January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
February 17, 2011 at 5:08 pm
Yes that is true. The John Dunkle never gave an adequate answer to Salpingectomy, Salpingostomy, Salpingotomy, or Molar pregnancy.
How can he make opinions on things he knows nothing about?
LikeLike
February 18, 2011 at 6:51 am
Well, we’ve all had a pretty good exposure to how much so-called “pro-lifers” hate killers, murder, torture, killer’s helpers, murderers, and so forth. Now, let’s take a break and find out what they love.
I head the pleasure of meeting Douglas and his aide a few years ago. Douglas was at the time 12, quite chipper, cute/handsome (at that age, you have to be very careful describing a kid who might not want to be described as a kid), gay and borderline autistic. Hence the handler. If he’d been left on his own in school, he would have been eaten alive by the other kids.
So, I’m wondering: Dany of you who call yourselves “pro-life” have a special needs child? And if so, how many more children did you bear after you found out your child was a special needs kid?
LikeLike
February 18, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Our second child, a son, was born mentally handicapped, I guess autistic is the closest you can come to naming the disorder. We and the government take care of him. It was very hard. But it’s not as hard now. He’s 43.
LikeLike
February 19, 2011 at 10:18 am
You’re counting on the government to help you take care of him now? Who’s going to take care of him after you and Margaret die?
LikeLike
February 19, 2011 at 8:21 pm
his brothers and sister
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 7:06 am
Is there something other parents could do to ensure that they detect autism early?
LikeLike
February 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm
How old was your son when you found out he was autistic? And how did you find out?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 6:58 am
At a year old, he was displaying signs of developmental problems. How long did it take for doctors to confirm it? Days? Weeks? Months?
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 2:07 pm
Right away, I think. Didn’t help much. Course it led to the dole.
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Well, if you’d lived in a Second or Third World country, you could have made a little money putting him out to beg with a sad-eyed older sibling holding the tin cup. In case you haven’t noticed, the House of Representatives is offering you a second chance by killing all programs that benefit America’s children.
A reporter once asked John Glenn in his Senate run, what he thought was the greatest thing America ever did, and he said it was the school lunch program. He thought any country that was concerned enough about children to see they got fed had to be a really great country. You were lucky your son was born at the right time; thirty years later Ronald Reagan, according to a friend, cured my friend’s brother of a lifelong developmental handicap. “At least I think Reagan thought he cured him. I do know he cut off his SSI benefit.”
How come so-called “pro-lifers” in general don’t agitate for higher taxes so all children like yours are assured some sort of equitable care?
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 5:59 am
Well, Chuckles, I have gone through it and can’t honestly say whether the government helped or hurt.
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 7:16 am
‘don’t know if government helped or hurt.’
A reaction to be expected when someone is faced with an intolerable situation that outside assistance, no matter how generous, cannot resolve.
The stress experienced by the person who is dealing with the situation is so high that it is emotionally healthy to blow off steam. The closest targets are the subject of concern (in such a case as yours, the child), oneself (depression or suicide) or other immediate family members (the family values route). None of these is a healthy choice.
So, one picks an external target, but the choices are limited by the fact that the target has to have some tangential involvement. It does no good if one blows up at the milkman because one’s child has Down’s syndrome. That only makes one look like he’s out of control.
So, attacking a benefactor is a logical choice for two reasons: first, the benefactor has a connection to the status of the situation, and second, what the benefactor intends has not worked.
When I was director of disaster services for a charitable organization, I was called to the scene of a house fire the day after it happened. A woman and four children had died. I tracked down the husband at the funeral home, arriving just as the director was closing the deal on clothing for the five for a closed-casket ceremony. My outfit picked up the tab for the $3500 ( today, around $9000) for the funeral, but the widower lambasted the organization for not being there when the house was burning down. Igf I’d been in his shoes, I would have done the same thing.
To test your dilemma, refuse the SS benefit and see what difference it makes. Then you’ll know whether it’s making a difference or whether it’s just your feelings about the insolubility of the situation.
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 7:32 am
Thank you for that well written comment!
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 8:09 am
Well, folks, I’m actually here, been following your crap for a while now. I just dont comment because it is obvious that a lot of these comments are done by the same person, it’s the same writing. Cann’t you see that, John? They all say “Dumble is a liar” and stuff like that. They just attack and never give you a chance to respond. As for me, I continue to stand vigil outside my doctor’s house in my town every other Saturday, just like John. And the doc is getting very irritated, i guess that’s good!!!
LikeLike
February 22, 2011 at 1:40 pm
There he is, Bruce, they moron that can’t answer questions!
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 7:32 am
Bruce was a moron. I don’t even think he is real.
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 7:14 am
Hey, Bruce! Glad to see you’re still around! How’s the job at Children’s Defense Fund doing? Is Ms. Edelman going to be sending you out on any more business-building commando assignments? Sending you out to picket that doctor’s house was a masterful tactic!!
LikeLike
February 24, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Where is that prolife loser Bruce?
He cannot support a position, I think he is scared to write here.
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Angie: re: the thank you in #13: Thanks.
Everybody should get into amateur acting, to learn how important motive (or unconsciousness thereof) is in all of our actions. The widower who bit my head off in that tragedy (the hired hand had killed the women and children and set the house afire to conceal the crime)acted understandably, even though it was not apparent to him why he blew up at me.
It’s the same with the so-called “pro-life” movement and those who react to it. The former haven’t a clue why they react so strongly to the death of something that has no more sentience than an earthworm. Because they feel they have no reason to explore why they act as they do, they are like idiot children stumbling and grasping blindly in a world which they cannot understand– actually, rather like Helen Keller before Annie Sullivan. They have no idea how crippled they are and how banal their attempts to construct an arena in which to be heroes. They’re the psychological equivalent of teabaggers.
Those who react to them with the sort of venom and base characterizations that occur here would be much more indulgent of their behavior if they understood with whom they are dealing. (But the downside of that would be that tolerance often allows the continuation of malfeasance.) When they understand aborticenrism, they can discover ways to challenge them in a therapeutic fashion.
LikeLike
February 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Bruce is the stupidest person I have read on this gigantic blog.
That means he must really be a dummy!
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 11:27 am
John: re your most recent post (which has not appeared yet). I did some checking and this page does not engage in any form of censorship. If that were the case, I would not be part of this effort. What I have been told is that sometimes when you use an alias, it somehow makes your regular posts look like spam and so they are automatically deleted. I dont understand all of this crap but the bottom line is there is no active censorship. Why the hell would they want to do that? You’re the one who makes this page interesting! Anyway, we can post the comment you sent out if you want. I hope you’ll say no and quit using those damn alias!!! Pat
LikeLike
February 26, 2011 at 11:31 am
Ugh, why invite an Abortion prolife terrorist to stay?
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 10:02 am
Seriously why would you want to do this?
LikeLike
February 27, 2011 at 12:37 pm
There is too many people that cant have children to kill a child!
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 7:11 am
Jamie, up in #2: Congratulations on having managed to raise two children while at the same time turning your life around. However, it’s unrealistic to expect every other woman is just like you, or even close to being that way. One of them, Andrea Yates, drowned all five of her beautiful little boys because nobody around her realized she had such severe mental problems her children needed their help.
I will not stand in the way of a woman’s chioice of abortion unless she agrees to let me provide everything she will need in order to raise them well. I would hope you will make the same commitment to the protection of human life that I have.
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 10:35 am
Well, well…now that John is gone, what are you folks going to do with your lives? Who will you direct your inane comments to? I dont blame John for leaving, he put himself out there and tried to respond to you folks but your questions were absolutely silly and the name calling got out of hand. I suspect that you will do the same with me, correct. One of you, who will no doubt make up a name, will come back with “So, Bruce, are you an abortion terrorist as well?” How boring….
LikeLike
February 28, 2011 at 1:08 pm
You are a riot.
Who wants a maniac that believes in justifiable homicide, a person that worships murderers hanging around. You would want that?
You cannot answer questions either and you never did from what I read.
Is it OK to do an Abortion on a partial molar pregnancy, professor Bruce?
LikeLike
March 8, 2011 at 8:50 am
Bruce you are going to Hell.
I speak with Jesus daily, and he told me if you do not repent and get absolution immediately you are doomed.
Please save your soul!!
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Where did that loser Bruce go?
LikeLike
April 22, 2011 at 11:26 am
That guy was one of the stupidest prolifers on this site. I like the other pro lifers like Rogelio better.
I am glad Bruce is too dumb to give opinions and does not intrude.
LikeLike
March 3, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Obviously, she’s conflicted enough about it to not have a ready answer.
LikeLike
March 8, 2011 at 8:48 am
Most the Prolifers on this site are going to hell. They do not follow the teachings of Jesus our Saviour.
LikeLike
March 10, 2011 at 6:57 am
So, if you’re not like Linda or aquagirl, just how are you “pro-life,” Helen? Do you announce a prayer in church, blockade, contribute to Randall Terry, lobby your legislators? My so-called “pro-life” friend chose to spend his time getting his master’s degree rather than be a Big Brother.
LikeLike
March 10, 2011 at 9:18 am
Those life dynamics people are creeps.
LikeLike
March 10, 2011 at 9:54 am
What they did, Jay, was a little creepy, that’s for sure. but it was clever, dont you think?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:44 am
Yes Pat,
Like evil geniuses in cartoons.
Even real Evil people can be clever and intelligent.
Look at the clever contraptions the Catholics built to torture and kill people during the inquisitions.
LikeLike
March 10, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Keep Abortion legal and safe!!
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 2:12 pm
I’m back! Pat’s fault (#17). Pat’s saying I wasn’t edited and/or ignored is wrong though. When they started doing that, I very carfully typed and emailed a harsh note about LDM. Nothing. I sent it again, and again nothing. If I’d stayed it would mean they could make me say anything. But I’ll take another chance because I love this blog — for the first time in my life I was being noticed. I credit the AIs (adolescent illiterates) for that: their cursings gained me sympathy even from my enemies. But if I go again, you’ll know it’s because they went first.
OK, let’s go. Give me another pro-death argument and I’ll chew it up the way I used to chew up Chuckles’.
LikeLike
March 23, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Welcome back, Johnny Boy! Believe me, if there is any censorship going on and I have anything to say about it, I’ll do what I can. But, honestly, I talked to the manager of this thing a while back and it is certainly not intent to censor you. I will say, however, that some person named “Hell” started clogging up everything,just repeating things over and over (“trolling”?) and he was kicked off. But you dont do that…..
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 9:13 am
Thanks, Pat, but I really don’t blame Boss. I say we are legally killing innocent people. Eventually, that will probably prove too hard to stomach for those of us who want to continue to do it.
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 9:45 am
Now, John, you are stretching it when you say you dont blame the boss. Just for the record, the “boss” says he was not censoring anything that you write. There are just some things out of his control and, as I’ve told you in the past, it had something to do with your using the “anonymous” tag. Anyway, let’s move on!
LikeLike
March 24, 2011 at 10:31 am
OK, fire up!
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 11:39 am
John,
Do you really believe a single cell deserves the word “People” ascribed to it?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Of course! You are now, JK, composed of millions of cells, at one time of thousands, then hundreds, then fifty. So when did you begin, at thirty? At seventy-five? Comon, gimma a break, you began at one! (I’m talking the first cell here, when the two became one; otherwise, the ai’s will say things like, “Is the cell of my finger nail a person then?”).
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 3:12 pm
John,
What is the well accepted definition of “People?”
Please reconcile with your last comment on that definition.
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Au contraire John K, achieving humanity is not determined by biology exclusively. Study up on feral children to see what happens when a humanoid life form is deprived of human care. It is care for life that makes it human. A clump of cells is just a clump of cells. Was your appendix given Extreme Unction before they removed it?
LikeLike
April 4, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Usually it’s the ai’s who say dumb stuff like this.
LikeLike
April 6, 2011 at 8:24 pm
there is a psychological case backing this if you dont believe him!
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 4:32 am
Psychology says your appendix is the same as you? Suppose so, that “science” will say anything.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 5:06 am
Andrew, if you would supply either the information or the link to the case you mention, I think people would appreciate it. I’m going to post a piece from the aborticentrism site elsewhere about the need for a clump of cells to be considered a wholly human being.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 9:19 am
Jaqsonm people are animals with two arms and two legs and a spirit which is capable of producing incredible ugliness as well as incredible beauty.
LikeLike
April 8, 2011 at 7:05 am
What Dictionary did you get that definition from?
Or do you just make up your own definitions of word?
LikeLike
April 8, 2011 at 7:57 am
Inspiration, Donna.
LikeLike
April 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm
And, Donna, he doesn’t care which type impacts on your life. His job is to fool or force others to pump them out indiscriminately.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 5:10 am
Why does a so-called “pro-lifer” consider a clump of cells have to be fully human? From the aborticentrism website:
————
Characteristics of the Perfect Victim
For the “pro-lifer” to feel he is potent, he has to “rescue” a victim, but it cannot be a flawed victim for obvious reasons. What characteristics are needed for a “perfect” victim?
First, it must be unable to react to the hero’s efforts. This saves him, the would-be hero, from suffering further emotional shocks, such as threats from irritated (although rescued) teenagers or rejection from drunken miners.
Second, the victim must be a blank slate, able to accept projection of the virtues the would-be hero would like to identify in himself (fort his own therapeutic ends), such as beauty, grace, saintliness, an ability to project “perfect love,” and so forth. This is based on the need to prove his superiority over death: If he can save a victim seen as embodying the virtues he desire for himself, then he sees proof of his ability to save himself from death’s finality.
(Actually finding a virtuous victim is a problem in real life. Even the affectionately-held dolphin, member of a species highly regarded by its “rescuers” and “respecters”– animal welfare and environmental groups– is said to be capable of rape. Imagine how much harder it is with having a group of real, live people as one’s chosen rescue target. If the would-be hero cannot find such a perfect victim, what is he to do? Invent one.)
Third, the victim must be acceptable to the public as worthy, which means it must be capable of being marketed as such. For example, the would-be hero could choose to defend Mars against human colonization. He will have chosen wisely only if most of the public is against such a project. If, however, most of the public does not give a fig about Mars, it will not be a victim suitable for his heroic efforts.
Fourth, although society specifies the price that he must pay to be a hero, there must not be a cost to society. No increase in their taxes, the costs of their purchases, the noise level in their neighborhoods, or the general level of discomfort in their lives. On the contrary, the hero must perform an action of benefit to them, such as protecting them from evil, something all societies long for.
(Any cost he extracts from society can only be imposed after he becomes a hero, since society will usually indulge its heroes’ idiosyncracies. And if he extracts too great a cost, it will depose him. But he definitely cannot extract his cost to society beforehand.)
“Wait!” you might say. “What about Churchill demanding sacrifice from the British during World War II? Certainly he was asking for a cost!” No; Churchill was offering to save the British from the cost imposed on them by warfare; his offer was that, in return for a change in their behavior, he would end the hideous cost they were bearing. In the expectation that he could do it, they agreed to his terms, and when he met their expectations, they awarded him the status of a hero. (It is worth pointing out that as a man capable of leading a nation in wartime, Churchill had the internal resources to meet such a task and did not have to construct a perfect victim in order to become a hero.)
Fifth, the victim must be simple for society to comprehend. Of shaky psychological well-being, the would-be hero must conserve his energy for the direct struggle, not spend it on educating those whose approval he seeks. The more complex the issue, the more energy he would have to spend on getting society to understand and approve the “heroic” nature of the struggle he intends to undertake. Since he has to conserve his energies and safeguard his emotional well-being, the victim and its threat must be so simple and compelling as to demand nothing of society except their approval.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 5:46 am
Pat! Whatawegonnado ’bout this guy? He can’t get any of us to go to his crazy site, so now he’s bringing it to us!
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 6:55 am
CG: cut the crap. I really appreciate your chiming in with your perspective but start your own blog. John is right – neither you or anyone else who has a site they want to promote will be permitted to do something this blatantly…Thanks
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 10:08 am
Aawww, yer only sayin’ that because you alwuz liked him more then me! (sniffles, bursts into tears, wets pants, assumes untortured pre-born human unborn innocent angel position, awaits rescue)
Does this mean you don’t want a Father’s Day essay?
Point taken.
LikeLike
April 7, 2011 at 12:21 pm
This is more like it. I think.
LikeLike
April 18, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Thank you Pat for this. We learn from the evil of the Catholics – they are the Diablo.
LikeLike
April 19, 2011 at 5:42 am
Well, Carlos, I’m not sure if I agree that Catholics are “El Diablo.” I guess some are but I’d like to think that most of them are well meaning people..
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Do you think of that of the Catholics that burned the women for witches, and murdered milliones during inquisitions?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm
I get it, Carlos, I get it. But the Nazis murdered millions of Jews, so should I hold that against all Germans? The U.S. murdered tends of thousands of Indians. I could go on and on, I just dont believe in painting a broad brush…
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm
I ask only about de Catholicas that they did these bad things.
?You dont think they werre bad?
You dont think Nazis that murdered milliones were very, very bad?
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 9:34 am
Catholics are The Chosen People. But look what trouble The Chosen People have gotten into since Abraham!
LikeLike
April 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Pat,
Can you translate for John full time?
Just cannot understand what he is trying to say.
His comments usually are written illiterally and off comment and incomprehensible.
A translator would be desirable.
Tx!
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 8:40 am
Can anyone understand this Dunkle?
Is this a riddle or a joke?
He makes no sense whatsoever . . .
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 11:02 am
Uh oh, ai’s feeling their oats, again. (Now where’s that quote.)
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 11:08 am
John
I cannot understand you and I am Catholic. I don’t even understand what you just wrote.
Does it have anything to do with the evil of Abortion?
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 11:35 am
We have a lot of them, but this is one of the more disjointed conversations we’ve ever had…
LikeLike
April 21, 2011 at 3:58 pm
The ai’s are the adolescent illiterates, the kids who just name call like Donna and Kent above. They’ve been attacked lots in these posts by members of their own pro-death group. After each attack, they calm down for a while, but only a while.
LikeLike
April 22, 2011 at 9:36 am
John,
Still you are not answering my questions.
Why?
We should work together to fight the evils of Abortion.
LikeLike
April 22, 2011 at 10:42 am
The only question I see here is “why.”
LikeLike
May 17, 2011 at 8:44 am
Look at the thread.
April 21st 11:08 AM
There is the question.
LikeLike
April 24, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Found it: “A. Liggins Says: December 6, 2010 at 11:07 am — I have to wonder why it is that so many people are responding to Mr. Dunkle’s posts. Whomever John Dunkle is, he or she obviously is enjoying the attention everyone is heaping upon his rhetoric. He needles people into becoming his pawns in a game of words that ends with you all you looking like mad, angry idiots.
Ignore the man. He’ll go away eventually. Let him have the last word, if it means so much to him. It is clear he is very much enjoying these interactions he precipitates by making rude comments on this site. And you all fall right into the trap, and let him needle you into his game. It’s silly, manipulative, and childish.
Ignore him. He’ll go away eventually.”
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 6:17 am
I persnally hope he never goes away! This man serves a vital role in representing the quintessence of the so-called “pro-life” movement, and we shuuld pay close attention to him.
I don’t think there is a more comprehensive display of the traits which show the true nature of the movement, including:
*Denial
*Feigned ignorance
*Narrow-mindedness
*Intellectual laziness
*Scholarly dishonesty
*Lying
*Egocentrism
In my opinion, there is hardly a better all-around representative of the movement than John Dunkle, and it would do well to keep him in mind when you ask yourself, “How can I get these people to discuss this issue reasonably?”
LikeLike
April 23, 2011 at 9:19 am
So, John, what is your answer to that probing question: Why? Then, while you’re at it, please answer this mind bender: What?
LikeLike