Stanek makes list of top 10 female bloggers
Well, thanks!
I’ve been informed I made Women’s Voices Women Vote’s list of top 10 female bloggers due to your votes!
I mentioned earlier this month having received notice of the contest and that I’d sure like to see a pro-lifer make the list. Thanks!
WVWV is now holding a run-off, although I’m seriously content just to have made the the top 10.
It does appear by the bios and a scan of my competitions’ blogs I’m not only the sole pro-life woman represented but also the sole conservative.
And my oh my, at least one of my liberal sisters apparently can’t handle the 9:1 ratio, in particular little ole me! Wrote Taylor Marsh…
But a word about Jill Stanek. She is one of the most virilently anti-civil rights for women activists on the “pro-life” side. Though I, for one, will never understand how dictating to a woman how she lives her own life is being “pro-life.” But Stanek is very popular, in fact the most highly trafficked blogger in her category, so credit where it’s due. But let me be blunt. In the 21st century it would be a wonderful change if the conversation on abortion wasn’t put in terms as strident as what moves Ms. Stanek.
Virilent, strident? Moi? LOL.
Anyway, thanks again.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Congratulations, Jill!!
“There is so much we could do together if our goal was reducing abortions, including making contraception and early action remedies readily available, instead of continuing the argument that governmnet has any role at all in what a woman does in her own life, with her own body, which should be no one’s business but her own, her conscience and her God.”
That is sooo true.
Sorry, Hal, I just cut that part to make the post shorter. And what “early action remedies” could she mean?
Thanks, Carla… :)
You want to know what I think Jill? The reason your blog is so popular is the commentroversy. If it was just pro-life people on this site, let me be blunt, it would be boring. Good thing I’m here to *shake shake shake shake* things up.
Haha, Jess. Who doesn’t love a good dramady?
This whole site is a dramady.
: )
Jess, I agree that part of the attraction to this site is the free flow of ideas. I do appreciate you and most of your comprades taking the time to debate and discuss here.
Even FF?
: D
I tried to comment on Taylor Marsh’s blog but I couldn’t find the thing where you type the comment. So I left and came back here.
I was really torn between Melissa McEwan and Digby, but ended up tossing a coin and voting for McEwan. Those are two of my favorite commentary sites.
https://www.visionvideo.com/vf_images/I501089D.jpg
I hate how it says “lost 7 to Roe v. Wade”. Roe v. Wade never forced anyone to have an abortion. I hate when people say, “I had to have an abortion I had no choice.” You always have a choice. Sure the pregnancy might kill you and you have to choose between abortion and death but it’s still your choice. Sure you might get kicked out of your house but that’s your choice also. I hate when people think they don’t have a choice.
I can’t vote. I’m not American because I don’t have a US State. Is this some voter registration scheme?
Never mind…the rest of the form came up…I was able to vote.
It’s great to win things, but the point of this blog is that it links to current events in the pro life arena. And there is always a great discussion. Sometimes one sided, but still good for the soul.
I, for one, check this blog every day. Though I don’t post much, I do from time to time forward links to Jill.
I feel a strong connection to Jill’s situation as my wife was a nurse and used to work in the county hospital here. She refused to work in ob/gyn because they performed abortions there. She continued to work in other parts of the hospital.
I guess it’s true what they say:
“Whether they hate you or they love you, at least they’re thinking about you”
Or in this case talking about you.
Congrats Jill!
(And Jess, I agree…I half come here to read the stories, and half come here to talk to all of you!!!!) :internet hugs:
I can’t hug you Elizabeth there’s a screen in my way!
I think Richard F. Carnahan wrote a much better description of you, Jill.
Who is Jill Stanek? Unfortunately for her, nobody. A “columnist” for the whack-job WorldNetDaily and an intellectual lightweight who couldn’t argue her way out of a wet paper bag, Stanek impotently parries with her proclaimed opponents, people she refers to as “pro-aborts,” “feminists” and “liberals.”
Ooh, harsh.
You have to pity Stanek and the hard-right ideologues in Illinois, who can’t get anybody elected, can’t get their own party to listen to them, and are otherwise barren, dried up and shriveling away into literal, not just figurative, nothingness, on their way to being a club that meets in Stanek’s plastic-covered living room and takes minutes in a Filofax journal she keeps in an over-decorated box on top of the refrigerator. They’ve been unable for cycles and cycles to get anybody elected, and the candidates who swallow their electoral poison
If Jill was really a nobody would he be talking about her?
Like that conservative guy who paid for sex with that black guy and like, we don’t talk about him anymore? Cause he’s out of work? What are we talking about?
I think he’s referring to her credibility, not her pro-life celebrity status.
Oh ok. At least she didn’t have sex with a prostitute. That we know of…
I don’t know but I never look at abortion as a women’s issue or a liberal or conservative one – I see it as a human rights issue – the human rights of the mom as well as the baby – the same way they are killing people in Dafur is the same way as this Vampiric practice the left is so fond of. This Marsh chick is still wallowing in this antiquated 20th century Marxist speak. Jill is a pioneer of the new century –
Congrats on the mention where its due. I was actually reading an article by Zorn the other day, someone having posted it to prove one point or another, and saw his references to you as well as your comments on the site. Was one of those “whoa” moments, lol.
On another note, those of you who knew I was applying to colleges/scholarships/etc, my last line to go to one of my top choices snapped today. Didnt get into the honors program/scholarship at Suffolk university, was stiff competition. Over 400 people for 20 spots. So its looking like I’ll be going to UMass Boston, but at least I’ll get to go to school in Boston like I had wanted…
Congrats, Jill. I actually very much agree with what the lady said in her comment. I vehemently agree with many of your opinions. But this site does generate phenomenal traffic, and as such, you deserve credit for it.
Though I must say, I am also proud of my lovely liberal sisters!
Good on ya, Jill!
Regarding Taylor Marsh’s snarky comment:
But a word about Jill Stanek. She is one of the most virilently [sic] anti-civil rights for women activists on the “pro-life” side.
I love the irony in her typo, considering that “virile” is defined as “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or befitting a man; masculine; manly”.
“There is so much we could do together if our goal was reducing abortions”
The goal *is* to reduce abortions; making them illegal except in cases of medical need will greatly reduce them.
“including making contraception and early action remedies readily available,”
except that widespread use of contraception has gone hand in hand with a massive increase in the number of abortions; not sayin’ it’s causal, but it does correlate. Also “early action remedies” *are* actually abortions; they may be chemical rather than surgical, but the still cause abortions.
“instead of continuing the argument that governmnet has any role at all in what a woman does in her own life, with her own body, which should be no one’s business but her own, her conscience and her God.”
Of course the government has a role in people’s lives, and what they can do with their own bodies. Many many laws on the books throughout this country (and others) do precisely this – limit what people can do in their own lives and sometimes, even with their own bodies.
How does one pro-choicer talk to another pro-choicer about reducing abortions when it’s no body else’s business and they aren’t allowed to make judgements? What does that conversation sound like? Seriously.
“How does one pro-choicer talk to another pro-choicer about reducing abortions when it’s no body else’s business and they aren’t allowed to make judgements? What does that conversation sound like? Seriously.”
Like a tree falling in the woods, Janet.
Ever notice that liberals are only support Freedom of Speech, or diverse opinions when they agree with the speaker….
As far as I can tell our little Edyt pulled out a quote from some lefty blogger whose readership is mainly derived from the tin-foil hat wearers in Roscoe village. Real powerhouse there…..
LB:
Aw, that’s not true.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(Quote widely attributed to Voltaire)
Come on, I’m part of the media. To go against freedom of speech would put limitations on myself! And I would die trying to protect free speech, it’s a rather noble cause IMHO.
And that wasn’t just a lefty blogger, it was published on GapersBlock.com, a Chicago-based slowdown and commentary of events and happenings around the city. It gets roughly 4,000-5,000 hits a day.
Yay, Jill!
Just voted for ya again…
Edyt –
Right, PP won’t let a pro-lifer post a comment. Same for a Republican posting on the Daily Kos, along with a boat load of other liberal sites. Get real!
Me too!!
Woo Hoo!!
Congrats to Jill, our Super Sleuth!
One more reason the print media is going the way of the Whigs!
By the time they get off their duffs and wring their hands about
whether they can violate the PC controls their liberal masters
require, Jill is hot on the tail of another wicked pervert, exposing
truth all the way.
God speed, friend!
Edyt —
I disagree and you should look in the mirror. You read this site and comment on it over and over again. Then when Jill gets some recognition — you put up a slam against her. She allows the people who disagree to comment here. Most liberal venues don’t allow dissenting posters — they vacuum the comments. (Hummm, liberals love those vacuums)
Also, Voltaire was a Classic Liberal — and wouldn’t share many views with the current liberal types. Current liberals take more of their intellectual guidance from the Weathermen, who liked to build bombs to get their point across, or the NEA who promote political correctness that limits self-expression, or Planned Parenthood who promote the murder of infants.
Voltaire was well-educated, posessed a sense of humor, valued debate and deep thinking — so he was very unlike a modern liberal.
Current liberals take more of their intellectual guidance from the Weathermen, who liked to build bombs to get their point across, or the NEA who promote political correctness that limits self-expression, or Planned Parenthood who promote the murder of infants.
Voltaire was well-educated, posessed a sense of humor, valued debate and deep thinking — so he was very unlike a modern liberal.
Posted by: LB at March 28, 2008 3:54 PM
Hmmmm, let’s see what happens when you replace “liberal” with “conservatives”…..for instance:
Current “conservatives” take more of their intellectual guidance from the KKK, who liked to use violence to get their point across.
Or like current conservatives who thought (and still seem to think!) that bombing the crap out of Iraq was a good way to defeat Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda, which was not located in Iraq.
Or like the religious right, who promote “spiritual correctness” that limits self-expression, or pretty much every Republican in the country who seems to think that murdering Iraqi citizens every day is A-OK!
See how much fun stereotyping can be? Yay!
Congrats, Jill. Thanks to the efforts of folks like you, folks like Jess are able to “shake things up” by spewing their hate, hypocritically misplaced loyalty, ad nauseam.
Destroying the innocent, verbally or physically, does not make the world a better, more interesting place; not even on a microcosmic blogsite.
And INDUCED ABORTION IS A BARBARIC WRONG, NOT A CIVIL RIGHT.
Posted by: John Jansen at March 28, 2008 2:52 PM
Regarding Taylor Marsh’s snarky comment:
But a word about Jill Stanek. She is one of the most virilently [sic] anti-civil rights for women activists on the “pro-life” side.
I love the irony in her typo, considering that “virile” is defined as “of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or befitting a man; masculine; manly”.
+++++
Right on, John. I also she uses the word “virulent” as a way to negatively spin the more appropriate terms “fearless” and “effective”. They must HATE that…he he
You’re doing a great job, Jill. Thank you for continuing to keep the PC death-promoters on their toes.
Hahaha, I never said Jill didn’t deserve a spot on the top 10. She posted someone’s comments about her, I said I preferred another writer’s way with words.
I also said I, personally, would fight for your right to free speech. If other sites do not allow your comments to be posted, that is their business.
If you believe being “politically correct” is limiting your free speech, the only speech that is being limited is racist, sexist, intolerant of other cultures, religions, sexualities and so on … In essence, political correctness was created out of an attempt to be respectful toward other human beings.
By the way, there is now law forcing you to be politically correct, so if you feel the need to say hate-speech, do so. (Remember certain forms of hate speech can be prosecuted under the law) It won’t make other people look bad if you voice your own bigotry.
However, if some websites are uncomfortable with hate-speech on their blogs or forums, that is their own decision. However, they may not be doing that to purposefully stop conservatives from commenting, they may simply be trying to limit intolerance on their sites.
Well jeez reality czech good thing you aren’t a moderator on this site.
“Voltaire was well-educated, posessed a sense of humor, valued debate and deep thinking — so he was very unlike a modern liberal.”
If anything how could you accuse us of not having a sense of humor?
Correction: there is no* law forcing you to be politically correct.
Hiero —
Where did you get the idea that the KKK would be Republican — it was and Democrat outfit. In fact, one of the most liberal dems in the Senate was a Grand Dragon. You know — Senator Bryd of West Virginia. Clanmembers were part of the Solid South — the Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s. Remember how Al Gore’s pappa had a filabuster against the Voting Rights Act — you know so black folks couldn’t vote (express their opinion).
It seems that there is plenty of dissent allowed in the public sphere about the war — just look at all the coverage. There were debates before war started — it’s just that your side didn’t pervail.
It’s only the liberals that want to limit the opinions on radio (via equal time laws), why would that be — perhaps because they can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Liberals hate Fox News — even though there are plenty of liberals on there as commentators. Why would that be? Because they also have conservative opinions which aren’t ever heard on the other networks. Funny how FOX out draws CNN and MSN nightly…
As far as religious speakers — Obama’s preacher doesn’t appear to be conservative to me — he is very good at spreading hate. And Obama hasn’t ever said he disagreed with the particulars. Yes, there are crazy preachers all over — though until now, no one was reporting on the crazy lefty preachers.
Getting back to the reason for this entry — good for Jill making this list and good for the commenters here for joining in debate — wherever you sit politically.
Current “conservatives” take more of their intellectual guidance from the KKK, who liked to use violence to get their point across.
Hiero,
Sometimes…I think you’re a little nutso when you say crap like this. Your whole post was about how wrong stereotyping is, and yet you managed to do it throughout YOUR ENTIRE POST!
Get a clue.
LB – you’re missing my point. But keep on with the broad brushstroke painting….it’s such good evidence of your “deep” thinking.
Sometimes…I think you’re a little nutso when you say crap like this. Your whole post was about how wrong stereotyping is, and yet you managed to do it throughout YOUR ENTIRE POST!
Posted by: Elizabeth at March 28, 2008 4:40 PM
Elizabeth – that was my point. It’s easy to stereotype, and it usually isn’t either particularly effective or valid. I was using “liberal” stereotyping to show what it looks like when the shoe is on the other foot.
LB, I like Fox News and consider them very honest and straight forward. I watch the O’Rielly factor often at home.
Jill,
It’s OK for the abortion providers to damage women and kill babies, using inhumane methods, all for the sake of making people more available for recreational uses. But you must be GENTLE with them and not hurt their feelings.
Don’tcha KNOW!?
Oh, and LB, I think this part of your post is funny:
Where did you get the idea that the KKK would be Republican — it was and Democrat outfit. In fact, one of the most liberal dems in the Senate was a Grand Dragon. You know — Senator Bryd of West Virginia. Clanmembers were part of the Solid South — the Democrats who tried to block the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
Why don’t you bother to mention what happened with those southern Democrats after the Civil Rights Acts were passed? Oh that’s right…the majority of them became Republicans, and remain so today…
Edyt, you are so stereotypical of the “liberal” set. A pro-lifer commenting on the PP site isn’t “intolerant” it’s a different viewpoint, just as a conservative on a liberal blog.
But that’s right; we MUST be intolerant if we have a different view. Yes, we MUST be silenced how silly of me. (Yes, that’s sarcasm. I thought I should point it out since people like you seem to miss the point so often.)
Congratulations Jill!
Political Correctness — limits speech.
If a person says something racist — I can disagree with them and even believe they are a moron — but it is their right to be a fool. Political correctness is enforced on many college campuses, just to keep certain subjects from being discussed. Look at how pro-life clubs on campuses are treated — their voices are quelled.
Limiting what anyone can say, short of the Fire! offense — is wrong. Limitation is the point of Political Correctness.
Hiero — Bryd still serves in the Senate and those Dems were still Dems after the Civil Rights Acts were passed. Republicans began to be elected in the South during the 1980’s.
Jess — Glad you watch Fox. I try to watch a bit of everything myself — CNN, ABC and even PBS. I do feel at least on Fox you know when you are getting opinion — it’s out in the open.
By the by, most of my friends are more liberal than I, but I am not as totally conservative as you all assume. I just hate to see the ad hominen attacks — especially when Jill is pretty open to dissent here. Yes, I wrote some sweeping stereotyping — but that is what you all do about us pro-lifers all the time.
We get liberal stereotyping here all the time. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard all of the world’s ills are the “feminist liberal hippie”‘s fault. Or that people assume I’m a proabort because I support real sex education and don’t oppose birth control…
I don’t condone stereotyping on either side- there are hypocrisies in both typical conservative and liberal beliefs..just a general comment, there are plenty of stereotypes hurled around here and thought I should point that out.
Edyt, you are so stereotypical of the “liberal” set. A pro-lifer commenting on the PP site isn’t “intolerant” it’s a different viewpoint, just as a conservative on a liberal blog.
But that’s right; we MUST be intolerant if we have a different view. Yes, we MUST be silenced how silly of me. (Yes, that’s sarcasm. I thought I should point it out since people like you seem to miss the point so often.)
No, I believe you missed the point. I did not say “a pro-lifer commenting on a PP site is intolerant.” I did not say “If you have a different view you are intolerant and must be silenced.”
I stated, at least twice so this makes it a third time, that I believe in your right to free speech. Even hate speech.
I explained that one of the reasons certain blogs may not allow you unrestrained free speech is because they will not tolerate hate speech. I said nothing about your views. I said they would not tolerate hate speech.
I know both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can sometimes get heated and sling ad hominem attacks rather than debate rationally. On some blogs, that is not tolerated. On this blog, it is. So while you feel like you have freedom of speech here, I feel like there is a freedom to hate here. Again, that’s Jill’s choice and I am not arguing with the way she conducts her space.
A private school may conduct business as it wishes. If that means silencing some of the students for speech they deem intolerable, so be it. Let me remind you that a number of atheist and god-questioning students have been silenced at religious colleges. An atheist was even expelled for having a religious discussion with another classmate.
One more time:
I believe in your right to free speech.
I believe other websites and blogs and private entities have the right to control what speech is contained within their space.
Edyt, that is so completely ridiculous.
(the article)
The same ridiculousness level as the “Expelled” crew is at currently. (Haven’t you heard about them kicking a person they interviewed for their movie and thanked in the credits out of a preview showing?)
That whole situation is ridiculous, but also humorously ironic, so I don’t mind–only shows what liars they are.
@PiP: What’s “Expelled”?
Edyt:
The ultimate hate speech that can be uttered by a human being is:
“God doesn’t exist”
First of all, it’s a lie, secondly, it represents utter stupidity, thirdly, it leads others away from the truth, and lastly, the one uttering it ultimately ends up in hell.
So tell me Ms. Genius, what’s the payoff for ya? It is just a Janis Joplin Southern Comfort type “Cheap Thrill” or do you just want everyone to believe that all is for nought? Bet it makes you feel real, real powerful, huh? Tell me something, how does one deny every part of one’s being that screams out, “God lives and I am and I want to live”? A lot of pain inside….it must be tough for ya to be able to deny the only source of life you have. I’m sorry.
Rae,
The new ID-promoting “documentary” that lied people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins into interviewing with them only to take them out of context and supplement their interviews with images of Nazi-era ovens and goose-stepping.
And PZ Myers signed up for a movie screening with his family and Dawkins as a guest. Then a security guard took him from the line and showed him to the door. NO JOKE. It was clear this was decided beforehand because Dawkins got through–and he wrote a review about it and what happened.
Why kick out someone you interviewed and thanked in the credits, “Expelled”? Do you have something to hide, or is this your academic freedom shining through?
Oh and Myers also intercepted during a conference call..
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
(further down there are a few blogs about the event and a link to Dawkins’ review)
PIP, yes, I read about that on his blog a couple days ago. There’s also a bit of a commentary about how the filmmakers deliberately lied to them about what the film was about, even it’s TITLE… Truly astounding.
@PiP: Oh I read about that in the Pioneer Press! PZ Myers is a University of Minnesota professor!
How mature of them, to intertwine the Nazis with Dawkins and Myers (while I dislike Dawkins…I think he’s a jerk). That is uncalled for.
That is disgusting.
HisMan:
I don’t think I’ve ever said God doesn’t exist. I will say I do not believe God exists, however.
Furthermore, me saying God doesn’t exist or I don’t believe God exists is not hate speech.
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability.
Via
Your justifications for what “hate speech” is are utterly wrong. (Not to mention biased… did I mention that if I do not believe in hell, you threatening me with it does not make an iota of difference? It’s like saying Santa’s giving me coal for Christmas. Oh boo hoo, Santa doesn’t exist.)
Payoff? Well, I happen to find satisfaction in my day to day life. I don’t need the promise of an afterlife to enjoy existence.
Pain? Actually, I was raised Christian and I felt a whole lot more pain, shame, guilt, blame, and agony over who I was then. Now, I’m much less burdened and greatly happier!
Rae, I was always wondering if you ever had him as a professor? Some of his (abortion) views are a bit frightening, but I LOVE his science blogs and particularly his view on Expelled, being a part of it and all. Would be really interesting to have him as a teacher. Though I bet he would be pretty difficult.
Edyt, I have been following the story since I heard about their misleading Myers and Dawkins right from the start. At first I wasn’t sure what to think about it since I didn’t know how the public would react (especially since the movie was so new)…but now I like to just sit back and watch them repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot.
Hiero — Bryd still serves in the Senate and those Dems were still Dems after the Civil Rights Acts were passed. Republicans began to be elected in the South during the 1980’s.
Uh huh. ’cause that’s when Nixon was around for his Southern strategy…in the ’80’s. Oh wait, no it wasn’t.
Rae,
Dawkins is a total ass but in the ways of science you have to admit he’s pretty brilliant.
COGNRATULATIONS JILL!
Jill, keep shining the light }}}
Everyone: The comment at 7:51 is from Faux Hisman,imo.
Honestly PIP, I didn’t even know about the movie until I read about it there… and it was screened in Chicago a couple years ago, or last year, I think. I’m sort of hoping most people remain as in the dark as I was, because it’d be a shame if that kind of misinformation got out into the public and became as popular as… oh, I don’t know, the Passion of the Christ?
Have you seen this video? Pretty scary.
Oh, HisMan, I was wrong. I do feel a bit of pain. My throat is a bit sore and my lungs kinda achy… but I think that’s the bronchitis, not my lack of belief in God.
@PiP: No, PZ Myers works at University of Minnesota-Morris, I go to University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. We’re at different campuses. :)
And I do think Dawkins is smart, but that doesn’t give him license to be an arrogant a**-hole towards people who believe in God.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@Jill: I’d like to offer my congratulations as well. :)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
@Bethany: Are you able to chat tonight?
Yeah Edyt, I saw it on his blog! That is pretty scary, and I like Myers’ take on it.
Reminds me of another stereotype we liberals get…that we are somehow “brainwashed” but the kids going on these excursions (that are obviously based on misinformation and lies) aren’t.
Aw shucks Rae! That would be cool though!
“There is so much we could do together if our goal was reducing abortions, including making contraception and early action remedies readily available, instead of continuing the argument that governmnet has any role at all in what a woman does in her own life, with her own body, which should be no one’s business but her own, her conscience and her God.”
That is sooo true.
Posted by: Hal at March 28, 2008 12:11 PM
Hal, what a pile of crock! And what could possibly have induced you and your wife not to abort two of your own children? There are thousands of abortions just like the one’s you and your wife were part of. There’s always an option – you just didn’t want to consider it. You took the easy way out.
@ Janet:
How does one pro-choicer talk to another pro-choicer about reducing abortions when it’s no body else’s business and they aren’t allowed to make judgements? What does that conversation sound like? Seriously.
Posted by: Janet at March 28, 2008 3:05 PM
I agree – but I note Hal never bothered to reply because the conversation would NEVER happen. For pro-aborts there is only one option.
What struck me most was how obvious and easily refutable those lies were!
I mean, seriously, T-Rex ate veggies? Even the whole “How do you know?” phrase and the tour guide’s point about circular reasoning could be directed straight back at them.
I really don’t care if I get labeled democrat or conservative or liberal or republican… I just want my views to be backed with evidence and fact, not myths and misinformation.
Edyt, you gotta admire the narrator/interviewer of that clip for not pandering to them, and exposing of their falsehoods.
@PiP: The uber hawt Dan-guy from my lab went to U of MN-Morris. Perhaps he had him for biology? I could ask. :)
LOL I LOVED that one!!! Their reasoning for that was PRICELESS.
Do it Rae!
Well, it was one of those things where you almost don’t even need to say anything. Just stand around with a look of incredulity… and let the facts speak for themselves.
Congratulations Jill!
@Edyt: Do they really say T-Rex eats *vegetables*? Do they really have no idea of dental anatomy and what kind of teeth indicate an herbivore?
@PiP: I think somebody needs to get on AIM and talk wif me…:-p
Rae, T-Rex was a vegetarian. How else would it have survived, since there was no death before the fall??
Be on in a minute girl ;)
Rae, I’m serious, watch the film. It’s a little over 7 minutes.
They say T-Rex must have eaten vegetables because Rex lived the same time as man, and no one ate meat until the fall, so therefore until Eve ate the apple, everyone ate meat, regardless of what shape their teeth were in.
It’s beyond ridiculous.
“Creationists use facts the same way a drunk uses a lightpost: for support instead of illumination.
Edyt:
I’ll pray that your bronchitis heals but more so that you learn the fear of the Lord.
Christ stated that there will no eating in Heaven.
If Eden was heaven on earth I don’t think there was a need to eat.
Remember Eve was not tempted by hunger but by the desire to be like God.
I believe there was simply no eating being done before the fall.
Eating creates waste and waste defiles.
@Edyt: *vomit* That’s just so unbelievable. Wow.
And atheists stupidly kick the lightpost out from under theemsleves dashing their heads on the ground.
Actually, natural waste fertilizes plants. It’s hazardous, unnatural waste that defiles.
And thanks for the sentiment, but I grew out of my fear of invisible monsters.
How does kicking a light post make people dash their heads against the ground? That doesn’t even make sense…
I think he’s under the impression that atheists stand on lightposts. So when they use their superhumanly powerful legs to kick out the lightpost, they fall down and hit their heads?
I think he’s under the impression that atheists stand on lightposts. So when they use their superhumanly powerful legs to kick out the lightpost, they fall down and hit their heads?
Posted by: Edyt at March 28, 2008 9:11 PM
That happens to me all the time. I’m just about ready to give up standing on light posts.
The ultimate hate speech that can be uttered by a human being is:
“God doesn’t exist”
Huh? Not really…I guess then when you say “God does exist,” that’s hate speech too. Does it hurt God’s feelings when people say that? Probably…but I would say He has a pretty thick skin BY NOW.
HisMan, you make it so hard to take you seriously when you say stuff like this. Does somebody saying that God doesn’t exist degrade you in any way? No? Probably because you still believe He does whether anybody else does or not. So it’s not hate speech. Not compared to any sort of hate speech that I’ve ever heard. And I’ve heard a lot.
LB, my Dad works for Fox in advertising. My whole family is Republican conservatives. And yes, I am as liberal, or more so, in real life : ) But I feel I tend to be more open when it comes to conservative views because like, my parents who I love so incredibly much are conservative.
“I agree – but I note Hal never bothered to reply because the conversation would NEVER happen. For pro-aborts there is only one option.”
What about all the ideas I purposed?
Edyt:
My definition of hate speech is Biblically based, yours is a man-made opinion.
Any speech that denies God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is not who He says He is is hate speech. Hate towards God and mankind.
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
Proverbs 14:12 (Whole Chapter)
There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death.
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist
Excellent work, Jill. The pro-aborts can’t STAND to have a single pro-life woman on the list. They prefer to pretend that you don’t exist, just as they pretend that unborn children don’t exist.
HisMan, you are right that the worst hate speech is “God doesn’t exist”. But the second worst hate speech is to say to someone, “You don’t exist”, in order to justify killing them. Which is exactly what the pro-aborts do with the unborn.
All, thanks for the atta girl’s, but you’re the ones who got me the spot… :)
Edyt, 3/28, 2:06p: Was unaware of that column, entirely dedicated to bashing little ole me?! LOL. *bow*
John, “virilent” vs. “virulent.” Missed that misspelling. Good eye!
John,
Most of the “virulent” pro abort voices on this blog are those who are deep into denial (read pretending the truth doesn’t exist). Seems to be a certain mental condition that exists with them.
This is why Jill’s blog and other prolife blogs and websites are so important. No one can really say that they didn’t know what abortion entails unless they don’t have access to the Internet.
However, human nature being what it is, we often filter out what we don’t want to know, in this case, abortion KILLS a baby.
Just read Taylor Marsh’s post on Jill:
“I truly wish we could find some meeting on this subject, but when people want to dictate to women what we can do with our own bodies it’s a deal breaker.”
Of course it’s the same old pro-abort diatribe! To Ms. Marsh, the problem is dearie, it’s not YOUR body that your killing – it’s your unborn baby’s.
Patricia,
I have noticed that some prochoice on this site have admitted they think it’s a baby, a human being but are FINE with the killing of said baby because, AFTER ALL it is “living off of the mother” “without her consent” considered “a parasite” and has “no right to use her body.”
I can hardly wrap my brain around it.
Yeah, I know Carla. But it’s not like the baby chose to be there. And that is the ONLY place the baby can live, therefore it is the mother’s moral duty to allow the baby to continue to live there until it no longer requires her body and can be born. If you don’t want this situation to arise – don’t have the sex. It’s not the baby that is the problem – it’s the sex.
What these proaborts don’t realize is that this kind of reasoning will be extended to (and already are to some extent) end of life issues.
It’s very utilitarian ethics – people are only people if they are useful and independent.
“Of course it’s the same old pro-abort diatribe! To Ms. Marsh, the problem is dearie, it’s not YOUR body that your killing – it’s your unborn baby’s.”
You’re right about that, Patricia. I don’t care what Marsh does with her body. Why on Earth would I care what she does with her body? I don’t even want to be in close promixity to the body of a pro-abortion liberal feminist, as I find them to be extremely repulsive on an intellectual level. And when I find someone to be intellectually repulsive, they start to look physically ugly to me as well.
I care about what she does to someone else’s body. If we weren’t talking about killing babies, I wouldn’t care at all.
Yeah, and I don’t want to be in close “proximity” to her either. Transposition typos are fun.
And Patricia, don’t you know that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to not have sex? It just HAPPENS, like a rainstorm. Might as well be ready with an umbrella and a condom. After all, human beings are nothing but slobbering animals with no free will, no honor, and no respect.
Don’t forget no self control. We are slaves to our hormones.
“Might as well be ready with an umbrella”
“Want to have sex?”
“NO”
*wacks with umbrella and runs away*
Oh, good idea John!
Carla, like it or not, it’s still programmed in out very genes.
Oh, I like it Erin. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a slave to it. Every thought is not acted on, if you know what I mean.
Now get over here and cook me something!
What I keep hearing is-Well those kids are going to have sex anyway so we might as well teach them how to use condoms. Cause they just can’t seem to control themselves.
NO, they are not all going to have sex anyway. In fact I know quite a few who are saving themselves for marriage. Very cool.
Thoughts on that, Erin?
Ironically, “strident” is one of those words (like “shrill”) that’s often used by anti-feminists against women who express their opinions as forcefully as men are expected to.
Jess, I don’t recall saying anything about Voltaire.
What sort of funny stuff have you been taking for your ailing sense of perspective? (Not unrelated to a healthy sense of humor…)
cheers!
reality czech, the first part of my post was about you the second was something LB said sorry I didn’t clarify.
Jill, Your blog attracts not only pro-life people but also virulent pro-aborts trying to assuage their msigivings by getting others to commit the same atrocity. Thank you for showing us how the pro-abort industry preys on the poor and insecure for monetary gain. Thank you for your blog and the truth it reveals to those who may be undecided. By exposing the self-serving pro-abort heathen your blog is defintely revealing the truth to those who might be undecied ot led astray. Thank you for being a beacon of light shining for God’s people(especially the most needy) around the world.
HisMan, thank you for the barrage of historical text, however, I fail to see anything in there that refers even remotely to the definition of hate speech.
I already KNOW that in your eyes I’m a sinner/liar/going to hell. However, I haven’t said anything to demean your religion. I respect that you believe in what you do. When I say I do not believe in God, I am not forcing my beliefs on you. Why? Because according to your Bible, God GAVE YOU FREE WILL.
If I said, for example, that your religion is a pile of crap and you’re an idiot for believing in it and you’re just a (insert vulgar, obscene, offensive names here) … then THAT would be hate speech.
But I don’t engage in that. You do.
I have noticed that some prochoice on this site have admitted they think it’s a baby, a human being but are FINE with the killing of said baby because, AFTER ALL it is “living off of the mother” “without her consent” considered “a parasite” and has “no right to use her body.”
Carla, that is part of the argument, but it extends past that. Pro-choicers believe that the baby will be a major part of that woman’s life. And it should be! We fully support women who want to have children, and even as a feminist, I believe it’s a wonderful thing to be a mother. I think children are a joy and I believe motherhood is something to truly admire.
However, I do not believe a woman should be forced to have a child she does not want. And this isn’t just for the mother’s sake, but for the child’s sake as well. I personally have a few friends who are adopted, and while some say they’re glad of it, others feel hurt and unwanted. They wonder why they weren’t good enough for their parents to want to keep them.
I’ve read a lot of stories told by women who chose to abort (and chose to keep the child) and one thing has stuck out to me: Making the decision to keep or not keep the child is very personal. Many women already have had children and they fear being unable to take care of all of them, whether for financial reasons, or that one of the children has a disability and requires extra care… or maybe the mother is going through a tough time with her boyfriend or husband and is afraid what might happen to her family if things don’t work out.
It’s not so cut and dry as you think. There are a lot of “practical” reasons for aborting, but women don’t use those reasons to make a decision. They choose from their heart.
I believe the world does not have enough resources right now to support a woman’s decision to keep her child if she cannot support it herself. I know kids who were born to single mothers and ended up having much more difficulty getting through school and going to college. My boyfriend’s mother, for example, ended up divorcing his father after having two children. She then had to work all day just to get by, and my BF always talks about how she was not much of a mother to him, she was always tired, she cried a lot under the stress…
And that’s not to say there are not still success stories… certainly I think my boyfriend turned out pretty well, but if his mother had gotten pregnant, she would have had to quit her job, and how would she take care of her family then? On government handouts? For how long?
To me, being pro-choice means I understand there are difficult circumstances in life. But I believe whole-heartedly that children are wonderful and precious, and when a child is wanted, it will be given the love it deserves.
Until you can promise all children loving homes where they are wanted … then your pro-life argument isn’t really considering life at all.
It’s very utilitarian ethics – people are only people if they are useful and independent.
Patricia, I hope I’ve proved otherwise.
I cannot promise all children will be placed in loving homes and neither can you. I believe all children are wanted. By the God who created them and if not by the mother then couples willing to adopt them. If prochoicers were happy to help and support women who want to keep their babies, why doesn’t PP refer more for adoptions?
I had an abortion 17 years ago and would have my daughter with me today had I sought out other options, opinions and support. I did not.
“They wonder why they weren’t good enough for their parents to want to keep them.”
Can you give me a number of how many of these children would rather have been aborted?
I wouldn’t care if my parents aborted me. But that’s just me and I have my reasons.
Jess, through your words you give credence to the idea that pro-aborts worship death.
Edyt,
Why do you believe that being “wanted” ensures a good life? It doesn’t. Nothing does. Nobody gets a little paper when they’re born that says, “Now that you are here, everything will always be perfect for you.” That’s not how life works as I’m sure both you and I know. Life is a wonderful,glorious thing, even with its many imperfections/trials/struggles/downright horridness at times.
It always makes me feel happy for people when they decide against an abortion, and I feel sad for people who have or are going to have an abortion. I wonder why that is. Maybe because I believe where this is life, there is always hope. Sure, we all have things we have to overcome…our parents weren’t there for us as much or we’ve been hurt by them, or we never had anything growing up, but overcoming the bad deals we’ve been dealt in this life is what it’s all about. At least I think so.
Well John I don’t care if you have kids so does that mean I now worship life?
I love life. I just love a woman’s right to choose more.
Elizabeth,
No, I do not believe wanted ensures a good life. I do believe wanted ensures a life in which you will be loved.
If I could go back to my time in utero, and if someone said, “Hey, this is the family you’re going to wind up in… want to be aborted?”
I would have gone, “HELL YES. Abort me tomorrow!”
Why? Because kids don’t deserve to grow up in unloving households. It’s not right. Life’s not fair, and life’s not always going to be good.
I spent a lot of time in my life searching in the wrong places for the kind of love my parents couldn’t supply. I got lucky. Others don’t.
Everyone deserves to be loved. If you can’t promise that to every child that’s going to be born, then don’t force them to grow up without it. Because that is inhumane. Not abortion.
It’s not right. Life’s not fair, and life’s not always going to be good.
Exactly..so you think you’re EVER going to be able to promise EVERY child, whether they are wanted at the time or not, that they will be loved by their parents FOREVER? Come on…stop living in a dream world. Yes, some people have crappy lives, and yes, some people have parents that don’t love them..and YES, it is tragic because every child deserves to be loved. Every child also deserves to not be sick or dying, but you can’t promise that either..so why don’t we just get rid of humanity altogether?
And Edyt, that is unfortunate that you devalue your own contribution to this world so little that you would have been okay with not being here. It speaks volumes about how you see yourself, and for that, I am sad for you.
eeek, I meant value your contribution to this world so little…
it is SO time for bed!
If children are the “joy” you all say they are, why is it so difficult for a parent to promise to love, unconditionally, their children forever?
I’m really getting conflicting messages here…
On one hand, I’m being told I must have children so I can realize how wonderful they are and so I can feel the true love of having children…
On the other, you’re saying it’s impossible for a parent to ever love a child forever in any circumstance.
Like I said, I don’t want to have a kid I can’t promise to love.
And no, I don’t see myself as some special star that is amazing and wonderful just because I exist (I’m not THAT full of myself)… but your speaking about “contributions” and “value” sure does shoot down your argument that a person deserves life no matter what…
Oh, the contradictions. I forgot, this is why it’s hard to argue with pro-lifers… you need a good memory to do so!
Edyt wrote:
Why? Because kids don’t deserve to grow up in unloving households. It’s not right. Life’s not fair, and life’s not always going to be good.
Do we kill born children who are growing up in unloving households? No, we do not. So why should we kill unborn children who might grow up in unloving households? Logic should actually lead us to be more willing to kill the born children, because at least we can be more sure of the loving/unloving nature of their homes. Who knows if an unborn child’s family will actually be as unloving as it might appear to be?
Your whole argument is based on the premise that there is an ontological difference between born children and unborn children and that this difference is sufficient to justify killing. But that’s the central issue of the abortion debate! That’s circular reasoning, and it doesn’t actually prove anything….
The point is… the mother makes the choice for herself and examines the situation. SHE is the one who says “No, I cannot nurture this child.”
That is why I say the children grow up in unloving households, or households where they are unwanted. The mother has made the choice to do so.
I am not making the argument that the government should step in and examine loving and unloving households. I am saying that the mother has the ability to say that she can or cannot love this child and choose to abort it. When a mother goes through with the pregnancy she is saying, “Yes, I will love this child.”
How is that circular reasoning?
And no, I don’t see myself as some special star that is amazing and wonderful just because I exist (I’m not THAT full of myself)… but your speaking about “contributions” and “value” sure does shoot down your argument that a person deserves life no matter what…
Edyt, you really are a word-twister aren’t you? I never said you had to see yourself as some “special star” or that you had to be full of yourself at all. Realizing that you are a wonderful person that contributes everyday whether you think you do or not is what I am talking about. You really do have self-esteem issues if you seem to think that you have to be a “special star” to matter in this world. Everyone matters to someone whether they are aware of it or not.
On one hand, I’m being told I must have children so I can realize how wonderful they are and so I can feel the true love of having children…
Nobody told you that you “must” have children because they’re wonderful. And frankly, I’ll tell you that children aren’t like some dream you see in a commercial with the child all happy and smiling all the time, and the parent looking perfectly put together, and happy as can be. Being a parent IS hard, but it’s the MOST important job in the world. If it weren’t, kids could raise themselves. Right now, I deal with terrible-two’s and potty training. But I also get to hear my daughter try to say words, but she says them all wrong and it’s adorable, and I also get hugs and kisses, and the ability to hear uncontrollable laughter from her. THAT makes all the tantrums and the exploding diapers worthwhile in the end.
On the other, you’re saying it’s impossible for a parent to ever love a child forever in any circumstance.
I never said it was impossible. I can for sure tell you that I will always love my child in every circumstance no matter what. But I am a good parent…there are parents out there who aren’t good. There is NOTHING ANYONE can do about that. Abortion hasn’t changed that. You’d think with abortion being around that there would only be wanted and loved children wouldn’t there? But there’s not, so much for that “Every child a wanted child” mantra you guys stomp around with.
And really, it is impossible to have successful conversation with you if you inisist on twisting my words around. So if you could stop that, it would be much appreciated.
Haha, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you to judge who I am and how I feel about myself?
I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but I never have told you how YOU feel or what YOU think.
I may have misunderstood what you were saying, but I never have told you how YOU feel or what YOU think.
I never told you how you feel, you said you don’t see yourself as amazing and wonderful simply because you exist. But I do, I think every person is wonderful and has things to offer whether they think so or not. You have things to offer because you’re on this site.
But a person who thinks they have to be a “special star” to matter in this world can not possibly have a very high opinion of themselves.
Stating something and making a judgement about someone are two very different things, dear. I never said you were a bad person who has low self-esteem (THAT would be a judgement)…I merely stated somebody with that outlook about themselves has self-esteem issues. (Which is what I think)
But Edyt,
If you feel judged by me, I apologize, for I was doing no such thing. I really don’t judge people, especially people on the internet.
And Edyt, that is unfortunate that you devalue your own contribution to this world so little that you would have been okay with not being here. It speaks volumes about how you see yourself, and for that, I am sad for you.
Tell me where, in that sentence, you were not being judgmental and assuming the way I feel or think.
And to be honest Elizabeth, I don’t care whether you make ad hominem arguments or attack my character/thoughts/feelings.
I pointed it out because you seemed to think you could hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself and that’s what incites me.
I pointed it out because you seemed to think you could hold me to a higher standard than you hold yourself and that’s what incites me.
Where in any of my comments did I do that?
I never said you judged me in any way, I did however say you twisted my words. Which, you did.
And what you may interpret as judgement on my part is in no way judgement just because you interpret it as such.
And Edyt, that is unfortunate that you devalue your own contribution to this world so little that you would have been okay with not being here. It speaks volumes about how you see yourself, and for that, I am sad for you.
Tell me where, in that sentence, you were not being judgmental and assuming the way I feel or think.
Where is the judgement? YOU have said several times that you do not see yourself as this wonderful person because you exist. You have also stated that you would have preferred to have been aborted, which, says to me that you really don’t like yourself all that much.
I merely believe that you are a wonderful person that has much to offer the world because you DO exist.
You can take my interpretations of things you say as judgement, but that’s pretty silly.
But I do feel sad for you, not in a way that I pity you or anything, but in a way that I wish people didn’t feel that they would have been okay with being aborted by their mother. I haven’t had the easiest or the best life, but never, in my worst of times, would I ever think that not being here would have been better. I would never say HELL YES to being aborted, and that is why I feel sad for people who feel that way.
Jess said:
I wouldn’t care if my parents aborted me. But that’s just me and I have my reasons.
Posted by: Jess at March 29, 2008 6:22 PM
******
Jess, How do those “reasons” you have keep you from wanting to give or receive love in the present?
But I do feel sad for you, not in a way that I pity you or anything, but in a way that I wish people didn’t feel that they would have been okay with being aborted by their mother. I haven’t had the easiest or the best life, but never, in my worst of times, would I ever think that not being here would have been better. I would never say HELL YES to being aborted, and that is why I feel sad for people who feel that way.
Elizabeth, you feel that way, you wish certain things, etc., but had your mother had an abortion (early enough in gestation to avoid arguing about it) then there never would have been a “you” to feel anything or wish anything. Same for us all.
Certainly, the huge majority of people want to live and they won’t say that it’d been better not to have been born. The relative few that do so don’t want to live, on balance, IMO. Regardless, as is the case with everybody else, there’d never have been a “them” to feel anything had their mothers ended the pregnancy.
but had your mother had an abortion (early enough in gestation to avoid arguing about it) then there never would have been a “you” to feel anything or wish anything. Same for us all.
Doug, I know you’ve heard this time and time again but here goes……this is where you are wrong. You can’t abort nothing so if you have an abortion, there had to be something there in the first place!
Not all mothers miss their aborted babies, but the fact that some do is proof enough that something was there that was “missable”.
When someone says, I don’t care if I was aborted, it is an insult to their parents who brought them into the world.
Remember the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life”? As corny as it was, there’s a reason that it’s one of the most popular movies of all time. Because we all need to be reminded that we can make a difference, that we can make life better for the people around us. The key is, we have to be born first. WE HAVE TO BE BORN!
Janet, yes, much of what we discuss has been done before, but I don’t think that’s really a problem – there is value in that process, even on the basis of it being a little later in life with even a slightly different prespective. If there wasn’t, we wouldn’t do it.
I’m not saying there is “nothing there” that is aborted, just that early enough in pregnancy there is nothing there with awareness.
And I am definitely not saying that some women don’t regret having abortions, on balance, nor that they don’t think of their “babies,” etc. I’m just saying that the emotion and caring is on the part of the women, or on the part of we who are discussing things, not on the part of the unborn, there.
I don’t think this was the statement: “I don’t care if I was aborted.” First of all, it doesn’t really make sense. Again, had one’s mother had an abortion, there would not have been that “I” there anyway – a thinking, feeling person making the statement.
The point I’ve made is that if an abortion took place (early enough in gestation), there would not have been a thinking, feeling person there, period. Has nothing to do with insulting the parents or not, just a physical fact – until there is emotion, cognition in some form in the fetus, there is “nobody home” in the sense we’ve been talking about.
I love ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.” Yeah – I’d say that we all can make a difference. I also feel that in the world there are already enough people for whom that is true, just as I think there are enough people who in practice make things worse. Reality is that it’d be true were there half as many people as now – it’d still be a mixture of good and bad. And it doesn’t change if the population grows greater than what is now the case.
We don’t know how well a person would turn out, were a given pregnancy to be continued, but we do know that the pregnant woman has feelings and desires of her own. I don’t see a need for us to keep “rolling the dice” as far as having more people on earth, people with the mixture of good and bad in them, not to the extent that we tell women they can’t have abortions before viability.
Doug: I love ‘It’s a Wonderful Life.” Yeah – I’d say that we all can make a difference. I also feel that in the world there are already enough people for whom that is true, just as I think there are enough people who in practice make things worse. Reality is that it’d be true were there half as many people as now – it’d still be a mixture of good and bad. And it doesn’t change if the population grows greater than what is now the case.
We don’t know how well a person would turn out, were a given pregnancy to be continued, but we do know that the pregnant woman has feelings and desires of her own. I don’t see a need for us to keep “rolling the dice” as far as having more people on earth, people with the mixture of good and bad in them, not to the extent that we tell women they can’t have abortions before viability.
So, you’d be fine if Mrs. Bailey had aborted George Bailey, even after knowing how His life story turns out? Because some other good guy would be around to balance the scales? You give so little value to the individual the way you talk about abortion being such an arbitrary decision. It sounds like you think we’re all “fungible humans” (Fungibility being the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution.) Do you really think so? It’s very hard for me to understand that kind of thinking.
We don’t know how well a person will turn out
Of course we can’t. Seems irrelevant to the question of abortion.
until there is emotion, cognition in some form in the fetus, there is “nobody home” in the sense we’ve been talking about.
If you use that rationale, then you must apply it to older people with dementia too. Please don’t tell me that you believe we can get rid of old people when it seems like “nobody’s home” (having a lowered mental capacity).
as far as having more people on earth….
If you had the power, would you stop all reproduction and let the population die out?