Personhood Demonstration
I am now totally convinced that the anti-abortion movement in this country has no idea how to stop abortion and, worse, some of their strategies might actually result in more abortions in this country.
There is now another anti-abortion group out there called “Personhood USA.” They are led by a young activist by the name of Keith Mason who hails from Colorado. Personhood USA’s announced goal is to pass amendments to several state constitutions that would recognize someone as a person “exactly at creation.” As Mason explains, that would be at the moment of “fertilization…when the sperm meets the egg.”
Go ahead, Keith, make our day.
Okay, so I’m not gonna spend any time talking about how only about half of these fertilized eggs actually result in an ongoing pregnancy. I guess to folks like Keith, it is irrelevant. I suppose that when fertilization occurs, the parents will go out and get their new little “person” a Social Security but if it never appears, well, we’ll just toss his or her card out. Despite some possible glitches, Keith is charging full steam ahead. Indeed, this November voters in Mississippi might vote on a “personhood amendment” to their state Constitution, although it is being challenged by the ACLU. And Keith has declared that his organization hopes to get proposals like these on the ballot in nearly half the states by 2012.
If Keith and his buddies want to spend all of that time on initiatives like these, I might even send him $5 to encourage him because it is an incredible waste of their time, money and energy. If you have ever worked on a ballot initiative you know how much work it is and if Keith wants to try to mobilize the anti-abortion folks in that state on a proposal that – even if it passed – would never pass constitutional muster, then I say go for it. Of course, he is ignoring the fact that a similar measure was defeated in Colorado in 2008 and 2010 but if his crowd wants to spend their time pushing something like this instead of working to defeat President Obama, I applaud their decision.
Keith Mason
Here’s the other kicker. Let’s say that the measure actually does pass in Mississippi and it starts making its way through the court system. Let’s say that in the meantime, President Obama has three more appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and he gets into a pissing match with the pro-choice movement and, seeking revenge, he appoints three ardent, right wing conservatives. Then this case gets to that Supreme Court and they uphold the law!
The result?
Sorry, Keith, but the result could actually be more (illegal at that point) abortions.
That’s because redefining “personhood” in this fashion will actually end up reclassifying many birth control methods as abortifacients or agents that induce abortions.
Hmmmm…. Less birth control available to women.
Now, I’m no rocket scientist but is it not possible that this scenario might result in more abortions?
Hello, Keith! Are you out there?
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
June 6, 2011 at 11:04 am
Don’t get your hopes up with the Supreme Court, Pat. The Senate Blue Dogs are the ones who will make or break his choices. Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts (all Federalist Society members, by the way) are going to live a long time, and the Senate doesn’t have the integrity to impeach Thomas for lying about his wife’s income and his conflict of interest for the last twenty years.
LikeLike
June 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm
I firmly believe that even the right wingers on the current court would not uphold such a law – it is that extreme and would have a profound effect on everyone’s lives….and not just with abortion
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 11:15 am
The law “Personhood” wouldnt hold up in any country with a brain, the right wings like dunkle wont have a chance, even if there is a chance that the laws start making its way down the paths to the house and senate, it will just make alley ways, and throw women with induced abortions into the ER at a faster rate.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 9:22 am
I replied below, not sure why the post went down to the bottom…
LikeLike
June 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Keith ain’t out there, but I am, and I say go for it, Keith. Let’s try to get rid of all those killing methods. Course it ain’t gonna happen, but you gotta try.
And, Pat, all people die, some really soon — that makes it OK for you to kill them or help kill them?
LikeLike
June 6, 2011 at 7:43 pm
I am not killing anyone, John. The mother of the fetus-baby (at some point) is deciding what to do and the docs are there to make sure it is a safe experience for her. It’s like assisted suicide, which I assume you are against as well.
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 4:22 am
I’m letting one of my betters knock this one apart.
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 10:47 am
Well, I’m waiting!!
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 11:09 am
yeah i am too because i highly doubt your intellect, dunkle has any hopes for this one, Thankyou for remaining the weakest link.
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 1:10 pm
No betters? OK, I’ll have to do it. I’m responding to you, Pat. I can’t understand Andrew; he might even be on my side.
“I am not killing anyone, John.” — But you’re helping to kill her, and that’s just as bad.
“The mother of the fetus-baby (at some point) is deciding what to do and the docs are there to make sure it is a safe experience for her.” — Wrong! The mother has already decided to hire the hit man and he’s there to rake in his half mil for a tenth of the time/effort a real doctor needs.
“It’s like assisted suicide, which I assume you are against as well.” — a little like it but a lot worse because it’s a lot worse to kill a young person than an old one.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 9:24 am
The docs are taking in half a million??? And, if they were, which I doubt for most of them, is that not what most ob-gyns get? It’s funny, though, because the average cost of an abortion is still ridiculously low (maybe about $350?).
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 11:24 am
Andrew in #1– Don’t be too confident about it never happening here– when people are beaten down and powerless, they will seize on any opportunity to get an illusion of being powerful. For example, unemployed Americans who would feel better if they had a job will dump on immigrants who have a job and especially on illegal immigrants who have a job. So, politicians will work to get their votes by first of all structuring the economy so they can’t get a job (move America’s factories overseas) and then campaign on a pledge to get tough on immigration.
The way the current Republican Congress is trying to kill every family-friendly program from Medicare to food stamps to Head Start to unemployment insurance to Social Security, you can expect a lot of people who will be willing to stand up and fight for personhood for the fetus.
At the bottom of the so-called “pro-life” movement is its members powerlessness against Death, and look how much they’ve been able to do with that. They’re going to gain a lot of allies as long as Wall Street and the Republicans are not confronted, charged, tried and sent to jail.
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Re: the intercourse of #2, above– very cleverly maneuvered by the so-called “pro-lifer” to address the issues on his terms: (1) “killing”, (2) profit-oriented “hit man”, (3) death of a “young person” which is assigned a value higher than that of an old person.
Despite the logical and rational framework within which the opposition could trump the claims, the entire argument serves only as an effective reinforcement of some basic premises of the dysfunctional self-help movement which calls itself “pro-life.” Win or lose, it has further embedded its talking points in the mind of the readers.
Game: Dunkle! Well-played. . .
LikeLike
June 7, 2011 at 6:20 pm
So what if i don’t understand Chuck. You can see why he’s my guy.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 9:26 am
I dont understand him either, John, but Charles definitely is the guy! Indeed, if he dumbed it down for us I think he’d be more effective!!
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 11:24 am
Hope that doesn’t happen. I prefer him up there in the ether talking that pseudo-science psychology.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 9:21 am
Yes, Andrew, but as you said, “in a country with a brain.” Sometimes I wonder if this country is missing one…..
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 9:28 am
Absolutely, only a brainless civilization could sink to far lower depths than any previous civilization had sunk to.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 11:11 am
Oh Well…… Let’s say that there was no abortion doctors… that women would have to take preventive measures in order to not get pregnant… But even with preventive methods she would end up pregnant of her 15th child, the last pregnancy was hard enough on her and on the economical finances of the family so she decide to take care of that situation practicing an old fashion abortion with herbs, hangers and whatever else she could possible think of, later on after she tried all of that and start bleeding (and abortion becomes illegal) she have to rush to the emergency room, the doctors of course find out about what she did and either the decline care or they call the police……… that mother, who was being careful about getting pregnant and end up having this undesired pregnancy find herself arrested or die for lack of care… what will happen to those other 14 kids that she left behind? Which activist will knock at their door and offer babysitting, medical, school, food and all other little things a mother does inside a house???? I guess i know the answer but i will restrain myself of expressing it…
My point is, this pro-life people are so selfish that they can’t see that legal or not abortion is much more than just a matter of politics… it is lack of education and the stupidity of “religion”!
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 11:27 am
The stupid religion is the one you believe in, Sonia.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Nanny, nanny poo poo
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 11:51 am
Right on, Sonia! You have pointed out the lack of the so-called “pro-life” movement’s care for real human life, not the fetal life they maintain is human.
They don’t want to think about being responsible for the care for growing humans, and they work in the only part of the spectrum of life where they CAN’T be held responsible for its well-being. I call that being lazy, and a lot worse.
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 11:18 am
Thank you Charles…
🙂
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Good post, Sonia! What baffles me is how pro-lifers do not take the time to think about these scenarios. It’s like they totally forget there is a real, live, BORN human being with responsibilities out there who could be harmed. But they just dont seem to care or at least they care more about that fetus…
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 11:18 am
Thank you Pat… That is the reason i keep repeating myself like a broken record…. There is much more to be analyzed in a situation than what anyone thinks…
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Well John, in “my” religion, i believe that heaven and hell are here every day, not when you die… What goes around comes around and that is how i live my life… If i can’t help you (i mean anybody) i won’t criticize or point fingers at the decisions being made…
In my religion i believe that GOD made us to be happy and to live our lives to the fullest but with a sense of respect to others…
The religion YOU believe in, punishes everything, makes you feel guilty of being happy… My religion in the other hand, doesn’t forces me to give my hard worked money to any “stupid” pastor, priest or whatever they are in order to keep their good lives…
In my religion i believe that i have to love each human being and offer them the same power i have – DECISION OF THEIR OWN LIFE
If i was to be rich and able to help all single mothers with education i would, but i have to work for living…
You in the other hand, have the time to do that because at you are already retired but instead you decide to point fingers, scream words of hate and etc… So as you can see unfortunately we will never agree with each other because you are so into thinking your position is the right one that the selfishness of this makes you blind! But, i understand you, because after years of brain wash it is hard to step outside and see other people perspective…
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm
This just proves my reply to #6.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:09 pm
That’s what I dont get about Johhny Boy. Why not take that time and energy and go out and really help someone??
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 7:59 am
Know any other group being tortured to death?
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 11:20 am
What are you talking about John? Which group is being tortured to death???
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Mostly it’s the group who’ve been living for two to three months.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Why would pro-lifers NOT push for personhood status for preborn humans considering this: “The fetus behaves in a much more complex way than previously imagined… During her odyssey in the womb she will smile, recognize her mother’s voice and maybe even dream.” In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.
and this : “”By midpregnancy the fetus has begun to explore its own body and environment using its hands. It often holds on to the umbilical cord, and when a thumb approaches its mouth, it will turn and begin to make sucking motions with its lips… The fetus is also using its sense of hearing for orientation. Its most familiar sounds are surely the noises of the mother’s digestive system and the swishing from her major blood vessels, but gradually the fetus also begins to perceive the sounds of the mother’s world, such as music and the father’s voice. The eyes of the fetus are sensitive to light, even though the eyelids are still shut tight… We have no way of knowing whether the fetus tastes the slight salinity of the amniotic fluid. Still, we have indirect evidence that the fetus tastes and smells, since a newborn immediately reacts positively or negatively to tastes that are sweet, salty, or bitter…”
Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, A Child is Born, 4th edition. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003. p. 141.
and this : “Does a fetus see anything? It is known that the eye can sense light as early as the third month of pregnancy. Sometimes when an endoscope is inserted into the amniotic sac, a fetus tries to protect its eyes from the light on the instrument, either by turning away or by using its hands and fingers.”
Lennart Nilsson and Lars Hamberger, A Child is Born, 4th edition. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003. p. 146.
and this: “Twins, and other multiples, are known for a particular characteristic in utero. Scientists have even witnessed them playing games together… Scientists think their prenatal behavior [carries] over into early childhood.”
In the Womb, National Geographic, 2005.
It is apparent by these quotes that the pre-born human feels, thinks and reacts to various stimuli in the womb. This in it’s self proves that they are persons and deserve personhood status. Any argument against what is known scientifically about the fetus is purely for self serving reasons of agenda by pro-choice activists. To deny the humanity of the unborn in such compelling scientific proof is absurd. The only reason to do so would be the same reason that slaves were denied personhood status, so they could be owned and sold at another’s whim. With the pre-born the only reason to deny personhood is so that they can be killed at another persons whim. To deny this fact is to deny reality.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Deanna, if we recognized the 6 week fetus as a person, would the mother have to get it its own social security card? Would you be able to count it if you want to use the hov lanes?
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Deanna, the brutal part first: Much of what the article describes can also be ascribed to earthworms and other slightly more highly developed organisms. To infer from these behaviors that a fetus is a “person” is to infer that earthworms are also “persons.”
Less brutally: Human life is a continuum, not a package. Apart from DNA evidence that it is of human origin, the embryo, cystoblast, etc., shows NO human qualities,while nearer the other end of the term of pregnancy, a 25-week-old fetus has a good possibility of developing into a healthy baby by age 2.
In between, the fetus develops the tools which will help it survive as an infant– musculature, skeleton, nerves and primal values. By and large its actions and reactions are random, although over the course of the pregnancy, it does indeed learn some value from repeating actions and perhaps avoiding others. None of these puts it above the level of any other animal.
What makes it human is that the mother freely chooses to call it her “baby.” If she does not do this, if she is compelled by others (as Ted Bundy’s mother was) to bear it to term, the resulting child is likely to live a life less than human. You cannot “rescue,” “protect” or “respect” a fetus if you are not the pregnant woman, the primary caretaker. You think you can be? Try to protect it from the effects of her cigarette habit or her malnourished status.
More brutally– to use the National Geographic article as a rationale for forcing or duping women into being pregnant is of benefit only to the so-called “pro-lifer” who has these fantastic wet dreams about being a rescuer of “innocent life.”
I invite you to take the RESPSONSIBLE Right to Life Pledge. Join us real pro-lifers who pledge to raise to adulthood every “unborn human” we want to “rescue.” So far, I’m the only one who’s signed on, and I’ve never fallen off the RRTL wagon.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Ah, yes, the old disqualify a statement by attacking their source game. Sorry, I’m not buying. Every intelligent person in the US knows that National Geo is a reputable source. Furthermore, the other sources I quoted are also scientifically based. Nat Geo didn’t just make this stuff up, they have sources as well.
Also, exactly what planet do you live on that has earthworms with human behavior? Thats a bit creepy don’t you think?
furthermore, you said, “What makes it human is that the mother freely chooses to call it her “baby.” Pure NONSENSE! It is human by virtue of the scientific fact that it is human not because the mother deems it so.!
How about this quote then? This one comes from a pro-choice writer, “Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes:
It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 2008), 85-86.
Then theres this: “It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School
and this : “After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes
and this: “The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception.”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School
or maybe this: Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being – a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings” Report, Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session 1981,
It’s clear, the scientific community overwhelmingly admits that at CONCEPTION a new HUMAN BEING is created. No amount of pro-choice rhetoric makes that fact disappear.
Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes:
“Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death”.Naomi Wolf, “Our Bodies, Our Souls,” The New Republic, October 16, 1995
Ms. Wolf admits freely what is happening during an abortion, that a human life is being destroyed, a human being, a person. She states that it is self-delusion to say otherwise.
“The face looks like what it is, the human fetus. You can talk yourself into putting whatever value you want on it.” “Women Need Control Over Birth Choice, Physician Says” Wisconsin State Journal March 4, 2001
Abortionist Dr. Dennis Christensen
I could o on supplying quote after quote but the last one sums it up. You can talk yourself into to put ting whatever value on it that you want to. It’s apparently arbitrary and depends fully on ones agenda. For pro-choicers that agenda is to kill it if they see fit and for pro-lifers the agenda is to save it’s life if possible. The difference is that if these scientific and medical quotes are true, and they are, then pro-lifers have morality on our side. It is simply immoral to kill another human being. Talk yourself out of giving another human being a chance for life if it suits you but if you do, you do it lacking human morality and decency
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Deanna, Naomi and the others – and myself – have all acknowledged that there is a life involved, some human thing. DUH!!! And, you know, the woman knows it as well. That’s what makes abortion such a difficult decision.
But millions of women each year make that very difficult decision – despite knowing that it’s human and will continue to grow. Do you ever think about what they are feeling and what compelled them to go to the Denny Christiansen’s of the world?
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Deanna, I am not attacking the source; I am attacking the incorrect INFERENCES made from reading the source. Example: Newt Gingrich watches the tide go in and out and infers that God moves the waters. Well, God doesn’t come by six times a day and do that; tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the sun and the moon. Gingrich made an incorrect inference.
Anybody reading the sources you cite can infer anything, but unless he has a broad knowledge of many fields, including neurobiology, anatomical development, neurochemistry, speech, psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and so forth, he is quite likely to come to wrong conclusions.
RESPONSIBLE Right to Life says, “our humanity is only guaranteed by what we learn from other humans.” In my time, Ted Bundy was the perfect example of inhumanity, and it is up to each of us to do everything necessary to see that the child we want born becomes as fully human as possible. If you want to “rescue” fetuses, fine, but you have a moral obligation to then care for that child as a good parent would all the way to adulthood– and so-called “pro-lifers” are no more likely to do that than the rest of the population. Since they obviously do not exercise special care for real humans with real needs, why do they bother playing at caring about fetuses? Self-service has a lot to do with it.
Unless you are willing to help the next Ted Bundy you want born to grow up as a different Ted Bundy, you have no business forcing or duping others to bear children they are not ready or willing to care for.
So, are you going to take the RESPONSIBLE Right to Life pledge?
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm
“If you want to “rescue” fetuses, fine, but you have a moral obligation to then care for that child as a good parent would all the way to adulthood– and so-called “pro-lifers” are no more likely to do that than the rest of the population. Since they obviously do not exercise special care for real humans with real needs, why do they bother playing at caring about fetuses? ”
Here is a portion of an article that I wrote on my blog in answer to an abortionist claiming that pro-lifers did nothing for the children after they were born.:
” Most pro-life Christians go to churches that have programs, some of them massive para church organizations, that feed, clothe and house needy children. These pro-lifers financially support these programs through their churches. So, they do take care of the children. Programs such as Feed the Children, The 700 club, James Robinson, Warm Blankets International, Rainbow Kids, etc. (I could go on and on for pages listing them) are all Christian based, and they are doing EXACTLY what the author said that we do not do. Many, if not most adoption agencies are Christian based, and they are placing children from all over the world into loving adoptive homes. I have personally adopted 4 children, one special needs child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, another special needs child with parental mental health issues, and one teen. I have supported Orphan relief efforts as well as inner city efforts. I am a certified foster parent. There are many many more who do much more than I do, some giving up lucrative careers to help these children. Furthermore, we start unwed mothers homes and crisis pregnancy centers that furnish baby furniture, car seats, maternity clothes, infant clothes and any other supplies needed in order to help with practical needs. We have food programs, housing programs and medical programs.
The list of pro-life agencies (that happen to be Christian) can go on and on and on. One in particular CHASK adoptions is an adoption agency for special needs children that has a waiting list of parents seeking special needs children to adopt. We send missionaries all over the world to house and feed children as well as adults. Catholic Charities (I am not Catholic) is a huge organization devoted to helping impoverished Americans. We have drug and alcohol rehab programs, prison ministries, and homeless shelters, etc. We have taken on the task of forming post abortive ministries for women who have problems after the fact. We have elder care ministries as well. Again, I could go on. But the point is that we DO take care of the “born” children. It is evident to me that pro-choicers grasp at straws trying to say that pro-lifers no nothing for people after they are born. BUT even if we didn’t do one thing, it still doesn’t change the fact that abortion kills a human being, a person, and that is immoral.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:18 pm
You know, Deanna, if i knew that every pro-lifer was doing everything you were doing or have done, I would feel better. But take John Dunkle, for example. He has not adopted nor probably done anything else on your list. I respect what you have done but I know many, many pro-lifers who do not talk the talk. For example, I’ve personally asked over the years if the leaders of the movement have adopted and they always seem to come up with some excuse.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 5:06 pm
“take John Dunkle, for example. He has not adopted nor probably done anything else on your list” I’ll read deanna’ list later. Bet I’ve done some things. I’m too busy right now. I just got back from blue fishing on the Atlantic. I caught a 15 lb monster. Now I have to cook it for my daughter and her eight kids. Bob, her husband, doesn’t like fish. I do go on and on, don’t I.
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm
What you write about the so-called “pro-lifers” and their churches is TRUE, but it is NOT statistically greater than what everybody else and their churches do! the National Council of Catholic Bishops read about aborticentrism a year and a half ago and started a push to get their followers to adopt and foster more children. It hasn’t happened, and it won’t until the government starts paying them to.
The fact is, you can make all the claims you want to, but if you don’t personally set an example by adopting or fostering, etc., your speech is as a mighty noise from a hollow vessel. Since I come from a family of 11 kids, I know how many you can adopt and still hold it all together– we got by on my dad’s $100 a week pay, about $400 per person per year (about $3,800 per year today). So, if your family income is $38,000, you and your spouse could afford to have eight kids! Why don’t you? Reflect on the dedication, sacrifice and resources it takes to raise the children you already have, and you’ll understand why you haven’t. And should you expect other so-called “pro-lifers” to be any different from you? I don’t.
So, if you won’t care for children whom you insisted be born, why are you concerned that they don’t get born? You’re surely not willing to have them grow up like Ted Bundy…
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm
“The fact is, you can make all the claims you want to, but if you don’t personally set an example by adopting or fostering, etc., your speech is as a mighty noise from a hollow vessel.”
Seriously? Did you even read what I posted? I have six children, four of them adopted, two special needs AND I am a foster parent. Not to mention all of my extracurricular activities of being a youth pastor, working in orphan relief, and helping take care of my elderly parents and uncle. Nice try but that comment was an epic fail!
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm
So, why won’t you adopt another two children? Especially a couple that you never expected to see born. You haven’t reached your limit of caring yet. Don’t stop now. Be a RESPONSIBLE Right to Lifer!
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Geez, Charles, she’s already done her part dont you think? I mean, how many children does she need to adopt to make you happy?
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I’ll answer for Chuckles because I’ve heard it ten times: somebody must not save someone else from getting killed unless the saver is willing to support that person for the rest of his life.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 8:15 pm
When she raises the child she doesn’t want to raise, she will be doing her part. My mother raised four of those and my father, seven. Deanna has a lot of catching up to do.
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 4:19 am
This is getting interesting. You might have a book here, Chuck. Title it “Disfunctionialism.”
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Who said I’m not? I very well may do that but the point is that pro-choicers accuse us pro-lifers of not caring for the born people and I just proved that this isn’t true.
So, back to the original subject- the humanity of the unborn, science and medicine says they are persons and abortion activists admit they are also. So, the reality is that they deserve “personhood” status.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 5:58 am
My off the cuff calculations imply that you can afford to be raising another eight children, given your husband’s income, the value of the benefits usually supplied to a pastor by a church (housing, transportation, utilities) and by the state to children and foster parents (health care, stipends, but not school breakfasts or lunches since you might be a home schooler).
While I commend the great work you (and very few other so-called “pro-lifers”) have done so far, I think it un-Christian of you to demand from others what you yourself will not do. Once you are raising the child you don’t want to, you will understand what they fear and dread. Until then. . .
You haven’t addressed the problem of the inhumanity visited upon and bred into the uncared-for child (the Ted Bundy phenomenon) Why don’t you worry that the child you insisted be born might grow up to be another like him?
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 9:35 am
First of all, I am an UNPAID youth pastor and secondly how would you possibly know what my expenses are?
And frankly, this whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. This is not about me defending what I do and do not do or what other pro-lifers do and do not do nor is it about you evaluating my income or lack there of. It is about the immorality of killing an unborn baby. With your line of reasoning, if you can call it that, it’s ok to kill a human being because pro-lifers supposedly aren’t taking care of them. Thats a load of crap! It’s not ok to kill them regardless!
You know what really amazes me? I have been in numerous conversations exactly like this one with pro-choicers and any time i give scientific documentation of the humanness of the unborn immediately the conversation turns OFF of that reality and onto “what are you doing?” Then when I state what I am doing the conversation goes to “Well, fine, what are the other pro-lifers doing.?” It’s the classic switch the focus off the real topic game. Seriously, it’s an old worn out game. This is not the issue. The issue is that unborn babies are being murdered. If someone was murdering a one year old you wouldn’t be asking these questions. There is no difference.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 6:00 am
“Science” and medicine say they are humanoid; anthropology, psychology and neuroscience say that they are not yet human.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Anybody with any sense says they are young people.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I dont know if any pro-choice leader has ever said they are “persons”. When you say that, you do open up yourself to the suggestion that they are real people. We do admit, however, that they are human, alive, grow into a baby at some point depending on who is doing the defining. Geez, every school kids knows all of this……
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Damnation, Deanna,
You must get all warm and goey when you see your name and all your braggadocia in print. Ever heard the word hubris?
LikeLike
June 8, 2011 at 8:03 pm
He/she accused us of not doing anything so I simply explained that we were. Then he insinuated that “I” wasn’t doing my part so I simply showed him/her that I was. It was in context of the conversation so no it wasn’t bragging. You can’t accuse a person of not doing something and then accuse them of bragging when they explain what they are doing. It’s a bit absurd. Nice try. next??
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 5:28 am
Like I said, ever hear the word hubris.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 9:36 am
Like I said, Ever hear the phrase, answering an accusation?
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 6:03 am
In all the arguments that anti abortion activists make about abortion, they leave women out of the conversation. When they cite scientific or medical experts about when life begins, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. When they argue that women regret abortion, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. When they individually claim that they had a crisis pregnancy, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. When they carried their conceived-in-rape pregnancy to term, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. When they boast of their accomplishments as a parent of many children, biological or adopted, as a parent of normal or of special needs children or as a certified foster parent, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. When they cite their particular view of morality or of their faith in their religion, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. And when they do cite the testimony of women, it’s the exceptions to the millions, the tried and true of the likes of Norma Corvey or Abby Johnson. What follows for these exceptions is their brief moments of fame, fueled by the celebrity-whores of the prolife industry. They join the ranks of Tony Newman, Flip Benham, Fr. Frank Pavone, Dr. Nathanson and all the other wannabe attention-seekers who desperately seek to fill a void in their life by becoming a B-rated celebrity or, more pitifully, a bright star in an insignificantly small constellation.
But, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. And why is that? They don’t want to know. They don’t listen. They don’t care. All they care about is themselves.
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 9:41 am
Here’s the deal. Women are important and we do care. I won’t re-list all the ways that we try to help them because if I do I am “boasting.” So re-read the previous comment about that if you choose to.
You said, we only care about ourselves…..no, we care about humanity. Thus our trying to prevent the unborn from dying and mothers from murdering their children.
But again, the focus is off the dead babies and onto the pro-lifers, as I said earlier, it’s an old worn out game.
This conversation is about the humanity of the unborn and their lack of personhood status. Can we get back to the topic please?
LikeLike
June 9, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Parker: I haven’t read Deanna’s reply to you yet but that was/is an astounding post. Thanks!
LikeLike
June 10, 2011 at 4:37 am
“But, they fail to cite the testimony of women who chose abortion. And why is that? They don’t want to know. They don’t listen. They don’t care. All they care about is themselves.” That’s not true,Park! If the opposite holocaust were taking place, you know, the young people torturing to death the older ones, people like deanna and those you mention would focus more on the victims than on those who chose matricide.
Regulars, remember back in the days when many of you killers’ helpers were adolescent illiterates? They’d curse me out and then we’d never hear from them again. Now I’m starting to find literate ones, like Park. But they still run. I hope Park sticks around.
LikeLike