Protestors Praying
There are all kinds of anti-abortion protestors. There are the ones who stand out in front of the clinics holding graphic signs while screaming all kinds of invectives at the women. It doesn’t matter to them that those women might also be going in for their annual pap smear or to pick up some birth control. They still remain the target of their vile, un-Christian behavior.
Then there are the protestors who just stand in front of the facility quietly praying. Sure, at times they might break out into song or into a group prayer led by some local religious figure but, for the most part, they just stand out there praying to God. At least I assume that’s who they are praying to.
I vehemently support the right of anti-abortion protestors to stand outside of a clinic and protest, even if they insist on shrieking “Don’t Kill Your Baby!” to the women as they are enter the facility. The First Amendment also extends to those who quietly pray on the sidewalk and who seem not as “angry” as the other whack jobs. Still, I would suggest that those who quietly pray on the sidewalk do almost as much harm as their more vociferous colleagues.
Let’s do something that the anti-abortion folks don’t do very often – let’s think about the woman who has just learned she is pregnant. But first, spare me the “well if she didn’t spread her legs in the first place” lecture. I get it. I know how you get pregnant. So, let ‘s move on.
The woman is pregnant and, unless she was actually planning on having a child, there is a good chance she is not happy with this development. Contrary to anti-abortion dogma, she just doesn’t run to the phone and make an appointment at the local abortion clinic. Normally, she will struggle with the decision. After all, she knows she is carrying a living organism in her body that will ultimately grow into her baby, so the notion that she might have to abort is not a pleasant one. To help make up her mind, she might consult with the man who was involved, her friends, her family or any religious figures in her life. Ultimately, she may decide that she cannot have the baby. It is a difficult decision making process and her decision to abort is a sad one.
So, she makes the appointment and normally has to wait a few days. That’s a few more days for her to keep thinking about her decision. The day finally arrives and she goes to the clinic. She has heard about the anti-abortion zealots who demonstrate at the clinics and tries to prepare herself, although she really doesn’t know what to expect. As she approaches the facility, she notices about twenty people congregating out front and her blood pressure immediately rises. She prepares to be verbally attacked.
She gets out of the car and walks up the pathway to the front door, trying not to look at the group of protestors. She is somewhat surprised that they are not yelling at her, notices that they are holding Bibles and praying quietly. But she is still embarrassed. She knows they are there because of HER and they are there because they do not approve of what she did (have unprotected sex) and what she is about to do (abort the child). They are clearly not there to provide her comfort in her time of need. They are there because they do not want her to have the abortion.
On this blog, I’ve had a running commentary with a respectable pro-lifer who prays in front of a clinic. But, unless I missed it, I have yet to get a clear answer as to why he has to be AT THE CLINIC. If you are praying to God, what does it matter where you pray? I thought you could be anywhere and still communicate with Him.
No, I suspect there is something else going on here although I just can’t put my finger on it. Is there some voyeuristic pleasure out of seeing a woman who clearly has had (dirty) sex going in for a (dirty) abortion? And please don’t tell me they are there to share their stories with the woman and to tell her she has other options. They know damn well that they cannot help her if she decides to have the baby. Sure, they might give her some diapers and clothes, but gimme a break. Chances are they’ll never see that woman again and, if they did succeed in talking her out of the abortion, they just exchange high fives and congratulate each other on their “save.”
So, instead of doing something else for humanity for those few hours or praying quietly at your home for an end to abortion, you are out there at the clinic disturbing the women.
Why are you out there, my friend?
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
December 26, 2010 at 1:48 pm
the more I think about the comments in this thread, the more I realize that Dunkle and Rogie are accomplishing nothing except upsetting some women in very sensitive situations. To think that you are actually contributing to society by being out there is delusional. I like you, Rogie, and appreciate your candor but I just wish I had a straign, in English answer to my question. You’re out there because you hope to make contact with a vulnerable, probably uneducated woman who you you can tell you will “help.” And, in the unlikely event that she has the child, you will disappear and you will have brought another welfare child into the world – and you can boast of your “save.”
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm
i like you too, patty.
i like you enough to not try to change you. but you have admitted before that you want lifers to “see the light”.
but as you said before, you don’t read most of what i say because you consider it religious gobbledy gook.
so this is why you don’t grasp what i am saying. if you only take small parts of what i say, rather than all of it, not only do you not get the entire picture, but you also have a perverted understanding of the part that you do have.
that is fine.
but i must say that i am rather surprised that you seem to have disdain for “welfare babies”.
we pay taxes to help those less fortunate than ourselves.
i think that doing so is how a compassionate society works.
i also have never had a “save”.
i can’t save anyone.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:43 am
I dont disdain “welfare babies.’ Indeed, I was one growing up in New York. What I am saying is that in the idea world, we would not have a need for welfare and I cannot prove it but I would guess that many of the kids on welfare were not wanted.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 10:22 am
Pat, ONE-THIRD of all children are unwanted. (Guttmacher Institute findings.) You can add to that the children who are wanted for the wrong reasons– you know which site to go to to find an exegesis on that topic.
On the bright side, about one-third of unwanted children overcome their disadvantages and become reasonably happy adults (not happy in terms of feeling good, but in terms of exerrcising vital powers in a setting affording them scope. Johannes Kepler, who made sense of Copernicus’ theory and Brahe’s data and thereby destroyed medieval theology, was happy, but he was miserable.)
This news about the one-third is of course, great for so-called “pro-lifers,” since they can point at it and claim success for themselves.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm
thank goodness!
i thought for a moment that you were turning republican on me! 😛
we are not living in the utopia that we would like.
the need to share good fortune with those less fortunate will always be there.
somebody will always be rich and somebody will always be poor.
programs that help disadvantaged people help to close the huge gap between the two, and i support such programs for the better good of society.
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Rog’s right, Pat, sometimes you just don’t get it. Look, you may not kill people just because life’s tough for them or for others. You kid yourself when you say you cannot bring “another welfare child into the world” because she is already in the world. You might not want her in your country (Germany) or in your area (the South) or in your body (the womb), but she’s here, and one thing you may not do is kill her. But killing her is what we have done, and do, isn’t it.
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I think what you are missing, John, is that this thing in the womb is a potential person. If it were an actual person, as you suggest, we would be counting it in the census, we would be giving it a social security number, etc. etc. And the other thing is that we all share the same world and the same finit resources. Every time someone brings a child into the world it affects ME and my kids. And everytime someone goes on welfare it affects ME AND YOU. If it were up to you and Rogie, we would have millions upon millions of more people in our world and we’d have less resources and, ultimately, we would destroy and use up all of our natural resources. You dont give a crap about that because you’re not gonna be around much longer. All this to save a ten week fetus??? Gimme a break….
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 12:56 pm
the ssn and counting people on a census does not equate to someone being a person.
do you haave any idea how many of us do not have valid ssn’s or are counted on the census?
are those of us who are here illegally not people?
also, lack of resources are not due to too many people. it is due to things like war and greed. fewer people do not eliminate those things that reduce resources any more than a poor woman aborting suddenly makes her no longer poor.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:45 am
I know war and greed affect our resources. But so does overpopulation. We have finite resources and if it were up to you and John, we’d have even more people populating this planet. Everyone would have five or more kids and we’d be in even deeper shit than we are in now.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm
were it not for war and greed, the resources could easily multiplied to accommodate growing populations.
and bear in mind that i oppose measures to reproduce by means that are not normal ( IVF and surrogacy perpetuate a mentality that women are babymaking machines ) and so even if people had 5 or 6 kids, there would be many more whose children came to them by adoption and fostering.
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm
You’re piling them up, Pat. You’re one of the few who are able to see through that ploy and now you’re doing it yourself. I’ll just go with the first thing you say, “potential person.” That’s no different from Chuckles’ “humanoid”! And really it’s no different from the Germans’ “untermenslich” or the racists’ “nigger.” In other words, you’re using a curse to hide your behavior. I’ll get to the rest later.
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 9:17 am
You’re right, John, I was “piling on” and I hate when others do that. To me, the big difference between the Nazis killing Jews and the racist’s behavior is that they were directed towards a real live, fully invested, living, breathing PERSON. In the case of the fetus, there is no way that you can compare that 8,9 week old fetus that is sloshing around in the womb not knowing what the hell is going on with a real, live person. ingt
LikeLike
December 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm
Pat, have you ever noticed how willful obtuseness serves a so-called “pro-lifer”? He puts up a wall beyond which he will not let your reason pass. It’s necessary in order to hold together psychologically.
LikeLike
December 26, 2010 at 5:21 pm
Notice how both rogelio and Dunkle avoid the issue of their abandonment of real children; the former by ignoring it entirely and the latter by dragging in the red herring of Nazi eugenics terminology.
It’s further proof of the operation of the aborticentric mentality. As far as they are concerned, their mission is to be a hero, not one who cares for real human life.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 12:59 pm
once again… please name one woman or child that i have abandoned.
i ignored it before because i felt it was absurd to suggest something like that without proof.
but since you want to address it, let’s.
name one.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 7:01 am
When relatives of mine separated prior to divorce, he nevertheless walked his daughter to school every day for the next four years. When my wife and I split up, I raised my child.
Now, I don’t know your situation, rogelio, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about the children who were in your life and no longer are.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:58 pm
my conclusions are made on a daily basis, hombre.
but YOU made the statement that i have abandoned woman and children.
the burden is on you to either prove it or realize that the statement was unwarranted.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Okay, let’s start: How many children have depended on you as a male role model in a nuclear or extended family setting in the span of your adult life?
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:33 pm
my own son, and my daughter, although i never got to bring her to the home i made for her.
4 others that i raised alone for extended periods until their parents were able to do so.
34 babies and/or children of women who lived with me because they had no place to turn when they were facing unplanned pregnancies or were trying to escape an abusive relationship.
their stay last various periods of time until the mothers made the choice to either raise their children on their own or with their partners.
another 22 lived with me for an extended period in a setting in which the father was also present.
of those children, 4 are deceased.
of the remainder, some are grown now and have families of their own, but all are still in my life either though personal contact, or via their parents in the case of some of the ones that are now grown.
so i repeat my question.
please name one of them that i abandoned.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:37 pm
i am of course not including the children that are and were in classroom and church settings.
just the ones that lived in my home with me.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 1:31 pm
And this is why I dont read posts when people generalize….
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:34 pm
i thought you said it was religious gobbledy gook that you don’t read?
LikeLike
December 27, 2010 at 7:39 am
Apropos of #25: the reason it is important to be engaged in the development of real children is discussed by Dr. Gabor Mate, in an interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. Dr. Mate works with the greatest conentration of drug addicts in North America, in Vancouver:
“Well, the human brain, unlike any other mammal, for the most part develops under the influence of the environment. And that’s because, from the evolutionary point of view, we developed these large heads, large fore-brains, and to walk on two legs we have a narrow pelvis. That means—large head, narrow pelvis—we have to be born prematurely.
“Otherwise, we would never get born. The head already is the biggest part of the body. Now, the horse can run on the first day of life. Human beings aren’t that developed for two years.
“That means much of our brain development, that in other animals occurs safely in the uterus, for us has to occur out there in the environment. And which circuits develop and which don’t depend very much on environmental input.
“When people [this means not just grown-ups, but babies and children] are mistreated, stressed or abused, their brains don’t develop the way they ought to. It’s that simple.
“And unfortunately, my profession, the medical profession, puts all the emphasis on genetics rather than on the environment, which, of course, is a simple explanation. It also takes everybody off the hook. . . .”
Now if the so-called “pro-lifers” who post here were to poll their fellows at the site (we already know where they personally stand, so they can leave themselves out) as to how many children they have adopted and are fostering, they might grasp that there is a big gap between their passion for the fetus and their care for real children. I look forward to not only their report, but the conclusions they draw from the evidence.
LikeLike
December 27, 2010 at 10:27 am
Chuckles is back to “unreal children” again. He jumps around from curse to curse so he can continue to help with the executions.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 1:03 pm
>>>they might grasp that there is a big gap between their passion for the fetus and their care for real children.<<<
i have discussed it with them before, and people come and go, but roughly 8 to 9 out of 10 have adopted or foster children.
now, can you apply the same question to all pro-choicers and provide an answer?
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Well, I surveyed this town’s protestors and 156 out of 160 hadn’t fostered, adopted, mentored, Big Brothered or Sistered, or volunteered in public schools or community parenting programs. It would be interesting to compare demographics, rogelio. All the churches that let me talk to them– I cnallenged them to spend 160 hours per year per protestor– pulled out of the demonstrations, and the protests died when I taped the rest admitting they’d basically done zip for real children while agonizing for the “unborn innocents”.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:35 pm
160 hours a year breaks down to less than 1/2 hour a day.
not so much.
but the question was actually about all choicers.
after all, if you are comfortable categorizing one group of people, certainly it is acceptable to categorize other groups as well.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:38 am
I dont think there is any way to determine who volunteers more, pro-choicers or pro-lifers….that’s a crock…
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:43 am
Leave it to Pat to restore sanity.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:59 am
Pat, Craig Seaton did EXACTLY
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:15 pm
maybe there is a way to know and maybe not.
i know the rate of lifers who i have met in front of the clinics, who adopt and foster children is far higher than those that i have met at life chain.
maybe there is some sort of criteria among the pro-choice crowd to determine the same thing?
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 10:01 am
PAT, Craig Seaton in his study of Canadian anti-abortion activists, did EXACTLY that and reported the results. And if it isn’t true, than why would the Catholic Church suddenly be telling its so-called “pro-lifers” to start caring for real human life?
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:35 pm
do you have a link to those results?
i think it would be interesting to read
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm
rogelio, to research my website on aborticentrism, I had to do an interlibrary request loan for the book, Activism and Altruism, by Craig Seaton. At this time I can’t afford to buy a copy, but you can ask your library to get it.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:37 am
Okay, Charles, I gotta challenge you on something. How can you determine if someone has volunteered in a public school? I do it all the time back here and I never sign in and if I did, it certainly does not go on the public record.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 10:06 am
You ask them; then you ask for permission to verify that. Then you thank them and leave when they deny that permission. It’s not tactful to accuse them of lying.
You can also ask any school how many classroom volunteers they have in over the course of a day or week and bump those numbers against the claims. It’s not rocket science. Also, if they WERE doing it, they’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops. You forget, they need to be heroes.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 1:51 pm
You might be able to ask how many people volunteered to be in a classroom, but you cannot determine how many worked for the local mulch sale for the PTA or who sold sweatshirts at the football game or who drove a carload of kids to the golf tournament or who attended the monthly chorus boosters meeting or who served as an usher at graduation. and if they deny you permission to investigate, it doesn’t mean they haven’t done any of these things…
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Pat, we are talking about dealing directly with children to help them arrive at a happy adulthood. Let’s not muddy the definition by including the auxiliary corporal works of mercy
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:40 am
Are you saying, Rogie, that 9 out of ten pro-lifers adopt or have foster children? If that is what you are saying, I can’t prove it but I think that is a ridiculous statement. Ain’t no way….
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:22 pm
no, i am saying that of the people i have met in front of clinics, roughly 80 to 90% have adopted or fostered children. of course i am discluding students. but of those who have or had families, that is them rough estimate.
now the rate among those at life chain is far lower.
and of course it is higher than people who say they are pro-life but their efforts consist of sitting on their asses online calling choicers vile names or at best gathering people together to silence the voices of those with opposing views.
but i equate those rates to people having an actual commitment to their stance.
like i would imagine that the rate of people who are active in a pro-choice stance would have a far higher rate of adopting, fostering and other volunteer work than someone who sits on their ass online arguing.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm
the bottom line is that probably 99% of the public does not adopt….
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:42 pm
why is that the bottom line?
why isn’t the bottom line that there is some common factor that motivates people to adopt or foster?
isn’t there some common factor between people that motivates them to volunteer in their communities?
it isn’t religion. i know people of various religions that i have mat in my own little efforts.
what are those common factors and how can they be spread to others to create a more compassionate society?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I suggest it’s the “bottom line” because I think it is a specious argument to point out how many folks on either side adopt or not. The vast majority of folks do not adopt…
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Rogelio, people adopt for different reasons, many of which I consider either self-serving (the Lisa Steinberg “adoption” which turned homicidal, the “Mommy Dearest” mindset of that movie star (Hayworth? Gardner?) or idealistic (“We’ll have chintz curtains in the kitchen and two blonde, blue-eyed children three years apart!”)
I have seen women who have taken on a foster child, only to wind up hating the kid in six months, and you’ve read about the adoptive parents who beat their children on the flight to their new home in the US. And the woman who sent her child back to Russia by himself.
The bottom line in adopting is “aspirations.” People aspire to be parents, or to be good parents, or to be seen as good parents. Economic well-being is fundamental to adopting, and if you’re relatively well-off, you’re far more likely to feel the urge. It isn’t very strong in urban China, where their young couples generally regard children as a nuisance.
I write more about it on the website, but I don’t want Pat yelling at me again….
I can only speak for myself in volunteering in public schools– they are the glue of the community, and they need absolutely every bit of parental input they can get. If we lose the schools, we lose democracy. And the s**t I put up with in Catholic schools is not fit material to impart to tomorrow’s citizens, so it’s public all the way, and if I can help keep the quality high, I’ll do my part.
As for being concerned about children’s individual welfare, my bottom line is, I don’t want them to go through what I went through– I came very close to completing my life as a pervert, a suicide or mentally ill. The only reason none of those happened was coincidence, and very, very few people experience such luck on their road to defeat.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 3:45 pm
the Dunkle’s “potential person” is also a potential monster. He has never addressed the issue of the Ted Bundy type, the fetus “rescued” from abortion who grows up to kill from 35 to 61 women who were just like his granddaughters are today.Pace rogelio, the so-called “pro-lifer” is simply unable to imagine there actually are things worse than abortion. And most of them are just like Dunkle, who cannot bring himself to raise the next child better than Bundy was raised.
It argues strongly that they are not against abortion for any greater reason than their own sense of comfort.
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 11:48 pm
Action requires knledeogw, and now I can act!
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm
rogelio in #3:
The problem with trying to compare so-called “pro-choicers’ ” attitude toward valuing fetuses (by adopting them after they’re born) with that of so-called “pro-lifers” is that the so-called “pro-choicers” respect the fact that the woman has to decide whether she values the potential a fetus has to become human; they don’t insist that she bear a child who might turn out to be another Ted Bundy or Lisa Steinberg. Therefore, they cannot be held to the standard so-called “pro-lifers” claim to hold about the sacredness of human life.
You’re actually wrong about your sample being representative, by the way. The rate of so-called “pro-lifers” is barely equal to that of their enemies; so low, in fact, that no less than the Catholic Church is trying to push for so-called “pro-lifers” to adopt.
Even the Bush administration’s attempt to bribe them to adopt has not made significant inroads. The adoption tax credit only is an incentive if you’re a millionaire couple and adopt ten or twenty, like the couple who were murdered down in Florida….
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm
i guess i worded things wrong, and i stand corrected.
i should have asked for a rate of choicers who are active in their stance, either through their vocation, or through other means such as escorts, etc.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 9:49 pm
If the so-called “Chuckles” writes another so-called “argument” in favor of so-called “abortion,” I think I might fall asleep before the so-called “half way point.”
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:26 pm
promise?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:56 am
no
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 6:56 am
It’s interesting how so-called “pro-lifers” won’t (or can’t?) bring themselves to address how far they will go to prevent the next little boy from growing up to be the next Ted Bundy.
I think it shows how they cannot make the connection between having a passion about the fetus and having a passiion about the child’s welfare. Why is that link broken for them?
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 9:53 am
Hey, I see a question here, and it could be for me! And I’ll edit a little to make that clear, and then I’ll answer it (once and for all, I hope). Here’s the question:
How far will you go, Dunkle,”to prevent the next little boy from growing up to be the next Ted Bundy.”
Here’s the answer: I would try to go as far as I am physically and mentally capable of going, Chuckles. However, I would never kill him or help to kill him. Even if I thought there was a danger that he would grow up to BE the next Ted Bundy.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 10:11 am
That’s what the typical so-called “prop-lifer” says, but when you ask one what he has DONE in those lines, suddenly there’s a big silence. He will emphasize that of course he would never KILL them, but he has no track record to back up his alleged good works. David Berkowitz was a child back in the days when Long Islanders were out blockading clinics…. Lisa Steinberg needed help, and no so-called “pro-lifer” was there. there are roughly 45,000 children in foster care in Manhattan, and no so-called “pro-lifer” on this site is doing anything for them. And there’s one so-called “rescuer” in Reading, PA, who doesn’t even care if there’s an abused child who needs help within two miles of his home.
But they’re all ready to do what it takes to care properly for the next potential Ted Bundy….
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Chuckles is determined to get me to list (as he does) all the good things I have done. “That’s what the typical so-called “prop-lifer” says, but when you ask one what he has DONE in those lines, suddenly there’s a big silence.”
Yup.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 11:17 pm
chuckles’ life has basically been dedicated to everybody but himself.
yet in one post, you belittle him for being open about his efforts, and then in the next sentence imply that he has made no efforts for the better good of society.
if he were able to fly, you would accuse him of getting high.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:58 am
What?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 1:23 pm
did i stutter?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 2:01 pm
You wrote something that I don’t understand. I think you have to support what you say with examples
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
John smokes grass? 🙂
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:41 pm
For someone who claims to have been a teacher, one of the posters on this site is remarkably inarticulate. He only attacks others and never gets beyond news commentary about his supposed “rescue” work. There is no exposition of his reasoning (unlike rogelio), no curiosity about why his opponents take a particular view, and no attempt to build the bridge that Pat seeks.
It’s all turtlish.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 9:26 pm
I like “turtlish.” You like that, Pat?
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 9:28 am
I’m not sure what it means, but it sounds cool.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 5:12 pm
The silence you get from them is the same silence you get from Lyndon LaRouche, one of America’s would-be political saviors, when you ask him to describe not what he will do, but what he has done for America while holding political office.
Of course, Lyndon is a Christian man and not given to boastfulness, so he will not tell you. He might even tell you that’s why he won’t tell you. But the fact is that Lyndon has never held political office.
Would Lyndon use the “meek Christian” gambit? I doubt it. Would a so-called “pro-lifer?” Hmmm, I wonder where I could find an example….
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 7:44 am
Say what?
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm
rogelio~~ i’m carrying this forward from the previous page: I asked you about children to whom you were a male role model in your adult life, and you responded magnificently, starting with:
“my own son, and my daughter, although i never got to bring her to the home i made for her. . . .”
Well, you have certainly got me beat all to pieces in the one-on-one category! I am so happy to hear that! And I apologize very profusely for having assumed you were a typical so-called “pro-lifer.”
Of course, you realize that because you have not kept your light under a bushel like one of the other prominent writers here, you are going to go to Hell for being a bad Christian. . . It’s just sad he has nothing to contribute. But he is a far more typical so-called “pro-lifer,” and I can always use the example.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 9:27 pm
You guys deserve each other. Or did I say that before?
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 11:33 pm
chow chow chow
LikeLike
January 7, 2011 at 11:32 pm
hombre, you don’t need to apologize to me profusely or otherwise.
stepping back from the statement and realizing that it was unwarranted is enough.
and i hardly have you beat to pieces because i have no doubt that the love you showed to your children was just as great as the love i showed to mine. if you had encountered more children, you would have multiplied the love you had to offer, just as i did.
and we both know that our efforts have rewarded us well…. not with money, but with joy.
i’d say that we have so many of the same goals, but some of our ways of achieving them have been different.
and as far as me going to hell for not hiding my little light under a bushel… well, i was asked a reasonable question, and it merited a reasonable answer.
jesus didn’t say to ignore questions, he was speaking of braggarts.
you have been asked similar questions, and i don’t think that answering them made you a braggart.
it’s a shame that when you answered, he either ignored the answer, or tried to twist it around to belittle you for efforts that you have put all of your heart into, for no reason other than that you believed it was the right thing to do.
so i won’t hide my little light under a bushel if you won’t let the devil blow yours out.
if someone asks us about our little lights, we will just let them sine, let them shine, let them shine.
deal?
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 4:35 am
One of these two soul-mates says that when the killer approaches, you must pave his way; the other says that you must stand quietly and pray that he will have a change of heart and mind. Both end up in the same place though, don’t they.
LikeLike
September 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm
The thing is, taxis take up physical space. And when you get too many cabs in Manhattan, you get clgoegd streets and you may as well walk. So you have to limit the number of cabs. . Besides, if drivers all charged different rates, how much congestion would that cause? People would be perpetually waiting for cheaper cab to hail. I think you should think a little more carefully about how taxi systems might regulate themselves. In areas where governments do not regulate fares, your idea that people wait around to wait for a cheaper one may happen, but to imagine that people wait perpetually for the cheapest one is wrong there is a large cost to waiting, which is the value of our time. Also, people typically do not like to bargain very much in this country as it is not part of our culture anymore. At some point, people buy if they want to go. And the idea that congestion is the problem from allowing more cabs if it becomes too congested and walking is faster,people make that choice to walk, and cabbies realize they cannot make a buck, so they refrain from filling the street. This type of thing works itself out. But if you were truly worried about congestion, why not have some sort of congestion pricing on all vehicles in a region? Then you can start pricing the space on the road, which is the scarce item. I’m an economist, and so I think of these tradeoffs a lot
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 8:16 am
Deal, rogelio, except I don’t believe in the Devil. That’s a concept that Christianity picked up from Mithraism.
the evil we do unto others comes from what we learn in childhood.
All we can hope for is to help others through.
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 10:55 am
This is deep…..very deep
LikeLike
January 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm
bottomless
LikeLike