Pregnant prostitution ring

Ok... wellll... um... hm.

I guess I can't formulate words to add to this one...

Read more here.

[HT: proofreader Laura Loo]


Comments:

Is nothing sacred?
Evidently not.

Posted by: Mike at July 31, 2008 9:47 AM


My thoughts exactly, Mike. Even prostitution is no longer sacred.

Sorry, that was a tasteless joke, I just couldn't resist. I think we can all agree that this is pretty, well, odd to say the least.

Just when I thought I'd seen it all on craigslist...

Posted by: Bee at July 31, 2008 10:37 AM


Isn't it just so beautiful that these women are so "open to new life"? Their sexual relationships must surely be so much more meaningful than devoted couples in loving relationships who are contracepting. Those evil "contraception-minded" women could learn a thing or two from these girls.

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 11:41 AM


hmmm...I don't know what to say....

Posted by: RSD at July 31, 2008 11:49 AM


So what's the difference between prostitution and just using craigslist to "hook up". I mean, I understand that no money trades hands, but isn't the net result pretty much the same thing?

Posted by: lauren at July 31, 2008 12:15 PM


Xalisae, what in the world...that was some kind of crrrrrazy spin. Are those women's babies any less worth living than the babies conceived by better parents?
Also, how do you know that these women weren't using contraception that failed when they got pregnant?


Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2008 12:38 PM


Well, now I suppose they're using a sort of nfp, right? It wasn't really spin...I was just taking this opportunity to illustrate my point, that a person or couple using one form of family planning or contraception is NOT morally superior or in a more valid relationship than anyone else using a different method. Har har har.

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 12:56 PM


Xalisae,

You didn't make that point at all. After all, every woman that has an abortion is pregnant, and I doubt she has a sexually pure relationship with a committed, loving spouse and is open to blessings of that sexual relationship which is children. 88% of aborting women are single, after all. Odds are good that contraception failed (most aborting moms use some form of birth control) or that she wasn't thinking about the consequences of sex (children) when the mood struck. Anyone aborting is not an example of the self-giving, fruitful, loving, committed, married sexual relationship that God desires for women to have.

I don't expect you to understand about the immorality of birth control when you don't even recognize the immorality of pre-marital sex. You'd think the epidemic of single moms in poverty, children without daddies, rampant STDs and skyrocketing divorce rates would be a sign that something is wrong, no?

-Jacq

P.S. Divorce rates of couples that don't use contraception is under 3% vs. the national average of 50%.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 1:16 PM


x: You are seriously obsessed with this whole NFP/BC thing.

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 1:18 PM


x: OK, to be fair, I posted before I read J's post.

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 1:21 PM


Where are the Craig's list police? This kind of thing shouldn't be there!

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 1:23 PM


Great post, Jacque. Very well said. Thank you.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2008 1:34 PM


P.S. Divorce rates of couples that don't use contraception is under 3% vs. the national average of 50%.

That is really awesome, Jacqueline! I didn't know that, but would love to have the source where you found that...I can probably use it later, if you happen to still know where it is.

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2008 1:37 PM


Doug

Posted by: mk at July 31, 2008 1:49 PM


What?

Posted by: Bethany at July 31, 2008 1:57 PM


What?

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 2:29 PM


LOL @ MK.

Posted by: Rae at July 31, 2008 2:53 PM


"I don't expect you to understand about the immorality of birth control when you don't even recognize the immorality of pre-marital sex."

Nothing immoral about either.


Posted by: Hal at July 31, 2008 5:01 PM


MK, why do you keep saying "Doug?"

Posted by: Hal at July 31, 2008 5:05 PM


Pregnant prostitutes, non-pregnant prostitutes. My question is why are prostitutes being arrested when it should be pimps, who are the real criminals?

Posted by: Leah at July 31, 2008 5:27 PM


Leah,

What about the johns?

My brother is a former policeman who approached a man soliciting a prostitute. Anyway he asked the man what he was doing in this dangerous neighborhood at night with a prostitute in his front seat. He was just visiting a friend. Right.
So my brother took the guy's name and phone number and told him he was going to call his house in a half hour and he better be home so his wife doesn't answer the phone.
My brother said the guy took off like a bullet, no doubt sweating all the way, and likely parked by that phone for the rest of the night.
My brother never did call his home.

Posted by: Mary at July 31, 2008 5:52 PM


"I don't expect you to understand about the immorality of birth control when you don't even recognize the immorality of pre-marital sex."

Nothing immoral about either.

Posted by: Hal at July 31, 2008 5:01 PM


typical Hal-post!

Posted by: Patricia at July 31, 2008 6:01 PM


Mary:5:52,
That is one great story!!

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 6:04 PM


typical Hal-post!

Posted by: Patricia at July 31, 2008 6:01 PM


Typical Patricia-post! Content and substance free personal attack made for no reason other than to be unpleasant to someone else!

Posted by: Lurker at July 31, 2008 6:07 PM



typical Hal-post!
Posted by: Patricia at July 31, 2008 6:01 PM

Well, someone has to remind you guys that your view of the world, sexuality, and morality is a bit quaint.

Posted by: Hal at July 31, 2008 6:08 PM


Nothing immoral about either.

So sayeth the man that had two of his own children killed. Hence, you're not the foremost authority on right and wrong, if you are so lost as to think shredding your own babies is morally right.

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 6:31 PM


Well, someone has to remind you guys that your view of the world, sexuality, and morality is a bit quaint.

Our view of the world results in loving, intact families, no one marred by STD's, no babies in pieces down garbage disposals, no eating disorders or suicide attempts or substance abuse like those that self-medicate after abortions, no children without daddies, mothers supported by husbands, children raised with two parents, charity to the less fortunate, mercy on the downtrodden, and joy rather than sorrow.

Quaint must be slang for "wonderful."

Furthermore, your absence of morality of sexuality results in teen pregnancy, impoverished single mothers, rampant STD's (many of which has no cure and some of which can take your life), children knowing that their parents found them disposable before birth, children without parents at all, children suffering through divorces, children with mothers suffering the aftermath of abortions, abandoned women with no self-esteem, women willing to have sex for money and be exploited and abused, women living with abusive men because they're desperate and can't house their illegitimate child on their own, abused become abusers, AIDS orphans, children who inherited AIDS from their parents, and I could go on...

I think I'll remain quaint rather than enter your personal hell (and eventually *actual* Hell, if you don't repent).

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 6:41 PM


http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/71/

Bethany,

Here's a link to a study done by Physicians for Life. I thought the divorce rate for NFP couples was 1% but this study finds it even lower.

Posted by: Kristen at July 31, 2008 6:50 PM


Jacqueline, you are an ignorant nut if you think that only people who don't follow your personal moral code have the problems you listed, and that people who do adhere to your "I'm so much better than everyone else" standard never experience anything but the sunshine and rainbows existence you seem to be hallucinating. Oh, and congrats on your awesome revealation through statistics earlier that totally suprised me by proving that people who don't find contraception morally acceptable also shun the notion of divorce, or have so many kids it's impractical to entertain the idea of leaving a spouse when encountered with a terrible marital situation. If you really want to show me up, I'd get the statistics of what percentages of married/contracepting couples would classify their relationship as "happy/fulfilling". Need any case studies for your work? I heard Patricia used to practice nfp back before her blissful, no-sex-until marriage fell apart...and if you need info on a sinful heathen union, I can enlighten you about my relationship with my children's father (together/intimate for roughly 7 years, married for 5 this November, still as happy as can be, too). Am I stuck on this topic, Janet? You bet your rear end I am...I don't like it when idealogues who are supposedly on my side spew propaganda that is killing babies, and does nothing but give the other side ammunition through their hateful, ignorant, judgemental attitudes.

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 7:21 PM


Also, I like how one of the great parts of practicing NFP listed was "women are less likely to work at a full time job outside the home." THANK GOD men and Jesus are around to protect us poor, weak little ladies from having to think, or have some authority outside our kitchens, or having any value besides spitting out babies. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to go beat my evil, yet somehow non-existent because she was aborted, born out of wedlock daughter for not polishing my sainted little son's halo, since he wasn't conceived in icky sin, because after you're married, it's just a simple matter of having an angel dance down from heaven on a cloud and putting little butterfly kisses on your blessed, all-powerful uterus. Have fun with your judging and condemning to eternal torment, guys!

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 7:34 PM


X - I love your posts, and if people like you were a little more prominent in the pro life movement, I have little doubt there would be a LOT more pro lifers out there. Quite happy, healthy, on birth control, and having premarital sex (like 95% of the country, which is why the divorce rates are so low, the criteria makes up less than 5% of the population in the first place) and still not have abortions...

Posted by: Amanda at July 31, 2008 7:51 PM


My goodness, I forgot how awesome you are Jacque! Why are you not on here more often?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at July 31, 2008 7:52 PM


x: Am I stuck on this topic, Janet?

I spoke a bit too soon on that, sorry, xalisae. There are some on this blog who shall go unnamed that refuse to let it go, so I totally understand your frustration. I think you have a right make a choice on BC without being harassed about it.. (Maybe I'm a wimp in some people's eyes for saying that, I don't know....) I wish you well. I wouldn't want to be getting the grief that's being doled out to you! God bless (if that's ok). :)

Posted by: Janet at July 31, 2008 8:00 PM


Hal,

I think you're right. Our views are quaint. Is that a bad thing? I mean if they make sense, produces solid families, healthy kids, no stds, no abortions, no teen pregnancy...then why do say quaint like it's something absurd?

quaint (kwānt)

adjective

1. Obsolete clever or skilled
2. Now Rare wrought with skill; ingenious
3. unusual or old-fashioned in a pleasing way
4. singular; unusual; curious
5. fanciful; whimsical

Posted by: mk at July 31, 2008 8:07 PM


Janet, 8:00 p.m.

I agree with you. X is a smart cookie and can make informed choices about BC for herself, and doesn't need harrassment from anyone for them.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 31, 2008 8:07 PM


That's perfectly fine, Janet. Just because I am not a believer myself doesn't mean I don't respect and accept those who are...I have no desire for people to abandon their faith and believe everything I do. I guess that's the problem though...I don't want that from other people. and I feel that way about most things, and I expect that treatment in return. If a developing person wasn't killed in an abortion, I wouldn't care about that either. I don't care about peoples' bedroom habits. I just think they should keep in mind that typically, vaginal intercourse causes pregnancy, and be ready to accept that pregnancy for what it is.

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 8:13 PM


Oh, and in regards to this thread, there are quite a few guys who think of pregnancy as a fetish kind of thing. So I guess these women tried to capitalize on that? I've gotta say, this is strange, like a lot of fetishes are, but I can't imagine exposing your unborn child to potential STD's just to make some money. It's pretty sad.

Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella's Momma) at July 31, 2008 8:16 PM


(they should also be allowed to try and prevent that pregnancy if they so choose, but consider the kid-in-progress if they fail)

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 8:17 PM


Thanks, MommaLiz. And, prostitution is a sad thing...if these women can put a quantitative monetary value on their own bodies, they probably care about very little in this world besides the almighty dollar, and quite possibly drugs, as the two activites tend to go hand-in-hand. I feel for these babies. Has anyone thought of situations like these in the context of elective late-term abortions? Perhaps there could be a connection...?

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 8:27 PM


X - though this doesn't really apply in the US, in Africa, often prostitution is the only solution a woman has to feed her kids. She may not care about her own body at that point, but often its because they've sacrificed their bodies for their children.

Posted by: Amanda at July 31, 2008 8:55 PM


I was speaking of this instance specifically, most likely in the US since it involves craigslist...America really does try to provide at least some rudimentary aid to the exceedingly poor in this country, and I think putting a developing person in such peril is just...sick.

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 9:20 PM


Amanda,
Are there programs in Africa to help these women out of that lifestyle? Education, skills training...

Posted by: Carla at July 31, 2008 9:20 PM


Xalisae,

I wasn't mean to you, but merely presented this side of things and that you failed to address that in your mockery. You responded with spews of "ignorant nut" and sarcasm. I'll respond none the less, but could you please reign in the unprovoked venom? You say that "Just because I am not a believer myself doesn't mean I don't respect and accept those who are" yet you mock our beliefs. How is that respectful?

In all fairness, I don't respect your beliefs or lack thereof. I think they are wrong and not respectable, and girls have difficulty both respecting themselves and finding men to respect them when they act acordingly. I don't respect your opinions on this matter, but I can respect *you* as I disagree, right? And refrain from name-calling and sarcastic hyberbole.

That being said, I never said that having my viewpoints leads to a life of bliss without inevitable sh!t happening, because sh!t happens. But you can't deny that if people did not have premarital sex and did not have extra-marital affairs or sex with animals, that STD's would be eradicated. Is it self-righteous to say that if people don't have sex, they likely won't get pregnant? No- that's a fact. Likewise, my saying that NFP and sexually morality increase stable homes is supported by research. I don't pretend that simply because I don't do these things that I can't marry someone who might have done or will do these things. I can't control them, only me. But controlling me has allowed me to avoid the behaviors/choices thus far that people who agree with premarital sex willing participate in, thus opening themselves to the problems I mentioned. Maybe you managed to be an anomaly in this and had a child by a guy that married you rather than left you- Good for you. But you are the exception rather than the rule.

I don't think my beliefs make me better than others, but merely shield me from the consequences that others must deal with. Yes, I do think women are stupid for knowing the consequences and choosing the behaviors anyway, since before I had moral qualms against pre-marital sex, I was abstinent to avoid the consequences to myself and unfairly inherited by my innocent children (i.e. "Mommy, why do we only see Daddy on weekends. I know kids whose Daddies live with them and tuck them in every night? Why don't I have that?" When the true answer would be, "Because Mommy wanted to have sex more than she cared about you and your future.") There was also a chance of inherited an STD to pass on to my kids, and once again, I wouldn't do that to them.

Yes, you can follow my beliefs to the T and still get screwed over by life, but the odds are significantly slimmer than rolling and thin piece of latex over your body and diving right in! Do you not agree with that?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 9:46 PM


Jacquie,

APPLAUSE!

Posted by: mk at July 31, 2008 9:58 PM


And about the hateful bile about mothers that mother full-time rather than work full-time, do you think handing your six-week old off to a stranger to be raised by day-care workers that change weekly is a good thing for your kids? I used to teach pre-school and saw that it was a financial necessity for some (mostly single moms, hence why I don't have sex while single so I can't become a single mom), but it's certainly not the preferred option. Yes, there were women that wanted careers, drove Mercedes, dropped the baby off at 6:00 am, picking him up at 6:00 pm and really only saw their own child on weekends.

So, you think mothers that raise their own children, witness first steps and first words themselves rather than a stranger, are, to quote you, poor, weak little ladies who don't have to think, or have some authority outside our kitchens, or having any value besides spitting out babies. What little respect you have for your fellow mothers that you think motherhood is a thoughtless, valueless, authority-stricken life!

My mother, a nurse and badass and more levels than one could count, chose to raise my sister and I rather than paying a nanny or day care or pawning us off on relatives. She has value because she has value, but she's far from poor, weak and non-thinking. She managed several home-based business and invented a water-purification system to save an entire orphanage and village in Mexico after Hurricane Pauline. She also led a team to vaccinate an entire impoverished island. She's done more than most could hope to ever accomplish, all while raising her own kids. None of these were full-time, outside of the home- they were whatever she wanted them to be on her terms because she's badass like that. She was also supported by a husband and Jesus, though you mock those concepts.

Likewise, I am self-employed as a consultant and am finishing my doctorate and could easily raise my children full-time and still kick butt on my terms. Women do it all the time. Even women that mother exclusively have more to juggle molding the character of human beings than any business-woman could fathom. I'll take having authority over my children and shaping their whole lives vs. supervising a dozen employees who cease to obey me when they change jobs. Who has more authority?

X, you is awful touchy. If you are so secure in your beliefs that chemicals and mechanical devices between two people that love eachother is a great thing and that pre-marital sex isn't walking into a plethora of unnecessary drama, and that stay-at-home moms are brainless weaklings that have no values beyond being a baby-factory- if you are so secure in those beliefs, why so defensive? People give me crap about my lifestyle choices all the time and I don't extend the energy to even give the finger since I am secure that my choices are good ones. Are you doubting your views? Are you thinking now that having to explain to your daughter than was either was or was not the cause a shotgun wedding is conversation you'd rather not have?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 10:14 PM


PhysiciansForLife.org...well that's a GREAT nonbiased source to trust! I totally agree with what X said...happiness and "staying together" are not one in the same.
Jacq- telling other people they are going to Hell if they don't repent (i.e. share your views) seems like the most un-Christian, hurtful thing you could ever say.

Posted by: common sense at July 31, 2008 10:19 PM


Jacq- telling other people they are going to Hell if they don't repent (i.e. share your views) seems like the most un-Christian, hurtful thing you could ever say.

Hal killed his kids and still supports that, as well as mocks Christ, the only way to be saved. According to Christian doctrine, the Church which is Christ's representative on Earth, and most beliefs called Christian, those that mock God and shed innocent blood and do not repent are damned. I'm not damning him, but warning him. How loving and Christian would it be to believe someone is headed for Hell and not warn them?

My rebuke and warning to Hal is the most Christian thing I can say. He's heard the gospel and he reject it. I warn him of the consequences of doing so. It's both loving and Christian to try to spare other eternal suffering. I don't warn to be hurtful and Hal is unmoved and not hurt by what I said. And if it did hurt, it must be correct and should inspire change.

If you beleived I was heading towards a lake of fire, would you not tell me?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 10:27 PM


MK- could you remove the first of the double posts?

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 10:28 PM


Dallas has her share of pregnant hookers. It's eye-opening.



http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/737013554.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/733643304.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/732241655.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/726043049.html

Posted by: Jacqueline at July 31, 2008 10:41 PM


I really think that X wasn't attacking SAHMs at all. Rather, I believe she- and I, for that matter- felt affronted by Jacqueline's belief that seems to be (I don't pretend to know your true beliefs from two paragraphs, hence the "seems to be") that women who work full-time can't be good mothers. If working makes you feel fulfilled and makes you happy, you will be a better person, wife and mother. It's about personal choice. And what about the single woman who had sex and got pregnant? Should she have- GASP- had an abortion rather than endure this plight? What if her husband cheats and she leaves him to preserve her dignity and set a good example for her daughters and is then a single mom? Same disdain?

Here's my view on marriage and contraception vs. natural family planning. If you abstain until marriage then have the number of children you believe you can afford, then go on the pill, I feel you'd be happier- perhaps one of the biggest causes of divorce is financial issues, and if you control your number of children to what you can afford, you're less likely to have those problems. Plus NFP can be tricky, and when you're on the pill you can feel freer and thus probably have a more enjoyable sex life, which also leads to happier marriages. I don't think there's anything wrong with NFP and it's a perfect choice for many, but I think it's ridiculous to say that if you're on the pill your marriage is somehow unpure or inherently doomed to fail.

Posted by: common sense at July 31, 2008 10:51 PM


If you abstain until marriage then have the number of children you believe you can afford, then go on the pill, I feel you'd be happier- perhaps one of the biggest causes of divorce is financial issues, and if you control your number of children to what you can afford, you're less likely to have those problems.
Posted by: common sense at July 31, 2008 10:51 PM

common sense, look at what Barbara Curtis said in the JivinJ blogine.

"The downside is . . . it is expensive. We've sacrificed a lot. We never drove fancy cars or took the expensive vacations or anything. We don't have the plasma TV. Where we chose to put our resources was into our kids."

Posted by: truthseeker at July 31, 2008 11:39 PM


Okay, Rae- Where did that come from?

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:01 AM


It comes from my getting so sick and fricking tired of listening to you prattle on about how "righteous" and how friggin' "perfect" you are and how anybody who disagrees with your beliefs is heading towards a "lake of fire".

I'm sick of how you treat Hal.

I'm sick of being little miss Nice all the time and not allowing myself to get angry on here. I am a bad person Jacque...and I'm sick of hiding my badness on here for the sake of having people pretend to like me.

I eagerly await my bannination.

Posted by: Rae at August 1, 2008 12:17 AM


Common Sense,

I really think that X wasn't attacking SAHMs at all.

You don't think saying SAHM's are quote, "THANK GOD men and Jesus are around to protect us poor, weak little ladies from having to think, or have some authority outside our kitchens, or having any value besides spitting out babies." is an attack at stay at home moms? She called them worthless, poor, weak, little ladies with no authority besides the kitchen and baby factories. That's a scathing attack if I ever heard one!

Rather, I believe she- and I, for that matter- felt affronted by Jacqueline's belief that seems to be (I don't pretend to know your true beliefs from two paragraphs, hence the "seems to be") that women who work full-time can't be good mothers.

First of all, X's attack on SAHM's came first. I then talked about the virtues of SAHM mothering to counter her vicious attack. Then I explained about women that work and can still be mothers without passing off most of the mothering to someone else. My mother worked and Saint Gianna took her kids to her doctors' office with her. I never said those women couldn't be good mothers, (they're the best I know) but that having a stranger raise your children is not preferable. Re-read my post.

If working makes you feel fulfilled and makes you happy, you will be a better person, wife and mother.

Perhaps, but many women working full-time outside the home tell me that it takes time away from being a mother. They lament time away from their children. Some don't, but I doubt any working mother enjoys hearing that her child's first word was the daycare teacher's name.

It's about personal choice.

I knew many women that did daycare out of choice, not necessity. I don't think it's the best for their children and I feel they are cheating themselves out of their children's childhoods, which you can't get back when you retire. Not surprisingly, it's the fortunate women that have the money and education and careers that often choose to stay home. So thinking that SAHM's aren't qualified for anything but "spitting out babies" is misqualified. In fact, here's a great on Ivy League women and how they plan to or chose already to mother rather than career full-time.

And what about the single woman who had sex and got pregnant? Should she have- GASP- had an abortion rather than endure this plight?

Of course not. But I'm sure they'd rather have some help and support than have to be breadwinner and primary caretaker at once, when both is a full-time job. I again say that this doesn't make someone a bad mother, but this is not preferable.

What if her husband cheats and she leaves him to preserve her dignity and set a good example for her daughters and is then a single mom?
Same disdain?

That's my example of sh!t happening that I so clearly explained. No disdain- but don't you agree that being cheated on and the subsequent crap is not preferable?

I'd appreciate if you'd stop putting words in my mouth. I defended an attack on SAHM's with why I think SAHM mothering is preferable to daycare. My belief on this is a common as beleive that breastfeeding is preferable to formula. I didn't condemn those that use daycare out of necessity or choice, I just think it's a less preferable option than having a endless string of strangers steal precious moments with your child that you can never get back.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:27 AM


It comes from my getting so sick and fricking tired of listening to you prattle on about how "righteous" and how friggin' "perfect" you are and how anybody who disagrees with your beliefs is heading towards a "lake of fire".

Rebut, then.

Btw, I never said I was righteous or perfect. My thoughts of these topics are also areas I haven't had a chance to practice or emulate. I don't have children. I don't have sex with or without contraception. I've never been married or divorced, so how could I assert that I am perfect in those things? People condemn my viewpoints and I explain why they work for me. If you have other viewpoints that work for you, bring it on! No one is stifling your opinions that would results in a passive-aggressive outburst. Say what you think.

I'm sick of how you treat Hal.

Believing that people that kill their kids and have no remorse and reject God face eternal punishment is the established doctrine of all Christians. I ain't the only Christian on here, either. It's not meant to offend, and it can only be hurtful and offensive if their is truth to it and such truth is accepted. Hal doesn't accept it.

I don't understand why you're so touchy. Scientologists could tell me I'll be damned to some far off planet for not worshipping Xenu all day long and it wouldn't hurt me a bit, because I know it's not true. But I wouldn't think anything of the Scientologists that believe that and didn't warn me because either they don't believe it enough or care enough about me to share it. Maybe I'm the only Christian that explains that we will answer for our choices, but I'd rather offend someone in hopes of the soul being saved rather than make nice to their peril. I could act like I don't believe this for the sake of people liking me, but when have I appeared to care?

I'm sick of being little miss Nice all the time and not allowing myself to get angry on here.

Then get angry! No one's stopping you. They will delete f-bombs though. I've been deleted for cursing lesser expletives. As long as it's censored for language, you can get angry all you please!

I am a bad person Jacque...

I don't beleive that. I've seen no evidence of it anywhere. I hope you don't believe that.

and I'm sick of hiding my badness on here for the sake of having people pretend to like me.

I don't think anyone's pretending. I'm not.

I eagerly await my bannination.

No one wants you banned. They'll delete the first post, but no one wants you to leave. Why don't you stick around and when you disagree, feel free to disagree your @ss off! I'd like to hear more unbridled Rae.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:46 AM


Oh, I'm sorry, Jacqueline...did I make a gross generalization and harsh criticism about an entire group of women/people as to their worth/general value/morality that you know to be false based on your own personal experience as such a person, or through association with such people? Good. Welcome to my point. Now let's see if you can digest it, and do try not to choke. Oh, and thanks for finally coming out and saying you have no respect for me. If you feel this way about another pro-lifer, I shudder to think of the horrific things that might bounce around up there about pro-choicers that you're just too concerned keeping up the appearance of actually caring about people to actually say. And for the record, my husband and I wed about a year after our daughter was born, mostly for logistical reasons, because nothing had actually changed in our relationship...we still loved each other just as much as we ever had, and still do. Why...does it bother you that preachy, self-righteous know-nothings have nothing to do with how my husband and I live our lives? I certainly hope so.

Posted by: xalisae at August 1, 2008 12:47 AM


Banninating the countryside! Banninating the peasants!

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:54 AM


The same thing I said, but for the last time:

Oh, I'm sorry, Jacqueline...did I make a gross generalization and harsh criticism about an entire group of women/people as to their worth/general value/morality that you know to be false based on your own personal experience as such a person, or through association with such people? Good. Welcome to my point.

Again, what point? I've not made generalizations about groups of people, but situations. You make generalizations about people, which I refute. Being venomous is not a point

Oh, and thanks for finally coming out and saying you have no respect for me.

Did I not say I respect you but not your viewpoints? I said I respect you, but not your viewpoints. I don't pretend to respect viewpoints I don't find respectable. I, however, never called you names and unleashed a firestorm of bitterness toward you. You did, and you continue.

If you feel this way about another pro-lifer, I shudder to think of the horrific things that might bounce around up there about pro-choicers that you're just too concerned keeping up the appearance of actually caring about people to actually say.

First of all, why would you think I give a crap about what people think of me, especially people that support the killing of babies? Since when have I even *appeared* to care? Secondly, I tell pro-"choicers" quite often what I think about their views, including asking abortionist SOMG to explain how killing babies doesn't make him a soulless sh!t of a human being. Read what I write and you'll see that I'm not about keeping up appearances.

And for the record, my husband and I wed about a year after our daughter was born, mostly for logistical reasons, because nothing had actually changed in our relationship...we still loved each other just as much as we ever had, and still do.

Good for you. That's nicer and easier to explain to your daughter, because she will ask. I hope she doesn't wonder for a while before she does ask.

Why...does it bother you that preachy, self-righteous know-nothings have nothing to do with how my husband and I live our lives? I certainly hope so.

Au, contrare. You seem to care what I think of how you live your life to a degree that defies all reason. I don't care what you think of how I live my life. I would love to hang up my career at some point to be one of those poor, weak little ladies with no authority besides in the kitchen who's only value is in spitting out babies. The fact that you have no respect for that role doesn't change my desire to live that life, because I see it as a good life. You see your life as good- so why so touchy?

Might I remind you, no one attacked you personally. You came in with a vengeance and mocked NFP. I doubt you did that to get validation of your choice to use birth control, but simply to mock us. And then you just got tackier with every defense of NFP that we gave to your offense. Have you forgotten?


Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 1:14 AM


Oh...so you have no relationships to speak of, but will proceed to tell me why mine is invalid. You have no need whatsoever for BC, so I can see how it might be easy for you to say, "Outlaw it all!" I wonder how your attitude might change with a little more experience...I hate to admit this, but you kind of remind me of myself back when I was in high school, although I don't think I was ever that bad...

Posted by: xalisae at August 1, 2008 1:14 AM


Sheesh! And I get my posts censored and I am told to take it elsewhere for saying somebody is acting in a self-serving indigent way. The double-standards by moderators are ridiculous.
I am leaving for good.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 1:18 AM


lol

Posted by: ts at August 1, 2008 1:19 AM


Oh...so you have no relationships to speak of, but will proceed to tell me why mine is invalid.

I never said that! Find anywhere where by any stretch of the imagination that I even came close to thinking about possibly implying that.

You have no need whatsoever for BC, so I can see how it might be easy for you to say, "Outlaw it all!"

Actually, I had a disease that was treated exclusively with BC, but I chose to find less conveinent and more intrusive alternatives because I was in a serious relationship and knew I'd discontinue BC before I got married and began having sex, (so it wouldn't abort any babies). I also found hormones icky and dangerous and had other reasons to oppose them. But I have had a legitimate "need" for BC that actually was a need, rather than the purpose of BC which is to be a recreational drug.


I wonder how your attitude might change with a little more experience...

Nice condascension, there. A+ for avoiding forming an actual response by simply maligning my age and decision to wait.

I hate to admit this, but you kind of remind me of myself back when I was in high school, although I don't think I was ever that bad...

A+ in insulting me by comparing me to yourself!

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 1:24 AM


"Banninating the countryside! Banninating the peasants!"
LOL

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 1, 2008 1:26 AM


X - just curious. I know you have a great respect for the unborn, so why do you defend Hal when Jacqueline disses him for his lack of respect for the babies?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 1:27 AM


Sorry X, I apologize. It was Rae who defended Hal's stance on killing the unborn.

Posted by: ts at August 1, 2008 1:28 AM


In conclusion, (because I am tired of being accused of saying things I didn't say and having to point out that I didn't say it):

X,

You can't come in and mock people's lifestyles and beliefs the way you came in here and mocked ours (out of nowhere, even. it's like you have an axe to grind)- and then claim we're insulting you when we defend our views against your attack.

You're throwing out insults left and right when no one insulted you and claiming that we started it, when you launched an off-topic attack 3 posts in...Did you just expect to throw your sucker punch and get no responses? Either way, you're the perpetrator, not some victim.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 1:32 AM


PIP-

Banninating all the people who lives in thatched-roof cottages. THATCHED-ROOF COTTAGES!!!

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 1:34 AM


Hal,
Wdi you support your wifes decision to abort your children? In hindsight do you think it was the right decision?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 1:35 AM


Should have read:
Hal,
Did you support your wifes decision to abort your children? In hindsight do you think it was the right decision? If so, then why?

Posted by: ts at August 1, 2008 1:46 AM


Jacq, oh the good times.

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 1, 2008 1:46 AM


hehehe- And the Trogdor comes in the NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHHT!

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 1:52 AM


Jacqueline,
What of the peasant King who escaped before his thatched roof hut was consumed in the fire of the Trogdor?

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 2:03 AM


Jacq,

may get some personal heat from this,

I see how some people here mistake your confrontational nature for arrogance and disrespect, but I think that for the most part your arguments here have been well thought out and presented. Others tonight have been a bit harsh, but granted it is a touchy issue. You still addressed them without getting too heated and insultatory. You may not respect my stand about birth control but I can say i respect your stand against it, because the reasons for it are valid.

Posted by: prettyinpink at August 1, 2008 2:05 AM


HE shall drench the fire like a pouring rain and soothe the wounds of the afflicted.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 2:07 AM


I agree pip. Jacqueline's BC judgements are sound

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 2:12 AM


Pip,

I can see that. I don't think I'm better than other people who act contrary to the way I do, but I think I am infinitely better off, so I can see how that would be misconstrued. Since I also think certain behaviors are stupid and not worth the consequences to self/others, the converse would be that I seem to think I'm smarter than those that do such acts. I see your point.

I don't see though how when someone mocks abstinence and not using birth control, that explaining that I'm better off as a reason to support my position is considered arrogant or disrespectful. I'm sure someone's lamenting about an absentee father of their baby or a past abortion and how they now share my viewpoints because of those incidents wouldn't be considered arrogant, but somehow, saying that "I've spared myself unnecessary crap" is misconstrued as me saying, "Look at how perfect I am." But doesn't even that concede that there is something right about avoiding certain behaviors, if my avoiding those things would be implied and my thinking I'm perfect?

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 2:30 AM


Jacque, I love you!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 6:27 AM


I found your comments refreshing and compassionate and I thank you for that, Jacque!!

Posted by: Carla at August 1, 2008 6:44 AM


It comes from my getting so sick and fricking tired of listening to you prattle on about how "righteous" and how friggin' "perfect" you are and how anybody who disagrees with your beliefs is heading towards a "lake of fire".
I'm sick of how you treat Hal.
I'm sick of being little miss Nice all the time and not allowing myself to get angry on here. I am a bad person Jacque...and I'm sick of hiding my badness on here for the sake of having people pretend to like me.

I truly like you, Rae!

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 6:49 AM


And stop calling yourself bad! You're a good and very caring person!

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 6:55 AM


You don't think saying SAHM's are quote, "THANK GOD men and Jesus are around to protect us poor, weak little ladies from having to think, or have some authority outside our kitchens, or having any value besides spitting out babies." is an attack at stay at home moms? She called them worthless, poor, weak, little ladies with no authority besides the kitchen and baby factories. That's a scathing attack if I ever heard one!

It's hard to think that anyone wouldn't see that as a vicious attack against SAHM's.

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 7:10 AM


Should have read:
Hal,
Did you support your wifes decision to abort your children? In hindsight do you think it was the right decision? If so, then why?

Posted by: ts at August 1, 2008 1:46 AM

ts yes Hal did suppport his wife's decision and that's the sad thing about it. The father, who is supposed to be the protector failed in his most important duty. Both parents wanted their precious children dead.
If memory serves me correctly, they aborted children between babies.

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 7:44 AM


typical Hal-post!

Posted by: Patricia at July 31, 2008 6:01 PM


Typical Patricia-post! Content and substance free personal attack made for no reason other than to be unpleasant to someone else!


Posted by: Lurker at July 31, 2008 6:07 PM

try being original the next lurker! And try lurking more and you'll see it wasn't a personal attack!

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 7:46 AM


Jacuqueline: wonderful excellent posts defending marriage and the true nature of sex. You've done a lovely job here.

BTW X:"I heard Patricia used to practice nfp back before her blissful, no-sex-until marriage fell apart.."

My marriage was definitely an anomaly. I married a man with serious hidden problems as I've stated on this BB before. My marriage was anything but blissful but this was not the fault of NFP. And sex before marriage would not have revealed his hidden troubles prior to marriage because his problem are not sexual in nature. IMO, the NFP and all the other more natural things I did during our marriage not only protected me (and the children) emotionally and physically but gave me a sense of peace afterwards. Unfortunately, I am part of that 3% statistic and as Jacqueline stated following her lifestyle does not mean that bad things won't happen to a person.
I now believe that my husband was given plenty of opportunities by God to reform and I think God allowed him to leave because of the harm he was doing to myself and our children. My prayers and the many prayers of people all over North America (we had 3 or 4 orders of nuns praying!)as well as offering to attend marriage counselling and his personal therapy etc did not bring him back. To me, this was God's will that he remain where he put himself. Believe me, he is still NOT happy today - and it's 10 years after the fact.

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 8:01 AM


Jacqueline,
I feel like I owe you an apology -- I'm afraid that Xalisae is still angry in response to our (X and me) earlier debate this week over artificial contraception. It seemed that the first couple of her comments were bait for continuing an argument.
I had responded earlier in the week to X's assertions that non-art.contraception users were religious fanatics that want to oppress women and deny them sexual pleasure, etc. so I responded with what the Catholic Church teaching is on the subject. I in no way condemned her specificly for her use of it or her lifestyle. I spoke in generalities. I did not personally insult her -- it was actually what the Church teaches on the matter that she found insulting. I am not going to force anyone to follow what I believe but I felt like I needed to at least present it in response to some ridiculous accusations. I probably should have let it drop because I don't want to provoke anyone to that kind of anger.
Maybe I should have used the noun, "one" instead of the pronoun, "you" so that it wouldn't have sounded like I was addressing the teaching to her personally. I thought that I had made that clear.
Discussing, debating or arguing on a blog is somewhat hampered by the fact that you don't see a person; their demeanor, etc. I would like to think that it would be easier to discuss certain things if you could actually see the other person and discern that they are not quite as offensive or intimidating as a possible perception of them might be on a blog.
We all have free will, I believe that the Catholic Church in her great love and wisdom has my best interest at heart. She doesn't condemn but teaches and invites and God in His great Mercy takes care of the rest.

Posted by: Eileen at August 1, 2008 9:26 AM


Patricia,

I have seen this happen to others! Some men hide their vices before marriage only to let them out after marriage because they've snagged the woman they wanted. Other men have problems that develop later, have a mid-life crisis, etc. Even the best judge of character can end up in such a spot.

One of the reasons I fear marriage so is because I've had boyfriends that I didn't realize were troublesome because I deluded myself (love, *sigh*) and felt I had to delude myself to make the relationship work. I can see where I would be a deluded wife, since those relationships have no choice but to work. I am hoping for a relationship where I don't delude myself and make excuses. But this go to show that I don't think that my following God's plan for marriage and sexuality means a perfect life, but it certainly makes it easier than if I sabotaged it with disobedience.

I hope you take this with the sweetness I offer it that I am glad he did the leaving. It sounds like you did all you could and can be blameless before God. Also, doing things right I hope offers closure so that you don't blame yourself. It sounds like you were divinely protected due to obedience and that obedience made the best out of a bad situation.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 10:56 AM


Eileen,

So she attacked us first before coming here to attack us again. I don't think anyone has written anything inciting like 'Birth control users are _____ and _____.' to which she replies. She instead makes offensive statements about us and continues it on other threads when she hasn't fully gotten her digs in. Real mature, eh?

I don't know why she cares what we think. Maybe you said something that resonated with her, caused some cognitive dissonance and she's frustrated- so she fights with you to ease the frustration and reaffirm her lifestyle which was threatened in her mind by her agreeing with some of your unrefutable points. When the truth is a threat to someone's lifestyle, they'll fight like hell in the face of it simply to continue living as they please without being hindered by conscience.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 11:04 AM


Jacque,

I'm going to ask that you refrain from using certain masked expletives on your posts from this point on. Jill has demanded that the moderators delete full posts if those type of things show up, so I'm just giving you a heads up. And you make incredibly sound points on your comments, that I don't want to nix the whole post because of a couple of words.

X,

I know it doesn't take much to get you lit, but tone it down a notch. I find your posts much easier to follow when you show some constraint.


Make my job easy, guys.

Posted by: cader at August 1, 2008 11:09 AM


X, I know the hardest thing about the "pro-life" crowd that you have struggled with since you got here has been their views on contraception. I know you have tough skin and appreciate your taking these issues head-on because of your genuine love for the unborn. Hang in there.
Peace, ts

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 11:18 AM


carder, you know what

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 11:20 AM


Dallas has her share of pregnant hookers. It's eye-opening.

http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/737013554.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/733643304.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/732241655.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ers/726043049.html

Never in a million years would I have guessed this is going on. Who is this guy, Craig, anyways? Is this happening everywhere?

Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2008 11:39 AM


Thanks, MommaLiz. And, prostitution is a sad thing...if these women can put a quantitative monetary value on their own bodies, they probably care about very little in this world besides the almighty dollar, and quite possibly drugs, as the two activites tend to go hand-in-hand. I feel for these babies. Has anyone thought of situations like these in the context of elective late-term abortions? Perhaps there could be a connection...?

Posted by: xalisae at July 31, 2008 8:27 PM

x: Good question. A pregnant woman who prostitutes her body and unborn baby may be the type to end the pregnancy at the last minute by elective late-term abortion. Hard to believe someone could think that way, but it's possible.

Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2008 11:51 AM


x: Good question. A pregnant woman who prostitutes her body and unborn baby may be the type to end the pregnancy at the last minute by elective late-term abortion. Hard to believe someone could think that way, but it's possible.

Late term abortions are thousands of dollars, though, and at these rates, the women wouldn't make much money selling themselves if they have to pay 5,000 to abort.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:00 PM


Jacqueline: 12:00 PM: Late term abortions are thousands of dollars, though, and at these rates, the women wouldn't make much money selling themselves if they have to pay 5,000 to abort.

Good point! I hadn't thought about the cost involved.

Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2008 12:11 PM


If busted, CPS will do a tox screen (you can bet it's positive) and the baby will do directly to foster care. If mom doesn't toe the line, the infant is adoptable before age 2.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 12:15 PM


I realize that I'm coming into this conversation late, but...

I think X's real problem with BC vs NFP is that she doesn't believe life begins at conception, but rather at implantation...so she has a conflict with the rest of us. We believe that birth control (abortifacients) are wrong not because of religious ideology, but because of the fact that it could take a life...something X does not concede. I can only imagine that being fiercly prolife, this veiw rocks the boat, and she overcompensates by defending BC almost fanatically.


I should have deleted the post where she called Jacquie an "ignorant nut", but she is so overly sensistive about this topic, I didn't want to make things worse.

My bad. Should have deleted it when I had the chance...

Truthseeker, what are you referring to that should have been deleted but wasn't? Was it that comment or something else that I missed?

Posted by: mk at August 1, 2008 3:20 PM


Eh, I've been called worse than an 'ignorant nut' on here. I also have standardized test scores that console me when anyone calls me stupid. :)

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 3:41 PM


Xalisae, you might be interested in this article...I'm going to copy and paste part of it, and you can read the rest at the link provided. This really opened my eyes at a time when I used to think that contraceptives really only prevented pregnancy. Please understand that I am not judging you when I talk to you about this. I'm trying to get you to hear my side and understand my perspective.


*******************

From
this link:

"Up until the mid sixties, the question of the beginning of pregnancy wasn't a subject of serious debate. It was well accepted, based upon sound science, that, that conception occurred at fertilization (that is, the union of sperm and egg).

It was also accepted that anything which prevented implantation in fact caused an abortion, as recognized by the US Government and described in a 1963 public health service leaflet:

"All the measures which impair the viability of the zygote [newly created human] at any time between the instant of fertilization [union of sperm and egg] and the completion of labor constitute, in the strict sense, procedures for inducing abortion" [1]

This acknowledgement posed a problem for the family planning movement which was moving away from "pure" contraceptives and more towards drugs which also caused early abortions by preventing implantation of a newly created human being. The only way to make these drugs legally and morally acceptable to the general public was to change the definition of conception.

This is where the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) stepped in. In 1965 the ACOG issued a medical bulletin which "officially" changed the definition of conception from union of sperm and egg to implantation: "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg].” [2]

Suddenly, under this new definition, drugs which were recognized as abortifacients now only prevented pregnancy – and could now be called contraceptives. "

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 4:47 PM


Suddenly, under this new definition, drugs which were recognized as abortifacients now only prevented pregnancy – and could now be called contraceptives.

Although they aren't contra-ceptives. It's a misnomer. They don't stop conception. They stop implantations. They are contraimplantives.

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 1, 2008 5:57 PM


Bethany:4:47: In 1965 the ACOG issued a medical bulletin which "officially" changed the definition of conception from union of sperm and egg to implantation: "Conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum [egg].” [2]

Suddenly, under this new definition, drugs which were recognized as abortifacients now only prevented pregnancy – and could now be called contraceptives. "

I had no idea this revision was made so may years ago!

Posted by: Janet at August 1, 2008 5:59 PM


Jacque, I agree!

Janet, I think that's why many young people just don't realize or believe it is true today. The "definition change" happened before we were even born, and "contraceptive" is the definition we've heard all our lives, in regard to the Birth Control Pill. How is anyone to know any different, unless they're researching this topic?


Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 6:11 PM


Before YOU where born, but not before me! lol
Bethany it's my understanding that medical textbooks still teach that life begins with the union of sperm and egg.

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 8:24 PM


Courtesy of Bobby Bambino on another active thread:

"The big bang concept of children/babies coming into being the instant a sperm penetrates an ovum is ludicrous."

"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]

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at August 1, 2008 8:02 PM

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 8:33 PM


Yes, I agree, Patricia! :) I just meant that if you're not researching the topic, then you probably won't know to figure out that contraception and birth control pills are not the same thing.

I'm just speaking from my own experience, as I never had any clue about the birth control's functions until I started researching the topic.

I did know that conception was the beginning of life, but what I didn't know was that the birth control pill worked by preventing implantation in some cases. I wasn't familiar with the terminology of words like "implantation", "fertilization", "zygote", etc.

I wish I had known then what I know now though.

Posted by: Bethany at August 1, 2008 9:01 PM


yes, Bethany, I'm sure alot of women feel this way and are probably shocked.
Then again some women don't care and don't want to know - they just want what they want.

Posted by: Patricia at August 1, 2008 9:10 PM


Truthseeker, what are you referring to that should have been deleted but wasn't? Was it that comment or something else that I missed?
Posted by: mk at August 1, 2008 3:20 PM

Somebody already removed it mk.

Posted by: truthseeker at August 1, 2008 10:53 PM


Truthseeker,

Whew!

Posted by: mk at August 2, 2008 7:14 AM


Xalisae, where did you go? I would really like to hear your input and discuss this with you further. I hope you're doing well today.

Posted by: Bethany at August 2, 2008 10:38 AM


Oh Jacque...X was being SARCASTIC. S-A-R-C-A-S-T-I-C. She was making fun of YOU because when you made that comment "women are less likely to work at a full time job outside the home" you imply that these women are doing something wrong by working, by using their hard-earned educations to put to good use to support their families and be a good example for their children. Yep, I think working mothers are a great example for children that you don't have to RELY ON A MAN and can be fulfilled in other ways than just by having kids. YOU made it sound like women are weak and need protecting because relying on a man's money is the 'right thing to do'- which gives women very little power! Money and world experience gives women bargaining power in a relationship. Oh and it's condescension, i.e. what I'm showing to you now, not condAscension, a fake word. Great! Ban me, whatever, I just needed to spew my hate-filled un-Christian, so, "wrong," words.

Posted by: common sense at August 4, 2008 10:00 AM


Common Nonsense,

Oh Jacque...X was being SARCASTIC. S-A-R-C-A-S-T-I-C. She was making fun of YOU because when you made that comment "women are less likely to work at a full time job outside the home"

I didn't make that comment. She found it as an attribute of NFP users and decided that not working outside of the home full-time makes a woman weak and pathetic. I defended women that choose to focus their energies on motherhood against her scathing attack. Nice attempt on a turn around there. She implied mothers lack value. I defended their value.

you imply that these women are doing something wrong by working

No, I'm not. Find one example of me implying that. I said that day care/nannies aren't preferable to mothering. I also gave examples of my working mother and working Patroness Saint of ways that women can still kick butt in the working world without kenneling their kids.

by using their hard-earned educations to put to good use to support their families and be a good example for their children.

I know a lot about hard-earned education. I'm still hard-earning the last bit of it. But you won't see me saying that my hard-earned education and justify it through worldly work trumps my children having the better environment. The most highly-educated and successful women choose to stay home with their kids during the early years because their previous or family income affords them that ability. Are they horrible for not farming out their kids in order to bring in more money? Would they be a better role model if they worked full-time although their children never see them?

Yep, I think working mothers are a great example for children that you don't have to RELY ON A MAN and can be fulfilled in other ways than just by having kids.

It takes women very insecure with themselves if they feel the need to prove their ability to care for themselves at the expense of their kids. Saying, "Yes, I only see my kids for an hour in the morning and the evening and on weekends, but at least I don't rely on a man!" means nothing to the child that has a new primary caregiver every few weeks.

I know I'm successful. I know I'm educated. I set that example before having my kids that I don't need to rub it in at the kids expense afterwards. Furthermore, I don't need to rely on a man, but I'll certainly choose to rely on my husband to provide for our children, since childcare is a huge provision, and I'd rather it be me than a stranger. I won't feel subjugated or that I lost my value doing so. I'm secure in my abilities and value. I don't buy the Friedan mantra that women only have value if they earn money. How shallow is that?

YOU made it sound like women are weak and need protecting because relying on a man's money is the 'right thing to do'-

No I didn't. May I remind you that X said that women who don't work full-time outside the home are weak. I said mothering is preferable for children to paying a surrogate. It's the better choice in most cases. I could mother and still provide but my consulting rate is sky-friggin' high. You don't have to rely on a man's money to raise your own kids, although it certainly helps and there is no shame in it for a woman that is secure and doesn't feel like she has to prove herself.

which gives women very little power!

You know little about power if you see running a business as more powerful that shaping the characters of the next generation. Who has the real power, the woman that runs a staff of a dozen that forget her when they change jobs, or the mother that teaches her children charity that they employ their whole lives and pass on through the generations. Keep your salary- I'll take the real power!

Money and world experience gives women bargaining power in a relationship.

Tis a shame you think that women need to bargain in their relationships. Like you insist that women must ball-bust in the working world to be a good example, they also have to go to the mat with their partners and bargain for themselves what they want? Not so. Fighting both at work and at home must be a miserable existence.

Oh and it's condescension, i.e. what I'm showing to you now, not condAscension, a fake word.

Resorting to picking on spelling, grammar and typos is a last resort for people without a substantive argument. Do you realize how foolish this makes you look?

Great! Ban me, whatever, I just needed to spew my hate-filled un-Christian, so, "wrong," words.

Do you feel better?

Posted by: Jacqueline at August 4, 2008 12:20 PM


Money and world experience gives women bargaining power in a relationship.

Why not respect and love? Why should it be about money and power?

Posted by: Bethany at August 4, 2008 3:32 PM


Yep, I think working mothers are a great example for children that you don't have to RELY ON A MAN and can be fulfilled in other ways than just by having kids.

Do you think it's impossible to fulfill dreams from within the home?

Posted by: Bethany at August 4, 2008 3:34 PM


B, obviously it's not impossible (mega-obviously, in fact) for some people.

Posted by: Doug at August 5, 2008 9:15 PM