My last few blogs have generated a lot of interesting discussions. I love a good, hearty debate so I want to thank everyone for chiming in and for keeping it (relatively) civil. Abortion is obviously an emotional and controversial issue that, as far as I am concerned, will never really be “resolved” because it is just not as black and white as some of our national organizations would have us think.
The last post discussed the efforts of some anti-abortion groups to declare the fetus as a “person” from a legal sense and it generated a rather lengthy thread. We got reams of information about the humanity of the fetus-baby, when it starts breathing, how it can feel pain, how it can hear music, when it starts to fart, etc. It was all very fascinating. No, that’s not true. I gotta admit that it was totally boring to me. After a few posts, I stopped reading most of the scientific information that was shared with us, especially the footnotes and citations by supposedly objective authors. At some point, I just started to tune it all out because to me it was just becoming an academic exercise that had no relation to the real world.
Maybe I’m just too simple. Every time I would see the paragraphs going on and on and on, I would just think of that 21 year old girl living in subsidized housing in the South Bronx who made a mistake. She had unprotected sex with that boy who
Abortion "Stressfull Decision"
has been destined for Riker’s Island since he was in elementary school. And she got pregnant. And, instead of playing the poverty card, I would also think of the 45 year old woman in Beverly Hills who thought she was incapable of getting pregnant anymore and whose marriage is a shambles. I just wondered how both of these women would have reacted if they were reading these regurgitations of the scientific literature? C’mon, folks, let’s get real. They wouldn’t have read any of it. Do you really think these women care that the fetus at 8 weeks has fingers, or a lung or whatever they have at 8 weeks?
Well, maybe they do care a little or are at least interested but do pro-lifers really think that all of the scientific “evidence” of “life” is going to make a difference that much of a difference? No way. Indeed, I can prove it. In a number of states the abortion clinics are required to show women pictures of how the fetus will develop, what it has at what stage. And, if you talk to clinics you will learn that it is extremely rare – I mean extremely – when a woman sees the pictures and is so shocked that she cancels the abortion. One clinic owner told me how they had to get extra trash cans because all of the (taxpayer paid) brochures wound up being thrown out.
Sure, it will be sad experience in some way. The woman may think about how, had she not had the abortion, she would have had a child. But, to her, it was the decision that she had to make at that time. It’s the same process that so many pro-lifers went through when they had their abortion. The only difference is now those pro-lifers are admitting that they now “regret” their abortion or that they were snookered, they didn’t know it had fingers or they didn’t know they could have put it up for adoption. And now they are saying that others can’t have the abortion because they know better.
Bolderdash!!
I appreciate how some want to pass on their “wisdom” and share their experiences to help those coming after them. But it is the height of obnoxiousness and somewhat hypocritical to say that, while you had the chance to have your abortion, you now know better so no one else should have one.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I trust women. I trust that they will talk to whoever they want to talk to, they will process the decision as well as they can, they will try to find a reputable clinic with good counseling and they will do what they think is best for THEM at that moment.
For the most part, none of them will be persuaded by the scientific facts. Women already know that the fetus is alive with, at some point, human characteristics. And they don’t want that fetus to grow into a baby that they will have to raise. That’s why they have the abortion.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
June 12, 2011 at 11:36 am
There’s a saying that I’ll surely butcher but it essentially states that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant will find a way to get an abortion as badly as an animal who will chew off its leg to get free from a trap. So, basically, I’m agreeing with you Pat. No amount of science or guilt or moralizing will work.
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 11:38 am
I’ll also add that the dingbats who believe that showing women fetal bodies mangled by abortion are deluding themselves. Their abortion reality doesn’t carry that same weight or value to the woman’s lived realities.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Yeah, Kate, those pictures are a waste. If you think about it, those mangled fetus pictures have been around forever and have had practically no effect as far as I know….
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Here’s a key sentence, Pat: “Do you really think these women care that the fetus at 8 weeks has fingers, or a lung or whatever they have at 8 weeks?”
The answer is no, they don’t care. But they do care about other things, like breast cancer, etc. That’s why say as they walk into their chosen auschwitz, “You’re not just killing a baby in there, you’re killing yourself.”
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 1:14 pm
And do you think they care, John?
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Yeah, I see them shudder.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:44 pm
You can actually tell that they are shuddering? Interesting. And when you yell at them and tell them they will great breast cancer within a few days, do they stop dead in the tracks and go “oh my God, is that what’s going to happen? I cannot get this abortion!!!” Earth to John. Earth to John…
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 4:04 am
I put the idea in their heads hoping it will bear fruit later.
LikeLike
June 17, 2011 at 7:20 pm
you could not bear good fruit in anyones mind dunkle. no one shudders on your mark.
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Also, what evidence do you have, John, that women facing the immediacy of an unplanned pregnancy would worry about anything in the future other than getting rid of the fetus?
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I see them shudder.
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 1:27 pm
It’s been clear since the beginning that it was always a debate from emotion– launched and maintained by those who are afraid of Death. All else is breadcrumbs and breambait.
LikeLike
June 12, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Pat may be right, most women may not care about the fetus of if it has fingers, etc. But some do, some are uninformed about fetal development,etc. I have talked to some of these firsthand. If one babies life is spared by the literature, information and scientific facts that are shared then that one life is worth the effort. It shouldn’t be minimized. You would be amazed at what people believe. One person had been told by their grandmother that because the baby was mixed race that it wouldn’t “have a soul”. I corrected the mis-information and the women happily had the baby and made a terrific mother. Other people believe the “it’s only tissue” junk, etc. Why not tell them the truth and then see what they decide? I have also been amazed at the number of people that are mis-informed about the legality of abortion. Several that I have talked to had no idea that abortion was legal after the first trimester. People aren’t as informed as Pat would like to believe. I know this first hand. As far as the information that I post goes, most of you may think it’s boring and a waste of time but you never know, there may be one person who happens by that never knew that information and maybe, just maybe, they will be educated and decide to give life to their child. You never know!
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 4:43 pm
And what about Louise Cowell, who was persuaded to go to an unwed mothers’ home and have her little, blue-eyed baby, who grew up to kill at least 35 women? How long should some self-proclaimed “pro-life” outfit provided for her?
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Well, I thought my personal face to face experience with thousands of women over the years when I was representing the clinics might make me a little educated on the issue but maybe not. No doubt, Deanna, that some are not as educated or in denial or whatever. But my point, of course, is all of our high minded, scientific mumbo jumbo (which I will grant you is accurate) generally means didly-squat to these women. I sat next to a woman who was 22 weeks, she say the ultrasound, saw the BABY moving around, etc. then she had the abortion. It was sad, very sad, but she felt it was the best thing…
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 6:08 am
The comment about belief that “it’s only tissue” called to mind the sign that states “It’s not pregnancy tissue, it’s your baby.” I always found this particularly amusing. It goes back to the argument of using fetus vs baby but then twists into a mindless absurdity.
But to your point, Deanna, I’d wholeheartedly agree that people aren’t informed but saying that requires a bit of clarification. I’d argue that people fail to develop and/or use critical thinking skills from the sources they use to their mindless use of soundbites and cliches.
Anecdotes from my own past professional career as a labor and delivery nurse include a young pregnant woman (an adolescent really) who did not know that she had three functionally different orifices. In other words, she did not know that her urethra was distinct from her vagina, etc. There was a 17 year old, impregnated by her father, who thought she had “severe stomach cramps” but was, in fact, in labor and delivered a stillborn. Her family consoled her grief by telling her she could always try again. Then there was the 14 yr old who had been having headaches but by the time she arrived in the hospital was in full blown eclampsia. Her blood pressure was around 260/140. There was no fetal heartbeat. She ended up in ICU for several days and on the ward for two weeks. These three females were were so utterly uninformed about their own bodies that they unwittingly jeopardized their own health.
Finally, as a member of ACN, we know that when women are given comprehensive, non judgmental counseling, they are entrusted to make the right decisions for them and for those in their lives. And we’ve also found that women who are considering abortion, will elect to continue their pregnancies after this type of counseling. This type of counseling is really options counseling, considering ALL the options using materials based on widely accepted scientific and medical standards.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:28 am
The title and the last paragraph say it all, Pat- and this is why I think that things like mandatory ultrasound viewing and mandatory reading of state-approved literature before the abortion, while perhaps well-meaning, are futile- because they do nothing to address the problems that drive the woman to have an abortion. Until you can show her a way she can keep her baby and still pursue her education or career, or offer her help so she can afford this one in addition to the 2 or 3 she already has, the science of personhood means nothing to her because her problems overshadow it. It’s sad, really.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 8:12 am
Oh, nonsense! Here, the law is all. Most pregnant women at times wish they weren’t. We made it legal for them not to be, and they jumped. Who, then are the murderers? The desperate women? The sorely tempted killers? Or we cold-blooded onlookers.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 3:40 pm
That’s really not what I was referring to…I meant to say that the facts mean nothing to the woman who’s getting the abortion under the circumstances- not to the rest of us. Of course it all matters to the rest of us
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 8:25 am
“Until you can show her a way she can keep her baby and still pursue her education or career, or offer her help so she can afford this one in addition to the 2 or 3 she already has, the science of personhood means nothing to her because her problems overshadow it. It’s sad, really.”
This is the exact reason for crisis pregnancy centers. They offer her the practical help that she needs to be able to keep the baby if she chooses to. There are organizations that offer financial, housing, clothing, food, baby supplies, medical care and just about any other practical need that she can think of. I agree, it’s not enough to just say keep your baby and not offer to help her. That is the equivalent of the “be warmed and filled” scripture.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 9:32 am
Your beautiful logic will never get through to these passionate and prideful folks, deanna. Newman called it: “Quarry the granite rock with a razor, moor the vessel with a thread of silk, then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human understanding to combat those giants, the passion and pride of man.”
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:52 pm
I have no doubt that you folks help to some extent but, c’mon, are ya gonna pay for their college education, for their car, for their fee to go on the field trip, for their new NIKE sneakers, etc., etc. The average cpc does not have that kind of resources. So, you dangle a bunch of diapers or some clothes in front of them that might last a few months and then you have to move on. We all know how much kids costs, I’ve got two. There ain’t no way any cpc can help with everything. But, by danging those few things in front of that women, they may have saved the baby! Then, it’s sayonara, you’re on your own…
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Paul Newman said that?
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 4:09 am
When I read it, I thought that Chuckles had gotten to you ’cause, that’s one of the four arguments he uses to justify killing people.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 12:56 pm
No, John Henry, one of the princes of The Chosen People.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Precisely. Which is what I try to do in my sidewalk counselling capacity. That’s another story though.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Deanna & #14– “Support” for mothers is a lot more comprehensive than you realize. Here’s a little of the information from the comparison of the Abortion Store and the Baby Store about who comes out of the latter:
“•Every eighteen seconds a child is born who for most of his life will barely, if at all, know his biological father
•Every 27 seconds, a baby is born whose parents never intended for him to exist
•Every thirty-six seconds, a baby is born who will not graduate high school
•Every thirty-six seconds, a child is born to a life without health insurance
•Every thirty-six seconds, a baby is born who will live in a family with an alcoholic parent
•Every forty-five seconds a child will be born to live in poverty
•Every sixty-three seconds a child is born who will be left alone at home unsupervised between the ages of five and fourteen
•Every eighty-one seconds a baby is born who will come home after school to an empty house
•Of the ten babies born every minute and a half, four are born to mothers weren’t “elated about their condition.”
•Every minute and a half a baby is born whose family pays more than half of its income for rent- two and a half times the national average ”
The list goes on, eventually expanding to days and weeks.
the point here is that you can hate and fear abortion as much as you want; you can be as disgusted by the visuals; you can be as judgmental as you want, but there are a lot of children already being born who need your help, and ALL the babies who are born because you “rescued” a fetus are at risk for the 3-dozen plus fates named in the story. If you insist they be born and you’re not there to keep them from falliing, it says something about your greater concern for abortion than your professed concern for human life.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 7:05 am
Hey, I fall into that category about no health insurance…
Anyway, it seems your argument is, kill them now by abortion to spare them either a, poverty, or b, suffering. Neither argument works, AC. One’s right to life does not depend on the prosperity of that life nor the happiness thereof. And if someone is going to die to escape suffering I’d rather them make that decision for themselves, not you make it pre-emptively for them before they’re even born.
Now you may say this is just a cop-out by me to avoid facing the cold hard realities of how difficult or expensive raising children can be, but to me, the ideals (or principles if you will) are what should be followed. The ideal in this case is that the right to life is respected from conception.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 4:41 pm
So, how many children have you pledged $280,000 to raise through high school? That’s a big fact that few so-called ‘pro-lifers’ have taken on.
It is surprising how vociferous they are in proclaiming their care for the fetus and how absent they are in sacrificing for real children. Even Deanna, one of the few who can be recognized as a caring pro-lifer, has not taken on another 3 kids to replace the ones who have left home.
The biggest fact to face is not that the woman can be persuaded to have a kid who is predestined to a bad outcome (read the Baby Store), but that so-called “pro-lifers” won’t raise ten or eleven kids apiece. Why this great disparity between what they say and what they do?
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm
“•Every eighteen seconds a child is born who for most of his life will barely, if at all, know his biological father
So? Obama didn’t know his father and you guys think he’s king. There are plenty of productive adults who didn’t know their fathers. Must one know his father in order to be deemed valuable?
•Every 27 seconds, a baby is born whose parents never intended for him to exist
So? My parents didn’t intend for me to exist. Neither did A LOT of productive people’s parents intend for them to exist. Does this make them not valuable?
•Every thirty-six seconds, a baby is born who will not graduate high school
So? Graduating High School is not a requirement to be valuable as a human.
•Every thirty-six seconds, a child is born to a life without health insurance
So? There have been many times in my life that I didn’t have health insurance. Should I have been killed to prevent this? Does this make me not valuable?
•Every thirty-six seconds, a baby is born who will live in a family with an alcoholic parent
So? I came from an addictive family as did a lot of productive Americans. Must one come from functional homes to be valuable?
•Every forty-five seconds a child will be born to live in poverty
So? Plenty of people are born into poverty and become productive adults. Do you have to be wealthy to be valuable?
•Every sixty-three seconds a child is born who will be left alone at home unsupervised between the ages of five and fourteen
So lets kill them ahead of time to prevent this?
•Every eighty-one seconds a baby is born who will come home after school to an empty house
Well, just smash them up into little pieces then since they won’t have a mom home to greet them after school.
•Of the ten babies born every minute and a half, four are born to mothers weren’t “elated about their condition.”
Plenty of mother’s aren’t “elated” about their “condition” initially but there are no reported cases of a woman coming back after she gave birth and saying she wished she had aborted unless she has mental health issues. Being “wanted” is not what makes one valuable. They are valuable because they are human.
•Every minute and a half a baby is born whose family pays more than half of its income for rent- two and a half times the national average ”
So, take the oldest out and kill it. I’m sure that it eats more than the baby would anyway, clothing is more expensive, school supplies, etc. If we are talking strictly finances this makes the most sense.
Your arguments come from the same mindset as Hitler and of Pol Pot and the killing fields. What you are hoping for is a Utopia where everyone is perfect and all are wanted and life is fair, that is to those who run the utopia. But then there are always the worker bees and the less valuable ones, the unfortunate ones born into poverty or God forbid born with an abnormality. These are the ones that can be killed at a whim to keep the utopian lifestyle going for the valuable ones, the higher ups that deserve to keep living. I mean after all if we have all of these misfits around to pollute society then us perfect ones will be disturbed at the very sight of them. Right?
Life is never perfect, never will be. The fact that babies are born into less than perfect situations does not de-value them as humans and certainly not enough to condone their pre-birth murders. Furthermore, your insistence that it is pro-lifers responsibility to fix all of the problems of society is false. We are called to reach out to people the best that we can and do what we can. To consider the less fortunate, feed the hungry, meet the practical needs of people that are hurting and “rescue the perishing’, which is what we try to do. As one writer put it,
“Responsibility for raising the child resides with the parents, not society. To suggest that the mother and father of a poor and unexpected child cannot be counted on to be the primary providers of their child is to infantilize the parents and inject chaos into the lives of the family .”
Sometimes they need help yes but to assume that they are to ignorant or to poor or whatever to parent is not true. They simply sometimes need a boost and training. And sometimes they cannot parent at all and this is where society picks up the pieces. But to assume that all of the 1.5million children killed by abortion per year had to be destroyed in order to prevent suffering is ridiculous proven by the fact that since abortion was legalized in 1973 and 54 million have been killed the suffering has not stopped. Dysfunctional family life is everywhere. There are still latchkey kids. There is still poverty, etc. So, the idea that abortion prevents all of this is unrealistic. Also, the idea that if pro-lifers ran to the rescue of society that we could cure all of it’s ills is unrealistic as well. We live in an error filled world because of the fall of man. This will never change but killing 54 million Americans certainly doesn’t help.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 6:30 pm
here is one organization among many that are giving women that “boost”.
http://www.goodcounselhomes.org/
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 9:01 am
Wow, you are crazy, all the situations you described are on your tirade above are not why people have abortions most of the time, they have abortions because they do not want to be pregnant.
The women most of the time is not thinking about how productive their seed will get to be, it is bogus to think that way.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 6:32 pm
I tried to repeat myself but he said something about duplicate comments.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Deanna, you’re killing me with these dissertations (and Charles does as well at times). I just skipped right through your answer.
LikeLike
June 13, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Sometimes it takes time to get the point across. Abortecentrism has a lot to say so I have lot of answer. It’s ok. Those interested will read it.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 5:50 am
Responsbility for raising the child lies primarily with the one who wants the child to be born. When a so-called “pro-lifer dupes or coerces a woman to carry a fetus to term, it isbe the former who wanted that chid to be born. As such, he should be held to account for the child’s upbringhing.
“So you think he should be killed?” is the stock answer EVERY so-called “pro-lifer” resorts to when I point out the bad things that happen to a child. Why, oh WHY can they not get it through their friggin’ heads that children need THEIR love and THEIR protection and THEIR nurture?
By the way, I noticed you won’t let me have your dog, but you would force me to have a baby. . . . Doesn’t say much about your opinion of babies, does it? But at least you have a high opinion of your dog…
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 7:57 am
“When a so-called “pro-lifer dupes or coerces a woman to carry a fetus to term, it isbe the former who wanted that chid to be born.”
I really don’t think that a woman can be “coerced or duped” into giving birth. We present them with the facts and they decide to either 1) parent: in this case we try to help them as much as we can with as much help as they want or 2) place the baby for adoption: in this case they are ALWAYS adopted immediately with an average 3 year waiting list of parents seeking to adopt.
The issue of available foster children which we have already discussed is a completely different issue than are babies saved from abortion.
The reference to my dog was vague and made no sense. You out of the blue asked for my dog? I still do not understand your point in that question and I never said you couldn’t have him either. I asked you to clarify your point, which you did not.
Also, your “you wouldn’t give me your dog but you would force me to have a baby” reasoning is nonsense. We are not trying to “force” anyone to parent. They is adoption as an alternative. We are asking that they not kill their child and if they can’t parent then let someone parent who can.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 9:41 am
“The reference to my dog was vague and made no sense.” I thought that also, deanna, two years ago when he said the same thing to me. But I was curious (and you know what happens then). So I asked him to talk about it through emails rather than this blogs because I sensed where it was going to lead. After over 150 email exchanges, I arrived at this conclusion: “The reference to my dog was vague and made no sense.”
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 7:16 am
Who are you to say how many she can or can’t care for? You come up with figures based on your own specious accounting and then make asumptions regarding how much this/that/the other costs and try applying it to someone you (presumably) don’t even know but just happen to be anonymously arguing with sitting behind a screen somewhere possibly thousands of miles away?! What gives?
I’ll say this as well- I’ve only ever had one person change her mind, who I was able to help support, but that was not me alone since there were others who helped support her as well. This was…roughly 5 years ago. Since then her situation has improved- so I don’t hear from her as much but if she still has the number if she needs anything. Other than that, most of my “help” is in the form of contributions- to birthright, the diocese, etc…
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 11:18 am
These are not “specious assumptions” by any means. I’ve been studying this for years. I’ve raised a kid on my own, and I’ve made a box of crackers and a large can of tomato soup last us for a weekend more than once. You should really try caring for human life yourself rather than just caring about abortion. I suggest you spend 15,000,000 seconds being the sole person responsible for what happens to a real child whether he’s in your presence or not; it would give you a little perspective on the “pro-life” game. At least you’d understand why your ilk walk away so readily from the delivery room door.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Of course they are. You know everything about Deanna’s kids? You know about special needs kids? You know about any medical conditions of hers (or mine for that matter since you accuse me too) that mean she can’t care for those extra 3 you blame her for not taking on? You know everything about how costs vary from state to state and even county to county within a state? You know about what kind of other help increases or decreases your one-size-fits-all figures? I thought not.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I’m only expecting you and Deanna to live up to your own standard, which boils down to, “have another kid, or God’ll getcha.” If you want someone else to bear a child– and you don’t care what happens to it on the way to adulthood– then you should be duped or forced into the same situation. If you feel bad because somebody else has had an abortion, you can make up for it by raising a child of your own and thumbing your nose at her. But no; the important thing for you is to be certain that there are no aboritons, not that every child is cared for. That’s the essence of the gulf between the so-called “pro-lifer” stance and his actual works.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 5:58 am
Deanna’s responses to the fates of born children indicate an underlying callousness toward those she claims to have “rescued.” I presume she was able to pay out of pocket the $16,000 in usual medical expenses it took to get each of her children care for until age six, and the vast majority of prisoners who lacked a father in their life are exactly like “our” president, and children whose mothers look at them as a food and hygiene requirement are going to do just as well as her Rush Limbaugh. In none of those instances (and it gets worse, with one in four baby girls born and one in six baby boys born to get molested) does it occur to her that these children need more than their parents can provide.
To her the important thing is that she was against abortion. Better for her peace of mind that they be doomed from the moment she leaves them than they get a shortcut to Heaven.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 8:38 am
As I said earlier, there will always be pain and suffering in the world and unfortunately children will be victims of that but to suggest that they be killed t o prevent them from suffering is absurd and me saying so is not callous. It is reality.
With that said, children who have hard lives are still valuable and deserve to live. It is a proven fact that most abused children were planned and wanted. Edward Lenoski, M.D. of the University of California, in his article, “Plight of the Children” reports that in his studies which have extended over many years, 91% of abused children were very much wanted. Lenoski’s findings are reinforced by social service experts in Michigan who also agree that child abusers are found in every stratum of society, regardless of economics or education.
Also, “Studies indicate that child abuse is more frequent among mothers who have previously had an abortion.” Dr. Philip Ney is a practicing child and family psychiatrist in Canada, where he directs the International Institute for Pregnancy Loss and Child Abuse Research and Recovery. His research has uncovered many links between abortion and child abuse, Here is a quote from him after 20 years of research,, “Sadly enough, statistically speaking and I have to say this very carefully, statistically speaking women who have had abortions are less likely to bond to their children, and therefore these children are more likely to be abused and neglected. Also, women who were abused and neglected as children are more likely to have abortions. And I can tell you that wherever I have said this, in whatever kind of an audience, people have become really quite upset, sometimes very angry. But I think I can say that having done the research now over a number of years and published a number of papers, that that is a statistically significant connection. That is not to say that every mother who has an abortion is a bad mother, just not true. But it does say that this is something we had better look into, because people are very concerned about rising rates of child abuse, neglect.”
Furthermore, Child abuse has also increased by 500% since abortion was legalized in 1973. Another study by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, also indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are “significant.” From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases: ” Jeff Lane Hensely. The Zero People. Servant Books, Ann Arbor, MI, p.79
There are numerous other studies that have concluded the same thing. Abortion leads to child abuse not the opposite. I could quote more studies but to limit my “wall of content” I will stop there. So, here is my question, If you guys are going to advocate for abortion on demand then how many of these abused and neglected children do you plan on supporting until they become adults? These are the ones in foster care, not the ones saved from the abortion mills. So Aborticentrism, how many are you going to adopt?10-12? How about your taxes going up to support them? Are you opening any homes to care for them? Abortion is your ball game, play it!
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 11:14 am
1. So you are not going to care about children whom you wanted born; you prefer they die slowly and horribly cognizant of their fate rather than as an insentient being with the potential for becoming human?
2. and you think that no woman wants to have a baby the way she wants to have a diamond bracelet, or a ladylike handgun for purposes of revenge.
3. I pledged twenty-five years ago to raise to adulthood every “unborn human” I wanted “rescued.” You still have not. As a single male parent, I raised a child for years either unemployed or working for minimum wage. And from 1983 or thereabouts until 2010, I sacrificed 600 hours a year and 8% of my gross income in direct support of children whose parents wouldn’t or couldn’t care for them. I’ve bragged about this before.
4. As one who has spent most of his life wishing he’d never been born, I would much rather have been aborted than become the suicide, the lunatic and the pervert I almost became.
5. You need to read the Warner
Smith longitudinal study of children in poverty on Maui before you go assuming how beautful their lives are going to be. Despite your admirable track record, you are now just as unwilling as the next so-called “pro-lifer” to do more than is convenient for you for the next fetux you want brought to term. Otherwsie, you’d have adopted three more children.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 11:43 am
1) You are ignoring the studies I quoted.
2) Actually you are wrong. I WOULD raise to adulthood every child I rescued from abortion if the opportunity was given to me if it were necessary to preserve their lives. The truth is that when women choose to parent they choose to parent themselves. If what you are asking is that a pro-lifer financially support a child that they parent decides to keep until it is an adult then you mistakenly think that this is1) wanted and 2)needed. As I said earlier, this mentality is an insult to parents everywhere. Just because a woman wants and abortion and then changes her mind is no indication that she is too stupid, too poor or too dysfunctional to parent herself.
3) Your “spent most of his life wishing he had never been born” is sad, and I am sorry for that and what you have gone through. But according to your testimony you have overcome this and I’m glad but even if you hadn’t that would still have not justified your death.
There is NO justification for the death of innocent babies (yeah yeah I know technically fetus) and there is NO argument that would make me say it is ok. The argument that a child will be abused so kill it isn’t even logical.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 1:44 pm
The studies you quote are as reliable as the previous studies you quoted, and going over that ground again.
As for caring for every “unborn human” you want rescued: You WOULD, buy you DON’T, just as I WOULD offer my life to save the sinners of the world, but DON’T. The fact that you haven’t adopted another three children shows that you, like an unwillingly pregnant woman, have your limits too. Your overreach into her life is worthy of close examination.
Feeling sad about what I– or my child– have been through is no substitute for making sure it doesn’t happen to the next child you caused to be born. Would you like to hear any stories about the local adopted kids in two families who killed their adoptive parent?
So much of the so-called “pro-life” movement is about being reminded of how awful death can be for oneself….
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I just think that “making sure it doesn’t happen to the next child doesn’t include killing them to prevent it.”
Also,, who said I wasn’t going to adopt more kids? Did I say that? No! I didn’t! What I said was I very well may. But that is beside the point! The children that are in foster care are the ones we are talking about, are they not? I know of no children that were saved from abortion that are waiting to be adopted. These are snatched up quickly when available. The ones we are discussing are the ones that are in foster care after the 500% increase in child abuse and neglect AFTER abortion was legalized.
Since you don’t like the studies above here is an article from the Washington Times about another study at Bowling Green University: Women who have abortions are significantly more likely to physically abuse their children than women who do not have abortions, said a study by a research group and professors at Bowling Green State University.
Compared with mothers with no history of induced abortion, those who had undergone the procedure were found to have a 144 percent greater risk of physically abusing their children, said the study, published by the medical journal Acta Paediatrica. Women with pregnancy loss in general — including abortion, stillbirth and miscarriage — were found to be 99 percent more likely to commit child abuse.
Priscilla Coleman, a professor at Bowling Green State University, led a team of researchers who looked at data from a survey of 581 low-income Baltimore women with at least one child 12 or younger. Ms. Coleman, who has participated in related studies, said the results may reflect the psychological problems experienced by post-abortive mothers……..
“It negates the claim … that abortion would result in reduced child abuse and child neglect,” Mr. Reardon said. “There’s at least indicative evidence that [abortion] may be associated with abuse and neglect.”
I have the link to the actual study if you want it. But the point is that Abortion causes abuse and neglect. So the very thing that you are advocating for (abortion) in order to prevent abuse and neglect actually causes it.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Warner Smith also concluded that : “This digest summarizes a growing body of international, cross-cultural, longitudinal studies that provide scientific evidence that many youth–even those with multiple and severe risks in their lives–can develop into “confident, competent, and caring adults” (Werner & Smith, 1992)”
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Do you realize you’re ignoring Warner Smith’s finding that TWO-THIRDS of the kids don’t escape their upbringing. And can you name the five factors he identified that made it possible for the lucky one-third to overcome their upbringing? Helpful hint: None of them involved a so-called “pro-lifer.”
It’s quite telling that you ignore the information that threatens your belief structure.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 2:57 pm
No,Im not ignoring it. I am simply saying that killing the child to keep it out of trouble is not the answer.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:07 pm
But caring for the child you want born is not an option? All you can think about is killing???? the next Ted Bundy is out there slouching toward his destiny, and you haven’t gone out of your way to adopt him. Yuio culd be his Big Sister; you could be his guardian ad litem; you could be his classroom volunteer; you could be his foster parent– but you focus on getting other children born. . . .
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Chuck, you’re just getting nuttier and nuttier.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:46 pm
the article discusses the critical role schools can play in this process
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 8:39 am
Deanna really never gets it or really answers the question.
I read some of her blog.
Don’t bother, it is a mess of misinformation.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 11:04 am
So EXACTLY what question am not answering? Be specific please and I will do my best to answer it.
Also, EXACTLY what on my blog is mis-information? Be specific and I will address it.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 4:26 pm
The “you never answer the question” accusation, deanna, is one of the AI’s favorites. They have no idea themselves what the question is, so don’t ask. I’m still puzzled why they use it so often. Maybe easy to spell?
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Actually, Linda, she does answer questions. At the same time, she doesn’t get it because she can’t afford to get it.
She has constructed an excellent example of the magical thinking universe the so-called “pro-lifers” have built in order to make themselves heroes in society’s eyes. She’ll never go to any of my sources, none of whom express values about abortion– e.g., Alice Miller, Craig Seaton, Ernest Becker– to see whether she’s got the traits they describe in their subjects. But her work is an excellent source for culling examples of the dysfunctional self-help group’s thinking…
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Abortecentrism said “But caring for the child you want born is not an option? All you can think about is killing???? the next Ted Bundy is out there slouching toward his destiny, and you haven’t gone out of your way to adopt him. Yuio culd be his Big Sister; you could be his guardian ad litem; you could be his classroom volunteer; you could be his foster parent– but you focus on getting other children born. . . ”
Honestly, I really don’t think there is anything that I can say or do that will make you listen to me. I am taking care of children, doing what I can. But to suggest that Ted Bundy is my responsibility is simply absurd. That argument doesn’t hold up.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:53 pm
There’s a possible reason that you are being ignored by aborticentrism—that you keep repeating unreliable data from Reardon and Coleman AND that you now add another suspect in your lineup, Philip Ney.
What we have here is classic. You believe what you want, trust the sources you have and live the way you choose. No doubt that anything will change. And that’s OK. On the other hand, others embrace their own morality and beliefs, trust sources that are widely vetted for the methodological rigor and valid outcomes, and live the lives they choose. No doubt, that anything will change. And that’s OK.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 4:14 pm
thank you for doing the hard work, Kate.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Deanna, all I want you to do is what you want every pregnant woman to do: Take care of the next child. And you are telling me what women who chose abortion are telling you: I’ll do it in my own good time, but not now. How does it feel?
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Pat,
On the theme about scientific facts not counting, here’s a “get real” site with interesting facts that impact real women
http://www.thirdwavefoundation.org/our-work/emergency-abortion-fund/report/
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Here’s another bone to chew on–this time about reasoning as a weapon rather a path to truth. In fact, here’s the best line “Truth and accuracy were beside the point.” Don’t you love it?
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I never said I wasn’t. You decided that all by yourself!
Kate@ so you are saying that the study in the Washington Times by Bowling Green university is bogus? Hmmmm, that’s interesting how EVERY study that is cited that does not condone killing babies is bogus. Maybe it’s because you guys filter everything you read through your need to advocate for the killings to continue. I could keeo supplying you with studies but it wouldn’t matter because you refuse to acknowledge them,science, embryology, or anything else that makes the killing inappropriate.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 6:28 pm
That’s it, deanna, passion and pride. We’re dealing with killers here. They’ve been around since Cain.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Abortecentrism: FYI. I read your website. It’s a bunch of psycho babble. Let me make my reply simple: I am not afraid of death, this is not why I do what I do. I do what I do because I think that it is a horrible thing to tear babies limbs off and crush their heads all so that a girl can finish school or have a career or whatever other reason she does it. It is an absolutely horrible thing. You can make it all about the pro-lifers and how psychotic we are if that’s what you need to do to feel better about it but the reality is that babies are still dying. THAT is the issue! They die a horrible painful awful death and you advocate for it! People wouldn’t advocate doing that to a dog but they will come up with fake reasons to justify doing it to a human. My little nephew was born at 21 weeks. I went to the hospital to see him. He was perfect! He cried, tried to eat, kicked his little arms and legs and fought like crazy to live but 12 hours later he died because his little lungs weren’t developed enough. But HE was a person, a human, and he deserved that chance to live. He was not one bit different than all of those other 21 week ones that are dismembered weekly that deserve the chance to live. You can hide behind all of your pro-choice rhetoric and conclusions about pro-lifers if you want to but that doesn’t change the fact that precious little tiny babies die. They die brutally! That little baby that I saw was precious and didn’t deserve to have his arms and legs torn off or his head crushed. Why do the others deserve it? Because you deem it so? Well that’s not a good enough reason. You guys who advocate for abortion and advertise for it need to look closely at what you are doing. You are advocating and advertising to have little babies torn apart all for the sake a principal that is false at best and for the sake of a dollar at worst. I can argue studies on this and that all day long and argue about what pro-liferes do and don’t do all day long but it doesn’t help because you refuse to look at the babies. You say that this is all we pro-liferes think about well maybe you need to think about it for a few seconds. Imagine that tiny little baby asleep in it;’s mothers womb. Now imagine that you are ripping it apart limb by limb. Yes, YOU! Because when you advocate for it and advertise for it then you are the same as doing it! Their blood will be on your hands!
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 4:36 am
This one goes right into my newsletter. If it does not bring comfort to the PFCs, nothing will.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 5:30 am
Well, it’s clear that it hasn’t changed you from focusing on your fear of abortion and made you pay attention to the baby who’s just been born.
And as for how much you value human life, it’s also clear that while you won’t let me have your dog, you’d make me have a baby. What does that say about how much you care for real human life? Giving your dog to a total stranger would make you loathesome in the extreme, but somehow you think you look like a hero when you force a baby on a stranger….
Too bad about your nephew, but what are you going to do to help the next Ted Bundy who’s already been born? Death happens; human life needs nurture. Get back to nurturing the only way it can be done– one on one.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 9:07 am
Ted Bundy is not my responsibility. He is God’s.
You said, “Human Life needs nurture”. Yes, it does, you are exactly right. ALL human life, both born and unborn! I try to do both!
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 5:56 pm
You can’t do a thing to nurture a fetus– you can’t protect it from smoke, alcohol, medications or illegal substances; you can’t provide it vitamins and minerals or oxygen; you can’t help it develop the neurobiology that will define what a state of “normal” is; you can’t protect it from toxoplasmosis, German measles, or spina bifida.
And as far as nurturing born humans, you’ve apparently reached your limit. No more adoptions, and no straining of the family budget to lower the family per capita income to $3800. What you do for children and mothers is still admirable in its way, but it’s nowhere near what you demand of other women, the pregnant ones.
If you convince a woman she has to have a baby, you, not God, bear the responsibility. After all, God planted in her mind the thought that she oughtn’t be pregnant.
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 8:29 pm
In reality, an abortionist uses forceps to literally tear the child apart. A D&E is described in The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
“Of the various ways to perform an abortion after the midpoint of pregnancy, there is only one that never, ever results in live births….However, it is particularly stressful to medical personnel. That is because D&E requires literally cutting the fetus from the womb and, then, reassembling the parts, or at least keeping them all in view, to assure that the abortion is complete…”(8)
A doctor describes a D&E in plainer terms:
“You are doing a destructive process. Arms, legs, chests come out in the forceps. It’s not a sight for everybody.”(9)
Author Peter Korn, in his book Lovejoy: A Year in the Life of an Abortion Clinic, describes a D&E this way:
“Still holding the forceps, [abortionist] Lane begins pulling, tearing apart the fetus. The first three tugs yield indistinguishable tissue. The fourth brings out more solid mass, which [clinic worker] Anneke, from her position in the back of the small room, immediately recognizes as the trunk of a fetus…. Tiny hands and feet, extracted next, are the most recognizable…. The pieces of the fetus and the placenta are placed by Lane on a surgical tray at his side.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 8:36 am
Where are the footnotes?
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 9:16 am
8. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1976 Sept 1, 126(1) 83-90.
9. Dr. William Thompson, quoted in Liz Jeffries and Rick Edmonds “Abortion: The Dreaded Complication” The Philadelphia Inquirer, Aug. 2, 1981.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 6:01 pm
ooooooh
LikeLike
June 14, 2011 at 8:43 pm
A straightforward description:- the physician inserts a long, toothed clamp into the uterus of the mother, grasping at random to secure and dismember the arms and legs of her 22 to 27 weeks’ gestation viable or potentially viable child and withdraw the limbs piecemeal from her body, subsequently grasping and removing the child’s torso in pieces, then crushing the infant’s head in order to extract it through the vaginal canal, finally scraping the lining of the womb and vacuuming any remaining fetal parts and placenta by suction (in most cases not guided by ultrasound).
These late-term D&E abortions may “only” comprise 2% of the total annual U.S. abortions each year, but that D&E number is over 20,000 children and they are the viable ones. They are the same age of gestation as the infants that were aborted by D&X partial birth abortion, but there are 600% more now being aborted by D&E Dismemberment Abortion.
D&E is more painful to the child than D&X was; it is more gruesome; and it is just as close to infanticide.
So, Forget us psychotic got something to prove right wing egotistical nut job pro-lifers for a minute! How do you justify it?
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 5:32 am
I wish that had happened to me! And a lot of people I know would have been happy to see it done. You’ve been outvoted by my crowd, Deanna.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 8:47 am
You wishing it had happened to you is extremely sad and shows that you need healing. I will pray for you that healing comes and I mean that. A lot of us have had very difficult lives but God made mankind to be over comers. If you believe the Bible you should read Isaiah 53. It talks about the fact that Jesus died for our sorrows, meaning our pain in life, and because He died for that we can be healed from it. Ask Him to heal you.
There is no need for a person to go through pain like that when Jesus made a way out. Killing the ones who may suffer is not the answer. Jesus’ death is the answer. He paid the price so that we don’t have to die emotionally or spiritually. To kill the suffering ones to ease their pain wastes what Jesus did because He died to ease their pain. Most people mistakenly think that Christianity is a bunch of legalistic rules that condemn and hurt. Partly because clergy who don’t even understand it themselves have portrayed it this way. In reality it is the greatest Love story of all time. Our creator loved us so much that He took the pain and suffering of the sins done to us by others as well as the sins we do ourselves on Himself so that we can be free from both. Some of the things that happened in my childhood could make for a movie plot. You would probably think that I was lying if I told you. But here I am happy and whole and glad that I wasn’t aborted (they tried) all because my creator loved me and healed me. The healing was a process but I am healed. That same healing is there for anyone who will ask for it believing that it comes form Jesus. It’s that simple.
So, again, to wish oneself dead is not the answer and to condemn others who may suffer someday to death to prevent the suffering is not the answer. Jesus is the answer.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Oh, goodie, here comes the Jesus stuff.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 2:26 pm
You afraid of the “Jesus stuff?’
Let’s go out on a limb here…what if I am right? What IF He really did die to save us from our pain and sins? What if He really is the answer? What if I really did get healed from childhood trauma through Him? What if you are blowing off your only true hope? It’s a lot if’s and the answer could be the most important answer that there is.
A person has to ask themselves the question about Jesus because He was one of two things: He was either (1) Who he said He was to the point that He literally changed History as the Son of God who died to save us from our eternal fate of separation from God. or (2) He was a raving lunatic who claimed to be the Son of God and imagined Himself as the redeemer but in his lunacy was so convincing that He changed the course of history and has duped hundreds of billions of people into following Him AND many of these billions upon billions have claimed that He has supernaturally healed them from diseases and sorrows, including me. So, is it that He was a lunatic and hundreds of billions of people have lied about what He has done for them or is it that you are wrong and He is who He claimed to be?
Also, I didn’t come here to convince you guys that Jesus is real. But when someone says things like abortecentrism said I am compelled to tell Him/Her the truth from my experience. I am not saying it for myself. I am saying it because I have true compassion for him/her. I am aware that you guys will find that hard to believe but it’s true and when I told him/her I would pray for them I meant it.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 2:48 pm
Fortunately, Jesus was/is not the only player in the field of religions. What’s remarkably irritating is that two of the Abrahamic faiths–Christianity and Islam–are told to do missionary work. So off they go sharing “the good word” and, at times, giving the rest of us the opportunity to say, “Thank goodness we still have freedom of and from religion in this country.” And, might I add, kudos to Judaism, Buddhism and atheism and all the other spiritual groups.
And as far as your question about being a lunatic or being wrong, it seems that forced choices aren’t applicable here.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Forced choices? No! he was either one or the other. He claimed to be the Son of God so if He wasn’t then He was a lunatic.
You are right about the choices of religion. We all have choices. Choose carefully. It matters for eternity!
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 6:53 am
Forced choice is what you offered–lunatic or Son of God. Some religions view him as a noteworthy prophet.
And as for eternity, that’s the bait that keeps Christians and Muslims.
Abortion and religion, as Deanna and the tag-along Dunkle have demonstrated, are two subjects that exist as polar opposites. They’re right about abortion/religion and the rest of us are wrong.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 8:48 am
I’m offering what He said HE was. If He wasn’t then He was either a liar or a lunatic. How can a liar or a lunatic be a prophet and not only a prophet but a prophet that changed the whole world? It seems that hundreds of billions of people would have to be freaking nuts to follow a prophet that was either a liar or a lunatic don’t you think?
I don’t think eternity is a bait. To me nothing else makes sense. We had to come from somewhere and we have to be going somewhere. I don’t believe in evolution because it isn’t realistic. If we evolved then why did we suddenly stop evolving. I haven’t grown and new parts lately have you? Dogs have been dogs and horses have been horses for a lot of years. What magical thing made all the evolution stop? Also, since people are spiritual beings what happens tot heir spirits when they die? These are questions that evolution doesn’t and can’t answer.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 9:01 am
“If one person believes in delusional nonsense, he’s nuts. If forty million believe in it, they’re the saved.”
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 11:34 am
This is getting old, Chuck.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 5:16 pm
There have been HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of Christians in the world since Jesus was on earth. That”s a pretty huge number. Surely we aren’t all certifiably crazy.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 5:47 pm
I dunno; Jonestown contained more Christian disciples than Jesus had….
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Jonestown folks were part of a cult. 99.999 % of the billions and billions of Christians throughout history were not.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Praying for me, Deanna, is not nearly as effective as recognizing when I as a parent inflict the most pernicious form of abuse on my child (do you know what it is, and do you know the signs?) and then identifying my needs and my strengths to help me get what he needs.
Praying for me is not nearly as effective as knowing that my parents are teaching me as a child that fear, anger and vengeance are normal and using your time, money and talents to provide me with a window into another world I can escape to.
Praying for me is not going to prevent me from killing women who remind me of the mother who misraised me, even though she meant well.
Praying for me is not going to keep me from being too stupid to understand that if I don’t change my behavior this time, I’m going to go to jail again.
Praying for me is not going to keep me from screwing people I sell subprime loans to.
You might do better to pray for yourself, to concentrate on the needs of the living child rather than your needs to avoid horrid images.
And if there is no God, then everything good that happens depends on us, a situation we don’t really want to think about, but which is most likely the case.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 6:29 pm
You would be wrong about all of the above because my prayers can change all of this and even change what it is in you that is not clicking that causes you do do all of the above.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 6:54 pm
In other words, you’re praying for my early death? That’s impressive!! It’s a lot easier than giving me money, isn’t it?
One of the best so-called “pro-life” comments I ever heard about how to help a pregnant woman was, “Tell her to fight for that baby!” Typical of the movement, it is a form of help which is a lot easier than fighting for someone else’s baby.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Praying for your early death? Huh? I can’t fathom how you came up with that one.
I have never heard that “pro-life” comment either.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I wanted to make it easy for you to put another notch in your rosary, so to speak; it’d be more likely to achieve than praying that I walk on water. If either one of them happens I’ll let you know. If I only contract an incurable disease, no cigar.
Her quote “Let her fight for her baby!” was in a local paper’s Letter’s section, over twenty years ago. I probably still have it around. She never adopted or otherwise cared for a child, not even of her own social or economic class, church or kinship group. Typical.
LikeLike
June 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Rosary? I’m not Catholic. I don’t have a rosary. I’m not praying that you walk on water either, only that you find healing and joy in your life and I certainly hope you don’t contract and incurable disease.
As far as the quote goes. It really is a shame when people don’t do what they preach. But having no way of knowing this particular person I’m not going to judge it because for all I know she was 85 years old and sick with cancer and had no money therefore all she could do was offer encouragement. You just never know what a person is dealing with.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 4:20 am
If it is possible for someone to be instrumental in restoring Chuckles to health, deanna, you are that person.
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm
The Abortion Store/Baby Store description (of what children face for probabilities in life outcomes ) just had a verification from the House of Substance blogsite. It involves a child who was born to become retarded AND autistic, but who got government assistance:
Facilitation
The first of a series of articles:
“Still, the Wendrows had resolutely refused to believe testing that consistently showed [their daughter] functioned at the level of a 2-year-old and that in addition to being autistic, she was mentally retarded.
“The Wendrows were introduced to [facilitated communication] in 2004 by Dr. Sandra McClennen, a retired education professor from Eastern Michigan University who had been working with their daughter for three years. She trained the girl to use FC, a highly controversial method through which autistic people are said to communicate using a keyboard, aided by another person.
[…]
“The Tuesday morning after Thanksgiving break, [facilitator Cynthia] Scarsella asked how the weekend went.
“Scarsella guided the girl’s right hand over the specialized keyboard. She held her wrist as the girl, striking one letter at a time, typed out a message:
” “My dad gets me up banges me and then we have breakfast. … He puts his hands on my private parts.”
“Scarsella asked whether the girl’s mother knew. She facilitated as the girl answered yes and typed:
” “She doesn’t say anything.”
“Scarsella immediately told Natalie Miller, the girl’s teacher, who notified her supervisors. Michigan law requires school officials to report any credible allegation of sexual abuse to authorities.
“Within hours, police, prosecutors and social workers were on the move.
“Within two days, the children were wards of the state.
“Within a week, the Wendrows were in jail.”
Where are the so-called “pro-lifers” for the next child born?
LikeLike
June 16, 2011 at 6:02 pm
So pro-lifers are supposed to be psychic and know ahead of time that this would happen?No! I will tell you where they are. Most likely the children that you are referring to are now in a pro-life(or at least pro-child) foster home being taken care of.
LikeLike