New Stanek WND column, "Divine secrets of the political yo-yo sisterhood"

WND%20logo.gif

It's interesting to watch pro-aborts fight. They confine themselves to a war of words when picking on someone their own size. No dismembering, no decapitating, how refreshing.

Right now they're engaged in a rarely seen public snarl over which Democrat presidential candidate to support. This will likely stop after they pick a nominee, so the pack can resume attacking the Republican.

Meanwhile, the rift is revealing....

The grumpy old feminists, who for half a century have been decrying sexism, are herding around Hillary because she's a woman, the epitome of chauvinism.

There are reports lesbians are also flocking to Hillary, but I've thought for some time grumpy old feminists and lesbians were one and the same. The president and vice president of NOW in my state are live-in lesbian lovers, for instance. So that may not be news.

On Obama's side we have....

Continue reading my column today, "Divine secrets of the political yo-yo sisterhood," on WorldNetDaily.com.


Comments:

By the way, the protest was a success! All in all I think about 100 people showed up (though a lot came and went). We had a speaker from the St. Louis Center for Survivors and Torture, the president of College Dems at WashU, the ACLU St. Louis coordinator, and one of the political science/law professors at WashU speak. And there was a band! Reenactments were also performed in the center of the courtyard.

Here is a news article about it:

http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_080219_gonzalesprotest.c7a3c2b.html

Pictures of us coming soon!

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 8:42 AM


*Survivors OF Torture

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 8:43 AM


Obama is bad but I like him a lot more than Hillary, and I think McCain can defeat him in the general election.

McCain may not be Ronald Reagan, but conservatives must rally around him and make sure that an ultra-leftist does not become elected the next president of the United States.

McCain is definitely capable of nominating conservatives to the Supreme Court, and the Ann Coulters and the James Dobsons of the world need to remember that, because there is not one chance in a thousand that Hillary or Obama would nominate a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Clay B. at February 20, 2008 9:45 AM


Jill,
Excellent article! (as usual)

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 9:58 AM


Clay:

You are right on.

I campaigned for and traveled with the Republican nominee for Governor last year. Len Munsil is as conservative as they get and 100% pro-life.

His take is that McCain is a stauch pro-life candidate.

Abortion is my litmus test for any candidate because abortion messes with God. If God, becasue of abortion, eventually lifts His hand of protection from this country the resulting problems would dwarf any we might now have. He would have no choice than to bring us to our knees in reprentance or outright destroy us.

Even though I may disagree with McCain on a lot of conservative issues, he is the pro-life candidate. It is also the reason I think Huckabee will be the VP nominee to bring the Christian right back into the fold. I predicted this outcome 4 or 5 months ago.

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 10:18 AM


PIP:

Torture and murder by abortion: 48,989,900
Torture by waterboarding: 3

Posted by: jasper at February 20, 2008 10:23 AM


Hey HisMan. I know we've talked about this before, but it seems to me that ESCR isn't any less crucial than abortion because both involve the deliberate destruction of innocent human life. Since we discussed this, it seems that I have learned more that would lead me to believe that he would support ESCR. If fact, I thought I remembered reading that he even supported cloning?? I can't remember if it was cloning for ESCR or cloning to produce children (both are evil). I may be wrong about that, but if that is the case, cloning for the purpose of ESCR might actually be more evil than abortion because you are CREATING human life specifically for the case of destroying it.

I really want to like McCain, I really do. He's a war vet, risked his life for this country, and loves this country. Could you once again try and put my fears aside? Thanks, friend, God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 20, 2008 10:25 AM


PIP:

This is what I suggest you do:

1. Go to the post office.
2. Get a passport.
3. Go to the airport.
4. Buy a one-way ticket to Tehran.
5. Go and start protesting the government that sponsored 9/11. (Remember to wear black and cover your face).

If you did this it would show a lot of courage since you would probably be either executed or put away for life. Then I would admire you and provide you with the approval you so desparately seek from others.

You bark up the wrong tree. Watch out for those falling branches.

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 10:35 AM


"I really want to like McCain, I really do. He's a war vet, risked his life for this country, and loves this country. Could you once again try and put my fears aside? Thanks, friend, God love you."

Bobby- The first step is the appointment of justices (and lower court judges) who will roll back RvW (and in the case of lower court judges, make other life-affirming decisions). Once that happens, and the law of the land is no longer one that proclaims abortion to be a "right" comparable to the rights of free speech, free association, etc., the stage will be set for laws that protect unborn human life, at the state level. Stevens is 87 years old. It's likely that he will retire or become incapacitated, health-wise, in the next four years. His replacement is the vote we need to overturn RvW. We know that McCain will appoint good, strict constructionist judges. That is a good reason to support him, from the pro-life perspective.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 10:43 AM


HisMan, I don't see any evidence that PIP is seeking your approval, and I certainly hope she never gets it. What a rude and ignorant post you just wrote. It is the right and duty of American citizens to protest illegal acts by their government.

Jill, you really disagree with this? "the wounds of racism are deeper than the wounds of sexism,"

Both may be equally wrong, but the "wounds" of racism seem much deeper to me.

Posted by: Hal at February 20, 2008 10:46 AM


"Torture by waterboarding: 3"
You might want to check those figures again. There's more torture happening besides waterboarding. And Gonzales is responsible for this.

"If you did this it would show a lot of courage since you would probably be either executed or put away for life. Then I would admire you and provide you with the approval you so desparately seek from others.

You bark up the wrong tree. Watch out for those falling branches."

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, the Iranian government tortures. I think that is equally wrong, and furthermore we are not trying to take over Iran. In fact in our weekly Urgent Actions we write to Iran quite a lot. I think the torture of suspected terrorists is wrong just as I think that torture of suspected murderers in this country is wrong. When someone asked Gonzales these kinds of questions at his talk he merely evaded them.
Amnesty International is just as concerned with Iranian, Ethiopian, or Vietnamese (for example) torture as it is for the United States. We don't appreciate the shredding of our constitution and the allowance of such blatant disregard for human rights. Simple as that.

Anyway. I will upload pictures later today.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 10:48 AM


"HisMan, I don't see any evidence that PIP is seeking your approval, and I certainly hope she never gets it. What a rude and ignorant post you just wrote. It is the right and duty of American citizens to protest illegal acts by their government."

Yes, thank you Hal.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 10:48 AM


Okay, thanks Anon. That does sound like McCain would need our support then. I guess I still somewhat struggle with the idea of voting for the "lesser of two evils." It is difficult to vote for someone who approves of something that is intrinsically evil, but that may be something I have to get past.

BTW, are you the same Anon that I had the long religious discussion with last week?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 20, 2008 10:52 AM


Bobby:

The inside story is that McCain supported ESCR as a favor to Mo Udall's wife whose husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I think he now realizes that this was a mistake.

Please go here:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

for John's posiitons on the sanctity of life.
My take is that there is a lot of misinfomration on this issue.

Remember the libs want there to be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee abortion rights. That would kill the pro-life movement and we should be terrified at the prospect.

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 11:12 AM


Bobby -

I know it can be difficult to vote for the lesser of two evils, but if I remember correctly, I don't think a "lesser of two evils" vote is considered sinful by the Church. Also, consider the number of human lives destroyed by abortion, and the number destroyed by ESCR. Abortion is much more. I know that we cannot make a determination based on numbers alone, for even the destruction of one innocent life is wrong, but if we can make big steps to stop abortion, we've saved millions of lives. That, in combination with the issue of good judges, I think is a reasonable position to take in your vote and your support of a candidate.

Also, I don't think I'm the anon you previously discussed religion with (although I love to discuss religion too). I'm "S."

Sorry about the anon - I just never take the time to type my name above - maybe I should start doing that. Although I try not to post too often, since I need to work!

S.

Posted by: S. at February 20, 2008 11:13 AM


"You might want to check those figures again. There's more torture happening besides waterboarding. And Gonzales is responsible for this."

PIP, you're are correct, only 3 have been waterboarded and there were about ~9 other al-queada terrorists that got roughed up a little.

I have updated the stats:

Torture and murder by abortion: 48,989,900
Torture by waterboarding: 3
roughed up by other interogation techniques: 9


http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/11/exclusive-only-.html

Posted by: jasper at February 20, 2008 11:16 AM


Bobby:
Since we discussed this, it seems that I have learned more that would lead me to believe that he would support ESCR.

McCain did (and probably still does) support ESCR. It's highly unfortunate that he does, and it's why I can't consider him to be 100% pro-life.

However, McCain is still worthy of our votes (even if we would have preferred someone else) for two reasons:
1) He's still mostly pro-life, while the Democratic alternatives are 100% pro-death.
2) Scientific advances seem to be making ESCR a non-issue anyway. Induced pluripotent stem cells give scientists all of the (claimed) benefits of ESCR without actually having to sacrifice embryos.

...

HisMan:
You bark up the wrong tree.

Speak the truth in love, brother. Right now, you sound like a clanging cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1)

...

Speaking of clanging cymbals, this line from Jill's otherwise-excellent column:
There are reports lesbians are also flocking to Hillary, but I've thought for some time grumpy old feminists and lesbians were one and the same.

Um, what? There are plenty of heterosexual women (and even a few men) who call themselves feminists. Some of those feminists are even grumpy and/or old. My parents probably qualify, actually....

But that's all beside the point. What the heck was your point here, Jill? Was this line just a little throwaway ad hominem attack? A little red meat to make your column more lively?

I totally agree with the main point of the column. It's darkly amusing to watch Hillary and Obama spat with each other about who is more pro-death. It's also a sign of a deeply-pathological mindset on the part of pro-choicers. Either of these two abortion advocates are far enough into the pit that they're effectively identical. And yet, they seem to be digging even further down as they attempt to impress the faithful....

Posted by: Naaman at February 20, 2008 11:17 AM


Hal:

Abortion is rude.

What you did to your first two kids was rude.

Don't lecture me on rude.

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 11:17 AM


"Remember the libs want there to be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee abortion rights. That would kill the pro-life movement and we should be terrified at the prospect."

This "lib" doesn't want an amendment to the constitution for or against abortion. The only exception I could see would be for a compromise that 90% of the country could get behind, like abortion on demand for first trimester then banned thereafter unless serious threat tho health or life of mother. Even then, I think, we don't need to amend the consititution.

And, no need to "kill the pro-life movement," it's wilting away quite nicely on its own.

Posted by: Hal at February 20, 2008 11:17 AM


btw PIP, waterboading is no longer used (since 2003)

Posted by: jasper at February 20, 2008 11:19 AM


Great, thanks for the info S and HisMan. Yeah, you would definitely remember if you had the religious discussion with me, S :) And you're also right about the Church allowing that vote. Just gotta form my conscience correctly. Thanks friends. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 20, 2008 11:20 AM


Hisman, you most certainly are rude. God has put PIP here to oppose illegal government acts. And you, mere mortal, are questioning His divine wisdom?

God loves PIP.

Does God love HisMan?

(It sure is easy to argue when you can just claim God is on your side)

Posted by: Hal at February 20, 2008 11:23 AM


5. Go and start protesting the government that sponsored 9/11. (Remember to wear black and cover your face).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Saudis are the Bush family's best friends.

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 20, 2008 11:26 AM


Hal -

It's also easy to argue against abortion simply on the a-religious basis of human rights. You don't need God to make good arguments there.

In fact, religion never convinced me (but it's nice to know that my opinion and God's "opinion" coincide). It was the human rights argument, and *the pictures*.

S.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 11:26 AM


There are reports lesbians are also flocking to Hillary, but I've thought for some time grumpy old feminists and lesbians were one and the same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dick Cheney's daughter and Ann Coulter support Hillary?
Who knew?

Posted by: FetusFascist at February 20, 2008 11:29 AM


Hal, 10:46a, said: "Jill, you really disagree with this? 'the wounds of racism are deeper than the wounds of sexism.' Both may be equally wrong, but the 'wounds' of racism seem much deeper to me."

Hal, sexism is the oldest -ism, for starters.

Worldwide, both historically and today, sexism causes incredible, incaluable harm. The catastrophic gender imbalance is thanks to sexism, for instance.

Racism is bad. Slavery of blacks was bad. But women have endured slavery longer than any race has, and they still do. And that's just one thing.

That said, thanks be to Jesus Christ for doing the most to equalize women. Christians may have done so imperfectly. But we live in an imperfect, fallen world.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 20, 2008 11:40 AM


Thanks Naaman. I agree that he can't be 100% pro-life, but your point 1) is quite valid, and hopefully point 2) will turn out to be true. Lots of good stuff for me to think about. God love you, Naaman.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 20, 2008 11:42 AM


"Both may be equally wrong, but the "wounds" of racism seem much deeper to me."


Hal, it's no surprise that you would think that. I mean abortion is legal woohoo sexism is over.

Posted by: tori at February 20, 2008 11:46 AM


Sexism is not over. Racism is not over. Both women and minority groups suffer. Racist attacks seem, to me (a white male) to wound more. My daughters are mixed race. They are more confused, angry, and hurt by racial injustice then gender. They fight against both.

Posted by: Hal at February 20, 2008 11:58 AM


Hal, I agree there is still racism and sexism in this country but let me ask you this... how many areas of this country do minorities have to be afraid to walk around alone after dark for fear of a "racially motivated" attack? Then ask yourself how many areas of the country a woman can walk alone after dark without fear of being raped and then having the rape be "her fault" because she was out after dark?

Posted by: tori at February 20, 2008 12:19 PM


I forgot to add, which group received voting rights first black males or women? You can read the constitution and find out. Blacks were captured as slaves and treated as subhuman by Europeans for a few hundred years. It's horrible certainly but considering that every group of people in the world has at some point been in power and treated other groups as subhuman, it's really not as deep as the idea that women are men's property. The idea of women being subhuman has been around for the beginning of time and was deeply ingrained in most cultures. Racism is constantly shifting with one group in power oppressing another, the term slave comes from slav which is a "white" ethnic group who were taken as slaves by Africans. Very few cultures throughout history were not patriarchal societies that denied women as human beings.

Posted by: tori at February 20, 2008 12:44 PM


Bobby:

The inside story is that McCain supported ESCR as a favor to Mo Udall's wife whose husband was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I think he now realizes that this was a mistake.

Please go here for John's posiitons on the sanctity of life:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

My take is that there is a lot of misinfomration on this issue.

Remember the libs want there to be an amendment to the constitution to guarantee abortion rights. That would kill the pro-life movement and we should be terrified at the prospect.

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 1:02 PM


Laura,

Dick Cheney's daughter and Ann Coulter support Hillary?
Who knew?
Posted by: FetusFascist at February 20, 2008 11:29 AM

Actually, Anne would not only support Hillary, but campaign for her....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

Posted by: mk at February 20, 2008 1:17 PM


Hal:

By your own admission you do not believe in either mine or PIP's God. Or have you changed since then? PIP can handle the criticism as she is becoming more and more thick skinned. She has changed from the frightened little girl she was just a year ago.

My point is that I think there are more important issues on the table than protesting Mr. Gonzalez'a visits to a college campus. He is a non-item.

She also needs to know that the ACLU and her college professor are dangerous because they have underlying agenda's cloaked in dogooderism. College students are especially susceptible to their deception.

PIP's passion and talent would be much better spent on real issues like ending abortion and challenging people like you. For it is exactly people like you who are the real danger to our country's future.

PIP:

The Lord has no use for fence straddlers. You either love Him or hate Him. Your desire for the approval of others is keeping you from being what He created you to be. That's not rude, that's a true statement and you know it.

Naaman:

Speaking the truth in love does not mean just speaking niceties. Did Jesus speak the truth in love? Why did He call the Pharisees a brood of vipers? And have you ever read any of Paul's epistles? Have you ever read about his confrontation with Peter or a description of how he felt about believers that once were with him but now left? Oh, and the book of Hebrews, what a sweeet politically correct manual about speaking the truth in love. I suppose you'd judge Paul too. Please spare me the namby-pamby Christianity or should I say Churchianity. If anything, speaking the truth as you would have me do is only noise and has no effect other than to move some air molecules around.

I choose to wield the Word as it is, the sword of the Spirit. Please stop turning it into a wet noodle will ya.

Speaking the truth in love simply means to speak the truth unencumbered by political correctness and not worrying about the repercussions.

I call a pro-abort, pro-choicer what they are, a murderer. Do you think Our Lord would call them anything different?

Posted by: HisMan at February 20, 2008 1:26 PM


HisMan,
You keep speaking as God is leading you to speak! Soft words work for some, while others need louder ones to hear. You're speaking from your heart, HisMan, where God's spirit resides. I am so glad that you don't hold back what the Spirit is leading you to say. Reality is very refreshing.

Posted by: JLM at February 20, 2008 1:59 PM


FF:
I'm asking again for answers to my response to your tirade on Jill. You started it, now you are going to slither away?

Posted by: Sandy at February 20, 2008 2:00 PM


"My point is that I think there are more important issues on the table than protesting Mr. Gonzalez'a visits to a college campus. He is a non-item."

THe rule of law in important. Remember going after Bill Clinton? Former AG Gonzalez must go to jail, or we're all doomed.

I was just kidding about the God thing. Of course I don't believe in any of that.

Posted by: Hal at February 20, 2008 2:08 PM


HisMan,

Why do you keep saying PiP is seeking the approval of others? Is that the only reason you can think of for protesting torture? Do you think being a pro-life liberal sounds like a sure route to approval?

PiP,

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Jen R at February 20, 2008 2:44 PM


In general I believe all causes equally need to be run for- from abortion to torture- and if there were an activity in St. Louis agianst abortion I would be there too. Actually I did contact a CPC but they did not answer me back. It's the "seamless garment" of moral concern.

Many people we do not personally torture are sent to prisons outside the US for other countries to torture. Very classy.

HisMan, you go on rants about professors being misleading, etc. Really, most teachers keep their so called "agendas" out of the classrooms. In fact most people have made up their minds on their own about things and conservatives find that education leads to thinking, and thinking leads to more liberal ideas, which they find subversive, so they have to find a scapegoat. Those that oppose torture, well, I'm willing to hear what they say about it, because torture is...let's see....WRONG.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/misc/factsheet.htm

At least 45 detainees died in U.S. custody due to suspected or confirmed criminal homicides.[1] At least eight people were tortured to death. At least 98 detainees have died while in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan;[2]

At least 69 of the detainees died at locations other than Abu Ghraib;[3]

At least 51 detainees have died in U.S. custody since Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was informed of the abuses at Abu Ghraib on January 16, 2004;[4]

12 deaths have led to punishments of U.S. personnel;[5]

0 CIA personnel have been charged with wrongdoing in connection with alleged involvement in at least 5 deaths;[6]

As of November 2005, over 83,000 people have been held in U.S. custody, and about 30,000 of those were entered "into the system," and assigned internment serial numbers in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Afghanistan;[7]

There have been nearly 600 criminal investigations into allegations of detainee abuse; each investigation tends to include more than one U.S. soldier, more than one instance of abuse, and more than one victim. Allegations against 250 Soldiers have been addressed in courts-martial, non-judicial punishments, and other adverse administrative punishments. The highest ranking military member judicially punished in connection with the death of a detainee is Marine Major Clarke Paulus, who was found guilty of maltreatment and dereliction of duty and dismissed from the service.[8]

Reportedly 100-150 individuals have been rendered from U.S. custody to a foreign country known to torture prisoners, including to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan;[9]

There are 6 main acknowledged U.S. detention facilities worldwide--3 in Iraq, 2 in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay;[10]

There are approximately 25 transient facilities - field prisons designed to house detainees only for a short period until they can be released or transferred to a more permanent facility-in Afghanistan and Iraq;[11]

There are believed to be at least 11 'secret' detention locations used since September 2001. They are/were CIA facilities in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Poland, Romania, and Jordan, detention facilities in Alizai, Kohat and Peshawar in Pakistan, a facility on the U.S. Naval Base on the island of Diego-Garcia, and detentions of prisoners on U.S. ships, particularly the USS Peleliu and USS Bataan.[12]

Over 15,000 people are currently in U.S. detention in just Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. As of February 16, 2006, in Iraq, there were 14,389 detainees in U.S. custody; as of December 2005, the U.S. was holding approximately 500 detainees in Afghanistan; as of February 10, 2006 there are approximately 490 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and one enemy combatants held in the U.S.;[13]

36 prisoners are believed to be held in unknown locations;[14]

At least 376 foreign fighters detained in Iraq to whom the Administration has asserted the Geneva Conventions do not apply;[15]

There were up to 100 ghost detainees in Iraq;[16]

The U.S. transferred at least one dozen prisoners out of Iraq for further interrogation in violation of the Geneva Conventions;[17]

8 percent of 517 Guantanamo detainees were considered al Qaeda fighters by the U.S. Government. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection to al Qaeda or Taliban.[18]

5 percent of the 517 detainees held at Guantanamo were captured by the United States and the majority of those currently in custody were turned over by other parties during a time when the United States was offering large sums for captured prisoners.[19]

At least 267 detainees have been released from Guantanamo Bay since January 2002. 187 were released out right, and 80 were transferred to their home countries for continued detention;[20]

38 detainees at Guantanamo determined not to be enemy combatants pursuant to CSRT and at least 23 detainees subsequently released; 558 CSRTS conducted in total[21]

As of February 9, 2006, the military had completed its first round of Administrative Review Board (ARB) hearings, resulting in 463 board recommendations of which Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, the Designated Civilian Official for ARBs decided to allow 14 releases (3 percent), 120 transfers (26 percent) and to continue to detain 329 individuals (71 percent);[22]

Other documented practices:
Beating:
Fist
Truncheon
Kick
Slamming
Electrical shocks
stretching or suspension
Asphyxiation:
Water immersion
Obstructing airway
Chest compression
Suspension
Thermal burning
Ligatures
Rape
Painful Medical Procedures
Food and Water deprivation
toilet, shelter, medical care, sleep and sensory deprivation
Forcing victim to abase self:
Urinating on self
Masturbating
Renouncing religion
Falsely confessing or accusing
Applying urine, feces to others
Threats to prisoner
Threats against the prisoner's family
Insults
Denigration of the prisoner's religion
Mock Executions
Forcing a Victim to watch abuse or torture of a loved one
Loud noise, immobilization, bright lights/blindfolding, confinement
Dog bites
Disorienting drugs such as tranquilizers or Hallucinogens.
(Randall GR, Lutz L, Quiroga J, et al. Physical and psychiatiric effects of torture: two medical studies. In Stover and Nightingale, 62-63
Thomsen JL. The role of a pathologist in human rights abuses. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2000;53;569-72)

There are other videos on youtube that have actual people talking about their torture.

If you want to deny the existence of torture while Gonzales called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and denied that habeas corpus is guaranteed in the constitution...go right ahead. I'm over here in the "reality" circle. Feel free to join me. I will just put the pictures up on my blog because there is so many.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 3:05 PM


Thanks, Jen ;)

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 3:07 PM


HisMan:
Did Jesus speak the truth in love?

Yes, He did. Especially when speaking to those with tender hearts or questioning spirits. Jesus saved His tough words for hypocrites and the religious establishment of the day (who had drifted rather far from the actual Word of God).

More importantly, Jesus also knew the hearts of those to whom He was speaking. You do not.

And have you ever read any of Paul's epistles?

Yup. All of them. Like Jesus, Paul had good reasons to use harsh words when he used them. What are your reasons? What has PiP done to cause her to deserve your harsh words?

Please spare me the namby-pamby Christianity or should I say Churchianity.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

I choose to wield the Word as it is, the sword of the Spirit. Please stop turning it into a wet noodle will ya.

You've traded in the Sword of the Spirit for a big stick with a nail in it. Sometimes, a Christian must be harsh. Most of the time, our speech and actions should be characterized by love.

For example:
1st Corinthians 13 (Love)
Galatians 5:22 (the fruits of the Spirit)

Finally, consider these words from 1st Peter 3:15-16:
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Key words there: gentleness and respect

Speaking the truth in love simply means to speak the truth unencumbered by political correctness and not worrying about the repercussions.

I'm not suggesting political correctness. If you knew me, you'd know how silly that would be. I'm simply suggesting common courtesy. AKA gentleness and respect.

I call a pro-abort, pro-choicer what they are, a murderer. Do you think Our Lord would call them anything different?

Several points for your consideration:
* Jesus knows the secrets of all our hearts. His judgment is perfect. Yours is not.
* Not all pro-choicers have had any personal involvement with abortion. Many of them just support it politically. Therefore, "murderer" is not the correct term, because they have never committed (or aided) murder.
* If her conversion story is still accurate, PiP is actually pro-life. http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/04/convert_stories.html
* Abortion is not always murder. Murder implies intent. Sadly, many women who abort (and many of the pro-choicers who help them to do so) are so deceived by pro-abortion propaganda that they don't actually know what they're doing. Ignorance is no defense, of course, but it does eliminate the possibility of intent.

Finally, the Scriptorium Daily wrote an excellent article a few weeks ago about how to use "tough love" as a Christian:
http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/2008/01/28/nasty-like-jesus-use-of-tough-rhetoric-in-christianity/

Remember: gentleness and respect.

Posted by: Naaman at February 20, 2008 3:55 PM


Thank you Naaman. Greatly appreciated :)

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 4:01 PM


And yes, that would be accurate. I consider myself pro-life, but sometimes I'd rather go with pro-human, because I care for all life, born and unborn, U.S. citizen and Iraqi citizen, young and old.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 4:07 PM


PiP:

I'm not a fan of torture, to put it mildly. As far as that goes, I agree with your concern.

However, there are several items on your list that I don't believe are torture:
toilet, shelter, medical care, sleep and sensory deprivation (depending on the extent of the deprivation)
forcing victim to abase self (it depends on the force used)
urinating on self
masturbating
renouncing religion
falsely confessing or accusing
applying urine, feces to others
threats to prisoner
threats against the prisoner's family
insults
denigration of the prisoner's religion (if this is torture, then I'm being tortured nearly every day)
loud noise, immobilization, bright lights/blindfolding, confinement
disorienting drugs such as tranquilizers or hallucinogens

I'm not saying that any of those things are fun, mind you. But they aren't torture.

The other items on that list are torture. Anyone doing such things should be punished to the full extent of the law. If they're official US policy, then the policymaker should be punished to the full extent of the law...

... if you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Also, the Geneva Conventions only apply to uniformed combatants who adhere to the rules of warfare. By their very nature, terrorists are not included in the Geneva Conventions. In fact, the whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is made pointless by trying to apply them to terrorists. It's like defending censorship on the grounds of free speech, or something equally bizarre.

According to the Geneva Conventions, we would be within our legal rights to execute every single prisoner in Gitmo. There are moral reasons why we shouldn't do that ... but we would be within our legal rights if we did.

Posted by: Naaman at February 20, 2008 4:07 PM


also earlier, not all conservatives find education subversive, just some of them do. So, that was a general statement when it shouldn't have been, sorry about that.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 4:10 PM


Abortion is not always murder. Murder implies intent. Sadly, many women who abort (and many of the pro-choicers who help them to do so) are so deceived by pro-abortion propaganda that they don't actually know what they're doing. Ignorance is no defense, of course, but it does eliminate the possibility of intent.

HUH????

And this is where I lose Naaman as one of my beloved heroes.

Women KNOW they're "disposing of" THEIR baby, Naaman. They do intend on doing it.

Perhaps you feel the same way about suicide bombers in the Middle East? It's not really murder, they were just filled with Mohammed propaganda & the promise of a harem of virgins if they do it.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 4:15 PM


"However, there are several items on your list that I don't believe are torture:"
Why aren't these torture? If someone made you do this in prison, would you not feel degraded and emotionally abused?


"But they aren't torture"
What would you define as torture?

"The other items on that list are torture."
There is a great book out there called "Oath Betrayed" which highlights the medical community's involvement in the coverup of torture. The entire book was written on the testimonies of unclassified government documents.

"In fact, the whole purpose of the Geneva Conventions is made pointless by trying to apply them to terrorists. "
We do not know for a fact that our suspects are terrorists.
Naming POW's "enemy combatants" does little to make the GC "go away." See above.

"There are moral reasons why we shouldn't do that ... but we would be within our legal rights if we did."
Torture is a question of morals. Where in the Geneva Conventions does it say that all POWs can be executed without trial? If I missed it please let me know.

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 4:24 PM


Hey Anon.

"HUH????

And this is where I lose Naaman as one of my beloved heroes."

If I may, I think that Naaman is trying to distinguish between an objective and subjective aspect to morality. One can not be held accountable to God for something that they are not aware of. That being said, abortion is objectively murder; however, it is my guess that many women believe that they are not killing a human person after hearing lies about "just a clump of tissues" etc.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 20, 2008 5:04 PM


Bobby,
With all due respect, women who have sex do know that if they do they can become pregnant...with a BABY!

Now, if there was actually a woman who had sex NOT knowing that she could become pregnant with a BABY, and then was told that she had a clump of tissue in her that needed to be removed, I could possibly understand that argument.

IMO, the argument that the woman doesn't really know what the word "pregnant" MEANS is WAY out there. So farfetched, that I couldn't even believe that Naaman used it.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 5:18 PM


Bobby 5:04 PM,

You make an important distinction.

Anon,

Isn't it a bit harsh to allow a girl to make a subjective decision to a legal abortion (no moral concerns) but once it becomes illegal, to say you want to convict her without taking her circumstances into consideration? Where's the compassion?

There are still many teens in this country who don't graduate from high school. There are also many schools that have huge attendance problems. Parents drop their children off at school, but they never make it through the door. If the teen happens to be absent the day they studied human biology....well, you know what can happen...


Posted by: Janet at February 20, 2008 6:52 PM


Isn't it a bit harsh to allow a girl to make a subjective decision to a legal abortion (no moral concerns) but once it becomes illegal, to say you want to convict her without taking her circumstances into consideration? Where's the compassion?

Where did I say that?
I stated that I think abortion is murder every time a woman aborts. I'm sorry if you don't think I'm being compassionate, but I believe abortion is murder no matter what the circumstance is. I never mentioned jail time convictions.

Are you saying that sometimes abortion IS ok, but it depends on the circumstances?

There are still many teens in this country who don't graduate from high school. There are also many schools that have huge attendance problems. Parents drop their children off at school, but they never make it through the door. If the teen happens to be absent the day they studied human biology....well, you know what can happen...

OK, I really can't believe I'm reading this. First off, I was talking about WOMEN. You actually believe that there are some WOMEN who have sex that DON'T know they can get pregnant? Come on. Please tell me that you two are just messing with my head for kicks, ok?

MOST kids get the "talk" from their friends, Janet. Trust me...they know where babies come from at a pretty young age these days.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 7:16 PM


Hey PIP,

you and your left-wing buddies seem to forget we're into the middle of a war on terror. you and your friends want to tie up our courts with trials for terrorists. I believe they will get a military trial.

Also, In your post above, you keep on using the phrase "x amount have died, x amount have died" etc, etc. with no proof that these detainees were killed by the CIA or military. So, my stats still stand. I believe the left is using this as "straw man" to continue their hatred for the Bush administration. It's BDS (Bush derangement syndrome). crazy, nutty.

btw: Abe Lincoln suspended habeus corpus.

enemy combatants (terrorists), I believe should not be protected under the geneva convention. They're terrorists.

Posted by: jasper at February 20, 2008 7:36 PM


Anon,

I'm sorry if I assumed you are PC. I wasn't sure. I'll bow out of the conversation because Namaan and Bobby are already discussing this with you. I'll at least try to answer your questions.

I said nothing about jail. You say "abortion is murder no matter what the circumstance". When I say you "convict" her, I mean it in a moral sense, not a legal sense.

No, abortion is not sometimes OK. I agree with Bobby's post, that suggests that the moral ramifications can be different in God's eyes, depending on the circumstances.

Yes, I'm talking about women AND TEENS. Teens, especially, can be ignorant of the facts surrounding abortion. Knowing where babies come from, and actually understanding the biology are two different things. I'm sure the girls sitting on the playground aren't saying, "Well, Lucy, you know once the embryo attains the blastocyst stage a few days after fertilization, it begins the process of implantation....". (Mom and Dad are usually a better source of accurate information.)

Posted by: Janet at February 20, 2008 8:10 PM


Thanks for clarifying, Janet.

However, I still will disagree with you that a woman or teen that is going in for an abortion may not know it's a baby.

Only God knows a person's heart, and only God can judge people for what they do. Thankfully, it's not my job.

The only case I could possibly think of that abortion being murder was not intent on the woman or girl having it, is if it were a mentally challenged woman or teen, and their guardian made them abort without their knowledge. That can and has happened.

It was Naaman's statement here that got me going:

Sadly, many women who abort (and many of the pro-choicers who help them to do so) are so deceived by pro-abortion propaganda that they don't actually know what they're doing.

I read every word of most of the posts. When Naaman said "MANY" women, I just found that to be a ridiculous statement. I guess if he were to use "a very tiny percentage" instead, that would have made more sense to me.

If Naaman would be willing to provide some examples to help me better understand where he was coming from here, I'd be glad to hear them.

Thank you Janet!

:)

Posted by: Anonymous at February 20, 2008 8:35 PM


"you and your left-wing buddies seem to forget we're into the middle of a war on terror."
Yeah I hope torturing doesn't happen during times of peace. Doing the right thing is hard sometimes. This is the time to hold on to our principles or we become like the enemy.

"you and your friends want to tie up our courts with trials for terrorists. I believe they will get a military trial."
Right now they are given NO trial. That is what we are against. They have no access to a lawyer or right to trial.

"Also, In your post above, you keep on using the phrase "x amount have died, x amount have died" etc, etc. with no proof that these detainees were killed by the CIA or military."
You think all of those homicides in custody were done by random other people? Read "Oath Betrayed." I don't have the book on hand here, but what I have read made me cry. So many homicides were covered up by the death certificate saying "cardiac arrest."

"So, my stats still stand."
Check out the sources on the website. I clearly linked them to you. In terms of death certificate cover-ups and ambiguities I cannot give you a number now since I let a friend borrow the book. But ask me in March, I will have it back by then.

"I believe the left is using this as "straw man" to continue their hatred for the Bush administration. It's BDS (Bush derangement syndrome). crazy, nutty."
First of all, what would you consider the 'straw man' here?
I just think torture is wrong. Sorry if you don't. I guess that's between you and God. I just can't imagine the reasoning behind someone who favors torture of people, but that's your beef, man. It's my right to protest it. If someone in Obama's administration did something similar then I would be equally opposed to him.


"btw: Abe Lincoln suspended habeus corpus."
How is that relevant.

"enemy combatants (terrorists), I believe should not be protected under the geneva convention. They're terrorists."
Read those stats above again. Suspected terrorists are not necessarily terrorists in the first place, just as murder suspects are not necessarily murderers. Secondly, I think even terrorists are humans (brilliant observation I know) and torture violates human rights. Not only does it produce bad information it is NOT RIGHT. NO MATTER WHO IS BEING TORTURED.
I guess it is easier to think of them as dogs or something below us. That has got to be what it has to take in order to actually torture someone. Otherwise the blatant hypocrisy of the opposition of torture of everyone else would stare that person in the face. It is that possible to ignore? Because where would you draw the line?

Posted by: prettyinpink at February 20, 2008 10:18 PM


Anon 8:35,

You're welcome. I appreciate your response, too.

Posted by: Janet at February 20, 2008 11:20 PM


I am quoted accurately in the original Capital Times article, and in the excerpt on your website ("Divine secrets of the political yo-yo sisterhood").

The context of the paragraph in which my name appears, however, may suggest that I am one of the "minority pro-abort women." It is common for people to assume I am Latina, based upon my name. In the event that this was relevant to your story, you should know that I am not Latina. I am Ashkenazi Jewish.

Posted by: Professor Alta Charo at February 21, 2008 6:57 AM


Professor Charo,

Thank you for your note and your concern. I appreciate being misquoted. Yes, I did think you were Latina. My apologies.

That you are Jewish does fit the pattern of modern-day pro-abortion feminism. For the life of me, I do not understand, but that is another topic.

Regards.

Posted by: Jill Stanek at February 21, 2008 6:58 AM


Hey Anon,

I should say that while you and I do agree about abortion and the nature of sex, I think we still have to take into account the fact that there is what you and I would both agree is a LOT of bad information out there, and that is what I think many people base their understanding of abortion on. Take, for example this this article. It demonstrates how the average high schooler has no clue about abortion or embryology. We can only assume that if these kinds of high school students don't study the issues after high school, they are still in the dark as adults just as much as they were when they were high schoolers. God love you.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at February 21, 2008 7:36 AM


Bobby 7:36,

Wonderful article ("Samantha Shrugged"by Barry Michaels). That says it all.

An excerpt, from the teacher's conversation with his pupils:

The utter denial of scientific realities (I lost count of how many times I heard the phrase “clump of cells” during our discussions) and the rejection of rational thought — these things are there because they’re the only way to justify the approach to abortion currently taken in American law. Neither biological insights nor logical consistency is important. Convenience is. Taking science or reason into account would necessarily mean changing the laws.

Or maybe not. After all, just because something is true doesn’t mean you have to believe it.

Posted by: Janet at February 21, 2008 8:26 AM


Dang, I was somebody's hero, and now I'm not. :( At least my kids still look up to me. ;)

Anonymous (2/20, 8:35pm) wrote:
If Naaman would be willing to provide some examples to help me better understand where he was coming from here, I'd be glad to hear them.

Sure thing. Search Google for the phrase "product of conception" when you get a chance. Now filter out all of the pro-life links (there will be a few) and start reading. Do the same process with the phrase "clump of cells".

Better yet, go read a few pro-choice websites and blogs. Don't start any fights. Don't comment. Just read for a bit.

(Feel free to comment later, if you must. But take the time to read first.)

It's a common misconception of pro-lifers to believe that we have won the moral debate. Supposedly, everyone finally believes that unborn children are human beings just like the rest of us. Sadly, this opinion has little basis in reality. And I can prove it very simply (in case the above exercise didn't convince you):
Do women kill their already-born children to further their careers, get educations, or preserve their economic status? Only very rarely, and such killings are widely condemned when they happen. But women kill their unborn children for these same reasons all the time, thousands of times each day, and a large portion of our society cheers their "right" to do so.

Pregnant women generally know that they're pregnant. They also know that their pregnancy will -- if undisturbed -- eventually result in a wriggling newborn baby. However, ask them about the contents of their wombs, and you'll get a wide range of answers. It's a clump of cells. It's a "potential" life. It's a z/e/f. It's a parasite. Pro-choicers have sold us on the lie that the unborn child is like Schrdinger's cat: Life or death depends on the observer. Sadly, many women still believe that lie.

So back to my main point:
If a woman doesn't know what she's killing, then she can't possibly be committing murder.

She wants to end her pregnancy. She doesn't want a child right now. She's ending a "potential" life. But she doesn't actually understand what she's doing, so it isn't murder. She is still killing, and that killing is gravely wrong. Those are objective facts, however much the pro-choicers will dispute them. But murder requires intent, and intent is wholly subjective. Without intent, it isn't murder.

Analogy for you:
A deer hunter hears a rustling in the bushes. He opens fire, thinking it to be a deer. Sadly, the rustling was a couple of teenagers who sought privacy for a make-out session, and they're now dead. The hunter is certainly guilty of causing their deaths, but he's not going to be charged with murder. Why not? Because he didn't know what (or whom) he was killing.

Posted by: Naaman at February 21, 2008 9:01 AM


Naaman,

Thank you for clarifying your statement.

Deep down in the pit of their hearts, I beleive that they do know that it is a baby. People can talk themselves into anything to justify their actions. Thieves do it all of the time. People lie so much to themselves that they can actually believe their lies. However, deep, deep down they know.

Even current and former abortionists will tell you that the women know its a baby.

Again, I don't know their hearts, only God does. If I told people over and over again that I have purple skin with pink polk dots, no matter how many times I say it, it doesn't make it so.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 21, 2008 10:20 AM


That you are Jewish does fit the pattern of modern-day pro-abortion feminism.

Even if every Jewish person in America was in favor of abortion, they still couldn't possibly make up more than about 2.5% of the total of people who identify as "pro-choice". So how does being Jewish "fit the pattern"?

Posted by: Jen R at February 21, 2008 11:49 AM


Summary: McCain marries model, Mccain comes home from POW stint to find her physically disabled and presumably not model pretty since her face went through the windshield, McCain plays around then becomes adulterer and eventually marries (1 month after divorce) with pretty rich heiress (17 years his jr)whose rich daddy can make him in AZ politics.

Is it this McCian, the misogynist, adulturer, user of women that you're voting for?

Posted by: phylosopher at February 21, 2008 5:43 PM


Phylosopher,
That was a sweet story.

Can you tell me a story about the Clinton's now?

I'll wait...


I have plenty of time...

Posted by: Anonymous at February 21, 2008 8:00 PM


Anonymous, I hope you're still reading this thread.

"Clinton is crazy. When he moved out, you know, I mean, he honest to God they just, he took everything he hadn't nailed." David Letterman

"President Clinton is still in the news. The man who will not go away. In a new poll, 47 percent of New Yorkers said they would like former President Clinton to run for mayor of New York. Apparently, this is the same 47 percent of New Yorkers that were pardoned by him." Conan O'Brien

"Last night, former President Clinton made his debut as a citizen speaker. Did quite well. His spokesman said he is getting over 100 requests a week for paid appearances. So far, he has turned pretty much everything down, though he is mulling over an appearance in the 'Vagina Monologues.'" Bill Maher

Posted by: Doug at February 21, 2008 8:34 PM


Doug,
hahaha!
I love it!

Thanks for the laugh!

OK, now I got my fix of political bashing for the day. Between Phyl., Doug's post, and the Quote of the Day, I'm good!

Thanks all!

:)

Posted by: Anonymous at February 21, 2008 8:45 PM


Anon,

Perhaps you feel the same way about suicide bombers in the Middle East? It's not really murder, they were just filled with Mohammed propaganda & the promise of a harem of virgins if they do it.

Recently, bombs were attached to two people with downs syndrome. Surely, they were not "guilty". I do think that some, not all, of the suicide bombers are "brain washed". Doesn't make them any less dangerous, but a little mercy might be shown.

Posted by: mk at February 22, 2008 6:04 AM