After getting my kids off to college this weekend, I actually sat back and read the newspaper! Thumbing through the New York Times, I came across an article about a new medical test that would help couples identify the sex of their unborn baby much earlier in the pregnancy. Today, you have to wait until about 15 weeks or so to get a definitive answer.
This is a great scientific advancement so, of course, the pro-life groups are up in arms and expressing grave concern. That’s because they think that women will start aborting fetuses because they wanted a boy instead of a girl or they already had three girls and were hoping to mix it up a bit. And, of course, if the male has anything to say about it, he would abort that silly little girl over the next Derek Jeter.
Let’s all acknowledge that in certain cultures boys are preferred over girls and the practice of sex selection abortions is rather common in some of those cultures. And, to be honest, while the idea of aborting a fetus because of its sex feels rather strange to me, I still have to support the woman on this one. As I have always said, up until the point of viability the women should be able to abort no matter what the reason, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for others. That’s because, if you start carving out exceptions such as sex selection, then you’re on a slippery slope and our lawmakers would soon be looking at other exceptions.
Of course, those who were raised in other cultures wind up coming to the United States so it is quite possible that a woman, for example, from India might want an abortion here in the U.S. because she knows she’s having a girl. This new test will allow her to identify the sex much earlier which would allow her to have an abortion earlier in her pregnancy. And, if you are going to have an abortion, earlier is always better than later, no?
So, yes, this new test might “encourage” a woman, particularly one from the East, to have an abortion for purposes of sex selection. But let’s be real about this.
The fact is that when a woman goes into an abortion facility, after signing the paperwork, getting some medical tests, etc. she is then seen by a counselor. The counselor discusses with her the abortion process, she reviews her other options, she talk about birth control and, well, sometimes they just plain talk. But in the vast majority of reputable abortion clinics, the counselor does not ask why the woman is having the abortion. There is no reason to know. It would not change the abortion process. That issue is left to the woman and anyone else she wishes to have involved in the decision. Sure, a woman might just voluntarily offer why she was having the abortion but that question is not on the counselor’s “must ask” list.
So, in the future if a woman takes this new test and it indicates she is having a girl and she decides she does not want a girl, she may abort. Personally, I think that would be a rare circumstance, i.e., to abort just because of the sex. Even if you prefer a boy, when you learn that it’s a girl you perspective can change rather rapidly. But if she wants to abort for that reason, no one is gonna know unless she decides to voluntarily talk about it.
Meanwhile, however, pro-life legislators have already indicated that they will be introducing measures prohibiting sex selection abortions. I say go for it boys. I think it’s a waste of time but if that’s where you want to spend your resources, go knock yourself out. That’s because the reality is that, if you pass a bill prohibiting sex selection abortions, a woman will simply go to the clinic and, in the very unlikely event that she is asked why she is having an abortion, she’ll just make up another reason.
Duh…….


August 22, 2011 at 10:08 am
It is nobody’s business why a women is choosing to have an abortion.
It is her choice and no one else’s.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:27 am
Thanks for chiming in, Leslie. I totally agree. Hope you’ll chime in more in the future.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:00 am
I trust women to make the right choice for themselves.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:19 am
It’s nobody’s business why a woman kills her two year old toddler. It’s her choice and no one else’s.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:25 pm
what the heck does that mean, Voice?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Well, if it works for an unborn baby maybe the same mentality applies to a toddler. I mean isn’t it the women’s choice?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:58 am
And, besides, the toddler is even more dependent on her mother than the fetus!
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 10:36 am
Actually, either killing OR sparing a fetus simply because of a preference for a certain characteristic of any sort is a terrible idea.
I pity the child whose parents engaged in sex selection abortion and chose to give birth to him or her. Obviously the child was spared in order to indulge their fantasies about parenthood. Did anybody read about the adoptive mother who sent the child back by himself to his birth country, Russia? Or the adoptive couple who beat the toddler on the flight back to the US from its birth country? Instance of a fantasy exploded….
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:30 am
I dunno, Charles. I know a guy who has three girls and he is absolutely miserable. He always wanted at least a boy. He is a big jock, has/had visions of a great boy athlete. Not that he would do harm to his girls and he totally loves them, but, well, you can see some of the pain at times…….not an easy issue….
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:06 pm
So, it’s all about HIM, isn’t it? He’s going to pity himself for not having a son and not think about what a great dad he could be to some other boy who doesn’t have one. I’ve had kids who wanted to call me Dad; he could easily find half a dozen and glory in it. He is wasting his f*g life whimpering. He might be a nice guy, but he doesn’t have a good grasp on what life is about.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:59 am
This is why I keep Chuckles around.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Pat, your own example disproves your point unless this man wishes he had aborted his beloved daughters and all other pregnancies until a son was born. To be miserable when you have three girls that you “totally love”? Tell him to adopt a boy before it gets aborted. All he has to do is run the gauntlet at his local abortion clinic, and stand there and “insist” that a woman have her baby. I know this works, because you guys said it does. Or he could find one of the already born baby boys that made it into this world at our “insistence”. Tell him to hurry, because all the many, many prolifers the mother begged to adopt him refused, and so now his trustworthy and respected mother is slowly turning him into a serial killer.
(I would apologize for my sarcasm, except that I’m not sorry)
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 11:49 am
“And, if you are going to have an abortion, earlier is always better than later, no?” No, the child comes out dead in either case.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Moreover, we all want to life longer.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm
live
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Right but it doesn’t matter if its dead its going to be offed anyway, it isn’t wanted its too risky or whatever the case. so whats your arguement?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:25 am
Who is going to off her?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:31 am
Interesting, John. I guess I was thinking that is someone was dead set on having an abortion, you could not change her mind, would you not that she rather do it earlier rather than later???
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 10:15 am
(I didn’t know that was you.) The later, the closer to the due date, the better. Sometimes they slip past and pop out.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 1:25 pm
I don’t agree with this type of procedure, not for my life at least. What others do and how they choose to live is not my concern and it shouldn’t be anybody else, but is a though one to think about.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:32 am
Thanks, Melissa. That’s what we mean by “choice”. You may be against abortion but you are also letting other women decide on their own.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm
As I have always said, up until the point of viability the women should be able to abort no matter what the reason, no matter how uncomfortable it might be for others. That’s because, if you start carving out exceptions such as sex selection, then you’re on a slippery slope and our lawmakers would soon be looking at other exceptions.
Pat, I hate to tell you this but with your statements in this article you are already very far down the demonic abortion slippery slope! I guess you’re not with the ‘safe, legal, and rare’ crowd but my goodness!
As I read this article I just had to shake my head in disgust. Hey, maybe once you’ve determined the sex of the child and find out it’s a boy and you’re really happy about that – maybe you can find out more about this little boy of yours and science can come out with another test to see what his personality will be like. Maybe you don’t like strong willed boys with quick tempers – so you can just abort. Or maybe science will determine whether this boy has an inclination to prefer basketball over baseball and you just HATE basketball. Once again – abort. Why with enough advancements in science you could create your ‘perfect’ child. Give me one boy, blue eyes, loves baseball, left handed, even tempered, to go please.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:36 am
I always wanted a right handed baseball player myself. There are more opportunities in the field. VIneyard, I hear what you are saying and the thought of aborting because the kid is left handed is absurd, of course, but if we start prohibiting abortions for reasons like they are not smart we can start carving out so many exceptions like you can’t abort if the kid is going to have a 1,000 IQ. It could go the other way. It’s just way too complicated for any (usually male) legislator…
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Exactly. This is why life and death should be in God’s hands alone, not ours. Once abortion was legalized, it was put into the hands of the people, and so Pat, you are now fully supportive of a woman aborting her perfectly healthy unborn boy because he is left handed. There is no way around it. Can you honestly deny that this smacks of the thinking of Hitler? Seriously? And just because this segment of humanity hasn’t been granted it’s legal rights you are okay with this type of societal thinking?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:11 pm
How about the man who uses pregnancy to entrap his wife further into the cycle of abuse? It took my sister 15 years and the loss of her sanity to get out of that trap. If you think she shouldn’t have had grounds to decide on abortion because we should leave such a decision “in God’s hands,” NunYa, then you have a god who has a sense of humor. Dark, but a sense of humor… And what about those 25,000 unadoptable children in New York state’s custody? Is your god laughing about that one, too?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:35 pm
I imagine those children were the only bright spots in her 15 years with him, unless she hates them and is sorry they were born. I bet they are glad to be here too, even if they had a hard life. I don’t say that without compassion, as you know, I worked with these women. I’m just saying that you guys are using every excuse in the book to justify the killing of the unborn, and most of them have nothing to do with a woman’s rights, but her preferences. I doubt that your sister would have been able to slip several abortions past her abusive husband if she couldn’t slip birth control past him.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 5:36 pm
Some higher being, you call God, created humans to have specific cognitive, physical, and emotional capabilities. Among those capabilities are decision making for moral and intellectual choices. These capabilities, in the “standard issue, AKA normal, humans” are hard-wired. How those decisions are made, the value we assign to the data we use to make those decisions and the morality of those decisions are the stuff of culture wars including the prolife industry’s war on women’s reproductive rights to abortion, abstinence from motherhood, sex selection, lesbian rights, transgender rights.
Just read abortion.ws or, more specifically, this latest posting from Pat about sex selection abortions and the subsequent comments. What you’ll see are skirmishes, violence-drenched rhetoric, absurd hyperbole (Hitler and abortion, really?) and down-in-the-gutter misogyny from men and women.
All the prolifers’ talk about God, Jesus and Mary is simply subterfuge for folks who are really angry with uppity, independent women. And the really sweet spot is this:
Take away abortion. It will still happen. Make it illegal. It will still happen. Women will abort when they feel they must and YOU CAN’T STOP IT.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Yes Hitler and abortion. Really. Maybe I should have used Sanger. Oh wait, I did. Really. And I am a huge fan of Condoleezza Rice and wish she were President. I also highly respect Joan of Arc, Clara Barton, Anne Frank, Indira Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks, Maria Montessori, and the most independent and “uppity” of them all, Harriet Tubman, who would point her gun at slaves who were having doubts and state, “You’ll be free or die.” You just can’t keep us pesky prolifers safely in your small minded corral of bigotry and intolerance, can you Kate? You are certainly one to throw stones after the down-in-the-gutter tactics I’ve observed from you. I’m glad to know you believe in a “higher being”, but honestly, if I was completely pro choice in every way, I still wouldn’t lend the least bit of credibility to a word you say.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 6:52 am
Love the projection, NunYa. How long have you had this problem?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:07 am
You’ll have to try and be specific Kate. Normally I could figure it out in context of what is being said, but there is no context in my statement upon which to hang your word. I’ll make it easy for you and leave off the obvious meanings of the word, and jump to the psychological meanings. Pick one:
pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn)
n.
8. Psychology
a. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).
b. The attribution of one’s own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.
Also, it would help me to figure out how to apply your comment if you specify whether you are talking about one of the historical figures I mentioned, or what I said about you. Your comments are usually so random and non applicable to what was actually said that I get lost. At first I thought you were talking about yourself, you know, in the spirit of; “Dang, I sure am projecting when telling Nunya she’s projecting”, but that didn’t make sense either. Thanks!
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 2:06 am
>>>but there is no context in my statement upon which to hang your word.<<<
projection, deflection and denial
ALL AT ONCE!
damn,you're good!
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:11 am
“Some higher being, you call God, created humans . . .” What do you call her, Kate? Better yet: What do you call her? Kate? (and drop those commas)
“Take away abortion. It will still happen. Make it illegal. It will still happen. Women will abort when they feel they must and YOU CAN’T STOP IT.” That’s true. You can’t stop rape either. But making them illegal sure cuts down on the number of times those horrors happen.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 2:26 pm
i find it a terrible paradox that choicers are faced with supporting cultural values that are so misogynist, when to them, their support of the choice of abortion is derived from what they considered to be feminist beliefs.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Damn, Rog, I think you nailed it! That accounts for the anger! You don’t see that anger in the male killers’ helpers like Pat and Chuck. Yeah, sure, you’re angry. But that was against me, before deanna got me off the hook.
It’s those women! Killing themselves! And we guys: “Sure sweetheart, do whatever you want. I’m out of it. Call me when you need me the next time. Course if you decide to keep it, don’t call me. Live as single mom for the rest of your life. Your daddy will help you.”
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Rogelio, what are those “misogynistic” cultural values that you think “choicers” support?
And Pat, I wanna post a pretty picture so that when I accidentally blog anonymously people will know it’s only me and my buddy Al Zheimer. How do I do that?
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 6:19 pm
read my post again, chuckles.
i didn’t say that choicers support misogynistic values.
i said that you are faced with it. quite a difference.
perhaps i should have been more clear?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:30 am
Don’t waste your time, Rog. When Chuck sees clarity, he buries it in aborticentrism (it’s taken me three years but I’ve finally learned to spell it(.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:40 am
I still can’t spell it….
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 2:04 am
*whispers*
because it’s not a real word
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 6:06 am
Oh, that’s not my question, rogelio. I perhaps should have phrased it better. What I want to know is, what are those misogynistic values?
By the way, was that really you who did that flaming post about a woman’s appearance???? I thought that maybe it was an impostor, it was so out of character. But I reminded myself: we all have our off days.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:19 am
I guess Chuck does get a little angry.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Wow, what a difference a few days make! I come back to the exact same nonsense that caused me to start commenting on this site in the first place, and about the same people, Deanna and Kate! Thank you aborticentrism for opening this door. I know we’ve moved on to a new article, but I refuse to let something from the previous article and comments stand unchallenged:
Roglio: As I said above, I started commenting here because of the blow up between Kate and Deanna and the garbage slinging going on. At that time I also looked at the Deanna links and personal information that KATE posted. I too saw the picture you are talking about. In fact, I spent a lot of time looking at her site as well as the site of her family members that KATE posted. THAT is why I started posting, BECAUSE Kate posted that personal information. No, there was no phone number, but posting her husband’s FULL name as well as her home town, is the same. All a nut needs after that is the phone book. Someone on here mentioned that you sit on the fence. After post #70 of yours, I believe that you are not a fence sitter at all, but a pro-choice poser, and not a Christian or a pro-lifer at all. If you were a Christian and yet misguided in your attempts to correct Deanna, then okay. Buy you lied. The picture was of her sitting down with a child in her lap. She could have had on a tutu and no one could tell. I saw NO inappropriate pictures of her at all. Or of her family for that matter. I saw a group of WELL dressed women at a baby shower. There was nothing there that would have even been up for debate among people highly conservative in their manner of dress. So the only conclusion I can come to is that you lied, which makes you a liar. You also threw cross dressing into the mix, and made fun of her hair and makeup, AFTER quoting many scriptures. No, that isn’t a Christian to me. Correcting a fellow Christian out of concern for them is one thing, even if you are wrong, but making fun of someone right after quoting scriptures, deliberately trying to cast doubts as to her sexual orientation, as well as bald faced lying about the picture, produced your true colors and fake identity. It’s very convenient for you since the information has now been removed. There is no reason for you to “go after” another pro-lifer as you have unless you are Kate in disguise, or another pro-choicer. It’s sad that we can’t have real discussions about real issues that we agree or disagree about without liars and posers like you mucking it up for all of us. At least Deanna and Kate put their true selves out there. All you pro-choicers on here who think you’ve found in Rogelio the ONE pro-lifer who is always fair and rational need to go back to vilifying ALL of us, ‘cause it ain’t so. Rogelio, I leave you will this: God says not to lie. It’s one of the commandments. He also says not to judge. I’ll refrain from quoting book, chapter and verse. I’m sure you can find them. And before the rest of you accuse me of judging Rogelio, I saw the pictures and both sites. I KNOW that he is lying. That is no more judging that calling him a thief if I walked in the room and caught him with his hand in my wallet.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 7:00 am
What in the world are you rambling ad nauseum about? You want real discussion yet what you write is incoherent. You obviously have a lot of issues from the past that you want to address but instead throw them out on this blog using what appears to be a mind dump.
From the way you write, I’m guessing you hold a high opinion of yourself, especially your morality. But I’m also seeing evidence, in your mutterings, that suggests a person who is quick to judge. Being saintly is tough.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:10 am
Kate, this is the second or third time you’ve not been able to understand what I’ve written. Go back and read it slowly, a word at a time, and that will help.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm
i forgive you, nun ya 🙂
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 4:57 am
Chuck might bury clarity in aborticentrism, but Kate buries it in hate.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“What in the world are you rambling ad nauseum about?” Now that’s projection, Kate. You’re the only one it’s making sick. And it should! At times I think you’ve succeeded in removing your humanity entirely, but then this happens. There’s still hope.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 5:46 pm
to value males over females to the point of aborting the females because they are female is misogynist.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 8:50 pm
It’s also a sociological mistake. Studies have shown that societies where men outnumber women significantly are far more prone to violence both domestically and internationally.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Rogelio, if I need forgiveness, I’ll let you know.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:31 am
>>>Rogelio, if I need forgiveness, I’ll let you know.<<<
jajajajajaja
it is already given,whether you ask for it or not.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:39 am
Charles, I haven’t the foggiest idea how to do that! I’m lucky I can post my own blogs sometimes 🙂
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:38 am
Rogie, but I do not support those cultures that value boys over girls. I find it repulsive. But that is their culture and if they want to abort because it’s a girl, I dont think we should prohibit it. But, like I said, the issue is generally moot anyway, no?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Pat, you posted a pic here titled “Emotional Terrorists” that was plainly recognizable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of current events to be the lunatic Westboro Baptist Church gang. Generically labeling it doesn’t change the fact that this article addresses the issue of pro-life people being terrorists or not. I am pro-life, and I take great offense at your obvious attempt to sway readers in their thinking by linking that picture to the pro-life movement. If you are secure in your pro-choice stance, why the need for such tactics? That picture is from ONE church of severely misguided people whom I have personally joined in protesting against as they threatened to picket the funeral of a young soldier in our town. Oh hell no. On the off chance that you randomly picked a photo off the internet with no research whatsoever and had no idea, that severely limits your credibility in my opinion.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 5:43 pm
So, should Pat have posted the macabre rendering of the cobbled-together poster child for the prolifers known as Malachi? The majority of the protesters in Allentown embrace mulitple copy/past versions of this butchered fetus. Even though there is NO ethical, reliable information about this pile of fetal flesh, these protesters peddle it the exact same way they do with their images of the Virgin Guadalupe and euthanized monkeys and “baby road kill”! They have NO ethical qualms about propagating information in which they have no personal investment.
I believe that anyone using pictures like that are “severely misguided”
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 7:02 pm
Don’t change the subject Kate.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 7:05 am
How is this changing the subject? Too close to home for you? Recognize your own behaviors? Eating your own words tastes bad?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:48 am
Well good grief Kate, can’t you understand ANYTHING I write? I specifically commented about the picture of a group of people who picket the funerals of soldiers, among other things, and pointed out that it has nothing to do with the pro-life movement. This is a valid point since the article was specifically about pro-lifers. You then ignored that and deflected the attention back to…wait…yes, I do see your point! Holding posters was mentioned in both your comment and mine, so by a great stretch of the imagination we can make both be on subject. I see now that your comment was totally on point with the context of mine.
As for recognizing my own behavior, again, without a contextual link from your comment to my original one… I got nothing.
As for eating my own words, let me give you some facts to help you out, since I hate seeing you wallow around in the mire of projection and judgment. Since I was old enough to have understanding, I have wanted truth in my life. Faith was actually hard for me, because there is not definitive “proof”. But God is the only thing that makes logical sense to me, when you look at all the theories out there about the existence of man. So I do not eat words, I either stick to truth as I know it, or admit I’m wrong and start walking in the new truth presented to me, if it is truth. So far that hasn’t happened on this blog, or in all the ya yaing back and forth with you.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:26 am
Kate, according to Pat, he doesn’t post the pictures.
And yes, posting a picture of real pro-life protesters holding posters of Malachi, (which I had to research to see what you were referring to), would have been an accurate portrayal. The picture posted has absolutely nothing to do with this site or the pro-life movement, and I still believe that whomever posted it did it deliberately.
“multiple copy/past versions?” From what I read, Malachi was buried years ago, so there can be no new versions. Don’t you do your research?
Glad you admitted he was butchered.
“NO ethical, reliable information…” I’m sure the story can be checked out with the town where it happened, since the town leadership was involved, according to what I read. That would be a good project to help you learn to research…check out the Malachi story and refute it with the facts.
“pile of fetal flesh…” I’m getting a much clearer picture of you Kate.
“They have NO ethical qualms about propagating information in which they have no personal investment.” I can’t speak to this statement or I will be projecting, possibly judging.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
NunYa, I’ve done the research so let me share:
Background: Regarding Malachi, there are multiple renderings that have obviously been photoshopped. Some have varying shades of colors, limbs that aren’t necessarily matching. Malachi was allegedly found in a jar with 3 others fetal bodies in a Dallas clinic. So we this fetus at the alleged 21 week gestation along with three others. There is no record which parts belong to which body; thus, the comment about a pile of fetal flesh. There is No record about whether this fetus was a stillborn or a result of an abortion. The separated limbs make it suspicious. You cannot say it was butchered, literally; it just looks as if it has been because of the conditions of the remains. The prolifers use the image to allege that this fetus tells the truth about abortion. In fact, it tells us very little (see above). What we have found is that the image is floating around on truth trucks, in professional and amateur pamphlets, in posters and banners. We have found in recent unpublished qualitative research that women at abortion clinics are offended by the image and with the person who shoves it in her face. Additionally, parents with young children resent these images in locations where their children travel or play or live.
Summary:
The iconic Malachi, a grotesque image of a fetal body, capitalizes on the monstrous to shock viewers through images of the horror of death and dismemberment, of distorted bodies, and of human anomalies. Regardless of the egregious misrepresentation that Malachi may be, pro-life activists use this iconic photograph to compel the public to see how they view abortion as a threat to moral order, how abortion shows a world gone horribly wrong.
The acontextualized imagery of Malachi, a dismembered and mutilated fetus, however, offers only an image. The image never tells the whole story, never offers evidence of accuracy and never offers statistics that tell the public about the fact that 99% of abortions are completed in the first trimester where the fetus is barely recognizable as a human. Protesters who use this iconography, manifest a three-fold assault on the human psyche through the use of the grotesque image of Malachi as a pointed assault on human sensibilities of life, on cultural expectations of childhood, and on the symbolic denial of procreation. But such an assault on human sensibilities can fail. Researchers suggest that those who assault with gruesome images can be accused of indecency to young and old, insensitivity to those whom they seek to aid and overemphasis of the rights of the fetus while disregarding the rights of the woman.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:27 am
I always wonder why pro-abortion activists are afraid of those pictures that do nothing but show the truth of what abortion does. If they are horrible then abortion is horrible. What would you prefer? That we hold signs that show fully formed perfect born babies? If we did it would be a lie because abortion prevents that from happening. If you are going to be a proponent of something at least admit what you are doing. Baby Malachi is the results of what you want. Face IT! When you see the next picture of baby Malachi think this thought to yourself, “I caused that.” because YOU are the cause of it!
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Malachi is a lie.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:09 am
So Malachi had a bad day? As Lenny Bruce put it, “Bobby Franks was a snot.” Get off your butt, voice, and head to an adoption agency.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:38 am
From the Pro-choice Propaganda Training Manual, Volume 3, Page 196, number 12.
“When pro-lifers show pictures of a dead fetus immediately divert attention away by claiming said photo is altered. Do not under any circumstances validate that it is in fact a dead baby. If this fails divert attention by accusing pro-lifer of not adopting. You obviously will not know if they have adopted or not but it doesn’t matter. The goal is not truth but diversion. Remember diversion is our weapon of choice.”
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 8:58 am
Nunya, just to clarify I do not post any pictures on this blog. I would not have the foggiest idea how to do that. It is some administrator that is going that. Apology forthcoming?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:13 am
Absolutely. I apologize to you Pat, and I am glad that it wasn’t you. Now you should let the administrator know that his blog is posting pictures of a group that pickets the funerals of soldiers. I know they love the publicity, so I wouldn’t give it to them for love or money.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 5:46 pm
so you just support the result of those values?
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Oh,forget kids.
Remember, dogs and cats are better than kids because they:
(1) eat less,
(2) don’t ask for money all the time,
(3) are easier to train,
(4) normally come when called,
(5) never ask to drive the car or use your computer
(6) don’t smoke or drink,
(7) don’t want to wear your clothes,
(8) don’t have to buy the latest fashions,
(9) don’t need a gazillion dollars for college and
(10) if they get pregnant, you can sell their children ….
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Do you have children?
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm
Are you against children or you are for women’s choice?
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 8:24 pm
Melissa,
I have two highly successful daughters who are very self-directed. I’m very much in favor of their own decisions–pro daughters.
I also have three grandchildren who benefit immensely by the love and support of their open-minded great, grandmothers,
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:37 am
Is that “open-minded, great, grandmothers,” or “open-minded great- grandmothers”? And Kate, please respond to Rog’s #6.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:01 am
Kate, Kudos for raising two successful daughters. I too give my grandchildren the love and support they need. So do the two pro-lifers I am with have a family they love. You have never seen any references to yours on this blog or anywhere that I know of. So please refrain from all the unkind remarks made about them. They are also well educated and taught values by their family. I have had my share of grief and I cannot compare to you and your list of accomplishments. We have different opinions but one thing we share, we are mothers and grandmothers. So why oh why can’t we behave like it. Talked to my niece the other day and she is for abortion. She repeated word for word all that I hear every day. Even brought rape up. She is for choice and so we disagree. I will ask her thou, why is a rape baby less valuable then a baby born out of love?
Kathleen Rose
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:42 am
You know, Melissa, you can be FOR children, as I am and FOR choice as well. Just because you support the right of a woman to have a safe abortion procedure does not mean that you hate children. Do you support the war in Afghanistan? If so, do you hate people?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 1:05 pm
So does that apply to prolifers too? Just because you support the right of a fetus to have a safe birth experience does not meant that you hate women?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:17 pm
NunYa, you are actually putting a fetus (which might be at risk of dying from an abortion) at risk for dying a much slower and far more painful death when you support its right to existence without ensuring that it will have everything else it needs to make it to a happy (not pleasant or pleasurable, but happy in the classical Socratic definition of the term) adulthood. Because she has no answer to it, Deanna hated my bringing up the classic example–Ted Bundy. He grew up to kill at least 35 and possibly as many as 61 young women. You would be a true “pro-lifer” if you undertake to raise to adulthood the fetus whose existence you champion, rather than abandoning him to the risk of becoming the next Ted Bundy.
Deanna won’t do it if it involves sacrificing something she doesn’t want to; Dunkle never has and never will. You can be different.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 6:38 pm
Find a girl willing to birth her child rather than kill it and I’ll find it a home. I have several people in mind. I’m 53 and not willing to take on a newborn, but I can GUARANTEE you, if you brought a serious woman to me who was determined to abort, but was also willing to birth it and no one would adopt it, I would adopt and raise that child. Not only that, I would love it. I would also adopt any child brought to me with the choice of adopt it or kill it. You guys use that argument as if women are begging prolifers in droves to adopt their children, prolifers are refusing, so the women have no choice but to abort. I know women trying to find infants to adopt. One of my best friends would have adopted an infant in a second. Those 25,000 in New York are either not infants, or something else is going on. But yes, if you can find a woman willing to birth that baby and give it to me, I will find it a loving home or keep it myself. I doubt you can prove your theory with any factual evidence. Bring us the proof that women everywhere are trying their best to get prolifers to adopt their babies rather than having abortions. Bring the proof that our “insistence” that they birth their children is actually causing births to happen. You don’t see that many adoptions because the women are barely allowed to speak to the counselors on the street as they are being “escorted” inside, because the CPC’s, all of them, good and bad alike, are vilified, because Planned Parenthood spends billions soliciting their business. No, I’m sorry, but your argument does not hold water and has no factual proof at all. These babies aren’t being adopted by the pro-life community because they are dying in the abortion clinics.
Is there a parent for every unwanted child out there? I have no idea, I know that gay couples are adopting now, singles are adopting, older people are adopting. A percentage of these babies would get adopted rather than killed, and a percentage of the mothers would change their minds once the babies were born and gladly decide to keep them, a percentage would be taken in and raised by relatives, a percentage would end up in the system to be raised and or adopted by foster parents, a percentage may languish in and age out of the system, but I can’t imagine it would be a very large percentage, because there is a high demand for infants. But to give ultimate “right” to the woman over another person’s life or death without even so much as a passing stab at educating her in prevention rather than cure, personal responsibility rather than blanket approval? You call that progress and enlightenment?
And from the very little I know of Ted Bundy, he was illegitimate, but loved by his mother, though he thought she was his sister. His grandfather raised him, and was violent and sadistic. I would venture to say that that is the reason he turned into a serial killer, not because he was “unwanted” and no abortion was available. Being unwanted would suck for sure, but there are many more variables that lead to becoming a sociopath. Which reminds me, did anyone respond to my comment concerning the fact that Kate and most pro choicers proclaim the “trustworthiness” and “respect” worthiness of these women aborting their babies, yet your biggest argument for abortion seems to be that these same women will then raise serial killers if no abortion is available to them?
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“NunYa, you are actually putting a fetus (which might be at risk of dying from an abortion) at risk for dying a much slower and far more painful death when you support its right to existence without ensuring that it will have everything else it needs to make it to a happy (not pleasant or pleasurable, but happy in the classical Socratic definition of the term) adulthood. Because she has no answer to it, Deanna hated my bringing up the classic ”
She answered it clearly. She hated your bringing it up, though, Chuck, because you kept repeating it even after she proved it to be one of the stupidest anti-life statements ever made.
LikeLike
August 29, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Oops, left this out of Chuck’s quote: “example–Ted Bundy.”
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:54 am
How sad for your children to know that you feel this way about them. They must need extensive therapy. I cannot imagine a mother saying that dogs are better than her children or less of a bother.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm
voice Says:
August 24, 2011 at 10:54 am
How sad for your children . . .
OMG, do you not recognize the satire in the post? a bit of levity is in order, Gertrude?!!
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:12 pm
No so-called “pro-lifer” got the humor when I described what a “pro-choice” protest group could chant at a kindergarten drop-off site.
Face it: they’re highly focused. Too highly focused.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:21 am
or easily bored
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:56 am
satire RAWKS
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Pat, you wrote:
“That’s because the reality is that, if you pass a bill prohibiting sex selection abortions, a woman will simply go to the clinic and, in the very unlikely event that she is asked why she is having an abortion, she’ll just make up another reason.”
I can just hear outside abortion clinics everywhere, “Don’t kill your baby just because it’s a girl” or some other highly enlightened shout-out meant to invade a woman’s privacy.
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm
This woman invents my best stuff!
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm
But I’ll change it a little bit: “Don’t kill your baby just because she’s a girl.”
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:05 am
This reminds me of something that happened at the AWC, Kate’s home court. The deathscorts were elsewhere and when a woman walked breast cancer alley, I said softly, “Don’t let him kill your little girl.” She stoppred, turned, and said just as softly, “It’s a boy.”
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 6:04 am
You’ve mentioned this several times, John. It obviously made an impression on you. Perhaps she was aborting because it was a boy. Some women have preferences to raise daughters.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Thanks, Kate. I am getting old! I don;t remember mentioning it!
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm
EGADS. This would be even worse: What if science came up with a liberal gene (or a gene prone to cyber bullying) and no sooner than you can say “Abortion on demand – no apologies. Period” the dirty deed is done.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Well, the closest thing to what you describe is the Divine abortion, often mistaken for a delayed period. Although I don’t think as a rule that most women would like to experience Period on demand….
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 5:51 pm
The other thing: about so-called “pro-lifer” legislators passing symbolic but ineffective legislation that appears to ban abortion: While they would hope it would be effective, they will settle for the symbolism, because it is the symbolism that reassures them that they are fighting an heroic fight. They are so wrapped up in their self-declared crusade that they don’t realize that they look like an ass when they legislate such drivel. Nor do they mind looking like that. Passion triumphs over all else!
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Chuck is expanding from, “we can kill young people because Dunkle and his ilk are sick” to “we can kill young people because all politicians and their constituants who want to stop us are sick.”
LikeLike
August 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm
You know there’s sex selection and then there’s sex selection. Some roll the dice and say, “Hey, we got one of each. That’s enough.” and then there’s the pitiful female slave who said, “Oh, my God, daughter number six.” She was a miserably tired woman, working night shift at Osteopathic Hospital, believing that her role was to bear whatever “God” (aka The Magic Sperm Donor) gave her. He was pissed. HE wanted a boy. Too bad HE didn’t have the right BOY toys.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 7:03 am
And there was the minister’s wife who showed me their baby #11; her husband was going for 12 so he could call his kids his Apostles. . . Her reaction? She was a minister’s wife, dutiful, repressed and depressed. I guess in Tennessee this is normal.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:22 am
I wanted baseball but my wife insisted that it be a basketball team.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:45 am
You’re right, Chuck. Most of this stuff is pure bull. They are catering to the National Right to Life Committee (and pro-choicers cater to NARAL, etc). They are all eager to bolster their standing in those communities then come election time, bam, can I have a contribution? Remember how I sponsored that bill on sex selection abortions? I am a true hero to you, no?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:24 pm
Pat, their actual pitch is not to people concerned about human life, but to people who need to vent. Venting against abortion is in its dysfunctional way a great form of therapy. All the spleen they have built up from stressful family life, lousy jobs, money worries, blacks moving into the neighborhood, music they don’t understand any more that kids play… So, some candidate comes along and encourages them to act in opposition to something they hate, they vote for him. And then in office he cuts their Social Seurity, bleeds their Medicaid, destroys their schools, and shifts their tax money to the richest in the nation! And they are so wrapped in bitterness and vindictiveness that they never understand what he just did…
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 9:23 am
This whole thing is ridiculous. It is obvious that women are aborting too much in this country and they should be held accountable. What is it now, you can go have sex and not be careful and if you get pregnant you will just take care of it.
It is ridiculous what some organizations say, that it is about the women’s choice when for them is clearly about the money.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 11:02 am
thanks for your comments, Madabout… How should women be held “accountable” when they have an abortion or sex or whatever? What about the men? Do they share any responsibility?
Play this one out for me….
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Well Pat, do you think it is a responsible thing to get pregnant as many times as you are not careful and kill or in other words abort?
In this country parents go to jail for not paying child support but a woman can just get away with the child she doesn’t want.
It seems weird to me that’s all. Women should not be able to simply get an abortion whenever for whatever reason.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 2:26 pm
MadAbout: What will the children of those women need? Will you provide it?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:20 pm
I wouldn’t provide s@#%& they should be more careful and not get pregnant as much. Laws should be in place to avoid this kind of behavior.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“this kind of behavior”? meaning having sex? a woman and a man? only the woman should be more careful? not the man?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:04 am
Mad about is right. People should be more careful, they should not take risks (smoking, unprotected sex, no seat belt, etc.) So, are you saying that if they take that risk and become pregnant, they need to pay the price by being forced to have a child?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm
They’ve already got the child, Pat. That’s not their choice anymore. Now they’re faced with this choice: should we get her murdered or should we let her live.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:19 pm
how charitable of you
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:08 am
It’s OK to be clever, Rog — if you’re clever.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Loads of parents do NOT go to jail for failing to pay child support. Your statement is simply false. What is true that the majority of parents who are obligated to pay child support are men. And a disgraceful number of them don’t or pay sporadically.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:02 am
Mad about: are there any times when you would support an abortion? And, trust me, women do not just “simply” get an abortion. It is a very sad, emotional, difficult decision. Surely, someone in your family or your circle of friends has had an abortion. Ask them how they felt. It is not a “fun” situation to be in…
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:43 pm
I am sure it isn’t fun but society is trying to make it normal and completely OK in any circumstance and it isn’t. I am not saying that we should wipe all the abortions out but it can become a day to day thing.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I will Pat. The God that none of you believe in teaches us to act responsibility, to love each other, and to save sex for marriage, which should be a life long commitment. We should put ourselves last and lay down our lives for each other. We should basically lead lives that exemplify the Golden Rule. We should stop sinning (doing the opposite of those things) and give up our own lives and rights and serve Jesus, who lived that life. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it not so. Because most Christians don’t live it and sully His name doesn’t make it not so. When we threw out God we threw out morality. WE aren’t SUPPOSED to have to hold others accountable, we are supposed to hold our own selves accountable. Since most people don’t, God asks us TO hold accountable those who don’t conform to his image, which is love, no matter how much others try to deny that. We fall FAR short as Christians, but so does everyone. I see very few people of any ilk living truly selfless lives, do you? So that has led to this miry clay of abortion, where now that slippery slope has led us to women taking NO responsibility for their sexual behavior other than the quick fix after the fact, and soon able to abort “undesirable” children. Since minorities ARE minorities, I envision that world of tall, blond, blue eyed people in the very near future. Margaret Sanger must be dancing in her grave.
“Sanger claimed that birth control advocates and eugenics advocates shared a common goal of “assisting the race toward the elimination of the ‘unfit'”. While Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve that goal.” Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Betterment. Birth Control Review. p. 11-12. http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth%20Control%20Review/1919-02%20February.pdf
.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:08 am
Nunya: I respect your complete devotion to your God and your religion. And I support your right to practice it without any governmental interference. Indeed, there are times when I wish I could have the kind of faith in a God that you have, but I simply don’t (I”m a former Catholic).
But this is a country of many, many different faiths as you well know. And what bothers me is that you want to impose your faith, your Bible, your God on others. And I know other religions try to do the same. I just does not seem right…
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Pat, I do understand, and I’m an advocate for freedom in all areas. Jesus himself taught that we can choose to follow him or not, and if we don’t, it’s our choice if we spend eternity away from him. I believe that my religion is the truth, and the God I know and love is worthy of our devotion, and I want everyone to know Him, because he fills that void in all of us. You can’t know that without knowing him. It takes a leap of faith to get there, but he always meets us there. I am sorry that your experience wasn’t good. I am not a Catholic but I know there are abuses there, and in all religions and denominations. There are also abuses among atheists, agnostics, and employees at the local grocery store. I hope you don’t base much of your belief or lack thereof on what you see in humans. But its US, not God that is the problem. I am a good, loving parent, and I raised my children well. But if one of them chooses to behave badly, they made that choice. It’s the same with us and God.
Where I have the problem is when a religion interferes with the rights of others. You can choose to be Muslim all day long. But when you fly your plane into my building, your freedom has just infringed on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do you really believe that being pro-life equals a “psychosis” Pat? I have a big problem with obviously educated people on here like Kate and Aborticentrism trying to depict people who still believe in God as psychotic, and believing in NOT killing what we all know and admit are baby humans as a “syndrome”. Does Martin Luther fit that mold? Billy Graham? Martin Luther King?
I can defend my beliefs without trying to defame you in any way. The fact that most liberal pro-choicers I’ve encountered aren’t secure enough in what they believe to stand on it alone is very revealing.
I am plain spoken, and I will discuss this issue all day long with serious people who honestly want the other perspective. I will also give tit for tat with people who seem to just be spoiling for a fight. Despite that, I do give much latitude to others because God gives much latitude to me. He has given me compassion and understanding of even the Kates of the world, even though they need to be put in time out occasionally. It’s not done vindictively at all, if you can believe that, but it’s the truth. People like that hurt your cause just as poorly behaved Christians hurt God’s cause.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm
>>>Does Martin Luther fit that mold?<<<
let's see….
a monk gets pissy at corruption, so he starts his own religion, tosses out 7 books of the bible when revelations clearly states not to, breaks his vow of celibacy and marries a nun who breaks hers to marry him, writes a scathing book entitles "on the jews and their lies", creating an anti-semetic atmosphere throughout europe that set the stage for the holocaust.
que TE parence?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:28 am
“a monk gets pissy at corruption . . .” — I thought that was constipation!
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:11 am
“(I”m a former Catholic).” There are no former Catholics, Pat. Baptism is permanent. You’re a Catholic on vacation.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 10:45 pm
I got tired of waiting. I took off the link, so Pat, when you see the one for moderation, you can just delete it.
NunYa Says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm
I will Pat. The God that none of you believe in teaches us to act responsibility, to love each other, and to save sex for marriage, which should be a life long commitment. We should put ourselves last and lay down our lives for each other. We should basically lead lives that exemplify the Golden Rule. We should stop sinning (doing the opposite of those things) and give up our own lives and rights and serve Jesus, who lived that life. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it not so. Because most Christians don’t live it and sully His name doesn’t make it not so. When we threw out God we threw out morality. WE aren’t SUPPOSED to have to hold others accountable, we are supposed to hold our own selves accountable. Since most people don’t, God asks us TO hold accountable those who don’t conform to his image, which is love, no matter how much others try to deny that. We fall FAR short as Christians, but so does everyone. I see very few people of any ilk living truly selfless lives, do you? So that has led to this miry clay of abortion, where now that slippery slope has led us to women taking NO responsibility for their sexual behavior other than the quick fix after the fact, and soon able to abort “undesirable” children. Since minorities ARE minorities, I envision that world of tall, blond, blue eyed people in the very near future. Margaret Sanger must be dancing in her grave.
“Sanger claimed that birth control advocates and eugenics advocates shared a common goal of “assisting the race toward the elimination of the ‘unfit’”. While Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve that goal.” Sanger, Margaret (1919). Birth Control and Racial Betterment. Birth Control Review. p. 11-12.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 10:47 pm
It was in reply to your call to “play this one out for me”.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:09 am
Sorry folks about replies taking too long to come up or stuff awaiting moderation, etc., etc. I really am not the technical person behind all of this stuff. I just write my stuff and that’s about it…Again, sorry….
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 2:07 pm
I guess I sounded rude when I wasn’t trying to be, I just had referenced that waiting comment a couple of times and realized no one knew what I was talking about, lol, so I posted it without the link.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:54 am
>>>I guess I sounded rude when I wasn’t trying to be<<<
i GUESS.
some things just come naturally.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:32 am
Geeze! What did you say, NY, that got Rog going! I know deanna;’s great “fence” remark “did her in”; so you must have said something pretty good.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 8:40 pm
I caught Rogelio in a lie and pointed it out. It’s okay though, he/she forgave me.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:30 pm
>>>>I caught Rogelio in a lie and pointed it out. It’s okay though, he/she forgave me.<<<<
JAJAJAJAJAJAJA
there was no lie on my part.
i simply made it a point to show that people who make it a point to cast stones run the risk of running into someone with bigger stones than they have.
hence, you have been caught in a series of lies.
but i forgive you for that as well, nunnypoo. 🙂
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:01 pm
Rogelio:
I know you are but what am I?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:25 pm
And by the way Rogelio, your snide remark AFTER “forgiving” me was perfect. But let’s call a truce. We’ve had our childish little fun, not let’s move on.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Don’t know why that showed up as anonymous.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:40 pm
>>>Rogelio:
I know you are but what am I?<<<
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 12:08 am
>>>And by the way Rogelio, your snide remark AFTER “forgiving” me was perfect. <<<
jajajajajaja
i said i forgive you, and i did and i do.
i didn't, however say at any point that i would kiss your ass.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 12:11 am
>>>But let’s call a truce. We’ve had our childish little fun, not let’s move on.<<<
mujer, a truce would require some sort of fight going on. if there was a conflict, you were in it alone, because i wasn't fighting.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:15 am
Looks as if you’re right, NY. Rog does have a problem with truth.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Some guy in Texas said he was taught that sex is a dirty, vile and disgusting thing that he was supposed to save for his wedding night….. God has a sense of humor. I don’t think we should rely on His word on very many things. After all, He did write Ecclesiastes IV, i-iii, which so-called “pro-lifers” don’t pay much attention to.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 5:43 pm
but we believe that the unborn exist
great passage, though
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 8:47 pm
One of the very first concepts I learned in my first philosophy class was potentiality. The prof described the potential of a drop of water: It could be this; it could be that; it could be those; it could be this other; it could be anything. Potentially it could be almost anything.
But actually, it’s just a drop of water.
Ditto for fetuses.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:25 am
>>>One of the very first concepts I learned in my first philosophy class was potentiality.<<<
i wasn't referring to potentiality. that is so vague. many people are born and never reach their potential.
i am referring to existence
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:37 am
Rog, potency and existence depend on what Chuck wants. If he wants ’em dead, they’re “potentials”; if wants ’em alive, they exist.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:15 am
It’s inferring that “unborn” somehow possess a greater reality than that they are organisms in a very early stage of development. “Unborn” has been freighted with misleading imagery. You say “unborn,” and I think “earthworm.”
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Earthworm! At least stick with humanoid!
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:15 pm
>>>It’s inferring that “unborn” somehow possess a greater reality than that they are organisms in a very early stage of development. <<<
but chuckles, people can find implications wherever they choose to, even if on was never intended.
for example:
"I really am not the technical person behind all of this stuff."
HOW DARE YOU IMPLY THAT MY MOTHER IS A WHORE, PAT!?!?
see how easy that was?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Ah, but WHY they draw those inferences, that’s where we find the Dirty Little Secret…..
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:25 pm
>>>Ah, but WHY they draw those inferences, that’s where we find the Dirty Little Secret…..<<<
JAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Nunya says in regard to a woman caught by her abusive husband in the pregnancy trap: “I imagine those children were the only bright spots in her 15 years with him, unless she hates them and is sorry they were born.”
***
She fantasizes both ways about the children; interesting….
then: “I bet they are glad to be here too, even if they had a hard life.”
****
Everybody’s glad at the limbic level to be alive. You have to work hard to find someone who is so addled that they would accept dying. Even one guy thought as he jumped off the Golden Gate bridge: ‘I could have solved every problem in my life. Except this one.” (He survived.)
Using the common preference to be alive rather than dead is a great escape device for so-called “pro-lifers.” It gives them the argument that fetuses want to live.
Nunya continues: “I don’t say that without compassion, as you know, I worked with these women.”
*****
But not with the born baby for the next eighteen years.
Nunya says: “I’m just saying that you guys are using every excuse in the book to justify the killing of the unborn, and most of them have nothing to do with a woman’s rights, but her preferences.”
*****
Does she not remember I had spent almost three decades working with children whose abortions I had never advocated, and that I have never advocated anyone choose abortion? That I was a friggin’ single parent for fourteen years (no bimbo in the household to do what I had to do for myself)? That I expect her to stop focusing on death and focus on her responsibility to life? Aborticentrism works like that in their minds; they can’t get past accusing “pro-choicers” of choosing death and discuss what everybody should be doing: supporting the life they want to bring to fulfillment.
Evidently so-called pro-lifers just can’t wrap their minds around the idea of helping a life reach fulfillment. It’s too long and arduous a task for them. They are mired in their imagery of death, dismemberment, torture of women, butchered little baby bits; whores, welfare mammas, killing, vice, depravity– and they can’t care what happens to real children whom they insisted be born. Talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
We need a Safe Haven law that will allow postpartum women to place their baby in the household of the so-called “pro-lifer” of their choice, to be raised by that party without using government assistance.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Who are you and why am I supposed to remember your life story? I am truly truly sorry that your experience raising your child was so horrific and such a burden for you. I assume from your post that your child itself was no reward to you for all your sacrifices. Are you saying that you are sorry you didn’t abort your child?
As for my statements about what I “imagined” being called fantasy, I have to assume you are either deliberately grasping at straws by trying to make my clear and deliberate statements sound “off”, or you are simply uneducated and therefore can’t understand my choice of words in the context of my entire statement. In the spirit of community I will assume the latter and help you out:
i·mag·ine (-mjn)
1. To form a mental picture or image of.
2. To think; conjecture: I imagine you’re right.
3. To have a notion of or about without adequate foundation; fancy: She imagines herself to be a true artist.
1. To employ the imagination.
2. To make a guess; conjecture.
fan·ta·size
1. to conceive fanciful or extravagant notions, ideas, suppositions, or the like (often followed by about ): to fantasize about the ideal job.
2. to create in one’s fancy, daydreams, or the like; imagine: to fantasize a trip through space.
I hope this helps!
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 9:05 pm
Oh, and as for your comment about us “insisting” that these babies be born (which keeps cropping up and is a common argument) I state again: if our insistence is producing babies, then I heartily insist! Birth those babies women, I strenuously insist! Yours and aborticentrisms arguments that we WON’T adopt them can’t be proved. Many women HAVE changed their minds and given their babies up for adoption, and don’t regret their choice. And people HAVE adopted them. Pro-lifers aren’t the only people on the planet capable of adopting. I have never heard of any woman who did this that is now grieving her choice and wishing she had aborted the child instead, have you? In fact, though there are cases of abuse among adoptive parents, (as well as among two-parent families with “wanted” children) I would venture to state that a “chosen” child is a well loved child and in no danger of becoming the next Ted Bundy. Had Ted Bundy been adopted by a loving family would he have turned out differently? You should stop touting your ‘pro-lifers won’t adopt’ theory since it has no basis in fact, no matter how much you “INSIST” it does.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:53 am
>>>I have never heard of any woman who did this that is now grieving her choice and wishing she had aborted the child instead, have you?<<<
yes
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 8:45 pm
If there is a woman out there who gave her child up for adoption and now wishes she had killed it, I’d say that she has serious emotional problems, and also that that is a blessed child that isn’t being raised by her, and wasn’t killed by her.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:23 pm
that sounds similar to what i have heard some choicers say about those of us who regret our abortion experience.
not all of them say that, but i have heard that a number of times.
putting a baby up for adoption is an extreme just as abortion is.
there are people who regret putting a baby up for adoption, just as there are people who regret abortion.
there are also people who don’t regret putting a baby up for adoption,just as there are people who don’t regret abortion.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:12 pm
My reference wasn’t about regretting putting it up for adoption, it was about regretting putting it up for adoption RATHER than aborting it. But you know that.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Ok, I’m on my phone, so my posts are showing up as anonymous. Thus is Nunya.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 12:22 am
>>>My reference wasn’t about regretting putting it up for adoption, it was about regretting putting it up for adoption RATHER than aborting it. But you know that.<<<
yes,i do.
but choicers see abortion differently than lifers do.
when i was pro-choice, i saw abortion differently.
i also have never given a baby up for adoption,so i don't know how that feels,muchless the regret that some women who have done so have expressed to me.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:21 am
Well, Rog, unlike Abraham you killed your son. And you know how that feels. Could giving him up for adoption have been worse?
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Nunya says in thread #7: “Find a girl willing to birth her child rather than kill it and I’ll find it a home. I have several people in mind. I’m 53 and not willing to take on a newborn, but I can GUARANTEE you, if you brought a serious woman to me who was determined to abort, but was also willing to birth it and no one would adopt it, I would adopt and raise that child.”
*****
Notice how so-called “pro-lifers” always A) insist on conditions and B) promise to do in the future what they have usually not done in the past (which makes their claim suspect).
I never in my five years with the local parent-chiild center, in my additional 22 years working one-on-one with needy kids and in my para work in low-income neighborhoods met a woman who would admit to me that she wanted someone to adopt her child. I did not have the credibility to expect any woman to confess to me that not only did she not want her child, but nobody else wanted it either. So, the condition she sets excludes her from ever actually having to adopt.
She continues: “Not only that, I would love it. I would also adopt any child brought to me with the choice of adopt it or kill it.”
****
Notice that she doesn’t call up the adoption agency and take on a needy child; she stakes out the role of the rescuer from death certain. She serves her own needs rather than those of the child. There is a name for this focus on abortion which is so great as to exclude care for real human life. I forget the term…
Nunya says: “You guys use that argument as if women are begging prolifers in droves to adopt their children, prolifers are refusing, so the women have no choice but to abort.”
***
We do not.
Nunya: “I know women trying to find infants to adopt. One of my best friends would have adopted an infant in a second. Those 25,000 in New York are either not infants, or something else is going on.”
****
Note: SHE is not trying to adopt, and it doesn’t strike her as somewhat less than truly focusing on the child’s needs that the couples seek an infant only.
Nunya: ” I doubt you can prove your theory with any factual evidence. . . .. Bring the proof that our “insistence” that they birth their children is actually causing births to happen.
****
Legislation from the so-called “pro-life” crowd has forced abortions to be restricted to only two clinics in Arizona: LPN’s are now not permitted to perform abortions in Arizona. That’s the direct result of “insistence.” How about North Dakota, Nebraska, or any of the other states that tried to pass restrictions? So-called “pro-lifers” don’t limit their “insistence” to sidewalk demonstrations.
Nunya: “Is there a parent for every unwanted child out there?”
****
There is not. Fully 30% of the children born are “unwanted,” but most of them are tolerated by their parents, who do parenting jobs ranging from abominable to admirable. In my state, for every ten kids reported to the authorities, only three get removed from the household. How much do you trust your government? In addition, with only 160,000 kids adopted every year, an additional 1.2 million babies on the market would result in the need for orphanages. Does Roumania ring a bell?
INunYa: “But to give ultimate “right” to the woman over another person’s life or death . . .”
****
She has to construe the fetus as a person. Not a person she would have to pay taxes to maintain, not a person who might steal her newspaper every morning, not a person who would buy the mango she wanted. Just a “person” with a life that she is going to defend, but not take care of.
NunYa is right about the variables that factor into the making of a sociopath. There are many. But the factors that predispose a child to an inhuman life are very few. She’s not going to let that get in the way of her passion. Better to have children born to a life of wasted opportunity, crippling ignorance and devastating poverty than that she should talk to the local adoption agency.
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Well okay Responsible, let’s have at it. First of all, I stand corrected, you are rather well educated after all. That post was an excellent smoke screen! Let me see if I can clear the smoke a little. We’ll prolly lose everyone with these loonnng comments, but I’ll hang in there if you will. Just to keep things straight in our minds I’ll type my new comments in all caps.
1. Nunya says in thread #7: “Find a girl willing to birth her child rather than kill it and I’ll find it a home. I have several people in mind. I’m 53 and not willing to take on a newborn, but I can GUARANTEE you, if you brought a serious woman to me who was determined to abort, but was also willing to birth it and no one would adopt it, I would adopt and raise that child.”
*****
Notice how so-called “pro-lifers” always A) insist on conditions and B) promise to do in the future what they have usually not done in the past (which makes their claim suspect). A.)YES, THE CONDITION OF BEING PREGNANT AND GIVING ME THE CHOICE OF ADOPTING IT OR HER ABORTING IT WOULD PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO BE A CONDITION. I’M JUST SAYIN’…B.) I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THIS SAME STANCE, IN FACT WHEN I WAS YOUNG I VERY MUCH WANTED TO ADOPT AND BEGGED SEVERAL WOMEN TO LET ME ADOPT THEIR CHILD, YET THEY ABORTED INSTEAD. THEY AIN’T BEATIN’ OUR DOORS DOWN FOLKS.
I never in my five years with the local parent-chiild center, in my additional 22 years working one-on-one with needy kids and in my para work in low-income neighborhoods met a woman who would admit to me that she wanted someone to adopt her child. I did not have the credibility to expect any woman to confess to me that not only did she not want her child, but nobody else wanted it either. So, the condition she sets excludes her from ever actually having to adopt. YOU BELIEVE THEY DIDN’T WISH THEIR CHILDREN DEAD OR GONE BECAUSE YOU WEREN’T CREDIBLE ENOUGH? I WOULD IMAGINE (NOT FANTASIZE) THAT THE GREATEST WISH OF THOSE WOMEN WOULD BE TO SOMEHOW IMPROVE THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF BOTH THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN, NOT GIVE THEM AWAY SO THEY CAN LIVE IN SQUALOR CHILD FREE. MAYBE THEY DID NOT ADMIT IT BECAUSE IT WASN’T TRUE. OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT ALL LOW INCOME WOMEN WISH THEY DIDN’T HAVE CHILDREN. (EVEN IN CASES WHERE THAT IS TRUE, THEY KNOW WHAT PREVENTS IT)
She continues: “Not only that, I would love it. I would also adopt any child brought to me with the choice of adopt it or kill it.”
****
Notice that she doesn’t call up the adoption agency and take on a needy child; she stakes out the role of the rescuer from death certain. She serves her own needs rather than those of the child. There is a name for this focus on abortion which is so great as to exclude care for real human life. I forget the term…I CAN HEAR YOU, YOU KNOW. I DON’T KNOW THE TERM BECAUSE THE TERM BIGOTRY KEEPS RESOUNDING IN MY HEAD. I DIDN’T “STAKE OUT” ANYTHING. YOU GUYS KEEP PLAYING THE “THEY WON’T ADOPT CARD” AND I CALLED YOU ON IT. OF COURSE WE’VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT YOU ARE A PRETTY SAVVY PERSON, SO YOU KNOW THAT. I DON’T WANT TO ADOPT A CHILD, I WANT TO HELP MANY CHILDREN. THERE IS NOTHING ANY MORE WRONG WITH ME NOT WANTING TO ADOPT A CHILD THAN THERE IS YOU NOT WANTING TO. BUT I AM WILLING TO PUT MY MONEY WHERE MY MOUTH IS AND ADOPT A CHILD DOOMED TO DEATH IF THAT IS MY ONLY OPTION. TOO BAD THAT REALLY IS A FANTASY, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY AREN’T ASKING. WE ARE THOUGH. ALL OVER THE COUNTRY PRO-LIFERS ARE OUTSIDE CLINICS BEGGING TO ADOPT THOSE CONDEMNED INFANTS. BUT THAT IS ALSO FROWNED UPON BY YOU GUYS. ARE YOU WILLING TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP? WOULD YOU ADVISE A WOMAN WHO ASKED YOU TO ADOPT HER CHILD TO JUST KILL IT INSTEAD BECAUSE YOU AREN’T WILLING TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY? WHAT IF SHE BEGGED? THAT INNOCENT, RESPECTABLE WOMAN WHO ACCIDENTALLY FOUND HERSELF PREGNANT AND OUT OF HER RIGHT TO FREE CHOICE DOESN’T WANT TO ABORT, AND HER “WIRING” MIGHT SHOOT UP A MCDONALD’S OUT OF GUILT IF SHE ABORTED? IF SHE BEGGED YOU WOULD YOU TELL HER TO KILL IT? BETTER YET, WOULD YOU STICK THE VACUUM UP HER AND SUCK IT OUT YOURSELF? OH WAIT, I SHOULDN’T HAVE SAID THAT, THAT’S DISGUSTING. BETTER TO LEAVE THAT KIND OF STUFF BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. CERTAINLY DON’T PUT IT ON A POSTER AND SHOW IT TO ANYONE, THAT WOULD BE AWFUL AND OFFENSIVE TO OUR SENSIBILITIES, WOULDN’T IT?
Nunya says: “You guys use that argument as if women are begging prolifers in droves to adopt their children, prolifers are refusing, so the women have no choice but to abort.”
***
We do not. WELL I COULD GO BACK AND CUT AND PASTE FOR SEVERAL HOURS, AND I’M NOT THAT OLD TO THE SITE! BUT I’M TOO BUSY WAVING SMOKE OUT OF MY FACE.
Nunya: “I know women trying to find infants to adopt. One of my best friends would have adopted an infant in a second. Those 25,000 in New York are either not infants, or something else is going on.”
****
Note: SHE is not trying to adopt, and it doesn’t strike her as somewhat less than truly focusing on the child’s needs that the couples seek an infant only. I STATED IN A DIFFERENT ARTICLE THAT I WISHED PEOPLE WOULD ADOPT OLDER KIDS. I WORKED WITH THESE KIDS FOR YEARS, HELPING MANY MORE THAN I COULD HAVE HELPED THROUGH ADOPTION. *COUGH* SORRY, EXCUSE ME. WHEW, THE SMOKE IS THICK TODAY! YOUR COMMENT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I SAID, NOR WITH THE FACT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WAITING TO ADOPT YOUR IMAGINARY INFANTS THAT ARE OFFERED AND TURNED DOWN.
Nunya: ” I doubt you can prove your theory with any factual evidence. . . .. Bring the proof that our “insistence” that they birth their children is actually causing births to happen.
****
Legislation from the so-called “pro-life” crowd has forced abortions to be restricted to only two clinics in Arizona: LPN’s are now not permitted to perform abortions in Arizona. That’s the direct result of “insistence.” How about North Dakota, Nebraska, or any of the other states that tried to pass restrictions? So-called “pro-lifers” don’t limit their “insistence” to sidewalk demonstrations. AND THANK GOD. BUT NOT TO WORRY, AS KATE STATED, THEY WILL GET THEIR ABORTIONS ANYWAY, “WE CAN’T STOP IT.” BUT IT IS OUR GOAL TO STOP ABORTION, SO I GLADLY HAND YOU THAT ONE.
Nunya: “Is there a parent for every unwanted child out there?”
****
There is not. Fully 30% of the children born are “unwanted,” but most of them are tolerated by their parents, who do parenting jobs ranging from abominable to admirable. In my state, for every ten kids reported to the authorities, only three get removed from the household. How much do you trust your government? In addition, with only 160,000 kids adopted every year, an additional 1.2 million babies on the market would result in the need for orphanages. Does Roumania ring a bell? “FROM ABOMINABLE TO ADMIRABLE”. OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WOULD RATHER HUNDREDS OF GUILTY GO FREE THAN ONE INNOCENT PERSON BE CONVICTED. IF AS MANY WOMEN ARE RESPONSIBLE, RESPECTABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY AS KATE SAYS, “TRUST WOMEN! RESPECT WOMEN!” THEN YOU ARE PUTTING TO DEATH A LARGE PART OF THE POPULATION WHEN THEIR MOTHERS WOULD HAVE RISEN TO THE OCCASION AND LOVED THEM AND RAISED THEM. I SEE BAD PARENTING DUE TO BAD CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I RARELY SEE PARENTS WHO DON’T LOVE THEIR CHILDREN AND REALLY TRY THEIR BEST. IT SEEMS WE ARE ACTUALLY THE ONES WHO BELIEVE IN WOMEN. YOU ALL BELIEVE THEY SECRETLY HATE THEIR CHILDREN AND WISH THEM DEAD AT BEST, AND ARE SUCH AWFUL PARENTS THAT THEIR CHILDREN WILL PROBABLY BE SERIAL KILLERS AT WORST. FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR ARGUMENT, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE 30%, IN YOUR 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, WOULD DO AN “ADMIRABLE” JOB? IS THERE A TEST TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THAT 30% OF PARENTS WHO DON’T WANT THEIR CHILDREN WILL RISE TO THE OCCASION? IN YOUR EXPERT OPINION, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT 30% ARE DYING IN VAIN, IN OTHER WORDS?
INunYa: “But to give ultimate “right” to the woman over another person’s life or death . . .”
****
She has to construe the fetus as a person. Not a person she would have to pay taxes to maintain, not a person who might steal her newspaper every morning, not a person who would buy the mango she wanted. Just a “person” with a life that she is going to defend, but not take care of. YES, I ADMIT IT. I DO “CONSTRUE THE FETUS AS A PERSON.” A PERSON I ALREADY PAY TAXES TO MAINTAIN, OR A PERSON WHO IS A DEANNA WHO ADOPTED 4 CHILDREN FROM THE SYSTEM AND OTHER COUNTRIES, OR A PERSON WHO COULD BE THE NEXT BEETHOVEN, OR A PERSON WHO COULD BE IN THAT PERCENTAGE YOU RATED “ADMIRABLE”. I JUST DON’T BELIEVE THAT’S MY CALL TO MAKE, OR YOURS, OR ANYONE’S.
NunYa is right about the variables that factor into the making of a sociopath. There are many. But the factors that predispose a child to an inhuman life are very few. She’s not going to let that get in the way of her passion. Better to have children born to a life of wasted opportunity, crippling ignorance and devastating poverty than that she should talk to the local adoption agency. SO BETTER TO EXTERMINATE THE POTENTIAL UNDESIRABLES BEFORE THEY BECOME A DRAIN ON US MARGARET? I MEAN RESPONSIBLE. I AM OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE ROSE ABOVE POVERTY AND MADE SOMETHING OF THEMSELVES. I AM OLD ENOUGH TO HAVE SEEN THE PROGRESSION FROM TAKING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND MAKING THAT HAPPEN, TO WATCHING YOUR ILK TURN THE POVERTY STRICKEN INTO “VICTIMS”, PROPAGATING A SOCIETY WITH A ME FIRST ENTITLEMENT MENTALITY, AND CREATING THAT VERY DRAIN ON SOCIETY THAT YOU NOW RAGE AGAINST. GO AHEAD, STRIP WOMEN OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR SEXUAL CHOICES. SEE WHERE THAT GETS YOU. ONCE YOU GO DOWN THAT ROAD OF VICTIM-HOOD WITHOUT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, IT JUST KEEPS GETTIN’ STEEPER.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:12 am
I dont know about others, but I think these posts are getting way tooooo long. I dont even read them half the time – from folks on both sides. someone ask a question or make a simple comment, then let others respond with a simple comment. Geez…..
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Aw Pat, just when it was getting interesting?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm
TLDR
LikeLike
August 23, 2011 at 7:55 pm
“MAD” about’s comments is really funny see its these comments are the ones that shows ones true insecurities and suspects them to making dumb laws ” not in reference to the post above. but pat i understand that i want to at least have one boy when I’m older in that situation i would completely understand the use for this advance in technology. but in reference to the crazed laws by idiotic women and men. all around.
in an article referenced on NPRs Site
“The outcome of the 2012 presidential election could very well determine whether abortion remains legal and accessible for the next generation of American women,”
Says the Upcoming Potential candidate Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
and also
For the first time, many, if not most of the candidates have come out not just for the defunding of Planned Parenthood (which is at least arguably about abortion). Some have also voted against — and spoken out against — any kind of federal funding for contraception.
which do you think is more insane {Pat, Chuckles anyone?}
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 6:51 am
“which do you think is more insane {Pat, Chuckles anyone?}”
Since I’m “anyone,” I’ll answer. I think the more insane person is andrew:
““MAD” about’s comments is really funny see its these comments are the ones that shows ones true insecurities and suspects them to making dumb laws ” not in reference to the post above. but pat i understand that i want to at least have one boy when I’m older in that situation i would completely understand the use for this advance in technology. but in reference to the crazed laws by idiotic women and men. all around.”
Not for writing it — we all try to do the best we can. But for making it public! Why would any sane person humiliate himself intentionally!
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 9:14 am
Well, Andrew, I do think defunding PPFA is “insane” and as long as Obama is President it will not happen. What I cannot understand is that providing contraception PREVENTS abortion, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 1:38 am
depends on your definition of contraception.
and on top of that, the majority of women seeking abortions were on some form of birth control method when they got pregnant
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:14 am
Are you sure about that, Rogie (they were on birth control)? Sometimes I wonder if the women stretched the truth a little lest they admit that they were being “irresponsible”…..
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:17 pm
well, the ones i have met were. they had no reason to lie to me.
and guttmacher confirms it.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 10:06 am
First there was Abby Johnson and now Jewels Green:
” I have been hearing a lot from the pro-abortion movement lately about how pro-life “slacktivists” aren’t doing anything but waging a “war on women” by “elevating clumps of 32 cells above the level of a living, breathing, thinking human woman.” Obviously, I know (now) those misguided, ill-informed pro-abortion folks couldn’t be more wrong, but it reminds me too much of what I was like when I was one of them.
At the abortion clinic where I worked, I readily believed all of the misinformation fed to me about the “antis” holding those gory signs outside. I was told that pro-lifers cared nothing about women or families or children—only babies, and only unborn babies at that. I was told story after story about how this pro-life group or that crisis pregnancy center lied to women to “trick” them into staying pregnant and then would abandon them after the growing baby was beyond the legal limit for abortion. The most vivid (tall) tale I remember was of some unnamed group who extended financial assistance, prenatal care, and even drove a young mother to the hospital while she was in labor only to drop off a box of diapers the next day and refuse to return her calls after that. Or the rumor of the CPC counselor who showed a terrified teenager her pregnancy test stick with the two tell-tale blue lines indicating a positive (pregnant) result and explaining that the two lines meant she was pregnant with twins.
This is pro-abortion propaganda.
Since coming over to the side of life, I have been thrilled to confirm that these stories are baseless lies. It is shocking to me that the pro-abortion side continues to propagate these blatant untruths in spite of real evidence to the contrary. The pro-life movement is peopled by honest, dedicated, generous, and often pious people. The pro-life movement includes individuals and families who adopt “unwanted” babies, “imperfect” babies, “disabled” babies and donate time, money, and energy to stopping abortion. Some lobby Congress, some volunteer at local pregnancy care centers, some donate money, and some adopt. I have a friend who after giving birth to two biological children with her husband felt called to adopt a little boy with Down syndrome. He has happily been a part of their family for over a year, utterly charming and bringing joy to every person he meets. There are countless others like her and her family: selfless souls appalled by the brutality of murdering the unborn and who DO something about it. The pro-life movement reaches out to pregnant women and families. Many crisis pregnancy centers don’t just do pregnancy tests but also offer relationship counseling, parenting workshops, family counseling, babysitting co-ops, post-abortion support, and much more—for FREE—and without hundreds of millions of dollars from American taxpayers.
The truth is out there, and it’s not hard to find. CPCs and Pregnancy Care Centers reduce the number of abortions, and if the pro-abortion side is truly pro-CHOICE—and truly strives for the goal of fewer abortions (their rallying cry is “safe, legal, and RARE,” right?) then they should be welcoming assistance from CPCs and similar organizations, not constantly fighting to shut them down. If the pro-abortion side is truly pro-CHOICE, they should not take issue with laws passed to ensure informed consent prior to irreversible elective “surgery” that always ends in the death of the living growing human fetus. If the pro-abortion side truly cares about women—indeed their favorite battle hymn is that pro-lifers care more about cells than women—they would be fighting alongside us for fully informed options and support for all pregnant mothers. They would be welcoming pro-life sidewalk counselors out of the hot sun or the driving rain or the freezing snow to take up residence inside one of the counseling rooms in the clinic, letting the pregnant mothers learn all of their options completely. That would truly be pro-CHOICE.”
The truth from insiders in the abortion industry will always prevail!
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 11:08 am
Okay, voice, so you’re maybe the twentieth person on this site to tell me of all the adopting somebody else is doing. How many have you adopted?
the aborticentric– the person who is so focused on abortion that he excludes care for human life– uses examples he knows of to defend his stance, but there are so few that he uses the same examples others use. In my town, there were 156 protesters who could tell me of the “pro-lifers” who adopted five children, but they were all talking about the same couple. So-called “pro-lifers” like NunYa and you as the great rule of thumb don’t adopt, don’t sacrifice their time, money, retirement income or personal schedule to do what it takes to raise an unwanted child, but they raise holy hell about murder, innocent unborns, yada, yada.
So, are you sacrificing 600 hours annually and 8% of your annual gross income to work one-on-one with children whose parents can’t or won’t care for them properly?
There was a piece in Ann Landers this morning–or was it Dear Abby– where Jeanne Phillips, her daughter mentioned the flood of replies the office got when they asked readers if they would have had a baby if they had known now what they didn’t know then. The response was overwhelmingly in the negative.
Now, you are going to come back with “So, you think they should be ABORTED?” I’ll tell you right now, “Why do you think they don’t need to be cared for if they’re going to be born? And if you won’t care for them, why do you think somebody else will?” Your attitude is probably as irresponsible toward human life as the rest of the so-called pro-lifers: The closer it gets, the less sacred it becomes.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 11:14 am
Why should I tell you anything about myself? I don’t know you. If I adopt 100 children or none at all the facts remain. Pro-abortion propaganda is a lie!
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
I’ve got an idea, “Voice.” Give me one – just one – example of “pro-abortion propoganda” and let’s talk about it. We’ll just focus on that one thing for a while. As I am always, I will be brutally honest with you and I hope you will respond with facts.
OKAY?
Go!
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:09 am
Sure, scroll down to the comments posted about this article to Kate’s reply. It is full of propaganda language like this: “There’s no room for sidewalk counselors with their misinformation, scare tactics, shaming and religion.”
Sidewalk counselors have saved hundreds of lives. They offer alternatives to women (who obviously don’t really want an abortion in the first place or they couldn’t be talked out of it so easily).
I cannot be “shamed” by doing something that I know is right.There is no shame in doing the right thing. If indeed sidewalk counselors “shame” women (which I highly doubt happens often) then perhaps it is because the woman knows that she is not doing the right thing.
Since a large number of women who enter abortion clinics claim to have a religious affiliation then religion as a topic outside of the clinic is not inappropriate.
from the NAF website.
Religion
Women who obtain abortions represent every religious affiliation. 13% of abortion patients describe themselves as born-again or Evangelical Christians4; while 22% of U.S. women are Catholic,7 27% of abortion patients say they are Catholics.1
For more pro-choice propaganda go to Rh Reality Check. The articles about abortion have very slanted language.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:30 pm
1. Using the phrase “shame on you” strikes me as an act of shaming. Telling a man to be a “good daddy” or telling a woman to protect her child or telling her it’s not natural to kill her own child are acts of shaming. By setting one’s self in opposition to the woman or man at the abortion clinic, and by using the language (described above), the sidewalk counselor virtually secures his/her superiority. Shaming and judging follow naturally. Protesters have used these phrases outside abortion clinics.
2. Telling women that the doctor will rip their uterus apart, that their baby will haunt them at night, that they have a 400% chance of breast cancer if they have an abortion, that their boyfriend will leave them, that their baby will look like road kill—are all scare tactics from misinformation and lies.
3. Not all religions support the behaviors of the protesters.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Kate’s not kidding, folks. And, thanks to her because she has listed them for us, I’ve collected about forty more” “Mommy, don’t let that man kill me,” “You’re entering breast cancer alley,” “Daddy, stop him from pulling off my arms,” etc. Want ’em all?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“Telling a man to be a “good daddy” or telling a woman to protect her child or telling her it’s not natural to kill her own child are acts of shaming”.
Good daddies don’t allow people to kill their children and it’s not natural for a mother to kill her own child.
These statements are true. They bother the mother and the daddy and you to hear these words because there is truth to them.
It seems to me that you want to support abortion but you don’t want to admit the reality of it. You make a stand that baby Malachi is a farse but fail to note that even if that were true the other hundreds of thousands of babies who die each year in abortion are real. What do you think, that they come out perfect and whole and are laid to rest in a funeral? No they are mutilated and thrown away. You want to turn the attention to the pro-life protesters, their religion, and words, because that takes the attention away from the mutilation going on inside the clinics. For every woman that you walk into that clinic a dead baby goes out the back. You can stand out there and dance and clap and act like the circus is in town if you want but deep down, deep inside you know the truth. Suppressing the truth doesn’t make it untrue. You help kill babies Kate! Face it! Instead of celebrating when a woman refuses to talk to the sidewalk counselors you should weep bitter tears because a baby will die and the mother will know that she killed it and you will know that you helped.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:02 am
It’s not natural? How would you know what is “natural” when you live in a world that is socially-constructed and you can’t see beyond it, can’t see the socio-political structures that put that world together?
As for the remainder of your “seems to me” and “these statement are true” or “you want to” I’d say, you’re entitled to your opinions. But you and your cohorts cannot deny the ugliness you perpetrate on strangers who are private patients and then do so with some sense of goodness. I know what goes on inside abortion clinics. We’ve been through this a zillion times. Embryos/fetuses/products of conception/pregnancy tissue/baby/child/unborn/young person (does that about cover it?) die. It’s a choice that good women make for good reasons. You don’t agree. Instead you and your kind choose to make women miserable, to shame them (and you do it intentionally) for decisions that are their own and then claim to be so righteous. Like I said, you have your opinions.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:31 am
Pat, Elena, whoever, I am forever in your debt for maintaining this site. Nowhere else do I so often find prolife eloquence, this time by “voice” above. So into my newsletter it goes. I’ll include Kate’s response too just to set off its power.
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 6:05 am
John, I’d laugh if “Voice” was your prolifer nemesis. And to think you’d put her comments in your newsletter. How sweet would that be?
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 9:55 am
“It’s not natural? How would you know what is “natural” when you live in a world that is socially-constructed and you can’t see beyond it, can’t see the socio-political structures that put that world together?”
It’s not natural for a woman to kill her child. Socio-political structures have nothing to do with that fact. Even an animal will attack anything that threatens her young. It is not natural.
“But you and your cohorts cannot deny the ugliness you perpetrate on strangers who are private patients and then do so with some sense of goodness.”
But you and your cohorts cannot deny the ugliness you perpetrate on unborn babies who are sleeping in their mothers wombs and then do so with some sense of goodness.”
Which is worse Kate? “Shaming” someone or killing someone? You point your crooked finger at us and pronounce our “ugliness”. Think about your own ugliness. A baby will die tomorrow at your hand, with your “goodness” on stage for all to see. That is what you are after anyway isn’t it Kate? To be seen? You must be aching to be on t.v. thus the fake documentaries and videos on You Tube. If it’s attention you are after there are other ways to get it besides helping to kill someone. Really Kate? Why are you out there? To help women? Helping them murder their child isn’t really helping now is it Kate? There are other things you could be doing. You could pretend to be pro-life and solicit to work with local pro-life organizations. Oh wait! You did that already and they found you out. What was that about anyway? Why were you trying to infiltrate pro-life organizations? Was it for another one of your fake one sided documentaries where you take comments out of text and make it say what you desire it to say?
Pat, you asked for an example of pro-choice propaganda. May I introduce you to Kate and her documentaries.
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Sorry, Kate, I’m slow, and it’s taken me a while to understand this: “John, I’d laugh if “Voice” was your prolifer nemesis. And to think you’d put her comments in your newsletter. How sweet would that be?”
That would be a pisser, wouldn’t it. But I have put her comments into the newsletter before, not to admire them though as will be the case here.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Ah! Gotcha! And a biiiiig gotcha it is….
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm
C’mon Responsible, you got anything else? You just cut and paste or what?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Nunya, you can call him Charles….Indeed, I find it interesting that except for ole Johnny Boy, none of the pro-lifers use their real name. Can you explain, Nunya?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:09 pm
jajajajajaja
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:16 pm
Yeah, I always use my own name. I decide that an alias would be more fun, but then when I’m talking, I forget that.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:19 pm
my real name is pat richards
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Pat, I’ve seen what happens to people on here. Both Kate and Deanna had personal information revealed here. But trust me, I don’t hide my beliefs about abortion. Everyone who knows me knows my opinion about it, and as I said, I’ve picketed clinics in my day. Also, people demand to know if you’ve adopted, then say it isn’t enough, or that you are lying. They look at personal pictures revealed here, and make fun of the people depicted in them. They ask if you believe in God and then ridicule you for it. Believe me, I chose Nunya deliberately. I reveal information about myself as I choose to reveal it. And who I am will probably never be revealed on this site.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:53 pm
>>>I’ve picketed clinics in my day. <<<
nunnypoo, just out of curiousity,why do you use the term "picket"?
isn't that more of a political term?
LikeLike
August 27, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Yeah, NY, call them prayer vigils. That what I call them and that’s what I
do — Chuck, Kate, hold your tongues, I mean fingers.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 1:34 pm
SENTENCE ONE:
“The truth is out there, and it’s not hard to find. CPCs and Pregnancy Care Centers reduce the number of abortions, and if the pro-abortion side is truly pro-CHOICE—and truly strives for the goal of fewer abortions (their rallying cry is “safe, legal, and RARE,” right?) then they should be welcoming assistance from CPCs and similar organizations, not constantly fighting to shut them down.”
RESPONSE: Truth is not singular. There are many truths. The reification of truth, as you have written, is a slippery slope, to be sure. You provide no evidence whether CPCs reduce abortions or not. Prochoice does not equal striving for a goal of fewer abortions. Prochoicers are as diverse as prolifers. Claiming that the rallying cry, “safe, legal and rare” is more like a rallying cry of some politician. Some say “Abortion on demand without apology” while others position themselves somewhere in the middle.
SENTENCE TWO:
“If the pro-abortion side is truly pro-CHOICE, they should not take issue with laws passed to ensure informed consent prior to irreversible elective “surgery” that always ends in the death of the living growing human fetus.”
RESPONSE: Which individual is taking issue with informed consent? If there is a procedure or surgery, there must be informed consent. It’s the law.
SENTENCE THREE:
“If the pro-abortion side truly cares about women—indeed their favorite battle hymn is that pro-lifers care more about cells than women—they would be fighting alongside us for fully informed options and support for all pregnant mothers.”
RESPONSE: All NAF-certified and ACN-affiliated clinics care for women and what women need and want. They are not pro-abortion but pro-woman. And they are fully informed of their options which are pretty simple: abort or carry to term (to either keep or adopt out).
SENTENCE FOUR:
‘They would be welcoming pro-life sidewalk counselors out of the hot sun or the driving rain or the freezing snow to take up residence inside one of the counseling rooms in the clinic, letting the pregnant mothers learn all of their options completely.”
RESPONSE: All NAF-certified and ACN-affiliated clinics use accepted medical and scientific knowledge about reproduction, birth control, abortion and psychology. There’s no room for sidewalk counselors with their misinformation, scare tactics, shaming and religion. So they can continue with their advocacy out on the streets where they belong.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Yay, Kate! Water off a duck’s back, sad to say….
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:28 pm
So, Voice, what abortion clinic did you work at? I’ll bet you anything you wont tell us…..
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:54 pm
I didn’t work at an abortion clinic. That was a quote from Jewels Green about her experiences while working in one.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:17 pm
voice, it helps to ensure citations are plain by: 1) Beginning the cite with quote marks; 2) Leaving the end of each paragraph without a closing quote mark; 3) Beginning each subsequent paragraph with quote marks; and 4) Using a closing quote mark on the very last paragraph.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:47 am
Voice did 1,2, and 4, Chuck. You got her on 3 though. But you got yourself lots better. Voice’s first and last sentences leave no doubt that she’s quoting. And you leave no doubt that you’re searching for anything you can find.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:16 am
Agree, Charles. I think that’s why i got mixed up….
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:14 am
This is a direct copy of Jewels Green’s post on LiveAction.org without any attribution to the source. I find it comical, in a sort of juvenile sense, how the accusations of “copy and paste” or “no original thoughts” flies so freely and yet here we can read a copy and paste. Hmmm.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:49 am
Let me copy you who copied me, Kate: there’s copy and paste and then there’s copy and paste.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:25 am
From the Pro-choice Propaganda Training Manual, Volume 1, Page 233, number 24. “When a pro-lifer gives factual information that hurts the pro-choice cause immediately divert attention from said fact. Point out grammar, spelling and punctuation errors if need be. Question the source repeatedly. If all else fails make notice of the fact that the information was copied and pasted. Pretend as if this is a true issue. Go on and on ranting about whatever you can until said truthful information is forgotten in the fray.”
Didn’t the quotation marks at the beginning and the end give away the fact that it was a quotation? Also, the introduction that it was from Jewels Green? Why would I give “original thoughts” when I was quoting someone? Did you graduate from third grade?
Why don’t you get off the copy and paste rant and address the issues that the article spoke of? She worked in a clinic. She says that your propaganda is a lie. What say you?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I’m not sure who you are addressing but if it was me, I’ve alread addressed the issues above in response to what you wrote on #15.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Voice, where did you get that manual? Is it available online? I would be very interested to read it.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:54 pm
JAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA
LikeLike
August 26, 2011 at 5:37 am
Wrong again, Rog: chowchowchowchowchow
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 2:02 pm
@ Pat,
Yes people who have unprotected sex should know the risks and consequences of their act. I am not a hard ass Pro Life or anything like that as matter of fact, I just don’t agree with abortions on demand, it isn’t right is it?
I find it hard to believe that we as human beings can seriously think that killing a child while inside of you(women) is normal or OK. Some of us might think that it is better to abort than to bring a child to this world who won’t be loved or cared for as they should be, but is it?
Why do we have to be so divided in this topic when clearly all we need is to unite forces and educate people, teach them about the consequences and not just make sure that they have the option to KILL if they want to.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 2:20 pm
*I am Mad About by the way
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm
I agree anonymous that education is the key. Unfortunately, as you well know, there are some folks out there that are not educated. And I will again say that I certainly accept your concern/interest in that woman’s fetus but, again, until you are in her position it is almost impossible to understand what is going through her mind. NO ONE wants to have to have an abortion and MOST women certainly understand their options. Still, there are some women who ultimately decide they just cannot bring that baby into the world. Sad, but……Thanks! Glad you’re part of this blog..
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:39 pm
So, have you had any children on God’s demand?
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 4:38 pm
Back from the salt mines, NunYa. I have to keep a roof over my head…
As for your comment on setting your conditions: You want other women to accept the conditions God imposes on them; why not accept God’s conditions for yourself, of which the primary one is there are children nobody else will adopt who are available for you, right now, whether you, like millions of pregnant women, are ready or not. Go for it!
It is pointless to hypothesize about what anyone MIGHT do– e.g., pregnant women planning to enjoy or hate their child– stick to what is known.)
As a matter of participating in their self-therapy program, so-called “pro-lifers” stake out the limits of what they will do. This involves establishing a field of action which requires a minimum of personal, emotional, financial and educational sacrifice (for example, I don’t have to be trained to be a so-called “pro-lifer.” All I have to do is say I am). You demonstrated how this is done in your response above.
As far as not wanting to adopt a child, you and Marian Wright Edelman (founder of the Children’s Defense Fund) are on the same page. The difference is that she does not feel a need to be a hero to a child; instead, she puts her energy into the very complicated and demanding job of improving life in America for ALL children. You, on the other hand, won’t even take the simple step of giving up 600 unpaid hours and 8% of your family’s gross income just to help one child…. Just sayin’, that’s all….
AS for so-called “pro-lifers” being “actually the ones who believe in women,” well, yes, you might be. It’s just that you don’t care for their real children. Judging from your comments about “which 30%?” it is clear you would profit from some education on child development and pediatric public health.
As for needing to construe the fetus as a person: you have to, because in the first trimester, the fetus has all the self-awareness of an earthworm. You can’t picture yourself as an earthworm rescuer: It has to be a little child, an “unborn innocent,” a “precious angel:” otherwise, you’d be a laughingstock. Panicked anglers would shield their bait buckets from you!
Your comments about “poverty-stricken victims” was, I am sure, well-meant.
LikeLike
August 24, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I throw that word illiterate around like a tennis ball, But does anybody understand what this guy says? Am I the only one who doesn’t? Am I the real illiterate?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Pat hates it when we have long posts, but it honestly helps me to copy and paste the entire comment I’m replying to, and reply within it. I’ll refrain though. I actually do read all the comments, even the long ones. Pat, we read your articles, no matter how long they are, and I have learned a lot by reading the comments, even the copied and pasted ones. I guess it gets tedious though, with the pasted quotes from outside sources. Maybe those should be kept at a minimum, but if we are having legitimate discussions, that can’t always be kept to a paragraph or two.
So Responsible, I’ll start at the end of your comment and work my way back up. I said that the poverty stricken had been turned into victims by liberals. I was raised in a trailer park in the 70’s when they WERE trailers, not “mobile homes”, I know what I’m talking about, and was stating a fact, and have no control over what you read into it.
You and I both know it’s a growing, developing human. You have to think of it as an earthworm because you can’t picture yourself as a child killer supporter or you’d never sleep again.
What makes you think I don’t care for real children? I may support a whole orphanage for all you know.
As for the 30% comment, you stated, “Fully 30% of the children born are “unwanted,” but most of them are tolerated by their parents, who do parenting jobs ranging from abominable to admirable.” I made the point that if some of those parents are doing admirable jobs, then some of the parents heading for abortions would do the same. Therefore a percentage, by your own statement, are dying in vain, when they had the chance to be raised by a parent who would tolerate them and do an admirable job. I also made the point that there is no way to tell which is which, so in order to make sure you get the kids of the abominable parents killed, you are also killing the kids of the admirable ones, and that even our justice system has more heart, going to extremes to make sure innocent people aren’t convicted of crimes. There are children out there being aborted who would have been raised well and therefore turned out to be good citizens. I don’t understand, truly I don’t, why you won’t admit that, and why you are okay with it, even if you are pro-choice.
And as I’ve said before, you don’t know how much of my income I spend on helping children. Not even my closest friends know that. I believe in helping, not broadcasting, so I sure won’t tell a hostile total stranger. I am very tired of hearing about the 600 unpaid hours when you bashed Deanna, who adopted several children. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I want to hear from all the pro-choicers on these questions please:
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY WAY TO CARE FOR CHILDREN IS TO ADOPT THEM?
DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, FAMILY MEMBERS AND CO-WORKERS WHO HAVEN’T ADOPTED DON’T CARE ABOUT CHILDREN?
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT A PERSON ISN’T PRO-LIFE IF THEY HAVEN’T ADOPTED MANY MANY CHILDREN?
As for the rest of your comments toward the top, you stopped talking to me and started addressing the crowd, so I’ll stop here.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:00 pm
>>>Pat hates it when we have long posts, but it honestly helps me to copy and paste the entire comment I’m replying to, and reply within it.<<<
they get reaaaaaaally long doing that.
if you copy and paste for each point you wish to address or have addressed,and do it using more posts, it is easier for the readers, both those who post and those who we don't know are reading.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:43 am
kate Says:
August 24, 2011 at 1:34 pm
RESPONSE: All NAF-certified and ACN-affiliated clinics care for women and what women need and want. They are not pro-abortion but pro-woman. And they are fully informed of their options which are pretty simple: abort or carry to term (to either keep or adopt out).
– – – – –
If that’s so true, they why did the NAF FAIL to report Gosnell’s mill and the horrific atrocities being committed there? This organization must be comprised of misogynists. How else can you explain their FAILURE TO REPORT WRONGDOINGS TO WOMEN? Please read a short excerpt taken from page 13 of the GRAND JURY REPORT of Kermit Gosnell in which it is accounted that the NAF failed to report illegalities to authorities. That’s right, they KNEW that was going on in that clinic but FAILED TO REPORT IT TO AUTHORITIES!!!! PRO-WOMAN?? Hmmpf. Highly unlikely.
– – – – –
Click to access GrandJuryWomensMedical.pdf
So too with the National Abortion Federation. NAF is an association of abortion providers that upholds the strictest health and legal standards for its members. Gosnell, bizarrely, applied for admission shortly after Karnamaya Mongar’s death. Despite his various efforts to fool her, the evaluator from NAF readily noted that records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused. It was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected. Of course, she rejected Gosnell’s application. She just
never told anyone in authority about all the horrible, dangerous things she had seen.
fur further reading:
http://www.jillstanek.com/2011/01/national-abortion-federation-implicated-in-gosnell-case-failed-to-report-illegalities-to-authorities/
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Several things to consider:
1. your sources are biased. it’s the same problem Deanna had…
2. love the cherry–picking. but if NAF is liable in any way, then they should be prosecuted
3. if you’re so concerned about the Gosnell situation, why not ask about the department of health and their neglect to respond to the many, many reports coming from across the state about his horrendous practice?
4. try reading the actual grand jury report, available online in pdf. An excerpt states:
“The Grand Jury heard testimony from legitimate abortion providers and from abortion-rights advocates, and not one indicated that annual inspections would be unduly burdensome. The doctors we heard from, and the organizations that refer women to abortion providers, told us that the reputable providers comply with all of the state regulations and more. Annual inspections are not an issue with them. Many clinics in Pennsylvania are already inspected by NAF, whose standards are, in many ways, more protective of women’s safety than are the state’s regulations.”
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm
I’ve provided the Grand Jury Report link above. But, hey you just have to admit it this time, the NAF dropped the ball on the Gosnell killing mill. They FAILED TO REPORT him to the authorities. What a bunch of misogynists.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Was it NAF, or was it the individual inspector? Twenty-five years or so ago an Interstate bridge fell into the river in Connecticut, killing maybe half a dozen people. It wasn’t the Connecticut Department of Transportation, it was the individual inspector who had over a period of years failed to do his job properly.
The opposite example would be the shredding of 18,000 documents relating to whistleblower reports of Wall Street malfeasance. That action was not the work of some rogue SEC staffer, but of the SEC (then headed by Bush appointee Chris Cox) making the decision to do so, thereby saving the butts of several thousand high-level Wall Street execs.
So, look at NAF’s record on its other inspections, and you can determine where the truth lies.
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 7:37 pm
my understanding was that NAF tried to have him shut down, but that it was the state that dropped the ball.
am i incorrect?
anyone?
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 9:20 am
Hey Voice! Dont forgot to ask me that one simple question about abortion!!
LikeLike
August 25, 2011 at 11:13 am
there’s a “Pro-Choice Propaganda Training Manual”? And it comes in VOLUMES?? And they’re so big that the first one has at least 233 pages??? Where has this been all my life?
Now that the shock has worn off, voice, I must ask in accordance with the instructions in the tome, “So why haven’t you pledged to raise to adulthood any of the “unborn humans” you want “rescued”?
LikeLike