Hope and the soiled utility room
Here’s another political cartoon that can’t wait until Sunday to post, by Eric Allie, courtesy of Townhall.com:
[HT: reader S. O’Brien]
Aug.27, 2008 7:01 am |
Aborted alive, Born Alive, Cartoons, 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.
Ah, the baby in the broom closet. Took me a minute to figure that one out. Yes, that baby was locked out of “hope”.
I’m so happy to see Cardinal Egan’s statement on the QOTD. Thank-you Jasper!
Shame on you Nancy Pelosi!
Hey Hal:
Here’s some info for you from the FRC:
“At the Democrats’ official interfaith prayer gathering on Sunday, the crowd reportedly went silent when the keynote speaker, Bishop Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ, expressed the “moral and spiritual pain so many of us feel because of this disregard for the lives of the unborn.”
You forgot to tell me about that Hal. How come?
Obama apparently has a problem with the “Audacity of Life”.
Real hope costs something, false hope costs noting. Anyone, by promising this or that or saying this or that, can give one hope….and false hope. Real hope however, costs something. It cost Christ His life.
Now life, now that really costs something too. To choose life may cost a career change, an adjustment in one’s budget, a change in one’s plans, a change in one’s lifestyle. Yes, life may require one to deny oneself.
Ah, false hope, it costs nothing…….and flase leadership gives false hope. Real hope shows that victory only comes in the doing of the right thing. Hope cost John McCain 5 years in a POW camp.
And Obama’s version of hope, false hope, kills the unborn life. Let’s me ask you this: where’s the hope when the goal of that hope is to kill the ultimate expression of hope found in a new life waiting to meet the world? Where’s the hope?
Obama’s hope, false hope, kills a baby when its will to live even defeats the will of it’s mother and abortionist to murder it. Where’s the hope?
Oh, oh, oh, the audacity of life; may it never be quenched by those who say good is evil and evil is good.
Jill,
This cartoon is amazing.
“as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. ”
HA! Really? I’d love to see one of those ultrasounds.
Here’s hope as expressed by various pro-aborts:
Pelosi: “abortion is between a woman, a doctor and her god”. What? God didn’t know she was going to get pregnant?
SoMG: “there is no god”.
Hal: “I care about women, therefore, abortion should be safe, legal and rare”. Well what about those women in the womb, Hal?
To be pro-abortion requires that one either twist their view of God, deny that there is a God, or hide what abortion actually does.
The deception of Obama’s “Audacity of Hope”.
Pelosi: “abortion is between a woman, a doctor and her god”. What? God didn’t know she was going to get pregnant?Posted by: HisMan at August 27, 2008 10:22 AM
What? God didn’t know she was going to get an abortion?
HisMan quoted Ms. Pelosi and added his own commentary:
Pelosi: “abortion is between a woman, a doctor and her god”. What? God didn’t know she was going to get pregnant?
Whether or not God knew about her pregnancy (of course He did!) is a non sequitur. What Pelosi clearly meant is that the moral implications (if any) of an abortion are up to each individual woman to decide, according to her relationship with whatever she believes. It’s a classic, wishy-washy, everybody-is-right-so-we-should-all-just-get-along answer.
A better objection to Ms. Pelosi’s airhead comment is as follows:
Pelosi: “abortion is between a woman, a doctor and her god”.
Which god, Nancy? Molech loves the slaughter of innocent children. Shiva may or may not even care.
However, the God of Abraham, the Creator of the Universe, and the Lord of Lords has already made His opinion clear. He hates hands that shed innocent blood. (Proverbs 6:17) Your god may not care about abortion, but God certainly does … and He hates it.
HisMan, I have never said, nor do I believe, that there is no god.
Your god may not care about abortion, but God certainly does … and He hates it.
Posted by: Naaman at August 27, 2008 11:21 AM
Ha, He’s got a funny way of showing it. Remember that theological debate last year? If God hates abortion why doesn’t he stop it?
Either there is no God (yep) or he doesn’t hate it so much. It’s part of “God’s plan” and we better just accept it. Who are we to question God?
addressed to Christians:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:3-9)
Hal :”Ha, He’s got a funny way of showing it. Remember that theological debate last year? If God hates abortion why doesn’t he stop it?
Either there is no God (yep) or he doesn’t hate it so much. It’s part of “God’s plan” and we better just accept it. Who are we to question God?”
Your conclusion does not follow necessarily from your premise.
You are making the assumption that God would stop something if he hated it.
Justify that assumption. Oh you cant.
Hal wrote:
If God hates abortion why doesn’t he stop it?
God allows all sorts of human evil, because the alternative would be to remove our free will. Wikipedia has a decent article about the importance of free will in theology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology
Hi Jill,
please add a notation on this blog’s front page noting that comments are welcomed for two additional weeks AFTER they disappear from the current-topics list. Accessing many arguments can be done by clicking the archive file. Newbees may not know!
John McDonell
“HisMan, I have never said, nor do I believe, that there is no god.
Posted by: SoMG at August 27, 2008 11:41 AM”
And this guy supports Obama. Any questions?
HisMan:
Why do you insist on calling people who are PC Pro-Aborts?
Midnite, I agree that some people are pro-choice. However, those that would force a doctor to refer someone to an abortionist, or force a pharmacy to fill the morning after pill and the like are pro-aborts. Agree?
Midnite, imagine that there are a group of people who believe it should be a man’s choice whether he wants to rape a woman or not. Would you be accepting of the term “pro-choice” for them, or would you insist on calling them “pro-rape”?
I’m just trying to help you see it from our perspective.
We don’t call people pro-abortion to be mean…we say it because that’s what we believe is true.
Bethany:
That’s all fine and dandy…But rape is illegal and abortion is not. That’s the first difference.
Secondly, there are people (like myself), who would not personally have an abortion but dont feel that they have the right to tell another human being what they can or can not do with their body.
Do you think I am a “Pro Abort” b/c I feel that way about abortion?
Midnite,
I think there are people who are pro-choice and then there are people who are pro-abortion as in they would try to influence people to have abortions or that abortion is the only option. I would also say that people who are abortionists and profit from abortions are pro-abortion. I do think there are people in the middle who just think a woman should have the choice and as such would support a woman in whatever that choice may be. I think those people are more deserving of the term pro-choice than necessarily pro-abortion.
And just for the record, I don’t like it when people refer to us as anti-choice because I don’t think we are, so I don’t feel the need to refer to PC people as pro-aborts.
That’s all fine and dandy…But rape is illegal and abortion is not. That’s the first difference.
But suppose it were legal…would you then call them pro-choice? This is what I’m trying to explain to you.
Do you think I am a “Pro Abort” b/c I feel that way about abortion?
I wouldn’t say pro-abort…pro-abortion or an abortion proponent. A person who supports abortion, etc. Not intended to hurt you, I just believe that in effect, that is what you support by not opposing it.
That should have said, “I wouldn’t say “pro-abort”. I might call them “pro-abortion” or “abortion proponent”.”
Sorry if that was confusing. :-)
Well said Bethany.
Thank you, oliver! :)
midnite,
You may not be a pro-abort in your opinion, but by saying you are pro-choice, you’re succumbing to the pressure of moral relativism.. You’re saying basically that you are indifferent to the issue. If you don’t think it’s right for you, why should you be indifferent to others who make that choice? You’re a caring person.I think you’re smarter than that.
midnite678: “Why do you insist on calling people who are PC Pro-Aborts?”
midnite, It’s simply a short version of “proabortion”, which is used correctly to refer to those who are prochoice. This may explain it for you:
pro-a
midnite: Secondly, there are people (like myself), who would not personally have an abortion but dont feel that they have the right to tell another human being what they can or can not do with their body.
Why is it that people who make such statements always focus on the bigger, and thus the more powerful living person, of the two in question? If one was to see same big person openly beating their infant (now in the open for all to see) they would certainly interfere to protect the little one…in fact, by law, they would have to report it. Well, in reality, there is no difference in the end result if allowed to be completed. So, yes, if you know of someone contemplating same horror within the womb, body, to the second littler person involved, hopefully you would do all in your power to (interfere) protect the one of the two who obviously needs the most protection. Secondly, by your actions, you would also be preventing the psychological/emotional and even the possible physical damage from being done to the larger of the two!
“”as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. ”
HA! Really? I’d love to see one of those ultrasounds.
Posted by: Mike at August 27, 2008 10:13 AM
——————————————-
Check this out:
http://americanlifeleague.stores.yahoo.net/bastd2nded.html
Midnite,
I’m pro-choice too.
Good points, KC, but the proaborts don’t seem to have any concern for “the little one” at all, whether born or not.
And the Democrats, who claim to be so concerned about social justice, consider the womb to be a “social justice free zone”, apparently.
Okay, I’m going to try this with just one quote and one link:
pro-abortion SYLLABICATION: pro-a
Great, here’s another one!
pro-a
Doyle,
I published your comment with all the links in it. Better late than never…
The “pro-choice” label is another in a long list of abortion lies.
as I said before, someone who is pro-gun rights (who chooses not to own a gun) does not call them self “pro-choice”, they’re fine with the term pro-gun rights.
The pro-aborts are ashamed of the word “abortion”, so the pro-choice lie eases their consciense.
A pro-abort simply has to believe in the right to legalized abortion, they don’t have to have one or have it as an option for them.
Midnite,
You a pro-abort. … sorry
Wow, this is strange. I just went to encarta.msn.com, and they have removed the word “proabortion” from their dictionary. So I did a search on “onelook.com”, and found that three other dictionaries have picked the word up since I last looked. Now, dictionary.com and infoplease.com are defining it as “prochoice”, plain and simple, and Merriam-Webster is defining it as “favoring the legalization of abortion”. I would post the links, but that doesn’t seem to work too well here.
Bobby: No problem, I understand the need for rules. I’ve found a “work around”… :D
Janet —
If you don’t think it’s right for you, why should you be indifferent to others who make that choice?
Making a personal decision you feel is best does not necessarily mean you feel that it’s best for everyone, or that you feel everyone should be required to make that same decision.
Additionally, supporting the legality of something is not the same as being indifferent to people making that choice. Sometimes you want people to make the right choice, but you don’t think you have grounds to legally deny them the right to make the wrong choice. Need I trot out the smoking example again.
Jasper: Honest, and well put!
Alexandra, the problem with the smoking analogy is that it only affects one person.
Alexandra, the problem with the smoking analogy is that it only affects one person.
Yes, I understand that. I understand that people have valid reasons for opposing abortion. I’m just saying, the “How can you legally support access to an option you wouldn’t choose for yourself?” argument is incorrect.
“Alexandra, the problem with the smoking analogy is that it only affects one person.”
sure…. only, No. That’s not even close to being an accurate statement.
“Making a personal decision you feel is best does not necessarily mean you feel that it’s best for everyone, or that you feel everyone should be required to make that same decision.”
Alexandra,
would you be Ok if we made jumping off tall bridges legal? Somebody may want to do this without being harassed.
Alexandra,
Just popping by because I noticed you’d asked about the contents of my post that was deleted.
I wanted to let you know I’d also posted over it in the Pro Life group on Facebook, where it ilicited a friendly and productive debate, with mostly pro lifers who aren’t afraid of discussing it. Not sure if you use facebook or not, but if you do, it’s there, and thats where I am these days as well. Its an environment much more conducive to conversation and debate and is actually moderated fairly. =)
The problem with the “Live and let die” arguement is that it trivializes the killing of an innocent unborn human being by placing it in the same category as “crimes without victims”. Abortion HAS a victim.
Yes, I understand that. I understand that people have valid reasons for opposing abortion. I’m just saying, the “How can you legally support access to an option you wouldn’t choose for yourself?” argument is incorrect.
Okay, I see what you’re saying.
Anonymous, 2:48…please choose a screen name. You’re more than welcome to post here, we just don’t allow anonymous comments because it becomes confusing trying to figure out who is who. :) Thanks!
Doyle, 2:57, well said.
Post it again Amanda. I dont have facebook, and Im sure the moderators would allow us to continue the debate, considering I will crush you.
I agree, that sounds like a good idea.
What? God didn’t know she was going to get an abortion?
Posted by: Hal at August 27, 2008 10:46 AM
Yes, Hal, God also knew that Hitler was going to murder 6,000,000 Jews. Also, God does not forgive unconfessed sin.
God will deal with evil. He’s just giving all of us a chance to recognize that, and not be caught on the wrong side of the fence.
Romans 2:4 “Don
Sorry Oliver, as kind as it is of you to offer to “crush” me (thats charming, btw), Bethany already made the decision to delete the post, so whats done is done, and I’m done debating on this website.
All you need to join Facebook is an email address. The group is called “Pro Life”, and the title of the thread is “Getting Plan B”.
Amanda,
You or somebody using your computer (or within your company) has been posting under the alias “just saying”, (who is saying some nasty things) is that you or someone else where you work? The IP’s match up.
If it’s you, please try to use one name -thanks
Oliver:
Amanda is the token “fly in the ointment” on this site whose only purpose is to provoke and then point the finger at the response. She tries to get under all the pro-lifer’s skins so as to discredit anything they say.
She doesn’t understand that we are just imperfect people who are fighting for the unborn. Her modus operandi is despicable.
Now, I am sure she’ll say something like this regarding your “crush” remark. “See, this guy hates women and is only interested in bullying them sa are all pro-lifers” or something like that.
Just blow her off, her opinions are nothing.
Amanda,
Haha sure thing. I dont think I want to sign up for FaceBook honestly. Ill just take your reluctance to repost as a sign that you were just spouting the same drivel again. Have fun on your other site!
Jasper – its my boyfriend =)
Oliver – yes go ahead, blame it on me. If I was afraid, why would I have posted it in the first place and then argued for several days about it being deleted. THAT doesn’t make very much sense, now does it? WHOOOPS.
Anyways, just dropping by!! TTFN!
I dont know Amanda. All I know is that I am not going to give out my email, or go through the very irritating process of creating a new email, only to find “Abortion is wrong because it violates the mother’s right to bodily domain!!!!” for your argument.
Oliver,
That really isn’t what Amanda’s deleted post was about. You could email a mod and ask them what it was about if you like but it wasn’t about that because I was there for that comment deletion/argument thingy.
HisMan,
Just because Amanda’s opinions aren’t carbon copies of yours doesn’t mean they are nothing. And she doesn’t get under my skin, and I’m pro-life.
Was it anything spectacular or was is the same old same old, because I really really dont want to go to the anoyance of signing up for Facebook.
Awww, Oliver, but there really are a lot of us pro-lifers on Facebook too! :)
It was about BC actually, well Plan B technically which I think is viewed as an abortifacient. Anyway, it got deleted here because the mod’s thought it was an advertisement? I don’t really remember, it was a couple of weeks ago, I just know generally what all the craziness was about. You can join the Pro-Life group on Facebook, they have a wide range of discussions on there, and while *I* don’t comment on there, the discussions are always interesting to read.
Elizabeth, yes, you are correct.
That is precisely why it was misleading to suggest that it was deleted because of anyone’s fear of discussion of the topic. lol
I’m glad that Oliver called her on her bluff.
Eh, sounds lame.
My wife joined me up with MySpace, and although it has helped to maintain contact, I found out that I am not a “social networking” type of a person. Id rather not join if its just to see her argument.
Ahhh…my wife just filled me in on some of the details.
Liz:
Amanda’s your bud and that’s fine. I have pro-abort friends and relative too.
My experience with Amanda is that she is unreasonable and demonstrates it usually by making irrelevant and insulting comments to pro-lifers which usually provoke emotional responses. Unfortunately I don’t have the luxury of reading her response to Oliver, however, I am sure it was pretty nasty in order to deserve a deletion. And no license is given to anyone because they view themselves as “victims”.
Oliver has demonstrated a rather high degree of intelligence and reasoning ability, and there are some things I don’t agree with him on. However, a person who is willing ot be honest can be persuaded. I want to see him continue to post on this site and it appears that Amanda’s goal is always to attack, attack and attack more until she drives pro-lifers away.
A true friend however, does not enable someone that behaves like that to continue in that behavior but, out of love, rebukes that behavior. Perhaps you have done that privately, however, rebuking me for representing the truth about Amanda serves no one.
Think on this for a moment:
Proverbs 27:6 “Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.”
Peace……
Oliver, in the short time you have been around you have come across as a really nasty, sarcastic person. You have zero respect for those who disagree with you and throw insults around like crazy. I cannot fathom what Lauren sees in you.
Yeah, Oliver, the insults are unnecessary. Really. Don’t blow all your good arguments on calling someone names, it really makes me have to resist calling you names then.
HisMan,
I don’t agree with everything Amanda says, I even think the way she says things when she was here sometimes is what the whole issue was, but she grew impatient of explaining herself, so she just resorted to being sarcastic and mocking. I don’t approve of that, but that doesn’t mean I feel her opinions are nothing. Calling someone’s opinions nothing is not rebuking them out of love, it’s being insulting, degrading, and mean, and I’ll defend Amanda when I think it is unwarranted.
Actually, Helena, Oliver is trying to get people to use their brains. I think I can understand what Lauren may see in her husband. I’m not perfect and my husband isn’t perfect but we are crazy about each other nevertheless! Hopefully we will bring out the best in each other and each work on our own imperfections. (With God’s Grace, of course!)
Well Eileen, I’m sorry, but when someone starts calling people names and insulting them I tend to shut them out, not think about what their saying!!
Eileen,
How does Oliver calling Amanda a tool help her to use her brain?
I sure hope one of the mod’s decides to delete that.
I only call people names who come in to instigate problems in the first place. I wont take a soft line against those who start the problems in the first place. I also will not take a soft line against people who use no justification in their destruction of preborn children.
If Jill or the moderators have a problem with me fighting fire with fire, she or they can let me know and I wont post anymore. I cant let people like SoMG/Amanda/etc insult directly or indirectly the RTLs here, and treat them kindly. I am not trying to save their souls, I am trying to prove that there is an injustice here.
It helps because it stands in contrast to her lies.
It seems like every post from Oliver involves him insulting another poster and just being very sarcastic. Not a very nice person, and certainly not one that would make me “use my brain” other than to think about what a nasty guy he is!
I didn’t defend his name-calling. Actually, Elizabeth, I indirectly rebuked him in the other post in regard to language used with so sad, yet you applauded him there. I also rebuked so sad. Although Oliver has said things that he shouldn’t, I don’t discount everything that he says or tries to do. I have agreed with things that you have said although we had an initial disagreement when I first arrived at this blog.
I dont see what the big deal is. The pro-choicers insult people constantly. Look at SoMG’s posts. I just respond in kind. I dont think there was anything wrong with responding to So Sad the way I did either. The jerk deserved it.
Okay, this is what I object to — the profanity and the coarse language. I know it becomes difficult to control emotions but I really find the crude language tiresome — it is everywhere. It is especially disheartening to hear young women with children using it.
so sad needed to be reprimanded, no doubt.
Okay then Oliver, I guess if you want to get on their level, that’s fine, but Amanda didn’t come in here insulting anybody. She was talking to someone about something they inquired to her about and she explained to them a way to find the specific information, so your argument doesn’t really stand here. So Sad did come in with guns blazing so that’s a little bit different than what Amanda said in this thread.
Amanda said : “Just popping by because I noticed you’d asked about the contents of my post that was deleted.
I wanted to let you know I’d also posted over it in the Pro Life group on Facebook, where it ilicited a friendly and productive debate, with mostly pro lifers who aren’t afraid of discussing it. Not sure if you use facebook or not, but if you do, it’s there, and thats where I am these days as well. Its an environment much more conducive to conversation and debate and is actually moderated fairly. =)”
Thats pretty insulting to me, and I am sure to the moderators on this blog as well. Whats more, is that she asserted the insult on grounds that no one would be able to view. It was a cheap shot, and she knew it. The truth is that her post was in no way enlightening or encouraging of debate. It apparently was just there to razz the pro-lifers here. It may not have been as direct as “Youre a tool” but it was in a certain sense worse in its insult. She claimed that not only are we all afraid to debate productively, but that the moderators here do not know how to do their job.
I responded to make sure that the record is clear, that she completely made up her response to insult others with slander. That makes her a tool.
Id like to see her come here and actually talk about her reasonings openly.
What happened to the abortion debate?
Liz:
When the only content of Amanda’s opinions are in your words, “being sarcastic and mocking”, then those opinions mean nothing.
If she wants to be patient, more people would at least read her posts and not consider them to be nothing.
Oliver,
I appreciate your assessment of Amanda.
Amanda is a master of making comments only to deny them in debate. She loves to twist other commenters’ statements to fit her own agenda, then pouts and leave in a huff when her little ego feels insulted. It gets really really boring.
It does appear that Amanda’s intent was to insult.
Thats pretty insulting to me, and I am sure to the moderators on this blog as well. Whats more, is that she asserted the insult on grounds that no one would be able to view. It was a cheap shot, and she knew it. The truth is that her post was in no way enlightening or encouraging of debate. It apparently was just there to razz the pro-lifers here. It may not have been as direct as “Youre a tool” but it was in a certain sense worse in its insult. She claimed that not only are we all afraid to debate productively, but that the moderators here do not know how to do their job.
Thank you for articulating that, Oliver. That is exactly how I interpreted Amanda’s post.
By the way, I sent Lauren an email…can you let her know? I’m not sure if I sent it to the correct address.. Thanks…
Janet, I guess we digressed — it happens a lot….
:)
Alexandra,
What can I say – I believe it’s a baby, not a choice. Choice involves what color to paint the baby’s room, which crib to buy, what OB/GYN to see, when to announce your pregnancy, NOT whether you will allow the baby to be born. Yikes!
I like Jasper’s analogy of seeing someone getting ready to jump off of a bridge. Would you recommend that they “choose” a different course of action? What if it were your child or your father or mother? A neighbor? A stranger? Is the life of one of these people worth more than the other? Or do all lives have equal dignity?
Secondly, there are people (like myself), who would not personally have an abortion but dont feel that they have the right to tell another human being what they can or can not do with their body.
Do you think I am a “Pro Abort” b/c I feel that way about abortion?
Posted by: midnite678 at August 27, 2008 1:17 PM
I think you and anyone else is a proabort if this is the view held. If it’s so bad why on earth would want anyone else to make this choice? And if it’s not so bad, why don’t you choose abortion?
I don’t think Oliver has been naughty. There’s been much worse on here by both Amanda, Jess and somg. Just don’t use the f word on here, please!
Their arguments are pretty easy to shoot down, without the nastiness.
So, instead of getting involved in a discussion with Amanda about why she thinks this blog isn’t moderated well or we don’t debate ideas productively, you proceed to call her a tool?
Good to know that’s how the debating goes now around these parts. Really, you’re going to prove her wrong by INSULTING her? Okay. Let me know how that works out for you.
Look, I’m not saying I agree with what Amanda said, because I don’t, but instead of rebutting and challenging her, you call her a tool. Seriously, are we in high school here?
Amanda was given ample opportunity to defend herself in regard to her earlier complaint. It was finally decided prudently by Bethany and the other moderators as far as I know.
Hi Jill,
please add a notation on this blog’s front page noting that comments are welcomed for two additional weeks AFTER they disappear from the current-topics list. Accessing many arguments can be done by clicking the archive file. Newbees may not know!
John McDonell
Posted by: Anonymous 12:33 PM
I like your idea.
Amanda is a master of making comments only to deny them in debate. She loves to twist other commenters’ statements to fit her own agenda, then pouts and leave in a huff when her little ego feels insulted. It gets really really boring.
Posted by: Sandy at August 27, 2008 5:07 PM
as in REALLY REALLY boring. is this the understatement of the year or what?
Id like to see her come here and actually talk about her reasonings openly.
Posted by: oliver at August 27, 2008 5:02 PM
won’t happen. that’s asking too much of Miss A.
BTW, I think prochoice is simply part of the proabort jargon as in:
proabort = prochoice
baby = products of conception, blob of cells
abortion = termination of pregnancy
you get my drift = avoidance of reality
And Oliver, you really didn’t call Amanda a tool based off of what she said, you called her a tool AFTER you talked to your wife about the situation and made your own judgements on it.
I only got involved in this because Amanda wanted me to tell Oliver her post that got deleted didn’t really have anything to do with what he thought it did and I did that. You want to keep hurling insults at Amanda, go right ahead. It doesn’t make me look bad at.all.
oliver at August 27, 2008 5:02 PM
Oliver, great point.
Her only reason to come in was to insult us.
Jill is on 930 AM (chicago) radio – Relevant Radio right now.
Oliver:
The pro-choicers insult people constantly.
Have I insulted someone here recently? I’m honestly curious. I think once, a couple months ago, I got snippy with a specific person, though I can’t remember who now — just what it was about — and several months before that I got snippy with MK in a lone comment, but I think that’s about it…? But I didn’t call her a tool or anything, I was just really sarcastic. Anyway I really try not to make it a regular part of my interactions. I’m sorry if I’ve been insulting in any way.
I enjoy being called dumb just about as much as I enjoy being called a whore, honestly.
Mike @ 10:13 AM
You don’t want to see an ultrasound – you need to see a 9 week old (gestational age) in an embryoscopy.
You would be amazed.
Alexandra,
I am very sorry about the names you were called today. Glad to see another moderator got to it!!
Alexandra: “Have I insulted someone here recently? I’m honestly curious.”
I havent noticed you personally, but Ive learned that dealing with the pro-choice side that it is often built it, so I dont even take care…unless of course the insults are particularly creative as in SoMG’s case sometimes.
I was more talking about it in general.
“I think once, a couple months ago, I got snippy with a specific person, though I can’t remember who now — just what it was about — and several months before that I got snippy with MK in a lone comment, but I think that’s about it…? But I didn’t call her a tool or anything, I was just really sarcastic. Anyway I really try not to make it a regular part of my interactions. I’m sorry if I’ve been insulting in any way.
I enjoy being called dumb just about as much as I enjoy being called a whore, honestly.”
My bad, Ill stay out of it next time then. I personally would rather be considered dumb than immoral.
Elizabeth :”So, instead of getting involved in a discussion with Amanda about why she thinks this blog isn’t moderated well or we don’t debate ideas productively, you proceed to call her a tool? ”
I would get into a discussion with her, except that her premise was false. When you debate someone you are assuming that they are not lying about their basis for argument. As soon as I found out that Amanda was lying, she immediately became below the point of debate. I wont debate someone who makes stuff up randomly. It seems to be the case that this happens quite a bit…I guess it shows my “newness” to not recognize Amanda in her niche.
Elizabeth :”And Oliver, you really didn’t call Amanda a tool based off of what she said, you called her a tool AFTER you talked to your wife about the situation and made your own judgements on it. ”
Yeah….exactly…Im confused? Why did you think I called her that? I called her that after I learned the contents of the supposedly “censored” post. When I learned she lied about it, I made my decision that she was what I called her.
Ill tell you what though. I am going to drop it. You can even crack off the last word and everything. I wont respond to whatever you have to say.
HisMan,
I just wanted to come by to thank you for your tangental, bitter rants about me yesterday. It means a lot to me. Honestly, knowing I rile someone like you up as much as I do is a great honor to me. It is a most sincere compliment. Thank you, and God bless.
The cartoon that Jill posted is really well done. It really sums up the whole Obama situation.
How anyone could be unmoved by the idea of a little baby being left alone to die is beyond me.
A president who would allow this certainly would not inspire any hope to our great country.
Hi Bethany!!
As always, well said. I don’t think I have ever been so taken by a cartoon.
Good morning, Sandy! :)
“I just wanted to come by to thank you for your tangental, bitter rants about me yesterday. It means a lot to me. Honestly, knowing I rile someone like you up as much as I do is a great honor to me. It is a most sincere compliment. Thank you, and God bless”
Yeah, this is worth defending….
Here’s another good cartoon: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08082801.html
Very good one, Jon…so true.
Don’t blow all your good arguments on calling someone names, it really makes me have to resist calling you names then.
Elizabeth, once again you’re so impressive, especially since you’re so young.
But dang, I bet you’re something to see when you’re really angry…. : )
Naaman: God allows all sorts of human evil, because the alternative would be to remove our free will.
Then that means that God’s not all-knowing. Otherwise, it’s a paradox.
Midnite: Why do you insist on calling people who are PC Pro-Aborts
Because they think it sounds “bad.” In reality, anybody that was actually “pro-abortion” would be just as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.
It’s pretending the “yes or no” of pro-choice is the same as the “yes” of pro-abortion; easy to see that’s false.
Being for legal abortion and/or the choice of abortion is not the same as just being “for abortion.”
Pro-Choicers think that women should be free in their choice. That’s not saying “should have an abortion” (pro-abortion) or “should not have an abortion” (anti-abortion or “pro-life”).
Pro-Choicers think that women should be free in their choice. That’s not saying “should have an abortion” (pro-abortion) or “should not have an abortion” (anti-abortion or “pro-life”).
Posted by: Doug at August 28, 2008 10:27 PM
But Doug, you have to carry it through to its logical end — if you support a woman’s choice, and she chooses abortion, then you are in favor of abortion.
Comments are welcomed for two additional weeks AFTER they disappear from the current-topics list. Accessing many arguments can be done by clicking the archive file. Newbees may not know!
John, once upon a time it was two weeks, but then it changed – last time I checked it was actually 4 months.
Just tried 6 weeks back and oh yeah still rock and rolling.
Because they think it sounds “bad.” In reality, anybody that was actually “pro-abortion” would be just as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.
Anti-what choice, Doug?
Abortion proponents are anti-choice.
Bethany, anti-the legal choice of abortion, of course.
Agreed – if somebody says or implies that “pregnancies should be aborted, then that’s anti-choice and “pro-abortion.”
But Doug, you have to carry it through to its logical end — if you support a woman’s choice, and she chooses abortion, then you are in favor of abortion.
Eileen, not so – on its own I’d rather that abortion not happen. Better, IMO, to prevent pregnancy or continue it -that’s without consideration of the woman, of course.
If I was really “in favor of abortion” then it would be more than just being for what the woman wants. As things are now, if nobody wanted abortions, that’d be fine with me.
Bethany, anti-the legal choice of abortion, of course.
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just say “anti-abortion”, Doug?
Agreed – if somebody says or implies that “pregnancies should be aborted, then that’s anti-choice and “pro-abortion.”
No, you’re anti-choice too. I’m also anti-choice. Everyone in the world is anti-choice- about something.
Let’s just continue being ambiguous just for the sake of being misleading though…
Eileen, not so – on its own I’d rather that abortion not happen. Better, IMO, to prevent pregnancy or continue it -that’s without consideration of the woman, of course.
If I was really “in favor of abortion” then it would be more than just being for what the woman wants. As things are now, if nobody wanted abortions, that’d be fine with me.
Doug, in effect, in effect.
I’m anti-choice because I don’t support a man’s right to rape.
oops, I mean, “a man’s right to choose to rape”. Because it is, after all, a choice.
I’m also anti-choice because I don’t support murder.
What is murder, if not the “choice” to take a person’s life into your own hands?
Bethany, yes, you are against people raping, choosing to rape, etc. But, who isn’t?
And, on message boards where abortion is the main topic, it’s understood what “pro-choice” means as much or more than what “pro-life” means. If it’s only the life of the unborn that comes to mind, then it’s the same, but if the question of capital punishment, etc. comes up then it’s not so cut-and-dried, since many pro-lifers are not agreed on it.
…..
What is murder, if not the “choice” to take a person’s life into your own hands?
Doctors do it all the time, so I’d say it could be necessary, i.e. yeah – that has to be present, but either way it’s still not sufficient, and that alone in no way makes it murder.
“Bethany, anti-the legal choice of abortion, of course.”
Wouldn’t it be simpler to just say “anti-abortion”, Doug?
No, because “choice” isn’t any longer or less simple, for one thing. Also, there is the question of what abortions are being contested – before or after viability, therapeutic or just because the woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, etc. One can be anti-abortion after viability, etc., or one an be against all abortions no matter what.
Anyway, that abortion is the “choice” being referred to is already understood.
…..
“Agreed – if somebody says or implies that “pregnancies should be aborted, then that’s anti-choice and “pro-abortion.”
No, you’re anti-choice too. I’m also anti-choice. Everyone in the world is anti-choice- about something.
We were already talking about abortion, though. The point is that if that “should” is there, then it’d be “pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice,” and in fact it would anti-choice.
…..
Let’s just continue being ambiguous just for the sake of being misleading though…
It’s not ambiguous. “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life” are well understood, here.
…..
“Eileen, not so – on its own I’d rather that abortion not happen. Better, IMO, to prevent pregnancy or continue it -that’s without consideration of the woman, of course.
If I was really “in favor of abortion” then it would be more than just being for what the woman wants. As things are now, if nobody wanted abortions, that’d be fine with me.”
Doug, in effect, in effect.
I disagree. Again, if nobody would choose abortion, then it’s not like I “want” abortions to take place. It’s conditional upon the woman’s desire, not mine. On my own, I’m not “for abortion.” I’m also not against it enough to think that my opinion trumps that of the pregnant woman – I’m for her choice, be it to continue the pregnancy or to end it.
For you, the life of the unborn is the primary thing. You are pro-life.
For me, it’s the woman’s choice. I’m pro-choice.
It’s not ambiguous. “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life” are well understood, here.
And I believe pro-abortion is well understood as well, then. We who use that term do not imply by using it that you desire to force women to have abortions, nor do we imply that you think any women “should” have abortions. It is just understood by the very term “pro-abortion” that you are the people who believe abortion should be legal.
Do you really think that anti-choice could be so well understood, but that pro-abortion could not be so well understood?
Doctors do it all the time, so I’d say it could be necessary, i.e. yeah – that has to be present, but either way it’s still not sufficient, and that alone in no way makes it murder.
Somehow I missed this part before. That really didn’t have anything to do with the point I was making, which wasn’t about the definition of murder, but whether murder is a “choice” or not.
“It’s not ambiguous. “Pro-Choice” and “Pro-Life” are well understood, here.”
Bethany: And I believe pro-abortion is well understood as well, then. We who use that term do not imply by using it that you desire to force women to have abortions, nor do we imply that you think any women “should” have abortions. It is just understood by the very term “pro-abortion” that you are the people who believe abortion should be legal.
B, I pretty much agree on the “well-understood,” but that’s like saying that it should really be “pro-woman slavery” since pro-lifers want the will of pregnant women subverted to their own in the matter of continuing/ending pregnancies, i.e. that too is well-understood.
I don’t think that kind of buzzwordism is really called for, though, so I’m fine with “pro-life.” Likewise, being pro-choice is well understood and the desire for “pro-abortion” comes from wanting a buzzword.
…..
Do you really think that anti-choice could be so well understood, but that pro-abortion could not be so well understood?
Being against the choice is pretty straightforward, but the difference between just wanting the choice to be legal and actually “wanting abortion” is substantial. Thus, if you’re set on saying “pro” and “abortion” to be accurate it should be “pro-legal abortion.”
Bethany: What is murder, if not the “choice” to take a person’s life into your own hands?
“Doctors do it all the time, so I’d say it could be necessary, i.e. yeah – that has to be present, but either way it’s still not sufficient, and that alone in no way makes it murder.”
Somehow I missed this part before. That really didn’t have anything to do with the point I was making, which wasn’t about the definition of murder, but whether murder is a “choice” or not.
Okay, then, murder is first and foremost illegal killing – that has to be there from the get-go, while choosing to take a person’s life into your own hands, so to speak, may or may not have anything to do with it.
However, yes indeed – to murder or not is often a choice, due to it being physically possible to do the action. If it’s possible for one to do it, then one can choose to do it.
B, I pretty much agree on the “well-understood,” but that’s like saying that it should really be “pro-woman slavery” since pro-lifers want the will of pregnant women subverted to their own in the matter of continuing/ending pregnancies, i.e. that too is well-understood.
I don’t think that kind of buzzwordism is really called for, though, so I’m fine with “pro-life.” Likewise, being pro-choice is well understood and the desire for “pro-abortion” comes from wanting a buzzword.
The reason I am even debating this with you , Doug, is because you used one of those buzzwords yourself.
“Because they think it sounds “bad.” In reality, anybody that was actually “pro-abortion” would be just as anti-choice as any pro-lifer.”
Why do you see that as a buzzword, Bethany? If somebody either wants abortions to take place, regardless of the woman’s desire, or if they don’t want abortions to take place, regardless of the woman’s desire, then they are against the choice; “anti-choice.”
I’m fine with saying “Pro-Lifers,” certainly, but you yourself would admit you’re against the choice.
Why do you see that as a buzzword, Bethany? If somebody either wants abortions to take place, regardless of the woman’s desire, or if they don’t want abortions to take place, regardless of the woman’s desire, then they are against the choice; “anti-choice.”
I’m fine with saying “Pro-Lifers,” certainly, but you yourself would admit you’re against the choice.
No, I ‘m against ABORTION. I think you’re perfectly aware of the reasons why it is a buzzword. C-ya.
Okay, yes, you are against abortion, but also against the legal choice of abortion.
So, per se, you are against abortion (as you’d admit). Pro-Choicers are NOT “for abortion,” per se.