Weekend question: Why the lack of local pro-abortion groups?

weekend question.jpgEarlier this week at Yahoo! Answers Diana asked, "How would I begin a local pro-choice 'campaign'?"

Diana lamented, "Unfortunately, the majority of people in [my] area tend to default to 'pro-life,' thanks to some loud anti-choicers."

That got me thinking. While one could find a local pro-life group in every nook and cranny of the country, one would have a difficult time locating an equivalent pro-abortion group.

Why is that?


Comments:

because its taboo to be pro abortion? After all, it IS "PRO LEGAL murder of an innocent yet-to-be-born child".

it's basically the equivalent of being pro racism or pro slavery. NOT COOL.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at July 3, 2010 10:05 AM


I can picture the recruiting poster:

'dead babis r us' wants you'.

Uncle Samantha standing there in her red white and blue flannel work shirt, cargo pants and steel toed boots with a bloody, rusty coat hanger in one hand and box of female anti rape condoms in the other and, in large capital letters scrawled across the bottom of the poster,

TRUST WOMEN

The alternative is for the 'dead babies r us' crowd to use the proceeds from the abortion industy and federal tax dollars to continue to employ the same renta mob derelicts they have used for decades.

WT Barnum was right, just wait a while, another fool will come along.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 3, 2010 11:27 AM


Perhaps it's simply because few people will join a group to preserve the status quo. The pro choice people have generally achieved their goal of legal abortion.

Posted by: Hal at July 3, 2010 12:31 PM


Even a lot of people who favor allowing abortion to remain legal do so reluctantly, out of a fear that if it's not available, maybe somebody they love will do something stupid with a coathanger and die. But it's not something they're fired up about. They don't want abortions to happen. They're a "necessary" evil. How do you get people fire up in support of an evil?

Whereas when you're prolife, you're favoring babies -- moms and babies. Something intrinsically beautiful.

Posted by: Christina at July 3, 2010 12:51 PM


Most prochoice groups I know don't advertise as "abortion rights supporters" because they have a larger focus- standing up for all of woman's rights. Other issues like ending sexual harassment, extending maternity leave, equal pay, and helping girls in other countries are fought for along side fighting for abortion rights.

Posted by: KushielsMoon at July 3, 2010 1:47 PM


Hal, I agree with you. The pro-abort community doesn't really need to worry. They've got virtually unlimited political support and tax-dollars to draw on as long as Pres. O is in office. Complacency is good.

Diana,
There are so many constructive thing you can be doing. You could help the suffering of Haiti or Africa, do some fund-raising for a pregnant woman's center or set up a support group for pregnant women who want to stay in college. Work at a food pantry, visit a nursing home. The sky's the limit depending on your interests.

Posted by: Janet at July 3, 2010 2:35 PM


Dear Kushiels,

You think pro-life feminists don't fight for women's rights? Equal pay? Extending maternity leave? Psh. What do you think pro-life feminism is all about? A pro-abort fighting for maternity leave....Wow, that's as grotesque as it gets.

Stop perpetuating the fallacy that pro-life women are just goody-goodies who want to keep women down. We want to build women UP. We don't want them to kill their children in order to do that. Killing your baby is not a right. It is a disgrace. Wake up.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 3, 2010 4:55 PM


Well Diana, Its simple just contact your local Planned Parenthood or go to the PPFA website and they can direct you to people who can get you started. The reason there are more Anti-choice groups is because abortion is LEGAL and if things were the other way around there would be just as many if not more Pro-Choice groups fighting for womens rights. Such is the right of free speech in America and it is more important than any issue discussed under its protection.

Posted by: Biggz at July 3, 2010 6:18 PM


Well Diana, Its simple just contact your local Planned Parenthood or go to the PPFA website and they can direct you to people who can get you started. The reason there are more Anti-choice groups is because abortion is LEGAL and if things were the other way around there would be just as many if not more Pro-Choice groups fighting for womens rights. Such is the right of free speech in America and it is more important than any issue discussed under its protection.

Posted by: Biggz at July 3, 2010 6:20 PM


Well Diana, Its simple just contact your local Planned Parenthood or go to the PPFA website and they can direct you to people who can get you started. The reason there are more Anti-choice groups is because abortion is LEGAL and if things were the other way around there would be just as many if not more Pro-Choice groups fighting for womens rights. Such is the right of free speech in America and it is more important than any issue discussed under its protection.

Posted by: Biggz at July 3, 2010 6:21 PM


Biggz
And when every state in this glorious nation passes the personhood amendment perhaps we will appreciate the voices of the unborn as well.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 3, 2010 10:28 PM


Biggz, I hate to say it, but Planned Parenthood doesn't support all reproductive choices, they sure don't offer infertily services nor do they offer support services and only limited health services for women who choose to carry a pregnancy to term and parent. Kushie, if you want to support all reproductive choices, there are so many thingr you can do: consider supporting a local mentoring progran for pregnant and parenting teens, support student childcare and reasonable accomidations for pregnant and parenting college students, a domestic violence shelter or sexual assault victims advocate program, or a non-religiously-based pregnancy resource center (such as Birthright) for a few examples.

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 4, 2010 1:44 AM


*That should say, "Nor do they offer support services for and only limited health serviecs for women who choose to carry to carry to term and parent."

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 4, 2010 2:01 AM


Health Overhaul May Mean Longer ER Waits, Crowding
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_er_crowding_8

By CARLA K. JOHNSON, AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson, Ap Medical Writer – Fri Jul 2, 7:31 am ET

CHICAGO – Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.

1.There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.

2. People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

3. The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
--------------------------------------------------

And the hits just keep on coming.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 4, 2010 8:05 AM


Health Overhaul May Mean Longer ER Waits, Crowding
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100702/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_er_crowding_8

By CARLA K. JOHNSON, AP Medical Writer Carla K. Johnson, Ap Medical Writer – Fri Jul 2, 7:31 am ET

CHICAGO – Emergency rooms, the only choice for patients who can't find care elsewhere, may grow even more crowded with longer wait times under the nation's new health law.

1.There's already a shortage of front-line family physicians in some places and experts think that will get worse.

2. People without insurance aren't the ones filling up the nation's emergency rooms. Far from it. The uninsured are no more likely to use ERs than people with private insurance, perhaps because they're wary of huge bills.

3. The biggest users of emergency rooms by far are Medicaid recipients. And the new health insurance law will increase their ranks by about 16 million. Medicaid is the state and federal program for low-income families and the disabled. And many family doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients they take because of low government reimbursements.
--------------------------------------------------

And the hits just keep on coming.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 4, 2010 8:05 AM



Weekend question: Why the lack of local pro-abortion groups?

Who would want to be publicly associated or even have a 'passing affililation' with a group that has the same guding philosophy as the Ku Klux Klan?

These malignant souls select a 'pretty face' to front for them but behind the curtain of this facade they are dark and demented devils.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 4, 2010 8:54 AM


Hal
I think it's because fortunately most Americans still have consciences and find it difficult to get excited about killing babies so they leave it to the "enlightened" who still reside in darkness.

Posted by: myrtle miller at July 4, 2010 5:25 PM


Hal,
It all comes down to money. The greed for money that is to be made off of lying to women and telling them they will have better lives by "terminating their pregnancies" but we both know that means killing their own children. Lies about a "bunch of cells" and "pieces of tissue" and how abortion is risk free.

It is evil.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 4, 2010 8:59 PM


Yor Bro Ken:

I generally believe most of the posters on this site have great intentions, and if what they say is true, they're attempting to be good samaritans.

But I'm not sure what YOUR objective is. You fill this website with angry non sequiturs that lead me to believe you're an angry old ogre who gets off thinking about Freddy Krueger slicing up women with rusty coat hangers. Your objection to the anti-rape condoms was my first clue; who doesn't want to prevent rapes? And furthermore, who would make jokes about a device that's trying to help women protect themselves? Then there's the anti-gay sentiment, and the veiled racism, and now a posting--completed unrelated to the topic at hand--decrying health care reform that--shock!--might result in healthier families. Do you have any good suggestions for increasing Medicaid reimbursements, or just more general complaining?

Go ahead and roast in the sun all you want. Let's hope you don't get heat stroke--you might be stuck waiting in the ER behind a bunch of undeservings, or 13-year-old girls getting emergency abortions.

Posted by: Megan at July 4, 2010 9:33 PM


Megan,

I plead guilty to the non-sequiturs. I do it to provoke responses from people like you.

Few of my non-sequiturs are 'angry'. Perhaps you see them that way becasue that is the response they provoke in you or, because like most liberal/progressive/humanist/feminist, you are already bitter and angry.

Anti-rape condoms do not prevent rape. They only work as designed after the fact. They may have the same deterrent value as a concealed hand gun. Criminals might avoid a potential victim if they believe she/he might be armed. I supposed a rapists might pass up a potential victim if he beleieved she/he had installed an anti-rape condom.

I guess if the rapists were drunk or drugged he might attempt penetration without noitcing the device, but I would think that it would be more likely to become attached to one of his fingers first.

When the rapist recovers he is going to be even more angry and when he finds his next victim he will probably take that anger out on her.

A handgun would be a more effective deterrent and if used correctly would eliminate the probability the would be rapist would re-offend and it is also effective against any other type of criminal.

I would think that most women would prefer carrying a handgun in their purse or on their person, than having a foreign object inserted in their vagina and/or rectum just in case they might be raped.

The thought of killing a rapist, especially with a handgun probably bothers you, but torturing him is OK.

Killing pre-natal children does not seem to bother you either.

Like the feminista asserted: 'There are some things worth killing for.'

As far as the 'rusty coat hanger' goes, it is the 'dead babies r us' folks who drag out that symbol to advocate for abortion on demand. I believe that the data will demonstrate that most injuries or deaths, though grossly inflated, from 'rusty coat hangers' were/are self inflicted.

Homosexuality is a dysfunction. Stating that fact does not make one homophobic or a hater of homosexuals. Homosexual is no more a derogatory term than heterosexual. Your autocratic code of political correctness prohibits you from using the term homosexual, but I am not constrained by your 'sensabilities'.

I am not anti 'gay'. I want to be happy and I want everyone else to experience happiness.

Homosexuality in not likely to produce a life of happiness. The rates of suicide, homicide, drug addiction and alcholism are much higher among homosexuals than among the heterosexual population.

Like the 'black' commmunity, where most of the violent crimes are black on black, in the homosexual community most homicides are homosexual on homosxeual.

Veiled racism:

My wife is Japanese/Canadian. My children are mix of her relatively pure DNA and my cornucopia of ethnicities. That alone does not make me NOT a racist. My wifes best friend has an abundance of pigmentation. Her son is my son's best friend and for a few years he spent more time in my home than in his. His father and I are friends and our relationship is comfortable enough that I can bounce my thoughts off him and if I cross the line into 'racism' he would tell me. [He and his wife did not vote for b.o. for the same reasons I did not.] I will rely on their judgements, not yours.

One of my daughters best friends is half Norseman and half African. She too spends a lot time at our house and I have a very comfortable relationship with her as well.

I have had people in my home from over 19 different countries representing Africa, Europe, Asia, Central America, and South America and perhaps Australia.

I spend a significant amount of MY time and MY money serving Mexican citizens in Mexico.

The most recent 'non-sequitur' article demonstrates how b.o.'s hellth scare scam is NOT producing the results we were led to believe nor is it likely to.

But like most liberals/progressives/humanists, you resort to charges of racism, mysogyny and homphobia rather than deal with the facts.

When you come across my posts, non-sequitur or not, I suggest you exercise your freedom of choice and choose not to read them if they annoy you or cause you discomfort.

May the GOD who gives us both breath and life grant us both a spirit of wisdom and revelation concerning HIS truth.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 4, 2010 11:46 PM


Megan,

I tend to agree with Ken on the female condom for rape. By the time the guy gets nailed, the woman has been penetrated. By the time she gets penetrated, many have already been beaten pretty badly. If the guy is armed, he may well kill her. So the rape has not been prevented.

Deterrent effect? Has HIV slowed down the sexual revolution over the past 26 years? Not one bit. The rates of HIV transmission and other STD's continue to rise unabated. I think this will get far more women a more savage beating, and even killed than it will prevent being raped.

As for Ken, He is none of those things which you say. Were he, he would have been banned long ago. The charges of racism, misogynist, and homophobe have been so overplayed that they have lost their power to move people. They are the immediate go-to responses for liberals who can't hold their own in a debate on the issues. Conservatives are starting to wear those charges as badges of honor, as they show a direct hit on the issues in a debate.

Ken,

Rock on bro.

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at July 5, 2010 2:07 AM


1. Yor Broken: The accusations of racism and homophobia fall because they're genuinely true. Calling a Jewish woman "Yentl" sounds ant-semitic to me. And considering yourself the arbiter of group labels really speaks to your (perceived) position of power. You're not gay or black, you weren't marginalized in that respect. If somebody tells you the term "homosexual" has been infused with a negative connotation, then respect it or consider yourself bigoted. If you take fault with members of black communities using the "n" word, consider why they might be angry. Review your history.

2. I can discuss issues allll you want. I don't like long ER lines. I don't particularly want to have to finance Joe Schmoe's stomach stapling surgery because he's been inactive for 25 years and living off pork fried rice. But if my tax dollars can contribute to a healthier country, the benefits will be multifold. There are kinks in the system, granted, and I'm not blindly accepting what's been put on the table. But at least the Obama administration stepped up to say that sh** is WHACK, and we must all take responsibility for it. Were you going to suggest anything better, or leave the health care system at the status quo?

3. Torturing a rapist is fine. I hope the vagina dentatas do the trick.

Posted by: Megan at July 5, 2010 2:56 AM


The last resort of the liberal scoundrel is the false accusation of racism. It's a sign not just of moral and intellectual bankruptcy, but of desperation.


Posted by: Jasper at July 5, 2010 8:59 AM


Megan,

Wake up and smell the coffee. One the darlings of the left who posts here, self confessed Jew, referred to herself as a 'Yentl'. That is a Jewish/yiddish word that to my knowledge has never been considered an anti-semitic epithet. Barbara Streisand, leftist and Jew, was the headliner in a movie by the same name.

Google yentl and educate yourself.

If you can come up with a defintion of 'yentl' that reveals it to be anti-semitic, then my Cherokee DNA will apologize to my Jewish DNA.

As far as the b.o. hellth scare scam, as the non-sequitur article illustrated, it will probably lower the standard of health care for everybody, not improve it.

But by design or default, that is what socialism always produces, an inferior product for everybody except the 'more than equals'.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 5, 2010 11:16 AM


Posted by: Megan at July 5, 2010 2:56 AM

"And considering yourself the arbiter of group labels really speaks to your (perceived) position of power."

"If somebody tells you the term "homosexual" has been infused with a negative connotation, then respect it or consider yourself bigoted."

--------------------------------------------------

Megan,

Have you considered how contradictory those two statements are?

You are assuming the authority, the right and the power to tell me what is acceptable language.

That is an authority, a right and a power I have not granted to you.

You are free to use the words you choose and I am free to use the words I choose. It is called freedom of speech. The alternative is censorship. That is what you are advocating.

I am not willing to compromize the English language to accomodate your presumed enlightened sensibilities.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 5, 2010 11:24 AM


Yentl is a 1983 American film from United Artists,

and directed,

co-written,

co-produced

and starring Barbra Streisand [Jewish]

based on a play by Leah Napolin and Isaac Bashevis Singer [Singer is probaly Jewish as well.],

itself based on Singer's short story "Yentl the Yeshiva Boy".

Megan,

If still insist 'yentl' is anti-semitic then I suggest you address your objections to Streisand and Singer.

When you are done setting them straight, then you can look up Jesse Jackson, Cedric the Entertainer and his fellow black comedienes and set them straight on their promiscuous use of the word '*igger'.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 5, 2010 12:13 PM


Come to think of it, I haven't encountered any pro-slavery or pro-cannibalism grassroots neighborhood organizations. Either most folks really don't approve of those lifestyle choices: or maybe it's some kinda plot?

Thanks for this post, BTW.

Posted by: Brian Gill, AKA Aluwir, AKA Norski at July 5, 2010 1:23 PM


Come to think of it, I haven't encountered any pro-slavery or pro-cannibalism grassroots neighborhood organizations. Either most folks really don't approve of those lifestyle choices: or maybe it's some kinda plot?

Thanks for this post, BTW.

Posted by: Brian Gill, AKA Aluwir, AKA Norski at July 5, 2010 1:23 PM


Posted by: Megan at July 5, 2010 2:56 AM

"Torturing a rapist is fine. I hope the vagina dentatas do the trick."

-------------------------------------------------

Megan,

The word 'dentatas'[by which I take you to mean 'teeth'] is eliciting an oracle:

Women will have to purchase and insert at least three of these 'vagina con dientes' to fully ensure the 'dientes' attache themselves to the rapist's offending appendage, no matter where he inserts it. [The rapist is not going to allow his victiom to call a time out and change the location of the 'vagina con dientes'.]

I still believe most women, after giving careful consideration to the 'vagina con dientes' vs hand gun, would choose the least invasive and more effective of the two, the hand gun.

Speaking as a male, who is really gettin too old to put up much of a fight against a would be rapist, I would prefer the handgun over the 'vagina con dientes'.

[I believe if you polled the rapists, and they were forced to make a choice between being confronted by one of the two, they would unanimously vote for their intended victims to be armed with a 'vagina con dientes' as opposed to a handgun.]

Having a 'vagina con dientes plasticas adentro su boca' would make it difficult to make a cry for help, not to mention carry on a conversation.

Maybe the would be rapist would be incapacitated by his uncontrollable laughter long enough for his intended victim to make her escape.

The handgun is the only thing that really works for me.

I suppose you could force the rapist to don the 'condón con dientes' after you had subdued him wih the handgun.

Other than that, the whole concept of 'vagina con dientes' is just not practical.

I do not believe the entrepreneur who came up with this strategy gave it enough consideration before going into production.


Posted by: yor bro ken at July 5, 2010 1:28 PM


"Homosexual is no more a derogatory term than heterosexual. "

and vice versa.

Ken, I'm not sure if you're a racist. It's a strong accusation, and I'd prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt. You do seem preoccupied with race, however, especially our President's race.

I am very troubled by your views on homosexuality, and I'm even more troubled that such views are allowed to be posted on an otherwise civilized web site, such as this one. (Perhaps it is equally offensive to others here to allow posters to proclaim that access to abortion services is a fundamental right.) I'm all in favor of free speech, but that comes with the responsibility to point out when someone says something vile. Your views on gay people are vile.


Posted by: Hal at July 5, 2010 4:56 PM


It all comes down to money. ...
Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 4, 2010 8:59 PM

Hi Carla, I just don't agree. With a few exceptions, I would think almost everyone who is involved in the abortion business could make more money doing something else.

Posted by: Hal at July 5, 2010 5:21 PM


Hey Ken. I do belive you are correct about the "racist and homophobic" accusations by pro-aborts (or some liberals) when they cannot think of anything else to say. It is supposed to make Christians, who are lovers of mankind and Jesus (John 3:16)seem to be hypocritical, judgemental haters because they will not embrace sexual immorality. The accusers will not accept tolerance or peaceful co-existence, it is not apart of the playbook because they are out to "transform America", "by any means necessary". If they could only get Bible believing, Christians to back down and shut up they could transform this country to become the "utopia" they want it to become. One of the best books I have read on this topic was "The Homosexual Agenda" by Alan Sears. Dr. James Dobson's "Marriage Under Fire" was a short quick read but pretty good as well. God bless you bro Ken.

Posted by: Prolifer L at July 5, 2010 8:54 PM


While one could find a local pro-life group in every nook and cranny of the country, one would have a difficult time locating an equivalent pro-abortion group. Why is that?

For the same reason pro-aborts are rabid about keeping their abortions private. People don't like to be known as killers. Let alone their own children. If they would kill their own children then what do you think they would do to yours?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 5, 2010 11:51 PM


"A nation that kills it's own children is a nation without hope." JPII

Posted by: truthseeker at July 5, 2010 11:57 PM


Posted by: Hal at July 5, 2010 4:56 PM


"Ken,

You do seem preoccupied with race, however, especially our President's race.

Your views on gay people are vile."

--------------------------------------------------

Hal,

Please give specific examples of my pre-occupation with b.o.'s ethnicity.

Please give me some specific examples of the 'vileness' of my views on gay people.

Though I disagree with most of your ideology, I do appreciate your brevity and your temperate commentary and your measured responses when you are attacked personally.

If you look up the defintion of homosexual and homosexuality I do believe you will NOT find a single definition that indicates it is a derrogatorty term. It is in fact a clinical term, just like heterosexual.

If you prefer to use the euphemism 'gay' then go for it. I choose not to.

I find 'queer' to be as offensive as 'nigger'.

[I do not equate the two words.]

Homosexuals and people of dense pigmentation may prefer to use those terms to refer to themselves respectively, but those terms were never intended to be used as anything but an epithet.

I try to judge people as the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior desired, by the content their character, or lack thereof, and not by the color of their skin.

While I engage in some hyperbole, my criticism of b.o. has nothing to do with his ethnicity except in those instances where b.o. is playing the race card for political purposes.

"White peoples greed, keep black people in need."

Now that is a racist sentiment and those are b.o.'s words, NOT mine.

I doubt that b.o. really believes that.

b.o. only says it to pander to liberals.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 6, 2010 12:57 AM


Yor Bro Ken:

Ha, I can't believe I'm having a conversation about language and power with such a crotchety old goat. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let me walk you through this.

1. Sabra didn't identify herself first as "Yentl." While the movie itself isn't offensive, you used it to belittle. "Yentl" has no connection to Sabra besides its Jewish subject matter. It would be like me calling you "Sequoyah," or Gene Hackman in the Royal Tenenbaums calling Danny Glover "Coltrane." It's belittling, and I'm sure you get that.

2. Oh, should've mentioned this: I AM enlightened. You're not because you clearly have very little connection with any gay community. I do, ehhkay? I'm telling you that your language is incendiary. I have the right to call you out on it.

3. I'm sure you wouldn't don a Klan hat or incite violence outside a housing project. But your obvious ignorance of and objection to what historically marginalized groups call themselves is SOFT racism. It's symbolic violence, which can be just as harmful as violence of a physical nature. Your ethnicity doesn't really interest me, either. If I were Japanese and made underhanded, nasty comments about Muslims, then I'd be considered prejudiced against that group.

4. If unwarranted cries of racism are considered a tactic of diversion, then so are conspiracy theories. I'm sure the woman who conceived the anti-rape condom is absolutely profit-driven. I'm sure that was the thought when the "entrepreneur" held a rape victim who tearfully lamented the fact that her vagina didn't have teeth. But it seems your sympathies lie with the poor tortured rapist. I'm sure you really think distributing handguns is a practical solution to that kind of violence....hmm. Oh, and in case you weren't familiar with the folklore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagina_dentata

5. And finally: Obama's health care reform isn't exactly socialist. The only truly "socialist" aspect is the idea that every person in this country deserves the chance to be healthy. Whoa, pro-life!! Private and federal plans will be in competition. Federal plans will be sold in state-based markets, meaning responsiveness to local needs. And if you don't like a certain plan, you can shop around for another one. Of course it's going to be expensive--this will be no piecemeal HMO effort. I'd take longer waiting lines over no health insurance at all. And hell, if you think Obama is going to "get rich" off all this like the pigs in Animal Farm, fine. Have your conspiracy theory. But I'd rather my President squander money on trying to improve the healthcare system than waging useless wars against faceless Muslim extremists across the planet.

Posted by: Megan at July 6, 2010 1:00 AM


Hi Hal,
Abortion is a business. Abortion businesses sell abortion. They prey on those in crisis and offer NOTHING but killing for a fee.

Hi Megan,
I know that Ken infuriates you. He knows it too.
Might I suggest that you skip the comments that end with yor bro ken? :)


Hi Ken,
You are my bro.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at July 6, 2010 8:32 AM


Private and federal plans will be in competition. Federal plans will be sold in state-based markets, meaning responsiveness to local needs. And if you don't like a certain plan, you can shop around for another one.Posted by: Megan at July 6, 2010 1:00 AM

Competition and shopping around? Hardly! Half the uninsured will be put on Medicaid. There will be no private insurance or "shopping around" for them.

Those who do "shop around" have little choice when the feds determine the rules of the marketplace, the price of the product, the consumer's deductible, policy benefits, and have complete control over which companies may "do business" on the exchange and which products they may sell. I got a good chuckle from your reference to "local needs," which is progressive-speak for inability to shop nationwide for insurance.

Posted by: Fed Up at July 6, 2010 11:42 AM


"Singer is probaly Jewish as well..."

Yes, he was Jewish, and one of my favorite writers. The Nobel Prize committee agreed, because he was awarded its prize in literature. He was a natural-born storyteller whose tales make use of "magical realism" before the term was even coined. Many of his tales are set in the world of the Eastern European shetl, which, of course, has long vanished, and others are set among immigrant communities in New York's Lower East Side. He was a true literary genius (and a vegetarian as well) I definitely recommend this author! (sorry for the off-topic post).

Posted by: phillymiss at July 6, 2010 1:05 PM


I work with women who have been given choice. I hold them while they cry. I listen to them exclaim how no one ever told them it was really a baby. They were told it was just cells. I see them become drug addicts and alcoholics to bury the pain. This is choice? They never felt like they had any choice at all. No one gave them one. At least, not at any abortion clinic. Abortion destroys lives, and not just the baby's life. Carla is right. Follow the money. Abortion is BIG business. They never give them away for free. Other groups may help a woman pay for them, but the abortion clinic does not. They always make their money. Planned Parenthood makes their yearly profits of millions on the backs of dead babies. It kind of makes everything else they do a moot point.

Posted by: Holding the Broken at July 6, 2010 4:41 PM


Posted by: Megan at July 6, 2010 1:00 AM

Yor Bro Ken:

Ha, I can't believe I'm having a conversation about language and power with such a crotchety old goat. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

----------------------------------------------------

Megan,

I am underwhelmed with you magnanimity.

Benefit of the doubt about what;

crotchety, old or goat.

I will acknowledge I can be 'crotchety'.

Somedays I feel older than others.

'old' is a relative term, but, compared to your youth and inexperience, I can see where you might preceive me as 'old'.

"They listened to Him, and then

they began going out,

conscience-stricken,

one by one,

from the oldest down to the last one of them,

till Jesus was left alone,

with the woman standing there before Him

in the center of the court."

[Even an old fool has more wisdom than a young one.]

At the end of a days work on a rooftop in 100 degree weather with 90% humidity I have to confess I may smell worse than some goats, but I am not a 'goat'.

I have been married to one wife for over 27 years or as our former philanderer in chief, Bad Boy Billy Clinton would mis-characterize our relationship:

They had a passing affiliation in their youth.

There is no way I could ever satisfy your arbitrary demands of political correctness in regards to language or behavior, nor do I wish to do so.

Instead, I will rely on my family, my friends and my brothers and sisters in the LORD to correct me in love if and when they deem it necessary and I have not only given them permission, I have requested them to do so.

Some of those people are fellow contributors to the discussion on this site.

[You know who you are.]

When Hal complains I consider what he says.

I respect Hal's perspective even though we view life thru different lenses.

Megan,

With any and all due respect I do not take your criticisms seriously because I do not take you seriously.

You have these predictable pre-programmed reactions that have little weight. They seem to be the product of inculcation and/or indoctrination rather than thoughtful consideration on your part.

You reject the 'wisdom' of the past, because like people whom you perceive to be 'old', it is of lesser or no value to you.

You throw the baby out with the bath water.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 6, 2010 7:29 PM


"You reject the 'wisdom' of the past, because like people whom you perceive to be 'old', it is of lesser or no value to you."

ol' bro goat, can I use this line the next time I'm told I'm showing my age and/or am anti-sex? (:

"A wise man can see more from the bottom of a well than a fool can from atop a mountain."
- Unknown

Posted by: Praxedes at July 6, 2010 10:30 PM


What will happen when I wake up from beneath my false consciousness?

Maybe I'll petition funerals in opposition to the gay agenda, my argument bolstered by a couple obscure passages in Leviticus (referring to pederasty, but whatever). In doing so, I'll soft pedal the fact that my spiritual leader is a rape apologist himself and submit myself to a religion that beatified a woman who willingly died in labor. Maybe I'll decide that health isn't a human right enshrined in the Constitution, crying socialism! as a pretext for my own greed. And for all my complaints, I'll propose 0 concrete solutions, really indicating my level of concern. Oh, and finally, I'll support a war of attrition in places most people couldn't pinpoint on a map.

I'm inheriting a country mismanaged by cads, crooks and crazies. Biblical intolerance and cigar fellatio and Manichean worldviews. I couldn't be more thrilled.

Posted by: Megan at July 7, 2010 12:27 AM


"I'll soft pedal the fact that my spiritual leader is a rape apologist himself and submit myself to a religion that beatified a woman who willingly died in labor."

Megan,

Who is your rape apologist spiritual leader and who is the woman who willingly died in labor that you refer to? Please name them. Thanks.

Peace be with you.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 7, 2010 12:50 AM


Megan,
Oh defender of Sabra. Sabra called Ken out for calling Sabra a blasphemer of God. News flash. It wasn't Ken who said that to her it was me. And I didn't exactly say that she was a blaphemer of her God. See, she was saying how she follows the Torah and that God tells her and her rabbi that human life in the womb is less human than life outside the womb. I told her she should give a specific quote from her Torah to back it up or she is guilty of blaspheming her God. I never did get an answer from her or a quote from the Torah. Likely cause no such quote exists in scripture.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 2:39 AM


Megan,
Oh defender of BO's health care plan. We want health care for everyone too. We just want to do it by lowering the costs, not by forcing people to pay their share into an overpriced system and rationing their care. How can anybody be pro-choice and want government deciding what kind of health care they can get. They couldn't even let the amendment to let us get prescriptions at the same rate other countries buy the same prescription???? Forcing US citizens to fund everybody elses prescription drug research is justn one more example of a government run by lobbiest. How can you place your trust in them and want to put them in control of your health care? When they couldn;t even pass such a simple fix that could have saved people as much as 50% on prescription costs. And the bill is such a pig nobody knows yet exactly how much it will cost them but some poor people and the unemployed are gonna be forced to come up with about $500/mo per family for insurance or have our benevolent government coming after them $6k/year. Get off the kool-aid please or you'll bring us all down with you.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 2:57 AM


Megan,
How have your homosexual connections enlightened you? Do you know why they choose to have sex with others of the same gender? I heard there is a tribe in Afghanistan where the men have sex with one another because women are deemed to be unclean.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 5:04 AM


"Do you know why they choose to have sex with others of the same gender?"

Why do others "choose" to have sex with others of a different gender?

Posted by: Hal at July 7, 2010 10:44 AM


Once again, what does homosexuality have to do with prolife issues?

Posted by: phillymiss at July 7, 2010 11:02 AM


Phillymiss, I've asked that question a billion times. I am wholeheartedly pro-life, but I'm also sympathetic to gay rights. And I love PLAGAL (Pro Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians)....they have some really good messages. People should listen to them.

Posted by: MaryLee at July 7, 2010 11:45 AM


The above questions can be answered if you are willing to search out the truth. Studying Theology of the Body will answer your questions about love and life.

Many people are satisfied with and not willing to change their current mindsets and choose not to search further for the Truth.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 7, 2010 11:51 AM


I love to observe hummingbirds.

They just fascinate me. They are so tiny.

Even in super slow mo their wings are moving so fast they are still a blur.

They build nests, reproduce, feed and care for their young. If they become ill their bodies have immune systems and they can heal themselves.

They migrate thousands of miles, sometimes across hundreds of miles of open ocean. They return each spring to the same nesting place and in the winter go back to the same location in a warmer climate.

They are capable of great aerobatics. When they hover in one place though their bodies are moving in an x, y, z axis their head and bill are fixed and motionless in one location.

When air currents shift or some other bird enters their airspace they make midair correcttions to avoid a collision and then adjust their flight path to return to their original flight plan.

Some of them are aggressive and are mean to their peers. Driving them off for no apparent reason.

They use spider web to weave their nests and pollenate flowers as they move from one blossom to the next.

Humans with all their accumulated knowledge and technology can not replicate a hummingbird.

But humanists want us to believe a hummingbird is the result of evolution, natural selection and adaptation.

Never mind that they have not been able to produce a single transitonal form and can not point to a single example where a genetic mutation was an improvement over the two hummingbirds that spawned it.

The mutations, because of natual selection, die off and do not live to 'pollute' the gene pool with their flawed DNA. Theoretically the species should be improved as weak and flawed hummingbirds are culled from the flock. Some hummingbirds possess an immune system that is more resistant to disease that would kill lesser birds. They survive and their trait is passed on. The other birds do not and their DNA dies with them.

If evolution and natural selection are true for all living creatures, and humans are just another species, then there should be fewer and fewer homosexuals. If homosexuality is a natural condition, then the DNA which passes on this trait should become rarer and rarer in the gene pool because homosexuals are less likely to reproduce biologically.

But that surely does not seem to be the case. We are observing an increase in homosexuality which the evolutionary model says should not be happening, unless you want to argue homosexuals are a transitional form bridging the gap from an old species to a new one.

But that just doesn't work. We do not see homosexuals demonstrating consistently and/or predictably improving biological traits. Homosexuals do not even predictably reproduce homosexuals biologically. They sure seem to be stuck in the same human quagmire with the rest of us.

If I go with the evoltutionists estimated time for humans on plantet earth, then tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousand of years of natural selection have not yet produced a 'superior' form of human.

[I suppose some progressiv/liberals might point to b.o. as an example.]

All we humans pretty much seem to be the same old bag of worms, plagued by the same old flaws.

Maybe the increase in homosexuality is a biological alarm to warn us to stop reproducing.

I have read that as mice populations increase without a corresponding increase in space, then some mice tend to exhibit homosexual traits. They will begin to eat their young, even when the food supply inceases with the population. Without an intervention of some kind, disease will eventually winnow out the population til it returns to a level that is sustainable for the area it inhabits.

I am just ruminating and cogitating here. Trying to find a rhyme and reason for why things are the way they are.

Hey, I am just a mechanic with a high school education. What do I know?

I do love hummingbirds and, whether they came to be by design or by default, they are still amazing to behold.

I am going with design.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: yor bro ken at July 7, 2010 7:22 PM


"Do you know why they choose to have sex with others of the same gender?"

Why do others "choose" to have sex with others of a different gender?
Posted by: Hal at July 7, 2010 10:44 AM
Hal, don't be afraid to express your answer. You avoided offering your opinion and instead answered ny question with a question. Shed some of your gay associated enlightenment and tell me; does your sexual relationship with your wife offer anything that sex with a man could not offer to you? If so, then what? As you see it, could anal sex with another man be the equivalent of vaginal anal sex with a women?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 11:27 PM


Excuse my poor editing. Should have read:
Hal, As you see it, could anal sex with another man be the equivalent of vaginal sex with a woman?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 11:29 PM


Once again, what does homosexuality have to do with prolife issues?
Posted by: phillymiss at July 7, 2010 11:02 AM
Being pro-abortion and living a homosexual lifestyle are both aberrations to God's plan for mankind. By endorsing anything homosexual behaviour you are railing against God's plan for the family you are disrespecting the gift of life that God allows men and women to share in together.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 11:36 PM


Hal, let me break it down even further for you. Do you consider anal sex with your wife the equivalent to vaginal sex with your wife? If you answer yes, then I see why you are unable to grasp the complimentary nature of heterosexual unions.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 12:09 AM


Mods. If this anal sex stuff is too abrasive for Jills family friendly blog then feel free to remove my posts. I am genuinely looking for an honest dialogue with Megan or Hal about this but they will likely never respond anyway.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 12:16 AM


Truthseeker,

If you're gay, sex with the other gender--anal, vaginal, what have you--just doesn't tend to be appealing, simple as that. And thanks to the wonderful options ADOPTION provides, gay couples can have unions just as "fruitful" as heterosexual couples.

Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 8:22 AM


Megan,
Do you think a disrespect for the opposite sex is part of the equation? Is it common in lesbian circles for them to look at men as being less than equal to women or as being pigs etc?

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 10:36 AM


And thanks to the wonderful options ADOPTION provides, gay couples can have unions just as "fruitful" as heterosexual couples.
Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 8:22 AM
Caring for the physical needs of orphans is a good thing for anybody to do but just as heterosexuals sex is complimentary in nature, so also a father and mother offer complimentary nurturing to the spirit of their offering.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 10:57 AM


"If you're gay, sex with the other gender--anal, vaginal, what have you--just doesn't tend to be appealing, simple as that."

Megan,

Some people find sex with animals and children appealing too. Simple as that.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 8, 2010 10:58 AM


Truthseeker,

No. Perhaps you're thinking of separatist groups from the seventies like the radical lesbians, who were certainly very angry--but this had more to do with women's rights than sexual orientation. Associating lesbianism with those groups would be like seeing the Black Panthers as representative of modern Black interest organizations.

I can't stress enough that lesbians typically don't waste their energy "hating" men. They'd rather focus on their relationships with...women. I'm looking at my gay neighbors out the window right now and they're gardening together. They waved to my father when he came home from work. No man hating in sight.

Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:00 PM


Praxedes,

Your "value of ALL human life" is just a crock. Have you heard of the "Matthew Shepard" foundation? Forward that ever-banal quip of yours to Judy Shepard--I'm sure she'd love to tap into some of that Catholic compassion.

Yep, two adults having consensual sex would be JUST like me buggering my dog. Or like YOU getting knocked up while young and poor? If God is the arbiter of "clean" and "illicit" sex, then most of us are screwed. But I tend to think God has bigger fish to fry than worrying about Barney Frank tanning with his boyfriend on the Cape...maybe like punishing willfully ignorant bigots.

Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:33 PM


Maybe because they believe pro life people promote abortion and planned parenthood prevents them. lmao i am in awww this person thinks this way

http://jesurgislac.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/why-is-abortion-like-setting-fire-to-kittens/
Jesurgislac’s Journal- Why is abortion like setting fire to kittens This belief – that denying access to abortion is an effective means of turning pregnancy into punishment and babies into “consequences” – is why many pro-lifers say they think abortion ought to be allowed for rape or incest, or to save a woman’s life.

But for some pro-lifers, that’s still not acceptable. For them, the key is hating abortion, and hating people who support the right to have an abortion. They don’t care about women dying: they don’t care about fetuses dying, or babies dying: they certainly don’t care about preventing abortions, because where would their source of hate be then?

Posted by: chris at July 8, 2010 6:48 PM


Megan,
Oh defender of BO's health care plan. We want health care for everyone too. We just want to do it by lowering the costs, not by forcing people to pay their share into an overpriced system and rationing their care. How can anybody be pro-choice and want government deciding what kind of health care they can get. They couldn't even let the amendment to let us get prescriptions at the same rate other countries buy the same prescription???? Forcing US citizens to fund everybody elses prescription drug research is justn one more example of a government run by lobbiest. How can you place your trust in them and want to put them in control of your health care? When they couldn;t even pass such a simple fix that could have saved people as much as 50% on prescription costs. And the bill is such a pig nobody knows yet exactly how much it will cost them but some poor people and the unemployed are gonna be forced to come up with about $500/mo per family for insurance or have our benevolent government coming after them $6k/year. Get off the kool-aid please or you'll bring us all down with you.
Posted by: truthseeker at July 7, 2010 2:57 AM

you forgot something truthseeker we don't want taxpaying funded abortions either

Posted by: chris at July 8, 2010 8:09 PM


"Forward that ever-banal quip of yours to Judy Shepard--I'm sure she'd love to tap into some of that Catholic compassion." Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:33 PM

Implying that I in ANY WAY condone what happened to Matthew Shepard is low even by your standards. Bullying doesn't work with me so kindly stop.

"Or like YOU getting knocked up while young and poor?" Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:33 PM

Maybe the fact that I was young, poor and pregnant is an issue with you but in reality my age, bank account and motherhood was not the problem.

My being arrogant, deceitful, using, lustful, uncommitted and selfish was. My sexual sins not only negatively affected my life, these sins also negatively affected the lives of innocent and not-so-innocent others as well.

"If God is the arbiter of "clean" and "illicit" sex, then most of us are screwed." Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:33 PM

If you believe God judges "willfully ignorant bigots" why would you not believe God is the arbiter of sex?

Megan, don't hate me because I'm a sinful Catholic. Jesus really does love us too.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 8, 2010 11:24 PM


Hateful speech begets hateful actions. Regarding homosexuality as "sinful" is one thing. Equating gaynes with pedophilia and bestiality is hateful. Without angry public commentary on gayness, do you think those two young men would have felt as justified doing what they did to Shepard?

I really don't think God cares about sex, at all. I'm not moved by a few passages from Leviticus that most likely referred to (nonconsensual, by definition) pederasty. Men--read, men, not God-- cherrypick and interpret passages from exegetical texts to bolster their narrow-minded views. I can't take the Church's stance on sex very seriously. On one hand you have an organization where allegations of sexual abuse were conveniently buried in a morass of bureaucracy and hierarchy, and on the other hand you have a Pope who refuses to distribute condoms through its African outreach organizations to prevent AIDS. Enter cognitive dissonance.

Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 11:53 PM


I really don't think God cares about sex, at all. I'm not moved by a few passages from Leviticus that most likely referred to (nonconsensual, by definition) pederasty.
Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 11:53 PM
It does not just come from a few passages in Leviticus Megan and it is also the Book of Genesis and the Testament. All scripture exhorts people not to be led down this path you espouse to be "sexual freedom".

Brothers and sisters:
For freedom Christ set us free;
so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. For you were called for freedom, brothers and sisters. But do not use this freedom
as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want.
But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Gal 5:1, 13-18

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2010 2:08 AM


Megan,

There is a wide array of sexual sins and these sins cause much disorder and chaos in our fallen world including the killing of our beautiful unborn children.

I am not the judge of whether one sexual behavior is more sinful than another. It is my belief that God is the judge of this. I don't know how much God cares about sex but I do know that He cares about us more than we can ever imagine. God gave us free will and left us in charge of the smaller "fish to fry."

I was attempting to make the point that humans can find many things 'appealing' but this doesn't make all of it right for themselves or others. Believing certain behaviors to be sinful does not mean that I am hateful or that I condone hurting those who participate in these sins.

The fact that you are surprised that the Pope would refuse to distribute condoms through an African outreach organization or anywhere for that matter tells me how little you know about the Catholic faith. Maybe you could research the reasons behind this refusal.

"Ha, I can't believe I'm having a conversation about language and power with such a crotchety old goat" Posted by: Megan at July 6, 2010 1:00 AM

"Hateful speech begets hateful actions." Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 11:53 PM

I think you would like to believe others are hateful in order that you won't feel the need to take a closer look at what comfortably lives in your own heart.

Peace.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 9, 2010 2:36 AM


I'm looking at my gay neighbors out the window right now and they're gardening together. They waved to my father when he came home from work. No man hating in sight.
Posted by: Megan at July 8, 2010 5:00 PM

Megan,I didn't mean that all lesbians overtly practice hatred towards men. Can you shed some light on the impetus that drives your lesbian neighbors to prefer sex with another woman over sex with a man? I think earlier you said something like "cause they don't enjoy sex with men". I feel I could easily explain why I think most women carry a prediliction towards sex with a man over sex with another woman. Secularly there is that complimentary nature between women and men. And theologically it was a relationship ordained by God in Genesis. But I was hoping you could tell me why lesbians have a prediliction towards sex with another woman.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2010 2:41 AM


Praxedes,

You miss my point. I didn't say YOU were hateful, or your INTENTIONS were malicious. But your LANGUAGE is hateful. That kind of language--not simply frowning upon a particular action--gets people murdered.

True, my heart isn't always kind, but I tend to judge people by what they say, not some antideluvian fear of what they do in their bedrooms.

Posted by: Megan at July 9, 2010 6:46 AM


Truthseeker,

I'm addressing your points. Lesbians look at men and feel nothing, sexually. Heterosexual relations just don't feel right. If this explanation isn't explicit enough for you, I'm sorry.

With the Scripture you quote, you portray gay relationships as purely sexual. Sin of the flesh, yadayada. Gay relationships have just as much to do with emotional and spiritual connections as the sexual.

If you're going to quote the Old Testament for sex advice, why not quote Lot? Didn't his daughters do a noble thing, sleeping with their father to save the human race? Mmm, but I don't think we condone incest.

Do you feel personally threatened by gay individuals?

Posted by: Megan at July 9, 2010 7:04 AM


Megan,
Scripturally, in Genesis, God created Adam and then created Eve to be a complimentary partner to Adam. For obvious reasons, God ordained that relationship special from the beginning. To try and twist scripture and present it as if it was pro-homosexual makes the homosexual cause even less legitimate cause scripture does not promote homosexuality in the Old Testament or the New Testament.

I'll ask a third time, what can a same sex partner offer a woman that an opposite sex partner cannot offer them? If you cannot answer this with any tangible items then you either do not know of any or you are unable to express any.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2010 9:47 AM


Let me help you and provide you with a couple examples so you are able to look at this more clearly. Your "yadayadayada comment makes me think you would like to set the sexual part of the relationship to the side. That is fine. Lets do that for now. Lets try and look closer at the emotional ties that can exist in homosexual relationships is a deep caring for the welfare of a partner. This nurturing feeling is not limited to heterosexual relationships. A woman can care deeply for her sister etc. In this respect, can you help me narrow down just what it is that is unique about a same sex relationship offer that opposite sex relationships do not offer. The answer to this questions could lead us to the reason they have a prediliction towards same sex partners.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 9, 2010 9:56 AM


"But your LANGUAGE is hateful." Posted by: Megan at July 9, 2010 6:46 AM

Calling someone "an angry old ogre who gets off thinking about Freddy Krueger slicing up women with rusty coat hangers" is hateful language. Stating FACTS about sexual behaviors is not.

I am not okay with changing my factual language in order to tiptoe around someone who obviously is unable to practice what she preaches.

You seem to feel personally threatened by those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful.


Posted by: Praxedes at July 9, 2010 10:30 AM


First, if I were unable able to come up for exact reasons why some women prefer women over men, would that somehow invalidate lesbian relationships?

But let me try. Some believe the attraction is hard-wired, so there just isn't a "well, men offer this, and women offer that" kind of analysis happening in the minds of gay individuals. But beyond this thought process...
The lesbian women I know believe women are more communicative than men, and tend to acknowledge this as a social, rather than biological, difference. Regardless, they say they are more comfortable in the presence of women, and feel some kind of womanly solidarity.

There's also an issue with gender roles. Maybe the ways you believe heterosexual couples to be "complementary" is exactly what might "turn off" a gay individual. If by "complementary" you mean men and women have inherently different natures, i.e. "male breadwinner, female homemaker," or that men are "naturally" more stoic than women and women "naturally" more compassionate than men, then this "complementary" business might seem very constricting for some individuals. Gay relationships offer some flexibility in this arena--roles are not allocated based on gender. Both women could be the breadwinner type, or the nurturing type, or neither, etc.

You wouldn't argue that every man could partner with every woman, or vice versa, because men and women are inherently "complementary." We all have wildly different personalities, beyond our socially (or biologically, I won't argue this point right here) prescribed gender types/roles. I think any union can be fruitful if it is built on mutual love and respect. I haven't read the journal article so can't offer a sound critique, but this study points to the fact that lesbians actually do make good mothers:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html

Posted by: Megan at July 9, 2010 10:49 AM


Ok, to pick up where I left off in Kiddie condom capital is also queer capital thread:

First of all, I witheld commenting further after a series of personal attacks by my fellow pro-lifers for my view: "I am frustrated and tired of the bickering and homophobia within the pro-life movement. Sexual identity doesn't have anything to do with protecting the unborn and not only diverts away from the issue, but also causes division within the pro-life movement."

Now to respond to individual comments I wanted to get back to:
That's why I posted here that I am a Christian and I don't see a moral wrong with condom use between a husband and wife. We might be brothers and sisters in Christ, but I know some here don't agree with me... that's OK and it's for each of us to work out between ourselves and God. I don't have a problem with condoms being legal and widely available, I don't think we should require proof of marriage to buy them necessarily, I just object to them being handed out by schools to children and encouraging children to participate in premarital sex.
Posted by: army_wife at June 25, 2010 6:16 PM

And I appreciate that Army_wife and agree with your view on condoms :)

It's pretty sad that you cast everyone here as being homophobic - using a guilt by association meant to be divisive - akin to calling someone racist.
Maybe you missed the basis for this article, which is about distribution of condoms to 1st graders, along with explicit instructions not to tell their parents?
At the very least I believe you're either quite naive about how homosexuality/gay marriage relates to defending life, you're very ill-informed, or there might be other reasons for your behaviors.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 25, 2010 8:43 PM

Chris,
I agree, that it is inappropriate to pass out condoms to elementary school children. I am not niave or misinformed or any of the other characterizations you choose to use. But rather this is an issue close to my heart, as my childhood and close friend come out of the closet as bisexual last year. When I choose to share that with my husband and his friends, I was taken aback by their derogatory sexual and homophobic comments about my close friend. How do you think those made me feel? I will continue to queitly fight stereotypes and bigotry towards individuals in the GLBT community, such as my childhood friend.
On the issue of relating the condom distribution to a stereotype of all homosexuals as wild and flamboyant, I think Marauder said it best, "That's like claiming that people who support heterosexual marriage approve of Girls Gone Wild. People acting like sex-crazed hedonists in public is not the same thing as two people wanting a loving, committed relationship."

You know, you're free to disagree with other pro-lifers about gay marriage, but do you really want to risk losing allies by telling self-professed pro-lifers that they can't be pro-life? Do you think people saved from abortion really care what the person or people who saved them thought about gay marriage? Do you think this is a movement that can afford to alienate people?
Posted by: Marauder at June 26, 2010 6:41 AM

Thank you, Marauder! You said it better than I could have.

Posted by: Rachael C. at July 9, 2010 10:50 AM


These feelings of alienation go both ways. Being lumped in as a hater or unenlightened or homophobic hurts as well.

If you read through comments you can see what religion seems to get a lot of heat here and it is hard to not feel alienated at times by this or take this as personal attacks. However, I also realize and admit there are truths behind some of these comments as well and would never want or expect these comments censored unless they cross the line. I believe Jill's site does a great job of drawing and holding people to that line. Thanks Jill and Staff!

Some of us do see correlations between sexual behaviors and the prolife movement and others have every right to agree to disagree.

I too have gay friends and one very close bisexual friend. We have discussed these issues in depth and they find me no more phobic of them than I find them phobic of me.

This issue (or issues like religion) can only divide us if we let it.

Posted by: Praxedes at July 9, 2010 11:52 AM



Hal, let me break it down even further for you. Do you consider anal sex with your wife the equivalent to vaginal sex with your wife? If you answer yes, then I see why you are unable to grasp the complimentary nature of heterosexual unions.
Posted by: truthseeker at July 8, 2010 12:09 AM

I'm really not going to talk about my sex life here. However, I will say that I understand that many heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex, oral sex, and other kinds of sexual contact that gay couples might engage in. As Megan has tried to explain to you, gay people are simply not attracted to members of the opposite sex. Doesn't effect me, one way or another.

Posted by: Hal at July 9, 2010 11:55 AM


"Doesn't effect me, one way or another."

Thanks for my laugh of the day. (:

Posted by: Praxedes at July 9, 2010 3:19 PM


Hal,
I don't mind deicussing my sex in this type of dialogue If I were to give in completely to my sexual libido I'd probably stick it anywhere I could get off. But I don't becuase I try to look at it from the perspective that God intended for me. And I can tell you that God's gift of woman to man leaves any and all other sexual experience equivalent to masturbation. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy masturbation sensually. Personally, due to the Holy Spirit residing within me, I believe that anal sex would be hurting my nwife because it would be treating her in ways that God did not intend for her to be. I have tried it once and I really could not enjoy it. I believe it would be destructive to our relationship perhaps because I have been blessed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit woven into my fabric and leading me in the paths always with God's will being the goal, not mine.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 10, 2010 1:40 PM


Megan,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I would like to respond but have had too much going on and I like to contemplate my response. This blog-line may get sent into the archives tomorrow so please check it back later if I don't get back to you right away and if you want to continue our dialogue.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 10, 2010 1:45 PM


Oh and Hal. Men having anal sex is suicidal. Ever hear of AIDS.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 10, 2010 1:46 PM


I think any union can be fruitful if it is built on mutual love and respect.
Posted by: Megan at July 9, 2010 10:49 AM
Megan,
Perhaps any relationship has potential to be mutually beneficial is accurate, but "any union can be fruitful"? I gotta disagree there. Some unions are destructive. And homosexual unions cannot bear the most obvious fruit of heterosexual unions so maybe you should come up with a better way of stating what you mean by bearing fruit.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 10, 2010 4:49 PM


Megan,
It sounds like you are saying that lesbians are not as comfortable around men because society associates certain expected behaviours and roles from each gender in a hererosexual relationship. So lesbians stress (or even feel resentment) about fulfilling those roles when they are in the company men.

Posted by: truthseeker at July 10, 2010 7:03 PM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

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