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 
September 10, 2011 at 7:21 am
Well, guys, here’s a child who’s going to have an abortion, and you need to have her approach you to avail herself of any help you have to offer?
In the ninety seconds it took me to write that sentence, another child actually gave birth to her child. In ninety seconds more it will happen again. And again. And again.
Why not aim for the born babies and donate all that money to your local adoption agency? For that matter, voice, why not adopt through your local agency?
Or will you not act to care for a real human life unless it’s virtually face-to-face? Is that because you need the satisfaction of knowing you’re the only one who reached out, the feeling that she will enshrine you personally in her heart forever?
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:16 am
***To the 16 year old needing an abortion: I made an offer of help in another comment. Please read it if you need/want help. There are people here who will help you get an abortion, and there are people here who will help you not get an abortion, and with all the help you’ll need should you decide not to abort. Abortion is not your only option, but it is irrevocable should you change your mind later. Either way, please reach out to trusted people in your life, don’t make this decision alone. (Ignore the adults as we continue to banally argue with each other!)
Are you on drugs Chuck?
Sentence 1. No, I don’t “need” her to approach me to avail herself of any help I have to offer. She can just telepathically let me know where she is and what she needs. I’ll take it from there.
2. Praise God they will be born and not scrapped from their mothers wombs with surgical instruments.
3. Why not continue to do both, as we all already do, I have done personally and intend to continue to do personally, and as many people I know do and intend to continue to do, and as hundreds of Christian organizations do each and every day. Ignoring it don’t make it go away Aborticentrism.
4.a. So when I “met” you, NONE of us cared FOR human life, adoption was the only “real” way, and anything short of doing the equivalent of raising a child not related to you, that you don’t want, is the only way to “act to care for a real human life.” Now you admit with this sentence; “Or will you not act to care for a real human life unless it’s virtually face-to-face?” that I am caring for a real human life, albeit that it’s face to face?
b. No Chuck, those thoughts have never even occurred to me, or anyone I know. What I actually felt was compassion that a 16 year old was in such a lonely place. I assure you I would have felt the same thing if I was pro-choice. I also felt outrage that none of the HUMAN BEINGS on this blog, both pro-life and pro-choice, reached out to her. I felt sick that the ones who did speak up only did it to argue with each other about their pet issues while she watched. Satisfaction wasn’t in the equation Chuck. I was feeling this while also thinking through all my resources should she surprise me and take me up on my offer.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:40 am
NunYa, I have learned that if you want to effectively help someone, you start from their strengths. The very first thing I ever wrote on this blog was a response to just such a child. I didn’t offer money or my phone number. I told her to trust her instincts and to be aware that there is always somebody out there who she can rely on to explore all her options. I told her not to let anyone envision her future for her, but to make plans for it herself. That was the gist of it.
I occasionally hope that the young woman is not now screaming at her kid, “I could have ABORTED you!”
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Well Chuck, I took your ethereal, generic advice to one girl in need, and put legs on it for another.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Good!
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm
You know Chuck, I have read and re-read your comment here, trying to understand. I have an accusation to make against you. I do not believe that you are here for any reason other than to promote your theory. That’s it. If you really support and care about/for women, or anyone for that matter, how could you not be glad that someone was reaching out to that girl? Is SHE, THAT girl, not important? You tell me I should give the help and financial support I offered her to an adoption agency? From the comments of others in my time here, I really don’t think any of you care either. You are all just against pro-lifers, you don’t really care about the women involved in the debate, do you? I haven’t seen any of you pipe up to Chuck about this girl and my offer to her. Why should she have to suffer alone and get no help so I can give to an adoption agency? You all know this makes no sense, it’s literally just “get the pro-lifer” and “never give up on believing they don’t care and are looney, no matter what they do to prove it isn’t so,” isn’t it? I can understand people who stand on the opposing side of an issue, but I can’t understand people who are so frozen in a posture with no regard to the truth, evidence to the contrary, or the people caught up in that issue. And Pat, you ask questions of me or “any pro-lifer” and then ignoring my responses. I mentioned that before and you gave some reason, I don’t remember, yet it still happens. I feel it is because you have no rebuttal, so you remain silent. Kate and Chuck try, and end up rambling, waxing philosophical, or just plain defying logic with their answers. This is because they don’t have a rebuttal either, other than to keep accusing us of not caring, or just plain old calling names.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 7:18 am
And why should some child suffer because a person “helping” it draws the line at supporting only the pregnancy?
NunYa, it is clear that you are a caring person in many respects, but you really do have a fixation on abortion that prevents you from putting it in perspective. Perhaps you can help me understand better if you can explain to me what you see as your obligation toward a child whose birth you insisted upon.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm
First of all, Chuck, I hope you will open your eyes to my answer, and not just try to fit it/me into Aborticentrism. If I really fit there, that would be one thing, but to continue to try and fit me and all people who are pro-life there is equivalent to researching why dogs only mate with other dogs, then, because that’s your original thesis statement, turning a blind eye when they continually mate with cats. It makes no sense.
Secondly, you answered my accusation with more questions, which is the norm among your ilk, I have learned in my time here. I will answer anyway, in the hopes of starting an actual conversation, but I trust you will give me the same respect and begin to honestly answer my questions also.
Finally, this may be long, so I’m sorry Pat. All I can promise is that it won’t be filled with copied and pasted material, it will be all me!
Let’s begin with your first statement Chuck: “And why should some child suffer because a person “helping” it draws the line at supporting only the pregnancy?”
This is an assumption based on nothing but your false beliefs about pro-lifers, coupled with an apparent lack of understanding concerning the nature of stereotyping. Here are the definitions of stereotyping I refer to:
“an often oversimplified or biased mental picture held to characterize the typical individual of a group”
“A too-simple and therefore distorted image of a group, such as “Football players are stupid” or “The English are cold and unfriendly people.”
“a set of inaccurate, simplistic generalizations about a group that allows others to categorize them and treat them accordingly”
“A generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group.”
I’m not including the definitions here to be condescending, I promise I’m not, but the dictionary says in a few concise sentences what it would take me paragraphs to say. Chuck, you, Kate and Bonzo have been the worst offenders. Pat, you aren’t as “vocal” about it, but I assume you are guilty too, though possibly more open minded?
“NunYa, it is clear that you are a caring person in many respects, but you really do have a fixation on abortion that prevents you from putting it in perspective…”
Chuck, if I did have a fixation on abortion, it would make my day. I am nowhere near having a fixation. I don’t do anything at all lately about it. I have become apathetic and complacent. Joining this blog was one of the ways I am trying to break myself out of that pattern. How can a person who believes babies are being killed become complacent about it? It’s a paradox all right. In my case, life gets in the way, the situation feels overwhelming, laws are passed.
I do have it in perspective. I have a Biblical Worldview. That’s my perspective. I can believe abortion is killing a baby, that it is wrong, and take a stand against it, without also needing to adopt orphans. My biblical worldview does hold me responsible for the earth and everything in it, so I would certainly get help for each and every child personally presented to me, including adopting AND loving it myself should that be my only option. I choose to help mostly financially at this stage of my life, behind the scenes, in diverse ways.
“Perhaps you can help me understand better if you can explain to me what you see as your obligation toward a child whose birth you insisted upon.”
I see my obligation to that child the same way I see my obligation to all humanity, animals, and the earth: To take care of it/them to the greatest degree that I am able, as one person, and to convert others to that belief if possible, in a proper, unoffensive way. (Although I can be obnoxious if I want to) I am only one person, so I can only do the work of one person. I cannot adopt every needy child on the planet. I am not rich, so I cannot pay the hospital bills of every woman intent on abortion in order to get her not to abort. So I do what most people do. I help those who appear in my life, or get them help if I can’t provide it. I also try to help on a bigger scale by giving to organizations that can do more than I can.
I have been married for 35 years, and almost since day one we have opened our home to others. We have had single adults as well as entire families live with us, including two different families of five. We always said that we didn’t have money, but we had a roof over our heads, and we could provide that! Now that we are in better financial shape, we are trying to do more, mostly behind the scenes. But I have always, and will always speak out against abortion, hoping that something I say will make a difference. I don’t believe that every woman/girl who finds herself in an abortion clinic is pro-choice, or even wants an abortion. I believe they should be offered every opportunity to make the other decision. I would let her live here as long as she needed to, with her child. I would help her find employment, get an education, reunite with her family, get medical care, etc., using all the resources available to me. The only way I would give up on her would be if she gave up on herself, and refused to try. As I’ve said before, I have worked in the system, and some people are like that. Too many. Even then, I would give her way too many chances, as is my nature. I would stay in the child’s life, helping in any way I could, as long as she allowed it.
I stopped on the side of the road two weeks ago to help save an owl that had been hit by a car. (Don’t ask, I have no idea how this could happen!) I was in a van, and was from out of town. Another person who also stopped was in a truck, lived in the area, and knew who to take the owl too. I thankfully let him take the owl. We are the only two that stopped. Now Chuck, two things. First, I didn’t automatically believe that those hundreds of cars that passed the owl by are animal haters. Nor did I immediately decide that none of them were good citizens. They made a selfish choice in that moment, based on as many variables as there were people. Also, had the man not been there, I would have taken it myself, and found help for it. For the sake of argument, let’s say there was no help available for it on earth, other than me. I can assure you that were that the case, there would now be a huge cage filled with a recuperating owl in my garage, and my entire family would be very well educated on the medical care of owls. Would I want to keep the owl? Would I start an owl day care center, or go into veterinary medicine? Doubtful. Would I start wandering the woods looking for other injured birds that I know are probably out there? No. Does this mean I don’t care? No, But I would take care of that one owl presented to me, and I would probably become vocal about our responsibility to help creatures in need. I would possibly start giving to an organization that helps animals.
Knowing this about me Chuck, do you think I would leave a pregnant girl in need, or a new mother and her child in need? And no Chuck, this isn’t just me. All those organizations and individuals out here that you all show clearly that you disdain by denying that they exist, would do the same. They would help, even if that help is to find other help. You don’t have to adopt 17 owls to prove you care about life, you only have to help the one presented to you. There are those who drive on by, turning a blind eye. Their problem is that they expect someone ELSE to stop and help. That is actually a reasonable expectation, because most people really are decent, law abiding, good citizens, albeit self-centered first and foremost. Of those who did drive on by, I believe that should that owl have landed in any of their back yards, they wouldn’t just watch it slowly starve to death. Most people in the world would help THAT owl.
I think you and most people reading these words know this is true, and that people are people are people. We usually focus on ourselves first and foremost. Some if us are “out there” making a difference on a regular basis. But MOST of us do rise to the occasion when the occasion is thrust upon us.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 9:10 am
“Why not aim for the born babies and donate all that money to your local adoption agency? For that matter, voice, why not adopt through your local agency?”
And what makes you think that I haven’t or that I don’t run that local adoption agency for that matter? Huh?
We offered someone help in order to save a life. It is the right thing to do so stop trying to make it into a negative. I don’t even think the other choicers on here would buy that load. It’s really sad that you feel the need to do that. You are pitiful and I mean that.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:13 am
because if you had or did, you’d be proud to mention it.
Sort of bugs you to have me behaving like a teenager, doesn’t it? Well, real life has people like that in it.
The interesting thing about where you, NunYa, et al., are coming from is the need for personalization of the support. In a way, it’s the opposite of good citizenship.
As someone said, the essence of democracy is the ability to trust governance by people you don’t know. It’s unlike much of the Middle East, where the basic political unit is not the ward, district, county, shire or province, but the tribe or the clan.
In America, we’ve been lucky enough so far to have a culture that values supporting a system by votes and taxes. We elect the people who implement the values, and we pay taxes to operate the institutions that oversee that implementation– e.g., with our concern for the elderly, we pay for Medicare and Social Security; for protection for all against disease, we pay taxes for the Centers for Disease Control, and so on.
We support schools with taxes, we support pre-school (Head Start) with taxes, and at least in my state we impose taxes on ourselves to keep the local food shelf and homeless center running, the Visiting Nurses going, and the Parks and Recreation programs up to speed.
But many self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” don’t cotton to faceless institutional support– in fact, quite a few of them have strong teabagger inclinations as to getting FEMA out of government, calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, hating taxes in general and so forth. At the same time, rather than tax themselves with a hefty annual donation to their local adoption center, they only step forward when they can be the pivot point in a crisis. Just sayin’ . . .
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 10:57 am
“because if you had or did, you’d be proud to mention it.”
No I wouldn’t because (1) I have seen what you do to people that mention it and (2) It’s none of your business.
The rest of your post is nonsense. Just sayin”….
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Hah! You haven’t talked to rogelio, have you? I told him I was so impressed that if he asked me for money, I’d give it to him….
Thanks for confirming my hunch.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 3:35 pm
You and Kate, Chuck, overuse favorite expressions. One of yours is this — “Thanks for confirming my hunch.” Once every two years, fine. More than that, simply distracting.
LikeLike
September 10, 2011 at 7:13 pm
You’re a politician ON drugs. Lord, the double speak rambling rabbit trails Chuck takes us on that make no sense. Do you make it a habit to question the motives of everyone you meet, calling them names, questioning their motives, and projecting your beliefs on them? Or is it just pro-lifers who are the devil and couldn’t possibly ever do a good deed for the right reasons? The only one I ever see bragging about what they do is you Chuck.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 8:09 am
Do the 600 hours and 8% for a couple of years and get back to me, NunYa. Or for an easier variation of the test, try to get a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” acquaintance of yours to do them instead. It ain’t gonna happen….
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 9:37 am
Yup, there he goes again — “Non a youse guys is as good as me. Conclusion? — I can kill anybody I want.”
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Still waiting for you to bring me “that next child,” Chuck.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 6:20 am
Okay, here’s two for you: I’m talking to their dad in the kitchen, and they come in. When they see he’s there, they shrink noticeably into themselves and take separate paths around the perimeter to stay as far from him as possible. later, I’m sitting next to one of them as we open Christmas presents. Suddenly his head shakes from a slap administered from behind. “Don’t unwrap it like that,” says his dad.
How many millions more children do you need to meet before you start thinking about what they need?
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 9:00 am
I understand your point Chuck, I just don’t understand your focus. I know you believe someone in that group, either the two kids or the father, shouldn’t have been born. That makes no sense to me. That father should have been reprimanded and possibly turned into your state’s child welfare authorities if he is an abusive parent. If that is a real scenario, you should have intervened in some way, even to comfort the two kids. It does happen, and it’s awful, but you can’t seem to see any good in people. Most people aren’t child abusers, though they may be awful parents. But even so, they have some good in them that is worthy of life. You are basically saying that no one who isn’t perfect deserves life, that no one who MIGHT be raised in abuse or dysfunction should be born.
I have a friend visiting us right now who was raised in horrible conditions. Her mother was a single mother with three children, and very abusive. My friend is now in her fifties, and still dealing with lifelong issues, but has managed to remain married for 35 years, raise three children, and has several grandchildren. Should none of them been born just because her life was hard, abusive? Her brother and sister were raised in the same conditions. He married one of those single, struggling moms you talk about, they have been happy for years, and he is a loving, good father to her children. Had his mother had an abortion, those children wouldn’t have had him as a father. Their sister writes one of my favorite blogs, combining her love of photography, gardening and birds. Her pictures are beautiful, truly beautiful, and her writer’s voice is soothing. I go to her blog to relax from a busy day. She also has been married for over 30 years, is a strong Christian, and has raised two children who are Christians, well adjusted, and attending college. Should none of them have been born so that my friend and her siblings could avoid the controlling, abusive mother who berated them and beat them almost daily? Should none of them have been born so that they could avoid the neglectful, aloof stepfather who she married when they were still children, then disowned them as soon as their mother died several years ago, after being their father for 30 years?
My friend is the oldest and took the brunt of the abuse, and does have problems. Her kids have issues also, but all of them are glad to be alive, and living life just like the rest of us.
My sister is one of the nicest people I know. She is 11 years older than me, and has always been my best friend. We come from a very dysfunctional family, though not abusive. Both of us were affected in different ways. When my mother was pregnant with her, her husband at the time, my sister’s father, beat my mother, stayed gone each weekend until the paycheck ran out, brought other women home and humiliated my mother in front of them. My mother was an ideal candidate for a “back alley” abortion. Once that child was born, she would be trapped for sure. She instead chose to have my sister and abort him. She left him, worked in menial jobs to support my sister, having no family support. She married my father when my sister was 10, and had me the next year. As I said, because of mother’s past, we were raised in dysfunction also, that caused us lifelong issues. But my sister and I made up our minds to be better parents. My sister has been married over 40 years. Her son is a decorated police officer, her daughter the secretary of the local Christian school. Her grandchildren all are happy and doing well in school. Should none of them been born just to make it easier on my mother? Or so that my sister could have avoided the dysfunction of my mother? We’re talking old fashioned electric shock treatments, lithium, etc and all that goes with that with my mother. I said there was no abuse, but when your life with your mother culminates with her berating you both to the hospice worker while your dad lays dying in the next room, I guess it was abuse. We took that all our lives, and are still very happy to be alive. Our children are all happy, and have excellent marriages. There is not so much as a single divorce in my sisters family or mine. Our children have been happily married for years. All are Christians. Every one of our grandchildren are Christians, happy, ridiculously well adjusted, and doing above average in school. Her granddaughter has a beautiful voice and wins singing competitions regularly . My sister is an overcomer, but only because she was given the chance.
Abortion is not the answer to anything, but it is an easy way out. I have to hand it to my mother, screwed up though she was, she knew killing her child wasn’t the answer, and wouldn’t fix anything.
“How many millions more children do you need to meet before you start thinking about what they need?”
That was the long answer. The short answer is that their most basic need is life. I don’t look at abused kids or abusive parents and think they shouldn’t be alive. I look at them and start to formulate a plan to help them.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 8:06 am
NunYa, when I talk to self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” about examining their concern about fetuses being so much greater than their care for the human that results, they often charge that I am “incomprehensible.”
They find me incomprehensible the way a two-year-old finds his mother incomprehensible when she tells him not to throw his rubber ducky in the toilet. He doesn’t have the ability to understand the significance behind the language.
In the case of adult self-proclaimed “pro-lifers,” they choose not to learn the significance behind the charge of aborticentrism.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 9:39 am
“Yup, there he goes again — “Non a youse guys is as smart as me. Conclusion? — I can kill anybody I want.”
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm
I have learned it, refuted it, poked holes in it and proven it wrong. All of which you ignore. I tell you I will take in “the next child,” which you ignore, then several comments later I get this; “Do the 600 hours and 8% for a couple of years and get back to me, NunYa.” That has happened 10 times, at least, through several articles so far.
LikeLike
September 11, 2011 at 4:57 pm
And I don’t find you incomprehensible, I find you illogical and blatantly self-promoting.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 7:06 am
So, NunYa, would you let me have your family pet? You must have a cat or dog.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 8:32 am
Oh no!
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 10:33 am
Oh, geez, here goes Charles with the dog stuff!!!1
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 2:23 pm
Okay, I’ll “bite”! Why would I let you have my family pet, and what does it have to do with the issue?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm
It has a lot to do with your family pet, actually. Why would you refuse to let me have your dog, when if I were a pregnant woman you would insist I have a baby?
So far, there has been no self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” who values his/her pet who will let me have their family pet, yet all of them would insist I have a baby.
There was a Susan who agreed to let me have hers until she found out my girlfriend ekes out her SSI by selling animals to the local college’s animal laboratory.
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Girlfriend! You fornicating, Chuck?
LikeLike
September 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I have a hamster you can have but I warn you ahead of time. It will bite and leave marks.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 1:25 am
No matter how many times I read this Chuck, I still can’t make it make sense.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 6:09 am
In other words, voice, you care about a fetus as much asyou care about your hamster. For a self-prioclaimed “pro-lifer,” that figures.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 8:51 am
Well you have been begging for pets for a while now, I thought you might want the hamster or is only dogs you are looking for?
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 8:21 am
Charles, please explain last conclusion you made about voice and his hamster….
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 8:34 am
Pat, Chuck made a similar comment to me months ago. I persuaded him to switch to email cause I knew where it would go. Sure enough, after 150 exchanges we arrived at the start: “Why would you make someone have a baby whom you would not even trust with your dog?”
My first response had been, “I wouldn’t make anyone have a baby. Unfortunately, this woman already has one. All I’m doing now is trying to defend the baby’s life.”
If I’d repeated it, Chuck would have ignored it again and we’d a gone on for another 150. So, v and A — warning.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 8:58 am
…..and around and around and around we go…..where we stop, nobody knows.
Give me your dog!
Nope!
You care more about dogs than you do unborn babies!
Huh?
You won’t give me your dog but you will make me have a baby!
No, I’m trying to prevent you from killing a baby that already exists.
You have aborticentrism.
What the heck is that?
I dunno, I made it up cause it sounds cool!
No it doesn’t. It sounds stupid.
Repeat, then repeat again, then again, and again and again………………..
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 9:39 am
voice, what does it say about a person who will insist that I have a baby when he won’t trust me with his dog?
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 10:03 am
It says you got a problem.
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 10:06 am
Nobody insists that you have a baby. What we insist is that you don’t kill the one that you already have.
around and around and around……………………
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 3:19 pm
voice, you answered the question I didn’t ask. I asked, “what does it say about a person who will not let me have his pet, but will insist I have a baby?”
That you cannot answer it seriously confirms a tenet of aborticentrism.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 7:44 am
Here’s my answer Chuck:
Most people would not give you their pet because they love it and want to keep it. If they didn’t care one way or the other, they would probably beg you to take it if they knew you were a decent person. Some would beg you to take it whether you were or not.
As far as the point you are trying to make with this, which I do see and understand but don’t agree with:
If I saw you stuffing your puppy or kitten into a sack while standing on a bridge, I would do everything in my power to stop you. I would even jump into the river after it if you managed to throw it in despite my laying on top of you beating you in the head. I would then do my dead level best to give it away. I have had pets my entire life, never less than two at a time, all given to me as abandoned or abused, or adopted from my local killing shelter. I do not want any more pets to take care of. This does not mean I don’t care about or for pets. I can give money to the Humane Society and not own pets and that’s okay. It doesn’t fit me into Nopeticentrism. But again, I would take care of, keep and love THAT puppy or kitten if that were my only option.
I have 2 questions:
1.Why do you and every other abortion advocate I’ve met on this blog refuse to acknowledge that we are trying to get a woman not to kill a baby she already has growing inside her?
2. Why do you and every other abortion advocate I’ve met on this blog keep insisting that we are “insisting” a woman have a baby, as if we are advocating for them to go out and get pregnant?
3. Do any of you actively support, on a large or small scale, ANYTHING to help the current crisis OTHER THAN abortion?
4. Do most of you feel your responsibility to the current crisis begins and ends with abortion, i.e., the easy way out? (According to Kate and all her research, it isn’t a trauma for the woman, none of you refuted that, so I have to assume it is the easy way out to you all too.)
“what does it say about a person who will not let me have his pet, but will insist I have a baby?”
That question begs a two part answer.
1. If the person is trying to get you to have a baby, it says about them that they are severely misguided, or extremely controlling, or a grandmother wannabe. They won’t give you their pet because they love it and want to keep it.
2. If the person is trying to get you not to kill the baby you already have growing inside you, it says about them that they think killing infants is wrong. They won’t give you their pet because they love it and want to keep it.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 9:19 am
Sorry, apparently I can’t count.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Still waiting Pat?
LikeLike
September 13, 2011 at 3:34 pm
NunYa, I DO NOT believe that either the two kids or their father should not have been born!@!!! I believe if the father had been raised better, he would have been a good father. It really sickens me that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” always have this focus on Death, but it’s to be expected with aborticentrism.
As for your friend who was born in horrible conditions, it her mother had been raised to understand that she could trust her feelings and could always find someone who who have the answer she needed, your friend’s life would have been totally different too. You can’t just assume that fewer or more children is either a solution or a problem. As for her children, you acknowledge de facto that the evil of the first generation has been transmitted to the third generation– because there was nobody there to strngthem them against it properly.
I am happy for your contentment with your children, but that doesn’t mean you can apply your experience to other families. It takes work to get children through childhood, and entrusting to the care of others the children you insisted be born is not going to guarantee them the ending you wish. Insisting ohter people have have babies is the easy way out. The hard way is being responsible for the child you want born. Anything else is magical thining.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
“NunYa, I DO NOT believe that either the two kids or their father should not have been born!@!!!”
I refuse to own this Chuck, it’s all yours. It is the impression you give throughout all your comments. Now that you have clarified, I’ll work from that from now on.
“I believe if the father had been raised better, he would have been a good father.”
Me too, and if you are advocating for reform of the system and better programs for at risk segments of society, then you need to stop giving the assumption you are advocating for abortion, or be clear about which is which in your comments.
“It really sickens me that self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” always have this focus on Death, but it’s to be expected with aborticentrism.”
1. Chuck, abortion forces an enigma upon us of being for life, while having to focus on the deaths happening all around us. And yes, it is sickening.
2. Aborticentrism isn’t real, it’s all in your mind.
“As for your friend who was born in horrible conditions, it her mother had been raised to understand that she could trust her feelings and could always find someone who who have the answer she needed, your friend’s life would have been totally different too…”
I agree. This is why I worked in the system; trying to help people do that very thing.
“You can’t just assume that fewer or more children is either a solution or a problem.”
Huh? Where the heck did that come from? And for the record, I have never assumed that, inferred it or alluded to it. Out of left field…
“As for her children, you acknowledge de facto that the evil of the first generation has been transmitted to the third generation– because there was nobody there to strngthem them against it properly.”
Evil? They have problems. Problems that most people have, exacerbated by emotional problems stemming from their past for sure, but problems just the same. Not evil. I agree that someone should have been there to strengthen them against it properly. Where we disagree is that the answer is to kill them before they are born.
“Where we disagree is that the answer is to kill them before they are born.”
See how I DIDN’T put words in your mouth Chuck? I was tempted to state it this way: “I am glad you agree that creating better parents is the answer, not abortion,” Everyone on this blog should learn to control their impulses as I did.
“It takes work to get children through childhood, and entrusting to the care of others the children you insisted be born is not going to guarantee them the ending you wish.”
When you say “others” here, do you mean the parent pregnant with her own child, or do you mean putting it up for adoption with strangers? There are no guarantees in any situation, but it does take a village. (Hah, don’t faint, lol)
“Insisting ohter people have have babies is the easy way out. The hard way is being responsible for the child you want born. Anything else is magical thining.”
No, the hard thing is for society to get back to morals, stop believing that indiscriminate sex is okay, that using abortion for birth control is okay, that killing your unborn is okay, that turning a blind eye to those in need is okay, that stereotyping is okay, that prejudice is okay, that bashing those who don’t agree with you is okay, that raising a spoiled, selfish generation that is responsible for nothing and accountable to no one is okay, that teaching that those who believe in a higher being are “diseased” is okay, that our “rights” are supreme, that decisions should be made based on those rights to the exclusion on what IS right, that consuming life upon our own lust is okay. The hard thing is to BE a village. All THAT is the hard part.
And we don’t ignore born children. I have proven that point quite well, as well as have all scores of Christian pro-life individuals and organizations that are helping needy children and adults worldwide as I type this. Sadly, we cannot help any of the children we “try” to insist be born. They don’t exist. This is how I know that aborticentrism doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 9:57 am
Actually, where did the term “aborticentrism” come from originally, Charles? Is this your invention? And, folks, you gotta cut back on your posts! I”m getting dizzy!!
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Sorry, I have chronic verborrhea. There is no treatment. My husband has devoted his life to the search for a cure. Bless him.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 8:58 am
That’s funny…
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 6:20 pm
It’s a neologism, like “pro-aborts” and “aborts” used as a noun. It follows the rules of Romance lingual construction, built the same way other words are built from Latin roots.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:49 pm
In other words…he made it up.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:51 pm
And Centrism doesn’t fit at all. Why did you build it on Centrism?
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Because you are centered on abortion; it is the point on which revolves your whole approach to dealing with your own death. If you can defeat abortion, you have proved to yourself that you can transcend your own death.
It’s one of the reasons you can’t stop thinking about killing and get serious about nurturing. Deanna and rogelio have been two to prove the exception; for the majority, there’s no getting away from the extreme focus on abortion.
“Uranium” used to be a neologism, by the way. So did “lady.”
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm
But centrism is moderate, or middle of the road politically, not right or left. How does that work with your idea that it means a focus on one thing?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Also, I have said SEVERAL times that I am not focused on abortion, and need to be. I have also said that my work career has been in the system, helping the very children you keep telling me I’m not focused on. Why do you ignore that? Is it because you already have Deanna, who adopted, and Rogelio, who did something I’m not aware of, and then if you add me, who worked with these kids for years, lifers are starting to stack up on you who don’t fit your made up syndrome? Also, you refuse to acknowledge that we do this because we are against killing babies in the womb. It has nothing to do with our own mortality, which is really the most ridiculous conclusion you came to as you denied reality and made up your own Chuck. Firefighters save lives, police officers do, soldiers do, doctors do. Do all of those do it because they are focused on death and their own mortality, or because they don’t want innocent people to die, and want to protect those innocent people?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:49 pm
In politics, that’s how “centrism” is used.
There are other uses of that word as well, such as the heliocentrism of the solar system: the planets are “centered” on the Sun. So, one can quite reasonably state that the so-called “pro-life” movement is aborticentric the same way the solar system is heliocentric. Abortion is their sun….
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Per your points, NunYa:
1. Why do you focus on a life for which you can do nothing except prolong it (the fetus), rather than on any other life for which you might make an immense difference, albeit at considerable cost to yourself? Aborticentrism posits that you have compelling reasons to take the easier path.
2. Gravity isn’t real, either. There is no way I can prove outside my mind just why it does what it does. But its effects nevertheless exist, just like your non-adoption of the child you don’t want to raise. You focus on the externals– how many children there are or what the financial situation is, rather than what’s going on in the child’s development. That’s where “all that” comes from. “Others” is everybody else. The issue is why you assume somebody else will do as well with any child as you would, especially a child whom you insisted come into the world when the woman knew better than you.
3. From your post previous to that, you seem to react to my potential threat to a child only if it’s visible, but you anticipate in the case of your pet just what evil I might do to it. Why do you treat them differently?
LikeLike
September 14, 2011 at 6:55 pm
I’m tired Chuck. You win. I even tried “The Crane” on you and it had no effect.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 6:48 am
I vun??? I don’t vin until you underschtand dot kits need you more den fetuses do.
Vas ist dis “Krane?”
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 8:59 am
Yeah, what is the Crane?
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm
Oh c’mon, surely you guys have seen The Karate Kid? The famous stance he does to win the fight in the end?
And Chuck, I understand that kids need me equally the same as fetuses do. Actually, change that. Fetuses need me more. Their need is much more pressing.
LikeLike
September 15, 2011 at 9:51 pm
I do get what you are saying Chuck. You think we are trying to make a woman have and raise a child when we might not trust that same woman with our family pet. What I am trying to make you understand is that she already “has” a child, we are just trying to get her not to kill it. By your way of thinking, you may as well make it your life’s work to hang out at Walmart and try to make all low income pregnant women have abortions because they are at high risk to screw it up.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 3:59 am
When you corner Chuck like this, he’ll deny killing anybody. He’ll say that when you were young, you were not a person. He’ll say you were a humanoid, or, better yet, an earthworm.
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 5:42 am
So, NunYa, you then would be happy to give a stranger your dog as long as she doesn’t kill it?
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 5:53 am
I can hear Chuck giggle, “Tee, hee, escaped again.”
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 3:45 pm
OMG!! Give it up Chuck!
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 9:42 am
Nunya, up above you said something like the baby in utero is in more immediate danger. Here’s what I don’t get. Pro-lifers make it sound like the fetus is floating around, watching stuff going on and suddenly it sees the forceps or whatever coming in and it knows it will soon be “killed.” Do you folks really believe that? And thanks for reminding me of the Crane…
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Pat, no, we don’t think that at all. You could dangle a new born over the Grand Canyon and they wouldn’t be aware of danger either. You could hold a gun to a one year old’s head and they would be aware either. Do you really think awareness should be a criteria for life and death? And I’m sorry, but I do believe that at a certain point in the pregnancy they start to feel pain. You know late term abortions have to be painful. Those children are perfectly viable and would feel pain outside the womb. They used to think newborns didn’t feel pain and performed circumcisions without anesthesia. The yelps of pain at the moment it happened finally clued them in. Babies in the womb yawn, hiccup and suck their thumbs. Why are they sucking their thumbs?
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 4:59 pm
The sad thing about this whole business is that NunYa, deanna, voice, and others offer very powerful explanations of why it is wrong to kill the young, and y’all offer lame excuses in reply. Any one who thinks that rationality will eventually change hearts and minds should read this blog.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm
1 Cor. 1:18-end
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 6:56 pm
NunYa, your comments about newborns perceiving/not perceiving pain and/or danger is way, way overly simplistic.
There are two factors at play in the development of a child’s awareness of personal (what his body is telling him) and environmental (what his senses are presenting for him to interpret) inputs.
A child is an ex-fetus. He no longer lives in a temperature-controlled, weightless environment of extremely muted inputs. He is now a victim of heat, cold, radically different bodily kinetics, acute aural sensations, strange excitations of his skin surfaces, unintelligible patterns and shades of light and color– and he has to make sense of it all, which is what infancy is all about.
The pain he experiences at this age is different from that of a later stage. At this age it’s all random, neither expected nor understood. The pain of a circumcision is no different from the pain of his first immunization.
It is only as he develops his intelligence, when he starts to understand that there is a certain “normal” condition of which sudden, acute pain– or being dangled over a cliff– is not part, that he begins to understand that he is hurting. Until then, his suffering is that of an animal or a severely brain-damaged patient– perceived, but not understood. So you shouldn’t go thinking that fetuses or newborns feel pain the way you think they feel it.
By the way, you haven’t got back to me yet about why you would feel okay giving your dog to a stranger who says she won’t kill it. My girl friend won’t kill it; the laboratory won’t pay for dead animals. Can she have your dog?
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 11:13 pm
The point is that he does experience pain Chuck. Don’t you think that if you pinch a newborn he’s going to cry rather than laugh, no matter how random, unexpected or not understood it is?
First it’s okay to kill a child because it’s “unaware.” Now it’s because it doesn’t feel pain. You guys don’t actually buy all this, and you know it. It really doesn’t matter if we “convince” every pro-choicer on the planet that it is a child that feels pain, because you all already know it, and would continue to advocate killing them so that the woman can have her “rights.” Kate and Pat have already as much as admitted this.
What we do here is the ultimate exercise in futility as far as you are concerned. But since Pat is for free speech, and leaves all posts up, hopefully our words will reach the right people at the right time. But for you Chuck, you just need to go the way of Pat and Kate, admit you are advocating for the killing of real, live babies, and stop trying to make yourself feel better with rationalizations.
As for your question, it doesn’t apply to this situation. A better question is this: If you saw a person about to kill THEIR OWN dog because they don’t want it, what would you do?
LikeLike
September 16, 2011 at 11:17 pm
And no one answered this question: Why do babies suck their thumbs in the womb?
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:47 am
They don’t know they’re sucking their thumb. Better you should ask why they don’t do differential equations while they’re in the womb.
The bigger point here is that while self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” object to killing a fetus, they are perfectly willing to let a real child risk EVERYTHING in the Baby Store (you’re presumably read through it on the aborticentrism site).
Of course, “you’d let a stranger have your dog if he promised not to kill it?” is not applicable in that post; it’s a different question. Glad you noticed. But I think it’s quite telling that you won’t address how much or how little you might care for your own dog in that you refuse to answer it.
I had a friend whose previous wife was really into Siamese cats. At one point they had 54 in the house (the marriage didn’t last). One of his jobs in tending them was to take the selected ones (I have no idea what they were selected for) out into the barn and kill them. (He stopped doing that after someone kidnapped his child and clubbed her to death.) Should I have broken off the friendship for his past behavior?
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
RESPONSIBLE Right to Life/chuck/charles/aborticentrism Says:
“They don’t know they’re sucking their thumb. Better you should ask why they don’t do differential equations while they’re in the womb.”
WRONG. They are sucking their thumbs because it is the instinct put into them for survival. Without it they wouldn’t eat and would die after birth. They can be hacked to death at this point, called non-human and undeserving of any human rights. They are killed off in controlled hunts just the same as deer are, to thin their ranks. We don’t want pesky needy kids abounding. The women have different reasons for having abortions, but you proponents of it are very clear in your motivations.
“The bigger point here is that while self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” object to killing a fetus, they are perfectly willing to let a real child risk EVERYTHING in the Baby Store (you’re presumably read through it on the aborticentrism site).”
LIE. BALD FACED LIE CONTINUALLY PRESENTED DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN REFUTED BY ACTUAL PRO-LIFERS MANY TIMES, CITING THEIR OWN PERSONAL ACTIONS AS WELL AS THE EXISTENCE OF SCORES OF PRO-LIFE CHURCHES, INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS DOING THAT VERY THING CONTINUALLY.
“Of course, “you’d let a stranger have your dog if he promised not to kill it?” is not applicable in that post; it’s a different question. Glad you noticed. But I think it’s quite telling that you won’t address how much or how little you might care for your own dog in that you refuse to answer it.”
I’ve never met anyone as prideful as you Chuck, or as adept at twisting his own words in order never to have to admit anything to Tommy Lee Jones.
“I had a friend whose previous wife was really into Siamese cats. At one point they had 54 in the house (the marriage didn’t last). One of his jobs in tending them was to take the selected ones (I have no idea what they were selected for) out into the barn and kill them. (He stopped doing that after someone kidnapped his child and clubbed her to death.) Should I have broken off the friendship for his past behavior?”
We are squarely off in left field again, but here goes…What does this even mean? Are you trying to make the pro-life point for me? What is the relevance to this issue, other than your friend learning the hard way that we should stand up for all life, and not selectively choose who lives and dies? No, you shouldn’t have broken off the friendship. He saw the error of his ways. (And FYI, they were selected for death, she was choosing the ones she was willing to get rid of)
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:11 pm
“But I think it’s quite telling that you won’t address how much or how little you might care for your own dog in that you refuse to answer it.”
I didn’t refuse to answer it Chuck. I have repeatedly told you what I do/would do for born children in need and their mothers, and the imaginary ones of aborticentrism that we insist be born. Isn’t that the point of the dog analogy, or are you talking about actual dogs. I thought I even covered the animal kingdom when I told my owl anecdote. What more do you want from me, to make me cuss?? I gave up cursing years ago, but I can still cuss when continually poked with a stick. I even bite.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm
They don’t know they’re sucking their thumbs; they do it because it’s instinctive, like the rooting reflex or the Moro reflex. You need to have them exercise intelligence in thumb-sucking to give more justification to your aborticentrism; sorry… And if self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” are as dedicated to the welfare of the babies coming out of the Baby Store, why are all those bad things happening without them doing very much about it? Did I mention how many you, Dunkle, Deanna, voice, Bruce et al., have adopted? Six! As my own childhood points out, you could successfully raise kids at a per capita family income of around $4,000– and you’re not doing it, nor are they.
the point about the cats is that God has a sense of humor. Life happens; death happens. The best you can do is circle the wagons for those you love. To do that, you have to set priorities.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Good Lord, if that was the point of that cat story, no wonder I was confused. As for us coming full circle back to adoption being the only way to prove you care “for” a child, I ain’t goin’ there again with you Chuck. You ignore my responses and continue to restate what you THINK I’m saying. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt. As for the babies sucking their thumbs out of instinct; yeah, that’s what I said. I don’t “need” to have them exercise intelligence, nor did I say that.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:55 am
The fight against pain that so-called “pro-lifers” wage wouldn’t be as powerful a public relations tool if the public understood it was the pain experienced at an earthworm level; it’s important for this dysfunctional self-help group to make it the pain of the Christian martyr, so that they can appear to be real rescuers.
They much prefer to save the fetus and then abandon it to whatever pain life inflicts on it, be it the slow corrosive handicapping of a lifelong pulmonary condition (4% less likelihood of still being employed at age 33), the long, slow murder of childhood abuse, or the quick and attention-getting kidnapping and murder. Given their choice of death, they opposed the merciful and flee from the duty of protecting the resultling child against all other forms.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 9:18 am
“pain experienced at an earthworm level”
Proof that YOU are an earthworm!
You cannot seriously think that their pain is any different than your own. They are human, they feel pain as humans do. You are irrational if you think any differently or you think your pain is more ‘special” than theirs.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 12:56 pm
But you won’t take on the responsibility to protect a real child from pain? You have to focus on “rescuing” a fetus from a pain that you want to pretend is qualitatively the same that I as a self-aware, congnizant being can understand?
You need to do your homework on qualia, for starts. And then you have to think about why you won’t let me have your dog but you’ll force me to have a baby…..
And while you’re at it:
Select your sacrifice for your next “rescuee”:
Infant formula for one year: $1500
Pampers to age 2 1/2: $4140
3 Meals a day, 1-5 years old: $4900
Immunizations to age 5: $602
Well-child checkups to 5: $1220
State protection from abuse to age 7: $34,116
Foster child care payments to age 5: $50.437
28-day detox program for pg woman: $14,800
Lead eradication for a child’s home; $45,400
Embryo transplant to prevent abortion: $45,400
Pre-eclampsia care in-hospital, 20 days: $41,900
20 days neonatal intensive care: $204,700
Baby-sitting cost to age six for working single parent: $68,000
Annual membership in your Right to Life group: $15
You can watch them die fast, you can watch them die slow, or you can take them under your wing. Take your pick.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 2:17 pm
I have asked you before what makes you think I won’t/don’t take responsibility and you refuse to answer me so you are just repeating yourself for no reason.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm
I’ve already told you why I have strong reasons to believe you don’t– or didn’t you read the Will Rogers joke?
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:18 pm
What is that word…what is it…you know, the word that means someone deflecting attention away from what you actually asked or stated…c’mon, someone should know…
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Diverting; misdirecting; distracting.
What we see here is the very canny reluctance of the so-called “pro-life” movement to budge from its definitions.
They refuse to budge because they are well aware that if they allow the terms of engagement to be changed, they will lose, and lose big. They cannot afford to have this happen, because the personal consequences are so serious.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:44 pm
“I’ve already told you why I have strong reasons to believe you don’t”
Yeah, but your “reasons” are nothing but a load of horse crap!
Maybe I’m just too smart to play your game.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:04 pm
“What we see here is the very canny reluctance of the so-called “pro-life” movement to budge from its definitions.”
Pot, let me introduce you to Kettle.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Get your undergrad degree in the study of qualia and get back to me on the pain issue, voice…
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Ah, but Nunya, I do not think it is a “baby” until it is viable. So, I dont advocate “killing babies”.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Correction acknowledged and endured Pat. So you are Pro-life at a certain point in the pregnancy?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:09 am
OK, Pat, now we’re getting somewhere. Is it fair to say, “Pat Richards is pro-life for people who’ve been alive for at least twenty-one weeks”? In other words he wants to make it illegal to kill those people?
Step 1, done. Step 2, Chuck and Kate, how long do you think people should be alive before the state makes it illegal to kill them? Step 3, listen carefully, AI’s, but shut up.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:10 am
Rog, I’m gonna let you answer this too, but I haven’t seen you lately.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:25 am
Nice try, John, but that is not what I am saying. I’ll respond below in a different post to you and Voice…
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Yup, Pat, that’s what you said. People who have been living for twenty-one weeks will survive if they leave the womb. That how we use “viability” in these matters.
I know what you’ll throw below — curve balls.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 9:08 am
Seriously Pat, if it’s not a baby then what is it? I know technically it is a fetus but isn’t a fetus just a maturing small baby? It doesn’t morph into a different “thing” at viability. It is what it always was….a developing human baby. According to your logic if viability happens at 25 weeks then it is acceptable to rip it apart at 24 weeks. Poor thing! What a difference one week makes huh? One week you are eligible to be sliced and the next you are safe (at least according to your philosophy). If you are a logical person you must be compelled to look at that and realize that it makes no sense.
Besides that, since viability is determined mostly by lung function it changes from one baby to the next, one hospital to the next, and depending upon current medical science. Who gets to determine when that takes place? The only way to accurately determine viability is to let the baby be born and see what happens. This is impossible if it just got whacked by the abortionist. There must be some “other” criteria for determining the value of life. It MUST be by virtue of the fact that it is human. Everything else is arbitrary.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 6:02 pm
And you will insist that she bear a child and that she be responsible for its upbringing, and you will take the credit when the child turns into a Ph.D. microbiologist, and you will say it was part of God’s inscrutable plan when the child turns out to be the next Ted Bundy.
For you, it’s win-win, but for the woman and the fetus it’s a crap shoot.
Can you get any more self-serving than that? Well, yeah, you could be a clinic protestor….
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 5:14 pm
the matter of “voice and her hamster”
Or for that matter, NunYa and her dog:
How much should a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” value a fetus? As much as a family pet? As I’ve pointed out before, some people value their pets VERY highly, as in the case of the owner who got her dog baptized and arranged for a Confirmation as well.
So, it is to be expected that people who claim to be against killing “unborn humans” would be against having their pet killed.
But unanswered is the question: Are they as concerned about the continued welfare of the fetus as they are about their pet? Are they more concerned? Are they less concerned?
To find out, you have to ask them, “Will you let me have your pet?” If they say, “Yes,” what can you conclude about their esteem for their pet? If they say no, what can you conclude?
voice immediately offered me her hamster. It is reasonable to conclude that she does not like the beast and has no compunction to see it leave the household.
The next step is to see how their regard for their pet compares to their professed regard for a fetus: are they as willing to trust me with a born baby as they are to trust me with their pet?
voice’s response indicates that since she would insist I have a baby, she regards one as highly as she does her hamster, which does not seem to be very high at all.
NunYa on the other hand, if she values a fetus as much as she values her pet, will feel comfortable with me having a baby as long as she knows I have said I won’t kill it.
And of course, this says a lot about the whole dysfunctional twelve-step program which calls itself “pro-life.” They apparently care for the fetus and the born child about as much as they care for their pets. It’s hardly surprising they’re well represented among the Teabaggers.
LikeLike
September 17, 2011 at 6:19 pm
NunYa, someplace here you made a reference to your “owl” story. Here’s my response to that:
1. Fitting you into aborticentrism: As long as you do not put the welfare of real children (and that starts with respecting and supporting– not influencing– the woman’s decision about her pregnancy) ahead of your feelings about abortion, you are an aborticentric to a greater or lesser degree. No Paul Hill, perhaps, but still driven by abortion.
2. I ask questions to get to the core of your definitions. If you can’t answer them, it indicates that you are not willing to think things through. Especially about giving me your dog, and the relation your affection for your pet matches your affection for fetuses.
3. Why do you have to believe that abortion is killing a baby, when you could be working really hard to prevent real babies from being harmed as much as so many of them are? Where does this come from? I have dealt with so many kids for so much time that I really esteem Ecclesiastes IV, i-iii. And of course I have spent more of my life wishing I’d never been born, something you apparently haven’t given much thought to.
4. I am happy to hear that you have always been a generous and caring person, but you don’t know how your good intentions can actually contribute to the destruction of a child. (A well-meaning police officer returned one of Jeffrey Dahmer’s victims to him; an atypically extreme case, to be sure, but illustrative.)
5. As for the owl story: there’s a world of difference between other drivers who won’t stop to help an owl and people who insist a woman bear and raise a child. I think no differently of those drivers than you do, but I feel very strongly about self-proclaimed “pro-lifers.”
6. I don’t think you’d leave a pg woman, new mother or child in need, but I do think you would financially support people who do (Randall Terry, Michael McHugh, etc.). As an aborticentric, you are unlikely to think beyond your horror of abortion when they solicit money to drive families into poverty and force children to bear children.
7. And the occasion most of you rise to is a small occasion, limited by your need to conserve your intellectual, financial and emotional resources.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:08 pm
I couldn’t get past “real children”…
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 8:41 am
Calling fetuses “people” is like calling tails “legs” and then insisting a dog has five legs. But as Abraham Lincoln pointed out, “Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
It is very important for self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” to call fetuses “people,” because it lends an air of ennoblement to their self-therapy. As I’ve pointed out many times before, they would look ridiculous if they proclaimed, “We’re trying to prevent the death of something that doesn’t have the mental ability of a snake!”
A fetus is endowed with personhood ONLY at the behest of the pregnant woman. She, after all, is the primary caretaker. No one else can protect it from harm or nurture it in her place. Despite their highly successful public relations ploy in presenting themselves as “rescuers,” the so-called “pro-lifers” at best are “prolongers,” extending fetal life while taking no steps to assure its nurture beyond the womb. This is highly irresponsible.
But none of this is going to stop them from referring to fetuses as “people.”
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Calling fetuses “people” is like calling Chuck a psychological basket case — obvious.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:09 pm
“A fetus is endowed with personhood ONLY at the behest of the pregnant woman.”
God. Forgive us Lord for we know not what we do.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:59 pm
So, if she promises not to kill it, will you let her have your dog, the way you would make her have a baby? You still haven’t answered that question, NunYa….
Just sayin’
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Chuck, I assure you that if a woman EVER said she wouldn’t kill her baby if a pro-lifer would take it, or help her raise it, SOMEONE would do it or find someone who would. No one would turn their back on her. There would be an individual, organization or even a church family that would take her in and help her. I’ve seen people do that all the time in other situations. I’ve NEVER seen it concerning a woman who changed her mind about abortion, because they almost never do, and the ones who do usually keep their baby after it’s born. I would take the baby and or help the girl raise it, as I’ve said before. I am not so heartless as to shrug my shoulders and tell her to go ahead and kill it because I can’t be bothered, it’s too time consuming or expensive. No pro-lifer I know is. Pro-choicers are the only ones who do that, you being at the top of that list. I really am amazed that you can continue to accuse us of attitudes that you and your ilk display here on a continual basis, and in the fact that you support abortion. That in itself is enough said. The problem with your theory is that there are no case studies AT ALL to prove it, and there never will be. You guys are too thorough for that.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 11:37 am
We could go on forever talking about what we call that which is in the mother’s womb. To me, how I describe it – fetus/baby/zygote/etc. – does not matter at all. The important thing is what the woman is thinking. Sure, I know that it would be a real coup if you got me to say that abortion is “killing a baby.” Then you can put it in your blogs, websites, etc. I know that women go to the clinic and generally say “I can’t have this baby.” Others say nothing. Every woman is different and no one has the power to declare what the absolute correct terminology is.
As for me, I support unrestricted abortion up to the point of viability and that point is up for arguments. But after that, I believe that you should not be able to have an abortion unless the woman’s life was endangered or there were severe risks to her health or there was some terrible fetal abnormality. Basically, the parameters laid out in Roe with a twist of two.
But, again, everyone is playing a game here, trying to play “gotcha”, looking for that ah ah moment where someone admits to actually not being totally clear on the issue, not being monolithic or not toeing the party line. It’s a total waste of time because what we say on this blog don’t mean crap to that woman who is seeking an abortion at 22 weeks. It is not a fun event, it’s sad, we should be more compassionate and do all we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies and, should a woman seek an abortion, have her get one as early as possible.
Unlike some people on this blog, I don’t pretend to be perfect and have all the answers. I would think that those of you who have read my stuff should know that by now.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 1:46 pm
fast sliders on the outside, low dipping change-ups, out and out drops — curve balls all That’s what you got here, Pat.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:27 pm
You know Pat, making assumptions about another person, including their motives, is the stuff wars are made of. Divorce. Murder. Dysfunction. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve stated clearly why I’m here; for those future readers. Maybe I’ll convert someone to the truth. I’ve also stated clearly that I know you all know it’s a baby. I’m not waiting for any “aha” moment. I’m a little more mature and intelligent than that. I am not in this to prove pro-choicers wrong. I could blog all day long about what Pat Richards thinks about abortion and it wouldn’t be a blip on the killing machine radar. I bite when continually prodded with a stick, I see you bite when backed into a corner. I take your angst as a good sign, and I appreciate your honesty. Also, I haven’t been here that long, but I have only seen two people who SEEM to pretend to be perfect and have all the answers, by their comments, and that’s Chuck and Kate. As far as drive by “going to hell” lifers, that’s wrong. So are all the drive by “lifers are stupid” posts, which outnumber the others by a mile. As for me, I never thought you pretended to be perfect. I try not to put thoughts, words or motives in someone’s mouth, I just respond to the comments put down in black and white.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Assumption: “”you all know it’s a baby.”
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:48 pm
You’re right. I was assuming a modicum of scientific knowledge among you.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm
The world of American political discourse offers a key to the approach used by self-proclaimed “pro-lifers”:
“Republicans take a stand; Democrats respond by agreeing with the critique but offering a slightly less harsh solution; Republicans get most of what they want.”
So-called “pro-lifers” take a stand; “pro-choicers” respond by agreeing with their definitions and then trying to counter them.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
The fetus is not a person.
God doesn’t care about the fetus as much as any pregnant woman does.
The fetus does not think and it does not fear.
The only person who can pass any judgment on its continued existence is the one responsible for nurturing it it as a child.
People who claim to “rescue” or “respect” or “protect” it do so only to meet their own psychological and emotional needs.
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 3:38 pm
around and around
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 3:52 pm
But this is the crux, ain’t it, Chuck: “The Fetus is not a person.” Of course she is! But let’s call her something else anyway. Let’s call her a being. After all, she is not a non-being; you may remover her from her home or you may leave her alone. You can’t do that to “nothing.”
Now what kind of being. A piece of granite? No. A rose bush? No. A llama? No. A human? Yeah, that’s it, a human. Let’s agree then that she is a human being. Pat? Kate? Rog? Chuck?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:41 pm
I think I was a human being before I was born. How about the rest of you?
LikeLike
September 18, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I almost didn’t make it to being a human being AFTER I was born…
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 5:44 am
Sometimes joking is effective. Not here.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:54 am
How are we defining “Human Being?”
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 10:46 am
In between what on one side is neither a sperm nor an egg and on the other not a corpse.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Johns’ definition…it’s a human and it’s a being therefore it’s a human being.
Chuck thinks its an earthworm or a humanoid something or the other alien like creature with six eyeballs and fangs that feels nothing, has no responses, and may in fact be robotic so we were trying to make him understand that it’s a human being.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 3:23 pm
So, at the point when the sperm and egg combine, do you define that as a “human being”??
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 8:07 pm
I tried to say “yes” but they wouldn’t let me — duplicate comments, or something.
LikeLike
September 19, 2011 at 9:52 pm
This is getting really silly. What IS a human growing inside her body if not another human? Does it turn into a human life at some point? If you put an acorn in the earth, do you say you have planted a tree or do you say you have planted “something” and it won’t be a tree until it sprouts greenery? It’s not a tree then, it’s a tiny sprout of greenery. Can’t sit under it, can’t hang a tire swing. Is it a tiny little growing tree or not?
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 6:16 am
You are right, Nunya, it is getting rather silly. Like if we all agreed at this moment on what the heck it is it would make any difference to the one million or so women out there every year who believe that she cannot bring a child into this world. The fact is that what we say here means nothing to them. But I guess it’s an interesting exercise.
LikeLike
September 20, 2011 at 8:27 am
“The fact is that what we say here means nothing . . .” Don’t be so sure, Pat. You’ve created something unique. Step 1 in any process of change is talking and listening, and we certainly do those.
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I appreciate that, John, but sometimes I wonder if this is unique. I know we talk a lot amongst ourselves, but are we listening to each other?
LikeLike
September 21, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Are you kidding? We search for points of attack.
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 9:19 am
Is that all this is, John? A forum to talk “openly” so the other side can yell “gotcha!” If that’s your motive, then this is very depressing to me. My hope is to make pro-lifers just a little more understanding of the situation the woman is in and the reason why docs do abortions – and the hope is that you and others would be less likely to be yelling at those women as they enter the clinic and less likely to want to hate or, in the extreme, kill a doc.
In other words, if you are reading my stuff, looking for “points of attack,” why am I being so honest with all of you?
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:36 am
“Is that all this is, John? A forum to talk “openly” so the other side can yell “gotcha!”
Don’t say “all,” Pat, and drop “yell ‘gotcha!’ ” What you have here is the only place I know where we can really talk.
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:21 am
From what I’ve read – the pro lifers here are just too dumb to have real conversation. They are not genuine.
The Blog is great though!
TX
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:31 am
From what I’ve read – Gill is just too dumb to have real conversation. He is not genuine.
The Blog is great though!
TX
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:53 am
Gill, I wouldn’t call these people dumb. They try their best, they are sincere, but they’re not able to let their intellect overrule their emotions– and their emotions say, “Abortion is baaaaaaaad!”
Their emotions don’t let them think about what mothers need to raise their children well, because “abortion is baaaaaaaaad!” Their emotions don’t let them think how much millions of children need their time and their attention, because “abortion is baaaaaaaad!” As a result, they cannot let the woman determine for herself how to meet the needs of the children she already has or wants to have in the future.
The big question is, why are they like this? Why do they focus on abortion to the exclusion of care for real human life? Why do they focus on the one segment of life where they can do nothing to enhance or nurture it, but only prolong it? And why do they insist on prolonging it in even the direst circumstances, such as the two pregnancies a relative of mine had with anencephalic fetuses?
So don’t call them dumb.
LikeLike
September 25, 2011 at 12:23 pm
If the movement were about the sacredness of human life, its members would be serious about seeing that every pregnancy resulted in an adult capable of choosing from a broad range of feasible options the course which would allow the exercise of vital powers in settings affording them scope.
Their refusal to look beyond anything other than the facts of abortion and to use those facts to construct a fantasy in which they can emerge as the heroes in an allegory shows this dialogue has to be all about them, Pat.
LikeLike
September 26, 2011 at 4:43 am
Otherwise we would never hear Chuckles say, “Their refusal . . . to use those facts to construct a fantasy. . .” Isn’t that true! We use those facts to construct a reality. The reality here is that killing someone before she is able to become an adult makes it impossible for here to become “capable of choosing from a broad range of feasible options . . .’
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 8:19 am
Hi I saw this on Facebook , this is a great blog!.
The ProLifers are really out there compared to most Pro Lifers I know.
How do get the dumbest of pro lifers on the site?
Can’t you draw in some intelligent ProLifers, I know they are out there somewhere.
It would make the blog even better, as watching these pro lifers get slaughtered by their inferior intelligence, gets a little droll.
It is entertaining to read how they make fools of them selves!
LikeLike
September 27, 2011 at 1:51 pm
“Hi I saw this on Facebook , this is a great blog!.
Gill is really out there compared to most killers’ helpers of the AI stripe.
How do you get the dumbest of killers’ helpers on the site?
Can’t you draw in some intelligent killers’ helpers, I know they are out there somewhere.
It would make the blog even better, as watching Gill get slaughtered by his inferior intelligence gets a little droll.
It is entertaining to read how he makes a fool of himself!
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:27 pm
Wow, Gill and John just had an amazingly intelligent debate! Reminds me of the great Lincoln-Douglas debates or Kennedy vs. Nixon. I can’t wait to see Gill’s astute rebuttal to John’s compelling argument. Stay tuned, folks!
LikeLike
September 28, 2011 at 12:44 pm
If Gill comes back, he will be the first. They never return fire.
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 4:02 pm
It’s always interesting to me how someone shoots out one comment then disappears. Not very persistent, they. As for you, John, I have to say you are the epitomy of persistence! Have fun at Jen’s house this weekend…
LikeLike
September 30, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Tomorrow’s the first. I go there the third weekend.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 8:34 am
So, you’re still going there? Have you accomplished anything? Do you even see her when you go there? Wouldn’t you rather be at some football game?
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 9:34 am
I never accomplish anything.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 3:14 pm
The important thing is to keep his face and name in front of the public, associated with the word “killer” and linked to the word “abortion.” It is this constant repetition of imagery that wears a groove of recognition into the public consciousness. A dishonest but very effective trick, as long as it is not challenged.
His benefits? Development of a faux reputation as a hero, another tiny step toward convincing himself he is worthy of life everlasting, and not one coin, not one bit of energy and not one moment of time spent beyond that which he chooses to afford. Pretty cheap price for all those!
Being a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” means being a hero on the cheap.
LikeLike
October 4, 2011 at 5:31 pm
I like “hero on the cheap.”
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:19 am
I like “hero on the cheap” also but, John, is it true what Charles is saying? I mean, seriously, you are probably not saving any “babies” standing out there. Why not use your time volunteering at a soup kitchen, your local hospital, for meals on wheels? Is it because – be honest now – that stuff is not as visible as your being out there with your buddies on a Saturday morning?
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sure, everybody needs help, some more than others. The ones who need help most are those two million being tortured to death every year, and I have more of a chance of protecting someone if I’m not sitting at home.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 7:32 am
But,John, I dont get it. YOu’re not saving anyone or anything from being “tortured” but you could go out this Saturday and help a person who exists right now, today. When you are on your deathbed, will you really be thinking “I saved so many babies”. Of course not, you’re gonna be thinking how you wasted years standing outside of abortion clinics….how sad….
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 9:36 am
I did save at least one life in my forty years of trying but maybe others too. On the other hand you might be right and I’m not saving anyone else.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 11:24 am
No, John is going to be thinking that he gave it his best shot. He tried! And that’s all that one can do…is try. At the very least he will know that he did not condone baby killing. There will be peace in that fact.
On the other hand, what will you be thinking Pat? That you did your best to help kill babies? That you tried to help abortionists? That lives were snuffed out with your help? Of course you could disguise what you did by saying you “helped” women with “choice” but you have to take it deeper. What “choice” did you help them make? To kill their offspring! That’s a heavy revy to take to your death bed. Better be rethinking that one. It’s not too late!
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 12:12 pm
You can’t really focus beyond abortion, can you? Ted Bundy was glad he hadn’t been aborted; the parents of his three to five dozen victims don’t share that.
Your compatriot says he helped one child; he implicitly acknowledges abandoning hundred of other “saved pre-born humans” to whatever an indifferent Nature dishes out to them.
Not too many women have infinite resources, and when they decide they are not ready to go through with a pregnancy, they usually have very sound reasons for making the decision to abort.
If you want to hance gtheir mind, offer them some incentive, like the $180,000 it will cost to raise their child to age 18.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I’m pretty sure that that “ONE CHILD” thinks John is the greatest thing there is since he saved it’s life.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 4:06 pm
…and then you have to think about that child’f future children and it’s children and it’s children…all the way till the end of time. John didn’t save 1 child. He saved all that child’s descendants as well. That’s a big deal. Congrats John. You did well!
How about you Chuckie?You want to minimize it. How many lives have you saved?
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 4:45 pm
that’s one of the cheapest rewards a self-proclaimed “pro-lifer” gets: some adult expresses appreciation that he or she had never been aborted. Since all of us have a desperate drive to live, it’s not to hard to fish for that compliment and come up with one.
Ted Bundy would have thanked one of the dysfunctional self-help crowd for saving him from abortion, unless his mindset was more like Jeffery Dahmer’s and he wished he’d never been born….
What Bundy needed and never ever got was the rescue AFTER being born. And that’s what so-called “pro-lifers” in general do not do.
LikeLike
October 7, 2011 at 9:29 am
No, Voice. I’ll be thinking that in a very small way I may have helped many women who were in a very difficult and emotional situation.
Are you, Voice, just completely ignoring the fact that there is a real live adult person involved here, i.e., the woman? Does she and her opinion and her desire to not give birth mean ANYTHING to you? Are you really choosing that 7 week fetus over that woman??
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 10:45 am
“Hero on the cheap:” Pat, he simply cannot, under the terms of aborticentrism, expend any more energy doing what you suggest than he spends being a self-defined “hero.” It is more important that real children suffer pain, the debilitating and defeating effects of poverty, and the waste of their intellectual and civic potential than that even one fetus be aborted.
He can’t deviate from his dysfunctional self-therapy to consider what happens to children who lack sufficient nurture. He won’t even LOOK at the topic of feral children, which is the doorway to wondering about the whole range of care that children need.
If he were to start thinking about that, he would be forced to reconsider the authenticity of his commitment to fetal life– how can it possibly make sense if he cannot extend the care to the fetus who becomes a baby?
“Hero on the cheap” is treated in the website on aborticentrism.
LikeLike
October 5, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Chuck is forever trying to get me to recite my good deeds even though the Boss, Jesus, said to tell not even yourself what those good deeds are. Anti-Jesus folks, like Chuck, sing their own praises incessantly. Chuck makes up for it somewhat by exposing his failures as well.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 5:39 am
Although this is a possibility: Chuck exposes his failures with his son, his wife, his parents (and his siblings?), not because he looks on them as failures but because he sees them as praiseworthy — “Look at how tough I’ve had it, and I’m still generous, kind, and sweet.”
You just never know.
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 6:48 am
Mr. Dunnkle is again doing his “Kin I play? Kin I play? Huh? Huh? Kin I play?” routine.
I will point out his modesty about his own good works is based on a very strong likelihood that at present they are zero; that given his proven record as a bully, liar and one insensitive to the needs of an abandoned dog, much less a born child, in the past his record was not sterling, and that were he even average in his care about children, his acquaintances who read this blog would have stepped up in his defense– and they have not. Therefore, I think that what we see is what we get.
It’s also telling that rather than take action to help the child he insists be born (to save it from what he alleges I have experienced and committed), he dwells on what he sees as my shortcomings. He’s much more interested in scoring points than caring for human life.
“Kin I play? Kin I play?”
LikeLike
October 6, 2011 at 6:59 am
I guess the game Chuck is talking about is the psychological game, and he’s right. All of us play that game, it’s the human condition, we all evaluate others.
And those psychology courses Chuck took are the big reason he plays it poorly. Chuck’s no dope and when he kind of forgets what he thinks he learned in those courses, he almost makes sense, as indicated in his comment above.
LikeLike