NOLA Planned Parenthood’s concrete contractor: “The blood is on pro-life hands”
In my post yesterday, “NOLA Planned Parenthood resumes construction; contractor says will walk for payoff,” I wrote that Absolute Concrete Services had not returned my calls requesting comment.
Today, Ronald Backes did.
Ronald is the son of Melvin and Linda Backes, and he clarified that Linda solely owns Absolute Concrete Services (which I said I’d correct), and he works for her. He said his parents are divorced.
Ronald wasn’t present to hear the conversation between his parents and Pastor Shanks, but he denies they made these comments Pastor Shanks attributed to them:
Melvin told him, “This is just business. If you give me $20,000, I’ll tear up the contract.”…
[Linda] told him she supported abortion and Planned Parenthood, adding, “If we let these babies live, they’ll just grow up and kill us.”
Ronald said there is no contract, but the concrete job is worth much more than $20,000, although he wouldn’t say how much.
Our conversation lasted over an hour.
I indicated Ronald was on the wrong side of history and that he would in part be responsible for the the 2,844 preborn children Planned Parenthood says it will kill at the clinic each year.
Ronald said he has no say, that his mother owns the company, but they are both “pro-choice.” I told him he could walk away. He said he wouldn’t.
Ronald kept dwelling on the fact that abortion is legal, even though I pointed out there are plenty of instances in U.S. and global history when something was legal but wrong.
Ronald also said, “A cement job has nothing to do with who is building. It’s just a job. It’s Planned Parenthood’s right.” I responded that he will be a collaborator, and the blood will indeed be on his hands as it will be with any other contractor that helps Planned Parenthood.
Ronald, in turn, blamed pro-lifers.
“Let me tell you something,” said Ronald. “We were on the balance beam, and when the pro-life people jumped the gun, that’s what made me take the job. Pro-life people made me pour this. The blood is going to be on their hands.”
I can’t tell you how pro-lifers found out Absolute Concrete Services was pouring the cement, but it was after the company had agreed.
I appealed to Ronald’s legacy, that his family name would be dirt in New Orleans.
We went round and round. At one point Ronald agreed babies were human before they were born, and at another point he said he didn’t know when they became human. He brought up the war, death penalty, rape, and incest.
I told Ronald there was still time, that four other concrete contractors had turned down the job, and he could still walk away, but he said it was something his mother wanted done, and he was doing it.
“We will pour cement for anyone anyone comes through this door,” he said.
Really? Would he pour concrete for the Nazi gas chambers, slave quarters, or for the KKK, I asked?
Ronald said I was being ridiculous.
I told him it may sound like a cliché, but I would be praying for him. And I really will.
And I ask all of you to as well.

You Jill are pathetic. Get a life.
Adding my prayers.
Linda Backes, I must ask you one thing. What sort of person bothers trolling the blog of someone with no life? I imagine it must somehow be someone with less than no life.
As stated previously, shanks is a bold faced liar. If he stands behind his previous lies he is, in addition to being a bold faced liar, a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being. The only difference between Ms Stanek and shanks is that she has yet to start thumping her Bible to justify the lies that she is printing. Based on the pattern of people in her journalistic position it is only a matter of time. Printing the truth and calling a lie as a lie is clearly foreign to people who choose to manipulate for the sake of their own agenda, as this entire blog shows. Reprinting shanks lies does not make them true Ms Stanek, it just makes you a big a liar and manipulator as shanks is. Shame on you. Sleep well knowing that while you were focusing on concrete the blood of the innocent living continues to flow in the streets of every town and city in this country. Open your eyes and at least tell the truth, do not try to promote your cause thru dishonesty.
Hmm… a woman who is willing to build a place that kills children. A woman who trolls a blog calling someone pathetic and telling them to get a life. Yep. I can’t see someone like that EVER saying babies need to be killed so they don’t grow up and kill us. Just seems so far-fetched. *eyeroll*
Keep trolling Linda. You’re making yourself look bad.
Hey BOB–the blood of the innocent flows in every town and city in this country thanks to spineless cowards like you and Linda. For the love of money Linda is willing to sell her own soul. She doesn’t care if babies are aborted-she is pro-“choice” (though I guarantee she is a hypocrite who doesn’t support ALL choice–like the choice of Jill to report on this) Linda doesn’t care as long as she gets that nice big fat check. After all, she isn’t the one being aborted so why should she care?
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing…but some go a step further and actively participate in that evil–like Linda.
Ronald probably had a sister or two that he will never get a chance to pour concrete for because they were killed in the womb by Linda.
“Sleep well knowing that while you were focusing on concrete the blood of the innocent living continues to flow in the streets of every town and city in this country”
Bob, Exponentialy more people will be killed every day in New Orleans inside those concrete walls than get killed in the streets of this country.
Exponentialy more people will be killed every day in New Orleans inside those concrete walls than get killed in the streets of this country. – that sounds rather far-fetched. How do you figure that?
I didn’t crunch the numbers but since you asked I looked some up.
1) Over a million people are killed by abortion each year in the US
2) About 15,000 people are murdered in the US each year, and only a small fraction of those are murdered ‘in the streets’.
That’s not what you said though is it. You said ‘in New Orleans inside those concrete walls’ not ‘in the US’.
Linda…as a mother about to have a baby GIRL tomorrow…woo hoo! Please help protect HER rights…..and the others like her. Right now I feel like you are saying “off with her head” and this is a little scary to me. I’m sure you don’t mean to be so cold, but swallow your pride.
Her rights are being protected, by pro-choice people. It is the anti-choice folk who seek to restrict or remove her rights.
What is being done to protect my baby and others from butchers, reality?
Do you need ‘protecting from butchers’? Is someone coming looking for you to force you to have an abortion? You are the only one who has the right to make a choice in regards to abortion. For others, it’s their choice, nothing to do with you.
There are estimate to be 10 times as many people killed in those concrete walls each year less than 200 other murders in New Orleans, and only a small fraction of those 200 will be ‘in the streets’
Greed and coercement have preyed on me since I got pregnant…luckily I am not vulnerable. So yes.
OK sydney, now you are getting personal. I never called you stupid, close minded, or ignorant even thou I could have. It is not spineless or cowardly to stand up for the truth. When you resort to name calling to distract attention away from the fact that you are sitting on your throne of ignorance, passing judgement on people you do not know, based on information pumped to you by blatant liars than your agenda has no merit. Shanks and stanek are liars therefore their cause has no merit. You call Linda and Melvin vile names and evil people without even knowing them or the truth, strictly based on the lies printed on this blog. Shame on you! If you and truthseeker think that by spewing venom about people you know nothing about will help your cause, you are wrong. The two of you are only making yourself and your cause look ridiculous. Fight a good fight, but if you really believe that you can win do it with some grace and dignity. Base your opinion on truth, not dishonesty. Just by knowing that the information in this blog is not based on truth should not change your stand in any way. Try not to make yourself and your cause look stupid by not calling out liars as liars and passing judgement on people that you do not know based on the lies that are printed here. I think you are smarter than that. I don’t even know you but I hope that you are smarter than that. I call shanks and stanek liars because I know it to be so. If I felt that Linda and Melvin were the kind of people that you represent them to be I would have the backbone to say so, as everything that I post is always done so under my full name, but they are not. Promoting your cause thru lies is spineless and cowardly and it seems that you may have fallen into that category. Sydney, read what you posted above and then tell me how intelligent you sound. “After all, she isn’t the one being aborted so why should she care?” Statements like that make your cause look worthy.
There are estimate to be 10 times as many people killed in those concrete walls each year less than 200 other murders in New Orleans – ?????, would you like to try this again?
And do you have confirmation of the number of abortions which will take place each year in this building?
Whatever it is truthseeker – you said “more people will be killed every day in New Orleans inside those concrete walls than get killed in the streets of this country” which was rather far fetched now wasn’t it.
Greed and coercement have preyed on me since I got pregnant…luckily I am not vulnerable. So yes. – oh yes, and how is this happening exactly? Who is this marauding horde? Where are they?
It’s happening right here with this blog entry….abortion and those that say it is alright. Maybe you can help change that, reality. Next question…
JDC says:
Linda Backes, I must ask you one thing. What sort of person bothers trolling the blog of someone with no life? I imagine it must somehow be someone with less than no life.
I usually urge posters to ignore the trolls… but this one made me laugh.
And kudos to the clever troll, hiding behind Linda Backes’ name.
Way to go, Jill!! Keep up the great work, for speaking for those with no voice.
How on earth does pro-choice people saying abortion is a valid right for women equate to greed and coercement preying on you? Good grief! Does that mean there is greed and coercement preying on me because of the anti-choice message I am exposed to? Seriously?
Poor Ronald, he says he has no say. But truly, he has a choice. Does he always do his mother’s bidding? Is he a grown man?
We have been fortunate that building has delayed this long…. but when PP decides that they want this building finished, it will be finished. They will throw money at the job until someone takes the contract. They will bribe officials, break rules and permits, throw lawyers at injunctions, do illegal abortions — whatever it takes.
They can already smell a monopoly on abortion profits in Louisiana. They only need a few years of that to recover the cost overages.
From here, it looks like Linda Backes has already taken a substantial payoff under the table to take this job. The concrete will be poured.
We cannot defeat Planned Parenthood while they have the courts in their corner and some politicians in their pocket.
Our job must be to restore and protect the human rights of children, so that no more fools can sputter that a mother has a “valid right” to kill her child, regardless of whether she has chosen freely or is coerced.
MoJoanne says:
Poor Ronald, he says he has no say. But truly, he has a choice. Does he always do his mother’s bidding? Is he a grown man?
He was man enough to return Jill’s call and spend a generous amount of time talking to this pro-life news blog. That took some spine.
And it may be that he expects to take over this business some day. In any case, he stands to benefit or suffer the consequences of this decision. He has some skin in the game.
Bob,
What venom? Laura sounds post-abortive to me.
OK there then, let me put it this way, there will be exponentially more innocent people killed each year inside those concrete walls than there are in the streets of New Orleans.
What’s the ‘exponential’ part of it truthseeker? Some sort of qualification for some reason?
And how do you have any idea how many abortions will take place there?
What if the ‘on the streets’ murder rate suddenly grows?
1) Truthseeker means “orders of magnitude” more, rather than “exponentially” more. Factors of 10 or 100 more abortions than violent murders. The difference is that murders are illegal, while abortions are mercenary. (If we made homocide legal and protected the professional hit men, there would be more murders.)
2) We can estimate the number of abortions that PP plans to sell by the square footage of their facility. It isn’t difficult to do. (Twice the facility plans to kill twice as many children as a similar full-time facility elsewhere in the country.)
3) If the murder rate on the streets increases, then that means the culture of death has won. There will be more abortions that will track the increase in murders, if human life loses more of its value. (This analysis assumes normal circumstances, of course. In the case of war or widespread riots, the abortion circuit-riders will not fly in.)
Factors of 10 or 100 more abortions than violent murders. – groan. More far fetchedness.
The difference is that murders are illegal, while abortions are mercenary – that’s not how you spell necessary.
We can estimate the number of abortions that PP plans to sell by the square footage of their facility. – no you can’t. Client base, demand, availability of doctors etc. etc. are all factors at play.
It isn’t difficult to do – no, it’s almost impossible.
If the murder rate on the streets increases, then that means the culture of death has won. – that’s a good name for the gun lobby, I like it.
There will be more abortions that will track the increase in murders, if human life loses more of its value. – more guesswork based on ideology?
(This analysis assumes normal circumstances, of course. In the case of war or widespread riots, the abortion circuit-riders will not fly in.) – maybe we can fly the patients out.
Reality is pro butcher…NOT “pro choice”…my daughter STILL has no choice with his foolish words and questions for answers.
Yeah Ronald returned a phone call and talked awhile, yet he still puts the responsibility for his actions on someone else. First, it was his mom who owns the business and then it was pro-lifers.
“Let me tell you something,” said Ronald. “We were on the balance beam, and when the pro-life people jumped the gun, that’s what made me take the job. Pro-life people made me pour this. The blood is going to be on their hands.”
In my book, an adult accepts personal responsibility for his or her decisions and actions whether they be right or wrong.
According to the article Planned Parenthood estimates killing around 3,000 babies a year inside those concrete walls. In recent years there have been fewer than 200 murders total in New Orleans and only a fraction of those occur ‘in the streets’. So that would be around 250 fifty people killied each month at the Planned Parenthood abortion mill. If you figure there are around 4 street murders in New Orleans each month and there are 4 to the fourth power people killed each month in the Planned Parenthood killing center.
“Truthseeker means “orders of magnitude” more, rather than “exponentially” more.
Honestly Del I hadn’t thought it through all the way when I posted about the exponentially greater number but I think it fits above. Four street murders per month and 4-to-the 4th power kills at the concrete killing center.
Reality & others, what do you have against sweet, cuddly babies?
i’ve seen a number of comments from the self proclaimed “Reality” on this and other threads, but obviously I can’t have seem them all. I’m just wondering whether anyone has ever seen a comment from “Reality” that offers his/her own hard evidence, or goes at all beyond just denying whatever any pro-lifer says, like a toddler who has just learned to say “NO!” and has fallen in love with saying it in response to everything.
Right now I feel like you are saying “off with her head” and this is a little scary to me.
My nephew feels like you have to wait for AAA outside in the cold when your engine won’t start, because you’ll get taken away with the car if you’re sitting in it when the tow truck comes. Like your fear that someone wants to decapitate your baby, the fear of getting towed to a strange garage is very scary. And like your fear, it’s not grounded in reality.
Reality says:
It isn’t difficult to do – no, it’s almost impossible.
====================================
I genuinely like you, Reality. I really do. But you are impossible to talk with.
Seriously…. Planned Parenthood builds a new clinic based on a firm plan as to how much revenue and profit they hope to bring in. They plan the size of their building so that it will neither be too large or too small to accomplish that goal.
We can see the specs for the building, based on public building permits and their own press releases. We can compare to other operations, and see what they accomplish in terms of killing profits per square foot.
The appraisal is simple math.
“I usually urge posters to ignore the trolls”
The funny thing is, so do I normally. But sometimes, it’s just too hard to resist. In particular, “get a life” trolls have always been an interest of mine, given that they essentially by definition in no position to speak.
it is intresting that someone that calls its self truthseeker follows the blather of known liars.
Reality is pro butcher…NOT “pro choice”… – not factual. I support whatever choice women need to make for their situation. I support choice, you don’t.
my daughter STILL has no choice with his foolish words and questions for answers. – that is a fundamentally illogical claim to make. Your daughter has more choice in her life with pro-choicers than with anti-choicers. I strive for her to be able to make her own choices, not have others force their ‘choice’ upon her.
Now you’ve got a dilemma truthseeker. Jindal denied PP’s claim of 2,844. Who ya gonna believe?
So based on the stats, Del’s claim of 100 times is far fetched.
And truthseekers claim “more people will be killed every day in New Orleans inside those concrete walls than get killed in the streets of this country” was certainly far fetched.
Reality & others, what do you have against sweet, cuddly babies? – absolutely nothing. Quite the opposite. I am a parent. Why ask such a question?
You’ve obviously seen very few of my comments Tim. Or is that just your attempt at something?
The appraisal Del, is at best a guesstimate. PP claim they’ll do so many. Jindal says no they won’t. We don’t know what the actual demand may be. What if another facility opens somewhere reasonably close. Too many variables.
Well said Reality. A cup of intelligence in a sea of stupidity.
“Your daughter has more choice in her life with pro-choicers than with anti-choicers. I strive for her to be able to make her own choices, not have others force their ‘choice’ upon her.”
Well yeah. You support an extra choice, that she be allowed to abort her child if she wants to when she’s old enough to become pregnant. I don’t think the “I support more choices” argument means anything, really. Like I’ve said before, pro-lifers sure are anti-choice in the abortion debate. We are against the choice to kill developing humans in the womb. I’ll wear the anti-choice label, I have no problem being called that and I see it as a compliment. :) I’m anti-the choice to kill your disabled toddler, anti-the government choosing to kill prisoners, anti-the choice for people to beat their significant others, anti-humans eating helpless animals, etc. Pro- or anti-choice positions are only as good or bad as the choices you are for or against.
But you’re well aware that the person you’re replying to is referring to the baby’s choice before birth. I think it’s kind of a weird thing for her to say, seeing as the whole point is that unborn babies are incapable of making choices like “don’t kill me”. That’s why pro-lifers want their lives protected in the same way we want newborns incapable of choosing to not be smothered in their cribs protected from that.
If people would stop letting their genitals control their brains there would be no need for any of this to begin with. If you really want to help the unborn and protect your children from this evil that so offends you, why don’t you educate them on the personal responsibilities that go along with their biology and how morality in their lives is important. You fail if you choose to ignore the undeniable root of the issue. Your responsibility here is to teach prevention not to ignore the cause of the problem to begin with and then bully, manipulate the truth and cheapen whatever cause you have thru uninformed ignorance. The truth of the matter is that you are all just as much at fault as anyone for not trying to stop this so called ripping apart of the unborn before they have the chance to be conceived. Their blood is on your hands as well.
Hahaha, you must be new here. That’s like… literally 90% of people round here solution to abortion. Honestly, I laughed out loud genuinely at you accusing people here of not telling people to take responsibility for their sex lives.
I think the blood is on everyone’s hands. We all live in this society and we are all responsible for social ills to a greater or lesser extent, depending on what we support, how we vote, how we live and what we do.
Hahaha, Deluded, I understand. Deluded yes. I would laugh out loud at the simple fact that you see any accusations to begin with. Wave your flag, blow your smoke and draw attention away from any real progress you might be able to make to further your cause. I do not find anything funny about stupidity. If you can reduce an issue as seemingly important to you to concrete and away from the core issues of prevention, so be it. I would laugh out loud but I find none of this funny. You and your like are saving not one life by focusing on the issue after the fact. NOT ONE! I leave you and your deluded like now. You may now throw your head back and laugh out loud. Are you sad, pathetic, deluded? Yes. I’m sure you feel the same about me but that’s life, ain’t it? Hahaha!
“Reality” – OK, how about a counter example? Can you actually make a case for your side, with real data that you can provide sources for, or is all you can do just deny, deny, deny and dodge, dodge, dodge, and never be specific? You didn’t exactly prove me wrong, as your response to me was exactly the kind I was referring to. Let’s see if you can PROVE me wrong instead of providing yet another example to support my point.
“Reality” since you seem to be having difficulty grasping what I’m getting at, let me give you some help by giving you an example of what your comments sound like, every time I’ve ever seen one. They sound like this:
Hahaha! How can you be so naive? You say 2+2=4? Hogwash! How do you know? Can you prove it? You don’t know anything. Your pathetic example of taking two objects, then adding two more objects and counting four objects proves nothing, except that you are clueless.
That’s pretty much what you sound like.
OK, so we know you can be contrary consistently, but can you actually articulate an opposing view that you DO believe in and lay out a solid case for it? Go ahead, if you can. I’ve read quite a few of your comments and haven’t seen you do it yet. Put up or shut up.
You seem to have me confused with those who make specious statements and unsupportable claims who then ignore any request for evidence Tim.
Yes I can make a case for my side, as I did with Kathy and truthseeker above.
I’m quite specific, is it that you’ve seen too few of my comments or is there a comprehension issue going on?
My response to you was obviously quite accurate given your very limited exposure to my comments. Perhaps you’d care to try to assemble some examples of what you claim?
Prove yourself right, if you can. You don’t have a point.
Be careful you don’t overdose on all the irony you’re generating Tim.
“If you really want to help the unborn and protect your children from this evil that so offends you”
Done. OK open eyes now what about the children of pro-aborts?
Reality, I would say your posts are getting exponentially less worth-while but I am still waiting on one that is wort-while and anything to power of zero is still zero so your posts getting exponentially less worth-while is mathematically impossible.
Which translates to you still cannot rebut them truthseeker, to some order of magnitude.
“Reality” you keep proving my point. You’re just being a contrarian. The only reason truthseeker is having any difficulty rebutting you is that you haven’t actually said anything. And there’s no irony. That is exactly the way you come across. You’ve got nothing.
“Reality” I was referring to your comments above. You call that proof? LOL! Just more contrarianism.i guess the next thing you’ll probably do is say I’m doing the same thing. Well, that’s not totally true, but to the extent that it is true, it’s just a taste of your own medicine, so if you have a problem with that tactic I suggest you look in the mirror. Bye bye.
“Reality” you keep proving my point. – the only thing being proven Tim, is that you are highly adept at displaying the very behavior you falsely accuse me of.
You’re just being a contrarian. – more irony.
The only reason truthseeker is having any difficulty rebutting you is that you haven’t actually said anything. – so now you admit you’ve read hardly any of my comments. As I thought.
And there’s no irony. – which makes it even more ironic.
That is exactly the way you come across. – maybe you should actually read some of my comments. I’ll help you if you struggle with them. A little bit anyway.
You’ve got nothing. – and what exactly is it that you think you have?
I think your mirror may actually be more of a portrait. A la Dorian Gray perhaps? Au revoir.
Planned Parenthood filed legal proceedings with the State stating that they would kill 2844 babies a year.
The question: If there was a plan to stop all the street violence in New Orleans, and it would cost $500,000.00, would we stop the killing?
So, if there is a plan to stop the killing of 2844 innocent babies in New Orleans, and it would cost nothing, would we stop the killing?
We, as adults, make choices all the time, legal or illegal. It’s the children who can’t make a choice. When parents refuse to protect their child then others have to intervene for the safety of the children.
If a person said; “better to kill them before they kill me.”, is that someone you would want them working at your home?
So, how much is the contract and how long will they give us to raise the money?
I’m still waiting for our abortion fans to explain how aborted dead baby human beings can possibly make ANY CHOICE when they’re rotting in landfills or sitting in buckets????
You naughty pro-lifers, denying dead humans the ability to abort humans they’ll never live to create!
Tim,
you haven’t seen much of ‘Reality’s’ posts. He claims that Obama and the US didn’t bomb Libya. His reasoning….cause NATO was in charge. LOL…I kid you not.
A fetus can’t get pregnant, doesn’t need to make a choice. Doesn’t have the capacity to make choices about anything. Dead or alive.
I guess the fact that Rick Perry executes people reinforces his anti-choice position.
truthseeker, if you think it’s clever to misrepresent what was said and only partially quote what was said….
Shall we revisit your “Bob, Exponentialy more people will be killed every day in New Orleans inside those concrete walls than get killed in the streets of this country.” Full quote, no misrepresentation.
I would prefer the no one is executed, criminals or babies.
We have something called the criminal justice system, so certain things have to happen before anyone is executed.
1. Someone must commit a heinous crime.
2. After investigation, someone is accused of the heinous crime.
3. There is a Grand Jury trail where the evidence is presented to a jury.
4. If the jury feels it is warranted, they affirm the need of a jury trial.
5. There is a trial, with judge, jury, and lawyers to state both sides.
6. Both sides get to present their case.
7. The jury decides the guilt or innocent of the accused.
8. If guilty, the jury decides the punishment.
9. Any guilty party can appeal to ever higher courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.
What was the child’s crime?
Who defends the child against, I’m not sure, as someone said;
“fetus… doesn’t have the capacity to make choices about anything.”
Babies (fetus, latin for baby) do not have the capacity to do any wrong.
Why does one person get to be judge, jury, both lawyers, and hire the executioner?
Sounds to me like you have chosen to be judge, jury, both lawyers and executioner here stray thoughts so why bother asking the question?
“truthseeker, if you think it’s clever to misrepresent what was said and only partially quote what was said….”
What exactly do you claim was said? Please give us the full quote.
Reality, do you now admit that Obama bombed Libya?
No, I asked two questions…
What was the child’s crime?
Why does one person get to be judge, jury, both lawyers, and hire the executioner?
perhaps the child’s misfortune is having uneducated sperm and egg donors. That may just be the biggest injustice being done to them. Do something about reducing the demand and the suppliers will go away. Your misdirecting the root issue here is killing more than it is helping. If you really want to save lives educate, you appear to have the ability to do so.
botheyesopen,
You are on a site dedicated to educating people about the depravity of killing unborn children. The problem is that some people know the depravity of killing unborn children and choose to kill them anyway.
misrepresenting what was said is something you are very, very good at truthseeker. by the way, what does obama bombing libya have to do with the issue here? Spreading yourself thin with that one. What are you, like twelve? At least when some of the others blow smoke and misdirect they try not to make it look so obvious. You just put your lack of intelligence front and center. Have to admire you for that.
botheyesopen,
The comment about Libya wasn’t directed at you. It was a direct response to Tim’s post from yesterday at 7:30am. I was just giving Tim a little history of Reality’s ‘contray’ style and how irrational it can get.
Do you have something to add about it? Do you know anything at all about Reality’s comments denying that Obama bombed Libya or are you just here to bloviate?
“to save lives educate”
What a wonderful Idea!
Let’s take the $540,600,000.00 (that’s over half a billion) that the Federal Government gave in grants to Planned Parenthood in 2013 and use it to provide real education and assistance to our neighbors who need a little help to care for their babies.
See how easy it is when we work together!
“child’s misfortune is having uneducated sperm and egg donors”
Are you saying that if you have some misfortune in your life, someone can kill you?
To term someone’s mother and father as; sperm and egg donors, is disgusting.
You assume much when you say uneducated. I see a lot of fancy cars bringing mothers to the mills. Some have been ‘strongly encouraged’ by someone they thought they could trust. So have very real, but temporary money problems. And some think they are just having too much fun to deal with a baby right now.
Maybe everyone should come out to a mill and watch for a day or two to clear up all this; they’re poor, uneducated, blah, blah, blah. Until someone sees the truth of who’s coming for abortion and talk to them to see why they are there, they really can’t speak of the misfortune and education of our neighbors.
Hi Tim,
Just to give you a thumbs up since you seem to be new here. You apparently don’t know the rules when it comes to Reality.
1. If he decides he doesn’t like what your source has to say, he has the option to jump up and down and scream he that doesn’t like your source. This divinely decrees your source invalid and the issue settled. I’ve noticed this usually correlates with his inability to dispute what your source says, but that could just be a coincidence.
2. Reality does not have to give sources. He is a master of evading this request, or acting like he is totally oblivious as to what it is you have been discussing and requesting a source for. He will also maintain that he has told you something in previous posts, though he is often unable to specifically point out the post.
Hope to see you here again Tim.
You people are so good that you have figured out how to blow smoke up your own behinds. You have a wonderful way of discrediting any other approach to deal with the issue by spewing the same old propaganda pumped into you. How is it that if a person that voices a valid opinion that in any way differs from yours is jumping up and down and screaming. You people couldn’t have a meaningful dialogue with a wall. Continue your mindless blather among yourselves. You are all too stupid and closed minded to make a difference anyway. Reality is more aware of, and informed about, the cause that you represent than you are, which makes his thoughts more valid in any MEANINGFUL dialogue. My sources for the comments I have made here are the posts on this nasty little web sight. Now go jump up and down and scream. That door swings both ways. You people will never accomplish anything and are therefore not worth the time of day. On to better things with smarter people. Keep up the good work Reality. As I said before, your comments are a cup of intelligence in a sea of stupidity.
BEO.
For someone with both eyes supposedly open you are having some serious problems with reading comprehension.
I said nothing about voicing a valid opinion different from mine. I discussed posting a source Reality decrees invalid, based on nothing more than he decides he doesn’t like the source. Not how it works. You post a countersource if you want to show the point being made is wrong, you don’t jump up and down and scream that you don’t like a source. Sure would be nice if we could all do that, but as I said, not how it works.
My reading comprehension is crystal clear Mary. Almost as clear as your ability to twist your own words, and the words of others. Keep up the good work.
BEO,
Crystal clear? So show me where I twist my words.
What exactly do you claim was said? Please give us the full quote. – you’re the one making the claim, you provide the full quotes.
Reality, do you now admit that Obama bombed Libya? – he isn’t a pilot.
Hi Tim,
Just to give you a heads up since you seem to be new here. You apparently don’t know the rules when it comes to Mary.
1. When Mary does provide a source it often tells us itself that it is biased and a reading of it demonstrates obfuscation and misrepresentation. When this is pointed out to Mary she jumps up and down and screams that it is being rejected because one doesn’t ‘like it.’ The sources invalidate themselves with their stated intent of purpose. Providing an unbiased source which refutes that source is then utterly ignored. Mary also gets a bit miffed on those occasions when it is pointed out that a source she has provided refutes her claim rather than support it.
2. Mary will repeatedly claim that a source has not been provided when it is staring her in the face. You can tell her umpteen times and she persists in ignoring its presence.
She will also maintain that one has said something in previous posts, though she is often unable to specifically point out the post.
Good luck Tim.
Hi Tim,
See what I mean?
BTW botheyesopen,
If you’re still out there, I would appreciate you backing your claim that I twisted my words.
There’s a rather good example of what I was saying Tim, right there.
Reality,
you are claiming that I misrepresented what you said and gave part of the. Well I was paraphrasing . Since you asked,
here is the full quote for you:
On April 4th 2011 in the Sunday Funnies I asked you…
“In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya?”
You answer to me was as follows…
” – my answer to your heavily loaded question must be NO!”
You said this knowing that Obama was Commander and Chief of US forces at the time and an in fact 99% of those Tomohawk missles were launched by US forces.”
You have been living in your contrary state of denial for over four years. Tim picked it up right away. botheyesopen needs to rest his eyes cause he isn’t seeing clearly.
I’ve looked and cannot find any Sunday Funnies for April 4th 2011. Could that be because that date was a Monday? Perhaps you’d care to provide a link? That may also elicit the Q & A in full rather than some snippet which may be out of context.
You have been living in your contrary state of denial for over four years. – easy to say, difficult to demonstrate as being at all accurate.
Tim picked it up right away. – he may well have picked something up but I’m not in a position to offer a diagnosis. Imagine my surprise at you clinging to what he had to say.
Check the Sunday Funnies from March 27th and your post from April 4th
Yes, I see it.
It all began with your fatuous “Obama’s war on Libya” statement.
You asked “Just who’s war is it then if not Obama’s?” to which I informed you that “Eventually the UN, at the behest of the Arab League amongst others, sanctioned a no fly zone with military action to protect the Libyan rebels.
The US was part of a coalition of forces which acted under that UN sanction. Control is in the hands of NATO.”
You then asked “In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles upon Libya?” TO WHICH I REPLIED “Obama did not instigate or declare ‘action’ – not war – against the Libyan leader. The UN did. As part of a coalition acting under the UN sanction the US fired missiles. So did the British and French. I don’t see you calling it ‘Cameron’s war on Libya’ or ‘Sarkozy’s war on Libya’.
FACT: It is NATO and not Obama who is responsible for the coalition strikes against Libya. Unlike Bush Jnr’s non-sanctioned, unilateral invasion of Iraq.”
Again you posed the question “In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya?” to which my full answer was “What my sentence meant was:
1. Obama did not ‘instigate’ or ‘declare’ anything.
2. it is not a ‘war’
“In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya? – my answer to your heavily loaded question must be NO!
‘Loaded’ because Obama did not make the decision to fire 200 missiles. His decision was that US forces could act under the auspices of the UN. Nor was it as a ‘first strike’.
You still can’t agree that it was Obama’s decision when the US military launched the missiles on Libya. LOL That is funny.
“‘Loaded’ because Obama did not make the decision to fire 200 missiles. His decision was that US forces could act under the auspices of the UN.”
Do you think that Obama was even notified and gave a green light prior to the strike?
Your decision to repeat your misrepresentation of what actually took place and how it took place is the true LOL.
It appears my 12:28am response was accurate.
“Nor was it as a ‘first strike’.”
Well, it was the first volley of missiles into Libya so wth are you trying to say here; that it was not the first or that it was not a strike?
So in your mind it is the UN’s fault and not Obama’s fault that Libya has descended into a safe haven for Al Qaeda and ISIS.
OK truthseeker, how about I play this your way?
In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya? – well no truthseeker, it wasn’t. You see, they weren’t ‘humanitarian’ missiles. Nor did Obama specify 200 missiles. Now go look up ‘first strike’.
So in your mind it is the UN’s fault and not Obama’s fault that Libya has descended into a safe haven for Al Qaeda and ISIS. – and here I was thinking you had at least an inkling of what actually happened.
So according to your logic George Bush didn’t order missile strikes on Iraq, the UN did.
That is not my logic at all. It’s yours.
In most peoples minds the fact that the US funds over 50% of NATO’s military budget would mean that the US bears the majority of responsibility for any military operation NATO conducts….but apparently not yours. In your mind the US can pay others like NATO to do their killing and claim no responsibily
You claim that the US Commander and Chief isn’t ordering US military strikes cause they do it under the auspices of NATO. You are going from a contrarian to a spineless weasel.
Wow! 2011?
Ok, let’s see what Our President had to say about Libya in his letter to Congress. (start of letter follows in next post)
1. “at my direction” As Commander and Chief he and he alone gave the order. While he didn’t go around picking out the individual bombs, it was done by his order. That is the terrible burden of being President, when you give the order, you are responsible for every bullet, grenade, bomb, missile, and death caused by the order.
2. “Operations to assist an international effort” “authorized… (U.N.) Security Council” “support of European allies and Arab Partners” – The United States assisted the effort, but never placed our forces under any outside command. The Security Council authorized any action, but did not order or direct the effort. NATO was never involved, but we had the support of some of NATO’s members.
3. “U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command,” Again, our forces under our command.
4. “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” While it was presented as a humanitarian effort, it is debatable whether the missiles were humanitarian. Perhaps it’s time to concede the point that the word ‘humanitarian’ did not need to be included in the question. It allowed the focus to shift from the question to other side issues with no real resolution in sight.
5. As for ‘first strike’, I think in most reasonable people’s mind, it would be considered the first strike because that’s how the new was presented. Did some kind of strike happen before, don’t know, don’t care, because that is the one that stands out. If someone offered some kind of report as proof that other actions happened before hand, I would have no problem letting the first strike thing go, but absent that… let it go.
While there may be a stray word or two is some posts, and that happens to all of us, those hardly raise to that level of misrepresentations of who was in command of our forces.
And I thought some of my earlier comments were taking this off subject… Any late arrivals would have stopped reading long ago, never leaving their opinions, and that is a loss. Perhaps it is time to start your own blog if you wish to carry this debate on.
TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE
March 21, 2011
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a “no-fly zone” in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.
That’d make you responsible too then wouldn’t it.
I’m not addressing the whole Libya debate, I’m addressing your selective quoting and misrepresenting in an attempt to buddy up to temporary Tim.
And you had the gall to accuse botheyesopen of bloviating!
“spineless weasel”? Really? And your rebuttal of what I’ve said, where’s that? Down your burrow?
A reminder for you –
“Eventually the UN, at the behest of the Arab League amongst others, sanctioned a no fly zone with military action to protect the Libyan rebels. The US was part of a coalition of forces which acted under that UN sanction. Control is in the hands of NATO. Obama did not instigate or declare ‘action’ – not war – against the Libyan leader. The UN did. As part of a coalition acting under the UN sanction the US fired missiles. So did the British and French. I don’t see you calling it ‘Cameron’s war on Libya’ or ‘Sarkozy’s war on Libya’.”
stray thoughts,
Despite your posting of Obama’s letter stating that US forces under US command launched the strike the contrarian cannot help himself.
Interesting ‘interpretation’ there Stray thoughts! On closer reading:
1. “at my direction” U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners.
As part of the multilateral response AUTHORIZED under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. (The UN authorized the bombing, not Obama. He provided resources.)
While he didn’t go around picking out the individual bombs, it was done by his order. – not true.
2. “Operations to assist an international effort” “authorized… (U.N.) Security Council” “support of European allies and Arab Partners” – The United States assisted the effort, but never placed our forces under any outside command. The Security Council authorized any action, but did not order or direct the effort. NATO was never involved, but we had the support of some of NATO’s members. US command did not authorize the bombing. They commanded US activities when the go-ahead was given.
3. “U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command,” Again, our forces under our command. – acting on authorization.
4. “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” While it was presented as a humanitarian effort, it is debatable whether the missiles were humanitarian. – no great disagreement there.
5. As for ‘first strike’, I think in most reasonable people’s mind, it would be considered the first strike because that’s how the new was presented. Did some kind of strike happen before, don’t know, don’t care, because that is the one that stands out. If someone offered some kind of report as proof that other actions happened before hand, I would have no problem letting the first strike thing go, but absent that… let it go. – so you’re happy for it to be called a ‘first strike’ because you don’t care if it wasn’t?
It still belies your claim that “it was(sic)Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya” truthseeker.
Tell me truthseeker, if the UN security council had not authorized the creation of a no-fly zone, would US missiles have been fired to that effect under orders from the president? Having been authorised by the UN – as part of a multi-lateral force – did Obama state how many missiles were to be fired?
“Tell me truthseeker, if the UN security council had not authorized the creation of a no-fly zone, would US missiles have been fired to that effect under orders from the president”
Yes.
‘Having been authorised by the UN – as part of a multi-lateral force – did Obama state how many missiles were to be fired?”
President Obama, as Commander and Chief of the military, does not personally give individual orders to each person to launch the missiles. Our military cannot and does not function like that. It is called chain-of-command. General Ham would have briefed the pentagon (and Obama unless he was at a fund-raiser or on the golf course) about the general’s plan to carry out the missile strikes. Then Obama would have given the authorization for the general to carry out those orders. And then the general authorize others in the chain of command to carry out those orders. That is how a Commander and Chiefs order to launch the missiles gets carried out. It is asinine of you to suggest that Obama didn’t give the order because “he didn’t tell them exactly how many missiles to launch” or “give individual orders to launch each missile”.
Hi ts and Stray thoughts,
An interesting video, a debate between two liberals on our involvement in Libya and Obama’s decision to involve us. Around 3 minutes we hear something interesting about the “coalition”, but I would recommend you view the entire 6 minute video. Some interesting comments about Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXDZ2AogetA
Again I remind you that as always, it is Reality’s option to jump up and down and scream that this source, as well as any that you have offered, is invalid.
mary and truthseeker. staneks flying monkeys. There is an opinion that differs from yours I’ll bet. Lets see you twist those words. Keep up the good work Reality.
Peace!
People it’s time to quit this thing. It’s pretty clear that no one is going to change any minds here.
In the future with these guys, it is good to post a comment that ‘they take things off topic.’ After that, just ignore the posts. Just carry on the relevant conversation as if they were not there. Do Not give them the Power to Disrupt.
If they post erroneous info on the topic, do not address them, but post the correction along with a source if you can. This gives informative info for others coming to the blog without endless blah, blah, blah of those who would disrupt.
When they start splitting hairs on what you say, Don’t take the bait, buck up, you have broad shoulders, let it go.
Most disruptive comments are one of two things, Nonsense and Off Topic. So if you feel you must answer, just point out which one it is and move on. (re: so and so, Non-sense) (re: so and so, off topic) The rest of us are smart enough to figure out the rest. Remember, this is about addressing some serious problems. We need to keep our posts to the subject for the majority of the people who will read this.
I’m thinking there is only five or six of us still following this thread, how sad.
Sorry Jill,
Perhaps it’s time you cut this whole Libya thing out of the postings.
BEO,
Speaking of twisting words, I’m waiting for you to point out where I did…or haven’t you got both your eyes open yet??
Good point Stray Thoughts.
You never really know how many people are following a thread. I often do without commenting. Personally I find these sessions fun and informative.
I appealed to Ronald’s legacy, that his family name would be dirt in New Orleans
Presumably meaning that pro-lifers will be harassing him and his parents, business, neighbors and children, until their spite is directed elsewhere. Because really, the rest of New Orleans is not keeping track of Absolute Concrete’s jobs.
(fetus, latin for baby)
Stray thoughts, could you do the class a favor and translate any of the phrases below? Just so that we all have a concrete idea of how Latin uses the word ‘baby.’
nutriant fetus et aquae salubres et Jovis aurae (Horace)
Germania quos horrida parturit fetus (also Horace)
nec ulla aetate uberior oratorum fetus fuit (Cicero)
These comment strings are good.
You have to be pretty indoctrinated to admire “Reality”‘s line of thinking.
Give him or her enough rhetorical rope, and he/she will rhetorically hang himself/herself.
Like this – this should be the quote of the day:
When asked: “Reality, do you now admit that Obama bombed Libya?” “Reality answers “he isn’t a pilot.”
–Most people gave that kind of dumb argument up in middle school.
botheyesopen says (March 5, 2015 at 8:07 am):
“perhaps the child’s misfortune is having uneducated sperm and egg donors.”
Allow a pro-choicer to defend their beliefs far enough, and you will eventually hit the classism.
Yes. – why? How?
It is asinine of you to suggest that Obama didn’t give the order because “he didn’t tell them exactly how many missiles to launch” or “give individual orders to launch each missile”. – as I said, that was playing it your way.
Therefore, “My answer to your heavily loaded question must be NO!” to your question In your ‘reality’ was it Obama’s decision to launch the 200 humanitarian tomohawk missiles as a first strike upon Libya? was correct. Or, as I have expanded it for you to, “well no truthseeker, it wasn’t. You see, they weren’t ‘humanitarian’ missiles. Nor did Obama specify 200 missiles. Now go look up ‘first strike’.” perhaps you’ll start to understand what is meant by ‘loaded question’ and why they often draw a negative response.
Again I remind you that as always, it is Mary’s option to jump up and down and scream when it is pointed out that her source demonstrably invalidates itself. And when a valid source that she provides negates rather than supports her claim.
As to Ronald’s legacy, it is not a matter of spite or harassment. Some of us in New Orleans feel that certain businesses are not good for our city. A business that helps build a place with a stated purpose of killing 2844 children a year is not one that I would choose to associate with or recommend to others.
If the added reasoning is true; better to kill them before they kill me, than there is cause for real concern. I would wager to say that if that statement was made in any other context than Abortion, then everyone in New Orleans and our Country would be outraged.
Reality,
LOL. And may I again remind you that:
1. Whether or not a source is “biased” is a subjective opinion.
2. The opinion that a source is “biased” which always seems to correlate with your inability to challenge the source, does not make the source invalid. Otherwise all of us on this blog could, like you, when unable to challenge someone’s source, just declare it “biased” then jump up and down and scream that source is invalid.
Nonsense comment, Latin does not use words, people do.
How someone, especially a poet talking about Germany, may have used a word 2,000 years ago has no bearing on this topic.
In the past, some have use fetus to obscure the issue, saying something like; ‘it’s not a baby, it’s a fetus.’ In the context it was used in I would translate ‘fetus’ as baby. But, perhaps I missed spoke. I took “children (of a parent)” and “young while in the womb” and “embryo (Cla)” Since ‘embryo’ is a Classical definition, and most medical abortions are well past the embryo stage, I used the other two definitions. Combining ‘children’ with ‘young in the womb’, so I think ‘baby’ is still a good enough call. But, please, feel free to use whatever you chose.
Whether or not a source is “biased” is a subjective opinion except when it explicitly tells us itself that it is biased.
The opinion that a source is “biased” which always seems to correlate with your inability to challenge the source, does not make the source invalid. – it’s not opinion, it’s because it correlates with the source itself rendering themselves invalid.
Otherwise all of us on this blog could, like you, when unable to challenge someone’s source, just declare it “biased” – which is not what I do. If it is biased then people are quite free to say so. Your choosing to ignore what the sources say of themselves is not my error.
then jump up and down and scream that source is invalid. – no, I point out why it is invalid which then leads to you jumping up and down and screaming.
You have quite clearly demonstrated how your operate Mary. You, or quite often someone else, make a statement which is obviously erroneous and/or outlandish and completely unsubstantiated. I refute their statement (or yours if you’ve made it). Then you chime in, and rather than provide a source if you’ve made the statement or ask it of someone else if they’ve made the statement, you demand that I provide a source to disprove it. Mind you, when you do actually provide a source there’s a chance it will support my position rather than yours, which is interesting.
Reality,
I admit, I’m jealous. I wish, and I’m sure everyone on this blog does as well, that I could just decree a source invalid, especially when I can’t dispute it, then refuse to provide a source invalidating it. The fact I have so decreed is good enough.
I admit, I’m jealous. – I’m not.
I wish, and I’m sure everyone on this blog does as well, that I could just decree a source invalid, especially when I can’t dispute it, then refuse to provide a source invalidating it. The fact I have so decreed is good enough – well you could do so but it’d be hard to take seriously. Now if you are able to demonstrate that the source itself tells us it’s biased and therefore invalid, that’d be fine.
I just wish you would try demanding that the person making the original claim provide a source rather than those who refute the claim.
Reality,
I’m not arguing with you. I find it incredible that your great brilliance and insight enables you to simply declare a source invalid, and expect everyone to accept that it is, based only on your decree. The rest of us can only be in awe.
I’m not arguing with you. – I think that you are because I find it incredible that your great brilliance and insight enables you to simply declare a source invalid, and expect everyone to accept that it is, based only on your decree isn’t an accurate summation of the case at all.
The rest of us can only be in awe. – awe is sooo overrated. But it is a little bit awesome when you provide sources which support the opposite of what you claim.
Reality,
You should really learn to accept a compliment.
Reality, what nationality are you?
You should really learn to accept a compliment. – I probably enjoy a compliment as much as anyone Mary. But I cannot accept credit for something which is not true.
I am a citizen of the world truthseeker, given the ease with which one can move about the world and reside in numerous other places if so desired. You?
How someone, especially a poet talking about Germany, may have used a word 2,000 years ago has no bearing on this topic.
It does, actually. You made a demonstrably false claim about the meaning of ‘fetus’ in Latin; I gave you three source quotations from a standard academic Latin dictionary demonstrating the falseness of your claim. “Fetus” as a noun, like many Latin words, has a lot of meanings, but they all connote having been produced or brought forth. Latin actually has no word meaning “baby.”
Combining ‘children’ with ‘young in the womb’, so I think ‘baby’ is still a good enough call.
Unless you are claiming that ‘fetus’ means ‘baby’ in Latin, in which case it is arrant nonsense. And I’m not saying that you’re speaking out of anything but ignorance, but one hears a lot of fake “Latin” definitions of ‘fetus’ from people who certainly know better.
I think the issue started when someone use Latin in this English blog.
As for your three quotations, if you want to talk about how a ‘word’ can be used in many ways, you hardly have to look at Latin. Take the word ‘baby’; oh, my poor little baby, Hey Baby!, look at that baby move!, and on and on. But these kinds of things have no relation to the conversation here.
The three examples of how you could use the word in a sentence are fine, but out of context of the original use in this blog. I choose to use ‘definitions’ and not examples. Of the definitions given, three were related to humans, those are the three that I listed. In translating any language you have to take into account the context any given word is use in. Next you have to interpret it into your language which most likely will not have an exact match. I’ve already explained how I made the interpretation and freely acknowledged that some may feel I misspoke, perhaps ‘baby in the womb’ would have been better. But, remember, the rather distasteful original quote was “A fetus can’t get pregnant, doesn’t need to make a choice.” If you would rather insert ‘children,’ or ‘young while in the womb,’ or ‘embryo.’ Again, knock yourself out. For me, as the word was used in the comment, I think baby is a fair interpretation.
It also strikes me that the original statement would be more accurately stated as; A fetus can’t get pregnant Yet…
The ability to use fetus in conjunction with, animals, chickens, and plants (or Germany for that matter) had no bearing on our conversation and so was not commented on. In Cassell’s Latin English Dictionary there appears to be the definitions you are using; “all connote having been produced or brought forth.” As it states in the intro, it is concerned with ‘classical Latin’ which covers about 300 years of Latin use, but hardly the entire time that Latin was in use. I included ‘embro’ and stated it is a classical definition, even though Cassell’s elected to leave it out. In the intro it also states that the dictionary had been shortened… entries reduced… and simplified. And while not speaking directly about the definitions, it closes with; for more complete information… reader should consult standard textbooks and specialized reference works.
“one hears a lot of fake “Latin” definitions of ‘fetus’” I totally agree, that is why I gave the three definitions, and explained how I choose to interpreted it. To say its ‘arrant nonsense and ignorance’ to use words in context is a bit harsh, but hey, I have broad shoulders, so I think I can take it. Do you care to take a stab at a translation of the original distasteful statement using your examples? “all connote having been produced or brought forth.” (caution on the adj. form)
From the English section of Cassell’s; babe, baby, infans (hmmmm, might be the root word of: infanticide; child-murder; baby-killing)
fetus, fetus NOUN
offspring/young (animals); children (of a parent); brood/litter
fetus/fetus, young while still in the womb; embryo (Cal)
birth/bringing forth young; laying (egg); bearing young, breeding; conception
fruit of plant; produce/crop; offshoot/branch/sucker/sapling; bearing fruit
fetus, feta, fetum ADJECTIVE
pregnant/breeding (animal); fertile/fruitful; growing/teeming/abounding/full of
having newly brought forth/given birth/whelped/calved; bearing/reproducing
Dictionary of Latin Forms, Whitaker, William