I am a substitute teacher at a local high school and over the years I have gotten to know a young man named Carlos. He is generally a good kid, very shy, pretty smart. He doesn’t know who is father is, lives with his aunt and has been practically forced to run with the wrong crowd. As a result, he has had a few brushes with the law. He is not into school. When I talk to him, I want to hug him and slap him on the head at the same time. So much potential.
I hadn’t seen Carlos in about six months but this weekend, as I was driving to Home Depot, I noticed him sitting at a bus stop. I yelled over to him, he waved enthusiastically and I told him to jump in my car so I could give him a ride home. We hit a bunch of traffic so we had time to catch up. He told me how he was working two jobs at two fast food restaurants but was looking elsewhere because he was “getting tired of food places.” He continues to send money to his mother who lives about 50 miles away. He doesn’t get excited about much but he beamed when he told me he was attending a “junior police academy” sponsored by the high school.
I asked him where he had been before I saw him at the bus stop and his already soft voice got even softer and he mumbled “I was visiting my baby’s momma.”
Incredulous, certain that I hadn’t heard right, I looked at him and said “What???”
“Oh, yeah, well, uh…I’m gonna be a Daddy.”
His friendly demeanor has always made it difficult for me to get mad at him but this time I wanted to slap him in the head.
“Are you kidding me? You got a girl pregnant? Are you out of your fucking mind?”
The minute I said it, I wanted to take it back but it was too late. We talked about how it happened, who the girl was (his girlfriend since the 8th grade), what his plans were, etc. He said he would probably have to drop out of school to get a full time job, deferring his dream of entering the police force. Then, I threw out the bombshell.
“Did you two consider an abortion?” The tension in the car rose palpably.
“Well, we’re both Catholic. We talked about it once but we know that God would not be happy if we did that and we would go to Hell.” I thought of making a quick detour to his church to confront the head priest or whatever he is called, but I again held back.
So, these two kids originally defied their church when they had sex before getting married but when that act produced a fetus, they could not defy their church again. And now they were stuck because their church had indoctrinated them for who knows how many years about the “evils” of abortion. And now they were going to be parents.
But not to worry! Things will be fine because their church will no doubt be there for them when the bills start coming in, right? That priest will certainly organize fundraising drives for Carlos and his new family to pay for the clothes, the food, the sport uniforms, the field trips. I mean, they are good Christians so they’ll be there every step of the way, right? Of course they will be there to help because, after all, they were the ones who convinced these two kids that that oh-so-precious life inside that girl must be protected at all costs.
We all know that there are many Catholics out there that ultimately have abortions. But think about the incredible guilt they will carry with them for the rest of their lives because the Church – the male dominated Church – has deemed that that little thing that is in the woman’s body is a “life” that needs protecting.
So, because the church basically forces pregnant Catholics to give birth, Carlos and his girlfriend will go through the drill. You can tell he is not excited, but he wants to do the responsible thing. She will have the baby, they will break up within a few years, he will send her money, never see his child and the mother and child will enter that never ending cycle of poverty.
Does the Church not see what they are doing? Is it so damned important to protect that “life” and practically destroy these two kid’s lives in the process?



March 24, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Pat, this is your writing. You must hear these stories and then rewrite them. There can’t be two people this good.
Carlos, though, is doing the right thing. Fornication is wrong but murder is wronger.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:33 am
John,
You worship some convicted murderers.
Call them heroes, martyrs, burn flags to honor them, befriend them in jail, say you would be happy for them to be your children.
“Wronger?”
Who says sex is wrong. The Cathololic Church? Most the world are not Catholics.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 8:06 am
They should be.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:46 am
But, John, we all do “wrong” things, dont we? Geez, we probably do something wrong every day. So, if these two stupid kids do something wrong by having – dare I say it – sex, you are saying they should be punished by having the child? And think about it, do you really want that child – who in all probability will wind up on welfare – to be sucking our limited resources?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Who are you to say what the outcome of the child’s life will be? The point is not to punish the kids who had sex, the point is that it is unacceptable to punish the unborn child. Who is to say that child wouldn’t grow up, overcome obstacles, and contribute to society, rather than end up on welfare? Forget about the catholic church – maybe God has a brilliant plan for this child. Amazing I see nothing about adoption, and I’ve been reading this blog for 20 minutes. Can the two kids put the baby up for adoption? No church should condemn you for your sins, God’s the judge, not the church.
Has anyone ever thought of what would have become of the millions of unborn babies? All that life wasted because we think we’re superior to God, and we know better than him. No wonder the country has no brilliant minds to fix the economic mess we’re in – they were aborted 580 million unborn babies ago.
I’m sure people are going to pick this apart angrily. The level of hatred on this blog is sickening.
LikeLike
May 28, 2011 at 5:51 pm
I won’t pick it apart,Julie. I love you.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 8:47 am
Well written Pat, I love this post and the questions you are raising. It is so true that the catholic church can condemn you for your “sins” and let their wrong doings slide.
How many lives are we going to allow religion to destroy? That is the question my friend.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 7:26 am
Catholics have already killed more people than any mass murder institution ever conceived.
Catholics win the “Murder” award of civilization.
LikeLike
March 25, 2011 at 9:39 am
I like particularly the part where Pat answers to John’s post and says:
“So, if these two stupid kids do something wrong by having – dare I say it – sex, you are saying they should be punished by having the child”?
You see that the fetus becomes a punishment out of the blue… not a blessing anymore!
That is what catholic people does. They fill your mind with stupid beliefs and makes you to suffer and from the very beginning that child, baby, fetus… from inside the “mothers” womb start to be unwanted and the emotional distress that this “unwanted” causes nobody is concerned about it… nobody researches to know what that can cause on that fetus… and those who does research are called liars or merely “pro-choice”
People in general are so stupid that instead enjoying life to the second they waste their time believing in stupidities wrote in 1500.
Nice post Pat. Thank you!
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 10:26 am
Thanks, Sonia, it’s been a while since we heard from you. I was raised a Catholic and was totally scared crapless of God cause I was told he could strike me down if I looked at someone crooked. Then we couldn’t eat meat on Fridays! What’s up with dat? And now they can. When did God or Jesus change that rule?
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 11:50 am
a while ago
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 8:36 pm
John,
What is the value of a comment from a person like yourself that is going to spend an eternity in hell?
I do not believe that the Cannonical law will ever allow you the proper sacrament for entry to heaven, do you?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 4:15 am
Yes, Maria, they are not so unforgiving as you.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:42 pm
You are going to be in for a big bad surprise when you go down to Hell instead of up for your sins against God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is sacred and paramount, and you are not a follower of Jesus Christ our Lord, by your admissions in your own writings.
Jesus would never approve of you.
Just like the 9/11 terrorists.
Our dear Lord does not forgive the Barbaric Sins you have committed without the proper sacraments and asking for forgiveness. You laugh at Jesus by your actions.
As a Christian I find that as repulsive as anything could be.
From reading your writings, you are not able to receive the sacraments.
Mary condemns the JHs properly, as would the Pope.
You are a hateful sinner amongst true worshipers of the dear Lord.
I will pray for your condemned eternal soul. I do doubt that the good Lord will forgive you for your sins.
LikeLike
May 28, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Thank God you ain’t The Good Lord.
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 5:50 am
Ah ha! Now I know why you’re such a clear thinker: “I was raised a Catholic . . .”
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Sometimes i get lost Pat in the posts and when i don’t have anything to write that makes sense i rather shut up…
hehe
LikeLike
March 26, 2011 at 8:32 pm
The Catholic Church is a plague on humanity.
We would all be better if it never existed.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 4:16 am
Someone could say the same thing about you, Bharta.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Anyone can say anything.
You are like an adolescent trying to talk to adults.
Because you are able to comment does not make it true.
Please defend the endless murderous rampages, the tortures, the misogyny, the Pedophilia of the Catholics please?
Instead of making stupid comments . . .
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 8:35 am
Let me make the same request: Please, Bharta, defend your endless murderous rampages, your support of torture, your misogyny, your pedophilia, your kleptomania, and your pyromania.
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:28 am
I think it would be good to first establish, Bharta, why you are pro-choice?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 7:00 am
I think it would be good for the retard Dunkle to actually answer a question for once.
There should be a flow to dialogue.
Dunkle is a perfect example of a pro life imbecile. He is worthless if he cannot answer a simple question.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:25 am
Pat,
yes I am Pro Life.
But I will not ignore the murderous past of the Catholic Church despite the fact that I am Pro Life.
I find Pro Lifers that do not have the courage to face the reality of our horrible Catholic Crimes against humanity are not able to discuss much at all intelligently.
Dunkle and Mary are obvious examples.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 7:22 am
Why is Dunkle here? He is just a stupid nuisance and broke his promise to stay away.
His last comment is another example of his diminished mental capacity again.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:45 am
But Bharta, why should dunkle answer you when you have not answered my question that I posed to you above?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:28 am
Pat is was answered. I just saw this question.
In general dialogue a thread is pursued where a question is asked then answered.
I am happy to answer your question Pat, but that does not relieve a monster like Dunkle to waste everyone’s time by just being a nauseating nuisance.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Bharta, ask yourself which monkey gets more respect in the zoo– the one which eats the peanuts you toss, or the one who throws his poop at you? Then ask yourself why you get angry at Dunkle for being what he is….
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:35 pm
INGA SU!!!!!!!!!
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 6:18 am
Pat, you ended your poignant storytelling with two questions: Does the Church not see what they are doing? Is it so damned important to protect that “life” and practically destroy these two kid’s lives in the process?
I’m unable to say with any certainty whether the Church really cares about the psychosocial dynamics of these two kids’ lives. Of course, the Church’s public relations department would parrot what they deem as morally correct: Respect all life including that tiny blob of conceptus. However, from society’s majority point of view, the Church would disrespect the value of the teens’ lives. The Church’s dogma blinds them to the realities of lived experiences of ordinary human beings. They see two mortal souls and define them as fornicators even though they were using the tools that God gave them. It’s only the Church (as in old, homoerotic, homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual men) that creates the utter nonsense about sexuality. We have only to consider their lackluster responses to pedophilia and the lifetime harm their blindness has imposed on innocent children and their families. The Church’s definition of “life” is at once the hierarchy’s misanthropic mythology and the Church loyals’ intellectual and emotional prison.
One means of re-examining the definition of life, is to consider the process of defining. I.A. Richards provides an insight into the definition process. He wrote about “proper meaning superstition” and his concept has value to this conversation. Proper meaning superstition, according to Richards, is a false belief that there is one, precise meaning for each word. Applied to the Church, life has one meaning. Murder has one meaning. Abortion has one meaning. Truth has one meaning.
But one definition for one word distracts us from the complexities of life, from the nuances of morality and truth in context. Neil Postman wrote that a definition is the starting point of a dispute, not the settlement. Richards wrote “We want to do something, and a definition is a way of doing it. If we want certain results, then we must use certain definitions. But no definition has any authority apart from a purpose, or any authority to bar us from other purposes. What we need to know is that definitions are not given to us by God; that we may depart from them without risking our immortal souls; that the authority of a definition rests entirely on its usefulness, not on its correctness.”
And in the case of these two teenagers, their lives should take priority. The teens’ definitions of their lives should be what matters. But the Church is punitive, defining them as fornicators, shaming them, and punishing them to live with their mistake. It’s what the Church does best. Punish everyone but the Church. It’s their modus operandi. Like the victims of their pedophiles, the Church punishes not the priests but the victims who live with their aggressor’s mistakes for their entire life. Like the victims of rape, the Church punishes not the rapist but the victim who must live with the aggressor’s mistake for her entire life. And like the millions of children who were victims of the morality Gestapo in parochial schools, the Church punishes not the demonic teachers and principles but the school children who grow up emotionally damaged.
So when you ask, Pat, if the Church sees what it’s doing, I’d say yes. They see what they’re doing. And, yes, it is that damned important to protect that “life” and practically destroy these two kid’s lives in the process. It’s what they Church does best.
Kate
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 9:27 am
I fear that you are correct, Kate. Well written, by the way. When Carlos told me what was going on, I really did feel like driving to the local church and dragging him into the priest and showing the priest the fruits of his labor. Indeed, this church has a statute “to the unborn” in front as you walk in. As we former Catholics say: Oy Vey
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 4:58 am
You’re a much better writer than critic, Pat: “Well written, by the way.” If you dig through Kate’s manure, though, you do come up with some interesting stuff.
Look here, for example: “If we want certain results, then we must use certain definitions.” So what definition does Kate use to define someone she wants to help kill? — “that tiny blob of conceptus”
All one has to do to become pro-life is read or listen to a pro-deather.
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:30 am
You’re right, John. I will admit that oftentimes I just do not have the intellectual capacity to absorb some of this “heavy” stuff about the church or whatever. I’m more “street smart” I guess. So, all I can say is “well written” but I dont have the strength to delve too deeply.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:35 am
Kate,
Thank you for your unyielding support of Women’s rights. Your comments have been a role model in our Women’s Issues class, revealing the massive misogyny that still exists in America.
The man in our class agree as well. Recognition is not divided among gender lines in our class of over 55 College Students.
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Kate,
thank you for your intelligent input.
It is so frustrating talking to these dimwit prolifers.
I am glad there is an intelligent voice of reason in you.
You decimate the Pro Lifers. They are quite ill. Do you believe they should be under psychiatric care?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It’s interesting to see how the so-called “pro-lifer’s” response to tnsdh’s post is to try to reclaim the high ground of definition: it’s the single most important task of that movement to hold the power to define all the terms. It MUST be an unborn innocent; it MUST be human from the moment of conception; abortion MUST be murder; the women who have them MUST be murderesses, and so on.
And of course Frank Gaffney has pointed out that by merely repeating the opposition’s terms, I reinforce the opposition’s imprint in the minds of the uncommitted public.
Which is why it is necessary to stop talking about abortion and start talking about aborticentrism. It completely re-defines the entire struggle.
Kate?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Eons ago, when I discovered this blog, Chuckles, Pat was asking if you thought it was kosher to use it to promote yourself. And you’re still at it: “. . .to stop talking about abortion and start talking about aborticentrism.” But this blog is and will always be about baby killing. You’d have great input if you’d forget whatever it is you’re trying to push, and contribute.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:41 pm
John,
a lot of what this blog has revealed is that you
– are a liar
– evade questions and play games and accomplish nothing
– cannot support your beliefs
– you are condemned by Pro Life people, revealing yourself an outcast in your own group, so many prolifers have thought of you as a bizarre outcast, you should make up a name for what you are
– You do believe in violence, and like convicted murderers
– you are not very smart, and you are outwitted by youngsters in their young college years
you are basically a worthless being when it comes to the the prolife issue, and clearly have the problems that CG describes in my opinion.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:19 am
Getting nervous about losing the high ground, are we?
LikeLike
March 27, 2011 at 12:16 pm
So today when i woke up i turn on the TV and there was Law & Order tv show.
Funny that since i start to pay more attention to what goes around in the “abortion” subject i get to see this with different eyes.
The show was about a murder of an abortion doctor that leads to the prosecution of a radical pro-life leader, who hopes to use the trial to grandstand against abortion laws.
The most amazing part was the trial. When Mr. McCoy asks the killer why he didn’t shoot the woman himself and he can’t really answer… he comes up with all excuses he could find but at the end Mr. McCoy asks him to answer his question, he tries to ask the judge to help but he finds himself in trouble… Anyways, as we see on the day to day basis of this world, does who can’t DO, always send somebody who is more weak to DO the dirty job… They brainwash weaker minds to think that this is “GOD” wish and unfortunately there are a lot of weak people out there to do this. Unfortunately there are people out there who is so coward that send other people to do what they don’t believe to be the right thing, but they like to think as themselves as “mentors”… and worse of all, at the end they blame GOD, stating that God send them to mentor this or that person in order to commit a murderer that they are not capable of. COWARDS! STUPIDS! INSANE!
If these same kind of people would use their power of convincing people to make a difference we, and i mean WE, would have a much better world!
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 9:34 am
That’s interesting, Sonia. I really think there are just some nutballs out there who are looking to make a name for themselves, they are desperate, alone and, worse, have access to a weapon. that’s why we see so many copy cat killings. So, after Doctor Gunn was killed there were quickly other killings. After Columbine, there were other shootings in schools. We publicize these nutballs, then there are other nutballs out there who just want to out do the other nutball. [uyblicl otherbn wa in
LikeLike
March 28, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Nice fairy tale, Pat. In a few years he’ll be sending her money. Yeah. Right. Not if he’s the typical absent father.
The Catholic Church is a patriarchy, pure and simple. Well, not that pure, and since the Jezzies, not that simple. However, as Benedict is the second-last Pope we won’t have to wait far beyond my lifetime to see some major change. My own money is on James Dobson buying it out. After Michaele Sidone’s graft, the Vatican has pretty much been running on empty…
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:27 am
Lest any of your readers believe that prolifers are at clinics to help, why not see them action. See for yourself how they behave. And for those who don’t recognize him, John Dunkle is the terrorist with the toy megaphone.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:53 am
Holy S**T!
That video of Gerry(?) Harassing a young rape victim?
That is a typical example of how sick in the brain most pro lifers are!
Every day I read crazy pro lifers on this site,
thank you for revealing the deficient pro life brain to the sane world.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:02 am
Why do you raise and then dash my hopes, Kate. I’m not here, no megaphone either.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:31 am
Pat, lest any of your readers wonder about prolifers in action, I offer clips of Allentown PA’s finest in action. The old man with the toy megaphone is none other than our Saturday morning terrorist, John Dunkle.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:55 am
Who is the sick old retarded man with the megaphone?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:04 am
That’s me. I didn’t see this at first. Then it popped up.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:51 am
What is the insignia on the hat, John? Frankly, when I see these videos of protestors I can only think of how pathetic these folks are. Absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday except to stare at pregnant women…..
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:43 am
I think that’s my NYPD cap. I don’t stare at pregnant women; I yell at them.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:36 am
Think about that, John. You’re standing outside yelling at women. If that weren’t so sick, I would say it’s funny….
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:35 am
Neither sick nor funny, but necessary — ten or so deathscorts trying to drown me out — what else can I do?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:14 am
Collectively, we call the four males on Saturday morning as the Loser Cruisers because they offer nothing except to stalk and terrorize women and to tell ridiculous lies about some connect with breast cancer and abortion, about the myth of maternal instinct and variations on perverted God theme. Of course, for Dunkle, sharing these videos is a double edged sword because they only feed his hunger for attention.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:18 am
Do they smell funny?
They look like they do not employ attention to hygiene as a sick person might be able to.
Perhaps they have psychiatric disorders?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:50 am
Amy, I don’t think I smell any funnier than the normal septuagenerian. Ask Billy or Anna, though. Sometimers they stick their faces in front of my megaphone to attempt to block my sound. What they get is a bellyfull of morning breath. I don’t think I could do that.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:23 pm
Do you brush and floss your teeth?
Maybe you just have really bad Halitosis from lack of self-care.
That can happen to a decomposing mind.
LikeLike
May 28, 2011 at 6:04 pm
I do, but I think you’re right with that last change, and alcohol can help it to decompose.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:01 pm
Actually, I’ve never gotten close enough to notice any particular odor. The only person with noticeable aesthetic issues is Joe Kubich, the guy with the big Malachi poster (he drags it around every Saturday like a baby blanket). He is perpetually unkempt. But appearances and odors are issues that detract from the real harm that they inflict on women every Saturday and do so with unmitigaged arrogance.
As far as psychiatric disorders, I am not qualified to say with any certainty. I can tell you that a few of my psychology colleagues claim that many of their behaviors are suspicious including paranoid personality characteristics, narcissistic traits and sociopathic tendencies. Regardless of any possible diagnosis, one thing is certain: their behaviors are further warped by their extremist interpretations of Catholicism. And that, Amy, is what makes them troublesome.
LikeLike
May 28, 2011 at 6:08 pm
I knew it isn’t Kate, whom I like; it’s those Psychology colleagues who are a lost cause.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:44 am
Yeah, but what’s the other edge?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:49 am
The general poor hygiene of ProLifers is the other edge
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
Today on the radio i heard the most insane thing ever… On this morning radio show they were saying that they wen’t above and beyond to find a cake for one of the show participants without any chocolate in it… After i heard that i paid more attention to it and stupid as it sounds, “she” can’t eat chocolate because she is CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT?????? SERIOUS?????????
Don’t they have something more serious to care about it??????????
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:28 pm
sonia, they were probably referring to her not being able to eat chocolate because it’s the lenten season now.
but some catholics don’t understand the true meaning of lent.
it’s not about dietary restrictions even though meat is not to be eaten on lenten fridays.
it is about purification of the things in one’s heart that are spiritual impediments.
so for instance, i gave up meat. but that meat is meant to represent pride, which i struggle a great deal with.
people should learn to question their faith rather than just going through the motions.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:23 am
Look at me, Rog the Great! I’m not like that nasty going-through-the-motions publican over there. My heart is pure.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:18 am
kkkkkkkkk
Sorry John, but you post made me laugh so good!
U can say u are whatever you want to, but, that your heart is pure… kkkkkk
Apologies, but it is far, far, far from being the truth!
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:30 pm
hmmmm
it seems to me that if carlito and his gf chose to have their baby, that anyone who claims to be pro-choice should support that choice.
otherwise, they wouldn’t be pro-choice, they would simply be pro-abortion, which can be just as anti-choice as anti-abortion.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 12:38 pm
for some reason, i have to add my name and email again to show who i am.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Absolutely, rogelio! And real “pro-choicers” would!
I do, and I think Carlos would lose a spelling bee to a bag of hammers, but that’s hardly his fault.
I’ll be more than happy to be proven wrong, but if I’m right, I get the schadenfreude, nyah, nyah, nyah! The kid gets a good life, or I can steep in the juices of my discontent…
Either way, I win, just like a so-called “pro-lifer.”
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Of course they should both make an informed decision. And if the Church is weighing on their decision, then so be it.
But I’d have to add that I’d want for them the type of counseling that they deserve including risks of abortion, adoption and parenting–risks that are medically based, not based on the collect folk wisdom of the likes of pamphleteers and Ph.D’s drawn from the margins of academia in the prolife movement. Then let them make their own decisions.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:56 pm
TNSDH,
do you find it astonishing
1) That Mary was kind enough to debunk, and condemn Dunkle
and
yet,
2) Mary seems to disavow the well established mainstream scientific process?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 5:57 pm
On that note, where is the Dunkle?
Usually he would be like a firestorm chiming in with his falsehoods and evasions.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:26 am
I’m here smoldering, Teddy boy. But don’t throw any dead wood my way or you’ll wither in the holocaust.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:01 pm
you make some good points, but in the end, to be truly pro-choice, shouldn’t choicers honor and respect their decision regardless of the reasons for it?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:49 pm
Hi Rogelio,
Not sure if you were talking to me or not.
Yes, people should have choice, even if they choose to make a bad choice for themselves.
However, it is sad to think of all the CPC Mills about, and Catholics lying to people, so when they make a choice it based on lies an misrepresentations.
No one can control other people’s stupidity.
For the most part I will vote for people to be allowed to be as stupid as they want to be with their own bodies.
It is the Pragmatic part of a republic.
None of us can make choices for over 300,000,000 people.
Most people cannot even make their own choices properly. But that is what freedom is about. Being able to choose for yourself, and not being subjugated to the whims pf others as that is when tyranny strikes.
That is one reason the framers of our government formed a Republic. To avoid tyranny.
I hope I answered your question if it was directed to me.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:12 pm
jajajajaja
actually it wasn’t directed to you, but it’s nice to meet you, ted. 🙂
it’s just that in a situation like this, i think that it is probably harder for a choicer to stay true to their stance than it might be if the kids had different circumstances.
lots of times i see choicers ask lifers questions that put things in a difficult perspective.
but the perspective can be difficult for choicers too, and this is a good example.
even for your own children, as much as you may believe you know what is best for them, they have to be allowed to make their own choices especially about something like this.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:41 am
I totally support his choice, Anonymous. I was first of all angry that they didn’t use contraception. Then my next reaction was sadness that these kids, because they would not consider abortion, now have their life mapped out for them. We’ve seen it a million times. I hope, of course that things work out well for them. Indeed, I am anonymously sending Carlos money but…..we’ll it’s just sad…. nideedohopeiotnsejon
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:06 pm
It’s probably Martini Time at the Dunkle Homestead. He’s busy.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:21 pm
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:53 pm
The possessed Dunkle is probably speechless as he realizes a lifetime of lies (to others and himself) – that he thought he was smarter than others – In reality he actually is a transparent misfit.
Even most Pro Lifers disregard his insanities.
He is like a tragic character in a very bad play.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Not tonight, Babes — Lent.
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Like Satan cares about your Lent!
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Gina, what does your perusal of aborticentrism tell you about him?
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 6:42 pm
tnsdh and rogelio from #15: “you make some good points, but in the end, to be truly pro-choice, shouldn’t choicers honor and respect their decision regardless of the reasons for it?”
More than that, rogelio, it’s good sense! Child development professionals have a motto: “You can’t take care of the child until you take care of the mom (or if dad is involved also, “the parents”.”
It’s true that some people are absolutely clueless about what parenthood is really about, but it is a boneheaded MISTAKE to be anything other than supportive. After all, they have a right to achieve their adult potential, and dumping on them in any way impedes their progress to self-empowerment. Our job is to show them how to still reach self-empowerment even though they are going to have some very important luggage.
No matter how stupid, evil or mentally deficient they might be, they do want to be the best parent they possibly can be– and when we support them in their individual or joint decision, we make it possible for them to get even more for their baby than they thought possible– they open themselves up to possibilities they’d never dreamed of.
But if we condemn them, try to persuade them otherwise or cut them off, we risk abandoning their child to well-meant but harmful ministrations.
The ignorant parent (and I most certainly was in that group) needs to be given the tools to discover her or his untapped resources– the ability to define what needs to happen, the people who can make it happen and the skills to pull it all together. You can only help them get there by supporting them from Day One and never abandoning them.
It’s why home visiting is a more effective way of producing healthy kids than a state stipend for the teen to live at home with her parents. Family values lose to professionalism every time! But home visiting mean tax dollars. You think the so-called “pro-lifers” want their taxes raised?. . . .
LikeLike
March 29, 2011 at 8:00 pm
chuckles, i understand exactly what you and kate are saying, and as i said, they are excellent points.
it just seems that among some choicers for whom i have a great deal of respect, that there are a lot of “ifs, ands or buts” to supporting the choice to have the baby, that i somewhat doubt would be there if they chose to abort.
my roommate’s first pregnancy was aborted against her will because someone else thought she would be making the wrong decision to have the baby.
the same thing almost happened with the current pregnancy.
all i am saying is that to be true to a pro-choice stance, choicers should support the choice to have the baby no matter the circumstances, just as you would support the choice to abort.
as far as the taxes go, helping take care of those who need help is the best reason we have for paying them to begin with.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 8:39 am
How does someone have an abortion against “their will”? Her roommate said she should have a baby and that was it???
LikeLike
April 1, 2011 at 8:34 am
her father forced the abortion with the first pregnancy.
the same was being done with this one.
forced abortions occur just as forced births do.
i could supply you with a number of sources from a pro-life stance that speaks of this, but for whatever reason, i can’t find any from a pro-choice stance. i have no idea why this is, because the choicers i associate with would NEVER support forced abortions.
but i guess no pro-choice groups have seen fit to delve into it enough to make a report on it.
LikeLike
April 2, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I need more info. How did the father FORCE her to get an abortion? Did he hold a gun to her head and force her (and the doctor) to do it?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 1:17 pm
she was in high school and had no other means of support.
he threatened to thrown her into the street.
coercion is a form of force, pat.
do you honestly believe that all clinics actually get down to the nitty gritty to determine if an abortion is the choice of the woman and nobody else?
i know for a fact that some do, and i know for a fact that some don’t.
sometimes we must remember that while we each have our own stance on abortion, we must also admit that our own camps have weak links within them.
the bottom line is that she didn’t want an abortion, and her father used a form of force.
i have met 2 sets ( actually 1 1/2 sets as one was a single mother. )of parents that used forceful tactics for their daughters to abort against their will.
these people did not have horns, they didn’t breathe fire, they were not some kind of monsters.
they were actually loving devoted parents who made a terrible mistake.
they believed that they knew what was best for their daughters and used whatever tactics they needed to, in order to gain the action that they wanted.
in time, they came to see that what they did was wrong, and they were horrified that they had done it.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Pat, it happens both ways– forcing an abortion and forcing a pregnancy. What is called for is third-party intervention from mental health specialists to sort out what’s in the best interests of all.
I once dealt with a high school junior who said to me “I had an abortion!” She was quite defiant about it, but I was in no position to ask if she’d had any say in the matter. But I did have a feeling that she had not.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:56 am
Charles, I want to clarify my stance, not only for you but for the general tenor of the conversation. I do believe that abortion is a choice for women. I believe abortion is a good choice for women in circumstances where THEY deem it is a their best option for either an unplanned pregnancy or a pregnancy that has gone awry (fetal demise, fetal abnormalities). But saying that does not mean that I will always agree with their decision. It does mean that I will respect that woman and her decision. Respect and agreement are nuanced differences that are difficult to illustrate in blog comments and in the verbal exchanges outside abortion clinics where complexities and nuances are simply absent.
Regarding your comments about parents being clueless and home visits, I’d say that I’ve heard many parents from different generations make that claim. As to the home visits and taxes to pay for home visits, I feel as if I have missed something. Or are you introducing an alternative to ignorant parenting?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:40 am
It’s been around for years, Kate. One of the earliest studies on the effectiveness of home visiting was done in Randy Terry’s hometown, Binghamton, NY. (Randy was too busy screwing his Operation Rescue hotties while this was happening.) It was found that home-visited first time parents took their children in to the doctor more frequently for preventive care check-ups, that the children got sick less frequently and used the ER less frequently when they did get sick; that they grew better; that the moms reported significantly higher levels of self-esteem and self-confidence; and that the rate of abuse was markedly reduced.
Of course you respect their decision! But if you can introduce them to little improvements in parenting, you move up to the next step. Being “pro-choice” is really about doing well by the kids you want to have. And it’s the Christian thing to want to do well by all children.
How about we get bullhorns and scream at parents as they drop their kids off at day care? Now, that’d be great “pro-choice” heroism!!!
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:09 am
I’m not in agreement with you about screaming at anyone, with or without a bullhorn.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:39 am
Sometimes it’s okay to lighten up, tnsdh. How well would a Klan demonstration go if suddenly a host of pink-robed and hooded figures appeared and started doing the Bunny Hop by the light of their burning cross?
What messages would “pro-choicers” yell at parents dropping off their kids at day care? Your answer will indicate how deeply you’ve been sold the so-called “pro-life” definition of the issue…. think about it.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:09 am
I don’t get the day care issue, I guess. Is day care in general a problem for you? Would a Montessori day care be the same? I guess I’m missing your message especially as it relates to pro-life.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:19 pm
You don’t find much to laugh about, do you, tnsdh?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:22 am
Kate, would you prohibit pro-choicers from protesting in front of a CPC?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:29 am
Nope
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:34 am
I’m pro free speech. Do I like the prolife speech? No. Do they have a right? Yes.
Do prochoicers have a right to protest in front of a CPC or a day care? Yes. I guess I still don’t get the point.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:56 pm
TNSDH,
I believe you do get the point from reading your Blog.
We have the right to free speech.
That free speech is constrained by many very good laws.
A doctor cannot lie negligently about fact.
Defamation from lying Slander & Libel are not OK.
Hate & insightful violent expression is prohibited, for good reason.
Verbal Abuse is not protected under Free Speech. Many a person has been thrown in Jail for Verbal spouse abuse.
The laws are clear, that Free Speech is not a wide open subject.
I suspect you agree with me already. I just wanted to clarify. Curious if you feel differently.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm
One more thing, Charles, is a question for you in regards to your comment:
***Being “pro-choice” is really about doing well by the kids you want to have. And it’s the Christian thing to want to do well by all children.******
Since when is prochoice about all that? And, who cares whether it’s the Christian or Islamic or Jewish thing to do? And how do you define “do well by all children”? The vagaries of “do well” leaves enormous space for multivocal truths about what counts as doing well. Whatever! Personally, I don’t see parenting, education, Christianity fitting into your broader definition of being prochoice.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
It helps to see your parents overstressed by the addition of one more to your ten sibs. “Pro-choicers” have chosen to care for the children they are going to have; if you want to argue they don’t, well. . . . And their stance is almost exactly opposite that of the so-called “pro-lifers.” I put “Christian” in there to keep a bridge to their side: letting them know who the better Christians are. As long as you defend “pro-choice” as a woman’s right to make her own decision, you give them ammunition. You should re-define it as the truly caring attitude and get off the defensive.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:20 pm
As long as any person tells me “you should” I will always be wary of that individual. You call it defensive. I call it crossing the line. I am fine with my definitons as you are with your definitions. I’ll repeat part of what I wrote earlier, that one definition for one word distracts us from the complexities of life, from the nuances of morality and truth in context. Neil Postman wrote that a definition is the starting point of a dispute, not the settlement. Richards wrote “We want to do something, and a definition is a way of doing it. If we want certain results, then we must use certain definitions. But no definition has any authority apart from a purpose, or any authority to bar us from other purposes. What we need to know is that definitions are not given to us by God; that we may depart from them without risking our immortal souls; that the authority of a definition rests entirely on its usefulness, not on its correctness.”
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Have you ever seen a shade pulled down and wondered what’s on the other side of the window, and then decided not to raise the shade?
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:09 pm
Sometimes I’m tempted to leave this blog and just let you chew up each other, but I resist the temptation.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:42 pm
You’ve pondered and posted before but you have yet to leave. Nor will you ever leave, my guess, because you simply cannot resist the temptation to chime in, to offer what you believe are valuable contributions.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Dunkle,
you threaten (not a threat really, more of a joke – You) that routinely.
Just do it.
Leave. You already said you would.
You keep coming back, like an unwanted haunting.
One creepy guy.
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 7:06 am
tnsdh, it’s not that he wants to chime in; it’s that he needs to generate acknowledgement from somebody–anybody– that he exerts influence. If he can’t do it by caring for real humans, he’ll settle for being obtrusive. It’s part of the burden of aborticentrism.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 5:31 am
Boy, it is so easy to be “pro-life,’ as taped in #12: No need to spend a lot of money against one’s will; no need to learn more than a dozen words of English; no need to summon up courage to face daunting odds. Heroes on the cheap!!!
Contrast that with coming up to the fence and offering to pay the woman $284,000 to bear a child and raise him to age 18. Suddenly, the closer responsibility for life gets, the less sacred human life becomes.
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 9:15 am
tnsdh in #17: So-called “pro-lifers” stand outside ob/gyn clinics and use bullhorns. The mirror of that is for “pro-choicers” to stand outside day care centers and use bullhorns.
Now: what sort of messages should we be yelling at parents of born kids? I invite the so-called “pro-lifers” to offer a few suggestions. (tHis is a learning experience, tnsdh.)
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I think the idea of prochoicers yelling outside daycare or CPC centers with bullhorns is an absurd parallel on one level. It’s absurd because who gives a damn about either. On another level, why not protest CPCs because they misinform and because they are not qualified professionals? Or why not protest daycares that warehouse children? It becomes a matter of what is important to you as an activist. Personally, I’d rather see much larger issues emerge that make daycares like Montessori schools, that fund vibrant Head Start programs, that make parent-child centers at work a normal part of life. But that’s a pipe dream that won’t happen in this current political climate.
For the prolifers in Allentown, the fetus is their raison d’etre for life. Prolifers want women to make one choice–avoid birth control, keep all pregnancies, abstain from sex until married (assuming heterosexuality as the norm, the gold standard).
For NAF and ACN affiliated prochoicers, they raison d’etre is providing safe, professional care to enable women to make choices for themselves.
Prochoice has seldom, if ever, been about child rearing or about interferring in someone’ life any more than a physician interferes with a patient’s life when she says “You need to stop smoking.”
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 6:26 pm
“raison d’etre for life” — redundant, sorry
LikeLike
March 31, 2011 at 7:03 am
tnsdh– Meetcha at the day care center with your bullhorn. Here afre some chants:
“Save money for his college!”
“Thank you for teaching her to clean up her mess!”
“Live long enough to embarrass them when they’re grown-ups!”
“He’s never going to thank you for this, you know!”
“Great kid you have there!”
“Isn’t it nice to be done with potty-training?”
“She really looks up to you!”
“You’re doing a great job!”
“Stay strong! He doesn’t need a puppy!”
LikeLike
March 30, 2011 at 11:20 am
Thanks Rogelio for explaining to me… I try to find at google some explanation for that and didn’t get any answer on it…
LikeLike