Planned Parenthood exec joins children’s museum
Well, here’s a major career 180 if I ever saw one. From News-Press.com:
Myra Williams has joined the Children’s Museum of Naples [FL] as development director.
Williams brings more than 11 years of fundraising experience to her new position and is responsible for planning, developing and maintaining a comprehensive fundraising program.
For the past seven years, she served as the director of development for Planned Parenthood of Collier County Inc.
At first I thought this must be a human natural history museum, preserving for posterity the memory these small endangered creatures. In some countries, like Russia, they’re all but extinct.
But no…
The facility isn’t scheduled to open until Spring 2009, and it has hired the equivalent of a Nazi prison guard to raise funds for a Holocaust museum. Interesting that the exterior is Noah-themed, a reminder that only a few survive?
The board has to be stocked with pro-aborts. Otherwise, there is just no way they would have hired Williams. So this is a liberal feel good endeavor to assuage guilt or build resumes. When it opens, watch for liberal doctrine spread throughout.
But hey, they’ve picked a fundraiser who has learned from the best.
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.
At first I thought this must be a human natural history museum, preserving for posterity the memory these small endangered creatures. In some countries, like Russia, they’re all but extinct.
LOL, oh Jill, Russia’s birth rate is higher than that of Japan, Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Germany and many other countries. Don’t worry: Russians aren’t going extinct any time soon.
The facility isn’t scheduled to open until Spring 2009, and it has hired the equivalent of a Nazi prison guard to raise funds for a Holocaust museum.
LOLOL, your overheated rhetoric is hilarious. You consider most of America the equivalent of Nazis.
The board has to be stocked with pro-aborts. Otherwise, there is just no way they would have hired Williams. So this is a liberal feel good endeavor to assuage guilt or build resumes. When it opens, watch for liberal doctrine spread throughout.
AAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAH!!!! OMG, liberal children’s museums are spreading liberal doctrine!!!! LOLOLOL
Hey Jill, did you know that wearing a tinfoil hat will protect you from liberal pro-abort mind rays? This seems like information you’d find very useful.
Well, hey, if a PP graduate is going to direct the development of a “wanted” children’s museum, then it’s high time we respond with a children’s museum of our own. Name it after St. Nicholas, the patron saint of children.
Reality:”liberal children’s museums are spreading liberal doctrine!!!! LOLOLOL”
It may have been a comedic moment, but considering PP’s infant apparel, it’s not too far out.
They’re building a children’s museum – FOR LITTLE CHILDREN!
Can you be happy about ANYTHING?
Here; flowers, puppies, sunshine.
Not all flowers are opium poppies leading to heroin-related deaths.
Not all puppies grow into man-eating pit bulls.
Sunshine doesn’t always result in malignant melanoma.
CHEER UP!
Better raising funds for this than Planned Parenthood.
But look at the silhouette of the child on the homepage. THAT is freakin’ weird. Either something took a bite out of her chest or she someone through a baseball at her and she broke.
All the “wanted” perfect children can hang out
together.
Where does it say that the exterior of the building is “Noah-themed?”
Or is that an wishful assumption since it appears to have a nautical theme?
This is their ad copy: “This is foreseen as a place that reaches beyond traditional borders. We will collaborate in partnership with other institutions that serve children, families and educators, facilitating experiences through which all our visitors can learn by themselves and from one another.”
I assume other institutions that “serve” include Planned Parenthhod?
“A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
Yeah, I don’t really see the Noah-theme either.
Reality said: “LOL, oh Jill, Russia’s birth rate is higher than that of Japan, Poland, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Germany and many other countries. Don’t worry: Russians aren’t going extinct any time soon.”
Reality, with all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The population of all the countries you named are also in dire straits, particularly Japan.
The CIA World Factbook ranks fertility rates. A country has to have a rate of 2.1 children per woman to sustain a population, never mind grow it. This is necessary so the population doesn’t become top-heavy and/or die off. Check the fertility rate of all the countries you listed:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
The Factbook further states:
Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years.
Back to Russia, google “Russia abortion rate” for grim statistics. It aborts more than it bears children:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3093152.stm
Tinfoil hat signing off…
And it sure looks like an ark to me… that would also be nautical themed
Why is this so unusual?
Money that parents and grandparents spend on “The Polar Express” and other books by Chris Van Allsburg is used by his wife and daughter to support Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island.
Mes Aieux (My Ancestors), a Quebec folk band, came out with a song called
Degeneration which has a strong pro-life messsage, but after it hit #1 in Canada on iTunes and contributed to much album sales etc, the band got indignant through it’s lawyer and made it known it wasn’t to be “used” by “anti-choicers”.
I am curious to know if Myra Williams is the same one who has a pharmaceutical sales consulting firm in Naples Florida.
One last point – it is possible for people to have a true repentant change of heart. I wouldn’t count a 180 out of the realm of possibilities.
It looks more like a Funship Cruise ship to me. I didn’t know Noah decorated in primary colors and whimsical shapes.
I also don’t see any animals.
hehehehehe…I find it ironic that the acronym for their museum is: C’MON
lol!!!
On another note, maybe this is Myra’s way of “giving back” to the world for promoting the slaughter of so many. Maybe her conscience is weighing on her. I see hope for Myra in this museum. Maybe seeing how precious each and every child is that walks through those doors, her heart will change.
I’d much rather see Myra promoting good for children than the slaughter of them. Maybe her PP days will be over soon.
just a thought!
Just sounds like a non-profit fundrasier changing jobs. Unless you think people who work for Planned Parenthood are evil, there’s no story here.
It’s tough to comment on this one. I hope for their sake, C’MON has thought this one through. Will Williams be welcomed and supported with open arms by the community?
I would hope that C’MON wouldn’t take a penny from PP or anyone who supports PP.
Give her a break Hal… Monica Miller has taken a break from dumpster diving, and there needs to be at least 48 hours between Obama cartoons.
Conspiracy theories are ALWAYS a dependable story.
In all fairness, when it comes to this nonsense, extremist lefty blogs are the same as extremist righty blogs. Only its whenever a week passes without Bush doing/saying something ignorant or a Christian fundamentalist getting busted in sex scandal, they post another article about 9/11 being an inside job. *eyeroll*
Reality, anon, Amanda: I can handle ribbing, but ridiculing one’s host is never good form.
Jill,
I agree. Personally, I thought Amanda would be the type of person that would be above that sort of thing. She seems intelligent in her posts, but when ridiculing you I see a totally different side of her.
It’s a shame. She’d be much more credible, at least to me, if she didn’t ridicule you and roll her eyes so much as well. From all of her “worldy experiences”, I would think that she would have learned by now that there are many more opinions out there other than her own and how to handle them with respect.
I didn’t see my posts are ridiculing you, Jill.
Amanda, I’m surprised at today’s behavior. I’d seen your debate style improve over the months. The moderators have grown to think highly of you as a commenter from the other side.
So Jill –
we’re back to deleting my posts rather than answering my questions? cool!
And I’m not sure what else (other than ridicule) you’d expect after making yet another absurd connection to Nazis.
And JLM, for the record, the eyeroll was directed at 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists.
Unless you think people who work for Planned Parenthood are evil, there’s no story here.
Posted by: Hal at May 27, 2008 10:43 AM
WEll, uhmmm, they are not evil but they do co-operate with evil in this situation.
Reality, please be REAL! Russia has 700,000 deaths per year, an abortion: birth ratio of 2:1
No country can sustain these kinds of population losses for very long.
Patricia, I posted an answer to your post about the 1990 anti-RU486 report from Necker Hospital in the “What Obama Supports” thread. Go read it.
SoMG
no thanks. I’m done with that issue as it’s apparent you are not open to honest discussion.
Patricia, of course I am open to honest discussion. What you really mean is that the facts support my position, not yours, and my reasoning is better than yours, but you don’t want to admit that you have lost the argument.
Patricia, of course I am open to honest discussion. What you really mean is that the facts support my position, not yours, and my reasoning is better than yours, but you don’t want to admit that you have lost the argument.
Posted by: SoMG at May 27, 2008 2:03 PM
Once again SoMG you show what you really are – a paragon of virtue and humility.
No actually it gets rather tiresome when you constantly twist facts to suit your own position and can’t seem to understand the results of a scientific research paper. It’s also very tiresome when you make silly statements about pregnancy, fetal development and women’s health.
On the contrary, your position is irrational and illogical – I think you know it and this is why you try so darn hard. Have a nice evening.
Patricia, just for self-indulgence, since I don’t like to write a long post just to see it disappear off the screen, I will reproduce the section about the Necker report here so you don’t have to go poking through the archives:
You quoted the 1990 anti-RU486 report from Necker Hospital. Let me point out that copying their arguments from their web site onto this one does not make those arguments any more convincing. You quoted:
“1.The major side effect observed up to date remains the uterine metrorrhagia which develops in more than 90 % of the cases, after administration of RU 486, and can last up to more than one week (from 1 to 35 days). In many cases an emergency “R
Jill:
take that darn tinfoil hat off NOW! Let someone else wear it!
“we’re back to deleting my posts rather than answering my questions? cool!”
when did we ever delete your posts Amanda? must have been a long time ago..
Before your time Jasper.
Jill did not want to answer my question about whether or not she supported Muslims having abortions. So she deleted the question about a dozen times before deciding to answer it when a bunch of other chimed in upon seeing my posts vanishing.
For the record, she said no. But I have now repeated questions for her regarding the GINA bill, and she is refusing to answer.
Chris,
Money that parents and grandparents spend on “The Polar Express” and other books by Chris Van Allsburg is used by his wife and daughter to support Planned Parenthood in Rhode Island.
I sure wish you hadn’t told me that! Dang. I loved Harris Burdick!
I never liked the Polar Express much and read a few reviews of the movie that were not positive.
Patricia @ 3:00 PM
We happened to buy some his books BC – (Before Christ). Looking at them now – the messages are really confused, and not all that positive.
The movie was a little strange in the technique that it used, a bit on the creepy side. I think it’s because the closer you get to human looking characters that are animated, the stranger things look.
Chris,
Well, it’s hard to determine how good a book is going to be until you read it. Just get a copy before hand from your library then you’ll know for sure! Or read reviews on blogs!
A bit off topic but:
Have you seen Narnia-Prince Caspian? We saw it on the weekend. I’m not a fan of the movies. The most important points are really lost in the movies. But I wasn’t too hopeful anyways, after the Lord of the Rings.
Just curious – have your kids even listened to Focus on the Family’s Narnia theatre tapes?
Amanda, on the Muslim thing, your question was ridiculous. Then you brought in several troll friends who along with you kept me up half the night deleting your parrot questions before I finally had to shut the site down. Not nice.
The next day or so blog friends of mine began receiving emails from a “Mary” wanting them to know I wished Muslims dead or something like that. Wonder who that was?
And now you’ve been conversing here again for several months, and I’ve been nice about it. Haven’t said anything.
But now I am. As I said before, it’s bad form to ridicule one’s host. It’s not often a guest has to be reminded. I wonder what that indicates about the guest?
So please stop it.
@SoMG,
“Well, the French government agreed with me. They did not withdraw RU486 from the market in spite of the Necker group’s recommendation that they should do so. And nature agrees with me too–no significant bad side effects of RU-486 have been discovered, after several million successful and uneventful RU-486 abortions.”
I guess ‘no significant bad side effects’ and ‘several million successful’ deaths of human beings = ‘uneventful RU-486 abortions’. Gee, how could I think there was a ‘problem’ here. Silly me!
Patricia @ 5:06 PM Just curious – have your kids even listened to Focus on the Family’s Narnia theatre tapes?
No – the younger ones are mid-teens – it’s multiple iPods and Christian & experimental music.
John McD, I’m glad you admit that your opposition to RU486 is based on your opposition to abortion generally and not on the myth that it’s a dangerous drug.
I bet CS Lewis would have HATED Focus on the Family.
I can’t imagine him being too thrilled with the idea of a “Chronicles of Narnia” video game either.
@SogMG,
not so fast …. The French law system is quite different than the USA-Canadian-UK systems and is based on Napoleonic law … which may have a role to play in this drug’s continued tolerance in France. The continuing tolerance of smoking in public places, may also be a result of this legal framework.
This is pure conjecture: the biochemical name for RU-486 is Cytotec(?) a PgE1 analog which is very helpful in repairing troubled digestive tracts and stomachs (R. Bates).
I’ve got two chronicles of Narnia audio books – one on CD and one on tape (need to upgrade that one to CD soon). One is read by Michael York (LWTW) and the other by Derek Jacob (Voyage of the Dawn Treader). Both are UNabridged and I really like these versions of the audio versions.
No, Lewis probably would have liked Focus on The Family. He loved children – one of the pop up facts on the LWTW DVD says that he wanted to write moralistic fairy tales that have the battle of good versus evil, right and wrong and good manners, for children. He even housed children during the London air raids (like how the professor does in the book).
John McD, you wrote : “This is pure conjecture: the biochemical name for RU-486 is Cytotec(?) a PgE1 analog which is very helpful in repairing troubled digestive tracts and stomachs (R. Bates).”
No, Cytotec is misoprostol, the drug you take a few days after RU486 to empty the uterus. The biochemical name of RU486 is mifepristone. You are right that Cytotec (misoprostol) is used for ulcers (not during pregnancy!).
You wrote: “The French law system is quite different than the USA-Canadian-UK systems and is based on Napoleonic law … which may have a role to play in this drug’s continued tolerance in France.”
What about its continued tolerance in United Kingdom, the United States, Sweden, Greece, Spain, Tunisia and New Zealand? This by the way is not a complete list of the countries that use RU486.
According to the Public Health Association of Australia by January 2006 approximately twemty-one million women world wide had had RU486-plus-misoprostol abortions.
John McDonell @ 8:53 PM
As SoMG said – Cytotec (misprosotol) is Pfizer’s drug for stomach ulcers. Any use of the drug for it’s unintended side-effect (in this case thinning and sloughing of the uterine wall to expel the dead embryo/fetus (under 8 weeks)) is called an “off-label” application.
Pfizer warns pretty strictly, right on their label, that any use after that time can cause serious problems – like uterine ruptures, or tearing.
While off-label use isn’t illegal, it’s not exactly cleanly above board either because the FDA approval is based on testing only for the approved use. It doesn’t take a lawyer to see that the company doesn’t mind selling their drugs for such off-label use (knowing enough to put a warning on the label) but should something happen, can also claim that the sole responsibility any consequences lie with the prescribing doctor.
If what SoMG said is true re: usage of misoprostol, long term, multiple exposure studies should be done, specifically because of this wide-spread off-label use. With abortion and big pharma, little likelihood that will happen.
“Amanda, on the Muslim thing, your question was ridiculous”
If it was SO ridiculous Jill, why wouldn’t you just answer it? It was after you posted an angry rant about the Muslim population growing because they don’t abort like Christians do. If the answer was an automatic no, why did you have to delete it a dozen times before you answered it?
“Then you brought in several troll friends who along with you kept me up half the night deleting your parrot questions before I finally had to shut the site down. Not nice. ”
I brought NO ONE. I simply posted a link to the conversation I was having with you on my facebook group. They came here on their own volition. I’d be lying to myself if I thought for a second I had enough influence to “bring in” anyone. They clicked a link. Thats how MOST people find your site, no?
“The next day or so blog friends of mine began receiving emails from a “Mary” wanting them to know I wished Muslims dead or something like that. Wonder who that was? ”
Not me. Are you really that paranoid? I keep everything on the blog, and when I’ve emailed you, its been with the only email address I have, which has my full name in it, and you know this.
“And now you’ve been conversing here again for several months, and I’ve been nice about it. Haven’t said anything. ”
Uhh Jill, I think you’re suffering from selective memory here. I posted for several months AFTER that whole post deleting frenzy. I stopped reading this blog after the whole conversation about it being better to starve to death in Darfur than be raised by gay parents. And what do you mean you’re “nice” about it? Calling me an idiot and a chicken is nice? Refusing to answer my questions is nice? What would not be nice, banning me for asking you a question?
“But now I am. As I said before, it’s bad form to ridicule one’s host. It’s not often a guest has to be reminded. I wonder what that indicates about the guest? ”
Well if you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t say ridiculous things. Comparing everything to Nazis IS ridiculous and thus deserving of ridicule. Looking for conspiracy when there is none is ridiculous and thus deserving of ridicule. You made several implications in that post yesterday with no evidence what so ever. I’ll break some of them down for you:
1. That the board must be pro-aborts because they hired her. How do you know that she, like me, worked for PP for a few years and then realized she didn’t like some of their practices? How do you know that she didn’t mention that in her interview process? Or what if many of the board are pro life and just have the capacity to separate her OLD career with her NEW one? If she LEFT PP, why would you assume she would still support them or be involved with them? Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
2. That the museum is “Noah” themed. It isn’t. End of story. You just made that up. I checked the website and googled articles. There is NO Noah theme.
3. That the musuem will have a liberal agenda and push liberal doctrines. You made that up too. There is nothing in any of the articles about the musuem that discusses the types of exhibits that will be there, nor any indication that they will recieve funding from PP.
4. That a woman changing careers from PP to a Childrens Museum is like a Nazi working for a Holocaust Museum. Really Jill? After your memorial day post do you REALLY want to go and compare a CAREER CHANGE to THE HOLOCAUST? Thousands of people gave their lives to stop the Nazis – and you make light of it.
Now again, for the FOURTH time, I will ask you…
Why did you intentionally leave out the fact that the only dissenters to the GINA bill were PRO LIFE REPUBLICANS? Why did you frame it as though the bill was secretly pushed through to “protect” it from a percieved attack that never existed? Why did you leave out the fact that it had FULL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT and try to frame it like a pro life victory? These are not ridiculous questions. Why can’t you just answer them?
If it was SO ridiculous Jill, why wouldn’t you just answer it? It was after you posted an angry rant about the Muslim population growing because they don’t abort like Christians do. If the answer was an automatic no, why did you have to delete it a dozen times before you answered it?
Amanda, I am saddened you have brought this up again. Jill answered your question…why can’t you let it go?
I brought NO ONE. I simply posted a link to the conversation I was having with you on my facebook group. They came here on their own volition. I’d be lying to myself if I thought for a second I had enough influence to “bring in” anyone. They clicked a link. Thats how MOST people find your site, no?
Amanda, they all came from your group (A woman’s right to choose) on Facebook. They all were on at the same time as you, overwhelming the blog with their posts, which we moderators had to delete and eventually had to shut down the site for a period of time. I think you did understand what Jill was talking about. They did come from your group, and they were indeed trolling and causing much strife.
Amanda, the question was so ridiculous, I was offended and ignored it. When you blew it into a Monumental Event and started spreading your ridiculous assumption, I finally had to respond. You won by spreading innuendo. Good for you.
You linked your assumption on your Facebook page and then were surprised your troll friends piled on? Please.
I am “paranoid” given your obsession to consider you the “Mary” who sent the same accusatory email to several blog friends?
And you only consider it ridiculous to compare the Holocaust to abortion because you’re involved in abortion. Well, duh. But you’ve taken your thought too far and personally attacked me. We have an incredible difference of opinion here. But I don’t attack you personally about it.
As for GINA, as I said in my last comment, to think the added pro-life language couldn’t or wouldn’t have blown up into something huge if pro-lifers had drawn attention to it is simply naive.
And it WAS a pro-life victory. GINA’s language originally omitted preborns and children in the process of being adopted. A pro-life congressman saw to it that language was added.
I didn’t intentionally leave any information out, in particular that 3 pro-life congressmen were the only ones voting against GINA. I reported that it passed. I didn’t look at any votes. Nor am I now going to analyze why they voted against it. Since they were pro-life, their rationale had nothing to do with that issue.
“You linked your assumption on your Facebook page and then were surprised your troll friends piled on? Please.
I am “paranoid” given your obsession to consider you the “Mary” who sent the same accusatory email to several blog friends? ”
I never said I was surprised. But I certainly did not “bring anyone” here. If you have a website, people are going to post links to it. Thats all I did. Anything that follows is not my responsibility. Your website is a PUBLIC PLACE. Unless I ASKED people to come here, which I did not, I don’t see how their actions have anything to do with me.
And yes, if after over a year of knowing how I function, you really think I’d send stupid emails under a false name, when I’ve put myself out there – first name, last name, pictures, and email address – then you are paranoid.
“And you only consider it ridiculous to compare the Holocaust to abortion because you’re involved in abortion. ”
I am? Really? Care to explain how I am in ANY way “involved with abortion”? That would be news to me!! And I believe I’ve stated repeatedly that comparing ANYTHING to the Holocaust is a desperate appeal to emotion. There is NO comparison. End of story.
“But you’ve taken your thought too far and personally attacked me.”
And you never do that. Calling me an idiot and a chicken was just a figment of my imagination I guess. And calling things you say ridiculous is “personally attacking” you?
“As for GINA, as I said in my last comment, to think the added pro-life language couldn’t or wouldn’t have blown up into something huge if pro-lifers had drawn attention to it is simply naive. ”
Ohhhh. Because only pro lifers knew about it?? You guys had some BIG HUSH SECRET that no pro choicers knew about? How did I know about it then? Come on Jill. This is what I’m talking about. NO ONE WAS AGAINST IT!!! What would it have “blown up” in to when it had full support from Pro Choice dems?
“And it WAS a pro-life victory”
….even though the only people voting against it were Pro Life, and it was fully supported by every Pro Choice member of congress. That makes tons of sense…
I never said I was surprised. But I certainly did not “bring anyone” here. If you have a website, people are going to post links to it. Thats all I did. Anything that follows is not my responsibility. Your website is a PUBLIC PLACE. Unless I ASKED people to come here, which I did not, I don’t see how their actions have anything to do with me.
Amanda, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Jill posting the names of “students for choice” at this link:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/abortionist_alb.html
Jill did not ASK anyone to do anything with their names, as you can see. Do you think that if anyone emailed these people, telling them what they thought of their actions, on what they learned through Jill’s site, would it or would it not have anything to do with Jill?
I am? Really? Care to explain how I am in ANY way “involved with abortion”?
If you defend abortion, does that not make you involved in the topic?
“Amanda, just out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Jill posting the names of “students for choice” at this link:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/11/abortionist_alb.html
Jill did not ASK anyone to do anything with their names, as you can see. Do you think that if anyone emailed these people, telling them what they thought of their actions, on what they learned through Jill’s site, would it or would it not have anything to do with Jill? ”
Depends. If that email the names were on was a public release, than reposting it puts no responsibility on Jill at all for the actions of others.
If, however, that email was only meant to be viewed by certain people, and Jill accessed it through someone forwarding it without permission, that’s a very different story.
Likewise, there are no restrictions for re-posting links to this website. If there were, and I did it anyway, I could be responsible for what others do as a result of me posting something without permission.
“If you defend abortion, does that not make you involved in the topic? ”
Involved in the TOPIC, sure. But involved WITH ABORTION? No. And I know plenty of pro lifers (on this site and not) who do not take kindly to the CONSTANT comparisons made by Jill or anyone else to Nazis and the Holocaust.
Amanda, on Nazi’s and the Holocaust, read Jill’s newest thread with the pictures of the premature baby who could have been left to die or could have been pulled apart piece by piece by a D and E abortion or could have been injected in the heart with poison to die. How you can keep getting offended by the comparison of the holocaust and abortion is beyond me. In my mind, they are one and the same evil.
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/05/obama_and_the_h.html
Amanda, the point Jill made was that they came through your link. And they did.
You are making it into a much bigger deal than what she intended. The point was that if you hadn’t posted the link, they wouldn’t have come through it to bombard her with antagonistic posts.
“the premature baby who could have been left to die or could have been pulled apart piece by piece by a D and E abortion or could have been injected in the heart with poison to die.”
But it wasn’t. And regardless of how I feel about late term abortions, I fail to see the connection to the torture and enslavement of people because of their religion. One of the most crucial differences is that no woman has an abortion because she WANTS to KILL A BABY. She may be all sorts of things – irresponsible, immature, selfish, confused – whatever you wish to call her. But to compare a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy with a Nazi who WANTED to KILL and TORTURE PEOPLE is absurd.
“Amanda, the point Jill made was that they came through your link. And they did.
You are making it into a much bigger deal than what she intended. ”
She was insinuating that I “brought them here” like I asked them to come post here. That was not the case. Unless MY posts were antagonistic, which they were not, I’m not in charge of what other people do. And in the same post, she started accusing me with no evidence at all of sending emails under a false name, I’m going to vehemently defend myself against false accuations. That IS a big deal to me.
But it wasn’t. And regardless of how I feel about late term abortions, I fail to see the connection to the torture and enslavement of people because of their religion. One of the most crucial differences is that no woman has an abortion because she WANTS to KILL A BABY. She may be all sorts of things – irresponsible, immature, selfish, confused – whatever you wish to call her. But to compare a woman who chooses to terminate a pregnancy with a Nazi who WANTED to KILL and TORTURE PEOPLE is absurd.
Not all Nazi’s “wanted” to kill people. Some of the time, they felt they had no other “choice”.
I don’t think the horror of the holocaust was that they killed them based on religion. I think the horror of the holocaust was killing people because they didn’t see them as human beings, worthy of protection. I don’t care what their specific reasoning was. Killing innocent human beings for ANY reason is just as horrific, no matter what particular reason you may have for doing so!
Amanda,
Two things (out of curiosity):
1. When you posted the link to Jill’s on your website, was there any stories or comments that you attached to it that may have PROVOKED your loyal commenters/readers to come here?
and…
2. In Jill’s defense, when she called you a chicken, she wasn’t calling “Amanda” a chicken, she was calling “anonymous” a chicken. From what I recall, it was the anon post that provoked it…not “Amanda”.
“I think the horror of the holocaust was killing people because they didn’t see them as human beings, worthy of protection.”
I don’t buy that for a second. And I guess thats where we differ. I think they all knew PERFECTLY well that they were killing human beings. Saying they didn’t see them as human beings was just one of the many BS lines they used to try to excuse their behavior after the fact.
Its also well documented that they were tortured and enslaved by Nazis. I think we’d be hard pressed to find an aborting mother who WANTED to inflict pain and suffering.
Amanda,
Here…this may clear some things up for you. I understand that abortion is not THE holocaust, but I do believe it IS a holocaust.
There are two definitions in the dictionary for holcaust. Here they are:
This one is THE holocaust:
Holocaust (noun) : Encarta Dictionary:
Genocide of European Jews and others: the systematic extermination of millions of European Jews, as well as Roma, Slavs, intellectuals, gay people, and political dissidents, by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. In popular usage, Holocaust refers particularly to the extermination of European Jews.
This one IS a holocaust:
Holocaust (noun) : Encarta Dictionary:
1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life
2. complete destruction by fire: complete consumption by fire, especially of a large number of human beings or animals
3. burnt offering: a religious sacrifice that is totally consumed by fire.
Okay, now do you see the relevance when Jill refers to abortion as a holocaust??? I do, and I hope you do as well now. In no way does she minimize the pain people feel about THE holocaust…but can you see the pain that she feels about abortion being A holocaust????
What is the origin of the word “Holocaust”?
The word holocaust comes from the ancient Greek, olos meaning “whole” and kaustos or kautos meaning “burnt.” Appearing as early as the fifth century B.C.E., the term can mean a sacrifice wholly consumed by fire or a great destruction of life, especially by fire.
While the word holocaust, with a meaning of a burnt sacrificial offering, does not have a specifically religious connotation, it appeared widely in religious writings through the centuries, particularly for descriptions of “pagan” rituals involving burnt sacrifices.
In secular writings, holocaust most commonly came to mean “a complete or wholesale destruction,” a connotation particularly dominant from the late nineteenth century through the nuclear arms race of the mid-twentieth century. During this time, the word was applied to a variety of disastrous events ranging from pogroms against Jews in Russia, to the persecution and murder of Armenians by Turks during World War I, to the attack by Japan on Chinese cities, to large-scale fires where hundreds were killed.
Early references to the Nazi murder of the Jews of Europe continued this usage. As early as 1941, writers occasionally employed the term holocaust with regard to the Nazi crimes against the Jews, but in these early cases, they did not ascribe exclusivity to the term. Instead of “the holocaust,” writers referred to “a holocaust,” one of many through the centuries.
Even when employed by Jewish writers, the term was not reserved to a single horrific event but retained its broader meaning of large-scale destruction.
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=01#02
I don’t buy that for a second. And I guess thats where we differ. I think they all knew PERFECTLY well that they were killing human beings. Saying they didn’t see them as human beings was just one of the many BS lines they used to try to excuse their behavior after the fact.
Its also well documented that they were tortured and enslaved by Nazis. I think we’d be hard pressed to find an aborting mother who WANTED to inflict pain and suffering
What does it matter if they “want” to inflict pain and suffering or not? The fact is, they do.
And by the way, abortionists know very well that they are killing human beings, and saying they are not human is a BS line as you said. But it doesn’t stop them from claiming it, and as Hitler said, if you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, etc, people will believe it. That’s why black people were considered non persons and allowed to be treated as property and objects when slavery was legal. One and the same mindset causes all of this evil on humanity.
JLM excellent posts! Thank you!
“Okay, now do you see the relevance when Jill refers to abortion as a holocaust??? I do, and I hope you do as well now. In no way does she minimize the pain people feel about THE holocaust…but can you see the pain that she feels about abortion being A holocaust????”
JLM – From the pro life perspective, I see that and agree completely. But thats not what Jill is doing. She is CONSTANTLY comparing abortion to THE Holocaust, and CONSTANTLY comparing anyone she disagrees with to Nazis. I think that is very very different from what you are saying.
As for your previous post, I made a post on the pro choice board titled “Pro Life Blogger” and wrote something to the effect of “Ms. Stanek is VERY upset by the growth of Muslim populations across the globe and points out that there is far less abortion in their culture than in the Judeo-Christian culture. I asked her if because of her obvious disdain for Muslims, if she supported Muslims having abortions, similar to the way Pat Robertson supported Chinese having abortions, and not only did she refuse to answer me, but has continued deleting the question each time I ask. See link:”. I did not tell anyone to post anything nasty. Thats not my style.
And I know she thought she was insulting an “anon” poster and not me. But namecalling like that is against her own rules. She certainly knew it was me afterwards, and never responded or acknowledged that fact, or her actions, which directly violate her own rules.
Bethany,
Thank you. I just find it hypocritical for someone who is pro-abortion…who dedicates time to a site “A woman’s right to choose”….to abhor THE holocaust, but promote A holocaust.
I think that whether or not we are pro-life or pro-choice, the thing we can all agree on is that it IS a human life, and a human life is being destroyed…millions and millions of human lives.
Our society gave it a cutesy name called “choice”, when it reality, it IS a holocaust.
How these people can sleep at night is beyond me.
JLM – From the pro life perspective, I see that and agree completely. But thats not what Jill is doing. She is CONSTANTLY comparing abortion to THE Holocaust, and CONSTANTLY comparing anyone she disagrees with to Nazis. I think that is very very different from what you are saying.
The comparison is BEYOND accurate. Are you saying that with abortion, human life is NOT being destroyed in mass numbers???? Are the people that ARE destroying innocent human life any different FROM the Nazis???
I think you are seeing it from the single lens disguised as choice. If you look through a second lens of “human life”, you’ll see the perspective that we see.
btw…I agree that it’s never in good taste to call someone a name, even an “anon”. But that’s just me, and it isn’t my site. I’m a guest here. If I don’t like something that is directed to me, I have every right to leave. It’s kindof like employment by will.
Thanks for answering my questions. You didn’t have to, but you did and I appreciate that.
JLM, the suffering of one prison camp inmate could be more than in a vast number of abortions.
The victims of the Holocaust were thinking, feeling people. I realize there is disagreement about when awareness is present for the unborn, but to a point in gestation I think it’s silly to presume any similar thing.
I’m not for treating the inmates that way, against their will, nor for trying to force women, legally, one way or another, against their will, in the matter of continuing or ending pregnancies, to viability.
The comparison is BEYOND accurate. Are you saying that with abortion, human life is NOT being destroyed in mass numbers???? Are the people that ARE destroying innocent human life any different FROM the Nazis???
What it sounds like to me is that Amanda seems to think that the intent of the Nazis (DESIRING to cause pain and suffering) is what makes the holocaust bad…NOT the fact that those innocent people died unjustly.
To me, the intent doesn’t matter NEARLY as much as the fact that an innocent human life is killed. It doesn’t matter to me if the person thought of it as a “choice” or if they laughed maniacally at the thought of the limbs being torn into pieces. Either way is JUST as tragic. The deed has been done.
Doug,
My posts had absolutely nothing to do with “feelings” or viability. Read them again.
They had to do with the concept of this thing called “human life”. Abortion IS destroying human life. That we can all agree on. Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it’s plant life!
Abortion supporters suppport a holocaust.
Period.
Bethany,
I agree. There may be many methods, reasons and justifications for the extermination of human life, but in the end, it’s all the same. Extermination of human life.
Extermination of human life = holocaust.
JLM: My posts had absolutely nothing to do with “feelings” or viability. Read them again.
Well, when you say, “How these people can sleep at night is beyond me,” the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.
Should we go with your opinion, or should we go with the opinion of the woman who is the one pregnant? Many people sleep better knowing we go with the pregnant woman.
….
They had to do with the concept of this thing called “human life”. Abortion IS destroying human life. That we can all agree on. Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it’s plant life!
(“Plant life” – you should see some of my co-workers.)
Anyway, certainly agreed there – yes, human life is destroyed in abortion. But most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. Do we have to have every pregnancy continued? Many people say no. Do we have a demonstrable need for more “human life,” per se, to the point that we would deny a legal abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Many people say no.
Well, when you say, “How these people can sleep at night is beyond me,” the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.
This is justification of an act…not the definition of the act. People arn’t stupid, Doug. Ever hear of people talking themselves into believing their lies? People know that they are exterminating human life. They justify the act by saying that the baby couldn’t feel it, or the baby wasn’t viable. They all know that they are exterminating a human life, though.
Should we go with your opinion, or should we go with the opinion of the woman who is the one pregnant? Many people sleep better knowing we go with the pregnant woman.
Yes, and the Nazi’s justified it as well. They all had their reasons why they were more supreme beings than their victims as well. Again, it’s all about justifying an action. Still the same in the end….human life was exterminated.
Anyway, certainly agreed there – yes, human life is destroyed in abortion. But most pregnancies in the US are already willingly continued. Do we have to have every pregnancy continued? Many people say no. Do we have a demonstrable need for more “human life,” per se, to the point that we would deny a legal abortion to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? Many people say no.
Again…justification. I get that many people feel that the pregnant woman’s body or lifestyle trumps the body of the unborn. I’ll say it again…it’s just people justifying that they are more of a supreme being, or their lifestyles are more supreme than the unborn human being. Human life is being exterminated. It’s a holocaust.
Well, when you say, “How these people can sleep at night is beyond me,” the answer is that feelings and viability make a great deal of difference to a great many people.
When slavery was legal, feelings and color made a great deal of difference to many people…
When the holocaust was going on, feelings and religion made a great deal of difference to many people…
Having a certain skin color or religion is not a biological requirement to sustain life outside the womb. Viability is.
So? It’s just a justification for killing, and nothing more. Doesn’t change the fact that the unborn are human beings.
Oh and by the way, Amanda, maybe you could tell me the exact point at which “viability” happens, since it seems to be a requirement for being persons. It’s an arbitrary standard, and is just ridiculous. Maybe you could explain exactly what viability is too, because there are children who are born full term and are still not viable. Are they non-persons?
Also, people like Steven Hawking come to mind, as they are not able to sustain life on their own without the help of machines…are they persons?
I guess Matt Hampson is not a person. See, Matt Hampson doesn’t fit the requirement for personhood, which is, being able to sustain life on your own, outside the womb. Matt has to use a breathing machine in order to stay alive.
I’m sure he’d be surprised to know he’s not a person!
oh wait…does that (viability) only work for babies?
People know that they are exterminating human life. They justify the act by saying that the baby couldn’t feel it, or the baby wasn’t viable. They all know that they are exterminating a human life, though.
JLM, I don’t disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.
You talk about “justification,” and yes – that is the deal – is abortion justified and if so in what circumstances and also is it justifiable to try and legally prevent women from having abortions?
The “holocaust” talk is trying for a good bit on spin, like saying pro-lifers want “to enslave women.”
JLM, I don’t disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.
Jews weren’t wanted in the holocaust…
JLM, I don’t disagree with that. The point is that the given life may not be wanted.
That wasn’t the point, Doug. Talk about “spin”! You brought up the viability nonsense, and now the “wanted” nonsense, when all along we were discussing why abortion IS considered a holocaust. I must admit though, you are very, very good at spin!
The “holocaust” talk is trying for a good bit on spin, like saying pro-lifers want “to enslave women.”
How do you figure???? Do we really need to look at the definition of holocaust AGAIN? Seriously, I don’t get why you can’t understand the definition. The only conclusion that I can surmise is that you don’t WANT to…otherwise you’d have to deal with the fact that you support a holocaust. Hard to come to that cold, hard fact, isn’t it?
Tell me…is it warm, cozy & safe in your bubble?
I must admit though, you are very, very good at spin!
no kidding! He’s a pro!
And honestly, Doug, we can go back and forth for hours and still be in the same place we were when we started. I’ll continue to use a dictionary, and you will continue to use the Dougtionary.
It’s really a pointless conversation.
I’ll continue to use a dictionary, and you will continue to use the Dougtionary.
hehe, JLM, you’ve been cracking me up lately! :)
Snaps to you JLM for sticking with it for so long with Doug. He makes my head spin with his spin!! :)
He is one of the most frustrating posters here, I think although he comes off as charming.
I do agree with you that abortion is A holocaust not THE holocaust. Thank you for the definitions as well.
I think although he comes off as charming.
I don’t think he comes off as charming, I think he’s a genuinely sweet guy. :)
We just happen to disagree, but I still think he’s a very nice person.
Thanks Carla & Elizabeth!
Carla,
I’m dizzy enough as it is! I just try to stay focused! lol!!! (it helps with the motion sickness!)
Elizabeth,
I have to disagree. I don’t think people who justify (whatever reason they use) supporting the killing of innocent human beings are sweet or charming. I didn’t think Hitler was, and I don’t think Doug is either.
Well, that’s too bad. I really like Doug, even though we don’t agree on everything. I don’t agree with you on everything either, but I wouldn’t compare you to Hitler, so maybe we can leave that comparison alone. I wouldn’t put Doug and Hitler in the same category at all, because Doug, while I may find him misguided with his logic, isn’t inherently evil or has a desire to hurt anyone. Hitler definitely was evil and had the desire to hurt anyone and everyone who didn’t agree with him.
Elizabeth,
On another thought, when I think about how many forums over the years Doug has posted his thoughts about abortion on…how many women/girls, that maybe were contemplating abortion decided to go ahead and have the abortion because of something Doug wrote that they “connected” with.
It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night.
When you look at it in that perspective, I don’t know about you, but I see something totally different in Doug than you do.
It’s sickens me.
Oh please,
Doug can no more make/convince a woman to have an abortion than the man in the moon can. If somebody was supposedly “contemplating” abortion and something somebody out in cyberspace helped “seal the deal” for them, I’m pretty sure they already had it in their mind they were going to get an abortion.
You don’t agree with him, that’s fine. That doesn’t make him evil or a bad person. He’s entitled to his opinions just as you are, and you aren’t going to “convert” him by comparing him to Hitler.
nowww bethany you’re being silly.
I very clearly stated “LIFE OUTSIDE THE WOMB”. Not “LIFE”.
Steven Hawking and Matt Hampson are quite clearly NOT INSIDE OF A WOMB. They do NOT require the involuntary use of someone else’s body to survive.
That difference makes the two completely incomparable.
“It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night.”
JLM – Ohhhh for Gods sake that is BEYOND ridiculous. You can find people advocating just about ANYTHING on the internet, from abortion, to rape, to self mutilation, to murder. If someone does something they would otherwise believe to be wrong because some dude on the internet said it wasn’t wrong, they clearly had something wrong with them from the get go.
Thats the same rationale as blaming video games for shooting sprees instead of parents who weren’t keeping enough of an eye on their kids to notice the fact that they had rifles in their bedrooms.
Amanda, 3:32 p.m.
Exactly!!!
Doug can no more make/convince a woman to have an abortion than the man in the moon can. If somebody was supposedly “contemplating” abortion and something somebody out in cyberspace helped “seal the deal” for them, I’m pretty sure they already had it in their mind they were going to get an abortion.
Really? Then tell all of the pro-lifers to stop standing in front of abortion clinics, because the girls going in have definitely done their research and are in no way, shape or form going to change their minds byy the opinions of pro-lifers outside the clinics. THAT could NEVER happen!
Are you really that naive to think that girls who are confused about their situation will not look to other people’s opinions to infulence their own decisions? Elizabeth, not every girl is you. Some people actually look to other people’s opinions, on the internet, for advice. When I was younger, I’d go to the library for researching a topic. These days, people turn to the internet for it. You really mean to tell me that after the twelve years or so that Doug has been supporting abortion vocally that there isn’t ONE girl who he may have influenced?
You don’t agree with him, that’s fine. That doesn’t make him evil or a bad person. He’s entitled to his opinions just as you are, and you aren’t going to “convert” him by comparing him to Hitler.
Doug is wearing the “it’s ok to exterminate human life” shoes…not me. Of course he’s entitled to his own opinios, just as I am. Don’t come down on me for expressing mine about Doug, then. If I choose to compare Doug to Hitler (because both support extermination of human life) it’s my “choice”. My “choices” and differences in opinion don’t kill humans. His do. If he ever comes to that point of realization, he will convert. How is telling him that he’s charming and sweet for supporting human extermination going to slap him with reality?
I’m curious…really.
Hi Elizabeth,
Yes, Doug is a very nice person. I pray for him quite a bit. Hoping that he SEES the unborn. That someday he protects them and fights for their little lives.
He just goes on and on and on about viability and a woman’s right to choose…….I find that very frustrating. Pointless to get into it with him, ya know?
He remains unmoved.
Thats the same rationale as blaming video games for shooting sprees instead of parents who weren’t keeping enough of an eye on their kids to notice the fact that they had rifles in their bedrooms.
No it’s not. You and Elizabeth are totally missing my rationale from my posts. I never said Doug was to BLAME for MAYBE some abortions. I said he was a collaborator (must I pull out a dictionary AGAIN???)…his voice, along with all of your collective pro-choice voices….are collaborators in the extermination (holocaust) of human life. Like it or not….that’s the reality of each and every one of your voices.
JLM,
ACTUAL people in front of a clinic extending their hand to you is WAY different than somebody chatting on the internet.
I’m not saying his being “sweet and charming” reflect his position on abortion. But I am capable of separating who people ARE from what their OPINIONS are. I have had nice conversations with Doug that don’t have anything to do with abortion, and even when he’s talking on here, he’s always civil and doesn’t name-call. That’s how I can tell he’s a nice person. My determination of someone isn’t based off of one thing or one opinion that they have that I don’t agree with. And I’m not saying you can’t compare Doug to Hitler. Go ahead. But I’ll disagree with you and defend it. You think comparing him to Hitler will turn him pro-life, go ahead. I’ll continue to debate with him logically and not resort to comparing him to Hitler because he doesn’t see things my way.
nowww bethany you’re being silly.
I very clearly stated “LIFE OUTSIDE THE WOMB”. Not “LIFE”.
Steven Hawking and Matt Hampson are quite clearly NOT INSIDE OF A WOMB. They do NOT require the involuntary use of someone else’s body to survive.
That difference makes the two completely incomparable.
Oh Amanda, no no, I get it. The arbitrary value of “viability” only applies to babies, in your mind.
Now, can you please explain to me the when the precise moment of “viability” occurs, and then please tell all the abortionists, so that no mistakes will be made, and no “viable” babies will be mistakenly killed while being considered “non-viable”?
P.S. Yeah, I’m in a snarky mood but you have riled me up with some of your comments today.
Carla,
Yes, I understand. I have even gotten frustrated because of the circles I feel I go around in with him. I still find him to be very nice when he is conversing on here whether we’re talking about abortion or not. I pray that he comes over to our side too. :)
JLM –
If someone’s mind is changed because of someone elses OPINION, especially someone they don’t even know, rather than a presentation of facts they may have been unaware of, then their mind was never made up very resolutely in the first place.
You’re treading on very shaky ground if you make the assertion that people who express their opinions are “collaborating” with any actions committed by people who have voluntarily read the opinions of others. Do you believe in censoring speech? I certainly don’t.
Elizabeth, you have witnessed (at least I think you have…not really sure exactly when you started posting here) a few people who were ‘on the fence’ about abortion, having actually changed their minds over the comments of some pro-lifers here on the internet. Some of them were actually very pro-abortion and completely did a change over. Words can really be persuasive.
In the same way that we have been able to convince a few people to stop advocating for abortion, the flip side can also be true, unfortunately. Doug, while charming in his writing style, by continually posting abortion advocacy in the very manipulative way he does, can actually persuade someone who was undecided to actually choose abortion with his words. It’s not farfetched at all, to think that a woman would use his words as a justification for her actions. Women in a crisis pregnancy are many times desperately searching for answers, and sometimes, the answer that seems easiest will be the way they will go. Dougs answer is “take the easy way out.” The only problem is, it only sounds easy. In reality, it has life long impact.
Our words here really, truly do have an impact on others, and can change minds.
Amanda, 3:49 p.m.
I agree with you.
My “best friend” at the time I got pregnant CRIED because I wouldn’t have an abortion. She was a little bit older than me and I looked up to her. She told me that I would be setting a bad example for my brothers, and that I would be frowned upon because of my Catholic beliefs. (only don’t Catholics frown on abortion??)
If I wasn’t deterred by HER, my decisions certainly wouldn’t be affected by some ya-hoo on the internet spouting off. Anybody who lets that happen is pretty weak-minded if you ask me. OTHER people shouldn’t be held responsible because they have opinions. That’s a ludicrous idea. There’s some pretty ridiculous stuff out there on the internet, and people really need to take it with a grain of salt if you know what I mean.
Saying nothing or acting as though it couldn’t possibly affect you or life in any way while thousands of babies are murdered each day speaks volumes as well.
Amanda,
If someone’s mind is changed because of someone elses OPINION, especially someone they don’t even know, rather than a presentation of facts they may have been unaware of, then their mind was never made up very resolutely in the first place.
EXACTLY! That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I was under the impression that both you and Elizabeth thought this could NEVER happen…that this WAS never, and WILL never be the case. That, I find hard to believe, which was my point in the beginning of my posts.
You’re treading on very shaky ground if you make the assertion that people who express their opinions are “collaborating” with any actions committed by people who have voluntarily read the opinions of others. Do you believe in censoring speech? I certainly don’t.
No, I don’t believe in censoring speech…thank God it isn’t!!! Are you saying, though, that COLLECTIVE voices of the pro-choice body DOES NOT in any way (even on the internet) have ANY type of influence on the people somewhere in the middle? Because if you say “no”, then we are all wasting our time.
How is viability in any way “arbitrary”? You know perfectly well there is a HUGE distinction between the inability to live outside of a womb vs. the inability to live without medical intervention. So for you to insinuate I wouldn’t think a person needing medical intervention to live is not a person IS indeed snarky and unwarranted, especially considering I’ve never said that I don’t think a fetus isn’t a person.
If you remove a fetus from a womb, and it dies, it clearly wasn’t viable. I don’t see how dead vs. not dead is arbitrary.
I’ve said a million and a half times that unless there’s a valid medical reason not to, anyone wishing to end a pregnancy after 23 weeks gestation should either have a C section or induced labor. If the baby lives, it was viable. If it dies, it wasn’t viable. End of story. There is absolutely NO WAY a 1-20 week old fetus is viable – theres nothing arbitrary about that. The ones that fall in the blurred line, as I said, should be given a shot. But unless the parent consents to having the baby put on life support (as a parent of a child of ANY age gets to decide), its up to God and nature to determine viability.
Elizabeth, 3:55 for a person with principle (ie. You and I), it is easy to stay resolute within your convictions that life is precious and that your baby doesn’t deserve to die. However, for a women who doesn’t have those deeply embedded principles, that woman can indeed be swayed much more easily on the abortion issue.
When someone (in general) is tempted to do something wrong, their mind automatically seeks out justification for it. If they find that justification in someone, they can latch onto that justification and feel more validated in their decision to do that thing they know is wrong.
,i>If you remove a fetus from a womb, and it dies, it clearly wasn’t viable. I don’t see how dead vs. not dead is arbitrary.
If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren’t viable.
Amanda & Elizabeth,
Rae, a poster here that we are all familiar with, told a story once of a guy, of Mormon faith, on another board, that never used religion as an argument. However, his line of thinking and expressing his thoughts left no room for arguement from Rae. She said (if I remember correctly), that it was this man’s posts that made her “convert” from being pro-choice to being not really pro-life, but anti-stupidity.
Given that story, don’t you think that maybe a pro-life individual could have a similar experience with a person like Doug’s posts, that would convert them to the pro-choice side? I’ve read of several instances of that by posters on this board.
Now, given that, if you have someone who is pro-life, that wouldn’t have an abortion, converting over to the pro-choice side, then finding themselves pregnant….is there even a remote possibility that that individual may have an abortion if they don’t want their child now…due, of course, to ONE individual whose thoughts posted on the internet infulenced them to convert in the first place?
Or the flipside….would Rae maybe have had an abortion if she were in that situation when she was pro-choice, but because of the man who influenced her conversion, wouldn’t now?
JLM –
There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.
If you were claiming that Doug may have influenced people to be pro choice, I may be less inclined to vehemently disagree with you. But to say that by his expression of pro choice beliefs he may have actually influenced someone to HAVE an abortion…. I think that’s just very far fetched.
That was TOTALLY a hypothetical, by the way. Since I’m on the internet, you never know how someone might take something. lol
Bethany,
It wasn’t people’s words alone here that changed other’s opinions and I think you know that. It was probably a combination of people’s opinions backed up by actual evidence and facts. I know that words are persuasive, BUT as you can see, none of you have changed my opinion on homosexuality and evolution. You probably won’t either. Because I have a strong belief based on my own personal experiences and research on those 2 things.
BUT, to imply that Doug is evil or even comparable to Hitler because he has an opinion and expresses it is just ridiculous to me. The ability to discuss our differing opinions is what makes this a great country, and what makes THIS SITE a great thing. And now, you and JLM are saying that those opinions that are not in compliance with your own, the SAME opinions that keep these discussions going, are harmful?
Let’s say for a minute that, hypothetically, Doug’s words have encouraged some woman to get an abortion. (Not that I actually believe they have) Does that mean Doug should not share his opinion or say what he thinks? My answer would always be NO, because you, JLM, nor I have the right to censor anyone else’s opinion because we don’t agree with it. And it doesn’t mean that HE is responsible for numerous abortions.
There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.
Exactly. One is a choice made quickly out of fear, and one is a choice made out of plenty of time to think about things and make a logical decision.
“If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren’t viable. ”
Clearly we’re done talking for the day Bethany. You’re just being ridiculous now. Have a good one.
If I tie you to a rock and drop you in a lake, and you die, I guess you weren’t viable.
yep…make you think about it, doesn’t it?
Clearly we’re done talking for the day Bethany. You’re just being ridiculous now. Have a good one.
How is that any more ridiculous than your example of “in the womb, out of the womb”? Please explain the difference.
There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between choosing to be pro choice or pro life vs. choosing to abort or not abort.
Huh? I’m sorry. I’m not seeing this one. Aren’t MOST people who abort pro-choice? I mean, isn’t it the whole “choice” thing why they abort in the first place?
“yep…make you think about it, doesn’t it? ”
Umm.. No actually. It makes me think Bethany just feels like being snarky today. But for the sake of fairness, I’ll explain why it doesn’t make me think about anything else.
If I am alive outside of the womb, I’m viable.
If I am removed from a womb, and I die because my development is not compatible with life, I’m not viable.
Anything that happens to me AFTER I’m out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.
If I am alive outside of the womb, I’m viable.If I am removed from a womb, and I die because my development is not compatible with life, I’m not viable.
If I’m alive outside a lake, I’m viable. If I’m taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I’m not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person.
“Huh? I’m sorry. I’m not seeing this one. Aren’t MOST people who abort pro-choice? I mean, isn’t it the whole “choice” thing why they abort in the first place? ”
JLM – lets clarify here… are you asserting that anyone who happens to be pro choice would have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy? I know I’m not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.
And now, you and JLM are saying that those opinions that are not in compliance with your own, the SAME opinions that keep these discussions going, are harmful?
I can’t speak for Bethany, but yes…it is harmful. My words don’t inadvertently support the extermination of human life in the womb. It’s not harmful to HAVE the discussions, but the baby that may very well be exterminated by certain words or opinions of someone who is giving their opinion is harmed.
Elizabeth….you’re smart, you’re strong, you have a moral grounding, you are a leader and not a follower. Please, please, please understand that not everyone is you. Some people’s decisions are indeed swayed by peer pressure. Where do you think these ideas come from? I honestly don’t see many young kids in the library these days. They formulate many opinions based on other’s opinions. These are followers…not leaders. These people are not smart enough to make their own decisions, and may not have a moral grounding. Many are weak and scared and go into the privacy of the internet where they can share their thoughts and ideas anonymously…and, without anyone knowing at all.
Does that make sense?
Anything that happens to me AFTER I’m out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.
And can you please explain to me how one can change from being a non-viable biologically living, growing and developing human organism that somehow is NOT a person, to all of a sudden, in this magical instant of “viability” being a person, (and yet, no one knows how to calculate “viability” accurately while the baby is still in the womb,amazingly).
Anything that happens to me AFTER I’m out of the womb has absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with my viability.
Even if you’re in a tragic accident and need to be put on a respirator…even for a couple of days? During those couple of days are you viable?
“If I’m alive outside a lake, I’m viable. If I’m taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I’m not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person. ”
Are you a fish? A whale? Are you SUPPOSED to live in water?
Why would you develop to become viable in an environment you’re not designed to live in? Thats absurd.
Humans develop in a womb to reach a point where they are VIABLE or ABLE TO LIVE in the environment they’re designed to live in. If they DIE when they’re put in that environment TOO EARLY, they are not viable.
There is no point of development that would make you able to live in water unless you are a sea creature. Are you a sea creature? If you develop to live under water, you’re right. You ARE a non-person, because people don’t live under water.
I know I’m not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.
Why would you never consider it, Amanda?
“Even if you’re in a tragic accident and need to be put on a respirator…even for a couple of days? During those couple of days are you viable?”
Of course! You may be seriously injured and in need of life support, but you have certainly developed to the point of being able to live outside of a womb!
JLM – lets clarify here… are you asserting that anyone who happens to be pro choice would have an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy? I know I’m not speaking for myself here when I say that as a pro choice VOTER, I would never even consider for a SECOND having an abortion unless I was raped.
No. That’s why I said, “Aren’t MOST people who abort pro-choice?”. I didn’t say all.
That would be ridiculous on my part, because that’s like saying no pro-life person would ever have an abortion.
HOWEVER….the moment they choose to abort, they ARE pro-choice, no? I mean, they are saying that their “choice” trumps life, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t an abortion mother CHOOSING to abort? Hence, pro-CHOICE…at least for that moment?
“If I’m alive outside a lake, I’m viable. If I’m taken from my air that I breathe, and dumped in a lake, and my development is not compatible with life in the water, then obviously I’m not viable anymore, therefore I change from a person to a non-person. ”
Are you a fish? A whale? Are you SUPPOSED to live in water?
EXACTLY! An unborn child is not SUPPOSED to live outside the womb until the child is developed fully. This does not in ANY way take away from the fact that the child is a human being deserving of protection, and thus far you have not given me any reasoning whatsoever that babies turn from non-persons to persons upon “viability”, simply because removing it from where it is SUPPOSED to be would kill it!
My words don’t inadvertently support the extermination of human life in the womb.
Directly, no they don’t.
But let’s say someone reads what you write, and looks at it as self-righteous or something like that and decides, “I’m going to have an abortion and be okay with it, because that person doesn’t know me, I’m going to prove her wrong.”
Well, your words just influenced somebody to have an abortion.
Do you get what I’m saying here?
ANYTHING that anybody says can be construed in a way that has an influence on another person. That doesn’t mean you meant it to be harmful, as I’m sure Doug doesn’t view his words or his opinions as harmful.
Does that mean we should not engage in these discussions because somebody might be influenced by something written by someone they don’t even know?
NO! And I don’t think that Doug’s opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.
That is like saying that because people have done bad things in the name of the Bible, that the Bible ITSELF is harmful. Which, I think we know, it’s not.
JLM: You brought up the viability nonsense, and now the “wanted” nonsense, when all along we were discussing why abortion IS considered a holocaust.
Oh Please. You mentioned, How these people can sleep at night is beyond me and the answer is that for many people pre-viability abortions are not “bad” and/or they don’t favor more restrictions on abortion than we now have.
And later you said, Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it’s plant life!
I agreed that it’s “human life,” and noted that that’s not what the argument is really about. It’s about valuation.
If legal abortion was intended to end all pregnancies or kill the unborn “en masse” then you’d have a case for “holocaust.” In reality, we are allowing the individual pregnant women to decide whether to continue or end pregnancies, and even if the choice is to end one, it’s not like the woman is doing it “to eradicate the human race” or “kill all the babies,” etc.
Because I am healthy mentally and physically, I have health insurance, a family that would support me, an environment around me that would be safe for my pregnancy, and the intuition that would stop me from having sex with any guy who wouldn’t be a supportive and wonderful dad.
Of course! You may be seriously injured and in need of life support, but you have certainly developed to the point of being able to live outside of a womb!
But you’re not now. Things have changed. Like the unborn, you have a CHANCE…even a good chance…of reaching viability. What does the womb have to do with a human being human or not?
NO! And I don’t think that Doug’s opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.
Y la lengua es un fuego, un mundo de maldad. Juan 3:6
Because I am healthy mentally and physically, I have health insurance, a family that would support me, an environment around me that would be safe for my pregnancy, and the intuition that would stop me from having sex with any guy who wouldn’t be a supportive and wonderful dad.
But do you think it would be wrong for you to have an abortion, should you have all of those factors and still desire to not be pregnant anymore?
Oh Please. You mentioned, How these people can sleep at night is beyond me and the answer is that for many people pre-viability abortions are not “bad” and/or they don’t favor more restrictions on abortion than we now have.
Yes Doug, I did ask that. and I’ll ask it again….How can YOU sleep at night supporting a HOLOCAUST????????? We agreed that it’s human life that is being exterminated….right?????
“EXACTLY! An unborn child is not SUPPOSED to live outside the womb until the child is developed fully. This does not in ANY way take away from the fact that the child is a human being deserving of protection, and thus far you have not given me any reasoning whatsoever that babies turn from non-persons to persons upon “viability”, simply because removing it from where it is SUPPOSED to be would kill it! ”
1. Never said it wasn’t a person. EVER. Don’t put words in my mouth.
2. Its just as worthy of protection as its mother. If the mother REQUIRED the fetus to live, the situation would be reversed, as neither has more of a right to its own body than the other.
3. If the mother does not consent to her pregnancy, I believe she has the right, whether I personally agreee with it or not, to remove it. If it isn’t viable, it has no chance of living outside of the womb. The vast majority of abortions in the US take place at that level of development. Killing, rather than simply removing, a fetus AFTER the point of viability, is a very different story.
Bethany,
Okay, I’m going to go murder a gay person and then say that because I found the WBC website, and according to them “God hates fags” that I am justified in killing them. Who gets put on trial? WBC? NO?!! Oh I do? Okay, just checking…
:: Twilight Zone music ::
JLM: It makes me wonder how many human lives Doug has been a collaborator in exterminating. Makes me wonder how he and other abortion supporters can sleep at night.
Amanda: “JLM – Ohhhh for Gods sake that is BEYOND ridiculous. You can find people advocating just about ANYTHING on the internet, from abortion, to rape, to self mutilation, to murder. If someone does something they would otherwise believe to be wrong because some dude on the internet said it wasn’t wrong, they clearly had something wrong with them from the get go.”
….
Amanda, and Elizabeth, thanks for your replies to JLM. I guess you can find just about anything on the internet. ; )
Doug…while we’ve got you here..would you care to answer these two questions for me??? Please???
1. Do you think that there is a remote chance, even a miniscule chance, that one of your posts throughout the years may have influenced a woman/girl to get an abortion she may have contemplated getting, but wasn’t sure if it were the “right thing” to do?
2. If yes, why? If no, why not?
Oh Amanda, no no, I get it. The arbitrary value of “viability” only applies to babies, in your mind.
P.S. Yeah, I’m in a snarky mood but you have riled me up with some of your comments today.
Bethany, you do know that in the context of the abortion debate, “viability” means having developed enough to be able to live outside the womb, right?
P.S. Snark.
Okay, I’m going to go murder a gay person and then say that because I found the WBC website, and according to them “God hates fags” that I am justified in killing them. Who gets put on trial? WBC? NO?!! Oh I do? Okay, just checking…
Elizabeth, you’re taking this a lot farther than we were trying to take it. We NEVER said that a woman who chooses to abort based on Doug’s suggestion would suddenly be justified, but simply that (spiritually speaking), he is partially accountable because of his purposeful advocacy of abortion, masked as something else.
The purpose of this whole discussion was to explain that while he may appear charming on the outside, he can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We are not saying that he’s not likeable and friendly. But his advocacy for abortion in the deceptive way that he does it, can certainly convince an unresolved woman to have an abortion.
Why do you compare him to the phelps, of all people? They aren’t manipulative or sneaky. They are openly aggressive and hostile and they don’t hide how they really feel.
Doug masks his true intent with words like “choice” and “freedom”, and to many people, his thoughts could “seem” logical and nice to a woman who is seeking answers and the easy way out. The words “choice” and “freedom”, “rights”, those are just coverups for the real issue which is abortion, and I know you of all people understand this.
Doug knows this, and he continues to push it on a pro-life blog,and yes, I do think that spiritually speaking he is accountable partially for anything negative that results from his words. As am I.
JLM: Aren’t MOST people who abort pro-choice?
If nothing else, they see that in their situation having an abortion is the best thing. That includes many people who would formerly, (and possibly in general), call themselves pro-life.
Among fundamentalist Christian women who describe themselves as “born again,” the rate of having abortions is 15 – 20%. Lower than the general population but still significant.
……
I mean, isn’t it the whole “choice” thing why they abort in the first place?
No, they have abortions because for whatever reasons the pregnancy is unwanted.
Bethany, you do know that in the context of the abortion debate, “viability” means having developed enough to be able to live outside the womb, right?
Yes, but I’m trying to prove a larger point by using those examples.
P.S. Snark.
The girl that is snarky is not always full of malarky. ;-)
Doug,
Can you please respond to my May 28, 2008 4:44 PM post???
I do think that spiritually speaking he is accountable partially for anything negative that results from his words. As am I.
So, if someone interprets from your words that gay people are committing an abomination against God, and this justifies the violence against them, then you are held accountable for that Bethany? Spiritually speaking of course.
Dougs answer is “take the easy way out.” The only problem is, it only sounds easy. In reality, it has life long impact.
Bethany, my answer is to take the best course of action for the woman, and sometimes that means ending the pregnancy. Not always, no, of course not. And sometimes there will be regrets, later on – no argument there.
Given a woman’s family life, etc., continuing the pregnancy could be “taking the easy way out,” and still not be the best thing for her.
So, if someone interprets from your words that gay people are committing an abomination against God, and this justifies the violence against them, then you are held accountable for that Bethany? Spiritually speaking of course.
No, because my intent is not to promote violence against gays. Doug’s intent is quite obviously to keep abortion (violence against babies) legal.
NO! And I don’t think that Doug’s opinions, because they are taken a certain way by some random person out there, are harmful. People make their own choices, and they should be held accountable for those choices, Doug should not be held accountable for some woman having an abortion.
Then why do cigarette companies get sued? AND LOSE???
Why are they NOT able to use certain “mascots” to promote their product that may INFLUENCE children under the age of 18??? Isn’t this the same age group that is having abortions?
P.S.
I do not think of Doug as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think he is a good person who has an opinion that, while I may find it to be misguided, is rooted in the fact that he doesn’t think it’s his place to tell someone else what to do with their body. (Not that I believe we as pro-lifers are telling people what to do with their body)
Isn’t this the same age group that is having abortions?
There are lots of age groups having abortions if I’m not mistaken.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree, Elizabeth. :)
It doesn’t matter what your intent is Bethany.
What if Doug’s intent is not to promost violence against babies, but to protect the safety of women who would die from illegal abortions? He’s not trying to hurt the babies, but it gets construed that way, is he still held accountable? And if so, why are you not? How is it different?
See, this is the slippery slope we go down when we try to hold other people responsible for someone else’s actions. I’m just trying to show you that.
JLM: You brought up the viability nonsense, and now the “wanted” nonsense, when all along we were discussing why abortion IS considered a holocaust.
“Oh Please. You mentioned, How these people can sleep at night is beyond me and the answer is that for many people pre-viability abortions are not “bad” and/or they don’t favor more restrictions on abortion than we now have.
And later you said, Unless, of course, you seem to think that at the moment of conception it’s plant life!
I agreed that it’s “human life,” and noted that that’s not what the argument is really about. It’s about valuation.
If legal abortion was intended to end all pregnancies or kill the unborn “en masse” then you’d have a case for “holocaust.” In reality, we are allowing the individual pregnant women to decide whether to continue or end pregnancies, and even if the choice is to end one, it’s not like the woman is doing it “to eradicate the human race” or “kill all the babies,” etc.”
Yes Doug, I did ask that. and I’ll ask it again….How can YOU sleep at night supporting a HOLOCAUST????????? We agreed that it’s human life that is being exterminated….right?????
Dang, Holmes, I could hear you hitting that question mark key clear over here….
Again, if legal abortion meant trying to eradicate, abolish, completely get rid of everybody, etc., or even just all the unborn, then you’d have a case for “exterminate” and “holocaust” and the much ill-used “genocide,” but reality is that it’s not that way, it’s just individual women making their own decisions, and not on the basis of what you mention, not at all.
There are lots of age groups having abortions if I’m not mistaken.
I know. There was a point in the previous sentences. That being, people actually CAN be influenced by WORDS, and sometimes that influence CAN be harmful to them.
When I said, “promost” I meant “promote”
Apparently, I type too fast. :)
There is no point of development that would make you able to live in water unless you are a sea creature. Are you a sea creature? If you develop to live under water, you’re right. You ARE a non-person, because people don’t live under water.
All right, Amanda, that’s it…. I’m going to make you watch “Spongebob” ten times in a row.
Again, if legal abortion meant trying to eradicate, abolish, completely get rid of everybody, etc., or even just all the unborn, then you’d have a case for “exterminate” and “holocaust” and the much ill-used “genocide,” but reality is that it’s not that way, it’s just individual women making their own decisions, and not on the basis of what you mention, not at all.
Yes it is, Doug. Again, the definition of holocaust:
Holocaust (noun)
1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life
now, if you don’t think millions of human life exterminated in abortions is mass destruction, I can’t help you here.
I will never use the word genocide. I’m with you on this one. It’s a VERY misused word.
Now, that being said, if you’d like to come up with a different meaning for the word holocaust than what the dictionary defines it as…be my guest. Again, that would be you using the Dougtionary…not the dictionary.
BTW…any chance I can get an answer to my 4:44pm question to you?
Doug…while we’ve got you here..would you care to answer these two questions for me??? Please???
Well heck yes, JLM. No hard feelings here… Y’all are tiring me out today, though, and the amount of work I’ve got done is laughable (but don’t tell…)
1. Do you think that there is a remote chance, even a miniscule chance, that one of your posts throughout the years may have influenced a woman/girl to get an abortion she may have contemplated getting, but wasn’t sure if it were the “right thing” to do?
2. If yes, why? If no, why not?
Perhaps. To viability I truly do leave the morality of it up to the woman, though, and thus I don’t think it’s like I am “trying to convince people to have abortions.”
If anything where I see the possibility would be with somebody formerly indoctrinated with stuff like “it’s a BABY!” (or the reverse) without regard for the changes that occur in gestation. Let’s say somebody is on the fence, undecided, and liable to go either way.
She finds out some facts as far as the physical reality of the embryo or fetus, and makes up her mind. Could decide either way, again, but in both cases I’d say it’s at least remotely possible that I’ve influenced somebody along the way.
Bethany: Y la lengua es un fuego, un mundo de maldad. Juan 3:6
I’ve always favored Proverbs 31: 6-7 more.
Again, if legal abortion meant trying to eradicate, abolish, completely get rid of everybody, etc., or even just all the unborn, then you’d have a case for “exterminate” and “holocaust” and the much ill-used “genocide,” but reality is that it’s not that way, it’s just individual women making their own decisions,….
Their own decisions about what, Doug?
Doug masks his true intent with words like “choice” and “freedom”, and to many people, his thoughts could “seem” logical and nice to a woman who is seeking answers and the easy way out. The words “choice” and “freedom”, “rights”, those are just coverups for the real issue which is abortion, and I know you of all people understand this.
Oh come on, Bethany.
Of course the topic is abortion, and I don’t try to hide anything or pretend. I’m here because I like to discuss and debate.
I don’t claim that abortion is “good” or “right,” necessarily for a given woman – that is up to her, not me.
If there is “deception” etc., going on, it’s on the part of people who pretend that their unprovable beliefs necessarily apply to other people, and that their feelings of “bad” and “wrong” for abortion are somehow externally true.
Doug at May 28, 2008 5:17 PM,
Thank you for answering and thank you for your honesty.
Another question, though, spouted from that same post: Do you think viability is a moral decision? You said, “To viability I truly do leave the morality of it up to the woman”.
Pardon my ignorance, but I’ve never seen viability and morality being used in that fashion before now. Did I read it wrong?
The girl that is snarky is not always full of malarky. ;-)
:: laughing ::
Touche, Bethany, and I agree (especially in your case).
Then why do cigarette companies get sued? AND LOSE???
JLM, good example, though I don’t agree with all the judgments against the companies.
I sure miss Joe Camel, though. He was cool. And going back in time, there were some great cigarette commercials on TV. I didn’t smoke at all as a kid, but those commercials were still great.
Elizabeth,
Hey…I just had another thought.
Be sure to tell the family whose daughter commit suicide because of the comments made about her on the internet didn’t really influence her decision to kill herself. She probably would have killed herself anyway, even if the comments were never made, right?
While you’re at it, tell the judge he/she made the wrong decision, convicting the “adult” who provoked the comments, that he/she was wrong in that decision as well.
Not being “snarky”, just making a point. BTW…this story absolutely broke my heart. How could someone????
I sure miss Joe Camel, though. He was cool. And going back in time, there were some great cigarette commercials on TV. I didn’t smoke at all as a kid, but those commercials were still great.
Good for you! I was a sucker for ads for cigarettes. I smoke, and started, I think, because of the Virginia Slims lady in the ad. She was so pretty! I switched to Marlboro years later due to the HOT Marlboro man. Now, I just go for the cheap ones….live & learn!
JLM: I will never use the word genocide. I’m with you on this one. It’s a VERY misused word.
Okay, JLM, awesome – though if anything I’d think your reasoning would apply there in the same way.
…..
Holocaust (noun) 1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life
now, if you don’t think millions of human life exterminated in abortions is mass destruction, I can’t help you here.
Then you’re saying that life and existence itself is a “holocaust” because it ends up with almost 160,000 people dying everyday. Dude, that’s a stretch.
Legal abortion is not “wholesale,” it’s on an individual basis. For “holocaust” there needs to be some overall intent, not just some decisions to end pregnancies where the big majority is still deciding to continue them.
Isn’t the Jewish Holocaust in WW II commonly referred to as “genocide”? Maybe we’re just getting too far down the road of arguing semantics.
Okay, JLM, awesome – though if anything I’d think your reasoning would apply there in the same way.
Why? Genocide is the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this. (Encarta). That’s not abortion in any way, shape or form. It may very well be certain people’s views on what they would LIKE to see happen, but it’s not reality.
Then you’re saying that life and existence itself is a “holocaust” because it ends up with almost 160,000 people dying everyday. Dude, that’s a stretch.
I’m not a dude, and no, that’s not what I’m saying. A holocaust is the destruction of human life in mass quantities. Destruction is the act or process of destroying something. (Encarta again!). Abortion is the act/process of destroying human life. It’s intentional, not natural. Thus, people dying every day without an intentional act provoking the process of death is not considered a holocaust.
Legal abortion is not “wholesale,” it’s on an individual basis. For “holocaust” there needs to be some overall intent, not just some decisions to end pregnancies where the big majority is still deciding to continue them.
But collectively, it is. The abortion INDUSTRY is responsible for the holocaust of abortion. The individual woman/girl aborting does not constitue a holocaust. The collective group of exterminated human life is “wholesale”: done on a large scale and indiscriminately (Encarta) by the abortion industry.
Isn’t the Jewish Holocaust in WW II commonly referred to as “genocide”?
Yes, it is. It’s both a holocaust and a genocide. Abortion is not. It’s only a holocaust.
JLM – thats not a good comparison at all.
That woman was not expressing her opinion as Doug expresses his opinions. That woman created a fake profile of a boy, flirted with the girl, and then suddenly turned on her…calling her ugly, slutty, worthless, and that no one would miss her if she was dead.
Doug is using his constitutional right to free speech. Unless you are AGAINST free speech, insinuating people should be held accountable for what their OPINIONS lead other people to do is a very dangerous road to go down.
The woman in that case was INTENTIONALLY going out of her way TO DECEIVE and HURT someone.
You really can’t honestly say thats even CLOSE to the same thing as debating on a blog.
“Again, if legal abortion meant trying to eradicate, abolish, completely get rid of everybody, etc., or even just all the unborn, then you’d have a case for “exterminate” and “holocaust” and the much ill-used “genocide,” but reality is that it’s not that way, it’s just individual women making their own decisions, and not on the basis of what you mention, not at all.”
Their own decisions about what, Doug?
About continuing or ending the human life, as you previously noted and I agreed with.
I’ll agree, also, that ending human life is necessary for “holocaust,” here, but it’s not sufficient.
Necessary but not sufficient – a good thing to understand.
One woman ending one pregnancy – that is what legal abortion allows. It’s not at all intended to get rid of all people, or “all babies,” etc.
If you tell a Jewish woman who is going to have an abortion that legal abortion is a “holocaust” and/or that she’s participating in a “holocaust,” I bet she’d say you’re crazy, and that if you want to know about a real holocaust she could fill you in.
Thank you for answering and thank you for your honesty.
You’re welcome, JLM.
…..
Another question, though, spouted from that same post: Do you think viability is a moral decision? You said, “To viability I truly do leave the morality of it up to the woman”.
Pardon my ignorance, but I’ve never seen viability and morality being used in that fashion before now. Did I read it wrong?
Yeah, I meant that within gestation, up until the time of viability I leave the right/wrong/good/bad to the woman.
I’m taking viability to mean the point when the fetus is developed enough that it could survive outside the womb, which is the usual meaning in connection with the abortion debate, going clear back to the Roe decision, where it became more prominent.
So no, I think viability is physical state, not a “decision,” at all.
Amanda,
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill. Stop it, ok? I said, way, way back in one of my posts that SOMETIMES what a person says can influence the decision of another person.
I asked Doug, and please read his 5:17, very open and honest post which answered 2 questions that I had for him regarding my previous comment.
Now, that being said, my 5:35pm post and my 4:59pm post both were used to make the point that yes, some people’s decisions CAN be influenced by words.
These two posts were in response to comments that other people’s comments or words cannot hurt people or influence them. In absolutely no way was I comparing a suicidal teenager to abortion. It’s the point I was TRYING to make, and using the stories to make that point, that I believed you missed.
If there is anything else that I can clarify for you (sometimes I think faster than I write!), please let me know.
:)
“Legal abortion is not “wholesale,” it’s on an individual basis. For “holocaust” there needs to be some overall intent, not just some decisions to end pregnancies where the big majority is still deciding to continue them.”
JLM: But collectively, it is. The abortion INDUSTRY is responsible for the holocaust of abortion. The individual woman/girl aborting does not constitue a holocaust. The collective group of exterminated human life is “wholesale”: done on a large scale and indiscriminately (Encarta) by the abortion industry.
We’re getting down to semantics, here, I think. I had another reply to you but it didn’t “take” and it’s lost now.
I’m glad we agree on the individual woman or girl, but it’s still her decision in her given situation, and thus is indeed “discriminate” rather than indiscriminate.
So no, I think viability is physical state, not a “decision,” at all.
Gotcha. I was afraid an ugly can of worms was going to rear it’s ugly head!!!!
Saved!
I’m glad we agree on the individual woman or girl, but it’s still her decision in her given situation, and thus is indeed “discriminate” rather than indiscriminate.
Yes, it is her choice. But again, collectively, as a whole, the industry (abortion) is indiscriminate (which also applies to your “necessary” comment) and has indeed exterminated 40 million human lives. Hitler didn’t exterminate all of those Jews on his own, either. His “industry” did. The “movement” did.
If you tell a Jewish woman who is going to have an abortion that legal abortion is a “holocaust” and/or that she’s participating in a “holocaust,” I bet she’d say you’re crazy, and that if you want to know about a real holocaust she could fill you in.
Of course she would. However, if I told that to a pro-life Jewish woman, we’d be in total agreement and she would understand EXACTLY where I was coming from. Especially if I brought along a dictionary and not a dougtionary!!!! :)
JLM, gotta disagree with you on the Pro-Life Jewish woman. She might agree with you, but she might also say you’re crazy.
Hitler didn’t exterminate all of those Jews on his own, either. His “industry” did. The “movement” did.
The intent was to exterminate. Legal abortion only allows individual decisions. If nobody had unwanted pregnancies, legal abortion isn’t for any deaths on the part of the unborn at all.
Be sure to tell the family whose daughter commit suicide because of the comments made about her on the internet didn’t really influence her decision to kill herself. She probably would have killed herself anyway, even if the comments were never made, right?
Actually, JLM, that story wasn’t just one of someone making comments about the girl over the internet. The mother of one of the girl’s enemies I guess you could say pretended to be a boy that was interested in the girl. The girl started to like the boy and then the boy broke up with her or said something directly to hurt her. TOTALLY DIFFERENT scenario in that case than what we are doing here.
There weren’t just comments made, it was a whole elaborate scenario that was purposely set up by AN ADULT to deceive and hurt that young girl by pretending to be a boy that like this girl. Plus, if you count the fact that the girl already was mentally unstable, it was like pouring gasoline on a fire. She had been depressed for quite a while if I remember correctly, and what that adult did was cruel and really stupid.
JLM, I’m not saying words don’t matter, but comparing THAT incident to THIS doesn’t really prove your case. We are merely talking here about a difference of opinions and engaging in mature discussion. (most of the time!) What we do here isn’t even comparable to what that mother did to that girl.
Oh snap, didn’t read all the comments, and Amanda covered what I basically said in my 7:44 post! lol oh well!
Bethany brought up earlier that when people have decided to do something, they search for justification from any outlet that will make them feel more confident in doing something that they know is wrong but have decided to do anyway. THAT I can believe. What I can not believe is that some person just reads over Doug’s posts and then believes that having an abortion is the right thing to do. Obviously, they thought it was okay before or no amount of Doug’s comments would affect their decision. There are some people who are on the fence as far as their beliefs are concerned, but when it comes to being faced in the situation of having an abortion, the person either is WILLING to do it or they’re not. If they go through with it, obviously they were willing from the beginning. The only thing Doug’s comments could do was help the person find justification for their actions, but I don’t believe Doug’s comments single-handedly influence a person to or not to have an abortion.
Especially because he’s very “whatever floats your boat” in a lot of his comments about women choosing or not choosing abortion. Haha sorry I couldn’t find a better way to put it.
Oh good grief- just knock it off with the “holocaust vs. not holocaust” crap. It’s nothing more than a blatant emotional appeal and a method to demonize the opposition in order to “guilt” people into agreeing with you.
When people have to resort to calling the opposition “Nazis” it screams out to me that you have no reasoned, logical argument and thus resort to brain-dead emotionally loaded terms like “holocaust”- when you *KNOW* those words have certain connotations.
This being said: abortion can be easily argued against WITHOUT the idiotic Holocaust/Hitler comparisons that frequently happen and be argued *well* without alienating people. When you call people “holocaust supporters” and linking them with Nazis conversation shuts down and the debate goes nowhere and the people who are being called “Nazis” and what not get on the defensive and become hostile to anything else you’re going to say- now how is this helpful? How is making those people become hostile because of your emotionally laden terms helpful to helping them see your position?
Needless to say, this entire conversation and ANY comparisons to *the* holocaust and Hitler/Nazis was incredibly stupid and counter-productive- and y’all wonder why this board was the real reason I decided to re-think my position…good grief.
“and y’all wonder why this board was the real reason I decided to re-think my position…good grief.”
Grr-face. That should have said:
“and y’all wonder why this board WASN’T the real real reason I decided to rethink my position…good grief.”
Oh okay Rae, I thought you meant you were re-thinking your decision about becoming pro-life. I wuz worried!
Oh good grief to the second power! I miswrote it again!
I think it’s time for Rae-Rae to pass out…
Well thank you Rae! I guess only YOUR thoughts matter.
First, you call the civil “debate” I’ve been having crap…
Then you tell me I show YOU I have no reasoned, logical argument and thus resort to brain-dead emotionally loaded terms…nice.
And then: this entire conversation and ANY comparisons to *the* holocaust and Hitler/Nazis was incredibly stupid
It’s people like you who make ME re-think my position on being here at all.
No worries, Rae. I’m sorry I came back and I’m sorry I pissed you off with my thoughts.
Take the debate on yourself then with your self-proclaimed “right” style of debating.
Good luck to you.
I’m done.
OH knock off the hysterics JLM- I wasn’t specifically talking about you- I was speaking generally. You’re not the only one who makes those comparisons you know.
And no, I prefer you stay- I’ll take my leave and go elsewhere- cheers.
Doug,
Legal abortion is not “wholesale,” it’s on an individual basis. For “holocaust” there needs to be some overall intent, not just some decisions to end pregnancies where the big majority is still deciding to continue them.
MK, we do not need an unlimited number of human beings.
MK, should be ? Holy Crow….
I’ve talked with John about this, but if anything I think it will be population pressure itself that results in a “worsening” of things in your opinion – more sentiment for legal abortion, etc.
Don’t know how long it will take to appear, if it does, but right now I bet that the dramatically higher costs of fuel and food will result in people wanting less kids overall.
While killing the unborn to control population may not be the intent there are definitely some people who celebrate the fact that killing off babies will benefit the world as a whole and not just the pregnant women…
Sounds holocaustical to me…sorry Rae. (Not mentioning any names. (Doug))
Rae, to JLM: And no, I prefer you stay- I’ll take my leave and go elsewhere- cheers.
Oh for Pete’s sake. Stay, both of you.
If not, I’ll be sending around little frogs in hats, bent on revenge.
“Don’t know how long it will take to appear, if it does, but right now I bet that the dramatically higher costs of fuel and food will result in people wanting less kids overall.”
While killing the unborn to control population may not be the intent there are definitely some people who celebrate the fact that killing off babies will benefit the world as a whole and not just the pregnant women…
MK: “Sounds holocaustical to me…sorry Rae. (Not mentioning any names. (Doug))”
……
MK, did I say the second thing, there, in italics?
By the reasoning of some, life itself is a “holocaust,” since almost 160,000 people die every day.
Rae and JLM,
I haven’t read everything word for word, but obviously you each feel strongly about your positions. Can you agree to disagree? I don’t think it was anything personal, as Rae seemed to be saying. It would be great for you both to stick around!! :)
I second what Janet said. I would hate for either of you to leave.
“While killing the unborn to control population may not be the intent there are definitely some people who celebrate the fact that killing off babies will benefit the world as a whole and not just the pregnant women…”
And those people aren’t the sharpest tacks on the bulletin board and don’t really think things through. If they really were concerned about an overabundance of humans- they’d work to outlaw public health works which improve our water (which lead to the largest decrease in deaths from infectious disease) because then more people would die of infectious disease.
They should also work to outlaw vaccinations and antibiotics- as those were also revolutionary in extending human lifespans and therefore leading to increased populations (due to fewer people dying from infectious disease once again).
I don’t think the sheer number of humans is the problem but our consumption is. The whole idea of having a McMansion to house 2 kids and the use of bottled water etc. is the real issue here.
1. Never said it wasn’t a person. EVER. Don’t put words in my mouth.
So it is a person, in your opinion? Persons have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion by the mother’s choice does not allow the unborn child, who you have implied you believe is also a person, the right to any of those.
2. Its just as worthy of protection as its mother. If the mother REQUIRED the fetus to live, the situation would be reversed, as neither has more of a right to its own body than the other.
Amanda, that is ridiculous and you know it, and you still have not addressed my point about viability.
3. If the mother does not consent to her pregnancy, I believe she has the right, whether I personally agreee with it or not, to remove it.
Since when does abortion simply “remove” a child from the womb, in tact? Do we have abortionists who pull the baby out, realize it’s viable, and rush it to the intensive care unit?
If it isn’t viable, it has no chance of living outside of the womb.
And how do you detect viability accurately before removing the baby, Amanda?
The vast majority of abortions in the US take place at that level of development. Killing, rather than simply removing, a fetus AFTER the point of viability, is a very different story.
And how can you tell how many have been killed after, Amanda, since the babies are torn apart or killed before they leave the womb anyway? Either way, you have a dead child who has been “removed” from the womb. How do you know, for certain, which dead children were not viable when they were aborted?
I don’t think the sheer number of humans is the problem but our consumption is. The whole idea of having a McMansion to house 2 kids and the use of bottled water etc. is the real issue here.
Rae, you’re right – “X” amount of people doesn’t mean anything really, there. It’s always in relation to the amount of resources, etc.
The US’s consumption is amazing. Right now, China and India (and Russia and Brazil, etc.) as well, are drastically increasing their consumption, and it’s not much with McMansions, it’s with an only-now developing middle class that is hungry for cars, roads, washers and dryers, etc.
I saw this morning that China has surpassed the US in carbon emissions. While consumption growth in the US has slowed a lot, if not reversed altogether, that’s not nearly as big a deal for the world as it used to be. We are in a time of fast changes in commodities and prices, and the direction isn’t going to be seen as “good,” at all, IMO.
If they really were concerned about an overabundance of humans – they’d work to outlaw public health works which improve our water (which lead to the largest decrease in deaths from infectious disease) because then more people would die of infectious disease.
Rae, that would mean a lesser quality of life, and who’s really going to be for that?
@Doug: That’s not the point- with increased infectious disease the population sharply decreases and that’s what the “global population crisis” yay-hoos are always crowing about…reducing the population.
What’s more effective naturally in reducing population than infectious disease?
@Doug: That’s not the point- with increased infectious disease the population sharply decreases and that’s what the “global population crisis” yay-hoos are always crowing about…reducing the population.
What’s more effective naturally in reducing population than infectious disease?
Rae, I agree that those who feel we must “reduce the population” are well out in left field.
If anything, I think that population pressure argues against the need for any faster-than-at-present growth in population, and banning or further restricting abortion would do that.
“Yay-hoos”
I love you, Rae, you’ve got a great way of phrasing things. : )
Jill should have a chat room.
Doug and Rae –
I think we could all agree that we’d have plenty of room for plenty more people if we started taking better care of the Earth and our resources. As long as there’s a profit to be made in continuing to use oil and other pollutants, we will keep getting ourselves in further and further trouble- and I think rather than addressing that (which is undoubtedly a huge challenge) its easier to just say “well having less people will fix it!!”.
But it’ll get to a point where it won’t matter how many people there are – I think it wont be the quantity of people the earth can’t sustain, but the quality of their lives in terms of waste and pollution that the earth can’t sustain.
I think you’re right, Amanda. Started flying on airplanes in 1985 and I can see the difference between now and then – that layer of “smog” you pass through at certain altitudes, noticeable just about everywhere.
Back when the space program was young, we saw those glorious pictures of the earth from space. There too, a demonstrable decline in air quality has taken place.
Last Friday I paid $4.999 for diesel fuel…dannngg…