risk unless I could isolate them from the potential harm.

You can't consider pregnancy a risk that people take with sex when all they risk is the money and recovery associated with an abortion- but the child loses it's entire life.

Smart people do take calculated risks, but not with lives that aren't theres to gamble with.

"(Good word "hubris." Did it come up on your "word of the day" calendar?)"

LOL. Are you saying I have a poor vocabulary Hal?

I agree kind of, mine certainly isn't the best.

Case in Point:

I'm 28- I make a great living working from home(triple what I did before I took the self-employment risk). I only work 15 hours a week now too (focusing on finishing my Ph.D.)Honestly, if I got pregnant now, it wouldn't interfere much with my career, since I don't work that much and work from home. I would be pretty much a stay-at-home mom with occasional client meetings. The risks to me are minimal and the environment for a child would be good one. Like many grown women, I look forward to having a baby, so I could be selfish and have sex, since the risk of pregnancy would bring greater rewards to me than consequences.

BUT, even in my situation which is vastly different from most single mothers who work two minimum wage jobs at odd hours to pay the rent, my having a child alone would deny the baby what is rightfully theirs: A real father. Not someone they see every other weekend, but a stable pillar in their life who lives with them, tucks them in at night and sings to them. Boys need role models to teach them how to be men and girls need male acceptance so they don't seek validation through men that just want in their pants.

Even those of us in a good position to take care of a child should we get pregnant and have minimal risks to ourselves and greater benefits will not take risks with the lives of our children. My children deserve a real family and the best start in life. So even a .1% chance is not one I can morally take with the lives of my kids.

"I guess college women who advertise they're pro-birth control and pro-abortion are much in demand on weekends"....

umm Jill. Pro-choice women aren't the ones with 20 kids or 16 kids. Unlike the quiverful quacks, we don't view our beds as multiplication tables. We are pro-creation but we are not looking to start small towns with our bed-time hobbies.
Secondly, as a woman, aren't you a little disgusted calling another woman a whore (or implying that) based on her reproductive choices? I'm a guy ...and well.. actually being a guy has nothing to do with it. I guess i thought you had decent manners. Guess not.

So...people who are pro-choice are stupid sluts.

Sort of like saying people who are pro-life are too ugly to get any.

Both are ridiculous and terrible.

Pro-choice women aren't the ones with 20 kids or 16 kids.

So? Is there something inherently wrong with a large family?

Pro-choicers see children as objects that can be created at will and terminated when inconveinent. Of course they don't have many children- they don't value them.

re: Jasper at February 26, 2009 9:05 PM

Simply because you have been called a name doesn't give you the right to call someone else a name. It's bad behavior, poor dicourum and quite unChrist-like. Do you talk to your children with that mouth? Get a grip, man.

Do the unborn have a human nature?

Do they have human...DNA? Sure.

If bobbing around in a uterus implies an expertise in human nature, then maybe, but I find that extremely hard to swallow.

For me, human experience is what you amass once you're actually here. You need to interact concretely with already born humans to even start understanding human nature.

So...people who are pro-choice are stupid sluts.

Maybe not, but it is inferred that they want to have sex without responsibility.

Sort of like saying people who are pro-life are too ugly to get any.

When you're a woman, looks are irrelevant to your ability to have sex. Men will sleep with anything.

Women I think are a bit more particular- since when it comes to sex, we can take our pick.

Jacqueline, I've really enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. Just wanted to jump in here and say that.

Now I need rest! Goodnight, everyone.

Pro-choice women aren't the ones with 20 kids or 16 kids.

You don't know- maybe they killed them. The average abortions per woman in Russia is a full dozen.

I guess i thought you had decent manners. Guess not.
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at February 26, 2009 11:16 PM
**********************************

Wow. Pot, meet kettle.

Thank you, Kel. That's sweet.

I agree with Alexandra. That was a nasty thing to say, yet ANOTHER generalization about how people who think differently than you behave. I'm a feminist- I believe women should have equal rights and can do anything men can do. So what did I do during college on weekends? STUDIED. Filled out internship applications. Did community service activities with my sorority, or just hung out there to chit chat. Researched grad schools. Heck, to procrastinate I even looked up restaurant menus to plan dinners out with my girlfriends. When we felt like partying, we went to bars and then ended the night pigging out in the sorority kitchen, not under some random stranger. How in the world that is equivalent to whoring myself on the street is beyond me.
But then again where would this site be without generalizations? "liberals are all like this, pro-aborts are all this way, feminists are all like that..." people who agree with you would have nothing to get inspired by, people who disagree wouldn't get riled up. It's the nature of the game I guess.
but I'm still sad that because I'm pro choice and a recent college grad I'm automatically a big dumb slut giving away my goods to any Joe Shmo.

"Simply because you have been called a name doesn't give you the right to call someone else a name. It's bad behavior, poor dicourum and quite unChrist-like. Do you talk to your children with that mouth? Get a grip, man."

Bad behavior? are you kidding? you defend the killing of helpless unborn children and you're telling us about bad behavoir?

The thing I don't get about radical feminists is why they even like men in the first place. (The heterosexual ones, that is...) So many of them are all about women being given the same treatment men get, the same opportunities, same pay, etc. etc. All of which is fine and good.

Once they feel they've attained that, what possible USE do they have for men anyway?

When you're a woman, looks are irrelevant to your ability to have sex. Men will sleep with anything.
Women I think are a bit more particular- since when it comes to sex, we can take our pick.
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 26, 2009 11:26 PM

Wow. I don't know where to begin.... I'll leave this one with the men out there. Hey guys, how do you feel about this comment of Jacqueline's??.

I think it's totally irrelevant.

And I think the "protest" (on the video) was the lamest I ever saw in my life.

It is irrelevant, Doyle- but it's true. If there's a woman willing to have sex with a man, there's a man willing to have sex with her. It's her standard that decides.

Jacqueline and Asitis,

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said "in the dark all cats are gray".

Alexandra - I'm not trying to be cocky here - have you sincerely had a change of heart?

My heart changes every day. In the end all I can work towards is being the best possible version of myself by the time that I die. I have certainly not changed so much that I think it's okay to mock the sex lives of others, so long as they are indeed "the other."

That said, would it matter? Would it matter if a pro-life, rather than pro-choice, person said that it's rude to make fun of the sex lives of others?

Carla, I think you're wonderful too! Sometimes I wonder wtf is wrong with the world, but then I remind myself that there are people like you in it, and that makes me feel better.

True story. Walking in NYC in rainy weather is somewhat hazardous, due to all the umbrellas. Umbrella etiquette is a serious issue here, with umbrella-holding people not always remembering to adjust their behavior to suit their new accessory. They dart, they weave, they run; they hold their massive umbrella at the level of everyone else's head rather than occasionally lift it to avoid hitting someone. Basically it becomes a whole lot easier to lose an eye. Anyway I was walking towards this woman, and she had an umbrella, and we were the only two people on a very wide sidewalk -- there was so much room -- and I got all the way to the right side, expecting her to do something similar. But she didn't! She held her ground and thwacked me in the face with her umbrella, and now I have a big scratch on my forehead!

I was so hurt by that. Not really the scratch but just the fact that I was worth so little to this random stranger that I didn't even warrant the amount of effort it would have taken to side-step for one moment. I mean, a pile of dog crap would literally have gotten more attention from this woman. And that really bothered me. Not in like a concrete way, but it just made a crummy day crummier.

But then I was like, "Oh, I bet that whatever Carla is doing right now, it's something really sweet, and it makes up for that woman's rudeness." And I felt better. :)

Alexandra,
I am so sorry about that woman and her lack of care for you. A scratch on the forehead? Seriously. I would probably have yelled something.....so you have more restraint than I...:)You are a very sweet and sensitive person. I so get that.
While that was happening to you I was shoveling 8 inches of snow and rejoicing because I love snow.

Hope your day is better today!!

Jacqueline and Asitis,

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said "in the dark all cats are gray".

Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2009 5:17 AM

Ha Mary! Are you saying that Jacqueline means ugly girls get sex, but only in the dark?

It's her standard that decides.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 27, 2009 4:30 AM

You're suggesting men have no standards Jacqueline?

C'mon boys... what have you got to say to Jacqueline?

"Alexandra - I'm not trying to be cocky here - have you sincerely had a change of heart?"

"My heart changes every day."

Alexandra,
Do you mean some days you're pro-life and others pro-choice?

Jac, 7:30 - thanks!

All pro-choicers complaining about my characterization of pro-contraception, pro-abortion young women: The Chris Rock video was mentioned in this thread. He's the one who actually gave me that "a-ha, of course" realization. Am reposting on thread.

"Women I think are a bit more particular- since when it comes to sex, we can take our pick."

I would agree with that...

You're suggesting men have no standards Jacqueline?

Men will go for the most attractive woman they can get, but if it came down to attractive woman vs. no woman, men will take the ugly girl. For every unattractive woman out there, there is an equally unattractive man who will sleep with her.

All I'm saying is, implying that any girl is too ugly to get sex is ridiculous. Go to a bar, look easy and expect many losers to want to take you home and treat you like their own personal blow-up doll.

Note: My dating repetoire is actually much better looking than I am, so maybe I'm biased.

Then again, men that date me typically desire a complete woman, intellect, character, personality in addition to looks, so I can't compare me to men that just want a one-night stand. Men that date me also know they ain't getting any.

Wow, and I guess you could say to a guy:Go to a bar, look rich and expect many losers to want to take you home and act ike their own personal blow-up doll.

Sorry, that should read:

Wow, and I guess you could say to a guy:Go to a bar, look rich and expect many losers to want to take you home and act like your own personal blow-up doll.

Asitis

LOL. No, only that to men a woman is a woman and in the dark we all look alike!

Jacqueline

I've seen men who are absolutely worshipful of women who are foul mouthed, dumpy, drab, unattractive, crude, you name it. It just makes me wonder where I go wrong!

Jacqueline at 6:45am

So even you admit that your statement about men in general is wrong. I'm glad you clarified your actual experience because I was beginning to think it was either nil or pretty pathetic.

What you really mean to say is that there are guys out there who don't care what a girl looks like so long as she's "easy". Sure, and there are girls out there who don't care what a guy looks like so long as he's rich..........

Good morning Mary! I'm glad you liked my humor!

Men all look alike in the dark too!

What's that Amy Winehouse song line? Something like "He was tall like you/ Well, I couldn't tell cause he was lying down...."

No, but I was close:

"I couldn't resist him
His eyes were like yours
His hair was exactly the shade of brown
He's just not as tall, but I couldn't tell
It was dark and I was lying down..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPsuZtp1KGk&feature=related

If bobbing around in a uterus implies an expertise in human nature, then maybe, but I find that extremely hard to swallow.

For me, human experience is what you amass once you're actually here. You need to interact concretely with already born humans to even start understanding human nature.

Terezia at February 26, 2009 11:23 PM
---------

I said human nature, as inherent characteristics or qualities, not human experience. It's rather sad you don't know the difference. (You probably know what I meant, but refuse to admit it.)

So let's discuss human experience, about doing, not being.

If what we do makes us human, then those who impale babies on palm spikes only to rip them down are human too. (Khmer Rouge tactic to torture the mother and save bullets.) If you call that inhuman, why is that different than someone pulling a baby out up to the neck, stabbing it in the back of the skull and sucking it's brains out then collapsing the skull with forceps?

I've experienced the cruelty of human nature. I've interacted with born human beings. Human experience doesn't make us human, because each of us has vastly different experiences.

Our flesh and blood makes us human, and without that DNA, there is no human being at all.

If your own flesh was destroyed, then all the human experience in the world wouldn't matter, because your human nature would have been destroyed.

So even you admit that your statement about men in general is wrong.

Um...no. People have standards based on what they feel they can get. Sure, some men won't stoop, but there are men out there who are not great catches and have adjusted their standards accordingly.

What you really mean to say is that there are guys out there who don't care what a girl looks like so long as she's "easy".

Exactly! My real point was that looks never kept a woman from sex. Any woman who wants to have sex can easily find some man to accomodate her.

Sure, and there are girls out there who don't care what a guy looks like so long as he's rich..........

Now you're getting it!

I can't watch the video right now since I'm on my phone but I'm sure I remember it. I find it offensive, and largely incorrect, as well. The idea that because a woman has had sex - or because she supports other people's right to have sex- she will have sex with YOU is like neanderthal thinking.

It'd be like of some random guy wanted a kid but had no wife. So he went to a pro-life rally, "cause you know they've got kids!!" It ignores the very important facts that not all pro-lifers have kids, and not all pro-lifers who do have kids want to share their kids with some random stranger.

Alexandra,

Go to a pro-choice rally and find me someone that thinks premarital sex is immoral. I'll bet it's hard, nay impossible to find one.

Now, go to a pro-life rally and find me someone that thinks premarital sex is immoral. You'll find many. You'll also find people that don't think it's immoral, but are disgusted at babies being dismembered all the same.

In that way, I DO think pro-aborts are easy to characterize, whereas we lifers are the diverse ones.

While I do know a number of "politically, not personally" pro-choice women who didn't have sex until marriage, I agree that there is a variety of points of view on the pro-life side. But even having no moral objection to pre-marital sex doesn't mean a woman is having sex, or is open to having sex at any given point in time.

Good morning Asitis and Jacqueline,

OK ladies, a brain teaser. This guy is short, fat, squat, sniffs, snorts, scratches his crotch and hinder, picks his nose and always looks like he needs a shower. So help me, I saw him all the time at work.
He has women falling all over him. Why?
Try not to lose control of yourselves just thinking about him.

To all the guys on this blog...now you know what really drives women wild!

I think I've figured it out...this whole social conservative construct. Tell me if I'm right: No one is allowed to have sex without marriage. This is the hub of the wheel and all of the political issues that fall out of that are spokes on the wheel.

Abortion: So-called "need" would be abolished if people would'nt have sex before their married.

Secular entertainment/media: If people only valued sex within marriage, this would not be so pervasive.

Birth control: If women were taught to only have sex after they were married, there would be no need for birth control. Because this is the point of marriage is to have babies.

Homosexuality: The agenda could be squelched easier if everyone understood how immoral their lifestyle. It revolves around having sex outside of marriage. And they can't ever get married because they are not heterosexual. Therefore, this is a futile pursuit to equality.

Etc: If everyone would just stop having sex without being married, X would be eradicated.

So bottom line...this whole thing is about sex. And who you believe is allowed to have it, when and why. Right?

Sounds about right Danielle.

Any other way of living just angers their God.

Hal, Danielle, that is not the bottom line at all. The bottom line is that you can do whatever you want with your body, as long as it doesn't harm another person...no one's going to force you to be abstinent. You may end up with an STD by having many sexual partners (not saying you do), and we try to warn you of that, but we are not going to force you to be abstinent. The bottom line is that you should not take others lives just so that you can have all the sexual freedom you desire. Bottom line is, don't kill babies just so you can have sex without consequence.

Mary, he sounds hot!!!!! Just kidding. Well, according to our resident expert Jacqueline, only men don't care so long as they're "gettin' some" and women have much higher standards. So he must have something going for him. Is he really funny?

Boy was that redundant or what. How many times can I put "bottom line" in a paragraph. I think I haven't had enough coffee this morning. Or this week.

Bethany, that's an understandable position. Someone could hold those views and simply believe that if a woman ended up with an unwanted pregnancy she should give it up for adoption and not abort. I've got no problem with people who think that way. Many on this site, however, you must have noticed, do think sex is wrong unless you're married, that sex without being "open" to the creation of life is a sin, and that gay sex and gay marriage is something that must be condemned.

So, although I believe that the narrow "abortion is wrong" view is a legitimate and valid moral position, those other opinions held by many here I believe are unsupportable.

"Boy was that redundant or what. How many times can I put "bottom line" in a paragraph"

LOL Bethany!

Right on, Hal. Bethany's views are easy to understand (although not necessarily side with) because she doesn't pick on people or name-call :)

Bottom line is, don't kill babies just so you can have sex without consequence.
Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 10:08 AM

-Do you honestly think that's why women and couples choose abortion? Because they want to have free sex?

And I'm still sad about those comments before. Saying Chris Rock left the door open for them doesn't make it okay. Just because an outrageous comedian says something doesn't make it gospel or an excuse to judge others and feel justified in doing so.

Yes, Danielle it obviously is. If abortion were not an option, people would have to face responsibility that their reproductive act just might result in reproduction.

If someone is having sex with someone they do not want to share a child with, and use abortion to avoid this duty, they are using abortion to continue having sex.

People act like the pregnancy fairy comes down and randomly gets someone pregnant. We all know that in the vast majority of cases an individuals conscience actions result in the creation of a life, which they kill.

I tend to stay away from stating this obvious fact because the second I do someone comes in and says that I'm "slut shaming."

You know what? If someone is using abortion to continue to have sex with people they don't want to raise a family with, they should be ashamed.

Asitis 10:11am

Is he funny?

......yes, looking.

Other than his obvious attributes he was worth plenty of money. One can draw their own conclusions.

1) I'll admit I sniggered at the joke. I wouldn't have told it, but human nature being what it is... yeah, I laughed.

2) I'll also admit that having it up there probably takes away from the legitimate observation that those young women protesting life probably aren't quite as committed as those promoting it, simply because right now their side has won and abortion is legal. If they were that committed they'd be off working as clinic escorts and hounding pastors.

3) I find it hard to find any reason for someone to picket a CPC... hello... let's picket people for giving away carseats and baby clothes! Let's picket people for teaching parenting classes and offering assistance. Very stupid.

4) YLT, yet another off-track snipe at people you choose to not understand. Quiverfull quacks... lovely. When you can make a logical argument without demeaning people who live their lives differently than you do, you might be worth conversing with. If this is about *choice*, then why does my choice to have seven children who I support and raise without assistance from any outside agency or welfare offend you so? It's my choice, right? Or wait, if I make a choice different than yours, then I'm a quack. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Other than his obvious attributes he was worth plenty of money. One can draw their own conclusions.

Posted by: Mary at February 27, 2009 10:52 AM

That was my next guess! I spoke to this earlier to day: that some girls were no better than some guys.

Have a good one Mary!

-Do you honestly think that's why women and couples choose abortion? Because they want to have free sex?

Not the only reason, Danielle, but yes.

Yes, Danielle it obviously is. If abortion were not an option, people would have to face responsibility that their reproductive act just might result in reproduction.

If someone is having sex with someone they do not want to share a child with, and use abortion to avoid this duty, they are using abortion to continue having sex.
Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2009 10:47 AM

-Well, you shut me up. I really don't know how to respond to one who believes that pre-marital/non-married relationships or unions are predicated on having sex with other (or others). That you can't see past that is unfortunate. And, therefore, I get how someone with this opinion of adult relationships would have your viewpoint on abortion.

Just want to say:

Yes, I think there would be a lot less problems in the world if people didn't have sex outside of marriage, and welcomed children within marriage. That doesn't mean I think sex outside of marriage should be illegal. In much the same way, I am sure, that those who are pro-choice-to-kill-babies think I am stupid for believing in God, but don't want to take away my right to attend church. Birth control that doesn't kill babies is similarly nuanced, in my opinion; I don't think it is moral (in most situations) to use a condom, but I don't think condoms should be illegal.

I think that three references to the sex lives of those who want baby killing to be legal is a bit much. Yes, I agree that abortion "rights" are really about a "right" to sex without consequences. But I did find it tasteless to make so many jokes about them being constantly having sex, and I'm glad Alexandra said something. The one about them being "in demand on weekends" was funny and subtle, but the rest weren't.

And I, for one, love sex. With my husband. Especially when I'm fertile. Because I want 17 kids. Because I love kids, and I love being pregnant. But I'll take what God gives me (1 so far). Go ahead and add that to any stereotypes you want.

"umm Jill. Pro-choice women aren't the ones with 20 kids or 16 kids. Unlike the quiverful quacks, we don't view our beds as multiplication tables. We are pro-creation but we are not looking to start small towns with our bed-time hobbies."

That's right! Quiverfull quacks have it pretty good. It's about time someone realized that the pro-choice crowd are repressed because of their rejection of fruitful marriage, while pro-lifers are sexually fulfilled--probably why we usually have such pleasant attitudes compared to the other side.

How interesting, by the way, that you are pro-creation. I've never met a pro-choice-to-kill-babies person who was not an evolutionist. (I actually suspect that's not what you meant, but I can't figure out what you meant. That you occasionally pro-create? That you are pro-recreation? That you are pro-recreational sex?

As for lesbians: from my reading, a lot of them have sex with men. Here's one study that mentions it, but I know I've seen it elsewhere: http://www.caps.ucsf.edu/pubs/FS/wsw.php

So presumably lesbians also want to be able to have sex with men without consequences.

And Danielle: I think we know that not all extramarital sexual relationships are just about sex. But obviously those participating in them consider sex an important part of that relationship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have sex. And if they didn't have sex, they would not produce a pregnancy. And of course they don't choose abortion because they want to have sex without consequences. But because they want sex without consequences, they end up choosing abortion. So it appears that if they have to choose between sex without consequences, and their child's life, they choose sex without consequences. Makes it seem like a pretty important value to me. Leaving out those who kill their children because the child's father raped them or because the child is disabled (I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's under 10%), it comes down to that--that they wanted the sex (or else they wouldn't have had sex, or it would have been rape), and didn't want the baby (regardless of their reasons for not wanting the baby). Please feel free to explain how this is not the case.

Danielle, I don't think adult relationships are only about sex, but I do think that people place more of a value on sex than another human beings life when they choose abortion.

YCW did a very good job of explaining it.

By the way, YCW, are you the same YCW who used to comment @ mychoice-hislife? If so, I'm so happy to hear of your blessing!

And Danielle: I think we know that not all extramarital sexual relationships are just about sex. But obviously those participating in them consider sex an important part of that relationship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have sex. And if they didn't have sex, they would not produce a pregnancy. And of course they don't choose abortion because they want to have sex without consequences. But because they want sex without consequences, they end up choosing abortion. So it appears that if they have to choose between sex without consequences, and their child's life, they choose sex without consequences. Makes it seem like a pretty important value to me. Leaving out those who kill their children because the child's father raped them or because the child is disabled (I don't know the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure it's under 10%), it comes down to that--that they wanted the sex (or else they wouldn't have had sex, or it would have been rape), and didn't want the baby (regardless of their reasons for not wanting the baby). Please feel free to explain how this is not the case.
Posted by: YCW at February 27, 2009 11:31 AM

-All I can say is if you replace the word 'sex' in your paragraph with 'relationship' or 'committment' or 'union' or 'love', maybe you could get why I'm so taken aback...it seems like we can't ever get away from talking about all the other things that a couple bring to each other BESIDES sex, married or not. You can want/pursue love and committment and companionship (and yes, it's manifested by sex)...and still not want, or be capable of caring for a baby and you are not be forced to.

I emphasize this again, because the condemnation and judgement of the PC side that radiates out of PL comments is one that's so wrapped up in the 'loose morals' of those who are in a position to consider abortion. Its so much easier to relegate women to this unseemly stereotype...animals-in-heat who can't control themselves, rather than consider the nuances of their relationships/lives. It's a way to rationalize: How else could she live with herself? How could she do it? She must be a slut. A selfish one, at that.

You're of the position that any person who is willing to participate in sexual activity be automatically willing to go thru with a pregnancy/childbirth, regardless of how it happens. I do not believe the same to be true. And it's not because I'm so driven by my sex drive that I'm incapable of remaining chaste, its because I don't view sex the same way you do. Its risk/reward and each individual needs to decide what they're willing to risk in the name of a physical relationship.

The shortage of men responding to this post is interesting. What do men, young men particularly, think about sex outside of marriage? Do you think it's immoral? If so, do you practice abstinence if you're unmarried? Married men, did you remain virgin until marriage?

I'd be interested in reading men's opinions about this, their beliefs and how they conduct themselves in accordance with those beliefs.

Hal, I missed your comment above till just now.

Bethany, that's an understandable position. Someone could hold those views and simply believe that if a woman ended up with an unwanted pregnancy she should give it up for adoption and not abort. I've got no problem with people who think that way. Many on this site, however, you must have noticed, do think sex is wrong unless you're married, that sex without being "open" to the creation of life is a sin, and that gay sex and gay marriage is something that must be condemned. So, although I believe that the narrow "abortion is wrong" view is a legitimate and valid moral position, those other opinions held by many here I believe are unsupportable.

Hal, I agree with many of the above beliefs you mentioned, but I am not worried about enforcing them by law. I believe that Americans all have the freedom to do what they want to do (even if I or someone else believe it's unethical) as long as they are not harming another individual's freedom, or life, in the process.

The thing I am most concerned about is babies being killed and not being given the chance to continue living. Other than that, have all the sex with all the people you want- just don't kill the babies that come about as a result...that's all I ask.

Hal, by the way, if you and your wife ever found yourselves pregnant and were worried about how to handle another child, I want you to know that I would be more than willing to adopt and give your baby a loving home. I truly mean that.

Right on, Hal. Bethany's views are easy to understand (although not necessarily side with) because she doesn't pick on people or name-call :)

AM, that is so nice of you to say. There have been many times I did get testy with others and haven't really had the best attitude. I'm trying to get better. :)

Bethany that is sweet. And I know you mean that from the bottom of your heart and for all the right reasons.

But it's my understanding that there is no shortage of people wanting to adopt babies, particularly healthy, caucasian ones (I'm assuming Hal is). What I do see, in our newspapers anyway, is a shortage of people willing to adopt older children who have been abandoned or taken from bad family situations. From people who should never have tried to raise kids.

Sorry, Bethany.... my comment was in reference to this generous offer you made:

Hal, by the way, if you and your wife ever found yourselves pregnant and were worried about how to handle another child, I want you to know that I would be more than willing to adopt and give your baby a loving home. I truly mean that.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 1:27 PM

Hello Rjred. I am a married man, and would be happy to discuss sex outside of marriage. I do believe it is is immoral. Sadly, I was not abstinent until my marriage. That was a mistake. Now I attempt to live a chaste lifestyle in marriage.

But this all hinges on whether or not sex has a purpose or a nature. If there is no God then sure, sex is whatever you want it to be. I can not argue with that. All I can do is try and take that line of thinking further. But I do believe God exists and has endowed sex with a purpose which is two-fold. It is both procreative and unitive in the context of a life-long commitment which is marriage. God love you.

Bobby, I appreciate your honesty. I have noticed here that a lot (not all!) of the married women here who preach abstinence, were not virgins when they themselves got married. I suspect the case is at least the same for those men who preach abstinence as well.

But it's my understanding that there is no shortage of people wanting to adopt babies, particularly healthy, caucasian ones (I'm assuming Hal is).

Actually, Hal's wife is not white, from what I remember.

Bobby, I appreciate your honesty. I have noticed here that a lot (not all!) of the married women here who preach abstinence, were not virgins when they themselves got married. I suspect the case is at least the same for those men who preach abstinence as well.

A lot of people who preach that drugs are harmful used to be drug addicts.

A lot of people against drunk driving used to drive drunk.

But it's my understanding that there is no shortage of people wanting to adopt babies, particularly healthy, caucasian ones (I'm assuming Hal is). What I do see, in our newspapers anyway, is a shortage of people willing to adopt older children who have been abandoned or taken from bad family situations. From people who should never have tried to raise kids.

I'm not sure what your point was here. I really don't. The issue is abortion, and teenage children aren't the ones being targeted to abort.
I'm really just not sure how to respond since I don't know what the point was.

A lot of people who preach that drugs are harmful used to be drug addicts.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 1:49 PM

Yeh... but they don't do drugs anymore.

These married folks aren't having premarital sex anymore for the simple reason that they are now married! Oh... how convenient! ;)

Yeh... but they don't do drugs anymore.

They might use prescription drugs, Asitis.

These married folks aren't having premarital sex anymore for the simple reason that they are now married! Oh... how convenient! ;)

I think that's the point, isn't it?

Gotta run for a bit. :)

I'm not sure what your point was here. I really don't. The issue is abortion, and teenage children aren't the ones being targeted to abort. I'm really just not sure how to respond since I don't know what the point was.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 1:54 PM

Well, it is about abortion in a way Bethany.

As I siad, there seems to be a greater need for paople to adopt children that probably should not have been kept by their parents in the first place. If you encourage a woman to have her baby rather than abort, you have to understand that she may find it hard to give the baby up for adoption even though it's in the child's best interest. Or she may not accept or realize it's in the child's best. So while it's very generous for prolifers to adopt babies that need home, are you just as willing to adopt these older children?

Well, all I can say now is that if my wife, God forbid, were to die, I would be abstinent.

These married folks aren't having premarital sex anymore for the simple reason that they are now married! Oh... how convenient! ;)

I think that's the point, isn't it?

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 2:06 PM

Yes.... that they don't feel this way until after they are married. But that they think that they'll get unmarrieds to feel this way to is a little.... what was the word Palin used?... naive!

One thing before I go. Asitis 2:09 Absolutely. I saw some at the orphanage just last year that I wished I could have taken home and raise. They were the sweetest boys.

But the problem with that is, they're foster, not up for adoption. I don't know if I could handle it myself, but I do know several in my community who are fostering.

It seems that most are not available for adoption at all.

And one more...I'll have to close out so I don't see any more replies. Or else I'll feel compelled to respond. lol

Yes.... that they don't feel this way until after they are married. But that they think that they'll get unmarrieds to feel this way to is a little.... what was the word Palin used?... naive!

Asitis, my husband and I were both virgins for 2 years before we got married. I still think that people would be happier abstinent before marriage.

Sorry Bewthany I wrote that too fast and it's not so clear. Let me redo:

I'm not sure what your point was here. I really don't. The issue is abortion, and teenage children aren't the ones being targeted to abort. I'm really just not sure how to respond since I don't know what the point was.
Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 1:54 PM

Well, it is about abortion in a way Bethany:

As I said, there seems to be a greater need for people to adopt older children that probably should not have been kept by their parents in the first place than there is a need for people to adopt babies. If you encourage a woman to have her baby rather than abort, you have to understand that she may find it hard to give the baby up for adoption, even though it's in the child's best interest. Or she may not accept or realize it's in the child's best interest. So instead of giving the baby up for adoption, she keeps it. She ends up doing a really bad job and either abandons the child or has it taken from her. There's no shortage of older children in this situation already, waiting to be adopted.

So while it's very generous for prolifers to adopt babies that need home, are you just as willing to adopt these older children?

Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 2:09 PM

One thing before I go. Asitis 2:09 Absolutely. I saw some at the orphanage just last year that I wished I could have taken home and raise. They were the sweetest boys.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 2:16 PM

So what stopped you? That they weren't available for adoption, at least not for certain? Didn't they still need a loving home?

Asitis, my husband and I were both virgins for 2 years before we got married. I still think that people would be happier abstinent before marriage.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 2:19 PM

I know. I was actually referring to those that were not virgins when they got married Bethany:

I have noticed here that a lot (not all!) of the married women here who preach abstinence, were not virgins when they themselves got married. I suspect the case is at least the same for those men who preach abstinence as well.
Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 1:43 PM

What would you like to say about that asitis?

Hmmm....am I ready for this? LOL

Asitis, are you implying that pro-lifers are hypocritical if they cannot/will not adopt older children or teens? Are you saying that it's not ok for us to be against the murder of innocent unborn human beings unless we're willing to adopt every homeless, older child we possibly can? Just curious about your thoughts.

I personally can't see how adopting these older children is going to save the babies who are murdered by the thousands each day. People don't abort because "oh, those poor adolescent children have no homes to go to, and I don't want to place my child for adoption, because he/she might end up like that." They abort because it's the "easy" way out. Supposedly.

"So what stopped you? That they weren't available for adoption, at least not for certain? Didn't they still need a loving home? "

Asitis,

I don't mean to speak for Bethany, but if I recall correctly, one may not (by law in some place) home school an adopted child, which Bethany and her husband would like to do.

If that really is the situation, that law confuses me. I'm not sure what the reasoning behind it would be.

What would you like to say about that asitis?

Hmmm....am I ready for this? LOL

Posted by: Carla at February 27, 2009 3:04 PM

About what carla?

Asitis,

I don't mean to speak for Bethany, but if I recall correctly, one may not (by law in some place) home school an adopted child, which Bethany and her husband would like to do.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 27, 2009 3:11 PM

Okay, so they could send them to regular school then.

I personally can't see how adopting these older children is going to save the babies who are murdered by the thousands each day. People don't abort because "oh, those poor adolescent children have no homes to go to, and I don't want to place my child for adoption, because he/she might end up like that." They abort because it's the "easy" way out. Supposedly.
Posted by: Kel at February 27, 2009 3:06 PM

-Kel, I think the's not an accurate depiction at all(again with the selfish harlot stereotype). Lots of women, particularly of color, have negative perceptions of what would happen to their children if they were adopted out or put into foster care. Bottom line, minority children simply do not get placed into permanent families at the rate that white children do. Its a consideration that many people do make when they are pregnant and figuring out what to do.

PS - abortion is never the 'easy way out' for women, as you so dismissively put. This is probably my biggest pet peeve re: PL arguments and generalizations.

Asitis,
About married women preaching abstinence that were not virgins when they married.

I personally can't see how adopting these older children is going to save the babies who are murdered by the thousands each day. People don't abort because "oh, those poor adolescent children have no homes to go to, and I don't want to place my child for adoption, because he/she might end up like that." They abort because it's the "easy" way out. Supposedly.

Posted by: Kel at February 27, 2009 3:06 PM

Kel, you'll need to stop for a minute and look at this differently. Okay, let's take it one pregnancy at a time. Let's say you stop a woman from taking "the easy way out" when she is 5 weeks pregnant. She has her baby and decides to keep it. But she does a horrible job and ten years down the road the child ends up in need of a home. Are you going to care as much about the child then as you did when he was 5 weeks old if he needs your help?

That's all I'm asking.

Asitis,
About married women preaching abstinence that were not virgins when they married.

Posted by: Carla at February 27, 2009 3:26 PM

Carla, can you showw me the comment you are referring to? I don't see it.

Oh, I think I understand carla. You were referring to MY comment earlier:

I have noticed here that a lot (not all!) of the married women here who preach abstinence, were not virgins when they themselves got married. I suspect the case is at least the same for those men who preach abstinence as well.
Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 1:43 PM

Yes? And you want to know what I have to say about it? Well, I don't necessarily have anything more to say about it. What I wrote was in reference to something Rjred wrote:

The shortage of men responding to this post is interesting. What do men, young men particularly, think about sex outside of marriage? Do you think it's immoral? If so, do you practice abstinence if you're unmarried? Married men, did you remain virgin until marriage?
I'd be interested in reading men's opinions about this, their beliefs and how they conduct themselves in accordance with those beliefs.
Posted by: Rjred at February 27, 2009 1:25 PM

About 10 comments up. :)

Got it. Have a good weekend!!

You too carla! :)

"The shortage of men responding to this post is interesting. What do men, young men particularly, think about sex outside of marriage?"

I disagree with it.

"Do you think it's immoral?"

yes.

"If so, do you practice abstinence if you're unmarried? Married men, did you remain virgin until marriage?"

unfortuantly not.

..does this mean I cannot say abstinance is good and recomended it?

Kel, I think the's not an accurate depiction at all(again with the selfish harlot stereotype). Lots of women, particularly of color, have negative perceptions of what would happen to their children if they were adopted out or put into foster care. Bottom line, minority children simply do not get placed into permanent families at the rate that white children do. Its a consideration that many people do make when they are pregnant and figuring out what to do.

PS - abortion is never the 'easy way out' for women, as you so dismissively put. This is probably my biggest pet peeve re: PL arguments and generalizations.
Posted by: Danielle at February 27, 2009 3:18 PM

Pardon me, but did I refer ANYWHERE to a harlot?? I have said nothing of the sort. Talk about generalizing, Danielle!

I can understand that women of color may have negative perceptions about adoption. However, is it somehow "better" that they view abortion as a way to avoid that scenario? At the rate the black population is aborting, it would seem that they've been led to believe that. I find it amazing that they'd rather kill their unborn children. It's such a completely twisted way of viewing life in general. THAT is what I meant by the "easy" way out. It is PERCEIVED as an easier solution.

Asitis said:
Kel, you'll need to stop for a minute and look at this differently. Okay, let's take it one pregnancy at a time. Let's say you stop a woman from taking "the easy way out" when she is 5 weeks pregnant. She has her baby and decides to keep it. But she does a horrible job and ten years down the road the child ends up in need of a home. Are you going to care as much about the child then as you did when he was 5 weeks old if he needs your help?

That's all I'm asking.
Posted by: asitis at February 27, 2009 3:27 PM
************************************

Would I care? Of course. My question for YOU is, do you "care" about either scenario? Or do you feel that that child would somehow have been better off dead?

Danielle, it isn't negating the relationship, it's just honestly assessing the sexual side of it. People can bring the other things to the table without the sex.

If someone knows that they will kill a living human being if they get pregnant, they should do everything in their power to not get pregnant. Continuing to have sex is placing sex over another's life.

I know. I was actually referring to those that were not virgins when they got married Bethany:

I was aware of that, and that's why I mentioned it. I was in a relationship for 2 years with my husband, and we were both virgins and remained abstinent for 2 years. Then we were married.

We had great fun spending time with each other, hugging, kissing, and holding hands.

BTW, my "caring" doesn't necessarily mean that I could afford to adopt a child. I've looked into it, and it's not exactly chump change. I believe it takes a very special person to adopt.

However, I do not feel that if a person is unable to adopt that it somehow makes him/her an unfeeling individual, nor does it negate the fact that they do not believe in lending approval and legality to the murder of children yet to be born. We ARE talking about the killing of human beings here. Is it ok to "off" some of them because others may not get adopted?

If someone knows that they will kill a living human being if they get pregnant, they should do everything in their power to not get pregnant. Continuing to have sex is placing sex over another's life.

That should be quote of the day. Good explanation, Lauren.

If my husband were to post here (which he doesn't), he would answer this way:

"The shortage of men responding to this post is interesting. What do men, young men particularly, think about sex outside of marriage?"

I strongly disagree with it.

"Do you think it's immoral?"

Yes.

"If so, do you practice abstinence if you're unmarried? Married men, did you remain virgin until marriage?"

Yes.

If someone knows that they will kill a living human being if they get pregnant, they should do everything in their power to not get pregnant. Continuing to have sex is placing sex over another's life.

That should be quote of the day. Good explanation, Lauren.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 4:16 PM
***************************************

Agreed. Nice sum up, Lauren.

Kel, you'll need to stop for a minute and look at this differently. Okay, let's take it one pregnancy at a time. Let's say you stop a woman from taking "the easy way out" when she is 5 weeks pregnant. She has her baby and decides to keep it. But she does a horrible job and ten years down the road the child ends up in need of a home. Are you going to care as much about the child then as you did when he was 5 weeks old if he needs your help?

Asitis, you sound very concerned about these older children. That's a good thing- maybe that is your calling in life. Have you considered adopting some older children lately? Or maybe you already have adopted some and just haven't mentioned it.

My calling in life is abortion, to save the lives of those who might be killed through abortion. That is what I feel led to do. Unfortunately, I cannot save every child and personally care for and shelter each one. But, I can do what I can do, and that is enough.

I don't expect my friend down the road who is an animal rights activist to adopt every kitten and puppy from the shelter she volunteers for, in order to truly love and care about them. I don't think she should even have to adopt one in order to be against animal cruelty. If she adopted one kitten and I said, "Well, that's great and all but there is no shortage of people taking in kittens. Why don't you care about the cats too?", that would be totally unnecessary and completely irrelevant to whether my friend cares about animals or not.

Her calling is animals. Mine is unborn babies.
I don't know what yours is, but I don't expect you to take on the load of the entire world on your shoulders alone. I expect you to do what you can do, and that is enough.

If you said that you wanted to help children dying of aids in Africa, and were going to adopt one child dying of Aids, would it make sense for me to tell you that there are other children dying of Aids too, and therefore, you are a hypocrite and don't care about all of them simply because you did not take in more of them?

I hope you can see that your argument is flawed by now.

Lauren:
Yes, I am that YCW :)
Glad to see you are well--email me if you still have my address.

Danielle: "if you replace the word 'sex' in your paragraph with 'relationship' or 'committment' or 'union' or 'love'"
I think we know that not all extramarital relationship relationships are just about relationships. But obviously those participating in them consider relationships an important part of that relationship. Otherwise, they wouldn't have relationships. And if they didn't have relationships, they would not produce a pregnancy. And of course they don't choose abortion because they want to have relationships without consequences. But because they want relationships without consequences, they end up choosing abortion. So it appears that if they have to choose between relationships without consequences, and their child's life, they choose relatiionships without consequences. Makes it seem like a pretty important value to me.

Um, no, that doesn't make sense. I acknowledged that people want other things from their relationships than sex. But if the sex wasn't important, why would they take the risk? I am truly not understanding your point. Obviously they would rather get abortions than not have sex. Or at least they thought it through very little, and they ended up making that decision in the end. You seem to be saying that the sex isn't the main point of the relationship. Fine! Then why do it? Why not have the relationship with no sex? Then there wouldn't be a pregnancy to worry about. I'm not arguing that sex is vital to the relationship. But sex is the only part resulting in pregnancy.

So all those older children in the system are there because abortion is illegal and therefore their mothers were forced to have them and keep them? Or at least talked into keeping them by pro-lifers? And only pro-lifers should be allowed to adopt? There are no unadoptable babies. Even those with disabilities, or of minority ethnicity, or both are eminently adoptable. There are lists of families who want to adopt babies with Down's Syndrome, babies with Spina Bifida, and babies who are HIV positive. So you can't use that argument, and somehow you are trying to argue that pro-lifers are responsible for adopting all the older children in the system too.

Maybe someday I will. I certainly am open to the possibility. But it is not a responsibility I have because I am pro-life. And how do you know their parents ever considered abortion? If they did, how do you know their choice was not their own? If it wasn't their own, how is it different from Planned Parenthood convincing them to abort? The fact that someone has a choice doesn't mean they make it in a vacuum, and no one can try to persuade them.

I have to agree that there's no reason that older children in the foster care system belong in this discussion. And pro-lifers are probably doing most of the adopting that is done.

Sounds like a good man to me, Kel.

Bethany, I love you. :D

Bobby...oh, he is. He is the best. I am so very blessed. :)

Bobby, you are correct that for some reason, they won't let you adopt or foster if you are a homeschooling parent. At least, the last time I checked that was so.

As for pulling my children out and putting them into a public school- absolutely not. It's out of the question.

Kel I love you too!! :D

Oh, and my husband and I were abstinent until marriage.

thanks bethany!

So all those older children in the system are there because abortion is illegal and therefore their mothers were forced to have them and keep them? Or at least talked into keeping them by pro-lifers? And only pro-lifers should be allowed to adopt? There are no unadoptable babies. Even those with disabilities, or of minority ethnicity, or both are eminently adoptable. There are lists of families who want to adopt babies with Down's Syndrome, babies with Spina Bifida, and babies who are HIV positive. So you can't use that argument, and somehow you are trying to argue that pro-lifers are responsible for adopting all the older children in the system too.

YCW, I like you!

Maybe someday I will. I certainly am open to the possibility. But it is not a responsibility I have because I am pro-life. And how do you know their parents ever considered abortion? If they did, how do you know their choice was not their own?

Good point. In fact, studies consistently show that WANTED children are the most abused.
Not unwanted, as most people would seem to believe.

Pardon me, but did I refer ANYWHERE to a harlot?? I have said nothing of the sort. Talk about generalizing, Danielle!
Posted by: Kel at February 27, 2009 4:11 PM

-You didn't say out right, Kel I know that, its what was implied about women who choose abortion: loose morals, selfish. If I assumed wrong then my bad.

If someone knows that they will kill a living human being if they get pregnant, they should do everything in their power to not get pregnant. Continuing to have sex is placing sex over another's life.
Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2009 4:14 PM

Continuing to have a relationship that includes sex is placing your relationship, life, etc. over having a baby.

That's not an unfair sacrifice to everyone.

Good point. In fact, studies consistently show that WANTED children are the most abused.
Not unwanted, as most people would seem to believe.
Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 4:34 PM

-Please back this up with something tanglible. That sentence didn't even make sense.

Fine, Danielle, it's placing your "relationship" over a child's life. It's still selfish.

I have to tell you, if someone walked up to me and said "Lauren, if you stay with Oliver you'll have to kill one of your kids" I'd say "I love you, Oliver, but I'm not going to kill for you."

Of course, the relationship isn't really what we're talking about. Someone can have a relationship without sex. Relationships on their own don't cause children to be created.

A better scenerio would be if someone told me "Lauren, if you have sex with Oliver you're going to have to kill one of you kids. You can be in a relationship, but you can't have sex."

I would say it would be a pretty unfair sacrifice for my child to give his/her life so that I could hold on to my relationship. It would be even more "unfair" if that child gave his life so I could have sex within my relationship.

Hi YWC and Bethany,

The problem of "unwanted" children is so complex that the notion there is any simple solution, be it abortion or birth control, is purely a pipedream.
First it was argued that abortion would solve or at least greatly alleviate this problem. When this failed then it was because of PL people.
Maybe it should just be accepted that complex social problems have no simplisic solution.
Believe me, I wish handing out birth control pills solved this problem.
I volunteer at a Mother's and infant's home and was shocked and saddened to see a girl my daughter graduated from HS with four years ago.
She is expecting her third baby by as many different fathers, the father of one of the children has taken him from her, and she is in this home because she has no where else to go.
This is a girl who had every opportunity and who's parents who could have sent her to any college.
I don't know the answer, only more theories than I can count.

Yes, I'd like to see that backed up as well Bethany. It makes no sense.

Perhaps it's really something like out of all the children abused, 85% of the parents said they had wanted the children. That's not the same as saying 85% of wanted children are abused. I've seen some crazy use of numbers here.....

Okay, Danielle...I'll rephrase.
Children who were wanted by their parents are more abused than children who were unwanted by their parents.

I have posted the studies here many times before. I'll have to do some searching and find them again.

Danielle, here's just a really cursory study I found in two seconds, I'm sure there are more.

Most abused children were originally 'wanted'. In a landmark study of 674 physically abused children, 91% of the children had been wanted and planned for. (Study by Dr. Edward Lenoski, professor of paediatrics and emergency medicine at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, Heartbeat, vol. 3, no. 4, Dec. 1980.)

As for pulling my children out and putting them into a public school- absolutely not. It's out of the question.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 4:27 PM

Betahny i wasn't suggetsing that BTW. I was simply saying that if you felt compelled to give those children a better life through foster care or adoption, you could take them in anyway and send THEM to public school. Maybe not your ideal, but still better for them than not binging taken in. If you were so inclined....

Perhaps it's really something like out of all the children abused, 85% of the parents said they had wanted the children. That's not the same as saying 85% of wanted children are abused. I've seen some crazy use of numbers here.....

Yes, that's what I meant. Except some of the studies I have seen have shown 91 percent being wanted children.

Betahny i wasn't suggetsing that BTW. I was simply saying that if you felt compelled to give those children a better life through foster care or adoption, you could take them in anyway and send THEM to public school. Maybe not your ideal, but still better for them than not binging taken in. If you were so inclined....

Oh, okay. I don't think they'll let you be an adoptive parent, period, if you are homeschooling. But I could be wrong. Besides, I do not have the $$$ required to go through an adoption agency at this time, unfortunately.

Mary, 4:41, good thoughts. I agree, no simplistic solution.

"Okay, Danielle...I'll rephrase.
Children who were wanted by their parents are more abused than children who were unwanted by their parents".

That still is hard to believe Bethany.

Or are you saying of the children that are abused, more were wanted by their parents than unwanted?

Hey, lauren posted the study I was referring to. Thanks, Lauren. :)

Also, it appears that pregnancy loss, including abortion, leads to an increase in child abuse.

" Compared to women with no history of induced abortion, those with one prior abortion had a 144% higher risk for child physical abuse"

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a727291069~db=all

Or are you saying of the children that are abused, more were wanted by their parents than unwanted?

Yes.

Lauren, 4:51, they are also a certain number of times more likely to commit suicide (after miscarriage AND abortion) although the number for after abortions is much higher than those of after miscarriages... substance and alcohol abuse rises dramatically, and many other such things.

Would I care? Of course. My question for YOU is, do you "care" about either scenario? Or do you feel that that child would somehow have been better off dead?
Posted by: Kel at February 27, 2009 4:11 PM

BTW, my "caring" doesn't necessarily mean that I could afford to adopt a child. I've looked into it, and it's not exactly chump change. I believe it takes a very special person to adopt.
However, I do not feel that if a person is unable to adopt that it somehow makes him/her an unfeeling individual, nor does it negate the fact that they do not believe in lending approval and legality to the murder of children yet to be born. We ARE talking about the killing of human beings here. Is it ok to "off" some of them because others may not get adopted?

Posted by: Kel at February 27, 2009 4:15 PM

Thanks for answering my question Kel. Does it really cost a lot to provide foster care or adopt an older child? I didn't think they would charge you anything to take them in. In fact, don't you get compensation for foster care - I think that's the case in Canada. Or was anyway....

Do I care about either? Well mostly I care about those children being raised in bad homes. I am glad that there are family services watching those at risk and can step in when needed. I have no issue paying taxes to support this. And I do care about those older children I see in the paper everyday in need of care. Do I care enough to give all I can financially, mentally, physically. No, I have to admit I do not. Otherwise I would take in as many as I could and raise them with my own children, doing all could for them. I feel somewhat bad to say this, but not as bad as I would if I had stood in the way of their right to an abortion.

That is how I feel.

Agency and private adoptions can range from $5,000 to $40,000 or more depending on a variety of factors including services provided, travel expenses, birthmother expenses, requirements in the state, and other factors.

http://costs.adoption.com/

I hope you can see that your argument is flawed by now.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 4:23 PM

Bethany you assumed what my "argument" was I think. What exactly are you saying my flawed argument is?

My husband was abstinent until his first marriage, as was his first wife. That marriage went down in flames after 2 years. He and I had nookie before marriage and have lasted more than 7 times as long, still going strong.

Asitis, so you can afford to take in children or give them shelter, and yet you don't because you don't want to. (Except through tax dollars which you can't do anything about anyway.)

You criticized me, claiming that I don't care enough because I haven't offered to adopt an older child, just a younger one. However, you admit that you would never care enough to take in any older child yourself. Don't you think that is a little bit hypocritical?

How can you attack me for not doing something you're not even willing to consider doing yourself?

Bethany you assumed what my "argument" was I think. What exactly are you saying my flawed argument is?

That I don't care about children if I am not adopting all of them. Or that I don't care about older children, just younger children. Something that was not logical.

And if that isn't what you meant, then what was the point of your question at 1:36 PM?

Or statement, I should say. Not question.

Asitis says "I feel somewhat bad to say this, but not as bad as I would if I had stood in the way of their right to an abortion. "

So you think kids in foster care are better off dead. Gotcha.

Just so you know, I have several 3rd cousins whose mother was unable to raise them. They lived with various aunts, in group homes, and even with my elderly grandparents for a while. This is the group whose older brother was adopted out prior to their births.

There mother was institutionalized. Not a great scenerio.

Now? They're all grown up and doing well. They had some issues growing up,yes, but they are all very thankful to be alive and love their mother despite her disability and failures.

But, in your world it would be better that anyone who would suffer what they did be killed. Gotcha. Should we also firebomb Africa?

Should we also firebomb Africa?

It would make perfect pro-choice sense!

Okay, Bethany so you do realize that this (from the study):

"Most abused children were originally 'wanted'."

Is not the same as these (your words):

"In fact, studies consistently show that WANTED children are the most abused".

"Children who were wanted by their parents are more abused than children who were unwanted by their parents"

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I just want to make sure it's clear. Yes?

Lauren, 4:51, they are also a certain number of times more likely to commit suicide (after miscarriage AND abortion) although the number for after abortions is much higher than those of after miscarriages... substance and alcohol abuse rises dramatically, and many other such things.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 4:56 PM

But be careful not to confuse corelation with causation.

Agency and private adoptions can range from $5,000 to $40,000 or more depending on a variety of factors including services provided, travel expenses, birthmother expenses, requirements in the state, and other factors.

http://costs.adoption.com/

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 5:10 PM

Bethany we're tlaking about older children, not babies. Everyone wants babies. Well, almost everyone! :)

How can you attack me for not doing something you're not even willing to consider doing yourself?

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 5:13 PM

Whoa there Bethany.... when did I attack you for this? When did I even critcize you for this? No I just asked you. You are being very defensive.

And as for me, I would like to say I care enough to, but I have to admit I don't... otherwise I would have.

Asitis, it's not so easy to adopt out of the foster system either.

Back to my cousins...

They couldn't be adopted because there mother still technically had parental rights. In fact, it took years before they were able to be removed from their home state to live with their aunt in Texas.

A huge number of kids in the system are in this same situtaion. Furthermore, it's not easy to be approved as a foster parent. This is especially true if you have a large family. Your income must be over 125% of the poverty level, which isn't dificult at 1 or 2 children, but is quite the obstacle if you have 4 or 5.

And if that isn't what you meant, then what was the point of your question at 1:36 PM?

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 5:17 PM

It was simply a question Bethany. Not a judgement call.

But be careful not to confuse corelation with causation.

I'm not. Gotta run now but will provide studies if you'd like later.

Bethany we're tlaking about older children, not babies. Everyone wants babies. Well, almost everyone! :)

Are you joking? You are on a pro-life blog where we are talking about abortions.

Should we also firebomb Africa?

Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2009 5:18 PM

No, but I'm all for the U.S. providing contraception and family planning services along with other forms of aid.

Oh, I forgot to mention in the whole "abstinent until marriage" discussion. While I did engage in pre-marital sex, I never would have attempted to justify my actions. Never while I was doing it did I think it was right; I just did it anyway. I never had pre-marital sex and thought it was OK.

So my beliefs about pre-marital sex has never changed; only my behaviour and attitude.

... and that's makes "perfect pro-choice sense" Bethany!

(Honestly, I didn't even see your comment when answered Lauren's. Perfect! Thank you.)

Bethany we're tlaking about older children, not babies. Everyone wants babies. Well, almost everyone! :)

Are you joking? You are on a pro-life blog where we are talking about abortions.

Posted by: Bethany at February 27, 2009 5:34 PM

Everybody wants BORN babies Lauren. I keep hearing here how there's no shortage of people ready to adobt babies. Older children.... not so much.

Bobby why did you do it then?

Eh, asitis, I think you're mixing up Bethany and me. I already addressed why adopting older children out of foster care is a challange.

I just didn't care. Feels good, I care about now now. I mean, there really was no justification for it other than I wanted to.

Sorry Lauren. Bethany then.

Okay, so maybe it's hard to adopt out of foster care. But what about providing foster care? Isn't that easier? And don't states compensate foster parents for providing care?

And don't mistake my intent:I'm not saying everyone should feel compelled to take in foster kids.

Asitis, it's easier, but not easy. You have to go through the same sorts of qualifications you would to adopt. You have to show income for the last 3 years, do a homestudy, attend classes, ect.

You do get compensation, but you have to show that you are financially stable. I believe they also use the 125% rule.

The compensation is graded based on how "hard" the individual case might be. If you're providing for a child with severe mental/emotional/physical issues you get more in compensation than if you were providing a child without these issues. I believe, however, that you have to have higher qualifications in order to foster the harder cases.

Of course, people shouldn't be fostering for the compensation, though I won't say that this never happens.

Thanks Bobby. So you wanted the sex. And you believed it was wrong, but you didn't care enough to abstain. Right?

Also, I forgot to mention that even if you are becoming a foster parent you have to pay for background cecks, cpr certification, homestudies, vaccines ect.

Of course, people shouldn't be fostering for the compensation, though I won't say that this never happens.

Posted by: Lauren at February 27, 2009 5:55 PM

Oh, I agree there... they shouldn't be! The money is there so money isn't an issue if people want to provide care.

One of my favorite shows has a good episode on virginity.

http://television.aol.com/show/video/partner/hulu/strangers-with-candy/strangers-with-candy-the-virgin-jerri/qJuV_0eoFTB1oHy4RDJl0dez_hXGSWdH

Indeed.

I personally think the standards we hold would-be adoptive parents to should be set for would-be parents who want to conceive naturally! But obviously there's no way to do that :(
But we'd sure have more prepared, determined parents!

I have no moral objection to unmarried adults having sexual relations. I actually think it's a nice part of life.

Bethany, thanks for your offer. Very sweet. We've both been "fixed," so no real danger of that.

Bottom line:

Pro-lifers would not attempt to control the sex lives of consenting adults- our only interest are the children involved that are killed through abortion, chemicals, etc. If you don't kill any of your children, have all the sex you want- It's none of our business. I do think that pre/extra marital sex hurts those that do it, children that result and society as a whole- but so do countless other types of immorality like alcohol abuse.

Now, that being said, we wouldn't have dead babies without sexual immorality. Abortion is only "needed" because of sexual immorality- pre/extra marital sex, incest, rape, married couple divorcing sex from procreation. Even in cases where the sex act itself was not immoral, those that try to separate the procreative aspect to the extent of killing the procreated as practicing sexual immorality.

So to act like there is no correlation between sexual immorality and abortion is ridiculous. Abortion is the fruit of sexual immorality.

P.S. My most meaningful and long-lasting relationships have been with fellow virgins. My relationships with non-virgins where I attempted to overcome their pasts, I never could. Now I simply don't date non-virgins.

Jacqueline, just to clarify.. are you lesbian or straight? I might have missed something.

When you look to an entertainer who's work aims for the low-brow you reduce your cause to base slogans and cheap digs. I'm sure Mr. Rock is a nice guy in his off hours but basing one's policy statements on a comedy routine is not exactly a way to be taken seriously.

//Now, that being said, we wouldn't have dead babies without sexual immorality. Abortion is only "needed" because of sexual immorality- pre/extra marital sex, incest, rape, married couple divorcing sex from procreation. Even in cases where the sex act itself was not immoral, those that try to separate the procreative aspect to the extent of killing the procreated as practicing sexual immorality.//

What about the baby that is concieved in a loving, commited marriage and they find out that it's a tubular pregancy...or some other complication that poses very great risks to the mother? That has nothing to do with sexual immorality. And the woman that concieves when she's raped wasn't necessarily a sexually promiscuous woman, she could be a virgin for all you know, she just got raped...why should she have to carry her rapists child?

Don't you know that a rape baby is a blessing from god....

What about the baby that is concieved in a loving, commited marriage and they find out that it's a tubular pregancy...or some other complication that poses very great risks to the mother?

That's NOT AN ABORTION. When the baby dies as a consequence of a tragic situation, the goal was to save life- the life of the mother, in a situation where both can't be saved. Never compare a tragedy like ectopic pregnancy to a woman paying some quack to dismember her baby with forceps because she doesn't want to be pregnant. This is offensive to women who have lost babies to real tragedies like ectopic pregnancy.

And the woman that concieves when she's raped wasn't necessarily a sexually promiscuous woman, she could be a virgin for all you know, she just got raped...why should she have to carry her rapists child?

Rape is SEXUAL IMMORALITY and the woman is a victim, like the baby. She wasn't wrong in the least, but neither was the child. So my point stands that killing that child only would occur because of sexual immorality.

Secondly, the alternative to carrying the baby is killing the baby. That is not okay- the rapist won't get the death penalty, so why should the innocent child? Is a baby conceived in rape any different than a child conceived in consentual sex? A baby is a baby- and that baby had no say over who fathered her.

Third, and most important, she is not carrying her rapists baby- she is carrying HER OWN BABY. Yes, the child is father by a rapist, but it's equally mothered by an innocent woman. An innocent woman that decides not to kill her innocent child isn't having her rapists baby. She's having her own baby.

NOW- your wording implies the assumption that I somehow think pregnancy is a punishment for sexual immorality- It's not. There are countless infertile couples that would love to be so punished. It's not a punishment- it's a natural consequence of sex. Sex causes babies. The problem is that people have sex, sex causes a baby and they kill that baby. The converse would be not to have sex if you don't want a baby to result- but people will do what they want and kill the child when it gets in the way. Besides, if babies were a "punishment" for sexual immorality, how do you explain that the same act performed in a moral way results in pregnancy just the same?

Let face it: upwards of 80% of babies aborted are conceived by single women. So we know at least 80% of the time, sexual immorality is the cause of dead children. When you take the logic further, you inevitably determine that sexual immorality is the cause of most, nearly all abortions.

Ok, so it's not her rapists child, it's her child. Whatever. I don't know about you, but never in a million years could I carry a child that I concieved while being raped. Just couldn't.

Don't you know that a rape baby is a blessing from god....

I am offended by the term "rape baby" and I know several "rape babies" that would also rightly extend to you a hearty middle finger.

Tell me, what is the phsycial difference between a "rape baby" as you call them and a baby conceived to two loving parents? Are "rape babies" different? Do they smell different? Do they breathe fire?

So the babies you advocate killing are no different than other babies, just victims of a crime like their mothers. Thankfully, many mothers choose not to make additional victims, so there are many "rape babies" out there. Say this to their faces, I friggin DARE YOU.

I think I proved the flaw in logic reagrding the abortion arguement a couple days ago. Logic doesn't apply to this arguement because each side bases their arguement on opinion and often confused fact, so LOGICALLY, logic is flawed in this matter.

Ok, so it's not her rapists child, it's her child. Whatever. I don't know about you, but never in a million years could I carry a child that I concieved while being raped. Just couldn't.

So you could have your child torn limb from limb with a suction machine? Because someone violated your body, you will destroy the babies body? That takes you from an innocent victim to a perpetrator yourself. In many ways you're worse than the rapist, because you are the baby's MOTHER, the one he/she counts on for protection and care. At least in the case of the rapist, he attacked someone with the capacity to defend themselves. At least he didn't kill you.

Once again, opinion and beliefs. Yours are different from Talula's, and you don't get to decide what she chooses or would choose, pro-lifers really don't seem to grasp that concept.

What Jacqueline said is a fact, it's not a belief or an opinion.

What Jacqueline said is a fact, it's not a belief or an opinion.
Posted by: Jasper at February 28, 2009 12:32 AM

That's your opinion.

"That should be quote of the day. Good explanation, Lauren."

Done :)

Thank you Jacqueline!!
The "rape baby" I know is named Nicholas. His mother was a virgin when she was raped. She received all of the help and support she needed to help her heal from the tragedy of rape. Nicholas has been a blessing to her in so many ways. A miracle out of something truly horrifying.

She doesn't sit around lamenting the fact that she didn't kill Nicholas by abortion when she had the "choice" to kill him.

Abortion does not cure rape. It adds to the trauma.

Dustin,
Once again, opinions and beliefs. Yours are different than Jacqueline's and you don't get to decide what she chooses or would choose, prochoicers don't seem to grasp that concept.

Dustin says "I think I proved the flaw in logic reagrding the abortion arguement a couple days ago. Logic doesn't apply to this arguement because each side bases their arguement on opinion and often confused fact, so LOGICALLY, logic is flawed in this matter."

Dustin, you proved nothing. One side (the pro-life side) consistantly applies a set of values using science and logic. The other (pro-choice) arbitrarlily places value on life, neglecting both science and logic.

The only logic flawed in the arguement is that used to support abortion.

Dustin: "I think I proved the flaw in logic reagrding the abortion arguement a couple days ago. Logic doesn't apply to this arguement because each side bases their arguement on opinion and often confused fact, so LOGICALLY, logic is flawed in this matter."

Youre kidding me right? Logic itself is flawed? What are you talking about? "Flaw" implies the misuse of logic, or even the absence of logic; the word is defined by logic, how on earth can it itself be flawed? I cant even begin to comprehend the absurdity of what you just said.

Besides, the whole POINT of the abortion argument is to logically debate whether or not abortion is consistent with the other universally held ethical premises. Im a big one for arguing that it is impossible to establish a universal moral code, but that isnt even what you are talking about with your "logic is flawed" statement, and even if you WERE trying to discuss this problem, you would be completely missing the idea that the discussion is over relative premises anyways. I wish I could really post what I think about you, but thats apparently frowned upon on this site, but Im sure you can use your imagination.....actually maybe not.

Dustin,

"I think I proved the flaw in logic reagrding the abortion arguement a couple days ago. Logic doesn't apply to this arguement because each side bases their arguement on opinion and often confused fact, so LOGICALLY, logic is flawed in this matter."

Could you remind me what this was? Thanks.

Oops. I didn't read far enough down. Looks like Oliver is already on this one :)

All hail Oliver, King of Logic!

Good morning sir! :)

Dustin,
Many who make the plea for women in the case of rape/incest are doing so without knowing what women who've experienced it are saying, however most decided to carry to term and what they want isn't an abortion, but love and non-judgemental support through this turbulent time.

Hope After Rape; Life After Rape: "The Face of the 'Rape Exception'"

Two women have come to the forefront to help women who have become pregnant through rape or incest, children conceived through sexual assault, and women who have had abortions as a result of these crimes (members throughout the U.S.):

a) Kay Zibolsky, LIFE AFTER ASSAULT LEAGUE, 1336 West Lindberg St., Appleton, WI 54914. Phone: 920-739-4489.

Kay is the author of the book, "The Sorrow of Sexual Assault and the Joy of Healing"

b) Julie Makimaa is a so-called "product of rape" and is the author of "Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault". The book uses the combined experiences of 264 women and children and provides a definitive response to the argument for abortion in assault pregnancies.

Dustin,
Many who make the plea for women in the case of rape/incest are doing so without knowing what women who've experienced it are saying, however most decided to carry to term and what they want isn't an abortion, but love and non-judgemental support through this turbulent time.

Hope After Rape; Life After Rape: "The Face of the 'Rape Exception'"

Two women have come to the forefront to help women who have become pregnant through rape or incest, children conceived through sexual assault, and women who have had abortions as a result of these crimes (members throughout the U.S.):

a) Kay Zibolsky, LIFE AFTER ASSAULT LEAGUE, 1336 West Lindberg St., Appleton, WI 54914. Phone: 920-739-4489.

Kay is the author of the book, "The Sorrow of Sexual Assault and the Joy of Healing"

b) Julie Makimaa is a so-called "product of rape" and is the author of "Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About Their Pregnancies, Abortions, and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault". The book uses the combined experiences of 264 women and children and provides a definitive response to the argument for abortion in assault pregnancies.

Surveys about women who have been raped:
"In 1981, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn conducted the first major research of pregnant rape victims. She found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."

For those skeptics who don't like prolife sources, then go here: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

Since then, apparently, so has at least one other:
"Professor Stephen Krason points out that "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."

That leads to this footnote: "Krason, 284. For an overview of the research, see Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," in David Mall and Walter F. Watts, M.D., The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979), 67-68."

That PDF file quotes Dr. Stephen Krason's published book: "Dr. Stephen Krason writes:
"A number of studies have shown that pregnancy resulting from rape is very uncommon. One, looking at 2190 victims, reported pregnancy in only 0.6 percent."
(Abortion: Politics, Morality, and the Constitution, book published in 1984 [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984], 283.)

Also, more recently, I've learned of an organization called, "Stigmatized," a support group for individuals conceived by rape or incest and for women who have been pregnant by assault or are raising rape or incest conceived children.

Another woman's story

Mods, I have a pending response with a lot of links, please approve.

Done and done, Rachael :)

Surveys about women who have been raped:
"In 1981, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn conducted the first major research of pregnant rape victims. She found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."

For those skeptics who don't like prolife sources, then go here: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

Surveys about women who have been raped:
"In 1981, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn conducted the first major research of pregnant rape victims. She found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."

For those skeptics who don't like prolife sources, then go here: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

Since then, apparently, so has at least one other:
"Professor Stephen Krason points out that "psychological studies have shown that, when given the proper support, most pregnant rape victims progressively change their attitudes about their unborn child from something repulsive to someone who is innocent and uniquely worthwhile."

That leads to this footnote: "Krason, 284. For an overview of the research, see Sandra Kathleen Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," in David Mall and Walter F. Watts, M.D., The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (Washington, D.C.: University Publications of America, 1979), 67-68."

Also, more recently, I've learned of an organization called, "Stigmatized," a support group for individuals conceived by rape or incest and for women who have been pregnant by assault or are raising rape or incest conceived children.

Another woman's story

Thank you, Rachael!! Excellent resources!!

Another woman's story

If you're wondering, it's all from the same post, but I've broken it up into a few so it doesn't get lost in the moderation quue or the spam folder. I found all of these sources here for in case I missed any.

I am praying that God use these women's powerful testimonies to stand against the lies that abortion helps women. Especially those that have been raped.

Surveys about women who have been raped:
"In 1981, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn conducted the first major research of pregnant rape victims. She found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."

For those skeptics who don't like prolife sources, then go here: Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.

Posted by: Rachael at February 28, 2009 8:55 AM

Rachel, the first part of your coment above, comes from "Dr." David Reardon, so yes, it would be good to check out the source. Problem is, the link in the scond part, doesn't get you to Mahkorn's study. It gets you to a different report of hers and there is no mention that for pregnant rape victims "75 to 85 percent chose against abortion."

Do you have a link for the original study? I can't find it.

Carla 6:31am

I understand that Angelina and Brad's adopted, and very beautiful, Ethiopian daughter Zahara was conceived by rape as well. Her destitute mother gave Zahara up to give her a far better life than she could hope to give her.
The child was every bit the innocent victim her mother was. I'm certain Angelina and Brad are thankful she's here.

Rachel, I just found another reference to Mahkorn's 1979 study on another pro-life site

"But in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion"

Maybe this is where Reardon's "85% chose against abortion" comes from? Though 33 subjects is hardly a major study and isn't even very significant.

Asitis 9:38am

You're correct about pregnancy resulting from rape being extremely rare. I've long maintained that the real problem is the neanderthal mentality toward rape victims that is sadly alive and well in our society, despite the best efforts of feminists.
Never mind that the victim is beaten, traumatized, infected with a deadly disease, even murdered. Who cares how many women this attacker victimized? We're just relieved she didn't become pregnant!

Hi Mary! I'm actually not making any comment about the occurence of rape-related pregnancy. What I am questioning is this claim of Reardon's (which I have learned this morning is often referenced on other Pro-life sites) that 75-85% of those women do not abort. This seems high.

Apparently this 1979 study of Mahkorn's is the only "major" research sudy ever done on the subject. But it only involved 33 women!

asitis,
I recommend you read Sandra Mahkorm's full report, which was featured in Issues in Law & Medicine, Spring, 1999 :
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m6875/is_4_14/ai_n25025984

especially number 7, 8, and 11, which states:
7. It is often common for even well-meaning, educated and sympathetic individuals to stereotype and categorize the reactions and responses of the rape victim. Often non-victims project themselves into the situation and assume that a sexual assault victim's reaction or a pregnant rape victim's responses will be similar to those they imagine for themselves. These unfortunate stereotypes don't help the victim. In my experience as a counselor of sexual assault victims and as a physician, a victim's reactions, attitudes and responses to the assault are almost as numerous as the victims themselves.

Hmm, such as that a woman will want an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of incest or rape.

8. ...If such a woman becomes pregnant, she needs a thorough and compassionate exploration of her unique circumstances and all of her options, >not medical paternalism that prescribes one course of optimum treatment for her, i.e., termination of the pregnancy. To prevent this from occurring, AB 441 does require that information about her pregnancy, all alternatives, risks and services available to her be fully disclosed.

11. A fourth myth is the common misperception that abortion is a woman's preferred "choice" to resolve the crisis of the rape and resulting pregnancy. In one study, 1 percent of women seeking abortion reported rape or incest as the main reason for that decision. But, 95 percent of these same women expressed other reasons, unrelated to rape. Another study reported on the outcomes of women who believed their pregnancy was the result of rape: 32.2 percent opted to keep the child, 5.9 percent placed the child for adoption, 11.8 percent spontaneously aborted, and 50 percent of the women chose to abort. This is not dissimilar from the rate of abortion among all unplanned pregnancies. It would appear then, that victims of sexual assault do weigh options, base at least part of their decisions on issues unrelated to the rape, and are entitled to the same information provided to other women considering abortion as an option.

In other words, women who were raped are not choosing to have an abortion because of the rape, but rather the same social reasons as other aborting women.

Sections 19, 20, and 21 are also interesting in regards to the recent issues at Planned Parenthood...

19. Pregnancy may be the sentinel event that leads to a discovery of an incestuous relationship. If pregnancy does occur, many incest victims or their caretakers do not discover the pregnancy until the second trimester.

20. The young victim's pregnancy represents a threatening situation for the perpetrator. Unfortunately abortion will frequently be used by the perpetrator or other caretakers to cover up the facts of the victimization. Frequently young incest victims will be coerced into having abortions by those who victimize them or by other caretakers who are dependent on the victimizer. Young victims will often be told to lie about the circumstances of their pregnancy. They may be told that if they reveal their victimization, they will be responsible for breaking up their family, or causing a father, step-father, or other relative to go to jail.

21. Pregnant incest victims will often undergo abortions without the abortion provider knowing about the victimization. Young victims are often told to lie.

22. Abortion may mean that the pregnancy remains undiscovered by individuals who could help her. Abortion may also mean her return to continued victimization.

23. Screening for incest, especially among youthful pregnant women is crucial. If incest is suspected, the provider has both an ethical and legal responsibility to report his or her suspicions to appropriate authorities.

Also, what of the 264 women and children in the book, "Victims and Victors," do their voices not count too?

Dustin,
Many who make the plea for women in the case of rape/incest are doing so without knowing what women who've experienced it are saying, however most decided to carry to term and what they want isn't an abortion, but love and non-judgemental support through this turbulent time.
Posted by: Rachael at February 28, 2009 8:48 AM

Rachel what I see in the resources you have given, is excellent testimonies from women who have been raped and have chosen to have their babies. And stories from individulas who are here because of that decision. All of the stories or tragic and beautiful. I am glad that something good can come of something so hateful and ugly.

However, what I do NOT see is evidence to support your claim that most women who are raped and get pregnant decide to carry to term.

"In one study, 1 percent of women seeking abortion reported rape or incest as the main reason for that decision. But, 95 percent of these same women expressed other reasons, unrelated to rape".

What does this have to say, if anything, about the rate at which rape-related pregnancies end in abortion Rachel?

Rachel at 10:23am

Rachel, I already read that article. That's where the link you gave originally took me. It does NOT take one to the oringal 1979 study that the link cites. It does NOT say anything about the 75-85% rate that Reardon claims was the result of a "major research study".

Good Morning Asitis And Everyone Else on The Thread :)

I understand the point you're making.

My remarks were not directed so much to your comment but rather to our society as a whole and the despicable prejudice and treatment rape victims must still endure.
Our society's "concern" is seen only if a victim is pregnant, otherwise she's just another crime statistic.

Now that I've injected my 2 cents I'm off to visit Victoria. Let's hope the lady can perform a few miracles!

Asitis

My 10:36am comment is in response to your 9:56am.
Just so there's no confusion. This thread was suddenly flooded with comments!

Happy shopping Mary. Buy something with sass!

I agree rape is a horrible, horrible thing and victims certainly do not deserve to be undergo further distress and mistreatment by the people who are supposed to be helping them or by society in general. They deserve the exact opposite.

Mary at 10:39

I realized that. But thanks! Go ... have fun!

Posted by: Hal at February 26, 2009 8:16 PM

'Jasper, why are so many lesbians pro choice?'
----------------------------------------------

Because most lesbians are feminists, and most feminists are liberal humanists and most liberal humanist have convoluted the concept of personal liberty into a licence to kill, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.

Some lesbian might discover she is pregnant with a male child and as much as she might desire to have a penis, she cannot keep the 'organ' without keeping the male child.

(See 'having cake and eating it too'.)

yor bro ken

However, what I do NOT see is evidence to support your claim that most women who are raped and get pregnant decide to carry to term.

asitis,
Fine, we can't accurately know how many women have had an abortion or carried to term as a result of rape or incest when sexual assaults are under-reported, as also reported in the aforementioned articles.

What does this have to say, if anything, about the rate at which rape-related pregnancies end in abortion Rachael?

Evenso, you can't make the claim for abortion in the case of rape or the argument about pregnancy causing further traumatization of a woman who has been raped, because it's a red herring argument and a mute point, it's not the reason these women are having abortions.

Rachel, I already read that article. That's where the link you gave originally took me. It does NOT take one to the oringal 1979 study that the link cites. It does NOT say anything about the 75-85% rate that Reardon claims was the result of a "major research study".

I have not been able to find the study yet, but will continue looking. Because of the age of the study, my thoughts are that it is in print or on microfilm.

asitis,

All of the stories or tragic and beautiful. I am glad that something good can come of something so hateful and ugly.

I agree rape is a horrible, horrible thing and victims certainly do not deserve to be undergo further distress and mistreatment by the people who are supposed to be helping them or by society in general. They deserve the exact opposite.

I'm glad we agree! :-)

Why does rape always seem to be an argument for abortion? 1% of women who are raped and become pregnant abort. But that is always the argument that gets thrown out by PC as to why abortion should stay legal.

Carla's it's not THE reason why abortion should not be illegal. It's one of the reasons.

Some lesbian might discover she is pregnant with a male child and as much as she might desire to have a penis, she cannot keep the 'organ' without keeping the male child.
Posted by: kbhvac at February 28, 2009 10:46 AM

-Yet another offensive, misogynistic stereotype about lesbians. "They all really just want to be men." You're so clueless.

I have not been able to find the study yet, but will continue looking. Because of the age of the study, my thoughts are that it is in print or on microfilm.
Posted by: Rachael at February 28, 2009 10:48 AM

Good luck Rachel. You'll probably find that it is the same study of hers that I found mention of earlier:

Rachel, I just found another reference to Mahkorn's 1979 study on another pro-life site

"But in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion"

This would be where Reardon calculated the 75-85%
(9/37 - 5/33). The problem is, he called this a "major research study". It's not. It's not even really significant. And to make matters worse, his claim gets repeated on a plethora of other pro-life sites and people start cross-referencing it and believing it. It's misinformation. The truth is this:

Of a small sampling (n=33)of women who were pregnant as a result of rape, 85% chose not to abort.

Once again, opinion and beliefs. Yours are different from Talula's, and you don't get to decide what she chooses or would choose, pro-lifers really don't seem to grasp that concept.

I studied social work- I'm both a BSW and an MSW. I see people choose to do many horrendous things with their born children, too. Myself and my pro-choice colleagues have no qualms about removing children from parents that choose to burn them, beat them or harm them in various ways. No, I have no control over what evil choices these people or Talula might make, but I have an obligation to protect children any way I can.

You can support choices to do deplorable things to innocent babies, but I've dedicated my life to protecting innocent people. So yes, if I could stop the choice before the damage, I would.

It makes sense that raped women would not want abortions- They have just had someone foreable violate them- why would they compound that by being violated again by sharp instruments?

Oliver: "Besides, the whole POINT of the abortion argument is to logically debate whether or not abortion is consistent with the other universally held ethical premises"

I was wondering what the point was.

I'm not sure this is it, however. If I could convince you abortion was consistent with other universally held ethical premises, would you change your view? If you could convince me it was inconsistent, would I? Moreover, I doubt either of us (or anyone else) could be so convinced in the first place.

well said Hal @11:47am.

It makes sense that raped women would not want abortions- They have just had someone foreable violate them- why would they compound that by being violated again by sharp instruments?
Posted by: Jacqueline at February 28, 2009 11:38 AM

Jacqueline, you are right in that woman who are raped have just been forceably violted. Anything that happens as a consequence should be done with utmost compassion, respect and care and should make it as easy on the woman as possible. To that end, if a woman who has just been raped is at risk of becoming pregnant and she would not want to carry the baby, she should have easy access to the "morning after pill". They should put it in the kits in the hospitals in fact, so it's there if she wants it. Maybe they actually do this... i don't know.

And... as I think more about it....most people (not all) include a religious aspect in their opposition to abortion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you'd have to admit that's taking the debate out of the realm of logic.

kbhavc @10:46am

ken, you disappoint me.

Well, it appears some hospitals do. In fact, it's legislated in NY:

2003-SEP-30: NY: EC law signed into law: After having been passed by the Assembly, the state Senate unanimously approved a bill that requires hospitals in New York state to give rape victims information about emergency contraception and to offer the medication on-site. Republican governor George Pataki signed the bill into law. It came into effect on 2003-JAN-28. Only California, New Mexico, and Washington state have similar laws in place. Pat Ernenwein, co-executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Mid-Hudson Valley, said that rape victims "...may not choose that option, but at least they have it. I don't know if it's been a problem, but if there has been a problem of women experiencing delays in obtaining emergency contraception, this should take care of that." Rob Baumstone, director of corporate communications at Benedictine, a Roman Catholic hospital, said "If the woman is not pregnant, it's not a spiritual issue at that point. I would assume that we would view it (emergency contraception for rape victims) as a preventive measure for the safety of the patient."

Family Planning Advocates of New York State estimates that 25,000 women become pregnant in the U.S. each year as a result of rape. Up to 22,000 of those pregnancies could be prevented through if EC were provided quickly.

No, it may not be THE reason you support abortion, Asitis but the abortion argument seems to ALWAYS go to abortions in cases of rape. That is the argument I hear most often to keep abortion legal. When it only accounts for 1% of all abortions.

That's all I am trying to say. :)

you probably ALWAYS hear it from prochoicers carla because they think that is the only reason why YOU might want to keep it legal. They have additional reasons

I don't want to keep abortion legal.

Hence the "might" carla

Asitis 12:22PM

Do they say where they come up with the statistic of 25,000 pregnancies a year from rape?
Were these women who reported the assaults to police and were verified rapes?
I'm curious since this crime is, very unfortunately, underreported and women can also falsely claim their pregnancies result from rape.

Asitis,
You aren't making any sense. Toodles.

Carla and Asitis,

Concerning rape. I recall the early days of the movement to legalize abortion and rape was used for its tremendous emotional appeal by the PC side. Only then they were called pro-abortion.
Efforts were being made to overturn laws and emotion had more appeal than facts. In fact, some states laws already made exceptions for rape and incest prior to Roe v Wade.
In 40 years in the medical area I have seen only 2 verified rape pregnancies, where the legal system was actually involved. I have seen my share of rape victims.

To add to this, the despicable practice of playing on racial fears and prejudice, this was the mid 60's, was thrown into the mix.
How would you feel if your wife was raped by a "drunken Indian" or a "n-----" was the often raised argument. Apparently white men didn't rape all that much and it wasn't so bad when they did.
As the victim of an attempted rape by a white man I can assure anyone it is equally horrific.
I read years ago that a local medical association, anxious to loosen up Georgia's abortion laws, asked then Gov. Lester Maddox, a segregationist, how he would feel about the white woman impregnated by a black rapist.
Not surprisingly, no similar "concern" was ever expressed for a black woman impregnated by a white rapist.

Asitis,
You aren't making any sense. Toodles.

Posted by: Carla at February 28, 2009 2:04 PM

Sorry. I thought it was clear. I was pointing out to you that I had said ".. why you MIGHT want to keep it legal", not "... why you want to keep it legal".

you probably ALWAYS hear it from prochoicers carla because they think that is the only reason why YOU might want to keep it legal. They have additional reasons

Posted by: asitis at February 28, 2009 12:47 PM

Mary, I am so, so sorry to hear that you were the victim of an attempted rape. But glad to hear the "attempted" qualifier. I hope it is long in the past and you are as over it as anyone can ever be. Peace.

Now, of those rape victims you have seen as a nurse, I guess you don't really know how many ended up pregnant nor what they chose. I can see all kinds of difficulty collecting data on rape and related pregnancy: Rape is under-reported in general. Many victims don't end up at the hospital (they are the "fortunate" ones, though I realize that terminology is very wrong). Data collection on rape-related pregnancies is similaril problematic: If a rape ends in a misscarriage it is not necessarily documented. Likewise a birth. Likewise an abortion.

Oh and Mary, I was around for the days when abortion was an issue in Canada and Morgentaler was setting up clinics and being charged and the country was figuring out what to do. I remember rape being part of the discussions but not a major part. But then again, Canada is a different country that the US in many ways!

Asitis :"Rachel, the first part of your coment above, comes from "Dr." David Reardon, so yes, it would be good to check out the source."

Seems someone never learns. Care to explain why again you think Reardon should be questioned? Oh Im sure you posted all about it in some thread that dates somewhere between 7 years and 4 months ago. Its up to me to go find it right?

Hal :"And... as I think more about it....most people (not all) include a religious aspect in their opposition to abortion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you'd have to admit that's taking the debate out of the realm of logic."

You couldnt be more wrong sir. Having a religious aspect does not take the argument out of logic. This would be the case if the religious aspect was the ONLY sufficient aspect certainly, but not simply by nature of its existance.

Besides, the debate is more about the accepted mores of society. For example, Im sure you believe it is good that the US makes murder illegal. All the pro-life side is asserting is that abortion IS murder, so should therefore also be illegal. The argument is for the most part NOT centered solely on God, as you would know from the many posters here if you actually read what anyone said.

I agree with those who are opposed to calling a pro-choice person names. I think it takes away from intelligent discussion. Whether or not the other side does the same is not the point. The point is that it invalidates what you have to say when you stoop to that level. I was quite repulsed by the Chris Rock video, though I understand that some people do think that way. Its disgusting.
I am Pro-life. This does not mean that I am against contraception. I do think that people should be aware that contraception does not guarantee that their activities won't produce children and be prepared to deal with the consequences in the face of failure. It is the risk you take. I would even go so far as to recommend at least two forms of birth control. Both parties should share responsibility of birth control AND share the responsibility if the outcome is ultimately a child.
Abortion is ostensibly an "easy out" for women, but its not so easy from what I have seen. I don't think very many women really want abortions. I think they make that choice because they feel as if it is their ONLY choice. That needs to change to change in order for the abortion rates to fall.

Hal: "I'm not sure this is it, however. If I could convince you abortion was consistent with other universally held ethical premises, would you change your view? If you could convince me it was inconsistent, would I? Moreover, I doubt either of us (or anyone else) could be so convinced in the first place."

Again, you are very wrong. I support, at least in principle, the belief that abortion should be a choice as long as murder is a choice and theft is a choice etc. If we want to establish an anarchistic communist society, where anything goes essentially, and it is up to each individual to make their own way, even in terms of protection from harm, I am all for it hypothetically. I wouldnt WANT to live in a society like this, but the morals would be ocnsistent, and I wouldnt find anything unethical about it.

The injustice arises with the hypocritical beliefs. It would be analogous to providing student loans to only white males. I dont find anything wrong necessarily with providing student loans, but I find it very wrong to select arbitrarily who receives these loans.

You are right about one thing. If I could show you that abortion was inconsistent, you wouldnt care. This is because you are a sick individual who has a weak moral code and essentially operates off of selfishness. Thats your thing though.

Mary, I don't see anything on the website where that figure of 25,000 (rape-related pregnancies/year in the US) comes from. But it is in lines with other figures. Here's something from the Men Against Sexual Assault website. They cite a figure of 32,000. It's all based on the number of actual reported rapes, the estimated reporting rate and an estimated rate of becoming pregnant. (http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php)

Reporting Statistics
Only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. 1992). In 1995 there were 97,460 rapes reported to law enforcement officials. At a 16% reporting rate, this means that there were actually closer to 649,733 rapes in the United States.

The rate of false reports of rape is approximately 2 - 3% which is no different than that for other crimes. This is different than the 8% of reports which are unfounded. This means that in 8% of the rape cases reported the investigators or prosecutors deemed that the case was not prosecutable for any number of reasons. Only 2 - 3% of the reports however were fabricated stories.

Victim Characteristics

1 in 3 sexual assault victims are under the age of 12 (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999) and convicted rape and sexual assault offenders report that 2/3 of their victims were under the age of 18. Among victims age 18 - 29, two thirds had a prior relationship with the rapist. (National Crime Victimization Survey, Criminal Victimization, 1996)

18% of women who reported being raped before age 18 said they were also raped after age 18. (Violence Against Women Survey, 1998)

Impact of Rape

Rape is a violent crime which has many severe effects on the victim both in the long term and in the short term. For example, 36% women who are injured during a rape require medical attention (National Violence Against Women Survey, Nov.1998). 25 - 45% of rape survivors suffer from non-genital trauma, 19 - 22% suffer from genital trauma, up to 40% obtain STDs and 1 - 5% become pregnant as a result of the rape. There are an estimated 32,000 rape related pregnancies in the United States annually. (Holmes, 1996)

Seems someone never learns. Care to explain why again you think Reardon should be questioned? Oh Im sure you posted all about it in some thread that dates somewhere between 7 years and 4 months ago. Its up to me to go find it right?

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 2:59 PM

No, don't bother Oliver. Much easier to look here and see what he did in this case.

I honestly dont see how what you brought up accomplishes anything, but thats not even the point.

You claimed it before your investigated this research without any evidence to support the claim. I know because we went through this the other day. So care to explain what made you make this statement BEFORE your other points, which dont seem to refute the credibility of the study much either?

Oliver, here's my comment. I'll make it really easy for you.....

"But in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion"

This would be where Reardon calculated the 75-85%
(9/37 - 5/33). The problem is, he called this a "major research study". It's not. It's not even really significant. And to make matters worse, his claim gets repeated on a plethora of other pro-life sites and people start cross-referencing it and believing it. It's misinformation. The truth is this:

Of a small sampling (n=33)of women who were pregnant as a result of rape, 85% chose not to abort.

Posted by: asitis at February 28, 2009 11:19 AM

Asitis: "you probably ALWAYS hear it from prochoicers carla because they think that is the only reason why YOU might want to keep it legal. They have additional reasons"

Such as?

If the general American public REALLY considered the true reasons behind abortion, Im sure there would be a landslide shift towards the pro-life side.

Oliver, I have seen Reardon do this before. His name should send up red flags to take a closer look rather than take his claims at face value.

This is a perefct example. If you do not accept it, you are just being pig-headed.

Asitis: "Oliver, here's my comment. I'll make it really easy for you....."

You know, you really are dense. I didnt ask to clarify why you NOW think his research is flawed...although I will get to that in a second...I asked you why you thought it WOULD be flawed. You again responded simply on the perception that I showed you to be for the most part false.

Now, to your point. What was Reardon's conclusion? All I see is you posting some numbers with no source. If you wouldnt mind citing his actual conclusion so that I can see his word for word interpretation.

Asitis 2:41PM

Thank you for your kind words and concern.
It was 37 years ago and luckily I could escape.
My stepfather was a flaming racist and when he hollered "now just wait until some n----- tries to rape you", I had to remind him more than once it was a WHITE man who attempted to assault me.
Well, that was beside the point!

The 2 pregnancies were ones I saw professionally.
The victims I have seen have been more personal than professional encounters. I was shocked at the number of patients, friends, co-workers,etc. who had been victims of sexual assault. None had had babies.

I must mention I was personally acquainted with a young woman who had a baby at age 17 as the result of a gang rape and placed him for adoption. She hid her pregnancy until 7 months.
"Sally" had a childhood that was a horror story and a life that was a trainwreck. She was trying so hard to turn it around and I hope she succeeded.
Yet despite this she only spoke in glowing terms of her son, like he was the one thing in her life she did right. Sally would talk about him to anyone willing to listen. She had no doubts that placing him for adoption was the only and best option.
Her parents never stopped reminding her what an "embarassment" her pregnancy was. Knowing her parents, I was surprised to learn they actually had a sense of embarassment.

You're certainly right that accurate data on bona fide rape pregnancies may be very hard to come by. That's why I questioned how that group obtained that 25,000 figure.

Asitis 2:49PM

Likely Canada did not have the racial animosities that sadly, could be well played upon in this country and were.

If the general American public REALLY considered the true reasons behind abortion, Im sure there would be a landslide shift towards the pro-life side.

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 3:21 PM

Go on thinking that's the case if you want. No skin off my teeth.

Asitis:"Oliver, I have seen Reardon do this before. His name should send up red flags to take a closer look rather than take his claims at face value.

This is a perefct example. If you do not accept it, you are just being pig-headed.
"

No you havent. Do you honestly not remember a few weeks ago when you made this same claim and could not back it up? Do you not remember when I looked up his word for word conclusions and you yourself admited that they were reasonable? You really are arguing just to argue. You make me sick honestly. Is the protection of the right to murder the most helpless humans with the most future SO important to you that you have to lie and distort?

Now, to your point. What was Reardon's conclusion? All I see is you posting some numbers with no source. If you wouldnt mind citing his actual conclusion so that I can see his word for word interpretation.

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 3:25 PM

Oliver, if you want me to converse with you you will have to stop calling me dense. I most certainly am not dense. And you know this.

What was Readon's claim? I already posted it. Here it is again:

"But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion"

I have to go. Back soon.

Asitis 3:11PM

Thank you for the info. Only 16% of assaults were reported in 1992? I thought that half going unreported was bad enough.

Again a lot of factors here, including the unlikelihood of some victims being capable of becoming pregnant, sex acts that do not result in pregnancy, etc.

The number of bona fide rape pregnancies will likely remain anyone's guess.

Asitis,

I wont call you dense, but to totally honest, youve shown me nothing to respect in even the slightest since you started posting here. Nearly every point you have made so far has been poorly supported and weakly reasoned. In a less emotionally charged comment, you have been totally unimpressive. Couple that with the idea that you support a sick and demented phenomenon, you can probably see where my disgust comes from. Unlike SOMG, who had a strong intellect and solid reasoning for the most part, unlike Jodes, who has a kind demeanor and can admit defeat, you really have not sported any qualities to redeem yourself from your posts. To be fair though, I shouldnt let my repulsion of people like you color my posts and distill my points and/or the site in general. I will refrain from voicing my opinions on your character and inteligience in the future. You know how I feel by now anyways.

Now....to your point.

You said that Reardon conlcuded "But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Mahkorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion" in a study, which would discredit his study methodology. I have two main questions with some follow-ups.

Number one, is this a conclusion from a study or just a commentary that he made one day? If it is a conclusion from a study, from where did you find this source? If it is a commentary that he made, how on earth does that affect whether or not his research methodology is normally flawed?

Number two, how do you define a "major" study? I am not actually well-versed in this sort of terminology, but I do know that the word "major" is subjective and could be used to describe almost anything. Does a study require a certain sample to technically qualify as major, or are you really talking about matters of opinion here?

I agree Mary! There are a lot of assumptions and estimates. The number is horrifying and so is the silence.

I am so glad you are well. Did you report the attempt? Did they get him?

I have been fotunate to never have experienced this, nor to my knowledge anway, know many who have. But again with allthe silence, do we really know?

This is because you are a sick individual who has a weak moral code and essentially operates off of selfishness. Thats your thing though.
Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 3:09 PM

Thanks, I was beginning to miss John Lewandowski...

Have a fantastic day.

You too Hal. Hope its filled with lots of animal-like behavior!

Oliver. Your insults are unfounded. I won't even honor them with a rebuttal.They are laughable.

Now, as for your question....

For starters, if you are going to challenge me on what I write, would you at least read what I wrote. Reardon did not do a research study of his own. He was merely making a claim based on data from Makhorn's study. And then doing what he has done before - making invalid claims.

As for what constitutes a "major" study.... true, there is no hard and fast rule for that. But good luck finding ANY researcher that would call 33 subjects a major study. As I said, it wouldn't even be considered significant. For starters the number if too small and, if Dr Machkorn used patients who sought rape counselling from her, the sampling is not random.

Oliver, I can appreciate that you have not been involved in conducting any scientific studies yourself. But you should be able to look at thinks with a critical eye. Or at least realize your own shortcomings.

Thanks, I was beginning to miss John Lewandowski..

Posted by: Hal at February 28, 2009 4:03 PM

Maybe I can make Oliver go away too Hal! He also hates my stinking guts. And I know the real reason too!

Asitis, 3:58PM

Thank you. It was reported but not surprisingly he was never found.

Asitis: "He was merely making a claim based on data from Makhorn's study. And then doing what he has done before - making invalid claims.

As for what constitutes a "major" study.... true, there is no hard and fast rule for that. But good luck finding ANY researcher that would call 33 subjects a major study."

Show me some examples of Reardon making "invalid" claims and Ill believe you. Remember that you started out claiming that his research was flawed, only to see that it wasnt. I wouldnt be shocked if history repeats itself again.

As for the Reardon comment, you yourself claim that major is subjective. Maybe by claiming a "major" study, he meant an official study, even with a small sample. Maybe his distinction of major has nothing to do with the scope of the study. You cant necessarily claim that he is wrong when saying this.

Asitis: "But you should be able to look at thinks with a critical eye. Or at least realize your own shortcomings."

Right, coming from the person who claims to have solved and understood the Monty Hall problem is less than 3 minutes and directed to the person who admited the lack of knowledge in the first place.

Asitis: "Maybe I can make Oliver go away too Hal! He also hates my stinking guts. And I know the real reason too!"

No offense, but youre the same as every other generic pro-choicer. You might as well be Reality or Dustin or YLT.

Heres the reason by the way....Your age plus the quality of your posts and your desire to help people kill children. Its the same reason why I hate Hal too actually.

Asitis, 3:58PM

Thank you. It was reported but not surprisingly he was never found.

Posted by: Mary at February 28, 2009 4:33 PM

Well Mary, the way I see it is you have the last laugh: He wasn't successful in his attempt. And you are happy and well and the only lasting effect of the incidence is that it may have made you an even stronger and better person. So there!

Have a good night.

Oliver: "Remember that you started out claiming that his research was flawed, only to see that it wasnt."

Really? I don't recall this at all Oliver. You keep suggesting that, but I remeber nothing of the sort.

Oliver: "As for the Reardon comment, you yourself claim that major is subjective. Maybe by claiming a "major" study, he meant an official study, even with a small sample. Maybe his distinction of major has nothing to do with the scope of the study. You cant necessarily claim that he is wrong when saying this".

An "official" study????? What does that even mean? Oliver you are being ridiculous... or generous at best. Reardon said "major" to give the study more weight than it deserved. Period.

Oliver: "Heres the reason by the way....Your age plus the quality of your posts and your desire to help people kill children. Its the same reason why I hate Hal too actually.

Nope. That's not the real reason. It's okay. I don't expect you to admit it.

And by the way Oliver "kill children" is your view of abortion, not mine. And I don't actually have a desire to help perform abortion. I do, however, believe people should be able to choose abortion.

Not that it matters to you.

And by the way Oliver "kill children" is your view of abortion, not mine.

What if you're wrong? That's a pretty risky position to take.

If Oliver is wrong, at least he didn't advocate killing anyone.

Posted by: Danielle at February 28, 2009 11:10 AM

Some lesbian might discover she is pregnant with a male child and as much as she might desire to have a penis, she cannot keep the 'organ' without keeping the male child.

Posted by: kbhvac at February 28, 2009 10:46 AM

-Yet another offensive, misogynistic stereotype about lesbians. "They all really just want to be men." You're so clueless.

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

I confess, like most men, when it comes to women, regardless of their sexual preference/orientation, I am 'clueless'.

I never intimated that all lesbians want to be men. I do not believe that.

One excuse for aborton on demand is that women have a right to do what they want with their own bodies.

Following that line of thinking if a woman is pregnant with a 'male' human embryo/fetus and it is part of her body then she has reproductive organs of a male as well as a female.

I know that you are more enlightened than that.
You acknowledge that there are two separate entities. You discount/dismiss the inherent worth, value, rights of the prenatal human.

What I did assert is that most female homosexuals are liberal humanists. That is why they are 'pro-choice' democrats.

Female homosexuals do conceive and give birth.

They just need a willing sperm donor and a turkey baster if they wish to avoid the physical contact with the sperm donor.

There is nothing 'misogynistic about' that.

That is your 'bias', not mine.

yor bro ken

Asitis: "Really? I don't recall this at all Oliver. You keep suggesting that, but I remeber nothing of the sort."

Heres what you said....

Asitis back in the other thread: "I'll have to go back and see if I can find the post....I can't be certain - I'd have to find it."

Incidentally, you never did find it. You did however say this after I posted some of Reardan's conclusions from his studies.

Asitis: "This study here is NOT making any claims about causation, but rather merely suggesting a possibility and that further research is warranted. This is not an example of what I was referring to."

Right, and Im still waiting for this mythical example to appear.

So the only concrete commentary on his research methodology was to point out that he made a valid point of suggesting a correlation and not a strict causation.

By the way, where are the claims where he falsified information?

"An "official" study????? What does that even mean? Oliver you are being ridiculous... or generous at best. Reardon said "major" to give the study more weight than it deserved. Period."

I dont know what "official" may mean, other than a study done by people who have experience and knowledge on completing a study.I find it interesting that when it comes to abortion, its about personal beliefs, yet when it comes to the word "major" it can only mean what you think it means, Asitis. See why I have such a hard time taking anything you say seriously?

Asitis: "Nope. That's not the real reason. It's okay. I don't expect you to admit it. "

I can assure you that it is. You are so wise though, so I imagine that you know me better!

Asitis: "And by the way Oliver "kill children" is your view of abortion, not mine. And I don't actually have a desire to help perform abortion. I do, however, believe people should be able to choose abortion. "

Two problems with this statement. Number one, children are killed through abortion, regardless of how you feel on the issue. Chldren are defined as progeny and kill is defined as the stopping of life. It happens, no matter what you "believe."

Number two, you are confused on what it means to "help." If you help to remove an obstacle to an action or to help provide the infrastructure to complete an action, you are helping. You want to make abortion legal, so at the minimum you are in support of removing the obstacle of law. This is helping people to kill their children. Do you support tax dollars going to planned parrenthood or to abortion in general? If so, you are supporting the infrastructure to complete abortions and you are again helping. Its simple really.

Jacky: "What if you're wrong? That's a pretty risky position to take.

If Oliver is wrong, at least he didn't advocate killing anyone."

Exactly. The burden of proof is on the pro-choice side and so far there has not been an argument to justify abortion.

Im actually curious, what do you think justifies abortion Asitis? Be careful that your belief is consistent with your other values.

Posted by: Danielle at February 28, 2009 11:10 AM

'Yet another offensive, misogynistic stereotype about lesbians. "They all really just want to be men." You're so clueless.'

-----------------------------------------------------
Danielle

By the way these are your words, not mine:

"They all really just want to be men."

Posted by: Danielle at February 28, 2009 11:10 AM

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

Fortunately I have not yet been required to attend a sensitivity seminar where an attempt could be made to indoctrinate me with the politically correct terminology of the liberal humanist.

I read in a commentary on a news blog recently that, "The truth will set you free, but it will probably infuriate you first."

yor bro ken

And by the way Oliver "kill children" is your view of abortion, not mine.

What if you're wrong? That's a pretty risky position to take.

If Oliver is wrong, at least he didn't advocate killing anyone.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 28, 2009 5:24 PM

What do you mean Jacqueline? That's a pretty risky position that... what???? That God exists and will be mad at me? I'll take that risk.

Oliver, you still have given no credence to your statement "Remember that you started out claiming that his research was flawed, only to see that it wasnt." I never "saw" that Readon's research was not flawed. And so is his representation of Mackhorn's study.

Let me know when you have anything of susbtance to say Oliver. Until then, don't bother.

Asitis: " never "saw" that Readon's research was not flawed. "

Yes you did. You admited that the studies hat I presented were not "examples" of what you considered flawed research. If they are not examples of flawed research, then they are not flawed. Didnt know that I needed to connect the dots for you.

Asitis: "What do you mean Jacqueline? That's a pretty risky position that... what???? That God exists and will be mad at me? I'll take that risk. "

Are you seriously asserting that your only concern over morality is whether or not you will be at the negative end of a consequence? You wouldnt be horrified to find out that you are ethically incorrect on abortion and that you are in fact supporting, and therefore helping, people to commit a grevious immoral act that wrongfully takes a human life? The only way you would regret your beliefs would be under the wrath of God? What the hell is wrong with you?

I take it back, its not that your stupid, youre a sociopath. All you care about is yourself.

Asitis: " never "saw" that Readon's research was not flawed. "

Yes you did. You admited that the studies hat I presented were not "examples" of what you considered flawed research. If they are not examples of flawed research, then they are not flawed. Didnt know that I needed to connect the dots for you.

Yeh, that makes sense Oliver. Just because a guy is right once in his research, it means he's ALWAYS right? I'm sorry, but keep that logic up and you'll lose your pretty crown soon!

The only way you would regret your beliefs would be under the wrath of God? What the hell is wrong with you?

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 7:00 PM

Well, what else did she mean Oliver?

Oh and by the way, I've had people here tell me and others we'll regret something "in the end". And that they don't do things because it's a sin and God will be mad at them. Well, not those words exactly, but that's the idea.....

Asistis, if I remember correctly, you could not find a single study that was flawed. If you have these flawed studies, please present them.

I take it back, its not that your stupid, youre a sociopath. All you care about is yourself.

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 7:04 PM

Oliver, remember.... It's gotta have substance or it's just words, words, words.

Lauren, the flaws are there. I'm not going to waste my time pulling them together for you. Honestly, is you haven't acknowledged them by now (I highly doubt this is new to you)

You know,there's a reason Reardon has to publish his own "research". Take it from someone on the outside who knows: He is a discredit to Pro-Life to be honest. You guys would do well to distance yourselves from him and find someone credible. Seriously.

Asitis, no, you're the one making claims of flawed studies. You provide the evidence. Remember "it's gotta have substance, or it's just words,words, words."

Sorry, a line got cut off. Here it is .....

Lauren, the flaws are there. I'm not going to waste my time pulling them together for you. Honestly, if you haven't acknowledged them by now (I highly doubt this is new to you) my efforts aren't going to make any difference.

You know,there's a reason Reardon has to publish his own "research". Take it from someone on the outside who knows: He is a discredit to Pro-Life to be honest. You guys would do well to distance yourselves from him and find someone credible. Seriously.

Better. Now.... go cheer your husband up and enjoy your Saturday night.

Anon at 7:23 was me. For some reason it didn't "remember me."

Asitis: "Lauren, the flaws are there. I'm not going to waste my time pulling them together for you. Honestly, if you haven't acknowledged them by now (I highly doubt this is new to you) my efforts aren't going to make any difference. "

Bullshit. Dont talk about throwing useless words around when you come out with that right there. What was it that you said...admit your shortcomings? Might want to take some of your own advice.

"Yeh, that makes sense Oliver. Just because a guy is right once in his research, it means he's ALWAYS right? I'm sorry, but keep that logic up and you'll lose your pretty crown soon! "

Keep track of the argument Asitis. My claim was that the only commentary you had on an specific piece of his research was that it was not flawed, yet you claim that his research is flawed. You said that you did not do that, but you did. Just admit it.

Asitis: "Take it from someone on the outside who knows..."

Take it from me guys! Seriously, I would know.

Great argument Asitis. Keep it coming!

Asitis, we're 3 hours apart right now, but I doubt he needs my cheering.

Nice cop out though. I guess we no longer have to site any claim we make. Good to know!

Asitis: "Well, what else did she mean Oliver?"

The fact that I need to explain this to you is an indication that you need to check yourself into a mental hospital before you hurt someone. And these arent just "words." I mean that.

Ill do this is slow motion so you can follow along.

Most people think it is a bad thing to participate in actions that they find immoral. For example, most people think that deception is wrong, but unfortunately do it anyways. These people then feel bad about this. It isnt because they are afraid of the police or because they are afraid of God, but because it goes against what they stand for and most people hate to hurt others. If you were to find out that abortion actually goes against your morals, you should feel bad about this. If you find that abortion is in fact an unjust violation of another human's rights, you should also feel bad for this. Again, similarly to when someone lies, this does not necessarily stem from a belief in God, but from a general, usually universal human tennet that it is a bad thing, and feels bad correspondingly, to hurt other people unjustly. I hope that helps to clear up why it is a "risk" to believe a principle to be in line with your morals, when the consequence of that principle conflicting with your morals is extremely grevious, ethically speaking.

Yes, Oliver, I would know how to access these studies better than you would. And for the record, that was selfless and good advice I dished out. You are welcome.

And don't bother baiting me. Like I said, I'm not going tot he effort of pulling his research and explaining the issues to you. They are there. If you are willing to be objective you will see them.... if you are capable. If you aren't willing to be objective, then I'd be wasting my time. I'm afraid the latter would be the case right now. Maybe when you're older..... ;).

Oh I forgot you're in Texas. Good, that gives you lots of time to cheer him up! have a nice evening you lovebirds!

I guess thats her stubborn way of admiting she is wrong. Better than nothing I suppose. At least it helps to further establish what a generic powerless pro-choicer she really is.

Asitis, you are being ridiculous. You made the claim, you show the evidence. This is how a persuasive argument works.

Planned Parenthood kills toddlers. The evidence is out there...but I'm not going to show it to you because it is up to YOU to validate my claims. Of course, any evidence you find to the contrary can not be applied to this discussion. How dare you demand any evidence that what I am saying is remotely true, you're an immature idiot. When you're older you'll see that you should just accept anything I say at face value!/sarcasm

It's easy to make claims without giving evidence. The hard part is actually backing up your statements. If these flaws are obvious, it would be pretty easy to bring up the study, or the critique of the study, and point them out. The fact that you refuse to do this is absurd.

I guess thats her stubborn way of admiting she is wrong. Better than nothing I suppose. At least it helps to further establish what a generic powerless pro-choicer she really is.

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 7:40 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Really, that's all that deserves.

Maybe you, Oliver, should feel bad for trying to outlaw a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. That sounds a bit "immoral" to me.

[even if you don't think it should be considered a constitutional right, it's still not very nice to try to prohibit a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy. I don't hate you for it, though]

No , Lauren Planned Parenthood doesn't kill toddlers. That's incorrect. If you think you can convince me it does, you'll have to show me the evidence.

See.... that's the difference Lauren. You make this so easy!

Asitis: "No , Lauren Planned Parenthood doesn't kill toddlers. That's incorrect. If you think you can convince me it does, you'll have to show me the evidence.

See.... that's the difference Lauren. You make this so easy!"

So when you are making a point, the burden of disproof is on us. When we make a point, the burden of proof is on us. Yeah, thats pretty easy for you Asitis!

What a joke.

Or maybe I should respond "Hahahaha...well Im so above this argument all I need to do is laugh," ala the wise Asitis.

Hal: "Maybe you, Oliver, should feel bad for trying to outlaw a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. That sounds a bit "immoral" to me.

[even if you don't think it should be considered a constitutional right, it's still not very nice to try to prohibit a woman from terminating an unwanted pregnancy. I don't hate you for it, though]"

Ill give you that both sides of the debate lose a lot if either is wrong. If the pro-life side is wrong, then women will have their bodily rights violated. I would definitely argue that the reverse is a worse consequence, but regardless either way there is the risk of violation. The point ultimately is that it the burden of BOTH sides of the argument to really delve deeply into the issue and make damn sure that, regardless of the stance, that the side supported fits as well as possible within the framework of the univserally held ethics. That said, I know you dont even try, nor feel the need to try, to justify abortion. The same is probably true of Asitis.

By the way, one more time, oh wise one. Why should abortion be supported anyways? Where is the justification?

Abortion should be "supported," (maybe tolerated is a better word) because there are women who want to have abortions and no harm is caused. So, on one side you have the "right" of a pregnant woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. On the other side, nothing. The "justification" burden should be on those who want to curtail the rights of others.

re: Kel at February 26, 2009 11:34 PM

If my manners are snarky and bad, doesn't that make Jills snarkyness bad as well?
On to my topic:
Ask a Kindergarden teacher if she wants to take all her charges home with her -she'd say no. Kids are a handful. And besides that I'm a man of moderation, I don't eat a whole pizza, why would I want to populate an entire neighborhood's worth of kids in one household? Just as no teacher has time for massive amounts of indivdual attention for all her kids, no parent has time for 15 kids either. I'm not judging you for wanting 15 kids ... I just think its gluttonous, thats all.

Oliver: you are awesome! Ditto for Lauren!

Asitis: "No , Lauren Planned Parenthood doesn't kill toddlers. That's incorrect. If you think you can convince me it does, you'll have to show me the evidence.

See.... that's the difference Lauren. You make this so easy!"

So when you are making a point, the burden of disproof is on us. When we make a point, the burden of proof is on us. Yeah, thats pretty easy for you Asitis!

The burden of proof is on you only if it matters to you and you think I'll actually listen to you.

In the Readon case it ultimately doesn't matter to me what your view of him is. And I know that whatever I pull togther you won't listen to me. You will try to refute it no matter how invalid your arguments are. This case here is clear proof of that.

Asitis: "case here is clear proof of that."

Why cant you admit that you have nothing to even point to? Do you not realize how pathetica you sound saying "well...I know Im right, but Im not gonna show any proof! Why? Cuz!"

Hal: "Abortion should be "supported," (maybe tolerated is a better word) because there are women who want to have abortions and no harm is caused. So, on one side you have the "right" of a pregnant woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. On the other side, nothing. The "justification" burden should be on those who want to curtail the rights of others."

Hal, you just basically said that abortion should be supported, because its not doing anything bad. Dont you get that the whole argument is whether or not it IS doing something bad? I could just as easily rebut you with the statement "Abortion should NOT be supported because there are women who want to have abortions and grevious harm is caused. So, on one side you have the "right" of a human being to not be killed unjustly. On the other side, nothing. The "justification" burden should be on those who want to curtail the rights of others.
"

Thats statement says nothing other a summary of the ultimate conclusion. The debate is not along the conclusion, but along the premises. IE, where is the support that abortion does no harm? It kills a human. All humans, regardless of mental faculties or the ability to feel pain, have the right to not be killed. This is harm.

It just goes to show again that you have no desire to support your points, which is what makes you a animal. Humans go beyond just sensation, and actually consider both the past and future of their actions. You do not. You are a highly trained animal and nothing more.

Asitis, if you show us proof, we will consider it. Simply claiming that it exists doesn't actually prove anything. We aren't just going to take your word for it. If you want to convince us of a point, you need to actually show some evidence.

What do you mean Jacqueline? That's a pretty risky position that... what???? That God exists and will be mad at me? I'll take that risk.

No- the risk is that could be the supporter of and or accessory to murder. That was the risk I was talking about.

If Oliver is wrong, all he did was extend the benefit of the doubt to the potential victim, assuring that he himself wouldn't victimize anyone in case he were right.

If you are wrong, you support the death and dismemberment of innocent children. You're like a Nazi, only with 8 fold the number of victims and counting.

So you're risking quite a bit believing that women should keep on killing their kids without disproving that the unborn aren't human beings of the same value as born babies.

Anyone who is not a fool would err on the side of Oliver.

Oliver- you up this way? Visiting the folks?

I miss you, my BFF Lauren. How's 40 Days down there?

What do you mean Jacqueline? That's a pretty risky position that... what???? That God exists and will be mad at me? I'll take that risk.

By the way, since you brought it up, it's my duty to warn you that aside from your advocating the killing of babies or anything else- you could be a merciful person saving the starving and homeless- no matter what you do, apart from the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus, you will spend eternity in the lake of fire. You are flippant about God being mad at you, but in truth He loves and died for You so you could be saved. You can scoff at Him and be wicked, or even scoff at Him and be GOOD, either way, you want to leave this Earth in His friendship.

Jacque, actually it's the other way around! I'm up here. I had to miss the kick off. My grandmother starts radiation therapy next wednesday, so I'm coming up to spend some time with her before she becomes radioactive and can't be around the kids for a while.

Shes just trying to stir up trouble. She never intended to rationally debate anything really. Thats the best explanation I can find for her tangential unsubstantiated posts anyways.

That last post was in reference to why Asitis refuses yet again to support her claims.

Astitis is a SHE? Woah...

Lauren, I'm sorrow that your grandmother isn't well. I'll be praying for her.

Dude- I seriously just need to call you!

I would love to go to one of these protest and discuss rationally with the pro-choicers why they believe they are entitled to the right to choose. I would imagine that a vast majority would have little say other than the basic platitudes. It would be fun.

Thank you, Jacque. She has localized breast cancer that they hope to clear up with the radiation.

Oliver, remember Menevolent Gerbil? He's the only person I've ever encountered who was remotely logical.

Kathleen Sebelius (friend of Tiller the baby killer), governor of Kansas, has accepted President Barack Obama's nomination as secretary of Health and Human Services, White House sources are reporting this evening.

Jasper, a woman with no qualms about Tiller sounds uniquely qualified to start drafting those new conscience regs. It's a sad day when a Catholic in name only is drafted to begin oppressing Catholics who abide by church teaching.

Fed Up,

this may actually be a good thing. An oppurtunity to further expose these pro-death Catholics and for the church to call them out warn them about excommunication.

Oliver,

When you read this quote by Jack Nicholson, from 'As Good As It Gets', who is the first person that comes to mind?

"I think of a woman and take away reason and accountability."

yor bro ken

Point well taken, Jasper. There may be long-run gains. But in the short term, it doesn't help someone like me who will probably leave my profession behind because of government imposed ideology that prevents me from practicing with good conscience.

Fed Up,

Can I ask what profession you're in? Pharmacy? Doctor? Nurse? research?

whoops!

"never mind"

Good example of bias toward action. Ready, fire, shoot self in foot, aim.

Ouch!

Good nite all.

yor bro ken

Sorry for my post, http://en.justin.tv/xxskzj/profile ">redtube .com, tofxco,

Good morning Lauren,

I join Jacqueline in wishing your grandmother a full recovery. The fact the cancer is localized is a very postitive factor, if there can ever be anything positive about cancer.

Good morning Jasper and Fed Up,

I saw on TV that Sebelius is taking this position because her chances of being reelected governor are not good. I wonder why her prospects would be so poor in Kansas?

no matter what you do, apart from the acceptance of the sacrifice of Jesus, you will spend eternity in the lake of fire. You are flippant about God being mad at you, but in truth He loves and died for You so you could be saved. You can scoff at Him and be wicked, or even scoff at Him and be GOOD, either way, you want to leave this Earth in His friendship.

Posted by: Jacqueline at February 28, 2009 9:37 PM

Thanks Jacqueline. That's what I figured you meant all along.

Shes just trying to stir up trouble. She never intended to rationally debate anything really. Thats the best explanation I can find for her tangential unsubstantiated posts anyways.

Posted by: Oliver at February 28, 2009 9:42 PM

"tangential unsubstantiated" ... what do you and Lauren have special keys on your computer with these phrases you keep using?

But seriously... Oliver, simply put, you refuse to see the logic and the evidence in things I say. And yes, it is there. You are just being stubborn. And rude. In the end, I don't really care that you see it.

But I will advise you and others here that "Dr." David Reardon is a discredit to your side. No one takes him or his claims seriously except those that already want to believe in them.And he is oft-quoted so that should be a problem to you. He's not going to convinvce anyone that needs convincing. And that is his goal as an advocate.. And yours.

Similarly, taking research that shows corelation and then saying a causal effect has been found also discredits your side. There is a reason research findings have been rejected by scientific and medical communities. And no, the reason is not political correctness.

I would suggest that pro-life focus on the things you can sunstantiate and find some worthy researchers and valid research that supports your side.But once again, I don't really care if you agree with or even understand what I am trying to say here. It's in your best interest. Not mine.

Anon 7:07 and 7:28 were me. Obvi.....

Hi, good site, http://tube8x.weebly.com/index.html ">tube8 free, hwrz,

"But I will advise you and others here that "Dr." David Reardon is a discredit to your side. No one takes him or his claims seriously except those that already want to believe in them.And he is oft-quoted so that should be a problem to you. He's not going to convinvce anyone that needs convincing. And that is his goal as an advocate.. And yours."

This is your unprofessional and biased opinion. And in fact the abortion industry DOES take Reardon seriously otherwise they would not be interested in smearing his name nor his research results. The fact that you are unable to defend yourself against Oliver's pointed logic proves this exact point. Reardon has published in many respectable journals and continues to do so:

*British Medical Journal

*American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

*Sleep Disorders

*American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse

*British Journal of Health Psychology

*Canadian Medical Association Journal

*Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines

*Psychology and Health

*Southern Medical Journal

*Journal of Anxiety Disorders

*Journal of Contemporary Health and Law Policy

*American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Correction a, they do not taking him seriously. Discounting his credibility and disputing his claims does NOT constitute taking him seriously.

Reardon is the primary researcher in those articles? Or is he tagged onto a list of contributors where the researcher is someone like Priscilla Coleman? Yes, there is a difference. (And you do know what the Elliot Institute is, right?)

asitis: you have made absolutely no point.

First off, many abortion researchers are no less biased than Reardon since they are abortion providers themselves and/or affiliated with pro-abortion entities such as ACOG, Guttmacher Institute, NARAL etc.
Secondly, your attack is primarily ad hominem. You are attacking the person and not his research. Since you made the claim that his research is dubious, the onus is on you to prove this. In case you don't understand, this is what Oliver is asking of you.

a, I am not "attacking" the person. I am saying his research claims are not valid and he is not credible. The only people who put any weight in his claims are those that are already pro-life. If you want to convince anyone that abortion presents real risks to women's mental health then you're going to have to find someone else who is more credible and research that is more valid. That's my advice to you. Take it or leave it. It's in your best interest.

Anon @10:09 was me

Asitis,

Take a moment and look at your posts. Have you even once responded to his research? No. You havent provided ONE example of his research being flawed, and again the only response you have had to his actual research was to claim that it was not an example of flawed research.

Asitis: "Take it or leave it. It's in your best interest."

Hey guys, you should believe Asitis has a good motive. This is coming from the person who pointed out that I did not amount to anything special because I decided to have kids before I was 21 and not get my degree until after starting my family. Shes a good old lady, leave her alone!

Asitis: "Thanks Jacqueline. That's what I figured you meant all along."

Oh wise one, you really know the score dont you? Care to explain how you solved the Monty Hall problem in less than 3 minutes again?

Its sad to see how out of your league you are, yet feel so arrogant that you can parse someone's motives through the internet. I guess thats 44 years of wisdom speaking.

Good points A.

Just to clarify by the way. I am pretty much philosophically opposed to Reardon. I think that researching abortion will have no effect on anyone regardless of how sound the methodology. I personally believe that the message needs to be to philosophically dispute abortion and then to force the pro-choice movement to admit that abortion is not about expressing their rights, or about responsibility, but about not giving up a few months of life for a willfully taken risk. Im sure that all those swing staters who dont see abortion as a big issue would be appalled to see the true "face" of abortion. Gross selfishness.

A, thank you for your excellent posts regarding Reardon and the obvious bias shown here against him.

Asitis: "I am not "attacking" the person. I am saying his research claims are not valid and he is not credible."

This almost made me spit my water up.

"Im not attacking the person....I am just saying he isnt credible!"

Do you really not know what it means to "attack a person" aka use ad hominem, or are you intentionally trying to be funny/troublesome?

"the only response you have had to his actual research was to claim that it was not an example of flawed research"

But Oliver, it is an example of what IS wrong with his research. He takes data and turns it into something it is not. A study invloving 333 people is not a "major study".

Classic Readon.

"This is coming from the person who pointed out that I did not amount to anything special because I decided to have kids before I was 21 and not get my degree until after starting my family. Shes a good old lady, leave her alone!"

Oliver I did not say you amounted to nothing. I just told you to stop picking on Josephine for her accomplishments, which happened to be quite impressive compared to yours.... and I might add mine at that age as well.

And at 44 I am not old. Some people are old at 444, but not me. You, dear Oliver, have some grumpy old man characteristics already so I think maybe you might be old at 44. ;)

A study invloving 333 people is not a "major study".

Classic Readon.

Posted by: asitis at March 1, 2009 11:21 AM

Sorry. An extra 3 there (oh, wouldn't Reardon wish it was more like 333 or 3333 or 33333!). I meant 33.

Its sad to see how out of your league you are, yet feel so arrogant that you can parse someone's motives through the internet.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 10:58 AM

Out of my league? If that makes you feel better Oliver, you go with that delusion.

What do you mean "parse someone's motives"? Are you referring to me calling Reardon a prolife advocate and suggesting that as such he wants people to think women's health is endangered by abortion in order to further his cause? Do you not realize that Reardon himself admits to doing this?

Which begs the question, Astitis...

Speaking of logic- one can't look at the intelligent design of the world and not deduce the work of a supreme being. It would take a fool not to look at her own fingerprint- that no human had before her and no human will even have again, and not see the work of a grand designer. How plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen for living creatures to breathe and how those same creatures convert oxygen into carbon dioxide for plants...The way all things are created in symbiotic concert: Only a fool would look at the world and say that God doesn't exist...

THUS

If we know there is a God capable of creating all that is seen and unseen, would you not think it purely in your own self-interest not to make him mad?

Asitis: "But Oliver, it is an example of what IS wrong with his research. He takes data and turns it into something it is not. A study invloving 333 people is not a "major study".

Classic Readon."

Weve been over this already. That claim was not from his research number one. Number two, the claim of major is subjective. He could have used it to mean "most major" in that there are few other studies out there. Again, I point to the irony that you are free to define what a "human" is without any argument, but "major" can only mean one thing, and it means what you want it to for your argument Asitis.

I aslo love how you call it "classic" when you have so far one example that doesnt even acheive in the slightest what you are looking for. Show me some research of his that is flawed and maybe you can call it "classic."

Do you even know what classic means?

Asitis: "Oliver I did not say you amounted to nothing. I just told you to stop picking on Josephine for her accomplishments, which happened to be quite impressive compared to yours.... and I might add mine at that age as well."

I'll go look it up for you, just for the sake of point out to you and everyone else how really altruistic you are!

Asitis: "C'mon Oliver. Think back. What had you done by the time you were 21 aside from getting someone pregnant maybe?"

Asitis: "Sorry, but so far I haven't actually seen any evidence to suggest that Josephine isn't being honest. Face it Oliver, some people are real achievers."

Asitis: "But for now, all we have is the 21 year old Josephine vs. the 21 year old Oliver. Seems to me she's the achiever there"

So to clarify Asitis, you did say that I was not an achiever because I had children before getting my degree.

You forget so easily, of course only when its convenient for you it seems.

Jacqueline. I don't believe in God. And no... that doesn't make me a fool. Nice try.

Even when I was an "unbeliever" I was too smart to be an unbeliever. It all boiled down to an assanine arrogance that my intellectualism could possibly disprove or deny the existence of God- Why? All because I wanted to run my own life and not answer to anyone- yes, even at the expense of eternity of torment. In every count, I was a fool.

I think you have to be a fool in these instances NOT to recognize how foolish you are.

Asitis: "Out of my league? If that makes you feel better Oliver, you go with that delusion."

Sure. Care to explain what an ad hominem is again? I noticed again how you responded to all those points but didnt respond to that one...hmmmmm

Asitis: "What do you mean "parse someone's motives"? Are you referring to me calling Reardon...."

Why dont you just look at the context of the argument? I shouldnt even have to explain this, but I guess again I will spell it out for you.

You claimed that Jacky's real motives were to say you were "at risk" of God punishing you, even though she said her main motives were that you were "at risk" of commiting an unethical action. When she claimed that God's punishment is, incidentally, another risk that you would be going through, you claimed again that this was her real motive.

So to summarize, you think you can understand the intricies of someone's motives, through the internet no less when communication is largely if not mostly non-verbal, yet you do not understand the simplicity of an ad hominem or probability. Thus, you are operating out of your league.

Just in case you try to distort whats going on, you claim to also know my motives for hating both you and Josephine, as I was reminded from looking through that thread. You claimed multiple times that I was "jealous" of Josephine, and still claim that I hate you for some reason other than those I provided for you.

But you are the wise one....please explain how all these things can be?

Jacqueline. I don't believe in God. And no... that doesn't make me a fool. Nice try.

Ah, well- that settles that then! You have refuted my argument about the magnificent, concerted nature of the world. How then would you explain it?

"Only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God." Psalms 14:1

Asitis: "that doesn't make me a fool. Nice try."

That may not make you a fool, but pretending to understand what you do not may.

It's the ultimate irony that those who deny God somehow think that this makes them intellectually superior, when in fact, it merely highlights that they are too foolish to know they are foolish.

Oliver , it's just as I said: compared to Josephine, you had not accomplished as much at 21. That's what I said. Anything else is your own inference. Maybe you have some issues yourself. I don't know. Sorry you took that so hard. It's kind of funny though seeing how insulting you were being to josephine

By the way, Astitis: I can assure you that my intention with that post was only to say that you and other pro-choicers are at risk of supporting murder (a risk we lifers are immune to). At the time, I was not thinking about God at all. It's nice to know you were, though.

You actually failed in assessing my motives. I am glad you opened the door, though. Since you were thinking of something completely unrelated to what I was saying, it shows that you are rightly hypersensitive in this regard.

If you are so settled, then why are you on the defensive? Why should others' beleif in a God you know doesn't exist be on the forefront of your mind? I'm always amazed at atheists' preoccupation with Christians. Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is. I'm also in awe about how much effort it takes to build ones life around the absence of something. How empty.

Asitis.

You said that I was not a real achiever, and that I did not achieve anything. Its right there in the text.

"Seems to me she's the achiever there"

That is not saying she is MORE of an achiever, as you are duplicitously claiming. That is saying that she is the achiever, as opposed to me, which directly, without inference, says that I am not an achiever.

But you sure are a nice lady with good intentions when attacking Reardon's character instead of his research!

jacqueline, I'm not calling you a fool for believing in God.

jacqueline, I'm not calling you a fool for believing in God.

Well, one of us is right and one of us is wrong. Either I built my life around an non-existent God or you built your life around the fact the beleif that there is no God when in fact, there is.

No matter who is right and who is wrong, one of us is a fool. I'm glad you recognize that it's not me. Who is left then?

Well Ive got to go to work for a little bit. Im awaiting Asitis's responses though. Have fun.

jacqueline , it is not known whether a god exists or not. You might believe in your God and think I am a fool for not believing, but that doesn't mean you are actually right.

Personally I wouldn't call someone a fool based on their belief in god or lack thereof. Faith and intelligence are two separate things.

Oliver, be honest: at 21 were you what people would call an achiever? I know I wasn't. Josephine is. That's what I was saying.

God! You're so sensitive about this. Why?

Don't think I'm waiting for you to answer that by the way. I don't expect you to. It's your business, not mine.

Asitis, My dictionary says that an achiever is someone who has accomplished something successfully.

For me, being an achiever was fulfilling my dream of having children and staying at home with them.

You may very well have been an achiever at 21, if you successfully accomplished something you wanted to, even without specific credentials that other people recognize. :-)

I'm not really worried about what other people think of me in order to consider myself a success - and I hope you don't think anyone would have to validate your achievements in order for you to have them. It's what is in your heart that matters- not what's on paper.

Asitis: "Oliver, be honest: at 21 were you what people would call an achiever? I know I wasn't. Josephine is. That's what I was saying."

Maybe, but you WERE trying to say just a few hours ago that you didnt say that.

Asitis: "Oliver , it's just as I said: compared to Josephine, you had not accomplished as much at 21. That's what I said. Anything else is your own inference."

"Oliver I did not say you amounted to nothing."

Now you say that you did, but it wasnt that bad because nobody really is at that age.

My problem is that you try to twist and change what you say to fit your purpose. Youve been called on it, yet again.

Besides, look at the way you phrased the original argument. "What had you done other than getting someone pregnant."

That was by no means respectful. You meant it as an insult. But of course, Im sure when you are throwing out ad hominems left and right against Reardon that you mean it as something helpful. Im sure you arent making bullshit up again.

Speaking of which, ever decide to bring up a study of Reardon's for us to argue about? Or are you working off of an unfounded bias again? Someone told you Reardon was bad, so you accepted that because it fit your mantra.

Also, care to respond to your misinformed use of ad hominem, when you claimed in one sentence that you were not attacking his character, just saying the he was credible? Oh right, that wouldnt be convenient for you. But you are the wise one! How dare we use something as silly as "reason" when talking to you! We should simply just default to your knowledge, because after all, you really know right?

I'm always amazed at atheists' preoccupation with Christians. Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is.

That was a powerful quote and it's so true. Did you see this, Josephine?
http://ravingatheist.com/2009/02/th-th-thats-all-folks/

Well said Bethany.

I like how Asitis wont even back down on her statements. Apparently becoming an LVN and a combat medic are better achievments than starting a family. But of course Im confused, Im just some dude who a girl pregnant, right Asitis? What a worthless life Ive led so far!

Incidentally, I hope you dont have children. I would feel bad for how little you value their influence on your life.

Oliver, how's your little girl doing?

Shes great. Shes huge! I was actually folding clothes and I couldnt tell the difference between Holden's, who is almost 4 years old and Anna's, who is almost 8 MONTHS.

Fortunately she can still wear the dress we bought, but with a bit of help from some tights.

Oliver, you are being ridiculous. I'm not twisting my way out of anything. You are trying to call me on it, but you haven't. Were you really what would be called an achiever when you were 21?

And as for Reardon, I am not "attacking" his character. I am saying he is not a credible source. Go on believing he is. No skin off my teeth.

I'm always amazed at atheists' preoccupation with Christians. Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is.

That was a powerful quote and it's so true.
Posted by: Bethany at March 1, 2009 4:45 PM

Okay, isn't there a lot of concern worldwide among Christians about the growing Muslim population?

Someday the conservative christians will be campaigning for the separation of church and state!

I like how Asitis wont even back down on her statements. Apparently becoming an LVN and a combat medic are better achievments than starting a family. But of course Im confused, Im just some dude who a girl pregnant, right Asitis? What a worthless life Ive led so far!

Incidentally, I hope you dont have children. I would feel bad for how little you value their influence on your life.
Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 4:54 PM

Oliver at 21 were you an accomlished father? Or was Lauren pregnant? I'm sorry, but I do see Josephine's accomplishments at 21 greater than getting your girlfriend pregnant. She had some goals, worked hard and acchieved them.

Oh, and by the way, I do have two teenage sons. My husband and I value them more than anything. But I don't think he would consider getting me pregnant his greatest acheivement! Maybe because it was pretty easy to do... plus he enjoyed his "work"!!!!! ;)

Speaking of logic- one can't look at the intelligent design of the world and not deduce the work of a supreme being. It would take a fool not to look at her own fingerprint- that no human had before her and no human will even have again, and not see the work of a grand designer. How plants convert carbon dioxide into oxygen for living creatures to breathe and how those same creatures convert oxygen into carbon dioxide for plants...The way all things are created in symbiotic concert: Only a fool would look at the world and say that God doesn't exist...

ROFL!!! Talk about arguments from ignorance...

Shorter Jacqueline:

"My complete ignorance of scientific explanations for natural phenomena and total inability to comprehend them means Goddidit. So there."

Thank Maude that Jackie isn't in charge of any research programs. They'd be over in two steps.

Step One: Identify natural phenomena

Step Two: Attribute existence of natural phenomena to supernatural forces.

Step Three: ....stagnate...

Okay, isn't there a lot of concern worldwide among Christians about the growing Muslim population?

That really isn't analogous at all, unless you agree with me that atheism is a religion.

Oh, actually, I should change that "pretty easy" to get me pregnant to "remarkably easy". At least most people hear would consider it remarkable since it happened right away, I was in my 30's both times, had been on the pill for 10 years and didn't even ask God to make it happen.

Yes, I am just messing with you! Laugh a little.

That really isn't analogous at all, unless you agree with me that atheism is a religion.

Posted by: Bethany at March 1, 2009 5:58 PM

Bethany, the comment was in reference to this part of the staement:

"Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is".

Posted by: asitis at March 1, 2009 5:34 PM

"Okay, isn't there a lot of concern worldwide among Christians about the growing Muslim population?"

"Someday the conservative christians will be campaigning for the separation of church and state!"
-------------------------------------------------------

If if combine these two opinions, I believe what you really meant to assert is:

Someday 'conservative' christians, will be campaigning for separation of 'mosque' and state.

More stereotyping of christians in general and conservative christians in particular.

Your bias is showing again.

Speaking only for myself, I have more immediaite concerns.

Anti-christian bigotry is more prevalent among humanists in the United States than it is among the adherents of Islam.

The muslims do not yet hold much sway over our public policy and few have been elected to public office.

The same can not be said of the secular and sectarian humanist.

Please cite where the in the United States Constitution the article is located that mandates 'separation of church and state'.

yor bro ken

The muslims do not yet hold much sway over our public policy and few have been elected to public office.

Posted by: kbhvac at March 1, 2009 6:05 PM

Not yet Ken.... but imagine if it happened. How would you feel about religion influencing politics then?????

Don't worry...the current presidency is moving away from that!

Bethany, the comment was in reference to this part of the statement:
"Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is".

I'm aware of that, of course. Your response is not analogous unless you agree atheism is a religion which is in opposition to Christianity.

Posted by: asitis at March 1, 2009 6:10 PM

'Don't worry...the current presidency is moving away from that!'

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

If by 'that' you mean 'religion' influencing public policy, I would say that PBHO's 'religion' informs his worldview which is then reflected the policies he pursues and in the people he nominates for his cabinet and advisors.

I could quote you PBHO's own words to substaniate that claim. You do have confidence in what the man says, don't you.

But where in the U.S. Constitution does in mandate 'separation of church and state'?

yor bro ken

But where in the U.S. Constitution does in mandate 'separation of church and state'?

I'd love to see any liberal answer this question honestly.

"My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door."

"To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality."

Barack O'bama

yor bro ken

"Speaking of which, ever decide to bring up a study of Reardon's for us to argue about? Or are you working off of an unfounded bias again? Someone told you Reardon was bad, so you accepted that because it fit your mantra."

asitis: nice deflection away from the Reardon problem, back to the topic at hand....

Bethany, the comment was in reference to this part of the statement:
"Note they don't rally against polytheists or Muslims- because even they recognize where the power is".

I'm aware of that, of course. Your response is not analogous unless you agree atheism is a religion which is in opposition to Christianity.

Posted by: Bethany at March 1, 2009 6:19 PM

Bethany, I'm not sure where the miscommunication is. I'll try again: I am saying that some would suggest "the power" is (or will be soon) with Muslims, not Christians

Ann Coulter was being interviewd by Bob Enyeart the other day and when he asked her a pointed question about her assertion that Mitt Romney is or ever was pro-life, Coulter suddenly remembered her mother was waiting and abruptly terminated the conversation by hanging up the phone.

yor bro ken

It is really hard to acknowledge, especially publicly, when you are demonstrably wrong.

I have had a lot of practice so it is not as difficult as it used to be for me.

Those black feathers at the edge of my mouth are from the crow I have eaten.

yor bro ken

But where in the U.S. Constitution does in mandate 'separation of church and state'?
Posted by: kbhvac at March 1, 2009 6:19 PM

Ken, you'll have to show me. I grew up in Canada remember and only recently moved here. I do hear this oft-repeated phrase. Perhaps you or one of the more liberal commentators could speak to this. Because there seems to be a whole lot of disagreement out there on this.

Asitis,

The phrase 'separation of church state do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson used the phrase in private correspondence one time that I know of.

Google It.

I doubt it is in the Canadian Constitution or Charter of Rights.

yor bro ken

Asitis: "Oliver, you are being ridiculous. I'm not twisting my way out of anything. You are trying to call me on it, but you haven't. Were you really what would be called an achiever when you were 21?"

Please read my posts before claiming that I am ridiculous.

It isnt a question of whether or not I "achieved" anything. The shifting language from you here is whether or not you claimed that I had not achieved anything. Earlier in this thread you said that you never claimed I wasnt an achiever. I called you on it and now you are back to saying that I am not an achiever. The bottom line is that you lied earlier when you said....."Oliver , it's just as I said: compared to Josephine, you had not accomplished as much at 21. That's what I said. Anything else is your own inference"

Why cant you admit it Asitis? Just say "okay, well I tried to distort what happened earlier to not look so bad. Now that I am caught, Im going to just argue that you in fact did not achieve anything."

Asitis: "And as for Reardon, I am not "attacking" his character. I am saying he is not a credible source. Go on believing he is. No skin off my teeth."

I swear....go look up the defintion of an ad hominem. A homeless person could put together a study, but if the study is properly done, then that study cannot be claimed to have had poor methodology. When you say someone is "not a credible source" then you are attacking their character. It doesnt matter whether or not Reardon himself is credible, all that matters is whether or not his RESEARCH is credible. You have only responded to his specific research by saying that it was NOT flawed.

Asitis: "Oliver at 21 were you an accomlished father? Or was Lauren pregnant? I'm sorry, but I do see Josephine's accomplishments at 21 greater than getting your girlfriend pregnant. She had some goals, worked hard and acchieved them."

Before I had turned 21, my wife went through one of the hardest pregnancies that I have ever heard of. She bled every day for 4 months and her water broke at 23 weeks. Before I was 21, I slept with my wife at her bedside for 7 weeks in a hospital balancing the hope that my son would live against the danger of my wife dieing. Before I turned 21, I watched my son's premature birth at 31 weeks. I watched him struggle in the NICU to breathe, eat, and operate his liver properly. I sat by his bedside 3 times, held him and prayed for him. Before I turned 21 I had the joy of taking my son, attached to a heart monitor, home to our tiny apartment. I had the joy of feeding him and bathing him. I had to change his diapers. I adminstered medicine to him with every feeding that I participated in. I had to wake up in the middle of the night to check whether or not his heart had stopped beating every time his monitor cables became loose. Before I had turned 21 I had also to watch him undergo another surgery. I had to stay up all night listening to him struggle to breath yet again after recovering from the anathesa. I also worked a normal 9-5 job during most of this time until I had to pick up a second job adding another 4-5 hours a day. Of course, I thats not to mention the classes I was taking online.

I had goals. I wanted to watch my son make it another day. I wanted to be strong enough for my wife to help her through. I wanted to be strong enough for myself.

I worked hard at those goals and at my jobs and school. Im happy to say that not only did I achieve the strength necessary to make it through that time with my marriage in tact and stronger, but I also grew as a person. I became stronger and more responsible. I further established my value for life and I generated renewed vigor in earning my education. It put me on the path that I am on now, and I wouldnt change a damn thing.

So in answer to your snide question; yes I was an acomplished father.

Asitis: "Oh, and by the way, I do have two teenage sons. My husband and I value them more than anything. But I don't think he would consider getting me pregnant his greatest acheivement! Maybe because it was pretty easy to do... plus he enjoyed his "work"!!!!! ;) ""

Nothing about my wife's pregnancy was easy. And I guess its needless to say, but I feel sorry for your children.

LOL- I even had a college English professor argue with me that the phrase was "either in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. You can't say in your research paper that it isn't, because it IS!" She sent me to the college library to make me look it up.

About half an hour or so later, after the librarian and I BOTH hunted through the documents, she (the librarian) looked at me in amazement. "It really isn't in here, is it?"

No, it was in a letter that Thomas Jefferson once wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association. I went back and informed my ever-so-educated prof, who looked at me in disgust and decided to accept my research paper after all. :D

Just thought I'd share that. I still think it's funny.

Kel,

Never let it be said that a position as a proffesor is necessary to imply either mastery or inteligence!

A,

Dont you know? Asitis can claim things, and then we have to magically know what her premises are! She is so wise...

I worked hard at those goals and at my jobs and school. Im happy to say that not only did I achieve the strength necessary to make it through that time with my marriage in tact and stronger, but I also grew as a person. I became stronger and more responsible. I further established my value for life and I generated renewed vigor in earning my education. It put me on the path that I am on now, and I wouldnt change a damn thing.

So in answer to your snide question; yes I was an acomplished father.
***********************************

I would certainly say so. Right on, Oliver! :)

Preamble to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably
justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

I guess those pesky Christians are insinating their morality and values just about everywhere.

The liberals in Canada have pursued the same strategy as the liberals in the USA. They have focused their efforts on getting liberal judges to 're-interpret' words of the documents to implement policies that would not be politically feasable in parliment.

Being politically incorrect is now a crime in Canada punishable by fines and imprisonment.

yor bro ken

The words, 'O Canada' have taken on new meanings.

OOOOOOOOUCH! Canada

My conservative brethren in Canada know of what and whom I speak.

yor bro ken

Kel,

Thanks for the confirmation.

Do you remember if Jefferson was advocationg a 'wall of separation' to protect the church from the state or the state from the church of both?

yor bro ken

And I guess its needless to say, but I feel sorry for your children.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 6:55 PM

Don't. They have great parents and a great life.
Plus, thanks to genetics, they have many great qualities and abilities. Oh my god. You should see my boys!

Oliver: Please read my posts before claiming that I am ridiculous

I did.

ASitis: "I did."

Then care to explain why you claimed originally in this thread that you never said that I was not an achiever, and that you ONLY compared my achievments to those of Josephine? Obviously that statement has been shown to be a lie. Care to comment, or do I have to magically already know your argument?

Also, assuming that you did read my posts, is your failure to address the issues I raised a problem of incopentency or chicanery?

Asitis: "Don't. They have great parents and a great life."

Your husband must be a saint then.

You're still grasping Oliver. Why are you so sensitive? It's obvious you helped your wife during her pregnancy and then your premature son. And you gave up a lot of your own dreams, or at least put them on hold, in the process. These are all good, admirable things. Why are you so concerned that someone (I), not knowing these details, called Josephine the achiever, based on her accomplishments?

Asitis: "Don't. They have great parents and a great life."

Your husband must be a saint then.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 7:16 PM

Oh no, not a saint. We are both agnostic and neither of us perfect.

Asitis: "Why are you so concerned that someone (I), not knowing these details, called Josephine the achiever, based on her accomplishments?"

I know I said I wouldnt do this, but it needs to be said. Youre an idiot.

My concern is that you lied about saying that.

My secondary concern is that you assumed something to be the case, snidely, without knowing what you are talking about.

If you remember correctly, I wasnt really concerned with the original statement. Im concerned now for two reasons. Number one, because you lied about it earlier. Number two, because you keep snidely reasserting it.

Kel,

Thanks for the confirmation.

Do you remember if Jefferson was advocationg a 'wall of separation' to protect the church from the state or the state from the church or both?

yor bro ken

Oh, you think I'm an idiot, do you Oliver? Wow. So hurtful. And so surprising.

Oliver. I don't lie. You're grasping again. But that's okay. Water off my back.

Asitis,

Are you familiar with the term 'misandrist'?

Hint: Some might say it applies man hating feminists.

yor bro ken

I also find it funny that you have yet to admit that you dont know what an ad hominem is and that you have yet to provide even on piece of Reardon's "classically" flawed research.

I think you may come close to trumping both Jess and Josephine in terms of evading the points that weaken your argument. I wanted to use other words, but my wife stopped me just for the record.

Asitis,

Are you familiar with the term 'misandrist'?

Hint: Some might say it applies man hating feminists.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at March 1, 2009 7:27 PM

Oh please ken. Elaborate.......

Kel,

Thanks for the confirmation.

Do you remember if Jefferson was advocationg a 'wall of separation' to protect the church from the state or the state from the church of both?

yor bro ken
Posted by: kbhvac at March 1, 2009 7:08 PM
****************************************

I believe it was both. Jefferson was however, as you probably know, less religiously inclined than his predecessors. He didn't care for the fact that Washington and Adams had enacted days of prayer and fasting for our nation. However, he also believed that the government was to have no place in restricting one's personal religious worship. Later, his words in the Danbury letter began to be used in reference to the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

but my wife stopped me just for the record.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 7:27 PM

Awesome! You let your wife make a decision!

Asitis: "Oliver. I don't lie. You're grasping again. But that's okay. Water off my back."

Sigh...Ill quote you again to point out the lie.

A few weeks ago you said: "Seems to me she's the achiever there"

Earlier in this thread you said:"Oliver , it's just as I said: compared to Josephine, you had not accomplished as much at 21. That's what I said. Anything else is your own inference"

You also said :"Oliver I did not say you amounted to nothing. I just told you to stop picking on Josephine for her accomplishments, which happened to be quite impressive compared to yours"

Now you are trying to argue that my accomplishments are in fact not achievments afterall!

So, yes you are a liar, and now you have lied again...about lieing.

Asitis: "Awesome! You let your wife make a decision!"

What does that mean exactly?

Oliver you are still grasping. Why?

Asitis: "Awesome! You let your wife make a decision!"

What does that mean exactly?

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 7:41 PM

Ask your wife.

I did actually, shes the one who asked the question first.

So care to explain? Or was the comment just meant to be a distraction from the train wreck of your arguments?

Haha. train wreck. Good one....

Well, according to your wife, you ahve the final say. You make the decision if there is no consensus.

So yoou say you wanted to call me worse than idiot. You say your wife stopped you. So you let her make the decision. (Or I suppose you let her show you the folly in your ways.... in which case she still made the decision only was so clever that you didn't realize it! Women are very smart that way Oliver.)

Kel,

Thanks again.

My take on Jefferson is that he was a tad bit eccentric theologically. He possessed a brilliant mind, but it was also his weakness.

James Madison, and John Adams are two of my favorite thinkers among the men who made up the 'founding fathers'.

There is gentleman from Washington State, John Eidsmoe, who wrote a book entitled, 'Christianity and the Constitution'. Thoroughly researched and footnoted it gives a fuller picture of the founding fathers than is available in modern text books.

I used to own a copy, but I read it and loaned it out. I miss it as a reference source.

Peter Marshall and David Manuel co-authored three books on American History:

1. The Light and the Glory
2. Sounding Forth the Trumpet
3. From Sea to Shining Sea

Those four books should be recomended or requiredreading in every private or christian school in the USA.

If I thought PBHO would read them I would send a set to the White House.

yor bro ken

Ken,

Is it true Ben Franklin was quite the ladies' man?

Hey, don't you be dissin' Ben, Mary!

Ken, thanks for those book titles! I will add them to my list of reading. My daughter loves to read and I think she'd enjoy them as well as I would. :)

Asitis

Someone used the term to 'misogynistic' to refer to one of my intemerate remarks recently.

I already knew what the term meant. It made we curious if there was an equivalent term for women who hate men.

Wha La [phonetic spelling of french word].

'misandrist'

There you have it. I found it listed in the synonyms for misogynist.

Now I can trade epithets with the feministas.

yor bro ken

Okay. Off to watch a documentary with my younger son. Such a bad parent. Tragic really.....

ASitis: "Haha. train wreck. Good one....

Well, according to your wife, you ahve the final say. You make the decision if there is no consensus.

So yoou say you wanted to call me worse than idiot. You say your wife stopped you. So you let her make the decision. (Or I suppose you let her show you the folly in your ways.... in which case she still made the decision only was so clever that you didn't realize it! Women are very smart that way Oliver.)"

What the heck are you talking about? If I do indeed have the "final say" I have yet to envoke it. Ive never overridden my wife on anything in my life. I guess if it came down to something that could not be compromised, she would be the one to fold, but the reality is that I give in to many things she decides upon simply because she has the expertise in certain areas.

And trust me, I know women are smart. Women are smarter than men.

Of course, everything you said and my responses are obviously a distraction from the points that you cannot respond to.

It sort of just hit me, but I like how you tried to make up for your claim that I was not an achiever by claiming that you could not have known the details that I gave you. Dont you think it a bit foolish to make claims without first finding out those details Asitis? You are the one who jumped out there and insulted me along the lines of my experience, remember.

Ken, I'm not a man-hater in case that's what you are thinking. Not at all! That would be pretty bad seeing as I live in a house with 3 males! Even the dog is male!

In fact, I love men and think they are our equals. Well, not the dog.

Okay, I'm off......

Asitis: "Okay. Off to watch a documentary with my younger son. Such a bad parent. Tragic really....."

After not adequately addressing even one single point coincidentally. I wonder if we'll see her again.

By the way, to clarify, I dindt say you were a bad parent, but that I felt sorry for your children that you belittled their birth as "fun" and "easy" because of the sex, and not as an important achievement in your life.

You are the one who jumped out there and insulted me along the lines of my experience, remember.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 7:58 PM

No Oliver, but you clearly jumped out there and insulted Josephine along the lines of her experience.

And BTW, the other day your wife really talked up the importance to her of the man having the final say. Just talk I guess.

Okay, movie is starting. Gotta go...........

By the way, to clarify, I dindt say you were a bad parent, but that I felt sorry for your children that you belittled their birth as "fun" and "easy" because of the sex, and not as an important achievement in your life.

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 8:03 PM

Ugh.... gotto go. But I really neeed to address this because it's so much fun. Like shooting fish in a barrell! I said getting pregnant was easy and fun. That was in no way belittling their birth or what they mean to us.

In truth, pregnancy was easy and somewhat fun even for me as well. I guess you might say I've been blesssed!

Ken,

Is it true Ben Franklin was quite the ladies' man?

Posted by: Mary at March 1, 2009 7:53 PM

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

I am not excusing extramarital sex, but I believe modern historians have overplayed that part of Benjamin Franklins life because it fits in with their stereotype of the evil white fathers.

I am not an expert on Franklin but I know of one American son he fathered out side of marriage. Franklin wanted to marry the mother but something happened. Franklin did 'acknowledge' the boy as his son and fathered him.

Ben Franklin owned slaves at one time but when he recognized the injustice he emancipated them.

Contrast Franklin with Jefferson. Jefferson sired a sons with one of his slaves and never acknowledged him, much less provide for him in any way.

From what I've read Jefferson was bitter angry man who did not forgive and did not forget any one whom he perceived as having wronged him. A real nasty mix for a politician of his stature.

Many of the founding fathers were polyglots. They could read and write in English, French, German, and Spanish. Some were able to read the bible in the original languages, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.

Most of the colonists could read and write and were able to dicuss the orthodox christian doctrines of the day.

Most of what we now know as the Ivy League colleges were founded as seminaries.

The foundations are stil there if you take the time to remove the rubble of revisionist history.

yor bro ken

Asitis: "No Oliver, but you clearly jumped out there and insulted Josephine along the lines of her experience.

And BTW, the other day your wife really talked up the importance to her of the man having the final say. Just talk I guess."

I find it funny that you take the time to make these off-base remarks, but not the time in the past, oh half hour or so, to respond to the actual arguments.

Anyways....

First of all, whether or not I attacked Josephine's experience has nothing to with the whether or not your attack was justified. Again, that is called an Ad Hominem. Please look it up! This is the umpteenth time you have done this, directly in the face of the explanation of what it is!

Second of all, Josephine called upon her experience to give herself a superior credit in the argument. My attack on her experience was an attack on her own argument. Your attack on my experience was just an attempted low blow.

Third of all, the issue isnt whether or not you were justified in attacking my achievements in the first place! You still refuse to admit that you posted a falsehood when you claimed that you never said that my achievements were meaningless and that you ONLY compared my achievements to Jossephine's.

Now onto what my wife said. Im sure that she said something along the lines of "when there is no consensus." However, you falsly interpreted that to mean that I dont "let" her make decisions. The truth is that if it came down to it, I would have the final say, but I have never needed to, nor would I ever need to, as it is a much wiser thing to FIND consensus, which is often to default to the best experience or knowledge.

But I note your additional snide, and once again baseless, insult.

You really are all over the place. Kind of like watching someone get hit by a car.

'That would be pretty bad seeing as I live in a house with 3 males! Even the dog is male!'

In fact, I love men and think they are our equals.

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

Asitis,

No I was not suggesting you were a man hater. If you are then you 'sleeping with the enemy'.

At least you can housebreak the dog. Good luck with the men.

I have used the same logic to try to demonstrate to feministas that I am not a 'misogynist'. They just hurl more insults.

I think that contradicts your arguement that men and women are equal, at least in the eyes of the feministas.

I agree with the feministas on that one. Men and women are not equal. One is not inherently better or worse than the other, but they are not equal.

No self respecting male would ever put a sweater on the toilet.

yor bro ken

Ken,

Thank you very much for the response to my question.

Mary,

Please do me an honor and if I ever post something that is over the top. Call me on it. I don't always see how things I write may be perceived. I sometimes miscomunicate.

I can be 'sensitive' if I try very hard, but I would rather be honest. I would rather be honestly wrong, than deceptively right.

yor bro ken

Kbhvac,

Some here would rather be deceptively wrong...

Hey Oliver, this is just an outsider's observation, but it is quite possible that in the minds of normal citizens, successfully managing to breed isn't actually an achievement or an accomplishment. It certainly isn't going to get you on the same lists as Einstein or Socrates. No offense, but I'm guessing that was Asitis' point.

"that in the minds of normal citizens, successfully managing to breed"
*****************************************

Yet another snide comment from a person who regards parenting a child as simply "breeding."
Do you consider yourself a "normal" citizen?

I'm pretty sure by referring to "normal" citizens and "breeding" that offense was most certainly intended. Or maybe you're just unaware of it.

I'm beginning to think that the pro-aborts here by their very nature just seethe this garbage.

No offense. ;)

Ken 8:30PM

Don't be concerned. I enjoy your posts. However, per your request I'll do my best. I'm not always on site so it will be hit and miss! :)

Penny: "Hey Oliver, this is just an outsider's observation, but it is quite possible that in the minds of normal citizens, successfully managing to breed isn't actually an achievement or an accomplishment. It certainly isn't going to get you on the same lists as Einstein or Socrates. No offense, but I'm guessing that was Asitis' point."

From that standpoint, Penny, earning an LVN would not get you on the same lists as Einstein. Hopefully we dont have the measure our accomplishments against developing the General Theory of Relativity or founding modern thought.

Besides, the whole point of explaining my experience was not to point out that I "successively bred" but that the experience that I had gone through matured me and allowed me to develop strength. The truth is, all that aside, helping to create and raise my children is of much greater import to me than getting a job.

Of course, that isnt even the issue if you would pay attention. Asitis claimed earlier that she never asserted that point even though she did. I am trying to get her to admit to her lie, thats all. Im also trying to get her to provide an actual piece of Reardon's studies that she finds objectionable. She hasnt done that either. She has however managed to incorrectly claim that I dont let me wife make decisions simply because I would have the hypothetical final say if there is no compromise.

Penny Dreadful,

So your parents didn't accomplish much by raising you?

Some here would rather be deceptively wrong...

Posted by: Oliver at March 1, 2009 8:33 PM
----------------------------------------------------

Oliver,

Agreed.

I am glad it was you that was 'hoeing that rough row.' I got mentally fatigued just following the thread.

I escape to humor to repair my soul.

By the way good to know you and your tribe are fellow citizens of the great state of Texas.

If you ever get up to the 'messtroplex' as some of us affectionately refer to DFW then send the Bambino an email and ask him to forward it to me.

We don't eat real high on the hog but it would be a honor to break bread with you.

yor bro ken

Im just curious, what does count as an accomplishment?

How is parenthood any easier than going to class and doing homework? How is it any easier than getting a job as an LVN, or really getting a job most places?

I didnt know you were in the DFW area. Both of our parents live there so we are often there. We should sometime get together for real.

No self respecting male would ever put a sweater on the toilet.

No self-respecting woman would, either. When I moved in with my boyfriend I moved into an apartment he'd shared with another man for two years already. They had one of those hideous carpeted lid covers, and one of the little matching rugs cut to fit right around the base of the toilet.

There was always pee all over the toilet seat, too, so you just KNEW that rug was soaked in pee. They had never washed it.

Throwing that set out was the first thing I did when I moved in! I put on rubber gloves before I'd touch either. And I'm not a squeamish person.

I later asked why they'd even bought that. Apparently it was their attempt to cover up the hideousness of the bathroom. An admirable effort, really, considering how ugly the bathroom is. It's the one room I've ever called a part of my home that I haven't been able to make somewhat pleasant. Pepto Bismol pink tile on the floor and walls; Pepto Bismol pink tub, sink, and toilet; black tile accents; beige sink cabinet. From the description it sounds like it could be made cute in a French bistro sort of way, like a fluffy poodle in a beret or something, but trust me, it can't. It's like the colors were all chosen to be as unflattering to each other as possible. Then throw in flaking grout and spotty hot water, and what must be actual live dust bunnies breeding little dust babies 24/7. MISERABLE.

But that little rug set was just the icing on the cake.

I roomed with a guy who sounds like he had similar bathroom hygene. I may actually be traumatized for life from when my uncle yelled at me for hypothetically getting pee on the toilet seat when I was a kid (he had 2 girls), but ever since then Ive made it my mission in life, or at least in the bathroom to keep it clean....my old roomate drove me crazy.

Oliver

Bobby Bambino has my email address. If you are coming up send him the specifics and ask him to forward it to me.

'Breaking bread' might mean eating freshly made home made wheat tortillas. My Japanese Canadian wife has refined the process to an art form. Even Mexicanas have asked for her recipe.

yor bro ken

Alexandra, that sounds like the bathroom from HELL! LOL!!!

I would've thrown that cover away pronto as well. :D

When we moved into our house, everything in the bathroom was about thirty years old. Tub, cabinets, wallpaper...ugh! And PEACH. We used some tax refund money to get a re-bath and replaced everything but the toilet and medicine cabinet! Needless to say, it doesn't make us want to run screaming from the room anymore. :D

But that little rug set was just the icing on the cake.

Posted by: Alexandra at March 1, 2009 8:56 PM

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

Easier to house break the dog than the man.

I trained my wife to leave the toilet seat up.

(Just joking. I am very consistent at raising the toilet seat before I relieve myself and putting it back down, when I have completed the chore. But I always put the lid down too. I believe it is the egalitarian thing to do.)

yor bro ken

Don't. They have great parents and a great life.
Plus, thanks to genetics, they have many great qualities and abilities. Oh my god. You should see my boys!

Posted by: asitis at March 1, 2009 7:09 PM

this comment makes me feel ill somehow and I'm not sure just why-- maybe because it implies that these children are "gods" to the mom

I wonder how these children don't have an inflated sense of self-importance.

Kbhvac: "'Breaking bread' might mean eating freshly made home made wheat tortillas. My Japanese Canadian wife has refined the process to an art form. Even Mexicanas have asked for her recipe."

That actually sounds right up my alley.

Haha Oliver, I kind of wish someone had traumatized my boyfriend as a child. Instead I had to slowly wear him down. I cleaned the toilet meticulously, without complaint, for 6 months or so. Then I started saying something -- first very gently, just so he knew it was bothering me. Then I started complaining. Finally I said that I thought I was being perfectly reasonable and even beyond reasonable - I was willing to clean the toilet regularly without having it be a "shared" chore, but only if he made some effort to not dirty it up all the time. Still no change in behavior.

Thus followed the dark weeks, a war of attrition. I try not to think about that time too much -- let's just say no one cleaned it. Then his parents came to visit and I had to clean the toilet. He said, "Wow, it's so nice in here now. Hey, remember when you first moved in and you used to clean it all the time?"

I said, "Yeah. Remember when I told you I'd keep cleaning it as long as you stopped peeing everywhere?"

He said, "Oh. Yeah." For some reason that seems to have done it.

But the bathroom is still hideous. At least it's clean now.

Kel, yours sounds pretty bad too. I wish we owned so we could change it. I've offered to re-grout the bathroom if the landlord pays the expenses, so that he gets semi-routine maintenance at no labor costs and we get a bathroom that doesn't leave grout stuck to your feet -- but so far he hasn't agreed to it. BLAST.

Oh, and Ken, I totally agree about the lid. To me, leaving the lid up on the toilet is like leaving a cabinet open after you get a water glass. WHY?

Posted by: Alexandra at March 1, 2009 9:15 PM

Why do toilets have lids?

yor bro ken

Well like I've stated before,

"Spread happiness where you go....... not when!"

buenos noches

yor bro ken

ROFL!!! Talk about arguments from ignorance...

Shorter Jacqueline:

"My complete ignorance of scientific explanations for natural phenomena and total inability to comprehend them means Goddidit. So there."

I love how you assume that I don't know of or could comprehend alternative explanations for creation. The bottom line is: There are none. Something can not come from nothing. Regardless of how you think the world came to be in the state that we know it, the level of intricacies involved in even the smallest microorganisms suggests that your rival explanations fall very, very short. Want proof? Create a new organism- Don't cheat and cop off of God's work by engineering a new organism from existing organisms, MAKE me a brand new LIFE FORM. I dare ya!

Thank Maude that Jackie isn't in charge of any research programs. They'd be over in two steps.

Step One: Identify natural phenomena

Step Two: Attribute existence of natural phenomena to supernatural forces.

Step Three: ....stagnate...

I am a scientist, actually. I'm a doctoral researcher, soon to be scholar. I am a policy analyst, not a biologist or physicist, but I know that all of your theories for the origin of species have too many rival explanations and one, huge gaping hole: Where did it truly begin?

Study creation a thousand different ways and you will inevitably come to the same conclusion, the conclusion you come to with simply looking around. This world is far too ordered to be a consequence of chance.

"Throwing that set out was the first thing I did when I moved in! I put on rubber gloves before I'd touch either."

LOL!!

Jacqueline, what are you doing a PhD in? I thought you said something about a degree in Social Work?

Astitis-

It's Public Administration & Management (Policy Analysis). It's basically a ploy to get legitimacy and credit behind the research I was already doing regarding Texas euthanasia law, but this way I get funded for it and come out with a published document and fancy letters declaring me the expert on it. I'm not fond of being outranked, so it works for me.

Social work (the program evaluation/analysis side) is my real career and an M.S.W. is the highest practical ranking anyway if you are not clinical, which I'm not. It serves my purposes and allows me to do what I want to do- I'm self-employed. I'm not fond of having a boss either, so I'll pretty much keep doing this thing I do, but hopefully at an even more inflated rate when I graduate next year. Mu-ha.

I gotta say: 21 is a tough threshold by which to accomplish anything. Most people were either college seniors or starting their careers at that age, except for the rare entrepreneurs and geniuses like my little brother- He's 21 and an economist at the Fed. He graduated at 16 with a 4.0 and got a Masters in Math at 19- but he's exceptional. I can think of a handful of others on that level.

Besides anomolies like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and my Lil' Bro, who really does anything by 21? I was 23 before I started kicking anything that my be qualified as certified butt.

Mary, regarding Ben Franklin, you might really enjoy this video:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219840&title=brains-greatest-minds

Hey Mary: regarding the discussion of Ben being a lady's man, I think you may enjoy this video:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=219840&title=brains-greatest-minds

whoops. my computer sucks.

I love seeing double posts with different phrases.

"Hmm my post didnt work, I think Ill say this a little better for the reattempt."

Its as if the subtle distinctions in something so small really matter. Dont get me wrong, I do the same thing all the time, I just find the quirkiness somehow charming.

HAHA Oliver I've been having computer problems all day, so sue me :P

"While pro-lifers around the country now gather twice annually at abortion mills for 40 days, often around the clock..."

You'll notice from our video (that's a University of Oregon Students for Choice protest, by the way, not sponsored by FMF and led by students only) that the troops the pro-lifers offer tend to be mostly under the age of 12.

I'm sure they don't have school to be at, since that's where education happens.

PIP 12:41am

What a hoot!! Thank you for the link :)

Kristin,
Which one are you in the video??

The prolifers were not from 40 Days. It doesn't matter what age you are when you stand for justice. Justice for the unborn.

I could go on but I am sure you have school to be at. Go get your edumacation. Go on.

Jacqueline @11:24, thanks. I was confused when you said you are a scientist. I forgot about social sciences.

Have a good day.

Jacqueline @ 11:37. I agree. BTW I have a sister like your brother and they are rare birds.

You'll notice from our video (that's a University of Oregon Students for Choice protest, by the way, not sponsored by FMF and led by students only) that the troops the pro-lifers offer tend to be mostly under the age of 12.

I'm sure they don't have school to be at, since that's where education happens.

Posted by: Kristin at March 2, 2009 2:10 AM

Hi Kristin. I suppose those kids could have been homeschooled and their parents would consider such protests part of their education.

Carla asked me a few days ago how I thought these Pro-life pregnancy centers might be misrepresenting themselves and misleading women.
I spoke of what was going on in Canada years ago
and what one can see now in their internet info/use. I'd be interested in hearing from you what is going on there - what prompted you to form a group and protest?

BTW What did you think of your protest hitting the big time on this blog? ;)

I'm sure they don't have school to be at, since that's where education happens.

I find it really sad that you think that the classroom is the only place where education happens.

I want to know just what "misleading" information is being spewed at Pregnancy Care Centers. Careful now. Several of us volunteer at them and serve on their boards. :)

Kristen, I volunteer at one of those dangerous Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

With reckless disregard for women, we offer them free clothing, shelter, food, diapers, formula, baby beds, free parenting classes, resources where they can get free groceries, medical care, and even resources which can get them into college for free. Among other things, of course.

It certainly would be a shame to keep providing them with things they need, so by all means keep protesting!

Good morning, Carla!

Kristin, 3/2, 2:10a, wrote: You'll notice from our video (that's a University of Oregon Students for Choice protest, by the way, not sponsored by FMF and led by students only) that the troops the pro-lifers offer tend to be mostly under the age of 12.

I'm sure they don't have school to be at, since that's where education happens.

Touche, Kristin.

Hey! While it's probably less likely, I suppose a homeschooled kid could have pro-choice parents. What if you had these protests going on across the road from each other but it was all a bunch of kids. On a rare snowy day like we are having here would it turn into a big snowball fight?

And then might they all end up being friends and going for hot chocolate together?

Asitis, there are lots of liberal homeschoolers. I don't know the exact numbers, but I do know that they're out there!

Here's one example, asitis.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liberal_homeschoolers_in_NN/

Good morning Bethany!!
How dare we offer free things to mothers in need of free things?!! How dare we offer help and support?!! Just who do we think we are, young lady??!!

And then might they all end up being friends and going for hot chocolate together?

I typically don't keep company with people that would have no qualms about killing people. I know I personally feel much more secure in the company of people that would give me food and water if I became disabled vs. people that kill those who need them because its not conveinent.

About pro-aborts:

I get how you guys would want to be friends with us, we're merciful and we take care of those in need rather than killing them- but why would we want to spend time with people who lack the basic moral compass to somehow think that it's okay to conceive and kill your own baby? People that turn around and also argue that people who suffer brain injuries cease to be worthy of food and water?

Likewise, I can see where you could respect our opinions. Our opinions are respectable. But we can't respect an opinion that justifies killing the innocent to enable the killer to live the lifestyle they please. There is nothing respectable about that.

Thanks Lauren. I figured there had to be some, though probably not as many as those raised by pro-life parents.

Carla, in Austin we have a huge, ridiculous homeless population. I live about 5 miles outside of downtown and there is always at least a couple of pan-handlers standing at the main intersection before my house.

Anyways, we'll give them a slice of pizza or a banana or whatever if we're stopped at the light. Well, the other day there was a girl that had a sign that said "Prenant and homeless"

Now, she definitely looked pregnant, though I'm sure she could have gotten a pillow or something if she really wanted to. I told her to hold on and I went to the bank and got out some money. I gave her the money and the number to the local crisis pregnancy center.

I figured she could have been scamming me, but if she weren't she could obviously use the help. Oliver reminded me that she could just use the money to go buy drugs, but I'm really hoping she called the crisis pregnancy center and got the help she needed. They can do so much more than I, as an individual, can do.

Perhaps Kristen and her friends should consider these girls who have a lifeline through the CPC's.

Ok, now I'm off to 40 days o' life!

I personally feel much more secure in the company of people that would give me food and water if I became disabled vs. people that kill those who need them because its not conveinent.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 2, 2009 8:44 AM

Jacqueline I am pro-choice and I most certainly give you food and water (unless you sepcifically asked me not to). Heck, I would go out of my way to get it for you!

And i sure hope those kids would end up enjoying the snow and each others! Adults can learn a lot from kids.

How dare we offer free things to mothers in need of free things?!! How dare we offer help and support?!! Just who do we think we are, young lady??!!

Sometimes it's hard for me to sleep at night, Carla, to be honest.

Jacqueline @ 8:44, you make a good point -- when I was pregnant and found out that my baby had anencephaly, my pro-choice relatives and acquaintances "avoided me like the plague" but my pro-life relatives and friends went out of their way to offer love and support.

asitis, you are correct -- adults can learn a lot from children. Children in their innocence and purity know the value of life. Whenever my sister, an elementary ed teacher, was pregnant, her students would express their excitement about her baby. They would come up from behind her and put their arms around her to rub her tummy. And it never fails to make an impression on me when I see older siblings in families with a new baby -- how they love that new baby and are so willing to help and entertain their new sibling.

Jacqueline I am pro-choice and I most certainly give you food and water (unless you sepcifically asked me not to). Heck, I would go out of my way to get it for you!

But you found me totally disposable pre-birth! So now you'll get me food and water, but had I been diagnosed with some affliction before birth, killing me would have been an option you could support. Heck- even if I had no affliction, but my mother just didn't want to be pregnant, my life and limbs meant nothing to you.

Maybe you would take care of me now, but do you recognize that your values are completely inconsistent?

And i sure hope those kids would end up enjoying the snow and each others! Adults can learn a lot from kids.

As long as I am around to protect my kids from the adults that would kill them to suit their own interest (interests such as "I don't want my tax dollars providing health care to a disabled kid- No ICU for you!), they can play in the snow all they want with the kids that are only there due to the fact that the parents decided not to kill them on a whim. I pity those kids- who are only valued not for their inherent worth but because mom "wanted" them at that moment.

Lauren,
Thank you for sharing that!! I am so proud of you and the work you are doing on behalf of the unborn!! Go girl!!

Eileen,
I don't think I knew about your child who was diagnosed with anencephaly. I am so sorry. I would love to read more, if you are willing to type it out. I walked a very dear friend through her whole pregnancy with a baby with anencephaly. Grace lived for an hour after she was born. What a privilege to be part of her support system!!

I had never heard of anencephaly until today. I just read about it and it sounds just terrible, what a terrible thing to have happen to a child and a mother. I'm so sorry Eileen.

Maybe you would take care of me now, but do you recognize that your values are completely inconsistent?

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 2, 2009 9:18 AM

Not at all. Recall, I don't share you beliefs.

asitis, you are correct -- adults can learn a lot from children. Children in their innocence and purity know the value of life. Whenever my sister, an elementary ed teacher, was pregnant, her students would express their excitement about her baby. They would come up from behind her and put their arms around her to rub her tummy. And it never fails to make an impression on me when I see older siblings in families with a new baby -- how they love that new baby and are so willing to help and entertain their new sibling.

Posted by: Eileen at March 2, 2009 9:10 AM

Eileen, I see the same excitement in adults of all ages when they see a pregnant woman or a new baby. Delight!

Mary, no problem :)

I pity those kids- who are only valued not for their inherent worth but because mom "wanted" them at that moment.

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 2, 2009 9:23 AM

No need to pity those kids Jacqueline. They are SO LOVED just like yours are (?) or will be once you know the joys of motherhood.

Not at all. Recall, I don't share you beliefs.

Okay- explain then your beliefs that allow you to arbitrarily kill some people while claiming to care for others.

No need to pity those kids Jacqueline. They are SO LOVED just like yours are (?) or will be once you know the joys of motherhood.

Love is not a degree of desire for a person, but a commitment to a person that is deeper than your commitment to yourself. Yes, maybe these parents really desire their children and would be devastated to lose them, but it's about the parent, not the child. That's not love. Love exists irrelevant to the wants of the parent. If mom would have killed them before birth if the circumstances/timing were different, I'd argue that they aren't SO LOVED.

Another thing is that wantedness is external and not intrinsic, so it can go away at any time.I'm the godmother of 3 children all under the ages of 6. My two goddaughters stopped being "wanted" by their mother 8 months ago, which is why I now have them. Since pro-abort parents only let their children live because they want them, what happens when they stop wanting them?

Pro-lifers know that each human life has intrinsic value, irrelevant to the wants of others. My goddaughters didn't cease having value when their mom ceased to want them. Human beings have value because they are human beings, regardless of other characteristic (race, age, gender, "wantedness"). What's further poetic is that since we pro-lifers see the value in children, we DO want them!

No need to pity those kids Jacqueline.

I also pity them because they are taught by example that their superficial wants trump the lives and limbs of other people. They are not taught that actions have consequences and that we are morally obligated to those lives which we create or assume responsibility for, from our unborn children to that cute little puppy in the window.

Jacqueline, it is so clear that you and I have very different beliefs. And you have a lot of misconceptions about people that are pro-choice.

Jacque, I sooo love you. You are definitely missed when you aren't here.

My two goddaughters stopped being "wanted" by their mother 8 months ago, which is why I now have them.

I'm so sad to hear that...What a wonderful thing you are doing for them, Jacque.

Eileen, I am so very sorry about your child. I can't imagine what all you have been through.

I remember reading through a whole website full of tributes to babies who died of anancephaly...some lived as many as a few weeks before passing. There were so many loving parents who decided to cherish the moments they could with their babies. I have cried many tears reading their stories, and wished I could comfort them. I hope you have found comfort and healing since your loss.

asitis, I'm far more liberal than conservative by many definitions, but I would love to homeschool. Even if I just homeschool in addition to public school! Haha. I don't see the need for only one kind of schooling.

I think the best thing my parents did for me was teach me that learning is, almost inherently, fun. I went to public school but learning was something that happened all the time. My parents had no tolerance for complaints that school was boring. "Bored people are boring people" was their basic attitude in that respect -- basically, it's your fault if you're so lazy that you find school boring, not your teacher's. Grades didn't really matter, but effort did.

I was never one of those over-scheduled kids (until I chose to be, with dancing) but we were regulars at local museums, concerts, shows, libraries; and our unscheduled time was mostly unstructured play. It was great.

Personally I plan to make my hypothetical husband get a job in Switzerland, and then I can homeschool the kids as we travel all over Europe by train. I guess math time will be "train time," since you can't really learn math by going around seeing cool things.

Or, plan b, I suppose, is to just stay here and take any hypothetical kids I may have to all the various places in NYC. Different neighborhoods, museums, children's concerts. More bang for your buck than traveling the world, I suppose.

ASitis: "Jacqueline, it is so clear that you and I have very different beliefs. And you have a lot of misconceptions about people that are pro-choice. "

Actually, I think shes hit the nail on the head with her assessment. Seems to characterize your personality on this site so far pretty damn well. But who knows, maybe you act differently in person? Im actually quite nice.

Kristin,

If you value the education that you received in the classrom in elementary school, then you must enjoy your college pretty well.

Anyone else notice how the protestors eyes would shift to the right when they said "provide false information?"

Im personally not a big fan of homeschooling, but I am NOT a big fan of what is going on in our education system. Im taught too many teachers going back for their masters to see who were are placing in charge of our youth...

Ive also taught in a highschool before. Granted it was only for 6 months, but its amazing to see how teachers feel about their students.

I also encourage anyone with children or nephew or whatever to look at the books they are using, particularly the science and math books. Notice how overloaded with information they are. The students cant learn because the school makes it too hard to learn. Math is eash. I taught my 10 year old nephew perfect squares and exponents in 15 minutes. Why cant that happen in his class? Why arent teachers taught the Socratic method? Why arent there before school and after school manditory office hours for the struggling students? My few school experiences may be a limited sample, and it may be that most schools are not so bad, but I have yet to meet someone who knew algebra coming out of 6th grade, and thats what it really should be.

I think Elizabeth was saying that her children attended a private school that had achieved this. I imagine it is because the teachers know what they are doing.

"Why arent teachers taught the Socratic method?"

Wow, Oliver, I could not agree with you more about this. The more I pay attention to the world around me, the more I realize that people don't know how to think. They simply do not know how because I don't think they've been taught. They haven't learned simply logic, the syllogism, necessary and sufficient conditions (I"m convinced that less than 1/1000 people understand this one), formal and informal logical fallacies, etc. I will most definitely teach my children these and other simply philosophical concepts because they are so important to being able to construct a good argument (as well as other things). I

Jacque: "Maybe you would take care of me now, but do you recognize that your values are completely inconsistent?"

Asitis doesnt even admit when her own statements are inconsistent, let alone her values.

Besides, I dont think she could be doing this on accident. Im pretty sure shes just stirring up trouble on purpose, so there is no need to try to cause her to reflect. What else could explain her erratic stances?

Oliver, I'm homeschooling my son and we use Saxon...it is a really great system, which talks to the student and not the teacher, and it builds on what you've already learned and it seems to be a pretty good match for him. He's in Saxon 87 and I'm not sure exactly what level that is (it doesn't seem to go by a grade number) but it's about 7-8 grade level, and he's already doing pre-algebra. (Caleb is 9 years old now). Homeschooling is wonderful because you can spend time with your child and teach them one on one, so it makes it a lot easier for them to learn, in my opinion. I love homeschooling because I can learn alongside my children. There is so much that I know now that I didn't know before I was homeschooling them, and so much more that I will learn as we go along. And I think my eagerness to learn with them makes them inspired to be eager to learn as well. :) And thank goodness for the internet! If he has questions I can't answer, I can always find them here! :D

bobby, you will be an excellent teacher.

Oliver, I agree with you there. My boyfriend teaches at a public HS. He teaches a specialty subject -- the kids have to audition to take his class -- so he only has maybe 80 students in all four grades, and they are generally more motivated than your average student since they had to really put effort in to be there. But even with such a small group, he's often shocked at the attitudes some of his co-workers have towards the kids.

I tutor one of his students after school, in French. And I was SHOCKED at the French teacher's rudeness to her student. The kid failed the first semester, which is why his parents hired me. And I said that one of the first tasks was to find out where to buy a new textbook, since he lost his. So his mom e-mailed the teacher, explaining that the boy was putting a new effort in and wanted to start fresh, etc, and that she would really appreciate having the name of the textbook.

The teacher wrote back something like, "I don't deal with textbooks. Try contacting John Smith, who is in charge of ordering books for the school. In addition, your son signed the contract at the beginning of the year saying he'd read the syllabus, so he should be well aware of the name of the textbook by this point." Like way to kick a kid while he's down. Way to teach him that asking for help is the most humiliating situation possible. For pete's sake.

It's hard, though. My boyfriend never leaves before 6pm and he's always there at least one hour before school starts. And sometimes you just feel like you give and give and give and there's just this endless well of needs. And then the parents with their needs. Eesh. It's a lot of work.

I'm generally a fan of public education, provided it's not a kid's sole source of education. I think, like anything else, that it needs to be attended within the context of a stable and nurturing life overall, or else it's just not going to do much.

Bobby: "...necessary and sufficient conditions..."

You are right. This is one of the hardest concepts to explain to people. I almost have to "break" my students as if they were brainwashed.

Youd be amazed how many people openly confuse a condition that can bring about an action with a condition that is the ONLY way to bring about an action.

I always use the relationship between stabbing and bleeding to demonstrate the point.

~ = "not"

stab -> bleed

~bleed -> ~stab

It would be silly if I were a doctor to look at someone bleeding and treat them automatically as a stab wound victim though.
"Doctor, this man is bleeding from..."
"Oh get the stitches out and remove the knife!"
"But Doctor..."
"Well hes bleeding right? And stabing causes bleeding? So obviously bleeding is the result of stabbing and this man has been stabbed!"

Of course it still doesnt work. My favorite is when I work a logic game with a clue that says "If H is in group 2, then G is not in group 3"

Sure enough a question comes up with G in a group other than 3 and I ask the class "So obviously what can we deduce from this information?" and without fail at least half of the class says "Well H is in group 2!"

Im on the same page as you though. I want my kids to go to public school, but I am going to be the annoying dad who asks questions about the homework all the time.

Alexandra: "And sometimes you just feel like you give and give and give and there's just this endless well of needs."

And Im sure it all worse as most of his coworkers have little to no interest in trying this hard.

Never confuse my general distaste in teachers to mean that I believe all teachers to be bad at their job. Ive had some great teachers, but I know that is because of their own talents and not because of the system we use to build and train teachers.

My testprep company is getting into the academic side of "prep" and I couldnt be happier. I hope that one day I can contribute to a good teaching system and help to reform public schools.

Bethany,

That program sounds excellent. 9-11 is really when children need to start work on Algebra. I actually fooled around teaching my 10 year old nephew some Algebra too, and he picked it up pretty quickly. I didnt want to be the annoying uncle, so I let him run off to play his video games, but even as distracted as he was, he quickly picked up how to find x in some basic addition and multiplication problems.

Your kids will be in good shape when it comes time for college applications and the sort. Just be careful that they dont coast too much....bad habbits can form from the ease of getting through highschool and college.

We are actually thinking about homeschooling. It's still several years away, but the more I think about it, the more it seems to make sense to me.

That "G not in group 3 if H is in 2" example you mentioned, Oliver, is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. You see this all the time in some pro-choice arguments. "My skin cells have human DNA. So you're telling me that every time I wring my hands together I'm killing thousands of people (the dead skin cells) just because they have human DNA?" Classic example of confusing necessary conditions with a sufficient condition. The embryo having human DNA is NECESSARY for its humanity, not sufficient. Oh well.

Hey Oliver, I don't know if you're into logic puzzles at all, but since you're into logic, I've wanted to share this one logic puzzle with you. Wiki calls it "The hardest logic puzzle ever." It can be found on wiki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hardest_logic_puzzle_ever) but it gives the solution on the same page so I'll copy and paste it.

"Three gods A, B, and C are called, in some order, True, False, and Random. True always speaks truly, False always speaks falsely, but whether Random speaks truly or falsely is a completely random matter. Your task is to determine the identities of A, B, and C by asking three yes-no questions; each question must be put to exactly one god. The gods understand English, but will answer all questions in their own language, in which the words for yes and no are 'da' and 'ja', in some order. You do not know which word means which. ”

Boolos provides the following clarifications:
“

* It could be that some god gets asked more than one question (and hence that some god is not asked any question at all).
* What the second question is, and to which god it is put, may depend on the answer to the first question. (And of course similarly for the third question.)
* Whether Random speaks truly or not should be thought of as depending on the flip of a coin hidden in his brain: if the coin comes down heads, he speaks truly; if tails, falsely.
* Random will answer 'da' or 'ja' when asked any yes-no question."

The problem is completely ridiculous. I had a fun time thinking about it, but could not solve it. I'm glad to say that after reading the solution, I at least UNDERSTAND it. But yeah, it's really cool. Have fun with it :)

Im going to work this out. I love logic puzzles. Heres a math one that I thought was cool. My friend had this asked to him in a job interview.

There are 10 groups of 10 people and each person has one weighted ball. Everyone in a group has the same weight ball as each other and all of the groups have 10 pound balls except one group, who has 9 pound balls. You have one scale that you can only use once. How can you determine which group has the 9 pound balls?

To clarify...there are 100 balls, 90 of which weigh 10 pounds and 10 of which weigh 9 pounds. 9 of the ten groups have the ten pound balls with one single group having all of the 9 pound balls.

Ill let you know if I can solve the above logic problem....Im going to get some paper.

Excellent, excellent. Take your time with the problem. I thought about it for a few days before I gave up :)

I'll think about your problem too. I've seen ones similar to it where you have a scale and 27 coins, one of which weighs more than the others, but you get 3 attempts (I think) to determine the heavier coin. But I'll think about it. Fun stuff!

ASitis: "Jacqueline, it is so clear that you and I have very different beliefs. And you have a lot of misconceptions about people that are pro-choice. "

Actually, I think shes hit the nail on the head with her assessment.

Posted by: Oliver at March 2, 2009 11:45 AM

Oliver, you have a lot of misconceptions too then. I think you guys want to believe our kids are worse off, less loved and less wanted because the parents are pro-choice. But's it's just not so.

OK, I think I got it. Actually, I need a clarification. When you say "scale", do you mean one thing that once you put something one it, it tells you how much weight is on it or do you mean one of those hanging scales where you put weight on the right side and the left side and the heavier side goes down like on Celebrity Fit Club? Either way I think I have it, but it's just a matter of articulating the solution correctly.

It's a numerical scale.

Bobby, I looked up the wiki solution (after I thought I had it) and it looks like they use 4 quesitons. One (and then alot of extrapolation questions) to establish ja and da, and then 3 to definitively place the gods.

Do we really get 4 questions?

No, they do in fact use only three questions. I actually think that they give at least two different ways of solving it. They first discuss "complicated logical connectives in your questions (either biconditionals or some equivalent construction)" which I don't quite understand. The way I understand the solution is when I start reading under the heading "Equivalently:" The three questions are actually under where it says "Using this fact, one may proceed as follows." Above that, they prove a lemma, which does not count towards questioning since it is something that you are convincing yourself of.

And I'm not sure that you can ever figure out EXACTLY what 'da' and ''ja' mean. But what they do in the lemma is establish your question in such a way that you can know if the answer to your question is yes or no without knowing what da and ja mean.

So now I think I'm seeing what you're asking. When you write "One (and then alot of extrapolation questions) to establish ja and da", you actually aren't asking any question to the gods there. What they do in all those lines of questioning is prove to you that this lemma works. I don't know if I'm making myself clear...

Im trying not to read your post as I type this. I think my wife was a little mistaken in how she interpreted the answer...or at least I hope as I havent given in yet! I am going to put a deadline on for tonight and then I am going to give up....Ive figured out how to solve who is either definitely False or True, but I havent figured out how to use that information in a final question...

OK, that's what Oliver is doing. I got a bit confused with their little hypothetical on da and ja, because that is the routte I first went to soliving so I used their hypotheticals as my "real" questions. Of course, then I didn't go on to ask my "real" questions because I was looking at things to simplistically.

Carla asked me a few days ago how I thought these Pro-life pregnancy centers might be misrepresenting themselves and misleading women.
I spoke of what was going on in Canada years ago
and what one can see now in their internet info/use. I'd be interested in hearing from you what is going on there - what prompted you to form a group and protest?

Posted by: asitis at March 2, 2009 8:06 AM

I don't know what slanderous information you produced about prolife pregnancy centers in Canada but I worked with one and I also volunteered at Birthright which is a wonderful pregnancy resource center in Canada and I believe also in other countries.
We never EVER co-erced women but offered them a pregnancy test and helped them to understand that they were carrying a baby not a blob of cells - this is what they were told by PP and virtually every proabortion agency as well as public health nurses.

Most Canadian pregnancy centers and Birthright offer layettes and will help the mom find whatever is necessary such as housing and financial support. They will not in any way help or direct a woman to abort the baby. This is because abortion is viewed as murder.

I'm not interested in discussing this with you. I don't post here anymore but I just had to correct this nasty situation which disgraces many good people who work to help women.

Please don't libel people and these centers who do excellent work. You pretend to offer the "Canadian" opinion on things on this board and then you have the nerve to critique Reardon's research as biased! Please remove the plank in your own eye first.

All your side offers is death and life of regret.

Hello Patricia! I thought all this talk about Canada might have you itchin'....

Here's what I said to Carla. Note that it was about allegations raised 20 years or so ago against pro-life centers in Canada:

"Okay.... When I was in college and after, prolife centers in Canada were accused of doing just that. Their literature would make a women think she could go to them for abortions or referrals. When women would contact them about getting an aborion they would attempt to talk her out of it, and if that didn't work they would delay her in a number of ways, even making her think that she was waiting for one when she wasn't. These were the allegations. This was 20-25 years ago....a different time for Canada".

".. the nerve to critique Reardon's research".

Oh the nerve!!!!!!

Asitis, it takes a lot of nerve to make a claim and then refuse to back it up.

Asitis, I have to chuckle a little bit when you guys post about these ominous "allegations" against pregnancy centers. I have never seen any proof of such allegations- while at the same time we have plenty of proof that Planned Parenthoods everywhere are protecting rapists, and virtually no one from the pro-abortion side seems to care (except Hal, who surprised me when he said he'd take a stand financially against Planned Parenthood after one of the last undercover videos). We have literally hundreds of videos, tapes, etc proving our allegations against Planned parenthood- yet pro-abortionists never seem to provide any type of evidence for their allegations- only their word. And that's supposed to be taken as gospel.

Okay.... When I was in college and after, prolife centers in Canada were accused of doing just that. Their literature would make a women think she could go to them for abortions or referrals. When women would contact them about getting an aborion they would attempt to talk her out of it, and if that didn't work they would delay her in a number of ways, even making her think that she was waiting for one when she wasn't. These were the allegations. This was 20-25 years ago....a different time for Canada".

Posted by: asitis at March 2, 2009 4:31 PM

" hese were the allegations" Yes these were the ALLEGATIONS, Virginia! And NEVER EVER proven. And YOU know it. This was an accusation made by abortuaries/pp because they were losing clients to prolife pregnancy centers by the dozens. The other side loves to believe that we tell lies and trick women into carrying their babies. We know this is not true. And the women who go into prolife pregnancy centers know it is not true.

The center operating next to the Scott abortuary in Toronto regularly saves hundreds of babies per year. It is located next to the abortuary for a reason - as a last ditch chance for a woman to reconsider. I personally know the woman who directs this clinic. She is a wonderful Christian woman, with many years of experience as a mother and as a foster mother. Yes, she lives what she preaches!

Birthright was the original pregnancy center started up by Canadian, Louise Summerhill - a wonderful, caring woman who believed unmarried women should be supported and nurtured through a difficult time in their lives.Have you ever met Mrs. Summerhill? Have you been inside a Birthright center? Do you know what Birthright offers? Have you been inside a pregnancy counselling center? Have you ever counselled and a woman distraught over an unplanned pregnancy? Have you spoken with women outside an abortuary? Have you seen women come out after abortions? Do you know what they feel and how they respond?

Many women when presented with the truth and who are honestly open to life will opt for carrying their babies to term. Those who have the mindset that the baby is something to be rid of - leave in anger. Sometimes, you know, the truth hurts.

Ideology and your hatred of the Catholic church/God trump everything in your world. You make claims on here that you can NEVER back up. Oliver and Lauren have proven this time and again.

I know in response to this you will post some flippant, mocking, stupid remark as a blow-off. So be it.

It was out of respect for my sisters (such as Carla, Bethany and in the memory of Louise Summerhill) who have worked so hard the world over to offer REAL help to women with difficult pregnancies that I posted this comment.

When you have worked in Birthright center/pregnancy center and actually HELPED women to work through an unplanned pregnancy THEN you will be qualified to critique. Then you can make a reasonable comment. Until then, pull your head out of your *** and offer something POSITIVE.

Just to clear everything up... my children were homeschooled up until this past school year. I would have continued schooling them this way throughout but was unable to continue doing so with the level to which my work schedule was infringing upon my family time.

I therefore chose the second best option: hand-picked charter schools. This requires a lot of driving on my part because the best school for each child were located in different parts of town.

After being homeschooled through her freshman year of high school, my eldest tested into college honors classes and takes almost a full load (11 credits) of those classes while maintaining a full load of high school courses (heavy on science). But she isn't just book smart. She's in the college Emerging Leaders program (they just had a weekend retreat... her fellow students ranged from her age up to 39 years old... and tonight they are all serving dinner at the local St. Vincent De Paul Society, feeding the homeless and impoverished.) She's a student senator for her tenth grade and is seriously considering running for student body president as a junior. She's in the creative writing club and on the committee to plan the school dances.

So, I think Alison is a perfect example that homeschooling works. Trust me, she does her share of just plain old brain-dead stuff, like any other teen (my fave was the day she came home and told me she had gotten a copy of MacBeth in English... and the original language! I laughed so hard I almost cried. Yes, I knew what she meant... but had to call my BRITISH father-in-law so that he could get a chuckle out of it, too!) but on the whole, homeschooled children have excellent social skills as well as academic skills. Yes, there are some socially awkward homeschooled kids. (There are socially awkward public and private schooled kids, I hasten to point out... and they don't get the freedom to grow up at their own pace like homeschooled kids do.)

So, yes, my children attend charter schools... but I consider that SECOND best. It is the right decision for our family at this time... but I will always consider us a part of the homeschooling movement and heartily encourage any family considering it to give it a shot.

(And yes, Saxon Math ROCKS!!!)

If he has questions I can't answer, I can always find them here! :D

Oh my goodness Bethany, I just saw this and it made me laugh. When I'm tutoring that kid I mentioned in French, he will occasionally ask me a question I don't know the answer to. Usually it's a vocab thing, like a somewhat obscure word in a poem or something. He'll point at it and be like, "Okay, what's that mean?"

At that point I'm always like, "Well, remember how we talked about when it's okay to get help, and when you should try it by yourself? And do you remember how we talked about the best places to look for help? This is a good opportunity to practice those skills."

And then we'll look it up online and it'll be something generally useless like "concrete" and I'll be like, "So, if we know that word now, let's translate the whole sentence!" I'd be totally exposed without the internet. I would waste all of our time looking up useless vocabulary and would have no time at all to address the fact that the kid can't conjugate the verb "to be." It's so nice to not have to just be like, "Don't worry about that, you don't need to know that," but to be able to teach him how to quickly move on from unimportant questions.

public schools stink.

Oliver, you have a lot of misconceptions too then. I think you guys want to believe our kids are worse off, less loved and less wanted because the parents are pro-choice. But's it's just not so.

If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, indeed they are worse off. Who then is there to teach them basic right and wrong, when the most blatantly obvious WRONG thing a person can do is murder their own child?

Bethany at March 2, 2009 5:04 PM

Bethany, note that those were not MY allegations. That is what was floating around at the time and I just recall hearing it. I was hardly spreading them or even paying much attention. OMG, it was the 80's and I was busy doing other stuff! Social activism wasn't really big.

Anonymous at March 2, 2009 5:25 PM

Hey everyone, Patricia is baaaaaack!

If the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, indeed they are worse off. Who then is there to teach them basic right and wrong, when the most blatantly obvious WRONG thing a person can do is murder their own child?

Posted by: Jacqueline at March 2, 2009 7:00 PM

You believe abortion is murder Jacqueline. I do not. You and I have diffferent beliefs about things.

You believe abortion is murder Jacqueline. I do not. You and I have diffferent beliefs about things.

Yes, and the difference is that her beliefs are substantiated by facts.

Bethany, note that those were not MY allegations. That is what was floating around at the time and I just recall hearing it. I was hardly spreading them or even paying much attention. OMG, it was the 80's and I was busy doing other stuff! Social activism wasn't really big

Asitis, what was your point in posting it?
Just curious.

Bobby,

I came "close" to solving it but I got stuck down the wrong rabbit hole and gave up.

I recognized the special relationship between Ja/Da and Yes/No, but for some reason or another I got caught up working out who was random.

I had "Does Ya mean no?" and realized that any Ja would be a falsehood and any Da would be a truth, but I didnt take it and develop it from there....

Great puzzle though!

By the way, you may find this site interesting...

www.planarity.net

I beat one at level 19 if I remember right. Its pretty tough, I recommend watching a youtube to get the basic idea for the higher level ones.

Asitis: "Asitis, what was your point in posting it?
Just curious."

Stirring up trouble. Of course she may want you to prove that those allegations are NOT true, considering the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person opposite Asitis.

Asitis: "Oliver, you have a lot of misconceptions too then. I think you guys want to believe our kids are worse off, less loved and less wanted because the parents are pro-choice. But's it's just not so."

Making up things again are you? Very wise statement...

I think you dont value your children's impact on your life as much as most people value their children's impact. That is what is sad.

I think you dont value your children's impact on your life as much as most people value their children's impact. That is what is sad.

Posted by: Oliver at March 2, 2009 10:03 PM

Yep, more of the same. Once again, you may want to believe that's the case. But it's just not so.

I find it hilarious that in the video, these young women are ADVERTISING that they use birth control! LOL!! "I love my IUD!" Wow. Well, good for you, honey. :D

The statement on the video that CPCs provide false information is...well, false.

CPCs provide info on fetal development (pamphlets that can be obtained from any OB's office), possible abortion risks (available from any non-biased medical website), free referrals for adoption and maternity housing, free clothing, baby supplies, parental education, furniture, counseling, moral support, prayer, and sometimes ultrasounds.

They are NOT monetarily supported by the government! Wouldn't THAT be nice?? Heh...if that were the case, they wouldn't have to have three and four fundraisers per year, along with sending out appeal letters. Nonprofit organizations (other than the "classified as non-profit but clearly profitable" FEDERALLY FUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD) are really non-profit.