This guy was nuts. I'm glad Harms kept her baby.

Scramble the Ghostbusters Emergency Response Team.

The data from their 'aura'-meter will indispensable in settling this dispute.

You know, I think he may have been right: the baby did have negative thoughts. Such as, "Mom's boss is totally bonkers" and "Mom's boss is nuttier than a walnut tree" and I have it on good authority that the baby was sending telepathic messages saying, "Run, Mom, run! Run and don't look back!!"

I find this very interesting, because in essence, this man was saying that the child in the womb had sentience and had the ability to have thoughts of his/her own, even ones he described as "hostile."

Unfortunately, in essentially admitting this child's personhood, he also painted him/her as a sort of "Rosemary's baby."

If I were that mom, I'd be very glad to no longer have to work for that guy!

Is "partner with the baby" the same as the Vulcan mind-meld?

Chesterton was right. When people stop believing in God, they'll believe anything...

Wow, I sure wouldn't want to work with him either. It does show people need something to believe in, when it's not the Lord it will be something else

I suspect he's about to learn what real negative energy is.

myrtle miller made me laugh out loud with her comment...she's right. And that woman should stay as far away from that demon possessed x-boss as she can.

Constance Cumby once described an interaction with a man who came to her house to tune her piano.

One of the keys, lets say 'A' was obviously off.

The piano tuner kept playing the key and he finally asked ms Cumby whether she though it was flat or sharp.

When she asked why he didn't just use his tuning fork, he resonded that everything is relative.

After a few more informed questions she determined the fellow was a 'new ager'.

She asked him to pack up his gear and leave and scheduled an appointment with a piano tuner who relied on an objective standard, like a tuning fork or electronic tuner, with which to compare the notes on the piano.

Did ms Cumby discriminate against the 'new ager'. I don't think so. The 'new ager' could have relied on the standard he had been trained with, but instead chose to trust his relative subjective feelings.

ms Cumby said she would not want to fly on an airplance with a pilot who relied on his sense of direction rather than his instruments.

Personhood Now!

I think we should introduce Daughter of Wands to John J. Smith.
Maybe their "rainbow baby" will have positive energy.

The most important thing is that another Harms was brought into this world.

The most important thing is that another Harms was brought into this world.

coocoo for cocoa puffs.

Maybe he should try "partnering" with this child the way Catholic Priests "partner" with the children THEY are responsible for.....

Biggz, maybe you should include public school teachers, football coaches, cab drivers, rabbis, accountants, waiters, construction workers, and more into your basket with the priests. Last time I watched one of those Chris Hansen sting operations on 'to catch a predator', it wasn't a string of priests coming to call on the underage decoys. It looked to me like they came from all walks of life. But that's ok, Biggz, keep on with your rhetoric, cuz Bill Maher says its cool.

Missy
You should write a book. I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time. Your timing is really good.

*Sighs* I think I'd tell the CEO of HearthStone Homes where to shove his religious beliefs as I walked out the door. Then I'd file a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Oh yes ninek very good justification... It's ok because everyone else is doing it? The difference is that the church has always protected these pedophiles and continues to do so... Yes its true you can find sicko's in all walks of life but what’s really sick is that these "men of god” who were trusted by good Christian families, continue to protect the pedophiles while calling the victims liars for no other reason than to protect the church's power and influence…

Biggz
What does your own conscience tell you about abortion. If there were no churches no pro-lifers no pro-choicers just you and your own conscience what would it tell you about killing an unborn baby? Don't attack my personhood just tell me what you would do.

I would respect a woman’s right to do whatever she wants with her own body. What is discussed and decided between a woman and her doctor is none of my or your business! If my wife came to me tonight and said she was pregnant I would ask her "Well what do you think we should do?" and I would listen and respect the decision we came to, whatever it may be. I do not have the moral quandary about abortion that some do. I am far more concerned that children be raised by people who WANT to be parents, not just people who want to have sex. No contraception is 100% so when your first defense fails "i.e. condom, patch, pill" you now have a second line of defense, "the morning after pill". If it’s more than 5 days along "thank you ella" then you move onto abortion options. I don’t not feel adoption is a moral option while there are so many “un-adopted” children all over the planet. When and ONLY WHEN these children have homes and families does adoption become a moral decision. I have a few friends who were adopted and their stories of the entire system are truly heartbreaking. I don’t worry about UNBORN children when there are so many BORN children suffering in this world already. Maybe your efforts and obvious energy could be better spent helping and representing children who already spend every night crying themselves to sleep...

If my wife came to me tonight and said she was pregnant I would ask her "Well what do you think we should do?"
************************

Wow, that just *screams* your elation at the idea that you and your wife have created a child together. Most wives would want their husbands to hug them and say "I'm so happy, and I love you and our baby." Not, "well, whaddaya think we should do?"

And I see you're among the "kill 'em because abortion is better for humans than living and being adopted" crowd. Nice. So killing an innocent human is more "moral" than adoption. It's really no wonder our world is so messed up, with thought processes like that.

Plenty of us adopt children. Plenty of us who cannot afford to adopt also sponsor children so their lives will be better and they can have opportunities to flourish.

To arbitrarily decide that a child suddenly has some value once he's born but not before he's born is nonsensical. He is the same child, in or out of the womb. He is a human being with value, pre- and post-birth. That's what we're saying here. That's why we're pro-life, because we believe all human beings (preborn and born) have value and should have an opportunity to live. Suffering and hardship are a part of life for most of us, some more than others. That does not make us any less human or any less valuable or worthy of life.

Well Kel I disagree. Fetuses do not cry, starving children do. Fetuses do not feel fear, scared and homeless children do. Fetuses cannot see their families suffer and die of AIDS and malnutrition, children without medical coverage and food do.

You know that pregnancy is not always a happy occasion for most people. Without knowing any of the circumstances of the relationship in question, you cannot just assume that it’s always a happy occasion, right or wrong.

The problem with your and most anti-choice people's stance is that you look at life in absolutes. Our world has more shades of grey than you can count and decisions this big, regardless of circumstances, needs to be thought out carefully.

As for adoption, well just ask the Dave Thomas Foundation how many kids there are looking for homes just in America, and there are millions more outside the USA. Why would you want to deprive those kids of a chance to have a home? We don’t even have enough adoptive parents to help these children? Where would we find even more for all of your proposed newborns?

So what happens when we have all these orphans being raised in institutions and foster homes that care more for the $$$ amount they receive at the month per child, than raising productive members of society?

It’s easy to stand there stomping your feet and telling everyone else how they should live their lives, but it’s not very practical or logical.

Once again,… Maybe your efforts and obvious energy could be better spent helping and representing children who already spend every night crying themselves to sleep...

Well Kel I disagree. Fetuses do not cry, starving children do. Fetuses do not feel fear, scared and homeless children do. Fetuses cannot see their families suffer and die of AIDS and malnutrition, children without medical coverage and food do.

A fetus likely feels the same things that a newborn feels, aside from air within its lungs. Please tell me what magically changes when a fetus passes through the birth canal that would make it less likely to feel what any normal newborn would be likely to feel.

The problem with your and most anti-choice people's stance is that you look at life in absolutes. Our world has more shades of grey than you can count and decisions this big, regardless of circumstances, needs to be thought out carefully.

There is at least one absolute that I hold, and that is that the purposeful slaughter of innocents, born or unborn, is wrong. It is appalling. No matter how utilitarian you want to be about it. Excuse me for not being "practical" enough for you while you toss away human beings in the trash and wag your finger at me as if I don't care about those OUTSIDE the womb simply because I also choose to care about those INSIDE it.

Excuse me for not thinking that the only way a human being can have worth is by becoming what someone ELSE deems "a productive member of society."

It’s easy to stand there stomping your feet and telling everyone else how they should live their lives, but it’s not very practical or logical.

Once again,… Maybe your efforts and obvious energy could be better spent helping and representing children who already spend every night crying themselves to sleep...

So, I'm not allowed to speak out about injustices that don't meet your standards. I see. And unless I'm willing to adopt all the babies, take in all the homeless, house all the pregnant moms, and rescue all the domestic abuse victims, I can't speak out about those things, either. Thanks, got it.

You are discounting human beings simply because they haven't yet left the womb. Your views are very, very utilitarian in nature. It's very frightening when we begin to think of human beings as commodities. I'm not telling anyone how to live THEIR lives. I'm asking that they not will the lives of their children away from them.

Maybe your time would be better spent on a board where people like you can collectively sneer at the rest of us whom you feel are shirking our duties to the rest of the world even though you don't have the slightest clue.

I am whole life. I am FOR life. Some things are in black and white.

No there is no black and white in this world and that’s the fundamental argument here. You sir are a believer and in a believer's world there is only black and white “good and evil” but even these are false. As for the non-believer's everything in life is weighed out on a scale. You can stand behind that old "I care about life" chestnut but let’s be honest, believer’s have never had a problem with killing “just ask Osama bin Laden or Scott Roeder. There are NO absolutes in this world.

Murder is wrong. ~ Would it be wrong to kill a man who raped your wife in front of your kids? You might say yes but, what would the father say and whose opinion should weigh more?

Everything in life is subject to circumstances, and to have the balls to make absolute statements and look down your nose at everyone who is not on the same moral high ground as you is just being ignorant of the world that surrounds you.

The anti-choice stance and battle cry of "Your killing babies!" can be likened to a man standing in the middle of Hurricane Katrina and screaming at the top of his lungs "My socks are getting wet!" With everything going on around him he holds onto that one narrow-minded absolute because he cannot cope with the world spinning around him. He’s not concerned with all the events which led up to the disaster or what will happen next to him or anyone else around him. He just ignores all the rest and holds onto "My socks are getting wet!".

I'm not a man, so I don't have balls. :D

Furthermore, there are extremes among every sort of believer and or non-believer. Extreme atheism has led to some not-so-purty stuff, fyi.

42 million babies a year is like gettin' my socks wet? Ok.

And btw, I'm not the one who started in on the moralizing here. You did, when you suggested that pro-lifers weren't doing anything to help born people. So maybe you are the one who is ignorant of the world around you. I don't have to discard my pro-life beliefs in order to help those who are out of the womb. My beliefs and actions are wholly consistent.

By claiming that everything in life is subject to circumstances and not absolute, you are actually making an absolute statement.

Nice talking to you. Have a good evening.

"If my wife came to me tonight and said she was pregnant I would ask her "Well what do you think we should do?" and I would listen and respect the decision we came to, whatever it may be."

Thank you again to all you prolife men! Responding like Biggz would to your pregnant wife shows the ultimate disrespect to women and children. All under the guise of being Mr. Concerned about her well-being.

Biggz. Re: your views, here is a quote by Fr. Tad Pacholczyk on the importance of moral absolutes:

"In such a view, there are no moral absolutes or universals, and morality shifts freely with each person's perspective. Ultimately, however, this position is neither reasonable nor logical.

If morality were merely about your and my moral opinions, the results would be disatrous. If I believe racism against blacks and the institution of slavery built upon it are wrong, but you believe they're okay, can we both go our merry ways and live according to our own morality? Clearly not, and the United States had to undergo a terrible civil war to address this very question.

If I believe serial murder and rape are wrong, but you believe they're okay, can we both go off and live according to our own positions? Clearly not, since both positions cannot be true.

These obvious examples illustrate what each of us already knows, namely, that in the real world "relative" truth doesn't work. Suppose you and I each drive towards an intersection with a traffic light. If it were up to you and me to make up our own minds about what color the light is, without any reference to its real color, there would certainly be alot of accidents at our intersections.

What many fail to realize is that the moral world works similarly. Many people's moral lives are crashing and burning because they fail to respect the non-arbitrary markers of the moral roadmap guiding our human journey. They've slipped into thinking that they can make up their own rules as they go along, and that it's all relative to their own desires or circumstances."

There are great support groups for men who have supported/pressured/passed the buck on abortion too. It's not her body, the child that died in abortion was your son or daughter too.