I love boys who cheer killing their babies

NARAL is tweeting from the liberal Netroots Nation 2010 Convention. This morning I had a little fun with them. For those who don't know Twitter, "RT" means "retweet," or reposting someone else's tweet. After the "//" I added my own message. Adding the #nn10 ensured everyone following tweets from the convention read mine....

stanek naral nn10.png

This afternoon NARAL posted this photo and caption...

i love prochoice boys naral.jpg

i love prochoice boys tshirt.jpgNow for the life of me I can't figure out what benefit there is to wearing these shirts - particularly at a liberal convention - other than to advertise one is panting to have hook-up sex with no consequences, no worries.

And what exactly is so desirous about boys who would happily allow their babies to be suctioned and chopped to death?

That's a positive character attribute?


Comments:

...is it bad that avidly pro-choice men completely disgust me? Even more than the women. I always think of accused rapists and confirmed adulterers/harassers like Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Gee, I wonder why they supported abortion in pretty much all cases.

Posted by: Ashley Herzog at July 22, 2010 2:34 PM


Wow! That NARAL girl is smoking hot!

Posted by: qw at July 22, 2010 2:34 PM


Of course they love boys - real men don't kill their children.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 22, 2010 2:46 PM


Chris,

Ooo snap! But you make an excellent point.

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 22, 2010 3:00 PM


"I (heart) Pro-Choice [sic] Boys"

Is that why she's all alone, then? Poor gal.

Posted by: Clarice at July 22, 2010 3:03 PM


Pro-choice boys?

Oh, you mean the "boy/men" who don't know the meaning of responsibility, commitment and will either drop you like a hot potato or pay for you to get scarred for life when you get pregnant so he can have unlimited/free sex again?

*unrelated story: I saw a young girl holding a sign at a recent pro-life rally stating: "I was a choice". SHe was with the pro-abort group. I wanted to clarify if that meant she was aborted, survived an abortion or was glad she was alive that her mom chose life for her...but I was running late for my train...


Posted by: RSD at July 22, 2010 3:06 PM


Pro-choice boys?

Oh, you mean the "boy/men" who don't know the meaning of responsibility, commitment and will either drop you like a hot potato or pay for you to get scarred for life when you get pregnant so he can have unlimited/free sex again? Ah yes, those "boys".

*unrelated story: I saw a young girl holding a sign at a recent pro-life rally stating: "I was a choice". SHe was with the pro-abort group. I wanted to clarify if that meant she was aborted, survived an abortion or was glad she was alive that her mom chose life for her...but I was running late for my train...


Posted by: RSD at July 22, 2010 3:07 PM


I hate the trend of calling grown men "boys."

First of all, I doubt many males who are legitmately "boys" support abortion. I would wager that most would be horrified to learn that their mother's could kill their unborn siblings. It takes reprograming to get over that shock.

Second of all, a grown man is not a boy. Why the need to be cutesy?

Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2010 4:04 PM


"Second of all, a grown man is not a boy. Why the need to be cutesy?"

Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2010 4:04 PM

NARAL is no doubt trying to attract the younger demographic.

Posted by: Janet at July 22, 2010 4:29 PM


Why no article slamming Lindsay Graham for voting for Kagan the other day?

There was one slamming the pro life democrats as they successfully won the fight in Pennsylvania earlier in the week..

Posted by: Sean at July 22, 2010 4:49 PM


Her shirt might as well say "Please use me. I {heart} it."

Posted by: KM at July 22, 2010 5:24 PM


Sean, I've seen plenty of slamming at other conservative sites.

Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2010 5:35 PM


I think the shirts are a good idea. It lets a guy who would have a problem with a girl aborting his child to know up front where she stands.

Posted by: Heather M at July 22, 2010 5:37 PM


Erika and Max from the other thread should make a great pair!! :O

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 22, 2010 5:57 PM


I don't know about you girls, but as a pro-choice gal, I love a man who lays the law down for all those babies that are being slaughtered as we speak. I love a man who stands up to the mother of his baby and says that if she wants to abort, then she's gonna have to deal with his hand (if you know what I mean). And if that God hating woman insists on going on down to the baby killers at Planned Parenthood, then we know (and God knows) whose life is more important. The law of the socialist states of America says that babies can be slaughtered; but the Lord says that "justice is mine" and a real man knows how to deal in that kind of justice. The baby killing women of today defy the word of God and a real man knows how to deal with that. And if it means a few black and blue's to stop an act of murder, then so be it. When mommy, daddy, see their beautiful gift from God, mommy will know that she has a real man beside her. And a real woman shouldn't need those abortion inducing birth control pills. A real man will flush them down the toilet!!!

Posted by: Lori at July 22, 2010 6:01 PM


Lori, as you have poorly implied, a "real man" is going to protect both his child and the mother of his child. Violence is violence. A man who abuses his pregnant wife or girlfriend (and consequently his child) under the banner of pro-life is the same type of evil control-freak as the man who abuses his wife or girlfriend by pressuring her or abandoning her to abort his child.

Posted by: Laurie at July 22, 2010 6:17 PM


Lori...

"but as a pro-choice gal..."

Whoops. It always sucks when you're trying to characature a group and go and skrew up and betray yourself with a freudian slip.

Oh, and sweetie, no one believes any of the crap you just spouted. That exists only in your twisted little mind.

Posted by: Lauren at July 22, 2010 6:25 PM


Lori, you will not have a problem finding irresponsible men who will be more than happy to "leave you alone" with your pregnancy. They abound.

Two questions for you, respectfully:

1) How many cases of women who needlessly die of breast cancer are your beloved pills worth?

http://polycarp.org/statement_mayo_clinic_article.htm

2) How many cases of children needlessly living their lives with cerebral palsy due to preterm birth is are your beloved abortions worth?

http://uvalies.org/birthdefects.html
(left column)

Posted by: Sean at July 22, 2010 6:26 PM


Meant to say "pro-life" gal. Lord this talk of pro-abort men gets me confused. But again, a real man will stand between his woman and an abortuary.

Posted by: Lori at July 22, 2010 6:28 PM


Carla,

You are the best matchmaker EV...ER!!!

Erika and Max sitting in a tree
K. I. S. S. I. N. G.
First comes sex, then the disrespect
Another baby dead and the mother is a wreck

(on second thought forget about the kissing, it's not important anyway).


Lori, get your money together and buy 7 of these tshirts in different colors. One for each day of the week! You'll have the Max's of the world knocking your door down gal!

Posted by: Praxedes at July 22, 2010 6:33 PM


As a guy, what this shirt tell me is that the girl is a slut, she won't mind if I use her as a piece of meat until I'm tired of her, knock her up, then move along. No worries.

Posted by: Jason at July 22, 2010 7:23 PM


Hey Jason - why don't you try a change of heart. I don't like the shirts, and I think real men stand up for their children, and won't even consider sexual intercourse with a woman who would disrespect him by killing their child.

However - Erika doesn't need attacks. I disagree with her shirt, but I consider her lost - but not a lost cause. I'm reminded of Christ, who in the Gospel of John 7:53-8:11 saves the adulterous woman, and doesn't condemn her.

Erika is still someone's child - and deserves love - even if we disagree with her.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 22, 2010 7:58 PM


of course the reality is that these "boys" aren't man enough to take on the responsibilities of their actions once they get the girl preggo.

pro choice boys are those that "respect" 'girls' bodies.....and choice

Posted by: angel at July 22, 2010 8:58 PM


"...is it bad that avidly pro-choice men completely disgust me? Even more than the women. I always think of accused rapists and confirmed adulterers/harassers like Bill Clinton and John Edwards. Gee, I wonder why they supported abortion in pretty much all cases."

Yeah, tell me about it. People might as well wear shirts saying "I [heart] criminals who support immunity deals." There's nothing noble about abdicating responsibility.

Posted by: Marauder at July 22, 2010 9:42 PM


Lori...how does it follow that if a man doesn't want his child to be tortured to death he will then smack the mother of his child around?

All the pro-life men I see at rallies seem very gentle and respectful of women. Its the pro-choicers who scream and curse at women as pro-choice Matt did to Carla on another thread here.

Honestly Lori, I think the problem is you can't stand responsibility so it bothers you that there are responsible men out there who also expect us women to behave responsibally also.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 22, 2010 9:42 PM


Wow, such a blatant pro-abort FAIL... pathetic.

Chris, while I agree with you about Erika herself as a person, I think the point Jason was trying to make is that Erika doesn't realize just what that shirt REALLY says.... he may have been a bit blunt, but I bet there are a lot of irresponsible men out there who will read it exactly that way and use and dump her or others like her.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 22, 2010 10:10 PM


Elisabeth you understood perfectly. Prayers for the scales to be removed from the eyes of the young woman wearing such an awful shirt, not to mention supporting such an evil organization.

And Chris, I have a 19 year old daughter who is devoutly Catholic. If, however, she were not and wore such a shirt, I would let her know what the guys in her circle (secular, non-religious) would really think of it.

Posted by: Jason at July 22, 2010 10:31 PM


When I read the tee shirt, two words came to mind:

'Hen pecked'

Well actually it was two other words that mean pretty much the same thing, but should not be used in polite company.

'dominatrix' is another.

I am going to kill our child and your input is not wanted or needed.

Shut up, roll over on your back and submit you sniveling coward.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 22, 2010 10:52 PM


'Every child a wanted child.'

In pp's lexicon 'wanted' is a code word for white, affluent, and not more that one per family.


That is why pp locates it's killing centers in close proximity to poor, unedcuated and underemployed ethnic minorities.

You know the children NOT 'wanted'.


"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

New York Times online magazine, published Sunday, July 7, 2009

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 22, 2010 11:59 PM


Why no article slamming Lindsay Graham for voting for Kagan the other day?
There was one slamming the pro life democrats as they successfully won the fight in Pennsylvania earlier in the week..
Posted by: Sean at July 22, 2010 4:49 PM
Sean,
Pennsylvania is just the first salvo avoided in what will now be battle after battle. All the DFL had to do was stand firm on Hyde like language being inserted into Obamacare. Instead there will be countless future battles because of their lack of conviction. Stupak himself ended up voting against adding Hyde like language he had inserted into the Bill in the first place. Is there no limit to their debauchery?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 23, 2010 12:00 AM


Ah yes, yor bro ken, and it goes the other way on, too...I've actually heard a number of pro-abort guys claim that they "wouldn't presume to tell a woman what to do with her body"...unless, of course, telling her what to do with her body (and the bodies of any children they may sire in the process) means more gratification, with less responsibility, for them...reminds me of a proabort gal at one event carrying a sign that read, "My body is not public property"...good thing she carried that sign; no one would have ever been able to tell by the way she was dressed at the time...

Posted by: jtm at July 23, 2010 1:17 AM


Posted by: Jason at July 22, 2010 10:31 PM
------

Jason - my bad - looks like I read your comment too fast and in the context of the comments preceding yours - about Erika and Max.

The whole shirt thing reminds me of the Chris Rock video on abortion.

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 23, 2010 5:19 AM


Every child a wanted child.

Every unwanted child a dead child.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 23, 2010 7:42 AM


Posted by: truthseeker at July 23, 2010 12:00 AM

Excellent point. Obamacare needs the Hyde Amendment.

Side note:
WGN radio had an excellent program last night. Two physicians on opposite sides of the healthcare debate were guests of Milt Rosenberg's show "Extension 720". Rosenberg archives many of his programs so it may show up on his website eventually. I was impressed at how almost all of the points made by the doctors have been discussed on various threads here at Jill's.

Posted by: Janet at July 23, 2010 10:13 AM



As a guy, what this shirt tell me is that the girl is a slut, she won't mind if I use her as a piece of meat until I'm tired of her, knock her up, then move along. No worries.
Posted by: Jason at July 22, 2010 7:23 PM

Thus proving why she prefers pro choice guys over jerks like Jason.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 10:45 AM


Hal,
Then.....Does her shirt tell you less about her sexuality and more about her politics?

Posted by: Janet at July 23, 2010 11:02 AM


Thus proving why she prefers pro choice guys over jerks like Jason.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 10:45 AM

Jason isn't a jerk. He is honest. Any girl who sleeps with a boy or man she isn't married to is a slut. Everyone knows this. Some think the word slut is offensive, and of course it is meant to be. However, no matter what word you use, it is still the case that some infer she is advertising she thinks sex outside marriage is ok. Jason doesn't think it is okay. That doesn't make him a jerk.

Posted by: hippie at July 23, 2010 11:09 AM


"Any girl who sleeps with a boy or man she isn't married to is a slut."

wow. just wow.

And, yes, Jason is a jerk for calling someone a slut because he interprets her t-shirt in a certain way. And, he would also be a jerk if her t-shirt said "I have sex outside of marriage" and he called her a slut for that. You and Jason have a right to your primitive views, and I have a right to call them jerky.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 11:28 AM


Hal,
It's amazing how out of touch you are with conservative America.

Posted by: Janet at July 23, 2010 11:42 AM


Hal,
It's amazing how out of touch you are with conservative America.
Posted by: Janet at July 23, 2010 11:42 AM

Thank God.

Then, there's this article. Wonder who's out of touch now?

Public opinion polls over the last 20 years have consistently shown that about 35% of adults say premarital sex is always or almost always wrong, according to the author. In the same vein, there is a common popular perception that most or all of those who came of age before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s waited until they married to have sex, and that it is necessary to revert to the behaviors of that earlier time in order to eliminate the problems of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

However, research has questioned whether such a chaste period ever existed.

According to this analysis, by age 44, 99% of respondents had had sex, and 95% had done so before marriage. Even among those who abstained from sex until age 20 or older, 81% had had premarital sex by age 44.

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports.

The study uses data from several rounds of the federal National Survey of Family Growth to examine sexual behavior before marriage, and how it has changed over time.

“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 12:02 PM


"“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute."
-----------------------------

Ahhh...Guttmacher Institute...wonderful source of research statistics if you're promoting promiscuity.

Good try, Hal.

Posted by: RSD at July 23, 2010 12:14 PM


first comes sex, then the disrespect. . . .

My proabort ex called me a slut after we were married. This really didn't improve our relationship inside or outside the bedroom at least from my point of view. In hindsight, I see how WE BOTH behaved sluttishly when we met and our relationship did not have a good foundation to build on.

Maybe we could have worked it out if only he had called me an adorable misguided slut instead. . .

(:

Posted by: Praxedes at July 23, 2010 12:32 PM


Yes Hal, Guttmacher Institute, PP's own researchers who have no "hidden agenda" promoting premarital sex. They make billions of dollars off of people's premarital, sexual, promiscuous behaviors. Does "Take Care Down There" by PP come to mind to anyone? A video by PP targeting teens, promoting three-somes, GLBT sex, remember the line "at least I didn't spew" quoted by the black homosexual coming up for air when he does a blow job on a white homosexual among other filthy skits. Cha-ching! PP with the cash register shaped building (if I remember right their new abortuary in Houston is shaped just like a cash register). "Panned Parenthood" who cashes in by selling pills, shots, patches, rings, IUDs, condoms, pap smears, STD treatments like burning off genital warts, Valtrex for Herpes breakouts, dispensing antibiotics, anti-viral cocktails for HIV, then WHEN the B/C fails and a women or teen gets pregnant they will open her vagina with a speculum, insert dialators up her cervix until she is forced open wide enough for a currette to pass to dismember and mutilate her unborn baby then insert a suction catheter and vacuum her baby along with everything else out of her uterus (oops maybe even perforate her bowel in the process or miss a fetal part or two). We can really trust anything they say about people's sexual behaviors before 1960 like we can trust the Kinsey Report about what normal, healthy sexuality is.

But regardless, what has "everybody's doing it" premarital sex done for us besides make PP billions of dollars. We have epidemic proportions of STDs, over 18 million people contracting an STD every year in the US, over 52,000 people a DAY (1/4 the of them teens) contracting a STD, 1 in 5 Americans have a viral, incurable STD many of them transmitted by skin-to-skin tranmission via genital areas not covered by a condom, 1 in 4 teens have an STD, worse numbers in the AA community where PP targets selling their wares, epidemic numbers of Pelvic Inflammatory Disease a major cause of infertility and ectopic pregnancies, over 1 million abortions a year with about 40% of black babies being aborted, PP's target population. We having even counted the emotional toll of the sexual revolution, increases in depression, drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide by heartbroken wounded people. Yes, I know all you "premarital sex was great for me" crew won't agree but I have worked with and counseled teens for years and have seen first hand the carnage and destruction of the "everybody's doing it" philosophy on their hearts, minds, spirit and self-esteem. Would Margaret Sanger be proud of her organization? I am sure she would. (Sarcasm Alert) Yes, let's just keep doing what we have been doing since the "sexual revolution", it's really promoted health, reduced STDs, reduced poverty, promoted stable, faithful marriages, loving families, reduced irresponsible sexual behavior, reduced adultery and cohabitation, alleviated child abuse and "unwanted" babies. PP promises every woman a dead baby for a price. We and our teens have already paid too great a price already. Not buying it Hal.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 23, 2010 2:11 PM


Sorry meant to say "We have NOT even counted the emotional toll of the sexual revolution.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 23, 2010 2:18 PM


"“This is reality-check research. Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades,” says study author Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute."
-----------------------------

That's right RSD - and the CDC has the STD numbers to prove it!

Posted by: Chris Arsenault Author Profile Page at July 23, 2010 2:24 PM


Hippie, I am shocked and disappointed at your comments. I have a secret I want to share -- I was married in May of 1988, and my daughter was born in October of 1988. Do the math! So am I a slut? And what do you call a MAN who has sex with a woman who he's not married to?

I'm sure there are other women here who had sex before they were married. In fact, this whole board made be full of "sluts!"

Posted by: phillymiss at July 23, 2010 2:37 PM


Hal, Just because the vast majority of American's have sex before marriage does not make it morally right. Just a tiny thought for you on this hot afternoon! ;)

I agree with phillymiss. Women who have sex outside of marriage are called sluts but men are what?
Last time I checked the "she" had to have a "he".

The fact is that this T shirt pretends to be about "enlightened boys" who believe that women should control their own bodies.

In reality it is about boys and not men.
It is also about boys who take no responsibility for their sexual promiscuity and who are quite happy thank you very much,to "help" the "girl" make the "choice" of abortion.

These "boys" are losers. And they are sure they make the girls they are with losers too.

Posted by: angel at July 23, 2010 3:22 PM


and what, angel, makes sex outside of marriage "morally wrong?" How is it a "moral" issue at all?

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 3:33 PM


Hal, your question would sidetrack this thread.

Suffice it to say that based on what I know of your perspective and your approach to morality, you would likely have no concept of my understanding of the nature of "sex".

And your comment in and of itself simply indicates just how lost most people are in this area of life.

But thanks for your interest anyway. If you like, I can direct you to some reading which might get you started.

Have a nice day. :D

Posted by: angel at July 23, 2010 4:01 PM


Angel, you have a nice day also.

Good thing about things like "sex," you can live your life the way you see fit, and everyone else can do the same.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 4:05 PM


That is right Chris "and the CDC has the STD numbers to prove it". Did you notice that Hal conveniently ignored my post about the "facts" of the consequences of his "everybody's doing it" justification for premarital sex from PP "Panned Parenthood"?

Fact: 18.9 million new infections of STDs occur each year in the U.S (Weistock H. Berman S, Cates "Sexually transmitted diseases among American youth: Incidence and prevalence estimates, 2000).

Fact: The direct medical costs associated with STDs are estimated at $13 BILLION annually (HW Chesson, JM Blandford, TF Gift, G. Tao, KL Irwin "The estimated direct cost of STDs among American youth 2000. Abstract PO75 2004 National STD Prevention Conference. Philadelphia, PA March 8-11 2004).

Fact It is estimated that 65 million people are currently living with an INCURABLE STD. (Cates W. Jr et. al. "Estimates of the incidence and prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S. Sexually Transmitted Diseases 1999, 26 (Suppl.) S2-S7

Fact: Condom use cannot guarantee protection against any STD. Studies have shown that while condoms may reduce the risk of some STDs, there is not sufficient evidence to show that condoms provide protection against some of the most common STDs, including HPV and Herpes, which can be spread by skin-to-skin contact on areas of the body not covered by a condom. (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Workshop Summary Scientific on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STI) Prevention, Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).

Fact: The only SURE way to avoid transmission of STDs is to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner. (CDC Fact Sheet: December 2007)

The facts and the truth will set you free but when you are "pro-choice" you can "choose" to ignore the facts.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 23, 2010 5:19 PM


Did you notice that Hal conveniently ignored my post about the "facts" of the consequences of his "everybody's doing it" justification for premarital sex from PP "Panned Parenthood"?

Life's a risk. People are responsible for the consequences of their actions. Nothing new here.

I was accused of being "out of touch" with conservative America because I said something positive about pre marital sex. I replied, in essence, that everybody's doing it, so I'm really not out of touch. Conservative America might be.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 5:26 PM


Angel, you have a nice day also.

Good thing about things like "sex," you can live your life the way you see fit, and everyone else can do the same.
Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 4:05 PM

yes that is true. IT's called free will.
But there will be an accounting for it all Hal. Maybe not it your life but in the next. And it will include not only your "choices" as you love to call them, but the consequences of those actions too.

I'm hopeful that you will rethink many of your ideas before then. :)

I think what you call "Conservative America" are simply people who are realistic about "choice" and about what really happens during "choice".

These are the people that understand the dignity of the person.

Posted by: angel at July 23, 2010 5:40 PM


I was accused of being "out of touch" with conservative America because I said something positive about pre marital sex. I replied, in essence, that everybody's doing it, so I'm really not out of touch. Conservative America might be.

Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 5:26 PM

When I was growing up our mothers would ask us if "we would jump off a bridge" in response to our protests that "everyone was doing it".

Hal--just because many (most??) of America are fornicating, that does not make it right. Actually, conservative America is in touch with the real values that made this country the wonderful place it is. It is you liberals that are destroying it.

Posted by: Jerry at July 23, 2010 8:16 PM


Team Phillymiss.

Posted by: Marauder at July 23, 2010 8:39 PM


I think a lot of girls having sex out of wedlock are brainwashed into thinking "everyone's doing it" and then told by a boy they THINK they love that "if you love me you will"... what backup does she have to say no? She thinks she knows that everyone else is doing it.... and then this guy she "loves" either dumps her as soon as he gets what he wants or tells her to get an abortion if she gets pregnant. That is the extent of his responsibility, after all, he's pro-choice, so if she wants to raise this baby after he offered to "take care of the problem", well, that's all on HER.

But this tshirt not only doesn't show a girl who is misguided or falling for a line, but a girl who is actively seeking a boy who will treat her in just this manner, which is really sad.

I may not agree with the idea that all who had sex outside of marriage are "sluts"... because I've known way too many girls who fell for the line, "As far as I'm concerned we're already married, babe, we don't need that stupid piece of paper, I'll always be here for you...." But surely, some are.... the ones seeking it, not the ones falling for it. I hope that makes sense.

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 23, 2010 11:18 PM


Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 12:02 PM

Hal,

I do believe you used up your usual quota of words for whole month in that post.

Brevity really is your strenght.

---------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 4:05 PM


"Good thing about things like "sex," you can live your life the way you see fit, and everyone else can do the same."

--------------------------------------------------Hal,

Not every 'body' gets to live their life the way they see fit. There are a siginificant number who's lives never see the light of day.

One of the best things about 'sex' is it leads to children.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 23, 2010 11:37 PM


Not every 'body' gets to live their life the way they see fit. There are a siginificant number who's lives never see the light of day.

One of the best things about 'sex' is it leads to children.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 23, 2010 11:37 PM
============

Yuppers! Having just finished the last of the goodnight hugs and kisses with my oldest I can attest that my life would be immeasurably less full and fun without every last one of my precious kids! Can't wait to have some more!

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 23, 2010 11:41 PM


Elisabeth--your post struck a chord with me! I have two older brothers. My oldest brother warned me when I was a teenager "Boys will say ANYTHING to get into your pants. i'm telling you!" So I had a boyfriend in highschool that I was infatuated with. He gave me his undivided attention which made me feel special (especially since lots of girls were after him but he pursued me). He would tell me all the time how "hot" I was and how excited I made him (and I was NOT a girl to dress provocatively-but hey it don't take much for a teenaged boy)

I remember being with him kissing and he would ALWAYS try to persuade me to have sex. And he would say those very things Elisabeth "I love you", "you know we'll always be together" and when I would protest that I wanted to save my virginity for my husband he would smile and say "What if I'm going to be your husband?"

He almost persuaded me because I liked him so much. But in the end I KNEW in my heart he was a dog. I was afraid he might have STD's so that is what kept me from having sex.

Anyhow, not trying to sidetrack the thread, just wanted to share my little story.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 24, 2010 8:58 AM


I love your story Sydney. My older brothers were on my case too. Hated them for it as a teen, but I love them for it now as an adult. My dad and my older brothers were great protectors. My brothers grew up to be great pro-life, pro-family men, great husbands, great fathers and to respect women. You and I have a great legacy, of good brothers. "PR0-LIFE MEN ARE THE BOMB".

I have so many stories from friends about "pro-choice boys" who used women for booty-calls, left them knocked up and said "get rid of it", "it's not my problem", (better yet the pro-choice boys who took a girl's virginity then said) "it's not my baby, it must some other guy's", "you either get rid of it or I'm throwing you out in the street", "did you get rid of it yet, otherwise I'm kicking you out", "I don't know how many dude's you've been with", you're not sticking me with this baby", "I thought you were on the pill" or the classic "it's your fault, you f---ing whore". The stories I could tell you of hurting teens and women because "everybody's doing it" make me sick to my stomach. I don't want to ever hear that BS excuse for promoting PP, premarital sex, B/C and abortion ever again.

Hey Bro Ken love your response to Hal about "living their life the way they see fit", so true 1.2 million die each year and over 50 million and counting died since Roe v Wade who "never got to see the light of day", they were mutilated, dismembered, died and left the abortuary as "medical waste" because their mothers and fathers got to "LIVE their life the way they saw fit". Like I have seen posted by prolifers here "One dead, the other wounded". Great response Ken. God bless.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 24, 2010 1:20 PM


Prolifer L- Anyone who *tells* a woman what to do with her pregnancy and coerces her into a decision (whether it's to carry to term or have an abortion) is NOT prochoice.

Posted by: Kushielsmoon at July 24, 2010 1:37 PM


Prolifer L,

Then there are the passive/aggressive boy proaborts who pass the buck back to the female --"Whatever you decide honey is OK by me, it is your body after all". . . . " (yes, the proaborts like you Max).

When she decides to be responsible for her behavior because she knows deep down an abortion would really be killing their child, later down the road the proabort boy has the perfect excuse to do whatever he wants when she needs help parenting, "Sorry babe, you're the one who choose this lifestyle, not me."

More divorce, child abuse, depression and another generation killing their unborn. . . . .

Prochoice boys don't love you. They love themselves.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 24, 2010 1:54 PM


Posted by: Hal at July 23, 2010 10:45 AM


"Thus proving why she prefers pro choice guys over jerks like Jason."

--------------------------------------------------Hal,

I am confident in asserting that most of the conceptions that occur outside of marriage are not the result of casual or promiscuous sex.

I believe most of the females believe they are in love with their significant other and their sperm donor is in love with them.

Women use sex in an attempt procure love.

Men use love to get sex.

Liberal, progressive, pro abort men don't think any more of the women who are the objects of their sexual conquests than conservative men.

Let us lay that little fantasy to rest.

It ain't about pleasuring the ladies. It is about satisfying yourself.

Surely you are not going to tell me that you never resorted to 'being in love' with a gal and telling her so just so you could consumate the deal.

Surely you remember when YOU were 'on the scent' you hound dog. You weren't thinking: 'This vagina could be connected to the woman I will marry and give birth to the children we conceive.'

You were only concerned with scoring and hoping that you avoided foul trouble.

I know that was my attitude.

See you and I do have more in common than you know.

There is a more perfect way.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 24, 2010 2:03 PM


Yes Kushelmoon, but that's not how it works in the real world. "Reproductive choice" really works well for the guy who takes his girlfriend to PP or the county health dept. to get their pills, pokes (Depro-Provera), patches and condoms and when the B/C fails the boyfriend can "help her choose" so he won't have to pay child support for the next 18 years and "reproductive choice" works well for the sexual predator who can hide his deed by aborting the evidence (PP won't report him to DCFS). I have friends who are sidewalk counselors who have related to me that frequently they see girls and women "dragged" into abortuaries. I know there are stats relating the high numbers of girls and women who are coerced into having an abortion. I have to go now but will try to look them up and post the numbers later. If some of you prolifers have the numbers for "coerced abortions" please post them for me. I see your pro-choice terminology "anyone who tells a woman what to do with her "pregnancy". If she is not having a baby, she is not pregnant.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 24, 2010 2:34 PM


Most women in my experience do tend to be attracted to a man who respects her rights as an individual. Supports her no matter what may come in the future. Most women find that kind of man to be understanding and caring. I think most women would agree that understanding and caring are the qualities they would look for in a prospective father for their children.

Anti-choicers don’t know anything about caring and understanding. They care more about an undeveloped fetus without a fully functioning brain or nervous system than a scared 17yo girl who just wants to go to college before she has children... you know, so she can raise them in a nice neighborhood, maybe have a back yard and a dog...

No it’s much better to grow up on welfare as a latch key kid because mom works part time at walmart... or better yet let put them up for adoption! Because there aren’t enough starving homeless children in the world already. Adoption can be a very difficult road for a child, far more difficult than having two gay parents. I grew up with friends in both situations and believe I would rather been raise by the gays than wait to be adopted. A fetus that is aborted never knew it was an unwanted pregnancy but a child waiting to be adopted knows for certain it’s an unwanted child...

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 4:25 PM


HI Biggz.

Have you posted here under the name Robert Berger by any chance?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino Author Profile Page at July 24, 2010 4:36 PM


No I have only been posting here for a couple of weeks and al my post have been under the name Biggz.

Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 6:30 PM


Adoption can be a very difficult road for a child...

Many "wanted" children raised by their biological parents also have difficult issues to deal with.

a child waiting to be adopted knows for certain it’s an unwanted child...

That may be your perception of the child. That is not necessarily the child's perception. I know this because one of my siblings was adopted as an older child. I also have a cousin who was older when he was adopted. Both would disagree with your comment.

I don't appreciate it when people like you attempt to stigmatize those of us who are adopted. I especially don't appreciate it when it's done in attempt to justify killing us in the womb.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 24, 2010 6:52 PM


Biggz what you're doing is called projection. Because it is just silly to say pro-lifers don't care when they donate their own money to buy things for pregnant women in need. I personally even after I lost my job bought diapers, maternity clothes, baby clothes etc.. for my local Birthright and I was struggling with money myself. So please stop this nonsense about we don't care.

The fetus has an undeveloped nervous system for a short while. I mean if level of development is what makes a person a person then I guess in your eyes I could kill my 3 year old son right now. After all, he is not totally developed. He is GROWING. Just as fetuses are. Until you're an adult you're always growing. Can we kill teenagers too?

I don't have a back yard or a dog. Is that justification to kill my son so I can start over and hope to raise future children in a better location?

What utter nonsense Biggz. Nothing you have posted addresses the fact that abortion kills a UNIQUE, LIVING HUMAN BEING. No one is saying that you or other women aren't precious and important too. But your children are just as precious and important. Why must you pro-choicers ALWAYS make it a war between mother and child?

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 24, 2010 7:54 PM


Good for you, Sydney... I fell for the line (that's how I know them so well)... on the plus side, I have my beautiful Alison!

And she knows the lines, too... she's one smart cookie and the beginning of everything good in my life.

(An old country doctor at our church a few years ago told a very startled Alison during Bible Study... "Young lady, never believe a young man's lies. They will say ANYTHING for the chance to stick their penis in you!" Okay, even I about died laughing at his choice of words, but it was nice to have the backup... )

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 25, 2010 12:44 AM


1. Most women in my experience do tend to be attracted to a man who respects her rights as an individual.

2. Anti-choicers don’t know anything about caring and understanding.

3. No it’s much better to grow up on welfare as a latch key kid because mom works part time at walmart... or better yet let put them up for adoption!

4. A fetus that is aborted never knew it was an unwanted pregnancy but a child waiting to be adopted knows for certain it’s an unwanted child...


Posted by: Biggz at July 24, 2010 4:25 PM

--------------------------------------------------
Biggotz,

1. You should have qualified that assertion with the word 'believe'.

..."who they [believe] respects"...

If you are man, you know what I mean.

SeePosted by: Elisabeth at July 25, 2010 12:44 AM

"Young lady, never believe a young man's lies. They will say ANYTHING for the chance to stick their penis in you!"

2. biggot:: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You don't circulate outside the orbit of people who think and act like you, do you?

3. You are laboring under the misconception that there is something inherently 'wrong' with being part of a family that is 'poor'. (see point 2)

4. A child who is waiting to be adopted may 'feel' unwanted. That is certainly a probability and even when someone has demonstrated the child is wanted by adopting her/him they will probably have to deal with feelings of abandonment and rejection stemming from their birth parents decision not to raise him/her themselves.

But 'better a live dog, than a dead lion' becasue there still hope for the living. Healing and restoration from abandonment and rejection are available to the living.

The first part of your statem, "A fetus that is aborted never knew it was an unwanted pregnancy"... presupposes that a HUMAN fetus has no self consciousness and you have no way of KNOWING that except by your own personal experience as a human fetus in your mother's uterus.

I can offer at least ancedotal evidence that would disprove your presumption.

You cannot offer any evidence that would substantiate your assertion.

Biggotz,

When your mom was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 25, 2010 11:40 AM


1. Not all guys are like that. My husband was not. How can I be sure? Because before I was a Christian, I would have done anything to get into his pants. Luckily, I learned better, and we did not have sex before we got married (so it is possible). And we have at least two children whom we love very much, so trust me, we are not anti-sex at all.

2. I wouldn't use the word slut for anyone. But I don't think that the fact that society has higher standards for women than men means we should lower the standards for women.

Men are capable of moral decisions regarding sex. Men are capable of self control. Let's expect it of them. I certainly want that for my son.

Posted by: ycw at July 26, 2010 8:18 AM


yor bro ken - Do you have ANY evidence that’s says fetuses feel pain or can have a thought? I didn’t think so... "We speak for those without voices!" um ok well they are also without functioning nervous systems, the ability to think, or the ability to feel pain. What’s in a pregnant woman’s womb may be the beginnings of a human being but it’s not a person. The inside of an egg may be the beginning of a chicken but it’s not a rooster.

This conversation is at an impasse, you believe a fetus’s life is more important than a woman’s life and I disagree. You believe a fetuses potential life is more important than the life of a woman who doesn’t want to be a mother or deal with any of the real life consequences that only SHE can know about as it’s HER life. Seeing as SHE is the only one who knows what’s really going on in HER life I think she would be best placed to make the decision. In America a woman has the right to choose when she wants to be a mother. She can carry a pregnancy or abort it. End of Story.

I don’t know where you get Biggotz from I don’t think I have made a single racist statement here? If your saying I'm being prejudges to my line of thought over yours, I would say that’s the pot calling the kettle biggotz...

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 6:34 PM


Biggz...we don't think a fetus's life is MORE important than a womans. We think they are EQUALLY important. We also don't think that it automatically has to be woman vs. child. Thats just stupid.

I am a woman. I have actually been pregnant. You have a penis and will never be pregnant so where do you get off saying to me that I somehow don't value my own life? What a dumb attitude! I don't think my son's life is MORE important than mine, but I do think his has equal value and did from the moment his life began in my fallopian tube.

Its chauvenistic to say that it must somehow be one OR the other. Why can't mother and child both have value? Women carry children in their wombs. Its part of our biology. Why men like you are always at war with that, demeaning it, attacking it, anhilating it at any cost is beyond me.

Its like if I went around trying to say that I believe men should have a choice to castrate themselves and gave money to pro-castration groups that preyed on vulnerable men and talked them into castrations they later regretted and that left them with physical and emotional scars. you would think "Who is this woman with her vulva going around waging war against my sex and trying to defend castration which is offensive to me as a male?"

That is exactly how I view men like you. Stop waging war on the natural, beautiful biology of my gender. Thanks.

oh and by the way I will find and link the study that shows fetuses can feel pain. Don't you ever listen to the news?

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 8:22 PM


Okay Biggz...dropping the ball. Can't find the exact medical website I was on the other night discussing actual medical research that shows the high probability that embryos can feel pain as early as 6 or 7 weeks. i will try to locate it but don't have time tonight.

In the meantime check this out

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me!

And one last parting thought...it really doesn't matter whether the unborn child can feel pain or not. The ability to feel pain doesn't affect your humanity. i have had surgery several times. When I was under anesthesia and couldn't feel surgeons cutting into my body that didn't mean I was no longer a person and fair game for anyone wanting to kill me. And since I was a pain in the neck teenager at the time, that didn't give my mother the right to get rid of me either. I was still a human even if I was inconvenient and not able to feel pain.

Posted by: Sydney M. at July 26, 2010 8:37 PM


Human yes
Person no

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 9:50 PM


Okay, so we have finally gotten Biggz to admit that an unborn human is... human.

Amazing breakthrough. I think I'll savor the moment while we pause here before asking why and on what basis one human has the right to decide whether another human lives or dies. (And I'm not discussing capital punishment and will not state whether I am pro or anti capital punishment as it is NOT analogous. Unborn human beings have not committed any crime. Whether convicted criminals should or should not be subject to capital punishment has no bearing on a discussion of the rights or lack thereof of a human who has clearly committed no crime.)

Posted by: Elisabeth at July 27, 2010 12:57 AM


Human yes
Person no

Posted by: Biggz at July 26, 2010 9:50 PM

Of course you know that "person" means something different from age to age and from culture to culture. In our country at one time blacks were not "persons". In some countries women are considered property. Then there are places where the poor-men and women alike-are believed to be assigned their circumstances in life by the gods. In ancient times it was a given that the purpose of everyone not born into the king's or Caesar's lineage was to serve at the pleasure of the king.

"Person" is a precious designation that we ought to protect. It is the height of ignorance to presume that by lessening regard for innocent human life at any stage of development serves the common interest.

Posted by: Jerry at July 27, 2010 12:40 PM


I looked up both the Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Online Oxford Dictionary. I looked up "person" and "human being", the definitions were really not different.

In fact, Oxford went so far as to say person was "human being regarded as an individual" (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1277141#m_en_us1277141 ).

Posted by: Mother In Texas at July 27, 2010 2:53 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "q" in the field below: