Is there a more pathetic state in the Union? I mean, does anyone know of a state that is more regressive in terms of income, health, education, baseball teams? Indeed, can you name a Third World country that is as bad as Mississippi?
And, now, to push the state even further into the dark ages, their voters on Tuesday will probably pass a resolution that will totally outlaw abortion. The specific question that the voters will be asked to approve says: “Should the term ‘person’ be defined to include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the equivalent thereof?” Now I can’t imagine anyone in that state who knows what the term “thereof” means, but the gist of this measure is there will be no more abortions and lots more kids to add to the misery that is life in Mississippi. Indeed, the person who is spearheading this effort, a guy named Les Riley, is the founder of “Personhood Mississippi” and he is the father of TEN children. I guess old Les is hoping that others in his neck of the woods will bear the same number of kids, if not more, so they can get the classroom sizes up to at least 50 kids per room which would push their rate of academic achievement below that of Somalia. Quite a role model, that Les!
The interesting thing about this resolution is that many “mainstream” pro-life groups actually oppose it because they are smart enough to realize that it is too extreme. But, it ain’t too extreme for the Bubbas in Mississippi. Indeed, outlawing abortion ain’t enough for these folks. An analysis of the resolution shows that certain forms of birth control would be outlawed (thus creating even more children living in poverty) and it would limit in vitro fertilization. But, for now, let’s stick to the abortion side of the equation.
When the measure passes, the next day Planned Parenthood will challenge it in court and the lower courts will grant an injunction prohibiting the measure from going into effect. Here’s the thing, however. Let’s say Mitt Romney (or one of the other Republican nominees) becomes President in 2013. Despite his previous support for the right to choose, he has now courageously “seen the light” and is all of a sudden pro-life. What a guy, a true Profile in Courage. As President, he would be beholden to the pro-life movement and
sooner or later some more Supreme Court judges are going to kick the bucket. That means that Romney (or, conversely, Obama) might get to make 2 or 3 appointments. If it’s Romney, you know damn well he is going to appoint judges who are pro-life and that could tip the scales.
Yes, many lawyers suggest that the court could not uphold a measure like this because of “legal precedent.” That’s garbage. It might have been the case years ago when our judicial system, not to mention the executive and legislative branches, were more deferential to their body’s previous actions but not anymore. I am convinced that when the Supreme Court gets this (or any other) case, the justices, with the possible exception of Justice Kennedy, make up their minds immediately, then instruct their clerks to construct their rationalization. If you think they sit there objectively, listening intently to the arguments of the learned counsel then come to a decision, you’re in La La land. I mean, think about it. Do you really think Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia would NOT find a way to uphold the Mississippi law?
So, this case will ultimately make it to the Supreme Court in a few years. And that makes the next Presidential election so extremely important when it comes to abortion rights. I feel like we’ve been through this drill before, but this time it’s extremely serious.
November 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm
Here’s a comment from one demented s.o.b., Colorado-based Personhood activist, Ed Hanks writing on the Personhood Mississippi Facebook page that after abortion is banned,
“the penalties have to be the same [for a women as well as doctors], as they would have to intentionally commit a known felony in order to kill their child. Society isn’t comfortable with this yet because abortion has been ‘normalized’ — as the Personhood message penetrates, then society will understand why women need to be punished just as surely as they understand why there can be no exceptions for rape/incest.”
Punish women? Really? That takes some serious stones.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 5:26 am
I’ve been saying that right along, Kate, and you never called me “a demented s.o.b.” Why not? Scared?
LikeLike
November 10, 2011 at 8:33 pm
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 5:24 am
I’ve wasted almost four minutes on this stupid thing. Aren’t you guys against the GOP? Why this pro-GOP stuff?
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 10:18 am
I dont know who posted this but if it happens again, we’ll take you off the blog. This video is a waste of our time.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 6:25 am
From David Brooks, NY Times, an excerpt on his column, in response to Jennifer’s comments about prolifers being moronic, bigoted, etc:
“Foreign tourists are coming up to me on the streets and asking, “David, you have so many different kinds of inequality in your country. How can I tell which are socially acceptable and which are not?”
[and so he offers examples of inequality in our “egalitarian” society]
“Fitness inequality is acceptable. It is perfectly fine to wear tight workout sweats to show the world that pilates have given you buns of steel. These sorts of displays are welcomed as evidence of your commendable self-discipline and reproductive merit.
“Moral fitness inequality is unacceptable. It is out of bounds to boast of your superior chastity, integrity, honor or honesty. Instead, one must respect the fact that we are all morally equal, though our behavior and ethical tastes may differ.
“Church inequality is unacceptable. It would be uncouth to wear a Baptist or Catholic or Jewish jersey to signal that people of your faith are closer to God. It is wrong to look down on other faiths on the grounds that their creeds are erroneous.
“Dear visitor, we are a democratic, egalitarian people who spend our days desperately trying to climb over each other. Have a nice stay.”
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 8:49 am
This blog is supposed to be about the ramifications of legally torturing to death young people. Instead, it’s turning into the Ranieri cut and paste morality crap. What gives?
Just look at this: “one must respect the fact that we are all morally equal, though our behavior and ethical tastes may differ.” Send that to those prosecuting Sandusky and company over there at Penn State.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 10:19 am
Oh, John, you know that we all go in different directions at times. But, yes, I agree with you that this blog is generally supposed to be about, as you put it, “protecting the right to choose and honoring the decision making capabilities of women.”
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 10:30 am
Perhaps I should have narrowed the comments from Brooks to the two about church and morality, both areas that undergird many of the comments that are posted. For example, I believe that it is morally acceptable to expect abortion should be available on demand without apologies. Or that one church is not superior to another just because their dogma proclaims the one true faith, particularly about a woman’s right to make decisions about her health care.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 11:44 am
Kate,
I Love your posts.
Keep up the good work!
It is refreshing to read the thoughts of a clear thinker.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 11:50 am
Kate : It looks like you got that old fart Dunkle in a hissy.
Don’t you think it would be interesting (if not done already) to administer a battery of Psychological instruments to the real wacked out ( Like Perry, Bachman, Personhood amendment supporters , JH proLifers and so on) by a person capable of reducing the information and mapping them to the Mental Disorders in the (Impending) DSM V?
I bet they would be diagnosed with several illnesses.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Have you read up on aborticentrism, Evan? You might find a lot of questions answered there.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I knew this would happen.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Hey! I didn’t put it that way!
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 11:54 am
John, congrats!
You finally wrote something that was more than nothing!
Makes the Blog more enjoyable to read.
Did you answer the question yet?
You have been asked many times now.
Do you own a gun, or other weapons of any type?
Don’t lie now ….
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 12:49 pm
he says he owns a 12-gauge and a .22, Evan.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Right, E. I also own a cross-bow, a regular bow, and lots of razor-sharp arrows which I use unsuccessfully to kill deer and other non-human animals, My enemies, though, own, or promote, knives, suction machines, and poisons which they use successfully to kill people,
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Is an egg that is fertilized a Person John?
How is one cell a person?
Or are you calling it a person because you believe the single cell has a soul?
Think how strange it appears to the majority of the people on the planet that do not believe the single fertilized cell has a soul when you call the cell a person. Please help us understand your bizarre perspective.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 11:30 am
Evan, if that fertilized egg is NOT a person, Mr. Dunkle loses everything he stands for. Suddenly he’s just a crank with a fixation, not a hero for a helpless victim.
The whole thrust of the so-called ‘pro-life’ movement is to engage in a PR campaign portraying themselves as heroes. You can see from their comparative lack of concern for children that they want to care more for somebody else’s fetus than for real people.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 7:10 pm
You’ve got so much BS here, E, that I don’;t know where to start. OK, I’ll start from the back. The majority has been wrong so many times you should ashamed to use that argument.
Now from the front — yes — how are a hundred cells a person, how are a million cells a person? what do you think a person is? You? — yes
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:32 am
So John you keep getting asked but I have not seen you answer.
An egg that has self fertilized by doubling it’s chromosomes – Do you believe that to be a person?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 9:06 am
Now that’s an interesting question, B. But I never heard of it. Does that happen? I thought a sperm cell had to fertilize an egg.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 9:58 am
So John, Please answer the question, instead of dodging it.
You stated that a fertilized Egg is a person.
Is this fertilized Egg a person?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:00 pm
The cretin can’t answer a question he is so uneducated.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Abortion is not “torture,” and it’s not “young people.”
Mr. Dunkle does not believe fetuses are really what he calls them. For him, fetuses are just game pieces– if he gets them across the finish line on the board he has designed, he wins. What happens to them after that has always been of no concern to him.
One can imagine the depths of the heartlessness there.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Abortion is not “torture,” and it’s not “young people.”
That all depends on whom you talk to. For Chuck abortion is an escape from the horrors of living and what’s killed is an earthworm.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Mr. Dunkle does not believe fetuses are really what he calls them. For him, fetuses are just game pieces– if he gets them across the finish line on the board he has designed, he wins. What happens to them after that has always been of no concern to him.
One can imagine the depths of the heartlessness there.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm
mr dunkle doesn’t know diddle except what gets him favor, poor bastard
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 11:26 am
Justice: aborticentrism
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 1:58 pm
John,
You old decrepid illiterate who probably drops a load in your diaper daily.
Let me help you in your uneducated illiteracy.
This blog is about the constitutional rights of women to control the determination of their own bodies.
When I’m up in heaven, I’ll look down on you in hell, but I won’t send down a drop of water, Dunkle, the misogynist.
You are too stupid to realize where you are going. I can only laugh at you.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 11:46 am
Abortion related news from all over the globe. Check our Facebook Page.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Abortioncom/114710445267687
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 11:55 am
Excellent thread,
Tx!
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 4:33 pm
You gotta check out the personhood funeral link, it is a riot!
John,
Should a misscarriage, which you seem to be calling the killing of a person by an abortion by your deity, get a funeral and all the Catholic sacraments a person is supposed to?
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Let me rewrite your question so it’s answerable: should the person who dies before she is born have a funeral and get the sacraments?
Answer: Of course not! Usually she is so small you can’t even see her.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Because even though I believe she’s a person, the church doesnt’ agree. She’s too small to matter, too insignificant to deserve the sacraments, too much a non person to be worthy of a funeral.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 4:29 am
If it is detectable, her little body is taken care of. To be baptized someone has to be out of the placenta liquid. Funerals are sometimes but rarely performed, as you can imagine.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm
So, should we consider having a funeral for “her little body” if it’s plastered on a sanitary napkin? It would be outside the placental liquid (whatever that is)
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 5:16 am
Oh yeah, the amniotic fluid.
You’re opening another topic here, a. How should we treat someone who dies before she is born. We can’t baptize a dead person. And the
overwhelming number of them are too tiny to find. However, if she has grown large enough to see, the humane action is burial of some sort.
And then there’s this. If we have imbibed enough poison into our systems (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.) to kill another while doing little immediate damage to ourselves, we will be held responsible for killing that person.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:54 am
John,
We should strain ALL menstrual fluid, and the we could find millions of “persons” that God has killed.
Then we should give them funerals?
Why does God kill a cell, if it is a person?
That’s not very nice of him . . . poor little cell never got a shot at even being a two celled person . . .
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 9:12 am
I keep answering this question but the AI’s keep bringing it up. Here’s the answer for the tenth time: we may not kill people just because God does. God’s gonna kill you, E. Does that mean your 8th grade classmate may kill you too?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:01 am
John, Why does God Murder so many innocent Children?
Millions and millions. Makes no sense?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:07 pm
John,
What is placenta liquid?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about you creepy stalker of women?
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 8:43 pm
Clear, inftimaorve, simple. Could I send you some e-hugs?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Which god are you talking about. Most the other Gods do far less murdering of innocent children’s than your God.
Do you think it is OK that your God murders innocent children?
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 3:06 pm
I confess that I am a little confused about this whole “abortion thing”. I feel kind of sick speaking with such ease about it.
I guess if you are looking from a women’s point of view and they don’t want to be pregnant at that time or at all abortion is more than OK for them.
But if you think about the baby, fetus if you prefer, it is pretty much a cruel thing to do, regardless if you believe in god or not
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 3:39 pm
What makes it “a cruel thing,” Karine?
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Karine is it cruel to abort a complete anencephalic baby?
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Don’t answer these guys, Karine. They want you to agree that handicapped people should be murdered. Little do they realize that if that becomes the law, both of them are outta here.
LikeLike
November 11, 2011 at 9:13 pm
An anacephalic is not a baby but an abnormality of mother nature
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 11:09 am
Justice, an anencephalic fetus IS a baby if the pregnant woman deems it such. Neither you nor I have any power to overrule her. A relative of mine aborted two of them and felt pretty badly both times, but she did not let the experiences get in the way of maintaining control over her life.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 4:01 pm
felt pretty bad
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:48 am
chuckles sees both sides of the issue despite his own opinion of the matter.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 5:17 am
So what happened to you?
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 10:58 am
….and once again Karine disappears……
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Karine,
Like every other ProLifer,
Has proven herself too stupid to answer even the easy questions. . . .
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:30 pm
No, Beatrice, Karine is just afraid to explore her feelings about abortion. If I remember correctly, she is the one who will grant other women the right to determine whether they want to bear a child, but is appalled by/disgusted at /angry about abortion nonetheless. It’s an interesting combination, although probably quite common among the population.
She’s not an aborticentic.
If I were sensitive about people calling me names on this site, I wouldn’t be likely to respond either.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 8:07 am
For all those who believe in the personhood initiatives, perhaps you should look at the personhood funeral (dot com) web site to help you consider other ways to recognize the baby
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:48 am
but that is a parody
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:05 am
aaaawwww, rogelio! You ruined the snark!
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 11:38 am
We need more inhgists like this in this thread.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 11:03 am
Some topics ago, one person commented about how Martin Luther King’s niece said he was against abortion. Jill Lofer writing about Planned Parenthood in a recent issue of the New Yorker said this:
“In 1966, Martin Luther King Jr., who as a young minister had joined a Planned Parenthood Committee, was given the Margaret Sanger Award. In his acceptance speech he drew parallels between the birth control and the civil rights movements—’There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts’—and celebrated Sanger for having ‘launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions.’ ”
Absent any public comments he made about abortion, I think whoever used his niece’s words to make him a so-called “pro-lifer” was engaging in magical thinking.
When someone is driven by aborticentrism, magical thinking can be a feature of their behavior.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 2:31 pm
With the likes of Alveda King, using her uncle’s good name, while rubbing elbows with the recalled Frank Pavone, you have to wonder who’s using who? It’s clear that King is banking on MLK, but Pavone? Not sure. Both of them love the spotlight in their prolife work, that’s for sure. For now, it’s only the sound bites that King and Pavone repeat, sound bites with likely no ties to historical reality.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Where were you this morning, Kate? At the AWC some guy pulled a woman out of the car and dragged her across the parking lot, through breast cancer alley, and into the mill, her crying the whole way. We stood there and gawked, prolifers and deathscorts alike.
I was just wishing you were there, someone who really believes in women’s rights, somebody who would have kicked that bully aside and protected that woman.
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Where were YOU, Mr. Dunkle? The situation you’ve been praying for all your life, and suddenly when reality matches your fantasy, you change your fantasy? Still a hero, but more prudent than previously imagined… It’s not easy being a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer.”
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 5:19 am
“Where were YOU, Mr. Dunkle? ” I was being my own cowardly self.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:03 am
No you weren’t being your own cowardly self. You were being your own prudent self. To have acted on what you claim your principles to be would have been to put your body at risk for harm, your wealth at risk for a defense lawyer, your time at risk for court schedules, your freedom at risk, your wife’s affection and companionship at risk and your ability to keep up your PR campaign at risk.
You present as a hero with none of the virtues of a hero, a very strange thing. You stand for liberty, justice and the American way blah blah blah only as long as it does not inconvenience you.
Aborticentrism points out why this is typical behavior for self-proclaimed “pro-lifers.” As one, you bully and lie as much as you wish, straining neither your schedule nor your intellectual and financial resources. When it comes to sacrifice (and never mind about sacrificing for real children), you happily toss off, “I’m a coward.” Words are cheap.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 8:00 am
Did any Pro Lifer intervene?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 9:20 am
Chuck — cowardly, prudent, not everybody is as kind as you. And e, learn to read.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:03 am
John, Did ANY ProLifer intervene?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:13 am
John,
I have a lot of your good friends and people you admire down here with me.
They are being flogged in an eternal fire, so they are busy right now.
Would you like to write to them at any time? I can make the arrangements . . . So they can write you back.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:45 am
S, I think you meant to say the floggers are busy. I thought you were supposed to be smart!
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:54 am
No John, Wrong Again my loyal evil servant and proxy on Earth, doing my deeds for me.
Your convicted murdering friends that have died or been executed are in an Eternal Hell and Damnation.
When your God strikes you down, he will send you to me as well.
LikeLike
November 14, 2011 at 6:25 am
Why don’t these people get that Abortion is so simply wrong?
It is so obvious! We need to be compassionate to All humans, including the unborn!
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:59 am
Everyone is so busy at the CPC Mills where they harm women with their lies and deception by the millions.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:31 pm
The Catholics are even worse, think about how many people they have murdered!
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Maybe the Catholics and Satan are the same thing? That is the only explanation I can think of . . .
LikeLike
November 12, 2011 at 6:49 pm
It’s all in the PR, Kate.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 6:41 am
Charles, if you’re referencing the Frankie & Alveda duo, it’s more like a PT Barnumesque show. Any publicity, negative or positive, is good—truth be damned. In fact, it’s what much of the prolife industry, especially priests for life, is built on—propaganda of the worst kind–built on lies and misinformation.
Even the less-celebrated anti abortion zealots, those who troll outside abortion clinics, perform bizarre circus acts to shame and terrify women using lies, misinformation and a widespread misanthtropic view of women. They troll in the name of Jesus but act like Satan. They troll because they know the Truth (note the singularity) yet spin meaningless fictive sound bites. They troll because they want to punish women by making their legal and moral decision to enter an abortion clinic a horrifying experience, a punishment that reflects the very satanic nature of the troll.
In all, their PR is as transparent as plastic wrap. You can see through it even though it suffocates the very life out of that which they seek to save.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 6:52 am
The PR is only transparent to those who have gotten beyond the educational level of Fox News viewers and aren’t hobbled by their need to punish others as compensation for their own actual powerlessness. That those two are even moderately successful indicates that they have an ocean of rubes to pitch to.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 7:26 am
The only success they can lay claim to is successfully demonstrating how unchristian, disrespectful, and hateful they are toward women each and every Saturday that they are present outside the abortion clinic.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 8:05 am
I don’t think ProLifers and Catholic priests even realize when Satan has taken control of them.
Look at all the Catholic Pedophiles and murderers. They don’t even know they are one with The Dark Lord.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Why are there so many Catholic Pedophiles?
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 9:56 am
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-pitts-abortion-20111113,0,1425790.story
Gotta Love It.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 10:12 am
Evan asks, “Why does God kill a cell, if it is a person?
That’s not very nice of him . . . poor little cell never got a shot at even being a two celled person . . .”
You’re asking the wrong question, Evan. The real question is, “How can anyone possibly say a cell is a person?”
One of the basic falsehoods of the so-called “pro-life” movement is that an egg, an embryo, a cystoblast or a fetus is a person. Self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” have to deny that personhood is achieved only by a human being and that one becomes a human being only through social inputs– nurture, play, education, competition, etc.
So-called “pro-lifers” will not touch this concept with a ten-foot pole, because it opens them up to the responsibility for caring for life beyond the fetal stage. Mr. Dunkle, once intelligent enough to be an English teacher in a parochial school, refuses to discuss the significance of ferality in children. He pretends to be stupid about it; he knows what will happen if he engages in the topic.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:02 am
OK, Pat, that’s it for me. Elena is deleting my comments, which she has every right to do. Course, then I have the right not to make any more either. What I’m afraid of is that deleting could turn into editing, when the frustration grows even more, and then I could be in big trouble.
So, this is what I’m going to do. I have read my last comment here. Every Monday I will read your latest post I will then transfer one, or even two of the four, into my monthly newsletter, with comments. Anyone else who wants to respond can either comment there or email me, johndunk@ptd.net, or call me, 484-706-4375, or write,, 204 S. 4th St., Reading, PA 19602.
It’s been a great ride. You and Kate and Rog and Chuck have provided more fun than you can imagine. Even the AI’s have contributed.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 11:34 am
John – I dont understand what is happening here! I dont even know who Elena is and I really dont think that she has editing rights. ELENA: IF YOU ARE READING THIS, PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL OF US. As much as I/we disagree with John, I appreciate his comments and his perspective. They are valuable to our discourse. So, John, I urge you to hold off. ELENA, wherever or whoever you are, can you explain what is going on??????
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Censored, my foot.
He’s been getting too much heat– not just the usual name-calling, but serious charges about what he’s doing, how he’s doing it and why. It’s wearing him down.
It’s a convenient excuse to bow out, but he’ll be back. He can be as wrong as sin and as obtuse as a barnacle, but he loves the attention he gets by being a saddle burr.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 2:37 pm
That is the truth. John is not smart enough to answer questions, and now he is threatening to leave like a little boy as he has done in the past.
If he is not smart enough to answer a question, who needs the rotted brain he harbors anyway? It is just a waste of time to read what he writes.
I saw him come close to actually conversing, but then he went back into the typical ProLife Idiot mode that is uneducated and cannot take the scrutiny of the truth.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 4:09 pm
He’s smart enough, Carl. He just hates being ignored and having his precious words erased or silenced….makes him look unimportant, takes a bit of him away when his comments are deleted.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Oh, yes, let’s talk about rights. Typical prolifer. Be gone, already. Who needs all the fan fare. Just beat it.
LikeLike
November 13, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I received some explanation about Johns (and others) comments but I gotta translate it to English. I’m told that sometimes the system edits/deletes things if someone is just cutting and pasting stuff, but I’ve seen pro-choicers do that as well. So, give me a day to interpret this message. But, again, if you think, John, you are purposely being censored for some reason, that’s bull…And, meanwhile, I’ll have a new post in a few hours about pro-choicers going after pro-lifers…
LikeLike
November 14, 2011 at 5:55 am
I think John Dunkle became paranoid that he was being targeted and like many of his targets (female clients and doctors), he didn’t like being a target. Oh, boo hoo.
LikeLike
November 14, 2011 at 7:25 am
“Andrea Says:
“November 14, 2011 at 6:25 am
“Why don’t these people get that Abortion is so simply wrong?
It is so obvious! We need to be compassionate to All humans, including the unborn!”
Andrea, are you one of those self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” who focuses solely on the fetus? Or are you one who extends her care for the fetus for the next eighteen years post-partun?
It is one thing to care for human life; it is quite another to use abortion as an excues to vent your fears and anger about other things that bother you, but which you can’t discuss.
LikeLike
November 23, 2011 at 12:23 pm
prostesting in front of people’s homes is not acceptable. harrassing people at their places of work is not acceptable.we respect your opinoins but condemn your behavior.if you choose to continue to protest at their homes and workplaces,you can expect protests at your home and workplaces.
LikeLike
November 23, 2011 at 4:28 pm
the previous comment is meant for John Dunkle concerning his activities in Allentown.
LikeLike
May 22, 2018 at 12:12 pm
Attractive section of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and
in accession capital to assert that I acquire in fact enjoyed account your blog posts.
Any way I will be subscribing to your augment and even I achievement you access consistently rapidly.
LikeLike