Yahoo's politically incorrect slip about pregnant Olympic athlete

Kristie Moore, Olympics.jpg

The 2nd line of this Yahoo story is the kicker...

As with all curling teams, Team Canada features five members. Well, six, if you really want to get technical with it.

Alternate Kristie Moore, 30, is 5½ months pregnant, making her just the 3rd athlete known to be with child during Olympic competition.

Magda 2.jpg

90 years ago, Swedish figure skater Magda Julin [pictured left] won a gold medal at the Antwerp Games while in her 1st trimester and Germany's Diana Sartor took 4th in the skeleton in 2006....

Moore found out about her pregnancy weeks before team officials invited her to join Team Canada as an alternate. When she divulged her secret, the team was more than supportive. Said team leader Cheryl Bernard, "she is young and fit. There's no reason we'll have any problems, and she'll be out there."...

[I]t's unlikely Moore will see any Olympic action. During competition her role as an alternate is much like a backup quarterback in football....

Team Canada is the gold-medal favorite.... Even if Moore doesn't play, she will receive any medal Canada wins.

"Well, six, if you really want to get technical with it." Ew. Pro-aborts couldn't let that one go. Wrote MollzieD at Feministing.com:

Thank you, Chris Chase at Yahoo! Sports for perpetuating the myth that fetuses are people and that they are capable of Olympic curling.

Actually, Mollzie, it would only be an ignorant person of Olympic proportions who would call it a "myth" that "fetuses are people."

Mollzie needs to retake 8th grade biology. Or maybe she hasn't taken it yet.

[HT: Susie Allen]


Comments:

Remember this rule-of-thumb -- whenever an abortion-advocating feminist uses the word fetus, replace it with the n-word. Their motive becomes all the more clearer.

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at February 17, 2010 9:02 PM


Here's another bit-o-ignorance for you.

"The question of fetus personhood depends on when you think life begins, as such its purely subjective."

-from the combox on Feministing.com:

Scary...very scary. I had better turn my computer off now before I end up spending all night trying to force feed common sense, basic science, and logic to the brain starved feministas.

Posted by: psalm at February 17, 2010 9:10 PM


23+23=46

One new precious human life, created in the image of Almighty
God!

Posted by: Leslie Hanks at February 17, 2010 9:12 PM


I think I'm just about done with that for the night. They are lacking more than I can ever help give them.

Posted by: xalisae at February 17, 2010 9:14 PM


I think that it's great that Moore is out there showing her strength as an athelete and pregnant woman. Too often pregnant women are viewed as helpless (don't get pregnant, ladies- you'll suddenly forget how to read), as though women haven't been giving birth since, well, the dawn the humankind.

Show off your strength, my friend! :)

Posted by: Vannah at February 17, 2010 9:15 PM


I understand that in the 1950's, championship skier Andrea Mead Lawrence was skiing when she was 7 months pregnant!

Didn't Billie Jean King give her tennis practice and career as an excuse to have an abortion?

Posted by: Mary at February 17, 2010 9:19 PM


Jill, the news from Fitchburg, Massachusetts is not good:
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2010/02/fitchburg-betrays-common-good.html

Posted by: Ellen Wironken at February 17, 2010 9:21 PM


Ask Mommy Moore if "fetuses are people."
I am sure you would get an earfull!!

Mommy and baby look awesome btw.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at February 17, 2010 9:23 PM



Check out history and it seems pregnant women were seldom viewed as fragile.

Women had to keep working in the fields, factories, and homes. Pregnant women fought in battles, marched to war with their husbands, were enslaved, force marched, endured natural disasters, war. If anything, except for maybe wealthy or noblewomen, being that life was a brutal struggle to survive meant life for a pregnant woman was certainly not one of pampering and comfort.

Posted by: Mary at February 17, 2010 9:27 PM


Actually it's earlier than 8th grade. It's more like more "Are you smarter than a 5th grader?". See Science Matters on YouTube.

Posted by: Jayson at February 17, 2010 9:38 PM


I swear, it's like these people have no sense of joy, hope, or celebration about pregnancy. Ooooh noooo someone referred to an unborn child as more than an 'it.' Nevermind that the article had nothing to do with abortion and was simply an article about an empowered pregnant woman....? Lighten the hell up would ya?

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 17, 2010 10:06 PM


in my bio class/textbooks, it doesn't define fetus as a baby. soooo maybe you didn't go to an actual school, or it was run by nuns. idk, it's your life.

Posted by: facepalm at February 17, 2010 10:46 PM


Thankyou feminists! We FINALLY have their definition of a person....one who knows anything about and an participate in the sport of curling.

Guess I'm not a person. sigh.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 17, 2010 10:58 PM


facepalm, speaking of going to an actual school, please provide the name and author of your biology textbook.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at February 17, 2010 11:01 PM


facepalm..."fetus" is a term used to describe an unborn human being...just the same as toddler, teenager, senior/elderly are all terms used to describe human beings at various ages.

But you're real funny....you think you're so clever. But you just proved you don't know even the BASICS of science. But keep debating..no really. I would like to match you up against Gerard Nadal who IS a scientist. I'd like to see you accuse him of not knowing anything about biology.

Posted by: Sydney M. at February 17, 2010 11:01 PM


Facepalm, I work in education. Every (completely secular) textbook I've seen that identifies the beginning of a human being's life has placed it at fertilization. Must be nuns with Ph.D.s who write textbooks, huh...

Posted by: bmmg39 at February 17, 2010 11:02 PM


Facepalm,

I'm not sure what you mean by a fetus not being defined as a baby. As someone else has already mentioned, both are describing different developmental stages of the same entity...a human being.

I will say this though. If I were to ask around work tomorrow among other nurses and physicians as to when human life begins and I got one answer other than "conception", I would be willing to go back and retake my state boards.

Posted by: psalm at February 17, 2010 11:23 PM


Notice how there are only 5 comments at the Feministing site? And they say that the pro-life sites are the ones who silence women's voices...

Posted by: Melissa at February 17, 2010 11:32 PM


I hope somebody gets the baby a medal too if team Canada wins.

Posted by: truthseeker at February 17, 2010 11:48 PM


my unborn niece (due end April/Early May) is a *baby*, who kicks a lot when her almost 3 year old brother is being rambunctious/noisy.

I took child development in high school as an elective and we used scientific information to learn about pregnancy and childbirth. I even learned the scientific names for identical and fraternal twins.

Try again, facepalm. Science is showing us the humanity of the unborn baby.


At one time, blacks weren't considered persons! And they were BORN!

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at February 17, 2010 11:51 PM


all religious zealots.

Posted by: you are at February 17, 2010 11:54 PM


Is that comment about "religous zealots" supposed to be a compliment or an insult?

Posted by: truthseeker at February 18, 2010 12:06 AM


facepalm,
My aunt wrote some of those textbooks. She is a nun. What of it? She can't be a scientist and a nun at the same time? Are you that dense?

For your information, the term "fetus" means "young one". Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary defines "baby" as "a very young child". It defines "child" as "an unborn or recently born person". It defines "person" as "a living human". As we all know from the Law of Biogenesis, humans can only reproduce other humans. Therefore, the fetus is human. It is not a question of whether the fetus is defined as a baby, so much as defined as living in order to qualify for the definition of being a baby. I tend to think of anything that has cells that separate and intake oxygen, as a fetus does, is living. Therefore, in my experience, a fetus CAN be defined as a baby.

Besides, show any child the picture of a fetus, and ask them what it is, and they'll say it's a baby. Out of the mouths of babes...

Posted by: Amy at February 18, 2010 12:17 AM


I like that Ph.D's and toddlers can agree on at least that. Seems like the only people who can't are the ones with some sort of personal stake or agenda...

Also...I happen to be an atheist. Gah...do I ever get sooooo tired of having to repeat this because of the ignorance of others.

Posted by: xalisae at February 18, 2010 1:32 AM


The abortionists are bigots.

They declare a whole class of humans (unborn children) to be subhuman. Then they assert that these human beings can all be destroyed!

They are the worst bigots in human history.

Posted by: Joe at February 18, 2010 3:30 AM


Las Vegas Churches accept gambling chips

THIS MAY COME AS A SURPRISE TO THOSE OF YOU NOT LIVING IN
LAS VEGAS , BUT THERE ARE MORE CATHOLIC CHURCHES THAN CASINOS.


NOT SURPRISINGLY, SOME WORSHIPERS AT SUNDAY SERVICES WILL GIVE CASINO CHIPS RATHER THAN CASH WHEN THE BASKET IS PASSED.

SINCE THEY GET CHIPS FROM MANY DIFFERENT CASINOS, THE CHURCHES HAVE DEVISED A METHOD TO COLLECT THE OFFERINGS..

THE CHURCHES SEND ALL THEIR COLLECTED CHIPS TO A NEARBY FRANCISCAN MONASTERY FOR SORTING AND THEN THE CHIPS ARE TAKEN TO THE CASINOS OF ORIGIN AND CASHED IN.


THIS IS DONE BY THE CHIP MONKS.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at February 18, 2010 7:55 AM


LizFromNebraska: Those blobs can kick pretty hard for things that aren't even alive, can't they?

Posted by: Phillymiss at February 18, 2010 9:32 AM


LOL, Phillymiss! :)

Posted by: Pamela at February 18, 2010 9:39 AM


Thank you, MollzieD, for perpetuating the myth that pro-aborts are capable of reading and understanding scientific facts.

Posted by: RSD at February 18, 2010 9:54 AM


Ken, that was great!!!

Posted by: Peg at February 18, 2010 10:15 AM


I enjoyed kicking along to music back during my "not-a-person" days...

Posted by: Marauder at February 18, 2010 10:42 AM


Its always funny to me when pro-choice people act like if you're religious you're not educated or intelligent. When I was Catholic the priest of my parish was the SMARTEST man I had ever met! He spoke SEVEN languages, three of them being ancient languages! He had authored several books and had extensive degrees in multiple fields including philosophy, psychology, counseling etc...

He was definitely no dummy. And yet he was a priest. Hmmm....kinda blows their "If you're religious you're stupid" argument right out of the water.

Posted by: Sydney M at February 18, 2010 11:12 AM


"The abortionists are bigots.

They declare a whole class of humans (unborn children) to be subhuman. Then they assert that these human beings can all be destroyed!

They are the worst bigots in human history.
Posted by: Joe at February 18, 2010 3:30 AM"

Joe, I could not agree more!!!

As for whether a fetus is a person, if it's not a person, what is it?

This argument is getting tiresome... obviously everyone knows a "fetus" is a person, but whether it's ok to kill it depends on who the murderer is. If the murderer is anyone other than the mother or her abortionist, it's usually not ok in their eyes...

I find it incredibly annoying that pro-aborts want to dictate what to call the baby of a woman who wants and is obviously keeping her child.

Maybe they could go talk the entire pregnancy and baby industry into doing "fetus registries" instead of baby registries, so the owners of parasites can register for strollers and diapers for the "soon to be transformed from nonexistent un-person fetus to alive baby as soon as it is born and takes a breath."

Moms can read copies of "What to expect when you're growing a sub-human parasite..".

Maybe instead of pregnancy they should call it something else, like pre-abortion. When I was pregnant with my first child, I got a sonogram at 5 weeks to determine the due date and there was my little Isaac with a head and body and tiny limbs and a beating heart. I started crying when I saw his heart beating. I was so happy. Then the midwife asked why I was crying and I was like, I'm fine I am just so happy. Then I told her look there's his head and his little body... and she said "No, he doesn't have a head and body. He's just a cluster of cells." At the end of the appointment she said she would see me at the next one unless I had a miscarriage first and not to get my hopes up because 60% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. I have no clue where she got that stat... Yeah, it's not a baby and he doesn't have a body, he's just a cluster of cells, with a heart in the middle of that cell cluster. I guess I am a cluster of cells too.

I wonder what pro-aborts think about their own gestation - and whether any of them were preemies who needed life-saving care in the NICU because they weren't in the womb any more... were they just blobs of cells magically waiting to take form into babies at the moment of birth??

There is really no logic to the abortion arguments whatsoever.

My favorite is when they say that a first trimester baby isn't worthy of protection because it would die if outside the womb. Well, duh, that's why it's in the womb! I might die if I were forced out of my home into the cold winter... that doesn't make me less of a person.

Posted by: Amy Philo at February 18, 2010 2:19 PM


"Its always funny to me when pro-choice people act like if you're religious you're not educated or intelligent. When I was Catholic the priest of my parish was the SMARTEST man I had ever met! He spoke SEVEN languages, three of them being ancient languages! He had authored several books and had extensive degrees in multiple fields including philosophy, psychology, counseling etc..."

My uncle is a priest and is pretty much a walking encyclopedia about British history. He hangs out with other priests who have doctorates in stuff like medieval history and are college professors.

The next time pro-choice people act like religious people are ignorant, we should be like, "Oh yeah, religious people are automatically totally ignorant. Like the REVEREND DOCTOR Martin Luther King Jr..."

"I wonder what pro-aborts think about their own gestation - and whether any of them were preemies who needed life-saving care in the NICU because they weren't in the womb any more... were they just blobs of cells magically waiting to take form into babies at the moment of birth??"

Yeah, I'm curious to know what they think of their own gestation too. Did their mothers ever tell them stories about "I was standing over by the big window in the living room the first time I felt you move" or "as soon as I looked at that ultrasound, I could tell you were going to be a big strong guy like your dad"?

Posted by: Marauder at February 18, 2010 4:10 PM


So if fetuses are full "human beings," then shouldn't restaurant owners charge pregnant women for two meals. Should theater owners charge for two tickets. How bout planes, trains, and busses - shouldn't they be charging for two people?

And I just couldn't resist:

"When I was Catholic the priest of my parish was the SMARTEST man I had ever met! He spoke SEVEN languages, three of them being ancient languages!

Was he reading ancient erotic Sanskrit sutras while he was diddling the altar boys?

Was he reading

Posted by: Artemis at February 18, 2010 5:55 PM


Hi Artemis.

"So if fetuses are full "human beings," then shouldn't restaurant owners charge pregnant women for two meals."

If you share a meal with someone, you don't pay double (normally, at least), so I don't see why it would follow that she should have to pay twice as much for only one meal. In many restaurants, children under a certain age eat for free anyways.

"Should theater owners charge for two tickets"

No because the unborn fetus is not able to watch or intake anything in the movie. I'm sure many movie theaters would not charge for very small born children (if they had reason to believe that they wouldn't disturb other patrons, which an unborn would never do). Plus, it would just be a bad marketing move for theaters. Why would a pregnant woman go to a movie if she had to pay extra for someone who wasn't going to even enjoy the movie anyway?

"How bout planes, trains, and busses - shouldn't they be charging for two people?"

Same deal- it's a courtesy. Plus the unborn doesn't need his/her own seat and they don't bother other people. And again, many things like planes and buses allow small children to ride for free.

So I don't think the objections you raised really call into question the humanity of the unborn. These are basically social conventions which really don't in any way determine the essence of certain things.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at February 18, 2010 6:04 PM


Posted by: Artemis at February 18, 2010 5:55 PM

Pleasant. You do realize you're adding nothing to the argument, don't you? I suppose that's all you can do, owning to the fact that you have no facts...

And before you say it, I'll add to Bobby Bambino's comment: Just because the unborn cannot enjoy movies does not mean they are inhuman beings worthy of random meaningless destruction. They cannot enjoy movies any more than newborns can, and they aren't charged because they do not require extra seating and they do not disturb others. It's a courtesy.

Imagine if humanity was dictated by how industry priced public services. A sad day this would be for those who don't like traveling or theater.

Posted by: Abel at February 18, 2010 7:16 PM


Artemis, you might be aware, if you hadn't killed your baby, that you would be perfectly free to take him/her on any bus or airplane without charge. They do not charge for infants under a certain age. I didn't have to pay to take my post-birth cluster of cells to California to visit his father when he was on leave.

Posted by: xalisae at February 18, 2010 7:19 PM


facepalm -- your textbook must have been sadly inferior and/or written by people who were vastly ignorant of biology. Consider this list of textbooks, for example.

Artemis - movie theaters charge per seat, not per patron.

Posted by: JoAnna at February 18, 2010 9:50 PM


Artemis: "So if fetuses are full 'human beings,' then shouldn't restaurant owners charge pregnant women for two meals."

Ever hear of "KIDS EAT FREE"?

Guess the eligible three-year-olds aren't human beings, either.

Posted by: bmmg39 at February 18, 2010 10:06 PM


I taught advanced aerobics until my seventh month with my second child. He was born a month early, very healthy..was walking at exactly eight months old and was counting his version of 1-10 then jumping off the bathroom scale at 10 months of age. I think all of that physical activity (and counting reps) while I was carrying him had something to do with his physical abilities. We read to our children and play music for them while in the womb these days. Scientifically we now know about the life we carry inside of us. Even in the comparatively care-free fifties, my mom knew not to smoke while she was carrying me even though she didn't read up on things the way I did with my babies.
I think we need to go about educating pro-choice women in a different way because I truly believe that something is missing in their souls. I will facetiously say that their "mothering gene" is coming up missing. Many of these women are very smart and yet the scientific knowledge is not getting through to them. Appealing to logic and common sense doesn't work either. I believe we need to pray for the miracle of change in their hearts or they never will "get it".

Posted by: Melanie Jean Garuffi at February 19, 2010 8:09 AM


Melanie, I agree with "Many of these women are very smart and yet the scientific knowledge is not getting through to them"...

I think they consciously block the objective/scientific facts to hide behind their own irrational "beliefs". Beliefs fed to them by the liberal media, PP, femi-nazi's, ACLU etc.etc...

Only Prayer will work for these people's conversion...with lots of sacrifice in between...

Posted by: RSD at February 19, 2010 10:31 AM


"So if fetuses are full 'human beings,' then shouldn't restaurant owners charge pregnant women for two meals. Should theater owners charge for two tickets. How bout planes, trains, and busses - shouldn't they be charging for two people?"

Hmmm. Let's see. A restaurant charges me for the amount of food I eat. If I split an entree with my husband, we pay for one meal. Does that make us one person? (Must be that "two become one" thing). If I am exclusively breastfeeding a baby, I'm charged for one meal. And most people are willing to call my two-month-old son a person. If I buy an appetizer, I pay more. If I buy an appetizer as my meal, I pay less. Obviously there is a scale of personhood ranging from those who eat only appetizers or partial meals to those who exclusively order lobster and fillet mignon.

Transportation and theater costs are done by seat. This is why sometimes, one must pay to have a child in a car seat but not if you are holding the child. Clearly the children who are carried in car seats are human, while children being held are not. And fat people are even more persony than everyone else, if they have to buy two seats.

Your arguments make no sense.

Posted by: ycw at February 19, 2010 10:53 AM


Facepalm, the textbooks probably said that because "baby" is not a medical term.

Also, ycw, you should know better than to expect intelligence from proaborts.

Though, I have to say that the fetus, while a person, is not a member of the team any more than a born child would be.

Posted by: Nulono at February 20, 2010 9:08 AM