Dedicated to the opines CG.
Please opine.
Call (800) 804-8868
Call (800) 804-8868 for immediate information on Abortion Care.Abortion Blog Stats
- 570,833
Abortion.com FaceBook
-
Join 239.8K other subscribers
Archives
Top Posts
Time To New President
January 20, 2020Twitter Updates
Tweets by abortiondotcomPlease Opine
dameirvolin on This State Is Banning Intersta… Anonymous on The Donohue Show Anonymous on The Donohue Show Helen Johnson Brumba… on The Donohue Show Jonnielyn Velez on Republicans Want 12 Randos to… Emily on Abortion Commenting Category Cloud
Abortion
Abortion Law
Abortion Rights
Blogroll
Late Abortion
morning after pill
pill
Therapeutic Abortion
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information %d
July 7, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I did a little better this time, but it’s still so confusing. People saying something in tiny print. I hit “like” and a thumb comes up. That’s all. Pat says “they’re all talking about you over there,” but I can’t find notin.
LikeLike
July 7, 2010 at 4:04 pm
OK, I guess I found it, finally. You have to type in abortion.com when you get to facebook. At least I found the picture here that Kate Ranieri took and about ten comments, silly ones. Wasn’t worth it — and the picture’s so small you can’t even see my dimples.
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 2:34 pm
Glad you found it, John. At that page, there are lots of interesting conversations. You should chime in. It’s mostly pro choice folks
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 5:40 am
John, in regard to your comment that I am now referring to fetuses as “children” (based on my question to you as to why you won’t take responsibility for the upbringing of those you wanted to see born: I’m not; you simply prefer to interpret my answer in a way that indicates you are playing stupid.
Stop pretending you fell out of the dumb tree and hit every branch on the way down and answer the question: Why won’t you take responsibility for the welfare of those children who were born because you wanted them to be born?
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 9:00 am
Getting through to you Charles is like trying to get a nail into a stone. But I’ll try again anyway: I won’t take responsibility for those children whose lives I’ve saved for the same reason I wouldn’t take responsibility for you if I saved your life by pulling you from a burning car. In other words, first things first.
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 9:27 am
So here we have helpless, truly innocent and truly human beings who are faced with a world of potential hurt whom you are going to treat like competent adults who have just been in an accident with which you had nothing to do. What does this say about your concern for human life? I’d say it was, “The closer it gets, the less sacred it becomes”
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 10:17 am
You’re trying to count those dancing angels again, Charles. What if the adult is severely injured and he could really use my help? What if the child is now part of a middle class family who will love and nurture her? Saving a life is what you do first. Nurturing him or her afterwards involves more complications than either of us is even aware of. (Although I will say that we pro-lifers operate an organization, like Life-Line, that helps pregnant women and pre- and post-born babies, in almost every sizable community; and I am not aware of anything similar that you killers’ helpers have done.)
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 12:07 pm
” Nurturing him or her afterwards involves more complications than either of us is even aware of.”
Aborticentrism– a focus on abortion so strong as to preclude care for human life– can hardly be expressed more powerfully than in Dunkle’s statement. Short version– “I get the baby born; somebody else (and he points to Life-Line rather than a specialist in child development or a pediatrician) will have to do it from there.”
Anybody who’d really like to help an “unborn human” could start by buying their own copy of Levine-Carey-Crocker. It has about six times the verbiage of the Bible, it lays out specifically what is and is not known about every developmental and behavioral danger there is to children, and it empowers the people who use it.
But aborticentrists will ignore it and deride my suggestion that perhaps they should look into it. Why? Because its knowledge is a threat to their focus on abortion.
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 2:14 pm
That blog is quicksand, Charles, and you keep trying to drag people into it.
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Well, John, I can’t argue with you on that. You have very, very strong reasons for wanting to keep them away from it!
By the way, the so-called “pro-life” attitude towards born children as expressed above is simply brutal. I am very sorry that it’s an unspoken tenet of the organization…
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 2:38 pm
CG, I assume you agree that it’s okay for someone to elect to be pro-life, to be against abortion. That being said, you would prefer that they also put their money where their mouth is, i.e., they adopt a kid, work in the homeless shelter, etc. If I am correct so far, at what point as you assauged? What does John Dunkle have to do to make him acceptable in your eyes?
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm
At the point where John says, “I so much want this ‘unborn child’ to live that I will raise it to adulthood.”
The problem I have with so-called “pro-lifers” is their disconnect, so vividly stated by him, between pregnancy and the need to care for the resulting child.
And they are so unconscious of their brutality toward children. They don’t adopt, they don’t foster, but they engage in ancillary activities or even worse point toward others who do because they themselves don’t even do that little.
It’s sad, but they really, truly cannot help doing what they do– they are like alcoholics in denial, unaware of what’s driving them.
LikeLike
July 8, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Charles’s third paragraph is simply calumny. Prolifers foster, adopt, and “engage in ancillary activities” far more than pro-deathers and the zombies who don’t know or care what’s going on. I am a poor excuse for a prolifer; so, Charles uses me as his example.
You see, this is Charles’s shtick: “I am in favor of keeping it legal to kill young people because John Dunkle is unconscious of his brutality toward children.” Now you will read one of of these three Charles responses: 1) your father ignored you and that’s why you’re the way you are, 2) see #14, or 3) read my blog, abortiecehtralism. And, oh yeah, I almost forgot: look how great I am!
LikeLike
July 19, 2010 at 9:17 am
Abortion pills are quite safe.
LikeLike
July 19, 2010 at 9:19 am
What is this guy down below, this Dunkle?
Is he OK? Real? Or is he show of some sort?
LikeLike
July 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
He’s the genuine article! Scratch a so-called “pro-lifer,” find a Dunkle.
LikeLike
July 9, 2010 at 5:52 am
John, you are simply wrong about the level of so-called “pro-life” engagement in caring for children. They do NOT adopt or foster at greater rates than the general population. They DO more “community service” than the general population, according to Craig Seaton’s study, but Seaton included as service teaching Sunday school and other activities limited to one’s church.
The real pro-lifers are the parents of the 30% of the children they never wanted to see born (totally unlike the so-called “pro-lifers”) but raised anyway (almost totally unlike your ilk).
LikeLike
July 9, 2010 at 8:56 am
How do you know that pro-lifers do not adopt at the same rate of the general population? When someone fills out the paperwork, do they identify themselves as pro-life or pro-choice?
LikeLike
September 23, 2010 at 6:22 pm
But just like you, right Charles? You raised someone whom you never wanted to see born. Is it any wonder that he despises you?
LikeLike
July 9, 2010 at 10:24 am
Pat’s right. This is all he said, she said. I think prolifers in general are good people, and Charles thinks they’re bad people. But what does it matter anyway if the person who saves your life is a criminal or an altruist, the saving is everything.
LikeLike
July 10, 2010 at 10:39 am
Hey, John, has CG answered my question? I get so friggin annoyed when people on any side of the issue just throw out things as if they are fact. CG, how do you know pro-lifers do not adopt at the same rate of the general population???
LikeLike
July 10, 2010 at 2:30 pm
See my reply at #15, Pat.
LikeLike
July 9, 2010 at 4:22 pm
I don’t know how Craig Seaton, the author of Altruism and Activism, did it, but here’s my summation of the two times he mentions adoption in his book:
“Professor Craig Seaton in his book, Altruism and Activism, writes of Canadian “pro-life” defendants referring regularly to one of their number who had taken in 18 children. The fact speaks for itself that only one of them had showed that much care. Of the rest of the group, only ten per cent had adopted even one child. Ninety per cent limited their care for human life to their own children and the forced continuation of somebody else’s pregnancy. For “pro-lifers” the need to act allegorically overpowers any inclination to act in conformity with the needs of human life.
“Craig Seaton in his sociological study of “pro-life” activists, found they were no more likely to adopt than either of his control groups, a far cry from the dedication of the Gardynes.”
The Gardynes I have written about before. Extremely caring missionaries who nevertheless adopted the less-needy child…. It’s very difficult to be truly “pro-life.”
To answer John Dunkle: So-called “pro-lifers” are “bad people” the way alcoholics are “bad people.” They do not consciously choose to suffer from the condition; they yield to it because they lack the necessary support to take charge of their well-being. Because they
don’t understand the nature of their dysfunction, they assume their behavior is normal, and when people point out to them the harm it is causing them and others, they deny it. Sometimes alcoholics ARE bad people, but as with scpl’s, it’s largely incidental to the disease. Not that I’m saying “pro-life” is a disease, but when it consists of only wanting babies to come into the world, regardless of the likelihood of nurture, it’s certainly a psychological condition that deserves attention.
(The very first time my wife and I moved back to our home state and in essence abandoned a six-year-old whose stripper mother (19) barely tolerated her, I felt terrible, even though I felt we had given her some hope in a just world in the few months we acted as quasi-parents. She’d be about 50, now!! I wonder if she repeated her mom’s history.)
LikeLike
July 10, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Pat, I read Seaton about 15 years ago and made the notes on it at that time. What value will it have for you if I go to the library, ask for the interlibrary loan, pay to make the request, wait to get the book for two weeks, look up the citation, reply to your question, return to the library, give back the book?
Just about zip, is my guess. However, I’m going to do it.
By the time I get back to you with chapter and verse, EVERYBODY else who has read your question about this will have forgotten it, and I will be once again spitting with the wind. I will have the satisfaction of Cassandra, you will have a forgettable piece of knowledge, and everybody else will have no clue what I’m talking about.
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 9:48 am
Do what you want CG. What I am just always trying to sort out is the facts. No matter what the issue, we all just throw things out nowadays as if they are fact. There are no conversations, no one ever cedes ground lest they be un-macho. That’s why nothing gets done in Washington, D.C. Anyway, you made a very interesting claim and I wondered how one could even prove it, thus my question.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 8:07 am
CG,
I respectfully differ. Within two months time this fabulous piece of information will be indexed by thousands of indexing scripts from different search engines.
Your text will be stored, around the world, redundantly by thousands of computers and other technologies.
NASA is even thinking about tossing 100 petabytes of this data into space! More redundancy, and relatively not that expensive as one trip to the space station.
Your words will live as not other words in history before the last few decades have been able to live.
The entire world will be able to find them.
They are not forgotten by any means.
They will likely be cited one day by someone doing a dissertation!
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Thank you for the elucidation, Amy. I am mindful, however, that there is so much material out there that floating a unique concept is like tossing a snowflake into an avalanche. If you have any suggestions as to how to encourage students to do a dissertation on it, I would appreciate them.
LikeLike
July 10, 2010 at 2:41 pm
And, PS: I’ve asked the Dunkle to provide the statistics for his claims and got zip in our private side correspondence. So you can save yourself the trouble of asking him to support his counterclaim in #11.
LikeLike
July 10, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Quick update: Here’s a quote from a Doctor of Social Work, Brenda Destro:
“Yet, research shows that pro-life centers have no better rates of adoption among their clients than Planned Parenthood.” Of course, she must be lying about it, since she wrote it for the Conference of Catholic Bishops, which means she’s a so-called “pro-lifer.” Just a nod to John Dunkle. On to Seaton…
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 4:42 am
You know, Charles considers this whole topic — whether it’s horrible or helpful to kill someone before she’s born, and, therefore, whether that practice should become again illegal — meaningless. Charles, here and in his endless blog, abortinglessingham, is obsessed with prolifers like me and his nine brothers and sisters and “getting back” at us consumes all his resources. “You are not nice people, you are not as good as I, you are not as smart as I, you can’t change a diaper, you don’t like dogs….” I’ll bet if Charles could overcome his obsession, he might even be prolife himself.
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 9:49 am
I think we’re all obsessed with each other.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 8:09 am
You may be, but John clearly is the least educated and stupidest of you all.
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 9:12 am
Aborticentrism shows that the so-called “pro-lifer” focuses his energy, on the near, the simple and the undemanding. He does this because his underlying psychological problem absorbs so much of his energy that he simply cannot function at a higher intellectual level.
This is why when given the choice of raising a stranger’s child not to become a felon (which happens to one of every 33 babies born in America) or to picket an abortion provider’s home, he will choose the latter. The former takes years of dedication and self-sacrifice, while staging a protest takes only a piece of paper, a couple of magic markers and basic literacy skills.
In order to avoid his responsibility to nurture those whom he insists be born, the so-called “pro-lifer” does as much as he possibly can to keep the argument focused on death in all its forms. To normal people, who expect a discourse based on what the previous speaker said, this jump into a thanatological abyss is weird, but when they understand they are dealing with a speaker who is actually trying to address his own fears, it seems less jarring. But they overlook the fact that he is indeed not caring for human life, but only caring about it.
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 10:46 am
“…you don’t like dogs, you focus on the undemanding, you don’t do the hard things but the easy things, you are obsessed with death, you jump into thanatological abysses, you are concerned only about your own fears, you don’t care for human life but only about it.”
Yup, pop psychology consumes Charles. Abortion/baby killing? What’s that?
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 8:14 am
How is Thanatology pop psychology?
One could express what Dunkle does is Popular harassment, stalking, intimidation, recruitment of others to do same, inciting hate to the point of encouraging people to murder others.
Dunkle is uneducated, he cannot keep up, so these defense mechanism is all he has for the dissonance in his tormented mind.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 9:28 am
Amy, look at his responses to the plight actual children are in: This is not a man who can empathize, who can act to relieve the suffering of others. This is a man who calls himself “pro-life.” You are dealing with a man with a real problem, based on real issues. You have to remember this when you attempt to engage him in rational discourse. It’s called “aborticentrism.”
LikeLike
July 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm
If “pop psychology” can’t explain satisfactorily why you don’t care for human life, John, maybe you can explain it better for all of us:
Why can’t you take care of children? Why are you unable to empathize with a child who has been kidnapped and killed on the other side of the country? Why don’t you take an interest in runaways (half of whom are in the foster care system)? Why don’t you babysit for free for a two-working-parents family? Why don’t you set up a college fund for a promising inner-city student? Why do you instead focus on killing, Holocaust, killers, killers helpers, murder, evil, death, torture– and then limit your work to the easiest form of engagement, claiming to be “too much of a coward” to engage any more deeply?
Surely if “pop psychology” can’t explain it, you must have a better way.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 9:44 am
Two children in danger. The first is in my neighborhood and is an hour away from getting his arms and legs pulled off, slowly. The second lives across the country, has run away, as in danger of getting kidnapped and killed. Why do you think, gentle reader, that Charles wants me to ignore the first victim to concentrate on the second? Again, as Pat would say, Duh.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 9:54 am
duh
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 10:56 am
As usual, ridiculous uneducated Dunkle.
Let’s Dunklize
A pregnancy that a women has the legal right to choose abortion,
And
Dunkle standing outside a young woman’s house who he has terrorized for years, and accomplished nothing by doing so except strengthen the resolve of the entire pro choice movement that abortion has remained legal and is even now being funded by gigantic private philanthropies, because of Dunkles.
Add to that the terror of all the children in the neighborhood in a two block radius that think he might be a pedophile and either are not allowed to go out and play, or are just too scared.
Add to that that Dunkle encourages people to harm other people, most of whom don’t care about Dunkle or what he is doing or that even that abortion was not on their mind till this lunatic shows up, and they become prochoice.
Dunkle, you are a curmudgeon, you harm children and adults, you incite violence.
And if a kid one block away was in Danger, would you save him, feed him, etc., or just stand there looking like a retard inciting hatred and crime?
Dunklize that, please take a rolaids or two first.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Ame, when you return in September to the tenth grade, I want you to find an English teacher who will actually teach you something, not someone who will encourage you to “express yourself” and then tell you your nonsense is really good. Take my advice or they’ll bury you.
LikeLike
July 13, 2010 at 2:32 am
Dunkle you murderer worshiper,
You are awoke.
I laugh at your stupid comment, your verbal impotence and your life of failure.
You are a lost cause that will of old age and your imbecilic beliefs with them, and we will all laugh at that.
You are a waste of biochemistry.
LikeLike
July 13, 2010 at 8:42 am
Billy, get hold of that same teacher Amy’s looking for.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 4:41 pm
John, see my reply at #24.
LikeLike
July 12, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Charles, I don’t do that, and I don’t anymore go to abortinghlessighty, and I stop reading as soon as you start to tell me how great you are. So what’s next?
LikeLike