Live tweeting abortion, Part I: Prelude

Read Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, Part IX, and Part X. Pro-lifers can share their thoughts at #livetweetingabortion.

This turned in to a much bigger project than I anticipated.

Angie Jackson.jpgOver the weekend Twitter friend Jill alerted me that someone was live tweeting her abortion. Sure enough.

I lurked on @antitheisticangie's Twitter page for a day, getting over the shock of what she was doing, which was tweeting the blow-by-blows of her RU-486 abortion (also see #livetweetingabortion) . I finally jumped in with a couple tweets, before it was clear the abortion was working, which did less than any good. My reputation apparently preceded me. I got instant venom in response....

Whatever, I became interested in the person behind the abortion, and - she'll mock me for this - began praying for her. Obviously she is engaged in an attention-seeking stunt, but why? What brought this girl to a place of broadcasting her abortion, and as you'll read, in such a shocking and crude way?

Angie Jackson logo.jpgWe are all damaged goods, but some more than others. Angie Jackson is one of the others. Read her backstory here. Long story short: Angie was born into a religious cult and now considers herself an anti-theist. Not sure what the difference is between that and an atheist, if any.

I decided to go back through Angie's prolific volume of tweets to chronicle her abortion for the blog.

What made them most interesting, I found, is that Angie is one of those who puts every thought in writing. So in between the lies to us (such as that Angie incredibly got pregnant despite using 3 forms of birth control, which turns out to be false, as you'll read) and to herself, and shocking statements specifically meant to do just that, are vulnerable heartbreaking admissions. Angie is quite the piece of work. (But aren't we all?)

Angie Jackson photo 2.jpegI have no illusions my post will change Angie. On one hand I know she'll glorify in the attention and on the other hate me for what she views as "judging" her. The prayers we pray might, though, even as she ridicules them. After Angie toys with atheism and living on the dark side, we can pray she'll come back around. He's there, waiting and hoping and loving Angie despite her forays.

I pulled tweets that put together a picture of not only Angie's abortion but also Angie. This is such a tragic yet fascinating study. We read in real time as Angie kills her child. We see reaffirmed that abortion is a usually selfish, sometimes desperate act. We see that pro-aborts only have ignorant, delusional sound bites to fall back on. Some of Angie's tweets are random but help develop the story.

I start right before Angie realizes she is pregnant. She's living with a guy ("BF" = boyfriend) with her mentally disabled young son. Here's Part I: Prelude (Warning: vulgarity)...

Slide1, tweeting my abortion.PNG

Slide2, tweeting my abortion.PNG

Slide3, tweeting my abortion.PNG

Slide4, tweeting my abortion.PNG

Slide5, tweeting my abortion.PNG

To follow, Part II: Gearing up for the abortion

[Angie's top photo via her Facebook page; Angie's logo via her blog; Angie's bottom photo via excultnetwork]


Comments:

What I can never understand is how guys who don't want children will always pay for a very invasive, risky surgical procedure for the woman, over and over again, but refuse to have themselves nipped with a vasectomy which is absolutely no big deal.

That a woman doesn't get a clue about that but continues to use boxes of condoms, gallons of spermicide etc. all while entertaining his complete childishness is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 5:49 AM


What jumps out at me is the repeated admissions that they're having sex with the plan IN ADVANCE to abort if they get pregnant. They do just see it as a back up method of birth control.

The "ask for an abortion deposit before I'll put out" is chilling. She's willing to say "No" if he's not willing to pay for an abortion. Not willing to say "No" if pregnancy would mean a dead baby. Dead babies they're perfectly okay with. Paying out of pocket for their abortions is another matter entirely.

There's definitely an atmosphere of supporting each other in "normalizing" the idea of having sex when you know you'll just kill any baby you make.

Posted by: Christina at February 23, 2010 5:56 AM


What's so special about providing yourself to a deadbeat piece of trash?

That's the beauty of abortion - you can sleep with the scum of the earth?

Oh yeah, that's right - he refuses to get a vasectomy, never wants kids, but continues to treat you as a sex toy.

Wonderful to think that his orgasms end up providing additional cramps, painful medical procedures etc. And while you're going through all that - he's playing carpenter with the younger girl down the hall.

Am I missing something or does this look like some strange form of self-flagellation?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 6:05 AM


The beauty of abortion....that is as far as I could go. Forgive me if I skip this and just pray.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 6:11 AM


@landfillpoet - BF says it means I'm pregnant with a little person.
-----

Admission the guy knows the child is a human - a "person" - but still has no problem killing his child.

The state has no problem going after deadbeat dads, child abusers, rapists etc. and this entire conversation just indicates he's all of the above. Further, they know he's all of the above, but they still have sexual intercourse with him anyway?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 6:19 AM


Angie, given your tweets - I have some news for you:

All you really did was trade one cult for another.

I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 6:22 AM


I think we really should cease talking about this one. It is just what she wants, and serves absolutely no good purpose.

Posted by: Julie Culshaw at February 23, 2010 6:32 AM


I find that people like this are scum. though i doubt i am seeing the whole picture, i am not delusional enough to think that the religious right is above twisting the comments to say what they want.

i feel iam PRO-life AND PRO-choice and you can be both i feel abortion is wrong but i feel denying that choice is also wrong so unless my wife is at risk of dieing or was raped we wont get an abortion.

i also think that until all of you have adopted you cant bitch and say "put it up for adoption" what you really mean is put it into foster care and doom it to live out its life bounced from home to home in an unending cycle of instability and grief...

Posted by: Venku Skirata at February 23, 2010 7:20 AM


Hi Venku,

Does your rationale apply across the board?

For instance, can you be pro-freedom but support someone's right to choose to own a slave?

Can you be pro respect of women yet support someone's right to choose to commit rape?

Just asking.

Posted by: Mary at February 23, 2010 7:24 AM


An Anti-Theist is one who beleives in God...but HATES him...at least that is the only explanation i can discern...i am taking a religion class right now (grad requirment at the college i attend...) and thats the closest i can come up with

Posted by: Venku Skirata at February 23, 2010 7:26 AM



If this woman doesn't want more children, can she do the human race a favor and just get her tubes tied?

I'm so tired or these women who wail about their failing birth control and not wanting more children. Get a freaking tubal ligation!

Posted by: Mary at February 23, 2010 7:27 AM


Anti-Theist is not someone who hates God, they don't believe God exists. The difference between an Atheist and Anti-theist is that an anti-theist believes religion to be a negative, and wishes it to end.

My favorite part is when you accuse pro-choicers of relying on talking points but no substance. Pot meet kettle.

Posted by: Andy at February 23, 2010 7:28 AM


HI Venku.

"i also think that until all of you have adopted you cant bitch and say "put it up for adoption" what you really mean is put it into foster care and doom it to live out its life bounced from home to home in an unending cycle of instability and grief... "

This is not quite right. There is no reason why I can not point out a moral evil without providing an alternative to doing that evil. For example, am I wrong to say that stealing is wrong without giving you an alternative way to obtain money? If I point out that spousal abuse is wrong, am I then required to take in an and care for an abused spouse? Of course not. The reason abortion is wrong is because it unjustly takes the life of an innocent human being, which is of course the real concern that is being dodged every time someone talks about "choice." There is no such thing as "choice" when it comes to killing.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 7:33 AM



I would also argue that until you have opened your home to battered women or volunteered at the local shelter, then you can't condemn domestic violence.

Posted by: Mary at February 23, 2010 7:43 AM


I agree with those who have said that there is a difference between atheism and anti-theism. An atheist may say "I don't have a problem with religion, but it isn't for me." An anti-theist is hostile to religion.

Both atheists and anti-theists are perfectly capable of acknowledging the facts about prenatal development and abortion, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from our regular pro-life non-theist posters. The problem is, as Chris puts it, that the pro-abortion position is cultish. It relies on denial (it's just a ball of cells, no matter what embryologists say), magical thinking (you become a person when you pass through the birth canal), and blind faith (I believe whatever abortion businesses tell me about their statutory rape reporting policies, in spite of video evidence to the contrary.)

That said, I feel incredibly bad for all involved here-- especially her living son. I don't know how mentally disabled he is, but assuming it's not severe, he will be able to understand what abortion is when he gets older. And he WILL find out that his mom killed his little brother or sister. Nothing disappears on the internet.

Posted by: Kelsey at February 23, 2010 7:46 AM


Throughout this debate I've seen both sides get their hackles up, and with good reason. This is a personal, moral choice. I really don't think that a fetus is a baby. I'm not going to get into the "when does it become viable" thing, because we could argue about minutia forever. I expect you all to disagree with me. This really is a grey area that is only black or white when you, through research or prayer or whatever method of self discovery you use, decide what works for you. And when this happens, especially when there is no moral barometer that the society you live in agrees on, the best decision is to allow personal choice. You don't prevent me from getting an abortion, I don't make you get one. And trust me - if they can stop you, they can make you. It's about personal choice and control. The only middle ground in this entire protracted debate that leads nowhere, is to let people make this decision on there own, no matter how hard that may be for you. Otherwise we are just banging heads and if this entire thing has taught me anything, it's that neither side CARES what the other side thinks or feels. No one seems to hear each other at all. I know it's something that we should have learned in childhood - but I think we need to learn to agree to disagree.

Posted by: Howie Montgomery at February 23, 2010 7:51 AM


Howie, our point is that abortion takes the life of a human being EVEN IF the mother falsely believes that it doesn't. Suppose I find 3000 people who truly believe that newborn infants aren't "really alive." Should we allow them to decide for themselves whether or not to kill a baby? Of course not. One human being's right to life does not depend on someone else's subjective feelings.

Posted by: Kelsey at February 23, 2010 7:59 AM


Howie, just because YOU don't think a fetus is a baby doesn't mean it isn't scientifically true that life starts at conception.

Posted by: nissa_amas_katoj at February 23, 2010 8:03 AM


I just can't get into Twitter. It amazes me that people feel a need to tweet every thought. I think we will all forget how to spell with Twitter taking over our lives.

Seriously, this girl is crying for attention and help.

Posted by: Susie(prolifeintn.blogspot.com) at February 23, 2010 8:14 AM


If it were not an unborn human child I would have no problem with abortion. Hence the hackle raising, Howie.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 8:22 AM


"i feel iam PRO-life AND PRO-choice and you can be both i feel abortion is wrong but i feel denying that choice is also wrong " -Venku Skirata at February 23, 2010 7:20 AM
----
I'm sorry but the moral implications of killing an innocent human being through abortion have nothing to do with personal feelings.
----

"I really don't think that a fetus is a baby. I'm not going to get into the "when does it become viable" thing, because we could argue about minutia forever."- Howie

Viability is an arbitrary way to take personhood away. When put to honest debate, the viability argument falls short.

"whatever method of self discovery you use, decide what works for you"

Actually, whatever is the truth works for everyone. Self discovery? Cmon now.

"hen there is no moral barometer that the society you live in agrees on, the best decision is to allow personal choice. "

So the truth is that you are a cultural relativist. Whatever the majority of people say is acceptable should be the norm. The fallacy you are committing is assuming that cultural relativism is correct.You would need to prove that. You are assuming that it is always morally correct to do whatever the consensus says. That's a bad foundation for morality.

BTW, if you are interested in the majority opinion of this country in regards to abortion, most people are against abortion on demand.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 8:50 AM


See? Thank you for proving my point. We do not agree. There is no absolute in this. So why not leave it at choice? That way we are BOTH protected and allowed to follow our moral code. Your body, your choice. My body, my choice.

Posted by: Howie Montgomery at February 23, 2010 8:51 AM


Neither Angie nor her boyfriend seem willing to get sterilized to prevent future pregnancies. Their selfishness knows no bounds.

Posted by: Alternative Health at February 23, 2010 8:53 AM


Twitter and Facebook are two sides of the same coin to me. Both are filled with people that feel they have something groundbreaking to say every second, and have to enlighten the world.

Most people just arent that intelligent, and if they are they sure arent wasting time on either of those websites. The person in this story just proves my point.

Posted by: Kristen at February 23, 2010 8:54 AM


"Anti-theist" - versus atheist - would suggest that she is actively opposed to a theist, rather than merely not believing in one. Anti-theism might be less of an implicit admission of belief in a god, because it would be an opposition to theistic religion itself (which we obviously know exists). Atheist obviously means no belief in a theistic god, or rather a belief that there is no theistic god. But anti-theist suggests both the existence of a theistic god, and opposition to it.

Interesting choice of words, on her part.

Posted by: alexandra at February 23, 2010 8:56 AM


"See? Thank you for proving my point" @Howie

Who was this directed at?


" There is no absolute in this. So why not leave it at choice? "

Because there is an absolute in this.

It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill and innocent human being.

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being.

Therefore abortion is always morally wrong.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 8:57 AM


"See? Thank you for proving my point" @Howie

Who was this directed at?


" There is no absolute in this. So why not leave it at choice? "

Because there is an absolute in this.

It is always morally wrong to intentionally kill and innocent human being.

Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.

Therefore abortion is always morally wrong.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 9:03 AM


Chris A,
When you are looking for affection and attention and affirmation you will "overlook" so much in men. You take what you can get. Thinking back, I am horrified by the relationships I allowed myself to be in. For "love." I didn't know what I didn't know and now I do. :)

We are in the "hook up" generation are we not?

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 9:05 AM


Howie- when women are 100% totally and fully given the FULL truth about the abortion procedure and what can/will happen afterward regarding their mental/emotional and spiritual health, then maybe the woman can make a choice "all on her own." Speaking from experience, most women don't make the choice for an abortion on their own and this is clearly shown in the ugly above tweets where the man is willing to pay for an abortion.

So don't be so delusional into thinking women have the ability to solely make the abortion decision alone. 64% of women are pressured into an abortion against what they believe and/or want. (www.theunchoice.com)

Posted by: Dirtdartwife at February 23, 2010 9:08 AM


It's sad that so many women choose to shack up with their boyfriends. These types of relationships are destined to fail. It still puzzles me that after so many years of the hook-up/ shack-up mentality, people haven't woken up to the damage this type of lifestyle brings with it.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 9:15 AM


Does anyone else think that this woman is full of crap? I am having trouble believing anything she says, even that she is actually pregnant. I think she is just seeking attention, and I find that sad.

Posted by: len at February 23, 2010 9:16 AM


She said she loves her son "to pieces". That made the hair stand up on the back of her neck...i guess she loved her recently aborted child "to pieces" too...Her love is the toxic kind, I guess.

She said her son wasn't planned but she loves him now. How can she not get it? She would have loved her second child just as much even though inconvenient and unplanned! I am so mad and hurt. I cannot question God yet I wonder why He keeps creating these precious children and giving them to these women who throw them away...please God. Give me a second child and I would NEVER throw that baby away. NEVER.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 9:19 AM


Agreed, dirtdartwife.
Had I been shown an ultrasound and fetal development was explained to me and the negative affects that abortion would have on my life...I NEVER would have done it.

The abortion industry is built on deception. Its survival depends on its ability to hid the truth.
David Bereit
National Director of 40 Days for Life

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 9:21 AM


I really don't think that a fetus is a baby.

Posted by: Howie Montgomery at February 23, 2010 7:51 AM
-------

Howie - you need to do some research, because scientifically when the gestating child reaches the fetal stage, then all the organs are in place and it is no longer an embryo, meaning its a rather undeniably human baby.

So Howie - lets talk about your body - if I don't really believe that you are a human, may I shred your body in a wood chipper?

If no - why not, seeing that nothing is really absolute?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 9:30 AM


Chris....Howie needs to go back to school. First to learn basic biological facts, and second to take a debate class. We learned in school never to say "I think," or "I believe" but to use FACTS to support your beliefs. No one REALLY cares what you think, feel, or believe so you need to convince others with FACTS.

But of course pro-aborts know the facts are not on their side so they say "I don't think the fetus is a baby" or "I don't believe abortion hurts women" or "I feel like abortion is good for women and doesn't kill a baby" NO FACTS, huh Howie?

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 9:34 AM


This is one of the most pathetic things I've ever read in my life. I pity her.

"i also think that until all of you have adopted you cant bitch and say "put it up for adoption" "

I had no idea that adopting a child was a prerequisite for opposing murder.

"what you really mean is put it into foster care and doom it to live out its life bounced from home to home in an unending cycle of instability and grief..."

With all the people out there waiting to adopt babies? That seems unlikely.

Posted by: Lucy at February 23, 2010 9:38 AM


Venku Skirata -- I am an adoptive mom. I hate to say it because it looks like I am making myself out to be some kind of superior being, but I really get tired of hearing people say prolifers don't adopt, because it's not true.

Secondly, a permanent home is the best place or a child, but as a social worker, I have met some excellent foster parents. Some of them even eventually adopt the children. Please don't believe every negative thing you see on television or read in the papers about foster care.

Posted by: Phillymiss at February 23, 2010 9:55 AM


There's no way she's telling the whole truth. She got pregnant using an IUD (99% effective), condoms and spermicide? Please, she's lying. She's also claiming in her more recent tweets that the pregnancy endangered her life. If she was really in a medical crisis, what the hell is she doing on Twitter all day?

How do we know this entire episode isn't made up?

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at February 23, 2010 9:58 AM


Venku,

Don't you think that the child would ultimately rather be bounced from foster home to foster home and have a chance in life?
Versus the alternative- just kill it...we have every right to decide who will lead a good and happy life...all the kids that are in foster care would rather be dead, might as well kill them too and for that matter kill all the old people who live in adult foster homes-they aren't happy either!

Posted by: Mandy at February 23, 2010 10:05 AM


Hi Howie.

"We do not agree. There is no absolute in this."

You seem to be basing this on the following underlying principle:

"If there is significant disagreement about a particular moral issue, then it is absolutely true that that particular moral issue is neither right nor wrong but subjective to the individual."

Is that more or less the principle you are basing your conclusions on? If so, how do you argue for the validity of that (or a similar) principle?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 10:06 AM


Twitter and Facebook are two sides of the same coin to me. Both are filled with people that feel they have something groundbreaking to say every second, and have to enlighten the world.

Most people just arent that intelligent, and if they are they sure arent wasting time on either of those websites.

What? Where did that come from? When I was in college (when FB was college-only) FB was the primary way to keep in contact with classmates you might not otherwise be close with. You could see who had classes with you and friend them and BAM - instant contact list if you got sick or had to miss class. You could see what was going on where, all in one place.

Now that I'm a professional in a highly competitive industry made up largely of freelancers, FB is one of the main ways of networking among colleagues. Not sending each other crap images of flowers but just...like, if I need to find and hire 5 people by the end of the day, I'm far more likely to think FIRST of five people who are FB friends of mine. Obviously I don't hire anyone who sucked the last time we worked together, but if my choice is "great electrician I haven't seen, heard from, or thought of in 3 years," and "great electrician who I know just got back from touring because his FB status said so," guess who gets the phone call first? Or...I worked with two different sound guys four years ago, when we were all just starting. One is my FB friend and I know that he is doing well for himself - got some assistant designing jobs first out in La Jolla, then in Chicago, finally here in NYC to stay on a major show. The other - he could be doing GREAT, or he could have left the industry; I have no idea. In a pinch, if I ever need to find a sound designer, I know who I'll think of first - the guy who has kept me passively informed of what he's up to, how far he's progressing, etc.

I also have recently started using Twitter to communicate less important things than I put on my FB. Nothing private, given the public nature of Twitter, but things that probably only my friends would want to follow, so that my work colleagues aren't getting updates with pictures of a Klein tool posing as a brontosaurus or something. (Which is, naturally, what I posted yesterday: http://bit.ly/dvpNOq )

I also follow local bands on Twitter, to find out where/when their shows are; and two local music critics whose judgment I trust. I appreciate having a tool to sort through and aggregate the information I don't have the time or money to seek out on my own, like, "Is this album worth buying or is the demo track the only good one?" "If I've been listening to this album non-stop, will I like this other new band?" etc.

Last but not least, I find Twitter a valuable resource for finding or getting rid of free tickets at the last minute. I get free tickets a lot and sometimes the friend who claimed them bails - so it goes to Twitter, and my friends forward the info to their friends, and someone who is thrilled to fill seats that would have otherwise gone empty gets to see a show for free.

Technology is a tool; Twitter and Facebook are tools for amplifying the people who use them. Stupid people will use technology in stupid ways to do stupid things, but that does not make the technology itself stupid, or "for stupid people," or something.

Posted by: Alexandra at February 23, 2010 10:07 AM


Hi Ashley.

"She got pregnant using an IUD (99% effective), condoms and spermicide? Please, she's lying."

I think you're right, and that she apparently admits that. As Jill says in above:

"So in between the lies to us (such as that Angie incredibly got pregnant despite using 3 forms of birth control, which turns out to be false, as you'll read"

I'm not sure exactly where she admits this in the twitters because I'd rather not read them, but I know you're braver than I am :) God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 10:09 AM


I must admit that I cannot fall in love with Twitter. I think we will all forget how to spell. Also, it is strange that people feel the need to tell every thought on their mind at all moments of the day and night. Usually they are not all that interesting. I also heard there is a website called pleaserobme.com that broadcasts it out to the world when you tweet that you are away from home. Some use it as a tool to shock or as a subtle cry for help. Such is Angie, who is in the process of tweeting about her chemical abortion that is in process. Her tweets are full of TMI and vulgarity. There is a certain magical power in thinking that people you don't know and will never meet are following your sad life. It also says something about us as we follow this sick story. Like a car wreck....you can't turn away. Most will think she is such a mixed up person what kind of a mother would she make. Well she is a mother who made a choice and now this baby does not have a chance. I see this as a subtle cry for attention and help.
Another thought is these girls constantly talk about how badly they are treated by their BF's aka boyfriends, yet they never consider not sleeping with them. How sad

Posted by: Susie at February 23, 2010 10:15 AM


Venku,

In addition to my last comment-

I was born to a paranoid schizophrenic, she smoked, drank and did drugs through all five pregnancies. She miscarried once and gave birth to a stillborn. 4 out of 5 of the pregnancies were the result of rape. The man who raped her four of the times is now in jail because he beat my sister and robbed a couple of liquor stores. I am the only child that my mother had that was not a result of rape. My older sister has mild fetal alcohol syndrome and was beaten and raped by her father until she was finally put into foster care at the age of 5. Can you imagine a five year old being sexually abused over and over until the age of five! We were all eventually "bounced" from foster home to foster home, but let me tell you - we much preferred that to being dead! All the foster homes we were in were fine and the people did the best they could. It was hard...but ultimately I am so thankful my mother chose life regardless of the life she had to offer. So please don't sit there and choose for me or my sister's whether or not we have the right to live!

Posted by: Mandy at February 23, 2010 10:19 AM


She first claimed to be have been using 3 separate simultaneous forms of birth control, then she admits to her friends (she usually posts the truth to the lies on her on page rather than the better-seen #tag pages) that "well, maybe we didn't use the condoms as often as I thought" (lol, wut? how do you have sex and not know if you're using a condom? I can't imagine the romance in that relationship "Yeah, I love you bitch, now bend over. Don't worry, if I knock you up, I'll just pay to have you scraped out").

That stupid crap ate up an entire day of my life. I've decided that I have no additional time to devote to lying attention whores who may or may not be killing their children.

And Chris, I told her the same exact thing about "trading one cult for another". She got PISSED. I lol'd.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 10:23 AM


GOD BLESS YOU MANDY. I cannot imagine. It hurts my heart to think of children being abused and harmed. But the solution is not to KILL the children! The solution to abortion and to child abuse is to view children as human beings with their own worth...not merely worth as possession of adults. The solution to child abuse and abortion is to love and respect children!

I will never understand those that think the answer to "potential" child abuse is to kill that same child before he/she is born. Makes NO SENSE. Thats like saying, in order to prevent rape we should kill all girls at birth so they can't grow up to be rape victims...huh? Or maybe we should just kill EVERYBODY right now lest they be victims of drunk drivers! Its absurd.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 10:32 AM


Oh, and when confronted, she went from "I'm doing this because it's my choice, blah blah blah." to "MY LIFE WAS IN DAINJUR! U HAET ME AND WANT ME 2 DIEEEE!" She's a liar. She lies so much, she even lies to herself. At this point I don't think she knows the difference.


And Alexandra, I have no problem with twitter for relaying basic information. It's in situations like this when it is actively helping give positive reinforcement to absolutely atrocious behavior that I take issue, and it happens a lot with the younger set these days. When I showed up bringing legitimate FACTS about human development and what she was actually doing, all I got from her is "hey guize, this bitch is making me feel bad! HAAAALP!" and a flock of goons showed up-not actually retorting with facts, mind you-telling her how loved she was, and how "oh yeah, you're TOTALLY doing the right thing, cuz it's rite4u, lol" it's a hugbox for infacidal hedonists at this point. If anyone can use it as a force for good, more power to you. I can't.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 10:36 AM


Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 10:23 AM
--------

Thanks for the heads-up - and the laugh.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 10:37 AM


I offered to adopt Angies baby several days before she decided to abort. Her initial reaction was 'you probably have good intentions, but pregnancy will kill me.' Within moments I was reduced to (in her words) a rightwing fundie who wanted another spawn to brainwash into the cult. When I pressed her as to why she thought pregnancy would be deadly, she responded with expletives. Clearly her life is not in danger-her lifestyle was. This entire stunt was financed by the taxpayers-she bragged about sitting home collecting unemployment so she could continue her important 'work' of demystifying abortion for an entire generation, while spending hours on Twitter having her ego stroked and then getting angry when asked questions after she has posted her entire life on a public forum, which begs the question, who was taking care of the child she didnt kill, Nick Jr or the Disney channel? The question now is, how long can she make this abortion last in order to milk her 15 minutes? The sheer volume of hours spent in the spotlight on Twitter paint an obvious portrait of neglect of the surviving child. As a mother and midwife who has given birth at home twice with no dope, I can attest to what women are capable of. It sickens me to see pregnancy continually equated with rape or reduced to a deadly disease. That she wouldnt answer when asked why she presumed pregnancy and birth would kill her was an answer in itself-it wasnt her life that was on the line, but her lifestyle. Your tax dollars at work, folks. Its time to end the free ride for radical feminists and liberal entitlement junkies.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 10:37 AM


Among the contraindications for use of RU-486: a pregnancy w/an IUD in place. Consider how these abortions work. After first disintegrating uterine lining to starve the preborn, the misoprostol induces strong uterine contractions. If she's got an IUD in place it would likely be expelled along with her child--you can see the potential for complications.

The possible scenarios include fabrication on her part, she didn't have an IUD like she suggests, or the abortionist doesn't know or neglected to tell her about the risks (these "medical" abortions that fail turn into surgical abortions, two times the fees, ca-ching). I'd be interested to hear the nurses weighing in on the risks.

Posted by: klynn73 at February 23, 2010 10:42 AM


There may be women who were considering aborting who read that mess and changed their minds. Have seen it happen before. Proabort ugliness works against them in many cases. Praying it wil here, too.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 10:47 AM


Mandy -- thank you for sharing. I too had a terrible childhood, I grew up with both biological parents but my mother was also mentally ill and could be violent. She literally tried to kill us on more than one occasion (once by trying to drive us into the Niagara River). But I managed to survive, and am doing reasonably well -- I completed college, have a responsible job, and my own home. There are many abuse survivors out there, and I think most of us would rather be alive.

Posted by: Phillymiss at February 23, 2010 10:48 AM


Can't believe you went here Jill...

Posted by: Stacy at February 23, 2010 10:48 AM


Posted by: Alexandra at February 23, 2010 10:07 AM


Alexandra, I am only sharing what I have observed. I have no doubt there are a few that use FB for employment networking (although I prefer Linkedin for that) but far and away it is a social networking site. I am so sick of reading things like - Going to workout now, my butt looks HUGE! - Just had the YUMMIEST grilled cheese for lunch - and my all time favorite UGH! - I mean really, come on. And this garbage is coming from people in their late 30s!

If someone wants to tell me they just had a baby, or they are back in town and want to meet up for a night out great! But why people feel the need to tell me that - Husband just left his socks in the family room, AGAIN! - is beyond me.

(PS I would have put quotes around my quotes but that key isnt working on my computer. - Maybe I should post that on FB!)

Posted by: Kristen at February 23, 2010 10:51 AM


lol. Just popped in to see if she was gloating about the attention from Jill (she was) to find this tweet:

@voicesforlife Andrea Yates #prolife religious convictions led to the deaths of her *living* born children. #livetweetingabortion #prochocie

Andrea Yates was post-abortive. She's lying as we speak. UGH. I absolutely despise liars.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 10:52 AM


Thanks to everyone for their support! :)

@Phillymiss
I am sorry for what happened to you, my mother never tried to kill any of us. She loves us very much and would never intentionally harm us.
Aren't you glad your mother chose life? I am so grateful. I havent gone through college, but I am 22, happily married with a 2 year old and a 10 month old and especially now that I have had my children and experienced the miracle of pregnancy and life I just hurt when I read stories like Angie's. I guess all we can do is pray for her and for her unborn/murdered child as well as her current child. Can you imagine the life that her child will lead? Her living child needs prayers!

Posted by: Mandy at February 23, 2010 11:12 AM


I don't think because someone is tweeting that they are ignoring their children. I pop on the internet several times a day. I play with my son, feed him, clothe him, sit him on the potty, go over numbers and letters with him, play board games, read books to him and take him places. Yet I still manage to find a couple minutes here and there to check the web (mostly at this site!)

That being said, I didn't know Andrea Yates was post-abortive!!!???

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 11:42 AM


Mandy, despite everything I still love my mother. I know her illness drove her to do many of the things she did. I just wanted to point out that there are many, many people out there who had horrific experiences when they were young and managed to succeed in life.

We need to HELP people, not tell them they should have never been born.

Posted by: Phillymiss at February 23, 2010 11:57 AM


Howie~
you are the epitomy of moral/cultural relativism. Perhaps you need to investigate what this relativism means and the effects upon society and culture this attitude creates. There IS natural law, and everyone DOES have a conscience, but listening to that conscience which has embedded in it the Natural Law IS a choice. Murder at any point of human life according to this Natural Law IS WRONG! It is against human nature.
At the point of conception you have a unique individual that is ALIVE and is growing. It is HUMAN. It is not a blob of undescribable tissue until the day it is born. It is a unique human being with it's own unique DNA blueprint. The pre-born human may have a different blood type than his/her mother. It is a seperate pre-born human being who depends on it's mother to continue to live and to grow. There is no doubt that the most precarious place for a baby to be, the highest number of infant deaths, is in the womb. Once a baby is in the womb-from the moment of conception, it is vulnerable to the whims of the mother. Either she values the life within her, or she does not, either she wishes life for this pre-born girl or boy, or she desires its demise and wants to wipe it away from her mind and her heart. But to entirely wipe it away from her mind and her heart, she cannot. That is why there is a group called Project Rachel to assist in the healing for those who have aborted their babies. Many women regret their abortion(s). I cannot think, unless they have totally silenced their conscience, that there are any women who do not regret aborting their pre-born children. May God have mercy on a civilization who deems their children unworthy of life. May He heal such a civilization of such darkness.

Posted by: Doris E. at February 23, 2010 12:22 PM


Phillymiss

I completely understand and my mother was the same way, she wanted to take care of us but was just not capable. I still love both my parents, even though my father is a horrible person he has to answer to God for it and God has called me to forgive and love both of them.

I agree with you in everything you have said.

My personal experience is- I decided a long time ago that either my past experience and all the hardship I had-had growing up was going to dictate my life and control me or I was just going to offer it up to the Lord and move on with my life and leave all the hardship behind. So that is why I married a great guy and we then had two beautiful children!

God bless!

Posted by: Mandy at February 23, 2010 12:26 PM


To everyone complaining that neither partner will be sterilized:

1. Have you offered to pay for her or him to be sterilized? Not everyone has the funds to have such a procedure done.
2. Have you found a doctor willing to perform the procedure? Yes, for men it's usually easy but women often have a hard time finding a doctor who will perform the procedure.
3. If she and/or he becomes sterilized and she falls pregnant anyway, will you accept her abortion then?

If the answer to the last question is "no" then why bring this up at all?

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 12:38 PM


Life is going to get much worse for Angie before they get better.

That's how these things always go. She's in for a rough ride.

And God will be waiting on the other side.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 23, 2010 12:44 PM


Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 12:38 PM
-----

Just because they had procedures to render them sterile doesn't change the fact that abortion kills an innocent human being. So to your question 3: no.

Morally that's wrong not matter what actions they take.

However, if the procedure was not successful (the vas deferens rejoins) you'll see this in the test that is conducted to make sure the man is sterile. The likelihood of spontaneous rejoining after successful separation and testing is very, very low. Much lower than

Why bring it up at all? if you any clue as to the invasiveness of surgical abortion and the risks associated with chemical abortion you wouldn't be asking that question.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 12:54 PM


This may be a repeat but angie the anti-theist posted a youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59Ud3g2ymOM&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 1:10 PM


Oh and Angie the anti- theist has a blog. Sorry if this is all old info that you have covered already.

http://angietheantitheist.blogspot.com/

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 1:14 PM


Well Kushiels Moon...a vasectomy generally costs around 500 bucks but can cost up to 1,000. An early medical abortion cost between 250-800.

Wouldn't a one time vasectomy (500 bucks) be well worth it so you didn't have to pay for MULTIPLE medical abortions? And hey, surgical abortion costs the same as a vasectomy.

If this woman had the money for a medical abortion they could come up with the funds for a vasectomy.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 1:45 PM


And along comes moonbeam to defend Angie the Anti who recently tweeted (and I quote) that Jesus could suck His own ****. More important to attack Christians here than defend Christ? Hypocrite. BTW, welfare will pay for most tubal ligations. If you can afford an abortion, you can afford free.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 1:48 PM


Look pro-choice folks. If you are a fertile couple and you decide to have sex, you have to accept that this(implicitly)is also a decision to conceive a child. NO,I'm not saying that every time you have sex, you have to conceive a child. Just think about it.

Even if you take precautions, you can still get pregnant. Pregnancy occurs when things go right, not when things go wrong. Once conception occurs and a new human life is present, none of your arbitrary circumstances can be used to justify killing this new human being.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 2:12 PM


Psalm-"Pregnancy occurs when things go right, not when things go wrong. Once conception occurs and a new human life is present, none of your arbitrary circumstances can be used to justify killing this new human being."

WELL SAID! NOTHING absolutely NOTHING can be used to justify killing innocent human life!

Posted by: Mandy at February 23, 2010 2:20 PM


Moonbat likes all the parts of the bible except the one that says "thou shalt not kill." To add to the hypocrisy, she heavily endorses breastfeeding (infants living off their mothers' bodies) but chimes right along with the rest of the pro-deathers in calling a fetal human a "parasite" and saying it has no right to use a mother's body to survive and that it can be killed at will.

You try to actually debate with her, she just spouts PC bumper sticker slogans. She's either really confused, very hypocritical, or just stupid. Considering her lack of independent thought, I'd say the latter, but I suppose there are all kinds of delusional people in the world.

I had a tubal ligation. It's not a big deal. I don't see why you guys are soooo worried about the cost and effects of a TL and not killing a child in an abortion.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 2:25 PM


xalisae, I have never said the fetus is a parasite, and I know for a fact that fetuses are not parasites. I have never said that a fetus cannot use a woman's body to survive (period, end sentence). Please do not go around lying about me.

I simply asked a question. A question, it seems, everyone is avoiding. If you're all so worried about fetuses, why haven't you put up the funds to give fertile, childfree couples vasectomies and tubal ligations? Why haven't one of you become a doctor who's willing to perform these procedures on childfree, young couples?

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 2:33 PM


Xalisae, I find it frustrating when people selectively quote or quote scripture out of context in order to suit their needs. I have spent the last couple of years studying scripture, philosophy, and theology at a seminary. I was a typical poorly catechized Catholic. I had no idea how much I didn't know until I took the time to learn it the right way. There is so much more to scripture and Theology than just quoting parts of it on demand to further an agenda.

Anyway, I don't mean to go way off topic.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 2:37 PM


"If you're all so worried about fetuses, why haven't you put up the funds to give fertile, childfree couples vasectomies and tubal ligations? Why haven't one of you become a doctor who's willing to perform these procedures on childfree, young couples? " -KushielsMoon

This is fallacious thinking. I am worried about the unjust killing of fetal human beings. Because I haven't done the things you list does nothing to diminish my concern or the arguments I have against abortion.

Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 2:44 PM


psalm-
I never claimed that your concern or arguments are diminished by a lack of action. I am simply asking questions. Why are you all so offensive? They're simple questions to answer, I thought.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 2:47 PM


lol, I guess you thought I wasn't watching your tweets. I was. RT posting another pro-deather's comment about a fetus being a parasite would count too, chica. I swear, you are certainly quite deceptive ("well, I didn't say that!" and outrightly lying about what you've said, I read your tweets for a couple days straight, I know what I saw, sweetheart) for someone who is supposedly a righteous follower of Christ. You know, they say the devil also attends church every Sunday and that he sits in the front pew and can quote scripture better than anyone else.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 2:49 PM


Please, point me out said tweet, because I honestly do not remember as such. I'm sure you believe you know what you saw, but I am the ones writing them, and I know what I say. If I came across as saying something I didn't intend to, I am more than willing to correct a misinterpretation. 140 characters can make it difficult to make a point.

As for satan- yes, I've heard as much.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 2:52 PM


Going back through my tweets, I found one case of the word parasite, where I used the RT feature on a tweet of Angie's about her being forced to pay $200 for an ultrasound. So yes, I guess I have RTed someone using the word parasite. My point of RTing Angie, though, was to show my anger at Congress forcing women to pay more money to look at ultrasounds when they do not want to view them (I'm completely in favor of women viewing ultrasounds when they choose to do so).

My apologies if I caused you to think that I believed a fetus is a parasite. It is obviously not a parasite.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 2:58 PM


ha. I had enough of your crap sifting through 2 days worth the first time. But I know for a fact you also lied by taking a statement of mine grossly out of context and spread it around on 2 different #'s. When I asked you to retract the statement, you refused. And that happened to me personally, so I can vouch for it. Liar. ^_^

Won't liars burn in the lake of fire when they die, too?

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 3:06 PM


Can someone explain to me why all you anti-choice people think it's okay to get involved in someone's personal shit? I would never tell you how to treat any of your medical problems, what gives you the right to do the same?

Posted by: Pro Choice at February 23, 2010 3:17 PM


Pro Choice,

I have never nor will I ever tweet, blog about, or make youtube videos about my medical problems. Angie the anti-theist on the other hand....


Posted by: psalm at February 23, 2010 3:31 PM


@KushielsMoon:

I never claimed that your concern or arguments are diminished by a lack of action. I am simply asking questions. Why are you all so offensive? They're simple questions to answer, I thought.

No, what you said was, "If you're so worried about this, why don't you do X?" and when people pointed out that the very crux of this question is to side-step the whole point of the pro-life argument to begin with, you came back with "Why are you getting defensive?"

You are attempting to set up a trap by creating a false dichotomy. The argument that "Maybe men who never have any intention of having children ought to get vasectomies." is an argument for those men taking responsibility for themselves and their own choices (there's that word again). You ask in response, "Why don't you pay for them to get vasectomies?" which boils down to asking why we don't take responsibility for their irresponsible actions. But by marrying the two--even though they are actually opposites, you've implied that to hold the one belief requires the other action. You've further implied an opposite position: that if one does not do the action, one does not really hold the belief.

And therein is the trap you've attempted to disguise not-so-very-cleverly. And you sit, waiting to pounce on whoever actually gives in and pretends that the idea men who want to have sex without children ought to get vasectomies somehow equates to everyone else having to pay for their decisions and start in with the, "Then you don't really think that. You're just anti-choice!"

The character Kushiel was much cleverer than this.

Posted by: Keli Hu at February 23, 2010 3:35 PM


Pro Choice, 3:17p: Please, no swearing, or we'll have to delete. I kept Angie's in her tweets, but that's rare.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at February 23, 2010 3:37 PM


So Keli, if I may... you do not provide money to pay for other people's vasectomies because you believe that you should not have to take responsibility for other people's actions (or lack of self-responsibility)? Am I correct in this belief?

That's a reasonable position to hold, if I am not misrepresenting you.


As a side note, I wouldn't need all that to call you antichoice. I already know most people who claim the prolife label are antichoice.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 3:40 PM


Moonbat, are you saying youve never said (except for the hundreds of times ive personally seen you tweet, and i quote) 'fetus cannot occupy womans uterus without her consent?' You do realize that Google stores every tweet, even the ones you delete? Now, tell us again why a fetus cant use a womans body to survive? Also explain why you are entitled to MY tax dollars to pay for YOUR baby murder. And dont tell me we dont get to decide where our taxes are spent, because we do-at the voting booth. I offered to adopt Angies baby, any comment on that, or is any option other than fetal death too distasteful to contemplate?

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 3:49 PM


Jill-
\\Moonbat, are you saying youve never said (except for the hundreds of times ive personally seen you tweet, and i quote) 'fetus cannot occupy womans uterus without her consent?' \\

That is not what I claimed.

It's a nice effort to offer to adopt the baby. But we must remember it was an offer- and offers can be turned down.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 3:52 PM


Jill-
\\Moonbat, are you saying youve never said (except for the hundreds of times ive personally seen you tweet, and i quote) 'fetus cannot occupy womans uterus without her consent?' \\

That is not what I said here in the comments of Jill's blog, and that is not what xalisae claimed that I said/wrote.

It's a nice effort to offer to adopt the baby. But we must remember it was an offer- and offers can be turned down.

(Edited my post to better clarify what I am saying)

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 3:54 PM


So why do you feel entitled to take the hard earned money of others to pay for your own lack of responsibility/self control? Or will you just not answer that with another non answer?

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 3:58 PM


I have a job. I need a car to get to work. I currently do not have one. KushieIsMoon tells me that she is glad I have a job, supports me having a job, but she will not pay for the new car that I need to maintain this job. Does this mean that she can't say that she supports my having a job and is glad that I have one?

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 4:00 PM


Jill- I don't feel entitled to take your hard earned money to pay for my own lack of responsibility/self control.

xalisae- you're making the same mistake psalm made. I'm not saying you can't support something without financially proving it. Just asking questions.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 4:08 PM


fair enough.

Posted by: Jill Guidry at February 23, 2010 4:12 PM


No, you just got caught in another round of B.S. so now you're going to back down and act stupid, as usual. Kiddo, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I assure you, I am for serious about this stuff, and I don't think you've given it much thought (or anything else, for that matter).

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 4:16 PM


Sorry if I'm coming off as combative, but I've noticed this pattern in various exchanges I've had with you. You spout off some nonsense, someone backs you into a corner because you can't possibly defend it, and you start apologetically start making excuses and backtracking. It gets old fast, and I have very little patience or respect for people who don't have the backbone to stand up and say what they mean forthrightly. You cloak your nonsense in scripture and spirituality, when it's just as vile as anyone else's on your side. At least angie says what she means unabashedly. I have more respect for her than you, and that's saying something, since she's been proclaiming how unashamed she is of killing her own child.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 4:24 PM


by the way, you never got back to me about whether or not you would be with us on our side about a partial birth abortion ban. Would you support it?

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 5:15 PM


When did you ask me about a PBA ban? Honestly, you keep speaking of things which I have no memory of.

PBA is already illegal except to save the life of a woman. I find this acceptable.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 5:18 PM


Posted by: Pro Choice at February 23, 2010 3:17 PM
-----

Would you say the same thing if a woman was being raped - it's a private affair, keep out?

You assume the unborn are not human beings. Shall we make similar assumptions about you?

Posted by: Chris Arsenault at February 23, 2010 5:25 PM


You must have a really bad (selective) memory. You said you didn't support post-viability abortions. Another person after you on the #livetweetingabortion tag said something to the effect of "it's not a baby until after it's born. that's what birthdays are for" implying that they supported abortion up until the moment before natural birth, I brought that man's statement to your attention by asking you to take a look at the people you've aligned yourself with who think abortion should ALWAYS be legal, and asked if you would come over to our side at least to ensure a (continued?) ban on partial birth abortion (wait, Dr. Tiller did what now?), and you refused to answer, dodging the question entirely. Don't worry, my husband hates my excellent memory, too. ;)

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 5:28 PM


First, I'd like to say sorry to Jill for taking these comments way off topic.

xalisae:
I see a difference between "late term" abortions (those after viability) and PBA abortions (those which can be done before or after viability, but which are done by a certain procedure). It seems we are mis-communicating quite a bit. I'll try to avoid that.


Prochoicers are not sheep. We have many believes, and they can be vastly different. There are some people who believe in abortion until the moment of birth, and some people who believe in abortion only until 8 weeks- and everything inbetween. We are not one mass with identical ideas. Yes, there are some people who claim to be prochoice which I disagree with. I assume there are some people who claim to be prolife whom you disagree with (Roeder comes to mind?). For instance, some prolifers think that there should be exceptions in abortion language for rape victims while others do not believe as such. In the same way, we are all different.


I don't think agreeing that PBA should remain illegal except when necessary to save a woman's live means I would transfer to the antichoice side. I'm sure there are prochoice people who agree with me, even if they do not speak up.

It just means that you shouldn't take one person's words and put them in the mouth of another.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 5:56 PM


You should rename yourself "Queen of Rationalization". Disagreeing with something and wanting it to be illegal because another human is losing their life in the process are two entirely different things.

I'm not stopping until you commit to -something-, and splitting hairs over terminology as a distraction isn't going to work with me, sorry.

Do I disagree with some other pro-lifers? Sure. But I'll also tell you that when abortion itself is illegal once again and they start crusading for things I don't agree with, like against birth control for instance (in some cases), I will do my best to legally oppose them on all fronts, and I've already told them as much. I'm not going to pay them lipservice and say "Oh, well, we disagree, but we're still bff's forever, right?" because when it gets to that point, no, we will no longer be BFFs in the sense we are now. I have the balls to say "I agree with you on everything BUT _blank_, and will fight you bitterly if it ever comes to that point." instead of being a spineless kiss-ass and worrying more about how many friends I make in the pro-life movement instead of having real ideals and convictions and sticking to them, as it appears you are doing with the pro-choicers. Do I respect these guys? Absolutely. They have convictions that are just as strong and well-thought as mine, as do some pro-choicers. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to tell ANYONE where I don't agree-and not only TELL them, but ACT on it.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 6:08 PM


You seem to be exaggerating my relationship with the person you quoted at me. I've never met them, never communicated with them. We're not "bff's." Do I think the person was silly? Yes. Do I disagree with them? Yes. Am I going to go out of my way to start a conversation with them? No. Abortion is legal in it's current setting, and I highly highly doubt it's going to be come LESS restrictive. The number of people arguing seriously for elective abortion on demand until the moment of birth is minuscule.

People who have not spent time debating abortion will make offhanded, nonsense comments. I know I did when I first began speaking with others about abortion (and I'm sure you think I do now. :-) ). I do not believe that person, whom you directed me towards, had seriously thought about their beliefs or was trying to start a movement to make abortion less restrictive. If I saw something like that happening seriously, I'm sure I would participate in the conversation.

But one person, making an off handed comment because he's angry at the people attacking his friend or acquaintance for choosing abortion? Not worth my time.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 6:23 PM


Oh look, you still didn't say whether or not you'd actively support restrictions on post-viability abortions, and if anything, you sound supportive of them "Abortion is legal in it's current setting, and I highly highly doubt it's going to be come LESS restrictive."

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time on some lying, lukewarm heretic.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 6:31 PM


xalisae, I cannot read your mind. If you want me to state a part of my beliefs, ask me directly, please.

In terms of late term abortion, I think elective abortions should be illegal after viability, because at that point the woman has the option of giving birth or having a c-section in order to remove the fetus. Abortions done to save the woman's life should absolutely still be legal. Abortions done for health should only include serious health complications, which cannot be cured by removing the fetus through a c-section or labor; basically, only if the woman will die from a c-section or labor at that point.

Can you explain to me how saying that I do not believe abortion will become less restrictive makes it sound like I support late term abortions?

Posted by: KushielsMoon at February 23, 2010 7:00 PM


@M.Perks:

That's some seriously hateful stuff you just said right there. Leik woah.

Posted by: Keli Hu at February 23, 2010 7:40 PM


Meh. No worse than choicers talking about how "anti-rights lifers should be raped, then they'd become pro-choice pretty quickly!"

I don't like either sentiment, but I'm not shocked by anything anymore from both sides, either.

Posted by: xalisae at February 23, 2010 7:49 PM


"What jumps out at me is the repeated admissions that they're having sex with the plan IN ADVANCE to abort if they get pregnant. They do just see it as a back up method of birth control."

what I've always maintained - without the contraceptive mentality, abortion would not exist.

when you're having sex and the plan is no baby, and baby comes it means one thing: get rid of baby.

Posted by: angel at February 23, 2010 9:36 PM


Can someone explain to me why all you anti-choice people think it's okay to get involved in someone's personal shit? I would never tell you how to treat any of your medical problems, what gives you the right to do the same?
Posted by: Pro Choice at February 23, 2010 3:17 PM

because your personal s*** involves the killing of an innocent human being. This is not "treating a medical problem" - it is murder.
That's why.

Posted by: angel at February 23, 2010 9:39 PM


Maybe M. Perk can't conceive, or just lost a child...and is in pain. And seeing a woman who is UNDESERVING being given such a gift, and then throw it away makes her MAD. I kinda understand it.

I don't wish Angie to die. Or any woman having an abortion. But it grieves me so deeply to see people throw their babies away...even more so when I have been trying for MONTHS to get pregnant and every month...only one line on the pee stick :-( I just want to cry out of God, WHY????

So anyhow, I understand why this would make some women angry.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 23, 2010 10:25 PM


Angel

Which is why I say it's 'abortion mentality.' One can use birth control with the advance plan to keep the baby should a pregnancy happen. As long as abortion isn't on the table- then what's the big deal? It would become a matter of personal preference.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 23, 2010 11:49 PM


I have found it difficult and heartbreaking to read this girl's comments. Through a ministry in our church, and even in my own family, I have met so many just like her. She wants to be known and loved. Isn't that the very desire God placed in us?

The girls I encountered were often depressed and unable to get their lives together. They would do and say anything for attention. Through their outlandish actions, they were pleading for help from anyone, unable to face one more day living in the utter chaos that they found themselves in.

I believe strongly in personal accountability, but also we have to love and educate those who were not taught that. People will never see the love of Jesus if it is not seen through us and their hearts will never change.

I appreciate greatly the use of medical proof to back up the arguments used by so many in the comments. Our fight is not only spiritual but scientific, and humanitarian.

From what I have seen in my personal experience, abortion is often an issue that grows out of a lack of self-worth. A woman who does not understand her worth will settle for a 'man' (I use that word loosely) who demeans her and uses her. A family member of mine has bounced around from man to man to man just to have a place to live. She feels nothing for them, she just can't be alone. A woman (and all the more increasingly-adolescent girls) who does not understand her worth will give into the sexual advances of men so she can feel wanted and worthwhile, if only for a moment. A woman who thinks she's nothing cannot fathom the ability to be a good mother or juggle college and a child or the many other circumstances that women face each day and are often victorious over. It is the same sense of worthlessness that is past on to the child in the womb, and just as so many people in the woman's life tell her she is worthless, they then began to tell her that her child is worthless.

As relieved as I am to see abortion crumble through laws and legislature, I pray more for abortion to end because of changing hearts. Father God, that women would see their worth through Your eyes and that You would turn their hearts toward their children.

Posted by: Heather M at February 24, 2010 1:13 AM


Angel

Which is why I say it's 'abortion mentality.' One can use birth control with the advance plan to keep the baby should a pregnancy happen. As long as abortion isn't on the table- then what's the big deal? It would become a matter of personal preference.
Posted by: prettyinpink at February 23, 2010 11:49 PM

Hi PIP!
I'm sorry but I have to disagree.
I say contraceptive because it is the idea that the couple is not open to the life giving nature of the sex act.
Certainly there are lots of couples who definitely think similar to you, but the fact is that the couple IS separating sex and babies.
If you feel this way, why use contraception at all?
You could simply determine the woman's fertile times and abstain during those times.
It works and it would help the relationship grow.
Once you separate sex and babies, the sex act takes on a whole different meaning.
Love is no longer connected with creating new life. It is no longer truly open to that possibility.
It has less meaning and is a superficial, recreational term.
Also, on a deeper level you both are rejecting a part of the other person - the procreative part that is natural and God-given.
I'd love to respond further but I'm off to a busy day.
Take care,
A

Posted by: angel at February 24, 2010 5:40 AM


"It works and it would help the relationship grow."

Making a judgment like that about what other people should or should not do in their own relationship for its benefit is presumptuous beyond belief. YOU THINK! it would help the relationship grow. You don't KNOW that it would help a relationship grow, because you don't know how any individual couple feels about their relationship and their sex lives in regard to their relationship, nor should you. It's times like this that the pro-choicers are given a lot of ammo to shoot bullets of "You just want to police women's bedroom habits! You just hate sex!" at us.

"It has less meaning and is a superficial, recreational term."

Says you. Once again, the sex I have for bonding, and a demonstration of love, AND recreation is every bit as valid and important as the sex you are having or not having, and don't you forget it. If I want to bond with my partner twice a day, once a day, once a week, once a month, or once a year (and this goes for you, too, because I'm cool and respectful like that), it doesn't make it any less meaningful and important. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

And I'm shocked that even after knowing me and knowing so many other women like me here in these posts that you would STILL say something like this. YOU KNOW FOR A FACT there are plenty of contracepting women who became pregnant and didn't have an abortion. I am one, and MOST other women I know who have babies are also included in the group. As a matter of fact, I personally know a ton of women who were contracepting, became pregnant, and now have babies. I do not currently know ANYONE personally who was contracepting and had an abortion instead. Extend that to the entire course of my life, and it's still only one person. Spouting off the kind of disrespectful, presumptuous noise you are now reflects poorly on you.

Posted by: xalisae at February 24, 2010 8:50 AM


I like natural family planning just because its NATURAL. I have a mild latex allergy so the fact that my husband insists on condoms kinda stinks. But I refuse to take the pill anymore.

I think there are valid reasons for using contraception. I would LOVE to have 5 or 6 kids. I truly LOVE being a mother!!!! But unless we win the lottery we just could not take care of six kids. and that bums me out. But its reality. My sister has four boys...its hard not to be jealous. :-) I'm not really jealous, I'm just saying, I would LOVE to have a big family.

I would NEVER have an abortion, but I am not actively trying to have six kids that I know I can't provide a home for. My husband and I have agreed on two children but I am hoping for a third...I ALMOST have him in agreement. He loves being a dad. He loves our son so much! But we also have to feed and clothe our child and DO NOT believe in making others (taxpayers) take care of us. So contraception is needed.

I understand that a lot of people use the pill, or IUD's or condoms with an anti-child mentality and the cheapening of the sexual union is obvious in our times...HOWEVER, i guess I fail to see how NFP is different that contraception in regards to the sex act.

if you are PURPOSEFULLY having sex during a woman's infertile times, isn't that treating sex as bonding/recreational and not for procreation? How is it any different than having sex with a condom? If you know the woman is in her infertile time and you still have sex you are having sex for pleasure, fun, bonding etc...

I just don't understand the point some are trying to make, I guess.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 24, 2010 9:11 AM


She is definitely crying out for attention. This is a private thing she has made public, in addition to making sick jokes about it. I can understand if I was her and trying to make people aware, but that has failed with the insensitivity in which it was presented.

An anti-theist is against the institution of religion. You can believe in God and be an anti-theist. A theist believes in God but doesn't mind religion and an atheist doesn't believe in God.

Posted by: Manager at February 24, 2010 6:57 PM


Pro Choicer: "Can someone explain to me why all you anti-choice people think it's okay to get involved in someone's personal shit?"

If someone were about to rape someone else, would you believe in interceding, or would that be "getting involved in someone's personal s---," too?

Posted by: bmmg39 at February 24, 2010 10:44 PM


What Sydney says is absolutely true--using NFP to avoid contraception is not any more righteous than using a condom. It might be more natural, but it's not more righteous.

You are telling me that those who abstain at certain times to keep from having children "too close together" (in their opinion) or because they can't afford to send them all to private school or because they would need to buy a van have high-minded motives, but those who use a condom for the exact same reasons all have a contraceptive mindset? Really? And then out of the other side of your mouth you tell me that NFP is more effective? Maybe the condom-users have more faith. Maybe they are following Paul's injunction not to abstain lest they are tempted.

Absolutely the IUD and pill (and other hormonal contraceptives) are wrong because they can kill babies. But even the Catholics are failing to get that message out to those it will affect, because they don't bother to say it most of the time--they just say how all contraceptive devices and "medications" are wrong because they are against God's design (true!) but don't point out how some are more wrong because they can kill children, when there are women out there who would heed the second message but not the first. And many are in your church, using the pill--and if you have not told them they are killing their children, the blood of those children is on your hands.

Just because something takes more self-control doesn't make it better. Anorexia takes more self-control than bulimia. NFP takes more self-control than condoms.

Saying that "God can work around NFP" is not more righteous than saying He can work around any other form of birth control. Why make God work around you? Why not embrace the way your body and marriage is supposed to work? Why not "Be fruitful and multiply" if you possibly can? Why assume that your ideas on timing and numbers and money are superior to God's? Why not live as though another child really were one of the greatest blessings God could give us? What greater honor could there be than if the King of all the Universe, in His Sovereign Wisdom, chose to use my husband's and my genetic material to weave together in my womb a new and perfect work of art? If God offered you a house or a blank check or a winning lottery ticket, transitory things that will end with the world or probably before, no one would turn Him down, but a living soul that could join you in Eternity, "No, God, I will do everything I can to avoid you giving me that... but if you insist, I suppose I won't kill him."

I think God knows better than I when my next child should be conceived, and I have noticed that I can't do very much to make myself get pregnant when I want to be. This "family planning" thing seems to only go one way--planning not to have (or add to) one's family. And as Christians we should be open to accepting children as much as we possibly can, rather than just when it's convenient. And I question whether a method that's "more effective than the pill" qualifies as "open to life."

Posted by: ycw at February 26, 2010 2:20 PM


Yew, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. As long as there is contraception their will be abortion, plain and simple, thanks to the contracepting mentality. It's really being dishonest because Christians who use NFP are really saying, "I want the same effects of using the pill without the medical dangers or the guilt and I'm willing to not have sex for a certain number of days a month in order to be able to do this, but on the other days I want the full right to have sex as I please and not be burdened with the consequences of doing so." It would be different if a couple made an agreement to live as celibates inside the context of a marriage as some married saints have throughout history but the other way is really more of the "having my cake and eating it too" mentality. And so, abortion persists.

This is not a very popular way of looking at the subject. Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League started down this road a couple of years ago and saw his donations drop off dramatically. But it is the truth and it's the truth that sets us free. And as long as we don't acknowledge that truth we can march and pray all we want and abortion will never be eradicated from our land.

Posted by: Denise at February 26, 2010 6:41 PM


YCW--wow. Your words pierced my heart. We do try to "plan" too much don't we? I am trying to get pregnant right now. I was late this month and kinda secretly excited that MAYBE I was pregnant...but I wasn't. We can't make ourselves pregnant when we want...nor necessarily not be when we don't want. Because WE aren't the givers of life. I just needed to be reminded of that. God knows when my next child should be conceived. Thankyou for saying that :-)

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 26, 2010 9:17 PM


Glad to hear, Sydney. Believe me, I wish I had not gone through what I went through to get my beliefs; but I am very happy and content to let God plan my family, and I am hoping for another blessing soon. I hope you are blessed too!

You may want to check out "quiverfull" resources--a google search will yield a lot of results. Christians who are "quiverfull" believe that family planning is the province of God.

Posted by: ycw at February 27, 2010 8:23 AM


She reminds me of Kathy Griffith a little. She's just friggin nuts. Who would blog this? She has no self respect ...sorry. Just being honest!!

Posted by: Heather at March 6, 2010 6:52 PM