Planned Parenthood Rally
Sorry I haven’t posted anything in the last few days. Actually, I’ve been stuck at Planned Parenthood’s national convention which was just a few miles from my stately mansion here in Mount Vernon, Virginia.
Of course, the buzz at the convention was how that nasty U.S. Congress was gonna halt all federal funding for PPFA. Everywhere you went throughout the very large hotel, there were signs with big exclamation points, videos of speeches of some woman pounding her fist on a way-too-tall podium, buttons with clever slogans, pink tee shirts. You couldn’t escape the hysteria. Surely, it is the apocalypse!
All right now, let’s all calm down here for a second. The bottom line is there ain’t no way in hell this is going to happen.
The Congress of the United States does not have the votes to stop this pernicious attack on abortion. Oops, did I use the “a” word? I’m sorry if I slipped because using that word is verboten because, as we know, most of the pro-choice groups cannot say the nasty “a” word because it’s way too sensitive. Instead, we have to say these attacks are about women’s health, about their mammograms, their pap smears and all of those other socially acceptable tests that women must perform.
But I digress.
Nothing is going to happen because we’ve got Barack Obama sitting in the White House, ready to veto any legislation that denies PPFA any funding. And that’s because he is a true champion of abortion….uh….I mean reproductive rights! All hail Obama!
The pro-choice lobbyists in Washington, D.C. know that at the end of the day, PPFA will be fine. They will continue to get their money. Sure, those lobbyists have to be vigilant and earn their money but they know damn well PPFA will live to see another day. But that doesn’t stop their fundraisers down the hall from cranking out the pleas for money. I think once a week I get a letter or a postcard screaming at me to give money TODAY to stop the RIGHT WING CONGRESS from denying women their right to BASIC HEALTH CARE!
The problem is that, if you send ten dollars, the letter you get next week is not a simple thank you – it’s another request for a contribution. So, you send another ten dollars but, before you know it, you’re getting a phone from some twenty year old begging for more money. Okay, okay, I’ll send you $20 but please stop asking me! The next morning, as I’m sipping my coffee, there’s a knock on the door. It’s a special fed ex package from the PRESIDENT of PPFA herself begging…..
Well, you get the picture.
Yes, the organizations need to raise money for fixed expenses but this “battle” is a sham and, honestly, I think some people really get into it. It’s almost as if they enjoy being on the defensive. But we’re gonna win this one, folks. And I’m gonna miss my daily talks with those PPFA folks!
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
April 11, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Oh so true and oh so sad.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 8:23 pm
And the same goes for the pro-life organizations, right John?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 12:54 pm
jajajajaja
VERDAD!
all of the pro-life email lists that i am on make it a point to ask for money just as much as the pro-choice lists i am on.
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Pat, with another deadline for raising the debt ceiling coming up, you can bet your most treasured lingerie (assuming you’re a fetishist) that Obama is going to once again give the Republicans his lunch money as his first offer, and then they will demand PPA funding cuts. Having a veto power has nothing to do with a man who thinks he can govern America the way Nelson Mandela governed South Africa.
Of course, Mandela was not owned by Wall Street and the Chicago School of Economics, which gave him a lot more maneuverability.
Time to bring out the abortion airline schedules again….
LikeLike
April 11, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Obama will go to the mat for PPFA. He’s got no chance of winning election if he bails on them. He needs some women vote!
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Pat, Obama doesn’t need women. Thanks to Wall Street, he’s going to have a $1 billion war chest.
Having successfully diddled the President even BEFORE they became the House majority (on the Bush tax cuts) and again this past week (increasing the continuing resolution for the govt. both times), the Republicans are now going to hammer him with the need to increase the debt limit on May 8, which is even worse in the eyes of Wall Street than merely upping an I.O.U. If the debt limit is not increased, Wall Street is very likely to crash again, only this time not through its principal tool of greed, but its other tool, fear. It goes down if the US starts defaulting internationally.
So, what Wall Street is going to tell the President is, “Give them what they want, even if it means ditching the bimbos,” and he’ll do it, because they’re the only people he talks to.
And the billion will win him the election, because there will be no good alternative to him. The women who he betrays can stay home if they want, but they’re not going to vote for his opponent.
Ask me about his stand again on May 9th.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Economics is like psychology — if you know the jargon, you can say anything you want ’cause no one will understand you anyway.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 6:02 am
I agree with Pat!! I think the bottom line is Obama will veto any legisation that comes his way….
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 7:40 am
Indeed, I think he is looking for that fight. He has pissed off the pro-choicers over the health care bill, he has got to prove his pro-choice credentials or they may sit out 2012.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 12:56 pm
i agree.
i can’t see obama signing an anti-abortion legislation into law.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 6:50 pm
De-funding Planned Parenthood is not affecting its abortion services, which A) are only 3% of its activity and B) not paid for with the funding which will be cut!
I’m sorry to see that you like so many others have bought into the “Planned Parenthood=Abortion” message which the so-called “pro-lifers” have so successfully peddled all these years to make themselves look like heroes when they stalk pregnant women.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 10:42 pm
actually, chuckles, i meant what i said.
i can’t see obama signing into law ANY anti-abortion legislation. i didn’t mention planned parenthood, did i?
but since you brought it up, it’s not that i bought into the “PP = abortion” message, it’s that you bought into the “abortion is only 3% of the many services that PP offers” message without looking at their own annual reports, as they continue to dismiss sting operations in which workers are under the impression that they are aiding and abetting the sex traffickers of minors, breaking parental consent laws, failing to report possible abuse as required by law and earmarking donations for the abortions of minorities.
if you are willing to overlook those matters and expect no investigations because they are just a few cases within a huge corporation, then surely you are also willing to do the same regarding allegations of abuse within the catholic church, right? 🙂
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:30 pm
I think PP should be held to the highest ethical standards. I also think so-called “pro-lifers” should, too. The fact that massive numbers of them do not provide for real children the love they proclaim for fetuses is far more disturbing to me than the comparatively small number of transgressors in the Catholic Church, the cpc’s and PP.
Note I said “comparatively.” Even if 20% of priests were transgressors, that number would be dwarfed by the number of scpl’s who don’t care as they should for the children they insisted be born.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 12:24 am
>>> that number would be dwarfed by the number of scpl’s who don’t care as they should for the children they insisted be born.<<<
maybe so, maybe not.
you're not likely to hear much about scpl's that are willing to commit to caring FOR the babies that they want to be born because it isn't sensational enough to be publicized.
too many people would rather hear about the ones who want to scream and condemn and offer no solutions to terrible problems that those seeking abortions so often face.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:01 am
“maybe so, maybe not.”
rogelio, I have told people what is at least minimally possible in helping a child achieve full humanity. Broadly state, 600 unpaid hours a year and 8% of gross income.
Now, go around to all your scpl friends and ask them how close they come to that minimum (and a minimum it is, when you consider most parents do 8,765 hours and almost 100%).
You will be very disappointed.
You are not the standard scpl by any means, but you hope you are!d Reality says otherwise.
My start in this evangelism was in dealing with a so-called “pro-life” demonstration in which only 2.5% had adopted even one child. Unless you have an exceptional bunch of friends, you’re going to top out with less than 4% who do even 600/8.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:12 pm
The Catholic Churche’s abuses are massive compared to anything alleged by Planned Parenthood.
The Catholic Church has admitted, as have many priests, to massive pedophilia, and the cover up of pedophiles.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 10:45 pm
btw, while i don’t believe that PP will be defunded, you do realize that if it were, title x funds could be given to any other facilities to offer the same 97% of services that PP supporters want PP to continue to be funded to perform, right?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:18 pm
That’s not the point, rogelio. The actual point of de-funding PPA is not to have its non-abortion services done anyway. The actual point is to destroy a demon that the so-called “pro-life movement INVENTED in its attempt to define itself as heroes.
As I’ve said many times, it’s a dysfunctional self-help movement designed to cater to its member’s psychological needs rather than actually care for human life! They need a victory over Planned Parenthood, and they really don’t care whether its services are continued or not. As Senator John Kyl of Arizona so blatantly lied on the Senate floor, PPA earns 90% of its income doing abortions.
So-called “pro-lifers” HAVE to believe this; otherwise, they can’t have PPA as the wholly vile demon they need to destroy. Also, it would mean their sidewalk demonstrations were sledgehammers aimed at a gnat.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:49 pm
chuckles, you fail to realize that i am saying that i don’t picture obama signing ANY legislation that will take away from abortion rights, whether it involve PP or NAF or any laws pertaining to abortion.
you also implied that i equate PP with abortion.
allow me to explain what i think of PP outside of being pro-life, ok?
what you don’t understand is that i don’t equate PP with NAF clinics.
while i may be PL, i know that when there is a sleazy doctor or clinic, NAF clinics are their workers are the first in line to denounce them.
while i may be opposed to abortion, i can respect people and organizations that commit actions that are clearly wrong.
cecile richards dismisses evidence of the things i mentioned by stating that they are just a few of many workers and clinics.
she doesn’t address them, nor show any intention of investigating to ensure that such things don’t reoccur.
PP wanted to gag abby johnson when she resigned because she knew too much of the inside dealings of her affiliation.
after reading her book, it is plain to see why they wanted that.
personally, i don’t understand how your funding of this that and the other works in the us.
but i do understand that when there is evidence of wrongdoing within an entity and that entity denounces it and calls those who are responsible to task for it, i respect them, even if i don’t agree with them, and that if that entity makes excuses and refuses to make efforts to ensure that it does not reoccur, i have no respect or sympathy for them.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:51 pm
>>>while i may be opposed to abortion, i can respect people and organizations that commit actions that are clearly wrong.<<<
i meant to say that i can respect people and organizations that address the issue when actions that have been committed are clearly wrong.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Do you respect the Catholic Church?
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Terry, ask yourself why I’m the only one who pays you any attention. I admit that telling you to shut up isn’t a lot of attention, but it’s more than anybody else.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 1:19 am
Terry,
Ignore that nitwit Dunkle.
Trying to retort by “telling you to shut up” is a perfect example of him revealing his predisposition of decades of misogyny.
I appreciate your input Terry as a regular reader of this blog.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 3:36 am
>>>Do you respect the Catholic Church?<<<
yes. would you like for me to elaborate? 🙂
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:51 am
Excellently put, and I understand it, rogelio. We’re just talking about two different things– 1) Obama’s need to again give away his custody of his lunch money and his balls to the Republicans (his negotiating style, unfortunately) by agreeing to de-fund the scpl movement’s invented Agent of Satan, PPA, and 2) the need for ethical standards to be maintained in all organizations.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 8:04 am
Can’t say thngs twice here as I found out when I tried to repeat #1.
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I attended and spoke at the Feminist Majority Summit in D.C. over the weekend and felt that we were in for a fight until 2012. Eleanor Smeale was positive but also realistic. Fay Williams showed compassionate resolve that “we won’t go back.” And more expressed the realities of what we have ahead of us. But my sense is that if the Republicans destroy women’s health, education, medicare, medicaid, etc, they’ll be out of office in 2012. Kate
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:29 am
That is very cool, Kate, that you spoke at the Fem Maj Summit. Of course, PPFA et al will have to “fight” but at the end of the day Obama will be there…What did you speak about?
LikeLike
April 12, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Pat,
I’m going to make another suggestion for an article that looks at the millions of voices of women, not just whites but women of color who have very strong feelings about their reproductive health care from Pap smears to birth control, from prenatal care to abortion. All to often the readership and some of your posts have a nod to religion. How about race/ethnicity? Do you know Eleanor Hinton Hoytt, the President and CEO of the Black Women’s Health Imperative or are you familiar with Sister Song’s Trust Black Women? Or how about National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health? Just something to ponder, perhaps?
Kate
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 4:42 am
Kate’ right here again. Those are the folks you need, you know, like those Jews who helped run Auschwitz, and those African-Americans who helped run the plantations. Then they’ll never realize we’re wiping them out.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 6:21 am
What??? “Dunkle” you are nuts…
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Yeah, Lorraine, he’s really been on the front lines for African-American civil rights since the days of the Freedom Riders.
And I’m a virgin.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:18 pm
jajajajaja
it’s all a state of mind, eh, chuckles?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:24 pm
It’s rather troubling that he won’t take the time to learn about feral children.
Of course, I’ve written about why so-called “pro-lifers” won’t do that sort of thing at the
Site That Dares Not Speak Its Name.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:00 pm
I’m watching 🙂
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 11:53 pm
is there really a site by that name?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:46 am
That’s not its name, but it is Forbidden to Be Spoken here. You’ll have to figure out what the site is about…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:29 am
I responded to LDM above and I emailed a couple of things about feral children, but they’re gone. Boss is back on my case? Well, I’ll give him one more chance.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:02 pm
John: I dont know how many times I have to tell you this – there is NO censorship going on!!!! Why the hell would we (or the boss) do that?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Pat, the “couple of things” were 1) a reference to Romulus and Remus and 2) his childhood comic book collection. They weren’t censored. It’s called irony…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:18 pm
But they disappeared, Chuck! How come?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:32 am
I knew it was too good to be true when the first sentence from Dunkle said Kate was “right.”
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Yes,
another idiot remark by Dunkle.
He clearly has no knowledge of history. He must be an anti Semitic revisionist.
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:31 am
Can you be more specific, Kate? What exactly would I write about re these groups? I will tell you one thing: every friggin pro-choice meeting/convention/rally/etc was predominently white….
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 8:02 am
See?
LikeLike
April 13, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Not at Feminist Majority. They partnered with YWCA and that may have changed the diversity a bit. Dr. E. Fay Williams was probably the only woman who got a standing ovation on Saturday and she is black, powerful, eloquent and firm in her resolve as she told us all “We won’t go back.”
My session, moderated by Kathy Spillar, was about Protecting women’s health clinics and increasing access to health care.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 12:01 pm
“Fay Williams was probably the only woman who got a standing ovation on Saturday and she is black” — true white daughters of Margaret — we white folk can’t get rid of these inferior people of color, we gotta get their leaders to do that — Sanger, ain’t y’all, Kate.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Well maybe the FFM had some minorities but that is very unusual. Kathy Spillar is a name from the past. A little hard assed but she was always looking out for the clinics…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:19 pm
“hard assed” — bet I’ll be able to use that.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Can someone translate these stupid Dunkle remarks?
They are illiterate.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Yo, Terry, didn’t I tell a long time ago to be quiet!
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 9:30 am
I would love to participate on this conversation but i am lost…
Maybe my brain is in slow motion, can anybody give me in simple words what is the deal…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Join the club, sonia. We often go off on tangents, like with CG talking about feral children, whatever the hell that means…To summarize…I”m not sure where we are…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 4:56 pm
On another thread, Pat, one of your more famous participants again referred to “unreal humans.” I asked him there to look into the topic of feral children in order to have a discussion with him about how true humanity is achieved. He has not yet given a serious response, and I am pressing him on it at every opportunity.
It seems quite obvious that he has very powerful reasons for not knowing anything about human life– all of them associated with the need for self-preservation.
He could prove me wrong by learning something about feral children.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I agree.
One can learn a lot from trying to understand an issue from different perspectives.
CG is right on this point on feral children.
Before people comment they should educate themselves before spewing their ignorance.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 9:58 am
Glad to hear that… i thought was just me!!!
Wow… what a relieve…
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 12:55 pm
Sonia, the plot thus far:
1. the so-called “pro-lifers” hate abortion because it reminds them that someday they will be dead. They can’t handle this.
2. Consequently, they also hate Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions, which remind them that they are going to die.
3. Since they are unprepared to undergo therapy to deal with their fear of death, they do the only thing remaining to them: make reminders of death go away.
4. Planned Parenthood even if it did only one known abortion every year would still remind them of death.
5. However, it does many more than that.
6. And they know this.
7. Therefore, Planned Parenthood must die.
I hope that puts you up to speed.
to be continued with Chapter Two: The President Who Killed Planned Parenthood in the Name of Bipartisanship. . .
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Sonia, my brain is in slower motion that yours; so, you put into simple words what Chuckles is getting at here.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 2:07 pm
What have you learned further about feral children?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 3:05 pm
I thought I knew lot but then Mom threw out my comic books. I forget everything.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 3:55 pm
And you don’t want to find out what makes them different from children whom humans care for? Why not?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm
If a child is raised without human contact (Didn’t a Harvard guy try to do something like this?) he will be probably be profoundly damaged. Can we move on?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Do you understand how and why he will be profoundly damaged? We’re discussing this, remember?
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 7:47 pm
People need people. Can we move on.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Do feral children need people? If so, why?
You’re the one who mentions “unreal people.” I want to be sure you understand what feral children lack.
LikeLike
April 14, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Chuck, I’m scared that if I continue this, we’ll get into that earlier circle, you know, will you give sombody your dog? Remember that? A hundred fifty exchanges only to end where we started?
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 5:06 am
This is risky for you, isn’t it? You cannot bring yourself to find objective information about babies who are born to a life with too little or no nurture. It;s not information I could attack you for finding; you’d be simply the bearer of news, not its advocate or opponent, but you can’t do it!!!
Well, you’re not alone– Mary wouldn’t go there, either.
So-called “pro-lifers” can’t afford to have their certitude challenged by reality.
I’m sorry you can’t go there, but I understand why you don’t want to change your behaviors.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 9:15 am
You made some sense here, Chuckles. So let’s continue. (Otherwise, as you know, I’d say we have to talk privately) OK, Step 1: Tell me the difference between these three — 1) “born to a life with too little or no nurture,” 2) reaching a first birthday and facing a life with little or no nurture, 3) reaching a thirteenth birthday and facing a life with little or no nurture.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 10:18 am
Dunkle, immediately above:
1. If you know nothing about feral children, you know nothing about this one.
2. If you know nothing about attachment disorder, the Roumanian orphan outcomes, pediatric neurological development or pediatric nutritional needs, you don’t know enough about this one.
3. Age 13 is way too late to engage in preventive nurture. Think about the Catholic Church’s definition of the “age of reason.” What age is that, and why would they have chosen that age instead of 13? How many years too late is age thirteen to start caring for a real human life?
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 10:42 am
Chuck, I’m asking you a simple question: what profound change did you undergo during those three periods of your life?
Answer me man to man, and in your own words. Don’t use psychological jargon to avoid answering the question.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 11:43 am
I had a “normal” childhood. It was only through sheer coincidence that I did not end life as a suicide, a pervert or mentally ill.
Children can be saved from those fates; it doesn’t have to be left to coincidence. I’ve seen it happen many times.
Why so-called “pro-lifers” will not engage as passionately with real children as they do with fetal life I find both amusing and irritating.
You’re still not going to read up about feral children, are you? I understand why you cannot bring yourself to do so.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 2:00 pm
We cannot go forward if you will not change “real children” to “older real children” and “fetal life” to “younger real children.” If we were killing older real children legally, I bet I’d be just as engaged as I am now.
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Dunkle, above: You have just posted yet another distraction, another obstacle to starting a discussion about the needs of children to be nurtured.
I see that you are not ready to consider them. Why is this so?
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 3:48 pm
I think that when you were in the womb, you were someone in need of murture; you think you were a humanoid to be dispatched. That’s not a distraction; that’s the crux of the matter. All your talk about feral children, Roumanian orphans, “attachment disorders,” etc. are the distractions because you don’t want to face the fact that you were a human being before you were born
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 4:40 pm
So, what do you really know about feral children?
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 6:16 pm
OK, so it is like “Would you give that lady your dog?” If you want to know what I really know about feral children, you’ll have to email me again. I’m sure we’ll do another circle but at least we won’t be boring anybody else.
‘
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:37 pm
Dunkle doesn’t know anymore than a foul BM.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 3:57 am
Julia, are you Terry — disobeying me by calling yourself by a different name?
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 8:26 am
And he proves it with every comment!
LikeLike
April 15, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Why shouldn’t you share your knowledge publicly?
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 4:10 am
Because it’s boring, BORING, Chuckles. Don’t you remember how boring those 150 exchanges became? Trivial pursuit! Now say something interesting, and you’re capable of that (unlike the ai’s who from about 95% of our readership).
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 4:46 am
Sharing information about how feral children function is not boring, and finding that information is two minutes’ work. You have some other reason for not wanting to impart it publicly.
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 10:22 am
Oh well, but I’ll save the two minutes. Feral children act more like non-human beings than human beings.
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 10:56 am
Are you gentlemen does with this fascinating debate? If not, wake me up when you are done…zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 12:19 pm
That’s it, Chuck. Otherwise boredom, too, rather than paranoia, will cause me to leave this blog.
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Let’s talk about something interesting — why you and Pat should become the believing Catholics you were earlier.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:39 pm
In my country, the Catholics rape children, and do bad things to the people. The peoples need to be free of the evil Catholics here.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 10:31 am
Someone told me you were the one doing that, Carlos!
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 11:13 am
?Why is it that what you say?
What do you say? I am not priest.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Very bad problem with the Catholics, you have in USA same problem?
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Same person said you were Catholic!
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Pat, this issue is one of the cruces in the bowels of the so-called “pro-life” movement. Notice how the scpl has to evade answering a question about what makes life human. He refuses to research it, he throws up obstacle after obstacle– and why?
As long as you focus on abortion, you simply provide a target practice session for their dysfunctional self-therapy. When you challenge them to learn about what goes into making a humanoid life human, you force them to face a truth about themselves.
Even in his final response, Dunkle cannot bring himself to face a core reality about human life.
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm
This might scare me if I could understand it. Can you understand it, Pat?
But I do understand what makes life human: the man’s live sperm enters the woman’s live egg — voila! a human life, the two have become one. That one then eventually becomes the millions named Chuckles. But make no mistake, Chuckles started at one; I mean how can someone start at a thousand or whatever?
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 7:46 am
Honestly, CG loses me a lot. Way too heavy for me.
As for my going back to be a “believing” Catholic, it ain’t gonna happen. I think the Catholic church does some good stuff (I work with our local church on homeless issues), but I just do not believe in God. Im not an aethiest, however, I”m an agnostic. Plus, to be honest, I dont want to have to physically go to a church every Sunday…
LikeLike
April 16, 2011 at 3:10 pm
I just couldn’t get past “cruces” and “scpl.” What do they nmean?
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 3:38 am
i find it interesting that PP uses the talking point of 3% of their services being abortions when 10% of their clients have abortions each year.
i just find that intellectually dishonest.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 5:58 am
That’s not necessarily inaccurate, much less a lie, Rogelio. There’s za difference between counting clients and counting services.
If a woman goes in for a pap smear, a mammogran, a CBC and an abortion, she has received four services. If three more women go in for all of those except the abortion, you then have a clinic which has provided abortions to 25% of its clients, but of whose services only 7% are abotions.
For so-called “pro-lifers,” the important thing about Planned Parenthood is that it provides abortions. If that fact is obscured the least little bit, it reduces the movement’s ability to militate against abortion.
It’s rather like Joe McCarthy finding out that there wasn’t even one Communist among the Senate restaurant staff– in order to keep himself in the public eye as a crusader, he has to find them someplace else.
So, when somebody feeds you that statistic about PP, he’s just trying to make sure you’re aware of the insidious danger he’s protecting you from. In other words, he’s keeping his life significant.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 6:11 am
lia in #7:
“I agree.
“One can learn a lot from trying to understand an issue from different perspectives.
“CG is right on this point on feral children.
“Before people comment they should educate themselves before spewing their ignorance.”
It is important for so-called “pro-lifers” NOT to know about feral children, institutionalized pedophilia, and brutalizing pedagogy.
If they had to confront the horrors endured by those children, they would be open to the charge of not being able to choose care for human life over their fixation about abortion.
They are more than willing to have a real child endure a childhood of abuse followed by an adulthood of stultification, dysfunction, victimization and brutality than they are to take that fetus into their care and nurture it to fully functional adulthood.
And the best retort to this will again be the crack about “unreal children.” They simply cannot address this issue.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 8:31 am
And the best retort to this will again be the comment about “unreal children — of course it’s the best, Chuck! All people are real. You’re just taking a group you want dead and telling us they’re not real.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 11:33 am
They are a group I want cared for after they’re born– you don’t seem to be able to get beyond obscuring that point.
It is quite clear that you need to obscure it. Otherwise, people would hold you accountable for your bizarre disregard for the welfare of children.
For you, it is more important that a clinic be a palace of evil than even one child be nurtured.
You prefer to read about a mother drowning her five-year-old in the bathtub than conserving her energies to care for the children who already need her.
Thank you for so clearly showing what the self-help movement is all about.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“They are a group I want cared for after they’re born . . .” — but they’re a group now, Chuck, that we’re killing more than a million of every year. Before you care for anybody, you have to make sure she stays alive! Like Descarte, you’re putting day cart before day horse.
LikeLike
May 26, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Free online games […]I am rllaey loving the theme/design of your web site. Do you ever run into any internet browser compatibility problems? A small number of my blog visitors have complained about my website not operating correctly in Explorer but looks great in Fire
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 4:56 pm
“Killing more than a million of every year…”
For every 1,000,000 children born in America, 30,000 will go to prison.
It costs more than $28,000 to house one prisoner for one year.
85% of prisoners wind up going back to prison.
Of the million that “we are saving,” we are going to cost the taxpayers of this country ONE BILLION THIRTY THREE MILLION SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY THOUSAND dollars a year, every year. Not to mention the pain, humiliation and violence they are going to be subjected to by those future prisoners.
Is that smart of us?
There are a couple of options available to prevent that.
One is for us to undertake to raise each child as best we can, particularly since we cajoled, coerced or otherwise manipulated the pregnant woman to carry a fetus to term. The child who might grow up to be the next Ted Bundy could instead be the next Bobby Darin (both of them grew up believing their mother was their sister). This is the Responsible Right to Life approach.
The other option is to let the mother decide if she’s ready to raise another child. This is the realistic approach.
At the Site That Dares Not Speak Its Name, you will see why we so-called “pro-lifers” do not choose either of these options.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Let’s go back to feral children.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 5:51 am
You have a problem with this?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 6:09 am
Yeah, sure, but I have more of a problem with #18.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 8:37 am
No, you WISH you had more of a problem with #18.
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 6:14 am
Aborticentrism,
You are a giant dealing with the mind of a person that loves murderers.
His cognitive ability is that of a Paramecium compared to yours. And he is a sneaky SOB, so if he did get it, his ego would never allow him to admit how wrong he is.
He harasses women. Tells them to “Shut Up,” Why bother with a misogynist like this?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 7:58 am
Absolutely wrong, Jared! I’m telling you to shut up and you might not be a woman!
LikeLike