Lawsuit helps Google see light
From the New York Times, September 21:
After a lawsuit from a Christian anti-abortion group, Google is allowing religious organizations to take out ads using the keyword “abortion,” a rare case of the search giant admitting it was wrong.
The group, which wanted to advertise because the House of Commons was considering a bill involving abortion issues, filed a lawsuit against Google in April, saying the company was discriminating on religious grounds….
In the past, Google would not sell the “abortion” keyword to religious groups, but did sell it to other groups, including secular groups, doctors offering abortions and resource sites like Our Bodies, Ourselves….
Google reviewed its policy, and announced last Wednesday it had reached a settlement with the Christian Institute. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but Google immediately began allowing ads linked to abortion from religious groups as long as they were determined to be factual, and not graphic or emotional ads…. The change in policy applies worldwide.

Isn’t Google a private company? Why should a religious organization be allowed to force its beliefs onto a private business?
OK, Jess, so you think it should be legal for a shopkeeper who runs his own business to put up a sign which reads “NO JEWS”, and proceed to not do business with any Jewish people?
Or are you, as usual, just being dense on purpose?
Google was told to stop discriminating against people based on their religion. They did so. End of story.
About the poll, who really doesn’t believe Jesus was a person? Even if you don’t believe he was the son of God or just some crazy right-wing nut (oh really?) how can you doubt that there was some guy named Jesus living in the Middle East two thousand years ago? He was in Roman records. His execution was documented. By the Romans. Not even just the Christians. That would be like someone saying they don’t believe George Washington existed (he’s just propaganda!).
I don’t believe Jill Stanek exists. I believe she is just the collective will of every conservative pro-lifer in the midwest.
Oh really?
Yes John they do have every right to put up a sign that says, “No Jews”. It’s there store, they have the right to refuse service to whom ever they wish.
That doesn’t mean I hate Jews and don’t want them to be able to shop, it just means I respect the right of a private business to refuse service to whomever they wish.
I take it you support pro-life pharmacist being fired if they refuse to sell the morning after pill. Why wouldn’t you be? You are against private businesses having the right to refuse service to someone based on their personal beliefs, why would you support these pharmacists refusing service to customers based on their personal beliefs?
Sorry, *their store
I was just about to ask about that, thanks Jess.
Jess —
It really doesn’t seem to matter, does it? Google was persuaded to change their policy. That was their choice, apparently doing a calculus on the factors they considered important.
Who the hell are you to question their judgment?
;-)
Holy cow. Jess thinks it’s legal for someone to ban Jews from their store. How about black people, Jess? Do you think store owners should be able to put up “NO BLACKS” signs?
Jess, do you live in America or in some totalitarian regime? If you live in some 3rd world banana republic, it might explain things.
And Jess, a Pharmacist who refuses to sell poison isn’t discriminating against anyone.
When did I question their judgement? I just said what they did wasn’t illegal, they have the right to refuse ad space to anyone they want, which is true. Sorry if facts bother you.
Also you must be new because anonymous posts are deleted and we don’t swear on this blog. Please try to watch your language, this is a family friendly blog.
: )
Seems like a double standard to me.
It’s ok to allow private pharmacies to refuse to sell birth control or Plan B to women because of their personal beliefs, but it’s not ok for a private company to withhold keywords to religious organizations?
Jess, I don’t know what country you live in, but in America, you are not allowed to discriminate against people based on race or religion. If you are offering to run ads, you can’t say “Hey sorry, I won’t run your ad, because you’re a Jew” or “I don’t run ads from black people” if a Jewish person or a black person tries to run an ad with you. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.
If a Pharmacist refuses to sell birth control to everyone, that’s not discrimination. Discrimination would be if the Pharmacist sells birth control to black people but not to white people, or something along those lines.
“And Jess, a Pharmacist who refuses to sell poison isn’t discriminating against anyone.”
It’s your opinion that it’s poison. And America would be a totalitarian regime if the government regulated every aspect of every business. It’s like those signs on stores that say, “No shoes, no shirts, no service.” Of course you won’t see many (if any) “No Jews” signs on stores. No one would shop there out of disgust for their prejudices (I don’t want to buy bread from a racist, thank you).
Oh well, I guess you are a very firm supporter of affirmative action.
Stephanie, look up “discrimination” in the dictionary, then get back to me.
A private company may refuse a particular service to EVERYONE, sure. But a private company may not provide a service to SOME people and then refuse to provide the exact same service to other people based on race or religion. Why is this so hard to understand?
Stores have a right to say “No shirts, no shoes, no service” because they don’t want to serve topless or shirtless people that aren’t wearing any shoes.
They don’t have a right to say “No Jews” or “No Blacks”
John that only applies to bigger businesses and companies. So actually it may apply to Goggle, seeing the size of their company, but a small business can discriminate the day away.
Jess, I’d ask what on earth affirmative action has to do with this conversation, but I don’t think you’re sane enough to know what you’re talking about. So I won’t ask.
Fine John show me where that law is.
We must not hesitate to use our God given right to use the courts to fight all that stand against truth.
There is no such thing as namby-pamby Christianity.
Paul was a great example of this when he applealed to Ceasar at risk of death when he was unjustly imprisoned.
The chruch must stand firmly against all evil no matter where it rears its ugly head.
Matthew 11:12″From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force.”
Stop wimping out Christians, you are all warriors and sons and daughters of the Living God. The power to defeat abortion lies within each one of us.
We must defeat this evil of abortion once and for all and forever.
2 Corinthians 10:4-6 “4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.”
OK, Jess. You’re right. It’s perfectly legal for a small business to refuse service to black people. There’s no such thing as anti-discrimination laws. There was no civil rights movement in America. There was no civil rights legislation that was ever signed into law. Of course.
Jess, I think I’ve had enough complete bat guano insanity for one day. Good night.
John, affirmative action was created solely to stop discrimination in the government and large companies.
You are obviously against any kind of discrimination, so you must be for affirmative action.
By not allowing a person to refuse service to someone of a race or religion they are against are you not discriminating against their personal beliefs?
Can you step away from political correctness for one moment and look at this honestly?
Jess @ 8:49,
There are people who think the bible is full of stories about fictitious characters – nothing more. Sounds crazy, but it’s true.
“There’s no such thing as anti-discrimination laws.”
Anti-discrimination laws don’t apply to every single person in this country. What about scholarships for African Americans? Those would be illegal if they anti-discrimination law applied to everyone.
Fine John, I have an apple. I refuse to sell it to a white person. Sue me!
I’m never going to let the Man keep me down!
Hm Janet, perhaps you didn’t see the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsBZCq4hp14&feature=related
Jess,
That video is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen. Blasphemous too. What’ was the point of showing it?
I’m never going to let the Man keep me down!
Who is “the Man”, Jess? What’s up with you tonight?
Google immediately began allowing ads linked to abortion from religious groups as long as they were determined to be factual, and not graphic or emotional ads
I wonder if they apply the same standard to the pro-choice websites?
Ok Janet maybe you should calm down. You said there were people out there who don’t believe in any of the Bible. Well, there they are. I believe in Jesus and I believe the Bible, why don’t you ask the 20-something percent of people who answered the poll that they didn’t believe Jesus existed? I mean when I saw it it was almost a quarter of the people who answered.
And about, “the Man”? Why can’t I make a joke? Are you discriminating against me because of my political beliefs? Haven’t you heard that’s illegal? I could sue.
And if Jill didn’t want a heated discussion she would have written an article on plates. However she choose abortion. It shouldn’t be a big surprise that this topic can get people a little riled up.
I was perfectly pleasant on the article about Bethany’s once-a-month cooking.
I like you this way, Jess. You’re firey!
Jess @ 9:58,
Me? Lol. I’m as calm as I could be without actually falling asleep.
OK. You posted a video to prove to me something that I already know. I wanted to know why you provided a link to it, NOT why the creator posted it on YouTube. It was pretty awful.
I’m ready to fall asleep now. Goodnight, Jess. :)
Well Erin you weren’t here to get the ball rolling, someone had to. : )
Erin @ 10:14,
I like you this way, Jess. You’re firey!
She’s all yours! Lol! Goodnight! :)
Janet I regretted it as soon as I posted it, I figured you wouldn’t find the humor in it. Unfortunately Jill does not have a delete button for our comments. Maybe you should ask her or continue dealing with my spontaneous eruptions of inconsiderate posting?
Google immediately began allowing ads linked to abortion from religious groups as long as they were determined to be factual, and not graphic or emotional ads
I wonder if they apply the same standard to the pro-choice websites?
Posted by: Louise at September 22, 2008 9:54 PM………………………
That does leave the antis with nothing to advertise doesn’t it.
So, you’re saying discrimination shouldn’t be based upon religious preferences, correct?
Do Wiccans wearing pentacles to school bother you?
Jill,
OT: Important, if another Ad is run.
Please point out Obama’s talking points at first before he was truly exposed on this issue. At first he made an excuse. Stating he did not want to “impose his religious beliefs” on others.
What does religion have to do with a living baby being left to die?
He should be buried for this.
GodSpeed
Jess 8:41 asked, “Isn’t Google a private company? Why should a religious organization be allowed to force its beliefs onto a private business?”
Wikipedia says that Google Inc. is an American public corporation. In a public corporation, anybody can buy shares and influence company policy (I think).
Jess’s question still stands (I think): why should a religious organization be allowed to force its beliefs onto a public corporation? But some of the terms are problematic. What is a religious organization? Google is apparently a secular humanist (i.e. religious) organization that unofficially has the slogan, “Don’t be evil.” But, there is no such thing as religious neutrality. Life is religion and constitutes a response to God.
What does it mean for an organization to “force its beliefs“? Did the Christian Institute actually forcibly convert Google to its pro-life position? No, it just forced Google to allow it to promulgate its beliefs using Google. Pro-abortion groups will also still be allowed to promulgate their beliefs, their culture of death.
Was Google by its former policy actually forcing its beliefs onto the Christian Institute? One could argue, “Yes, it was.” By refusing to do business with the Christian Institute, Google was hampering the Christian Institute’s agenda. Google is such a big player in the market that the Christian Institute really had nowhere else to go for effective Internet advertising. Again, what does “forcing one’s beliefs on another” really mean?
According to LifeSiteNews, Google had rejected the Christian Institute’s ad because Google’s former policy disallowed the advertising of sites that mixed “abortion and religion-related content.” Note the apparent obfuscation. Secular humanist content was allowed even though it is religion-related. What is Google’s definition of religion?
Religious discrimination is inevitable; it is, in fact, compulsory. It is essential to morality. It is essential to the functioning of the state which must discriminate against one citizen in favour of another. Not all forms are desirable or permissible, though.
Christianity is the true religion. Initially secular humanism was Christian in its morality. Now it isn’t. In the Christian theory of government, a citizen is a criminal on the basis of his deeds, not his words or his thoughts. There are notable exceptions, e.g. slander and blasphemy.
I think Jess has a pretty good argument. Maybe she is right. If the United Kingdom had been more Christian in its laws, Google would not have changed its policy. Still, the law of the United Kingdom is not very Christian anymore, and we must work with the law such at is. I’m glad that Google will now allow pro-life ads as well as pro-death ads. But I’m scared that Google will never be allowed to censor pro-death ads.
Don’t be evil! (And don’t be Orwellian, Google.)
“Stephanie, look up “discrimination” in the dictionary, then get back to me.
A private company may refuse a particular service to EVERYONE, sure. But a private company may not provide a service to SOME people and then refuse to provide the exact same service to other people based on race or religion. Why is this so hard to understand?”
John, first of all, I was not aggressive or being rude in my post, so there is no reason for you to be condescending or rude to me. I was asking a polite question (that I was honestly curious about) and was expecting a considerate answer.
Secondly, I know what discrimination means. Pharmacies refusing to sell birth control or Plan B (ie provide a service that is in their job description) based on personal belief feels discriminatory to me. It just seems like refusing women birth control and Plan B, then being ok with selling Viagra to men is not right. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s discriminatory towards women.
Gah, I’m tired. Did that make sense?
A private company may refuse a particular service to EVERYONE, sure. But a private company may not provide a service to SOME people and then refuse to provide the exact same service to other people based on race or religion. Why is this so hard to understand?
It’s hard to understand because it’s impossible not to discriminate on the basis of religion. Everybody discriminates on the basis of religion, especially secular humanists who falsely exclude their beliefs from the category of religion.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s discriminatory towards women.
And I guess what you are trying not to say is that it is indeed moral, upright, praiseworthy, respectful of women, and pleasing to God.
It is essential to the functioning of the state which must discriminate against one citizen in favour of another.
I should add, “in the matter of crime.” The state by its laws discriminates against the criminal in favour of the victim.
Jess,
“About the poll, who really doesn’t believe Jesus was a person?”
Some such “scholars” include G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty, and S. Acharya. See Jess, the problem is that once one says that Jesus existed, the evidence is so overwhelming for his bodily resurrection that some have decided to alleviate the middle man and simply deny that Jesus ever existed. This saves them the hassle of having to explain away the mounds and mounds of evidence for Jesus’ resurrection. God love you.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html
Okay, so the world has gone completely mad…how long til this is American Law?
Hopefully that won’t happen in the USA, mk.
Jill:
Great page you have here!!
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Wait…so…Google breaks its own policy by simply claiming that pro-life automatically =s “religious/emotional”…then this pro-life group that just happens to be a religious group also takes google to court because of religious discrimination…
neither of these things should’ve happened, but I guess in this case, 2 wrongs have made a right.
MK:Okay, so the world has gone completely mad…how long til this is American Law?
And you gotta love that it was the Archbishop of Canterbury who was the driving force behind it. UGH!
In answer to your question, I guess it depends on who wins the election and how balanced Congress ends up.
Oh, and we need to organize more secularly oriented pro-life groups.
Jess: “Yes John they do have every right to put up a sign that says, “No Jews”. It’s there store, they have the right to refuse service to whom ever they wish.”
Are you on crack?
Have you ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Commerce Clause?
The Government decided long before you were born that discrimination was under Federal jurisdiction if it even fringed on a public service. They extended the definition of “public service” to basically be anything that served customers across state lines, or had products from across state lines. Nowadays, thats everybody and everything. Google at the very minimum falls into that category.
The reason why birth control doesnt fall into this category is because, first of all, the refusal is not based on religious means, and second of all, the same rights act protects employees of “respected” religions from violating their religious views within reason.
Firstly, abortion and birth control, as much as it may be tied up with religion, is a purely ethical consideration. It is not “cut and dried.” If a pharmacist believes the a pill to be unethical or dangerous, they should have the right to refuse to sell it.
As a side note…you seem okay with people refusing to sell to Jews for some reason, would you not be okay with someone refusing to sell cheeseburgers because they think they are bad for people? Does every BurgerKing have to sell burgers? A pharmacist really should be allowed to say “I dont serve this pill because I think it is dangerous.” Its his/her business right? In your world they could tell the Jews to go to hell and not sell them anything right?
Secondly, in the act I mentioned above, it was established that someone need not violate their religious beliefs within reason. Accomodation must be provided by their employer in that situation. Whether or not you believe the refusal to serve BC is within reason would be up to a court to decide I guess, but it is at the minimum within reason. Another pharmacist could do it.
Would you want a graphic designer fired because he didnt want to take the porn site job, or the satanist job? As long as the designed can do his job, the employer cannot fire him. Now, if the whole firm is based on porn and satan sites, then thats another matter. Im sure a doctor that worked at PP would be fired if he ethically objected to abortion, considering thats what PP does.
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, founding member of NARAL, on NARAL’s deception in pushing legalized abortion on the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-FpJMq_gAY
“Do Wiccans wearing pentacles to school bother you?”
Posted by: HumanAbstract Author Profile Page at September 22, 2008 11:06 PM
Yes, when Christians are not allowed to wear a cross at school which has often been the case.
If Christians are allowed to wear a cross, other religions should likewise be allowed to wear religious symbols, correct? That’s what I was getting at. Either allow everyone, or allow no one.
Human, I don’t care if other religions wear their various religious symbols. I don’t know anyone who does…
A condom is a religious symbol. The Democrats handed them out at the Democrat convention.
jkkldfjdfimnsddfrud….?
huh?
I am a Christian so I don’t accept the secular humanist definition of religion. And I don’t believe all religions lead to God. Atheism certainly doesn’t. Also, I am a Christian, and Christianity is exclusive.
Religion is just the way we respond to God. God has told us about Himself. His creation shows us His greatness. His Word tells us much more. He made us for Himself. To live apart from God is death.
Secular humanism is an attempt to construct life without God. When a group of people live life together, they construct culture. The culture wars happen when Christian culture collides with the now dominant secular humanist. (Secular humanism was originally quite Christian in its morality.) Of course, ignoring God is also a religious response. A “present” vote in the Senate may practically work as a “no” vote, but a refusal to respond to God is itself a rejection of God. We all respond to God.
“This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of God… to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27. I used ellipsis because God only has a relationship of fatherly love with His children, Christians.)
The condom is a fitting symbol of secular humanism, which from its Christian roots is fast turning into a pagan sexism, the sacrifice of everything good and sacred for the worship of sex. For this god, sexists sacrifice childhood, virginity, marriage, and of course, children. Only sexists need the condom because only sexists engage in promiscuous sexual intercourse. Those who abstain and those who are faithful to one partner need no condom.
The condom is also a fitting symbol because it is only a symbol. As an enraged Ugandan has noted, it has done nothing to halt the spread of venereal disease.
Yes, when Christians are not allowed to wear a cross at school which has often been the case.
Posted by: Eileen #2 at September 23, 2008 9:43 AM
cite please. In this country? Often?
Oliver, I have some apples. I am refusing to sell them to white people. Why don’t you go right ahead and sue me?
You can’t? That’s because individuals are allowed to discriminate. I didn’t know Google was a public company.
And no Pentecostals are allowed in my bedroom. Sue me for that too.
http://punditkitchen.com/2008/09/13/political-pictures-police-help-repressed/
Hal, there have been instances where a school has a dresscode that excludes necklaces/hats ect. but has allowed muslim students to cover their heads but not Christian students to wear crosses.
The excuse is that the Muslims “have” to wear the headcovering (which isn’t true) and the Christians just “want” to wear the cross.
Dangit, oliver @ 12:41 was me.
Oliver, you’re repeating the allegation, but I asked for some type of proof. Prohibiting a cross necklace would be so obviously unconstitutional I doubt it happens “often,” which was Eileen’s claim. I will conceed it might have happened once or twice, but I really doubt there is a problem for Christian school children out there.
Atheism isn’t a religion, Jon.
Lauren, in certain areas of Islam, devout followers do feel under religious obligation to wear head coverings. I’ve never heard a person say that they feel if they don’t wear a cross, that they will go to hell. I have, however, heard of Muslim women who feel that not covering their heads is a mortal sin.
And where are you hearing this stuff, anyway? I haven’t heard of a single school where that type of thing is an issue. Even in schools with uniforms, the basic concept doesn’t forbid minor jewelry, as long as it isn’t distracting, which is the entire point of uniforms.
hmmm, maybe I should open a restaurant and put a sign up that says “No vegetarians! We serve delicious MEAT here!” *rolls eyes*
Actually, the point of Muslim headscarves v. Christian crosses is legitimate. Christians don’t have to wear crosses. It’s not in the Bible (yes, I’ve read the whole thing). It is, however, a dictate of Muslim religion. There’s a big difference.
There have been cases, most in Texas, of Pagan students not being allowed to wear pentacles and the like. As someone who wears a septagram, which believe it or not is often mistaken for a pentacle (can’t people COUNT?!), I’ve not gotten any crap for it, but then again, I didn’t wear it during my high school years. So.
“The condom is a fitting symbol of secular humanism, which from its Christian roots is fast turning into a pagan sexism, the sacrifice of everything good and sacred for the worship of sex.”
As a pagan, I’m quite offended by this. Pagans don’t exclusively worship sex; to imply differently is to misrepresent an entire religion. Would you appreciate it if I distilled Christianity down entirely to the worship of Mary? Or the veneration of the Cross? ‘Cause that’s what you’re doing right now. The worship of fertility gods/goddesses is one aspect of Paganism: not the whole religion.
Hal, it appears that the case I was thinking of was actually a british case:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,21053059-1702,00.html
But there have been several instances of Christian students being suspended for wearing shirts with Christian/anti-abortion messages.
“K.D. v. Fillmore Central School District, et al., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33871 (W.D. N.Y.
2005), the federal district court granted a preliminary injunction to K.D., a high school student
who wore to school a pro-life T-shirt that had displayed on the front in large, capital letters:
ABORTION IS HOMICIDE
On the back of the shirt, the following phrases appeared:
You will not silence my message.
You will not mock my God.
You will stop killing my generation.
Rock for Life!
The principal instructed K.D. not to wear the T-shirt, turn it inside out, or cover it up. The
principal claimed he had received complaints from other students about the T-shirt, although
K.D. asserted no complaints had been made to him. He would be sent home if he failed to
comply. K.D. was not inclined to follow the principal’s instructions, although he later did not
wear the T-shirt for fear of disciplinary sanctions.”
This is the most pertinant to our conversation, but there have been several court rulings regarding students rights to express their beliefs.
Basically “10 Whether student speech can be justifiably regulated within the public school
context often requires resort to the trilogy of student free-speech cases issued by the U.S.
Supreme Court: (1) school-sponsored speech, as addressed by Hazelwood School Dist. v.
Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S. Ct. 562 (1988); (2) vulgar, lewd, obscene and plainly offensive
speech under Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 106 S. Ct. 3159 (1986); and speech
that falls into neither category but causes a material disruption, is reasonably likely to do so, or
interferes with other students’ rights, as addressed in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733 (1969). This article focuses on one
element of the dress code: the ubiquitous T-shirt.]”
http://ideanet.doe.state.in.us/legal/pdf/quarterly_reports/2005_julysept.pdf
“speech
that falls into neither category but causes a material disruption, is reasonably likely to do so, or
interferes with other students’ rights” this is the gray area which allows certain students freespeech rights to be overridden if the judge feels that it constituted an attack on another student. Schools have tried to say that shirts that say “homosexuality is a sin” or “abortion is murder” fall into this catagory. While not specifically religious in nature, these are reflective of the students belief system.
HA,
I’m not sure the headscarf is a dictate in the religion itself in that it has to do with salvation. But it does have a lot of cultural symbolism and religious meaning so it is preferred. I know several muslims that do not wear the scarf, and many who do. I know that in Iran, women would choose to wear them at their discretion and it was after the revolution that they were forced to wear them. (At least that is my understanding from ‘Iran Awakening’ which is a FANTASTIC book).
Lauren,
I know in britain the outlawing of the hijab was a big issue too though.
PiP, the women that I’ve talked to believe that not covering their heads is being very immodest. Married women who are very devout can view going out without a scarf, or just being around any man who is not their husband without their scarf on, to be, in essence, adultery. Strange, to us, but to them, it makes perfect cultural sense.
“It is, however, a dictate of Muslim religion. There’s a big difference.”
It isn’t required. I had a very devote Muslim friend who was contemplating covering her head. She was encouraged to wait by her mother who told her that it was something that she needed to be certain of before she did. While I will say that a muslim head covering is more necessary to her religion that wearing a cross, I do not think that either should be banned.
PIP, yeah it seems Britain has gotten a bit “ban happy” as of late. And by “as of late” I mean, “always” lol.
mk @ 7:57,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422661,00.html
Okay, so the world has gone completely mad…how long til this is American Law?
From the article you linked:
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”
I’ve never heard of Jewish courts existing in Britain either. Can anyone explain?
I, too, disagree with the banning of either, but if the necklace is banned and not the scarf, I understand why. The scarf is “more necessary” and thus it’s more imperative that it remained unbanned.
As for shirts with political messages, if the shirt shows explicit pictures, I can see asking the student to change. If the student receives complaints and whines about it (happened at my school) or it causes a commotion, I can see asking the student to change. Just wearing it, however … eh. Let ’em be.
Obama just finished his press conference in Clearwater, Florida.
To paraphrase, he said: After fixing the current emergency situation if there’s any money left over, he will return it to the tax payers.
Leftover???
“But there have been several instances of Christian students being suspended for wearing shirts with Christian/anti-abortion messages.”
Lauren, I side on the rights of free speech over the rights of the school for these kinds of cases. I’m sure there might be exceptions for extreme cases, but if a student wants to wear a pro-life or a pro-choice message to school, I don’t think it should be prohibited.
lauren, a suggestion. Just sign “lauren” at the end of your posts…
It sounds like, from that article, all necklaces were banned at the school as part of the dress code, which is why the girl couldn’t wear the cross.
Alexandra, the issue was that head covering were also banned, but Muslims were exempt from the ban.
Yeah, but they said the girl was welcome to wear the cross elsewhere, right? Like as a lapel pin or something? I don’t know the details but it seems like if your religion requires you to cover your head, then you can’t get around the school rules without being exempt. If your religion requires you to wear a cross, does it need to be on a necklace?
I think it was a dumb call but I don’t think it was discrimination. It seems to me like they were trying to only exempt students from the rules when there was no other choice.
This basically means there will be no ads. Seriously, all the anti-choicers have is the appeal to warped spirituality and nagging puritanical consciences.
YLT Says “Seriously, all the anti-choicers have is the appeal to warped spirituality and nagging puritanical consciences. ”
How about the biological fact that a blatocyst/embryo/fetus is you know, a [I]human being [/I] compounded with the fact that we do not allow the killing of all other [I]human beings [/I] in this country?
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that people are being killed at an alarming rate and our warped country sees it as a “right”.
As for “nagging puritanical consciences” I didn’t realize that not wanting someone to be killed was “puritanical”. You’re right though, YLT, I should be able to kill anyone who gets in my way!
Blarg…html + me =/= good. :(
Oliver, thank God you replied in this thread. I thought maybe the entire world had gone insane.
One more thing… why do people continue to conflate Viagra with birth control? Viagra is not birth control. Viagra, when prescribed correctly, is a treatment for impotence. What does a treatment for a legitimate medical condition have to do with birth control, aside from absolutely nothing?
Actually, I already answered this last time it came up. People say that Viagra enables men to have sex, just as birth control enables women to have sex. Since both enable people to have sex, both should be viewed in the same way and treated the same way by people who sell them, insurance companies, and the government. That seems to be the argument, or at least the “logic” behind the argument.
But this argument makes no sense. You might as well attempt to argue that food is the same thing as a medication to prevent vomiting. Food and the anti-vomiting medication both help with “eating”, right? So shouldn’t both be covered by insurance? Because they’re both for “eating”?
Erin 12:52, atheism is a religion.
Human Abstract 1:18, genuine Christianity always offends those who adhere to other religions. Also, they offend Christians. Religion is not just a compartment of life; life is religion.
I can replace the word worship with something else if you like. But seeing the many sacrifices which sexists will make in order to copulate wherever, whenever, however, and with whomever–I think worship is a pretty good word.
“hmmm, maybe I should open a restaurant and put a sign up that says “No vegetarians! We serve delicious MEAT here!” *rolls eyes*”
Ok I’ll see you in court Liz!
No just kidding, I would totally respect your right to do that, you have every right to do that, and I assume you would totally respect my right to picket? : )
John why is sex so important for impotent men? Wouldn’t it be like in-vitro fertilization? Unnatural?
What ever happened to holding hands? Holding hands is enough for me.
not being physically attracted to your sexual partner is totally more of a legitimate reason for medication than not wanting to get pregnant on the off chance of getting raped while getting the bonus of experiencing less excrutiating and messy (possibly debilitating) periods. Gotcha.
Us dirty whores probably deserve everything we get anyway. (pay no attention to my nearly 8 year monogamous relationship with my husband)
X, I think the rational is that viagra treats a medical condition while birthcontrol (in most cases) does not.
“John why is sex so important for impotent men? Wouldn’t it be like in-vitro fertilization? Unnatural?”
Jess, reading your posts causes brain damage.
“not being physically attracted to your sexual partner is totally more of a legitimate reason for medication than not wanting to get pregnant”
What the hell?! Are you saying what I think you’re saying? Do I really have to explain the mechanics of impotence on here to avoid being misunderstood? Should I go into graphic detail? Sure, I studied Anatomy in college, but I would have thought that this kind of stuff would be common knowledge at this point.
my mother takes BC for endometriosis.
Aside from that, there are other reasons that people take medicine. There are all kinds of conditions and problems preventative medicine can assist. This one just happens to not only treat certain issues associated with menstration, but also prevent a potentially complicated, rarely life-threatening condition.
Yep…birth control…not just for sluts anymore!
Hey John…you should save a little bit of your condescending outrage for all of the sex offenders they catch with viagra.
Just because I have yet to obtain my degree does not mean I am stupid. Use you anatomy book to formulate an educated guess on where to stick your retort.
*your
that’s what I get for trying to be snarky while typing with one hand and holding the baby.
YLT Says “Seriously, all the anti-choicers have is the appeal to warped spirituality and nagging puritanical consciences. ”
How about the biological fact that a blatocyst/embryo/fetus is you know, a [I]human being [/I] compounded with the fact that we do not allow the killing of all other [I]human beings [/I] in this country?
…………………………….
By applying the term being to a ZEF, all you are doing is pointing out it’s existence. A blastocyst does not exist in the same manner as a zygote, embryo, fetus or a sucessfully gestated and successfuly born infant. Pretending that all stages of a conceptus during gestation involve the same state of being/existence is completely contrary to what science tells us. And yes, the killing of some beings, human or not, are allowed to be killed in this country under some circumstances.
………………………..
It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the fact that people are being killed at an alarming rate and our warped country sees it as a “right”.
………………………..
Now you are equating equal state of being between a blastocyst and a born human being. Not a scientific statement. So where does your unscientific concept come from if not religion?
………………………..
As for “nagging puritanical consciences” I didn’t realize that not wanting someone to be killed was “puritanical”. You’re right though, YLT, I should be able to kill anyone who gets in my way!
Posted by: Lauren at September 23, 2008 5:24 PM
…………………………
I think that you have the typical feelings of guilt for bringing a disabled child into the world that many parents in your position feel. You often use the analogy of children getting in the way. I think that it is projection on your part. I don’t think that you are the typical anti with a need to punish women for being sexual. I think that you would like to see more women in the same boat as you. Misery loves company doesn’t it.
i’m far from miserable. i’m doing what i’ve always wanted with my life, singing in my band. i only have 2 kids. i’m fixed, and my husband will be when he gets back too. if i wasn’t fixed, i’d be using BC of some kind. no sexual hang-ups or issues. i don’t care about other people and their sexual habits. i have no god.
none of those things keep me from this conclusion: once a woman is pregnant, there is another person to take into consideration. the right that person has to live comes before any other right that woman has, short of her own right to life.
oh, and thus far, both of my children are developmentally average or above. that was quite the deplorable accusation though, sally.
“I think that you have the typical feelings of guilt for bringing a disabled child into the world that many parents in your position feel. You often use the analogy of children getting in the way. I think that it is projection on your part. I don’t think that you are the typical anti with a need to punish women for being sexual. I think that you would like to see more women in the same boat as you. Misery loves company doesn’t it. ”
Sally this is absurd on many levels. First of all, though my son’s disabilities have cause him to undergo experiences that others will not, they do not affect his day to day life (except for the 30 seconds a day when he’s getting his shot…) He is quite the normal 3 year old in behavior. He doesn’t have the sort of problems that one would often associate with very premature children that would require that my day to day care of him be different than that of other children.
Of course, the prior point is just clarification, the main point is that I’m not in any way miserable. I enjoy my children and my life. It breaks my heart to think that people pay to have their children killed so they can follow the artificial “script” to happiness.
You’re right that I’m not trying to “punish” anyone for having sex. Honestly,I don’t think many in the pro-life camp are. I just think that it is a travesty that children are treated as roadblocks in our society.
Oh, and P.S. Right now I’m up soothing the colicky “normal” baby. LOL.
Oops, sorry Sally I didn’t see the rest of your post.
Scientifically, there is a continuem of life that begins at conception. Anna just fell asleep so I’m not going to quote any anatomy texts tonight, but as Arnold would say…I’ll be back.
Yep…birth control…not just for sluts anymore!
Ha! X, that made me laugh. My sister takes birth control for her poly-cystic ovarian syndrome. Though her husband is in the army and they currently see each other like once every five months, so I think that even if she didn’t have PCOS she’d like being able to have sex with him those two or three days a year regardless of where she was in her reproductive cycle.
As for Viagra treating a medical condition — isn’t it mostly targeted at older guys? And isn’t it natural for older guys to have difficulty? Which would mean that in many cases Viagra is not targeting a medical condition, but a natural aspect of men’s sexuality. Yes, some younger guys who suffer from impotence use Viagra — just like some women who suffer from endometriosis or PCOS (ie, legitimate medical conditions) use birth control — but by and large, it labels a natural sexual part of aging as a medical problem, in kind of the same way birth control labels a natural part of youth and middle age as a medical problem.
xalisae @12:55 AM i’m fixed, and my husband will be when he gets back too.
Sorry Xalisae,
You seem like a very nice person,and I agree with you on much of what you say but in the context of the birth control debate, I had to point out the flawed thinking on the part of those who consider sterilization as “being fixed”. This skewed mindset views fertility as something unnatural, as an anomaly needing correction (or in the case of artificial birth control, manipulation), rather than the beautiful gift of the power of life itself.
Imagine our world if all species could simply render themselves sterile at will. What an ugly, desolate place it would be. Just think of the word “sterile” and all it implies. Neat, orderly, convenient? Sure. But beautiful and engaging?
What a tragedy that so many in our culture view this creative power as something that is wrong with us, rather than something that is beautiful, and very very right. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we would approach fertility with respect and awe rather than fear and disdain?
Liz if you didn’t allow vegetarians in your restaurant here’s a few of the people you wouldn’t be able to serve:
http://www.happycow.net/famous_vegetarians.html
You wouldn’t be able to serve Saint Francesco of Assisi.
It must bug you that a vegetarian was canonized.
Wow John you should be Viagra’s spokesperson.
Diet and exercise can help cure impotence. Of course you probably think healthy food and any exercise besides casting judgments is evil.
Alexandra, I don’t know if ED is “normal” or just “common”. Like, it’s common for people over 50 to have high blood pressure, but it’s not normal. Does that make sense?
Also, this is TMI for the men, so just skip this this part…
But, I was really looking forward to NOT having a period after my baby was born. Well, it’s only been 2 1/2 months and I’m nursing around the clock but…I just started :(. I have Endo so this sucks. Maybe having just had a baby will make it not so bad. Here’s hoping!
DeeL, I don’t think that’s why she was referring to it like that. I usually refer to sterilization as ‘getting fixed’ because that’s what you say when you get a pet spayed or neutered. Since it’s pretty much the same procedure, I lightly refer to people getting their tubes tied or having a vasectomy as getting fixed. It’s not saying that they have a ‘problem’, it’s just a playful comparison to animal sterilization.
Erin,
But it is approaching fertility as a problem, something to be manipulated and done away with, rather than respected and worked within. I’m sorry, but I think the word “fixed” expresses exactly what she was saying. Fertility=undesired, potential for too many unknown, possibly messy consequences, sterile= better, “I’m in control”.
But X already has two children. It seems to me like she is very happy with her family and through thorough discussion with her husband, they decided that they were happy with how things were and that more children were not something that they were going to plan for. The most efficient way to do that was to be sterilized. She has children, I’m sure she doesn’t think that her children are ‘messy consequences’. Perhaps she simply doesn’t have the means to support any larger family.
yes, erin. oddly enough, I couldn’t have put it better myself, and it’s my life. heh.
But…”fixed”…to me, in this context means “static”. I am fixed in the “not pregnant” position. Also, I fully understand that nothing is 100%. If I were to get pregnant again, we’d make due, happily, and protect and care for that child dearly, because it already would exist. However, part of our plan, and the my primary motivation for having my tubal done in the first place, was to keep our biological family size small so that later in life we can expand our family by adopting children that had mothers who were good enough to give their kids that chance who need loving homes.
Ok. Just have to jump in for a moment here. Just heard from a good friend. She is in her early 40’s like moi, and just found out she is pregnant! Her oldest is 15! And they have a 13 year old and a 6 year old. Anywhoo…they were completely blindsided but she knows that God has seen fit to bless them again. She knows they will find a way to find a way and I am so excited for her!!!
Oooh, congrats to her, Carla. Hope everything goes well, I know that the older you get, the riskier pregnancy can be! We still joke with my mom (about 50, and sterile) about having some miracle baby at this point in her life. She says she would make me take care of it!
Hi Jess @8:43 a.m.,
you should watch-out when you think of St. Francis of Assisi and ANY kind of emulation. Francis died at 38 and his bones were so riddled with holes, doctors wondered why he lasted that long. He life was filled with self-imposed fasting. He also did not bathe and stank so much his community forced him to sleep with the animals.
On his deathbed, Francis remarked that if he was to do it over again, this time he would not be so hard on ‘Brother-body’ (his physical body).
I know yours was just a throw out statement, but one thing you can count on is a much shortened life through vegetarian/vegan living because taurine is found only in meat. ((And for most vegetarians death will be very painful.))
It is serendipity I guess, that a person with low zinc levels also has high copper levels. One of the signs of copper toxicity is an adamant self-knowledge that MY WAY IS BEST. (taurine binds zinc to the membrane walls of cells. So both taurine and zinc are critical to human health/longevity.)
Erin,
I will be 43 and I am still contemplating pregnancy…:)
I thought I was done and now I dunno. Anyway, thanks for the good wishes. My friend flipped out at first but now they are excited!!
Carla, my step mom has had two babies in her 40’s. The first I believe was at 40, the second at 43. They’re both happy and healthy :) (She also has 4 older children)
Gosh, Lauren. I am having a hard enough time vascillating from day to day… should we, shouldn’t we? :) One of my good friends had her 12th child at 43. He has Down Syndrome and is my fave little friend!
Xalisae,
Honestly, I wasn’t trying to be offensive. I simply was pointing out that the term “being fixed” explains a lot about the contraceptive mindset. I do realize that you are much more accepting of the possibility of pregnancy than most contracepting/sterilized couples and that you are firmly committed to life should that happen. I truly respect and admire that about you.
Carla,
Congratulations to your friend, such a blessing. One of my good friends is due in January. She’s 45 and her youngest is 8. She was initially quite taken by surprise, but she and her family are now eagerly awaiting the arrival of their first boy. :=)
Awesome DeeL!! :)
Carla, I think the last two were definitely “suprises” My Dad and step mom have Me and my Stepsister (both in our 20’s) and then an 18 year old, a 16 year old, and a 9 year old, then a 3 year old and a newborn.
It’s so funny because my kids are roughly the same age as my youngest siblings. My son is about 6months older than my youngest sister and my daughter is 2 weeks older than her uncle!
I have to say that my stepmom is one tough woman! She had a really hard pregnancy with her last, and I’m thinking that he will probably be their last…but only time will tell!
Lauren,
That’s so cool about your dad and step mom.
I grew up and went all through grade school, high school and community college with an uncle who is 5 months, to the day, older than I am. Needless to say our friends thought that was the weirdest thing. He’s still my “bud”.
When we watch “The Father of the Bride” movies, my kids always get a kick out of the fact that my mom and my grandma were walking around pregnant together, just like in the movie.
i wasn’t offended, D. I understand what you mean, and i don’t think looking at pregnancy/kids as a detriment is a good thing. but, trying to make sure you can adequately provide for the kids you already have shouldn’t be held against people if it’s not hurting anyone.
Congrats to your friend, Carla. My youngest brother was born when I was 13 and my mom was nearly 44. :)
I love to read all of your experiences! Mommies 4 Life!
Jess, my point about the ‘NO VEGETARIANS’ was a response to your thing about a sign saying “No JEWS” or “NO BLACKS”. It was just an example.
40 Days for Life started today, so I’ll be logging off the computer shortly, probably by 8:00 central.
Carla! That is indeed exciting news about your friend! I bet her children are very excited too and that she will have lots of eager helpers. I have always noticed that older children are always enthusiastic and are a big help with new babies. God bless them.
Wrong saint John.
i wish i could go do something like that, but there’s only one going on in my state, and it’s very out of the way. if they were doing one in little rock, i could go, but no luck there. i’m actually kind of glad there are so few places which provide such services here.
Also John I find it ironic you are lecturing me on health. In addition I have been running for about seven years and have never had an injury that kept me from running. I have never had a broken bone, in fact my doctor tells me I have very strong bones.
It’s also ironic you seem so concerned about placing the quality of life over your moral beliefs. What if your mother did?
Jess,
I assume from your tone you mean me. Please, elucidate on precisely what I got wrong …. as opposed to what you don’t like about what I wrote.
Sorry Jess,
if my reading on nutrition offends your take on things. Many people do not like the conclusions many PL have after intensive study for many decades. The quick answer is rarely the best answer, especially re. feelings.
You are fine now … it takes a reduction @85% before any clinical symptoms of taurine deficiency are noticeable. I have coached a few vegetarians (one @19 yrs old) about this stuff. They could not believe how quickly their health deteriorated! So use the info as a warning, if you wish. But it stands. ((You should know that vegetarians reaching the age of 100 years are about 90% less likely than those who are non-vegetarian … after adjustment. Strange, because longevity is often perceived as a sign of health.
Fine John just show me which peer reviewed study says this. Probably the same “study” that says vegetarianism causes straight men to go gay. Yeah, if that were true then wouldn’t being a vegetarian cause lesbians to go straight?
If you were told you could live to 100 if you killed a newborn baby, would you kill the baby?
Here is why you are wrong John:
http://www.goveg.com/healthConcerns.asp
It cites
1 Ann Mangels, Virginia Messina, and Vesanto Melina, “Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, Jun. 2003, pp. 748-65.
2 Neal Barnard, M.D., The Power of Your Plate, Book Publishing Co.: Summertown, Tenn., 1990, p. 26.
3 Elizabeth Somer, “Eating Meat: A Little Doesn’t Hurt,” WebMD, 1999.
4 Neal Barnard, M.D., The Power of Your Plate, Book Publishing Co.: Summertown, Tenn., 1990, p. 26.
5 John Robbins, The Food Revolution, Conari Press: Boston, 2001, p. 58.
6 Neal Barnard, M.D., “Doctor in the House,” PETA’s Animal Times, Fall 2004, p. 7.
7 Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine with Amy Lanou, Healthy Eating for Life for Children, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2002, p. 49.
8 Robbins, p. 14.
9 Benjamin Spock, M.D., Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care: Seventh Edition, New York: Pocket Books, 1998, p. 333.
10 Charles Attwood, M.D., Dr. Attwood’s Low-Fat Prescription for Kids, New York: Penguin Books, 1995, p. 84.
11 Robbins, p. 85.
as its sources.
ty Jess,
maybe this might assist:
Symposia on Taurine 19773 & 1975 Neorological Institute of Montreal (McGill Univ.) eds A. Barbeau and R. Huxtable
2) for zinc its a collection of chapters from multiple researchers in this field. Thistext is in excess of 300 pages. – ‘Zinc & Copper in Medicine’ eds Sarper and Karcioglu (1982?)
3) There’s an internet site run by former vegetarians/vegans but am unable to locate it now.
4) From some very down-to-earth naturopaths … http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/index.php/2005/12/28/vegetarian-or-omnivore?blog=14
Sources from 1973 and 1975? Taurine is a naturally occurring substance in the human body. It would be like a person saying they had to drink blood so they will have blood. It’s pointless. Taurine is used in energy drinks and can be synthesized without use of animal byproducts.
And what did you include zinc? You can get so much zinc from sources like, beans, nuts, almonds, whole grains, pumpkin seeds and sunflower seeds.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously have some pretty deep issues, seeing as you need to take your anger and frustration out on innocent animals. You would be leading a healthier life, a purer life, but you need to kill and consume flesh to feel like a real man. That is so sad.
Hi Jess,
Here’s a little bit to correct some of the misinformation about taurine. In its free-form it is H2SO2-H2C-H2C-NH2 …. for the people not into chemistry … the ‘HSO2’ group is called bisulphite and because it has the ‘S'(sulphur), it is presumed to be made from methionine, but no chemist can figure how this is done. Up until puberty THE BODY does indeed make sufficient taurine but it stops doing this upon brain maturation (at 14 yrs).
Taurine binds zinc tightly to the outside walls of cells. So bound-taurine looks like M(membrane)-Zn-HSO2-CH2-CH2-NH2. This is called the zinc-pool for cells (and is also the cells potassium pump. THE sole way for cells to get potassium inside of cells.)
Taurine is known as a zwitterion (a positive charge at on end and a negative charge at the other. When in place bound-taurine gives cells a slight charge to their surface and since like charges repel each other, cells do not stick nor ‘clump together’.
IMO this very same feature is going on inside of cells because the organelles must not clump together. However, instead of zinc, magnesium is used. So you get Mi(membrane inside)-Mg-taurine.
This is very important for heart health, and it one of the reasons it is included in energy drinks.
Taurine is not known in ANY plant. It is stictly from animal products … perhaps dairy?;fish?;insects?
Oh, there is a little known effect of taurine. When amino acids are being burned for fuel, the reduction only allows amides or mercaptans to be the end result. Taurine self-sacrifices and splits into two benign products before these very toxic chemicals are formed. Mercaptans smell very badly. There are some people who smell even though they do wash often. Supplementing with a little taurine often takes care of this prolblem.
John where did you find this? If it’s the 1973 study do you realize how terribly outdated it is? Also if it’s so “heart healthy” why are energy drinks so dangerous?
And you totally ignored the CURRENT information about synthesizing taurine. Of course they didn’t know how to synthesize it almost forty years ago, think about how far science and technology has come in the past forty years. That would be like saying vitamins don’t exist and quoting a study from the 1800’s.
Maybe you should join us in this century and stop hurting animals to make yourself feel like a man.
http://www.dst-corp.com/james/PaintingsOfJesus/Jesus05.jpg
Jesus would want me to protect his flock from butchers like you.
Jesus compared us to animals, we are the same as them, we are beings. Think of that the next time you stuff your face with your big mac.
You must have a really low opinion of Jesus if you think he would support behavior like this: http://www.meat.org/
Jesus put us in charge of animals. We are to be in dominion over them. He made them and He made Adam and told Adam to name them and watch over them and use them. We are not to elevate animals to the level of humans. Humans are made in God’s image.
Read Genesis, sweet pea.
Queen Victoria had dominion over India, does that mean she could eat the Indians? We are in charge of our children, can we eat them?
Jess,
Do you have a pea under your mattress?
Read Genesis, sweet pea. I am not talking about Queen Victoria.
Your love of animals is sweet but you have elevated them to a status that should be reserved for humans. I love animals. I would die for my children, not my cat. Fight for the babies, Jess. They are made in God’s image.
OH,
I am not “in charge” of my children. They have been loaned to me and my husband by God. They are His. They were His idea. Parenting is a divine privilege and someday my children will die, just as I will. My greatest calling in this life is to lead my children and my children’s children to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Jess,
must bow to your amassed stupidity. Please continue and the world will be so much nicer WITHOUT YOU! … thank you very much.
http://www.drrons.com/
Genuine Christianity is rare these days, and absolutely doesn’t offend me. Genuine Christianity is about love, which I’m totally cool with. If my religion offends you, that’s really too bad, but not particularly my problem.
You realize that “sexist” means someone who’s biased against a gender, correct? You’re not understanding my point. As a pagan, I worship goddesses of death, and rebirth, and life, and yeah, fertility. But that’s an aspect, not the whole. Note the difference.
Human Abstract, how did you come to be a pagan?
Say what you want but I’m not the disabled one John. You spend your life in a chair, I spend mine on my feet. Don’t you think you’re lecturing the wrong person?
I really do pity you. The only reason you can think of as to why you’re special is that you’re human. I wish there was something else you had going for you : (
Yeah John that’s some site you got there. How much of their product did they trick you into buying? Note it is not an educational or government site nor even an organization but a company. Like Planned Parenthood. Maybe this guy also sells fetus parts to people?
And as to your last comment when you stand before Jesus one day and he asks you if you ever tried to make someone feel unworthy of life you can say yes. And you’ll go to the same place you think Dr. Tiller is going.
ftskbmy tmqv
http://judithn.fusedtree.com/girls7436.html girls
http://judithn.8tt.org/sex4229.html sex