Obama, if fatherhood begins at conception…
Just up on YouTube by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, this is absolutely fabulous…
[HT: Fran at Illinois Review]
Jun.27, 2008 9:43 am |
Inconsistencies, Obama |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
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.
When the pro-aborts say anything beyond “it should be the mother’s decision” they tend to put their foot in their mouth and look like fools.
Tony Perkins for President! Great message!
Yes he is your living human son at conception.
Obvi : /
Jess: Yes he is your living human son at conception.
Obvi : /
Hi Jess! With all the rights given to a living human being? (Obviously?)
Yes Janet, obvi.
“Family Reserach Council”
Heh.
Awesome commercial! Thank you Tony!
yawn. Pro life guy thinks life begins at conception. Breaking news.
Hal,
You’ve been on this blog long enough to know that science, not pro-lifers, has determined when life begins.
Even our resident abortionist, SoMG, has stated more than once that he’s takng a life with each abortion procedure. He’s called it justifiable homicide.
And you’re still questioning that???
Why?
Cause it makes you feel better?
I can’t see anything at the Family Research Center, you have to pay for everything. I think it’s a scam. If it’s so important, why don’t they just tell us this stuff for free?
Jess:10:41: I can’t see anything at the Family Research Center, you have to pay for everything. I think it’s a scam. If it’s so important, why don’t they just tell us this stuff for free?
You can’t see anything? We must not be looking at the same FRC website. What do you have to pay for?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Doug: 10:05: “Family Reserach Council” Heh.
Are you dubious of FRC’s motives because they appear to be family friendly?
(Sarcasm alert) They must be pro-life. Yikes!!! Run!!!
11-year-old Romanian girl raped by her teenage uncle allowed abortion
(CNN) — A Romanian government committee has decided to allow a pregnant 11-year-old who was raped by her teenage uncle to have an abortion, a government spokesman said Friday.
The girl is 21 weeks pregnant — too far along to have an abortion in Romania, where the limit is 14 weeks unless the pregnancy poses problems for the mother’s health, said the spokesman, who asked not to be named.
The girl’s parents had said they would take their daughter to Britain for an abortion if the committee did not allow her to have one in Romania. Abortions are legal in Britain up to 24 weeks.
It was unclear whether the parents would still take the girl to Britain following the committee’s decision, reached late Thursday.
Church groups have opposed an abortion for the girl, the government spokesman said. The Romanian Orthodox Church has urged the girl to keep the baby, and has said it will take care of the baby if the family wants to give it up for adoption, he said.
The uncle who raped the girl has since disappeared, the Romanian Health Ministry said. Media reports say the uncle is age 19.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/06/27/romania.abortion/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
Amanda: 10:57: Church groups have opposed an abortion for the girl, the government spokesman said. The Romanian Orthodox Church has urged the girl to keep the baby, and has said it will take care of the baby if the family wants to give it up for adoption, he said.
So, it’s good that there is someone to care for the baby after it is born. There are a few unanswered questions. Is it the parents or the girl who want the abortion???? Can they get help with birth expenses from the uncle who is the father?
Amanda, What do you think is the best course of action?
A nine year old was pressured to give birth after being raped and impregnanted in Nicuragua. Do you not realize what serious and devestating effects carrying a baby to term would have on the body of a nine year old? Don’t you care about HER!? Already walking and talking and obviously FEELING? We don’t have to wonder, “Oh is she a person can she feel pain?” we know she can!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/world/main545560.shtml
“Can they get help with birth expenses from the uncle who is the father?”
Janet, why don’t they just have her marry him!? Are you joking? He raped her, then ran away. He should be in jail, not raising this kid. He shouldn’t even be allowed to be a father, let alone help to raise this kid.
And for anyone who says it’s not the babies fault, yes it is! It’s the father and babies fault! The baby isn’t hurting her intentionally but it is hurting her! Why don’t you care about females after they’re born?
Janet –
she’s 11. she’s a rape AND incest victim. If she wants an abortion, there is absolutely NO valid reason not to grant her that right.
if she doesn’t want to have an abortion, her parents should not be able to force her to have one, but they should be legally required to put the baby up for adoption so he/she never has to find out how he/she entered the world, and the victim doesn’t end up being forced to grow up with her child living as her sibling.
Its too F-d up for me to even imagine.
And you’re still questioning that???
Why?
Cause it makes you feel better?
Posted by: carder at June 27, 2008 10:41 AM
Sorry Carder, I wasn’t clear. I was questioning why anyone would care what this guy thinks. Not exactly earth shattering.
“Can they get help with birth expenses from the uncle who is the father?”
Jess:11:12: Janet, why don’t they just have her marry him!? Are you joking? He raped her, then ran away. He should be in jail, not raising this kid. He shouldn’t even be allowed to be a father, let alone help to raise this kid.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. As far as him being the father, well he already is if he impregnated her….I don’t mean he should help her raise this child. I hope he may be able to provide money for hospital expenses if the girl wants to have her baby and give it up for adoption. The Church has said they will take the baby if she allows them to…..
“”Can they get help with birth expenses from the uncle who is the father?”
Whoa- missed that the first time around.
Janet… are you kidding???
he’s a NINETEEN YEAR OLD CHILD RAPIST
it also says right in the article that he is no where to be found. Yeah, I’m sure he’s just anxiously waiting to pitch in child support for his 11 year old niece.
You think he should be working and providing money, legally in contact with the family he probably destroyed???
If you actually think that is a reasonable solution, I’m honestly not sure you and I exist on the same plane of reality.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL08F04
https://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=CART&dmy=CAD6AA58-E00A-91F6-344104F193CF411C&CFID=147705&CFTOKEN=7adcbf3fc9332058-CAA7E5E2-0757-1875-2316F53D0329B4D7
I sort of expect him to take a gun out, “Order our products or the baby gets it!”
Hal: 10:36: yawn. Pro life guy thinks life begins at conception. Breaking news.
Tony Perkins is highly credentialed in addition to being a strong advocate for the family. There are many readers new to this blog who may be interested in hearing what he has to say. This man is a breath of fresh air, IMHO.
From The Family Research Council website:
Tony Perkins is President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years….
….A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and a former police officer and television news reporter, Tony brings a unique blend of experience and leadership to the pro-family movement. He received his undergraduate degree from Liberty University and a Master’s Degree from Louisiana State University in Public Administration. In May 2006 he received an honorary doctorate in theology from Liberty University. Tony and Lawana, married in 1986, have five children.
“The Church has said they will take the baby if she allows them to…..”
“Babies…mmmm….give us your babies…”
Yeah maybe if the Church wanted to carry it inside of their uterus and give birth to it…
“Oh it’s only nine months of pregnancy!”
Yeah but the negative effects on her young body will last her a lifetime.
“The baby isn’t hurting her intentionally but it is hurting her!”
So kill it, right?
How about setting up a fund to help this girl to come to the US of A and get her entitled abortion if you’re going to project your sympathy exclusively for her?
And correction: Your statement should read the “fetus’ is hurting her. Unless you’re willing to admit abortion kills a baby.
But I’ll leave that argument with Doug…
Doug @ 10:09 AM
Doug – speechless! hehe
Naw – actually Doug your comment was held in moderation because it had some “technical” problems. I ok’d it, but currently it’s not showing up. I’ll check a few more things, if my schedule permits.
“And correction: Your statement should read the “fetus’ is hurting her. Unless you’re willing to admit abortion kills a baby.”
Yes it will probably kill a baby, but she is just a baby herself and deserves a chance at a normal, healthy childhood.
“Hal: 10:36: yawn. Pro life guy thinks life begins at conception. Breaking news.”
——————————————
Here’s a nice excerpt from the Federation of Societies of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FESGO) …made last week:
“The members of the Federation note that the humanity of the embryo is not a matter of religion, but of medical science.
“Science teaches that human life begins at conception,” the declaration states.
“”Can they get help with birth expenses from the uncle who is the father?”
Amanda:11:22: Whoa- missed that the first time around.
Janet… are you kidding???
he’s a NINETEEN YEAR OLD CHILD RAPIST
it also says right in the article that he is no where to be found. Yeah, I’m sure he’s just anxiously waiting to pitch in child support for his 11 year old niece.
You think he should be working and providing money, legally in contact with the family he probably destroyed???
If you actually think that is a reasonable solution, I’m honestly not sure you and I exist on the same plane of reality.
I’m sorry, somehow I missed the last sentence of the story that said the uncle had disappeared!!!!
Rape is not a part of my morality. It’s hard to comprehend this situation. That said: He’s an uncle; I was thinking his family may be able to help out. If they don’t have money, then forget it….just wishful thinking on my part?
Reasonable solution? I would like to see her carry the baby to term no matter what the obstacles. Maybe you would expect her to abort?
Amanda, maybe we do exist on different planes of reality. Lol. I can see pretty clearly from where I sit that abortion is never the best solution. :)
“Rape is not a part of my morality.”
OOOPS! Correction: “Rape is not a part of my REALITY”
“Reasonable solution? I would like to see her carry the baby to term no matter what the obstacles. Maybe you would expect her to abort?
Amanda, maybe we do exist on different planes of reality. Lol. I can see pretty clearly from where I sit that abortion is never the best solution. :)”
So you’re just going to let this 9 year old be tortured just so one more person can live in this world?
Honestly, I don’t think every baby is a special gift from God. Not special enough to kill a nine year old for.
And remember, God killed a bunch of Egyptian kids just to make a point. He obviously didn’t care much about them.
“Rape is not a part of my REALITY”
You don’t think rape is a reality? You don’t think it’s real?
“So you’re just going to let this 9 year old be tortured just so one more person can live in this world?”
———————————
You call pregnancy “torture” ??
Janet, all I see on that website is a bunch of reactionary gay-hating GARBAGE.
Again, if the pro life movement wants to establish credibility in mainstream America- they’re going to need to separate themselves from these virulent gay haters.
Their pro life message is getting drowned out by a bunch of “OHNOEZZZ NOT TEH GAYS!!!!” and its pathetic, sad, and counterproductive to any kind of message that we should be welcoming of regardless of our personal opinions of whats best for people.
And here you see the inherent problem with embedding YouTube videos… “related videos” puts obscene content on your webpage.
“You call pregnancy “torture” ??”
For a small 9 year old body? Yes.
Before I started the pill I called PMS torture. I bloated so much I felt like my abdomen would explode. I would throw up from the pain of cramps, and my back always hurt so much I could barely sit up straight. That was when I was ten. I would hate to have been pregnant at nine.
correction:
“welcoming of *LIFE* regardless of our personal opinions of whats best for people.”
Family Research Councils motto should be: All life is precious… UNLESS ITS A HOMO!!
Because thats basically what everything on that ridiculous site is saying.
Amanda, I can’t believe you haven’t already been recruited to the gay lifestyle, working at PP and all.
I lived with a gay roommate for a few months, I’m lucky I didn’t catch it!
Doug: 10:05: “Family Reserach Council” Heh.
Are you dubious of FRC’s motives because they appear to be family friendly? (Sarcasm alert) They must be pro-life. Yikes!!! Run!!!
Janet, well, I did misspell it…
I’m not “dubious” of their motives, I just think it’s a silly, reactionary place, as Amanda noted.
Not “research” but just a fringe site. Not any huge deal, IMO, and thus I just give it a “heh.”
Amanda, I’m not saying I promote the hating of gays by promote the anti-abortion stance of FRC. Jill’s is a pro-life blog, not a pro-gay/anti-gay blog, although some people forget that. Can we please separate the two? I’d rather not get into that discussion.
“Rape is not a part of my REALITY”
Jess:11:47:You don’t think rape is a reality? You don’t think it’s real?
Before jumping to conclusions, re-read my next sentence, “It’s hard to comprehend this situation.” (in other words, I haven’t had to deal with this difficult situation before.)
Jess, Even PP asks for donations on their webistes. That is nothing new.
I feel like people are “screaming” at me. I need a break.. Ciao for now.
One last comment….
And here you see the inherent problem with embedding YouTube videos… “related videos” puts obscene content on your webpage.
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at June 27, 2008 11:53 AM
I noticed that too. Families/Obscenity – they go hand in hand, don’t you know? (sarcasm alert)
“Jill’s is a pro-life blog, not a pro-gay/anti-gay blog, although some people forget that. Can we please separate the two? I’d rather not get into that discussion.”
Jill posts anti-gay garbage on her site all the time. Just yesterday, HisMan said that gays are worse than abortionists and theives. So I’m not the one with a problem keeping the two separate.
In fact, its because pro life can’t seem to keep itself seperate from anti gay that I end up in the odd position I’m in. I would NEVER EVER vote for a candidate who supports the idea that my aunts, who’ve been together for 12 years, are just sexual deviants who don’t actually love each other. So no matter if I change my opinion on abortion – even if I decide I think it should be completley illegal, I’m still going to be voting for pro choice candidates because I have YET to encounter a pro life leader who isn’t spouting hateful homophobic garbage from the same mouth that preaches about the sanctity of ALL life.
You want to show me that all life has dignity and rights from conception to death? Try actually LIVING UP to that and TREATING all life with dignity and rights. Until then, its just a a lot of hypocritical nonsense.
put the baby up for adoption so he/she never has to find out how he/she entered the world, and the victim doesn’t end up being forced to grow up with her child living as her sibling.
Its too F-d up for me to even imagine.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 11:16 AM
Your prejudice against Children of Rape.
That’s too f-d up to imagine. Well only from A man Da. To do a Dogma Doug, absolute statment on ya, children of rape have been born since time began. Mothers have kept the child unless they thought like you Amanda. In which case Christians took them into their family when the pagan mother simply left them at the trash dump or gehenna.
The Christians took your refuse A man Da from rape and raised them in those tombs underground. In fact, scratched on those tombs are the names of the victims of rape and their birth and death day noted. Translated into English from Latin, many were named “found on trash dump”, or “found in sewer”. Sometimes just shortened to “I am S–T”.
OF course the one’s which the mother bashed in the head, or drown to death were also left in the gehenna. They were buried in the tombs and given the same names as the living babies they found abandoned by pagan mothers. Some pagan mothers just didn’t have the heart to murder the child of rape. Umlike you A man Da.
Were you aware of that history of Western Civilization A man DA? Of course not, since you just “can’t imagine” such things in life being soo f…d up. Many of the early Christians were born of rape, A man Da, and the mother who was raped, kept and loved the child till their death. In fact, it is also written down in those tombs such words of the child who survived the mother and lovingly wrote of mother who kept her.
So.
Question. Would you abort a child of rape?
Question. Would you give the child up since it reminds of a time of being unable to control your sexual life, A man Da?
Question. Are you just a neo-pagan A man Da at heart? Unable to imagine being able to keep a child of rape and if you had child whisper in that child’s ear, Look their goes I am S–T, she/he was born from rape and given away. Or, she kept the child of rape, whispers AmnDA, into her childs ear, can you imagine, it’s too f–. up.
Ps, Thinks that funny and clownish A man DA?
Uh Amanda.
Am I homophobic? We “license” marriage and can decide what and who can get a license to be married in this nation. Seems you can’t tolerate decisions which deny a license by true democracy,voting. Next thing you know, your going to spew some hate speech about being prejudice about same sex love.
You can’t say I’m against same sex love, A man Da, after all I’m a female and love my mother. What type of love are you writing about here?
ooooh. the loon has emerged from his nest.
*gets popcorn*
AmanDA.
I have it on good sources that Hisman loves his father who is the same sex as Hisman. How can a person be homophboic if he loves the same sex?
What type of love are you writing about between same sex people? I even heard that Hisman even loves his nephews also. And I bet if he has a male granchild he loves that male grandchild too. In fact, Hisman might even kiss and hug that same sex grandchild.
So AmanDa, ain’t your being rather silly accusing other people of being homophobic, when they just disagree on a matter of who gets a license to marry? Drop the loon writing Amanda, unless you can be more specific about this prejudice that people have abour same sex love.
YES JANET WE ARE YELLING AT YOU!
No, I’m kidding Janet I think you’re awesome. Plus yllas didn’t show up until after you left. Please come back I’m sorry I made you sad: (
yllas, why are you calling Amanda, “A man Da”? You said you love your mother, but are you having sex with her? Because we are talking about intimate, physical love here.
And where is ssej?
The story about that girl from Romania is heartbreaking. Abortion is going to traumatize her.
What happens if she’s injured like that 13 year old girl that became infertile here in the USA?
Because Liz, being raped by your uncle then getting pregnant was just peachy for her.
Why do you think abortion would traumatize her? Do you think if she has the baby she’ll take one look at it and fall deeply in love and forget the whole thing? Sorry, things don’t always happen like they do in the movies.
A man Da? Seriously? That’s the best comeback you can come up with?
That reminds me of my 2nd grade classmates referring to me as “Step on Me”.
As for the pregnant 9-year-old, it really depends on what she wants. However, I think a pregnancy could really screw up her body…she’s still a child and her body is not developed enough to handle a pregnancy. So yes, I do support her parents taking her out of country to get an abortion if she wants to.
As for the comments on the 9 year old’s physical capacity to bear a child…If she is physically developed enough to concieve a child, she is physically developed enough to birth a child. Now of course, there may be complications, especially those related to premature birth, but physically, this 9 year old is no different than a typical 13 year old in terms of reproductive capacity.
Now, that said, I obviously do not think that a 9 year old or a 13 year old should be having babies, and it is obvious that a crime has been commited if she is.
I don’t think that we should automatically assume that abortion is the best case scenerio for young victims of rape. An abortion can be a traumatic experience, even for adults and I think it is dangerous to downplay that reality. Especially if this girl is deeply religious or raised in a deeply religious community, she may carry around the guilt of the abortion well into her adult life.
I think that there needs to be support from everyone involved in the situation, but I do not think it is a situation in which an abortion should be automatic.
Oops looks like the girl was 11, not 9. Not that that matters, but I wanted to make it clear what I was talking about.
So if you’re victimized Jess, and someone on the street reminds you of the crime, you can kill them, because that’s just – right?
Look rape is wrong – it’s a horrible crime, however the pre-born is innocent of the crime. You’re justifying abortion on a pretense that doesn’t work anywhere else in our society. And the only reason why is you don’t consider the pre-born as a human being.
Additionally, it’s not unreasonable to believe that there is trauma after an abortion that came about via rape. Two wrongs don’t make a right Jess.
BTW – I’m testing something out here – that explains the wrench in my post tagline.
No the pregnant nine year old is from Nicaragua. The 11 year old is the Romanian.
Your really a dense kinda mind Jess.
You can’t say I’m against same sex love, Jess, after all I’m a female and love my mother. What type of love are you writing about here?
And so does Hisman touch and hug his father, who is the same sex. That’s physical love. What type of physical love are you wrting about Jess? But, since
Because we are talking about intimate, physical love here. Have you not hugged your mother and father Jess? Are you having sex with your mother and father?
And is touching and hugging a same sex person,such as a mother not physical love Jess?
Of course it is. To which I shall reply, what type of physical love are you writing about here, Jess?
Since a person loves the same sex and touches the same sex often growing up, the person is not afraid or in fear of the same sex.
In fact, it would be a rare bird that never hugged and kissed their mother as a girl,or father as a boy. So all this homophobic accusations are actually based in some other type of physical same sex love, which you might explain to us so we may not be in fear of touching and hugging a person of the same sex.
What are the “qualities” of this same sex love, which you write of Jess, which are not contained in Hisman hugging his son, or giving his son a goodnight kiss, and now being accused of by some silly little girl named A ManDa of being in fear of same sex love?
If you see your rapist walking down the street I’m sure courts would be lenient if you walked up to him and started smacking him.
*giggle*
Stephanie, my personal favorite is aMANda Huginkiss. My boyfriends last name rhymes with a bodily function – he has it much worse than you and I. =)
The funny thing is, yllas ACTUALLY wonders why I dont bother replying to these garbage posts when they are written out the way 3rd graders pick fights over who gets to use the swingset next.
ME ME ME !!! YOU POOPHEAD!!!
Yllas – be nice. That’s a personal attack. Jess has a different view, but you’re not going to convince her by calling her names.
yllas, do you not know what sex is? It involves a bit more then just “touching”. Do I hug my Mom and Dad? Yes, I love them sooo much and I love cuddling up with them and Sandy on the couch. Do any of them penetrate me with anything? No. And If they did that would be the very end of any kind of relationship with them.
Again, I don’t know what you think sex is or what you and your parents do, but I do differentiate between normal parent child affection and the love you feel for a sex partner.
“The funny thing is, yllas ACTUALLY wonders why I dont bother replying to these garbage posts when they are written out the way 3rd graders pick fights over who gets to use the swingset next.”
Well, she wants me to have sex with some guy on an island. So you have it a bit easier. (not that there’s anything wrong with that)
Jess said If you see your rapist walking down the street I’m sure courts would be lenient if you walked up to him and started smacking him.
Umm – wouldn’t you want him arrested? Also, the courts wouldn’t be lenient if you sliced him apart and vacumned him up.
(You know, I like my preview page better…)
Oo Hal can I join?
Lauren, I do not agree with you. I don’t understand how a 9 year old child have the same physical capability to birth a child than a 25-year old.
Their reproductive systems may be functioning, but there’s a lot more than just having a working uterus that contribute to birthing. I imagine that things like the pelvis is not quite developed enough for a smooth pregnancy and birth.
Thank you for standing up for me Chris : )
Absolutely Jess, but we’ll have to bring my wife too. (otherwise it wouldn’t be proper)
Chris, I accidently scalded some guy with hot chocolate when he made a sexy kinda remark to me.
I never got in trouble for that.
Chris, also, I do like the page you have now. Maybe you should add a “tags” column so we can find things more easily? I don’t know how hard that is but Jill has one. If she has one you should get one too : )
Amanda,
Lol. My last name is Yeh (American pronounced it as Yay) so I was called “Step on Me, Yay!”.
My boyfriend and your boyfriend may have something in common with unfortunate last names though. His last name is Crabbs. =/ You bet he got a lot of flak for that in high school and still now.
You’re welcome.
You avoided answer my questions – ah well. Right now I have to get back to some other work.
Jess – if you run off to the island with Hal and his wife, will you bring your hamsters?
A tag-cloud is a good idea. Along with dynamic comment-watching from the back-end, so I can see ya’ll typing your comments in and be writing a reply in real time…. hehe
(that’s a nice laugh and not a Bwahhahha mean laugh….)
I got to get back to work – play nice okay?
Ok Steph, your BF wins. That is rather unfortunate. However, its worth noting that one of the most horribly unfortunate names I’ve ever seen – is also one of the most respected and highly awarded professionals to work in the field of developmental education.
Richard Woodcock Johnson.
Yes thats right.
Dick.
Woodcock.
Johnson.
no joke.
but office jokes abound when we have to order the “Woodock Johnsons test”.
yllas: after all I’m a female and love my mother.
Now doggone it, yllas, despite your “uspsgirl” clothes, MK assured me you were a guy.
I knew that Zeke was a guy even when people thought he was a girl.
So, what have you done with MK? Are you forcing her to recant her story?
Your statement should read the “fetus’ is hurting her. Unless you’re willing to admit abortion kills a baby.
But I’ll leave that argument with Doug…
Carder, uh….
There is no “admitting” as to “baby” or “not baby,” since it’s a subjective thing. Not really an argument in the first place.
have a good weekend.
Doug – speechless! hehe
Heh – yeah, Chris, that’s me.
…..
Naw – actually Doug your comment was held in moderation because it had some “technical” problems. I ok’d it, but currently it’s not showing up. I’ll check a few more things, if my schedule permits.
No biggie – it was a picture from imageshack.com. Didn’t used to have problems but something has changed. I may need to use a slightly different format for all the HTML stuff to get it to work correctly.
There’s the code for the picture but now Imageshack adds on a link to their site, and I was thinking that Jill’s site counted it as two links, thus getting held up.
Jess: And where is ssej?
Just let the voices inside that one’s head bounce around a while longer. There’s one in there….
Well Chris.
You said you love your mother, but are you having sex with her? Because we are talking about intimate, physical love here.
And where is ssej?
Posted by: Jess at June 27, 2008 1:01 PM
Let that insult to me, by Jess, slide right by ya, huh Chris?
I have YET to encounter a pro life leader who isn’t spouting hateful “HOMOPHOBIC garbage from the same mouth that preaches about the sanctity of ALL life
I would NEVER EVER vote for a candidate who supports the idea that my aunts, who’ve been together for 12 years, are just sexual deviants who don’t actually love each other
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 12:29 PM
To which I posted about same sex love and homophobia being impossible in Hisman,me, or even You Chris. This writing about homophobia and Christians is just plain silly and I called Amanda out on that silly canard by giving simple examples of same sex love in me and Hisman. Of course Jess insulted me first Chris if you followed the thread. I asked what type of love is she talking about and her reply was just plain old dense, and not a answer to my question of what type of same sex love she is writing about.
Tell you what Chris, your going to lose more Christians posting here at this site, by allowing the propaganda of pro abortionist, homosexual bigots, anti-Catholic bigots and outright insults that pro lifers endure at this site, by the same few propagadist for abortion.
You’ve even got your own abortion doktor giving out prescription drug information for abortion, and allow those post. You better hope some pro lifer’s child or young adult ain’t reading that abortion doktors ill informing and deceptive information on abortion drugs Chris, then gets that abortion drug mentioned by your site’s own abortion doktor, and dies from trying to abort a baby in the womb.
You better hope no person(a young Christian child) is reading these post at Jill’s and comes across the pro child sex post of Hal and others at this site Chris.
So, Keep up the good work Chris, and you keep the playing field level for the abortion propagandist and same sex lovers at this site who are asked a simple question, and get no reply to a simple question asked about the qualities of same sex love.
Yes it will probably kill a baby, but she is just a baby herself and deserves a chance at a normal, healthy childhood.
Posted by: Jess at June 27, 2008 11:36 AM
I don’t think having an abortion is going to give her that.
yllas – point out the problem and I’ll take care of it – sorry, I just noticed your comment but not jess’s.
Was it the comment at Jess @ 1:01 PM?
Kristen, it could help.
And yllas, most pro-lifers on here are very nice and can carry on an intelligent conversation.
“Yes it will probably kill a baby, but she is just a baby herself and deserves a chance at a normal, healthy childhood.
Posted by: Jess at June 27, 2008 11:36 AM
I don’t think having an abortion is going to give her that.”
I agree with you Kristen, I think that chance was eliminated the moment she was raped. But what I think would cause further trauma to her more than anything else is removing the option for her to choose. No one should be trying to convince her one way or the other. Some might say she’s too young to make that decision – well – she was too young to be pregnant in the first place – and I think being forced in to ANOTHER thing against her will (either being forced to abort OR forced to give birth) would just make it worse. Even if she ends up regretting the decision later, at least it was HER decision. I think its a lot easier for us to examine our own decisions and reflect and learn from them than to deal with the results of decisions made FOR us.
Doug – I unpublished your comment about various names.
Everyone: I’m trying to be fair to all.
If you have valid comment points make them.
yllas – I’m not siding with Jess. The thread is going over the top due to Amanda’s Romanian post @ 10:57 AM.
You can all bring it back in line – it’s up to you.
Chris, she didn’t know what we meant by same sex love. I told her it was the type of love you have for a person you would have sex with.
I’m not calling anyone names.
And you’re doing a great job moderating Chris!
Jess – agape (boundless, perfect love), storge (parental love), phileo (brotherly love) or eros (sexual love) which one are you talking about?
Second.
Oops, meant I second Jess’s applauding of your moderation, Chris.
Chris, I guess Amanda said yllas was against same-sex love, yllas responded by saying she loved her mother, who is the same sex as her. I said that Amanda meant she was against (eros) sexual love between two people of the same sex, and that the love she felt for her Mom was different.
Chris –
the post wasn’t meant to be off topic.
The fact is, we can all acknowledge life begins at conception, but fatherhood? not for all. and the ability to parent? not for all. even the ability to safely give birth? not for all.
so as long as their are perverts out their raping children and impregnating them, and girls getting pregnant who would rather overdose on heroin and throw themselves down stairs than have a child, the message that life begins at conception isn’t going to have any kind of profound effect on the abortion debate.
I’d urge you as a sensible human being not to indulge in Yllas’s baiting. Nothing got out of hand until he/she showed up…and that is a recurring theme here.
Tell you what Chris, your going to lose more Christians posting here at this site, by allowing the propaganda of pro abortionist, homosexual bigots, anti-Catholic bigots and outright insults that pro lifers endure at this site
yllas, it’s ludicrous for you to even mention “insults.”
Jill has said she wants “a spirited debate.” You may just want preaching-to-the-choir stuff and your own brand of propaganda, but most of the rest of us like the honest opinions, feelings, and discourse that takes place here.
I actually didn’t say anyone specific was against anything – I said that the FRC has emphasized its anti gay agenda more than its pro life agenda… and yllas chose to make it personal. I mentioned no names.
Amanda – you’re supporting my argument that man is evil at heart and that the Spirit of Christ is the only answer to truly address that. ;-)
I know there was semantic confusion re: love. I’ve seen yllas argue quite effectively when she wants to. I think it would be great if we could approach this topic with at least a perspective that there’s someone on the other side of the Internet who’s more like us than not, and that’s the basis for respect.
The best blog discussions I’ve seen are when people are mature enough in their responses that you could say – yeah, I could have you over my house, sit out back on the deck and have a great spirited debate and at the end of the night – we still value each other as friends. The only way that happens is if we really treasure what’s essential to each one of us, recognize that for what it is, and keep that respect throughout our debate.
If we’re really wise, we’ll be closer to the person at the end of the debate than we were at the beginning.
Hey – I’m writing a sermon here and I didn’t set out to do that. Be nice.
And oh – one more thing: I have the keys to the blog. ;-)
I just got here, but remember that this is a very sensitive topic and people on both sides are quite emotionally involved in this (and rightfully so). Let’s try and discuss this with respect and love (phileo) for each other.
Blanket of love. We’re all under the blanket of love.
Oh beautifully said, Chris.
Great video: of course the irrational thinking of proaborts is always easy to expose!
Amanada:The fact is, we can all acknowledge life begins at conception, but fatherhood? not for all. and the ability to parent? not for all. even the ability to safely give birth? not for all.
This statement is irrational. I hope you know this? If life begins at conception this means that the new life, known as a baby, has a FATHER and a MOTHER – that is a man and a woman who made the baby and who are it’s PARENTS. Fatherhood begins at conception as does motherhood. Even when the baby is aborted, the only difference is that the father is the father of a dead baby. If the baby is born, the father is the father of a living baby.
Why do you want to make things so complicated?
Blanket of love. We’re all under the blanket of love.
Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 27, 2008 3:05 PM
are you sending “vibes” over cyberspace? You belong in the 70’s generation!!!lol
I agree with Chris that the discussion on this thread has really gotten way off topic.
If life begins at conception this means that the new life, known as a baby, has a FATHER and a MOTHER – that is a man and a woman who made the baby and who are it’s PARENTS.
Patricia, maybe somebody would say it’s a “baby” at conception, and of course maybe not.
Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.
Tony Perkins is highly credentialed in addition to being a strong advocate for the family. There are many readers new to this blog who may be interested in hearing what he has to say. This man is a breath of fresh air, IMHO.
From The Family Research Council website:
Tony Perkins is President of the Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council. He is a former member of the Louisiana legislature where he served for eight years….
….A veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, and a former police officer and television news reporter, Tony brings a unique blend of experience and leadership to the pro-family movement. He received his undergraduate degree from Liberty University and a Master’s Degree from Louisiana State University in Public Administration. In May 2006 he received an honorary doctorate in theology from Liberty University…..
Posted by: Janet at June 27, 2008 11:28 AM
Liberty University? It’s a 4th tier Baptist College co-opted by Falwell which prohibits free speech.
creating a child vs parenting/fathering that child are two VERY different things.
All fertile men can impregnate a woman, not all men can be a FATHER.
Credit to Jill for promoting a spirited debate, and to Chris and the other mods for the work they do. None of us should be afraid of encountering and discussing a variety of viewpoints.
Here’s the point Chris.
I don’t care what insults are thrown at me, and simple questions are ignored repeatedly and passed off by the propaganist for abortion. I don’t ask for a intervention by you when the same propagandist repeat the same propaganda for abortion into infinity.
Take Jess and her reply about me not knowing about sex. What type of people do you allow to post here that can’t answer a simple question that is asked about “same sex love” and come back with a answer about me having sex with a parent?
This is the quality of propagandist for same sex love, who whip out the homophobic rant, and are being called on the fact, that no one is a homophobe from being in love with the same sex person since birth. Their parents. Amanda went off on a rant about Hisman and Christians to which I asked a few simple questions and get ignorance and insults in return.
Phylo
interesting tidbit about Liberty and the Bush administration.
Liberty has the worst ranked law school in the entire country, the lowest amount of graduates who go on to pass the bar exam – and yet the Bush admin hired more Liberty law grads than Harvard Law grads.
Patricia, maybe somebody would say it’s a “baby” at conception, and of course maybe not.
Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.
Posted by: Doug at June 27, 2008 3:14 PM
Well Doug, it use to be that it was already implied and accepted that when a woman became pregnant, she was carrying a BABY and the parents were PARENTS. The implied meaning was that they were the parents of the baby in-utero.
The idea that maybe it’s a baby at conception and maybe it’s not – is relatively new proabort lingo and thinking in modern science. In fact, scientifically conception is the beginning of a baby. Whether or not people deny this, it is still a baby.
Ultimately, you are splitting hairs to support your choice for abortion. A person truly searching for the truth would maybe be a little more intellectually honest.
* lowest of fully accredited law schools
Liberty is currently only “provisionally accredited”, and among those, the bar passage was above average, but is still in the 4th (lowest) tier of US law schools.
Haha, still not a law school you’d brag about.
I need to stop typing so fast – I start writing something, then do something at work, then hit post without re-reading…
creating a child vs parenting/fathering that child are two VERY different things.
All fertile men can impregnate a woman, not all men can be a FATHER.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 3:17 PM
NO. all men who create a baby ARE FATHERS. Whether they are able to PARENT a child may well be another matter. However, I like to believe that most men have within themselves the capability to be a good father to their child.
I went on a rant about Christians?
Really?
Care to link me to that?
That would be especially fascinating for me, as I consider myself a Christian, if I went on a rant about myself without even realizing it!
“Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.”
Also Doug, we say things like “the sun will rise tomorrow at 6 am” but no one accuses him of being a geocentrist. It’s just a way of speaking that we’ve adapted in our culture. Although I have no problem with what you wrote, I agree with Patricia (what a shock, ehh?)that if we wanted to get technical, it wouldn’t be correct.
“However, I like to believe that most men have within themselves the capability to be a good father to their child.”
Like the 19 year old who raped his 11 year old neice? Sorry – I just can’t associate him with being a “father”. He forced sperm in to an unwilling child. I think thats about it.
Jill posts anti-gay garbage on her site all the time. Just yesterday, HisMan said that gays are worse than abortionists and theives. So I’m not the one with a problem keeping the two separate.
In fact, its because pro life can’t seem to keep itself seperate from anti gay that I end up in the odd position I’m in. I would NEVER EVER vote for a candidate who supports the idea that my aunts, who’ve been together for 12 years, are just sexual deviants who don’t actually love each other. So no matter if I change my opinion on abortion – even if I decide I think it should be completley illegal, I’m still going to be voting for pro choice candidates because I have YET to encounter a pro life leader who isn’t spouting hateful homophobic garbage from the same mouth that preaches about the sanctity of ALL life.
You want to show me that all life has dignity and rights from conception to death? Try actually LIVING UP to that and TREATING all life with dignity and rights. Until then, its just a a lot of hypocritical nonsense.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 12:29 PM
There is your rant AmanDA.
Insulting Jill, whose is a Christian, and Hisman, who is a Christian. I want you to notice the absolute statement you made about Jill’s site A man DA. Your very first sentence contains the word ALL. Is your statement one hundred precent true A man Da? Or does it contain some false truth, in that first declarative statement of your rant?
Since one must conclude you do not write false statments unless it is for propaganda purposes, why are you here Amanda? To declare to the board more absolute truths about Jill being anti gay garbage ALL the time? How ranting of you Amanda. And the best part? you think it wasn’t a absolute truth you just wrote insulting the person who allows you to post here. What cajones A man Da.
While he may not have a degree from the best university in the US, this does not disqualify Tony Perkins from speaking about fatherhood. He is after all the father of 5 children.
I didn’t know one needed a doctorate to have an authoritative opinion on fatherhood.
I’m starting to wonder if you actually believe anything you say is coherant or worth being taken seriously, Yllas…
Hope you have a good day.
Patricia –
“While he may not have a degree from the best university in the US, this does not disqualify Tony Perkins from speaking about fatherhood. He is after all the father of 5 children.
I didn’t know one needed a doctorate to have an authoritative opinion on fatherhood.”
I didn’t post that as anything against this guy personally – just that Phylo mentioned Liberty, and I think their relationship with the Bush admin is very interesting…just reminded me of it is all. I certainly don’t think you need a degree to know about fatherhood, but I think its a little silly to imagine all men have the same perception or ability to parent as he does. All I’m trying to say is, his message isn’t going to mean anything to a rapist or a jerk who doesn’t CARE if life begins at conception or not, so its preaching to the choir. Thats all.
“However, I like to believe that most men have within themselves the capability to be a good father to their child.”
Like the 19 year old who raped his 11 year old neice? Sorry – I just can’t associate him with being a “father”. He forced sperm in to an unwilling child. I think thats about it.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 3:47 PM
Well obviously, this young man has some serious problems. However, how does aborting this baby solve the girl’s problems, the man’s problem. The only thing that we know for sure here now is that there will be a dead baby. This is not a solution to this terrible situation. We can do better than this.
Again, Amanada like the arguments for abortion, you post a “hard case” but most men are not hard cases. They do have it within them to be good fathers, if given a chance and if they can have a role model.
Amanda.
I post your rant. You post a insult. Since you didn’t deny the truth of my post, one must conclude you are ignoring the truth contained in my post and doing what you have done throughout this post thread . Hide and deny anything which alters your perception of yourself and the ability to insult Jill Stanek and Hisman by a silly rant.
Patricia: Well Doug, it use to be that it was already implied and accepted that when a woman became pregnant, she was carrying a BABY and the parents were PARENTS.
I’d say no – you were a parent after the birth. Looking at the derivation of the word:
“from O.Fr. parent, from L. parentem (nom. parens) “father or mother, ancestor,” noun use of prp. of parere “bring forth, give birth to, produce,” from PIE base *per- “to bring forth”
I do agree that some people would have said “there’s a baby in there,” prior to birth, but mostly after a point in pregnancy, i.e. when the woman was visibly pregnant. And you know – the dude is handing out cigars and having a few drinks, saying “I just became a father..”
…..
The implied meaning was that they were the parents of the baby in-utero.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. Again, yes, some people felt that way and some didn’t.
…..
The idea that maybe it’s a baby at conception and maybe it’s not – is relatively new proabort lingo and thinking in modern science.
No, if anything it’s science itself that points up the difference between a born baby and what is in the beginning a single cell, then two cells, then four, etc.
Patricia: In fact, scientifically conception is the beginning of a baby. Whether or not people deny this, it is still a baby.
Definitely wrong there. Scientifically it’s a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. “Baby” or not is subjective, and science does not rule on such things.
…..
Ultimately, you are splitting hairs to support your choice for abortion.
No, I’m being factual while you are pretending.
…..
A person truly searching for the truth would maybe be a little more intellectually honest
:: laughing ::
Oh, the irony.
Patricia: In fact, scientifically conception is the beginning of a baby. Whether or not people deny this, it is still a baby.
Definitely wrong there. Scientifically it’s a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. “Baby” or not is subjective, and science does not rule on such things.
Again Doug you are splitting hairs and using semantics to change the nature of what is. At conception a new human life or baby begins – it may have other scientific terms but it is a developing baby. The only reason you cannot accept this fact is that it allows YOU to PRETEND so as to be able to support the right to destroy that baby through abortion. If you can change the fact that it is a baby then maybe abortion will be a little more palatable. But killing an unborn baby will always be just that – murder. (Sorry to have to break that to you)
I didn’t post that as anything against this guy personally – just that Phylo mentioned Liberty, and I think their relationship with the Bush admin is very interesting…just reminded me of it is all. I certainly don’t think you need a degree to know about fatherhood, but I think its a little silly to imagine all men have the same perception or ability to parent as he does. All I’m trying to say is, his message isn’t going to mean anything to a rapist or a jerk who doesn’t CARE if life begins at conception or not, so its preaching to the choir. Thats all.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 3:56 PM
Why is this even important? Tony Perkins message was not directed at rapists. It was directed at Obama, calling him in on his use of fatherhood when it suits him politically.
“Again, Amanada like the arguments for abortion, you post a “hard case” but most men are not hard cases. They do have it within them to be good fathers, if given a chance and if they can have a role model.”
Oh I know thats a hard case, but the point is, telling someone life begins at conception isn’t going to make a bit of difference if they don’t believe that matters. Regailing fatherhood isn’t going to make a bit of difference to someone who has no desire to be one. So the whole idea that this video will persuade ANYONE to change their position about abortion is a little outlandish.
(Bobby, on that picture of me you asked for – I’m too scroungy looking right now. I had to shave to get in a refinery last week, and now I’ve got about 1/6 of a beard where the salt is winning out over the pepper. Damn gray whiskers. Wish I didn’t even have to shave at all.)
“Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.”
Bobby: Also Doug, we say things like “the sun will rise tomorrow at 6 am” but no one accuses him of being a geocentrist. It’s just a way of speaking that we’ve adapted in our culture.
Yes, oh Wise-Well-Beyond-Your-Years Bobby. No doubt, and why do we drive on parkways and park on driveways?
What we are talking about here is “how we speak,” and very often it’s said that one became a mother or father or parent at the birth of a baby, not before. The origin of the word “parent” really does go to the “at birth” deal.
“Today I became a grandmother,” for example. It’s at birth, not at conception, certainly for the most part.
…..
Although I have no problem with what you wrote, I agree with Patricia (what a shock, ehh?) that if we wanted to get technical, it wouldn’t be correct.
There are two different things, however. If you want “technical” or “medical” or “scientific” then we have embryo and fetus and we don’t have “baby.”
There is “biological parent,” and “conceptus,” and blah blah blah, technically.
Then we come to the second part, the “how we speak” part, and one could say “I was a biological father at conception, but today I became a father,” without contradiction because of the difference between being scientifically correct and common usage.
Moe could say, “she’s got a baby in there,” and Joe could say, “She’s going to have a baby,” and both can be correct within common usage.
I don’t have a problem with “unborn baby” – it’s well understood and IMO not worth spending much time arguing about – I’d only note that it’s not a meaningful argument to state “it’s a baby” in the context of the abortion debate any more than it is to state “it’s not a baby.”
A manDa.
When a person doesn’t answer simple questions, one must conclude you lack the intelligence to reply from knowing the argument or statement has some truth you shall not debate.
You may deny that your post was a rant, to which the debate turns to the definition of rant. You may agree that your post is a rant, but that would require some honesty being asked of a propagandist.
Now, Amanda, you have mentioned this third grade insult to me several times already. Do you understand that a child answers a question or statement with “whatever you need to make you feel better” is exactly what a child does to a parent or person who ask or answers a question or statement of a child in the third grade? The shorter version is just, Whatever.
You know that Amanda, and yet you have plastered this board with such replies to questions directed to you about your rant on Jill Stanek and Hisman. Also questions about adoption and abortion concerning your ethics on such matters directed to you AmanDA.
To be truthful Amanda, if you were compelled to answer the questions concerning your statements in a courtroom, what do you think a jury would conclude about your answering questions, with not answering the questions concerning your rant and statements you wrote? Liar? Something to hide?
Unable to answer from knowing the answer is going prove the charge of “rant” against you as being true, but not able to admit the truth against you from sheer pride and arrogance of child in the third grade?
Like the 19 year old who raped his 11 year old niece? Sorry – I just can’t associate him with being a “father”. He forced sperm in to an unwilling child. I think thats about it.
Wow, Amanda, you have a very effective way of saying things. That gave me such a “Yuck” feeling. What horror there is in the world.
And for all you Pro-Lifers, I do understand that you see abortion as a great horror too.
While he may not have a degree from the best university in the US, this does not disqualify Tony Perkins from speaking about fatherhood. He is after all the father of 5 children. I didn’t know one needed a doctorate to have an authoritative opinion on fatherhood.
Patricia, right on and no doubt! Not saying he’s anybody to be telling a pregnant woman what to do, but as far as speaking about fatherhood I figure the 5 kids is some pretty darn good qualification.
So the whole idea that this video will persuade ANYONE to change their position about abortion is a little outlandish.
Posted by: Amanda at June 27, 2008 4:28 PM
You never know Amanada what the right words will be. Maybe it will get people to see how inconsistent Obama’s thinking on life issues really is. And that he’s really not the big supported of fatherhood that he makes himself out to be, especially since he supports a woman’s right to unilaterally kill her baby. (with or without the father’s consent)
yawn. Pro life guy thinks life begins at conception. Breaking news.
Posted by: hal at June 27, 2008 10:36 AM
Apparently, this IS news to you HAL.
@ Doug :-D
Patricia: In fact, scientifically conception is the beginning of a baby. Whether or not people deny this, it is still a baby.
“Definitely wrong there. Scientifically it’s a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc. “Baby” or not is subjective, and science does not rule on such things.”
Again Doug you are splitting hairs
No I’m not. I am being correct and seeing the difference between subjective terminology and scientific/medical definitions.
….
and using semantics to change the nature of what is.
Nay, Senora, “what it is” is defined scientifically. Semantics studies usage and changes in meaning, and that is the subjective realm where “baby” and “not a baby” reside.
….
At conception a new human life or baby begins – it may have other scientific terms but it is a developing baby.
You can say that, and you’re only as correct as somebody else saying “it’s not a baby.”
…..
The only reason you cannot accept this fact
You are confusing “fact” with subjective preference and usage. They are two different things.
…..
is that it allows YOU to PRETEND so as to be able to support the right to destroy that baby through abortion. If you can change the fact that it is a baby then maybe abortion will be a little more palatable.
Wrong. Now you are talking about valuation, and that is a separate thing from definitions and semantics.
…..
But killing an unborn baby will always be just that – murder. (Sorry to have to break that to you)
You’ve stepped down from pretending that the subjective is objective to being flat-out incorrect about “murder.”
Amanda: I need to stop typing so fast – I start writing something, then do something at work, then hit post without re-reading…
Hee hee hee I gave up on work long ago today….
A manDa.
yllas, you’re getting close to China.
Amanda: the point is, telling someone life begins at conception isn’t going to make a bit of difference if they don’t believe that matters.
Right – there is so much (IMO) time wasted on this approach where people act like others don’t believe the unborn are “human” genetically, etc., or where statements that don’t address what the abortion debate is about are put forth as if they did.
I certainly agree that life is there at conception, and that the zygote is different from the sperm and egg, and that it is a human being in a very real sense.
The abortion debate remains.
Doug: I see no point in continuing this discussion. I wonder what you think it is that has been conceived? Blastocyst, zygote, embryo are merely stages that we all go through, just as are toddler, adolescent, etc. They are developmental stages – even pregnant women have stages (primapara etc). Blastocyst is merely the scientific term for the early developing human baby.
It amazes me that proaborts can be so rigidly scientific about the definition of conception but lose this ability when the discussion truns to other aspects of the abortion debate.
If denial makes you feel better at this stage in your life (middle age) so be it. But it’s your loss (on many levels).
I say a baby exists from the moment of conception. As for you, I have no idea what you think has been conceived.
If denial makes you feel better at this stage in your life (middle age) so be it. But it’s your loss (on many levels).
Hey, Patricia, 50 is “the new 30,” ain’t it? ; )
I think the denial here is on your part. You’re acting like there is no difference between medical and scientific definitions, and subjective terms where the usage is up to the individual. They are not the same.
….
I say a baby exists from the moment of conception. As for you, I have no idea what you think has been conceived.
You can call it anything. That is not the argument.
…..
Blastocyst, zygote, embryo are merely stages that we all go through, just as are toddler, adolescent, etc. They are developmental stages – even pregnant women have stages (primapara etc).
There, “toddler” is a bit undefined, since it will fall within a subjecive range of ages. Personally I see it going infant to toddler to child. Same for “adolescent.” It’s roughly between puberty and full maturity (or is it even that well defined?). Still, quite a range.
…..
Blastocyst is merely the scientific term for the early developing human baby.
Again, it’s no more correct to say “baby” there than not.
…..
It amazes me that proaborts can be so rigidly scientific about the definition of conception but lose this ability when the discussion truns to other aspects of the abortion debate.
Well, youse is da one what done los’ dat ‘bility.
There are rigid scientific definitions, and then there are subjective terms. You are mixing them up.
There are rigid scientific definitions, and then there are subjective terms. You are mixing them up.
Posted by: Doug at June 27, 2008 5:32 PM
Nope.
Amanda”3:30: * lowest of fully accredited law schools
Liberty is currently only “provisionally accredited”, and among those, the bar passage was above average, but is still in the 4th (lowest) tier of US law schools.
Haha, still not a law school you’d brag about.
Maybe no one cares about this at this point…..I have no ties to Liberty, but for the record:
The law school, which opened in 2003, gained provisional accreditation from the American Bar Association in 2006, which enables its graduates to sit for any bar examination in the United States.[13] Provisional Accreditation is the highest level of accreditation available at present; full accreditation cannot be granted until a school has been in operation for five years. Although, students graduating from a provisionally accredited law school enjoy the full rights guaranteed to fully accredited schools. [14]
In 2007, U.S. News & World Report ranked Liberty University in the second tier of Southern Master’s Universities for school year 2008, and denotes as becoming increasingly more selective.
In 2005, Barron’s Profiles of American Colleges ranked LU as a “competitive” college.[16]
In 2007 Liberty University School of Law, provisionally approved by the American Bar Association[17], announced an 89% Bar passage rate from its first graduating class of Law Students. The bar passage rate far exceeded the State Average of 71.97%.[18]
WHat you are saying Doug is that personhood is dependent upon a scientific term. These are human constructs however. A baby is a human being and person from the moment of conception through to death. It does not matter what they are called – blastocyst, zygote or “bun in the oven” – the entity that is a new being is still the same. The terms are human constructs which do not change the “nature” of the developing human in utero.
Your argument is pointless.
“Janet, all I see on that website is a bunch of reactionary gay-hating GARBAGE.
Again, if the pro life movement wants to establish credibility in mainstream America- they’re going to need to separate themselves from these virulent gay haters. ”
Amanda,
where exactly is the gay-hating on the FRC website? Why do you throw around these lies?
Touche to Tony!
I asked my Dad when he became a father and he rolled his eyes at me and said, “You’re sisters birth” (she’s older then me). And he’s pretty darn pro-life.
I like Father Frank Provone
Doug:3:14: Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.
That’s only because men are a little slow…. and don’t believe there’s a baby it until they actually see it. They pass out chocolate cigars to all their friends. It becomes more real. They bring baby home and the first night they are woken up to a baby’s cries at 2:00 AM. NOW they are a father! :)
Great posts yllas. According to the homos anybody who isn’t comfortable with “sexual relations” with same sex partners is defined as a homophobe. Guess what Amanda, sexual relations between same sex partners is unnatural, extremely dangerous, and the thought of it makes very uncomfortable. Am I a homophobe?
truthseeker, I’d say you were a homophobe. Well that’s because I think you’re scared of them. I mean, why not leave them to their “unnatural, extremely dangerous” sexual preference and just ignore them? They are having sex with each other, two consenting adults. I like to “play rough”, if you get my drift. That’s probably dangerous and unnatural, why don’t you try and ban that too?
Janet,stop belittling fathers by calling them slow. I don’t think Dad’s get the credit they deserve these day, lets give all the good Dads a round of applause! HIP HIP HORRAY!
That wasn’t technically applause as much it was a cheer, oh well.
Karen K, I’ve been calling that, “blob of tissue” a baby for awhile now. That changed nothing.
DRats! Tripple post!
I’m sorry, I got the comment error page then I tried to stop the page from loading then I reloaded the page.
Please don’t delete my comment because I talk about my sex life, I just want everyone to really open up and not be afraid to say what they are really thinking or feeling.
According to the homos anybody who isn’t comfortable with “sexual relations” with same sex partners is defined as a homophobe. Guess what Amanda, sexual relations between same sex partners is unnatural, extremely dangerous, and the thought of it makes very uncomfortable. Am I a homophobe?
Well, I don’t think your definition is technically correct. I’m not comfortable with sexual relations with same sex partners meaning that I would never have them. That doesn’t make me a homophobe, that just makes me a heterosexual. Just as with a homosexual, it would make them uncomfortable to attempt to have heterosexual sex. In fact, I’ve talked to quite a few gay people about it, and they get all grossed out even thinking about it, as I’m sure you do when you picture homosexual sex in your head. But I wouldn’t call homosexuals “heterophobes.”
I would only classify you as a homophobe if you allowed someone’s sexual orientation to dictate whether or not you had a relationship with them. And by relationship I mean, be friends with them, or if they were your family, still show them the same kind of love family members show each other. If their sexual orientation makes you THAT uncomfortable even when they don’t bring it up or talk about it, then I would call you a homophobe. I would call you a homophobe if you found out one of your friends was gay, and then you acted differently around them or stopped being friends with them.
But to be fair, I think bringing up anti-gay sentiments in the midst of the pro-life message is wrong and contradicts what being pro-life is all about. I see where Amanda is coming from, and it bothers me as well. I frankly don’t get the whole abortion-homosexuality connection, and I think it’s just a tactic used to demonize homosexuals. I also think Amanda is particularly sensitive/defensive when it comes to this issue because of her friend being the victim of a vicious hate crime. While you may not agree with her, you can truly sympathize with her outrage over people who spout hatred about gay people, as she has seen first-hand what that hatred can do.
Well put G’sMom
drat, i’ve been doubleposted upon
That’s only because men are a little slow…. and don’t believe there’s a baby it until they actually see it.
I guess I’m a little slow too then.
I always thought I was having a baby, but when I saw her for the first time I was like “Awww, it’s a baby!”
truthseeker, I’d say you were a homophobe. Well that’s because I think you’re scared of them. I mean, why not leave them to their “unnatural, extremely dangerous” sexual preference and just ignore them? They are having sex with each other, two consenting adults. I like to “play rough”, if you get my drift. That’s probably dangerous and unnatural, why don’t you try and ban that too?
Posted by: Jess at June 27, 2008 11:58 PM
Jess, Afriad not. And if you leave someone alone and ignore them while they make bad choices then your not much of a friend.
During the Hillary/Obama debates, both said they believed the “pontential” for life begins at conception. But fatherhood beings at comception? Looks like anything but the baby is relevant to Obama.
Elizabeth:12:55 AM: “That’s only because men are a little slow…. and don’t believe there’s a baby it until they actually see it.”
I guess I’m a little slow too then. I always thought I was having a baby, but when I saw her for the first time I was like “Awww, it’s a baby!”
Lol!
Jess: Janet,stop belittling fathers by calling them slow. I don’t think Dad’s get the credit they deserve these day, lets give all the good Dads a round of applause! HIP HIP HORRAY! That wasn’t technically applause as much it was a cheer, oh well.
I said that tongue-in-cheek, a bad attempt at humor on my part. You are so right – Fathers DO deserve a round of applause for all they do! Happy Belated Father’s Day to all the Dad’s out there!
Excellent comments Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Mom)!
OH, I like Karen K’s post! Very nice!
Well Elizabeth,
The reason gays,abortion, and contraception are related is the fact that the reproducitve organs purpose is focused on the byproduct of the reproductive organs; pleasure.
It is why this board exist, since abortion is based upon the unwanted purpose of the reproductive organs natural purpose. The word reproductive organs is not used at this board, and is euphemised to the word sex.
Many at this board, in fact I shall say 90% deny the existence and understanding of vice. Although local government and the national goverment has organizations dedicated to the control of vice, such as the DEA, and the local government has a “vice unit” which also arrest those plying and trading in the vice based trade of prostitution, and drugs.
Somg is nothing more then a person who kills the unwanted product of vice behavior, while he encourages the behavior that got them to his killing house of human beings.
Hisman and others might write that the wages of sin is death, and so it is, when one looks upon the millions dying of AIDS. Or STD’s which can and do render a women sterile.
Philosophically, Socrates wrote that virtue can know vice, but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
If one bends reality to fit your desires, you have separated reality from truth, that truth being, that the only purpose of those organs is reproduction.
Don’t think vice exist, or does not apply to you?
Of course not, and for millions of others dying from their vice, it never existed and never was the cause of their death. Some disease did them in, but never their pleasure driven,uncontrolled desires were the reason for their disease.
Dogma Doug, will deny vice exist. Hal denies vice exist, and Amanda fights for vice being a virtue via the use of the organs of reproduction being used to enforce their desire driven reality.
Question. Is gay eros (only the eros) a virtuous act for you Elizabeth? I do not condemn philos and agape gay “love”.
Why is it whenever I hear about Gay pride Parades, I also always then hear what goes on in these parades, it is indecent. But I guess what do you expect from a people who flaunt their rejection of All Mighty God and His teachings.
“the participants who, in past years, have publicly exhibited themselves in the nude or semi-nude, performed lewd, simulated sex acts, made obscene gestures, uttered lewd or filthy words, and made street solicitations for prostitution – all violations of the existing “Public Morals” law.”
Chicago Gay Pride Parade 2008
by Arlene Sawicki -Illinois Family Institute
“The City of Chicago Events schedule lists hundreds of parades, festivals, conventions, visual arts shows, concerts, and performances open to the public throughout the year.
Chicago parades include the famous St. Patrick’s Day Parade in March, where the Chicago River is tinted green in honor of the Irish. The Polish American Constitution Day Parade, held May 1st, celebrates the first European democratic Constitution established in Poland in 1791. The Columbus Day Parade, held in Autumn, is another ethnic celebration featuring the contributions of Italian Americans. The Von Steuben Day Parade, held in September, is the German American event of the year. Thousands of Chicagoans participate in these parades and support the causes they represent.
However, never within the celebration of these events would you find the flagrant and offensive violations of the Public Morals Laws of conduct as you do in what has become known as the annual Chicago Gay Pride Parade, held this year on Sunday, June 29th, 12:00 p.m.
Chapter 8-8 of the Chicago Public Morals Laws is quite clear in defining “Indecent acts and words” 8-8-070, “Indecent exposure or dress” 8-8-080, “Street solicitation for prostitution” 8-8-060. Year after year these laws are conveniently overlooked by the Chicago Police Department, who are present in great numbers and hired to keep order during the parade.
Take ACTION: Click HERE to ask Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and Cook County State’s Attorney Richard Devine to enforce decency laws during Chicago’s Gay Pride Parade this Sunday.”
And I absolutely do not hate anyone, “Love the sinner, and hate the sin.”
Thanks Truthseeker.
Seems that to not be a homophobe one must be “penetrated” by a “same sex person”. See, I was used for their eros demands to prove I’m not a homophobe. Does that now clear me of being a homophobe? Of course not, in the logic of Amanda and Jess. Now, Jess can actually be asked if she is not heterophobic, if she is a homosexual?, and has not had heterosex to deny her heterophobia. I could still declare her a heterophobe as Jess will continue to declare you, me, or anyone that simply does not agree with her about gay eros.
Imagine such logic; your a crackphobic person,so says the crackhead to you, since you do not agree with the “lifestyle” of a crack consumer, or used crack yourself.
That’s right, anti- choicers, let’s force
small girls who have been raped to bear children, even though their hips are not developed yet. This can make childbirth extremely dangerous. Smart idea.
That’s right, pro aborters let’s force small girls who have been raped to bear a abortion, even thought their hips have not developed yet. This can make abortion quite dangerous. Smart idea.
Come on propagandist for human property and the decision to intentionally kill human beings, you can do better then that.
Has the body changed in the last thousand years when a women gave birth at the average age of 14 years old. You do know that women gave birth at a young age and to be truthful your here, and so am I from the continuous birthing of women giving birth at young ages. And they still do.
yllas, you do realize that the mother and infant mortality rate during labour, delivery and shortly after is much shorter now, in countries where women are waiting until their twenties or thirties to start having children.
And you do realize the life expectancy for everyone has risen significantly in the past thousand years?
Why don’t you stop cooking your food, humans ate raw food for millennia before fire. Sure they only lived till about their twenties, but they did it!
That’s right, anti- choicers, let’s force
small girls who have been raped to bear children, even though their hips are not developed yet. This can make childbirth extremely dangerous. Smart idea.
Posted by: robert berger at June 28, 2008 9:33 AM
Mr. Berger, “Small” girls? Did you mean adolescent (young in age) or did you actually mean small? Cause the ability to get pregnant does not always mean the maturity to even understand the consequences of getting pregnant. And if it hppened to my daughter her uncle would not be asked to support the child cause he would be six feet under. As far as the baby goes, I would offer her all the suport I could to enable her options to NOT kill the baby but the decision is made much more difficult when killing a baby in a pregnancy that was already so far in gestation. I hear about premature babies surving as early as 22 weeks nowadays, so the their are options which end the pregnancy without trying to kill the baby.
It’s a fact. In adolescance, girls hips widen and this helps in childbirth. If they give birth before this, it makes childbirth very risky.
“Imagine such logic; your a crackphobic person,so says the crackhead to you, since you do not agree with the “lifestyle” of a crack consumer, or used crack yourself.”
Yeah I’d say I was crack-phobic. I think I would be uncomfortable, even scared, in the presence of someone who uses crack.
And though I’m not gay, I’m not scared of them. I think their lifestyles are normal, natural and just fine by me.
Yllas,
Interesting point of the early Christians taking in the products of rape.
Please try making your points minus the name-calling i.e. a Man da, Dogma, Sad-Eyed, etc.
Thanks.
Jess, Lets be real here. If you really cared about any man then you would not engage in behaviour that exposes them to AIDS? By definition, engaging in homosexual sex they are letting loose on Analy Injected Death Serum. So the very thing that defines a person as homosexual is a behaviour that threatens the health of their “lover”.
It’s a fact. In adolescance, girls hips widen and this helps in childbirth. If they give birth before this, it makes childbirth very risky.
Posted by: robert berger at June 28, 2008 11:26 AM
Robert, That makes sense. What about C-sections? I wouold think they would be just as safe on an adolescent as they are on an adult.
“Imagine such logic; your a crackphobic person,so says the crackhead to you, since you do not agree with the “lifestyle” of a crack consumer, or used crack yourself.”
Yeah I’d say I was crack-phobic. I think I would be uncomfortable, even scared, in the presence of someone who uses crack.
And though I’m not gay, I’m not scared of them. I think their lifestyles are normal, natural and just fine by me.
Actually truthseeker, AIDS stands for AutoImmune Deficiency Syndrome. And if both men get tested prior to any sexual contact, then stay in a monogamous relationship, they won’t get AIDS through sex. AIDS doesn’t just appear out of nowhere.
Yllas: 8:46: Philosophically, Socrates wrote that virtue can know vice, but vice cannot know evil. The penalty for vice is the vice itself, the not seeing the good in its fullness, the good that ought to be there.
If one bends reality to fit your desires, you have separated reality from truth, that truth being, that the only purpose of those organs is reproduction.
I miss the philosophical posts of John McD, so it’s good to hear some philosophy from you! We live in such difficult times, I wonder if virtue and vice are even taught in school anymore. I highly recommend to all students at least one class in philosophy in college (even for the science and math students who are so bogged down by degree requirements). “Philosophy of Man” is one suggestion, others may have their own suggestions. Yllas, it’s nice to hear the real you coming through in your posts, maybe you could change your moniker to reflect the “real you”? Just a thought.
http://www.aids.gov/
This is for you truthseeker, it is a government website the tells the facts about AIDS.
Jess,
When a man injects sperm into another man, the receiver sees the other man’s sperm as foreign DNA and attacks it. Sometimes this can produce the adverse effect of one’s own antibodies attacking the host. Makes complete sense to me.
Everybody makes their own choice but there is a reason AIDs is so much more prevalent in homosexuals. It is because that’s where it starts. Once infected though, unfortunately the virus can be spread when a person with AIDs has sex or shares bllod with an unaffected person.
So you think AIDS just “begins” in a homosexual? Their body just creates it? Where did you find this? Did you know a woman’s body attacks mens sperm because it see it as a foreign invader? How come women don’t get AIDS?
I gave you a government site, where did you find your information?
http://pacific.unfpa.org/cinema/faq%20hivaids.htm
“+ Your body’s health is protected by its immune system which is a network of chemicals, cells, tissues, and organs found throughout your body. These work together to protect you from germs. Your immune system can distinguish the difference between what belongs in your body and what does not belong. When your immune system detects something foreign, it tries ti destroy and remove it to keep you healthy. ”
So according to your logic even a bad cold could give you AIDS because it attacks your immune system.
Jess,
It doesn’t just “begin” in homosexuals. There are many reasons why women don’t give AIDS to one another. They do not inject sperm into each other is the most obvious. Also, there is a difference in the genetic makeup of men and women. Evolution has designed the men to be the invaders of the womens body and that is probably why lesbian sex and/or heterosexual sex do not cause AIDS. As far as where did I get my information, it comes from my lifetime of hearing and reading about AIDS. It is my understanding that science has yet to determine the actual origins of AIDS. Their best guess right now is from the deviant sexual behaviour of a man who had sex with a monkey in Africa.
http://pacific.unfpa.org/cinema/faq%20hivaids.htm
“Women are considerably more susceptible to the virus than males. Women
So according to your logic even a bad cold could give you AIDS because it attacks your immune system.
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 12:50 PM
A bad cold could evolve into (give you) pneumonia
not AIDS.
Then why would sperm give you AIDS?
And your immune system doesn’t give you pneumonia, it tries to prevent you from getting pneumonia. That is why many people who are suffering from weakened immune systems develop it, because their immune system is too weak to fight it off.
“Their best guess right now is from the deviant sexual behavior of a man who had sex with a monkey in Africa.”
If that’s true then where are all the AIDS infested monkeys?
So a man would be completely safe having sex with a woman who is infected?
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 12:54 PM
Jess,
I would think it less likely then the chances of a man passing it to a woman, but if a woman already has aids then she could pass it to a man though the transfer of bodily fluids during sex.
“When a man injects sperm into another man, the receiver sees the other man’s sperm as foreign DNA and attacks it. Sometimes this can produce the adverse effect of one’s own antibodies attacking the host. Makes complete sense to me.”
But if neither of them have AIDS or HIV, if they continue in a monogamous relationship they will never, ever get AIDS or HIV.
“Their best guess right now is from the deviant sexual behavior of a man who had sex with a monkey in Africa.”
If that’s true then where are all the AIDS infested monkeys?
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 12:59 PM
Good point Jess. That is just what scientists investigation the origins have said. I don’t agree with that either.
truthseeker, so why do you think it begins in homosexuals? And again, where are all the AIDS infested monkeys?
“That is just what scientists investigation the origins have said. I don’t agree with that either.”
What scientists ever said that? Where did you find that? And if you don’t agree with it then why did you post it? You must not agree that AIDS pops out of nowhere then. If so, two uninfected, monogamous homosexual males will never pass it to each other. In that case homosexual sex is not unhealthy or deadly.
“When a man injects sperm into another man, the receiver sees the other man’s sperm as foreign DNA and attacks it. Sometimes this can produce the adverse effect of one’s own antibodies attacking the host. Makes complete sense to me.”
But if neither of them have AIDS or HIV, if they continue in a monogamous relationship they will never, ever get AIDS or HIV.
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 1:00 PM
Jess read above statement again. Even if two homosexuals men live their lives together in a committed monogamous relationship, the answer is yes they can get HIV because they engage in the behaviour that causes HIV in the first place.
“That is just what scientists investigation the origins have said. I don’t agree with that either.”
What scientists ever said that? Where did you find that? And if you don’t agree with it then why did you post it?
Jess, just google “origin of aids”. That is what scientists are saying.
“Even if two homosexuals men live their lives together in a committed monogamous relationship, the answer is yes they can get HIV because they engage in the behavior that causes HIV in the first place.”
truthseeker, you are saying AIDS can come out of nowhere! You are saying two unaffected men who have anal sex will eventually get AIDS. That makes no sense. In that case, anyone having foreign DNA in their bodies will get AIDS.
Some people are saying Jews cause AIDS:
http://christianparty.net/aids.htm
The Christian Party, oh they must know what they’re talking about!
They didn’t say it was from deviant sex with an ape,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12966623/
“Presumably, someone in rural Cameroon was bitten by a chimp or was cut while butchering one and became infected with the ape virus. That person passed it to someone else.”
Oh and pro-lifers always say a baby has different DNA from its mother, that’s why it’s a separate person. If that’s true then why don’t babies and their mothers have AIDS? Wouldn’t their bodies try to reject the foreign DNA same as sperm that would cause AIDS?
I’m going to take a shower, hope I don’t accidentally give myself AIDS while in their!
Jess, there are lots of theories out there on the origins of AIDS. The emprical evidence of indence points to male homosexual activity.
Jess, there are lots of theories out there on the origins of AIDS. The emprical evidence of incidence points to male homosexual activity.
Where are you finding this?
Are you pulling it out of thin air just like how you think AIDS is spread?
Oh and pro-lifers always say a baby has different DNA from its mother, that’s why it’s a separate person. If that’s true then why don’t babies and their mothers have AIDS? Wouldn’t their bodies try to reject the foreign DNA same as sperm that would cause AIDS?
Cause evolution designed women to be receptive to other’s DNA…not so men.
So now evolution exists!? So God didn’t make everyone in their original form! Jill is so going to ban you for that.
If prochoice.com is telling the truth, then the Christian Party is showing what the Christian really want to accomplish.
the answer is yes they can get HIV because they engage in the behaviour that causes HIV in the first place.
Oh really? Show me a study that says engaging in homosexual sex in a completely monogamous relationshiop with 2 partners who don’t have HIV can make either of those partners spontaneously get HIV. This is a ridiculous statment, Truthseeker, even for you.
You should really quit spreading so many lies. I googled “Origin of AIDS” too and one of the theories has NOTHING to do with homosexual sex between monkeys and man. It actually has to do with the hunting of the monkeys and their blood getting into the hunters blood, etc.
Why does the medical community still recommend condoms use for said demographic if it is not a possibility of contracting AIDS?
Are there any homosexual males out there who have had a lifetime of unprotected sex in a monogomous relationship and never got AIDS?
You should really quit spreading so many lies. I googled “Origin of AIDS” too and one of the theories has NOTHING to do with homosexual sex between monkeys and man. It actually has to do with the hunting of the monkeys and their blood getting into the hunters blood, etc.
No lies G’sMom. I know it is hard for you to believe anything without a link to an article.
It was many years ago and I COULD have read something into the article about monkeys being the origin of AIDS. But what you get from me is my honest recollection, not lies.
You don’t have to recollect anything, truthseeker. It took me one google search to find out your statement was erroneously false. It’s not hard for me to believe anything without an article, but my grandma was an infection control nurse and I’ve talked about this with her, so I think she knows a little bit more than you do on this topic.
You still have yet to post anything that backs up your claim, and it is really odd that you would post such lies and try to pass them off as truth. You seemed pretty certain when you were making your claims until I asked you to actually provide proof. Wonder why that is.
Patricia: What you are saying Doug is that personhood is dependent upon a scientific term.
No. Personhood is dependent on being attributed or not.
……
These are human constructs however.
Well of course.
…..
A baby is a human being and person from the moment of conception through to death.
You wish that was the case, that’s all. That’s what you want, not what is.
…..
It does not matter what they are called – blastocyst, zygote or “bun in the oven” – the entity that is a new being is still the same.
Sure, and nobody told you any different.
……
The terms are human constructs which do not change the “nature” of the developing human in utero.
Again, nobody said it did, and that’s not the argument.
…..
Your argument is pointless.
You done jes’ pegged the ol’ Irony Meter.
Doug:3:14: “Usually it’s at birth that we say “he became a father today,” etc.”
That’s only because men are a little slow…. and don’t believe there’s a baby it until they actually see it.
Maybe we are, Janet, but regardless of whether a guy considers the unborn as babies or not, they usually feel they become a father when the baby is born.
“My wife’s pregnant, I’m going to be a father.”
…..
They pass out chocolate cigars to all their friends. It becomes more real. They bring baby home and the first night they are woken up to a baby’s cries at 2:00 AM. NOW they are a father! :)
Heh heh – I do hear that.
Doug will deny vice exist.
yllas, yet again you begin with a lie and try to “build” on it. I think you embarrassed yourself enough yesterday.
You don’t have to recollect anything, truthseeker. It took me one google search to find out your statement was erroneously false. It’s not hard for me to believe anything without an article, but my grandma was an infection control nurse and I’ve talked about this with her, so I think she knows a little bit more than you do on this topic.
You still have yet to post anything that backs up your claim, and it is really odd that you would post such lies and try to pass them off as truth. You seemed pretty certain when you were making your claims until I asked you to actually provide proof. Wonder why that is.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 28, 2008 2:46 PM
G’sMom,
Neither you or the scientific community can say where AIDS originates from. A hunter getting bit by a monkey, a hunter eating a monkey, a hunter having sex with a monkey…etc..etc…
For starters the human HIV is a different strain then the one they found in monkeys so it is probably entirely wrong to begin with.
Any theorys don’t require proof. People put them out to be debated. My theory is that the empirical evidence of the incidence of AIDS when society first became aware of it points to the demographic of homosexual males. It is a fact. Now, since we have no idea where HIV came from, I think my theory is as good or better then any other theory you can present. Get your head out of the sand and face the facts.
It’s not hard for me to believe anything without an article, but my grandma was an infection control nurse and I’ve talked about this with her, so I think she knows a little bit more than you do on this topic.
G’sMom, We are all in `consensus about the transmission part and the homosexual community is at much greater risk because the blood membranes in your anus are so close to the skin. But what I am debating here is not the transmission of HIV, but the likely origin of HIV
Aida is rampant all over Africa today, and is primarily spread by heterosexual sex.
An appalling number of children have been orphaned.
Aids is rampant all over Africa,but the primary cause is by heterosexual contact.
As a result, an appalling number of children have been orphaned.
Aids is rampant all over Africa,but the primary cause is by heterosexual contact.
As a result, an appalling number of children have been orphaned.
Posted by: robert berger at June 28, 2008 5:17 PM
The stories coming out Africa, militias of drunk and high teens with machetes hacking there way from village to village. And rape of women and children is a common element of the wars and genocide. It sounds really close to hell on earth.
Any theorys don’t require proof.
In science, you bet your A** they require proof.
You should look up the word theory in its relation to science/medicine. It is different than the word theory you are speaking of.
And do you reallllly think, in the number of years AIDS/HIV has been in this country, that not ONE scientist or doctor has thought of what you propose? REALLY?! Come on.
You are right, though. The strain is not the same that is found in humans and monkeys. But our DNA is different so when the strain from the monkey was introduced into our DNA, don’t you think it could have transformed?
Let’s face it here, you will believe whatever you can to continue hating on gay people. Even without any evidence to support your claims. If they’re your beliefs, FINE, then that’s what they are. But don’t try to pass them off as something you came to through your own research, because you have YET to post any study or research supporting it.
You should look up the word theory in its relation to science/medicine. It is different than the word theory you are speaking of.
G’sMom, Without looking it up my recollection is that a proven theory is a theorum.
Let’s face it here, you will believe whatever you can to continue hating on gay people. Even without any evidence to support your claims. If they’re your beliefs, FINE, then that’s what they are. But don’t try to pass them off as something you came to through your own research, because you have YET to post any study or research supporting it.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 28, 2008 5:39
G’sMom, why do you keep posting things like that. None of my posts have expressed any hate at all. Is it possible that you refuse to even look at the possibility of homesexual relations causing a disease? It is really not that far fetched. I can’t “prove” I am right, but I think I am closer to proving I am right then any monkey theory out there. I say it cause I “believe” it to be true. If the proof is out there that I am wrong then I welcome it. Till then, I care too much about people (gays included) to be silent. Why would I want to keep quiet and let others fall victim?
So now evolution exists!? So God didn’t make everyone in their original form! Jill is so going to ban you for that.
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 1:31 PM
Jess, God created them to be different that way
So Dogma Doug, vice does exist for you? I don’t think vice exist for you Dogma Doug, they exist for other people if they exist at all.
You embarassed yourself enough by not knowing the definition of dogma, as given and applied to you, by me, several times, and then grabing a defintion which suited you Dogma Doug for the tenth time.
Why, that might be a vice, a vice of making words into what Dogma Doug wants them to mean, and mean what they want for Dogma Doug.
Hmm, old Dogma Doug doesn’t believe in absolute truth, yet makes a statement that “abortion has always existed and always will”. Nothing you will do, by laws, will make abortion not happen. That is a paraphrase of your words Dogma Doug.
Your embarassing your self Dogma Doug.
Or just maybe Dogma Doug might give a definition of absolute truth, so one may then debate what absolute truth is to Dogma Doug.
But just for giggles, How much truth is in that statement of yours Dogma, that abortion is eternal and has existed before written history? 100% truth? 99.8 Truth? 70& truth?
BTW Dogma Doug.
The reason All human beings have human rights is that all human beings are human. True or false? No need do give reasons for your answer Dogma Doug, since those reasons are a repetition of any statements truth or falsity contained within the statement. We can debate the reasons you give latter.
2. What is the Law of Noncontradiction in formal logic? Definition by you is useful. A example is “dogmatic skeptic”. Why is that a contradiction Dogma Doug?
TS: The stories coming out Africa, militias of drunk and high teens with machetes hacking there way from village to village. And rape of women and children is a common element of the wars and genocide. It sounds really close to hell on earth.
Truthseeker, on that we can agree upon. There is also the persistent “rumor” among many African men that having sex with a virgin can cure Aids. You can imagine.
vice does exist for you?
Yes, yllas, but as for the rest of your silliness, you are so insecure in your arguments that you constantly feel the need for lame ad hominems.
You had a meltdown, no big deal – I’ve seen it dozens of times before.
Wow, all the AIDS ignorance here is astounding. TS, you really need to take a class or something.
Okay, here’s a nice little lesson:
Monkeys don’t have HIV. They have SIV. For Simian Immunodeficiency Virus. Cats can get the virus too. In cats it’s called FIV. (Feline… if you’re a bit slow.) FIV is actually easier to get (for cats) because it can be transmitted through saliva. There are about 11% of domestic cats that have FIV, not because of sex, but because of fights with cats who had the disease.
The reason chimps and cats don’t have AIDS, so to say, is that we developed the term AIDS before we knew what the problem was. When we learned that the disease was caused from a virus, the name was changed to HIV. AIDS today refers to a point in which the T-cell count has dropped dangerously low.
HIV attacks T-cells and kills them off. It can take a number of years before the virus has killed off enough cells to have symptoms show. Usually, detectable signs of the HIV virus will not show up for at least 3 months, which is why people are advised to be tested 4 times a year if they are sexually active with multiple partners.
HIV is not actually deadly, but once enough T-cells have been killed off (thus reaching the point we consider AIDS), that person is unable to regain enough cells to fight off the virus and is essentially at the end of the line. Some people have rebounded and went from AIDS status to HIV status, but it is rare.
HIV is vicious. It can mutate and combine with other strains of HIV, making it very deadly and hard to fight. That’s why we have drug “cocktails” which are different combinations of drugs meant to fight off different strains of HIV. New strains appear all the time. Perhaps that is why the strain seen in cats and chimps is different from humans… but that does not mean we did not acquire it from chimps or cats.
The first strain, called HIV-1, actually was traced to a species of chimps in Africa, leading evidence to the belief it came from chimps. In the scientific community, there are two recognized strains of HIV, HIV-1 and HIV-2, though it manifests itself differently in various people. Two people with HIV who sleep with each other sans condoms, for example, could give each other a worse version of HIV because of the combined viral infections. Those people are harder to treat because the drug cocktails are less effective. Like people, viruses can develop immunity to certain treatments.
Okay… now then.
HIV can be spread through semen, vaginal fluids, breast milk, and blood. Blood and semen have the highest percentage of viral load in them, which is why women and the gay men who typically act as bottoms, are more susceptible to the virus. The anus and the vagina are both spongy areas which tend to soak in or excrete other fluids, thus making the virus easier to penetrate those areas.
However, when the penis is erect, tiny tears are made that are not visible to the human eye, and the virus is often transmitted FtM through those tears.
Babies who are born to HIV-positive mothers usually turn up as HIV-positive for the first six months of their lives. That is because they still are using their mother’s antibodies, which show the presence of the HIV virus.
The only way we know that the virus is present is because of the antibodies that are fighting it. There isn’t a test that seeks out the virus on its own.
If the mother does not breast feed her child, the signs of the HIV virus will go away because the child never did have HIV.
Okay, let’s get into a little bit of history. The reason the HIV virus spread so quickly and so far in such a short amount of time was because gays were still closeted (often married men) who were going to brothels to sleep with men. Your pal Larry Craig did the same thing in an airport.
Because there was no pregnancy risk, and most other STDs were treatable or at least very visible, many failed to use protection. The virus came to America on the back of a promiscuous airline pilot who made several stops across the country and visited several brothels at the time. Those men got the virus, spread it to other men and their wives, and the epidemic was largely kept secret until there were too many dead people to ignore it anymore.
This is also, for many places in the country, the beginning of the gay rights movement.
So there you go, a brief lesson on the HIV virus.
AGAIN: You can not get HIV from hugging, kissing, holding hands, breathing the same air, or even showering with someone with HIV. You can only get it from blood, semen, breast milk, and vaginal fluids, so unless you come in contact with those fluids and they are able to get into your skin, you will not get HIV.
truthseeker, if homosexual sex started AIDS why did it take so long? Men have been having sex with men (and animals, the first execution in Massachusetts was of a boy who had sex with a sheep) since the beginning of time, why did it take so long for their bodies to just start developing AIDS?
Truthseeker,
There is absolutely NO evidence supporting the idea that homosexual sex with people who are NOT infected with HIV can spontaneously develop the disease. NONE, whatsoEVER.
See Doug, you’ve melted down and have not answered simple questions from people over and over again because of your dogma. You deny every premise, statement, by the person your in debate with, from your absolute dogma. You don’t believe a premise,statement of any person at this board is GOOD, since you, KNOW that “they REALLY don’t have a GOOD argument/debate against abortion” That is why I nicknamed you a dogmatic mind. Argument and debate is based on statements,premises,and the fact that they contain the quality of “good”. A good argument for/against ….fill in the blank. You deny any person’s argument is good, before the opponent has one word written in his/her argument. You really believe your arguments are good, while no one at this board REALLY has a GOOD arguement against anything you write Dogma Doug. Down to a debate about human beings being human.. Down to a debate denying the definition of murder does not apply to your GOOD arguement for your definition of murder, since the only GOOD definition of murder is your definition of murder. Down to a argument about the word “baby” being subjective when everyone knows what a baby is, but you Dogma Doug. Fact is Dogma Doug, your a collection of cells and nothing more if that’s the sophist game which you play over, and over, and over, until the nausea engulfs the other person and leaves you alone. Upon which, your dogma arises in triumph once again, secure and unable to melt a single neuron of doubt in Dogma Doug’s dogma. Afterall, they were vanquished before a word was wrote, since before the debate began that person had NO REAL DEBATE anyway, he/she just thought they did. In fact, since I gave you the definition of dogma as it applies to you, the sad part is you still think that it is a ad hominem, when it is a fact Dogma Doug.
And your reply? Deny, deny, and deny any truth in the fact that your a domatic mind by your own words you wrote. You won’t can’t, will not accept that your a dogmatist and that I offer you the honorific of being a person of a authoritative principled believer of your statements,opinons, judgements, conscience, and the ideas of abortion. A person that writes the absolute truth of his principles, ideas and statements, opinions as absolute truth. Afterall Dogma Doug, I have asked you over and over what amount of truth is contained in your dogmatic writing about abortion as a simple percentage. You never answer, since it either makes you non-dogmatic, or another person writing a certain amount of non-truth in their writing, which is a simple definition of a person that is a propagandist.
What percentage of truth is in your writing for for abortion? I honor you and admit that you contain no non-truth in your writing for abortion, and you offer this board the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and absolute truth for abortion Dogma Doug.
Of course this is a purely subjective answer by you Dogma Doug, but give us the amount of truth in your authoritative opinions, statements, and ideas for abortion.
Be a man Doug, and don’t hide from questions which demand a answer to establish the amount truth of contained in your writings for abortion. I know, you know your a person that knows your a absolutly truthful writer for abortion, it’s the quanity of truth in your writings that I want to know. So then, I may either make a decision to know I am debating with a truthful person, a person that writes some truth, or a person that writes no truth in his authoritative judgements, opinions and ideas of which he writes of.
100 percent truth? 90 percent truth? Pick a percentage of truth in your writings Dogma Doug.
I promise to never precede your name with the honorific of Dogma, if you just give me a percentage less then 100 percent.
PS, Carder,what percentage of truth do you write in matters of being pro life? Less then one hundred percent? A simple answer is all I ask from you Carder,et al. Remember, a propagandist is one that sacrifices truth for the idea,doctrine,principle, being held by the propagandist and therefore any lie,distortion,lack of truth, is acceptable as being truthful in the mind of the propagandist since it is based on the ends justify any means used.
Posted by: yllas at June 27, 2008 3:19 PM = “This is the quality of propagandist for same sex love, who whip out the homophobic rant, and are being called on the fact, that no one is a homophobe from being in love with the same sex person since birth.”
SMH… Are you feeling all right?
a hunter having sex with a monkey…
Posted by: truthseeker at June 28, 2008 4:13 PM
*
You have got to be kidding.
yllas, for the last time we are talking about SEXUAL love. Fine lets not call it love, lets call it lust. Did you lust after your parents since you were born?
Darn 30 minutes in between my double post. Darn slow double posting > (
Elbereth, you should see this:
http://christianparty.net/hitler.htm
According to them, Hitler was a Jew trying to wipe out European Christians. Who knew? Probably the same guy who said AIDS began with a man having sex with a monkey…
Jess,
That website was obviously made by some crackheads. Click on the link on the side of the page that says, “Blacks” and they believe blacks should be exiled. Oh and race mixing is a siiiiin. Oh snap, I’m going to hell.
Seriously, though, those people are nutso. You shouldn’t go to those sites. They’re just too ridiculous.
Well when I first saw it I was like, Landover Baptist yay! But then I think they really do believe that. Christian crackheads?
It is sickening to go over to Landover Baptist and read some of their emails, some people actually agree with them! Scary…
Here you can check it out:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
What name did I call you? I just asked you a question.
“In its deepest psychoanalytic sense,anal sex represents a worship of putrefaction and death as a psychological defense against the fear of death, and therefore it defiles any responsibility to life.”
And if, I am as you seem to be under the impression of, a lesbian, then I am obviously not interested in anal sex. A woman’s body is soft, warm, with delightful curves and sweet, fresh, floral perfumes beaconing you into their open and caring arms. What does that say to you?
:shudders:
On that note, I’m going to bed. :)
Holy cow! That’s not what I was saying at all! I was trying to tell you that there are different kinds of love, and the love you feel for your parents is different then what you would feel for a partner. I don’t know what’s going on with the way you’re thinking.
yllas, I think the lady doth protest too much ; )
Now *that* is insinuating something.
I finally watched the video, and there are some errors in it.
Obama says that fathers should realize that responsibility doesn’t end at conception.
He’s referring to people that have born children, that they should support them, care for them, etc.
He didn’t say that fatherhood begins at conception.
Doug, you’ve melted down and have not answered simple questions from people
yllas, your skill at copying from other people is undiminished, I see. ; )
I’ve answered your questions many times. Here is what happens:
I answer. I refute your conclusions, many of them based not on what I or others have said, but on your faulty imaginings. I identify where you are lying, where you are taking things out of context, and where you are just conjuring your own fantasies.
Then you do not reply. You slink off, to reappear after a few days on another thread.
This has happened over and over.
From June 25:
yllas: I am not using the definition as defined as church doctrine. Dogma has more then one definition and I have given it to more then once.
As I said before, if you want to say that dogma is personal valuation, then we all have it, we all make it, etc., and you’d have no meaningful point – that’s just a given.
……
Dogma; 2. a authoritative principle, belief, or statement of IDEAS or OPINIONS, especially one considered to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
This really goes to the religion/governmental part – the “authoritative” deal rather than one person’s opinion. “Ideas, opinions” are plural, too, I note. As Amanda noted, you tend to project yourself onto other people. You are a dogmatist. I’m not. I will give honest answers to questions, yet I don’t pretend my opinion is anything but.
……
No one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do” Is that statment by you perfectly and completely true? Yes or no?
You didn’t ask it that way. You asked me, and I gave you my opinion. Nobody was talking about anything “perfectly and completely true” outside opinion. If you want “complete truth” then the answer is that some people are for legal abortion and some are not.
Some people would say there is a good argument against abortion and some will say there’s not. You should know that anyway.It is “completely true” that I don’t think there is a good argument against abortion, to viability, not good enough that we’d take away the legal freedom that women now have – there, if you want it like that, then that’s the correct way to say it. That’s also understood to be the context of the abortion debate, by almost everybody.
……
I asked you for a yes or no to your statement which is a dogmatic statement.
False premise on your part. It wasn’t a dogmatic statement in the first place. I leave the dogma to you. If there were no unwanted pregnancies then I’m not “for killing” as far as abortion. This is just another straw man on your part. I am for leaving the decision to the pregnant woman, to viability, your incorrect generalizations notwithstanding.
……
My point is that your authoritative opinion is, and ARE absolutely true to YOU.
Again, you’re being false. I’ve never said it’s “authoritative.” It’s my opinion, and we all have them, and yes, it’s certainly true that I feel that way. We all have feelings, and all your blathering and obfuscatory wrangling doesn’t change that. Is it “absolutely true” that people believe things? Yes. So what? You’re acting like this is some big deal, whereas everybody already knows that. You’ve twisted things in your mind so much that you forgot, apparently.If your arguments remain false pretense and straw man, then again – so what?
I think it’s all in your head yllas. Some of my posts have been deleted before for saying something personal about someone. The moderators did see my post, and they didn’t see anything wrong with it.
I do not think you have ever had sex with your mother. I don’t think you have ever even wanted to. I am sure everyone else knows that too. I know you love your mother, or else you wouldn’t stand up for her like this. But I know you do not approve of homosexual realtions, their lust for the same sex. Maybe we shouldn’t have used the word love, maybe we should have said lust from the beginning.
Lets just relax, it’s late over here so I’m going to bed. We’re just trying to share our opinions, yes they differ but hopefully we’ll all have learned something in the end.
I’ll say a prayer for you if you think it will help?
(I know some good ones, believe it or not I went to Catholic school and was even an alter server : ) )
Hey Doug, are you having sex with your parent, which is why you don’t answer simple questions on the amount of truth in your authoritative opinions,ideas for abortion?
What percentage of your writing at this board is truth? Your mind is still thinking how to avoid being dogmatist, or a person who writes less then the complete truth for your authoritative judgements and ideas of abortion.
You like playing games Dogma Doug. Play the game you “are you having sex with your parent” and answer the question about the amount of truth in your writing at this board.
Having a meltdown not knowing how to answer without contradicting yourself Dogma Doug?
yllas: Hey Doug, are you having sex with your parent
:: laughing ::
Again, you’re all riled up and retreating into this childish stuff we so often see from you.
Amanda said it very well:
Yllas –
honest question…
when you post all of this garbage, do you think you’re being deep and profound?
I’m not trying to be mean, but if you haven’t noticed, even people who probably agree with your basic points don’t respond or discuss your posts, and many pro lifers as well as pro choicers completely ignore your posts because they’re ususually just rambling, insult riddled tangents. No one thinks you’re clever except you. It might benefit you to cool down the alliterations, stupid nicknames, and rhetoric, as well as your lovely habit of making assumptions and putting words in people’s mouths.
I’ve found the people who post here, even if I vehemently disagree with them, have at least a little something to say thats worth thinking about. You are the only exception. Again, I’m not trying to be mean…unless you enjoy not being taken seriously…in that case, by all means…
I don’t want a damn thing deleted soo you can look at your words until you understand that (removed by moderator)
So yllas, I guess your saying no to that prayer?
With that I’ll do what Jesus did and turn the other cheek.
May God give you any help you need, I’ll pray alone for you then,
Your friend Jess
Yllas, wow…. This makes two days in a row for you losing it.
Ari-Chan saw through you right away:
Dan, don’t bother conversing with Yllas. It’s like staring at the sun and trying not to squint… Pointless and all it does is hurt you in the end. :-P
Posted by: Ari-Chan at February 18, 2008 12:36 AM
You might as well be 8 years old, given the level of maturity of your posts. You give no evidence of being anything other than a hateful, evil person.
yllas, when you calm down, I think we should use the method of the worthy SoMG.
Let’s see if somebody will clean up your posts, take out the less-than-sane stuff, and present your questions in a decent manner.
If you are really interested in discussion, I am certainly willing. Perhaps Bethany will again help you out.
“Some of my posts have been deleted before for saying something personal about someone.”
LOL – Jess, Yllas is certainly going to have quite a few posts deleted after her psychotic break tonight.
Ah well… the signs have been there all along.
The first moderator who comes along is going to whack a whole bunch of posts hee hee hee..
WHEEEEEEEEEEE
Dogma; 2. a authoritative principle, belief, or statement of IDEAS or OPINIONS, especially one considered to be ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
This really goes to the religion/governmental part – the “authoritative” deal rather than one person’s opinion. “Ideas, opinions” are plural, too, I note. As Amanda noted, you tend to project yourself onto other people. You are a dogmatist.
I’m not. I will give honest answers to questions, yet I don’t pretend my opinion is anything but.
Nothing but denial of the definition of dogma being giving to you over and over.
As I said before, if you want to say that dogma is personal valuation, then we all have it, we all make it, etc., and you’d have no meaningful point – that’s just a given.
No, you have no meaningful reply and then compound it with the ” we all have it”.
You don’t understand that not all have a authoritiative opinion that is ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
You miss the definition that dogma is absolute TRUTH. Again from playing too your dogma Doug.
False premise on your part. It wasn’t a dogmatic statement in the first place. I leave the dogma to you. If there were no unwanted pregnancies then I’m not “for killing” as far as abortion.
This is just another straw man on your part. I am for leaving the decision to the pregnant woman, to viability, your incorrect generalizations notwithstanding.
You miss the point again and again because of your dogma for abortion. I care not about what reasons given for abortion. The point is your a authoritative principle,belief, statement of ideas that you consider absolutely true on abortion matters. Are you not Doug??????? Do you not write absolute truth or not????
By declaring my statment as a false premise is dogmatism being exposed in you again Doug.
Why is it a false premise? Because you declared it a false premise.
I declare the premise as being true Dogma Doug.
I declare that your words are dogmatic by defintion as applied by me within the definition as given.
You must deny the definition as usual to avoid being honored as a dogmatist for abortion Dogma Doug.
Too eliminate this denial of definitions and then declaring to yourself that you have no qualities of dogmatism. A simple answer to a simple question is in order to eliminate any doubt of you being a dogmatist for abortion.
What percentage of truth is contained in your writing about abortion Dogma Doug.??? Games up Dogma Doug.
Answer the simple question which has been asked several times already.
It’s all coming back now…
From May 21, 2008 10:13 p.m. by “Anonymous” back when it was allright to post that way:
“Yllis is a voodoo-doll sticking pins in itself.”
Never more true than tonight.
I think that either Yllas is a Frankenstein, and can’t help it, or that it wants to be a Frankenstein, and tonight is trying for it.
Yllas, please, grow up. You are not helping yourself or anybody else here.
Do you remember what Jenna said to you?
“Do you pretend to be Catholic? Your behavior here shows you to be decidedly un-Christian.
Can you possibly think that your behavior is somehow “helpful” to the pro-life position?
Posted by: Jenna at May 20, 2008 2:56 PM
Please, get control of yourself.
It’s hilarious that “Laura” got banned, given Yllas’s performance the last two nights.
I’m going to copy the posts, since the moderators will delete them. Wouldn’t want anybody to forget, though…. Muhahahahahahahahhaahahaa
Yllas, you are not suitable for Jill Stanek’s blog.
Not that you have any shame, but please – shut up. If you claim to be pro-life then you are an embarrasment to us.
Miriam
Truthseeker,
There is absolutely NO evidence supporting the idea that homosexual sex with people who are NOT infected with HIV can spontaneously develop the disease. NONE, whatsoEVER.
Posted by: Elizabeth (Gabriella’s Momma) at June 28, 2008 10:16 PM
You keep saying that but I keep telling you why I think it is so. You won’t believe anything without a link to study will you.
Male Semen makes HIV more potent
Science needs to look more closely at the reaction of a woman’s body and the chromosomal differences between men and women for a possible answer as to why a man’s sperm can cause viral effects in another man. I hear that scientists are close to creating “female” sperm (sperm with an X chrosome). That Y chromosome may be what triggers a lot of the receptive mechanisms in a woman to intiate after conception. Watch out for a lot more diseases down the road if we are not careful.
G’sMom, here is a link for you:
http://tinyurl.com/2ojvp8
truthseeker, if homosexual sex started AIDS why did it take so long? Men have been having sex with men (and animals, the first execution in Massachusetts was of a boy who had sex with a sheep) since the beginning of time, why did it take so long for their bodies to just start developing AIDS?
Posted by: Jess at June 28, 2008 10:08 PM
Jess,
Best I can figure is it wasn’t nearly as frequent/prevalent because the “sexual revolution” of the 60’s produced a huge increase in homosexual abd bisexual activity.
I’ll say a prayer for you if you think it will help?
(I know some good ones, believe it or not I went to Catholic school and was even an alter server : ) )
Posted by: Jess at June 29, 2008 12:27 AM
Jess, that was a very kind thing to say. Yllas, I didn’t read Jess calling you a MF
“Some of my posts have been deleted before for saying something personal about someone.”
LOL – Jess, Yllas is certainly going to have quite a few posts deleted after her psychotic break tonight.
Ah well… the signs have been there all along.
The first moderator who comes along is going to whack a whole bunch of posts hee hee hee..
WHEEEEEEEEEEE
Posted by: Terry G. at June 29, 2008 1:06 AM
Terry, it is my opinion that the mods would be well served to ban people like you who take pleasure in other peoples troubles.
It’s hilarious that “Laura” got banned, given Yllas’s performance the last two nights.
I’m going to copy the posts, since the moderators will delete them. Wouldn’t want anybody to forget, though…. Muhahahahahahahahhaahahaa
Posted by: Laura Laura at June 29, 2008 1:37 AM
And you should be next in line to get banned
“Best I can figure is it wasn’t nearly as frequent/prevalent because the “sexual revolution” of the 60’s produced a huge increase in homosexual abd bisexual activity.”
I dunno truthseeker, I have a few thing about ancient Greece *shifty eyes*
No offense to anyone here from ancient Greece.
Sorry, *I have HEARD a few things
I don’t have any ancient Greeks.
Jess,
If you find any ask them if they knew any homosexuals or bisexuals who got sick and died of AIDS.
Is this the REAL YLLAS here?? Hard to believe it is….
Probably not, truthseeker.
I think the story goes that when they were in the army (and I think it was mandatory) the young soldiers were taken under an older soldiers wing and the older soldiers was their mentor, and their lover. After being in the army they would return home and get wives, have children. So if they did get AIDS I think it would have spread considerably. Especially since they were an empire and colonized many distant places.
So I came back to visit after I calmed down a little yesterday, only to find that my post was deleted, and Yllas’ remain.
Thats all the proof I needed that there’s nothing productive going on here lately. Probably because MK hasn’t been around as much.
I will remind you all, in my final post, that the ONE thing that stopped me in my very pro-choice tracks… was a gay couple. Together for 8 years (and wouldnt ya know it TS, they don’t have HIV). They adopted a baby together who came from conditions that most of the PC crowd would have looked at and thought abortion was the best answer. But it wasn’t. This little boy is now thriving in a happy, wonderful, big Irish-Catholic family, with two wonderful, happy, doting parents. He has a stay at home Dad, and will never spend a moment in a day care. In only 6 months, he’s lived this wonderful life longer than his horrible one, and most likely will forget all about his rough beginnings.
So when I come to post on a PRO LIFE site and see people writing that he actually would have been better off dying, and when I come on a PRO LIFE site and see people claiming that gay sex CREATED hiv, when I come on a PRO LIFE site, and get linked to a website that is more worried about gay marriage than saving babies… the reality is clear. This isn’t about stopping abortion – its about pushing an agenda. When Barack Obama is elected in November, and all of you will be scratching your heads asking how this could happens, blaming liberals, and predicting the apocalypse – well – stop and wonder how many gay and gay friendly people who may be opposed to Obama’s abortion policies (points at self) but will vote for him because he will recognize and legitimize their relationships and loved ones.
Because of things like this, your movement has not been associated with saving babies – but of pushing an agenda. Separate yourselves from the gay-bashing crap, and I could PROMISE you there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there like me who would be happy to support you.
Jen R, PiP, Rae, Elizabeth, and anyone I’m forgetting – Thank you SO much for pushing me in the direction of reexamining my views. Its a shame that you appear to be the minorities on this blog. If any of you come across a blog that is more abortion-debate centered, without all the useless gay bashing, please let me know – you know where to find me. =)
Peace to all.
“I will remind you all, in my final post, that the ONE thing that stopped me in my very pro-choice tracks… was a gay couple”
huh? are you pro-life now Amanda? I must have missed something..
“So when I come to post on a PRO LIFE site and see people writing that he actually would have been better off dying”
what? who said that?
“stop and wonder how many gay and gay friendly people who may be opposed to Obama’s abortion policies (points at self) but will vote for him because he will recognize and legitimize their relationships and loved ones.”
Obama’s for gay marriage? I must have missed that too…
“Separate yourselves from the gay-bashing crap, and I could PROMISE you there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there like me who would be happy to support you.”
Who bashed gays?
..I see, so a deal has to made in order for Amanda to be pro-life. She can’t just oppose abortion for what it is, a deal has to be made. We must support homosexuality in order for her to be pro-life. Unbelievable.
So they aren’t deleting yllas posts calling me a “low life SOB, scum”? They deleted yours Amanda? You didn’t even say anything least bit insulting to anyone here!
Apparently the moderators here think I’m a low life scum. Oh yay for the Christian pro-life side! No wonder people don’t listen to pro-lifers, it seems like the majority of them are just here to insult : (
“huh? are you pro-life now Amanda? I must have missed something..”
Obviously you haven’t been reading much that I’ve been writing here for the last several months.
“what? who said that?”
HisMan did. He said that a child would be better off dying than being adopted by gays – because that way the child would spend eternity in Heaven. He also said that gays were worse than thieves and abortionists. That sorta proves my point right there about priorities.
“Obama’s for gay marriage? I must have missed that too…”
Civil Unions actually. Which I support.
“Who bashed gays?
..I see, so a deal has to made in order for Amanda to be pro-life. She can’t just oppose abortion for what it is, a deal has to be made. We must support homosexuality in order for her to be pro-life. Unbelievable.”
Would you like a list? That’ll take me some time, but plenty of it is right here in this thread.
And I can oppose abortion until I’m blue in the face Jasper, if I continue to have to choose between voting for an anti abortion/gay rights candidate vs a pro choice/gay candidate, I’m going to vote for the pro gay rights one. So my personal opposition to abortion becomes meaningless. And I love how you think whether or not I post on this blog has any relevance to my position on abortion. LOL. Its a blog Jasper. Not posting here because I’m sick of reading gay bashing doesn’t change my opinions about anything. No offense, but you’re not all THAT important.
Peace.
Jess,
we didn’t see the insults until now. Both will be deleted. Where yllas insulted you and where you suggested she had sex with her parents.
All,
please no insults.
We must support homosexuality in order for her to be pro-life. Unbelievable.
I really don’t think that’s what she means Jasper. She just wants all the gay-bashing to stop. If one of your friends died of a vicious hate crime, wouldn’t YOU want all the gay-bashing to stop? Because THAT’S where it leads. The bashing and demonizing allows people to dehumanize gays which makes it easier to beat the crap out of them to the point of killing them. Kind of like with babies.
And I agree with her. It DOES make us look like we’re pushing an agenda rather than trying to save babies and help make lives better for women and their babies. Isn’t that the WHOLE GOAL of what we’re doing? Shouldn’t we focus on THAT rather than focusing on how uncomfortable gay people make you? Does THAT have ANYTHING to do with saving babies or exposing the abortion industry for the baby-killers that they are? NO! So leave it alone!
Amanda,
Please don’t leave. I really enjoy reading your posts and you make a lot of sense on a lot of things to me. You are very smart and passionate about what you believe, and that is so valuable for everyone here.
Jasper, can I just say I never suggested she was having sex with her parents. I just wanted her to understand we were talking about a different kind of love.
“Jasper, can I just say I never suggested she was having sex with her parents. I just wanted her to understand we were talking about a different kind of love. ”
Ok, fair enough…
Is this the REAL YLLAS here?? Hard to believe it is….
Posted by: Janet at June 29, 2008 9:48 AM
:=P
Now that should be the “Sunday funny.”
Yllas cries and whines and makes a fool out of herself. Instead of lucid and levelheaded discussion, it’s talking about people and projecting yllas’s own irrationality onto them.
Yllas is the same screws-loose poster as always. Jess just shined a light, and you know how some people can’t take being revealed….
Especially to themselves, and when Jess’s words hit home, Yllas freaked.
“She just wants all the gay-bashing to stop”
what gay bashing Elizabeth? Can you give me an example?
“Shouldn’t we focus on THAT rather than focusing on how uncomfortable gay people make you? ”
who said gay people made them feel uncomfortable?
can you show me?
Elizabeth, please don’t make things up. You have to be able to back it up before throwing accusations around. It’s not nice.
Mmmhmm, it’s all in my head, Jasper.
Just like the whole evolution is junk science because the Bible didn’t mention it debates I’ve had here.
Look, gays aren’t having abortions in ALARMING numbers, so why are they brought up here? I’ve heard them lumped in as being JUST as bad as abortionists sooo if that’s not gay-bashing, I don’t know what is.
Jasper, how in the world are you going to get Yllas to stop insulting? Carder and Chris A. already asked, several times.
“Look, gays aren’t having abortions in ALARMING numbers, so why are they brought up here?”
I believe the earlier discussion what about AIDS HIV and how to prevent it, etc. Homosexual sex is what leads to spread of HIV. There is no denying the facts, it’s not about bashing gay people. And, who says we can’t discuss something different besides abortion?
“I’ve heard them lumped in as being JUST as bad as abortionists sooo if that’s not gay-bashing, I don’t know what is”
Again, I’ve never seen this. Do you know who said it?
Just because someone disagrees with homosexual relationships doesn’t mean they’re gay bashing. You said that gay people made me uncomfortabe and I simply asked you an example of where I said this. Where did I imply this?
anyways, I have to go do my chores.
All,
please no insults.
Posted by: Jasper at June 29, 2008 11:00 AM
This is your idea of moderation? Really? And then you run off to do “chores?”
Nice. I think Jill needs to rethink who she leaves in charge around here.
Amanda: So when I come to post on a PRO LIFE site and see people writing that he actually would have been better off dying, and when I come on a PRO LIFE site and see people claiming that gay sex CREATED hiv, when I come on a PRO LIFE site, and get linked to a website that is more worried about gay marriage than saving babies… the reality is clear. This isn’t about stopping abortion – its about pushing an agenda.
Okay, that was pretty weird stuff, Amanda, but I hope you stay.
Best,
Doug
Again, I’ve never seen this. Do you know who said it?
HisMan.
I don’t remember what thread it was in, but I do remember him giving this lengthy explanation about it which was a load of malarky if you ask me.
But *I* also think spreading misconceptions about gay people is a form of gay-bashing.
SamanthaL,
Moderators have lives too you know. Give them a break, we’re adults, we’re supposed to ACT like adults too. It’s not up to them to police us, a little self-policing is never a bad thing.
SamathaT,
I already deleted the bad comments…
Oh, I know, Elizabeth. I just noticed that someone on another thread mentioned that there were some innapropriate posts on this one and maybe a moderator should go check it out.
Then we get “Please no insults.”
He really shouldn’t have bothered. I think the self-policing was just as effective.
TS, I’m confused. You said,
“That Y chromosome may be what triggers a lot of the receptive mechanisms in a woman to intiate after conception. ”
So you are saying the Y chromosome is what makes the woman more receptive to foreign DNA? Call me crazy, but doesn’t some sperm carry an X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome? You know, to make girls (XX)?
So according to this, women’s immune systems will attack female fetuses more than males because the Y chromosome is not there to trigger those receptive mechanisms?
I will remind you all, in my final post, that the ONE thing that stopped me in my very pro-choice tracks..Because of things like this, your movement has not been associated with saving babies – but of pushing an agenda. Separate yourselves from the gay-bashing crap, and I could PROMISE you there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there like me who would be happy to support you.
Amanda, I’m sorry to see you go. However I must admit I was getting weary of the whole “I won’t be pro-life unless you do what I say you should”, bit.
And frankly, in my opinion, you haven’t been “pro-life” since you got here. You still defend abortion, every time you post here. Sure, it’s great you stopped defending Planned Parenthood. But that doesn’t make you pro-life or even “more pro-life”. You still defend babies being sucked out of their mother’s womb into garbage disposals. You still defend women treating their children as garbage and killing them because of the circumstances in which they were conceived. I don’t consider that pro-life. To think that you can consider yourself a teacher on how pro-lifers behave is kind of strange to me.
And also, to imagine that it all depends on how WE behave, whether you decide that you’ll be pro-life or not, is absurd, in my opinion.
Again, sorry to see you go.
I will remind you all, in my final post, that the ONE thing that stopped me in my very pro-choice tracks… was a gay couple. Together for 8 years (and wouldnt ya know it TS, they don’t have HIV). They adopted a baby together who came from conditions that most of the PC crowd would have looked at and thought abortion was the best answer. But it wasn’t. This little boy is now thriving in a happy, wonderful, big Irish-Catholic family, with two wonderful, happy, doting parents.
Posted by: Amanda at June 29, 2008 10:53 AM
Irish Catholic gay couple? Did I misinterpret something? Look at what the Catechism of the Catholic church says about homosexuality.
And I guess you are saying that warning somebody they are engaging in acts that are detrimental, even deadly to their health is now “bashing” their lifestyle. Where I come from it is called helping pull them out a dangerous habit. But the politically correct crowd is so uncomfortable with confrontation that they would rather not bring it up.
“And also, to imagine that whether you will be pro-life all depends on how WE behave, whether you decide that you’ll be pro-life or not, is absurd, in my opinion.”
Reading Comprehension 101.
Re-read the post. Tell me where I said that YOUR behavior has anything to do with my opinions. I’ll repeat what I said to jasper – you guys are not nearly as important and influential as you apparently think you are.
The gay bashing garbage posted on this site has absolutely NO relevance to my opinion on abortion. I just have no desire to read a bunch of gay bashing garbage – and it IS alienating.
All I’m saying is, if the pro life agenda wants more support – to, you know, ACTUALLY stop abortion, try NOT alienating an entire population of people who 1. do not contribute to abortions and 2. may be 100% supportive of eliminating abortion, but not when that means voting for someone who doesn’t think they should have rights.
And yes, TS, and Irish Catholic gay couple. With 6 other children who are straight as arrows, and 13 grand kids. They’re my neighbors, and they’re wonderful people. And wouldn’t you know it, after 8 years of being together, neither of them magically developed HIV.
Jess and to Whom It May Concern,
I’ve notified Jill of what took place last night re: yllas and the online conversation that went down in flames.
She will decide how to handle it. In the meantime, let’s all keep a level head when it comes to these emotional issues. Speaking for myself, I would like to keep you on this blog provided we can keep it civil.
And Amanda, I beggeth you, PLEASE don’t go!
Bethany, you have a point.
Where I come from it is called helping pull them out a dangerous habit.
Umm…being attracted to who you’re attracted to is not a “dangerous habit.”
Unless, if you think being attracted to women is dangerous to YOUR health too.
The sex, maybe, but completely monogamous sex with uninfected people doesn’t seem to fall into that “dangerous habit” category for me.
Bethany,
I personally don’t even get why homosexuality is brought up AT ALL. Like I’ve said, homosexuals aren’t having abortions at alarming rates, so I figure we’d be glad that we don’t have to worry about them and all their unplanned pregnancies, cause..uhhh..they don’t have many of those.
TS, I’m confused. You said,
“That Y chromosome may be what triggers a lot of the receptive mechanisms in a woman to intiate after conception. ”
So you are saying the Y chromosome is what makes the woman more receptive to foreign DNA? Call me crazy, but doesn’t some sperm carry an X chromosome instead of a Y chromosome? You know, to make girls (XX)?
So according to this, women’s immune systems will attack female fetuses more than males because the Y chromosome is not there to trigger those receptive mechanisms?
Posted by: Stephanie at June 29, 2008 1:25 PM
No Stephanie, my understanding of the concept here is that it is not necessarily important wether the gametes are those of men or women, although that could play a role. Women do have different mechanisms to deal with the gene mutation process then men. And men are not designed to play the role of host to the developement processes that are triggered by sperm so they cause abnormal responses if they are introduced.
And yes, TS, and Irish Catholic gay couple. With 6 other children who are straight as arrows, and 13 grand kids. They’re my neighbors, and they’re wonderful people. And wouldn’t you know it, after 8 years of being together, neither of them magically developed HIV.
Posted by: Amanda at June 29, 2008 1:45 PM
And I bet they haven’t magically had any sexual intercourse either, cause you cannot and call yourself Catholic. Maybe the reason they haven’t gotten HIV isn’t so magical at all.
“Re-read the post. Tell me where I said that YOUR behavior has anything to do with my opinions.”
here you go:
Amanda: “Separate yourselves from the gay-bashing crap, and I could PROMISE you there are hundreds, if not thousands of people out there like me who would be happy to support you.”
…
jasper:”Who bashed gays?”
amanda “Would you like a list?”
no, just an example..is disagreeing with homosexual lifestyle gay bashing?
Yeah, this is exactly why I stopped posting on here. The lies upon lies about the unborn and about the pro-life movement, the perverse politeness by which one uses such lies and hideous contortions of logic in order to condemn innocent unborn children to death – it’s enough to drive anyone over the edge. And then when people like yllas flip out, when they can no longer stand it, you wonder exactly how it could happen.
Jasper, you should know by now – OF COURSE it’s “gay bashing” to be opposed to sanctifying homosexual acts through our government. Nearly every single legitimate Christian denomination is “anti-gay” by the logic of these folks. That’s exactly why they’re almost all former Christians in the first place. It’s not like anyone could have a problem with a God of infinite love who was born into the world as a man to bear our sins and die for us. No, they just don’t like how the church is against declaring sodomy to be a holy act. That’s why they left.
Sure, even Lord Obama, the Secular Messiah himself, opposes gay marriage, but that doesn’t make him a gay basher… for whatever reason. It also doesn’t really matter that McCain has no especially strong position on that issue (aside from being opposed to gay marriage, just like Obama), and would probably sign a bill legalizing civil unions if it passed through Congress. The dishonesty which these “pro-lifers” use to justify their support for Obama makes me want to puke.
Take the argument that somebody would be pro-life if only pro-lifers were for gay marriage. That’s remarkably similar to the argument made about the time I stopped commenting here – that more people would be pro-life if pro-lifers were economically liberal. An absurd argument. Really; you base your deeply held beliefs on what someone else does? Are you actually telling us that you will protect unborn babies from death if more people will support gay marriage, but if people don’t support gay marriage, you say to heck with the unborn babies? What the hell kind of way to live is that?!
As I said, it’s the reason why I won’t post here; I cannot post here and have a nice little tea party with people who will admit that unborn babies are alive, admit that unborn babies have a right to life, and say that they want to protect unborn babies… but then say that they won’t do it because icky pro-life Christians are mean. That is INSANE.
Carder, thanks for taking care of the thread and emailing Jill. I was not able to even read this thread today, except the last few posts (and the only reason I checked in at all was because I got an email from one of the members here). I wish I had more time to read and moderate today. (My husband and I have been canning blueberries and plums- making wine – and pickles…so not much time to do anything but that!)
Hey John L,
I’m still pro-life even though I don’t necessarily agree with the anti-homosexuality sentiments. My defense for the innocent unborn is not contingent upon you all agreeing with every other idea or belief I throw out there.
Obviously I’m being very clear, because Elizabeth gets it, and so do a bunch of other people I’m talking about this to, but I’ll phrase it differently for those of you who don’t WANT to get it.
If a man was running for president who was adamantly pro-life, but also believed that Christianity was wrong and practicing any form of Christianity in public should be banned, would you vote for that man? Or would you say “crap. I just can’t vote for this guy, even if agree with him about abortion!”
THAT is how I feel when I need to choose between pro life legislation and pro choice legislation.
If a group that protested at abortion clinics also protested at the funerals of US servicemen, would you join that group? Or would you say “crap, i appreciate what they’re doing at the abortion clinics, but I just can’t align myself with a group that protests at funerals!”
THAT is how I feel when I think about supporting pro life organizations that are JUST as involved with protesting gay marriage and civil unions as they are with preventing abortion.
And as for you all assuming that I’m not pro life because of YOU and YOUR actions? You need a verrrrrrry serious reality check.
The fact that I no longer have any desire to read this blog BECAUSE of all of the gossip and gay bashing does not change my feelings about abortion – it changes my feelings about POSTING ON A BLOG. If you don’t see a very important distinction between the two, again, reality check.
The fact that I no longer have any desire to read this blog BECAUSE of all of the gossip and gay bashing does not change my feelings about abortion – it changes my feelings about POSTING ON A BLOG. If you don’t see a very important distinction between the two, again, reality check.
Obviously, you don’t see the distinction either. This is your second post since you claimed you were “done”…and you’re still reading.
LOL Amanda. Really.
Amanda, that’s why I’m pro-choice. Even if I do/did want abortion to be illegal, I would still call myself pro-choice.
I’m pro-choice, but do I want to ban abortion? Have I had a recent life experience that changed my whole outlook on the subject? All this and more coming up tonight on Jill Staneks, Pro-Life Pulse!
…..If a man was running for president who was adamantly pro-life, but also believed that Christianity was wrong and practicing any form of Christianity in public should be banned, would you vote for that man? Or would you say “crap. I just can’t vote for this guy, even if agree with him about abortion!”
THAT is how I feel when I need to choose between pro life legislation and pro choice legislation.
Okay, Amanda.
Prove yourself. What exactly are your thoughts on ABORTION. Not on a group of people. Not on an agenda, etc.
Just on abortion. That’s it.
Do you think that an unborn child has the right to life from the moment of conception?
Do you think that abortion is always wrong?
Do you think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of the unborn child (rape, incest, etc) justify abortion?
Do you think that abortion is morally acceptable if the woman can’t afford a child?
Please clarify your position on abortion, so we can see how honest you are about being so very close to voting pro-life.
Lewandowski!
I have so, so, so missed you.
But you really do need to come back; no one else can express things quite the way you do. Well, maybe Laura, but that’s another category.
Yllas has a right to flip, so do you, so does everyone else on this board because frankly the things that are posted here can be quite maddening.
That being said, it can be done without the name calling and perverse suggestions that were brought up last night.
Yllas has been advised to cool it but persists in juvenile internet behavior. So Jill has to call the final shot with regards to him.
Come back now, ya hear?
After this fantastic thing- I think I’m going to be taking my leave as well.
I’m sick of this crap- I’m sick of the constant misinformation and refusal to accept FACTS because they don’t agree with yours.
Those who have my email address are free to email- those who know me on facebook are free to bug me there, but yeah- fin.
Rae,
NOOOOO! Don’t leave meeeeee!
I’m seriously gonna cry now.
Bethany,
Do you think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of the unborn child (rape, incest, etc) justify abortion?
Didn’t John McCain say he thought abortion was okay in instances of rape and incest?
If so, I guess there is NO pro-life candidate this year. Guess all us TRUE pro-lifers are not going to be voting then? Anyone, anyone?
Bethany,
Do you think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of the unborn child (rape, incest, etc) justify abortion?
Didn’t John McCain say he thought abortion was okay in instances of rape and incest?
What point are you trying to make, Elizabeth, and what does it have to do with the point I was making?
Rae, I’m not sure who you’re responding to (I haven’t read enough on this thread to know), but I do hope you will reconsider. Please remember that there will always be those who disagree with us and who will make us angry, no matter what forum, blog, community we belong to, in ‘real life’ or the internet. This blog is no different. Just remember how many people are reading this blog every day. Out of all those people, there is bound to be someone who causes frustration, but that shouldn’t make you feel as though you have to leave. Just my 2 cents.
Why don’t you answer my question first?
Well, Elizabeth, it has absolutely nothing to do with my point.
About McCain, you are absolutely right. McCain is not pro-life, and I am very discouraged about that. It’s very saddening when you know that you can’t really root for either candidate.
Do you think that an unborn child has the right to life from the moment of conception?
Yes.
Do you think that abortion is always wrong?
No. See below, and add in serious health complications – like a woman needing to choose between her own life and her childs. That kind of choice should be her’s and her’s alone.
Do you think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of the unborn child (rape, incest, etc) justify abortion?
Justify? No. Because that makes it sound as though it cancels out the crime committed, and it doesn’t. But is it a CHOICE that should be available to someone who is pregnant against their will? Absolutely. One area where John McCain and I are in 110% agreement.
Do you think that abortion is morally acceptable if the woman can’t afford a child?
Depends. Can she not afford it because she doesn’t want to? Or because she’s a homeless coke addict?
Do you think that an unborn child has the right to life from the moment of conception?
Yes.
Do you think that abortion is always wrong?
No. See below, and add in serious health complications – like a woman needing to choose between her own life and her childs. That kind of choice should be her’s and her’s alone.
Why shouldn’t it be instead, if a woman’s health is in danger by continuing the pregnancy, the doctors involved should do everything to save BOTH lives involved, and if the child’s is lost in the process, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome and not the intended result?
Do you think that the circumstances surrounding the conception of the unborn child (rape, incest, etc) justify abortion?
Justify? No. Because that makes it sound as though it cancels out the crime committed, and it doesn’t. But is it a CHOICE that should be available to someone who is pregnant against their will? Absolutely. One area where John McCain and I are in 110% agreement.
Then you don’t really believe the unborn child has a right to life, and you were dishonest in your answer to the first question.
Do you think that abortion is morally acceptable if the woman can’t afford a child?
Depends. Can she not afford it because she doesn’t want to? Or because she’s a homeless coke addict?
Again, if your answer “depends” on circumstances, then you do not really believe the child has a “right to life”. You are not pro-life.
Reality Check-
Thanks for the completely uncalled for nastiness,
but if you haven’t noticed, I haven’t made any comments in any new threads. I’m finishing the conversation I’m in the middle of here, and then calling it quits. Its rude not to answer people’s questions and leave in the middle of a conversation. Once this discussion is over, I’ll be done posting on this blog.
John L,
lets be honest. You didn’t leave because you think my opinions are insane, you left because you were being vulgar and rude, and when people on your own side called you on it, you pouted and ran off.
Well Bethany, if you have such a strict definition of what “pro-life” is, than I guess I’m not pro-life either.
So much for the “conversion”.
And in regards to your previous post, sure there will be people off the blog in real life who piss me off…but you know how I deal with people who frakking piss me off? I avoid them. And I will be doing the same here.
And it’s not just “one” person- it’s multiple (actually, to be honest, it’s damn near everybody) that frustrates the living hell out of me. Call me a whiner, call me a quitter, but I don’t have to deal with that, so I’m going to try not to be such a little masochist and put up with it anymore.
Bethany – than neither is John McCain or 50% of Pro Life Americans.
There is a HUGE difference between believing a fetus has a right to life when its mother has consented to pregnancy by having consenting intercourse, and when she has become pregnant against her will. A HUUUUUUUGE difference that even 50% of pro lifers see.
Rae, you may not be fully pro-life, however, you are not lying about it. That is the difference.
Ohhhhhh I’m LYING about it?!
AHAHAHAHHA
my OPINIONS
are LIES?
GOOOOOOD to know
Because you know me that well Bethany? Better than I know myself apparently!!! Good to know!
Bethany,
Amanda NEVER claimed she was pro-life. She has said numerous times she is on the fence. Don’t make stuff up.
There is a HUGE difference between believing a fetus has a right to life when its mother has consented to pregnancy by having consenting intercourse, and when she has become pregnant against her will. A HUUUUUUUGE difference that even 50% of pro lifers see.
Yes, because the mother’s reasons for conceiving, or circumstances through which she conceives, alters the biological reality of what the child is, and drastically. @@ Right.
So an unborn child ONLY has a right to life, when circumstances work out perfectly, correct? Otherwise, no right to life.
Got news for you, that’s pro-abortion.
A true pro-lifer recognizes that an innocent person does not deserve to be purposefully killed for the sins of his father, or for poverty reasons, or for ANY reason, period.
If you do believe that an innocent person should die at the hands of his parents in the womb, then you should logically also hold those same beliefs for people outside the womb. That means that all orphans without adoptive parents should be killed, because they are living in less than ideal circumstances.
(That is, this should be your conclusion, if you truly believe what you say you do about the unborn.)
Elizabeth, she has said multiple times that she would be willing to vote pro-life if only we pro-lifers would stop condemning homosexuality. That was a lie.
She has also said multiple times that she believes the unborn has a right to life. She even said that on this thread.
She is being dishonest, and it is obvious.
“A true pro-lifer recognizes that an innocent person does not deserve to be purposefully killed for the sins of his father, or for poverty reasons, or for ANY reason, period.
If you do believe that an innocent person should die at the hands of his parents in the womb, then you should logically also hold those same beliefs for people outside the womb. That means that all orphans without adoptive parents should be killed, because they are living in less than ideal circumstances.”
Oh really? So who are you voting for in November Bethany? Because by your own definition, John McCain is PRO ABORTION.
And if you’re HONESTLY going to go down the – “if you believe this about an unviable babies you must believe it about viable/born babies as well” than this discussion is clearly over, because I know you’re smart enough to know how COMPLETELY ridiculous that line of illogic is.
No, she didn’t. She said it would make more people side with US than with the other guys. And by those more people, I mean gay people. But we don’t really care if they’re on our side do we? Because they’re the evil gayzzzzzz.
She is being dishonest, and it is obvious.
Posted by: Bethany at June 29, 2008 7:35 PM————— She always is.
“Elizabeth, she has said multiple times that she would be willing to vote pro-life if only we pro-lifers would stop condemning homosexuality. That was a lie.”
AAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are you SERIOUSLY claiming to know how and why I’d vote for a candidate?
Seriously? Have you been tapping in to my brain Bethany?? Spying on me in the voting booths?
I would NEVER DARE make accusations of people lying because their beliefs don’t fit in to a neat little category. NEVER.
If you can’t have an honest conversation, theres no point in continuing it. Take care.
Rae, Elizabeth – we’ll be in touch of course.
Farewell to the rest of you.
Oh really? So who are you voting for in November Bethany? Because by your own definition, John McCain is PRO ABORTION.
I don’t know yet whether I will be voting, Amanda, to answer your question. I have thought about Alan Keyes. Wish there were more people voting for him.
And if you’re HONESTLY going to go down the – “if you believe this about an unviable babies you must believe it about viable/born babies as well” than this discussion is clearly over, because I know you’re smart enough to know how COMPLETELY ridiculous that line of illogic is.
Really? Explain it to me, Amanda.
Are you SERIOUSLY claiming to know how and why I’d vote for a candidate?
Seriously? Have you been tapping in to my brain Bethany?? Spying on me in the voting booths?
Nope, just reading your posts.
I would NEVER DARE make accusations of people lying because their beliefs don’t fit in to a neat little category. NEVER.
You are the one who claimed that unborn children have a right to life, but in another breath, made it conditional. Not me.
If you can’t have an honest conversation, theres no point in continuing it. Take care.
I’ve been perfectly honest with you, Amanda. Have a good night.
No, she didn’t. She said it would make more people side with US than with the other guys. And by those more people, I mean gay people. But we don’t really care if they’re on our side do we? Because they’re the evil gayzzzzzz.
Strawman, Elizabeth.
Amanda, serious question, why shouldn’t a woman be able to abort for any reason? Does its conception (rape) make it any less of a human being? A child conceived of rape is still a child, same as a child conceived from love. Why should something it has no control over be a reason to kill it? The baby did nothing wrong.
Oh my goodness, Jess….that was an excellent question! Thank you!
Bethany, if I had been banned like yllas asked then I never would have been around to ask it.
Amanda 7:21 PM
John L,lets be honest. You didn’t leave because you think my opinions are insane, you left because you were being vulgar and rude, and when people on your own side called you on it, you pouted and ran off.
*~*
John may be a hothead, but there is really something wrong with Yllas.
“But we don’t really care if they’re on our side do we? Because they’re the evil gayzzzzzz.”
who said they were evil Elizabeth? why do you continue to make accusations without backing it up? again, when did I say I was uncomfortable around gays? why are you doing this?
Is disagreeing with the homosexual lifestyle gay-bashing Amanda? why won’t you answer this question?
Hi John L,
I hope you will come back and post again, I really enjoyed your posts, plus you understand your faith very well…
Jess 7:47 PM
Amanda, serious question, why shouldn’t a woman be able to abort for any reason? Does its conception (rape) make it any less of a human being? A child conceived of rape is still a child, same as a child conceived from love. Why should something it has no control over be a reason to kill it? The baby did nothing wrong.
*~*
Amanda can give you her opinion. The unborn do not change, no, due to rape, and she’s not saying the unborn do wrong. She never said any of that.
But what do change are people’s feelings.
Bethany, if I had been banned like yllas asked then I never would have been around to ask it.
I don’t think you’d ever be banned, Jess. :)
Bethany,
On the weekend question thread, there is an anon poster calling Rae a freak…so if you could head up there and delete that, that would be grrreat!
Amanda can give you her opinion. The unborn do not change, no, due to rape, and she’s not saying the unborn do wrong. She never said any of that.
But what do change are people’s feelings.
Michael, that really isn’t the point, is it?
The point is, Amanda claims that the unborn have a “right to life”.
What does that mean to you? To me, that means that they should be afforded the right to life, and not be killed.
To Amanda, it seems that the “right to life” is conditional, based on others (as you put it) “feelings”. In other words, she truly does NOT believe the unborn have a “right to life”. She believes the mother has a “right to kill” what is what is from a pro-abortion perspective, the woman’s property, depending on the circumstances.
This begs the question, which Jess asked…. “Why do you feel that a woman should NOT be able to abort, in some situations?”
See, if Amanda believes that a woman can abort for SOME reason, why not all?
It makes no logical sense, and I think Amanda knows that, which is why she is responding so harshly right now.
Elizabeth, checking it out now. Thanks for the heads up. :)
Bethany 8:14 PM
The point is, Amanda claims that the unborn have a “right to life”.
What does that mean to you? To me, that means that they should be afforded the right to life, and not be killed.
*~*
Michael – I do not think Amanda sees only that. She did not say it was without exception.
To Amanda, it seems that the “right to life” is conditional, based on others’ (as you put it) “feelings”. In other words, she truly does NOT believe the unborn have a “right to life”. She believes the mother has a “right to kill” what is what is from a pro-abortion perspective, the woman’s property, depending on the circumstances.
*~*
M – I don’t know about “property” but it’s INSIDE her body, so the point is probably moot.
This begs the question, which Jess asked…. “Why do you feel that a woman should NOT be able to abort, in some situations?”
See, if Amanda believes that a woman can abort for SOME reason, why not all?
*~*
M – because Amanda thinks that some reasons are not good enough?
carder 6:32 PM
Yllas has been advised to cool it but persists in juvenile internet behavior.
*~*
ProLifeMD said,
“The adolescent frontal cortex has not yet matured for the skill of adult judgment. They cannot fully integrate emotions with sound decisions subject to self-control.”
And who are we to judge what reasons are or are not good enough? Should it be up to a judge? A panel of doctors like it was pre-Roe vs. Wade?
What if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant because she rides horses and couldn’t ride for her pregnancy, would she be able to abort? What about a woman on bed rest? What makes them so different? And are you saying you don’t care at all about the baby but only about the woman?
The woman is the one who judges. Let us care for the woman, and if she wants to have a baby, then that is another thing.
While he may not have a degree from the best university in the US, this does not disqualify Tony Perkins from speaking about fatherhood. He is after all the father of 5 children.
I didn’t know one needed a doctorate to have an authoritative opinion on fatherhood.
Posted by: Patricia at June 27, 2008 3:50 PM
You were the one who stated that TP (gotta love those initials) was “credentialed”, which usually adds authority to someone’s statements or opinions. I pointed out (and Amanda added info) that the source of his credentials is suspect, therefore, those credentials lose authority.
If you wanted to point out his expertise as a father, then his “credentials” as a lawyer aren’t very relevant.
And # of kids has little to do with being a good parent.
“And # of kids has little to do with being a good parent.”
After 20 you being to lose count. Then you start repeating names, John, James, Mary, John…
The person with the most children in one family I know is 26, the most born to one mother is a tie at 16. Yes, these are the uber-prolific Catholic pro-lifers I grew up with : )
Michael, then you think any woman should have the right to an abortion for any reason?
Doug responded to Patricia:
There, “toddler” is a bit undefined, since it will fall within a subjecive range of ages. Personally I see it going infant to toddler to child. Same for “adolescent.” It’s roughly between puberty and full maturity (or is it even that well defined?). Still, quite a range.
Thought on the toddler stage – by definition, it refers to the age at which the child acquires the ability to ambulate independently – and it can vary from extremes of 6 months up to 16 months. SO it isn’t fuzzy at all, it just doesn’t work well to generalize this stage.
phylo:10:24:
I wouldn’t try to make any sense out of this thread if I were you. You may lose your mind…. Just to clarify, shortly before I bowed out of this wacky thread, I mentioned Tony Perkins and his “credentials” in a reply to Hal (Patricia did not). See June 27, 11:28:AM.
I said I was impressed by his experience as a police officer, a US Marine, and TV news reporter (more than any degrees he may have). Maybe “credential” was the wrong word to use to describe those occupations. I left the conversation shortly after that…too many conversations going in too many directions for me. As for the rest of it, I think you and Patricia are on the same page about the law degree (????) You two can figure that out.
Yllas,
With Jill’s authorization, you are asked to discontinue posting for the next two weeks.
Take a break. Go to the beach. Do some gardening.
When you’re ready to compose coherent posts minus the insults, we’ll be glad to have you back.
Yours Truly.
phylo:10:24:
I wouldn’t try to make any sense out of this thread if I were you. You may lose your mind…. Just to clarify, shortly before I bowed out of this wacky thread, I mentioned Tony Perkins and his “credentials” in a reply to Hal (Patricia did not). See June 27, 11:28:AM.
I said I was impressed by his experience as a police officer, a US Marine, and TV news reporter (more than any degrees he may have). Maybe “credential” was the wrong word to use to describe those occupations. I left the conversation shortly after that…too many conversations going in too many directions for me. As for the rest of it, I think you and Patricia are on the same page about the law degree (????) You two can figure that out.
Posted by: Janet at June 29, 2008 10:48 PM
Apologies to Patricia, then.
Maybe that is what is needed – credentialing parents? Imagine if fertility didn’t occur until some sort of test was passed – save us all a heckuva lot of time and effort, typing, right?
I do not think Amanda sees only that. She did not say it was without exception.
Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_life
M – I don’t know about “property” but it’s INSIDE her body, so the point is probably moot.
Michael, no, that doesn’t make the point moot.
M – because Amanda thinks that some reasons are not good enough?
Well, maybe Amanda can speak for herself.
Phylosopher: Thought on the toddler stage – by definition, it refers to the age at which the child acquires the ability to ambulate independently – and it can vary from extremes of 6 months up to 16 months. SO it isn’t fuzzy at all, it just doesn’t work well to generalize this stage.
Yeah, and gotta love the “ambulate.” Indeed, it’s when one toddles, provided one is young enough, since some of us have a second stage in later life.
I was at a big gathering of my wife’s family, and we were talking about when we started to walk.
My father-in-law is often somewhat critical of his younger brother (these are now two old Sicilian guys) in that he was relatively coddled and had things handed to him rather than having to work his fingers to the bone as of course his older brother did.
It went around the table, 14 months, 12 months, then older brother says to younger, “It was about 15 for you, wasn’t it, Allan?”
Allan says he really doesn’t know, but thinks it’s more like 13 months.
Older brother: “Months? Oh no, you didn’t walk until you were 15 years old!”
Jess: Bethany, if I had been banned like yllas asked then I never would have been around to ask it.
Bethany: I don’t think you’d ever be banned, Jess. :)
……
Jess, you’re a sweety and this has come up before:
You can never ban me, I’ll find other computers and use other names!!!!
Ha! Jess, your persona is too friggin’ cute to get banned.
-Doug at June 24, 2008 7:38 AM
Jess, There’s no one else quite like you! You can’t hide!
-Janet at June 24, 2008 1:50 PM