It was a sweltering July day in the city of Philadelphia in 1776. The delegates to the convention slowly make their way into what ultimately would be dubbed “Independence Hall” but on this day it was still commonly known as “Moe’s Place.” Representatives from the 13 American colonies were there to discuss whether or not to break away from Mother England and set up their own nation. A committee had been formed to draft a statement of principles that would publicly explain to King George and the rest of the world why the colonies felt it was necessary to declare its independence and, in effect, start a war.
The debate over the proposed resolution was intense and went on for days. Should we actually call the King a “tyrant?” How do we address the issue of slavery? Should we be quoting Thomas Paine or Voltaire? Should we refer to God?
Then, suddenly, after days of laborious discussion, a delegate raised his hand and is recognized: “Mr. President, why is there no language that protects fetuses from being aborted?”
There are puzzled looks on the faces of those in the room then Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the document, calmly assures the delegate that his concern has been met and refers him to the section which says that all men shall be endowed with the right to “life” in this new nation so, he explains, since every baby has the possibility of coming out as a male, you cannot have any abortions!
Somehow I just don’t think that’s how it all played out.
Those who advocate making abortion a crime in this country love to cite the Declaration of Independence and, in particular, the line that says (cue the trumpets!): “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Or is it “inalienable?” I always get that part confused.
Anyway, so somewhere along the line the anti-abortion folks started to interpret that passage to mean that everyone has a “right to life.” See! See! The Founding Fathers, those wise old men, were saying that everyone, including those little fetuses, have the right to life! See! What did I tell ya? You gonna argue with the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, Berkowitz and Adams?
Okay, now let’s everybody calm down and think this through a little.
First of all, the fact is that those sage, all-knowing Founding Fathers never said a word about abortion during that long summer in Philadelphia. The word is never found in any of the historical accounts of the process. I mean, just think about about it. It wasn’t even an issue in those days and they had much bigger things on their mind, like creating a new country. Didn’t they have other things to do that were a little more important than abortion?
Second, remember that in those days, when they said “all men” are blah, blah, they really meant all MEN. We know that they weren’t talking about women – God forbid – and they weren’t talking about the slaves either. They were talking about all of those old white people who had the power. So, please do not tell me that, although they didn’t give a rat’s ass about women or slaves, they did care about protecting those little, defenseless fetuses.
This is one of those arguments that is really stretching it a bit, don’t you think?


June 30, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Pat, really funny! I agree it’s stretching it a bit. It’s like all the bible thumpers who proclaim that this nation is a Christian nation. In reality, this nation is a consumerist, capitalist nation that worships money, sports, fame, sex and celebrities of all stripes (film, music, sports, business, etc).
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:47 am
Thanks, Kate!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Kate,
Sadly,
The Bible Thumpers think this IS a Christian Nation and the Bible reading retards in legislature behave like this is a Parlimentary Theocracy.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:56 pm
see post number twenty one
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:25 pm
I saw it and it was worthless.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:56 pm
You shouldn’t just look at it,k G, you should read it! Or am I suggesting the impossible again.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Gerard,
What I asked you was do you want to be involved in an intelligent conversation or keep on with the mindless junior high bantering. I guess this was your answer.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Actually, I’m fully expecting another dissertation from Deanna about how science and technology has advanced our understanding about the life and value of the fetus. With that in mind, I suspect she will put forth the argument that we should therefore advance our life, liberty clause to the fetus.
Guess, we’ll just have to wait for that glorious moment of enlightenment.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 4:30 pm
No dissertation here Kate. I don’t think that the “right to life issue” is just a constitutional issue or for that matter even primarily a constitutional issue, nor do I believe that it is primarily a religious issue. I think that the right to life is a moral issue based on the fact that it is a human that we are talking about. If it were a dog, or a frog or a catfish it would be different but by virtue of the fact that it is human morally it has the right to not be killed by other humans.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:52 am
Where do you derive your code of morality?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
From my conscience and my working brain. It’s an easy equation. Kindergarten level to be exact.
1+1=2
human= valuable=should not be killed at another’s whim.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 8:47 am
Your religion plays no role at all?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:02 am
Id definitely plays a roll but I would be pro-life even if I had no religion. Just like the secular prolife (dot) org folks.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Your answer is so dimwitted compared to your statement.
—
From my conscience and my working brain. It’s an easy equation.
—
I would bet that your intensive religious brainwashing reflects highly upon your opinions. You cannot know what you would think if you were secular.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
Your “formula” is absurd to anyone that has studied logic.
If you are comparing your formula to Math (and it appears you are doing that), then you truly have great difficulties that you should overcome before representing yourself as an intelligent person capable of commentary on such an important issue.
You do not even have the most basic rudimentary topics covered.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:28 pm
No reply DeAnna?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Kent,
I am absolutely sure that you know full well that I was not literally comparing the equation to a mathematical equation. It was sarcasm. I know you knew that.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
DeAnna,
If your comparison of the symbolic useful language of mathematics was used to leverage the validity of your next highly subjective and illogical statement then that was a pathetic example.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Please go to post number 21
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:29 pm
Stupid post, why waste our intellectual time?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:57 pm
hahahahaha
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Gerard,
I am positive that you knew full well that it was a sarcastic remark.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 4:15 pm
Nope, no stretch, Pat. “All men are created equal” doesn’t mention Pat Richards, nor Italians, nor Johnny Dark (my nickname), nor adolescents (not even the literate ones), nor matrons, nor cattle rustlers, nor, admittedly, fetuses and toddlers. But “men” includes all of them, except, at that time, those Americans from the sub-Sahara. Satan was able to impose his killing agendum on them but nowhere near as successfully as he’s been able to impose it on us. When it comes to killing, we have no match.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:51 am
Of coarse you do.
Catholics. The greatest killing machine civilization has ever seen.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Catholics.
Never a more efficient killing machine then the Catholics.
Even Hitler admired them for their ability to commit genocide.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:12 am
I heard he admired you, dock tore — is that Mengale?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:20 am
It is peculiar that Catholics have been responsible for so many horrors in the world of torture and murder.
Can any of you Catholics help me understand this?
It has always been so perplexing to me how murderous and wrong Catholosism has been since inception.
Tx!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm
It is peculiar that Amy has been responsible for so many horrors in the world of torture and murder.
Can any of you who are friendly with her help me understand this?
It has always been so perplexing to me how murderous and wrong Amy has been since adolescence.
Tx!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:19 pm
?????????
I cannot understand you? Please explain . . .
I ama a Catholic trying to make sense of all of this writing.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:16 am
Even if one is Catholic, George, he first has to learn to read before he can “make sense of all this writing.” Does the O strand for “over his head”?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:49 am
What are you talking about –
Seriously I can’t understand you either.
Please reply to their comment or write something coherent. You dilute this Blog with comments that make no sense at all.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:59 pm
You’d understand, L, if you were able.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:30 pm
hi amy!
i would say that it is not the fault of catholicism that created the atrocities that you speak of, but rather people who took the label of catholic.
too often, people have misused the message to suit their own agendas, or taken one small part of the puzzle without stepping back to look at the entire picture.
there are corrupt people who, rather than address their own corruption, will use the dogmas within religion to rationalize the hatred that they make a choice to manifest.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:38 pm
Thank you Rogelio,
You are the only Pro Lifer that makes any sense here.
But, why have Catholics been so murderous over the centuries?
Hardly an example of good behavior?
If someone calls themselves a Catholic how do you differentiate them from a real Catholic?
They all claim the same thing, they are so perplexed about their very own religiosity?”
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:45 pm
i can’t explain WHY so many catholics have been so murderous and committed so many atrocities.
it is something i have asked myself a lot as well.
i was raised agnostic and i used to try and justify atrocities committed by secular societies, or at least try to diminish the impact that they made on people, when the truth is that there is no justification for such things, most especially when one takes a label that is supposed to be founded in love.
i would say that the way to differentiate between someone who takes the label and someone who can walk their talk is by their fruits.
if someone remembers that cristo said that his greatest commandment was to love one another as he loves us, and they behave accordingly, then you have someone who bears spiritual fruit.
if they spew hatred and vitriol, then you just have a religious nut.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:53 am
I still do not understand this dialogue, Rogelio, although I appreciate your answer.
If the Pope and the Institution of Catholicism declares murderous and torture related activities, then by definition, isn’t that a Catholic act?
Is not the Pope the leader of Catholics?
God’s primary representative on Earth for them?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“If the Pope and the Institution of Catholicism declares murderous and torture related activities, then by definition, isn’t that a Catholic act?”
Such illiteracy overwhelms me. I find I must even rewrite the enemy’s jibes:
If the Pope and other Catholic institutions support murderous and torture related activities, isn’t that support Catholic?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 7:13 pm
hey there, leonard! 🙂
in answer to your questions,i wouldn’t say that the acts you speak of are catholic acts or catholic institutions or catholic acts.
they were acts committed by catholics,even if a pope was part of it.
while the church teaches that the pope is infallible, this is not to say that he is incapable of sinning.
papa juan pablo 2 apologized for any wrongful role that catholics played in the crusades.
so if there was torture and murder authorized by a pope, obviously he saw it as wrong,or he would not have apologized for it.
and too, the pope has a personal confessor.
papal infallability is in reference to doctrine.
so yes,the pope is the vicar of christ as was pedro, the first pope, who incidentally denied jesus three times.
but the acts we speak of are contrary to the doctrine that jesus taught.
so when catholics, including a pope went against the teachings of jesus,it was catholics that were responsible, not catholicism in and of itself.
i hope that helps.
i don’t believe that we have encountered each other before.
my posting is irregular of late due to my schedule, but i return when i can.
welcome to pat”s blog. i hope you enjoy it. i have met some really great people here,and pat makes a great effort to make others feel welcome and also has a free speech policy. so please overlook anyone who seems to use that policy in a spirit that it is not intended, as most of the people i encounter here are very nice.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:18 am
Whew, close escape. What I like about Rog is he doesn’t name names.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:57 pm
See Amy,
No one is willing to address the atrocities of Catholicism.
They seem to all have such a sub primate mentality they cannot deal with the paradox.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Maybe it’s because we aren’t catholic.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm
DeAnna,
That does not prevent you from commenting you from opining on the historical and present horrors of Catholicism.
You certainly have no reservations talking about other things you have no knowledge of . . .?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Dr Miller, would you please go read post number 21 and STOP with the insults. If you wish to involve me in a conversation you will need to speak to me in a non antagonizing way.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Please opine on Catholicism.
Lack of knowledge has not prevented your opinion in the past, why stop now?
Look it up.
See how many the Christians killed, tortured, murdered and raped over the centuries. Look at the Misogyny.
Defend Dunkle, the believer of worship of convicted murderers . . . Do you not get that you lose all credibility when you evade the important questions?
Pro Life just crumbles under the deafening silence.
Afraid to admit the truth?
That is not a good attribute.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Dr. miller,
I will give not give my opinion on the history of the Catholic church because I do not know enough about it to give a reasonable opinion since I am not catholic and have never studied the catholic church other than watching a few historical films.
With that said, I came back to this blog because I was asked to (after leaving because I was frustrated with the insults and barrage of bantering that was going on) So I, and I’m sure all of the other adults on here, would appreciate it if we could stick to the topic at hand minus the personal insults and elementary behavior that you have been throwing out, particularly at me.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 3:08 pm
“DeAnna, That does not prevent you from commenting you from opining on the historical and present horrors of Catholicism.”
Holy smoke!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm
I agree.
Your lack of knowledge has not stopped you before from commenting on items of importance.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Christina,
You accused me, so be fair, specifically what have I said that showed a “lack of knowledge”? Be specific with documentation to show that I did not know what I was talking about. If you cannot produce that then it will be clear that your insult was for no other purpose but to act juvenile. If you can produce this then I will be happy to answer it the best that I can.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 4:18 pm
I don’t like it when Kate gets in here before me so that I can’t save her from embarrassing herself.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 4:23 pm
A couple observations here…
Of course abortion wasn’t an issue to them- it was practically unheard of back then in a world built on traditional Christian values- to the point of being Puritanical values in places.
So far as I know, “men” in the older versions of our language, is a term covering all people- similar to “mankind”, which does not exclude women.
The debate over slavery, a ridiculous one to be sure, was whether colored people were really fully human- based on being “uncivilized” and of a different color, etc. Doubtless just an excuse to cover for their greed, but nonetheless a debate over whether they were really human.
And that’s the issue before us- is a fetus really human? If so, then yes, the right to life applies to them as well as per the Declaration, and cannot be taken without due process per the Constitution.
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 7:52 pm
According to science a fetus is human:
“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:56 am
Is that a Peer reviewed source?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:50 am
Its an embryology textbook written by an embryology expert. What else needs to be reviewed? Seriously?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 8:49 am
I guess you don’t understand the difference between peer review and published books?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:06 am
What different does it make if it’s peer reviewed? If it’s a published embryology textbook written by a expert in embryology then it is trustworthy. I would imagine that unless the textbook publishers were irresponsible since they use the info in the books to teach embryologists with that it would be sufficiently reviewed.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Parson,
I’ll translate DeAnna’s answer for you.
-No, I do not understand the difference or importance of peer review.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Clearly, she has no idea what she is talking about.
She should even be commenting until she understands the most basic concepts.
These kind of people are dangerous.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Would you please go read post 21.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm
This is incredible!
I love it!
The pro Life stupids mouthing off their stupid opinions!
And they prove with every comment how little they know!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Seriously,
DeAnna,
you do you not know the difference?
Why are you commenting if you do not know the basics of peer review?
I am in a PhD program.
You make real Pro Lifers appear as fools!
Shame!!!!!
This is not a nice position to comment from!
I am a Christian, and it sickens me, the ignorance that i see in my comrades to eradicate abortion. It is hard enough already!
Please, you are hurting our cause for the people that know the facts.
Either study and learn the methods of science, peer review, scientific method, or just do not comment!
You harm our cause.
It saddens me when I Try and protect the unborn!
They opposing side point to the illiterate like you and Dunkle!
And the Pro Life Terrorism!
The challenge is hard enough!!!!!
You uneducated Pro Lifers hurt my credibility!
Please STOP!
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 3:15 pm
This is not a bad idea! Briana is not the only killers’ helper who pretends to be a prolifer. That way her illiteracy dirties us prolifers, rather than herself and the other kayhaitchers. Smart. Wish I could do that.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:02 pm
I know full well what “peer reviewed” means. What I meant was that it didn’t make a dimes worth of difference if the source was peer reviewed of not. It is a legitimate text book used by embryologists therefore a credible source.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Oh My,
She does not even know that most basic concept,
yet she still gives her worthless opinions!
Learn the facts you fool, before you start making comments that you know nothing about.
Disgusting, Pro Lifers, they make me ill, they are demons.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Go to post 21 please.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Glad you agree they are demons.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:06 pm
Dianna,
Is that all you can come up with to say? Is that really all that you have? non intelligent bantering and insults?
If you think that I know nothing about what I said then prove me wrong with documented sources. If you can’t do this then you prove that your statements were nothing but hateful bantering.
LikeLike
July 6, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Peer reviewed by whom?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:46 am
Of course the fetus is human. We’ve been through this a million times. But so is the woman.
And, just for your information, abortion, in it’s various technologies, has been around long before the good ole boys sat around the table at Moe’s Place.
And, yes, the term “men” meant white men. Period. Women weren’t full citizens, didn’t own property or have the right to vote.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:10 am
So why does one human get to kill another human? for college? career?finances? relationships? don’t like the other humans gender? too many humans at home? too young to carry a human in their womb for a few months? no time for a human? to stressed for a human? that human has downs syndrome? that human is sick? just don’t like humans? humans are noisy? humans poop? humans eat too much? humans keep you up at night?
I mean WHAT IS IT Kate that makes one person supreme over another to the point of death for the other?
Yes the woman is human but what makes her be God that gets to choose who lives and who dies? and what gives her the right to decide that the other human is less than her?
I have never questioned her value, what I have questioned is the fact that she thinks the other human is less than her. By virtue of the fact that it is human it IS NOT less than her.
You guys like to throw around the term “reproductive freedom” but reproductive freedom only means that I get to kill another human if it suits me because that human is less than me.
Well congratulations! You have just arrived at Godhood status.
That thinking of one human dies at my choosing is the most arrogant self-centered idea that humanity ever came up with. It is legal but it certainly isn’t moral.
It is impossible for it to be moral by it’s very nature. When one human chooses that another dies for reasons of self then it is impossible for it to be moral.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:40 am
Kate, I’ll omit your name when I transfer this powerful piece of writing to my newsletter.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm
It is a worthless piece of trash.
You should be trading Carbon credits if you waste paper reprinting such dribble.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Who are you, by the way. You write like a crazy person.
Is it true that you celebrate convicted murderers?
I noticed you even have a section on this blog, yet you seem to be entirely uneducated?
Are you an avatar?
Are you a real person?
I am skeptical.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Dr. Miller please go read post number 21
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Why?
Why waste time? On you?
Your fellow Christians think that you are horrendous.
When your compatriots have respect for you, perhaps it would be worth my time.
You have already been proven not able to give a decent understanding of the concepts involved.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Dr, Miller,
yu said, “Your fellow Christians think that you are horrendous.
When your compatriots have respect for you, perhaps it would be worth my time.”
Do you mean those pro-choice folks that come on here posing as pro-life Christians trying to make the true pro-life Christians look bad? Sorry, I saw right through that quickly. As I am sure all of the other true Christians did as well. Here’s how I knew:
The Bible says in 1 John 3: 13-15
“Do not be surprised, that the world hates you. We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love other Christians. Whoever does not love abides in death. Everyone who hates other Christians is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”
You see this scripture tells us no tto be surprised if people who do not believe like us hates us (no surprise there) but that Christians love each other. Further it says that if anyone does not love other Christians that they do not have eternal life. Another words they are imposters if they behave this way. It wasn’t hard to figure out. So, I wouldn’t take them to seriously if I were you. I haven’t.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Powerfull? Ha Ha Ha . . .
It is drool . . . you moron . . .
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:26 am
Drool is not powerful; necessary, like all excretions, but not powerful. Is this Mark calling Evan a moron?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Well, well, well, here’s the dissertation, finally. A bit snarky but, consider the source.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Snarky? Me? Nah! If you want to see snarky you should look at the previous articles comments from yesterday. Now those folks know how to be snarky. One guy called me a mind midget. Made me giggle a little 🙂
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:52 am
What “right to life?” As far as I know, the Declaration of Indepedence was not a law, not a statute. And, believe me, the issue of whether or not the fetus is a “human” or a “person” will never be resolved. That’s why the Supreme Court in Roe said explicitly that they cannot resolve the issue of when “life” begins. But I guess if we are forced to accept the teachings of one particular religion in this country, then that question has been answered. Ah, to be so all knowing!
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Now Pat you just yesterday said that the late term abortion that you witnessed was like euthanasia. You admitted many times that it is human and that it dies. You have even called it a baby. So, if it’s alive and euthanasia kills it and it’s human and it’s a baby then it already is resolved. It’s just more convenient that you don’t admit it today. What about that whole honesty deal you talked about yesterday? Be honest Pat, you saw it and you know what you saw. Be brave enough to admit ti like this abortionist did:
“”It is morally and ethically wrong to do abortions without acknowledging what it means to do them. I performed abortions, I have had an abortion and I am in favor of women having abortions when we choose to do so. But we should never disregard the fact that being pregnant means there is a baby growing inside of a woman, a baby whose life is ended. We ought not to pretend this is not happening.” Abortion provider Judith Arcana
If the Supreme court justices can’t figure out when life begins with all of the scientific proof that we have to tell them then why it blazes are they making the rules for our country? All one has to do is read an embryology textbook. That is not the question. The question that was really there- that would be politically incorrect for them to say, therefore they came up with that lame line above is not when life begins but rather when does love begin and when does self glorification end.
As far as the religious comment goes. I said clearly that the right to life is not simply a constitutional issue, nor a religious issue, it is instead a moral issue.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 1:41 pm
I was sharing my personal feelings, Deanna, about what I saw. I’ve been clear that I think abortions should not be allowed after viability unless in exceptional circumstances. But what I was referring to above is the gazillions of others out there who have as different opinion as to what is “life”, when it begins, etc., etc. As for when “love” begins, for many of these women who have aborted, the love for their “baby” never ends. Again, that’s why abortion is a sad situation but, for about one million women a year, a necessary step.
Meanwhile, let me ask a question: Have you ever had an abortion, Deanna?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 3:43 pm
No, but I do know what loss is. I have had two miscarriages.
This is what I do not understand, how can a person say they love something and then turn around and kill it. That simply does not compute.
” Again, that’s why abortion is a sad situation but, for about one million women a year, a necessary step.”
Not really necessary, just preferred so that their lives are easier. You know the stats, the huge majority of abortions are for “convenience” reasons. i.e. finances, school, etc.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Convenience does not equal financial or academic. If either of those reasons are given, they’re the woman’s reasons. And, that alone, is reason enough. You don’t believe it’s a good reason. That’s your choice. You cannot legislate or moralize another person’s life even though you have tried valiantly ever since Pat invited you to hog the conversation, er, comment.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:45 pm
We legalize and legislate morality all of the time. You can’t go kill you neighbor can you? Steal from your boss? Cheat on your taxes? Lie to a judge? Beat your children? Kill your neighbors cow? Those are all moral issues and they are all against the law. Of course you can. That is my whole argument. Slicing babies to pieces is immoral and it needs to be legislated.
As far as me “hogging” the conversation goes, if anyone other than Pat or Sonia would have a legit conversation rather than slinging poo at the pro-lifers simply because they are pro-life then maybe I wouldn’t have to er, umm….comment so much. You got anything rational to say? Let’s hear it!
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 4:23 am
I don think Kate meant to say “hog the conversation.” I think she meant to say “squash us killers’ helpers.”
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Pat,
why do you waste your time on people that do not seem to be educated on the topic of Abortion?
I have been looking over these Pro Lifers and they all just seem to be really “out” of the general dialogue.
They want to take away birth control from women?
Did I read that correctly?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm
No you didn’t!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Can you at least realize that you are on the fringes of society?
Despite the present or lack of validity of your opinion . . . ?
Most (even . . . YES . . . Pro Lifers) even agree with most forms of hormonal contraception. I agree, they do not have the consistency of belief systems that you have, but they are pragmatic.
You are not in line with your fellow pro lifers.
Or do you deny that?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:09 pm
Moreover, dock tore, you are unable. Bet that degree is edd, not MD or PhD.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Dunkle, the jester fool as usual, I am an MD.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:16 pm
In your case that must stand for Moronic Dufus.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:48 pm
Dunkle, what are your credentials?
A person that harasses women?
Ingenious.
DO you have an education?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:29 am
Nope, I’m almost as stupid as you are.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Dr. Miller,
Yes, absolutely I deny it!
Can you please give documentation to back up you statements?
LikeLike
June 30, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Kate, you are aware that there are pro-life non Christians, pro-life atheists, pro-life doctors, pro-life Buddhists, right? What names do you call them? Stupid Buddhist crazies? If there were no God, and no constitution, I would still have enough sense to understand that if we don’t value life, ALL life, I may one day be killed because I am old and no longer productive, and your beloved great grandchild may be killed because she has muscular dystrophy. It’s not just a moral, religious or constitutional issue, it’s a slippery slope. Oh, and I agree with you about what this nation has become. Funny what throwing God out does to a country, isn’t it?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:31 am
See what I mean about embarrassing herself? And what about homophobes? What if we started killing them! Then Kate would really be in trouble.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:41 am
Dwanna wrote “Funny what throwing God out does to a country, isn’t it?”
What do you mean by this?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Did you get an answer?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Typical.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:58 am
Deanna,
Are you a vegetarian?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:12 am
Uh oh, here we go again — the “muskrats are people too” crowd.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 12:49 pm
John, when I am given that exact attitude because I am a Christian, or pro-life, it shows me that the other person isn’t interested in what I have to say, who I am, or in coming to an understanding of what I believe even if we agree to disagree. You are dismissing a legitimate question by someone with a legitimate belief system (I assume by their question). Not cool. I am not here to fight, or to belittle anyone else. I have rarely seen that in anyone else on either side of this issue or the myriad other issues facing the world today. I see in it Deanna, but I have known her for years and I know she is open minded and fair, and genuinely carers about all people, even those she may vehemently disagree with. So do I. Lets keep this civil and maybe we can make progress. I come to these sites to “reason together” and possibly change someones mind about an issue important to me and to the future of my grandchildren. There are people out there fighting for animals, and that’s great. It shows me that we still have some humanity left. I love animals, AND I eat meat, btw. The two aren’t mutually exclusive to me, but I can certainly understand why someone else could think they are.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 3:49 pm
But you know where Parson’s going with this, don’t you, D — you kill, so I can kill too?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Ok Parson I will make a deal with you. I won’t kill anymore cows if you won’t kill anymore babies. Deal?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 8:59 am
Deanna,
I don’t kill babies.
Why are you accusing me of that?
I would listen to your friend Dwanna.
I doubt you slaughter the food you eat or kill cows do you?
If you don’t that was a very silly “Agreement you just offered me.”
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:13 am
When a person advocates for, advertises for,assists and argues for something they are guilty of doing it morally.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:52 pm
DeAnna
You are sadly wrong again!
You know nothing about me.
I may be Pro Life, but sickened by you extremists!
Again, you fringe Pro Lifers harm the cause of Pro Life.
You will never get it as your mental capacity just does not seem capable of any relevant thought.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:31 pm
Pro-life extremist equals someone who says it’s not ok to kill an innocent baby.
Ok yeah, I will take it!
Hi Folks,
I would like to introduce myself, I am DeAnna the pro-life extremist who cares enough to actually say it!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:08 pm
DeAnna,
Why is it OK to kill animals?
You said killing is bad?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm
In the context of what we were talking about I said killing (humans) was bad. Why would animals concern me when there are humans being slaughtered?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Do you really feel animals have no feelings or sentience at all?
Science has explored Dogs and Pigs and have found profound maternal instincts.
Yet you are just fine with murdering their children…? While they squeal in panic as they are taken away from them to be slaughtered?
You are a beast in my opinion.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Why do animals, and particularly full grown primates, not concern you?
Are you truly that heartless?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Joe, there is a huge difference in a baby cat and a baby human. You know that I am sure.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:14 pm
The only thing Joe knows for sure is that we shouldn’t kill anything except people. Joe refuses to cut his grass.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:04 pm
How can you all be so heartless?
And you proclaim to be Christians no less!
I am asking about primates.
I did not ask about a cat and a human, did I(?), right?
I asked about a Primate and a human. Do you understand the difference?
From reading your missives it seems you are not very educated. That is OK. We all have the opportunity to educate ourselves. It is your choice.
Your previous posts reveal that you may not have that desire. That is OK. But, it is so easy now with the internet. Learn.
The Dunkle monster is obviously Bizarre.
The fact that you provide him shelter harms your credibility in discourse.
So, stop being evasive. What about primates?
Or for that fact Hominids?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:32 am
Hominids! Oh my goodness!
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:36 pm
Joe,
How can you be so heartless to advocate for killing a baby?
I have no interest at the moment in discussing the killing of monkeys, giraffes, badgers, frogs, hamsters, or any other species other than human. If you would like to discuss that topic then I am available.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:46 am
No,I like steak,I like chicken,I even like pork..I eat bacon and ham and pepperoni and there is nothing better than a prime rib. But what I don;t do is kill other humans. And before you even waste your effort, they are not the same. You cannot with good sense compare the killing of a rooster to that of a human.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:54 am
Yikes, with that diet you’re also killing yourself, Deanna. You made my arteries harden by just reading that menu….
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Hahahah! Yeah, well, I am from the south 🙂
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:00 am
Is it OK to kill Primates?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:51 am
Primates? Heck I don’t know. But I do know that it isn’t ok to kill a baby. SO whats your point about primates?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Parson’s hit and run, like me. I mostly hit; he mostly runs.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:06 pm
You do not have a comment on primates?
Come on,
either educate yourself or stop mouthing off your illiteracy!
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:37 am
I’m going to assume you addressing me here, Joe. But I do wish you guys would say whom you’re talking to. But why would I want to kill a primate? For one thing, they too closely resemble us northern Europeans with all that hair.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm
So you do not try to emulate the life of Jesus?
Do you keep Kosher (sounds like you do not).
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:59 pm
MaryAnn, please refer to my previous post to you about religious arguments and contact me privately to discuss these things if you wish to discuss them. thanks
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 4:40 am
And Mary Ann, most of us Chosen People, no longer keep Kosher. Most of those who do are Jewish, members of the first schismatic group
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 6:03 am
What remains unexplored above in the above is the lack of sufficient so-called “pro-lifers” willing to sacrifice their resources to help make Deanna’s “beginning of a human being” into a real human being, a person able to use knowledge and skills simply not to survive, but to exercise vital powers in a setting affording them scope– in short, to choose for happiness.
The automatic “s-cpl’s” response to this is, “So, which ones do you want killed?” For them, it’s death, death, death; not the nature of their responsibility toward the human they insisted be born. THAT is where the moral issue lies.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:51 am
““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.”
Everytime you start that nonsense I am going to simply post the response that we have discussed exactly 300,000 times.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:11 pm
DeAnna
Most Christians do NOTHING.
They do not help at all.
I have even heard of Christians that do not pay any taxes, or help out philanthropically with donations.
Do you donate $$’s to help children?
Christianity is a minority religion in the world.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:23 pm
If you want to know what I do for children. either go to my blog by clicking my name and read the about me section or look on this post for the answer .It is on here two times. I do my fair share.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I doubt it.
I read you did not even pay taxes!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Did you answer the question of if you donate money to help children?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Again Matt, go to my blog if you really want to know the answer to that question. You can find it under the “about me section” and more under the article titled, ‘Insight Into the Mind of an Abortionist”
as far as you tax comment goes, go to the previous article. I explained all of that there.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:28 pm
“Matt” — where do these names come from — Antol, Latisha, Henly Kent, Richard, Mary Ann, Maria, Dr.Miller, Parsons — I could name twenty more! One’s stupider than the next. I guess if you argue with people who want to help kill other people, though, that’s what you have to deal with.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 12:03 pm
No, the moral issue lies in the fact that I shouldn’t get to decide if you live or die based on your age, ability to function, ability to support yourself, my beliefs, morals, circumstances or wishes for my future. Once life is started, no one has the right to stop it, not even the woman now housing another human being. I’m sorry, but women are stuck with the job of making sure life goes on. Sometimes they choose pregnancy, sometimes it happens by accident, sometimes it is forced upon them. It doesn’t matter, they have no right to stop life after it has started. Period. How will you feel one day, when you are forced to retire on disability because of health issues, you are 72, in pain and poor, but still your day is brightened by daily visits from your grandkids, who are learning how to garden from you, you tell them all your photography tips, and send them down the street once a week to that single mom with a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread just to help her out. They complain, but you know they are learning invaluable lessons about how to be a decent human being who cares for others. Then the next morning, as you are starting your day, the police arrive with a medical team. They read a court order that you have been deemed a drain on society, and you will now be terminated in order to make room for someone more productive. You beg to at least say good by to your family, but are told that they will be notified by the proper authorities as you are strapped down to a gurney, given a shot and put into the waiting hearse. Your family is served notice that they will need to claim and dispose of your body within three days or the government will do it for them. How will you feel? Will you feel it’s justified just because it’s legal? Sound far fetched? I am old enough to remember that ripping an unborn child from it’s mother’s womb limb from limb was unimaginable too. Do you think that if society will legalize the killing of the unborn, there will be any qualms about killing an old, “nonproductive” member of that same society, or that it will be done with compassion? We do help the poor, the homeless, the starving, both here and abroad. Those arguments don’t fly anyway, because abortion wasn’t legalized because there are too many people, or because there are orphans in the world being neglected. Are you saying that if all those problems were fixed, you would then be against abortion? Your arguments don’t even make logical sense, no matter how eloquently you try to say it.Do you deny that Compassion International exists? Do you deny that Feed the Hungry Exists? Do you ignore the Salvation Army? Homeless Shelters? The Red Cross? That every mainstream religion in the world tithes to these very causes? Do you refuse to admit that this country and others are inundated with every type of help for every need out there? Medical, educational, spiritual, emotional, mental, physical? Just what the heck IS your point?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I could not even read this – it was so droll.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm
droll, eh?
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 8:13 am
Chuck never listens to anything we tell him but it’s fun to tell him anyway: “. . .help make Deanna’s “beginning of a human being” into a real human being . . .”
Chuck, the beginning of anything is real! The beginning of your ski jump is just as real as your crash at the end. Your calling a young person an unreal human being is just as bad as your calling her a humanoid.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:31 am
WARNING *********Sarcasm alert :
John, wouldn’t it be nice to be one of the chosen that has control over what is “real” or not just at our insistence? Heck, I could wish away my mortgage, my car loan, my headaches, my dogs fleas, my way too overgrown grass, the dust in my house and that green slime that gathers in the bottom of my pool simply by demanding that it isn’t real. Think about the power John. Apparently that power to deem something real or not real just by waving that magic word gives one the power over life and death as well. Hmmmm, maybe I could go after those bothersome flies and mosquitoes.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 11:57 am
Well, can a pro-lifer answer the question: do you believe that the Founding Fathers meant to prohibit abortion? Am I right or am I wrong? Please be gentle…
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Pat, the only thing that makes logical sense to me after a lifetime of evaluation, is that there is a God, and he knows what he is doing, even when we don’t understand it, agree with it, or like it. History proves this. I think that the Founding Fathers mentality toward the unborn was that it was a baby, no questions asked, given the society that they lived in, and given that God was still on the throne. I also think that they wouldn’t have been able to fathom a world where Christians were arbitrarily labeled crazy just because they believed in God and the bible, much less imagined a world where the humanity of the unborn was questioned, Since they could not possibly cover all scenarios, they did the best they could to guarantee life, liberty and justice for ALL humanity. I don’t believe they meant that only for men, or they would have legalized the killing of women and children who disobeyed them, like some societies do to this very day. I believe that they would have been the same about abortion as they were about everything else: for the freedom of the individual as long as it did not impose upon the rights or another free individual, I think that if there was a question about the humanity of the unborn, they would have used science as their guide, not ignored it. I think that the Founding Fathers were highly intelligent men who would have been the first to recognize the slippery slope of legalized abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia. The very first. Because God CAN and DID understand the utter depravity of mankind, he provided his own system of checks and balances, including the commandment not to kill. He meant shed innocent blood, not don’t EVER kill. It is clear that he allows self defense, capital punishment and war. People always want to jump on that fact while ignoring the fact that he begs us to lead such lives that war, self defense and capital punishment are never needed. He loves us ALL, including the abortionist. He just understands that left to our own devices we will rip each other to shreds for our own purposes, whatever they may be, as evidenced in the wars, crime and poverty raging around us all the time. That’s on us, not God. He made rules with consequences for disobedience, just like any good, responsible parent. I defer to God, not the Founding Fathers: “Thou shalt not shed INNOCENT blood.” I believe the Founding Fathers would agree.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Wow, that is a stretch. I believe, I believe… But what can you prove? I can prove one thing: many of the Founding Fathers did not believe in God. Many of them were Deists or Agnostics.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 2:13 pm
This whole nation is in denial, mixing religion with reality.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 3:51 pm
For the huge majority of not only Americans but all people groups of the earth their religion is reality and even if you don’t agree with it you have to admit that religious principles guide this country to a degree and always have. Do you remember your 4th grade history lesson about the pilgrims and how they came to this country to avoid religious persecution? and do you remember how they prayed and thanked God that they lived through their ordeal? Well, that idea of no religious persecution still exists in this country so I will thank you kindly to not start persecuting vocally those of us who do follow a religion.
As I said clearly TWO TIMES my opposition about religion is not primarily religious, although that does play a part. My opposition is a moral one regardless of my religion.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Oh give me a break about your elementary school pilgrim stories. Those folks came here and had the natives to thank their own survival. But in return for the hospitality, these pilgrims spread their diseases unknown to the natives, killing them, plundered tribal property, people and land, raped their women and/or engaged in intermarrying and even spent time worrying about witchcraft. The puritans viewed their religion as superior to the natives, labeling natives as savage or noble savages, depending on their whims. So, the good old boys persecuted and colonized the natives all in the name of manifest destiny (AKA, murder, stealing, lying).
The cutesy crap that folks crame down kids throats is barely recognizable as a truth. They came seeking refuge from the religious misery in their homeland and then reinstated their own version misery. Those pilgrims were no saints.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:11 pm
Maybe so, maybe not but they still came to avoid religious persecution and the same principle still applies today.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Pat I don’t think that there is any way that one can know exactly what was in the minds of the founding father’s but you have to look at circumstantial evidence in these situations. It was a Puritanical society so therefore one must draw the conclusion that they were against merciless killing. At any rate one must assume upon what they DID say and not what they didn’t say. They said LIFE for all men (humanity). They did not say Life for all men except those little ones in the womb.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 4:26 pm
“During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; ; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced.
form.”
pubmed (dot) gov
This gives us a couple of clues, socially it was unacceptable but as a nation they didn’t get around to passing laws forbidding it until the mid to late 1800’s, before that it was a state issue. Since it was socially unacceptable and the British colonies believed (because of a lack of science) that life began at quickening the least that one can assume is that they thought of the babies who had “quickened” as part of the constitutional subjects. It would only be common sense to assume that. So, my conclusion would be that if they were to have had an opinion about abortion and voiced that opinion at the VERY LEAST they would have put the cut off for abortion at quickening, which is around the 14th week. Although we now know through science that the baby moves a long time before that.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Pat Richards Says:
July 1, 2011 at 11:57 am
Well, can a pro-lifer answer the question: do you(((** believe**)) that the Founding Fathers meant to prohibit abortion? Am I right or am I wrong? Please be gentle…
______________________________________________________
Pat Richards Says:
July 1, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Wow, that is a stretch. I believe, I believe… But what can you prove? I can prove one thing: many of the Founding Fathers did not believe in God. Many of them were Deists or Agnostics.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Dwanna, Did you proofread what you added here? I have difficulty understanding your nuanced rendition of God Speak. As an example, you said, “Because God CAN and DID understand the utter depravity of mankind, he provided his own system of checks and balances, including the commandment not to kill. He meant shed innocent blood, not don’t EVER kill. It is clear that he allows self defense, capital punishment and war.”
Don’t kill innocents? Killing happens to innocents during war. Don’t they count? Or is that only U.S. citizens count? Or only unborn fetuses that count as innocent?
Truly, your logic with this passage is troubling, not to mention all your “Godhead knowledge” that you seem to possess.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 10:15 pm
I possess knowledge of what God wrote in the bible, since I’ve read it, so I assume it is his opinion. I guess he could have said the opposite of what he meant, but I doubt it. As for you being confused by my logic about killing in war; other than war crimes, which are wrong, innocents getting killed in the fallout of war is a horrible consequence of depraved people who can’t get along going to war in the first place. War is a necessary evil. We all hate it, but what would you have suggested the United States do when they discovered what was happening to the Jews in Germany? What would you suggest we have done when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor? Should we have shrugged our collective shoulders and tsk tsked when the Twin Towers fell? Should we have quietly gone back to England back in the day? And do you know the definition of nuanced? Because I can find nothing nuanced about what I wrote. I wrote exactly what is in the bible, with nothing nuanced about it. God calls mankind depraved in the bible, thou shalt not killed is in the bible, not to shed innocent blood is in the bible, his opinions about war, self defense and capital punishment are clearly spelled out in the bible. Restating it in my own words is not “God Speak” any more than stating what Oprah has written in her magazine is “nuanced” or Oprah Speak. I spoke it with the authority of knowledge of the subject and emphatically. Nuanced and God Speak? Surely you don’t deny that there is a book out there called the bible? What I said can be easily verified. Read the bible and you will then possess the exact same “Godhead knowledge” that I do.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:12 am
So God in the Bible is not such a great guy.
If you read the bible it is hard to disagree.
There is so much infanticide, murder, an war and killing ordered by God ;
How does that reconcile with your beliefs about God and Abortion, when God is ordering the slaughter of children, babies on a routine basis?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:07 am
Amy, when you are a believer and have a relationship with God, he gives you understanding of some of these questions. I have prayed about this very issue in the past, and I have gotten answers. Of course we will not know everything until we are with him face to face, but I do feel I have some answers. If you are really interested in these answers, we can do that through email, as this forum is not a place to discuss whether there is a God, whether he is good or not, etc. I do not lower myself to disrespectfully dump on other people about their religious beliefs, but I have seen through this very blog that others don’t have a problem with name calling and religion bashing. So if that is your goal, I’m not interested. I don’t need to defend God. We’ll all get everything answered one day, and I base my life and eternity on Him. I’m that sure.If you’d legitimately like to know what I feel some of these answers are, feel free to let me know and I’ll give you my email address. As far as the abortion issue, I am against it period, both because of God, and because I can see full well where a world without the basic belief in the sanctity of human life, all human life, has taken us and will continue to take us. IT’s a world I don’t wish for my grandchildren. Our individual rights should never be the guiding force in the choices we make, especially when those choices deny another person the most basic right or all, the right to life.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:17 am
Dwanna,
I speak to God everyday and he appears before me.
I find most non Evangelicals do not get that privilege.
Do you?
Just curious.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 11:25 am
MaryAnn, a lot of Christians have supernatural encounters with God. it happens quiet frequently. What you have to be careful of is that you do not get prideful and assume that any encounter that you have is better than or superior to anyone else’s. That is the height of pride and pride comes before a fall. God deals with each person individually, It is not a contest, it is instead a relationship. And as an earthy father may interact with one of his children one way, he may act with the next differently depending on their situation. So, a persons experience with God, supernaturally speaking, does not necessarily mean that they are more spiritual or better than the others. Also, the Bible says that one must test to be sure that the encounter is legitimate. I’m not trying to belittle you but considering your mean attitude and your lack of grace on the previous article it may serve you better to work on that before you get too interested in the supernatural aspects. You wouldn’t want to have to deal with deception. What the bible says about the supernatural is that we can have all of the supernatural gifts that there are but if we don’t have love then we are nothing but a clanging symbol making noise.(I Cor 13) We can disagree, argue, and even be “snarky” and sassy in our humanness but we are commanded to still love. Sometimes the purest form of love is telling someone the truth. But celebrating people going to hell (or spending eternity without God, whichever one believes) is definitely not love.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 12:00 pm
No Mary Ann, God does not appear before me at all, and never has. I agree with Deanna wholeheartedly. If God did appear before you you would no doubt be like him, loving, kind and grieved by the sin all around you. He is grieved by sin, and makes rules against it BECAUSE it hurts us. He loves us all, and wants us all to love each other, so I am very doubtful that it is God you are seeing daily based on the heart attitude I have seen in you through your comments on this forum toward those you feel are sinners. I implore you to follow biblical guidelines in this, such as getting prayer and confirmation from others about these daily visits. I truly say this out of concern for you. Again, this is not the forum for discussions/debates about God, but for the sake of others who may stumble upon these comments in the future, I will state that the bible is our only foundation, and all things we believe must line up with it. It says that no man has seen God and lived. Even Moses did not see God. Jesus became flesh and lived and died as a human, then rose again, and he said that he would send his Holy Spirit to be our helper and guide, since he would no longer be on earth with us. I listen to the Holy Spirit’s leading in my heart, I do not see manifestations. I do believe in angelic visitations, but they have historically always been for a specific purpose or message to God’s people. Again, those visitations caused the person being visited to tremble and quake, and most of all, to fall on their face in humility. We are to become more Christlike every day, something I and the church fail at miserably, but even when he corrected, he did it in love, out of genuine concern. Maybe you are a humble, kind person genuinely trying to warn people of the danger of hell, and simply are unable to convey it so that it comes across that way. I give you the benefit of that doubt. I hope this answered your question and gave you food for thought.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Oy, she keeps going . . . .
Can you say something relevant?
Should women be allowed to choose their contraception?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:42 pm
No, contraceptives should be outlawed. Any woman caught using one should be imprisoned; any man should have his, uh, hair cut short.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Pat, if the Founding Fathers meant to prohibit slavery, good, if not, bad; if they meant to prohibit Antisemitism, good, if not, bad; if they meant to prohibit abortion, good, if not bad; if they meant to prohibit bestiality, good, if not, bad; if they meant to prohibit pederasty, good, if not, bad; if they meant to prohibit fraud, good, if not, bad; and so on. That’s gentle.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:25 am
i can answer that
abortion was not mentioned in either your declaration of independence nor your constitution for a simple reason.
abortions existed and were performed on a regular basis but it was seen differently then.
home gardens contained abortifacient herbs and women who were late on their cycle made potions which created early abortions.
the mentality at the time was based on english common law which allowed for such things before “quickening”.
your laws prohibiting abortion came about in the mid 19th century as a backlash against the suffrage movement.
the AMA felt threatened by women doctors and midwives and wanted to criminalize abortion as a way of keeping men at the top of the pecking order.
i could expand on that answer to add my own opinion of direct abortions and of the AMA, but i will refrain and simply answer the query posed.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:28 am
Rogelio is the only Normal, non fringe wacko ProLifer I have read on this site.
Rogelio, thank you for showing the world that a pro lifer can be sane and rational.
The nutty ProLifers, like the one’s on this site, make us all sound crazy, when in reality, the “crazies” only represent a small percentage of pro lifers.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Jenny, does UT stand for Unlettered Teenager? (ones)
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:51 pm
So tell me exactly what I said that was not rational? I documented very thing that I said. Also, what makes me crazy specifically? I need to know if I am really crazy 🙂
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:06 pm
thank you, jenny. you’re very gracious, i’m sure.
i don’t feel that admitting to the weak points in the PL movement, or that admitting that the laws prohibiting abortion in the 19th century were based on a misogynist society, rather than morality or concern for the woman or the baby, compromises my pro-life stance.
it is simply admitting to the weak points and less than favorable history regarding PL stances.
pat, kate, lorraine and some of the other choicers i have encountered here often do the same regarding the PC movement and it doesn’t compromise their PC stance.
i think both camps need to own the flaws within their camp and remember that a stance is only important because of the people that the cause is supposed to support or protect.
i have been fortunate to encounter some people who share that belief, with whom i can freely verbalize and question these things without fear of attack.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:15 pm
I read this blog daily and I do enjoy Rogelio’s comments as well as one of the only reasonable pro lifers I have ever read.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:07 pm
thanks kim. you’re very kind to say that.
LikeLike
July 1, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Just had to share this news release about Flip Benham who has been found guilty of stalking doctors. Just wait, John. You might be next.
http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=13095
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 4:18 am
Why do so many of you, like “On Facts Alone,” sound like Kate Ranieri? Kate’s prolific, but so is poison ivy.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 6:38 am
We, who believe in choices for women, who respect and trust women to make the best choices for themselves, have said for many years now that the protesters who troll outside the clinic in Allentown see all volunteers as one unified body. Like racists who view Native Americans, African Americans, Asians and Hispanies as homogenous groups, they see, like you see, John, all those who are different, who oppose your point of view, as one homogenous group.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:29 am
Of course we see all people who kill babies or advocate for it as one homogeneous group. Isn’t that what the terms pro-choice/pro-abortion mean? And don’t you guys see us as one large group that you call anti-choice/anti-abortion but we call pro-life? Although as a side note,, I don’t mind being called anti-abortion or anti-choice because that describes exactly what I am.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:15 am
Not true.
You agreed that an Abortion was OK in certain circumstances, so you are predominantly Anti-Abortion.
And didn’t you state that you would allow the mother a choice in certain circumstances?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:57 am
OH NO! You must have me mixed up with someone else. I NEVER said abortion was ok. Nor will I ever say that. And NO I never said the woman should have a choice to kill her child. No way no how!
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:03 pm
DeAnna,
Didn’t you write if the mother’s life was in danger abortion was OK?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:51 pm
I did but let me clarify that. It is a very complex issue that i won’t try to go into all of here.( For a full pro-life examination of that topic you can go to: abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/ )
But I was referring to ectopic pregnancies and some of the extremely rare situations where the mother truly WILL (not perhaps or may, worst case scenario) die. These are much rarer than you may realize.
“It is only in extremely rare cases that abortion can even be mentioned as a potential means of saving the mother’s life. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, stated in a 1996 New York Times editorial that because of the advances in modern medicine, “partial-birth abortions are not needed to save the life of the mother” (1). Sixteen years earlier, he wrote: “In my thirty-six years in pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be be aborted to save the mother’s life.” Even Planned Parenthood’s Dr. Alan Guttmacher acknowledged, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.” Alan F. Guttmacher, “Abortion–Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” in The Case for Legalized Abortion Now (Berkeley, Calif.: Diablo Press
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:23 am
DeAnna,
Then you do think Abortion is OK sometimes.
Simple.
Regarding Maternal indications it is obvious you are completely clueless.
Not good.
Are there additionally any fetal indications that you can say abortion is OK sometimes?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm
No fetal indications ever. Other than ectopic pregnancy that can not survive anyway.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Let me make this even clearer then. I do not believe in an abortion other than extreme circumstances where the baby WILL die anyway because the mother WILL die anyway if the pregnancy continues.
For a full explanation of that see this page :
abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:31 pm
DeAnna,
you are all over the place.
Can’t understand where you stand.
1) You said abortion was never OK
2) Then OK if it threatens mother’s life
3) Then NO Fetal indications, ever!
4) Then something else that was hard to understand.
What about the
a) The partial Molar pregnancy?
b) What about the COMPLETE ANENCEPHALIC – No Brain, will not grow one . . .
you disagree with those fetal indications . . . ?
There are a lot more . . .
You just simply are not properly, despite your representations, educated.
What do you say about these fetal indications?
Does your Ego to be right trump your ability to be logical?
That is the appearance you give.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:46 pm
As I said before Dr.Miller the ONLY fetal indications are those in which if the mother dies the baby WILL die anyway so there is no chance that the baby will live in either case.
If you want a full idea of my beliefs on that go to the PRO-LIFE page that I provided earlier. By the way, I state clearly that that link was MY belief. I was not using it as a non-biased source. I said clearly that it was pro-life.
Again, I will thank you to stop with the childish insults. If you want to converse with me then you need to do so adult to adult. Otherwise it will be clear that you are not an adult at all but instead are on your summer break from middle school and I will further assume that you do not really want an answer to your question but rather are looking for an opportunity to practice your sibling rivalry skills.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 1:54 pm
DeAnnna,
1) You insult me in a manner that “you” ask not to be insulted?
2) Did you answer the question of a complete Anencephalic as a fetal indication as you were asked? I do not believe you did. You evaded the question again. A common prolife reply. So common it is sickening.
Please be courteous and reply.
Tx!
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 5:04 pm
Actually I did address it when I said that the ONLY fetal indications are when the fetus will die if the mother dies. In this situation there is no way to save the fetus. As far as the complete ANENCEPHALIC goes, To answer I would like to introduce you to someone. This is an introduction and my thoughts on that very subject from a article that I wrote a few weeks ago. I’m sorry for the length, but to understand you need to see it in it’s entirety.
“I would like to introduce to you Matt and Stacy Aubes. Matt and Stacy are the parents to a tiny little girl, Rachel, who is now in heaven. Their story is a beautiful illustration of love in action in the hardest of situations. When Stacy was nineteen weeks pregnant the doctors told her that Rachel had anencephaly. Anencephaly is a fetal abnormality in which the growing child’s brain and skull do not develop. Stacy’s doctors offered and in a way pressured that she abort the baby, by refusing to give both Stacy and the baby standard medical care for this situation if she continued to carry the baby. Stacy and Matt refused and carried the baby to term. The baby lived 43 minutes. Some may question why the parents would put themselves through something like this when they had the choice to end the pregnancy early. Matt and Stacy understand that a life is not counted in years, days or minutes but in eternity. They understood that the greatest gift they could give their daughter was the gift of life, even if it were for a short time. The knowledge that they gave that gift will be there forever, no one can take that from them. While they are mourning for her there will be a certain amount of peace in knowing that they gave her what they could for as long as they could and that they had no part in taking any time from her. Baby Rachel, in her 43 minutes here, impacted more lives in a positive way than many of us do in our entire full lifetimes. You can read their story here. http://thegiftofrachelslife.blogspot.com/
Contrast their story to the numerous ones of families who find out that their baby has an abnormality and instead of giving that baby what they can for as long as they can they choose the so-called “easier” way and take what time the child has from it. I fully realize how difficult these situations can be but the idea of taking a life because it is not perfect in our eyes or because we don’t think it will last long enough for “us” goes against what love looks like. Love is about giving to another for their sake. It is about thinking of the other party and doing what is best for them, putting our own best interests aside. The Aubes are a perfect picture of that kind of pure love and I applaud them for it. In return Rachel gave them 43 minutes worth of memories that will last them for life .Had the Aubes taken the doctors advice and killed little Rachel they would have missed out on those precious minutes with her and instead of having fond memories of holding her and watching her breathe they would have had horrible memories of an abortion. As the Aubes have so beautifully shown, fetal abnormalities do not justify the taking of a life, even a life that would last for a short 43 minutes. We, as a nation, need to learn from the Aubes and realize that life is precious no matter what it looks like or how short it is.”
Again, sorry for the length.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:38 pm
DeAnna,
again!
With the stupid biased non peer reviewed references.
You revealed you did not understand this most basic of scientific concepts on multiple occasions.
How does one discuss important concepts when threy do not understand the most BASIC of concepts?
You are the prototypical ProLifer, and even your compatriotes think you are bananas!
What do you think about your Justifiable Homicide (Dunkle? You do not seem to mind his harassment of women – celebrations of convicted murderers, burning of the American flag, etc., endless . . . . very odd), eternal damnation Pro Lifers?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I have no opinion about Dunkle. I was not invited here to discuss if his behavior is appropriate or not.
Also, if you want me to discuss anything with you then you are going to have to please stop the arrogant sounding taking down to me generalizations. If you have a specific question about something that I said then please ask me or if you can provide documentation to disprove anything I said please do so. But generalizations about how stupid I am and your attitude that it is beneath your intelligence to talk to me are not necessary and frankly I have no interest in speaking to you with that attitude. Would you like to change the attitude and then have a legit discussion with me?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Dr miller,
You said,
“With the stupid biased non peer reviewed reference”
What was biased? the embryology textbook? No! it wasn’t. If yo are speaking of the link I provided I CLEARLY said that it was a pro-life link of MY beliefs.
“You revealed you did not understand this most basic of scientific concepts on multiple occasions.”
Exactly what are you referring to? Give details, not just general insults with documentation to prove that I am wrong.
“How does one discuss important concepts when threy do not understand the most BASIC of concepts?”
See comments above under that section.
“You are the prototypical ProLifer, and even your compatriotes think you are bananas!”
Oh really? do you mean the fake pro-lifers who come here to try and make the true pro-lifers look bad. Sorry, not buying. It’s way to obvious.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Being called any label (anti abortion, black, homosexual, bipolar, etc) doesn’t do justice to the complexities of human life. That’s my point, Deanna. These labels are easy shorthand words but they can be quite damaging by reductionist thinking. In other words, a fetus is more than just a fetus. You are more than just an anti abortion woman, I’m speculating.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:33 pm
True, labels are limiting. But i suppose they are the easiest way that we have to describe a group, completely accurate or not.
As far as pro-life/anti abortion goes I think that fits. A pro-life person is anti-abortion by definition.
A pro-choice person maybe not necessarily pro-abortion. Just a supporter of the women’s right to choose. I guess that could be debated. But in a way if they are pro-choice they are also pro-abortion if the woman they are referring to chooses it.
With that said, I don’t think that any “complexity” of human life justifies killing another by elective. (not talking about war, etc.). A fetus is more than just a fetus. Something to be disposed of in the “complexities of life” They are a part of humanity.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm
When she’s talking to you, deanna, and she wants to be nice, she’s Kate. When she wants to be mean, she’s Dr. Miller.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:29 am
speak for yourself.
i don’t view choicers as one homogeneous group. they are as diverse as lifers are.
i have close choicer friends both online and in real life and they are all unique individuals with their own unique beliefs.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:55 am
I’m sure that they are but if you are speaking of a group that consists of 61% of all Americans you cannot describe each individually so you use the term pro-life to mean they have that in common. Same goes for the pro-choice term. Everyone knows they have differences, those terms simply describe their common denominator.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm
you admit that labels can be limiting, yet you are comfortable speaking for all lifers and stating that we all see choicers as a homogeneous group?
their stance on abortion is just a small part of who they are as individual people.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Rogeli, It describes the common denominator, not the totality of who they are. I made that clear.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 2:14 pm
(I’m sorry for the length of this, and it’s isn’t directed only to Kate. I have hard questions that I would sincerely like answers to from any pro-choice people out there willing to step up to the plate.)
Kate, although I don’t really understand the point you are making, I must point out the obvious in your comment: you seem to see all women as one homogeneous group. Otherwise how can you make the statement that you respect and trust “women”. Do you trust every single one of them? I personally know of a woman who in her youth used abortion as a form of birth control, having three that I know of. She was promiscuous, hard-hearted, and couldn’t have cared less about the issue of her “rights” or “choice”. She wanted to have her cake and eat it too. Of course we all know there are thousands more like her, as well as thousands of women who just don’t want a child right now. Scores wait until it is past the stage of debate about it’s “baby-ness” before they abort it. As far as trusting them to make the right choices for themselves, if people could really do that there would be no need for drunk driving laws, seat belt laws, or narcs. I totally see the point and thinking behind the pro-choice and woman’s rights movements. I really do, and actually agree with that thinking. When we start taking rights away, it is also a slippery slope. But we have to draw the line when our rights become sovereign to us above everything, including morality. Life is a right just like choice is. Both are important, but when they crash into each other, we have to let higher ideals be our guide. That is why I am not allowed to kill three of my five children because I can’t afford them all. As I said, I do see, understand and agree with woman’s rights, but for the life of me I will never understand why the majority of those in the pro-choice arena seem to be for abortion across the board, with no regulation of it at all. Honestly, everyone is actually pro-life, so if you believe the woman’s rights are important, and that the unborn is also important, why isn’t the pro-choice crowd for strict regulations regarding it? If you really are saying that you know it’s a baby, a life, then shouldn’t it be valuable to you? If rights are that valuable, isn’t life just as valuable? Shouldn’t it be practically an act of congress to get that life ended? Don’t you believe that the unborn child growing inside that womb is important at all? Believing that a woman’s rights should supersede the right to birth (it is already alive) of the unborn is something I can see, even though I vehemently disagree with it. But what I don’t understand is the seemingly callous disregard for the child at all, and the hatred and venom directed at those who do see that life as valuable too. Kate, to be pro-life does not mean you don’t also care about woman’s rights. The woman is valuable, her rights are important, and the child is valuable, and it’s rights are important. I believe that the callousness is because you (collective) have to harden your heart to be able to advocate for the death of a tiny, defenseless baby, and in hardening your heart, you lose just a little bit of your humanity. As time marches on, you become harder and colder, until you no longer see the child as important or even human. You then, consciously or subconsciously, rip to shreds anyone who is a reminder of what it is you have hardened your heart against. This is the cold hard fact of abortion: disregarding all the abortions done in the early stages, there are, right now as I type this, babies being aborted that are completely viable, that are sucking their thumb and hiccuping as the mother is being prepped for the procedure, that were the mother to go into labor, could be birthed, bathed, wrapped in a blanket, and given a pacifier. Put to the breast they would open their mouths and nurse. But those viable babies sucking their thumbs and hiccuping in the womb will have their skulls crushed and their brain matter removed, as well as their limbs detached from their bodies because they are too large to remove from the birth canal. They are too large to remove from the birth canal because abortion is against nature itself. Our bodies are designed to birth a baby at the proper time. When that can’t happen naturally, it is either a malfunction of the body or outside interference. Nature itself is against aborting perfectly healthy, viable babies. Those babies are not now lying comfortably in blankets sucking pacifiers, they are laying in pieces on a table, ready to be disposed of. The large majority of the time this will have been done to that innocent, defenseless baby because of the convenience of the mother. That is a proven fact. Even in our justice system, we would rather a hundred guilty go free than one innocent person be executed, because life is just that important. Shouldn’t even those who believe in the woman’s right above the right of the unborn be grieved at every single death from abortion? So much so that you INSIST on regulating the industry, INSIST on strenuous medical and legal proof that that child must die? Food Stamps are better regulated and monitored than abortion. Is it really okay that we are now placing life or death decisions into the hands of everyone from irate parents to scared 15 year olds? Does your belief in the preeminence of the woman’s right to choose mutually exclude your caring that it IS a life that is being chosen against? For me, this isn’t about the humanity of the unborn, it’s about our own.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm
I disagree with your claim that I said all women are homogenous. At least I did not intend to infer that all women are homogenous. Further, I was talking about labels that we assign people as a short cut for either honoring or disrespecting them.
And, yes, I trust women to make the best decisions for themselves because they know their own life situation better than anyone. As much as I believe that some women (and men) make decisions that I see as wrong-headed or not truly in their best interest, I find it much better to let go of trying to control others.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:16 am
Thank you Kate.
I agree 100%.
Pro Life maniacs should stop trying to control women’s bodies and women should be trusted to make the best decision for themselves.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Terry, does IN stand for Immature Nincompoop?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Would you go read post 21 please?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:19 pm
You are the Poison in a society in my opinion,
You celebrate convicted murderers under the rule of law!
You appear to support the terrorist Pro Life groups.
You personally, by your own admission, harass innocent women and try to intimidate them.
I find you repulsive. I am surprised your compatriots (a lot of women ironically) just go along and think it OK what you do to other women.
Shows what you Pro Lifers are really made of – in my opinion.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:46 pm
But in my opinion, in my opinion, I mean in my opinion — you are the repulsive one — I mean, I guess. That’s only my opinion.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 7:26 am
For those who would like to wade through philosophical arguments about Human Non-persons, Feticide, and the Erosion of Dignity, here’s a link that will take you to a free pdf download. As I read through this, I was thinking of you Deanna, because it could, if you so choose, add to your already well-developed arguments.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/610m035741nv1762/
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:20 pm
I would, except I find the concept so easy – as you (i think) have explained it in the past.
Just trust women to make good decisions for themselves.
I find the discussion as easy as that.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 7:29 am
For those who would like to wade through philosophical arguments about morality and human agency, copy this title: Human Non-persons, Feticide, and the Erosion of Dignity. It will take you to a free pdf download of a well-reasoned scholarly article. As I read through this, I was thinking of you Deanna, because it could, if you so choose, add to your already well-developed arguments.
(when I added the html link, the post was awaiting moderation so I tried the google route)
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 8:19 am
What I meant to say is copy the title and paste it in a Google search. Sorry about the lack of clarity.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:40 am
I’m reading it. Thanks for the link. I would like to hear you comments on this sentence in the first paragraph because this is one thing that I have absolutely no understanding of:
“Although it is assumed from the outset that even viable human fetuses are not persons and as such do not enjoy full membership in the moral community,”
WHY NOT? If they are viable then why on earth would they not be a person. Someone please explain.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:20 am
Without attempting to speak for the author, my interpretation is that fetuses, because they are not born, are not persons as are those who are born. I say this with caution, however, and not to incite a riotous response. It’s how I interpret Pullman. It seems to me that while he is arguing for the dignity of the fetus, he is questioning the extent of dignity that we should afford it, especially in light of the issue of the woman’s obvious moral agency. But he also is putting forth the argument that suggests a slippery slope, hence the words in the title of the erosion of dignity when we consider feticide.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 11:05 am
Well, I guess I understand what he is saying although I cannot for the life of me make it be of any sense. Why does a human suddenly obtain worth and “personhood” simply because they exit the womb? If they are a person now then they were 5 seconds ago. Geography (inside the womb/outside the womb) has nothing to do with it. I really don’t understand how logically thinking people, much less so called experts can draw the conclusion that they are not a person because they haven’t exited the womb yet. It’s crazy.
Isn’t a puppy a puppy 2 minutes before it is born? A colt a horse? A kitten a kitten? Of course they are, so why is the human the only species that transforms magically from a state of limbo to a person just because they exit the womb?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 11:26 am
Like I said, I cannot speak for the author. But I can say, in response to some of your questions about humans, he does provide some answers based on other scholars who banter these ideas around.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Like I will say, I cannot speak for Kate, but let me do so anyway: Dunkle, If you were smart, like deanna, I would be nice to you too, but you’re stupid so I can be as mean as I want.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Who is this John Dunkle?
I feel like I am lost in an Ayn Rand novel, with a psychotic character . . .
Never heard of him, although from reading this Blog it sounds like he does a lot of bad things in my opinion.
He writes like a retarded Christian maniac. Why does he want to be mean to Kate?
She writes very intelligently . . .
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Jim, does ML stand for Muddled Looney?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Also, Jimbo, I’ve wondered about people who can get lost in an Ayn Rand novel! They’re like people who can lost in a swimming pool. I should have realized they’d end up on this blog helping to kill people younger and weaker than they are.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 11:55 am
Deanna, you may have answered it up above but, honestly, I dont read some posts that go on forever. So, have you ever had an abortion?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I did answer it, and it was actually a small post 🙂
Part of my answer was in response to this statement that you made, “As for when “love” begins, for many of these women who have aborted, the love for their “baby” never ends.”
*************************
“”No, but I do know what loss is. I have had two miscarriages.
This is what I do not understand, how can a person say they love something and then turn around and kill it. That simply does not compute.
” Again, that’s why abortion is a sad situation but, for about one million women a year, a necessary step.”
Not really necessary, just preferred so that their lives are easier. You know the stats, the huge majority of abortions are for “convenience” reasons. i.e. finances, school, etc.””
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Why did God abort two of your babies?
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:24 pm
God didn’t abort two of my babies. I explained this before on another post.
God created our bodies to work perfectly but when man chose to obey satan in the garden of Eden instead of God one of the consequences was that death, disease and sickness entered into the scene.And our bodies “fell” as well, meaning that they were no longer perfect. This was known as the fall of man. Miscarriage is a by-product of that. Disobedience to God brings curses (Deuteronomy 28). Sickness is defined as a curse in that scripture. so, our disobedience to god causes these things. Not necessarily a specific sin but because we are man and according to the book of Romans, “All fall short of God’s holy standard” because all sin. By virtue of us being man sin is part of our nature because of the fall.
So, stuff like miscarriage happens. But in Isaiah 53 it states that “By Jesus’ stripes we are healed, meaning that He purchased our healing by His death and His shed blood. But learning that and how to walk in it is a process, it is not automatic, just like salvation is not automatic, one must first believe that He did for them and “their” sickness and learn how to apply that to their individual situation. As I said, a process that not all, including me, have completely understood enough to apply in every situation. But I do think that it is possible.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Arnold,
I wasn’t trying to be snarky there. What I meant was I explained it on another post that you may or may not have seen.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:37 pm
Is not God Omnipotent, Omnicient, and OmniPresent?
God chose to abort or to allow those babies to be aborted, and for a reason as he works in ways we cannot imagine.
Perhaps you may reflect on this.
God can do whatever God pleases, do you disagree?
God commanded infanticide, murder, war, genocide, in the Bible, but it was for a reason, even if we cannot understand it. It is true and good. Do you deny the Holy Scripture?
Do you doubt that?
Do you deny Abrahamic guidance? The lessons learned from his experience with the Almighty? Do you speak against the Holy Lord?
What kind of Christians are you if not?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Maria,
Just because bad things happen it does not mean that God caused it or technically even allowed it. There are spiritual laws at work just like the law of gravity. We live in a fallen (see explanation above) world, therefore bad things happen simply for that reason. Things are no longer perfect. This is what the first few chapters of Genesis explains.
The stories in the Old testament that you refer to were in reference to God being a Holy God and they show how sin must be punished, it cannot stand before a Holy God. These are stories of people who turned against God and what happened to them as a result. They show that we cannot keep the law (God’s Holy Standard) so we need a savior, someone to stand in our place. That someone was Jesus. Since Jesus came we are in the age of grace. He is giving us an opportunity to accept Jesus’ sacrificial death as the payment for our sin, therefore he no longer punishes sin in that way. But, He will someday, this is why the scripture says that “Today is the day of salvation”. We all should turn to God in repentance and accept the gift that Jesus paid for with his life, which is salvation from the wrath of God which will come at the end of time.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 2:09 pm
You seem to doubt the literall word of our almighty Lord.
You tread on dangerous ground.
God is very clear in the Old Testament.
The evil must be slaughtered, do you disagree?
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Maria,
Your question can more effectively be answered by you going to my blog (simply click on my name) and reading the page titled “The Ultimate Choice.” It tells in detail what I believe about that subject.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:28 pm
If God is not responsible ( I believe God to be all powerful), who is?
God chose to abort (complete abortions or incomplete I am guessing) all the pregnancies discussed here.
God is all powerful!
God knows the future, God is Omniscient, do you disagree?
Why would you disagree?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:53 pm
I do believe that He is Omniscient, yes, but as I explained in an earlier comment. There are spiritual laws at work. By virtue of us being fallen man in a fallen world bad stuff happens. See my previous post for the rest of my explanation on this.
As far as “who is responsible” goes. The scripture says that satan comes to kill, steal, and destroy.He has been given authority on the earth (because man obeyed him in the garden of eden) to do his deal, which is to kill, steal, and destroy. We have to learn how to pray and ask God to protect us from satans plan and to stop any permission that we have given him to kill, steal, and destroy from us by our obeying him instead of God. (the bible tells us not to give satan an opportunity to steal from us. These opportunities are given by our sin, Ephesian 4:27). The reality is that a lot of Chrisitans (including me a the time) don’t understand this or realize how to apply it. It is a learning process.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:09 pm
When it is suggested that abortions are done for “convenience’s” sake, it tells me you really do not have a true understanding of what women are going through in that moment. Indeed, I think you are insulting millions of women who have had abortions. They just dont wake up, find themselves pregnant and go down to the local clinic because it’s convenient. It’s a difficult decision and, yes, it’s sad because they know they are preventing their baby from being born. Do you think that is easy? Is that “convenient?” If it is so “convenient” then why are there sooooo many women out there, as you suggest, who now “regret” their abortions? I know Deanna means well, but I find it totally obnoxious to make all these pronouncements without having the experience of sitting in that abortion clinic and talking to these women, like I have. Then you’d really see that this is in no way a “convenient” thing.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Pat, THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. Abortion is not convenient. The decision is far from easy, far from some flippant decision. But it’s so easy for those who are on the outside to judge or moralize.
It’s so easy for those who will never be pregnant to make visceral comments that cut to the core without any compassion or understanding. It’s so easy for some who have access to a computer and to the Internet, to be fluent in language and writing skills, to have the leisure time to respond every 1 or 2 hours to banter with others online without worrying about children or a career or household chores, or BEST OF ALL, to feel free to speak their mind without fear of being beaten or reprimanded or punished. It’s so easy for some to judge.
LikeLike
July 2, 2011 at 10:06 pm
The word “convenience” in this context means “to avoid a seemingly difficult situation”.It simply means that they take one path because it is easier than the other path. Not necessarily easy, just EASIER than the other.This is a true statement. It is not a derogatory term in and of itself. If a woman decides to have an abortion so she can continue college she has done that so she will not be inconvenienced by quitting school. The same applies to careers and most financial situations. It is documented that over 96% of abortions are done for ‘social” reasons.
“Most respondents to a survey of abortion patients in 1987 said that more than one factor had contributed to their decision to have an abortion; the mean number of reasons was nearly four. Three-quarters said that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, about two-thirds said they could not afford to have a child and half said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems.”
from pubmed.gov
These are not life threatening reasons, they are reasons of convenience to the mothers life. Not necessary an easy thing to choose but nevertheless it is for her ultimate convenience. This is not judgment. It is fact. A person can do something hard on themself (abortion) and it still be easier than an alternate choice.(having the baby).
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:03 am
You know Kate, you are a very judgmental person. You don’t know Deanna at all, or me. We both have large families, and we sacrifice the time to be here as one avenue of trying to turn the tide from this slippery slope that the world is heading down. We have both been pregnant several times. She has had two miscarriages and has two biological children, four adopted children, three still under 11, and three grandchildren. I have two children, one miscarriage, and seven grandchildren. Who is it that will “never be pregnant?” And as far as I can see, you are calling the kettle black concerning spending time on the Internet and commenting, You also seem to think that well thought out and presented questions are a “sin”. You also seem to have the “free time” to speak your mind. I would have thought you would be smarter than accusing people of the very same thing you are doing.I have known Deanna for 25 years, and she is not judgmental. She did not use that word judgmentally. I used the word convenience also, and never, not once was I judging or even feeling anything toward the women in that statement. I was just stating the facts of the matter. I do feel for them, I care for them, and I have helped them and other women in hard situations all my life, including taking them into my home. Have either of you, who care for women so much? I have also taken in whole families in need. Have you? You have judged someone who has been nothing but civil to you. Richard, you asked for a pro-life person to state what they “believe” the Founding Fathers would have done. I did, so then you made issue of the fact that I did what you asked. I see that I am not dealing with people who are interested in rational discussions of important issues facing this country. Kate, you stopped the name calling and had started to sound like a mature adult, so I presented several hard questions to you and this forum which were ignored. I was genuinely interested in your answers. And you are wrong, I am VERY busy, and every moment I am on this forum is a sacrifice. One I am no longer willing to make.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:15 am
And by the way, my daughter has had three devastating miscarriages, a friend who is like a daughter to me has suffered three devastating miscarriages and years of infertility, Deanna’s daughter in law fights infertility. Trust me, an aborted pregnancy against your will is just as hard as one a woman chooses. How dare you peer into our lives with your blind eyes and presume to know the least thing about us. And you are write, we are both fluent in language and writing skills and used them here. Someone had to be the first.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:16 am
right
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:26 pm
I thought you were done with us because you are incredibly “busy?”
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Dwanna, you should stick around. After these two powerful writings, Kate would have to recognize your superiority, too. Then I’d be the only one left she could woman-handle.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm
John Dunkle,
Do you believe in eternal damnation?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Yes
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Dwanna,
Why did the Holy Lord and Almighty Abort your, your daughter’s, and DeAnna’s babies?
Please do not reply pedantically to me as you did Mary Ann, who has the blessings and privilege of speaking to the Almighty routinely without ambiguity.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:17 pm
I answered this for someone else earlier but you probably didn’t see it.
“God didn’t abort two of my babies.
God created our bodies to work perfectly but when man chose to obey satan in the garden of Eden instead of God one of the consequences was that death, disease and sickness entered into the scene.And our bodies “fell” as well, meaning that they were no longer perfect. This was known as the fall of man. Miscarriage is a by-product of that. Disobedience to God brings curses (Deuteronomy 28). Sickness is defined as a curse in that scripture. so, our disobedience to god causes these things. Not necessarily a specific sin but because we are man and according to the book of Romans, “All fall short of God’s holy standard” because all sin. By virtue of us being man sin is part of our nature because of the fall.
So, stuff like miscarriage happens. But in Isaiah 53 it states that “By Jesus’ stripes we are healed, meaning that He purchased our healing by His death and His shed blood. But learning that and how to walk in it is a process, it is not automatic, just like salvation is not automatic, one must first believe that He did for them and “their” sickness and learn how to apply that to their individual situation. As I said, a process that not all, including me, have completely understood enough to apply in every situation. But I do think that it is possible.”
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 2:20 pm
The Holy Lord was very clear that you (plural) suffered from God’s own intervention and aborting these babies. What do you say.
The Almighty has spoken.
Are you to speak against the Almighty?
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I am confused about what you are talking about. Are you talking about my miscarriages? Please explain who you are talking to and what about.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm
DeAnna,
This is very serious for your salvation.
You may be speaking to Satan, be very careful.
Are you denying the true word of God?
Your eternal salvation rests upon you not denying God’s word and NOT speaking in false tongues and misguiding people from the literal meaning of the scripture. Scripture is the word of God and not your interpretation of it. The Holy Lord has made this very clear by his condemnation of false interpreters such as you have been doing.
Do you deny this?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Tell me ONE thing that I have said that is false and give scripture to back it up! Just one!
By the way, I have NO intention of arguing scripture or doctrine with you or listening to anymore of your hateful mean things that you spew out. So, unless you can tell me exactly what I have said that was not true so that I can correct it don’t bother answering.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:13 pm
“Scripture is the word of God and not your interpretation of it.”
You failed to add an important sentence here, Maria — “It’s my interpretation of it.”
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:20 pm
You write as if you defy the Word of the Holy Lord.
I doo not know how to help you over the internet.
If you do not hear the voice of the Almighty, that is not in my control, it is up to you.
You denied eternal damnation.
I will not be subordinate to the Almighty, when God has been so clear on this subject.
Have you considered Satan may be taking control of you?
You sound worse than the Pro Abortion people. At least you read the scripture – and deny eternal damnation? That makes you worse in my opinion.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:53 pm
Three times I’ve asked — please name the person you’re talking to.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 12:43 am
Maria,
Did I deny eternal damnation? When? Where? Quote me. No I specifically said that i was not discussing what I (me) believed about that but was instead answering a general question about a Christian belief. It would do you good to go read what I really wrote about all of those things you mentioned because you seem to be a little confused as to what I was saying. If you want to know what I believe specifically go to my blog my clicking on my name and read the page titled, “The Ultimate Choice”,
then read the “About DeAnna” section, Then read “The adoption option” page. These pages should answer most any question that you may have about me.If you still have questions about me then feel free to ask me but do so via my blog or email. This is not the appropriate place for this discussion.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I do not find Kate Judgemental.
She just states facts.
I like her commentary.
The anti abortion people are the screwballs on this blog.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:40 pm
i agree, kathy.
i have always found her to be openminded and respectful of differing views.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Thank you Rogelio,
I appreciate and read your input.
It helps me in my own thought processes.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Please refer to post 21
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:18 am
Pat and Kate,
You guys are forgetting something in your assessment of what I know and my compassion level and particularly you Kate when you say that my input is about being on the internet as if I have some sort of minimal perspective. And pat you stating that I have no understanding because I have never talked to the women in an abortion clinic waiting room. But the reality is that I have a better perspective on abortion than any of you and any woman that has had multiple abortions because I survive an abortion attempt. I am that baby that you guys would have killed. I am the one that you argue that has no value. I am the one that you say was a non-person. I am the one that you talk about as if I were disposable. I represent the millions of babies that have been killed. I speak for them from that perspective. Can you understand that as you say basically that I have no right to an opinion that I have more right than you do because I represent the one who will be killed. Can you see that? I am living a full wonderful life and I can say with authority and confidence that those unborn children matter. They could be me. So before you guys get on the whole “DeAnna has no understanding and no right to say” bandwagon remember that I am the voice of the victims of choice. I have every right. And you suggest that I have no right to speak for the abortive mother, you are right I don’t since I have never had an abortion but I have EVERY right to speak for that baby that you guys advocate the right to kill. From my perspective your abortions are all for convenience sake since it is my life that gets taken for your non-life threatening reasons. Let me just tell you this, convenient or not, they are not valid.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 9:33 am
You already admitted some Abortions were valid.
Annoying.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I posted this earlier but to save you from looking it up, here is my answer to that.
I do not believe in an abortion other than extreme circumstances where the baby WILL die anyway because the mother WILL die anyway if the pregnancy continues.
For a full explanation of that see this page :
abort73.com/end_abortion/is_abortion_ever_justified/
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Again,
you agree,
despite the fact that you said differently – there are time that abortion is OK.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Don’t try to put word in my mouth. You know what I meant. I meant Exactly what I said above. Read it again.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm
DeAnna,
your presumptuousness is remarkable.
To think you know what goes through the mind of a woman that needs an abortion.
That is the paramount of selfish self egotism.
I pray the world is rid of people like you in short time.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:16 pm
post 21 please…go read it. thanks
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Kathy, if I were at all interested in Ohio State, I’d sue you for slandering the name.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 9:10 am
Whatever is going through her mind, whatever situation, whatever crisis, can be overcome so that her baby doesn’t have to die. There are NO situations that warrant an innocent babies death in order to make the mothers life easier. None!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Abortion is not a convenience as perceived by DeAnna and Dwanna.
It is a need to the intelligent women that choose to control their bodies and exercise self determination.
How dare you pro lifers look blindly into the eyes of people you know nothing about and express their thoughts of need – and tell them, as if you were God yourselves, that it is mere convenience.
You people are repulsive.
Abortion will always be around.
Raving religiosity will not, thank goodness.
The present generation in Polls already will maintain women’s right to reproductive freedom. A freedom, that you zealots will never be able to turn the tides on, despite pro life terrorist activities.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Did you know that 61% of Americans thing that most abortions should be illegal according to a May 2011 Gallup poll?
Did you know that we are not speaking FOR God we are simply quoting Him which is why we gave scriptural references to what we said?
Did you know that word ‘convenience’ and what it means in this context and that it had nothing to do with “mere convenience”?
Did you know that according to the Alan Guttmacher institute(the leading pro-choice stat reporter) (see stats above) that there are almost no abortions that are truly “needed” for maternal health reasons?
Therefore they are for so called “social” reasons. Therefore morally they are not justified?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:36 pm
No.
That is not accurate.
Like yourself, most prolifers, even of the wacky, on the terrorist side, agree that abortion is OK in some circumstance.
Your 61% quote is so wrong.
If it were true, R v W, would have been done with by now, decades ago.
But it is not, because you are inaccurate, as most of your comments.
Most conservatives, when it comes their turn to “Need” an abortion, change “Their” opinion.
Bunch of losers as far as I can tell.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm
while i oppose all direct abortions, you make an excellent point, kathy with this statement:
>>>Most conservatives, when it comes their turn to “Need” an abortion, change “Their” opinion.<<<
now i disagree with the "need", but your point is valid just the same.
in my experience, the women and couples that i have met who were seeking abortions were either pro-life ( many of them catholic or evangelical ) and were in terrible situations in their lives and simply didn't know where to turn or what else to do.
it's easy to say what one would do in a certain situation until we are that person, walking in that person's shoes.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Rogelio,
The only realistic pro Lifer on the blog,
Sadly . .
The other Pro Lifers make all of us Pro Lifers appear as idiots.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:18 pm
No, those stats came directly from the Gallup Poll website.
gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx
I actually copied and pasted most of it directly from their site.
This was dated May, 2011
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:59 pm
“The other Pro Lifers make all of us Pro Lifers appear as idiots.”
Speak for yourself, C. Masden. (Does C stand for Confused?)
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I appreciate your input, Deanna, but are you serious when you say you understand abortion more because you “survived” an abortion attempt? I’m sorry, but that is incredibly ludicrous. Unless I’m missing something here, you didn’t know what was going on at the time (and please do not tell me you did know, that will ruin all of your credibility). So, okay, you survived it. Good for you and I’m glad you’re with us. But how the heck can you compare your situation in utero with that of a woman – a real honest to God Live woman – who is faced with this very difficult decision? How do you just totally discount the experience of those one million women a year who have abortions? What are they, chopped liver?
Meanwhile, Dwanna, I did not discount your response re the founding fathers. I just asked you for absolute proof that they discussed abortion, proof which you have not given me.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Pat, I can speak from the perspective of those who may die because I can look at it from the perspective of one who was almost killed.
It would be no different that the testimonies of people who beg people to stop smoking because they themselves survived long cancer. Or the former drug addict who lobbies congress for drugs to remain illegal because they survived. The fact that I was unaware at the time of what was happening doe snot invalidate my experience in the least, no more than it would if a person started smoking at the age of 4 or if a crack addicted newborn baby grew up to say, “hey, don’t do crack when you are pregnant because it messed me up.” They weren’t aware of what was happening but they know in hindsight that it is a very bad thing. Likewise, I know that abortion is a very bad thing because it almost killed me. Therefore I can speak for others who are destined to be killed by the same thing that almost killed me.
Those million women who killed their babies are not chopped liver. They are the very sad victims of a society gone to hell. A society that tells women that it is ok to kill their offspring if it suits them. My heart breaks for them, believe it or not, but the only way that I can possibly prevent that is to open my mouth and speak as I do. It is society’s downfall, the women make the choice but it is a choice that they have been programmed to make. Partly by lies of the pro-choice advocates. For example; The Pregnancy Option Workbook gives statements from clergy that tell the women that God condones abortion. This is SO no true. These clergy take the scripture out of context and make it say what they want it to say, maybe because they are trying to justify their own abortions, I don’t know really what their motive is. Maybe they are just deceived. But if I were to be given the opportunity and if they would listen ,which I highly doubt , i could prove to them that their position is wrong. But they are quoted in these books, leading the women astray, and it is all a lie. Is this the women’s fault? No, she is a victim of that false teacher. She still has her conscience to guide her but she ignores that because basically that workbook teaches her to. “Speak to the spirit child and see what it tells you….Oh…it tol me it’s ok to kill it, it understands.” BULL CRAP! That is so much crap! And the women believe that! This is sad, horribly sad!. Of course they choose abortion, they are talked into it by a bunch of people who tickle their ears telling them that t’s no big deal basically. But it is a big deal. Her baby is now dead!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Boring, irrelevant, I won’t even read it.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:21 pm
You think it is irrelevant to the abortion issue that I was I survived an abortion attempt on my life? How is that irrelevant? can you discuss this with me in a civil and mature way?
If you didn’t read it then how could you know that it is irrelevant?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Where is your endless diatribe on the issue so we can investigate you and your endless lies?
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 11:59 pm
If you want to know about me you can go to my blog by clicking on my name. I will thank you though to stop with the childish insults and accusations. You know nothing about me so how could you possibly know if I am lying or not. We are having (or trying to if the juvenile minded poo throwers will quieten down) an adult conversation. Baseless insults are useless.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:38 pm
What is this Abortion attempt this misfit is implying?
Does she claim to have a recollection of events when she was a one celled piece of partially fertilized protoplasm?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Kathy, I refer you to post number 21. If you want to know about the abortion attempt you can go to my blog and read the about Deanna page.
If you would like to discuss this in a civil mature way then I am available.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I also find it interesting that you are saying is the “easier” “convenient” choice when pro-lifers say that you’re gonna get breast cancer, your gonna forever regret what you did, you won’t have babies in the future, you’re gonna go to hell, etc., etc. On the other hand, giving birth should be so much easier because all pro-lifers will pay for that child’s upbringing for at least the first 21 years or so, right?
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Well, for these women you guys have effectively convinced them that none of that is true so I’m sure that these things don’t concern most (again from the Pregnancy Options Workbook).
Giving birth may not be easier but it is the RIGHT THING TO DO! Sometimes the right thing is the hardest of all. You know that Pat, you are old enough to have walked that out.
We (people from our generation…you and me) have taught the generation beneath us to take the EASIER way out, do whatever is best for YOU, it’s about YOU, take care of YOU, etc. This is such a disgusting teaching. No, it’s not all about me, I shouldn’t always do what is best for me, I shouldn’t always take care of ME. Sometimes we have to sacrifice what is best for US for the sake of someone else. This is what maturity looks like, it is what love looks like and it is what morality looks like.
Whats going to happen Pat when you are old and wearing diapers 🙂 and you sons decide that you are old, and well you have lived a long live, and you were great and all but you understand right?, that hey are busy with their careers and well, you know how it is, they just can’t be pressured to care for you any longer so here comes the euthanasia train. Now, I am assuming that your kids adore you and would never do that but let me tell you, as a society we are not that far off from that. When a woman can walk into a clinic and write a note to their baby telling it how much they love it (workbook again) but you know, I have things to do, so I’m going to let that doctor kill you now, but I love you. When that happens and it does multiple times daily in a society then we have reached a point of no return. I am not belittling these women instead I am talking about a society that has become so depraved that this is the norm.
What humanity, at least a one that is not completely consumed with self should look like is, “let me do the RIGHT thing, it may be the hardest thing I have ever done and the right thing may kill me but I will do the right thing, the moral thing because I care about something other than myself an d my circumstances. Sometimes life is tough. Sometimes it sucks but we are strong enough as humans to get through it if we allow ourselves the opportunity. But instead we take the road of the least resistance and we are becoming a weak society that before too long will kill anyone that interferes with their plans.
.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I didn’t even read this . . .
Makes no sense. I need a translator.
I support a woman’s right to choose her own destiny.
Women who fight against the rights of women disgust me.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
see post number 21 please.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“I didn’t even read this. Makes no sense. I need a translator.” You don’t need a translator Anna P. You been had. You need a teacher. (Does P stand for pathetic?)
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Insulting and misogynistic. Will DeAnna take the appropriate side on this issue?
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Kaitlin! Wow! Where do these names come from! I’m sure they’re all invented, and who can blame the writer. She can’t help but sound stupid so she wants to hide.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 12:03 am
If you didn’t read it how do you know it doesn’t make any sense? It makes perfect sense to someone who thinks clearly. If it makes no sense to you then maybe you should read it a little slower because it is very clear in what it says.
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I guess that she takes the wrong side.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 1:53 pm
I had an ExtraOrdinary day.
A blessed, beautiful day.
After Church this morning,
The Creator of the Universe came to talk with me in person.
God, almighty, in person told me DeAnna, and Dwanna are astray from True Christianity. Of course, he told me the Pro Abortion people are further astray.
The Holy Lord wanted to be very clear.
Anyone that does not take his word literally and does not accept Jesus Almighty as their Personal Saviour is bound for an eternity in Hell Damnation.
The Almighty is a Beneficent God. But will not tolerate the non believers of the reality of Hell.
This was conveyed to me to express so everyone can know, so there is no misreading of scripture as the Good Lord has noticed on this Blog.
Do any Christians doubt God’s True spoken word?
Thank You, and may the Blessed Lord save you all from Damnation.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:26 pm
So Maryann what is it that makes us not true Christians? Is it because we refuse to be hateful and mean to these people? We disagree with them to a degree that is hard to comprehend but we do not hate them because we disagree. We don’t even hate them because they advocate for abortion. We tell them the truth while still loving them as another human being. Jesus never told us to hate them, what he said was to tell the truth with LOVE!
I do not doubt God’s word, not one letter of it. What I said to you was that you need to speak the truth while still loving just like Jesus did.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:48 pm
DeAnna,
Did you not doubt the existence of hell and eternal damnation?
Did you not doubt the literal scripture?
Did you not misrepresent scripture as the Almighty has written it?
The mighty Lord told this to me. Do you doubt the word of the Lord Jesus as it told to me personally?
Did you doubt the existence of eternal damnation? It seems so . . .
Please forgive me, and clarify, as it seemed you did doubt that if one does not accept Jesus as their personal Savior, that, that is the ONLY path to righteousness, and to sit by the side of our Lord – and escape eternal damnation?
I want to make sure you do not end up in HELL.
I have good intentions. But it sounds you may be headed there by the things you write.
You agree that abortion is OK sometimes!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:55 pm
god appeared to me and said that when someone who claims to follow him, promotes hatred in his name or condemns one of his beloved creations in his name, that it pisses him off
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:21 pm
MarAnn, Please do all of us a favor and actually go back and read MY posts, not what the others say, but mine.
I clearly stated two times, maybe three that I did not condone ANY abortions other than when the baby will die if the mother dies first. Which is a legitimate reason because obviously if the mother dies the baby will die. There is no way to save the baby in this situation.
I also, NEVER said that I don’t believe in hell, nor did I ever say that I did believe in it. I refuse to debate that subject on this blog. I was asked a direct question about a Christian teaching and I presented BOTH scenarios that are sometimes found in christian circles.
You said, “Please forgive me, and clarify, as it seemed you did doubt that if one does not accept Jesus as their personal Savior, that, that is the ONLY path to righteousness,”
Again, go re-read what I said.I specifically said that Jesus was the ONLY way to God.
I do not doubt, nor did I ever indicate that I doubted that scripture was literal.
No, I did not misrepresent scripture. I quoted it word for word.
You said, “The mighty Lord told this to me. Do you doubt the word of the Lord Jesus as it told to me personally?”
Of course I doubt it. I would be stupid not to. I don’t know you. For all I know you might be insane. Why would I take your word for that?
You said,
“I want to make sure you do not end up in HELL”
Don’t worry about me, I’m good!
Honestly Maryann, I came here to try and explain to these people why killing their baby is not ok morally and not ok with God. I really don’t to debate religion with you or anyone else. So can we be done with this conversation please on this blog? If you would like to speak privately to me email me.,You can find my email on my blog by clicking on my name. s a matter of fact, I wish you would do that very thing because i would love to talk to you privately.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:51 pm
DING! DONG!
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Thank you for this wonderful blog Pat.
I enjoy reading everyday.
It is the only Blog I could find that was not severely censored.
The worst are the ProLife propaganda blogs.
Anything pro choice is censored, and the pro lifers are just evil.
The pro choice blogs tend to be pretty good, but this is the best one I have found.
I really appreciate the commentary.
I think the really pro life fanatics tend to troll these sites though. Bad for the pro life movement.
I find these pro lifers particularly disturbing, but I would defend their free expression of their opinions no matter how crazy they are – within limits.
I am not OK with the Justifiable homicide crowd, but the pro lifers here, don’t seem to condemn them. Revealing how disturbed they are!
Thank you everyone who defend the rights of women. Even women that could care less about the rights of women (so Strange these people!) are absolutely bizarre!
They are like ancient artifacts. The new world is rapidly coming to fruition. These psychiatric invalids will be gone within the next generation. I applaud that.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Tirlae,
Just FYI, I am not a troll, I was invited here by the people who author this blog in order to give a pro-life perspective in the conversations. They want to hear what we have to say or at least they did initially 🙂 . I think I may have fried their circuits with some of my loooong posts, right Pat?
“psychiatric invalids”
Wow! Thats cute, another new insult to put on my list. It’s kind of funny though.
I have a challenge for you. You say that we are psychiatric invalids right? Everything that I have posted on this blog has been backed up with documentation by neutral sources. If you can prove that any thing i have said is false using neutral sources as well I would like to hear it. People like to come on here and say that I am lying, that I don’t know what I am talking about, etc, So, If you can prove that anything that I or dwanna said as false then I invite you to do so. Otherwise it stands as truth.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:02 pm
DeAnna,
Is it possible for you to stop lying? I don’t think that you think you are lying, I think you are just delusional.
You have quoted multiple Pro Life,
Utterly subjective, Pro Life biased,
non peer reviewed literature. This has been pointed out to you as I read this Blog over and over again.
You revealed yourself, on multiple plains, your misunderstanding of basic science, and of the process of peer review literature.
You are quite wrong, and you are not intelligent enough to know when to reflect.
You have not been the hallmark of neutral commentary and objective data. You have been the prototype ProLifer, placing fourth a biased barrage of BS.
For you to represent yourself differently is just so obvious to all the readers of this Blog. What is it that you do not get?
How can you say this when it has been pointed out to you so many times?
It is exhausting correcting your misinformation, no wonder everyone seems to think you an unreliable source of any info, even Pro Lifers!!!!!!
I am giving up on you as irrelevant.
You do not even seem to condemn the Pro Life violence and terrorism of your friends on this site. Like an Osama Bin Laden.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:07 pm
“You have quoted multiple Pro Life,
Utterly subjective, Pro Life biased,
non peer reviewed literature”
No I haven’t every thing I quoted was non-biased. I intentionally did not quote ANY pro-life sources. Did you actually read any of it? Could you please tell me exactly what I quoted from a biased pro-life source?
LikeLike
July 5, 2011 at 9:35 am
You also said it is exhausting correcting me. You have not corrected one thing that I have said unless you consider your endless barrage of name calling, accusations and insults correcting. You have not provided on shred of documentation or evidence to counter anything that I have said. You have spoken yourself of no legitimate points.
Further, my purpose in coming here was 1) that I was invited and 2) to give A (not the only, just mine) pro-life perspective and 3) to try and document the realities of the issues so that people can be educated and 4) to provide some thinking points for the people who frequent this bog.
My purpose never has been, nor will I enter into condemning anyone, pro-lifer or not, pro-choice or not. I see no article or even comment thread about pro-life violence or terrorism to comment on.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Really? Not according to Gallup Poll (you know them right?, the nations leading poll org) :
Over the last 20 years, support for legal abortion has continued to drop among young adults, a new Gallup poll shows.
In 2009, only 24 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 said abortion should be legal under any circumstances, a drop from 28 percent in the year 2000 and 36 percent in 1990.
Even compared to 30- to 64-year-olds, the young cohort is now less likely to support abortion, the Gallup survey on Friday revealed.
Young adults (23 percent) are also most likely to say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances compared to their older counterparts, including those aged 65 and older (21 percent) – who have been the most conservative in abortion views.
Gallup notes, “This is a sharp change from the late 1970s, when seniors were substantially more likely than younger age groups to want abortion to be illegal.”
In 1975, only 18 percent of young adults said abortion should be illegal in all circumstances while 32 percent of seniors said the same.
See Gallup.com for complete info.
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Pat, I go away for a weekend and there are fifty-five comments on this post. I return and there are like two hundred. Does anybody know of any other blog dealing with child killing that can even come close to matching it in fairness and depth? (And even in silly and wise-ass comments like mine and the AI’s?)
LikeLike
July 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Gotta love when the convicted murderer celebrator chimes in . . .
Just a worthless waste of electrons.
LikeLike
July 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm
dock tore me la — if this guy’s a medical doctor, I’m Kate Ranhieri.
LikeLike