Attend Aurora rally protesting Planned Parenthood tomorrow
They think we’ll eventually tire of the battle and go away, but we won’t. Please plan to show our persevering determination by attending this rally tomorrow.
There are several ways to participate: Truth tour picket, baby shower, pro-life display, and a big rally. Go to Families Against Planned Parenthood for details and info on parking. The first 200 off the shuttle bus will get a free Choose Life cap!
Our moderator mother MK is planning for we bloggers to meet up at the Planned Parenthood sign immediately after the rally to introduce ourselves if we haven’t met before and to potentially go to breakfast/lunch.
but the wicked stumble when calamity strikes.
~ Proverbs 24:16
Oct.26, 2007 8:34 am |
Industry watch |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
…Or you could do something more effective, like slamming your head against a mailbox or talking to asparagus!
Horse dead…
Stop beeeeeeeating….
Oh Laura,
talking to asparagus!
Silly girl, that’s exactly what it feels like talking to you guys sometimes.
by the way,
Baby alive…
Stop dismembering…
Once in a while you will get a stalk of asparagus in a Bloody Mary.
Once in a while you will get a stalk of asparagus in a Bloody Mary.
Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 9:38 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ve been known to stalk asparagus after too many Bloody Marys.
Speaking of tiring of the battle, I happened to be in the area, and I didn’t see anybody protesting or “praying” outside Planned Parenthood’s Near North clinic on LaSalle St in Chicago yesterday afternoon. So much for 40 (more or less) Days of Harassment.
Correction…I did see a homeless person looking for cigarette butts outside PP on LaSalle. Was he one of yours?
Doug,
I posted to you on the Bloody Kansas post.
Ray, did you suggest to PP that they abort the homeless person? What’s PP’s motto? Every person a wanted person? Did you tell that homeless person he would have been better off being aborted?
I’ve been thinking…just throwin’ this out there for curiousity sake…
You know that we Catholics on this board have an abundance of heroes…
Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, All of the saints,
Joe Schiedler, GK Chesterton, Bishop Fulton Sheen, some of our priests, Jill, Mother Anjelica, Father Corapi…
People we want to be like. People we look up to and strive to live up to their standards.
I’m just curious. Who are the pro-choicers heroes? Who do you guys hold in such high regard that you actually want to be more like them.
(Colbert and Stewart don’t count…finding someone entertaining is not the same as viewing them as a hero)
I’ve been known to stalk asparagus after too many Bloody Marys.
Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 9:40 AM************************ HUH?
Was that meant to be funny?
Did you tell that homeless person he would have been better off being aborted?
Talking to asparagus, indeed. Carrie, for the umpteenth time, pro-CHOICE does not mean pro-abortion. Pro-CHOICE means that that decision was best left to his mother…not me, not you, not the government, and not a judge.
According to your anti-sex pro-BIRTH agenda, however, no matter what his mother’s circumstances were, every time she got pregnant, she should have been forced to give birth…even if those pregnancies were unwanted and she was not prepared to raise a child, even if she was stuck on TANF and couldn’t afford daycare so she could get a job, even if she was a heroin addict, even the pregnancies were the result of rape. MK, if your “heroes” have espoused this viewpoint, I think think they are fairly shameful people.
Ray,
I get that you’re all about the tree hugging, but why is it that you’re so delightfully pro-fetal dismemberment—especially considering that you have a child in utero as we speak?
umm, Great question MK
I guess Ray can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
anti-sex pro-BIRTH
Sex and birth aren’t mutually exclusive. One typically must have sex in order to give birth. So how can you accuse us of being anti-sex and pro-birth?
I’m very much pro-sex in the right context (a context which doesn’t sow heartache, disease and death but instead intimacy, health and life). I oppose extra-marital sex because nearly 100% of the babies from those unions end up either in pieces in a garbage disposal or parented by a single parent rather than having both the mother and father every child deserves.
Sex is a great thing- when it’s not polluted and perverted in a non-monogamous, non-committed relationship.
Ray,
MK, if your “heroes” have espoused this viewpoint, I think think they are fairly shameful people.
And you have the right to that opinion.
But you didn’t answer the question.
Who are your heroes?
A pro-life hero?
How about Sarah Weddington? She’s a hero.
I’d also add George Tiller, who fearlessly returned to practice after being shot TWICE by a “pro-life” nutlog.
(“Unborn in the USA” was released on home video this week. I Netflixed it and watched it yesterday. There seem to be plenty of pro-life nutlogs…)
So Laura,
You have two heroes…George Tiller and Sarah Weddington?
So Laura,
You have two heroes…George Tiller and Sarah Weddington?
Posted by: mk at October 26, 2007 10:46 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, those are two that I could come up with quickly. I’d like to add all of the staff members harassed on a daily basis at every clinic in America. Religious fanatics are all as scary as Al Quaida.
Sara Weddington used the pregnancy of Norma McCorvey as the means to overturn all state laws limiting and outlawing abortion, the Roe v Wade decision.
Has Sara Weddington ever acknowledged whether or not she knew Norma McCorvey lied when she claimed her pregnancy was the result of a gang rape? It was in fact the result of an adulterous affair with a married businessman.
Has Sara Weddington ever acknowledged whether or not she knew Norma McCorvey lied when she claimed her pregnancy was the result of a gang rape? It was in fact the result of an adulterous affair with a married businessman.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What difference does it make?
If it didn’t matter why lie in the first place?
A gang rape pregnancy had far more emotional appeal than one resulting from adultery. Small wonder Sara would be only too happy to perpetrate this lie. Again, did she know or not?
…but why is it that you’re so delightfully pro-fetal dismemberment…
Jacqueline, did you read my 10:14 post before you wrote this? Again, for the umpteenth time, I am pro-CHOICE. A woman has the right to decide whether she is willing to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Nobody is pro-abortion.
I guess Ray can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
Actually, Carrie, if I don’t respond right away, it’s because I have other things to do during the day besides chatting here.
MK, some of my heroes are:
Fay Clayton (I have met her in person…she is wonderful)
Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington
Justice Harry Blackmun
Justice Thurgood Marshall
martyr David Gunn
martyr Barnett Slepian
and Ann Richards and Cecile Richards, to name a few.
Thanks so much for going out to protect children. I live far away but would if I lived in a 100 mile radius I’d be there to stop pray with you all. You all and the Scheidlers are heroic. Please know that there are people praying for you all over the world. I don’t know about talking to asparagus but sometimes when you are pro-life you do feel like the little boy saying, “But, the emperor has no clothes on!”
Was that meant to be funny?
I laughed. I think you read it wrong. It is funny.
MK: “But you didn’t answer the question.
Who are your heroes?”
Mk, I bet this is a tough question for them…i mean who do they have..Charles Darwin? Bill Clinton? Margeret Sanger?
A gang rape pregnancy had far more emotional appeal than one resulting from adultery. Small wonder Sara would be only too happy to perpetrate this lie. Again, did she know or not?
Mary, the reason they did not use a rape case was because they did not want the right to an abortion to be exclusive to rape victims. The women of Roe v. Wade were not stupid.
Jasper, stop being so condescending. Do unto others, you know?
From Planned Parenthood:
“It’s pouring here at Planned Parenthood.
Specifically, right this minute, it’s pouring in Kansas, where a particularly venomous district attorney has just filed 107 baseless charges against Planned Parenthood in court. And today, the anti-choice fringe is asking Congress to suspend $300 million in federal funding for our affiliates’ health care services until the case is settled.
Unbelievable. Please help.
Today’s news comes on the heels of an unprecedented series of attacks on Planned Parenthood.
Last week, the rain fell on us in Washington, DC, where one U.S. senator called us out by name in an amendment that would have limited birth control funding for health centers like ours.
Throughout this month, the anti-choice fringe is showering our clinics with protesters during its “40 Days for Life” campaign, which our own Emily X is documenting in painfully vivid pictures and videos here.
And then, there’s President Bush’s appointment last week of an anti-birth control hardliner to be in charge of U.S. family planning policy. And let’s not forget our epic fight in Illinois last month to open our Aurora health center. (Thank you for your support then, too!)
This unprecedented storm
Leah,
Mary, the reason they did not use a rape case was because they did not want the right to an abortion to be exclusive to rape victims. The women of Roe v. Wade were not stupid.
They LIED and said it was a rape case! In fact, they uber-lied and said it was a gang rape case.
How dos anything you just said make any sense?
Jacqueline: McCorvey is the one who said her pregnancy was the result of rape–which she said to try to obtain an abortion. THEY did not lie, SHE did.
Leah,
I think you read my post wrong. Jacqueline is correct. Norma McCorvey admitted many years after Roe V Wade that she had concocted the gang rape story. Her attorney, Sara Weddington, to the best of my knowledge, has not acknowledged if she knew this was a lie when she used it to her advantage to overturn all state laws restricting abortion.
I agree the women of Roe v Wade weren’t stupid. They knew full well a pregnancy resulting from adultery would generate little sympathy or support for their cause.
Jacqueline,
Send Money….wow…now there’s a shocker!!!
Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain!!!!
Praise God!
Mary: I think you’re right. I reread and I think I was reading your post out of context. My bad.
My hero is God & all of the pro-life people He has called to do His will…
PP doesn’t need our money. They have Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in their corner. Send your money to the REAL Pregnancy Care Centers that support women or give it to your favorite pro-life organization.
I don’t know who the originally concocted the lie, Norma or Sarah, and whether or not Sarah knew about the lie. Nonetheless, the entire case was predicated on a lie and the plaintiff perjured themselves.
Isn’t that enough for a de novo review of the entire case?
Send Money….wow…now there’s a shocker!!!
Umm… as with any non-profit organization, they are going to need money. Your pregnancy crisis centers would ask the same.
If you want to hear NORMA MCCORVEY’S (Ms.Roe’s) account of what happened to her, see the film documentary that Jill mentioned a week or two ago, called LAKE OF FIRE. It is a documentary showing all sides of the abortion issue. It’s in Chicago this weekend at the Gene Siskel Theatre, and probably other cities as well. WARNING: IT IS NOT FOR THE SQUEAMISH – IT HAS VERY GRAPHIC FOOTAGE OF ABORTIONS. I haven’t seen it yet, maybe I’ll go after I see Bella, which also comes out today.
My hero is God & all of the pro-life people He has called to do His will…
Hear, hear, PL Laura!
Personally, I adore (in no particular order)
1. Serrin Foster, President of Feminists for Life, total bad@ss.
2. Kyleen Wright, President of Texans For Life, another total bad@ss
3. David Kirkland, Volunteer to the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation who gave up a career to do odd jobs so he could work to help the euthanasia vulnerable full-time. Amazing researcher and again, total bad@ss.
4. Jerri Ward, private attorney that works on Futile Care cases pro-bono- the baddest of @sses.
5. Patricia Anderson, former Schindler attorney who worked herself to the bone for little compensation- bad. @ss.
6. Msgr. Riley, sidewalk counselor who has saved thousands and shut down many clinics- monastic bad@ss.
7. Diane Sutton, sidewalk counselor in Dallas and former lobbyist who continues to work miracles on the street, my dear friend and beloved bad@ss.
8. Wynette Sills, sidewalk counselor in Sacremento who leads women to help and healing and is the mother of popular blogger Katelyn Sills who herself is very much a little bad@ss.
9. Chris Slattery, runs Expectant Mother Care in NYC that survived attacks by the Atty. General, (now governor) while lots of Catholic charity. A Catholic bad@ss.
10. Gianna Jessen, saline abortion survivor, amazing singer, activist and marathon runner, despite having been born with cerebral palsy do to the attempt on her life and I’m thinking a bad@ss.
11. My mother, who vaccinated an entire impoverished island, invented a water system after hurricane Pauline and save an entire orphanage from malnutrition: The MOTHER of all bad@sses.
I am blessed beyond all imagination to be personal friends with many on this list. Who else gets to work along side their heroes?
Send Money….wow…now there’s a shocker!!!
So what! The Scheidlers send out emails asking for money all the time! Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
I wrote a longer post a while ago, but it is waiting for comment approval–I think because I included so many links to heroes I was citing.
Well, I guess if the n-f-p org. had followed the letter of the law, they wouldn’t be in this predicament, now would they?
I see…you do what you want, you get paid VERY well for it, then when the walls start caving in, you ask clients for $$$$??? Yeah…makes sense to me!
Ray,
Eric did nothing illegal or immoral to ask for $ to get out of it!
My son is one of my heroes.
Woahwoahwoah, Leah and Ray.
Name one pro-life organization that is 33% funded with tax money.
Then you can compare PP fundraising with our fund-raising.
My hero is my Mom. Six children in six years. Never complained.
She’s a living saint.
Name one pro-life organization that is 33% funded with tax money.
Then you can compare PP fundraising with our fund-raising.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 26, 2007 12:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really? Try these. Several of these “pro-life” programs received many times their original operating budget from federal funds:
Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues
Federal Programs Direct At Least $157 Million
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 22, 2006; A01
For years, conservatives have complained about what they saw as the liberal tilt of federal grant money. Taxpayer funds went to abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood to promote birth control, and groups closely aligned with the AFL-CIO got Labor Department grants to run worker-training programs.
In the Bush administration, conservatives are discovering that turnabout is fair play: Millions of dollars in taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush’s agenda on abortion and other social issues.
Under the auspices of its religion-based initiatives and other federal programs, the administration has funneled at least $157 million in grants to organizations run by political and ideological allies, according to federal grant documents and interviews.
An example is Heritage Community Services in Charleston, S.C. A decade ago, Heritage was a tiny organization with deeply conservative social philosophy but not much muscle to promote it. An offshoot of an antiabortion pregnancy crisis center, Heritage promoted abstinence education at the county fair, local schools and the local Navy base. The budget was $51,288.
By 2004, Heritage Community Services had become a major player in the booming business of abstinence education. Its budget passed $3 million — much of it in federal grants distributed by Bush’s Department of Health and Human Services — supporting programs for students in middle school and high school in South Carolina, Georgia and Kentucky.
Among other new beneficiaries of federal funding during the Bush years are groups run by Christian conservatives, including those in the African American and Hispanic communities. Many of the leaders have been active Republicans and influential supporters of Bush’s presidential campaigns.
Programs such as the Compassion Capital Fund, under the Health and Human Services, are designed to support religion-based social services, a goal that inevitably funnels money to organizations run by people who share Bush’s conservative cultural agenda.
“If what you are asking is, has George Bush as president of the United States established priorities in spending for his administration? The answer is yes,” said Wade F. Horn, who as assistant secretary for children and families at HHS oversees much of the spending going to conservative groups. “That is a prerogative that presidents have.”
Horn and other officials said politics has not played a role in making grants. “Whoever got these grants wrote the best applications, and the panels in rating these grants rated them objectively, based on the criteria we published in the Federal Register,” he said. “Whether they support the president or not is not a test in any of my grant programs.”
“These are just slush funds for conservative interest groups,” countered Bill Smith, vice president of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, one of the most outspoken critics of abstinence-only sex-education programs. “These organizations would not be in existence if not for the federal dollars coming through.”
H. James Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said politics plays no role in grant-making decisions. “We don’t have that kind of calculation,” he said.
Most, but not all, of the money going to conservative groups has come from two programs that did not exist before Bush took office in 2001. The Compassion Capital Fund, which distributed $148.3 million from 2002 to 2005, was created “to expand the role that faith-based and community groups play in providing social services to those in need,” according to the White House.
The Community-Based Abstinence Education grant program was enacted by Congress in 2001, and $391.7 million has been appropriated for it.
Beneficiaries of more than $2 million each from the compassion fund include five organizations run by black and Hispanic leaders who endorsed Bush and Operation Blessing, a charity run by television evangelist Pat Robertson. It has received $23.5 million, which includes $1.5 million from the Compassion Capital Fund and $22 million in surplus dry milk from the Agriculture Department.
Hundreds of struggling antiabortion and pregnancy crisis centers have received federal grants that often doubled or tripled their annual budgets, allowing them to branch out and hire staff, especially for abstinence education.
The Door of Hope Pregnancy Care Center in Madisonville, Ky., a small outfit of four part-time employees committed “to the belief in the sanctity of human life, primarily as it relates to the protection of the unborn,” operated on an annual budget of $75,000 to $79,000, most of it raised from an annual banquet and a “walk for life.” Last year, Door of Hope got an abstinence education grant of $317,017, allowing it to hire staff and expand.
In Dyersburg, Tenn., the Life Choices Pregnancy Support Center, where the staff believes “without reservation or qualification that the Scriptures teach that human life begins at conception,” had revenue of $81,621 and could pay Executive Director Natalie Wilson $12,247 in 2001. Two years later, the center got a $534,339 grant for abstinence education. By 2004, annual revenue totaled $617,355.
Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs, according to a Post review of federal records.
The distribution of new money to conservative organizations is a small part of an estimated flood of $2 billion a year in federal grants to religious and religiously affiliated organizations. For decades, in Democratic and Republican administrations, well over $1 billion annually has been going to such groups, most of it to mainline organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Salvation Army and Lutheran Social Services.
The shift under Bush in part grows out of the administration’s Faith and Community Based Initiative. Under the initiative, White House officials and new offices in 10 Cabinet-level departments have aggressively sought to widen the “pool” of applicants for federal grants for all kinds. Faith-based organizations are encouraged to apply for grants to operate Head Start and subsidized housing programs.
In a Dec. 12, 2002, executive order, Bush addressed one of the major concerns of religious groups considering applying for public money. Bush declared that religious groups receiving federal grants would not be required to comply with certain civil rights statutes, and could discriminate by hiring employees of specific religious faiths.
Skepticism about the distribution of money under the religion-based initiatives abounds in both parties.
Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.), chairman of the Government Reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, said the effort “has gone political.”
“Quite frankly, part of the reason it went political is because we can’t sell it unless we can show Republicans a political advantage to it, because it’s not our base,” he said, referring to the fact that many of those receiving social services are Democratic voters.
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.) was more outspoken. “I believe ultimately this will be seen as one of the largest patronage programs in American history,” he said.
The Compassion Capital Fund has disbursed many multiyear grants of $1.5 million to $7.5 million to groups designated as “intermediary organizations” empowered, according to the White House to “issue sub-awards directly to qualified faith- and community-based organizations.”
In effect, this designation turns the recipient organization into a major dispenser of federal money.
The Institute for Youth Development in Sterling, which is run by Shepherd Smith and his wife, Anita M. Smith, has been awarded $7.5 million over three years. In turn, the institute has parceled out $4.5 million of the federal money in grants of $5,000 to $50,000 to smaller organizations.
Shepherd Smith, who was a top strategist in Pat Robertson’s 1988 presidential bid, said the institute’s grants were “not an effort on my part to make the right stronger; this was an effort to help little people” who have difficulty getting access to federal money.
The recipients listed on the institute’s Web site include many socially conservative groups, among them at least 15 pregnancy crisis and counseling centers that oppose abortion.
The Rev. Luis Cort
I think it’s cute that Laura believes that we actually read her lengthy cuts and pastes.
I think it’s cute that Laura believes that we actually read her lengthy cuts and pastes.
Posted by: Jacqueline at October 26, 2007 1:25 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fine. Here’s a small percentage the Welfare pro-life groups receive. It’s often many times their original operating budget:
“Hundreds of struggling antiabortion and pregnancy crisis centers have received federal grants that often doubled or tripled their annual budgets, allowing them to branch out and hire staff, especially for abstinence education.
The Door of Hope Pregnancy Care Center in Madisonville, Ky., a small outfit of four part-time employees committed “to the belief in the sanctity of human life, primarily as it relates to the protection of the unborn,” operated on an annual budget of $75,000 to $79,000, most of it raised from an annual banquet and a “walk for life.” Last year, Door of Hope got an abstinence education grant of $317,017, allowing it to hire staff and expand.
In Dyersburg, Tenn., the Life Choices Pregnancy Support Center, where the staff believes “without reservation or qualification that the Scriptures teach that human life begins at conception,” had revenue of $81,621 and could pay Executive Director Natalie Wilson $12,247 in 2001. Two years later, the center got a $534,339 grant for abstinence education. By 2004, annual revenue totaled $617,355.
Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs, according to a Post review of federal records.”
Laura, you are talking about grants. Grants are (normally) one time gifts. Sometimes they are extended for another year. PP gets MILLIONS annually and doesn’t have to go through a lengthy grant application and approval.
“Two years later, the center got a $534,339 grant for abstinence education. By 2004, annual revenue totaled $617,355.”
Great! That’s what the grants are supposed to do. It gives them the means to advertise and promote to get funding of their own.
You are hardly comparing apples to apples.
Since we’re talking about heroes..
My favorite hero and saint is Louis de Montfort. Who is he?
He was a vagabound french Priest in the
1700’s who was kicked out of every diocese in southern France because he had well…let’s just say a lack of personality skills.
He was a fearless preacher who walked from town to town and converted whole towns during his week-long missions.
One of the things he would routinely do while on a mission was enter the local whorehouse, kneel in the front room and begin to pray the Rosary, loudly.
De Montfort was of such a presence that the girls who worked there would begin to cry and kneel down and pray with him. He converted entire whorehouses in this way.
Of course, this made him less than popular with the men of the place who tried to remove him but unfortunately for them, de Montfort was a beast who was able to kick their @sses and continue praying. He would leave a whorehouse with men laid out on the floor.
After they woke up, they usually came to him for confession, sometimes their first confession in many years.
He did much the same with the local bars and drunks. He was also able to heal people miraculously from their diseases and afflictions.
Much of the spirituality of Pope John Paul II comes from de Montfort’s writings and the process is underway to declare him a Doctor of the Church.
Read the book “Wisdom’s Fool” for a good overview of this incredible man.
Hmm. Pro-choice heroes. How about Whoopi Goldberg? She’s an incredibly powerful woman. Alanis Morissette. Oh, and how about Ted Turner? Also, just about any employee or volunteer at a PP who goes back everyday in spite of the constant harassment by protesters.
Andrew, de Montfort is great! I also have a special affinity for St. Joseph Cupertino and Padre Pio. Both lived incredible, amazing lives as well.
Andrew,
You also know some of the heroes on my list…
I forgot Carol Seward!
Erin,
Exactly what humanitarian efforts have Alanis, Whoopi and Ted Turner done through your pro-choice ideology?
Our prolife heroes are selfless people that do for others: How have your celebrity heroes sacrificed themselves for others?
Eric did nothing illegal or immoral to ask for $ to get out of it!
Neither has Planned Parenthood.
Why aren’t we going to use the graphic abortion pictures at the rally on Sat.?
These people need shock treatment and nothing shows the evil of abortion better than the picture of the little saint Malachi.
Heroes (the short version, sans links):
Fay Clayton
Linda Coffee
Sarah Weddington
Justice Harry Blackmun
Justice Thurgood Marshall
martyr Dr. David Gunn
martyr Dr. Barnett Slepian
Cecile Richards, and her mother,
the feisty Ann Richards
Dr. George Tiller
Dr. Calvin Jackson
countless dedicated legislators including Representative Jan Schakowsky
We have no shortage of heroes among pro-choicers.
Ray at October 26, 2007 2:20 PM,
Yeah, & I have a bridge for sale, too!!! LMAO
Kristen, yes, the one more reads about Padro Pio, the one more is convinced that God really does exist.
Jacqueline, don’t forget about Big Bear :)
Martyr? You hijack the term matyr to apply to men that killed babies for a living and were murdered for it?
Basically, Ray, that’s a short list of Roll Call in Hell.
Basically, Ray, that’s a short list of Roll Call in Hell.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 2:30 PM
Good point! Although I do hope they repent before it’s too late.
Our prolife heroes are selfless people that do for others
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, just self-righteous idealogues who enjoy cramming their personal agenda up everyone else’s butt.
Martyr? You hijack the term matyr to apply to men that killed babies for a living and were murdered for it?
They didn’t kill babies, they performed abortions, and they were killed for it. Christianity has no monopoly on martyrs.
As for your roll call in hell, you are certainly welcome to that opinion, but you’ll find that a vast number of Americans do not agree with you.
Incidentally, famed civil rights attorney and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, buried in Arlington National Cemetary, going to hell? A lot of African Americans would beg to differ.
Nah, just self-righteous idealogues who enjoy cramming their personal agenda up everyone else’s butt.
Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 2:34 PM************************* No. That’s your typical pro choicer.
:: planting some funny asparagus for Heather ::
Personal agendas? That’s what NARAL lives for! Cramming their own personal agendas up women’s rear ends, and they won’t EVER talk about the corruption of the abortion industry.
Nah, just self-righteous idealogues who enjoy cramming their personal agenda up everyone else’s butt.
Posted by: Laura at October 26, 2007 2:34 PM************************* No. That’s your typical pro choicer.
Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 2:42 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letting someone make their own choices is the same as inflicting your personal agenda upon them?
Interesting.
Incidentally, famed civil rights attorney and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, buried in Arlington National Cemetary, going to hell? A lot of African Americans would beg to differ.
Posted by: Ray at October 26, 2007 2:40 PM
And there are a lot who would agree. You can say the constitution protects a womans “choice” (which I don’t believe it does) but our laws do not trump God’s laws.
AP | 4/4/02 | AP
Posted on 04/05/2002 6:08:14 AM PST by anniegetyourgun
Madison, WI — The former leader of a Wisconsin pro-abortion group was charged with embezzling nearly $13,000 from the organization last year.
Katherine M. Heringlake, 27, of Madison was charged Wednesday with theft in a business setting and forgery for allegedly stealing $12,938 from the National Abortion Rights Action League of Wisconsin while she was president of its board of directors from June to October 2001.
A criminal complaint filed in Dane County Circuit Court said authorities noticed a shortfall in the organization’s accounts last August.
When questioned later by NARAL officials, Heringlake didn’t deny taking the money, and said she didn’t realize she had taken so much, the complaint said.
Heringlake is accused of taking more than $4,000 from NARAL before she started paying the money back in August. But the $9,000 that she repaid in August and September nearly matched the approximately $8,500 that she took during the same period, the complaint said.
Donating To NARAL Is Not Going To Help Protect A Woman?s Right to Choice
By: Howie Klein
Today at high noon Jane declared war? on behalf of every progressive in America. And the enemy: NARAL.
And what did they do with all that cash? They sat on it and didn’t do a damn thing, didn’t lift a finger to fight Samuel Alito. Worse yet, when the Gang of 14 decided to vote in favor of cloture, they said that they did not consider cloture votes “significant” and would not be considering them in their scorecard. They then went on to add insult to injury by asking their membership to thank Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman for the beatings they delivered with their “aye” cloture vote by pretending that their “nay” floor votes were significant. They then poured salt into the wound by endorsing both “short ride” Lieberman and Chafee over their opponents who made it clear that they would not have voted for cloture for Alito, which gave us the 5-4 decision we have today.
Don’t reward failure. Tell your friends. Don’t give money to NARAL when they come knocking on your door to tell you that choice is going down the crapper unless you give them a lot of money, because what you’ll be giving money for is Nancy Keenan’s ability to point her little pinky over tea at Washington cocktail parties and tut-tut over the state of choice in this country at the hands of the fundamentalists. She’ll take no responsibility for the fact that NARAL will not fight, will not back those that fight, and worse yet, that NARAL sucks up all the pro-choice money so nobody else can mount a meaningful fight, either.
And there are a lot who would agree.
So they’d prefer an abortion ban to their civil rights? And an abortion ban is morally superior to wholesale discrimination based on race? I think not.
…but our laws do not trump God’s laws.
Actually, in this country, they do.
What does any of that NARAL friction have to do with this discussion?
crooks!
Actually, in this country, they do.
Posted by: Ray at October 26, 2007 3:05 PM
No, really they don’t.
Culture of Corruption: Planned Parenthood violates Federal Tax Law by advocating election of ?Progressive? candidates
14th June 2006
from CNS News:
Planned Parenthood Vows to Help Elect ?Progressive Voices?
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
June 14, 2006
Washington (CNSNews.com) – The head of the largest abortion provider in America declared Tuesday that she and her organization ? which accepts taxpayer funds ? intend to use their resources to ?swing the vote? and ?help progressive voices win? elections across the country.
A spokesman for a conservative group called the decision ?outrageous.?
?We?re going to channel our strength, our outreach, our power, and work with our pro-choice allies to help progressive voices win across America,? said Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Richards, the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, made the comments at the liberal ?Take Back America? conference.
?The skies are looking better for progressives this November, but the threat to Roe v. Wade and the threat to family planning in this country are probably as great as they have been for the last 30 years,? Richards said.
?And with Sandra Day O?Connor gone and Samuel Alito now sitting on the Supreme Court, anti-choice extremists have the bit in their mouth, and they?re ready for action,? she added.
Richards blamed the situation on politicians such as U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and President George Bush, ?who have abandoned public support for family planning, birth control and sex education.?
The debate, she said, is being driven by ?a bunch of ideologues who have not done a single thing in their lives to help children or to improve women?s health-care access in this country,? she noted.
?Had enough?? Richards asked. ?Well, I have.?
She noted that Planned Parenthood has 860 health centers around the country in 50 states and has more members, employees and staff than the 50 state Democratic parties combined.
?We have the potential to swing the vote in 2006, 2008 and 2010, and that?s a lot of power,? Richards said.
?The question is: What are we going to do with it? And the answer is: We?re going to use it,? Richards declared. ?We?re going to marry our current reality as the largest reproductive health-care provider in this country with our opportunity to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in this country.
?We?re taking on the opponents of choice in the states and the districts where they live,? she said. ?Planned Parenthood has got to become more political so that health care can become less politicized.?
As proof of the need for such action, Richards pointed to the situation in South Dakota, where ?less than a month after Alito was confirmed,? the legislature passed a bill banning abortion (or ?criminalizing abortion,? she said).
?I?m very happy to report that last week, the people of South Dakota filed nearly 38,000 signatures in that state, more than twice what was needed, to put this law on the November ballot so that the people of the state can vote this law down,? she said.
?At Planned Parenthood, we provide safe and legal abortions in this country, and thank God we do,? Richards said. ?But that is only 10 percent of what we do. The other 90 percent of our work is to prevent unintended pregnancies and provide vital health care to 5 million women and teens every single year.
?If the far-right legislators in South Dakota are so concerned about the number of abortions, I invite them to link arms with Planned Parenthood ? because for 90 years, we have done more to prevent unintended pregnancies than any other organization in America,? she added.
?The battle we?re fighting about is not abortion,? Richards stated. ?It?s about the most fundamental question of whether women or families should be able to plan their pregnancies and their families.
?So let me put it to you this way: I?ll be damned if we?re going to stand by and let George Bush or Sam Alito or Rick Santorum dismantle a woman?s right to choose in this country,? she said.
?I look forward to building a progressive America and taking back America.?
As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Richards assumed leadership of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in mid-February even as the organization faced the possibility of curtailing services in her home state of Texas.
Jim Sedlak, executive director of the conservative American Life League?s STOPP International, called Richards? comments ?outrageous.?
?Planned Parenthood just released its latest annual report showing it received $272.7 million in taxpayer money, and now, its president exclaims that she is going to use the ?power? of the organization to get people she likes elected to office,? Sedlak said. ?It appears then that our tax money is going to be used to elect public officials.?
Sedlak said the Internal Revenue Service should immediately revoke Planned Parenthood?s tax-exempt status.
?Planned Parenthood has always tried to hide its political activity behind its lobbying group ? the Planned Parenthood Action Fund,? Sedlak noted. ?But when its president clearly states that Planned Parenthood will use its 860 health centers and all its employees and staff to do political work, it has clearly positioned itself as a political organization and violated the basic rules of a 501 C-3 organization.
?Now that Ms. Richards has said, in her own words, ?Planned Parenthood has got to become more political,? people all across the country should bring any PP political activity to the attention of the IRS and to the attention of elected officials,? he added.
?It is time we cut off its tax-exempt status and stopped giving it our tax money
?It is time we cut off its tax-exempt status and stopped giving it our tax money
Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 3:11 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cool.
Can we do that with every Christian organization that espouses a political position?
We could start with every denomination that lobbies against abortion, gay marriage, etc…
No, really they don’t.
If God’s law trumps civil and criminal law in this country, then why were Shelley Shannon and Donald Cooper convicted of murder after they shot abortion doctors?
If God’s law trumps civil and criminal law in this country, then why is Dominick’s permitted to put up a fence to keep trespassing protesters off its land?
Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. We have a secular government in this country which answers to no church and no God, and which especially places no one church or god above any others.
As it happens, I believe in God. But I neither accept nor believe in your notion of “God’s law.” I do, however, believe in the Constitution of the United States, and would fight to the death to defend it.
*yawns* I dunno why you PLers have struck me as even more hysterical and crazy than usual lately, but damn.
Also, Whoopi? Powerful role model. Alanis? Same. You don’t see us crying “BUT WHAT HAVE THEY DONE” when you guys go all ga-ga about the occasional rare pro-life celebrity. Ted Turner? Donates vast amount of money to charities.
Laura- YES.
Here’s the deal- we’ll stop taking support from taxes for PP when A) Abstinence-Only Sex Ed stops being promoted, and b) When churches give up their tax exempt status.
Keep your laws off my body and your religion out of my government.
Whoops, that last anonymous post responding to No, really they don’t was me.
Also, I am right on board with Laura in ending tax-exempt status for religious organizations that are politically active.
As it happens, I believe in God. But I neither accept nor believe in your notion of “God’s law.” I do, however, believe in the Constitution of the United States, and would fight to the death to defend it.
Posted by: Anonymous at October 26, 2007 3:20 PM
My point is that you believe the US laws trump God’s but in the end they don’t. You can live by the laws of this country but there is a higher law that cannot be avoided.
CWA Appalled At Ms. Magazine’s “We Had Abortions” Campaign 10/4/2006
Washington, D.C. − Concerned Women for America (CWA) today expressed its dismay and disgust at the October 10th Ms. Magazine cover story, ?We Had Abortions.? The magazine will publish a petition signed by over a thousand women who reveal that they have had abortions. The editors of the magazine say that even more names will appear on their Web site. The petition with all the names will be sent to legislative bodies across the nation as well as to the White House. The action comes as pro-abortion activists face impending state legislation that would ban abortions in several states and the prospect that federal laws would be rescinded by the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if a fifth conservative judge were appointed in the future to join Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas on the bench.
Many of Ms. Magazine?s feminist readers are ardent supporters of Planned Parenthood, the organization originally founded by eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Planned Parenthood is greatly threatened by these potential policy changes that would limit abortion on demand, since one of its major sources of income is providing abortions.
Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, Senior Fellow of the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the think tank for Concerned Women for America, said, ?Such a morally bankrupt campaign is an embarrassment for civilized and caring human beings. The pride behind the ?We Had Abortions? campaign is totally inconsistent with, and puts the lie to, the fatuous claim frequently bandied about during election campaigns by the Left that they too want to make abortion rare. The campaign planners even had the chilling gall to make the word ?abortion? plural!?
?Obviously, with nearly 50,000,000 abortions since the courts imposed abortion on the U.S., there are thousands of women who could sign such a petition. Many women who have had an abortion, though, are not comfortable with their decision and thousands deeply regret their abortions. Some are devastated because the abortion left them unable to have children. Certainly even most women who believe that abortion is acceptable would not celebrate such a drastic action.?
Crouse concluded, ?The desperation of the pro-abortion activists is turning into a sorry spectacle which will surely backfire as the American public sees the crass motivation behind the abortion movement.?
Tell me that a bunch of “drama queens” didn’t sign this dumb thing. LOL!
Anon- then do whatever ‘God’s Law’ tells you to do. Just don’t be surprised when we throw you in jail. *shrugs*
Ray,
I wrote a longer post a while ago, but it is waiting for comment approval–I think because I included so many links to heroes I was citing.
Sorry. I went to a movie this afternoon. “Lars and the Real Girl”…hysterical. And very poignant.
Your post is up now, but it’s way up there where you originally posted it.
I’ll copy it and put it down here…
…but why is it that you’re so delightfully pro-fetal dismemberment…
Jacqueline, did you read my 10:14 post before you wrote this? Again, for the umpteenth time, I am pro-CHOICE. A woman has the right to decide whether she is willing to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Nobody is pro-abortion.
I guess Ray can dish it out, but he can’t take it.
Actually, Carrie, if I don’t respond right away, it’s because I have other things to do during the day besides chatting here.
MK, some of my heroes are:
Fay Clayton (I have met her in person…she is wonderful)
Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington
Justice Harry Blackmun
Justice Thurgood Marshall
martyr David Gunn
martyr Barnett Slepian
and Ann Richards and Cecile Richards, to name a few.
Posted by: Ray at October 26, 2007 11:12 AM
Tell me that a bunch of “drama queens” didn’t sign this dumb thing. LOL!
Posted by: heather at October 26, 2007 3:29 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, thousands of women who were happy and satisfied with their decision to terminate a pregnancy signed it.
“Silent No More” was going to strike back with 5000 signatures from women who regretted their abortions, but it’s been over a year and their campaign failed miserably. (Last time they had any noise about it, they were still under 700 signatures.)
And pro life guys,
I asked this question in order to get to know our other friends better. If we want them to be honest, we can’t all jump on their cases when they post their heroes.
I mean we know they aren’t going to be OUR heroes. That’s the point.
I just thought it would be interesting to see how they view the world.
You can live by the laws of this country but there is a higher law that cannot be avoided.
You can believe that, and I would fight for your right to believe it, but I don’t, and I would fight against any attempt on your part to impose your “God’s law” over anybody else in this country.
RE the comment approval post, thanks mk. No need to copy it if you haven’t already. Glad to hear Lars was as good as it sounds.
Erin,
Here’s the deal- we’ll stop taking support from taxes for PP when A) Abstinence-Only Sex Ed stops being promoted, and b) When churches give up their tax exempt status.
And we’ll stop pushing abstinence only in the schools, when you stop pushing birth control and abortion in the schools.
Personally, I don’t think sex ed belongs there at all. After school, volunteer basis only, programs? Okay. Then you can choose what you want to go to. But I think it’s wrong to leave something as personal and crucial to our childrens well being, in the hands of strangers and our government.
Sex belongs in the bedroom. And sex ed belongs in the home.
And I would also, personally, like to see the tax exempt status go too. Then our priests would be free to speak out against corrupt politicians…
Pro-choice side…we have named quite a few of our own “heroes” that weren’t necessarily pro life activists.
Do you have any heroes outside the pro choice movement?
And I, at least, won’t bash you for your choices. You have a right to look up to whomever you want.
By the way, I love you, MK.
(Hey, that rhymed).
Sex belongs in the bedroom.
I had a serious relationship in college with a man that said that exact same thing. I disagreed. I said, “After we get married, sex should belongs in every room of the house—and in the backyard… and in the ballpit at Chuck E. Cheese after it closes.” He never came around to that, and I’m glad we didn’t marry. I want to honeymoon at Chuck E. Cheese.
So they’d prefer an abortion ban to their civil rights? And an abortion ban is morally superior to wholesale discrimination based on race? I think not.
Who said it’s either/or? And I think I know the response of around 50 million babies.
I’ll never look at Chuck E. Cheese’s again, i’ll always wonder if they wash the balls….*sigh*
Rosie, I think Chuck E. Cheese is hell on earth.
Doug
And I, at least, won’t bash you for your choices. You have a right to look up to whomever you want.
MK, Herv
“Silent No More” was going to strike back with 5000 signatures from women who regretted their abortions, but it’s been over a year and their campaign failed miserably. (Last time they had any noise about it, they were still under 700 signatures.)
To me, this kind of thing is silly. What is the point? Nobody is saying that zero women regret having abortions. Nobody can guarantee that a given decision won’t be regretted, and that’s true for continuing pregnancies as well as ending them.
What if 5000 women did sign it? So what? Millions and millions and millions of women have had abortions. What’s next – a bunch of people who’d rather not have had kids sign something? The experience of 5000 or 50,000 people, for that matter, doesn’t necessarily mean diddly for the population as a whole.
Doug
My dad.
Abe Lincoln.
Whoever invented those little umbrellas for mixed drinks.
Actually, I would love it if the Catholic Church would lose its tax exempt status… but only if it was very clear and obvious who caused it to happen.
If it was understood that liberal Democrats constantly attacked the Catholic Church for teaching the same things it has taught for nearly 2,000 years, and that these attacks from liberal Democrats resulted in the Church being declared a partisan political organization no different from the Republican Party, then bring it on. Let’s wake up the remaining Catholics who are still foolish enough to vote for Democrats for national office. Democrats used to be the Catholic Party, and some local Democrats are decent, but the Democrats in Congress are all traitors to the Catholic Church, and it is shameful that any Catholic ever votes for any of them.
Ray said: “And an abortion ban is morally superior to wholesale discrimination based on race?”
Fortunately, judges like my hero Justice Clarence Thomas are against abortion and racial discrimination.
Doug said, “Rosie, I think Chuck E. Cheese is hell on earth.”
I have to agree with you here, Doug. You can almost feel the germs & smell the sweat when you walk through the doors!!!
judges like my hero Justice Clarence Thomas are against abortion and racial discrimination.
My heroes don’t perjure themselves. And you wouldn’t know he opposed racial discrimination based on his voting record. Clarence Thomas is no Thurgood Marshall.
Ray, I must have missed that, when Justice Clarence Thomas was tried for perjury. What year was that?
Also, considering that Justice Thomas consistently decides against treating people differently based only on skin color, I would say that he is very much against racial discrimation. What can we call people who think that skin color should determine how people are treated? Racists, perhaps?
“After we get married, sex should belongs in every room of the house—and in the backyard… and in the ballpit at Chuck E. Cheese after it closes.”
While, for obvious reasons we are not and cannot be on the same page about the “after marriage” part… the rest of it… phwoar!!! Once again, Jacqueline, we find common ground between us. I love doing that!
MK, our common ground is found in the love of lemming pizza. :)
By the way, Jacqueline, our other common ground can be found in my comment posted to you in the Haunted Hell House (or whatever) post.
Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and give unto God what is God’s.
Now, you say God’s laws must be followed above the laws of your nation, fine, go for it. However, it seems fairly clear to me Jesus wanted a separation of church and state to allow people the choice of whether or not to follow his ideas. Also, it would not be you (assuming you follow God’s laws) who would be condemened, but those who go perpetuate beliefs/ideals contrary to God’s. So long as you follow God’s law, you have nothing to fear, it will be the government and those who support it who are condemened.
So tell me, why should anyone else follow God’s law if they choose not to? Jesus left it as an open choice, he did not want to force others to follow him, that wasn’t the point. He wanted true followers who cared and believed what he was saying. He didn’t want people forced into following him, for they would be condemned anyway.
So once again, forcing others to follow God’s law is not the path He would want you to take, or so it seems. Yes He wants you to spread the Good News, but not force it upon others. It is up to each individual person to choose salvation or damnation.
Spiritual Pro Choicer, over and out
-Dan
Late to the party, but wanted to chime in on my heroes.
First and foremost, my mom and my paternal grandmother and great-grandmother.
Other heroes in no particular order:
The Suffragettes, both here and in the UK.
Benjamin Franklin.
Simone de Beauvoir.
The scribe who committed “Beowulf” to paper.
J.R.R. Tolkien.
Georgia O’Keefe.
Charles Dickens.
Anthony Trollope.
More recent heroes, none of whom are famous:
Bob Somerby
Joshua Micah Marshall
Harriet Linkin
Twisty Faster
third-wave (or is it fourth by now?) feminists
One of my students, who is a single mom taking a 19 credit semester in addition to a nursing internship and a part-time job.
Ooops, that was me with the hero list above.
“Chuck E. Cheese is hell on earth.”
PL Laura: I have to agree with you here, Doug. You can almost feel the germs & smell the sweat when you walk through the doors!!!
I’ve seen parents exiting the buliding, looking like they’d rather have gone to their own funeral…. Such noise, such mess…. Ay yi yi…..
Doug,
MK, Herv
Jacquie,
I had a serious relationship in college with a man that said that exact same thing. I disagreed. I said, “After we get married, sex should belongs in every room of the house—and in the backyard… and in the ballpit at Chuck E. Cheese after it closes.” He never came around to that, and I’m glad we didn’t marry. I want to honeymoon at Chuck E. Cheese.
So you love animals, you’re Catholic, you want 17 kids and you’re kinky to boot! You’re a great catch girl! The guy that gets you is gonna be one lucky bas…bassplayer.
And I meant that as a euphemism. I prefer the woods myself…What. You thought I liked camping for the bird watching?
Dan,
That is the most intelligent thing you have ever posted.
If it weren’t for the fact that innocent parties are getting hurt, we wouldn’t be “forcing” pro life down your throats.
Birth control, homosexuality, drug use, alcohol abuse…go for it. It IS your choice.
But when an innocent life is being snuffed out, then the choice is not the same.
This is why there are laws against rape, theft and murder. As well there should be. I just think abortion should be right in there with those.
But this is a pro life site, run by a Christian woman, and this is a venue where we feel it is perfectly acceptable to “spread the good news”…
No one is forcing you to listen, or to follow.
We’re not even going to pro choice sites to spread the news. We are doing it in the comfort of our own “home” per se…
But abortion is a different matter.
Does that make sense?
Otherwise, every single thing that you said about Jesus “offering” not “forcing” and people “choosing” not being “brow beaten” is right on the money.
Someone give the man an asparagus stalk!
Carol,
One of my students, who is a single mom taking a 19 credit semester in addition to a nursing internship and a part-time job.
That sounds like my cousin, except she isn’t single.
However, her husband just had a serious stroke and is going to need 24/7 care, and she will be the sole bread winner, as well as finish her internship and taking care of the 2 girls.
I’ll have to add her to my list of heroes too.
Carol,
I love Tolkien too, although probably not for the same reasons that you do.
And ya gotta love the scribe guy. Man! and we thought 5th grade times tables were tough.
MK,
sorry about your cousin, God-Bless her. I work with a woman who’s husband had a stroke.
Are you pickin’ on midgets? Don’t make me get the asparagus stalks!
Well, MK….. you did say…. look up to heh heh heh.
Thanks Jasper.
There was a sort of miracle involved in his recovery. It was really quite something.
It happened when I was on that camping trip a couple of weeks ago…
Now Doug,
That would only work if you were Herv
Birth control, homosexuality, drug use, alcohol abuse…go for it. It IS your choice.
We don’t see eye to eye, MK, but I just want to say thanks for that. Honestly. I mean, the greater part of those things I’ll never participate in, myself (that being the latter three). But I do acknowledge that you are not trying to force your own personal ideology onto others
Thanks Leah.
This doesn’t mean however, that I don’t think they are wrong…just that, well, the invitation went out to you too. If you didn’t accept it, that’s between you and Him.
I did my part. I put the message out there.
To me, this is the real meaning of “choice”.
things I’ll never participate in
Leah, no alcohol?
Doug
Doug, don’t be silly. No alcohol abuse.
Heather doesn’t like jokes about alcohol. It’s the only thing in life she takes seriously!
mk said: “If it weren’t for the fact that innocent parties are getting hurt, we wouldn’t be “forcing” pro life down your throats.”
I very much agree. While I would like it very much if they would turn away from evil, if they want to destroy themselves, why should I stop them? I wouldn’t lift a finger except that innocents are in the line of fire.
Want to abuse your sex organs? Go ahead. Want to poison yourselves with alcohol? Go ahead. Want to chop off pieces of your anatomy? Go ahead. Want to kill yourself? Hey, nobody’s stopping you. It’s not like we can throw you in jail for killing yourself. How’s that for compassionate?
No, I draw the line at the corruption of society and the killing of children. Aside from that, do whatever you want.
Here’s an example for you. I despise alcohol. The only alcohol I’ll ever drink is in medication or in the matter of the Blessed Sacrament, which in my view is the only thing good about the stuff. Yet I have no intention of outlawing it or even making anybody else ‘feel bad’ for drinking it. I just don’t care.
hey JohnL,
one of the most profound interpretations of Jesus is that He is a party-animal … who else would ever think of changing water into wine… vats of it, to continue the party???
Well, aside from the fact that Jesus only did that after his mother asked him to, I don’t particularly appreciate the “party animal” description because of its negative connotations. Obviously Jesus never drank to the point of drunkenness.
Why is that obvious?
Well, SoMG, it’s only obvious to a Christian.
A Christian understands that Jesus, being God, did not and could not commit sins. Intentionally drinking to the point of drunkenness is a sin, therefore Jesus never did it.
bad answer JohnL,
Mary told the servants to do what Jesus asks of them. It is Jesus idea to change the water into wine ….and such vast quantities of it too … like only one jug was likely 20 gallons.
In more than one place in the gospels, heaven is likened to a banquet. You do sound very much like the brother in the prodigal son story. Please note that Jesus is inside with the revelers … is He not Christian enough?
Well, SoMG, it’s only obvious to a Christian.
A Christian understands that Jesus, being God, did not and could not commit sins. Intentionally drinking to the point of drunkenness is a sin, therefore Jesus never did it.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 26, 2007 11:10 PM
Is enabling a sin?
Somg, haven’t you moved to Denmark yet? What are you waiting for? I used to think that you were a grown man. Now I think you’re just some 14 year old kid in a kangaroo suit. Typing, typing, tyyyyyping:}…LMAO!
BTW, if I choose to drink, it’s my body, and it’s my choice. *winks*
Sex belongs in the bedroom.
Bless me, MK, but I could swear I saw somebody talking about a room full of balls at Chuck E. Cheese….
Doug AKA in more than one room can do it guy.
First and foremost, my mom and my paternal grandmother and great-grandmother.
Other heroes in no particular order:
The Suffragettes, both here and in the UK.
Benjamin Franklin.
Simone de Beauvoir.
The scribe who committed “Beowulf” to paper.
J.R.R. Tolkien.
Georgia O’Keefe.
Charles Dickens.
Anthony Trollope.
More recent heroes, none of whom are famous:
Bob Somerby
Joshua Micah Marshall
Harriet Linkin
Twisty Faster
third-wave (or is it fourth by now?) feminists
One of my students, who is a single mom taking a 19 credit semester in addition to a nursing internship and a part-time job.
Hi Carol – great list!
Doug
“Doug, don’t be silly. No alcohol abuse.”
Oh, Okay, Leah – WHEW….
Although, once in a while my co-workers will ask, “What do you want to do?”
And then I say, “Let’s get some alcohol and abuse it.”
Doug (who likes what Bennie Franklin said about “Moderation in all things” but who also thinks that once in a while you gotta take it easy on the moderation.)
John: Mary told the servants to do what Jesus asks of them. It is Jesus idea to change the water into wine ….and such vast quantities of it too … like only one jug was likely 20 gallons.
There wasn’t any Surgeon General back then; no warning labels on containers, etc.
You know they partied hard.
Now I think you’re just some 14 year old kid in a kangaroo suit.
Heather, I’m 48, but, uh…..
::gulp::
Is there something wrong with kangaroo suits?
Doug
Doug, well, I guess it depends on the person. LOL!
Then… I’m your huckleberry.
John McDonell said: “In more than one place in the gospels, heaven is likened to a banquet. You do sound very much like the brother in the prodigal son story. Please note that Jesus is inside with the revelers … is He not Christian enough?”
Hey John McD, are you looking for validation from me or something? What the hell is your problem? You know what you sound like? One of those people who says “You think you’re better than me?!” when you tell them that you go to church.
I never said that drinking alcohol was bad. I said that I PERSONALLY DON’T LIKE ALCOHOL. I’ve seen it hurt too many people who didn’t know when to say when, OK? I also said that getting drunk (which is NOT the same as drinking some alcohol) is a sin (which it IS).
So now you seem to be insinuating that I think I’m better than Jesus, or that I’m some kind of stick in the mud who avoids celebrations. Well, guess what, I can make stupid accusations, too. Allow me to insinuate that you are a shameless drunkard who slanders Jesus Christ himself as a drunk and twists the narrative of the Wedding at Cana in order to feel good about himself. How about that?
I think it’s past time for this idiotic discussion to come to an end. I’ll leave it up to you. Would you like for us to continue to hurl hateful accusations at each other, or should we stop?
I don’t have any “heroes”. I have yet to meet a person I feel I can truly look up to.
Except my dad, but he’s not a hero, just tall, so I have to look up to talk to him.
Doug,
gotta take it easy on the moderation.)
Moderating the moderation…only you Doug! lol
Rae,
We gotta find you a hero. What about our boy, Hassan? He was a hero. I loved him. And would definitely strive to be more like him.
Or Samwise Gamgee? Or Atticus Finch?
Please tell me you have just one? hero!
Actually Rae,
It is hard to label a living human being as a hero, because nobody is perfect, and when you find their flaws it can be devastating.
But hero doesn’t mean flawless. Just someone that you admire and wish to become more like…
Anyone? Anyone at all?
I need a real person to look up to, not a fictional character MK!
Though I LOVE Atticus Finch. He basically rocks my socks. :) Gregory Peck for the win!
Ha! Rae, you are so right. Atticus was *The Man*
@MK: Nobody that I can really think of. I can’t think of anybody I’d want to be like in their entirety, you know?
For example, I wish I were more social and funny like Dan or I wish I were as pretty as Lindsey or smart like Kris or as happy as Jacob or as full of faith as my cousin.
Does that make sense to you at all? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean.
Oh, absolutely Rae.
I don’t actually want to go to India and pick worms out of dying Hindus. But I do want to have her compassion.
I don’t want to write books like Tolkien, but I want his creativity and wisdom.
I don’t want to be a lawyer, but I want Atticus’s sense of right and wrong.
You see?
I think a person’s hero should have virtues that they want to have and can work on to attain them.
Now, am I making sense?
Hi JohnL,
To clear things up a mite …. I was one of Jill’s first PL to help with the comments on this site. That was months before SoMG showed up and it was even after this that Doug came by. You are new here, and I can tell from your posts you are both insightful and very strong in our faith. By contrast SoMG is one very weak puppy.
The purpose of rattling your cage a little, was to in a sense help SoMG out of his self-imposed isolation. (SORRY IT WAS DONE AT YOUR EXPENSE!) I have very little to say negatively about anything you post here … just lots of admiration and a big THANK YOU for helping us, here.
Re. the boozing – my Dad was an alcoholic, so I’ve experienced the down-side of booze for decades.
Hi MK, and thanks for the note above. You said you liked Tolkien also, but probably not for the reasons I do, which makes me curious what your reasons are. There are so many reasons to admire Tolkien, I don’t think I could settle on one.
John McD, alright, so there’s no problem then. Sorry about reacting so, er, militantly. My obnoxious ‘debate style’ is a product of years of dealing with pro-aborts, leftists, anti-Christians, and other fine people. That’s not an excuse; that’s just the way it is.
Doug misses the point:
The experience of 5000 or 50,000 people, for that matter, doesn’t necessarily mean diddly for the population as a whole.
Doug
Posted by: Doug at October 26, 2007 4:39 PM
This is the concept of a sample.
When two people call a legislator about an issue, he can assume a certain percent of voters are interested in the issue. The two who call are an indicator of interest in the issue. When 5000 call about it, then the interest is 5000 times as much interest.
This is the reason you need a minimum number of signatures to call for a referendum or other issue to be addressed. You don’t need a majortity just a few hundred or at most a few thousand.
They do represent the group.
Carol,
I love Tolkien because of his Catholicism. The fact the the Lord Of The Rings was a story with very Catholic themes. And the fact that he changed the heart of another one my heroes, C.S. Lewis.
John L: My obnoxious ‘debate style’ is a product of years of dealing with pro-aborts, leftists, anti-Christians, and other fine people. That’s not an excuse; that’s just the way it is.
John, you’re not so bad. I think you were just born a grouch. ; )
Doug
Tolkien kicks booty because of his creation of one of the greatest worlds of imagination ever, among other things.
I’m due to read the trilogy again.
A Nun And Moose: Doug misses the point:
“The experience of 5000 or 50,000 people, for that matter, doesn’t necessarily mean diddly for the population as a whole.”
This is the concept of a sample. When two people call a legislator about an issue, he can assume a certain percent of voters are interested in the issue. The two who call are an indicator of interest in the issue. When 5000 call about it, then the interest is 5000 times as much interest. This is the reason you need a minimum number of signatures to call for a referendum or other issue to be addressed. You don’t need a majortity just a few hundred or at most a few thousand.
Sure, and if a legislator gets 5000 signatures then I think it should be noted.
That’s a different deal than “Silent No More” trying for 5000 signatures from women who regretted their abortions, as if it would be some proof that “abortion is bad.” Right in what Heather quoted it was noted that there have been 50,000,000 abortions in the US. Perhaps a slight over-exaggeration, but close enough. I figure that’d be 25 million or so women that have had abortions, since 1973 alone, in the US. Like I said, 5000 ain’t diddly. If we get 15,000 people who say they wish they hadn’t had kids, are we to ban having kids?
And anyway, they didn’t even get to 700. Out of all those millions, what’s that tell you?
Doug
MK and Doug,
Ahhh, you’re correct MK, that’s not really one of my considerations about Tolkien, or at least not a major part. I do love that his fiction has so many layers of myth in it, and I agree that some of the themes in LoTR are Catholic/Judeo-Christian, but his scholarship went far beyond that.
One of the reasons I love Tolkien is for his scholarship in dead languages. Before Tolkien, no one looked at Beowulf as a work of literature, but more as an historical document. He was the first “critic” of ancient British literature written in the Anglo-Saxon language. He was familiar with classical languages as well as Anglo-Saxon and IIRC, Old Icelandic (for the purpose of translating the sagas, which are also fabulous stories in their own right). Anyway, he pulls from all of those storytelling traditions for LoTR, which is what makes it such a rich tale.
Doug said: “John, you’re not so bad. I think you were just born a grouch. ; )”
Wrong again. I was not born a grouch. I was forged into a grouch through the actions and words of selfish people, and pro-aborts just happen to be one of the most selfish groups of people in the world. I was not born with the desire to fight, but now I must stand up and defend all good things which are under constant attack by selfish people or die.
Hi Carol,
The main reason that I love Tolkein is his diction. There are very few writers who use words together so that there is music … a poetry. Edgar Allen Poe is yet another one of these masters. When Tolkein describes the ents of the forest … I’m in heaven – so beautiful!
John: I was forged into a grouch through the actions and words of selfish people, and pro-aborts just happen to be one of the most selfish groups of people in the world.
Sorry, dear, but that’s bull. No one can force you to be a grouch but yourself. It’s your own fault, so stop trying to blame it on others. You decide for yourself, consciously or subconsciously, how to react to others. I choose, myself, to not get worked up about what is said on this blog, so I don’t.
You decide that you respond in a grouchy manner so you do. It’s your fault.
You’re right, Leah. Perhaps I could refrain from grouchiness in the face of your extremely selfish evil. But, being in the presence of evil people such as yourself for such a long time takes its toll, as you would expect.
Of course, to turn this around, you could probably refrain from being a selfish monstrosity, but you don’t. When you look at it that way, my grouchiness is a minor issue.
Okay, now you see how this works? You called me a selfish monstrosity and accused me of having “extreme selfish evil” and not only do I simply not care that you said these ridiculous and untrue things (for how in the world can you judge me when you don’t know me?), but I find it laughable!
So really, since I am in no way a “monstrosity” (seriously… I am laughing), you grouchiness is much more of an issue, because it when you are being grouchy you are obviously experiencing negative sentiments, while I, in the face of your negativity can only laugh.
Honestly. Act like the grown man you are.
Leah, you are what you are, and I am what I am. You can laugh off reality, evil monstrous woman, but it doesn’t change reality.
John, good point!
What place have you got to call me evil? You don’t know me, you don’t know anything about me except what takes place on this blog.
But whatever. You can make up your own reality, but it doesn’t make it true.
And Heather, you have no place to talk here.
Love and peace to you all.
Thank you, Heather, but I am admittedly being kind of ridiculous here. After all, the pro-abort doesn’t even understand how or why killing a baby is evil. It’s not exactly charitable of me to condemn someone as evil when they don’t even know what evil is. Not charitable, but perfectly in line with my hyperbolic style.
After all, it’s very likely that if those who commit or support evil monstrous acts were in a state of mind to understand what they were doing or supporting, they would stop immediately. That is, of course, the goal of the pro-life movement. To remove the cloudy veils of euphemism and ignorance from the reality of abortion.
John, I (who am, my the way, pro-choice, not pro-abortion) do completely understand the evil of killing a baby–I would never commit nor condone infanticide.
Abortion, however, is not infanticide.
I also know what evil is! Funny, innit?
Allow me to explain to you my philosophies. God is not Good. Good is God. You take all the things in the world that are good, truly and purely Good: love, understanding, peace, compassion, acceptance, etc–and those together encompass what God Is.
Oppositely: Satan is not Evil. Evil is Satan. The things in the world that are truly and purely Evil (hatred, violence, intolerance, etc) are what Satan Is.
Things that are either both Good and Evil or neither Good nor Evil are neutral–neither Godly nor a thing of Bad.
But it is hard to tell what is Good and what is Evil. You will tell me that abortion is Evil. I say it is neutral. Maybe you’re right. But maybe I’m right.
The difference here, John, between you and me, is that I am willing to entertain the possibility (while I doubt it) that I am wrong–which makes me tolerant of you (a Good quality). But, as far as I can tell, you are not willing to do the same for me. Even HisMan said, a while ago, that if he was wrong about his stance on abortion that he would be the first to ask forgiveness. Why can’t you do the same?
Leah, Oh sorry. I wasn’t aware that you ran the show here.
Doug AKA in more than one room can do it guy
Is that your superhero name? :P
Jacqueline (in more than one room can do it girl)
John, if you ask me, there are plenty of women who KNOW darn well what they are doing when they choose abortion. Come on. I know a woman who had 7 of them. She just kept on killling her children. She is guilty of premeditated murder.
So you love animals, you’re Catholic, you want 17 kids and you’re kinky to boot! You’re a great catch girl! The guy that gets you is gonna be one lucky bas…bassplayer.
I’m glad you’re not thinking twice about setting me up with Danny now that you know my true intentions! :P
I’m also down with the whole “in the woods” thing. I’ll bring the furry handcuffs.
Once again, Jacqueline, we find common ground between us. I love doing that!
You are quite cool, Leah. After I get married, you and your man can come play skee-ball with us…
And Skee-ball’s not a metaphor. I do really mean Skee-ball.
“Doug AKA in more than one room can do it guy”
Is that your superhero name? :P
Jacqueline (in more than one room can do it girl)
Gotta love it, J. Perhaps it was a rather stream-of-consciousness deal.
1.) Superhero? Yeah, I think once in a while….
*OR*
2.) I was having a Yoda moment.
John L: I was forged into a grouch through the actions and words of selfish people, and pro-aborts just happen to be one of the most selfish groups of people in the world. I was not born with the desire to fight, but now I must stand up and defend all good things which are under constant attack by selfish people or die.
John, I wasn’t real serious about you being born a grouch, but there is “nature” as well as “nurture.”
I see it as more selfish to want the will of pregnant women to be subverted to your own, rather than leaving it up to them.
Doug
Jacqueline: That sounds great! I mean, I don’t know where I’ll be in the world whenever you get married, but I will do all I can to get me and the hubby over to your neighborhood for a good game of skee-ball.
How about bocce ball? Ever played that? I’m actually quite good at it. I beat a bunch of my dad’s coworkers at it when I was 16 years old.
It’s a date!
I see it as more selfish to want the will of pregnant women to be subverted to your own, rather than leaving it up to them.
Selfish? What do we [prolifers] have to gain when one child is spared the knife? We prolifers spend millions of dollars a year helping women in crisis pregnancies (not to mention lobbying for laws to save unborn children). What personal motives do we have in giving up our time and money? How can anything we do on behalf of the most vulnerable be even slightly miscontrued as selfishness? It takes considerable self-sacrifice to be actively prolife.
Doug, I’m fasting for the unborn today (and every Monday during the 40 Days vigil). I’m enduring the hunger, discomfort, fatigue that comes with fasting with no benefits at all to me- but with the intent of aiding the unborn through my sacrifice and prayers. What do I stand to gain for my sacrifice? I’m not saying, “Look at me, I’m so great! I deserve a cookie.” but I do want to know how what I am doing could be considered selfish?
In 90 cities in 33 states, people are also fasting and praying. What do they stand to gain from their sacrifices? How is what they are doing selfish?
Leah- you’re on! Bocceball or Whirlyball. I love Whirlyball!
Selfish? What do we [prolifers] have to gain when one child is spared the knife?
Jacqueline, I think that’s a good question. I don’t feel that enough is gained to justify denying the pregnant woman what she wants.
……
We prolifers spend millions of dollars a year helping women in crisis pregnancies (not to mention lobbying for laws to save unborn children). What personal motives do we have in giving up our time and money? How can anything we do on behalf of the most vulnerable be even slightly miscontrued as selfishness? It takes considerable self-sacrifice to be actively prolife.
It’s still what you want. The motivation comes from your self. You are doing what you want to do.
……
Doug, I’m fasting for the unborn today (and every Monday during the 40 Days vigil). I’m enduring the hunger, discomfort, fatigue that comes with fasting with no benefits at all to me- but with the intent of aiding the unborn through my sacrifice and prayers. What do I stand to gain for my sacrifice? I’m not saying, “Look at me, I’m so great! I deserve a cookie.” but I do want to know how what I am doing could be considered selfish?
In 90 cities in 33 states, people are also fasting and praying. What do they stand to gain from their sacrifices? How is what they are doing selfish?
J, I don’t see that as “selfish” as the word is normally used. I have nothing against that – prayers and fasting are certainly not hurting anyone else. I think you are being very true to yourself, and there’s nothing wrong with what you’re doing. I also think it is admirable to be as committed as you are.
What I see as selfish is wanting your desire enforced legally on the pregnant woman.
Doug
“It’s still what you want. The motivation comes from your self. You are doing what you want to do.”
No, I want to eat today. I want to spend my weekends watching TV and salsa dancing, not out sidewalk counseling. I want to spend my money on myself, not donate it all to pro-life ministries.
You insist that I do what I do because I want to, so please tell me why I want to do that? I’d love to know what self-interest drives me. What motivation do I have?
What I see as selfish is wanting your desire enforced legally on the pregnant woman.
Okay, then we’re back to you telling me what I gain from wanting unborn children to be born rather than dismembered? Why do I desire whole, live babies vs. shredded, dead ones? Am I infertile and desire more bouncy infants to adopt? Do I put these kids to work in my factory? Do I fatten them up and put them in my stew?
Exactly where is my self-interest? What do I stand to gain that makes my desire (for these children to be loved rather than harmed) a selfish desire?
Doug, the selfish person is the one who doesn’t care about children being sent to slaughter. Doug, it isn’t your head that will be crushed in the abortion procedure. Your legs and arms aren’t being ripped off by some jack as* abortionist. It won’t be Jacque or me either. However, Jacque and I CARE enough about others, and we don’t want this to happen to anyone! Now Doug, who’s the selfish one?
“It’s still what you want. The motivation comes from your self. You are doing what you want to do.”
No, I want to eat today. I want to spend my weekends watching TV and salsa dancing, not out sidewalk counseling. I want to spend my money on myself, not donate it all to pro-life ministries.
You insist that I do what I do because I want to, so please tell me why I want to do that? I’d love to know what self-interest drives me. What motivation do I have?
Jacqueline, you want all those things, and you are going with what you want the most. Short of physical compulsion otherwise, we choose what we want the most, or what we have the least distaste for, among our availabe options. I believe that you want to eat, but you want to fast for your cause even more. If you most wanted to eat, you’d do it.
……
“What I see as selfish is wanting your desire enforced legally on the pregnant woman.”
Okay, then we’re back to you telling me what I gain from wanting unborn children to be born rather than dismembered? Why do I desire whole, live babies vs. shredded, dead ones? Am I infertile and desire more bouncy infants to adopt? Do I put these kids to work in my factory? Do I fatten them up and put them in my stew?
Exactly where is my self-interest? What do I stand to gain that makes my desire (for these children to be loved rather than harmed) a selfish desire?
What you gain is that you feel better. I believe that abortion horrifies and saddens you, etc. I am not surprised that you are against it. You’d be happier if there were no abortions or if even the one did not happen. I think that by definition we want to be happy, and you’re going for what you want.
I know you don’t want kids for a stewpot or for a labor force. I’m not saying you’re “bad” or that it’s even “bad” to be against abortion. I don’t think you gain anything, necessarily, from an abortion that does not occur, same as for miscarriages. Around the world, you are directly aware of almost none of them. Whether a given one happens or not doesn’t make a difference to you, really, since you don’t know of it. If the average is 4000 American women having an abortion per day, if tomorrow only 400 happened, you would not be aware of it.
I see the idea of abortion being very bad to you, but I don’t see you really having a need to ban or further restrict abortion, certainly not more than a woman with an unwanted pregnancy needs to end it.
Doug
Doug, the selfish person is the one who doesn’t care about children being sent to slaughter. Doug, it isn’t your head that will be crushed in the abortion procedure. Your legs and arms aren’t being ripped off by some jack as* abortionist. It won’t be Jacque or me either. However, Jacque and I CARE enough about others, and we don’t want this to happen to anyone! Now Doug, who’s the selfish one?
Heather, to a point in gestation the unborn don’t care and do not suffer. Had my mom chosen to have an abortion, there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything. There would have been an embryo or fetus, or “baby” if you wish, but your vivid descriptions are designed to play on emotion, and there was no emotion yet in the unborn, there.
This boils down to your feelings against those of the pregnant woman, and I say hers trumps yours.
Doug
Jacqueline, you want all those things, and you are going with what you want the most.
Me and my desires are not God. God is God. So I’m not governed by what I want. I am governed by my love for God and others. If what I personally wanted most won my actions, I’d be a very shallow person. I’d also have a hell of a lot more money.
Have you ever loved someone more than you love yourself, Doug? Then you know what it’s like to do things you don’t want. Not because you get pleasure in doing things for them, but really, honest-to-God, nothing gained- you do for them because they matter more to you than you matter to yourself-Not that you think others have more value than you do, but because they have more value to YOU than you do.
What you gain is that you feel better.
Maybe so. But this leads us back to why abortion makes me feel bad in the first place. I can’t be aborted. Why do I care about what happens to a bunch of helpless babies that I don’t even know?
FYI- I’m not going to quit taking this around in circles until you recognize that pro-lifers are by their natures altruistic, giving people and that pro-choicers by the natures are general sh!ts for human beings.
Nothing more to add here, except that the term “pro-choice” is nothing but a lie, and anyone who uses it seriously is either dishonest or doesn’t know what he or she is talking about.
If you call yourself “pro-choice”, that means you have no problem with the killing of unborn babies. And if you have no problem with something, you are either ambivalent toward it, or you outright support it – hence the far more accurate term “pro-abortion”.
there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.
Silly, Doug. There would have been a you. You’d just be dead.
So, by your estimation, we don’t come into existence until we can assert our personal will? If that’s the case, I know many disabled people taht don’t exist.
Selfish men are the main cause of abortion. ALL men who claim to be pro-woman and pro-choice and so they support her ‘right to choose’, are dishonest. The reality is that they want to continue to be free to treat women like sex toys to be thrown in the garbage once they’re no longer amusing.
If there’s a baby involved, it’s much harder to throw the woman away. But if she’s convinced that she should kill her baby, well, how great is that for every selfish man who just wants to sleep around?
Pro-abortion men care about one thing – themselves. If women are free to kill their children, and better yet, are convinced that killing their children is some kind of heroic, feminist act of freedom, then these men are quite happy that they can use and abuse women as much as they want and they’ll never have to worry about having to pay for a baby.
Jacqueline, Doug prefers to draw an arbitrarily line at which we can decide on our own when human life begins. Instead of going the scientific and logical route and admitting that life begins at fertilization, he prefers to obfuscate the issue.
When does life begin? Oh I dunno, maybe at fertilization, maybe at implantation, maybe when there’s a heart beat, maybe when there’s brain activity, maybe at birth… who knows??? And so the pro-abort says that since we can never really know when life begins – or they just use the ridiculously unscientific notion that the point at which human life begins is a subjective matter of opinion – we must support the killing of life at various stages that they have deemed acceptable. It’s ludicrous!
Why does Doug do all of this? So that men can continue to treat women like garbage and destroy the evidence.
John,
Why does Doug do all of this? So that men can continue to treat women like garbage and destroy the evidence.
Not me. Tis a shame that there aren’t more women like me that refuse to let men do this. If anyone wants to sleep with me, he must marry me and father any children he sires. While the women pro-aborts on here disagree so adamantly about my refusal to have sex before married, they’ll be the ones pregnant and abandoned, parenting alone or bleeding. Not me.
John and Jacque, let’s also remember that sometimes women are the ones who insist on abortion. Men have no choice.
True that. But it takes TWO to make a baby.
Jacqueline and Heather, I can’t speak on behalf of women, not being one. All I can do is talk about men who exist to deceive and abuse women. According to the pro-aborts, I am an aberration. I’m a man who actually isn’t using his status as a bachelor to act in an overtly malignant manner and hurt women.
John, I applaud men like you! Jacque, I know it does take 2 to tango. My point was that the old and tired mantra is: “Abortion is between a woman and her doctor.”…..Okay. That excludes fathers, siblings, grandparents, etc.
Jacque, I also applaud you! You are one great lady! You see, the majority of post abortive women I know of, were not brow beaten into their abortions. They chose it in order to cut the ties with the child’s father.
John L: According to the pro-aborts, I am an aberration. I’m a man who actually isn’t using his status as a bachelor to act in an overtly malignant manner and hurt women.
John, I sure don’t think you want to hurt women. You don’t see it that way.
But you don’t know what is best for women. What is best is to let them make their own best choice.
Doug
@Doug,
“But you don’t know what is best for women. What is best is to let them make their own best choice.”
Have you changed??? There is a HUGE difference from a-woman’s-best-choice and ‘whatever a woman chooses is best’.
But you don’t know what is best for women. What is best is to let them make their own best choice.
I know that killing one’s own baby is never a good choice, neither for her child nor herself. And I’d venture to say that most men aren’t prochoice for women’s sake but for there own, as John stated earlier.
Likewise, certain choices are so grotesque that they are prohibited by morality (and often by law). Like child abuse, infanticide, etc.
It is not best to let women make there own choices when said choices harm another human life.
According to the pro-aborts, I am an aberration. I’m a man who actually isn’t using his status as a bachelor to act in an overtly malignant manner and hurt women.
Hello there, Aberration. You’ve earned yourself the right to buy me a drink. :)
John M: Have you changed??? There is a HUGE difference from a-woman’s-best-choice and ‘whatever a woman chooses is best’.
We all changing all de time, mon. I’d say it’d be a comparitively rare thing where somebody else knows better what is best for the woman than herself in this matter.
Doug
I’d say it’d be a comparitively rare thing where somebody else knows better what is best for the woman than herself in this matter.
Even Andrea Yates?
“there never would have been a “me” to know or care about anything.”
Silly, Doug. There would have been a you. You’d just be dead.
Nope, Jacqueline, it’s not silly, it’s the truth. At that point there was an embryo or fetus, sure, but there was nothing there that had any cognition or awareness.
……
So, by your estimation, we don’t come into existence until we can assert our personal will? If that’s the case, I know many disabled people taht don’t exist.
I better call for somebody to roll their eyes.
As far as knowing and caring about things, yes – we don’t come into that state until certain developments occur. It’s not a matter of asserting or not, it’s a matter of having emotion, perception, etc., in the first place.
Doug
@Doug-mon,
This is a wee problem with semantics here. When anyone uses the word ‘best’, they are automatically referring to the objective reality. (Same applies if you apply the word ‘worst’) There is no room for ‘best’ in the morally-relative lexicon.
I also find it curious that such an important human aspect as ‘will’/desire/wanting has no physical region at all either in our body nor the brain. Everything of importance seems to have region in brain-architecture. All that is but the will. Is it really as important as proposed?
“Jacqueline, you want all those things, and you are going with what you want the most.”
Me and my desires are not God. God is God. So I’m not governed by what I want. I am governed by my love for God and others. If what I personally wanted most won my actions, I’d be a very shallow person. I’d also have a hell of a lot more money.
Same deal – you more want what you perceive as God’s will, or to follow that, than you want to eat, spend your money on bon-bons, etc.
……
Have you ever loved someone more than you love yourself, Doug? Then you know what it’s like to do things you don’t want. Not because you get pleasure in doing things for them, but really, honest-to-God, nothing gained- you do for them because they matter more to you than you matter to yourself-Not that you think others have more value than you do, but because they have more value to YOU than you do.
I would rather die than have my wife die. Ever see the movie “Signs”? Part of the story is Mel Gibson remembering when his wife gets killed – I think she’s out walking and a car or truck pins her against a tree. Mel goes to the accident scene, where his wife is definitely going to die, but is still conscious, and they can talk to each other for a little bit. An intense scene, and I’m choked-up thinking of it. I’ve wondered, “What would I do if confronted with that?”
……
“What you gain is that you feel better.”
Maybe so. But this leads us back to why abortion makes me feel bad in the first place. I can’t be aborted. Why do I care about what happens to a bunch of helpless babies that I don’t even know?
Because you feel sorry for the babies. Because you have been taught, by various means, that it’s bad to have them die. Because you believe that life is sacred. I don’t see your motivation as really being a question.
……
FYI- I’m not going to quit taking this around in circles until you recognize that pro-lifers are by their natures altruistic, giving people and that pro-choicers by the natures are general sh!ts for human beings.
Heh – well, okay. I’d say that it’s really better to “give” to the pregnant woman, who is most certainly a thinking, feeling being, rather than to the unborn, which to a point in gestation, anyway, are most certainly not.
Doug
John L: Selfish men are the main cause of abortion. ALL men who claim to be pro-woman and pro-choice and so they support her ‘right to choose’, are dishonest. The reality is that they want to continue to be free to treat women like sex toys to be thrown in the garbage once they’re no longer amusing.
Rank and silly generalization.
Doug, John is right. Selfish women are also the cause.
john L: Jacqueline, Doug prefers to draw an arbitrarily line at which we can decide on our own when human life begins. Instead of going the scientific and logical route and admitting that life begins at fertilization, he prefers to obfuscate the issue.
False.
Human life is there at conception.
I’ve never said anything to the contrary.
Your argument is so weak that you feel compelled to engage in such baloney.
Doug
“I’d say it’d be a comparitively rare thing where somebody else knows better what is best for the woman than herself in this matter.
Even Andrea Yates?
Jacqueline, that’s why I said “comparitively rare.”
My opinion – it would have been better for her to have had abortions than to kill her born children.
Better yet – she should have never gotten pregnant.
And of course it would have been better had she never gotten hooked up with that mega-creep of a husband.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda….
Hi John McD!!!!!!!
John M: This is a wee problem with semantics here. When anyone uses the word ‘best’, they are automatically referring to the objective reality. (Same applies if you apply the word ‘worst’) There is no room for ‘best’ in the morally-relative lexicon.
John, “best” is always going to be in the opinion of some entity, here. For example, you think it’s best if the woman continues the pregnancy.
……
I also find it curious that such an important human aspect as ‘will’/desire/wanting has no physical region at all either in our body nor the brain. Everything of importance seems to have region in brain-architecture. All that is but the will. Is it really as important as proposed?
John, I think the will is from the brain. How about you?
My opinion – without will we are not people.
Doug
Doug, you argue in circles. I cannot follow your posts at all. Doug, abortion is murder, and abortionists are murderers.
Heather, it’s okay.
“My opinion – without will we are not people.”
Would comatose people fall under that category?
How about when someone is denied will, still not a person?
“Doug, you argue in circles. I cannot follow your posts at all.’
Heather, I agree with Doug. It IS okay. That’s why I got off the ride early.
carder, I’m getting off of the ride with you.
Heather, is it really that hard to try to understand? Why not ask me about something specific if it seems hard to follow?
“My opinion – without will we are not people.”
Would comatose people fall under that category?
Carder, a person with will can sleep or at times go into a coma, of course. I meant that if there was not that type of consciousness, we would not be nearly the same as we are now, as a race. Were we purely instinct-driven, for example, then humanity and the world would be nothing like they are.
For the coma patient, if they regain consciousness then of course the will will again be apparent. If not, if the brain is damaged to the point there is no consciousness, then to me a lot of that person is gone. There is a body there, still breathing, with metabolism, etc., but the personality is outta there.
……
How about when someone is denied will, still not a person?
I don’t know what you mean by “denied will.” Is it like somebody is told, “You, over there, you don’t have any will any longer”?
Doug
Heather, is it really that hard to try to understand? Why not ask me about something specific if it seems hard to follow?
Posted by: Doug at October 30, 2007 2:06 PM************************* Why Doug? It’s all your OPINION. That’s it. You post on your opinions alone. It’s not worth it. If you can’t accept that an unborn baby is a human being, then we’re just not on the same page at all.
Why Doug? It’s all your OPINION. That’s it. You post on your opinions alone. It’s not worth it. If you can’t accept that an unborn baby is a human being, then we’re just not on the same page at all.
Dang, Heather, MK wanted me to put more of my opinion into things.
I accept that an unborn baby is a human being.
Oops.
Doug is also BABS??? OMG!
@Doug,
this is getting interesting, no? I did not say the will was unimportant for us modern humans but understanding that it is not accorded a brain region like the frontal lobes for intellect all the way to the brain stem for wakefulness, there is no single region or (even brain-process like there is for dreaming) that can even remotely connected to the will. Are modern humans making a huge fuss over some triviality?
Hi heather, YOU really are one super lady – very tenacious!
There are all kinds of ways to curtail the will: all law; maturity; depression; stress; nutrient flux; drugs/booze; etc, etc … ‘will denial’ is evident in the military(boot-camp); for inmates in prison … and there is also self-imposed curtailing of the will called sacrifice or responsibility within a family/society.
John, very interesting indeed. I think our will is linked to our consciousness; obviously gotta be conscious before there is any volition.
I don’t see why you say there is no part of the brain that can be linked to the will. Would it not be the cognitive areas of the brain that are involved?
I don’t think it’s “trivial” at all. Even the concept of “trivial” involves our will. And of course prisoners, etc., aren’t allowed to do all what they want, but they still have will.