I've reported previously on the massive pro-life protests and prayer vigils at a St. Paul, MN, Planned Parenthood abortion mill as well as PP's annual "Good Friday solidarity event."
Well, PP of MN, ND, and SD is closing that mill and building a 46,000 sq. ft., 3-story mega-mill in an industrial park....
Why now? According to StarTribune.com:
[Sarah] Stoesz [president and CEO of PP in MN], said PP is preparing for a possible increase in demand because of the new federal health care bill, which will add millions of people to insurance rolls starting in 2014. Many will be the lower-income and young adults that PP serves, she said. "We don't know exactly what health care reform will mean for our patients," she said. "But I anticipate that more people will access health care."
The new location was chosen "after a zip code analysis of where PP's patients come from," according to TwinCities.com, i.e., a "low-income minority community," writes our MN pro-life friend Sandy.
PP also chose the new spot to "provide more privacy for patients who now routinely have to walk past abortion foes who try to persuade them not to go into the clinic," according to StarTribune.com, i.e., ditch pro-life protesters.
PP's new mega-mill falls mid-range in size compared to other mega-mills built by PP in recent years:
Aurora, IL (2007): 22,000 sq ft
Sarasota, FL (2009): 23,000 sq ft
Portland, OR (February 2010): 40,000 sq ft
St. Paul, MN (to open December 2011): 46,000 sq ft
Denver, CO (2008): 50,000 sq ft
Houston, TX (to open fall 2010): 78,000 sq ft
[Have read about but can't confirm mega-mills in Worcester, PA (33,000 sq ft) and Seattle, WA (31,500 sq ft). If you have links to corroborate these or any others I haven't listed, please alert me in comments section and I'll add to the list.]
Environmentalists will be happy to learn PP is going green! Buildings used to kill babies to save the planet will be eco-friendly! PP of MN's new chop shop will be LEED-certified, as was the Sarasota PP, eco-friendly video below...
[HT: Sandy and Kathleen]
Here comes the Obama money!Posted by: Susie at May 6, 2010 4:36 PM
You can find just about anything to dump on, huh? PP doesn't have to make its facilities environmentally sound but they're doing it anyway because they understand that, even if it's not a legal duty, being eco-friendly is still a civic duty. Whether anti-choicers like it or not, PP is here to stay: can't you at least be happy they're trying to be environmentally responsible even if you disagree with their mission? Or is that another platform of your right-wing ideology: the environment is the enemy?Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 5:22 PM
Nothing about abortion makes me happy. NOTHING.
I will be out front offering support to the women that visit this eco-friendly PP to have their children killed.
Maybe I will see you there.Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 5:30 PM
Good for Planned Parenthood. It sure is better than the back alleys that the "pro-life" movement want us to go back to. Ah, the good old days....
And Carla, keep yelling "baby killer" or whatever it is you do. It just makes you look silly...Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 5:37 PM
Will you stand out in front of a KFC afterwards and try to stop people from buying delicious fried buckets of murdered chickens too?Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 5:38 PM
I wonder how many abortions that you protesters have caused by convincing women who might be on the fence to have one just to exercise their right to choose because it's under constant attack? If I was pregnant that might be something I'd consider if I was contemplating whether to keep my pregnancy or not. I can tell you one thing: accusing me of being a baby murderer wouldn't make me less likely to have an abortion, that's for sure.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 5:43 PM
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 5:43 PM
Right you are. These "pro-lifers" think that they're "saving babies" when all they do is create more animosity towards their "movement." They think that they're doing "the lord's work" when all they're doing is harassing women and anybody else walking into a clinic - some of whom are picking up perscriptions. Bottom line is that they're trying to shame women by screaming at them (how very medieval!) and that really doesn't work. Not to mention that it's just rude. Can you imagine how upset these folks would be if the pro-choice people stood outside the anti-choice churches screaming strange stuff and holding coat hangers! When I escort, many women thank me after they have to run through the anti-choice gauntlet who have screamed that I am a lesbian and a whore. LOL!!!Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 5:53 PM
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 5:38 PM
LOL!! Yer murdering yer chickens. Repent, the end is near!!!Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 5:56 PM
Wow, Artemis, you really do have a hang-up about religion, don't you?
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at one of your therapy sessions.
You escort? God bless you. I can only imagine that it's a dangerous, under-appreciated job. I would fear for my life, especially after some of the recent murders. I worry that having a pro-choice President is causing some anti-choice people to be even more unhinged than they normally would be. Stay safe.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:04 PM
You escort? God bless you.
Uh oh, Artemis... Marissa mentioned "God." You gonna go on a rant for that?Posted by: Kel at May 6, 2010 6:06 PM
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:04 PM
Thanks. One hopes that the zealots don't act out their fantasies. The really sick thing is that they can rationalize the murder of abortion providers because, in their world view, they are saving "babies" who would be otherwise "murdered." They claim to be advocating for women - yet, they think that women who have abortions are either heartless murdering bitches or innocent (stupid?) lil gals who have been seduced into an abortion by the satanic (and yeah, they actually think this) Planned Parenthood. They actually think that bearing the child of a rapist is a wonderful thing. If they had their druthers, they would criminalize birth control Let's do the time warp again. A strange world, indeed.Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:11 PM
Posted by: Kel at May 6, 2010 6:06 PM
If there is a god, she's pro-choice!Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:13 PM
I don't know if the KFC question was directed toward anyone, but I actually don't eat meat and do protest that restaurant. I wouldn't protest AT the restaurant because the animals are already dead anyway but I do try to get information out...it is truly disgusting and inhumane what they do to those poor animals. And it can't be possibly be healthy for humans to eat animals raised in those conditions, but that's off topic.
Anyway, I live on the East coast so won't be able to go to this clinic, but I do go to abortion clinics close-by, not really to protest abortion do much as to offer the moms help. The point is to offer them assistance (housing,financial, etc.) so they don't have to kill their offspring. Most women cite economic issues for aborting, so we are offering them a real CHOICE. Sadly, many women are set on the abortion (or rather the baby's father is set on the abortion, more likely), but we have been able to help some moms which makes it worth it. I've personally never heard anyone yell "baby-killer" at an abortion clinic; I really hope people don't. If I was getting an abortion, I would just be freaked out by that, and if you scare the women I doubt there is any chance of helping them.
I had my own abortion, Marissa thank you very much and looked for ANYONE that was out front that might help me and offer me support for something I didn't want to go through with. They weren't there that day. My child died in that abortion clinic. Please prove to me that she didn't.
Artemis found a new friend!! Joy!Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 6:23 PM
The shame from abortion comes from knowing deep down that the child that was growing inside you died in the abortion clinic. What was once living and growing is no more.
I have never yelled "baby killer" at anyone. I won't be doing that out front of this "eco-friendly"
facility either. Offering help like Adair.
If you don't eat meat, then I guess that makes you one of the few ethically consistent people in your movement, but I guarantee you most of the people standing out in front of clinics with signs have no problems turning around and chowing down a burger afterwards.
Please don't lie to yourself that you're offering women "choice". We already have that. You're just trying to influence that choice, though if you had your way even that wouldn't matter because you'd make abortion illegal anyway.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:27 PM
No, Marissa, I don't have a problem with chowing down on a burger. Why? Because an animal is not a human being. It's really pretty simple.
It's also hilarious seeing you crone about being consistent while simultaneously bemouning eating meat while supporting the slaughter of innocent human beings.
Not exactly living up to your own standards there, Marissa.
Oh and sidewalk counselors don't stand out front of clinics yelling "murderer" they hold signs that say "Please let me know how I can help you."Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:32 PM
Artemis and Marissa,
God has given you a free will to do whatever you want. No one will force you to accept your need for a Savior. No one will force you to accept the sacrifice Jesus paid for your sins. Even though He loved you enough to die for you, no one will make you repent and serve Him. You can continue to live and die in your sins.
You do have a choice.
God demonstrated His great love for you by sending His Son to die in your place, so that He might adopt you as His child, and so you wouldn't have to face Him as an austere Judge.
It is your choice.
I implore you to read the testimony of renowned Serbian abortionist Stojan Adasevic with a humble heart, in meekness, with fear and trembling.
Don't die without knowing Jesus!Posted by: Ed at May 6, 2010 6:33 PM
Even better, Carla, would be if good, decent Republican white men would just ban abortion altogether and keep you from having to make hard choices, right?
Well you know what? I can think for myself and don't need or want that, and most other people don't either. I'm sorry you regret your choice but I'm so, so glad your right to make it was, and still is, protected.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:33 PM
Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 6:26 PM
If they have their own parking lot, you won't be offering them diddly. But do try shoving your leaflets through car windows. Good luck with that. But it's funny. A woman with a good private health care plan can get her abortion at a hospital and nobody's the wiser. Those women who use a clinic get harassed. It's funny, abortion is the only surgical procedure that's met with a gauntlet of zealots offering "help."Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:36 PM
Are you talking about the good and decent men who handed down Roe V Wade, Marissa?? What about keep your laws off my body??
I would have a 19 year old daughter with me today if I made the choice for life.
No, you're not sorry I regret my abortion. Spare me.Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 6:37 PM
Some people think animals are human beings, Lauren. Sort of like how some people think month-old fetuses are human beings too. You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to make up your own facts too. Say, would the sidewalk counselors asking "please let me know how I can help you?" accept "go and get a job and stop harassing poor women" as an answer?Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:38 PM
Artemis, could that possibly be because abortion is the only surgical procedure that kills a human being?
Hmmm...Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:38 PM
Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:38 PM
Here's the thing, Lauren. I know it's hard for you to understand; but not everybody believes that abortion is "killing a human being." Too bad, so sad....but reality bites sometimes!!!Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:42 PM
Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 6:37 PM
You had a choice. You made it. Choice is intrinsic to freedom. Are you saying that it would have been better had you had no choice? I realize you regret your choice. I hope that you are dealing with by accessing professional help. BTW, not everybody regrets their decision.Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:46 PM
"Some people think animals are human beings, Lauren."
Unlike the pro-life movement, those people's claims are not based on science. The pro-life movement rests on the scientific fact that a new, unique human life is destroyed by abortion.
A cow is not a human. A human, from the moment of amphimixis, is a human. Shocking, I know.
Actually, hundreds of women a year are thankful that we are standing on the sidewalk. They choose life for their children and utilize our services.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:47 PM
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:33 PM
Maybe Carla won't appreciate me jumping in like this, and if so, I am sorry. But do you even hear how patronizing you sound? She didn't say she made a poor choice the way that you might pick the wrong set of directions and get a bit lost for a while. She said her child died, and you've come back with platitudes about "protecting choice."
As to your "pro-lifers have to be vegetarians to be consistent," I'm going to make two points. One, a human life is not morally equivalent to a chicken's. You are at liberty to attempt to argue that they are, but you would be wrong. Two, even if you weren't wrong (which you are), that would only mean that pro-lifers are wrong about chickens, not that we aren't right about babies. Saying "Well, you're wrong about this other, totally different issue over here!" does not, never has, and never will address any pro-life argument put forward anywhere. And since you are wrong, it makes your inane blitherings about vegetarianism even more off-topic than they otherwise would be.Posted by: Keli Hu at May 6, 2010 6:47 PM
"Here's the thing, Lauren. I know it's hard for you to understand; but not everybody believes that abortion is "killing a human being." Too bad, so sad....but reality bites sometimes!!!"
That's like saying "not everyone agrees that 1+1=2, too bad, so sad!"\
The people who don't believe that abortion kills a human being are factually wrong. It is a scientific fact that abortion kills a human being. There is no ambiguity. There is no question. The fact that you continue to deny reality really is sad, because it speaks to the fact that you are willfully ignorant. The fact that your willful ignorance perpetuates killing goes beyond "sad."Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:50 PM
Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 6:50 PM
What "reality" am I denying other than your particular world view. While you claim that your opinion is the truth, I can quote a number of very learned religious people who say otherwise - but I guess these church mothers and fathers are "ignorant." You claim that science is on your side; but that really isn't true either.(Gerard Nadal and Dr.Nathanson aren't the sole body of scientists.) You are not the sole repository of the truth, Lauren; but if makes you feel happy, whatever.Posted by: Artemis at May 6, 2010 6:55 PM
I am not talking about my opinion. I do not care what a religious leader says. I am talking about scientific fact, Artemis. It is a SCIENTIFIC FACT that abortion kills a human being.
Bobby and Gerard have posted link after link after link that all say the same thing. You are like a child plugging your ears and saying "lalalala I can't hear you!"
Prove me wrong, Artemis. Show me that a human fetus is not a human being. You can't, and you won't. You'll just make some lame argument about how some churches are ok with abortion so DUUUUUUUUUH it's ok.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 7:01 PM
Oh look, it's a scientific consensus!
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe, 1996, p.31]
"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: the developing organism from the time of fertilization until significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism becomes known as a fetus."
[Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997, Appendix-2.]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus."
[Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146]
"Embryo: The early developing fertilized egg that is growing into another individual of the species. In man the term 'embryo' is usually restricted to the period of development from fertilization until the end of the eighth week of pregnancy."
[Walters, William and Singer, Peter (eds.). Test-Tube Babies. Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 160]
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
"I would say that among most scientists, the word 'embryo' includes the time from after fertilization..."
[Dr. John Eppig, Senior Staff Scientist, Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, Maine) and Member of the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 31]
"The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Sadler, T.W. Langman's Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]
"The question came up of what is an embryo, when does an embryo exist, when does it occur. I think, as you know, that in development, life is a continuum.... But I think one of the useful definitions that has come out, especially from Germany, has been the stage at which these two nuclei [from sperm and egg] come together and the membranes between the two break down."
[Jonathan Van Blerkom of University of Colorado, expert witness on human embryology before the NIH Human Embryo Research Panel -- Panel Transcript, February 2, 1994, p. 63]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression 'fertilized ovum' refers to the zygote."
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are...respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]
"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity."
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists "pre-embryo" among "discarded and replaced terms" in modern embryology, describing it as "ill-defined and inaccurate" (p. 12}]
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual."
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten's Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]
"[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization....
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don't worry,' a doctor might say, 'it's only pre-embryos that we're manipulating or freezing. They won't turn into real human embryos until after we've put them back into your body.'"
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]
www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.htmlPosted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 7:04 PM
Respectfully, I really do not understand what you are saying. How can women possibly have "choice" if they cannot afford a child and therefore feel as though they must abort? This is the reality of abortion in America; as I mentioned, this is the reason most reason cite for having abortions. Not to mention the fact that the pressures to abort are purely sexist. It is not a coincidence that Playboy pumps money into abortion-rights causes.
There are many ways to reduce abortion: making it illegal is part of the battle, but we also need to make domestic violence laws harsher, get more women to college, and make daycare more accessible. This things are valuable by themselves, and the fact they would reduce the abortion rate is even better. I support empowering women and offering them choice-- nonviolent choice, that is.
Yeah, there are some hypocritical pro-lifers who don't want women to abort fetuses and then don't even blink an eyebrow when born children are blown up in wars throughout the world. But so what? I'm trying to remember some argument I think I learned in my college philosophy class last year. I think it went something like: An Irishman thinks it is immoral for people to kill other Irishmen, but it is ok to kill Englishmen. Yes, he is a hypocrite and it is wrong to kill English people, but that does not change the fact he IS correct that it is wrong to kill Irish people. Does that make sense, haha? So the hypocrisy of some pro-lifers (and let's face us, all humans are hypocrites at times), says nothing about the legitimacy of the anti-abortion position.Posted by: Adair at May 6, 2010 7:13 PM
If I would have been told THE TRUTH at the abortion clinic instead of it's "just a bunch of cells" I might have run out of that clinic and told them all to go to he** and my daughter and I would have made it. I would have been glad to have been informed of fetal development and seen an ultrasound of my child. I was not given either. How is it choice when a woman feels like she has no choice?
Saying that others do not regret their abortions, does nothing to refute my abortion story.
Oh, and of the hundreds of women who were offered help and support when going to the PP in Highland Park, St. Paul, MN not one of them has come back and told us they regret NOT aborting. There has been a prolife presence outside for 29 years and it will continue at the new one being built.
Jump in whenever you like. :)
I have asked you time and again Artemis to prove using scientific facts and logic that a living, unborn, human child is NOT killed in an abortion.
Your silence is deafening.Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 7:46 PM
Lauren. "Show me that a human fetus is not a human being." Because society says it isn't. There. Easy as pie. A "human being" is a social construct. A human being is a thing that society has deemed to have some measure of rights and responsibilities inherent to members of that society. It's an identity. In this society we have determined that human DNA is not enough to be given this identity; this is why fetuses don't have social security numbers, you can't ensure them, and they do not have a legal name.
Adair. "How can women possibly have "choice" if they cannot afford a child and therefore feel as though they must abort?" That's easy. They drive to a clinic, they walk into it, they ask for and receive an abortion. The circumstances causing them to seek an abortion are not relevant. Your question is like asking "how can bank robbers possibly have "choice" if they cannot afford food and clothing and therefore feel as though they must rob a bank?"
Carla. Obviously you feel very guilty about your abortion. That's fine, I can't tell you how to feel. However, to claim that somehow you really had no choice in your abortion or were deprived of the opportunity to make an informed choice because the clinic didn't tell you about "fetal development" or offer to give you an ultrasound (two things you were always at liberty to learn more about on your own) is just ridiculous. It's as stupid as someone who doesn't know how to drive getting behind the wheel, causing an accident, then saying "that accident's not my fault! nobody ever taught me how to drive!" A choice made in ignorance is still a choice.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 8:15 PM
"Show me that a human fetus is not a human being." Because society says it isn't. There. Easy as pie. A "human being" is a social construct."
No. A "human being" is a scientific classification.
Try again.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 8:20 PM
It is only logical that they are eco-friendly. The environmentalist-extremists want less people as do the pro-aborts.Posted by: PeterM at May 6, 2010 8:24 PM
Wow looks like it's ignorance hour at the blog today.
@Lauren. I lol'ed so much at your post (the fact that you not only proved Artemis wrong, you did it like 20 times over!) I don't know how anyone can look at all of that and still say, no, it's not a human being because I don't believe it is! As if your belief about something changes it's very nature! The same ones who say, it's not a baby until the mother wants it to be! I'll tell you what, I can want my tiny apartment to be a 10 bedroom house but my belief and wants aren't going to change it into one any time soon!
And they say that WE'RE the non-scientific ones. These people are practicing some form of magic where when you want it to be a baby then, poof! it is one, or you believe that it's not and, poof! it's no longer a human being. If only I had the magical powers of an ignoramus like Artemis and company!Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 8:29 PM
Haha, I'm glad you got a good laugh Scott. I feel like I'm hitting my head against a wall!
It's like arguing with someone who says "well, I mean, I know that it's your opinion that 1+1=2, but some people think that 1+1=3, so who am I to judge?"Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 8:33 PM
Try again, girl. A human being is a a scientific definition--a member of the species Homo Sapien. There is NO question about this. If you believe otherwise, you simply are unscientific and might as well believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
What you were futiley grasping at was actually "personhood." Personhood is whatever the Law says it is. And yes, you are right, fetuses aren't granted personhood in our society. But neither were Blacks in our country's history. Neither were Jews in Hitler's Germany. Which brings up the question: can one be a human being and not a person?
And if so, who decides what human beings qualify? I challenge you to make a list of qualifications that excludes the unborn human beings that does not also exclude born human beings as being persons.Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 8:37 PM
Being "green" whilst soaking the ground with
the blood of innocents!!
Could anything be more absurd? Did Hitler worry
about the smoke and ash his ovens omitted?
Did American slave holders certify their slaves
lived in eco friendly housing?
It's utterly meaningless in the eyes of God who
sees the slaughter. And He is the ultimate Judge ~
believe it or not!
If individuals admit that abortion is murder (this is an undeniable fact), than how can the act itself still be condoned?
Going one step further.........Yes, the "civil law" says it is allowed. So why don't we question why a "civil" law permits murder (when every other instance states it is only permissable in self-defense ONLY)???Posted by: lin at May 6, 2010 8:48 PM
I know you won't understand this as you obviously haven't read enough stories from post-abortive women who regret their abortions, but I have said nothing about guilt. You did. My guilt is gone. My shame is gone.
I won't even address your driving a car/abortion scenario.
Ever heard of INFORMED CONSENT??Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 8:48 PM
"Green" is the new morality. People today think that if you recycle and are "carbon neutral" (whatever that means) then you are a moral person even if you are a perverted, lying, murderous, thieving, underhanded kinda person. Hey, I'm "green" so that makes up for it, right? I'm still a good person, right?
Reminds me of PP collecting food for the hungry at the Good Friday protest. As if that makes up for killing the children of the poor; for profaning the day commemorating God who was brutally tortured and died by equally bloodied hands. But, hey, if the cross-nailers gave money to a widow on their way to nail Jesus, that makes up for it, right?Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 8:55 PM
“This is an exciting new chapter in our 82 year history, and it’s made possible entirely by the generosity of our many donors and supporters, who for generations have trusted us to provide quality, affordable and confidential health care services,” said PPMNS President and CEO Sarah Stoesz.
Does she realize that the generational lines of many of PP's supporters have died due to their abortions? Fewer voices, less money.
But is choice truly choice when a lack of knowledge and access leaves one with no choice?
-The Raving Theist
Carla: Are you sure your guilt is gone? Someone who has created so many reasons for why she is not responsible for a choice she made obviously has some lingering guilt issues. You might want to seek therapy for this problem.
"Informed consent"? That's a specific legal term that is used only in specific legal circumstances (namely fraud). It has nothing to do with anything here. You walked into a clinic, entirely of your own free will, and you had them perform an abortion on you. They were under no obligation to try and talk you out of having this procedure that you are legally entitled to seek by showing you an ultrasound or giving you a crash course on "fetal development." Just how much information do you think they should have given you before performing the procedure you paid to have them do? Should they read you a 1000-page medical book on embryonic development? Or better yet, force you to take an entire medical school class on human reproduction? Maybe they should just require you to have a doctorate in obstetrics to make sure that you absolutely, positively know what an abortion is.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:09 PM
"In this society we have determined that human DNA is not enough to be given this identity"
Would you argue that slaves in the American South weren't human beings because the society concluded that they weren't? What if society concluded that YOU weren't a human being, so therefore it was okay to rip your limbs from your body?Posted by: Marauder at May 6, 2010 9:13 PM
Marissa, I thought the pro-abortion catchphrase was "trust women."
Well Carla, a woman, is telling you that she needed more information from the abortion providers to make an informed decision. Do you not trust her to know what she needs to make an informed decision?
How paternalistic!Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 9:15 PM
"Are you sure your guilt is gone? Someone who has created so many reasons for why she is not responsible for a choice she made obviously has some lingering guilt issues. You might want to seek therapy for this problem."
Like you really give a damn, you smug, condescending, superior-acting jerk. I would have a lot more to say to you, but I don't think Jill would approve of my language.Posted by: Marauder at May 6, 2010 9:18 PM
African slaves, at that place and that time in history, were not human beings. Yes, that is correct, Marauder. Of course, you can debate the merits of that: obviously today we consider slavery to be backwards and wrong, because blacks are as capable of participating in society as anyone else is.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:18 PM
Wow. Compassion and love just oozes out of your comments.
How much information is a woman entitled before an abortion? Gee, how about more than I was given? How about The Truth??
I had an abortion almost 20 years ago. I have been through more than I care to type out here but thanks for the "I'm sorry you regret it." comment up there. You have already proven that you are not.
I am totally and completely responsible for my abortion. I paid for it. I was there. I didn't want one, I was afraid and alone. I was told "it was just a bunch of cells." I was 10 weeks along. My child was fully developed. I was told nothing of risks and watched a filmstrip of a bunch of red circles. How is that INFORMED CONSENT?
The state I am in has an informed consent law, sweetie. Live Action just released 3 undercover videos of the lies of omission of Planned Parenthood in my state. It's the law.
I have friends that were FORCED to abort their babies, Marissa. You ok with that too??Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 9:22 PM
Marissa: what species of embryo/fetus were you when your mother was pregnant? I've never heard of a women giving birth to a dog or a cat or a lamb or a fox or a whale or dolphin. And no, National Enquirer does NOT count.
Humans give birth to baby humans. You began as a single cell organism in your mother's womb and grow into the multi-celled complex human being you are now. You don't automatically grow into a full sized baby seconds before birth.
We hold BABY SHOWERS, not fetus showers.
Nice try, Marissa, but those of us who are Against abortion are NOT falling for the lies.
Planned Parenthood is NOT a good organization. Their ultimate goal is PROFIT. They don't care about women like Carla who are scared and alone and are without support and think their ONLY choice is to abort.
50 MILLION ABORTIONS is 50 MILLION TOO MANY!
And we DO NOT NEED MORE mega clinics.
Real Health care does not take lives (and yes, an unborn human baby IS a human life!)Posted by: LizFromNebraska at May 6, 2010 9:22 PM
Marissa, you really are striking out tonight!
First, the "not humans" claim was debunked, then the "humans as social constructs" was debunked, and now a claim that INFORMED CONSENT is purely a legal issue for specific legal procedings. Strike three!
Well, as someone who HAS taken a medical school course on embryology and as somebody who would know these things, informed consent is of PARAMOUNT importance to receive before initiating any sort of surgical procedure. And BY LAW a woman has to receive MEDICALLY ACCURATE information before undergoing an abortion. Undercover videos time and again have shown PP clinicians lying to women and giving them medically false info. So yes, informed consent DOES apply to Carla's case.Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 9:26 PM
"You might want to seek therapy..."
Perhaps you should take your own advice, Marissa :) Based on your comments, you need some. Badly.Posted by: Lucy at May 6, 2010 9:28 PM
We better let Marissa hit the hay. It's 9:30 on a school night.Posted by: carla at May 6, 2010 9:30 PM
"African slaves, at that place and that time in history, were not human beings"
You're an idiot. Yes, they were. They did not undergo a magical transformation upon emancipation. They were equally human at that point in time as their surviving generations are today. They were not, for example, cattle who suddenly became human when the personhood fairy came and granted them rights.
They were always human beings. Under slavery, they were human beings who the law did not recognize. Sounds familiar.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 9:31 PM
"'Informed consent'? That's a specific legal term that is used only in specific legal circumstances (namely fraud)."
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:09 PM
Okay, that's not just wrong, it's shockingly, astonishingly, mind-bogglingly wrong. "Informed consent" is a term used in a number of arenas, especially including the medical and psychological realms, which essentially means, "being told about all the possible outcomes of a decision before you are required to make that decision."
For example, if I were a counseling psychologist and a client came to me with a phobia that they wanted my help with, I would outline a course of treatment for them, which would essentially boil down to forcing them to face the thing that triggered their fear until they had mastered the phobia. But I would be ethically bound to inform them about how this was going to work in advance. You don't just grab someone with a fear of spiders and lock them in a room with a tarantula in an terrarium.
This applies to studies as well. Masters and Johnson studied human sexuality by filming people having sex, monitoring their physical responses as they did so, and asking them questions about their experience. You can bet your sweet September that every last one of the participants was informed of what kind of equipment they'd be wearing and that they would be monitored prior to participating in the study and not after.
"Informed consent" is not simply a legal term, and, yes, it applies to this discussion. It applies liek woah. Even if you ask for someone to do a medical procedure on you, they--as the medical professional--are still ethically obligated to detail how that procedure works and the possible results.Posted by: Keli Hu at May 6, 2010 9:32 PM
"How much information is a woman entitled before an abortion?"
As much as she wants. The sky's the limit. Find yourself a nice reference book, Internet source, encyclopedia, whatever you want, and soak up all the information you think you need. Of course, I suspect by saying "The Truth" what you really want to be told is "abortion is wrong! It's murder! It's evil!" What you're demanding here is a moral imperative handed down from on high, not basic medical information that is freely available from a variety of sources. The onus you're placing on abortion providers with these demands of yours is just unreasonable. It's like me going into a McDonalds and expecting the cashier to read me a PETA pamphlet when I order a Big Mac.
"I am totally and completely responsible for my abortion. I paid for it. I was there. I didn't want one, I was afraid and alone. I was told "it was just a bunch of cells." I was 10 weeks along. My child was fully developed. I was told nothing of risks and watched a filmstrip of a bunch of red circles. How is that INFORMED CONSENT?"
I don't know. Did someone defraud you? Because otherwise "informed consent" has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
"I have friends that were FORCED to abort their babies, Marissa. You ok with that too??"
You have a highly curious definition of what "informed consent" is, so who even knows what you mean when you say "FORCED" here?Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:34 PM
Why is it that planned parenthood can get federal monies and pro-life groups can't. I think it would be really cool if pro-lifers had a eco-friendly building that provided things that really helped women and didn't kill there babies and put there lives at risk.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 6, 2010 9:35 PM
I'm sorry but this was just too good to pass up:
"African slaves, at that place and that time in history, were not human beings. Yes, that is correct, Marauder. Of course, you can debate the merits of that: obviously today we consider slavery to be backwards and wrong, because blacks are as capable of participating in society as anyone else is.
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:18 PM"
Did I read that correctly? African slaves were not human beings at that time in history? Wha? Wha? Wut? Apparently they didn't teach you to think in school. (And apparently you didn't read my post on the difference between human beings and persons.)
If only your black hole of intelligence and cold heart were representative of all pro-choicers, because then converting society would be so easy!Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 9:35 PM
I was sold an abortion, Marissa.
You lack of comprehension is not my fault.
Your comments are so sad and pathetic, I actually
feel sorry for you.
OK, I can't listen to more than 25 seconds of the PP video. The music is nauseating.Posted by: Janet at May 6, 2010 9:41 PM
"The onus you're placing on abortion providers with these demands of yours is just unreasonable"
I know reading comprehension isn't your strong skill, so I'll go ahead and point out Carla's complaint again.
She was lied to. The abortionists showed her a video of red circles and claimed that it was representative of her child at 10 weeks gestation. She is asking that abortionists be required to give medically accurate information to women seeking abortion.
Your response is that the abortionist has no obligation to provide such information. It would be like defending a podiatrist who showed me a wrist x-ray and claimed that it represented a bunion.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 9:42 PM
Lauren: slaves were genetically human, yes. Socially they were not recognized as being "human beings". Sorry if this is a really hard concept for you to grasp.
Keli Hu: medical professionals are ethically obligated to tell you how a procedure works if you want them to. If I have heart surgery and I tell the doctor "don't waste my time telling me all the medical mumbo jumbo, just fix my ticker", he's not going to force me to read information I don't care about or want.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:42 PM
Marissa, it's a "really hard concept for me to grasp" because human being is a scientific definition that describes a member of the species homo sapien at any stage from amphimixis to death.
The concept your struggling with is personhood, as described earlier by Scott. To claim that any member of our species is not a "human being" is to make yourself look beyond ignorant. To continue the claim again and and again in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary is mind-numbingly stupid.Posted by: Lauren at May 6, 2010 9:45 PM
Um, hello! Med student here! Why not just ask the med student? Or am i just talking to myself over here?
A physician is REQUIRED to inform the patient prior to surgery with MEDICALLY ACCURATE information. END. OF. STORY.
AGAIN! THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERSONHOOD AND HUMAN BEING. STOP CONFLATING THE TWO BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST HURTING YOURSELF!
Now I can see you are just being willfully ignorant. It's people like you who have no regard for the truth that are in those PP's telling women whatever they feel like whether it's true or not before sending them in for a surgical procedure in which a human life is irrevocably lost.
Artemis, you're quiet now. Are you sure you want people like Marissa batting for your team?Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 9:48 PM
You are a foolish little child pretending to be an adult, and a narcissistic one at that. I say this because 3 year-olds engage in the magical thinking that says there is no objective reality, it's whatever I and my little friends at our make-believe tea party say it is.
Africans weren't humans because a technologically superior, though morally bankrupt people said so?
I suppose 6 Million gassed Jews weren't human either because Hitler said so.
On one thread you have completely adopted the mores of history's greatest monsters.
After WW II the Nazis were tried for crimes against humanity, because wiser humans than you recognized that there IS such a thing as objective reality, and recognized Natural Law as that which supersedes all man-made law. It was the distillation of the Natural Law that gave us this from T. Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Got that sweetie?? ALL men (humans) have their foundational rights from the Creator (God). These rights (LIFE, LIberty, Pursuit of Happiness) are unalienable (man can't take them away). Further, these truths need no explanation, as they are self-evident.
Further, the whole purpose of Government is to secure those rights.
But Marissa says that human is whatever she and her tea-party guests say it is, for whomever they deem worthy of a nod from them.
Newsflash Einstein, even the US Supreme Court has been tacking back toward sanity by upholding state laws that allow people to be tried for the murder of a fetus during the commission of a crime against the mother, regardless of said fetus' gestational age.
I don't know where you went to school, but I think you deserve a full refund.
Africans were not humans? And you expect to be taken seriously?
Get well soon.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 6, 2010 9:48 PM
You have no clue what you're talking about. A surgeon of any kind will discuss risks and benefits with you, send you home to think about it, give you literature to review, then have you sign an informed consent.
Refuse to do this and the doctor has a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to refuse to perform a non emergency procedure on you.Posted by: Mary at May 6, 2010 9:50 PM
Carla: okay Carla. You're as innocent and pure as the driven snow here, factors conspired against you, the clinic lied to you, society lied to you, information was intentionally withheld from you, and so on and so on. Sure, you had (presumably consentual) sex, got pregnant, then paid for and received a medical procedure that terminated your pregnancy, but darnit, Planned Parenthood is evil! It's all Planned Parenthood's fault!
Gerard: I can't believe it took this long for someone to show up ranting about "natural law" and other superstitious nonsense. Anything else you'd like to entertain me with? Some bible verses maybe?Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:54 PM
"Keli Hu: medical professionals are ethically obligated to tell you how a procedure works if you want them to. If I have heart surgery and I tell the doctor 'don't waste my time telling me all the medical mumbo jumbo, just fix my ticker', he's not going to force me to read information I don't care about or want."
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 9:42 PM
This is also shockingly wrong, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the helping professions could tell you. The doctor may--under those circumstances--go ahead and skip some (but not all) of the technical details, but s/he absolutely is ethically obligated to inform the patient of the risks of a procedure, and any negative side-effects that the patient will experience afterwards.
This is what informed consent means. That's how it works. You apparently really don't like the fact that it is relevant here, but you holding this fact in distaste does not "un-fact" it.
You are further going to have to square with the other fact that you are arguing against both sound professional ethics, scientific comprehension, and common sense. Slaves were not "not human beings" because society said they weren't. Society was wrong. Your logic essentially comes down to a tyranny of the majority.
Under that logic, if all the posters on this thread were stranded together on a desert island, you would be in a minority and we could say that you weren't a human being and kill you if we felt like it. And that would not be a morally wrong action. You were not a socially recognized human being at the time, so we, as a society could do whatever we wanted to you and that's fine.
See. It's not so fun when we're hanging your life on the scale, is it?Posted by: Keli Hu at May 6, 2010 9:57 PM
I suppose you think the scientific method and speciation are "superstitious nonsense" as well, judging from your lack of understanding of them.
I really am starting to pitty you. There are 6 year olds with a better grasp of reality. How do you make it through your day?
Thank God you don't hold any position of power or your nonsense would condone the worst of humanities atrocities! Define anyone as non-human and kill them all away! You sound like a raving lunatic of the same mindset as chairman mao and hitler.Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 10:02 PM
I'm not on this thread to entertain you, narcissist that you are.
I'm here to denounce you as a monster. There's a difference.
So you reject the basis for the Nuremberg Trials!
You really think Hitler was justified and Africans once upon a time were not humans.
I think that's pretty much all we need to hear from you.
Perhaps others will feel charitable and try to reach you. I think that you are sick, twisted and malevolent. Further, for people like you words will not reach you. One day you'll get tired of the stench emanating from your mouth and soul. Then you'll be ready to hear the words spoken here tonight.
But not now.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 6, 2010 10:05 PM
I really don't give a rip what you think of me or my abortion story. It doesn't matter in the least to me how you think it happened or how much therapy you think I need. You don't know the half of it. I pray no one ever comes to you and tells you they regret their abortion.
I know that you are pro-choice, but are you in agreement with your new playmate's take on Africans and Jews?Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 6, 2010 10:09 PM
"This is also shockingly wrong, as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the helping professions could tell you. The doctor may--under those circumstances--go ahead and skip some (but not all) of the technical details, but s/he absolutely is ethically obligated to inform the patient of the risks of a procedure, and any negative side-effects that the patient will experience afterwards."
Right. Except there are virtually no medical risks or negative side-effects associated with abortion 99% of the time. And you can save the flood of "abortion causes breast cancer!" or "abortion increases suicide risk 500%!" links from bogus sites like WND and lifenews.com, thanks.
"Under that logic, if all the posters on this thread were stranded together on a desert island, you would be in a minority and we could say that you weren't a human being and kill you if we felt like it. And that would not be a morally wrong action. You were not a socially recognized human being at the time, so we, as a society could do whatever we wanted to you and that's fine."
If we want to be honest with ourselves, that's how society works, yeah.
"Perhaps others will feel charitable and try to reach you. I think that you are sick, twisted and malevolent. Further, for people like you words will not reach you. One day you'll get tired of the stench emanating from your mouth and soul. Then you'll be ready to hear the words spoken here tonight."
What really bothers you about me is that I've completely undercut your strategy in this game by simply rejecting your arbitrary rules. You're used to having an unbeatable hand because you can simply point to "natural law" and "objective morality" and say "see, my moral reasoning is much better than yours! I'm right and you're wrong!" So now that that tactic is out, you're reduced to casting aspersions on my character about hating blacks and Jews when I never, ever said anything of the sort.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 10:16 PM
Ok I think I know what's going on here.
Marissa must be experiencing PSS (post-abortion syndrome).
That is the only way to explain the shocking beliefs that she is forced to cling to in order to justify her abortion. She is obviously somebody who is doing anything humanly possible--even condoning the Holocaust--in order to avoid facing the terrible truth--that she killed her own child. How else can you explain such obtuseness and disregard for truth?
I will pray for you, Marissa, because it is obvious you are beyond reason tonight.Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 10:18 PM
"Right. Except there are virtually no medical risks or negative side-effects associated with abortion 99% of the time."
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 10:16 PM
Still wrong. Are you trying to be wrong?
Look, even skipping ABC, or PASS, there's still medical risks and negative side-effects that can occur with abortion, as with any surgery, up to and including, death. Short of that, there is a risk of scarring, which might have an effect on fertility in the future, and of PTSD, which is a risk with most surgeries. Furthermore, abortion procedures require the patient to take at least a local anesthetic, which can have psychological side-effects of its own. This is just the obvious stuff. Scott, as the med student, would know more...assuming he'll still talk to you.
You must be a troll, so I shan't waste further time arguing with you. Just...you're a moron. Like, a really big moron.Posted by: Keli Hu at May 6, 2010 10:26 PM
Two Quotes of yours:
"African slaves, at that place and that time in history, were not human beings. Yes, that is correct, Marauder."
" So now that that tactic is out, you're reduced to casting aspersions on my character about hating blacks and Jews when I never, ever said anything of the sort."
Sorry honey, but you are also a filthy liar who can't keep up with herself.
"What really bothers you about me is that I've completely undercut your strategy in this game by simply rejecting your arbitrary rules."
Again sweetie, get a refund on that education. Natural Law theory is the philosophical system upon which the Declaration of Independence is founded. It was also employed by every civilized nation in the world after WW II to define humanity's identity, and the moral worth of every single human being in the absolute.
It was meant as a rebuke against dictators, and has been used in trying modern despots in every internationally constituted tribunal in the world.
So it's the civilized world against little Marissa who came to Jill Stanek's all ready to impress us with her searing insight and knowledge. You are sick and pathetic.
The tactic of using Natural Law isn't out because YOU came here tonight ruling it out of bounds. It has withstood the test of time and is integral to world governance. It remains very much in force, here as elsewhere.
"What really bothers you about me is that"...YOU"RE SICK.
Get well soon.
You wrote: 'Your question is like asking "how can bank robbers possibly have "choice" if they cannot afford food and clothing and therefore feel as though they must rob a bank?"'
Well, that is exactly the point! Neither the aborting mother nor the robber have any kind of legitimate "choice". When a person gets hungry enough, the moral center of the brain shuts down. Ever wonder how people can engage in cannibalism? When a person is desperate and society refuses to help them, they tend to make violent, unfair "choices." If it cool with you for a mother to choose to kill her offspring because she doesn't have enough resources to raise it, logically, it should be ok for your hypothetical thief to choose to gun you down for access to your sandwich. In reality, however, sane people would think neither is ok.
Violence is not ok inside the womb or out! I do not understand why it is so difficult for abortion-rights advocates to comprehend. You apparently do not care about hungry people, and I REALLY hope you support war and capital punishment as well, as I greatly dislike inconsistency. I get that there are some crazy pro-lifers out there (as there are crazy people in any movement) but that doesn't excuse the fact you are justifying women having vacuums stuck in their bodies to rip out their children!
And, actually, your question perfectly illustrates one of my favorite pro-life quotes from a great, (real) feminist. Enjoy!
“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged.” -Mattie BrinkerhoffnPosted by: Adair at May 6, 2010 10:31 PM
Oooh, the Declaration of Independence--a document that has no legal authority whatsoever. "It was also employed by every civilized nation in the world after WW II to define humanity's identity, and the moral worth of every single human being in the absolute." Complete nonsense. Nothing said in this statement has any basis in reality whatsoever. "The tactic of using Natural Law isn't out because YOU came here tonight ruling it out of bounds. It has withstood the test of time and is integral to world governance. It remains very much in force, here as elsewhere." It remains in force... in your very vibrant imagination. I don't have to rule it "out of bounds"--it's bunk and I'm not going to debate on your terms where you get to determine what is right and wrong based on what "natural law" means to you.Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 10:39 PM
"I get that there are some crazy pro-lifers out there (as there are crazy people in any movement) but that doesn't excuse the fact you are justifying women having vacuums stuck in their bodies to rip out their children!"
Some? I feel like I've spent the last couple of hours in an insane asylum arguing with the inmates (who of course abide by their own novel ideas of "natural law" that always makes them right and always makes you wrong).Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 10:43 PM
Well, by your relativistic thought, nobody is right, and nobody is wrong.
We just all live in our own la-la land where whatever we say goes. Is that about right?
Pretty soon you're going to start arguing in your own language to avoid having to use "arbitrarily defined terms" like English words to avoid "losing" the "game". Just speak your own language, dear, because obviously there is no point in arguing at all if your claim is that there is no such thing as truth. Just go believe whatever your makebelieve tells you.Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 10:46 PM
Green baby killing. Hmm... Well I suppose you can try and package it up nice and green. But it's still baby killing.Posted by: Martin at May 6, 2010 10:58 PM
Keep talking. Now you betray that you've never read the history of the Nuremberg Trials or that you even pick up a newspaper to follow current events.
Look honey, just use Google, or get someone who knows how to read to help you. It's all right there, but contrary to your assertions Natural Law is the very philosophy upon which our law rests, was used at Nurmberg, and has been used to prosecute the likes of Milosevec and Sadaam Hussein in modern times.
The tactical blunder made by dirty little trolls such as yourself is that your bloated self-image leads you to believe that we are beneath you, and that if you simply distort and deny reality, that we might be cowed into silence.
The problem for you, my sick little troll, is that the aggregate IQ here at Casa de Stanek is so far beyond yours that you can't even conceptualize how really bereft you are.
You have proclaimed Africans to once not have been human, then denied it, and got caught. You deny the facts surrounding Natural Law to the point where I have written you off as the ignorant little beast that you are.
It must really sting to walk into a place like Jill's house, convinced that you are the smartest person in the room and get shown up to be the racist, bigoted little monster that you are by those you deem beneath you.
Better luck next time kid.
Get that refund.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 6, 2010 11:03 PM
Carla- I to think you are in need of good counseling that only a really good lawyer can provide. Have you ever investigated to see if any of your civil rights were violated when you weren't fully informed. When the makers of cigarettes had information or science knowing the full risks of cigarette smoking and didn't share all of the information with the public they were held accountable. Wouldn't the same rule apply to abortion providers if they knew the risks involved or knew they were killing a baby and didn't share this information with the women coming for abortions couldn't they be held accountable. I sure hope someone or a group of someone's hold them accountable before they get it into their thick skulls that they can make women have abortions at their discretion there already doing that to some economically disadvantaged women.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 6, 2010 11:50 PM
Now that we've put a stake through that little trolls heart, back to the original topic.
It seems that mega centers are not so proactive as the liars at PP would have us believe. They are really a countermeasure to the tactic of shutting individual clinics by bagging the abortionists when they mess up and lose their license to practice.
In having several abortionists under one roof, it's harder to shut them down.
However, unlike the rantings of the sick troll, PP is NOT here to stay, and will fall under the weight of its own filth. We need to keep the pressure up on abortionists who screw up. The more we nail in court and have lose their license or go to jail, the fewer there will be in the megacenters, putting greater pressure on those remaining and forcing them to fail as well.
The great tactical advantage in having a megacenter is also their Achilles Heel. When they go down, there isn't another center anywhere in sight.
We need to ring these beasts with crisis pregnancy centers and starve them. Remember that Abby Johnson who used to be a PP center director has told us that PP doesn't make money on its other services. The money is in abortion.
We need to advertise in the open near these centers for medical malpractice attorneys willing to help bring PP megacenters down through a blizzard of lawsuits.
Most of all, we need to pray. The victory has already been determined by Jesus. We need to win it now.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 6, 2010 11:58 PM
"Some? I feel like I've spent the last couple of hours in an insane asylum arguing with the inmates (who of course abide by their own novel ideas of "natural law" that always makes them right and always makes you wrong)."
Well, as everyone knows, abortion is a very controversial topic; both sides think (or know, rather) that they are right. I would definitely not describe myself or anyone on this blog as "crazy" (I was thinking people who shoot doctors, say that women who have abortions are all sl*ts, etc), but we do strongly disagree with you. When you disagree with the pro-life position, everything pro-lifers say is bound to sound ludicrous. Likewise, everything you say, to me, sounds like a pathetic, illogical attempt to justify the killing of preborn humans.
One of my favorite pro-life advocates, Gandhi, stated "it seems to be clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime." It was not always clear to me. Some people take longer to acknowledge the fact abortion is wrong than others. Some never admit it. Humans are stubborn; we don't like to change our beliefs. It took me quite a long time to admit to myself that abortion was, in fact, wrong.
I am a fan of long-winded stories that have little to do with the topic at hand, so here is a little story that I read in a book:
-A rabbi's young son went off into the forest. When he returned home, his father asked "what were you doing in the forest?".
The little boy answered "I was trying to find God."
The rabbi stated "well, that's wonderful, but you know, God is the exactly the same no matter where we go."
The little boy looked at his father and said earnestly, "God is, but I'm not." -
Good stuff. I think it applies to any concept, including abortion. The arguements are always the same, and eventually you will hear them all. Therefore, oftentimes, in order to change an opinion, the person himself has to change, not the arguements. I can argue the pro-life position until I am blue in the face (and will continue to do so!), but I can really only hope everyone changes to look at all humans with love and respect, including moms and their unborn children.
Anyway, I really need to get back to studying for finals. Carry on everyone!
Study hard and good luck. May your professors ask everything that you know !! ;-)Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 12:40 AM
Thank you for that post, Adair. I too wish you luck on your exams.Posted by: Fed Up at May 7, 2010 1:05 AM
@ Gerard Nadal 11:58 PM -- I skipped most of this thread because it was off topic, but . . .
Could another Achilles Heel of these mega-centers be the overhead that they have? Yes, if there are three abortionists instead of one, the whole center can't be shut down. They will continue with two.
But overhead is a fixed cost, right? So even if they are doing only 2/3 of the abortions they usually do, they still have to heat, light, maintain the building. Could this be the real reason they are going after LEEDS certification? Is it simply a way to allow them to continue killing babies with fewer personnel, and still allow them to meet the overhead associated with any business - without eating into their profit margin?
Any thoughts? I'm looking at this from an economic POV, vs scientific, but it just makes me wonder. And then they can window-dress the killing centers as beautiful "green" buildings when that i$n't really their rationale at all.
Posted by: sabella at May 7, 2010 3:41 AM
Lauren, excellent research.
Gerald, sabella, on topic: The Star Tribune article stated, "Using $16 million it has quietly raised from private donors...." I think PP has hit on a good scheme. Generally speaking, donors like to give for things, not intangibles. They like to be able to look at something and get the satisfaction of saying, "I paid for that."
So at least in this case and in the case of the PP in Houston, PP is conducting building campaigns so the company moves in with no mortgage. It's so much easier to run a business with that monkey off one's back.
In their twisted way, PP is borrowing from the concept of church building campaigns. Drawing the analogy further, PP's are 501c3's - so they pay no property taxes either.Posted by: Jill Stanek at May 7, 2010 6:02 AM
I just want to make sure I understand your position correctly. Humanbeing (more properly, human person) is a social construct, one without grounding in ontology i.e. unlike the concept of logic or mathematics which exist apart from us (2+2=4 regardless of whether we knew it or not), there is no concept of human being that is "out there" waiting for us to be discovered. Hence, because it is a construct of our own (according to you), we can deem who is and who is not a member and any exclusions we make would not be "wrong" in any moral sense, but simply a prefecrence or perhaps a prudential judgement. Thus at one point we deemed that blacks were not human beings. Today we deem that the unborn are not human beings. In the furure,we may deem that anothyer group is not considered human beings, perhaps women. Anything we do to these non-human beings would not be morally wrong. So it wouldn't be wrong to own or even lynch a black man (when he wasn't a human being), today it isn't wrong to kill a fetus, and tomorrow it may not be morally wrong to enforce a law that says all women must stay at home and have 15 children while being considered the prop[erty of her husband. If we as a society so inclined to deem that status upon women, there would be nothing morally wrong about that. It would just be, just like the moral status we have given to teh unborn and that we once gave to blacks.
Is this a correct understanding of your views?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2010 6:23 AM
Sort of like how some people think month-old fetuses are human beings too. You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have a right to make up your own facts too.
Posted by: Marissa at May 6, 2010 6:38 PM
2 points of correction.
1) At the gestational age of 4 weeks (1 month) the human being is still an embryo - not a fetus. The distinction is that organs are still in the developmental stage, however the existence of flesh and blood is unquestionable. Precisely what type of flesh and blood the embryo is - is a matter of scientific fact.
2) Contrary to your own opinion here's the facts about human embryos:
"Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote). ... The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual." (Carlson, Bruce M., Patten's Foundations of Embryology, 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p.3.)
"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote." [Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]
"Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zygtos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
"Although human life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed. ... The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity." (O'Rahilly, Ronan and Müller, Fabiola. Human Embryology and Teratology, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29).
"the term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." (J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers, pages 17 and 23.)
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being." [Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]
"Embryo: An organism in the earliest stage of development; in a man, from the time of conception to the end of the second month in the uterus." (Dox, Ida G. et al. The Harper Collins Illustrated Medical Dictionary. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993, p. 146.
"every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." (E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant (3rd Edition). Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life." [Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]
Marissa - obviously you are horribly ill-informed about this topic. But more than that, it appears you have ulterior motives for holding such distorted views of human beings and their development. You're going to spend a lot more time with yourself than we will with you. You might want to be intellectually honest with yourself before trying to convince others.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 7, 2010 7:32 AM
Wow looks like it's ignorance hour at the blog today.
Posted by: Scott at May 6, 2010 8:29 PM
Posted by: Kristen
at May 7, 2010 7:52 AM
Thanks, I needed that laugh! How true, how true!
"You have a right to your opinion..."
Marissa, I have to take issue with this statement as well. Do we have an intrinsic right to our own opinions? Or is that "right" just some prudential judgement that was deemed by society and which society can take away? Is a right to an opinion a social construct? Or is it a transcendent right? Could society take away a right to an opinion just as easily as it takes away other rights, and it would be neither wrong nor right, but it would just be?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2010 8:11 AM
I've been a reader of Jill's blog for awhile, but have never commented until now. I am so proud of the defense of life given in this thread! Interesting how Marissa and Artemis haven't responded lately - I'm thinking it's because they realize their arguments have been discredited and they have nothing else to say that can sound the least bit rational and justifiable.
Carla, you are an inspiration and such a brave strong woman. Jill, what a wonderful witness this blog is - thank you!
Marissa, please provide a detailed philosophical explanation that invalidates Natural Law. You claimed it was bunk, but provided no evidence to support your claim.Posted by: Lauren at May 7, 2010 8:35 AM
I spoke to my lawyer some time ago. Almost 20 years ago is a long time. There would most likely be no paper trail. The clinic moved. My word against theirs etc. etc. etc.
My declaration through Operation Outcry is filed as a friend of the court brief in prolife legislation. That serves as justice for me and my daughter for now.
There will be more lawsuits in this country over abortion. All the way to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe V Wade.
Thank you! God bless you! Here is my abortion story
With all of the assertions you made yesterday, I am hoping you are doing your research to find sources to back them up. The burden of proof is on you. It may take some time. We can wait.
Welcome, Laura. Nice to have finally commenting! :)Posted by: Bobby Bambino at May 7, 2010 8:55 AM
Wow...looks like I missed the flurry of rhetorical nonsense yesterday from the dynamic dum-dums...err..I mean duo of A&M.
Keep it up A&M ! I need some humor to keep me sane at work...Posted by: RSD at May 7, 2010 9:02 AM
Good times, RSD. Good times.Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 9:28 AM
To Marissa, Artemis et al. :I am not a biologist, but I still don't know how a human egg and sperm can combine and produce something that is NOT human. This just doesn't make sense. What does the union of an human egg and a human sperm produce? A chicken? A frog? A Yeti?
Many people do not know that during slavery, African American and men were operated on WITHOUT ANESTHESIA in scientific experiments. Slaveowners often didn't want to care for elderly or sick slaves; the father of the famous women's rights and anti-slavery crusader, Sojourner Truth, starved and froze to death after his owner turned him out in the middle of an upstate New York winter. Some slaveowners even offered elderly and sick slaves that they didn't want to have to care for as "subjects" for these ghoulish operations. This happened to Native Americans too, so apparently society didn't think they were human, either.
Oh yeah, not all of us are white, or Republican, or males, or even Christians!Posted by: Phillymiss at May 7, 2010 10:19 AM
This is like the movie Soylent Green where they killed off unwanted elderly or adults who found life without purpose anymore.
A mega-mill to kill off not only unborn children but the spirits of all these woman who may mother a child someday. A narccisistic woman who has killed off one of her own then later mothers a child is a contradication to a healthy society. Just look at our present amoral society. Women of this world need to take their role and responsibility seriously. The men of this generation sure let us down. God help us.
"A narccisistic woman who has killed off one of her own then later mothers a child is a contradication to a healthy society"
Cite please?Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2010 11:46 AM
I think the cite is Nurse Carol, Hal. LOLPosted by: carla at May 7, 2010 12:08 PM
"Yeah, those narcissistic murdering"
And you Artemis are their Queen.
You are every bit as depraved and distorted as Carla is loving and radiant. Perhaps one day you'll allow her, or one of her sisters in post-abortive healing ministry, to show you the way home.
Get well soon.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 12:34 PM
In reading the comments on this thread, it is so obvious why the anti-choice movement has no credibility in the reality based community. The responses to Marissa were full of sophomoric ad-hominems (what would Jesus say?) the majority of which broke down into "Marissa is so stupid." Loyal Catholic, Gerard Nadal, wasn't being very Christian in his paternalistic and condescending comments which were peppered with the misogynisitc "sweetie" and other terms of endearment. When he lost his temper, he reverted to type and accused Marissa of being twisted and sick. Talk about pot meet kettle. Then we had medical student, Scott, who accused Marissa of being "post abortive" - a totally ridiculous notion, frequently seen here, that any woman who is pro-choice has had an abortion. As I have noted, the lunacy of this position is beyond comprehension. (Many pro-choice women are lesbians who have never had sex with a man, let alone an abortion.) This meme seems to be a projection of some kind of "wishful thinking" that seeks to justify why women would be soooo bad. The virtual pro-life psych diagnosis seems to be that the only way a woman could justify "murder," is if she can't deal with "murdering her child." That pro-life women, like me, seek to maintain womens reproductive freedom because we don't want to go back to the bad old days, is totally alien in the anti-choice community.
But the venom shown by the "life" community, on this thread, isn't really surprising given the hostility shown by the whole punitive nature of the anti-choice movement. The righteous belief that the pro-life movement (our way or the highway - or the back alley) is the sole possessor of a greater truth is indicative of a dogmatic world view which goes beyond narcissistic into the pathological especially in its worship of the fetus.
While a recent poll showed a slight majority of Americans identify as pro-life, the details of the polls show that the majority seek to keep abortion legal albeit with limitations. Roe isn't going down anytime soon and if it does and Jesusland criminalizes abortions, enlightened areas of the country will still keep it legal.
So regarding "killing babies/human beings/pre-born humans, etc" have fun in your bizarro world where you can feel so good because you're emissaries of all that is good and holy. The rest of us think that if you weren't so "twisted," you'd actually be amusing.
And just remember, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. Meanwhile keep your hands out of the uteri of American women. They don't want your help. They have the freedom and ability to make their own reproductive decisions, thank you very much.
Zygotes don't rule.Posted by: Artemis at May 7, 2010 1:00 PM
Sheesh, Artemis. Do you feel better now? If you don't want religion to figure in this dialog, then please refrain from bring it up in your own posts. It shouldn't be that dificult to do.
"That pro-life women, like me, seek to maintain womens reproductive freedom because we don't want to go back to the bad old days, is totally alien in the anti-choice community."
Are you saying you are pro-life? You are pro-choice at best if you believe in "choice".Posted by: Janet at May 7, 2010 1:10 PM
I think you're right that overhead costs are going to be enormous for the Planned Parenthood mega-centers. Don't forget that catering costs for their lavish fundraising parties. I'm guessing that the green technology they have incorporated into this building was much more expensive to install than "non-green" would have been. But who cares from their standpoint? Uncle Sam will subsidize whatever money they don't rake in from baby killing, condoms, and donations from Big-Abortion sources.
"That pro-life women, like me, seek to maintain womens"
Correction - should be "pro-choice" - oh, I know that there will probably by a flurry of comments about how I, in my heart, really know the evil of my ways and, as such, am getting ready to "see the light." LOL!
"If you don't want religion to figure in this dialog, then please refrain from bring it up in your own posts."
I am merely trying to point out that abortion, as sin, isn't held by all religions. Many of those who comment here seem to believe that because their religion proscribes abortion, then abortion is, ipso facto, intrinsically evil. They also season their quotes with bible passages and prayers as though they are in sole possession of the religious truth about abortion and that ain't necessarily so.Posted by: Artemis at May 7, 2010 1:20 PM
You are every bit as depraved and distorted...
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 12:34 PM
Love those Christian ad-hominems, Nadal. BTW, my last response to Nadal's insults was zapped. Interesting...Posted by: Artemis at May 7, 2010 1:23 PM
Because you swore......interesting.Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 1:26 PM
You seem to labor under the delusion that Christians need to be sweet and kind when staring evil in the eye.
My contempt for Marissa, who believes Africans to once not have been human, is a very appropriate response. You may wish to read some of the OT prophets, and even Jesus' denunciations of the Scribes and Pharisees. You may wish to read some of St. Paul and St Peter while you are at it.
Yes, my response was a reversion to type. This wasn't someone who was wounded or questioning who needed gentle reassurance or direction.
This was a malevolent individual who declares whole races of people to not be human beings, and who has taken similar aim at the unborn. You're no better.
Your malevolent friend challenged me to throw out some Bible verses, no doubt so she could have fun ridiculing them. Note that I didn't, and I'll use just one to explain why:
"Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot."
That was Jesus Himself. He understood that people such as yourself and Marissa are no better than swine (coming from a Jew, that's as low as you go).
Don't let me keep you from the mud.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 1:30 PM
Do bible passages and prayers offend you or is it the fact that most of us don't agree with your extreme pro-choice position? There are atheists and agnostics who comment here regularly who are pro-life and are not offended by the religious tone of the comments. Perhaps you should try to figure out why you are such an advocate of abortion, instead of concerning yourself with why the rest of us are pro-life. I mean that sincerely.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 1:30 PM
Oink, Oink!Posted by: Artemis at May 7, 2010 1:48 PM
Artemis, you complain constantly about the use of religious arguments by pro-lifers while completely ignoring all the scientific evidence of the humanity of the unborn child Gerald and others have been giving you. Your diversionary tactics are transparent.
By the way, what reaction do you think would be appropriate to your BFF Marissa's attempt to assert that black people once weren't human beings because society said they weren't? Are you surprised at the derisive laughter, the disbelief we've shown? What is your take on this question? And can you manage to sound like an adult rational human being while saying it?
I doubt it.
Dang...Pro-lifers are now the ones living in Bizarro World? And we're the ones being called sick and twisted for not wanting to kill the life of the unborn?
How does one GET to this level of (un)reality?Posted by: RSD at May 7, 2010 2:30 PM
This is the thread of ironies. Anyone find it strange how PP, the number one contributor and promotor of artificial contraception, is trying to be eco friendly when several new studies have come out revealing that there have been several mutations in fish due to the chemicals from birth control pills running in suage? Look it up... its some pretty funny stuff.
Artemis (and I also find your name ironic given that Artemis was the goddess of fertility, among other things), an argument against that attitudes, whether justified or unjustified, of some of the pro-life people in the thread does not argue for the prochoice side. You are arguing that they are simply using adhominems when you yourslef are using it against them. Have you considered that? yet another irony.
but before you accuse me of the same, let us exame some of the actual arguments you made in your last post. I know these are not the only ones but i do not have sufficient time to address them all.
This meme seems to be a projection of some kind of "wishful thinking" that seeks to justify why women would be soooo bad. The virtual pro-life psych diagnosis seems to be that the only way a woman could justify "murder," is if she can't deal with "murdering her child." That pro-life women, like me, seek to maintain womens reproductive freedom because we don't want to go back to the bad old days, is totally alien in the anti-choice community. ""
The "we must legalize abortion because if not we will return to the back alley abortions" argument:
This does not adress at all why it is justified to have abortions; all it does is allegedly take the danger away, and only to an extent. Let me expose the problem with such a statmenet by making another one. I can argue that many people are killed while trying to rob a bank, a store, or someone else's house. Let us therefore make stealing legal, lest we return to the bad old days when people had to risk their lives to commit theft. it sure makes sense to me, doesnt it?
"So regarding "killing babies/human beings/pre-born humans, etc" have fun in your bizarro world where you can feel so good because you're emissaries of all that is good and holy. The rest of us think that if you weren't so "twisted," you'd actually be amusing."
Are you therefore saying that killing babies is NOT what is going on in an abortion? Im curious: do you prefer the euphemism "terminating a pregnancy?" which though true does not explain how it occurs, i.e. terminating a human being? Please, I am an igonrant poor little prolife person who has yet to graduate from high school. Enlighten me with your knowledge. I have always been taught in my science classes that a human life first begins when the sperm and the egg unite, and the result is a unique human individual with its own set of DNA and the ability to further develop. Please address me on this. I am wrong after all... Am I not?
"I am merely trying to point out that abortion, as sin, isn't held by all religions. Many of those who comment here seem to believe that because their religion proscribes abortion, then abortion is, ipso facto, intrinsically evil. They also season their quotes with bible passages and prayers as though they are in sole possession of the religious truth about abortion and that ain't necessarily so."
The converse is true. Just because a religion hopds a certain position, or because religions disagree on a certain issue does not make them automiatically right or wrong. Some are right, some are wrong, or all of them could be wrong. What matters is the argument itself and whether it holds. Most of the arguments I have seen against abortion are more along the line of, "it is wrong to kill an innocent human being, the unborn child is an innocent human being, therefore it is wrong to kill an unborn child." Abortion is not wrong because a religion says it is wrong; in fact most religions who hold that it is wrong would state so because of what i mentioned above, or some variation of it. If you wish to argue against what a religion holds, do not argue because it is a religion that holds it. Rather, look at why the religion holds it and argue against the argument itself. The same if you agree with some tenet of a religion. I for example do not believe in the tenets of the Catholic Church simply because they are the tenets of the Catholic Church. I look at why they are tenets and the reasoning behind them before i choose to agree (and possibly disagree as well).
Posted by: AngelaT
at May 7, 2010 2:33 PM
Finally (and this is directed to the other prochoicers as well), arguing off of moral relativism does no good, as we have witnesssed with Marissa. do you not believe that there is to be an objective morality? remember, if you argue that morality is subjective, you are already making an objective statement about morality. moral relativism is therfore a paradox that contradicts itself. You cannot have something both right and wrong. Either abortion is wrong, or it is not. if it is wrong, then the law cannot make it right, it would simply mean that the law is wrong.
Wow. What an absolutely astonishingly horrid representation of Christianity some of us have made on this thread. Marissa may not be in the right, but under no circumstances does that give us the right or provide justification for attacking her on a personal level. We are not battling against persons, but against principalities and powers. Marissa happens to be in the grip of some of those principalities and powers. We will not win her over by venom and hatred, but by demonstrating a love for her that is rooted in recognizing the Christ that is within her. I am ardently pro-life and saddened by her statements, but attacking her will not win her conversion or convince her of the truth but will instead estrange her further from THE Truth.Posted by: Brandy Miller at May 7, 2010 4:29 PM
Brandy, the only thing I take issue with that you wrote above is this:
We will not win her over by venom and hatred, but by demonstrating a love for her that is rooted in recognizing the Christ that is within her.
Unless she is a follower of Christ, there IS no "Christ within her." I'm not sure what you meant by that. The Bible is very clear on this.Posted by: Kel at May 7, 2010 4:36 PM
I was all for truth and charity until Marissa started blabbing about Blacks not being human beings or that there was no moral basis for the Nuremburg trials.
That, and the fact that even after being presented with the truth, Marissa didn't even acknowledge it, much less attempt to understand it. She made it very clear that she was not interested in searching for the truth, but to simply "win" the "game."
Do you really think displaying contempt for evil ideas such as the ones she held was un-Christian? Even Christ said "get behind me Satan!" to one of his own.
Just had another thought for you. I know you think I have not taken responsibility for my abortion. Which is the farthest thing from the truth in my life. I wouldn't be here if not for accepting exactly what abortion did in the killing of my own child. I am still horrified that I was even there that day. Aubrey died by my choice.
What I am wondering is when the abortion clinic lied to me and told me that "it was just a bunch of cells" when I was 10 weeks along and showed me a filmstrip of a bunch of red circles and didn't tell me any of the risks of abortion whose responsibility is it that they lied to me? Mine? Is it my responsibility that they lied? Is it my responsibility that I was lied to by omission?Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 6:42 PM
"What an absolutely astonishingly horrid representation of Christianity some of us have made on this thread."
I could not disagree more. All of the people on this thread, with the exception of the trolls, did an excellent job of defending their position. Perhaps they were not as meek as you would have liked, but I found their passion and thoughtfulness to be admirable. Though I do not identify as Christian, I feel that these pro-lifers did much credit to their faith. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see that.
"We will not win her over by venom and hatred,"
Then, it's a good thing that none of the pro-lifers on this thread displayed either :)Posted by: Lucy at May 7, 2010 7:10 PM
I have been reading the posts by Marissa and all the responses since. Some things have become very clear to me. You have been so beautifully honest and truly vulnerable about your abortion and your loss of your little daughter. But in sharing this w/Marissa, it's like trying to open your heart to a snake or a scorpion. They will NEVER care at all about you or your feelings.
You are trying to help her undertand and SHE FLAT OUT REFUSES due to her own issues, while she condesendingly advises YOU to seek therapy. Please don't waste any more precious breathe of yours on trying to explain your experience to her. She doesn't care and she never will. I do care and that's why it breaks my heart to see you trying so hard to get her to understand and be a human being about it. Your wasting your time.
You don't deserve the way she has talked to you. She considers herself a defender of women's rights, but when a women is hurting after her abortion, her response might as well be, "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP." She doesn't care about "women". She only cares about women who share HER views. Really open-minded of her!
She doesn't care that you were flat out lied to about the development about your baby. Would she ever tolerate a doctor lying to his patient about any other procedure. I'm sure not.
I'm really sorry for all you've been through and for the loss of your little girl. You didn't deserve what happened to you. You don't have to explain or defend yourself to ANYONE.
Please don't waste your heart on people like Marissa. What she says and feels is completely unimportant. It's what God says and feels about you that is important. I know and you know that He loves you so and has forgiven you for whatever your part was. I won't judge you and neither should anyone else.
God bless you,
Aw thank you, Kris.
Believe me when I say that as a daughter of the King I know whose I am. :)
I hear ya. I have been a mod here for 2 years now. I have read much much worse about me than anything Marissa has said.
I think what we all tried to do on this thread is to help Marissa to see how intellectually dishonest she is to us, but mostly to herself. She has no sources to cite, nothing to back up her assertions.
I appreciate so much your heartfelt comment. Truly. I am glad you shared your heart with me.
God bless you, Kris!!Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 8:16 PM
What is abortion? It is terminating a pregnancy. Or is it killing a baby? My question is this? What is the difference in those two statements? We throw around words like "choice" like we have rights to control another person's life or death. The government gave us a right to kill. Someone who injures a pregnant woman and kills the baby within is charged with murder. But another woman can walk into an abortion mill and choose to kill her child. So that baby is only protected if the mother "wants" him or her.
Also, more women die from abortions than ever did from "back alley" abortions. This isn't about "choice", it's about money and selfishness.
There's another scripture that talks about pulling them from the fire. Sometimes people need a strong witness. If you study the old and new testament you will see some people were met with strong rebukes. When they start defending the killing of innocent babies like there discussing the weather they need a strong rebuke. Once before I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit I was young and very ignorant I had went out and was putting gas in my car and smoking at the same time. A lady I knew threw a gentle rebuke my way I didn't appreciate it but listened. These individuals who's hearts are so hardened if you rebuke them and they continue to insult you often attacking your very personhood oh yeah they need to be rebuked again. You might just end up saving their soul. At the very least you will let them know that bully doesn't work here.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 7, 2010 8:35 PM
It is no wonder this world is self-destructing. Eco-friendly over life! Wow! I read some of the comments and it is truly frightening to see so much anger, cynicism, bitterness and evil displayed by those who viciously defend the murdering of the most innocent of God’s creation. I know you don’t want to hear this, but may God have mercy on you. They are so confused and lost people. Certainly, they are not aware of this, otherwise they would fall on their knees and beg for God’s forgiveness.
As Kris points out, sadly there is no use arguing with those that have allowed themselves to become so callus and immune to sin. The one thing we can do is pray for them, in the hope that they will see the Light eventually, before it is too late for them. In the end, whether you believe it or not, we will all face God.
Something to reflect on - from Fr. John Corapi: Many learned people in society “just don’t get it”. These people do not see what is really going on in society because they lack “humility”. [ In other words, they know better…they know better than God. The sin of “pride”. What was Lucifer’s downfall? ] Humility is the virtue of acknowledging God as the author of all that is good. In order to be humble we must have a “poverty of spirit”. By such, we will have an “acknowledgment of the Truth”.
I recommend you view the following powerful video of a beautiful lady, survivor of a botched abortion. God bless all those that cherish life and our Lord’s Teachings. "Blessed are the “meek”, for theirs shall be the Kingdom of God." And for those that despised my post on faith and the Truth, well, you are in my prayers.Posted by: Georgina at May 7, 2010 8:58 PM
Does anyone know the name or number of the bill President Obama passed when he was a senator that denied aborted babies that were alive, medical treatment? That building will save them lots of money especially if it has solar panels. I think as pro-lifers we need eco-friendly buildings too where we could be a real blessing to ladies something that would help them want to keep their babies. Not all environmentalists are pro-choice some are pro-life. Thanks to those who prayed. I made an A in Environmental Science and a C in Algebra. Still waiting on my Cultural Anthropology grade. Did you know that with the Stimulus Package if you build a house and put solar panels in it you can recoup up to 80 percent of your cost.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 7, 2010 9:02 PM
If you visit a pro-choice blog a lot of the arguments these ladies are making here you will hear repeated there. Once when visiting a pro-choice blog I made the suggestion that when the moms life was truly at risk the mom should have a C-Section they were'nt too happy with that. Some of the people though were really nice and some well just weren't. When they asked for studies to prove what I said I just invited them here. Good news I was speaking with someone yesterday and was able to share with her some of the facts I've learned here and she asked that I send her the name of that bill Obama passed. That was encouraging I think a lot of people don't understand fully what the abortion industry does.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 7, 2010 9:23 PM
Born Alive Infant Protection Act
Jill Stanek testified what she knew to be true of induced labor abortion. She held a baby aborted alive(he had Down Syndrome)until he died. She couldn't bear to have him die alone in a soiled utility closet.
Usually my comments on prochoice blogs do not get published.
Oh, and Obama did not pass that bill. He voted against giving any treatment to babies born alive after abortion. He was the only one to vote against it.Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 9:34 PM
I understand your concern for the hard line that I took with Marissa. It is normally NOT the approach I take. Far from being reactionary, my words and presentation were carefully calibrated responses to the abject inhumanity and cruelty of her statements.
It was proportional and just.
As is said in Ecclesiastes 3:
1 There is a season for everything, a time for every occupation under heaven:
3 A time for killing, a time for healing; a time for knocking down, a time for building.
8 A time for loving, a time for hating; a time for war, a time for peace.
I implicitly reject the notion that Christians need to act like Doris Day 24/7. We can't fight what we can't see or understand. We must stand ready to identify evil in our midst, and call it for what it is. We must not shy from rebuking those who advance the cause of evil.
We are not just fighting principalities here. We are fighting human beings who have given themselves over to malevolence through successive acts of free will, and you must never lose sight of that.
Marissa and her twin troll Artemiss are not principalities. Nor do I think you would say that they are totally possessed by satan or his minions, being used as ventriloquists puppets on the cosmic stage.
No Brandy, these are women who have freely chosen up sides, who speak for the Father of Lies of their own volition. Marissa truly believes that Africans are not humans if they cannot function in society. Those are her words, not mine. So Africans, according to Marissa have no human worth or dignity because the Marissa says so.
I helped to expose her evil intent, her attempts to lie, to distort, to deny truth. Then I denounced her for doing so, as well as her agenda. She's sick, and I was not afraid to say so.
Remember, Jesus gave his Apostles the power and authority to forgive sins. He also gave them the power to hold them bound against the sinner for judgement day. St Paul had no problem doing just that with a mother and son committing incest in 1 Corinthians, excommunicating them. When they repented, in 2 Corinthians, he ordered that they be restored to the community.
Marissa and Artemiss have thrown in with evil, freely might add. They rejected all reasoned attempts at civil dialogue, choosing to come here and sneer at people of good will. They got a dose of their own medicine.
Artemiss now questions my Christianity, because she never understood it in the first place.
They have used up their reserve of good will as far as I am concerned. This thread proves that they are not here to question, but to ridicule.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 7, 2010 10:13 PM
Did someone's comments on pro-choice blogs get published.
I thought he passed a bill that denied help to the baby after the abortion failed. But what he done was vote against a bill that wanted to extend help to a baby born alive. Thank you Carla.Posted by: myrtle miller at May 7, 2010 11:32 PM
Why do one choice people deny the science.
Modern science is unequivocal - human life begins at the very moment of conception with all the chromosomes intact.
By the time after which most abortions occur there is already a beating heart!
btw the early feminists opposed abortion and called it, amongst other things, child murder. They didn't see it as a woman's right - a concept coined by men
Posted by: Fred
at May 7, 2010 11:46 PM
"Why do one choice people deny the science."
Because they aren't pursuing or interested in the truth. They are committed to a course of action (abortion), and will not hear of anything that gets in their way.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 8, 2010 12:13 AM
Planned parenthood is not just about abortion. It's about making informed decisions about your body, and making informed choices about sexuality.
I agree that abortion should be a LAST resort. And that Americans are missing that informing youth about contraception is really the priority.
I come from a very religious family, and had no one to talk to about relationships and sex.
Fortunately, my school provided teenagers with excellent advise, counselors, and directed us to nurses at planned parenthood. In fact we had a Nurse come to our high school every week, to meet with young girls and give out condoms and advise on birth control (Canadian education thank god).
If I didn’t have these people to talk to, I can only imagine how my ignorance could have affected my future.
I've been on the pill since I was 17 (8 years now), and no I didn't go crazy and have a couple dozen sexual partners. I've been in two long term relationships. I've never had an abortion, because I've been educated well enough to know how to prevent pregnancy. Not only was I educated about how to prevent STD’s and pregnancy, I was educated about sex in loving and committed relationships.
While I'm pro-choice, I think that women need to be educated to prevent unwanted pregnancy full stop,(through contraception) rather than deal with the consequences afterwards. I too would love to live in a world where all women knew enough about their bodies to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
I find the sex education programs in America disturbing. You don’t want to educate young women/men about their bodies, and how to prevent STD’s and pregnancy, but you also don’t want to deal with consequences of keeping your population ignorant.
And to the religious zealots that will say "only abstinence is 100% effective" I've yet to meet anyone on the pill and using condoms that has found themselves in the family way.
Essentially that OC that you are taking tricks your body into thinking it's pregnant every month and then acting as though it's going through an abortion.
The pill will put you at risk for many many diseases you might otherwise have no risk for at all, including STD's, breast cancer, blot clots.
It is a myth that contraception prevents pregnancy -full stop as you put it.
Women do get pregnant on OC's and while using most other types of birth control and that is exactly the problem. A woman on OC's is not in the mindset of the possibility of children. Therefore, she turns to abortion as back-up. Not always but in the US, hundreds of thousands of times and maybe more.
I know many women who have gotten pregnant on the pill including many young girls, and mature women with 3 children! Sometimes, nature will not be denied!
Funny thing about that though, I've never known any woman including myself to get pregnant while living a chaste life.
As for sex education, it is one thing to educate men and women on the TRUE nature of their bodies and their sexuality and quite another to "educate" them on behaviors that will wreak havoc on their physical and emotional well being.
Sex education as it currently stands does exactly this.
Despite the claim that there are no "values" being promoted in sex education there are such values attached.
The values are those of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle with no responsibility attached to one's actions - particularly those of the man involved.In fact, I would argue that instead of freeing women biologically it has enslaved them. They are usually STILL fully responsible for the repercussion of sex - that is pregnancy and bear the burden of either having the child or killing it though abortion. They are also further burdened physically by enduring the consequences of the abortion -sometimes physical and often emotional and spiritual.
There is ample evidence that (early) promiscuity in the form of multiple sexual encounters, is very harmful to young women both physically and emotionally.
Women are not wired to have multiple sexual partners. We function in a different manner than men.
Sadly, I find your comment full of misinformation and a parroting of the sex education indoctrination you have received.
Carla- I to think you are in need of good counseling that only a really good lawyer can provide. Have you ever investigated to see if any of your civil rights were violated when you weren't fully informed. When the makers of cigarettes had information or science knowing the full risks of cigarette smoking and didn't share all of the information with the public they were held accountable. Wouldn't the same rule apply to abortion providers if they knew the risks involved or knew they were killing a baby and didn't share this information with the women coming for abortions couldn't they be held accountable. I sure hope someone or a group of someone's hold them accountable before they get it into their thick skulls that they can make women have abortions at their discretion there already doing that to some economically disadvantaged women.
Posted by: myrtle miller at May 6, 2010 11:50 PM
This may be the future.
IT took years for people to be able to sue tobacco manufacturers.
And there never has been, to my knowledge, a direct link made between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.
Women seeking abortions should be required to have the exact nature of their baby's development explained to them, should see and ultrasound of their baby and be told exactly all of the possible risks they incur by having an abortion.
I'm sure this alone would cut the number of abortions drastically.
THere are likely two reasons why the abortion industry doesn't do this:
time is money -it takes time to tell a woman what it is she is having done to her,
The lawsuits are coming. There will be an abortion case that makes it all the way to the Supreme Court. It is just a matter of time.Posted by: carla at May 8, 2010 8:18 AM
"If I didn’t have these people to talk to, I can only imagine how my ignorance could have affected my future."
Posted by: Christine at May 8, 2010 5:41 AM
Hi Christine, There was a time when my thinking was somewhat similiar to yours. However, there is a whole other side that needs to be told to people that Planned Parenthood does not want you to learn about. Putting your trust in PP is what will in the long run truly keep someone ignorant. Please take the next step and be open-minded enough to consider that PP and their advocates just might have decieved you because they believe you are too ignorant to go to the next level of thinking and they are in it to make big $$$, not because they care about women:
Here is a quote by Author Chris West that may get you to start thinking a bit outside the box PP wants to keep you in:
"Wise men and women have always recognized the power of the sexual urge to orient, or disorient, not only individuals but entire societies. But in the midst of chaos as we now are, it can be hard to see the forest for the trees.
What's the connection between contraception and the breakdown of marriage and society? I offer the following as a plausible, but admittedly simplified, explanation.
People are often tempted to do things they shouldn't do. Many deterrents within nature itself and within a society help to curb these temptations and maintain order. For example, what would happen to the crime rate in a given society if jail terms suddenly ceased? Let's apply the same logic to errant sexual behavior and see what happens?
Hmmm. . . What would happen if this natural deterrent were taken away through the widespread availability and cultural acceptance of contraception? Not in every marriage, of course, but in a given population, incidents of infidelity would be sure to rise. And what's one of the main causes of divorce? Adultery.
But let's continue with this scenario. Certainly throughout history young people have been tempted to have sex before marriage. Yet one of the main deterrents to succumbing to the temptation has been the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Once again, what would happen if this natural deterrent were taken away through contraception? Not in the case of every hormone-laden young person, but in a given population, incidents of premarital sex would be sure to rise. And premarital sex, as noted in chapter four, is also a key predictor of future divorce.
It gets worse. Since no method of contraception is ever 100% effective, an increase in adultery and premarital sex in a given population will inevitably lead to an increase in "unwanted pregnancies." Abortion logically follows.
Not everyone will resort to abortion, of course. Some will offer their children up for adoption. Other mothers will keep them. Hence the number of children who grow up without a father (which has already been increased by the rise in divorce) will be compounded.
As numerous studies (and common sense) indicate, the chances dramatically increase that these "fatherless" children will grow up in poverty; be abused; have emotional, psychological, and behavioral disorders; suffer poor health; drop out of school; engage in premarital sex; obtain obortions; do drugs; commit violent crimes; and end up in jail. All these social ills compound exponentially from generation to generation since "fatherless" children are also much more likely to have out-of-wedlock births and, if they marry at all, to divorce.
Welcome to the societal chaos in which we now live. It couldn't be more serious. As journalist Philip Lawler has observed: "The public consequences of 'private' sexual behavior now threaten to destroy American society. In the past thirty-five years the federal government has spent four trillion dollars on a variety of social programs designed to remedy ills which can be attributed directly or indirectly, to the misuse of human sexuality.
If nothing governs life at its source, then nothing governs life. A contracepting culture is a culture without a future. It's a culture, as T.S. Eliot and Theodore Rossevelt understood, that's committing suicide."
Peace.Posted by: Praxedes at May 8, 2010 8:31 AM
Posted by: carla at May 7, 2010 9:34 PM
Just to add on to your post - BO voted against the IL Born Alive Infant Protection Act 4 times and then lied about it, accusing National Right to Life of lying. He later quietly retracted his accusations.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at May 8, 2010 9:43 AM
Thanks, Chris. :)Posted by: carla at May 8, 2010 12:00 PM
This email is only for those who believe in God.
1. Who made you ?
2. Did God make you when you were conceived or when you came out of the womb?
3. Are you doing God's will, or your own will when you have an abortion (kill an unborn baby)?
Nuff said.Posted by: Elaine at May 8, 2010 12:33 PM
When I began the practice of abstinence after I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit it wasn't just so I wouldn't become pregnant. I found a God who loves me. Abstinence for me doesn't just protect my body it also protects my heart and soul. That any country or state could usurp good parental authority is not a good thing. If being a religious zealot means loving your God and loving yourself then I am very happy to be called a religious zealot. These are the benifits of being a zealot for my God: I'm not always happy but I always have peace. My children are valued because as a child of God I know I am valued. So many times I have seen God provide the miraculous in my own life and in the lives of my children. My youngest son Daniel since 10 stopped walking 3 times and presently is walking and doing fine. So I am proud to be a religious zealot for my God who has shown a pattern of self-control to me throughout his word. God bless you Christine. :)
"But the venom shown by the "life" community, on this thread, isn't really surprising given the hostility shown by the whole punitive nature of the anti-choice movement."
No, the "venom" shown by the life movement isn't suprising given the fact that Marissa was arguing that unborn humans aren't human beings, and neither were African Americans or Jews. Sorry, Artemis. That sort of thinking is what leads to genocide, and it's not to be tiptoed around. I don't care if you think we're all big meanies. You support killing millions of human beings a year. Your opinion has as much worth as Chairman Mao's.Posted by: Lauren at May 8, 2010 2:18 PM
"And just remember, if you don't like abortion, don't have one"
"And just remember, if you don't like rape, don't rape!"
"And just remember, if you don't like theft, don't steal."
"And just remember, if you don't like murder, don't kill."
"And just remember, if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves!"
Such solid logic. No one should ever protest anything. The only thing wrong is saying something is wrong!-ArtemisPosted by: Lauren at May 8, 2010 2:30 PM
"Planned parenthood is not just about abortion. It's about making informed decisions about your body, and making informed choices about sexuality."
Posted by: Christine at May 8, 2010 5:41 AM
But the is thing that whatever else they may be about alongside of abortion, Planned Parenthood is about abortion. Maybe not abortion only, but abortion. If they stopped doing abortions, I would stop caring about them. So would, I would venture to say, most pro-life organizations. It's like a deal we have.Posted by: Keli Hu at May 8, 2010 2:59 PM
Informed decisions about your body=abortion
Informed choices about sexuality
Planned Parenthood doesn't offer free ultrasounds, free maternity clothes and adoption services last time I checked.Posted by: carla at May 8, 2010 6:33 PM
Abortion is the ultimate slavery. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood felt it was her obligation to help the igonorant masses get rid of their unwanted children. Too bad all the left wingers are too blind to ask themselves why PP specifically targets minorities and the poor. Don't believe me? Read up on her! The information is out there. She was a huge proponent of eugenics. Abortion is a barbaric, stone age, gruesome and violent procedure. But I guess it's ok as long as you've already been born, huh?Posted by: WillyMcCabe at May 9, 2010 1:33 AM
You are so right, Willy! I've been waiting for this kind of insightful comment. This new, green office was strategically placed in a minority neighborhood. In fact, 78% of all Planned Parenthood "health centers" are placed in black neighborhoods. Their founder, Margaret Sanger, wanted to rid our country of people she considered were a "drain" on society and PP has been only too happy to fulfill her dreams. Blacks make up 12% of our nation's population, but account for 37% of the abortions. There were 4 million in slavery, but 14 million have been been denied their right to life, since 1973.
This isn't just a business. It's government funded genocide.
Planned Parenthood is making the demons very happy. They are well pleased with your work and thank you for your commitment to Lucifer and his kingdom. You stand for all that is necessary in this age; the less children we have the more money in our pockets for jewelry and vacations. Children are most inconvient and there is nothing worse than one becoming another surgeon saving the masses or Lucifer forbid, another Mother Theresa...Demons rejoice!! :-)Posted by: randy at May 10, 2010 2:07 AM
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!
-Lewis CarrollPosted by: Praxedes at May 10, 2010 12:33 PM
LOL! Eco-Friendly? I can see it now "Come kill your baby in an eco-friendly environment!"
So those women can feel like they really accomplished something that is helping the world. I truly hope the pro-death crowd gets the ass kicking they deserve one day.
Oh wait,they will. When Christ comes back. :)