Sunday funny
by David Horsey, a liberal political cartoonist who has an odd way of trying to make “puritanical” beliefs look bad…
Nov.30, 2008 11:30 am |
Cartoons |
Commenting Rules
Do's
- “Criticize ideas, not people.”
- Create one original moniker and stick with it.
- Please use a unique name.
- Be civil and considerate.
- Read fully and consider carefully before responding.
Do Not's
- Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
- No swearing or slandering of others.
- No deliberate inflammatory comments.
- Do not violate another’s privacy.
- Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
- No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
- Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Isn’t it obvious? The point being made, humorously,is that they came to the New World for freedom of choice. Something that people are still working toward today.
There’s a vast difference between the freedom to worship as you choose and the freedom to kill your kid or your grandma.
Or to kill your kid to save your grandma!
Like I said…. still working toward today. And continuing to make progress, slowly but surely, in the country.
Yeah, because wanton distruction of life is definitely progress!
YES! I am grateful to live in a place where I may worship as I choose and am able to express my sexuality and choose to read pornography and choose to have an abortion and choose to be pulled of life support! Will I choose to do all of these things? No, but I am grateful that the options are there for those who need them!
Nobody NEEDS abortions. Nobody NEEDS to be euthanized. Nobody NEEDS pornography.
Like I said…. still working toward today. And continuing to make progress, slowly but surely, in the country.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 11:44 AM
—-
Virginia – given your definition of continual progress – seriously, what’s the next logical step?
Leah – your thinking that men or women need porn just makes me feel sorry for you.
Ugh! I thought my username had saved in firefox, but it stopped being “Saved”. ANonymous earlier with the Nobody NEEDS…..was Me
Nobody needs pornography? Well, I guess we can rip “The Song of Songs” out of the bible then. And take down all those pictures of hot naked people from the Middle Ages. I love draconian puritans
Behold O Israel the LORD our God is One God. The abortionists do not serve God. They serve sexual desire.
Actually the pilgrims came here to spread the gospel.
The idea that the Puritans came here for “religious freedom” in general is farcical. They came here for their religious freedom only, and to suppress the religious freedom of others here. They were not very tolerant of other people’s religions.
But isn’t it ironic to see the words “freedom” and abortion in the same discussion? How free are the dead babies?
I love draconian puritans
Posted by: Yo La Tengo at November 30, 2008 1:44 PM
—-
With a side of fava beans and a nice Chianti?
Yo La,
There is a huge difference between real art and pornography — I suggest you learn the difference before you start comparing the two.
Isn’t it obvious? The point being made, humorously,is that they came to the New World for freedom of choice. Something that people are still working toward today.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 11:39 AM
yeah the ubiquitous “choice”! Soon however, we will have total freedom and no freedom at all unless of course, you beleive in the freeddom to sodomize, abort, contracept, kill old and disabled, prostitute, pornograph and on and on.
They didn’t come to the New World seeking freedom of choice as you know it Virginia (thanks Chris for reminding me to whom I write!) but to have religious freedom. I think quite frankly these people would be horrified to see what has been done to their beloved country. American’s and certainly Canadians certainly are seeing less and less religious freedom. The only religion that proaborts and libertines espouse is secular humanism.
I’d love to see what goes on at Mr. Horsey’s Thankgiving table, but, then again, maybe not.
Without knowing Horsey’s predilictions, it would be hard to tell whether the cartoon was meant as liberal or conservative. Initially, I thought it was mocking the notion that this nation could have been built upon such “core values” as pornography, sexual license, abortion and euthanasia. The young woman spouting her precious “choices” looks like she’s on hallucinagenic drugs, which I presume was the next great freedom she was about to announce. Weighed against havoc she’s proposing, the the old man’s suggestion of a “dunking” seems rather mild. Compassionate conservatism, you might say.
But knowing that Horsey is a liberal, it’s important to note that he’s not merely advocating a generalized freedom of choice. Rather, he’s declaring that the particular values that the young woman has identified are the best ones. If he thought chastity, childbearing, homeschooling, caring for the terminally ill were commendable choices, he would have included some of them as well.
with a name like Horsey, and based on what I have learned about Sweden on another thread, thank goodness he doesn’t live in Sweden. He would be at risk…..
but that would okay with asitis.
Americans and Canadians have less and less religious freedom. Huh, Patricia? Last I heard everyone is free to practice their religion. And if that includes abstaining from sex until marraige, foregoing birth control, saying no to abortion and choosing not to believe in evolution then no one is stopping you. What religious freedoms are being taken from you?
And by the way, your comments about Sweden are simply ridiculous.
Remember when LIFE WAS SACRED? It is getting hard to these days (all in the name of freedom).
Oh and Patricia… I left questions about Sweden and also the Otario Bible Belt :) for you in the Long Weekend Question post.Just in case you miss them…..
I thought the name of the Canadian province was ONTARIO.
Doyle is actually right about the Puritans; I was reading about the state of Maryland the other day (because it was the only state where Catholics weren’t persecuted). Early in the state’s history, Puritans actually took over and outlawed Catholicism. Maryland was the state where my favorite American Saint, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, lived for the remainder of her life.
Americans and Canadians have less and less religious freedom. Huh, Patricia? Last I heard everyone is free to practice their religion. And if that includes abstaining from sex until marraige, foregoing birth control, saying no to abortion and choosing not to believe in evolution then no one is stopping you. What religious freedoms are being taken from you?
And by the way, your comments about Sweden are simply ridiculous.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 2:49 PM
first off, apparently people cannot practice their religion in Canada Virginia, IF you had been on the ball and known about all the cases before the human rights commissions you would be savvy to this.
Part of being able to “practice” one’s religion means being able to practice one’s faith in the world and being able to live according to one’s beliefs. Therefore, if you are Catholic and you run a Catholic hall, you should be able to have functions in that hall which are in accordance with your beliefs. Apparently, NOT, in Canada. This is not a public hall, it is a hall owned by a particular group – a private group.
One should be able to write about why a particular belief is wrong according to that person’s faith – not ad hominem attacks but outlining why a certain belief or practice is immoral. Apparently, NOT, in Canada.
A catholic pharmacist cannot practice pharmacy according to his/her beliefs in Canada.
A catholic doctor cannot practice medicine according to his/her beliefs in ONtario.
A Catholic civil commissioner cannot operate according to his beliefs in most provinces in Canada.
In each and every instance, all of these services CAN be provided by others who are quite willing to do so – but a Catholic or Christian cannot live his/her life according to their beliefs. These are just a few examples.
It is only a matter of time before pastors will be arrested for teaching the tenets of the Catholic faith from the pulpit.
BTW, I’m done with the Swedish question – what ever your further responses are you can discuss them with yourself. My stats are all taken from a reputable paper written in 2006 and which I do not intend to reference. I have discontinued referencing on this blog since it has been my experience that whatever study or source produced, no matter how authoritative, the liberal will ALWAYS be unaccepting.
Oh and the homily was about one of the spiritual works of mercy: instructing the ignorant.
it is ONTARIO – but of course Virginia is from or lived in or passed through or flew over ontario so she should know….
1. People do not CHOOSE their sexual orientations any more than they choose to be left-handed at birth.
2. People often CHOOSE to abort their unborn children and CHOOSE to kill off their elderly family members for the purpose of their own convenience, but, then, people also CHOOSE to commit armed robbery, and so one need not be a Puritan to object to someone else’s choices — especially when they so drastically affect another human being’s life.
1. People do not CHOOSE their sexual orientations any more than they choose to be left-handed at birth.
There is absolutely NO way to substantiate this statement. This is your opinion. Although the politically correct view is that there is a “gay gene”, it has never been found and there are no studies which conclusively prove that same-sex attraction is inherited. It is thought to be a psycho-sexual disorder. The gay gene idea has been promoted in order to advance the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle -as in they simply can’t help themselves and therefore can’t change. It’s bull, pure and simple.
While it is no longer Thanksgiving….
Today is the first sunday of Advent. I always enjoy this season of spiritual preparedness.
My cathedral is beyond lovely. Just looking for a parking space is an exercise in faith and joyous anticipation. (it sounds silly but I am awash with love and faith…just looking for a place to park!! no kidding)
We even have the same handful of local Policeman every Sunday. I know them each by name.
Every year, after the service, we gather in the courtyard and help each other make Advent wreaths, sip cider, eat goodies and just engage in “community”.
I always find myself either helping a child or chatting it up with the Sudanese refugees.
Today was no exception.
But today, I longed for a few of my pro life friends to be with me in the Nave. The sermon was beautiful. Some how I kept being drawn into the message and thinking of the challenges we face during this time of “spiritual house cleaning” and what life and love mean in today’s society.
We really are so blessed to have each other. We are blessed to have purpose.
We have family and we have community. Yet, some among us will also be (or at least know others who are) alone….friends and parishoners who will witness the approaching holidays with longing and remorse, feeling very much alone, and less than fulfilled. (Even in the midst of celebrations) :(
Today, I am grateful and torn. I know that I am not alone. I have my family and my friends. I see lonely and hurting people here and everywhere I go these days. I have my own pangs of sorrow mixed in there too. Perhaps we all do.
In the midst of our weeks of preparation and days of celebration, let us try to reach out, chill out, and show love and grace to those we see in any kind of need.
I hope that each of you are as blessed to see the love, longing and grace in those you encounter this season…just as I have witnessed here and in the courtyard of my cathedral this morning.
Ahhhh, what a lovely Sunday this has been.
Sending you all lots of love, hope, joy and peace.
Jill,
You live in Chicago. Be sure to read the Chicago Tribune tommorrow for the following:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
Tell everyone about this issue and spread it FAR AND WIDE.
JOIN THE FIGHT!!!!
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2008-11-28.htm
Spread this to all Pro-Life Networks against Obama and tell them to get on board and Join the Fight!
Patricia: “It is thought to be a psycho-sexual disorder.”
That’s a sad way to put it, Patricia, but if that is what you believe…do you think people CHOOSE to have a “disorder”?
The pro-life movement will have a cinderblock chained to its ankle so long as the anti-gay movement is latching onto it.
“Remember when LIFE WAS SACRED?”
Yeah life was never sacred. The only reason it’s “sacred” now is because of all these “Christians” with no life who want to feel important. How many Native American women and children did the Puritans brutally murder just because they weren’t white? How many Puritans called other Puritans “witch” just to get them executed and get their land? The Old Testament says (Deuteronomy 21:18) says to stone your kid to death if they are disobedient. It used to be, “Do your job or die.” Now it’s “Have human DNA and you’ve already accomplished all you’ll ever need to!”
I don’t think that people choose to have a disorder but at least this implies that they develop this way and that many may be able to be treated.
That’s a world of difference than giving up the ghost and saying I live this way and I’m not gonna change. we don’t treat any other ailment the way we do homosexuality – unless it’s women’s reproductive systems – then we treat it as a disease.
The lies are diabolical and the proof is in the way they turn wrong into right and normal into abnormal.
If you try and convert your any of your family members to Christianity you should stone them.
Deuteronomy 13:6-8
‘If your brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife tries to secretly entice you, telling you to go and worship other gods, gods of people living near you, or far from you, or anywhere on earth, do not listen to him. You must kill them. Show them no pity. And your hand must strike the first blow. Then the hands of all the people. You shall stone them to death.’
Obviously it’s pretty bad to try to force your religious beliefs on others.
And those gay guys who harrassed the Christians who came into their town to preach? Well good thing they weren’t bible abiding citizens, things would have gone a whole lot worse for the Christians.
Deuteronomy 13:13-15
‘If you hear that in one of the towns, there are men who are telling people to go and worship other gods, it is your duty to look into the matter and examine it. If it is proved and confirmed, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword. You must lay the town under the curse of destruction, the town and everything in it.’
Or does this only apply to Jews towards Christians?
Patricia, right…. all those “facts” you gave about Sweden came from a specific “reputable” paper written in 2006. That you choose not to name. THat cracks me up.
I have been to Sweden several times. I have Canadian friends that have live there and other Eurpoean countries. It most definitely NOT how you portray it. It most definitely IS a wonderful place to raise a family. It puts the United States, and to a lesser degree Canada, to shame in many regards.
Go visit. The number of churches is not a good measure. You will see.
Jess: the Jewish people are our brethern. The Catholic faith is rich in traditions from the Jewish faith. In fact, the Catholic mass is entirely made of traditions based on the passover dinner and the jewish priesthood rituals.
So I personally am not in favour of us stoning them or them stoning us!
As for the same-sex incident: I note that had the Christians reacted the way the homosexuals did if the situation were reversed, all of the Christians would likely now be incarcerated and charged with hate crimes. They would not see the light of day for years….
If you really do believe in the Bible you’ll stop eating pork, bacon, etc…
Leviticus 11:7
‘Regard the pig as unclean, for though has a cloven hoof, it does not chew the cud. Do not eat their meat or touch their dead bodies. You will regard them as unclean.’
If you don’t really believe in the Bible but you just say you do to try and feel superior go right on eating.
“So I personally am not in favor of us stoning them or them stoning us!”
Then you either hate God or don’t believe in the Bible Patricia.
Patricia, here’s that article on the Ontario Bible Belt. http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/03/21/5066756-sun.html
Oh, but I thought you were so sure that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE from Ontario referred to an bible belt and that if anyone ever had it was now obsolete. Oh snap!
BMMG, I think your comparison of “sexual preferences” to left-handedness is ridiculous.
Homosexuality consists of two things:
1.) The desire to have sex with people of one’s own gender, as opposed to people of the opposite gender.
2.) The inclination to act in a manner which is consistent with such sexual desires.
People have this fascinating trait, BMGG: It’s called FREE WILL. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
The argument that people cannot control their thoughts when it comes to matters pertaining to sexual desire essentially is based on the assumption that whereas people have the ability to control their thoughts with regard to other aspects of their lives, there is something privileged and special about sexual thoughts which places such thoughts beyond the ability of people to control. What that special something is, no one seems to be able to say.
Such an argument is a variant on the philosophy known as genetic determinism. And it’s nothing less than an irresponsible abdication of personal responsibility for one of the most important aspect of a person’s life.
Jesus made it very clear that God would hold people accountable for their sexual thoughts (which is why lust is sinful, regardless of whether or not lust finds expression in physical acts of adulterous sex). Jesus clearly didn’t agree with the idea that people couldn’t control their sexual desires. Therefore, neither do I. But that isn’t the only reason.
Another part of the reason that I don’t buy the idea that people can’t control their sexual desires is that my own experience flies in the face of the opinions being promoted as “fact” by the so-called “experts”.
I was never gay, but I was during one very brief period in my early adolescence a closeted transvestite. (My parents would have died if they’d found out about it.) I felt guilty, but I also felt that it was something I couldn’t control. It was a form of compulsive behavior which I didn’t understand, similar in some ways to the various nervous tics which I involuntarily exhibited during that same time period in my life.
Fortunately, I was also a new Christian, so I knew that I didn’t have to rely solely on my own limited will power in order to fight sexual temptation. I repeatedly prayed that God would help me to resist the temptation, and I made a real effort to do so. The change didn’t happen instantaneously, but I gradually reached the point where such sexual activities weren’t even appealing to me anymore. It’s been decades since I was seriously tempted to engage in my old perverse habits.
In the 80’s, I read a Boston Globe column (“Ask Beth”) in which the advice columnist said that transvestites couldn’t be expected to ever change. I wrote to the columnist, citing my own personal experience as evidence that she was wrong. Incredibly, she brushed off my testimony, saying essentially that since the experts had assured her that such predilictions were unchangeable, my own true life story to the contrary had no relevance!
I don’t know about you, but as I see it, one of the definitions of a mindless idealogue is someone who refuses to even consider the evidence when it contradicts his or her preconceptions. I saw such behavior when I told my story to the “Ask Beth” columnist with the closed mind, and I’ve seen that same kind of indifference to the evidence on the part of those who argue that gays can’t change.
Does every gay person succeed in his or her attempt to conquer habits and patterns of thought which, in some cases, have developed over periods of many years? No, of course not. But the same thing could be said for people who try to kick drugs and alcohol. Some succeed, some fail, and some keep trying and failing until at long last they finally succeed. In neither case does the fact that there isn’t a 100% success rate prove that it can’t be done.
Most of the so-called “evidence” in favor of the idea that homosexuality is genetic has been conducted by people who admit that they started out with an agenda, and that they hoped for certain results, when they initiated their research studies. That’s not objective science. Those who think it is are the kind of people who are so naive that they think that tobacco company studies allegedly proving that smoking wasn’t harmful weren’t tainted by the agendas which fueled those studies.
I do believe that God loves gay people and others who are bound in harmful sexual addictions, as I once was. I believe that Christians have an obligation to show genuine love for gay people and others bound in such addictions. But love and condonation are not invariably synonymous. We do people a great disservice when we accept their excuses for their immoral actions, when we should be calling them to a higher standard of behavior predicated on the belief that God can help us to overcome our weaknesses.
well Jess, I think you have to understand the books of the bible in order to understand what you are quoting.
Just to be very brief: Leviticus is the book of laws God gave Israel through Moses. It contains hundreds and hundreds of laws governing every detail of the Israelites social life and worship. Something probably Hal or Doug would find fascinating since they deal with minutiae.
Leviticus demonstrates that God cares about his people even down to the tiny details of their lives. Laws are good for us since God is the author of law and not lawlessness and disorder. These laws were given to the Israelites for their protection and instruction.
So, in that respect, I don’t follow the laws in Leviticus anymore because they were intended for the Israelites 1000’s of years ago. Instead I read the New Testament which has the “new laws” of God. We are not wandering in the desert anymore waiting for the Messiah.
Jill,
You live in Chicago. Be sure to read the Chicago Tribune tommorrow for the following:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf
Tell everyone about this issue and spread it FAR AND WIDE.
JOIN THE FIGHT!!!!
I urge everyone on this board who against Obama to JOIN THE FIGHT!!!
I was never gay, but I was during one very brief period in my early adolescence a closeted transvestite. (My parents would have died if they’d found out about it.) I felt guilty, but I also felt that it was something I couldn’t control. It was a form of compulsive behavior which I didn’t understand, similar in some ways to the various nervous tics which I involuntarily exhibited during that same time period in my life.
Fortunately, I was also a new Christian, so I knew that I didn’t have to rely solely on my own limited will power in order to fight sexual temptation. I repeatedly prayed that God would help me to resist the temptation, and I made a real effort to do so. The change didn’t happen instantaneously, but I gradually reached the point where such sexual activities weren’t even appealing to me anymore. It’s been decades since I was seriously tempted to engage in my old perverse habits.
In the 80’s, I read a Boston Globe column (“Ask Beth”) in which the advice columnist said that transvestites couldn’t be expected to ever change. I wrote to the columnist, citing my own personal experience as evidence that she was wrong. Incredibly, she brushed off my testimony, saying essentially that since the experts had assured her that such predilictions were unchangeable, my own true life story to the contrary had no relevance!
_________________________________________________
your testimony is awesome Mark!
You will find that we have many such mindless ideologues here.
You bring out the point well: we are all sinners and if we rely on our own we just won’t make it. We all need God. God bless you!
Oh good you’re back Patricia. In case you missed my comment above, here’s the article referring to the Onatrio Bible Belt. You know…. the Ontario Bible Belt you were so certain didn’t exist. In fact you were quite rude about it.
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2008/03/21/5066756-sun.html
Just doing what your priest preached about today!
Posted by: J. A.N. at November 30, 2008 3:39 PM
Thanks J.A.N. – May God pour out his love upon you this season.
I agree Chris, J.A.N comment was beautiful.
BTW, Virginia, that newspaper search came up on my google search about a week ago – although I note the date is Nov 30! MSM (Mr. Tengo are you laughing?) is not authoritative….. sorry!
Besides, we’re on a different topic now, or hadn’t you noticed? Stop obsessing…..
Then you either hate God or don’t believe in the Bible Patricia.
Posted by: Jess at November 30, 2008 4:06 PM
——
Jess – have you been playing too much Dylan lately?
(particularly Rainy Day Women # 12 & 35)
Yeh, the website date is Nov 30, but the article was from March. What’s your point?
I’m not obsessing. You’re just refusing to admit you were wrong about something AND wrong to call me an idiot for saying something that was in fact correct.
Why is it important? Because you say some ridiculous and unfounded things. Another example would be your “facts” on Sweden. Or that I am not even from Ontario. To name a few…. Perhaps you’re not used to people calling you out on them.
not at all Virginia
I have lived in the province and one newspaper article doesn’t mean that people in the province speak of a bible belt
after all when does the msm represent the views of the average person?
and as I recall you were quite willing to accept Mary II’s map which placed the bible belt way uup in the netherlands of the far north of Ontario.
I already posted my views on the bible belt but you never read them. that’s your problem, not mine. so yes, stop obsessing….
oh and if it makes you feel better, I could tell you I made those facts up about Sweden, but that would be lying and as you mentioned we did have a homily on the truth today…..
now back to reality here:
Most of the so-called “evidence” in favor of the idea that homosexuality is genetic has been conducted by people who admit that they started out with an agenda, and that they hoped for certain results, when they initiated their research studies. That’s not objective science.
much has been made now of the hijacking of modern scientific research by political correctness and ideology instead of the search for objective truth in our physical world.
I do believe that God loves gay people and others who are bound in harmful sexual addictions, as I once was. I believe that Christians have an obligation to show genuine love for gay people and others bound in such addictions. But love and condonation are not invariably synonymous. We do people a great disservice when we accept their excuses for their immoral actions, when we should be calling them to a higher standard of behavior predicated on the belief that God can help us to overcome our weaknesses.
Posted by: Mark at November 30, 2008 4:24 PM
the problem with this is that most people do not believe in God today – therefore they see no hope in being able to change and no accountability.
Thus, the idea that they cannot go against their “nature” is prevalent. What do you say to a non believer?
Wrong again Patricia. I never was willing to accept Mary’s map. And I never said I was. Why do you keep making stuff up? The region shown in her map was not the bible belt I know of.
So a newspaper article refers to the Ontario Bible Belt and you still refuse to admit that that means something to some citizens? Oh, I get it…. the article was written just for me because I’m the only one who knows of the bible belt! Never mind I don’t live in London nor read their paper. Silly “Mainstream Media”.
More like silly Patricia. But you keep on trying….
So a newspaper article refers to the Ontario Bible Belt and you still refuse to admit that that means something to some citizens? Oh, I get it…. the article was written just for me because I’m the only one who knows of the bible belt! Never mind I don’t live in London nor read their paper. Silly “Mainstream Media”.
you said it, not me! :-D
Silly Patricia………
silly Virginia…. :-D
Wow, I guess you just can’t admit when you are wrong. Incroyable!
Oh.. and you’re wrong on Sweden too. But for obvious reasons you are even less likely to admit that. But it doesn’t really matter.
for your further instruction: the term bible belt was coined by Randy Richmond for his series of articles in the london free press which I read a while ago. It was HIS term to describe the area. Comprendez-vous?
Since one of my girlfriends has extensive family in the Chatham region and grew up there, she has told me that she has never heard this term used to describe her “neck of the woods”.
It is a term that Richmond uses to describe the Middlesex-Lambton area of Ontario in which a large number of mega churches are being constructed. Therefore it is a recent term coined to describe a recent phenomena in the sw ontario region by Mr. Richmond. His series also focuses on the abuse scandal (by no means limited to the London area).
If one compares this area to Toronto or Ottawa then yes, I would be most willing to call it a bible belt area. But generally, it is not thought so by it’s constituents nor by ontarians in general.
Secondly from a Canadian source: “In Canada, the term is also sometimes used to describe several disparate regions which have a higher than average level of church attendance. These include the majority of rural southern Alberta and Saskatchewan, parts of southern Manitoba, the rural and more traditional parts of the Fraser Valley of British Columbia, the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia and the Saint John River Valley of New Brunswick.” I note, Ontario is NOT listed.
Have a nice evening Virginia……
Oh.. and you’re wrong on Sweden too. But for obvious reasons you are even less likely to admit that. But it doesn’t really matter.
Posted by: asitis at November 30, 2008 5:29 PM
oh it doesnt’ matter because we will soon be like Sweden anyway! au revoir!
oh and Virginia, you might check out the Danish sociologist Mai Heide Ottosen’s study, “Samboskab, Aegteskab og Foraeldrebrud” (“Cohabitation, Marriage and Parental Breakup”) which discussed the dissolution of the family in Sweden.
Ha! Funny how you can offer up a reference when you want to. What about those Swedish “facts” you cited before Patricia??? Still no reference. Hmmm
I will look up her research. But I’ll go directly to the source, rather than read an “interpretation” on a Christian website…. of which I see there are many. That way I’ll get the real picture.
You really should visit Scandanavia Patricia. Beautiful! And a wonderful culture.
I don’t intend to. I have no interest in seeing a culture at it’s worst. But if you like scandanavian culture you should read the works of Sigrid Undset. Her books are phenomenal. and, she was a nobel prize winner in literature.
oh I have the references V, it’s just as I said before, you libertines have no respect for anything beyond your own narrow vision and ideology.
my “narrow vision and ideology”? That’s a good one Patricia!
It most ceratinly is not culture at its worst. quite the contrary. Do you even have any friends in Canada? It seems to me you might be a fish out of water. You really belong in Middle America.
thank you chris.. and right back at ya! thank you too, patricia :)
“I don’t follow the laws in Leviticus anymore because they were intended for the Israelites 1000’s of years ago. Instead I read the New Testament which has the “new laws” of God. We are not wandering in the desert anymore waiting for the Messiah.”
Well Patricia the New Testament was written 2,000 years ago in the Middle East so I guess we don’t have to follow it either.
“Nobody needs pornography? Well, I guess we can rip “The Song of Songs” out of the bible then”
Ohhh… you don’t understand Song of Songs in the least. I highly recommend Christopher West’s new book “Heaven’s Song: Sexual Love as It Was Meant to Be” which goes into a great deal of the proper understanding of the imagery in Song of Songs. It is based on John Paul II’s “hidden” theology of the body talks.
So I must have missed this… asitis is Virginia K from a few weeks ago? Is that right? Or has she never posted under the name Virginia but said her name is Virginia?
I like to try and keep track of who’s who, not trying to stalk you or anything… (or am I? Mwhahahaha!)
Bingo Bobby! C’est moi, Virginia! I originally stumbled into this cheery little blog upon Jill’s invitation. After a few days though, I became frustrated with the arguments that were never-ending and I was quite frankly suffering from shell-shock. The hate, prejudice and misconceptions I found here were mind-boggling and disheartening. Say what you will, but that is my honest perspective. So, I disappeared. But I got more email from Jill which enticed me back. I was midly amused that my absence had acquired a life of its own, with someone even posting as “Not Virginia” (no, that was not me). Eventually, my need to “say it as it is” got the better of me and I jumped back in, starting fresh under the name “asitis”. I decided I’d partake again, but not be dragged into any futile discussions on religious beliefs nor tolerate any nonsense.(I have never been one to suffer fools gladly). I know I’m not likely to change anyone’s mind here over lots of things, especially when it comes down to religious beliefs, but I do think the blog benefits from a different perspective then the majority.I am: a woman, a wife, a mother, a scientist, raised catholic but now an agnostic (yes, just in case, wink), pro-choice, an Obama-voter, for gay rights, against abstinence-only. I was raised in Canada and now live in the United States and have travelled a fair bit – something I feel is very important for prspective and something I suspect is lacking here, as it is for many Americans. Iam… Asitis! Hear me roar!
Yo La Tengo’s comparison of Song of Solomon with pornography is ridiculous. Sexual love between a married man and woman is pure and beautiful–the exact opposite of pornography. No one needs pornography, while the Bible highly praises the marriage bed.
Very good, asitis. Thanks for the candid info. Always good to know what people’s beliefs and backgrounds, presuppositions, etc. are. It makes it easier to start with people where they’re at. Good journey.
Leviticus is the book of laws God gave Israel through Moses. It contains hundreds and hundreds of laws governing every detail of the Israelites social life and worship. Something probably Hal or Doug would find fascinating since they deal with minutiae.
Patrcia, the big picture as well as minutiae (but good word, there). But yeah, all those laws and rules and no mention of abortion. Wild, eh?
but there are many incidents in the bible where a woman prayed for a child and received one (Hannah for example). Or was barren and conceived through a miracle (Mary’s cousin Elizabeth; Sarah (Abraham’s wife)
Herod’s slaughter of the innocents (in his obsession in looking for the “newborn King of the Jews”). Pharaoh’s demanding the killing of newborn Hebrew baby boys. Sounds a little like 4th trimester Abortion.
:)
:)
We studied St. Teresa of Avila’s commentary on the Song of Songs a little over a year ago. It is beautiful — it is actually about mystical union or spiritual marriage of God with the soul.
That’s cool, Eileen. :)
“I was raised in Canada and now live in the United States and have travelled a fair bit – something I feel is very important for prspective and something I suspect is lacking here, as it is for many Americans.”
How many countries have you traveled to?
That’s funny; when I first looked at the cartoon, I thought it was done by a conservative! The pro-abortion, pro-porn woman looks like a complete lunatic. I figured, yep, typical insane radical feminist, just like the pro-aborts on this blog. But you say that the cartoonist meant to present her in a positive light? Good grief.
And Jess, you should be the poster child for corporal punishment.
Jasper, how ’bout them Steelers, huh?
And Jess, you should be the poster child for corporal punishment.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at November 30, 2008 9:25 PM
Oh that’s nice. John, I imagine that if any woman was stupid enough to have you, you would be the poster boy for domestic violence.
Oh, no, Jane. I completely oppose domestic violence. It is abhorrent.
But I do advocate the spanking of unruly children like Jess.
“Jasper, how ’bout them Steelers, huh?”
yes John, they played good. They should make a good run in the playoffs. Matt Cassell couldn’t hold on to the ball..Moss dropped a touchdown pass too :(
Jasper I have spent time in France, Germany, Greece, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Norway and Denmark travelling, visiting friends, working, soaking up some different cultures. Have also travelled in Mexico and Carribean, but that was more about soaking up the sun in a bikini on a beach.
You?
So, asitis, in which one of those countries did you learn that unborn human life is worthless trash, and that the right to porn is one of our fundamental freedoms?
John, I’m not a fan of porn because I personally feel it can be respectful to women and I tell my boys it’s not okay to have it in the house for that reason. And I’m going to stay out of an endless debate with you about with or not abortion is murder. Don’t even try. Scat! Go find some other fresh meat.
Asitis, I’ll “scat” as soon as you stop calling the killing of unborn children “choice” and call it what it is – the killing of unborn children.
Now, tell me which country it was in which you learned that unborn children are actually useless piles of garbage.
Greece, England, Scotland, Germany, Japan, Holland, South Korea, China, Switzerland, Canada and Taiwan.
So why the ignorant comment? Are you snob?
Which part of “I’m going to stay out of an endless debate with you” did you not understand? Now shoo. I’m closing the door.
Another question for Asitis: If some cultures “believe” in spite of irrefutable scientific proof that life does not begin at conception and therefore that unborn children are not living beings, does that not give license to other cultures to ignore science in order to discriminate against various groups? Meaning, doesn’t this justify the enslavement of the people of Africa? After all, irrefutable scientic proof shows you that Africans are just as human as any other racial group, but “cultures” chose to ignore that in order to create a “right to choose” slavery.
I wonder in which country asitis learned the debate tactic of, “You’re kicking my butt so I’m going to shoo you away.” My guess would be France.
What ignorant comment? That some people here, haven’t travelled much? I think that would only be ignorant if I was incorrect. So you’ve travelled some as well Jasper. Great. No, I’m not a snob. I simply said that travel can give people valuable perspective. Having travelled yourself wouldn’t you agree?
Correction John: France says “you’re getting your butt kicked, so we’ll help you (win the war against Britain)”
Oh yeh John, you werer really kicking my butt there. You go with that….
Don’t even try to bring “science” into it John. Bye-bye.
“What ignorant comment?”->
“something I suspect is lacking here”
I do agree that it gives people perspective, but I don’t know what it has to do with protecting unborn children. Abortion is a barbaric act, no matter where it is done.
Asitis seems to think that Lafayette is currently alive and walking the streets of Paris. Because, naturally, 18th century France is exactly the same as 21st century France. Asitis, is the sky green in your world?
Did I say it has anything to do with abortion Jasper?
Tsk, asitis must’ve failed science as well as social studies. Asitis, are you sure you’re qualified to be on the internet?
WTF are you talking about John?
Add English to the list of failed subjects.
Okay, you’re not even being clever John. I’m going to bed. Save this nonsense for someone else.
Now…. shoo! good night.
Okay, you’re not even being clever John. I’m going to bed. Save this nonsense for someone else.
Now…. shoo! good night.
…and the pro-abort monstrosities continue to play dumb as they support the slaughter of countless unborn children.
France might have changed over the last 200 years, but some things never change.
YES! I am grateful to live in a place where I may worship as I choose and am able to express my sexuality and choose to read pornography and choose to have an abortion and choose to be pulled of life support! Will I choose to do all of these things? No, but I am grateful that the options are there for those who need them!
Posted by: Leah at November 30, 2008 12:20 PM
Leah,
Choose to “have” an abortion. You are just as sick as any woman who does have an abortion because you are glad she has the right to do so. Too long now too many women have hid behind that bs that they wouldn’t have an abortion themselve but they are glad other women have the choice. Abortion is killing an innocent human being;you don’t have one, you commit one. Unless you consider pregnant women two be some kind of two headed, four legged freak then that baby is not part of a woman’s body. It is murder and should be just as illegal as a mother killing her born children.
AND THE FREEDON TO CHOOSE LIFE OR DEATH, HEAVEN OR HELL, GOD OR SATAN……
GOD COMMANDS US TO CHOOSE LIFE.
ALL OTHER CHOICES ARE SIMPLY INSANE.
I agree HisMan. Pro-choive to kill an innocent baby in his/her mother’s womb is insanity. Every bit as insane as the psycho-killers that prey on born women and children.
HisMan, God didn’t command me to choose life. Maybe He commanded you. And, then again, maybe not.
asitis,
If you do not suffer fools well then you must be really miserable when you interact here.
I find the most insufferable fools to be the really intelligent ones or the fools who really believe they are intelligent.
What is your definition of ‘fool’.
yor bro ken
So, I disappeared. But I got more email from Jill which enticed me back
Posted by Atisis.
And so my words on pro aborts being needed/preferred at this site are confirmed. That the value of pro-aborts are now being recruited by Stanek, should be noted by pro lifers who engage in a endless propaganda war here, while Stanek recruites pro aborts, such as Atisis.
yllas,
glad to see you are back too. I don’t mind the pro-aborts coming to the site. I would hope that some pro-choice people who visit this sight and see the pro-abort posts might realize the evil in being supportive of being pro-choice to tear unborn children from their mother’s womb. Every post by a pro-aborts is an opportunity to expose their folly.
Welcome back Virginia/asitis,
What do you think about educating young girls about the gestational growth of unborn babies? And making a mandatory and prominent part of sex education in schools? And also, since we want them to be able to make informed choices, shouldn’t we educate them with exactly what the abortion procedure does to the unborn boy or girl so that they will know what is one of the currently common consequences of birth control when it fails, namely lying down on a gurnee and raising up your knees so that the psycho-killer can tear the baby from the womb in bloody pieces?
Some folks here would also like to have them taught that contraception is murder as well truthseeker. That’s why reigious organizations like CareNet should not be teaching sex ed in our schools.
But Godless organizations like Planned Parenthood should, right Virginia?
If anyone other than the teachers themselves are called in to assist, it should most definitely be from a “Godless” organization as you put it.
I wouldn’t want Planned BARENHOOD to be teaching my children if I had any. They are a disgusting organization that wants children to have sex earlier and earlier. They lie about the unborn child’s development, they cover up for sexual predators, they don’t care about the wellbeing of women who have botched abortions (letting a woman lose a lot of blood before an ambulance can get there, as happened at the abortuary in my town. The woman had to have an emergency hysterectomy). They misdiagnosed a young woman has “Not having breast cancer” when in fact, she DID.
They also think they are better at teaching young people about sex, overriding parents, when most of the time, parents should be doing this “talk”.
The most vile organization since the KKK or the Nazis.
And just to stop you before you run in the wrong direction with that….. by “godless” I mean an organization without religious affliations. That does not mean there can’t be Christian and followers of other religions in the “godless” organization.It simply means that it should not be an organization whose mission is to promote sex “as God intended”. Religious beliefs and prejudices should not be brought into the schools’ comprehensive sex education programs.
Agreed, Liz. I will teach my children, not Planned Parenthood or any other organization. Christian or not. Thank you very much.
Virginia,
Religion can stay out of it. On purely moral grounds, PP should not be promoting promiscuity to our young people.
oh so you homeschool?
Who are you talking to, Virginia?
Yes, public school curriculums should be based upon science, wouldn’t you agree, asitis?
So school children should be taught the science which was established 150 years ago that human life begins at conception. They should also be shown exactly what an abortion does to that life at various stages.
But of course asitis will disagree with me on that. For some mysterious reason, when you’re talking about unborn children, 150 years worth of science gets all fuzzy and confusing, and we have to start talking about St. Thomas Aquinas and stuff from the Old Testament about God telling the Jews to kill babies. But I don’t want that religious stuff taught in public schools, asitis – I just want modern science taught, and modern science tells us that human life begins at conception. You may disagree with science, but that would be your religious belief, which has no place in public schools.
Carla, I think since you said that YOU would teach your children (as opposed to PP), Virginia assumed that you homeschool them.
Talking to you , carla.
John I have already said I will not respond to nonsense.
“John I have already said I will not respond to scientific facts.” -asitis
Fixed.
Modern Catholic teaching on abortion is based on modern science. It’s no coincidence that science discovered that life begins at conception 150 years ago and the Catholic Church declared that all abortions are homicide also 150 years ago.
It’s just too bad that pro-aborts like asitis prefer to ignore science, and instead want to talk about the embryological theology of St. Thomas Aquinas, who didn’t even have a microscope, or the Ancient Jewish people, who people like asitis view as bloodthirsty savages.
My children attend public school. I indoctrinate them when they walk in the door.
Muwhahahahahaha
John, you seem really angry that some of us have different views on the morality of abortion. The whole country is divided over this issue, but you seem outraged that everyone doesn’t believe what you believe. I hope in real life you find some happiness, cause you sure don’t appear happy here.
It simply means that it should not be an organization whose mission is to promote sex “as God intended”.
why not? and secular humanism isn’t a religion, think again sweetie!
I also note that you lumped religious beliefs and prejudices in the same sentence. you think secular humanist and atheistic beliefs don’t have their prejudices?
Ya know what Virginia, I’m gonna call a spade a spade here: you discriminate against a certain part of the population – yours is discrimintion against religion and people who hold religious beliefs. Period.
Patrcia, the big picture as well as minutiae (but good word, there). But yeah, all those laws and rules and no mention of abortion. Wild, eh?
Posted by: Doug at November 30, 2008 8:17 PM
because to the Israelites this was a pagan practice. In fact the Israelites were distinquished from the other cultures of their time by their lack of human sacrifice in any form. To be barren was a sin or a punishment from God, so why would they need a specific law against abortion. Do you know anything about the bible?
Screw you, Hal. You know what I’m angry about. Stop trying to obfuscate the issue.
I’m not obfuscating anything. You’re seriously and constantly bent out of shape and I’m worried about you. Life is sweet, enjoy it while it lasts.
Hey, I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.
Hal, I don’t know if I’ve ever asked you this in that it is so obvious a question, however, could you summarize why you think abortion should remain legal?
HisMan, I’ll get to your question later. Given how fragile John is right now, I don’t think I should provoke him anymore.
For the 10 millionth time:
-I don’t care if pro-aborts want to admit the truth, that abortion kills a child, and that they support it. SoMG did that. He was the only honest pro-abort on here. He is the only one I would not have banned.
-I DO care if pro-aborts try to pretend that abortion doesn’t kill anything, and that the whole thing is fuzzy and confusing, and we can’t be sure what abortion does, so let’s just pretend that it does nothing. That’s the kind of barbarian Hal is.
My children attend public school. I indoctrinate them when they walk in the door.
Muwhahahahaha
ROFLMBO
John, you seem really angry that some of us have different views on the morality of abortion. The whole country is divided over this issue, but you seem outraged that everyone doesn’t believe what you believe. I hope in real life you find some happiness, cause you sure don’t appear happy here.
Posted by: hal at December 1, 2008 9:11 AM
ok Hal, explain to us why we should be happy that not only do you support abortion but you have acted on your beliefs and killed two of your own children and you seem quite happy about that. Don’t you think reasonable people would be just a tad disgusted with you. Do you and your wife openly tell family and friends that you have aborted two children?
patricia, you wouldn’t recognize a spade if you were hit upside the head with one sweetie!
hey – John Lewandowski – watch the language. We know that you are frustrated – but I thought this site was being monitored for content if people are getting a bit over-angry!
As St. Francis deSales said basically – you will attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Let’s attract people with love (honey) – not upset (vinegar).
To borrow a line from Bobby B – God love you!
Also for the 10 millionth time:
IT IS NOT MY OPINION THAT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. IT IS ESTABLISHED SCIENCE FROM 150 YEARS AGO.
The religious belief comes in in a desire to either protect, neglect, or kill the unborn life. My religious belief tells me to protect innocent life. Pro-abort religious beliefs tell them to either neglect or kill the unborn child.
If a pro-abort says, “I understand that life begins at conception according to science, but I think that women should have the right to kill that life”, then I will strongly disagree, but I WILL RESPECT HIM FOR BEING HONEST.
If a pro-abort says, “Nobody can say when life begins, don’t force your religion on me, choice choice choice!”, then you are a LIAR, and I will NEVER respect you.
Virginia; I was as polite as I could be. You know however what I meant.
secular humanists and atheists have zero tolerance for the views of anyone with religious beliefs.
if the tables were reversed the word would be: BIGOT
Patricia, you don’t have to be happy with me. But for the love of Pete, find something to be happy about. Every day is a blessing, right? Maybe it’s perspective from the few days I avoided this site, but coming back last night and this morning I was really stuck by the tone. (Jill implying you can’t love children and support abortion rights; John being John, etc)
Like I said, be “a tad disgusted ” with me if you wish, but I’m just one guy. Don’t let me ruin your day. I think what you’re disgusted by is that there are millions of people who think the same things I do.
hal: my world does not revolve around you, sorry to disappoint you. While you might be one lousy guy, there are TWO dead children. That is upsetting.
You never answered my question:Do you and your wife openly tell family and friends that you have aborted two children?
and the real multi-part question is regarding the unborn:
is it human, it is alive, and may we kill it?
The answer, proven by science is yes, yes – and the pro-aborts say yes to the last part, the pro-lifers say no.
so pro-aborts – if it’s alive, if it’s human, why may we kill? Why is that moral?
Pro-lifers know that once we segment a part of the human race for harm or extinction – we are all in trouble.
This is the basis of every human cruelty in history – de-humanize the certain set of humans, so we can hurt/kill/enslave/exterminate/maim/use/euthanize/ or abort it.
That is the crux of the matter.
maybe I was wrong patricia…. I think you would know it is was a spade. You would just argue incessantly it wasn’t!
We’ve got to keep in mind that this is a spiritual battle, not a physical one. Hal is going to believe what he believes and he is going to be saying the things he says, and we can’t control that. But what we can control is the way we respond to him. Like JoyfromIllinois said, we will attract more people with honey than vinegar. Who knows? Maybe Hal will one day change his heart…but as for now, let’s just be patient and understanding and just keep praying, and treating him with love.
And I know I have been guilty of acting the same way, so please understand that I am not trying to judge, just trying to lighten the tone.
Hal – I know that you can not take back the past – but if you could, would you? Would you have done anything differently?
Also – have you ever had any doubts about what you believe about abortion?
I know for myself – what I have felt so sure about in my past, I have come to regret – and even though I know a lot more about living life in general now, I’d sure change the things that caused others (and myself) harm.
Time has a way of changing the focus and the prospective.
God love you!
Patricia, I won’t answer your question. I made a deal with my friend Bethany a few months back not to talk about that aspect of my personal life here.
I think what you’re disgusted by is that there are millions of people who think the same things I do.
We’re primarily disgusted by the moral views you hold and their consequences on humanity. Yes, it is disgusting that millions of people share your views, but is only because the views themselves are repugnant. If they were nice views we’d be overjoyed that they were shared by millions.
Also disgusting is your view that the morality of a practice somehow depends on how many people approve of it. I doubt you really believe that, and no doubt you could give many examples of practices that are immoral even though millions or even billions of people engage in them. So what is also disgusting is your hypocrisy on the issue, especially from one who hides (when convenient) behind the mask of science and rationality.
Hal,
P.S. I love you.
P.P.S. Thanks for the reminder, Bethany!
“Also disgusting is your view that the morality of a practice somehow depends on how many people approve of it”
I didn’t mean to imply that (but I do see how it appears that I did). I agree with you that morality does not depend on how many people believe something.
Everyone, please calm down.
We are passionately pro-life and Hal thinks he is also, but in a different way.
I’m wondering if there is a way we can try to understand why Hal thinks and believes the way he does without condoning it?
I don’t think Hal is a monster, otherwise, we’re all just wasting our time on this blog. I mean the back and forth stuff accomplishes nothing. Let’s try to help Hal by first trying to understand him.
I am not sure why Hal chose to legally abort his first two children and why he so passionately defends this actions and the rights of others to do so. I also believe that Hal wished he didn’t have to abort his first two kids. Am I right Hal?
Can we all just listen for a change? Go ahead Hal.
I’ve got to go do some research at the library now so I won’t be back for a while but I think it’s time we changed the tone of this blog. God has shown me that my attitude has been wrong and I’d like to be the first one to step out and admit, my attitutde was wrong.
Let’s just listen to Hal without criticizing for a change, OK?
I mean if God wanted to smoke Hal he would have a long time ago right? So why hasn’t He? Perhaps He wants us to show the true Jesus to him through us? I’d like to start that.
Ssssassssssss
The last paragraph gives you away Hisman.
Don’t worry Joy, I stole the line from Bishop Fulton Sheen :) God love you.
Ssssassssssss
The last paragraph gives you away Hisman.
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 10:51 AM
***************************************
What is that supposed to mean?
If Jill invited you back, Virginia, then kudos to her, because I couldn’t do it. I’ve felt nauseated just reading the smug and incredibly demeaning tone you use toward people of faith here, simply because they are people of faith.
If this sort of thing is going to keep being tolerated here (the increasing barrage of hate thrown at people of faith) then I may have to stop reading this site for a while. I’m finding that it’s beginning to affect my perspective and attitude during the day, and that isn’t what I wanted at all in coming to a pro-life blog.
I appreciate those who are respectful like Doug and Hal and others. Even though I don’t share your views, I appreciate that I have always been able to have a discussion with you and have it not resort to condescension. Thank you for that.
Have a good day, everyone.
yes, let’s listen to hal so we can show him how wrong he is……
yes, let’s listen to hal so we can show him how wrong he is……
Isn’t that the whole point of debate, Asitis? To try to get another person to see things from your perspective? To see if you can challenge another person to change their mind about something?
I’m sure that you don’t post to us intending to only listen to us and not to change our minds. Why should we be any different?
For some reason, I don’t seem to remember a Virginia…so I must have been away from Jill’s blog or just missed the topics she had posted in.
HisMan, I would like to say that I am SO proud of you for the tone you took in that post. I know it is not easy to be nice, or even civil, to people you powerfully disagree with. Good for you.
C’mon Bethany. This is not about debating, this is about trying to convert somoeone (“.. to show the true Jesus to him through us…)under the guise of being a good listener.
(Bethany, I remember you. I think you told me to keep away from your children because I foolishly ;) believe the evidence that abstinence-only isn’t working in this country.
(Shell shock #1.))
Virginia,
I first told you to stay away from my children and Bethany seconded that. Ah…memories. :)
Good! You remember!
Hey Y’all,
I have asked this a couple of times before:
Why are people hammering on Hal? Ive asked this a couple of times before when I first started reading here again. To be honest, I think Hal is a pretty decent guy…he just has a different view than some of us do. That does not give any of us license to be nasty. Hal is a work in progress. I am DEFINITELY a work in progress, in some way arent we all?
Let us compare Hal to so MG… well no, we cant…there is no comparison..soMG would write to chill and appall us..with sinister intent. Hal is not being a soMG.
I actually think Hal is pretty darned cool. Yep, I said that…here is why:
I can ask him sincere questions about choice…he always gives me a straight answer.
(you see, I am curious about what makes another person think that this is okay. When we understand another, we have inroads for positive communication, logic and reason.)
As pro life as I am and as much as I admire people who share my common perspective on the topic of abortion…I can HONESTLY say that …I have received as many straight answers from Hal and others who are pro choice on this site, as I have from many a lifer I have known…actually Hal has been more honest with me than a quite a few pro lifers I have known. (none here mind you.) :)
I know that abortion is one of the most heated political and moral debates of our time but…I really wonder why we set out to deliberately pi** each other off in here???!!!
If we are antagonized repeatedly…well, I can see that a “smackdown” may feel mandatory at some point but (guilty as charged and stated)…but why are we anatagonistic towards Hal? Because he is here? Because he does not share our beliefs?
That would suck. Who thinks we can change someones mind with a nasty comment or twenty, over the web? Raise your hands..ROFL. Please tell me no one actually raised them.
I used to be pro choice. Kind of, sort of. Im not now. I had a smack down but it didnt come in the form of a verbal assault. God, the universe, your higher power, karma, (whatever you choose to beleive) gives us a smackdown when He, it, sees fitting to do so. None of us here are Hal’s higher power.. or his God…we can witness, lovingly, trying to reach him…we can totally disagree with him too..but we are not in charge of whether or not he gets a pro life smackdown or conversion.
Jesus, well he teaches us some pretty important (and not always obvious)lessons. Me, I am one of his red headed step children…stubborn, controlling and willful. I still tell him that I am not AT ALL pleased with his plan for me at times…he reads it on my soul anyway… but one major thing I’ve noticed…Jesus did NOT FORCE ME to change my ways…If he doesnt try to force it…who are we to attempt such a feat? It is just plain silly.
I’m kinda thinking Kel made a good point. I come here myself…just to learn and to “see” others who are like minded and catch up on the latest… not for petty viciousness.
If we deliberately taunt each other then what have we accomplished?
I will tell you…. we have DELIBERATELY taunted..wow…major accomplishment.
Please let us try to be voices of love, and reason..the name calling and insults havent worked thus far have they?
Just a thought.
love,
a
“I actually think Hal is pretty darned cool”
Finally, something we can agree on. Ha.
Everyone, thanks for all the kind comments, but I brought this up not because I mind the attacks, they really don’t bug me in the slightest. I was just struck by the tone recently (maybe it’s always been this way?), as some of you have also noticed. As far as listening to each other, etc., you’ll have to wait to hear more from me. Quite busy this week. Probably won’t see me much here, but I’ll be back…..
“And so my words on proaborts being needed/preferred at this site are confirmed. That the value of pro-aborts are now being recruited by Stanek, should be noted by pro lifers who engage in a endless propaganda war here, while Stanek recruites pro aborts, such as Atisis.”
Posted by: yllas at November 30, 2008 11:38 PM
*****
You don’t even know what a “proabort” would be, and you’re such a kook that it doesn’t matter anyway.
“Maryland was the state where my favorite American Saint, Saint Elizabeth Ann Seton, lived for the remainder of her life.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at November 30, 2008 3:07 PM”
LizFromNebraska. We have a new parish here in Bakersfield named for your favorite saint. Link: http://www.setoncatholicchurch.org/
They were going to name it All Saints, but there was already an Episcopal church with that name, so they wanted a decidedly American Saint, and chose her. I think it was a wise choice.
Awesome, Andy. A parish in western Nebraska where my aunt & uncle live is named for her. They have a nice statue of her, too.
HisMan @ 10:44,
Is that really you? God bless you!
Kel,
I’m with you. Disgusted by the tone. It never changes.
“Patrcia, the big picture as well as minutiae (but good word, there). But yeah, all those laws and rules and no mention of abortion. Wild, eh?”
because to the Israelites this was a pagan practice. In fact the Israelites were distinquished from the other cultures of their time by their lack of human sacrifice in any form. To be barren was a sin or a punishment from God, so why would they need a specific law against abortion. Do you know anything about the bible?
They also didn’t consider the unborn to be people until they were halfway out of the womb, or “at first breath” – one of those. Not to mention that they knew of abortion back then, and practiced it to some extent – it had been around since thousands of years earlier as well.
I appreciate those who are respectful like Doug and Hal and others. Even though I don’t share your views, I appreciate that I have always been able to have a discussion with you and have it not resort to condescension. Thank you for that.
Right on, Kel, and you’ve always been a good poster.
They also didn’t consider the unborn to be people until they were halfway out of the womb, or “at first breath” – one of those. Not to mention that they knew of abortion back then, and practiced it to some extent – it had been around since thousands of years earlier as well.
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 2:49 PM
so what?
Patricia, I won’t answer your question. I made a deal with my friend Bethany a few months back not to talk about that aspect of my personal life here.
Posted by: hal at December 1, 2008 10:17 AM
the reason I asked Hal, was not to beat you over the head with it (although IMO you should be) but becuase if abortion is just a minor surgery and no one dies and we should all be blase about it as proaborts claims they are, then why do people not discuss it. Perhaps it IS more than just minor surgery….
Patricia…. sorry off topic again.
So Dion wasn’t good enough to lead the Liberal party, but he’s good enough to run the country???
And Layton as a cabinet minister?
All supported by the Bloc of course.
The House of Commons is an absolute disgrace now.
We seem to be turning into a banana republic here. Just when I thought things were relatively calm in Ottawa.
What a mess!
“otherwise, we’re all just wasting our time on this blog.”
HisMan, you have it exactly right there. The reason why I don’t attempt serious conversation with pro-abortion people any longer is that it is, it was, and it always will be a complete waste of time.
How many times have we discussed that human understanding of embryology was severely limited prior to the 19th century? How many times have we said, and repeated, and repeated, and repeated that science did not learn the truth, which is that human life begins at conception, until 150 years ago? How many times have we said that the early Christians opposed abortion early in pregnancy as it was a sin against the family, but that it wasn’t until the mid 1800s, when humans gained full knowledge of when human life begins, that Christians rose up to oppose all abortion as being far more than a sin against the family, but as being homicide as well?
And yet, in spite of all of that, no matter how many times we repeat these very simple, very basic facts, the pro-aborts continue to ignore them and repeat the same old nonsense about St. Thomas Aquinas and the ancient Jews. Even after I mocked the invocation of the beliefs of the ancient Jews to support abortion, there goes Doug again, bringing up the embryological theology of the ancient Jews, as if it has anything at all to do with modern society.
It’s a waste of time to try to reason with these people, who are not honest enough to accept or even acknowledge irrefutable facts.
Joanne: I am so furious. The liberals lost the election badly and they are sooo power-hungry that they will do anything to get power. The thing that bothers me the most is that most Canadians just don’t care as long as they can make their money and live life easy. so much for the democratic process..
Consider for a moment the phrase “Freedom of Choice”. How enigmatic is that? If a foreigner came to our country, knowing how to speak our language but little else about us, what do you suppose s/he would think that means? Freedom to choose your mate? Your occupation? Your place of residence?
No, we are supposed to wink and acknowledge that when that euphemistic phrase is uttered, it always means “Freedom to have an abortion”. Ah, but ask any proabort whether “choice” in this discussion always means “abortion”, and they will say it does not! Then, of course they will proceed to give you a laundry list of things that are “included” in that “choice”, as if that made any difference. Since no one opposes any of the other “choices”, they are obviously just window dressing, to lessen the shock of the word “abortion”. Dilute that word with a laundry list of other things that people do with regard to reproduction, so the theory goes, and it’s impact won’t be so dramatic. It’ll just be “one of the many choices”… yeah, right.
Nor do they take kindly to be called pro-abortion (“proabort” for short), or any other label which contains the word “abortion” in any form. No, we are told that we must use the “proper euphemism” when referring to an abortion supporter. To fail to do so is “politically incorrect”, right?
I’m reminded of the old fable about a Native American saying that “white man speak with forked tongue”. He must have been referring to the euphemism spouting proaborts who will throw out a hundred catchy phrases, but never once say what they mean.
Abortion: It’s just too nasty to say out loud.
John: Doug is laughing in his seat at you. YOu and I both know that Doug is 100% proabort and so is Hal. They will never change. Never. maybe on their deathbed just in case there might be a God, but likely not. We know for sure that Hal killed two of his own children and who knows what Doug has done in this regard in his life.
They post alot of this garbage not to actually have an intellectually honest debate but to create division and chaos and maybe take a few people with them or to corrupt some of the younger people here further.
Neither are actually open to any attempt to learn truth – in fact for Doug there is NO truth – only Doug’s truth.
So you need to realize this and not engage them but engage the people who are truly hear to try to understand and want to learn, just as we do.
What???? I though it was a Devo Album. (I said whip it. Whip it good!)
I’m not interested in showing Hal how wrong he is. I already believe Hal is wrong and he can show me nothing more on that. Besides he already knows this, there’s nothing new or surprising there. Maybe learning the why will help me understand why he feels the way he does.
However, if there’s any hope in perhaps having him understand our hearts on abortion them I think we pro-lifers need to take the lead on understanding him first and just listening.
After all, the other approach just doesn’t work so why keep pounding our collective pro-life heads against the wall?
Ultiminately the abortion issue is an issue of the heart. Hearts can only be changed one at a time. I’m willing to humble myself and just listen without criticizing and just see what happens.
I think there’s enough people of good will on this blog to do that, no?
I agree completely with everything you said about Doug and Hal, Patricia, but I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.
I’m sorry HisMan I just don’t agree with you. It is impossible to discuss anything with someone who simply believes that there is no truth and no right or wrong in the world.
I know you are not Catholic, but the great Jesuit Fr. Hardon felt that the neopagans of today are much worse off than any pagan in the preChristian era because the former have been innoculated against Christian ideas and ideals. One of those ideas is that there is an objective truth and that we can know this truth.
A man who can kill two children without blinking and simply nonchalantly think it is fine does not hve much heart left.
It was different 30 years ago when most people did not understand fetal development and so forth. But we now have Doug telling us that he thinks personhood is based on how one looks – so until a baby “looks” human it can’t be a person. I mean, this is beyond ridiculous. If you want to sit at your computer and honestly debate this point and believe that the person on the other side of your computer screen is being forthright with you well I guess that is your perogative.
No intelligent adult man would honestly get up in front of other people, and put forth the proposition that a baby is not a person until it looks like one. He just wouldn’t do this.
C’mon Bethany. This is not about debating, this is about trying to convert somoeone (“.. to show the true Jesus to him through us…)under the guise of being a good listener.
And of course, that is just your opinion.
Ah, are you Enigma?
(Bethany, I remember you. I think you told me to keep away from your children because I foolishly ;) believe the evidence that abstinence-only isn’t working in this country.
(Shell shock #1.))
I remember now. You are the one who reminded me of Enigma. Is that who you are?
Hey all, I just got Dr. Nathanson’s book “The Hand of God” in the mail today. I’m only about 20 pages in, but so far it’s very interesting. I’ll post more once I really get into the meat of the book.
I realize this book was published over 10 years ago, but I definitely think it’s worth revisting.
I agree completely with everything you said about Doug and Hal, Patricia, but I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 1, 2008 4:38 PM
I would probably agree with you on this.
Abortion will never be defeated by legislation nor by debate. There is only one way and that is through the mass conversion of our hearts. We can do this by ourselves or God will force us to our knees and lead us there by a much harder road. And it may be hundreds of years that this hardening of our hearts will be defeated. It is certainly no coincidence that Our Blessed Mother appeared in Mexico as Our Lady of Guadalupe and visibly pregnant.
Many women who were vehemently proabortion changed when they themselves had children -their hearts were opened by the very children they bore. When they opened their heart to the gift of a child they were able to see what they had done. Gods ways are inscrutable but they are always the truth.
lauren: is that the book about his conversion? I have never read it but just wondering.
Patricia:
Are you saying Hal is beyond God’s reach?
Hey Lauren,
I am reading it right now too! :)
HisMan: I’m saying that sometimes God leaves us where we are until we are ready to be open to him. I am sure that both Hal and Doug have had many opportunities throughout their lives to reconsider and to be open but they chose differently.
I have seen this in my own life and in others – even my own children. When we are on the wrong path, God is there calling. But when there is no faith or love of God, the intellect darkens and it becomes harded to make the right choice or even to recognize the situation.
God is there waiting but the Holy Spirit will often not force himself on anyone. That is not God’s way – he is gentle, like the breath of air on a summer day.
I agree completely with everything you said about Doug and Hal, Patricia, but I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 1, 2008 4:38 PM
What does either “side” hope to understand or learn here? You are no more likely to support legal abortion than I am to support a ban. I don’t think pro-choices are tolerated here because our opinions might be valid, but merely to understand how we came to be so wrong. Then, perhaps, you could figure out how to reach us and change our minds.
In fact, I already believe I correctly understand your position, so perhaps it’s not me that needs to “learn or understand” anything. Have I got it right? “A unique and precious human being is created [by God] at the moment of conception, and that person has the same right to live as any of the rest of us. No one has a right to deny that person of his or her life, especially not simply because it’s not a convenient time to have a baby.”
There are different ways to phrase it, but that seems to sum it up.
No, I am not Enigma.
Patricia, yeah it’s about his conversion from an abortionist, and also his conversion from a secular Jew to a Catholic.
I don’t think pro-choices are tolerated here because our opinions might be valid, but merely to understand how we came to be so wrong. Then, perhaps, you could figure out how to reach us and change our minds.
Nope. This is not how it happens. At least for myself, I do not think that proaborts hearts are changed by debate and pictures etc. I think the change must come from within and from an honest seeking to understand and to be absolutely OPEN to the truth, no matter where it leads. That takes courage and few have it, because it might mean everything is undone.
You know, John and HisMan I am reminded of Elizabeth Leseur a french Catholic woman who married an atheist. Her husband mocked her religion and made life very very difficult for her. Unbeknownst to him, Elizabeth kept a spiritual diary during their marriage which helped her to become a better person! Amazing. After her premature death, her husband found her diary and read it. But it was not her diary that converted him. This is what he has written:
“I want our to feel that I was, so to say, swayed by a will superior to my own, and led to a goal which I did not see; and that I had only to submit humbly and completely to the action of Divine Providence, and let God do with me as He would.”
“I knew no priests or religious, and after Elizabeth’s death, I continued to live in the midst of people hostile or indifferent not only to religion, but to everything spiritual. It was in this practically atheistic atmosphere that I first heard God’s voice and began to be illumined by His light. Nobody was in a position to influence or guide me; circumstances caused me to stand alone in a sort of rationalistic wilderness, steeped in absolute godlessness…”
“….I was not affected by study or reading or exegesis or apologetics or theological knowledge…When I felt that a change was taking place within me, I dreaded lest the thoughts encouraged for so many years should revive and oppose it….”
Elizabeth prepared the way, but God ultimately was able to touch this man’s soul and he became a priest.
I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 1, 2008 4:38 PM
I don’t think that’s true at all, John. In general, I think people who post extensively on posts connected to websites holding very different views from theirs are interested in learning. The ones who are in it to insult usually do drive-bys and get sick of it pretty quick. I’d imagine it would be boring and limiting to be in it only to insult.
I’m biased because I’ve posted extensively at Dawn Eden’s site for a couple of years. I like her chastity message (although I don’t agree with it all, probably because I’m not Christian), and I admire her dedication to spreading it, as well as her methods and honesty while doing so. I’ve been genuinely encouraging toward her efforts, and prayed for her as well when she’s asked for it (agnostic here).
It certainly is possible for opposing posters to want to learn more, especially as they develop relationships with other posters, as certainly happens here.
Sometimes it’s because they just want to know what makes others tick, though. Guilty there. Understanding another viewpoint won’t necessarily make us want to adopt it. But understanding is pretty big, and I’ve been known to try to educate ill-informed friends when they comment on the pro-life movement.
Patricia, yeah it’s about his conversion from an abortionist, and also his conversion from a secular Jew to a Catholic.
Posted by: Lauren at December 1, 2008 5:33 PM
lauren I’d be interested in knowing what led him to the Catholic faith? I know many many people prayed for his conversion.
by comparison, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Nathanson’s Canadian peer is more entrenched than ever in his proabort beliefs. And he has a very warped view of women too – his poetry is pretty darn creepy…
No, Bethany, I’m Enigma.
“They also didn’t consider the unborn to be people until they were halfway out of the womb, or “at first breath” – one of those. Not to mention that they knew of abortion back then, and practiced it to some extent – it had been around since thousands of years earlier as well.”
Patricia: so what?
So it makes sense that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures didn’t put in anything against abortion since they weren’t against it.
Patricia: John: Doug is laughing in his seat at you. YOu and I both know that Doug is 100% proabort and so is Hal.
Silly, Patricia. Hal and I both understand John. Your arguments are evidently so weak that you often feel compelled to conjure up stuff.
Hey Doug, “Silly Patricia” is my line (Nov 30 5:18pm) ;)
Virginia,
Please discuss something. Keep the jabs to yourself.
Thank you.
Hey Doug, “Silly Patricia” is my line (Nov 30 5:18pm) ;)
Noted, Asitis, but I did put a comma in there. //.^)
Sorry…. it was just sooooo tempting. The devil made me do it!
But I guess high five icons are “discussing something” Carla?
Patricia, lots and lots of prayer!
His dedication in his book is as follows:
“For all those who have prayed for me- especially Fr. Paul Marx(that saintly nan) and Fr. Richard Neuhaus (his mind is a national treasure).”
So, everyone, pray for your local abortionists. You never know what might happen!
Virginia,
I double dog dare ya to say something positive.
… because people on this post are all so positive????
So it makes sense that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures didn’t put in anything against abortion since they weren’t against it.
Posted by: Doug at December 1, 2008 6:32 PM
yeah right Doug. Please don’t display your ignorance so blatantly. Please.
Virginia doesn’t have anything positive to offer – especially not to pregnant women.
Virginia,
Still waiting. :)
No, Bethany, I’m Enigma.
Long lost twins? :)
Hope you’re having a good evening, Carla! :)
Sorry for the delay Carla – I was having dinner with my family.
Something positive? Let’s see. How about this: I am happy to see that moderates on both sides of the abortion issue, Pro-life and Pro-choice, appear to be moving toward working together toward common goals: reducing teen pregnancy and provide needed support to young and poor mothers.
I appreciate that very much, Virginia. A civil tone is always welcome here. If I knew how to do a high five smiley face icon, I so would. :) That is as close as I can get.
Me too :). Though I can jazz it up with ;). I too am icon-challenged!
I am glad you appreciate that Carla. This is good.
I am happy to see that moderates on both sides of the abortion issue, Pro-life and Pro-choice, appear to be moving toward working together toward common goals: reducing teen pregnancy and provide needed support to young and poor mothers.
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 8:14 PM
-Amen.
I’m with the others on the board who have echo’ed a similar thought stream to mine. Y’all have been wearing me out for the past few weeks. I was posting a lot more before, but about 3-4 weeks ago…I don’t know. I got on a thread and before I knew it, the tone just went wrong. I got so disgusted by the back and forth, the grotesque-ness of it, I had to shut it down. I’ve only been back a few times since, reverting back to skimming the conversations and only jumping in when I felt really compelled.
I am pro-choice. I am fiercely pro-choice. I have always been. Those of you familiar with my name already know that. It is a human life, abortion ends that life and I think the woman at the center of this issue should be able to decide if she wants to continue that life. Plain and simple.
I don’t know why I visit this site. Why I read and absorb opinions so contrary to my own, especially when I have not and have never had the intention of converting members of this site to my viewpoint. I guess like the poster above, I search for something somewhere where we can agree. No, we will never, ever agree on abortion. But…we can agree that women, children and families need support, education and unwanted pregnancies should be reduced (no, not just by abortion – by not getting pregnant in the first place).
So, every once in a while we get on the same page and then I decide to come back. I hope that continues, and that we can figure out a way to live in the same space in spite of our differences. When things get heated and nasty and perverted (its amazing what kind of blackness comes out of people when their emotions run wild), that’s when I’m out, I’m sure and lot of you agree, pro-life or pro-choice.
Danielle, I am so glad stuck it out to hear that! So glad Carla pushed me to write something positive. Very, very well said.
I think there is hope as well.
Not exactly, Hal. This is my position:
It is an irrefutable scientific fact that life begins at conception. This was proven 150 years ago. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. And no one here is ignorant of this fact.
The question of when life begins is not open to debate. It has been answered, definitively, by science. It was not answered by the Bible, or by the Church, or by God – it was answered by SCIENCE. The REAL question in the abortion debate is, then, when does that human life have worth?
The pro-abortion position is that the human life does not have worth until the mother decides that it has worth.
The pro-life position is that the human life always has worth.
I do not expect you to be pro-life. I only expect you not to lie. If you admit the scientific reality that life begins at conception but say that you don’t support that life’s right to exist, fine. But, as I have always said, if you choose to ignore science (and then go on in an extreme act of hypocrisy to accuse Christians of being anti-science) in order to support your pro-abortion view, then I will never respect you.
“I am pro-choice. I am fiercely pro-choice. I have always been. Those of you familiar with my name already know that. It is a human life, abortion ends that life and I think the woman at the center of this issue should be able to decide if she wants to continue that life. Plain and simple.”
That is honesty I can respect. I couldn’t possibly disagree more that women should have the right to kill their children, but I respect someone honest enough to admit the truth about what abortion does. LEARN A LESSON FROM THIS, DOUG AND HAL.
John, I don’t recall ever denying that life begins at conception or that it was complicated.
Also, I don’t recall ever caring if you respected me or my position at all.
In the spirit of the “improved tone” some have been working on, I’ll refrain from further comment.
Good job, Hal. Maybe one day you’ll no longer be a both a vicious killer AND a despicable liar. Progress!
truthseeker said:
Welcome back Virginia/asitis,
What do you think about educating young girls about the gestational growth of unborn babies? And making a mandatory and prominent part of sex education in schools? And also, since we want them to be able to make informed choices, shouldn’t we educate them with exactly what the abortion procedure does to the unborn boy or girl so that they will know what is one of the currently common consequences of birth control when it fails, namely lying down on a gurnee and raising up your knees so that the psycho-killer can tear the baby from the womb in bloody pieces?
Posted by: truthseeker at Dec 1, 2008 12:58 AM
Asistis replied:
Some folks here would also like to have them taught that contraception is murder as well truthseeker. That’s why reigious organizations like CareNet should not be teaching sex ed in our schools.
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 7:13 AM
Do you even see that you did not answer my question at all and instead took a jab atpeople of fath. I can show you five times where you called me an idiot etc since you came to this blog. You say you want civility but you are constantly being offensive with insults and name calling. If you are serious then a huge apology to people of faith would at least make you seem somewhat honest. Then comes the hard part, quit being so offensive when you disagree with someone and be open to agreeing with somebody or disagreeing with reasonable reponses and logic oriented debate. We are waiting for your apology.
I am happy to see that moderates on both sides of the abortion issue, Pro-life and Pro-choice, appear to be moving toward working together toward common goals: reducing teen pregnancy and provide needed support to young and poor mothers.
Posted by: asitis at December 1, 2008 8:14 PM
Start working together by pologizing to the fathful and for your insults to me and then maybe you could tell me what do you think of my suggestion for sex ed to include a mandatory focus on the gestational growth of humans and facts about what various abortion procedure iactually do(like videos of abortion etc. help to achieve said goals by educating children about the truth about babies and the abortion choice is?
with corrections:
Start working together by apologizing to the fathful and for your insults to me and then maybe you could tell me what do you think of my suggestion for sex ed to include a mandatory focus on the gestational growth of humans and facts about what various abortion procedure actually do (like videos of abortion at different stages etc.) to help to achieve said goals of reducing teen pregnancy. By educating teens about the truth and consequence of teen-age sex (including the safe” sex fallacy and failed birth control etc.) and showing them what the “abortion choice” actually is. Making this information available and teaching them BEFORE they get put into such a compromising position would mean fewer teens having sex because many are ignorant of these real consequences when they choose to have sex.
Posted by: truthseeker at December 1, 2008 10:34 PM
Good job, Hal. Maybe one day you’ll no longer be a both a vicious killer AND a despicable liar. Progress!
Posted by: John Lewandowski at December 1, 2008 10:02 PM
I don’t recall any lies…. So, I guess no progress for me yet.
Oh, and John, one more thing. How much progress do I need to make before you stop wishing I had a short, painful life after which you could dance on my grave?
Danielle said:
I wrote a debate-like response, then reconsidered, perhaps the reason you’re here is that you’re really crying out for help.
John,
Hal said he never claimed that life did not begin at conception. Why do you call him a liar?
Danielle,
How is your husband doing? The other day I had been posting that Jesus would never condone abortion and he said he was going to run some of my blog posts about Jesus by your pastor so I could get your pastor’s response to my posts. Could you let him know that I asked about it?
Thanks.
Now Hal, when I typed out that tame version of what I think of you, it was deleted. You want me to say what I really think? I’ll certainly be banned forever.
John L.
Remember, that pro aborts have more worth at this site. Jill now emails a agitational propagandist for abortion to come back.
It’s a joke John. A game. A money maker.
Just think of that Swifter commercial. Atisis come back, you can blame it all on me.
Your the mop John, and pro abort posters are the Swifter.
In that case, John, please, please, go ahead and say it.
Here, from Herman Melville, this is the only way I can express my feelings toward Hal without being banned:
“He piled upon the whale’s white hump the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.”
I think you could accurately describe my opposition to child murder as “monomania”.
Hal is just a dog coming back to his vomit.
He comes here to lick up his vomit from murdering innocent human life and tells John it taste better the second time.
You can’t win with a dog determinded to eat it’s own.
Oh, John…that’s a wonderful excerpt. I LOVE Moby Dick. And kudos to you for finding a more articulate way to express yourself. I am proud of you for that.
Are you much of a reader, John? Have you read any other Melville?
Danielle said:
I am pro-choice. I am fiercely pro-choice. I have always been. Those of you familiar with my name already know that. It is a human life, abortion ends that life and I think the woman at the center of this issue should be able to decide if she wants to continue that life. Plain and simple.
Danielle,
Shouldn’t the father have a say? Id he has no say or “ownership” per say, then would you agree that father’s should he able to opt out of responsibility at any time prior to birth? After all, you seem to think it is entirely the woman’s baby/responsibilty/decision ONLY!
Danielle,
Does the abortionist or “counselor” where you work tell women of the RISKS of abortion? Risks like, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, attempts, increased drinking, drug use, promiscuity, nightmares, miscarriage, breast cancer, infertility, death??
If women were told the risks of abortion, I have a feeling the abortion rate would go down. We would all rejoice about that wouldn’t we?
Danielle,
I appreciate that you do not jump in when things get vile. Which they do. You and I have had very civil conversations and I thank you for that. You have been nothing but honest. Even though I am fiercely prolife, I enjoy engaging in honest discourse.
truthseeker, you are not one of the “moderates” I was referring to. Any insults or jabs I have made are minor in comparison to the hatred I read in this blog from the end of the Pro-Life spectrum you live in.
Truthseeker 12:06, very good question.
Danielle said:
I am pro-choice. I am fiercely pro-choice. I have always been. Those of you familiar with my name already know that. It is a human life, abortion ends that life and I think the woman at the center of this issue should be able to decide if she wants to continue that life. Plain and simple.
This is very sad indeed. Would you be willing to allow your children to have the same rights over you when you are old and maybe senile? Because you know, the children are at the center of this issue and you would be a bother to them, they wouldn’t be able to have the life they want, you would cost them money to look after you, you wouldn’t fit into their lifestyle.
Danielle,
Why don’t you just call yourself “pro-abortion”?
Virginia,
Good morning, fiesty lady. You do not have to respond in kind when there is hatred in a comment. You do have a choice! :) Never give as good as you get. My two cents.
Danielle, what gives tje woman the right to do something that no one else in society can do? Although my daughter relies upon my body 100% for her nutrients (she reacts badly to formula), I can not kill her at will.
I can’t kill my son, although he daily invades my right to privacy by picking the lock and bursting in on me in the bathroom.
My rights are infringed upon daily, and continually. Why should pregnant women have a mystical right to be the “gatekeepers” of life and end it at any moment, while I am stuck with having my rights infringed upon?
oh my, your son knows how to pick a lock? Maybe he’ll be an engineer or locksmith someday, Lauren.
“I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.”
I think otherwise. They might be. (In a semi angry, semi truth seeking-but-not-so-eager-to show-it-all-fashion.)
We never know do we? None of us have the opportunity to see each others facial expressions or general demanor. We here, are all merely comprised of text on a screen.
Maybe some people who believe in choice are here to inquire. Maybe they are opening up without even realizing it on a concious level.
They could also be here to antagonize. Maybe they are bitter bullies with no life…and this is all they have?
I sincerely doubt the latter.
Then again, maybe they want to see what makes another person “tick”
No matter what the reason a person enters a pro life blog…they are here for a reason, we cannot “see.”
Seriously, who are we to judge them? Spit in their faces, so to speak?
Im going to tell yall about my first pro life experience:
When my counselor and my family kept insisting that the only way out of a “difficult situation” was to abort Rowan….I went, early on, to a clinic here..just to ask a few questions. I didn’t want to…but I left my psychologists office and went straight to the local clinic… my heart sickened but willing to learn… you with me?
As I pulled into the parking lot…a sidewalk counselor greeted me lovingly… I took her pamphlets and kept walking toward the door.
sigh….keep in mind, I want my baby and I am torn…I need answers from all sides, I need to make sense of the bubbling turmoil in my heart.
Next thing you know? Another sidewalk counselor called me a murderer and a b*tch….the lady who handed me the pamphlets and was praying as I walked away?
Oh well, she NOW had her camera out…taking pictures of me…of my car, of my tag… I KID YOU NOT!!!
Was I going to kill my baby that day? No. I just needed to learn more. I stood in that parking lot… I called the police and an attorney friend. The policeman spoke with the attorney. The policeman also insisted that the pro life counselor delete all the photos as he watched her do so.
I went into the clinic…asked a few questions and left.
The one thing I took away from that day?
Those people are hypocrites…pro lifers wont help you either. They are here to punish you for even attempting to form a belief..inquire… challenge your beliefs…(whatever may be applicable to each individual women) This is not Jesus or Christianity at work…Those people are NUTS!!!!!
I dismissed the pro life missionaries that day… I dismissed the local abortion clinic… I couldn’t trust either group to give me straight answers…they were too hell bent on their “battle”
I dont think that the graduating med student sets out to be a steel hearted abortionist…it takes time to become so calloused. (in general..I am sure there are exceptions)
I also dont think that the sincerely pro life set out to call women murderous, take their pictures and become hardend from the battle they chose to fight…again…it takes time.
Each side is prone to lose its perspective no matter what side of this debate…that really bites but…
Most people I know, they hold the Christians to a higher standard. They expect peace and gentleness..Christ like behavior from their lifers. :)
I did. It was shocking to see how women were treated on that sidewalk.
It also gave me the message that I would find no reason or good intent by turning to “them”
Granted, I never returned to THAT clinic…but was this REALLY a “save”?
I eventually went to another one didnt I?
Debbie, the woman answering the phone at Pendergrafts office…took lots of time to talk to me. She seemed to understand and offer me empathy…damn if I didnt need some empathy too..My heart was in a mass of confusion.
So who won that battle for my child..my reasoning?
The person that appealed to a woman seeking in earnest for answers and understanding.
It cost me my child too. (granted, I was FOOLISH enough to reach out to the one gentle hand extended…which was my gravest mistake)(the devil is a diabolical manipulator of truth isn’t he?)
but:
It seems like the lifers have the same opportunity to promote empathy and understanding..instead many become hardened, accusing, pre judging…based on the ugliness they witness…and it costs them souls..sadly, they often dont even realize it!!!
I sometimes get the urge, to drive by our local clinic, seek out that woman and show her some pictures too. A picture of Rowan. And to “witness” to her…in hopes of appealing to the softness that is still there in her heart…somewhere. I wonder if it would work?
We have to rise above what we see, in here, on the sidewalk, in politics and our communities…we need to be on the look out for every possible sub conscious awakening.
It is a tallll order…but isn’t that what Jesus would do?
Just a thought from a far less than intelligent woman…but can you see that there is at least some truth behind my simple words?
I sincerely apologize for the double post! My puter froze or something. : ) Perhaps the moderators would be so kind as to delete one of them for me?
Thanks,
Angele
liz, yeah he figured it out. It’s not that hard, you just have to get a penny or something and stick it in the slot.
My son figured it out and now runs around asking for his “key” to get into locked doors.
truthseeker, you are not one of the “moderates” I was referring to. Any insults or jabs I have made are minor in comparison to the hatred I read in this blog from the end of the Pro-Life spectrum you live in.
Posted by: asitis at December 2, 2008 6:18 AM
asitis,
I see you avoided answering my question again (for the second time in a row)hmmmm; I try to engage you in logical discussion about ways to reduce teen-age abortion and you “choose” not to respond because you have alternative agendas. Perhaps you cannot refute the suggestion or are afraid concession would mean defeat. Something as simple as gestation and abortion being an integral part of sex ed. Why does that frighten you? And I challenge you to show me the posts where I insulted you or resorted to name-calling. Apparently the truth offends you but that is because logic and reason do not bode well with liberalism. I like to be forthcoming all the time and try not to “moderate” into insults or less that honest dialogue becuase it tends to make one look weak and irrational.
And staunchly pro-life, ain’t the fringe, it’s the center.
Good morning Carla! Oh, if I only would give as good as I got… I’m sure I’d get my feisty butt banned!
Have a good one!
asitis, the only things that will get you banned are posting pornography, making a threat, or insulting someone to a degree beyond simply the heat of an arguement.
I’m sure you could come up with a creative way to get banned, but simply disagreeing wont get you kicked off, even if you do so in a lively manner.
Right, you go with that truthseeker….
Look, you have the wrong idea about EFFECTIVE ways to reduce teenage prgnancy. I can’t say it any better than this brief summary from the Guttmacher Institute
http://guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_teens.html
Pay special attention to the last part on LESSONS LEARNED from Cross- National Studies.
Stauchly pro-life isn’t the fringe, it’s the center????? How so? What’s beyond it then?
Asitis, though I do use guttmacher studies to show the raw numbers regarding the number of pregnant teenagers, they are not neutral, and thus not a good source to understand how to lower pregnancy rates.
They are the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and as such will obviously have a vested interest in pushing the Planned Parenthood agenda.
right….. so never mind the facts. Same rate and age of teen sex but different rates of teenage pregnancy.
It sounds to me like you are so opposed to Planned Parenthood, that you cannot recognize that something they support, along with many others, could actually help a common goal (reducing teenage pregnancy).
Virginia,
If bannination is your goal I am sure you could come up with something. LOL
I would rather have meaningful dialogue.
Asitis,no, I don’t accept their studies at face value because they site only their studies.
Here’s what a comprehensive overview of the studies has found:
According to the national statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, teen pregnancy is down dramatically from the early 1990s. More sexually-active students are using condoms and fewer high school students overall are engaging in sex — 47 percent in 2005, down from 54 percent in 1991.
However, none of the studies completely substantiate either side of the abstinence debate.
The May study used by Democrats on the committee and others had been conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services and followed a group of high school students over the course of four years.
The results from Mathematica Policy Research Inc., which conducted the study, found that students who went through abstinence-only programs were no less likely to be sexually active in the four to six years after participating in the study, and in fact, had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same age.
At the same time, according to the study, students participating in the safe-sex classes, which typically weigh heavily on teaching condom use, were as likely to engage in unprotected sex as students in abstinence-only courses.
“The study finds that the sexual abstinence of students in four (abstinence) programs selected for the study was much the same as that of students who did not participate in these programs,” said Christopher Trenholm, project director for Mathematica.
While neither side can point to the study to demonstrate which program is better or worse, supporters of abstinence-only programs refer to a 2005 study in the District of Columbia that found that middle school girls participating in the Best Friends abstinence-only program were less likely to engage in high-risk sexual behavior than their peers who did not participate in the program.
A recent poll of parents by Zobgy International found that 59 percent want more money to go to abstinence education, while 22 percent want more funding for comprehensive sex education.
Backers of those safe-sex programs say teens need a realistic prevention program and abstinence-only leaves them uniformed about the consequences of unprotected sex.Supporters of the comprehensive approach say abstinence is taught alongside other lessons about contraception, sexually-transmitted diseases and sexuality overall.
A May review conducted by the Administration for Children and Families and the Health and Human Services Department found that the majority of nine such programs include much less discussion on abstinence and committed, monogamous relationships than they on instructions about how to purchase and use contraceptives.”
http://leeterry.house.gov/News_Details.aspx?NewsID=1556
So, it’s a toss up. There is no clear winner. Teens who know all about contraception still get caught up in the heat of the moment and do without condoms, and teens who vow abstinence still have sex. That is the reality of the situation.
thank you for providing evidencethat abstinence- only doesn’t make any difference past middle school and that clearly we need better education on condomise, other methods of birth control, and greater expectations on their use, correctly and all the time. That’s a start.
No, asitis, you’re seeing what you choose to see.
We can’t give kids any more education than they already have. They go through the programs, but continue to have unprotected sex.
What do you propose we do, trail them every night with condoms and whip them out when we think they might be about to get frisky?
Look, telling kids “don’t have sex,but if you do use this!” is a mixed message.
We don’t tell kids “don’t smoke, but if you do smoke ultra-lights!”
We need to honestly talk to teenagers. We set up wildly unrealistic standards by telling them to abstain from sex until marriage, while also telling them to wait until they’re 30 to get married.
Both sides of the issue seem to completely miss the huge elephant in the room. Teenagers are at their most fertile time in their lives. Throughout all of history we married and procreated in our mid-late teens. Pretending this isn’t the case and ignoring its implications isn’t doing anyone any good.
One side says “er..just wait 15 years” while the other says “er…just have 15 partners.” Neither are good options.
Hi Virginia,
I am not teaching my children abstinence because I want to “ruin their fun.” I am trying to save their lives. I am trying to protect them from harm.
Herpes you have forever. HIV/AIDS will kill you. I am not going to trust a bunch of pills, some latex to save them, or Gardasil my precious girl.
On a personal note what do you tell your children? Or do you let the school system do it for the most part?
What do I propose we do Lauren? I propose we look to countries where teenage pregnancy and STD’s are low. What are they doing better? Clearly this country does not do comprehensive sex eduaction well. Some schools don’t have it. It’s could be taught better. Clear expectations need to be set for sexually active teenagers and young adults. How are other countries achieving this?
I am protecting my children from harm as well. Recognizing that 80% of teens (and even more unmarried 20 somethings) are sexually active, that means ensuring they receive comprehensive sex ed. We are fortunate to have that in our schools here. And then at home we talk further about expectations,respect,and how bad choices can effect future goals.
If I recall correctly, Sweden’s solution is ridicule.
Literally. They pretty much call anyone who doesn’t use birth control an idiot. If I recall correctly they even have billboards to this affect.
Of course, MTV has tried that route without success. Seriously, have you guys watched MTV lately? I watched some embaressingly stupid show on MTV the other day and EVERY commercial was for “safer sex.”
I think the “answer” to teen pregnancy isn’t to make them callous, but rather to tell them to date with intention. That is, not to just randomly get with another person, but to date with the mindset that they are looking for a future spouse. We should expect teenagers to act like adults, and for them to live as adults as soon as they are of legal age. We need to get rid of the perpetual adolescence that strangles youths until (and sometimes after) 30.
Asitis, highschool isn’t going to teach your children to be responsible.
I’ve sat through “comprehensive sex ed” it is, in a word, a joke.
Of course, so is abstinence only sex-ed.
The school districts don’t do any good because teenagers think that they are lame. And they are. MTV’s “cool” sex-ed isn’t any better.
The only way to reach teenagers is to treat them like adults.
I think the best “anti-drug” thing I ever saw was on a south park episode. It was (of course) ridiculing the whole DARE thing. Ultimately, the message was that we shouldn’t smoke pot because it makes you content with doing nothing with your life.
That makes much more impact than being told that OMG YOUR HEAD WILL EXPLOAD, or whatever DARE teaches these days.
We need to honestly teel teenagers that sex comes with real problems. Not just that “it’s bad” but that there are real consequences to having even “safe sex” outside of marriage. IF we treat teenagers like adults, they’ll act like adults. If we respect them to make adult decisions, they’ll generally make good ones. Telling them that they’re helpless to control themselves isn’t showing them respect.
Encouraging teenagers to look for longer term relationships rather than just “get with” a person ….I think that would be a good idea too Lauren. Teenagers in the US have shorter and more sporadic sexual relationships than countries with lower teen STD and pregnancy rates, resulting in more partners.
I agree with everything you said at 1:38 Lauren.
I think the quality of sex ed in this country is inconsistent, for sure. We have to do it better. And we have to enforce the responsibility, expectations, respect, etc aspects at home. We need to do it all better.
… oh, except I don’t believe we should teach our kids that sex outside of marriage is “bad”. I do not believe that at all. But I do respect your right to teach your kids that within your religion it is bad.Don’t get me wrong there.
“I wrote a debate-like response, then reconsidered, perhaps the reason you’re here is that you’re really crying out for help.”
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at December 1, 2008 10:58 PM
-Nope, promise I’m not. I think its part voyeurism, part disbelief, but mostly looking to discuss a topic most people dont like to talk about, and see if I have anything in common with anyone here. Not looking for conversion, anymore than you are.
Danielle,
“How is your husband doing?”
Posted by: truthseeker at December 1, 2008 11:04 PM
-I think you might have me confused with another Danielle here? Sorry but I’m single :)
“Shouldn’t the father have a say? Id he has no say or “ownership” per say, then would you agree that father’s should he able to opt out of responsibility at any time prior to birth? After all, you seem to think it is entirely the woman’s baby/responsibilty/decision ONLY!”
Posted by: truthseeker at December 2, 2008 12:06 AM
-You know, I struggle with this. I see the unfairness to the man in question when he’s left out of the equation, and yet, from so many standpoints, pregnancy, childbirth and rearing have a substantially greater impact on the woman than the man…therefore, she will ultimately make the choice as to what happens. Unfair, yes. It’s really got to be an all-or-nothing proposition. That’s why I oppose automatically/legally enforcing child support from men. If you can’t force me to be a parent, why should you be able to force him? If a woman wants to have/raise a baby without the man’s consent, he should be able to dispute whether he’s responsible for child support. You get pregnant and he tells you he doesn’t want to be a father – then, he’s not a father. If he does this, it should mean you formally relinquish parental rights, no back and forth. I think it would sober a few guys up who think showing up once a month on Christmas makes him a dad, as well as some women seeking the court system for dubious reasons.
“Does the abortionist or “counselor” where you work tell women of the RISKS of abortion? Risks like, depression, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, attempts, increased drinking, drug use, promiscuity, nightmares, miscarriage, breast cancer, infertility, death??”
Posted by: Carla at December 2, 2008 6:01 AM
-Carla, since I’m not a licensed professional I don’t have access to counseling sessions. Maybe soon I’ll be able to sit down with one and find out what issues they address. Of course you know, that I and many medical professionals would dispute some of the risks you list above as directly associated with abortion and we don’t need to beat that dead horse. That said, I would hope that a counseling session would include medically accurate information on those issues if the patient requested it.
“Would you be willing to allow your children to have the same rights over you when you are old and maybe senile?”
Posted by: Patricia at December 2, 2008 7:00 AM
-I know this is a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway. Hmm, would my kids be able to pull the plug…I don’t know, I guess that would depend on what I wanted to do if I were really sick. They couldn’t just decide to kill me though, because they want to. I know, the irony (…P’s head exploding in 5, 4, 3, 2…).
‘Why don’t you just call yourself “pro-abortion”?’
Posted by: Mary at December 2, 2008 7:26 AM
-Ok. If you want an abortion, I’m pro-abortion. If you want to have a baby, I’m pro-child. If you want to have the legal right to choose one or the other, I’m pro-choice.
“My rights are infringed upon daily, and continually. Why should pregnant women have a mystical right to be the “gatekeepers” of life and end it at any moment, while I am stuck with having my rights infringed upon?”
Posted by: Lauren at December 2, 2008 8:46 AM
-Your rights are ‘infringed upon’ in part, because you made the choice to become a mother and you’ve got kids who act like kids. I’m not sure if you gave birth to your children, but if you did, you could’ve made a different choice and your life would look very different. But you didn’t. You held that much power before, you just wielded it in a different way.
Asitis, yeah we definitely have a strange phenomena going on in the US.
25% of women claim to have slept with only 1 person, but the average number of partners is 7.
That means the remaining 75% are actually sleeping with far more people than the average.
I think the best message is sex within committed, long term relationships, and ideally marriage.
Danielle,
What about fetal development? Are there fetal models and posters and ultrasounds?
Are you saying there are NO risks discussed that you know of? OR that there are NO risks to abortion? Which would be your opinion.
Do you believe that abortion is risk-free, Danielle?
Lauren, off the top of my head, I think that means the other 75% must have had sex with, on average, 9 men. Right?
Not far more, but more….
What about fetal development? Are there fetal models and posters and ultrasounds? Are you saying there are NO risks discussed that you know of? OR that there are NO risks to abortion? Which would be your opinion.
Posted by: Carla at December 2, 2008 3:34 PM
Do you believe that abortion is risk-free
Posted by: Carla at December 2, 2008 3:36 PM
-That’s another area I haven’t been to – where they give sonograms – so I don’t know if they have fetal development posters. I have seen some of the counseling offices, but they look like regular offices (like where you or I would work).
No, I don’t believe abortion is risk-free, because no medical procedure is without risk. My issue is that the specific risks you brought up are highly debatable. Depression, anxiety and death are ones I would agree with you on: Death, a risk for every procedure, and depression/anxiety, because its a decision with far reaching implications (the rest is way subjective). There could be anxiety and/or depression both leading up to and following it…but, we’ve have this discussion before. They warn plastic surgery patients about depression and anxiety, too. These risks are not reasons to ban abortion. Decisions can be sobering or grave but also be right, all at the same time.
Danielle,
Well, I suffered from all of them except death and breast cancer(so far)and was told NOTHING in the way of risks. Nothing. You said that it may be discussed if the patient requests it. If I were having open heart surgery, do I only get to know the risks if I ask?
Another human being is not killed during other major surgeries.
I am saying that IF women were told of the risks of abortion and the fetal development of their child and show them the ultrasound that the abortion rate would drop. Maybe they tell women more than they told me 18 years ago but I doubt it.
That is all, Danielle. Like I said I appreciate your honesty.
I may have to go undercover to an abortion clinic and get the info myself. :)
“Well, I suffered from all of them except death and breast cancer(so far)and was told NOTHING in the way of risks. Nothing. You said that it may be discussed if the patient requests it. If I were having open heart surgery, do I only get to know the risks if I ask?”
-Again, I’m sorry to hear of your experience – it was definitely not a positive one. I don’t know you from Adam and can’t dictate how you feel/felt, but I still assert that your experience is not everyone’s – or even the norm.
“Another human being is not killed during other major surgeries.”
-You know that viewpoint’s subjective, so I don’t see how that would be folded into the counselor’s discussion, outside of acknowledging that some ppl have a moral opposition to abortion.
“I am saying that IF women were told of the risks of abortion and the fetal development of their child and show them the ultrasound that the abortion rate would drop. Maybe they tell women more than they told me 18 years ago but I doubt it.”
-If all the risks you addressed were medically proven and accepted by the majority of doctors and professionals in the field, I would assume that it would be addressed and the abortion rate may drop. But again – you know this is not the case (subjective). As for clinics/PP lying, cajoling women into abortions – you know, people make up their own minds up – no one’s strapped down to a gurney forced to have an abortion. And if you change your mind, you change your mind. Like I said before, I’ve seen it happen. It’s about having a choice.
“I may have to go undercover to an abortion clinic and get the info myself. :)”
Posted by: Carla at December 2, 2008 4:33 PM
-Er, okay…although that doesn’t sound like it would go down very well (and might be illegal)? I mean, I’ll tell you honestly what I see and experience, within HIPPA laws, if that’s what you’re looking for. That said, if you’re open to the experience, I would say do it. Then you could see that ppl in clinics don’t hide horns and tails and that’s its not the butcher shop you have in your head. I’d actually go to one of those CPCs, too, for education purposes…but something tells me you’d have to put some duct tape over my mouth :)
asitis, I didn’t crunch the actual numbers, but that seems right. I could do the math, but it doesn’t really matter. The point stands regardless of the actual number.
Here’s my suggestion to everyone in the world.:)
Don’t have sex with someone you wouldn’t have a child with.
If everyone followed this advice, abortion numbers could be vastly cut.
-Nope, promise I’m not. I think its part voyeurism, part disbelief, but mostly looking to discuss a topic most people dont like to talk about, and see if I have anything in common with anyone here. Not looking for conversion, anymore than you are.
Danielle:
Well I can say that I feel complete and utter disbelief that you would advocate the unfettered killing of unborn children. There are two explanations for this: either you have absolutely no understanding of what you are saying or you are a psychopath.
Encouraging teenagers to look for longer term relationships rather than just “get with” a person ….I think that would be a good idea too Lauren. Teenagers in the US have shorter and more sporadic sexual relationships than countries with lower teen STD and pregnancy rates, resulting in more partners.
Posted by: asitis at December 2, 2008 1:43 PM
yes this is a truly brilliant idea. Lets try to get teenagers to act older than they are. Don’t you remember what you were like as a teen Virginia? Teens aren’t mature enough to be able to have longer term relationships. They also move around more and their lives are in greater flux at this time than when they are older. The teens dating in high school KNOW they likely won’t see one another after high school ends. They will move on to different schools, states etc. They are not even certain of what kind of person they like to be with.
The best thing is to discourage dating completely and advocate group activities where there is no pressure to form couples but to simply hang out and enjoy movies and other activities. It has worked wonderfully for the teens I have and those I know. After they mature and are in their twenties they can then begin looking for that one special person to marry. What a novel idea, eh?
“Well I can say that I feel complete and utter disbelief that you would advocate the unfettered killing of unborn children. There are two explanations for this: either you have absolutely no understanding of what you are saying or you are a psychopath.”
Posted by: Patricia at December 2, 2008 6:34 PM
-Patricia…I play nice. Why don’t you?
The hostility is utterly unnecessary.
Danielle,
I do not have a butcher shop in my head. I am an expert on my own abortion experience.
Although you say Danielle that no one is strapped to a gurney, I have several friends who were held down by “helpers” even though they kept screaming NO!!! So much for choice.
I am all for choice. When the choice is made clear, all details, all risks, all possible outcomes, all ultrasounds, all questions answered, ALL of the cards are on the table. That is not what happens and you know it.
And again I shall quote The Raving Atheist-
But is choice truly choice when a lack of knowledge and access gives one no choice?
John L: I am not familiar with anyone here on the pro-abortion side who is truly interested in understanding or learning anything.
The weakness of your “argument” compells you to engage in this silly “pro-abortion” pretense.
John, you are easily understandable for Hal and myself, not to mention many others right here on Jill’s blog, Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers alike.
You begin with the unprovable premise that what you say is somehow magically, externally “correct.”
Well hey, brother, anybody can say stuff like that….
Really learning from the abortion debate is seeing just how differently people can think, for one thing.
Terezia: It certainly is possible for opposing posters to want to learn more, especially as they develop relationships with other posters, as certainly happens here.
Very true, Terezia.
…..
Sometimes it’s because they just want to know what makes others tick, though. Guilty there. Understanding another viewpoint won’t necessarily make us want to adopt it. But understanding is pretty big, and I’ve been known to try to educate ill-informed friends when they comment on the pro-life movement.
Well said; a refreshing change from the outright ranting that we see so much of here.
Danielle,
The denial of the affects of abortion on women by the medical community and medical professionals will not continue. These are from Lifenews. I am sure you will dismiss them.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat4624.html
http://www.lifenews.com/int1012.html
Doug,
Sorry for the outright ranting. :)
Patricia, I have to respectfully disagree.
I think that giving teenagers permission to delay maturity is exactly what causes the problems to begin with.
If teens are held to an adult standard, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be able to find a potential spouse during their teen years. I’m not saying that they should “date around” but rather that they should begin earnestly looking for the person they will spend their lives with and proceded from that starting point.
I have two good friends who got married very shortly after highschool. They were good friends during their early highschool years, but neither wanted to star the whole highschool dating thing, and thus didn’t really persue each other. After a period of time, the woman heard God speak to her that the man was the man she would marry. They discussed it, and suprise suprise, the man felt the same.
So they started “dating” throughout their last 2 years of highschool with the intention of getting married soon after graduation.
The march of their freshman year in college they were married, despite their parents wishing they would wait to “grow up.”
The young man is now a very successful CPA, and they just had their first daughter last April. They’re foster parents and hope to be blessed with a large family.
They were both virgins on their wedding night, but were both very mature and had always helped to contribute to their respective families.
To me, they are a perfect model of what we should strive twoards with our children. They have a firm foundation in God and have one of the happiest marriages I’ve seen.
In their case, they would have missed out on 5 wonderful years of marriage had they waited until after college to be together.
Patricia: “I don’t think that people choose to have a disorder but at least this implies that they develop this way and that many may be able to be treated.”
Of course, if said people don’t consider their orientation to be a “disorder,” then they won’t want to be “treated.” While I’m not gay, I know the feeling, as I’m mostly straight asexual and am tired of people telling me that my low libido is a “problem” that can be “fixed.”
“That’s a world of difference than giving up the ghost and saying I live this way and I’m not gonna change.”
Would you like to be told by a homosexual that you need to “change”?
Mark: “Homosexuality consists of two things:
1.) The desire to have sex with people of one’s own gender, as opposed to people of the opposite gender.
2.) The inclination to act in a manner which is consistent with such sexual desires.”
I disagree. You’re making homosexuality all about sex. I’m heterosexual, but I’m also mostly asexual, meaning I DON’T have the strong urge to have sex with ANYONE. I’m sure there are homosexuals who are the same way. If they’re gay, then they’re much more likely to be ROMANTICALLY attracted to members of their own gender. What they do afterwards is up to them…sort of like it’s up to you.
“People have this fascinating trait, BMGG [sic]: It’s called FREE WILL. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. The argument that people cannot control their thoughts when it comes to matters pertaining to sexual desire essentially is based on the assumption that whereas people have the ability to control their thoughts with regard to other aspects of their lives, there is something privileged and special about sexual thoughts which places such thoughts beyond the ability of people to control.”
Not sure why you’re making this point. I never argued otherwise. Of COURSE we have free will. Of COURSE we should be able to control our urges. The question is why some of you think homosexuals should have to control their urges while the rest of us don’t.
Mark: “But love and condonation are not invariably synonymous.”
Do you understand that “condonation” means “forgiveness”? Many people mistakenly believe that “condone” means “endorse,” when in fact it merely means “forgive.” Therefore, when someone says, “I don’t condone what she did, but I forgive her,” it’s an automatic contradiction.
Doug: “But yeah, all those laws and rules and no mention of abortion. Wild, eh?”
Doug, there’s also no mention of smothering someone with a pillow, but it’s unnecessary because it’s covered by “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Abortion is also covered by that one because abortion is an example of one person killing another. So there ya go.
John: “And Jess, you should be the poster child for corporal punishment.”
Okay, it’s getting a bit weird in here now…
asitis: “Don’t even try to bring ‘science’ into it John. Bye-bye.”
Asitis, whether or not you agree with John’s views on corporal punishment or pornography, he is absolutely correct in stating that it’s a scientific fact that a human being’s life begins at fertilization.
“Although you say Danielle that no one is strapped to a gurney, I have several friends who were held down by “helpers” even though they kept screaming NO!!! So much for choice.”
Posted by: Carla at December 2, 2008 10:44 PM
Carla, if this is true, I would hope that your friends contacted the authorities and proceeded with a lawsuit of some sort, because what you’re describing is a forceable physical assault and it’s illegal. If that happened to you, I would hope you did the same as well.
For the record, I have never, EVER witnessed or experienced any patient being forcibly led to an abortion or physically restrained before, during or after the process. Ever.
bmmg39, as an asexual you bring a unique and valuable perspective to the homosexuality discussion. Thanks for sharing. And I appreciate that you are a moderate pro-lifer.
The whole thing about science suppporting life beginning at fertization is not clear cut. Sure, life can’t begin without fertilization, but whether we call that “thing” (oh no, I’m in trouble now) a person with individual rights is not a scientific fact. Obviously. I’ve been down this road before and I’m not going again. It never ends. Got that John? Truthseeker? HisMan? Don’t even try.
“The denial of the affects of abortion on women by the medical community and medical professionals will not continue. These are from Lifenews. I am sure you will dismiss them.”
Posted by: Carla at December 3, 2008 7:20 AM
On this board, I will dismiss any sources of data that come from an organization that has a clear bias one way or another with regard to abortion. It does neither or us any good to quote numbers to each other. Lifenews is a Christian, pro-life based organization. Of course their information is collated to promote the pro-life viewpoint. NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc are pro-choice based organizations. Regardless of my beliefs, it would be futile to share any data with you from them, because it to is designed toward the pro-choice viewpoint and you would dismiss those, as well.
The next point is…does it matter? We make up our minds on how we feel and then, right or wrong, we back into the data/numbers we need to confirm how we already felt. Or maybe I’ve been in advertising too long: come up with the solution first, then, find the reasons why it works and sell it in.
That’s how it works for both of our ideologies. You and I made up our minds on how we view abortion a long, long time ago. Tectonic shifts in our lives would be required to shake us out of our beliefs.
Carla: I double dog dare ya to say something positive.
Ha! Pretty good,C.
Danielle,
They did not. This was the 70’s and 80’s. Of course it is illegal. Of course it is physical assault. The shame of the abortion procedure kept them quiet. Until now.
So it makes sense that the writers of the Hebrew Scriptures didn’t put in anything against abortion since they weren’t against it.
Patricia: yeah right Doug. Please don’t display your ignorance so blatantly. Please.
That’s your argument?
Of course it matters. To the ones getting an abortion today and being told nothing of the risks.
I made up my mind a long, long time ago that abortion was right because I had one. I was prochoice until I held my miscarried baby in my hand. I guess that would be the shift you are talking about.
Asitis, it is most certainly a human being.
The only question is in regards to “personhood.”
Of course, it has been well noted that the only time society lables someone a “non-person human” it is to strip them of rights.
Doug: “But yeah, all those laws and rules and no mention of abortion. Wild, eh?”
BMMG: Doug, there’s also no mention of smothering someone with a pillow, but it’s unnecessary because it’s covered by “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Abortion is also covered by that one because abortion is an example of one person killing another. So there ya go.
Well, there you went… right into demonstrable falsehood.
The actual wording in several Bible versions, as well as the meaning of the commandment in all Bible versions, is “Thou Shalt Not Murder.”
It’s ludicrous to act like all killing was prohibited in the Old Testament. And abortion was not held to be murder then.
Abortion was known, desired at times, and practiced during the periods when the books of the Bible were written. You weren’t allowed to smother with a pillow, but you were allowed to have an abortion.
“They did not. This was the 70’s and 80’s. Of course it is illegal. Of course it is physical assault. The shame of the abortion procedure kept them quiet. Until now.”
Posted by: Carla at December 3, 2008 11:54 AM
-Well then shout it from the rooftops, Carla – no one’s going to stop you. Only you know the truth. And I’m sure you know that reasonable people are not up for a system that forces women into surgical procedures against their will (any more than they would support the opposite – forcible pregnancy/birth/motherhood).
I won’t argue with you on whether your experience was barbaric or cold or clinical or scarring. But, to assert that today, right now – reputable, government funded organizations that offer abortions, are pushing girls onto a gurney and prying their legs open is a gross exaggeration, with the agenda to demonize abortion. If you oppose it, fine – but oppose it on clear terms, not with anecdotes that no one can ever prove.
Sorry for the outright ranting. :)
Carla, I didn’t even see you do any in this thread.
Even if you had, no biggie – we’ve all got a little Dennis Miller and George Carlin in us, methinks.
Hi Doug,
I was teasing you. I double dog dare ya to be prolife.
Danielle,
Not to worry. Shouting it from the rooftops with all of the others involved in Operation Outcry.
As for the rest of what you wrote…
Was I asserting that?? Really? I told you of women I know who had that experience. You did the rest. With your big girl words. Gross Exaggeration, Demonize, Reputable…
I do not argue my abortion experience. It is irrefutable.
I can use big girl words too. :)
Danielle, a great book for you to consider reading is Lime 5 by Mark Crutcher. I triple dog dare you to read it.
You can even get it here for 46 cents:
http://www.amazon.com/Lime-Exploited-Choice-Mark-Crutcher/dp/0964888602
“As for the rest of what you wrote…
Was I asserting that?? Really? I told you of women I know who had that experience. You did the rest. With your big girl words. Gross Exaggeration, Demonize, Reputable…
I do not argue my abortion experience. It is irrefutable.”
Posted by: Carla at December 3, 2008 12:24 PM
Carla, it seemed that’s what you were saying, given that those were stories that you gave as examples. If I was someone looking for personal stories on abortion, and heard your stories, that’s what I would’ve taken from it.
As for my ‘big girl words’ well – believe it or not, that’s just how I talk sometimes. Trust me, my friends make fun of me all the time. I just like the English language, what can I say. No hidden agenda, or condensation intended (see, there goes another $5 word…)
“Danielle, a great book for you to consider reading is Lime 5 by Mark Crutcher. I triple dog dare you to read it.”
Posted by: Bethany at December 3, 2008 12:36 PM
Um, why? Mark Crutcher is the head of Life Dynamics, the org whose online mission statement includes: We are fighting to return full legal protection for every unborn child, from the moment of conception. Because of this our motto is, “Pro-Life: without compromise, without exception, without apology.”
That doesn’t sound very objective, does it. As I mentioned to Carla, I couldn’t take this to hear anymore than you could a expose of the pro-life movement penned by Hilary Clinton.
sorry – type o – that word should’ve been ‘heart’ above, not ‘hear’.
Danielle, it is a chronicle of medical malpractice of the abortion industry. Everything within it is public knowledge. Instead of attacking the messenger, you might want to actually read what is written. Or, you could simply track down the malpractice on your own. That way you would be sure that the only bias was your own.
Danielle,
You take away what you will. :)
I heart big girl words!!
I am praying you out of PP.
Danielle, he never claims to be objective. He’s 100 percent pro-life. Yet, his multitudes of references are from actual court cases and criminal records. They are undeniable.
How about this? I’ll agree to read a pro-abortion book, if you’ll agree to read Lime 5. Deal?
You can pick the book, as long as I can buy it used on Amazon.
I’ll do it too, Danielle. I’ll read anything.
Actually Danielle, I also wanted to say that I do sympathize with and understand your not reading pro-life or pro-choice bias stuff like you mentioend above. I try and do this is well. But I only try and apply this rule to scientific papers and results like abortion-breast cancer link or studies done on abstinence education vs. comprehensive education. But what Lime 5 tries to do is document abortion malpractice and other things using documentation that anyone should be able to agree with. So they aren’t conducting their own experiments or collecting their own data and reporting it to you in Lime 5; rather, it aims to compile all in one book these many instances that can be checked by the reader herself.
So my whole point in saying all this is that I think Lime 5 is sort of “fundamentally different” kind of bias. True, they are very much pro-life, but they try and give you facts which the reader can verify for themselves rather than taking their word for something, which is the case in the papers that you and I try and avoid. Do you know what I mean? I hope that makes sense. God love you.
Thank you for clarifying that, Bobby!
I might read it. Interested if it changes anything for me.
My initial thought is, well of course there’s malpractice in abortion like everywhere else but, we’ll see.
Abortion was known, desired at times, and practiced during the periods when the books of the Bible were written. You weren’t allowed to smother with a pillow, but you were allowed to have an abortion.
Posted by: Doug at December 3, 2008 12:01 PM
So was defecating truth dude. Your so imbeded into trying to make abortion a absolute truth/morality you have become mere propaganda.
What is hillarious is that every civilization you find to prove your attempt at the absolute rightness of abortion, they don’t exist anymore.
Roman Civilization, being the last civilization to disappear into your sink hole of abortion myths gone wild.
Who replaced those aborting Romans, truth dude?
Let’s see. First came the Huns. Then came the Visigoths. And on and on they came destroying those aborting Romans, who tryed their best to eliminate those barbarians by war, pestilence, abortion, infanticide , and all the means Romans used on themselves first.
They figured it out, and instead of dying and aborting for those Romans, they revolted and multiplied under the Christian ethos.
Hey Alaric, God loves you, and wants you to be fruitful and multiply.
Your fun truth dude. Your a simpleton of 99.9 percent of self truth. In a way, your as simple as a communist who never could know anything but communism as being the truth, the way, and the eternal truth of communism.
When presented with another version of history, you and all your harpies defend your dogma, as do those die hard communist.
I like you truth dude, your the result of the All Aborting God of your cult, and then a puppet of all those that thought like you before.
To paraphrase Fr. Capodanno
Stay calm truth dude, your dogmatic mind puppets will be here soon to help, God is with all of us this day, truth dude.
I was teasing you. I double dog dare ya to be prolife.
Carla, don’t even make me get out the big guns, i.e. the “triple….”
; )
“Abortion was known, desired at times, and practiced during the periods when the books of the Bible were written. You weren’t allowed to smother with a pillow, but you were allowed to have an abortion.”
yllas: So was defecating truth dude. Your so imbeded into trying to make abortion a absolute truth/morality you have become mere propaganda.
No, this is just you once again making yourself ridiculous.
BMMG was wrong about the Bible, there, that’s all.
Well I noticed Bethany took out the “triple” on this thread. :) Go for it, Doug.
No, this is just you once again making yourself ridiculous.
BMMG was wrong about the Bible, there, that’s all.
Posted by: Doug at December 3, 2008 2:12 PM
You have made yourself ridiculous truth dude.
Afterall, if you were wrong, and Bmmg was right, you would be batting %99.998 on that truth -o -meter, based on matters of abortion, by the truth dude. Why, no one has a good argument against the exegesis of truth dude, they just think they do.
Still batting %99.999 truth, on those matters of abortion truth dude.
Hey, maybe we need a truth meter on your biblical exegesis too, truth dude.
Right now, it’s is %100 truth in matters of the bible.
So tell me truth dude, what degree do you have in biblical exegesis? Do you possess a Masters in Divinity? A Th.M ?
Or do you go to that atheist/agnostic site and get those deconstructed versions of the bible that affirm your truth meter is always pegged at a mere %99.999 of truth?
Your ridiculous truth dude.
Carla: Well I noticed Bethany took out the “triple” on this thread. :) Go for it, Doug.
:: snapping fingers a la Maxwell Smart ::
“Missed it by that much!”
So tell me truth dude, what degree do you have in biblical exegesis? Do you possess a Masters in Divinity? A Th.M ?
Doesn’t matter, yllas. Despite all your lunatic blather, you have nothing even remotely close to refuting the point that in no way was “all killing” prohibited in the Old Testament.
Heck, the O. T. is chock-full of orders to kill, rules for killing, procedures for killing, etc.
You can squirm around and act like a fruitcake, but nothing you can say can touch the truth of that.
asitis: “Sure, life can’t begin without fertilization, but whether we call that ‘thing’ (oh no, I’m in trouble now) a person with individual rights is not a scientific fact.”
Asitis, I work in education and can only tell you that the science textbooks tend to side with my view on this. Nothing new is “added” after fertilization; only growth and development take place.
Doug: “The actual wording in several Bible versions, as well as the meaning of the commandment in all Bible versions, is ‘Thou Shalt Not Murder.'”
Okay, then, but murder is just a legal term. It’s circular arguing to say that abortion should be legal because it isn’t murder (which merely means that it’s legal).
No, this is just you once again making yourself ridiculous. ~ Doug
Same old, same old. I think Oliver is right about Yllas; a pro-choicer trying to make pro-lifers look bad.
Like I said…. still working toward today. And continuing to make progress, slowly but surely, in the country. ~ asitis
Even though there are the reactionary folks, most of us don’t want go back, not now not ever.
Okay, then, but murder is just a legal term. It’s circular arguing to say that abortion should be legal because it isn’t murder (which merely means that it’s legal).
Nobody said that, though, BMMG. It wasn’t about those “shoulds” and “should nots,” there, but rather just about what the Bible says and means.
Well, I don’t run my life around everything the Bible says, anyway. There are too many troubling things (like which fabrics not to wear and selling your daughters off to slavery) for me to be a literalist. If there are literalists here, you can make that point to them.
BMMG, good for you. I know some people do take the Bible literally, to varying degrees, anyway, and what can I say – to each their own.
However, you didn’t sound as reasonable as that when you said:
it’s unnecessary because it’s covered by “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”
…because you made the argument that abortion wasn’t mentioned by name in the Bible, and so it must be okay…as if one must mention each way one person can kill another in order for a Christian to have the right to have a problem with it.
BMMG, good that you’re sticking with it, but I really didn’t do that.
I was pointing out that the Commandment did not apply to abortion, that’s all, whereas it sure looked like you were proceeding as if it did.
“Must be okay” is a different thing, though it was known, sometimes desired, and practiced back then.
The “must” there, at the least, was up to the woman involved.
one in four children die from CHOICE. what a great country.