sanger

7 shocking quotes by Planned Parenthood’s founder

As the founder of America’s largest abortion chain, Margaret Sanger’s ideology for Planned Parenthood was cemented in eugenics, the belief and practice that aims to eliminate certain groups of people.

As a eugenicist, Sanger encouraged the sterilization of persons with less desirable qualities, and strongly encouraged the reproduction of groups with more desirable qualities. Sanger’s disdain for blacks, minority groups, and the diseased and disabled spawned the birth of an abortion corporation that profits off the killing of the weakest and most vulnerable. From its conception, Planned Parenthood was built upon the roots of exterminating individuals deemed “unfit” for the human family.

Today, the spirit of Sanger lives on. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the former pro-abortion research division of Planned Parenthood, African-American women are five times more likely to choose abortion over white women. Planned Parenthood clinics are strategically planted in minority communities, targeting blacks and impoverished minority groups, and abortion remains the leading cause of death for the black community.

Below is a compilation of seven shocking quotes from Sanger, a famed eugenicist who birthed America’s largest abortion-on-demand corporation.

1) “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

Margaret Sanger
Margaret Sanger

In a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble in December, 19, 1939, Sanger exposited her vision for the “Negro Project,” a freshly launched collaboration between the American Birth Control League and Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau. The letter echoes the eugenic ideologies still visible within the corporate vein of Planned Parenthood today.

It seems to me from my experience…that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts.

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

2) “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan.”

margaret-sanger

In 1926, Sanger spoke at a meeting hosted by the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey. Following the invitation, Sanger describes her elation after receiving multiple speaking requests from white supremacy groups. She writes of the experience on page 366 of her book, An Autobiography:

I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered.

DefundAd-400b

3) “A dead weight of human waste.”

margaret-sanger-2

In “Pivot of Civilization,” Sanger penned her thoughts regarding immigrants, the poor, and the error of philanthropy. Sanger’s ideology of racial and social hygiene bleeds through her writings on breeding an ideal human race:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease…Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

Sanger contends that philanthropy to help poor, struggling mothers does not offer women the opportunity to ” avoid bringing into the world” more children, but encourages a “dead weight of human weight” that “healthier” societies must shoulder.

It encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

4) “Birth control is nothing more or less than…weeding out the unfit.”

Birth Control Pill Container - Image by Beathan
Birth Control Pill Container – Image by Beathan

Sanger famously coined the term “birth control” with the intention of eliminating the reproduction of human beings who were considered “less fit.” In her writings from “Morality and Birth Control” and “Birth Control and the New Race,” the Planned Parenthood founder noted that the chief aim of the practice of birth control is to produce a “cleaner race.” Sanger’s vision for birth control was to prevent the birth of individuals whom she believed were unfit for mankind:

Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race.

Birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.

5) “Human beings who never should have been born at all.”

In “The Pivot of Civilization” and “A Plan for Peace,” Sanger describes the eugenic value of eliminating persons – minorities, the sick, and the disabled – through sterilization or segregation:

Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying … demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism … [Philanthropists] encourage the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste.

Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant … We are paying for, and even submitting to, the dictates of an ever-increasing, unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all.

dreamstime_s_10991474

The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

6) “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world.”

In an 1957 interview with journalist Mike Wallace, Sanger advocated that the greatest evil is a family that chooses to bring children into the world. Sanger, who advocated for a system requiring every American family to submit a request to the government to have a child, told America Weekly in 1934 that it has “become necessary to establish a system of birth permits.”

I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.

7) “But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies in starving countries for the next 10 years.”

In a 1947 interview that surfaced via the British Pathe, Sanger described her desire for women to cease completely from having children for 10 years. When asked by reporter John Parsons if such a theory is anti-social, Sanger replied, “On the contrary. It seems to me that it is more practical and humane.”

Reporter: “What about the women who want babies now and in 10 years will not be able to have babies? How impractical, don’t you think?”

Sanger: “Oh, John, you sure ask hard questions. I should think that instead of being impractical, it is really very practical and intelligent and humane.”

Reporter: “But Mrs. Slee, in this country, having babies is the only thing left which is both unrationed and untaxed. Do you think that we really ought to stop?”

Sanger: “Well, I suppose a subject like that is really so personal that it is entirely left to the parent to decide, but from my view, I believe there should be no more babies in starving countries for the next 10 years.”

While the radical ideologies of Planned Parenthood’s founder permeated her writings, the abortion giant’s willingness to profit off the targeted killings of black Americans through abortion is still true today. As documented in a Live Action undercover investigation, the abortion giant is willing to bankroll the destruction of black lives for profit.

Dr. Alveda King remarked the error of Planned Parenthood’s abortion-on-demand corporate ideology:

The most obvious practitioner of racism in the United States today is Planned Parenthood, an organization founded by the eugenicist Margaret Sanger and recently documented as ready to accept money to eliminate black babies.

  • Bridget Walker

    It’s even more disturbing when people say “it should have been aborted”, as if they condone her superiority and racism.

    • Faithkuz

      Social Darwinism continues, and people probably do not realize this is what they are espousing.

      • MamaBear

        Sadly, I actually know of a grown sibling who supports abortion because of what his “sister suffers” from a disabling birth defect. Ironically, his sister, even though she would have preferred not to have a disability, happens to be quite happy she is alive and is upset to hear about people aborting babies with her birth defect.

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Margaret Sanger is one of the best arguments for the existence of Hell that I can think of.

    • MamaBear

      AMEN.
      But, unfortunately, she is dragging others with her.

      • treebird

        She’s not dragging them, they are going willingly!

      • ohyan2919

        Through lies and deception just like that old serpent! Her master SATAN!!!

        • Tasha Mack

          She is

      • whoselineisitanyway

        They follow her willingly. JUST LIKE THE KRAUTS FOLLOWED HITLER.

        • Jose Elizabeth Allen Hawkins

          The Eugenics movement was started in America, Hitler’s Germany was afraid they were falling behind in the race to exterminate the ‘undesireables’..they soon caught up. But it is worth remembering that the movement started here.

          • debs

            Eugenics came out of the Darwinists. It moved throughout the western world including the U.S.

          • Suzanne Goolsby

            How sad to say that—because Darwin wasn’t a racist. I would be really mad if someone put my name with such heinous content.

          • debs

            Read closely. I said DARWINISTS-not Darwin himself. But since you brought him up you should know what he thought…

            A quote from “The Descent of Man”, in a chapter called “The Races of Man.”, in which Darwin wrote:

            “At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” (1874, p. 178).

          • Rita

            Thank you for that. Far too many liberal Progressives worship at the altar of their heroes like Sanger and Darwin while knowing practically nothing about what those “heroes” actually stood for.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Exactly, they have never even read their “bible” – “On the Origin…” A really funny 1 minute 20 seconds of audio on Richard Dawkins saying “Oh God” (listen carefully) can be found when he could not remember the full title of Darwin’s book. (This was after Dawkins made fun of Christians for not remembering the name of the first book in the NT. Just Google “Richard Dawkins struggles to remember” to hear the audio. :-)

          • Louise_Chanary

            Unlike religious people, we liberal progressives do not see old books as a prescription for how we should live today.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Indeed, and you liberal “progressives” also have the blood of 58 million human beings killed in the womb in America alone on your hands. Never confuse “progressive” with “regressive.”

            “We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” — CS Lewis

            As for your atheism, you have no grounds for asserting objective moral values and duties. Your “morality” is just a flavor of the month. Because of this, you have no grounds for objectively condemning slavery, Jew gassing, or, of course, your favorite unholy sacrament, abortion. And the “pope” and “cardinals” of a-theism agree with me here:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

          • Gadfly156

            This screed reminds me of certain militant atheists who refuse to accept any religious person coloring outside the lines of what said atheists have determined constitutes their “real” religion.

            Atheism is not a faith system or a religion, so no two atheists are going to agree on everything, and while we may quote from time to time a word or two from authors whom we believe to have made salient points embodied in said quotes, that is not sufficient grounds for concluding we must all with lockstep conformity adhere to every word spoken or printed by any public figure such as Dawkins or Harris or any other self-identified atheist in order to be genuine atheists ourselves.

            My view is that ethics and morals of any sort are by-products of human evolution — they are codified understandings of what may or may not assist the species, and its individual specimens, to survive and thrive with regard to said species’ relationship within — between its individual specimens — and without — between these specimens and the species as a whole, between the species / specimens thereof and other species and specimens thereof, and between the species/specimens thereof and the natural world itself. Man vs. fellow man, man vs. nature, man vs. self, all are ripe grounds for the development of standards to live by, ethics and morals. They do not have to be ontologically objective to possess inherent value.

            If I hold to a moral position that it is bad, wrong, undesirable to murder or get violent with others just because they verbally annoy me, it doesn’t matter whether I obtain my rationale from notions of karma, from monotheistic God commandments, from common sense, or even from something as completely subjective as personal preference, pragmatism (“I don’t wanna go to jail over this”), or pure unadulterated cowardice. The upshot is, others won’t get assaulted — at least, not by me — and that’s good for all of us, right? ^_^

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Atheism is not a faith system or a religion”

            Atheism IS a worldview that has certain core doctrines, two of which are:

            1. The belief that there is no God

            2. The belief in materialistic naturalism.

            In many cases, it can be compared with a blind faith religion. I was an atheist for 42 years, so I am not entirely ignorant of the worldview.

            “while we may quote from time to time a word or two from authors whom we believe to have made salient points embodied in said quotes, that is not sufficient grounds for concluding we must all with lockstep conformity adhere to every word spoken”

            Oh, I agree 100%! That is why my argument is not one from authority primarily, but one which says “please tell me why what these prominent atheists are saying is inconsistent with the core doctrines of atheism?” I believe that Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse are 100% consistent on the core values of atheism, and, thus far, no one has shown me why they are wrong. They certainly reflect what I believed for 42 years.

            “My view is that ethics and morals of any sort are by-products of human evolution””

            AND

            “They do not have to be ontologically objective to possess inherent value.”

            Yes, I believe that you are consistent there, even though I disagree with your position. Consider Darwin:

            “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.”
            Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

            “If I hold to a moral position that it is bad, wrong, undesirable to murder”

            Please understand that “bad, wrong, undesirable” do not exist in any objective sense in the world of the atheist. They are merely ice cream flavors. There is no objective difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler on atheism – in fact arguments can be made using evolution that Mother Teresa was “better” than Hitler.

            “and that’s good for all of us, right”

            Not necessarily on atheism. Suppose you murder a rich man and steal his money and his beautiful wife: you win on atheism. Yay! Murder, rape, etc happen all the time in the animal kingdom – no animal cops out there.

          • Gadfly156

            While I appreciate some of your response, I have to point out the obvious. I am an atheist and I do in fact hold to a moral position of eschewing murder. This is not a passive matter with me either; I have had to establish such a “law” for myself and commit consciously to avoiding its breach. That’s a polite way of saying I have fantasized about killing people, contemplated killing people, desired to kill people — but have taken a determined position that I will not act upon those impulses and desires because I deem it beneath my principles and myself to do so, and objectively so at that. Objectivity does not always manifest in the specific form of the ability to contradict or overrule oneself, but I do not believe it possible to do so where it is absent, either.

            I think I may have mentioned this before, but I do believe you are confusing atheism with postmodernism. The latter tends to deny the existence of objectivity, not the former. Holding a separate view of what constitutes objectivity from that of, say, the devout religionist, is not the equivalent of disavowing its existence altogether.

            Murder and rape do not occur in the animal kingdom in the very same sense that consent to sexual activity does not happen with a child — strictly by definition. Consent to an adult activity with complicated adult implications and potential consequences which a child cannot comprehend is impossible, by its very nature, for a child. This does not mean in actual experience a child cannot say yes to it for whatever reasons (curiosity? lure? promise of reward?); it simply means his or her doing so is invalidated by the fact that s/he does not and cannot comprehend the full nature and scope of the activity and therefore inherently cannot consent thereto. Likewise, murder and rape are human concepts based on human evaluations of human awareness, intent and behavior. By that very definition, animals cannot murder and rape because animals do not behave as they do for human reasons or even with the dubious benefit of human sentience yielding human concerns over protocol. What appears rapacious to us in the animal kingdom is the particular exercise of biological imperative as practiced by that particular species. What appears murderous to us in the animal kingdom is likewise that species’ instinctual protocols for procuring food and eliminating competition. As it stands the communities of other species are, in fact, self-policing to an extent. When individual members of the herd or pack or flock or hive deviate from what is deemed normative among them, consequences visited by the rest of the group or its designated “alpha” leaders fall upon the violating member. But what constitutes a breach in normative protocols in another species may bear little resemblance to anything we humans think to be significant.

            Atheism may indeed qualify as a worldview, but not as a faith system or religion. It’s like rectangles and squares: all squares are rectangles, yes, but not all rectangles are squares. All faith systems and religions are worldviews, but not all worldviews constitute a faith system or a religion. As an atheist, it is not so much that I (strictly speaking) “believe there is no god” as that, rather, I find no evidence (or insufficient evidence) to conclude any gods actually exist. At the same time I have uncovered plenty of reason to conclude the specific solitary supremacy postulated by abramic monotheism to be wholly untenable at best and even downright toxic, but that’s me. It’s not just me, but it’s definitely not every atheist you’ll meet, either. Like with any other cause in life, some of us who see a thing as destructive are content to merely eschew it ourselves and quietly encourage others to do so; others (like me) feel particularly compelled to do more — get out there, tell our stories, educate and warn others, etc. There is no inherent moral imperative in atheism to be “militant” or “evangelical” about it — but neither is there any equally iron-clad prohibition against doing so. To each their own.

            Likewise as an atheist I do not “believe in” materialistic naturalism; rather, I perceive myself and all of humanity to be in, and part of, and of the same substance of, a world and universe that is natural by definition and comprised of a complex array and interplay of matter and energy, both of which manifest in an abundance of forms, all of which follow distinctly discernible protocols in how they function, change, and intertwine, not all of which protocols or natural laws are yet known to us, but a sufficient enough number to enable us to postulate and investigate in ways that enable us to build upon the knowledge we have so far and branch out to discover more, as well as weed out speculations unlikely to yield further useful information, data or understanding.

            I am surprised you considered yourself an atheist for 42 years and never once understood that atheism is not an alternate faith system but the absence of a faith system. Maybe it’s a generational thing. I don’t know. I don’t have solid statistics on how all atheists (or even the majority of us) think about things, so I can’t help you with your specific quest to determine whether as a majority “we” tend to agree with all the observations and insights offered by the more “luminary” (well known) among us. I can only share anecdotally in that regard on any given idea, whether I and/or those I know well happen to embrace it or depart from it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I think I may have mentioned this before, but I do believe you are confusing atheism with postmodernism. The latter tends to deny the existence of objectivity, not the former.”

            Well, there is some merit to what you say, but I am guessing that there is a very strong overlap between those two populations, which is why I gave you Dawkins, Provine, and Ruse. They are quite in the mainstream of atheism through the last couple of centuries, in denying the existence of objective moral values and duties if God does not exist.

            Here are several more reasons that atheists have traditionally denied the existence of objective moral values and duties:

            1. Under naturalism, the only things that exist are those things described by and measured with science. Objective moral values do not apply. You cannot locate moral values in a test tube.

            2. Why would human beings, under Darwinism, have any objective moral value? We are, in that view, just byproducts of macro-evolution and social conditioning – no objective moral values there. In fact, rewind the clock and play evolution over again, and you will, based on the constrained randomness involved, get something entirely different:

            “If … men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be any doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.” Charles Darwin, “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” p. 100.

            3. As for moral duties, we would have no more basis for them than any other animal. That means that, as in the animal kingdom, we can kill or rape for any reason whatsoever – animals are not restricted by some sort of “traffic cop” in doing so. There is no one saying “OK, Mr. Lion, you can take out that gazelle, but only if
            you eat him.” :-)

            “Murder and rape do not occur in the animal kingdom”

            Nice anticipation of my reply -well-done! Sure, you are welcome to take that path, but you have to admit, as Dawkins does, that the amount of suffering in the animal kingdom is immense – and there is no objective “justice” for it. If we are mere evolved animals, why would there be for us either?

            “Atheism may indeed qualify as a worldview”

            “May?!?” :-)

            “As an atheist, it is not so much that I (strictly speaking) “believe there is no god” as that, rather, I find no evidence (or insufficient evidence) to conclude any gods actually exist.”

            That is agnosticism – I am surprised that a serious atheist like yourself would commit such an error. But, I will be happy to provide evidence for the God Hypothesis in my next posting, and I am always interested in evidence for the No God Hypothesis that I may have missed.

            “abramic monotheism to be wholly untenable at best and even downright toxic”

            Nothing wrong in an objective sense, on atheism, for toxicity – you have not established the existence of objective moral values and duties, so you do not get to borrow from the world of the theist when your atheism-agnosticism fails to meet rational standards. First ontology, later epistemology and sociology.

            “some of us who see a thing as destructive”

            Nothing objectively wrong with “destructive” on your view. Just another ice cream flavor. “Destructive” happens ALL the time in the animal kingdom. In fact, 97% of atheists are in favor of abortion – which, by settled science – destroys a human being. MOST destructive indeed!

            “warn others”

            Warn others of what exactly?!? The fact that you enjoy chocolate ice cream, we enjoy vanilla? That you dance to one set of DNA, we dance to another? I fear you have not thought through your atheism very well.

            “To each their own”

            Great! Then, you cannot condemn ANY behavior whatsoever – Hitler chose one path, Ghandi another. Christians choose one path, you another. To each their own. Every time you complain about anything – in an objective moral sense – you are actually denying your atheism / worldview.

            “never once understood that atheism is not an alternate faith system but the absence of a faith system.”

            Well, that is a loaded statement right there. Are you actually claiming that atheism is the “lack of belief” in God? Because that is not atheism, that MIGHT be agnosticism, and, more pertinently, is an indication of one’s psychological state, NOT a position on the God Hypothesis.

            ” ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” — Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy

            Moreover, on the subject of faith, I hear this a lot from those who are not theists, and I am really surprised by it because it is a mis-understanding of the word “faith” in the Bible, which actually would be better translated as “trust.” Christian faith goes like this: you are in need of a serious surgery. You investigate all the best surgeons in that field around the country and pick those you believe to be the top 3. You interview them and decide on the one you believe is the best. On the morning of the surgery, you get to the hospital early to fill out the forms. One of these forms is the authorization for the surgeon to operate on you. When you sign that form, it is then that you have placed your trust (faith) in that surgeon. In Christianity, the Surgeon is Jesus.

            For me, as a former atheist, it took a lot of unsupported faith to believe that the universe popped into existence out of nothing (Big Bang) uncaused by anything and that life sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud (or some variation of this). Those are mega-miracles by comparison with the Creator of a universe filled with 100 billion galaxies raising Someone from the dead. Such a “miracle” would be child’s play for Him.

            A good example of blind faith on the atheist side would be when Stephen Hawking, a super-brilliant physicist, said “the universe created itself.” Now, he is convinced that the universe had a beginning (Premise 2 of Kalam), and he knows the logical suicide of a scientist trying to deny Premise 1, so to avoid a Cause for the universe, he has it creating itself – a clear violation of basic logic and metaphysics. So, I guess I would end this by saying that everyone has faith in something – the question is “is that faith mis-placed or does it have evidence to support it?”

            So, in summary, I am just as much an evidentialist now as I was as an atheist. The only difference is that I realized I was playing “small ball” on scientism, and I needed to do some good philosophical thinking. I feel strongly that the evidence falls in favor of the God Hypothesis, and would be open to hearing your evidence for the No God Hypothesis. Perhaps there is something I am missing. Thanks!

          • Gadfly156

            (1st post of 2)
            I don’t think it’s the definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism, strictly speaking — as I understand it anyway — is simply saying “I don’t know if there is a god or not.” And to some degree, I think, not really caring one way or another — at least, that’s the impression I get from most who define themselves as agnostics.

            Atheism states pretty straightforwardly that there is no god (and/or are no gods), but there are different nuances to how one prefers to put that position forward. Personally, I find issue with the wording “I believe there is no god” because to me it seems to be assuming, with its grammatical construct, that my position on the issue itself is a mere issue of belief. No, it is not a mere matter of belief to me. While I myself may indeed never know everything there is to know and may never be able to unequivocally prove no god exists, the matter of whether one exists or not is NOT beholden to MY limitations — to MY ability or inability to argue the case, prove or disprove anything — but is an objective matter with factual content utterly divorced from my personal preferences and perceptions. I could EASILY state that I personally PREFER the idea there is no god, but it is not my wishing one way or the other that makes it so or not-so. It is the objective fact, which utterly does not depend one way or another on my opinion or feelings, which would still be as it is if I had never been born, which makes the case.

            There are various “flavors” of atheism which are loosely categorized these days into “strong” (explicit) atheism and “weak” (implicit) atheism (to parallel the strong gravitational force and the weak gravitational force). If memory serves correctly the “strong” atheist position is the direct denial of the existence of any god, or the direct assertion that there is no god, while the “weak” atheist position (implicit) is simply the absence of any beliefs in any god(s). Implicit atheism is basically “I don’t believe in any god(s).” Explicit atheism is basically, “there is (are) no god(s).” I kind of ride the middle rail because my atheism partakes of the direct assertion but stops short of giving the impression I think I know everything such that I can assert a negative, e.g., in all the universe no such thing as any god exists. It is explicit in that I can and will say with certainty THIS particular god or THAT particular god not only do not exist but CANNOT exist, at least not as represented; the inherent self-contradictions are too numerous, prolific and irreconcilable.

            I’m probably not the best person to school you on any formal conception of what you called the “No-God Hypothesis”. From your posts it sounds as though you are likely (a) more educated than I am and (b) have read more books than I have, so I anticipate you could probably easily dismantle my arguments in places I can’t even access to construct them in the first place, which in the end would neither prove nor disprove anything about the existence of deity. It would give you a false sense of triumph and a false sense of cementing the veracity of your beliefs.

            I say “false” because it would basically be like a physicist patting himself on the back for having taken ten minutes to thoroughly dismantle a grade-school child’s thesis on molecular structure based on the ball-and-stick models one tends to use for teaching grade-school children. I’d speculate all such an endeavor would serve to do would be put a feather in your cap for having proven not every atheist is qualified to take the stage of formal debate over the matter — but ultimately it would be pointless and you’d be doing yourself a disservice thereby. The fact that I am probably not the person who would succeed in truly challenging your thinking does not mean no such challenge exists or no such person who could issue one you’d find formidable and toothsome exists. It just means there are plenty of fish in that sea and most of them smarter and faster than me. :)

            For me personally it would be a futile exercise. Suppose for sake of argument that you could, indeed, through sheer logic, convince me the “god-exists” hypothesis is more tenable than the “there is no god” one. Supposing you could do this, it would still prove nothing about the actual nature of this deity, its personality, its moral compass, etc. Proving I exist as a human being is a simple matter of verifying the paper trail attesting to my existence and validating I still breathe and have a heart beat, yet none of this tells you in any way, shape or form what sort of person I am, whether you’d want me for a friend, whether I’m reliable, trustworthy, honest, caring — or mean-spirited, unilateralist and imperiously insufferable. Any support for the existence of a deity to be ascertained through sheer logic and argumentation alone, likewise, proves nothing about how this entity thinks, feels, behaves, responds to things. What attitudes it holds. What justifications for its course it has to offer. Etc….

            The classic “deist” proposition of a god is to portray deity as something like a divine watchmaker — someone that initially puts it all together, then winds it up, lets it go, and that’s it; no further or deeper engagement necessary. The existence of such a god, even if proven, presents zero difference on the surface between itself and any god that doesn’t exist at all in the first place. Why? Because with the deist watchmaker god, there is no impact upon human existence whatsoever in the light of awareness about that sort of god that wasn’t there lacking said awareness, and therefore any such existence of any such deity is ultimately irrelevant, insipid, frivolous, basically of no account. There’d be no reason, compelling or otherwise, to care or take notice of its existence, since doing so does not lead to any measurable distinction or difference whatsoever. That type of god– IF it existed — may as well not, as far as human beings are concerned, because it would be pointless and neither add or subtract anything from our lives as we know them.

            I’m happy to continue to informally engage here, but you must understand I speak strictly for myself and my own experience and conclusions as an atheist. I don’t pretend to be able to convince anyone else my way of thinking is flawless or correct, and being an atheist doesn’t mean I’m automatically “magickally” granted comprehensive knowledge of all things scientific and historical. I know as much as I know, and that’s about all. Sorry to disappoint you. :) Likewise, I will not be beholden to anyone else’s definitions of what “my atheism” is supposed to look like to satisfy them. So your efforts to try to strongarm me by taking my statements out of context is not going to stop the way my mind thinks about things. For example, twisting my statement “to each his own” to imply that I am (in your view) SUPPOSED to be amoral or SUPPOSED to regard every difference as amoral or whatever. Or that I have to offer some sort of airtight proof for the existence of an “objective morality” in order to have moral views and positions of my own. I don’t have to do any such thing. I will continue to view what I view toxic and destructive as toxic and destructive, and I will continue to view what I view healthy and constructive as healthy and constructive, and if anything is to persuade me otherwise, it will be clear and present examples to the contrary — not some abstract argument that if I’m an atheist there’s supposed to be No Such Thing as objectivity or that unless and until I construct some one-size-fits-all unimpeachable universal argument for the existence of objective morality I’m supposedly “not allowed” to have moral positions of my own based purely in my own sense of humanity and my own human experiences. I don’t get what you think you’re after or playing at with that, but you’re not going to get anywhere with me trying to tell me if I won’t color inside your lines I can’t use the crayons and draw my own f*cking picture. Yes I can, and I will. You don’t have to like it or agree with it, but I’m still going to do it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks for the reply, Gadfly!

            No, you have not disappointed me at all. And, I appreciate your discussion of a strong vs. weak atheist position – great exposition. I merely believe that, whatever our worldview, we should have good reasons for it – evidential and/or philosophical, that’s all. The reason I say that is the selection of a worldview MAY have consequences for ourselves, but also for others.

            “The fact that I am probably not the person who would succeed in truly challenging your thinking does not mean no such challenge exists or no such person who could issue one you’d find formidable and toothsome exists.”

            Oh, but in no way am I claiming to be any sort of “big fish” myself. I am a nobody who has nevertheless put in the hard work to study the issue at hand. I did that also when I was an atheist – because I felt then, like I do now, that the pursuit of truth is extremely important. In a way, I was denying my atheism, though, when I did that, because on that view, nothing one does or doesn’t do matters in any objective or ultimate sense. The universe is still headed for a cold dark slow death in which no one will be around to remember anything – on atheism. In fact, this innate natural desire to pursue truth is a powerful argument for not only objective truth, but a Being Who exemplifies it. That is why it should be no surprise, on Christian theism, whatsoever, that Jesus Himself discussed this important subject a number of times – here are just a few cases:

            John 14:6

            Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

            John 8:32

            “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

            John 17:17

            “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”

            John 18:37-38

            Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him.

            It should comes as no surprise then, that, if Christian theism is true, we should find a good deal of explanatory power and scope for what we arrive at philosophically in a secular sense.

            “Supposing you could do this, it would still prove nothing about the actual nature of this deity, its personality, its moral compass, etc.”

            I’m not so sure about this. Some philosophers, like William Lane Craig, think that deism is much closer to theism, in fact a subset of it, than atheism is to deism (just take out the spaces):

            http://www .reasonablefaith .org/deism-and-christian-theism

            Besides, we can get some of the Judeo-Christian Yahweh out of mere metaphysical arguments using the Kalam Cosmological Argument – no Bible required! This goes, once again, to explanatory scope.

            “Proving I exist as a human being is a simple matter of verifying the paper trail attesting to my existence and validating I still breathe and have a heart beat, yet none of this tells you in any way, shape or form what sort of person I am, whether you’d want me for a friend, whether I’m reliable, trustworthy, honest, caring — or mean-spirited, unilateralist and imperiously insufferable.”

            This is true, but it also points out the sheer gulf between atheism and deism: recall that on atheism, there is no such thing as objective “mean-spirited, unilateralist and imperiously insufferable.” Technically, you cannot even talk about such things, because the existence of same is ungrounded on atheism. So, as a deist, you can at least discuss these issues. One of the scariest things I remember in my atheism days is that, if I was being a consistent atheist, and someone mis-treated me or my family, I could not actually cry out for any sort of objective moral justice, without shedding my atheism, at least temporarily. But, of course, we DO cry out for this. I can tell you that I did NOT like borrowing from the world of the theist one bit! And, yet, we all do it all the time.

            “Any support for the existence of a deity to be ascertained through sheer logic and argumentation”

            But, we CAN get a LOT of properties for this Deity in this manner, like: spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, personal free will, and self-existing. That is a big deal, especially since the Bible showcases these attributes numerous times.

            Great talking with you, Gadfly!

          • Gadfly156

            (2nd post) (see, don’t make yours long, makes mine get longer! LOL)
            Continuing here, so no single reply is too long, but this is already getting way too long and involved for a message board, LOL.

            This stuff here:
            (1) “That is agnosticism – I am surprised that a serious atheist like yourself would commit such an error.”
            Explicit vs. implicit atheism. As mentioned before I’m something in the middle of the two. Implicit is basically the “absence of belief in a god” whereas explicit is as you said, the denial of the existence of god. I’m both. But what I’m not is someone who only “believes” there is no god. You can’t pull a trick grammatical construct and then fuss at me for refusing to play along. The statement “believe there is no god” implies it is a matter of beliefs rather than facts. Granted, I may not be able to prove the facts any more than you can disprove them (or vice versa depending whose perspective we are speaking from), but that doesn’t mean the question itself is down to what *I* (or anyone else) merely “believes”. The question is one of fact. Either a god exists or does not.

            (2) me: “abramic monotheism to be wholly untenable at best and even downright toxic”
            you: “Nothing wrong in an objective sense, on atheism, for toxicity – you have not established the existence of objective moral values and duties, so you do not get to borrow from the world of the theist”

            (a) Toxicity is perhaps the one thing that IS demonstrably objectively wrong precisely because it has measurable deleterious effects on human life quality.

            (b) I don’t have to “establish” anything of the sort. Morality exists, objective or not, deal with it. You have your moral positions and I have mine. I am not “borrowing” anything. Theists did not invent morality. In fact I’d hypothesize historically, chronologically, it was quite the other way around. Religion was invented as a delivery system for certain moral positions, not the other way around. Morality is not the exclusive province of the religious believer. It is part of the fabric of humanity and human nature. Morality is a HUMAN phenomenon.

            If you want to pretend you can prove there’s no “objective” basis for it, knock yourself out; I really don’t care. The fact remains I’m going to continue to hold the positions on things which I hold from principle, regardless what you think. I’m going to continue to have principles and positions based around them because that’s part of being human. You don’t have to like it, and you don’t have to agree with my principles and positions, but don’t try to tell me in some sideways fashion that if I were a “real” atheist I’d essentially be an unprincipled jackass and not give a rat’s patoot. Because that’s what it sounds to me like you’re saying and aside from being incredibly insulting it is just plain not true. Are there some atheists who are complete jackasses? Without a doubt. There are plenty of believers who are as well. But I doubt you’d be willing to point to that fact as a basis upon which to establish a one-size-fits-all mold and test that requires every believer to be a jackass in order to be considered sincere in his faith. So please don’t pretend you can establish a one-size-fits-all mold and test that requires every atheist to be a jackass in order to be a ‘real’ atheist.

            (3) “when your atheism-agnosticism fails to meet rational standards.”
            –says you. Not sure why. It’s perfectly rational to me — perhaps because I’m not expecting it to look like something it isn’t??? or perhaps because I’m not expecting the fact that I and Hawking are both atheist to mysteriously make me as smart as Hawking, or the fact that I and Dawkins are both atheist to make my individual perspectives AS A HUMAN BEING into carbon copies of his views on everything — any more than both of us having white skin means our faces should match.

            (4) me: “some of us who see a thing as destructive”
            you: “Nothing objectively wrong with ‘destructive’ on your view. Just another ice cream flavor.”
            Are you trying to put words into my mouth? Don’t. I think there is something very wrong with destroying a person’s humanity, or their hope, or their ability to love, their sense of trust, their self-respect, or their measure of basic worth.

            That may have been YOUR view when YOU used to consider yourself an atheist (which you told me you did at one time). YOU may have seen everything as “just another ice cream flavor”. YOU may very well be constructing a formidable and irrefutable argument against your former self. But you’re not talking to or with ME at all at this point. I’m not you, not you here and now and not even you in your past. The fact that I identify as atheist and you used to do so doesn’t mean we’re the same person or see things the exact same way or have the same thought processes. Please don’t put words into my mouth. If you want to know what I think you have but to ask. That’s why there’s an actual person here to write the other end of this conversation and you don’t have to write it yourself under another name …. LOL.

            (5) ” ‘Destructive’ happens ALL the time in the animal kingdom. In fact, 97% of atheists are in favor of abortion – which, by settled science – destroys a human being. MOST destructive indeed!”
            Your point being — what, exactly? This is irrelevant. ‘Destructive’ happens all the time in nature, period. A tsunami or tornado, volcano or earthquake can exhibit a “destructive” force and destroy human beings. In NATURE it’s just that: NATURE. In theism it’s either at the behest of the active will or allowance of the permissive will of a God who is in control, though. The same God who supposedly scattered people and made them all speak different languages to impede their evolutionary trajectory by thwarting their ability to maximize collaboration in the obtaining of knowledge. The same God who therefore COULD have prevented humans from obtaining the knowledge of how to abort fetuses, but didn’t. The same God who therefore either deliberately generates or passively permits the generation of volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes. The same God who could have imbued the critters in the animal kingdom with far different natures so they would NOT be “nature raw and bloody in tooth and fang” — but chose not to do so. The same God who could have created a universe free of parasites, viruses, deadly bacteria, cancer, even mosquitoes and other mere nuisances, but decided not to for whatever reasons of his own.

            If you want to complain of what YOU find morally destructive, ask the GOD you believe in — who does his OWN share of murdering babies IN VITRO BEFORE THEY ARE EVER BORN, sometimes for the pettiest of legalistic reasons at that — and who conversely inflicts or permits the cruelty of incurable yet utterly wasting conditions to flourish and proliferate in a developing fetus through NO fault or wrongdoing of theirs WHATSOEVER (and in many cases no fault or wrong on the part of the parents either!) and will NOT deliver the comparative mercy of death in utero instead, but condemns the lives and substance of an ENTIRE FAMILY to endure the pain, confusion, anguish and humiliation, the twisting knife in the gut of a mother’s love scraping the bottom of the barrel where patience and endurance have run dry, the in-your-face abusive disparity of why ONE sibling alone is never disciplined no matter how egregious the infraction which would surely have earned brother or sister a liberal dose of the board of education applied to the seat of understanding … yes ask YOUR GOD why it perpetuates and inflicts “the DESTRUCTIVE” on the most vulnerable and least deserving, and don’t try for one single second to pin what IT does on frail, conflicted, still-work-in-progress humanity instead, because in case you didn’t notice I am NOT talking about what humans choose and what humans do here …..

            And don’t just try to nyah-nyah over what I just said as if we are BOTH to ignorant to recognize I’m speaking by theistic proxy here — speaking AS IF a god, THIS god, existed. I’m not suddenly “revealing” some hidden “belief” that it does, but rather, demonstrating via speaking as if it did just how absurd the proposition appears to me in the light of what you JUST said, and which tree I think you REALLY should be barking up. Sorry if that crosses the line between blunt and rude but at least I’m not putting words into your mouth or telling you your religion can’t be real because your doctrine happens to fail to match my concept of what a believer thinks like.

            (6) “Warn others of what exactly?!? The fact that you enjoy chocolate ice cream, we enjoy vanilla? That you dance to one set of DNA, we dance to another? I fear you have not thought through your atheism very well.”

            Maybe the fact that I enjoy organic food that is actual food and actually nourishes whereas someone else is selling poison falsely labeled food in one package, and that same poison falsely labeled a cure for every poison in another? Maybe you have not thought through your belief system very well. I don’t know or care what it is you imagine I am SUPPOSED to think. I don’t CARE if you believe my thinking there is any real danger in this world, of ANY sort for that matter, worth warning people against, somehow invalidates my atheism because guess what? You don’t define me, or my atheism, or what it has to look like. I assert there is no god — specifically no tri-omni-attributed entity with eternal and unwavering sole supremacy over all — that alone makes me an atheist. The rest of my views, perspectives, principles, perceptions, conclusions, understandings, etc. about anything are MINE. They are not beholden to some laundry list of “three dozen things every atheist MUST agree to” — “by Nu Believer” no less ….

            (7) me: “To each their own”
            you: “Great! Then, you cannot condemn ANY behavior whatsoever – Hitler chose one path, Ghandi another. Christians choose one path, you another. To each their own.”
            I can, and will, condemn whatever I find odious, hypocritical, and vile, whenever I please and as often as I please. The fact that one is free to choose or invent whatever path one wishes does not automatically make all such choices either of equal worth nor morally neutral. If you are simply wondering where I draw the line — how do I personally differentiate between matters that are “live and let live” versus matters that are worth making a fuss over — again, why not just ASK me and actually find out the truth instead of inventing things which are obviously intended only to insult and annoy? (And what is the point of mixing that crap in with what is, or could be, an otherwise decent exchange of ideas? That’s what I really don’t get. ARE you even interested in this conversation we are having? If not, why have it then? But if so, why sabotage it with this other garbage?)

            (8) “Every time you complain about anything – in an objective moral sense – you are actually denying your atheism / worldview.”
            Wrong. Completely wrong. My atheism does not require me to be morally neutral about everything. Every time you say something like this, every time you try to claim this about me or try to convince me this is the case or whatever other nonsense in this vein you’ve been spinning — you are trolling me. I don’t care for being trolled. I realize I can’t control what you do/say or MAKE you stop trolling, but if you continue and persist doing so, it will lead me to conclude you really don’t care to continue the substantive part of this exchange and so I will stop engaging and let you enjoy thinking this means you “won” somehow — if that’s what you’re after. Although if that’s the case, it’s much less messy — much cleaner, more reliable a method, and frankly, just more mature — to simply declare you’re done with the conversation and leave it be. Really.

            (9) me: “never once understood that atheism is not an alternate faith system but the absence of a faith system.”
            you: “Well, that is a loaded statement right there. Are you actually claiming that atheism is the “lack of belief” in God? Because that is not atheism, that MIGHT be agnosticism …”
            Implicit atheism is basically defined as the absence of theistic beliefs or a theistic belief system. Explicit atheism is the direct assertion that there is no god. At least, that’s my 30-second takeaway from articles describing different strains of atheism.

            (10) “more pertinently, is an indication of one’s psychological state, NOT a position on the God Hypothesis.”
            Your insinuation concerning my mental health is duly noted.

            ” ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.” — Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy”
            (11) I never claimed it didn’t. I simply wasn’t going to get trapped in semantics by agreeing to a statement that seemed open for some dubious interpretations is all. I’m not even comfortable with the phrasing “the denial of the existence of god” because it implies a god exists as a base or core fact and to be atheist is to deny that “fact” (and thus be IN DENIAL by extension and default, too). Atheism is assertion of the awareness that god does NOT exist — not denying some actual existence thereof when there isn’t any. Just because I take issue with how things are phrased sometimes doesn’t mean I’m not a “real” atheist.

            Besides, what do you care either way?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The question is one of fact. Either a god exists or does not.”

            Precisely. Which is why I am burdened to provide evidence and argument for the God Hypothesis and you are burdened to provide evidence for the No God Hypothesis.

            “Toxicity is perhaps the one thing that IS demonstrably objectively wrong”

            Not at all – you have provided no evidence for objective morality on atheism, and I have provided sufficient evidence for the view across the majority of atheists for 2 centuries that it does NOT exist. Your fight is with your fellow atheists. Feel free to prove them wrong and provide me evidence of said proof.

            “You have your moral positions and I have mine.”

            You are confusing moral epistemology (knowledge) with moral ontology (existence). “Moral” does not even exist on atheism – in an objective sense. I provided evidence, you have not countered. And, you would be going against Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, and atheists across 2 centuries, including this living one:

            “Is there a God? No.
            What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
            What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
            What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
            Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
            Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
            Is there free will? Not a chance!
            What is the difference between right/wrong,
            good/bad? There is no moral difference between them… So much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about… you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” — Alex P. Rosenberg

            “but don’t try to tell me in some sideways fashion that if I were a “real” atheist I’d essentially be an unprincipled jackass and not give a rat’s patoot. Because that’s what it sounds to me like you’re saying and aside from being incredibly insulting it is just plain not true.”

            Never said that – here you are confusing moral ontology (existence) with moral sociology (behavior). “Moral” does not exist on atheism, in any objective sense. That is what these smart atheists are telling you. You should listen to them, because they are right. It took me years to figure it out myself.

            “It’s perfectly rational to me”

            That is because you are inconsistent on atheism. On the one hand, you know that, like Dawkins et al, there can be no objective moral values and duties on atheism. On the other, you deeply desire to assert them. But, as soon as you assert them, you are affirming Premise 2 below:

            Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist. (Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, plus arguments from macro-evolution, etc)

            Premise 2: Objective moral values do exists. (every time you assert one, you are affirming this premise)

            Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

            So, you need to show me why Dawkins, Provine, Ruse, Rosenberg, and atheists almost uniformly for 2 centuries are wrong on this. I agree with them. And this appeal to a Higher Court (affirming Premise 2) appears to be a condition shared by all humans – a great argument for theism. One of several reasons I converted to theism, BTW.

            “The fact that I identify as atheist and you used to do so doesn’t mean we’re the same person or see things the exact same way or have the same thought processes. Please don’t put words into my mouth.”

            I really am NOT putting words in your mouth: I am providing you with the consequences of holding an atheistic worldview – soft or hard. Pure logic.

            Now, I am just going to pull out a few of your appeals to objective moral values and duties through the rest of your reply to show you how many times you are affirming Premise 2:

            “impede their evolutionary trajectory”

            “COULD have prevented humans from obtaining the knowledge of how to abort ”

            “deliberately generates or passively permits the generation of volcanoes, tsunamis, tornadoes, earthquakes”

            “could have imbued the critters in the animal kingdom with far different natures so they would NOT be “nature raw and bloody in tooth and fang”

            “who could have created a universe free of parasites, viruses, deadly bacteria, cancer, even mosquitoes and other mere nuisances”

            “OWN share of murdering babies IN VITRO”

            “who conversely inflicts or permits the cruelty” “through NO fault or wrongdoing of theirs WHATSOEVER ”

            “ill NOT deliver the comparative mercy of death ” “endure the pain, confusion, anguish and humiliation, the twisting knife in the gut”

            “the in-your-face abusive disparity”

            “YOUR GOD why it perpetuates and inflicts “the DESTRUCTIVE” on the most vulnerable and least deserving”

            “IT does on frail, conflicted, still-work-in-progress humanity ”

            “that same poison falsely labeled a cure ”

            “I can, and will, condemn whatever I find odious, hypocritical, and vile”

            OK, so counting the “triple” in the last phrase, that is at least 17 times you referred to objective moral values and duties in that part of your post. That is 17 times you affirmed Premise 2. Given that you have provided zero counter-evidence for Premise 1, and I have provided significant evidence in favor of it, that means you just affirmed the existence of God no fewer than 17 times, even if you did so unintentionally. This is what I am talking about when I ask you to think this through more carefully. I am NOT trying to be mean or anything – and I am NOT putting words into your mouth. I am merely showing you the consequences of adopting an atheistic worldview – I figured this out, too, But it took me 42 years.

            “Besides, what do you care either way?”

            Recall that you engaged me first on this thread, not vice versa. I care, because I care about truth, and of course, as a Christian, I care about your eternal state. If that is not love, I don’t know what is. Good talking with you again, Gadfly!

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            it is a religion just a humanistic one. It contains one or more systems of ethics. It has a cosmology, it has unsubstantiated belief of origin which means it meets requirement to be classified as a religion. A formal god is not required in a religion as we see in Taoism or Confucianism or Pantheism. The fact that Atheist take formal stances in religious debates is its self an acknowledgement as a distinct school of theology.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Excellent point – thank you!

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            Would that not mean that religion too would have evolved and thus be essential to the human state as such. Not accidental but essential to what is human? Under the banners of religion humanity has been most successful. Education and the concept of human rights owes their existence to religion. The latter has no real scientific basis but even many atheist give it religious reverence. The ancient wonders of the world, are all religiously motivated some like the pyramids more impressive, more enduring than anything created by modern humanist states. I think it follows that the human condition as we understand it could not exist had religion not developed. Without religion many things would still be unpleasant, we would not have the understanding that it could actually be better. Even death is overcome.

          • Gadfly156

            I have my own theories about the evolution of religion and its role within human evolution if you are interested — won’t bore you with it if you are not. In a nutshell suffice to say it fulfilled its role and is no longer required for that phase of our advancement, and has instead become largely a hindrance to the further progress of our species, providing more excuses for staying entrenched in the garbage that is killing us than motivation to move and improve ourselves beyond it. I do not deny there may be individuals for whom this is not the case; I am speaking in general of the mass effect within the species as a whole.

            However, I would definitely disagree with your assertion that “under the banners of religion humanity has been most successful.” The past 2000 years of history speak abundantly in direct contrast to, and counter-indicatively against, this assertion. The most egregious levels of torture, abuse and the worst of man’s inhumanity toward his fellow man have, in fact, surfaced as a direct result of religious conviction, particularly of the sort that demands all must believe one specific creed/dogma or face some variety of eternal torture as consequence (which was previously, if held at all, a sentiment only reserved for those who actively engaged in egregious harm toward fellow human beings, NOT simply failed to conform and “march up and down the square” in lockstep with some particular set of dogmatic assertions).

            In other words, not content with simply making war here in this world and imprisoning and torturing all who disagree and dare to question — and dare to advance actual knowledge against dogmatic assertions deemed absolute and unquestionable because they supposedly proceed from “divine authority” (when in reality they are human conceits of interpretation of a book of bronze-age superstition) — purveyors of religion, abramic monotheism in particular, have been responsible for centuries of history becoming “a bloody testament to the fact that sincerity can achieve atrocities of which cynicism could never conceive.” The world of the past 2000 years and continuing even into our present era where we have every tool, option and opportunity of peace and well-being at our disposal, has been brought to us by one or more of the three flavors of abramic monotheism, which have been dominating paradigms across the globe — in the west(ern hemisphere) in one version; in the (middle) east in two others. Behold the fruits by which you may know them if you’re not afraid to look and examine critically with open eyes and zero favoritism.

            Death has yet to be overcome. Wishful thinking for a better hereafter — or even dogmatic assertion thereof — is insufficient. Nobody can prove it exists. From everything we can see and study, death removes each one of us, regardless how unique and precious we may be, from the realm of life permanently, and is irreversible and irrevocable as a permanent state (regardless of medical resuscitations, which only hold for a time). As such, death is the great leveller of kings and paupers alike, the one same box into which all the pieces, victor and victim, go into when The Great Game is over. And as such, death — real death that is understood as a permanent end to life — IS in fact what makes life so very precious, and each member of the human species so very unique and irreplaceable.

            I don’t know about you but human existence and selfhood is woefully unsuited for eternity in my view. If there were any sort of eternal existence after this life, with or without preceding it no less, I know I would not wish to be confined to the infinitesimally minute, microscopic scope of a single human identity in which to spend it, with zero opportunity whatsoever to ever improve all the deplorable misery that shaped me as a child and from my unhappier experiences in this world, zero opportunity to ever know what it would be like to be raised by different parents in different circumstances, to have different peers in my formative years, to know any other history but my own, even if it were nothing but the very slightest improvement to my own. No matter how lush the paradise promised around me, this alone renders any contemplation of even a pleasant afterlife as something reduced to the bleakest of prison sentences and most morbid of hells for me. But perhaps that only indicates that I have outgrown such fantasies. Peace to you.

          • lahood4christ

            atheist william provine spoke the truth in a sense; for him, there is no life after death,at least not the kind one would hope to gain!!! the fact is that everyone who is born never ceases to exist!! for the soul of man is eternal!!! it’s about where you will live eternally!! those who are born twice, by natural birth the first time, and by Spiritual NEW BIRTH or being BORN AGAIN only die once, the natural death, appointed to every man!! for it is appointed unto every man to die, and after that comes the judgement!!! but the born again die only once and go immediately to heaven to live with our LORD & SAIOR JESUS CHRIOST FOREVER!! All thise not born again die twice!! First time the natural death, 2nd time the 2nd death which is passed on to all not born again at the GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT!! TRUST ME!!! YOU DON’T WANT TO BE JUDGED ATTHE GREAT WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT , MEANING YOU REFUSED TO RECEIVE JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR; SO THE PUNISHMENT FOR REJECTING JESUS CHRIST AS LORD AND SAVIOR IS ETERNAL DEATH IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!!! EVEN IF YOU WERE A SO CALLE “GOOD PERSON” FOR THE LORD JESUS HIMSELF SAID NO ONE IS GOOD , NO NOT ONE, FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND COME SHORT OF GODS GLORY( OR STANDARD OF PERFECTION, WHICH IS TO BE SINLESS, WHICH IS ONLY POSSIBLE BY HAVING ALL YOUR SIN WASHED AWAY BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SPOTLESS, LAMB OF GOD!!) THE SAINT, OR BLOODWASHE DCHILD OF GOD WILL APPEAR AT THE JUDGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST, TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE BODY, SINCE BEING SAVE, BUT IT’S NOT A HEAVEN OR HELL JUDGEMENT, BUT WHER ONE IS GIVEN REWARDS FOR SERVICE TO OUR LORD JESUS OR WHERE THEY WILL LOSE THEIR REWARD!!! THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT , THE JUDHGEMENT SEAT OF CHRIST!! SOM IFF YOU ARE AN UNBELIEVER , DON’T WAIT, FOR YOU ARE NOT PROMISED TOMORROW!!! GIVE YOUR LIFE TOM JESUS CHRIST NOW, AND HAVE PEACE, AND ASSURANCE OF SALVSATION , AND YOU WILL LIVE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Beautifully put Truth – thank you and God bless you!!!

          • Bebop

            Amen! But born again the Bible way!

            John 3:5

            Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

            So we need to be born again the way Jesus told us to in the Gospels – by being baptised with water and the the Spirit!

          • RosLyn

            Read John 6… Jesus said to the crowds “I am the living bread that came down from Heaven: whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves saying , “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. (Spiritual life) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” The Gospel of the Lord.

          • I’m Not Sayin, Just Sayin

            Wouldn’t it be a sad but valid point, that if “Black Lives
            Matter”, they themselves wouldn’t “CHOOSE” to do this? It’s sad because nobody is forcing them to do
            it. . . It said, they are 13% of the population, and 30% of the abortions.. .

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Yes, it is tremendously sad indeed. We have a “Black Babies Matter” sign on our sidewalk in front of the abortion mill. But, the folks who support us the most out there are black women – probably because they have suffered the most with abortion. And, too, there are some estimates that the black population will largely be wiped out (much smaller minority) in 20-30 years at this rate.

          • Wesley Sandel

            Since well over 98% of women who’ve had abortions report that they don’t regret the decision, I’m going to have to call bullshit on your “Black women have suffered because of abortion” lie. Maybe you should poll all the women who are now sterile and the families of the tens of thousands of women who died in illegal abortions before Roe v Wade to find out how normal, sane intelligent people feel about a woman’s right to control their own bodies and to have access to health care.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh yes, the 98% lie – based on 3 years of data. Well, I have women stopping by 10 and 20 years after their abortions who tell me it was the worst mistake of their lives and not a day goes by when they don’t regret it. So, here are just a few of the problems with that “study” (just take the spaces out):

            http://prolife .org .nz/study-claiming-women-dont-regret-abortions-deeply-flawed-and-deceptive/

            Now, let’s look at peer-reviewed secular data says:

            http://www .abortionfacts .com/reardon/the-after-effects-of-abortion

            “Maybe you should poll all the women who are now sterile”

            Sterile from all of the illegal abortions being done in doctor’s offices prior to Roe and Doe or sterile from ANY abortion being done now that it is legal? Perhaps you should become a REAL man and encourage women not to kill their babies?!?

            “woman’s right to control their own bodies”

            There is another separate body involved – the child’s. Or did you miss the arms and legs in those dishes on the videos?!? They have no right to kill that child. It’s 2015 – time to join the civilized world with those of us who know basic science.

            “have access to health care”

            Abortion is not “health care” – it is death care. Two human beings go into the abortion mill – what comes out is 1 dead, 1 wounded.

            Surely all reasonable men and women can come together and show both compassion for human beings and a respect for settled science. The argument against abortion is a moral and scientific one:

            1. Human beings have intrinsic moral value. (basic morality)

            2. What is located in the womb, post-conception, is a distinct individual human being. (settled science)

            3. Therefore, abortion kills a distinct individual human
            being with intrinsic moral value – one who is guilty of no crime.

            The only difference between a human in the womb and one outside of it is size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency. And each one of those factors, if used to argue for abortion, could be also used as a reason for killing a child OUTSIDE of the womb too. In abortion clinics all across America today, nearly 4000 distinct individual human beings with intrinsic moral value – guilty of no crime but their mere existence – are being led to their deaths, and gruesome ones at that. Can’t we all come together and bring our laws up to date with 21st century science and basic human compassion by passing a Life at Conception Act and ending forever this brutal crime against humanity – and the resulting and reprehensible trafficking in baby parts that derives its profit from it?

            God bless!

          • Wesley Sandel

            I love it! Valid surveys are “a lie” and all the transparent lies about breast cancer and PP profiting from abortion and women regretting abortion are fact. You can fix ignorant, but you can’t fix willful stupidity.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            When you place a poll conducted over a VERY limited time period above peer-reviewed secular data, you just might be an ideologue. But, when you engage in nothing more than ad hominems, then you have proven that:

            1. You are a liberal, and

            2. You have lost the intellectual debate.

            Now, back to your crunchy salad and wine (just take the spaces out):

            http://newwavefeminists .blogspot .com/2015/07/nwf-official-response-to-planned.html

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I must commend your consistency: calling another human being “it” is fully consistent with your dark age understanding of human biology and baby sacrifice.

          • UncovertheScammmers33

            Maybe it would help if you stopped stereotyping people.

          • the_bananaboat

            The problem with stereotypes is that they tend to be true and that annoys and offends people. If a stereotype applies to the vast majority of people that fit into that category then it’s valid. Liking the fact that it fits is irrelevant.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Try some links to a not blatantly biased source, it may help your argument in the future. The rate of mental health problems associated with abortion is the same rate as those that suffer mental health problems associated with childbirth.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I give you peer-reviewed medical sources and you give me Oprah-style polls (lasting 3 years only, when I have women showing up decades later wanting to kill themselves now that they know they were lied to by you monsters and signed off on the murder of their baby) and say-so assertions, and then talk about how “unbiased” you are. (smh)

            Here is another one, by Planned Murder in Da Hood themselves, showing increased miscarriage risk post-abortion:

            Induced abortion and risk of subsequent miscarriage

            Yuelian Sun1, Yan Che1, Ersheng Gao1, Jørn Olsen2 and Weijin Zhou1

            +Author Affiliations

            1Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, and National Laboratory of Contraceptives and Devices Research, 2140 Xie Tu Road, Shanghai 200032, China.

            2The Danish Epidemiology Science Centre, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark.

            Correspondence:

            Dr Weijin Zhou, Shanghai Institute of Planned Parenthood Research, 2140 Xie Tu Road, Shanghai 200032, China. E-mail: [email protected]

            Accepted: January 7, 2003.

            Next Section: Abstract

            Background To evaluate the impact of surgically induced first-trimester abortion on the risk of miscarriage in a subsequent pregnancy.

            Methods: The study is a pregnancy cohort study. It was conducted among 15 general hospitals or maternity and infant health institutes in Shanghai, China from November 1993 to March 1998. The abortion cohort consisted of pregnant women whose previous pregnancies were terminated by vacuum aspiration (98%). The reference cohort consisted of primigravidae. Subjects were recruited at 35–63 days of gestational age. A total of 2953 pregnant women were enrolled; 1502 in the abortion cohort, 1451 in the reference cohort.

            Results: There were only 62 women lost to follow-up. The remaining 2891 women had 2732 live births, and 137 miscarriages. About 5.5% of pregnancies in the abortion cohort were miscarried and 4.0% in the reference cohort. Once potential confounders were controlled for by logistic regression, odds ratio (OR) of miscarriage between the abortion cohort and the reference cohort was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.08–2.23). The adjusted OR were 2.44 (95% CI: 1.16–5.15) among women who were recruited within 49 days of gestational age, and 1.72 (95% CI: 1.09–2.72) for the first-trimester miscarriage.

            Conclusions: Induced abortion by vacuum aspiration is associated with an increased risk of first-trimester miscarriage in the subsequent pregnancy.

            You’re welcome!

          • RL Hudson

            YET NO ONE DIED IN THE LIVE CHILDBIRTH SCENERIO.

          • the_bananaboat

            Actually, as a psychiatrist I can say without question that the mental health problems associated with abortion are extensive. The women and girls suffer from severe bouts of depression, anger, frustration, and guilt. There is a direct correlation between having had an abortion and drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling, self inflicted punishment (cutting themselves, etc), abuse of others, and suicide. They tend to feel intense and overwhelming guilt and loss. In fact, only the hardest of the hardcore liberal socialists that will say anything to fight for their cause are able to ignore the mental and emotional pain. The ultimate responsibility for any woman is to protect her children and an abortion is the ultimate betrayal of that responsibility. It’s part of our genetic makeup to love our children. When a woman attempts to deny this aspect of her makeup she wounds herself deeply and suffers greatly from it. I have personally experienced thousands of cases and I can draw on the case files of hundreds of thousands of girls and women from the University Hospital Mental Health Department database. If you’re looking for a purely intellectual expert on the subject then here I am.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            The rate of mental health problems among women who have abortions is the same as the rate among women who go through childbirth.

          • Ginger p.

            I think (possibly inaccurately) that MOST abortions are done on young (girls) maybe encouraged by the boyfriends or family knowing she’d be unable to be a proper parent. Then as an adult regretting aborting their child as inhumane and cruel, but what would the child’s life of a teenage mother be like? If she’s dumb and inexperienced enough to get pregnant in the first place, she’s probably too dumb and inexperienced to BE a proper mother. Then as an adult, who has more intelligence, feels the guilt and pain of “aborting” a defenseless child so suffers the anguish AS an adult. Many are probably encouraged to use abortion due to the circumstances by the boyfriend and family who, AT THE TIME, know they cannot care for a child. I think it’s only better than neglecting, abusing and destroying a child’s life by someone totally unprepared to be a parent, i.e. babies ending up in trash bins or beaten to death by immature, ill-prepared parents. It’s ugly, but our society teaches only sex, sex, sex in every aspect of life, yet “parents” don’t parent properly due to their un-parenting skills. So what’s the answer? EDUCATION, starting with “parenting classes” for PARENTS. We don’t properly educate people on LIFE, so it just stumbles and bumbles along!

          • Wesley Sandel

            Pay no attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the Black demographic lives in poverty and with little or no access to regular medical care – facts and science have no place on this site.

          • drwrock

            So with this void of “little or no access to regular medical care”, the void is filled with Planned Parenthood. This is what you support, your chosen solution to the issue?! A murder mill created by racist eugenicist? There are plenty of facts here and elsewhere you choose to ignore in the name of “science”.

          • Wesley Sandel

            Yes, a fully staffed health clinic instead of no access to health care and contraceptives. I know the idea of a woman controlling her own life just makes you want to beat your children again, but it’s a stance that normal, decent, sane human being take every day.

          • drwrock

            Beat my children? You, like most liberals losing the argument, resort to inflammatory comments trying to get the other debater angry. Childish, weak and predictable. In addition, you chose not to refute the fact that these clinics are murder mills. Instead, like most liberals losing the argument, you try to change the definitions to meet your narrative when the facts are too obvious for you to accept.
            Although, I have succeeded in my defense with FACT, let me give you a one-time-courtesy response. A stance that is normal, decent, sane, and let me add MORAL and HUMANE, would be to protect the unborn lives. I am not advocating a woman give up control over her life; just that she respect the other life within her. And just FYI: I am NOT ‘pro-life” as I support the death penalty. I am anti-abortion and always pro-choice. I am also pro-consequences, in this life or the next. I wish you well, Wesley, and pray you will see the truth and accept it.

          • Wesley Sandel

            I love it! It thinks I’m the one engaging in inflamatory statements while it stands outside a woman’s health clinic screaming baby murderer at defenseless women and threatening the lives of clinic workers! You can’t beat a pseudo-christian for it’s lack of humanity and common sense!

          • drwrock

            Good luck in your hate-filled world of assumptions.

          • drwrock

            Your proof that I have ever said or done any of these things? You have none because I never have. Again, good luck in your hate-filled world of assumptions, libel, and lies.

          • dee

            And you, Wesley Sandel, would rather see a pregnant woman kill her innocent, unborn baby, and have to live with that knowledge the rest of her life, making her a murderer along with the one performing the murder. The BABY is the victim, not the woman. They are the ones who are defenseless. Women should take responsibility for their actions and keep their knees together if they are unmarried. That’s what is wrong with the world today. Sin is sin and there are consequences. I, myself, had a child out of wed-lock, but was woman enough and wise enough to take the responsibility of my actions, knowing that God would help me through it, and raised him in the way of God and he turned out to be a wonderful son, father, husband and man of responsibility. He serves his country in the Air Force, has a good job, wonderful wife and my 4 awesome grandchildren.

          • Wesley Sandel

            Meanwhile, back in the real world, a zygote isn’t a baby and 98% of women who have had abortions report no regret about the decision.

          • Wesley Sandel

            Mike Huckabee: Denying Abortion To Ten-Year-Old Rape Victim Was the Right Decision

          • Wesley Sandel

            “Beat my children?” Isn’t that what your bible tells you to do, to beat your children and keep your women subservient? To murder anyone who is gay – or who wears clothing made from blended materials, or any woman who isn’t a virgin when married, or anyone who eats shellfish, or anyone who sows more than one type of crop in a field? I mean, which is it, is it a literal interpretation of the bible you believe (as “interpreted” by that greedy pedophile you call your minister) or is it “I like this part. Let’s claim this part is true and ignore those other parts that are clearly completely f**king crazy”?

          • drwrock

            Typical liberal responses when losing an argument: refusing to stay focused on issue and labeling someone based on assumptions rather than facts. You lost this argument a long time ago and now attack me biblically, based on the assumption I’m religious . What a shameful display from someone lacking the character to stay present in the discussion and to attack someone without an ounce of evidence. Thank you for proving my thesis on liberals and your failure to accept truth.

          • Wesley Sandel

            I love it! It’s can’t even read or comprehend at a fifth-grade level and it thinks it’s competent to make decisions regarding health care for women everywhere. It’s the kind of cheap entertainment you just couldn’t buy.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            You’re the one who tried to deflect the topic of conversation. Abortions only make up 3% of PP services, they prevent more abortions than every pro-life organization combined.

          • drwrock

            What an incredibly stupid statement! Guess what? Planned Parenthood has CAUSED more abortions than all the pro-life groups combined! Also, even if it’s only 3% of their services, that’s 3% murder, the destruction of innocent life.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Every state that mandates abstinence only education has the highest rates of STI infections, unwanted pregnancies and abortions. If you want what we all want, fewer abortions, you should be advocating for sex education and effective contraception.

          • RL Hudson

            There is sex education.And there is sex indoctrination. PP does the latter. And before your liberal agenda kicked in with the sexual revolution. Both abortion and STD’ S were much more rare.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            No they weren’t, they just went unreported.

          • RosLyn

            As for the number of deaths from illegal abortions, in 1960 the total number of all pregnancy-related deaths (from abortions as well as from childbirth and other problems during pregnancy) was 1,579 (according to the Vital Statistics of the United States, Vol. II, Mortality, Part A. 1960-77). To believe the pro-abortion argument that over 5,000 illegal abortion deaths occurred, one must believe that the 1,579 officially recorded maternal deaths were all caused by illegal abortions and an additional 3,421 deaths were also caused by illegal abortions and the death certificates were falsified to attribute the death to something such as “heart attack” or “cirrhosis of the liver,” and that no woman died from any other pregnancy-related cause. But in fact, for 1960, Vital Statistics attributes 289 of those 1,579 deaths to abortion (legal and illegal).

            In 1968, Vital Statistics reports 859 total pregnancy-related deaths; 133 of the 859 attributed to abortion.

            By 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide, there were 24 deaths from legal abortions and 39 from illegal abortions (according to the Centers for Disease Control Abortion Surveillance, Annual Summary, 1978).

            During 1973, after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion-on-demand nationwide in January of that year, 744,600 abortions were done (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an affiliate of Planned Parenthood, which surveys abortion providers and compiles abortion statistics). If abortion supporters want to claim that more than 1.2 million illegal abortions took place before 1973, then they must also explain why the legalization of abortion caused an immediate drop of more than 450,000 in the number of abortions!

            The number of legal abortions did not reach 1 million until 1975, the third year of legalization. It was not until 1977 – four years after Roe v. Wade and with 2,688 abortion providers in operation – that the number exceeded 1.2 million, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The total number of legal abortions today is more than 1.3 million per year.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Only 1,500 childbirth deaths in a year in 1960? That sounds very low to me, historically childbirth is one of the most dangerous things a woman can do. The cause of death was usually attributed to infection, but they were definitely falsified often.

          • Ted Bear

            Insane assumption.

          • the_bananaboat

            I don’t know what you do for a living, but I’m a medical doctor. I’m an MD, DO, and a psychiatrist. I have access to hundreds of thousands of case files and I have access to an extensive history of human sexuality and behavior. In the past abortions were extremely rare. Men and women were far more honorable and responsible than they are today. It was a great shame to be a bastard. In the cases where women did not wait until marriage to have sex and she got pregnant the father would marry her. This is where the phrase “make her an honest woman” came from. In virtually all cases they got married. In a case where the father ran away, was away in the service, went to prison, was dead, or was gone for some other reason the woman would stay with her parents and they would help raise the baby. Even in cases of rape or incest the mother rarely blamed the baby and never even considered murdering her child. Back alley abortions were extremely rare. The idea that they were rampant is a lie told by liberals to excuse what they’re doing.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Abortions have been around for hundreds of years. In the late 18th century, the number of children the average women had went down from 8 to 4, because abortion became more available.

            An MD should be able to use the correct terminology then. You can’t abort a baby, that would be murder, you can legally abort a fetus, however.

          • Ted Bear

            Please share the study that listed the states that mandate abstinence only education and their STI rates. Thanks

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Why are you giving me homework assignments when you can use google?

            http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.ViewPage&PageID=1195

          • Pax Humana

            Sadly, if you truly lived up to your name, then you would not be making these idiotic and baseless comments all the time in real life, Luciferian.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            If you look one post down, there is a link that proves my comments are not baseless. Do you have any links to any proof that abstinence education works better than comprehensive sex education?

          • the_bananaboat

            Comprehensive sex education should include promoting abstinence. If it doesn’t then it’s not comprehensive.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Comprehensive sex education does cover abstinimce as the only 100% effective way to avoid pregnancy and STI’s. Of course, they cover all of the other highly effective forms of birth control because of human nature.

          • the_bananaboat

            I agree that sex education and effective contraception are important. I believe that it is the parent’s responsibility to provide that. If it’s something that the minor feels the need to hide from his or her parents then he or she is not old enough to make that decision.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Then you need to talk to the parents in the South, they’ve really dtopped the ball.

          • RL Hudson

            How can one prevent abortions, by performing abortions at such a high amount. Unless you are saying you prevented the abortions that might have happened if those already aborted babies .Had in fact been born. And would have gotten abortions themselves.

          • RosLyn

            You are incorrect. I suggest you check out Live Action.org for the statistics on what percentage Abortion makes of PP services.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            I trust Planned Parenthood to be more accurate in their own numbers than I do an anti-abortion group to accurately report Planned Parenthood’s activities.

            Why did you have to hide the link in another website’s link? Is it because that site is heavily biased and could be easily proven to be lying?

          • the_bananaboat

            Really? You believe a group that was designed from the ground up to hide what they’re doing than a group reporting on the secrets that that group is trying to hide? How ignorant and naïve can you be? Are you not aware that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization founded by a racist? You should do some research on Margaret Sanger.

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Planned Parenthood has never hidden the fact that they perform abortions, even if it is a small portion of the services they provide.

          • Ted Bear

            That is a made up statistic and a ridiculous assumption to follow. They prevent pregnancies in a way, but that is the only way they prevent abortions….once pregnant, they encourage abortions….their founder would be very happy with both means of purifying the race

          • IntelligenceisAVirtue

            Abortuins occur when a woman has an unplanned pregnancy. Contraception prevents unplanned pregnancies. It’s not a big logical leap. How does PP “encourage” abortions, other than providing them?

          • Tracy Stout-Powers

            Please!! Your couldn’t be more wrong!!

          • Wesley Sandel

            Yet ANOTHER substantive contribution from someone who believes that the world is four thousand years old.

          • Tracy Stout-Powers

            Oh no, that couldn’t be right!! Remember? Obama gonna take care of them!! They now have health care!!! And EVERYONE has access to it. Sarcasm intended.

          • Ted Bear

            More African Americans were aborted than born in Mew York last year. I huess Sanger woukd consider that a big success.

          • Wesley Sandel

            It’s the “you’ll have pie in the sky when you die” argument for accepting the baby jebus as your person savior.

          • Ginger p.

            GREAT BRAINWASHING!!!! Thanks. Tell people enough and often and then they’ll BELIEVE. Thanks for the “word”. But I believe we’ll all find out the truth one day. As for me, I don’t buy the hoopla — it’s too contradictory and fanatical (oh and did I mention PROFITABLE) tithe and give your $$ to save your soul…another example of American Greed, well I guess the rest of the world has caught on to THAT one. GOLD and jewel-lined cathedrals where the “people” starve in the streets. Not something I want to be a part of.

          • Pax Humana

            …and yet here you are trying to raise money for your OWN various 419 scams…how ironic. Do you not have a kitchen to go into and sandwiches to start making, miss?

          • I’m Not Sayin, Just Sayin

            Wouldn’t it be a sad but valid point, that if “Black Lives
            Matter”, they themselves wouldn’t “CHOOSE” to do this? It’s sad because nobody is forcing them to do
            it. . . It said, they are 13% of the population, and 30% of the abortions.

          • vanslem6

            Look back to LBJ’s ‘great society.’ Convince a person (or group) they’re a victim, they become powerless and reliant upon others. The US govt is the ultimate ‘Pied Piper.’ They create poverty, racial tension, wars, etc., etc.

            ‘It is easier to fool a man than to convince a man he’s been fooled.’

            Similar to the progressives that are in favor of mandatory vaccinations, further destruction of the public school system (common core, etc.), short-sighted min wage laws and socialized medicine – they’re leading themselves to slaughter.

            The 3rd wave feminists that are wondering what has happened to all the ‘good men’ and why the divorce rate is ≥ 50% in 2015. It’s a case of short-sightedness, and any fan of history can see parallels between the past and modern day. r vs K selection sort of thing, lol. I think that the human race has a lot more r selected people than we’d like to admit. Ha.

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            Think about it. In modern times secular humanism has dominated western governments who have in turn dominated all other governments. Secular humanism in the forms of Communism,Socialism, Fascism and yes Constitutional Democracy have since the Napoleonic wars started all wars and killed more people violently than all previous conflicts combined for recorded history, Not just in raw numbers but proportionately. They turned mass murder and torture into a science. In the thirty five years from 1914 to 1949. Both world wars, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, the Spanish Civil war, the Japanese invasion of China, the Holocaust, Soviet Purges and several other lesser known atrocities in colonial territories have been presided over by Progressives. Despite what progressives would have you believe, under their banners and by their hands more carnage occurred than in any other era in human history. It continues with the silent Holocaust aimed at the unwanted.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – that is one of the best explanations I have seen on this! Do you mind if I copy it and present it elsewhere in quotes with your name? When you wrote that, I was just thinking about how slavery was also progressive.

          • Gadfly156

            That’s why conservatives tried to slaughter the abolitionists, because they were clearly against the slavery these horrid abolitionists were trying to perpetuate. Sure, sure. Hey I got some awesome beachfront property in Montana. Interested?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Racial slavery was a historical aberration, advanced by progressives, Gadfly. The same people saying “abolish slavery” are now saying “abolish abortion.”

            “It’s legal, I have the right to choose, it should be allowed for economic reasons, they aren’t human, it’s better for them too, who are you to force your religion on me?” Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

          • Gadfly156

            I know this is a popular rhetorical line among religious believers these days. And then when one tries to point out how the church in particular spent plenty of time and effort of their own perfecting the art of mass murder and torture, we get catcalled with a bogus nyah-nyah of “oh well you’re the only one fixated on the past; I’m talking about the present and the future” — as if the impact of those long centuries of evil at the hands of those who styled themselves the highest guardians of the good should just be summarily dismissed because one large faction thereof in particular is ostensibly no longer in the business of inquisitions, crusades and fiery pogroms.

            I know how that game is played but I’m not playing. Why? Because:

            (1) the breeding of murderous “my way or the guillotine” thinking has its origins in that past, regardless of whomever may have implemented it since the birth of the industrial revolution or for what ideology’s sake. In fact its origin in religious dogma is so ancient that it forms the substance and basis for the fanciful tales of mass genocides of diverse peoples found in the canonical “old testament” of the judaeo-christian bible. “Manifest destiny” wasn’t invented by Euro mutts who came to north America by boat 300-400 years ago. Its origin can be traced at least 4000 years back to whenever those first assertions that “this land is my land” (even though other people occupy and have occupied it for centuries) because “god said so.”

            (2) sure, some religious orgs have reformed in that they no longer practice systematic torture and execution of those who disagree with them, but how, and why? Because a multitude of SECULAR individuals and organizations presumably lumped in your zero-sum-game blanket condemnation actually fought for, marched for, protested for, lived and died for, the separation of church and state/legislature, and the freedom of people to not have to suffer torture and murder by religious believers for not conforming to and adhering to their dogmas!!!

            (3) OK, so religion X or church Y and Z are no longer torturing and murdering “dissenters” and “heretics”. Wonderful, it’s a testament to the efficacious efforts of NON-believers and the increasing ranks of more enlightened, humane — and thus “secularized” — believers alike, the latter chiefly because they have to some degree EMBRACED the tenets of progressive and liberal thought they once condemned.
            HOWEVER, we are not entirely out of the woods yet. Religious orgs denied a venue for using torture or the threat of death to manipulate and control people through fear still seek a similar venue in the social, psychological, and legislative realms. They still seek the employment of shame, slander, fear and guilt to do for them today what the murder and torture now denied them can no longer do. They still seek to leverage their advantages of money, influence, power, and numbers of gullible adherents willing to be told what to think, how to feel and who to be in order to be “good” and “in God’s graces” to push for a world in which it is acceptable to bully, harass, or even imprison others for daring to make choices outside of what the religious org deems morally upright or correct — even where such choices are entirely personal matters affecting no one but the individual himself — or who find personal authenticity to be in conflict with religious rhetoric and dogma and bravely choose honesty over pretense even if it gets them falsely “condemned” by the dogma and its peddlers.
            And then, to add insult (of intelligence primarily) to injury, we are told that our refusal to be controlled and ruled over by you constitutes some sort of failure to extend tolerance to you. So let me spell it out. If you believe abortion to be evil, don’t have one. If you believe homosexuality to be sin, don’t be one. But don’t come accusing those different from you of “intolerance” toward you when you are not even remotely willing to extend any to us. We’re not failing to be tolerant toward you; we are protecting our right to be who WE are. Don’t try to interfere with that right and there’s no quarrel; we certainly don’t care what you believe and practice in the privacy of your homes and communities. But if you plan to infiltrate places that have a direct impact upon us and our well being? You’d better believe we are going to hold our ground and push back. Make no mistake. We’ve seen what the world looks like under millenia of your ideological dominance and we’ve said “no thanks”. No thanks to genocide, no thanks to crusades and inquisitions, no thanks to jihads, no thanks to the entire sorry history of abramic monotheism and its obsession with dictating conformity to every sentient being on the face of the earth.

            I don’t mean to be rude with that, just trying to be absolutely clear how I see things. Cheers.

          • RL Hudson

            Ok way too much blather to refute. I will start with , just a lil one. The crusades you bring up. They were not about religious zealotry. They were about reclaiming land taken from them by another group of people. People by the way that tried to conquer all of Europe. They had taken all of spain for a time. They had tried to take all of europe. Stopped in Constantinople .Lucky for us . So to associate the crusades as a religious form of murder is a joke. Not to fear though. Your progressives tried to take Europe also. We kicked their butts also. You know the Nazis And the communists. So being a predominantly Christian nation. Was America winning WW2. A religious war by your standards?

          • Gadfly156

            You tried to cherry pick the crusades because it’s the only thing I mentioned that even stood a chance at being twisted to suit your purposes. You completely bypassed the valid points I made as “blather” rather than addressing them. You don’t seem interested in valid discussion here, just trolling and point scoring. I’ll answer your question when you answer mine: so what do you call it when Palestinians seek to reclaim the land taken away from them? Hmm?

            There are none so blind as those who REFUSE to see. If you have a genuine valid refutation or rebuttal to the WHOLE of my post or at least the core substance of it, let’s hear it. Otherwise don’t waste my time showing off with some vague half-baked effort to knock a single fleur-de-lys off the cornice of the cupola and pretending that alone will topple the entire structure. I doubt either of us is stupid enough to believe that.

          • RosLyn

            You are incorrect. May I suggest “The Glory of the Crusades” by Steve Weidenkopf, one of the world’s pre-eminent authorities on the Crusades and many other events. On pages 243-245, there is a timeline of the Crusades and other major events in history, the Bibliography for this book sets forth 5 full pages, single spaced of sources for his information, and the End Notes stretch from page 253 to page 285. By the time you finish researching all this information, you will be qualified to set forth your opinion. Mr. Hudson, who’s comments appear below is much more correct. I might also suggest that you research the Battle of Lepanto wherein a very small Christian fleet roundly trashed the Ottoman Empire whose fleet was more than twice the size of the Christian fleet, plus it was a very loosely connected fleet being a few ships from each country that contributed, and a young leader whose courage was outstand-ing. This battle was to recover Christian lands that had been over-run by the Ottoman Empire. Check it out… its an amazing story. The sailors were praying the Rosary to the Mother of God and Mary granted the favor of suddenly turning the winds against the Ottomans, much to their dismay. Its far to long to discuss here, but it is amazing.

          • Tom Robbins

            Another Darwinized self-centered response. Your assumption that their is not intelligent creator, is loosing traction not that neo-darwinism is dead. BTW, if your ideas are just a result of random chemical firings in what you call your consciousness (in your world just the firing of neurons and “poof” we see, hear, feel, taste, etc., then why should anybody take you at your word, as you are not wired for truth, you are only wired for survival..

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I think you meant to reply to Gadfly – I am on your team. Nice response though, thanks!

          • Pax Humana

            WorldGoneCrazy, Tom Robbins, and RosLyn, I wish that you three were on Google Plus/YouTube. Some trolls have been bugging me there and I think that you three have the ability to even the odds.

          • Tom Robbins

            BTW – Dawkins was WRONG – not just a little wrong, but utterly wrong. The “selfish gene” theory is absolutely dead, the tree of life is now an impenetrable thicket. Random mutation and selection has been a complete empirical failure, only promoting random death. Eipigenetics is even being show to account for the infamous Finch Beaks – in short, your random, winning the lottery every day for 10,000 years has been overturned. The fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion, HGT, the self repairing purposeful code of DNA that is actual code that can only come from an intelligent mind have left neo-darwinism in a shambles – soon Darwin will be resigned to the history books, good riddance.. You can either retreat into the multiverse where unicorns dance, or you can accept that we are created purposefully – I am sure you would rather keep thinking your behavior is meaningless in order to release you from all obligation, but sorry, you are not off the hook.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Again, I think you meant to reply to Gadfly – I am on your team. Nice response again though – I like the unicorn touch – thanks!

          • lou arquer

            Yes, instead you progressive Marxist believe in a time tested failure of a system that has NEVER worked to date. So yes you do get your idea’s from old books that have nothing to do with America at all.

          • TheJacob

            Unlike liberal progressives, we religious people do not see new, untested, potentially unreliable approaches to a recently skewed definition of reality as the only way to approach how to best live one’s life today.

          • Edmund Burke

            But you don’t believe that if you like your black babies, you can keep your black babies. Progressivism;Culture of Death

          • Anonymous Guy

            Which is why Obola is supporting the death cult called islum. They have everything in common.

          • Anonymous Guy

            No. You just feel the need to want to control everyone elses live instead of dealing with your own.
            If you weren’t hypocrites you’d be defending the rights of
            “old book readers”.
            You know, like practicing tolerance.
            The same tolerance you expect from people who aren’t suicidal.

          • Gadfly156

            By this same argument one might very well suggest the “god” of this “old book” ought to just throw open the gates of his “heaven” to everyone regardless of who they are, how they’ve lived, whether they believe, or what they intend. After all, unconditional love and forgiveness are supposed to offer an entire universe of embrace traversing countless additional miles past the boundaries of mere tolerance.

            Or are you really just so consummately stupid you can’t see that tolerating intolerance is actually a violation of the ideal of tolerance, not some superlative fulfillment thereof? It’s like saying you’re in favor of preserving life and then refusing to remove a tapeworm because it, too, is alive. Every valid principle has a necessary exception. To foster tolerance it is imperative we disallow the one thing that destroys it: intolerance. That means refusing to tolerate intolerance, period. The nature of intolerance utterly validates and legitimizes the application of it exclusively toward itself.

          • Anonymous Guy

            Blah blah blah….

          • Gadfly156

            What a compelling rebuttal. I’m glad to see you at least admit you got nothing, though.

          • Pax Humana

            …much like the volumes of nothing that you have supported all throughout history? William Shakespeare said this best about you and your Lucifer worshiping kind, “Methinks he doth protest too much.”

          • sd760

            You’re doomed to repeat history since you refuse to study it. “New” does not always mean “better”.

          • Gadfly156

            There is nothing new under the sun.
            “New” and “old” is just another set of dualistic dichotomous terms inviting the blind glorification of one at the expense of the demonization of the other — and interchangeably so at that, depending on to whom we are talking. New can be cheap and transient; old can be outmoded, obsolete, irrelevant and useless. Conversely, new can be improved, debugged, streamlined, solidified; old can be sturdy, time-tested, dependable.

            In any case I believe it doesn’t require too many years of study, history or otherwise, to comprehend that a bucket of abuser/bully memes, entitlement attitudes, conceits of apoplectic patriarchs who couldn’t be bothered to live up to the demands they imposed on others, and superstitious, unscientific attempts to account for the existence of the universe by bronze-age sheep-herders really isn’t a fit compendium to guide the evolving human species OUT of its present misery — a misery this same compendium has actually spent the past two millenia stirring, evoking, imposing and exacerbating — and toward a more noble, beautiful future where we finally outgrow trying to threaten one another past the grave as a means of imposing our will and our way.

          • Kenneth Mulligan

            But you think that you have the right to DICTATE how others live…or ELSE.

          • Bedanski

            Sounds a lot like your guy, the “by Executive Fiat” President, Barack Hussein Obama, eh?

          • Glenn Dupuis

            So Marxists have never done that I guess?

          • CajunYankee

            …and you think you have the right to dictate how others DIE…

          • Gadfly156

            Excuse me, and you know this about her how, again? You know this about every person who identifies with the word “progressive” how, exactly? I don’t recall millions of people suddenly receiving a memo etched in the annals of the irrevocable that you had moved into their heads or were granted the power to define the contents thereof and/or intents of their hearts for them, nor even, for that matter, leave to presume to interpret their words for them or define who they are and how they feel in place of their own disclosures concerning themselves. So exactly how is it you arrived at this “knowledge?”

            Oh that’s right, you didn’t. You never did, never could, never have and never will, because it doesn’t exist. You have, in fact, simply pretended to assume to know what others think because it suits your agenda to portray them as hypocritical in the hopes nobody will listen. Guess what, many of us are listening — between the lines — and seeing right through this very tiresome, typical, overplayed hand of bullshit. Some of us have seen through it since we were barely out of training pants.

            I’m well aware I can’t make you stop pulling it. The question is, are you equally aware of the precise nature of what it is you’re doing and the irrefutable fact that it’s complete and utter garbage and nobody’s buying it except those with a similar interest in putting another coat of gold paint on it for resale?

          • Glenn Dupuis

            I take it you can’t read?

          • carrie maliwauki

            Thats whats wrong with you

          • rob oaks

            Leftists. Don’t even try that” liberal progressive” garbage. And one doesn’t need to be religious to recognize the wisdom of ancient texts. You Leftists’ lack of self-awareness is clear evidence you don’t “see” much at all.

          • Gadfly156

            Don’t you ever speak that way to another human being again. You have zero place and zero standing to pretend to mysteriously divine or discern some definition of a person they do not offer of themselves. You are nothing and nobody in that equation, and never will be otherwise. Don’t even think about addressing another living person in this fashion ever again. Just don’t even try it.

            Nobody was even talking about the wisdom of ancient texts. But since you brought it up, ancient wisdom is a far cry from uneducated superstitious bully/abuser meme perpetuating toxic soul-destroying horse shit. And ancient does not always imply wise, any more than having more birthdays than someone else automatically grants one the right to boss them around or be considered “correct” in everything they say, even and especially when they are spouting utterly worthless garbage, like you just did.

            Seriously dude. Get over yourself. Nobody died here and made you the sole arbiter of how to define and label people and their positions. Particularly when you can’t even be bothered to demonstrate you understand hers by accurately representing it in your copious and egregiously, deliberately inaccurate references to it…..

          • Steve Troyer

            I will quote GOD’S Word the Bible……

            Isaiah 32:5 “The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.” (Churls are an impolite and mean-spirited person.) This quote is in reference to the end times….which we are starting to get into right now. The Bible says you are vile. The Bible also says that there will be scoffers in the end times……Jude 1 says “How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.”

            Progressives today are actually communists and even the communist party no longer has candidates as they say the democrat party meets all their objectives. Progressives are what Vladimir Lennon called useful idiots. They were used to give power to the elite and then were killed off.

            The Bible has had over 1850 accurate predictions that came true. The odds of that happening is not possible except for GOD. It is like you predicting every lottery number since it was started and then predicting every sports score that has happened so far.

            The predictions that the Bible has made were so accurate that historians are now beginning to realize that the WORD of GOD is truth.

            Now I don’t know what your abilities are but I am sure that all the people who tried to disprove the Bible in the past were probably far smarter than you. They failed.

            Hell is truth discovered too late.

          • Gadfly156

            And in the end, when all else fails, resort to pretending to threaten people beyond the grave because you no longer have the power to torture and terrorize them in the real world. Brilliant.

            Not.

            Please cite a comprehensive list of these 1850 accurate predictions including your hermeneutic for interpretations of said predictions to coincide with these supposed fulfillments thereof. Meanwhile, how about you check out this actual factsheet concerning the real nature of your imaginary pal?

            http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

            Seriously, and you think it’s someone other than believers obsessed with violence, murder, torture and war? That would be hilarious if it were not so sad, tragic and pathetic a testament to the power of brainwashing.

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            Did it ever occur to you that one of the only things separating human behavior from animal is religion and the ethical systems first created through it. Other creatures are smart, some are social and highly organized. Even termites talk to each other. Squid are affectionate. If you surrender the difference you surrender your humanity. Just a naked ape

          • Gadfly156

            The glory of humanity is that we have evolved sentience — the ability to be aware of ourselves and our choices. Religion has played its part as a stage of evolution toward this end but now, like a vestigial organ, is no longer required and in fact only poses a hindrance to further progress at this stage of humanity. We have already seen and learned as a species that it is not required in order to formulate morals and ethics, and that we can base those upon more objective considerations instead of conformity to authoritarian dogmas and bogey threats. The threats, consequences, and realities we face in real life are compelling enough and it’s time they were given their due without having to compete with malicious fairytales.

          • Geoff Kuhn

            It’s okay to say you have no faith. But look at how well things are going in this world without it.

          • joenotafan

            So what part of “You shall not kill” or “You shall not steal” don’t you agree with?

          • the_bananaboat

            Nope, but you do rely on your emotions. Liberal socialists are ruled by their emotions. If you want to know what someone thinks you ask a conservative, but if you want to know how someone feels then you ask a liberal socialist. The liberals have switched back and forth from liberal and progressive as each label has gained a poor reputation, but the beliefs (feelings rather than thoughts) are the same. Liberal socialists live as others tell them to live. They almost never look anything up. Your heroes are evil.

            “Progress” is subjective. The Final Solution was progress for the National Socialist Worker’s Party. The Confederacy was progress for the liberal socialist Democrats. The Great Leap Forward was progress for Mao Zedong and Communist China. Socialism in one country and the Great Purge were progress to Stalin. Progress can mean anything to anyone. To liberal socialists it means a breakdown of the family unit, a breakdown of the moral fabric of our society, taxation of the rich and redistribution of the wealth to those that refuse to work, and an extermination of the undesirable through abortion. Sounds awesome eh?

          • Louise_Chanary

            We liberal progressives do not worship heroes.

          • Kenneth Mulligan

            You liberal progressives worship DEATH.Congratulations to you WEEZY.You have a lot in common with Muslims.

          • Gadfly156

            Really? What do worshipers of a violent, death-dealing-obsessed deity worship, then?
            http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

          • Pax Humana

            I have three words for you, jackass, and they are called the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), or, as it is now called, the Palestinian Authority. You live up to your name, but I am a fly swatter, so prepare to get swatted, you trolling Luciferian scumbag!

          • Pax Humana

            So you don’t worship people like Stalin, Lenin, (Mao) Zedong, etc., am I right?

          • Matthew Shearin

            And you have to read that in the context of when it was written. In Darwin’s day many people were racist, but that doesn’t mean his views about the descent of species is not true.

          • debs

            I think you can see that Darwin is a man of “his time” without excusing his racism. Both my grandfathers (one Jewish, one Anglo) were racist. I loved them, but I also could not wholly accept their advice because of their whacked world view. SAME GOES FOR DARWIN! Over 50 years prior (to that quote) men like Wilberforce were ending the slave trade in England-even men of Science because it was inhumane & they acknowledged that God made men EQUAL. My advice… find another hero. One who sought to save lives rather than take or demean them.

          • Matthew Shearin

            Darwin is not a hero to me, but just another scientist who revolutionized how biologist thought about the natural world. That is all.

          • John Johnson

            Yes, the advancements in Science HAVE PROVEN IT NOT TRUE…

          • Matt S

            Not quite.

          • Jeriah Knox

            Sounds like Darwin was racist before anyone new there was racism. Maybe we should call him the father of modern day racism. After reading his garbage, people went out to fulfill there perceived destinies to enslave the black man and kill of the natives. Today with these baby chop shops, these things are still being done on an industrial scale and we somehow manage to look the other way, convincing ourselves it’s none of our business. Well it is our business, and this racism has a foundation which must be destroyed.

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            That’s where Sanger got her opinion of Aboriginals of Australia and Hitler his call to action.

          • John Johnson

            “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” Darwin wasn’t a racist?

          • Jackelyn-Micah Hardin

            Darwin did advocate active selective breeding of humans like live stalk. We don’t know his views on race possibly due to his homogeneous audience(exclusively educated white westerners)But the weeding out of undesirable traits he viewed positively.

          • Gadfly156

            Please cite the publication by Darwin himself in which Darwin advocated this, including the precise page(s) of reference therein. Your simple assertion that he did is insufficient grounds for me to consider or engage with seriously.

          • LILLIAN PORTER

            The full title of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

            The title was changed to ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1872

          • joenotafan

            Of course Darwin was a racist. He was all in favor of the more advanced (i.e., white) races, exterminating the unfit races (black) by the process of natural selection, aided and abetted by the superior races.

          • the_bananaboat

            Actually Darwin was very well known to be a racist. Just read a copy of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The Theory of Evolution was all about racism.

          • john1812

            Actually the first person to consider eugenics was an 18th c. British philosopher and economist named Thomas Malthus who influenced Darwin. He was the first to suggest that populations can become too much for available resources which lead to disease and war. He was also the first to suggest that humans could be bred like cattle to produce desirable traits and that certain humans shouldn’t be allowed to have children. Because of him we have other radicals who favor population control and eugenics.

          • Gadfly156

            I’m not saying I favor it, but I have to wonder what good careless unlimited breeding, by contrast, offers as an alternative. Not to put too fine a point on it, population overgrowth directly precipitates massive die-off in the form of fouling organic conditions (“polluting the nest”), more rapid breeding and mutation of diseases, and direct competition for less resources. The people forced to live through that as individuals and families will experience a hell on earth like no other before.

            Not to mention the numerous brat broods left to fend for themselves with zero guidance (or worse, lousy guidance, or even worse, toxic abusive guidance) inflicting their misery upon the rest of us out of revenge or blind agony and then going on to breed further, themselves …. while I can’t say I condone eugenics, in the light of these things I have to wonder which of the two is the “lesser evil.”

          • bariola

            Malthus gave the sociopathic Western elites a fear of the unbridled reproduction of the commoners, and Darwin gave them the rationale to proceed with a multi-generational plan for a great culling (as if they needed a scientific rationale). The Georgia Guide Stones tells us how many humans the power elite think should exist on the planet, that being around 500 million people. That’s about a 90% reduction of the global population.

            Think about it: if you were a multi-billionaire sociopath, you would tend to believe that the world’s resources are YOURS, and that there are far too many useless eaters on the planet using up your resources. Plus, it would be much easier to completely control 500 million people than 7 billion. Dr. Jose Delgado managed to control a charging bull via electronic brain implants over 50 years ago. God knows what these sick bastards are working on behind closed doors (what we know of is frightening enough). Still, 7 billion people is a lot for any sociopathic tyrant or tyrants with modern technology to control – at least 500 million would be a lot easier.

            I know, I’m just one of them paranoid, tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorists. Our fearless leaders would never be a part of such an evil plan; hell, they only killed about a million Iraqi civilians – men, women and children – over non-existent WMD’s. Bush even joked about not being able to find WMD’s. I guess it didn’t matter – after all, they were only brown people.

            Obama seems to have a penchant for drone bombing Muslim wedding parties. Hundreds of children have been killed in these cowardly attacks. I know, it’s just more brown people, nothing to see here. Obama isn’t a Muslim as some say, he is simply a sociopathic puppet of the multi-billionaire despots who actually control this country and other Western nations.

          • I’m Not Sayin, Just Sayin

            Wouldn’t it be a sad but valid point, that if “Black Lives
            Matter”, they themselves wouldn’t “CHOOSE” to do this? It’s sad because nobody is forcing them to do
            it. . . It said, they are 13% of the population, and 30% of the abortions. .

          • Pax Humana

            FYI, the WMDs DID exist, but the CIA and others made it look like the war was for nothing and the biggest proof of that is the fact that Iran suddenly got nuclear production capability. The reality is that it was a shell game, it was NOT fought over for oil, and that the Illuminati used naive soldiers to be the sacrifices for Lucifer in the end, just as their ancestors had done countless times in the past. The language, appearances, colors, logos, and such may change, but the end result is the same.

        • Karmasue

          Krauts? Really? And you’re not a racist, are ya? No surprise there.

          • torr10

            Krauts aren’t a race.

          • Anonymous

            Are you suggesting that when different ethnicities hate each other, it’s not racism unless their skintones are different?

          • whoselineisitanyway

            Hey I’m part kraut. So stick your opinion up your keister.

          • Robb Melby

            Krauts was a reference to a specific group of people, from a specific country, at a specific time, who committed/participated in certain acts. It is not racist, especially in this context. That would be like saying the British were being racist when they called the Revolutionaries “Yankees”

        • John Feldman

          Merderousfuckingkikejudenratte Bolshekiks have killed over 150 million, Hitler was childs play compared to jews.

          • Pax Humana

            …and here is another Lucifer worshiping, historical revisionist scumbag. Do you not know that Communism and Socialism are part and parcel of the same package, jerk off? Also, do you not know that YAHWEH EL ELOHIM said that His nation of Israel was to last forever, as in not just a SPIRITUAL nation, but also as a SINGLE nation in that regard as well as through a POLITICAL AND PHYSICAL nation/country? Please tell me more lies, jack wagon.

    • Kipco

      Hell does not exist, nor does Heaven. They are ancient falsehoods created to control people and make them behave a certain way. There is not one shred of evidence that supports the existence of either.

      • MamaBear

        You have no existence they don’t.

        • Kipco

          The burden of proof should rest with the one making the initial claim. Since that evidence does not appear to exist, it is illogical to formulate public policy based on something erroneously attributed to a being that has not been proved to actually exist.

          • Kipco

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That phrase “sounds” good, but it is actually not true at all. The proof requires an understanding of Bayesian Probability Theory, but I will give you a short word-based answer here. Quoting from William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” [with my insertions]:

            “The skeptic can’t reasonably mean that miraculous events require miraculous evidence, for that would force us to reject any miracle claim [including one’s conception], even if wholly natural evidence rendered the miracle more probable than not… But Baye’s Theorem shows that rationally believing in a highly improbable event doesn’t require an enormous amount of evidence. What is crucial is that the evidence be far more probable given that the event did occur than given that it did not. The bottom line is that it doesn’t always take a huge amount of evidence to establish a miracle.”
            I can give you the equations, but do not want to be kicked off of Live Action. :-) But, I leave you with this thought: there are 3 mega-miracles that the overwhelming majority of a-theists already believe in. They are:

            1. That the universe miraculously popped into existence out of nothing uncaused by anything.
            2. That life magically sprang forth from non-life when lightning hit some mud.
            3. That minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys.

            Now, those 3 mega-miracles require some backing. God bless ‘Ya, Kipco!

          • hicusdicus

            They are only miracles until you find out what really happened.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            u r cracking me up, dude!

          • Peter J Macander

            Provide the “proof” of that.

          • Peter J Macander

            Kipco: That means that some thing can only exist if you know about it, or it has been proven to you without a doubt in your own mind. There are many things that exist and are true outside your present state of knowledge and belief. The fact that you do not accept them because they haven’t been proven to you yet is a stumbling block in your thinking that invalidates your conclusions. Descartes flawed “Cogito ergo sum” akin to your way of thinking, has long since been disproven.

          • Anonymous

            Define “ordinary”. Only then will we have a definition for what’s beyond.

          • John Hart

            Evidence abounds, it’s the interpretation that’s lacking. When one has a clear understanding of the Anthropic Principle it’s apparent Reality was designed. The theoretical gymnastics of the Multiverse attempt to explain it but they don’t, they shift the problem elsewhere and make it worse. The Universe is an information process by a relationship of beings and the only eternal relationship is Love. The possibility of existence can’t be explained but the reality of existence can. Einstein’s revelation pointed to the fact things exist relative to each other and neutrino’s paths thru the earth shows it’s mostly empty space.

          • PJ4

            Good thing abortion has nothing to do with religion then, isn’t it?

          • Kipco

            Well, a significant portion of the argument against it and the majority of the most vocal opponents to it do originate and come from within the faith based community. Scott Roeder being a more extreme example. It’s not a stretch to connect the dots there.

          • PJ4

            Actually, no a significant portion of the argument against abortion is not religious.
            There as a great number of us who are atheists and agnostics who don’t need any god to defend the child in the womb.

            Roeder was off his meds at the time of the shooting.
            He’s not a representative of the pro life movement by any means.
            Unless you want Gosnel be the standard by which all pro aborts are judged.

          • Kipco

            No one is a “pro-abort”. No one encourages anyone to terminate their pregnancy as one would try to corrupt someone by offering them an illegal drug or other temptation. It is not a decision that is made lightly or flippantly. People such as myself want to preserve the concept of choice and control over the sanctity of an individual’s own body without interference from a government. Not every abortion is retroactive birth control. There are also situations where the termination is necessary to save the life of the mother. If a person is ill equipped to adequately raise and care for a child, then they should have the choice to not. What I also find disturbing is how many people within the pro-life camp that also oppose birth control of any kind! Pharmacists who won’t fill a birth control prescription because of religious beliefs are out there. My concern is keeping government out from between a woman and her doctor.

          • PJ4

            No one is a “pro-abort”

            If you are in favor of a mother killing her child in her womb the you are pro (Latin for “for”) abortion. It’s pretty simple.

            It’s even in the dictionary.. look:
            http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/pro-abortion
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pro-abortion
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proabortion

            No one encourages anyone to terminate their pregnancy as one would try to corrupt someone by offering them an illegal drug or other temptation

            I’ve met quite a few of you people who would absolutely encourage a woman to kill her baby

            It is not a decision that is made lightly or flippantly.

            Why?

            People such as myself want to preserve the concept of choice and control over the sanctity of an individual’s own body without interference from a government.

            What about the sanctify of the child’s life and his/her own body?

            People such as myself care about both mother and child, (before and after birth)

            Not every abortion is retroactive birth control.

            Most of them are.

            There are also situations where the termination is necessary to save the life of the mother.

            While those are extremely rare (pro abortion Guttmacher has it as less than 1%) you’d be extremely hard pressed to find any pro lifer who wouldn’t make exception for the life of the mother.

            If that was the only reason abortion were ever perfumed you and I wouldn’t even have the need for this conversation.

            If a person is ill equipped to adequately raise and care for a child, then they should have the choice to not.

            Not by means of killing the kid.

            This is the 21st century, steps can be taken to prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

            What I also find disturbing is how many people within the pro-life camp that also oppose birth control of any kind!

            Ok, I’ll concede that point. I agree with you there.

            Pharmacists who won’t fill a birth control prescription because of religious beliefs are out there.

            Here’s where we part ways:

            You don’t believe in government intrusion when it comes to abortion but you’d be ok with the government forcing a pharmacist who is opposed to birth control to dispense it?

            Sounds like a contradiction to me.

            My concern is keeping government out from between a woman and her doctor

            Unless of course the government agrees to pay the tab for what happens between a woman and her doctor, yes?

            You’re obviously ok with some government intrusion.

          • Kipco

            No one is a “pro-abort”

            If you are in favor of a mother killing her child in her womb the you are pro (Latin for “for”) abortion. It’s pretty simple.

            Again, no one that I am aware of says to pregnant women, “Ya know, you really should get an abortion…really, you should”. Most people I know consider it a personal choice and ultimately no one else’s business but the pregnant person.

            I’ve met quite a few of you people who would absolutely encourage a woman to kill her baby

            Anecdotal evidence doesn’t usually hold much water, but OK…I can’t dispute life experiences, nor can you. Interesting though how people tend to generalize an entire group based on the actions of a few…everyone does it at some point especially when debating a hot button issue like this one.

            What about the sanctify of the child’s life and his/her own body?

            People such as myself care about both mother and child, (before and after birth)

            Both are important but I tend to side with the “already living” because they are the ones having to deal with the external reality of life.

            Not every abortion is retroactive birth control.

            Most of them are.

            You have evidence to support that claim?

            While
            those are extremely rare (pro abortion Guttmacher has it as less than 1%) you’d be extremely hard pressed to find any pro lifer who wouldn’t make exception for the life of the mother.

            Not true. Plenty have said otherwise, including banning it in cases of rape or incest.

            If a person is ill equipped to adequately raise and care for a child, then they should have the choice to not.

            Not by means of killing the kid. This is the 21st century, steps can be taken to prevent pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

            Again, it comes down to personal perspective on when life truly begins.

            What I also find disturbing is how many people within the pro-life camp that also oppose birth control of any kind!

            Ok, I’ll concede that point. I agree with you there.

            Thanks.

            Pharmacists who won’t fill a birth control prescription because of religious beliefs are out there.

            Here’s where we part ways:

            You don’t believe in government intrusion when it comes to abortion but you’d be ok with the government forcing a pharmacist who is opposed to birth control to dispense it?

            Sounds like a contradiction to me.

            Because birth control pills are often prescribed for women with menstrual difficulties. In this case, it’s a pharmacist injecting their personal beliefs into an occupation that relies on public trust.

            My concern is keeping government out from between a woman and her doctor

            Unless of course the government agrees to pay the tab for what happens between a woman and her doctor, yes?
            You’re obviously ok with some government intrusion.

            When and where did I say any of that? Red herring alert!

          • PJ4

            Again, no one that I am aware of says to pregnant women, “Ya know, you really should get an abortion…really, you should”. Most people I know consider it a personal choice and ultimately no one else’s business but the pregnant person.

            But it’s not about advising someone for or against abortion.

            It’s about being in favor of it being legal and available

            Anecdotal evidence doesn’t usually hold much water, but OK…I can’t dispute life experiences, nor can you. Interesting though how people tend to generalize an entire group based on the actions of a few…everyone does it at some point especially when debating a hot button issue like this one.

            Ok. Point to you on that one.

            Everyone –including you and me

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Again, no one that I am aware of says to pregnant women, “Ya know, you really should get an abortion…really, you should”.”

            What?!? if by “no one,” you mean the boyfriend, mom, dad, the woman’s girlfriends, Planned Murder in Da Hood, and HollyWeird, then, yes I agree with you. :-) Your statement shows a tremendous lack of comprehension of what women in crisis pregnancies experience.

          • hicusdicus

            They should have thought about that when they were ooing and ahhing in the throes of fornication.

          • Diane Caldera

            Most women, according to surveys at the Elliot Institute’s UnChoice website say they didn’t want to abort, but felt coerced into it either physically, emotionally, or economically. Coercion is the opposite of choice. Pregnant women are, in fact, murdered for refusing to abort: lifenews has stories about them in addition to research available at The UnChoice website. America is not far from the forced abortion “One (or Two) Child” policy of China. [see Reggie Littlejohn’s website WomensRightsWithoutFrontiers].

          • sagefemme

            So, the answer is to stop abortions ?? Why don’t you focus on giving women more power to choose for themselves? We don’t live in China so these are not our issues. We can choose how many and when we can have a family. Just because there is a corner of the world with women’s rights issues doesn’t mean we need to take away more rights here in America.

          • Catherine Bird

            NO ONE–man or woman–has the ‘right’ to commit murder. Period.

            If it’s OK to kill the most innocent among us, then it’s OK to kill anyone.

            Without God’s morality, everything is permissible.

            I’m sure you’ve seen movies about anarchy movements, where everything goes (“Children of Men” is but one example). Do you want that sort of evil rampant in real life???

            That could never be called “civil society” because it wouldn’t BE civil at all.

          • sagefemme

            Murder is not in the same category as abortion. It’s insulting to someone who knows someone who has been murdered to compare it to a medical procedure.

          • Mitzi

            Well the fetus (who is a human being) is brutally killed inside his mothers womb. I guess out of sight out mind right?

          • PJ4

            She works for PP…she’s killed babies before

          • Mitzi

            Dammit! Another abortionist in our midst

          • PJ4

            I was actually thinking that
            It’s a new profile too
            Only like 30 comments and she seems to have his same writing style
            He does have a lot of time on his hands—apparently all pro aborts do

          • sagefemme

            Again, its an insult to the families of those brutal murders that actually make the news. I had a cousin that was brutally murdered with a hammer and then stuffed in a drain. I’m sure her husband would agree that her murder trumps abortion.

          • Mitzi

            What’s an insult is your lack concern for the unborn children brutally killed in a very similar way as your cousin. I’m very sorry for your loss by the way but the only difference between murderers and abortionists is one is legally allowed to kill other human beings. Aren’t you an abortionist? So you should already know this right?

          • sagefemme

            on the contrary, I care a whole lot about unborn babies. Otherwise, I wouldn’t do what I have been doing for the past 20 something years.I have expanded my services to include abortion because thats the choice that women needed to make. What I do know is if abortion was considered brutal murder like you say it is then it wouldn’t have been a protected right since the seventies.

          • Mitzi

            You care a whole lot about unborn babies? What do you do for them? Abortion being legal doesn’t make it morally right. What if slavery becomes legal again? Is that ok? Rape? Robbery?

          • sagefemme

            Your right, and thats why laws should not be based on morality.

            When a mom chooses pregnancy, Which is the majority of my patients, its all about the baby. I do whatever it takes to protect their interests.

          • Mitzi

            Ok what should laws be based on? Don’t you work for planned parenthood??? And your saying the majority of your patients choose life???? And if the mother chooses abortion you just block the baby out of your mind so you can kill it? Please correct me if I’m wrong

          • sagefemme

            Laws should be based on whats good, safe, right, protection etc… for society to function.
            I work/worked for a lot of women health places. PP does not just do abortions. In fact, thats the least thing they do.
            I support the mother in her choice on whats best for her and her situation. It doesn’t matter what i think.

          • Mitzi

            Ok and how do you decide what’s good safe and right? For society to function we need to have laws based on morality otherwise why have laws at all? Perhaps we shouldmt have any and each person decide and choose what is safe good and right for themselves. If we applied this ridiculous pro abortion argument to every other aspect of our everyday lives we’d have anarchy and mutiny. Abortion should be no different if not more so. Have you noticed how you can barely even spell out what you actually stand for? “Women health places” just say abortion clinic. Don’t be ashamed of it’s a reasonable choice for women to make if it’s perfectly fine then you should be able to say it without a problem. And last but not least start thinking for yourself. If it doesn’t matter what you think then don’t vote and contribute to society. We might as well start hiring robots if your just gonna do as your told. I’m sure robots will be able to utter words like abortion human being dismemberment etc., without a problem.

          • sagefemme

            Infringing on other peoples rights is what is safe and good. The laws state not to run a red light because it’s for the protection of others. Not to rape and kill because its morally wrong, because it hurts other people. If morals are what people need then why is there no law that says i have to pray and go to church. Forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn’t want to is not morally correct. Why would you do that to someone ? It’s only because SOMEONE ELSE thinks it’s what she should do. Pregnancy won’t make her love that baby or take care of the pregnancy.
            Most people do decide what’s good and safe for themselves and their dependants. Laws are made for those who want to impose on others rights. Someone may think its good and safe to go 90 miles an hour to get somewhere but the law tries to prevent them from hurting others by THEIR idea.
            I do work at a Womens Health Clinic. I do prenatal visits, pap smears, STDs, UTIs, and pre and post abortion counseling and medical abortions, along with male care and a host of other diagnoses. I never worked at a surgical abortion only clinic.So, yes, i said it right. You may not think abortion is part of womens health but it is if done right.
            why do you think i don’t think for myself ?? Is it because I dont think like you ?

          • Mitzi

            Infringing on other peoples rights is what’s safe and good? Hmmm….yes and those laws that protect us all are based on morals. Perhaps not yours or mine but someone’s obviously usually the majority. The majority of us do not want to hurt someone or cause damage to anything and if we do there will be repercussions and there should be not just because its against the law but because its morally wrong. Your actually oproving my point more so by saying by driving 90 miles an hour might potentially hurt someone. No one is forcing women to become sexually active and get pregnant and then raise those children for the rest of their lives. And I don’t need you to think like me you should just have an opinion about something so gruesome instead of standing by well no not that cuz your not a bystander your the perpretator…so you as a human being should try to look a little further than your paycheck and think about what your doing and who its really affecting. All I’m hearing is “I help women how they need to be help and I don’t intrrfere” thy ats just pro abort ignorant blabber so you don’t feel bad about killing unborn children. And if your OK with it then admit. You can’t even bring yourself to say the actual word abortion. Admit you help kill hman being. Yes its for the greater good according to you but your still murdering people. Accept it or not that is a fact.

          • sagefemme

            Blabber ? How about “i dont care what a womans story is, how and why she got pregnant, all that matters is that she carries the baby to term” Can you deny that you agree with that statement?

            I am perfectly ok with what i do. Are you ok forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies ?

          • Mitzi

            I can agree to half of it –the last part. If that child is already alive then yes she should carry the pregnancy to term. Again, no one is forcing women to have sex and put themelves at risk for pregnancy. Before you bring the rape excuse very few abortions are due to rape. Now that is not to say I don’t care about women. I happen to care about both. Women need to be educated thoroughly about pregnancy, the risks, the fetus etc.. Both men and women atually so they can be mature enough to engage in an activity where pregnancy and other consequences can result. Abortion is just a quick fix. It erases the problem for two people who consented to sex and decided they didn’t want to deal with said problem.

          • sagefemme

            Abortion is not a quick fix. Birth control fails, teens don’t have proper, easy access to birth control, people make mistakes ect.. Humans have sex, pregnancies happen whether wanted to or not. To force someone to go thru with that is pretty evil to me. I’m just not into punishing women for their sins.

            Education cannot always prevent pregnancy. Yes, we should focus on education. That is my forte. I enjoy it and it works. We can’t reach everyone.

            Abortion, pregnancy, adoption only adds to complicate someones life. It erases nothing.

          • Mitzi

            oh and of course the truth of abortion wouldnt make it into the super biased media they are pro abortion after all. If you depend on “the news” to get your information then you’ve got bigger problems

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            “Everything hitlet did was legal.”—Reverend Dr. Martin L. King, Jr.

          • sagefemme

            And your point ??
            abortion is legal? ?

          • Isabel

            Abortion is aggression. The fetus is existing in its nature in the only space it can inhabit. Left to its nature it will continue to grow and expand in consciousness. It has the right to its own autonomy and self preservation even if unable to defend itself or understand its place in the world. The fetus does not commit aggression against the mother so what right does she have to violate its person?

          • sagefemme

            Well said Isabel, but if the space it’s inhabiting isn’t a willing participant its a violation of that person.

          • TexasStomp

            Maybe the answer is to teach women how NOT to get pregnant with unwanted children. Certainly not more than once. Why didn’t they learn from their first mistake?

            Immediately upon finding you’re pregnant have a simple D&C. Why would someone wait months and months? If abortion is not an option nor is raising a child…are there not thousands of couples who’ve waited years for a child? Of course there are. They’re lined up out the door and around the nation so desperate they hunt for babies in third world countries and buy them. They are willing to pay all expenses and support the mother until she’s fully recovered from her delivery. Big bucks. Some people even pay for the mother to go to college. Heck some women in college make their living being surrogates. And it ain’t small potatoes either. They make plenty.

            So again, why late term abortion? Just why?

          • sagefemme

            Right on !!

          • PJ4

            So it’s your contention that forced abortions do not happen in the US is that right?

          • sagefemme

            If you mean the ones where i coerce the pregnant ladies off the street for prenatal checks and then tie them down and perform abortions on them ?? It’s ok, i only do that when im bored…..

            Yes, tell me, i can’t wait to hear this…..

          • Isabel

            Taking away more rights is exactly what is happening here in america… China’s policies could very well find their way into the US. Cultural Marxism has already been growing strong here for over 50 years.

          • sagefemme

            We would probably do ok if we were left to regulate our own population. Allowing abortion won’t even make a dent.

          • Catherine Bird

            Again, no one that I am aware of says to pregnant women, “Ya know, you
            really should get an abortion…really, you should”. Most people I know
            consider it a personal choice and ultimately no one else’s business but
            the pregnant person.

            Apparently, you must be a hermit, because you don’t know anyone.

            Live Action has video proof that Planned Parenthood ALWAYS pushes patients toward abortion, because they only get PAID when they kill babies. It’s a financial windfall for them.

            No other available ‘option’ for a pregnant woman is pushed–or even mentioned, most of the time–because Planned Parenthood doesn’t get any money for mentioning them.

          • wineinthewater

            Actually lots of people tell women they should abort their child. There are countless stories of women who felt pressured, bullied, threatened and even forced to have an abortion. And that pressure often comes from the clinic “counselor”. My daughter was diagnosed with an elevated risk of Down’s syndrome and we were pressured by hospital staff to abort. Yet you see little from the pro choice movement protecting those women, little to protect the choice to have the child.

          • hicusdicus

            War is a good abortion device. Pull it out by the roots.

          • PJ4

            Pull war out by the roots?
            What are you saying?
            You’re not coherent.

          • hicusdicus

            OMG am I going to have to explain this to you? If they are dead they can’t procreate. Your profile says you are an animal rights person. What do you mean by animal rights. The right to live or the right to be eaten?

          • sagefemme

            I try to keep an open mind, but i would like to hear details about the folks you know who would “absolutely encourage a woman to kill her baby ” And PLEASE don’t give me some link to some anti-choice undercover video where they are counseling some girl about her choices.

            As far as a pharmacist not dispensing birth control pills. He should abide by the rules of the place that hired him. If religion is the issue then we can all use it to get out of certain uncomfortable situations at work. For instance, my religious belief is that i shouldn’t have to get up before the sun. How do you think my employer would respond to that ?

          • PJ4

            Here’s one guy:

            http://krqe.com/2015/02/06/bill-requires-minors-seeking-abortion-to-notify-parents/#comment-1841509669

            and this guy:
            http://liveactionnews.org/7-shocking-quotes-by-planned-parenthoods-founder/#comment-1882004692

            Happy?

            And PLEASE don’t give me some link to some anti-choice undercover video where they are counseling some girl about her choices.

            Oh sorry, I had no idea that you get to make up the parameters of the debate.. what was I thinking?

            He should abide by the rules of the place that hired him.

            If it’s his own business he should be able to abide by his own conscience as long as no one is going to die or be hurt because of it.

            If religion is the issue then we can all use it to get out of certain uncomfortable situations at work.

            I guess the SCOTUS disagrees with you on that.

            For instance, my religious belief is that i shouldn’t have to get up before the sun. How do you think my employer would respond to that

            Well, the sun usually gets up before most of us, so I’m sure that would be a moot point with your employer.

            ;-)

          • sagefemme

            I still have the choice to set parameters for my question just like you have the choice to answer or not.
            What i wanted was an everyday account in normal everyday life in a scenario with normal everyday people. Not constructed scenarios designed to catch an off beat comment from a counselor. I have seen enough of those.
            For example : My sister Sally said to her pro abort friend ” hey ! im pregnant !” And she said ” wow, cool, whens the abortion? ”
            As far as the link. Not sure if that was the right one – it was about late term abortion but i don’t support those anyway.

          • Paul

            If you support unrestricted abortion on demand you support late term abortion. Not liking something is not equivalent to not supporting it if your actions facilitate it. Not saying that is your position since you did not clearly state it. Just wanted to hang my opinion somewhere.

          • sagefemme

            First off, yes, i can. It doesnt have to be all or none. Unless you and all the prolifers expect 11 year olds to have their fathers baby, or your wife/sister to bear their rapists baby ??

          • Paul

            ?? Yes you can…What? Support late term abortion? I don’t understand. In fact I don’t understand any of this. What does any of this have to do with my post? Got a pet name for me is about all I can decipher.

            I think you are saying that if I cannot solve all the evils that your system doesn’t solve either then I don’t have a right to opine? But I’m really just guessing here.

          • Peter Gibson

            Me thinks that one’s weed buzz just kicked in to high gear.

          • Paul

            LOL, I hadn’t thought of that.

          • sagefemme

            You assumed that i support late term abortion. I do not. Most pro lifers support abortion except in the case of rape or incest. So, there fore it doesn’t have to be all or none.
            Clearer? Because if not i cant help you anymore. I tried twice and you didn’t get it. As far as my “system ” and your ‘pet name’ ? You lost me there.

          • Paul

            “You assumed that i support late term abortion. I do not”

            We would have better luck with that communication thing if you didn’t respond to the opposite of what I said. I made no such assumption. If you did “support” late term I would have no interest in talking with you as I consider that to be ghoulishly animalistic.

            I don’t think most pro lifers “support” abortion for any reason. Some (like me) realize it is an imperfect world and cannot have it as we wish.

            Pet name: “You and all the profilers”

            As I said, I didn’t understand what your statement had to do with what I said:

            ” Unless you and all the prolifers expect 11 year olds to have their
            fathers baby, or your wife/sister to bear their rapists baby ??”

            Which is why I put in the “But I’m really just guessing here.” Part.

            It sounded like you were saying that my position is wrong because I can’t cure the sins of an imperfect world any more than you can. It sounded like you were implying that I am uncaring about their plight and I don’t see how you know enough about me to make that judgement.

          • sagefemme

            You stated in an earlier post ” if you support unrestricted abortion on demand you support late term abortion ” Thats what i responded to. I do support unrestricted abortion on demand – but only in the first trimester. Definitely not late term. My point was you could be for one and not the other. My statement about 11 year olds and rape babies had to do with the incest and rape exception that some pro- lifers “allow” . (you are a pro-lifer aren’t you?)
            I wasn’t judging your position, i assumed you were feeling me out to see if i support late term – was i wrong ?

          • Paul

            Seems like just a difference in terminology. I guess we use different language. Abortion limited to the first trimester is restricted abortion. To me, unrestricted abortion on demand allows late term abortion. And yes, I am “feeling you out” The terminology can get pretty convoluted. So to further that feeling, you don’t have a problem with recognizing the beingness of child at some point before birth and granting it rights and passing law to protect those rights?

            And no, I wouldn’t call myself a pro-lifer. I am pro civilization. I do not want my country to be one of those that allows man (or woman) to choose who will die without judgement and due process. The Pro-life movement is not as monolithic as one would think.

          • sagefemme

            I use the term ‘abortion on demand’ to mean unrestricted in the sense that – we had sex, im pregnant, i dont want to be, lets do this – no waiting period, no parental consent, no restrictions. After that needs some consideration. If its a special circumstance (trisomy, rape etc) then documentation will prove it. I know that certain anomalies don’t get noticed until later. Other than that, if you can’t make up your mind before 13 or so weeks then you made it up as far as im concerned.
            Yes, there are limitations in my mind. It’s not just a sperm and an egg. But before that its up to the judgement of the woman who made it in the first place. Due process can’t come into play until viability in my opinion. Before that, its a sperm n egg production and another one can be made again.
            I’m pro civilization and pro life. I love life and babies and i would hope that if i need to make a personal tough decision (abortion, assisted suicide) that i can make it in peace and not be judged for my reasons. Life and civilization at any cost isn’t life and civilization at all.

          • Paul

            Quit dodging the question:

            Do you “have a problem with recognizing the beingness of child at some point before birth and granting it rights and passing law to protect those rights?”

            Life and civilization at no cost isn’t life and civilization at all.

            You don’t want to be judged for your reasons?
            Sorry to harsh your mello.

            Look you stupid twit, it doesn’t matter if you “Love babies” if you can callously turn your back on the killing of any of them and oppose Justice for the ones killed.

            If we can’t get past this basic point then there is no purpose in further dialog. Go ahead and post your snarky comeback.

          • PJ4

            Brava!

          • sagefemme

            See, Paul, its not that hard to ask a question. I’m sorry, its hard to answer something I was never asked.

            Ok, the answer to that question is YES, i do recognize, and NO, i would not.

            And I would be careful, for a man who likes to live his life devoid of emotion, you sure are getting emotional. Getting that enraged and calling someone a twit can raise the blood pressure to serious levels.

            And you wanted snarky, rite ?? Well, i hope your grand children and wife enjoy your lack of feeling for women in need.

            Oh, and my back is never turned when i do an abortion, i take it face on – but a prick like you should know that.

          • Paul

            I’m afraid you do yourself a disservice by once again misstating my posts. I did not call you a mere twit, I called you a stupid twit.

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            A ProLifer supports the killing of unborn human beings?

            More blatant pro-abort bs.

            You got nothing left, pro-abort. Give it up. You’re done.

          • sagefemme

            Right, im the one that should give up. So that you can continue your quest to make sure all babies make it to fruition. Even those incestuous and rape souvenir babies. Yup, i wouldn’t want you to make an exception for anyone, nope, because for you it’s about the cause, not about the human.

            Yes, lets think of the half a human inside, who gives a good crap about what’s on the outside.

            Maybe you need to see the face of an 11 year in labor with her dads baby, and the face of her mom trying to make it through the fact that she found out to late to abort, her butthole hubby is in jail and now she has to raise another baby who hopefully won’t have physical issues that will send her into bankruptcy. Oh, and don’t forget the poor young girl who now gets to explain it all everytime to everybody. Yup, happily ever after.

            But don’t listen to that story, im sure its just a PP conspiracy.

          • Mitzi

            Wow your showin your true colors now. “Incestuous and rape souvenir babies” huh?

          • sagefemme

            Mitzi, like i said to PJ, yes there are men that find it very virile to impregnate during a rape. Especially if it’s acquaintance rape or unrequited love. What better way to remain attached to a girl that rejected you than by getting her pregnant.
            So yeah, whatever color you think I’m showing than let it be bright. Let her exercise her rights to gain her power back.

            Would you want your child to be raised by a rapist ??

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            Nah, I did not say “give up.”

            I said “you are done.”

            If you are incapable of comprehending the difference—you are DONE. Buh-bye, pro-abort.

          • sagefemme

            Ahhh..you wish. I will go on and you will be here shush ing the competition. Good riddens….

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            Wishes are for the silly&superstitious, sagfemme. Like the loser pro-aborts, you will certainly ‘go on’…losing, that is.

          • PJ4

            The link I provided was not for the late term abortion article.
            I specifically pointed you in the direction of a dude in the comment section who encourages women to have abortions

          • sagefemme

            I did read it but he was only comparing apples to apples. You can discourage he can encourage. He didn’t state a reason. If someone is really pro abortion (advocating for abortions all the time) then they should have a valid reason, not just one for the sake of argument .

          • PJ4

            If you read more of his stuff, he makes mention of overpopulation

          • sagefemme

            Overpopulation is concerning. And for someone who is pro-adoption, why is there not more of a push to get the children that are here already, adopted ? I know why, because they arent fresh, blank canvases. They come with baggage and can be a LOT of work. I get it. But encouraging more babies to be born – because you already painfully know how many babies end up being kept by the birth mom – is not the answer.

          • PJ4

            How do you know that I don’t encourage adoption of already born babies?
            Why can you not refrain from ASSuming?

            Killing babies isn’t the answer either

          • sagefemme

            Because “encouraging ” is something we all can do. I don’t want to adopt older, already tainted children but i ‘encourage ‘ others to do it. YOU adopted pure babies. Those that have no baggage. You knew what you were doing. “Encouraging” when you could have done it yourself doesn’t count. You didn’t WANT to. Don’t hide behind the altruistic “i saved a would be aborted baby” facade

          • PJ4

            How the f^*€ do you know that I didn’t want to???
            Omg
            You’re ridiculous
            You’re not interested in debate, you’re intersted in pontificating and finger pointing
            What do you do when you’re not falsey accusing pro lifers?
            Oh that’s right–kill babies

          • sagefemme

            Wait, your going to actually sit there with a straight face and tell me you TRIED to adopt an older child and you didn’t or couldn’t? ?
            I don’t believe that for a second.

            “Wanting to ” doesn’t make it happen. Adoption isnt a magical thing that happens – babies just don’t appear because you “want to”. Just like protecting womens rights its a process.

            I’m not ridiculous, i understand why someone would rather adopt a newborn then an older kid. But if someone can afford nannies and maids and your background is clean, 6 months tops and you’ll have a child that needs a home.

            If encouraging you to adopt an older child that needs home is pontificating and pointing fingers then label me, I’ll take it. Getting a kid out of the system is worth it.

          • PJ4

            Wait, your going to actually sit there with a straight face and tell me you TRIED to adopt an older child and you didn’t or couldn’t? ?

            I don’t believe that for a second.

            Like I care what a pro abort believes or doesn’t believe.

            If encouraging you to adopt an older child that needs home is pontificating and pointing fingers then label me, I’ll take it. Getting a kid out of the system is worth it.

            Your words: “‘Encouraging’ when you could have done it yourself doesn’t count.”

          • sagefemme

            Of course you don’t care, cause it’s true. No biggie.

            Yes, i encourage others because I have no need or desire to adopt. I spent 31 years raising 5 kids 100% . No nannies, no maids, no daycare, no babysitters. I’m done. It’s my grandkids turn now.

          • PJ4

            No, it’s not true…but the opinion of the depraved is not my concern

            So you think you’re better than someone who makes use of maids and nannies?
            Ego much?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, you should not associate with the depraved. I don’t either.

            Maids aren’t that big a deal. Nannies? Why? What job or task is more important than being a mom.

            Love the backhanded way of asking a question. What was that term you used ? Snarky ? Yeah, sounds about right.

            No ego, just correct. No one will agree that having your children raised by someone else is a good thing. Just because its not daycare doesn’t make it better.

          • PJ4

            What’s more important than being a mom?
            I’d say having a good education and being a good wife is just as important

            Sorry you never got a date night or a weekend away
            Sucks to have been you

          • sagefemme

            No, i think it sux to be your kids. Date nights?? I have lots of them now. My kids are grown, tho. Dates are for single people. The reason you have kids is to become a family. We got lots of weekends with our kids. I didn’t get married and have kids so i could act single and kid-less.
            And as far as education. You don’t put that in front of your kids. The time for education is before you start a family. Learning new things is still something you can do while raising your babies. College and kids – yoy can do it but its never more important. Better to have stable kids than watch your kids suffer for your desires. It’s not something you can redo. You make the commitment to be a mom you do it 100%. What you don’t give to them now they will be looking for the rest of their lives. I didn’t want my 30 year old kid sleeping on my couch because no one taught him/her independence and self esteem. That was my job. I took it on and It worked.

            If your nanny doesn’t raise your kids then what do you pay her for ? Walking your dog?

          • PJ4

            No, i think it sux to be your kids.

            And if you said that in front of them, they’d think you were a crazy person and laugh in your face.
            I’m sure it sucked to be your kids though. How often did you beat them into submission? You never answered that.

            Date nights?? I have lots of them now. My kids are grown, tho. Dates are for single people.

            LOL, such backwards thinking.

            Keep digging yourself into a bigger hole… although I must say that you’re sounding more and more like my third-world minded mother.

            We got lots of weekends with our kids.

            What a co -ink-ee-dink! So do we!

            Imagine that!

            I didn’t get married and have kids so i could act single and kid-less.

            Lots of couples have date night sweetie–just because you’re too old to fathom something like that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.

            And as far as education. You don’t put that in front of your kids. The time for education is before you start a family.

            LOL, and I bet you’re against gay marriage too, Dan Quayle.

            Learning new things is still something you can do while raising your babies

            Oh… so glad you approve! (sarc)

            College and kids – yoy can do it but its never more important

            Good thing I never said it was. :-)

            Better to have stable kids than watch your kids suffer for your desires.

            My kids are quite stable that you, Judge Judy.

            It’s not something you can redo. You make the commitment to be a mom you do it 100%. What you don’t give to them now they will be looking for the rest of their lives. I didn’t want my 30 year old kid sleeping on my couch because no one taught him/her independence and self esteem. That was my job. I took it on and It worked.

            Oh yes, I so need advice about being a good mom from someone who kills babies for a living..

            Good lord woman, do you ever stop pontificating?? You seriously sound like a Baptist preacher.

            If your nanny doesn’t raise your kids then what do you pay her for ? Walking your dog?

            I don’t have any dogs.
            Do you?

          • MamaBear

            PJ, please, Baptist preachers (and I know plenty) even get babysitters and go on date nights with their wives. In fact, most the ones I know, their wives have careers, too. (Most Baptist preachers don’t get paid well enough for their wives to be stay-at-home mothers.)

          • PJ4

            Heh, sorry
            I should have said Puritan

            Apologies!!

          • MamaBear

            LOL

          • PJ4

            I know Mama, o actually thought of you when I was reading her ridiculous comments
            She’s just upset that she can’t use all her usual arguments with me bc I don’t fit her stereotype–none of us do and she can’t handle it

          • MamaBear

            What’s the saying? “Life is what happens when you’re busy making other plans.”
            Most people’s lives don’t fit into neat little boxes or stereotypes.
            I wanted to be the stay at home mom, but the situation dictated returning to teaching. On the other hand, I did not want to retire either, but health dictated that for me.
            I’m certainly not anti-planning, just I realize plans have to be adjusted as circumstances change.

          • Basset_Hound

            When my son was born, I had a long-term contract job doing tech documentation for a satellite dish company. They wanted me back, but I figured I was lucky to even have a child, so I told them “no”. Later on, when it became apparent that he was severely autistic, I knew my child care options were extremely limited Once he got into elementary school, the teachers looked for any excuse in the book to send him home. I got calls about every 4-6 weeks for me to come and get him. I knew that if I even had a part-time job, I would be absent too frequently to be a productive employee. Once we institutionalized him, my skills were pretty much out of date. I did find a really nice part time job which I loved. Maybe, God willing, I might do documentation again, but I’ve acknowledged that I’m probably never going to program anything other than my own laptop this side of the pearly gates. I might point out that the women on the factory floor of my husband’s company envied me because I WAS a SAHM.

          • MamaBear

            Go read Plum’s latest to me. According to her, pregnancy is worse than cancer. I’ve said my piece and do not intend to answer her again, but I suspect if I borrow Mars crystal ball, I would see a very hot future for her.

          • PJ4

            Oh, do I have to? :-)
            I’ve quite enough of her–she’s completely deranged.

          • MamaBear

            No, you have indeed had enough. So have I. She is indeed quite deranged or deliberately cruel.

          • PJ4

            And she’s complained that I’m mean.
            LOL
            She’s one of the many libs who can dish it out but can’t take the heat when met with a dose of her own medicine.
            She really thinks a lot of herself.

          • PJ4

            Btw, I just sent you an email.

          • Basset_Hound

            They HAVE to. Otherwise when their youngest child leaves home, they realize they’re nothing but strangers if they don’t.

          • sagefemme

            Was that a rant i just witnessed ???

            No, no dogs, you know why ?? Because I work, and wouldn’t be home to take care of it….hmmm… Score 1 for knowing my limits. I do have cats tho. I’d say that goes with the whole “too old” stab but I’ve had cats since i was 17.

            First off, i know once again that your not much for paying attention but, as i said, i raised my own children, which means i didn’t work. They did go to births with me and attend study groups with me.

            I think your the one who needs to lay down the shovel. You do realize you are advocating your kids spending not only days with someone else, but nights too ??
            Sounds like with all the nanny time and dating your doing, weekends are the only time your kids do get to see you. In fact, did you have to ask your nanny before you stated your kids were stable ?
            You know your mom seems to be a smart lady. Giving your kids a total opposite upbringing doesn’t make it a better one.
            As far as being backwards, i guess they’ve changed things, huh? Single people don’t date first then get married and have babies ?? What are you advocating for now ? Have babies, get married, then date ? Okay, sure. Tell your kids that. Dating is something you do AFTER you get married and the kids aren’t invited.

            You made quite a turn around off your holier than thou mighty throne. Your blind rage has caused me to be a crazy, old, baby killing, gay/widow/single mom hater, Baptist preaching judge. But you wouldnt lower yourself to be a name caller ??.. …..

            Oh and i must have missed where you asked me about beating my kids. ? Again, if you pay attention, you would figure out that i was a midwife which is more of a hippie, home birthin, breastfeeding, non vaccinating, home schooling, no spanking, attachment , family bed kinda parent.
            But, i would love to know why you thought i would ever beat my kids ? ?

          • PJ4

            Nope. Apparently, not only can you not recognize your own rants, you can’t recognize when other’s are not ranting.

            ah well. I really can’t help you there dear.

            You sound like a crazy old baby killing gay/widow/single mom hater.
            I’m just making an observation based on your words dear.

            My husband and I still date each other. I’m very sorry that there was no passion in your marriage when your kids were still little .

            I had 2 kids out of wedlock
            So what?
            I’m not holier than anyone… but at least I wouldn’t kill another human.

            We don’t have any pets–one of the kids has bad asthma.

          • sagefemme

            You may think i sound like all that but i have been a single mom, not sure where you would ever surmise that I’m a “widow ” hater but whatever, and as far as gay hating – i lost a job because I delivered a baby and facilitated an adoption between a single mom and a gay couple. The board was Mormon and didn’t want us taking care of gay people. So, yes i have more of a reason to hate religious folks but they are entitled to their opinions and beliefs too.

            As far as passion in my marriage goes, we just called it being creative. When the kids went to grandmas or were asleep. Like it should be.

          • PJ4

            I’ve been a single mom too.

            I’m just stereotyping you the way you stereotype me.

            Not nice is it?

            I don’t have any reason to hate anyone.

            I just don’t hate.

            It’s not in my vocabulary or nature.

            As far as passion in my marriage goes, we just called it being creative. When the kids went to grandmas or were asleep. Like it should be.

            Yes, because if you don’t approve of what others do then it’s wrong, right?

          • sagefemme

            I never approved or disapproved. I stated my opinion and you thought i was talking about you.

            You said i hated single moms, you weren’t stereotyping.

          • PJ4

            Nope…I didn’t
            I took you for your word
            Now you’re back peddling

          • sagefemme

            I don’t need to back peddle. I stand behind every opinion, statement and word i ever said. You took it as you wanted. If you felt it applied to you than thats on you. When i directed it to you i said it to you.

          • PJ4

            I didn’t feel as though it applied to me until you mentioned it

          • PJ4

            But, i would love to know why you thought i would ever beat my kids
            That was payback for assuming I fed my kids hotdogs and cake and let them run rampant.
            Jeez.
            For all the times you tell me to pay attention.. you certainly miss a lot

          • sagefemme

            Funny, because if that’s what you got from that, you STILL don’t pay attention .

            The conversation was about the strong leading the weak and you didn’t think that was the way it should be. So, i stated that if that was the case then your children would be making your family decisions – and we know that CHILDREN would pick hotdogs and cake to eat. Nothing about you but thanks for giving one more thing to add to your list of names you called me. Nice.

          • PJ4

            Nope
            The conversation was not the mighty “leading” the weak
            It was the mighty ruling the weak to the point of death

            You weren’t paying attention

            And I really wish you’d stop conflating name calling with general observation that anyone could make

          • sagefemme

            Yes, cause Judge Judy, Baptist preacher and gay/single mom hater are not names, they are everyday “observations”.
            And dont worry im getting used to you changing then meaning of MY posts and stealing my words. I’m flattered.

          • PJ4

            Well Judge Judy could be taken as a compliment.
            And no, saying that you come off as a baptist preacher (because you do) or observing that you sound as though you hate single moms was an observation based on your vitriol.
            I made an assumption about the gays.–you know how you assume everything about me.

            And dont worry im getting used to you changing then meaning of MY posts and stealing my words. I’m flattered.

            I’m glad that my mockery of you is flattering. :-)
            Cheers.

          • sagefemme

            Imitation is the highest form. :)

          • PJ4

            Or good for mockery

          • sagefemme

            I do agree with you on the good wife part. That has to sustain you past the children. You are also passing down vital caretaking to your kids – daughters, especially who will need to learn the art of nurturing.
            Tbe best gift you can give your children is a happy marriage.

          • PJ4

            I think that’s the one thing on which we can agree.

          • PJ4

            You know I have a feeling that if I had never adopted a child then you would have said that I have no right to be pro life if I’ve “never adopted one of the babies I’ve helped save”

          • sagefemme

            Anyone can be pro life, pro choice no matter what their history. My fiance – male, has no children, never will, and never got anyone pregnant – and considers himself pro life.
            As far as rights go….do your thing.

          • Thomas

            I don’t want to adopt older, already tainted children but i ‘encourage ‘ others to do it.

            Did you actually just articulate what I emphasized in bold? Whatever credibility you thought you had, you lost with this non-sequitur Sage.

            All children are innocent Sage. You can no longer argue about the status of children in the world having negated them in this manner. Were you mimicking Sanger?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i did. And, no, not all children are innocent. Children that are older in the system have usually been through some damaging experiences. The ones who have had a decent past are more often placed with family members. The special needs can be overwhelming if you aren’t equipped to deal with them. And lets not forget the underlying issues that can be kept from potential adoptive families. Yes, the word may sound harsh but sometimes thats the reality.

          • Thomas

            The entire point in adopting children is to SAVE them from being just a number and relinguishing in the system Sage. Is it not? Also, consider that even if you adopt an infant or have your own child – that in itself does not ensure that they are raised “tainted free.” Children do not grow up in a vacuum, not even your own.

            Do you honestly do not understand that the reality you speak of is not created by the child that is in the foster care system and that the child is a victim of circumstances? Ponder that before throwing another non-sequitur out there.

            These children are innocent. Seems to me your rthetoric is more damaging than the reality of these children.

          • sagefemme

            The fact that they are in the system means that they needed ‘saving’ from something. It takes a lot of problems to remove a child and put it in the system. If they are there it means all other options have been exhausted. That experience alone can have devastating effects on a child, not even counting what they went thru prior.
            My children are tainted by my own hand so i know their problems.
            I’m not saying these children are at fault or don’t need a home. The whole point of what I said was that noone should feel guilty or feel pressured into adopting older children.
            And my so-called rhetoric is only damaging because you want to believe i am somehow against adoption.

          • Thomas

            I never said you were against adoption. You are blaming these children for the circumstances they find themselves in and that is the point of contention for me.

          • sagefemme

            Again, its not the childs fault, as i said above. I don’t blame them at all.

          • Paul

            You have just jumped from Sanger to Malthus. Overpopulation is “Concerning”?

            Selecting who to cull and the best way to do it is not a solution to that problem. Don’t you see where this reasoning leads? If it is an imperative requiring extreme action that imperative can be hijacked by anyone popularly chosen. Read history.

            There is no “good” solution, no one here is claiming that. The solution you embrace is Wrong whether it works “better” or not. This has nothing to do with problems and solutions, this has to do with right and wrong.

            We are only extremists in you mind. What middle ground can you yield? Is there any lawful restriction on abortion that you are willing to accept as fair, noble and necessary? It seems that we are all extremists.

            There might be a middle ground. My absolute limit is the age of a fetus where it could survive in any scenario if it could only make it past the wall of the womb without being disassembled. I will never go past that point. I would fight like hell for a point much earlier. I would probably give up the point where it is still undifferentiated cells if I could get the killing of children to stop now or be punished as the murder it is.

            Is there any position other than an unrestricted right to chose and to practice the art facilitating any choice that you would embrace?

            This isn’t debating, I really need to know.

          • sagefemme

            Just because I find overpopulation concerning doesnt mean i think abortion is the answer. This was something someone else brought up. I just gave my opinion.

            My personal belief is abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. Anything after that should have a very good reason (an 11 year old, trisomy, anencephaly, to name a few). The point of viability – which should be moved as we continue to save babies – should be the cut off for everyone. Right now thats about 21 weeks.

            I have limits for sure. I don’t have a problem with seeing both sides. I don’t assume everyone who is pro life is an extremist (which would be no ABs even in the case of rape and incest) unless they speak that way.

            There is no perfect solution to unwanted pregnancies. You will always have those who push the limits. They are not the majority. Until there becomes a perfect solution then i say it’s a choice the pregnant woman must make herself.

          • Paul

            Thank you for clearly stating your position. It’s seems to be a much more reasonable one than most arguments I hear. We could debate the justifications for where various limits should be set but the principle is there.

            So let me respond in kind. My position is that the cause of civilization is best served when experts and empowered functionaries (and even individuals) are not allowed to make judgements on the life of a free being. It is an immoveable stake in the ground for me.

            But if we only agree in principle, with no recognition of humanity for one so young, without Law and civil society protecting them then it is a distinction without a difference for me. I am not saying the following is you because I don’t know, but intention, and ideals are of little value without a concrete expression of them in practice.

          • wineinthewater

            When my wife was pregnant with our daughter, tests revealed that she had an elevated chance of being born with Down’s Syndrome. Multiple people at the hospital encouraged us to “strongly consider termination” or flat out to abort.

            Is that an ok everyday account?

          • sagefemme

            I dont ever encourage any testing that is meant to find fault in a fetus. Unless there is a valid reason (genetics, history etc) why even do the testing ? Most women go blindly by their docs advice. Then before they realize it they are faced with a choice they would never make anyway. A lot of babies were diagnosed with Downs and were perfectly normal.
            I counsel them simply – here is the available test, its meant to find this, would the results make you change your mind about continuing the pregnancy? If the answer BEFORE the test is no then why do it at all ?

          • wineinthewater

            Then it sounds like you are not typical. Our experience and the experience of our many friends and acquiantences who’ve had babies in the last few years is that testing is pushed pretty hard. It’s not just people blindly following blindly their doctors’ advice – although there is plenty of that I’m sure – but doctors putting pretty high pressure on women to go through with the tests. We’ve even heard friends say they were made to feel guilty for not taking the quad test, as if it made them bad mothers.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, the pressure to do the test is their way of thinking it will prevent lawsuits later and they think people are after the perfect child. I do think more women are being cautious about prenatal testing, inducing, csections etc… then 20 years ago which is a good thing.

            So, i have to ask, if you don’t mind, did your baby have downs ? I know of 2 women who it was completely inaccurate.

          • wineinthewater

            Wrongful life lawsuits are one of the clearest symptoms of a deeply sick society.

            Our baby did not have Downs. If you aggregated the test results, she only had a 1.something chance of having Down’s. That was the basis for our “health care providers” to “suggest” termination. They even sent us to a genetic counselor, who we soon found could not actually do anything to help us – no advice on parenting a Down’s child or where to go for resources – except make us feel ok about killing our child. There are times I’ve wanted to march our daughter into their offices and say, “Do you see her? Isn’t she perfect? This is who you wanted us to kill.”

          • sagefemme

            It’s stories like yours that made me stop just blindly doing it for my pregnancies and then only offer it with all the info attached. I had a cousin who was close to aborting because it was a third ‘opps’ baby and they didn’t think they could handle a special needs child and prepared and worried for the worst the whole pregnancy. Then, boom, no downs in sight. I think of how that test ruined most of her enjoyment of her pregnancy. I also had a client that thanked her lucky stars her daughter didn’t test (she waited to long to tell her mom she was pregnant )because she said she would have encouraged her to abort – she was 17 and living with her and 8 of her 12 children! When the baby came out with mild downs she was in love from the start. He is the sweetest little guy i ever met. :)
            I hope you share your story with other pregnant friends and relatives. Even with the improvements in the test it’s still not 100%. I only encourage it if they are worried or have a genetic reason to test.

          • wineinthewater

            I’m glad to hear that. It’s good to know that there are those out there who are thoughtful about the care part of health care.

            We do share it, a lot. For us it’s a part of the lesson to calm down and relax. Pregnancy is hard enough, no reason to make it harder.

          • sagefemme

            I agree. It’s not time to worry over something you can’t change anyway :)

          • Anna

            You are a lost individual. If you truly believe the clinics and media and Pro-choice crowd are not promoting abortion than you are also a fool.

          • cargosquid

            “control over the sanctity of an individual’s own body”

            Interesting choice of word…..sanctity….for the idea that controlling your body by removing ANOTHER individual…….

          • hicusdicus

            In the middle east the way they protect their bodies is by removing another individual. In fact as many as they can.

          • sagefemme

            The fetus is not an individual.

          • cargosquid

            Really?
            There is a separate body and everything. There is not ACTUAL connection to the mother, only fluid transfer.

            You might want to go back to Bio 101

          • sagefemme

            Are you sure you want to use the word separate? Going back to Bio 101 – the fetus and essentially newborn, is COMPLETELY dependant on that fluid transfer from who ?? Yes, the mother. So, unless you are a proponent of forced support then that separate /individual /fetus doesn’t get a choice.

          • Paul

            Straw-man. No one is advocating “forced support”. they are advocating making a crime an actual crime. How the individual responds to law is (as it has always been) a personal choice complete with consequences. I am convinced the Pro-choice movement is actually the anti-consequence movement.

          • sagefemme

            If you advocate to take away a women’s choice to abort then it is forced support. Remember that fluid exchange ? Pretty vital to the fetus’ survival. So you want to force her to support an unwanted pregnancy and child ? Oh and consequences gappen with pregnancy too. Abortion is safer than pregnancy so forcing her may kill her.

          • PJ4

            Abortion is not safer than child birth
            That’s just another myth perpetuated by pro abort propaganda

          • sagefemme

            Its not PP propaganda its medical fact. I went to nursing school way before i worked at PP. But you dont have to believe independent medical facts, you are free to only read studies that support your beliefs.

          • PJ4

            Right back at you.
            You can believe only the studies that prove your cause
            Haha, of course you work for PP
            I’m so glad that you guys had to pay 2 million to Tonya Reeves’ family
            Of course it should have been 50 million…but teres a few more in the line…so it’ll happen eventually

          • sagefemme

            The studies that prove our “cause” ?? No, these are, like i said, independent “medical” studies (you know like, doctors, like the OB/GYN that you go to). In fact, PP has nothing to do with these studies. They actually get their info from these publications, much like any other doctor does.

            Unless, of course, you think the Life Times conduct better research.

            You can try this one :

            Bruce , FC , Berg , CJ , Hornbrook , MC , et al Maternal morbidity rates in a managed care population. Obstet Gynecol 2008 ; 111 : 1089 – 1095

            Or maybe this little known publication – The New England Journal of Medicine.

            Of course, they won’t tell you what you are probably spewing to those girls you talk too. I mean propaganda saves so many more babies, right ?

          • PJ4

            The study you’ve cited has nothing to do with abortion vs live birth; it just has to do with pregnancy complications.

            Are you getting at the Raymond and Grimes “study”?

            Of course, they won’t tell you what you are probably spewing to those girls you talk too. I mean propaganda saves so many more babies, right ?

            Yes, when you miss out on a chance to collect that money, it hurts you. We know.

          • sagefemme

            Excerpt taken from “Abortion Request” – New England Journal of Medicine. The citation “33” was the article i forwarded to you.

            “Subsequent Health and Reproductive Risks
            Few long-term sequelae are evident after abortion, and the morbidity and mortality are lower with induced abortion (either medical or surgical) than with pregnancy carried to term.33”

            And sweetie, don’t worry about my money, i do just fine. The 1% of women i help get what they need doesn’t make a dent in my salary. In fact, i make more money bringing babies into the world then on abortions. *gasp* could i really have a heart ??? Yes, and a brain, so you can take your straw man comment and smoke it.

          • PJ4

            Yes, did you see the name of the doctor on the “study”?

            1. It was done for political reasons.
            2. He has a very pro abortoin agenda.

            Naral even sponsered a book signing for his latest book
            http://heyevent.com/event/1399132737048274/remember-roe-book-signing-with-dr-david-grimes

            Would you accept a study by
            Priscilla Coleman even though it’s been published in the BJP?

          • sagefemme

            Dr. Grimes participated in writing the article with the main author. It’s a clinical article which just states facts from research studies. There is no slant, no matter what the bias is from the author. There is a difference between an article and a study. The citation i posted is one of the sources fron the article which IS a credible study. The NJM is not in the habit of posting bogus studies.
            If Ms. Coleman published a credible study – which she has yet to do (and its not credible by my standards, but her medical professional research colleagues ) i would have no choice but to take it into consideration for practicing evidence based medicine. Which for women seeking abortion means i would have to disclose that whether i believed it or not.
            In order for research to be credible it has to be able to be duplicated and get the same results they couldn’t do that with her theory.

            That being said, you can base a civil rights issue soley on morality no matter what the research states. Assisted suicide will never produce credible evidence that it harms anybody but still people are opposed to it for moral reasons.

          • PJ4

            Are you saying that the BJP is in the habit of posting bogus studies?

          • sagefemme

            Ahh…your hero Ms. Coleman. Yes she is there with other credited authors. But again, she is the only one that shows a significantly different margin. In fact, her 80% “risk” only translates to a 10% thats actually attributed to abortion. So, its comparable to the other studies.
            If i were to deliver that information per evidence bases tenets as she suggests it would go as this “studies show a slight risk of having issues of depression, substance abuse and/ or suicide. There is one study that shows a marked increase but it has not been agreed upon amongst other authors in the field”
            The fact that you believe her but choose not to believe a more concrete evidence based study – the physical safety of abortion (psychiatric studies are more subjective and not as reliable as mortality /morbidity numbers ) tells me a lot. You cant just pick and choose what you want to believe when it comes to evidence.
            Remember there is also an increase of depression in term pregnancy also. So you have to also consider that when you talk to women about keeping the baby.

          • sagefemme

            Tonya died from complications from her surgical abortion and her family is rightly receiving compensation for that accident. That’s why we carry insurance. Accidents happen. Same as if you went for a boob job and bled or got an infection or died from anesthesia. Sad but its a reality. Maybe you should read the stories about amniotic fliud embolism or childbirth hemmorhage deaths. Again, sad but it happens.
            Oh, and it wasnt ‘botched’ or ‘bungled’ or on purpose because she was black. Unless, you think the medical examiner and the judges are in cohoots with PP.

          • PJ4

            Yes, I know how Tonya died.
            There you go down assumption lane again.
            Jeez.
            Do you ever stop putting words in people’s mouths or are straw men the only arguments you can win?

          • sagefemme

            Assumption lane ? No, ahh, it was stated in an article on one of the sites you posted earlier. Do you not read your own propaganda ?

            And are copy cat names and feigning intelligence the only way you TRY to win an argument? Sometimes it makes you look a little smarter if you do some research before you smart off. WTF ??? (<~~maybe that will make you feel better – just trying to keep up ya know)

          • PJ4

            LOL
            Just because you didn’t realize I was moving you doesn’t mean I was trying to win anything.
            Get over yourself.

          • Paul

            No it is not forced support. Stop saying stuff that is untrue. Her life is at her discretion and her actions bear on her consequences. Yes, biology is unfair. Ever had epididymitis?

            Take away a fetuses support and it is callous disregard of human life. You are allowed to teminate an animal you are no longer willing to care for. You shouldn’t be allowed to do that to a human being. Period.

          • sagefemme

            So terminating a dog is less ‘murder’ then terminating a pregnancy?
            Her life is HER discretion, until a fetus is involved ?
            No, i have no balls but let me ask, when you had epididymititis did you take antibiotics to relieve your symptoms ? Or did you let its run its natural course ?

            Yeah, that biology…..it can be a real bi*ch

            And tell me why a woman should be forced to carry a baby for someone else – just because she was the unlucky one whose birth control failed ?

          • Paul

            Just like you (I think) used the rationalization that you do not grab women and strap them to a table for a forced abortion, no sane person is advocating confining women by force to produce a baby. Both arguments are absurd and needlessly emotive. I see no reason to debate your rationalization since it is an absurd argument that does not resemble truth.

            And yes, terminating a dog is less “murder” than terminating a pregnancy. You would have to re-define the word murder for it to be otherwise.

            If you feel the need to continue to state that I am a prohibit from the point of conception advocate you must realize that that has nothing to do with my words and everything to do with your bias.

          • sagefemme

            You dont want to debate. You want to pontificate. You are here for the sake of argument and are purposely vague on your stand. You think you can argue this point better than anybody because you make a statement and then when someone questions you on it you back peddle and change the meaning. You wont have me tripping on my words, sorry.

            You have no problem calling me absurd and saying I’m biased yet you get upset when you think somebody’s judging you. Oh, and if they call you out or disagree they are just “to emotional” for your high class way of thinking.

            So far, this is what I’m hearing from your great pulpit. That you are fine with forcing a woman to carry her baby to term, that if you think something is an error then it is, you dont like embryos being forced out of the womb, and that the definition of murder can change – if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck thennn…. its a pro lifer. It’s ok, you can admit it. Part of debating is taking a side. So take a stand,put it out there and lets debate on it. You’re either in or you’re out

          • Paul

            Play the victim card much?

            When have I backpedaled and changed the meaning? You have simply made assumptions that are not so. What statement did I make that I back pedaled on?

            I haven’t called you absurd yet.

            Didn’t call you emotional.

            I’m not fine with forcing women to do anything. I’m not advocating forcing women to do anything, that is your absurd conclusion. And no, I did not just call you absurd again.

            Don’t think I got upset when someone judged me.

            Where did the definition of murder change? I like it just fine as it is, I just want it to be applied to the taking of all human life not just the approved ones.

            You have run into my stand, I’m not moving it. And no, I don’t want to debate. I am telling you my position.

            And I don’t describe what I do as “High class thinking” It’s just a little bit of applied intelligence. How’s that alternative working for you?

          • sagefemme

            Oh yes, again changing the meaning. Yes, im the ‘victim’ . My sister used to pull that crap. Call me all sorts of names and make fun of me then when i told my mom, Sissy back peddled “but i was just joking with her, mom”
            Ok, your 100% right, you didn’t call ME absurd, you called my ARGUMENT absurd. Yes, 2 totally different things. Me and my argument may be 2 separate things, but if it comes from my mouth, it comes from me and my thoughts. So, see how that works. You can twist it anyway you want and focus on details but its only you and i and our ideas here. So you can dwell on details i choose to dwell on the subject.

            Per 2 posts ago you stated that ‘forced support ‘ was an untrue statement. I’d like you to elaborate on how you feel its not.
            You actually used an emotional ‘strap someone to a bed’ scenario. So, you have just as much turned it into an unrealistic emotional argument. Force comes in more ways than just physical restraint as I’m sure you are well aware of.

            You don’t want to debate my rationale on how putting a dog to sleep is not murder by anyone’s definition. Your stopping a beating heart, the innocent dog doesn’t ask to be put down, its shouldn’t be the owners choice, the dog has a right to life no matter what the quality . …yada, yada. So, its an ‘approved’ murder by your definition, yet you claim its different. Would you like to elaborate on that also.
            Speaking of applied intelligence, I will await your anxiously :)

          • Paul

            Deflection,
            Ad hominem
            Reductio ad absurdum
            I have no interest in any of your tactics any more. Suspected it from the start but gave your humanity and integrity the benefit of the doubt.

            Silly me.

          • sagefemme

            Oh thank effin god. Go postulate with someone who bows down to you. Oh yeah, she’s probably sitting right next to you. Have a fabulous night Paulie.

          • Paul

            Oh, I’m not going anywhere. Try this out. See word, read word understand word.

            Lather, rinse, repeat.

          • Jed

            I know I can safely speak for a vast majority of those of us who no long have much hair (on our head) that your use of “Lather, rinse, repeat.” is highly insulting and demeaning. I insist you cease and desist these attacks against the hair challenged among us.

          • Paul

            Just because you can no longer follicly frolic doesn’t mean you have to get bristly with me.

          • Jed

            The frolic of my follicles is as energetic as ever, just not on my head. Doesn’t matter — you’re still picking on me! Racist!

          • infadelicious

            Jed. We have our private group created. I have no way to contact you- but Shep should be able to get you in – he has your email or fb right?

          • Jed

            Shep has two — please let me know.

          • infadelicious

            I can’t add anyone unless they are friend of Shep on fb or my friend. You have to be invited that way. So far it’s me and Peter. Shep needs to friend me too Are you on fb?

          • Jed

            No, I’m not on fb. Tried it for a short time, but cancelled. Don’t trust it much and never saw much point, but I can go back if needs be.

          • infadelicious

            I don’t do Facebook either but I set this dummy account up specifically for this group. Not under real name and our group is private with invited members only. :-)

          • Jed

            So do I also setup a private fb account? Sorry to be so dumb, but I’m old (and getting bald, no thanks to Paul). When I was young, we used two tin cans and a string.

          • infadelicious

            I don’t know much about Facebook but yours doesn’t need to be private but I need to find out what your fb account is called then I send you invitation to friend me and I can then get you into the private group I only use fb for our chat. We can talk privately as a group or to each other :-). If you don’t want to give your fb on here give it to Shep via email and we’ll go from there.

          • Barack’sGotYourBack

            I’m still having a hard time bringing myself around to setting up a youbook account. And ever since we had that run-in with DGJC who was always on facetube, it was even more of a disincentive…..

          • Jed

            I hear you. I used a ‘temporary’ name and other info, and no more than required. For now I’ve left it open, but when Infa does her thing, I’ll make it private.

          • Paul

            Suggestion: Go to our friends site and check his
            friends list for familiar. Many people can get you to infa

          • Paul

            Looks like we’re both members of the Dinosaur club Jed.

            I Don’t twitch, tweak, twerk twaddle or faceplant. But if it was useful in developing meaningful contacts I guess I could learn.

          • Shep Schultz

            If I have anyone’s emails which they wish to have shared with anyone else, please let me know, and I will follow your requests.
            ************
            Please contact me through Disqus, or through my Email.
            *************
            I will only share Emails with those who have passed the identification/security rubric.

          • Jed

            smiles

          • Shep Schultz

            Are you wanting for me to share your Emails with ‘Liscious?

          • Jed

            Yes sir, if you don’t mind. I opened a fb account with the newer email address you have and sent you a friend request from it.

          • Paul

            PJ has my email and permission to send it to my friends.
            I’d like to apply to this private group if I may.

          • infadelicious

            I have no way to contact pj I can only add people on fb who friend me and Shep hasn’t accepted my invite. Not sure why. Unless i have your Facebook name or it is attached to your disqus account or Shep (who has some people’s info) gets on it, I can’t invite anyone. :-( it’s very easy.

          • Paul

            Well, I’ll crawl out of the stone age and figure it out. Be patient, us myrmidons don’t innovate quickly.

          • infadelicious

            Face book sux. I only started a faux account so I could set up a private chat group where no trolls can enter. If Shep doesn’t get back to me today I will figure out something on Monday to get you guys in. I am not that tech savvy either. But where there is a will there is a way. I also wAnt to keep it to our group of like minded peeps- probably only a dozen or so.. We don’t want people that are nasty or people that are on here to push an agenda

          • Paul

            Well, I set up a faceplant account with the expected result. Can’t find anyone.

          • infadelicious

            You can find Shep easily enough. If he accepts your friend request I can find you. Shep hasn’t accepted mine so I am not sure what he is doing. AHEM. Hello Shep!!!

          • Paul

            Apparently you are assuming an unwarranted degree of competence on my part. I’ll keep banging on the obelisk with a leg-bone. Heck, I figured out how to walk upright, you’d think I could operate something any 12 year old could.

          • infadelicious

            Go to Shep’s disqus account and click on his face book- it’s not private . Request him to friend you. If he accepts I can friend you too. You could also message him from his Facebook and tell him to get with it. Snicker

          • Paul

            Thanks for the step by step. Thanks also for not showing shock at how illiterate I am. Sometimes, I’m just a dead short between the keyboard and the chair.

          • infadelicious

            Sorry I am not very clear with instructions. I am in the middle of something and the only access to disqus is on my iPhone. Hard to type with nails and be coherent sometimes :-)

          • Paul

            Not a problem Infa and I have succeeded! Thanks.

          • Paul

            Probably out in the woods with some scouts. Good man.

          • Doctor Hook

            We’re sorry. Please be patient with us. We’ll try to get a handle on our hirsuteism. Really!

          • Jed

            I feel like I’ve been washed out of my own hair.

          • sagefemme

            You’re right, your not going anywhere because the perimeter is the only route you know.
            I gotta hand it to ya, you sure get in to the meat on the back of that shampoo bottle. But then again, the shampoos on your side.

          • Paul

            Was there some cogent thought in your post that I might have missed? You’re not fond of me, I get that. Was there something else you needed?

          • sagefemme

            Nope, nothing, nada…..you can continue on your merry way proselytizing to those who hold you near and dear that stroke your ego. I don’t need a dam thing thank you, luv.

          • Paul

            Cool. Be well.

          • Mitzi

            Lol now pro lifers are a lot like duckls not at all absurd

          • sagefemme

            Yes, absurd to tiny minds who don’t have a clue what an analogy is. It’s ok Mitzi, we are trying to accommodate you any way we can.

          • Mitzi

            Your analogy is just dumb. Maybe get to the point instead of making me uncomfortable with your white bread after school specials.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i know hunny, again, that real life sh*t can get so dam intense. I’ll go easy on ya.

            Ok, lets see…..do you know what the up side is to having granbabies ? I got to deliver them in the comfort of my home. Then i get to send them gifts and celebrate birthdays. I get to Skype with those far away and look at their pics on FB. Yes, we have actually spent a lot of time frolicking amongst the wildflowers and swinging on swings. We even have sleep overs and huge family dinners.
            Then in true grandma fashion. I smootch them all over their sweet soft baby faces, relish in their accomplishments like waving and speaking in sentences or achieving the next belt in karate class, then send them home to be with mommy and daddy – where they belong.
            Yes, Mitzi, i have a perfectly complete life.

            Now, was that more your style ??

          • Mitzi

            Don’t care. Is that alright?

          • Paul

            If you are really worried about a loss of fluids we will have a drive and repay you ounce for ounce. Where do you want it?

          • Jed

            Ugh! Reminds me of an old movie and scene about yogurt.

          • Paul

            Desperately trying to get that image out of my head.

          • Jed

            Masticate, my man, masticate!
            Sorry to put such a lame joke into a serious thread.

          • Jed

            Just remembered — it was The Road to Wellville — strangely appropriate somehow.

          • sagefemme

            Ahhh….if it were only that easy. Ever have a teste problem/STD/nausea etc.. that lasted 9 months? Thats a lot of fluid. And stress.

          • PJ4

            Leave it to the pro abort to compare the child in the womb to an STD or other disease
            Well, thank you for confirming eveything we already knew about you
            You call yourself a nurse but you don’t understand basic human biology?
            Typical

          • sagefemme

            Oh, i cant wait. Why don’t you educate me. What am i missing in basic human biology ?? Maybe the lesson you teach your clients /victims ? That pregnancy is squiggles and snails and puppy dog tails and you won’t ever feel bad when there’s a baby in your belly.
            Maybe you should read the posts again to get my meaning. Because your confirming what we already know about you – that you don’t pay attention. Oh and be careful, words like “typical ” and “leave it to the pro abort” could get you accused of stereotyping – but we already know that about you too.

          • PJ4

            Well there you go again, stereotyping and judging me
            Of course we already know that that’s about all of which you are capable.

            You’re beyond education dear…and to tell you the truth, you’re not worth it.
            Victims? That’s rich coming from the one who takes lives for a living.
            Good one.

          • sagefemme

            And there you go again, not paying attention.I didn’t judge you, I just told the truth. You didn’t believe that abortion was safer than pregnancy, right? So obviously that’s what you tell those poor vulnerable girls at the CPC that trust you. The least you can do is give them honest answers. Educated answers. Like I gave you and like i give them after you guys fill their heads with horror stories. Undoing the damage CPC’s cause gets old. Talk to them all you want but quit lying to them to get them on your side. Oh, and if you would like to educate me further, I am all ears. Or are you just sooo to much, like, smarter then i am ?? In fact, i really would love to hear some more untruths that you tell them. What’s your favorite horror story ? Yeah, stories, thats all you got. The facts are way over your head. I think your the one beyond educating.

          • PJ4

            And there you go again, not paying attention.I didn’t judge you, I just told the truth.

            Well, if you didn’t judge me, then you lied.

            You didn’t believe that abortion was safer than pregnancy, right?

            I still don’t.

            So obviously that’s what you tell those poor vulnerable girls at the CPC that trust you.

            Sorry, what is that I tell them, since you know me so well?

            Wait wait!!

            What am I wearing right now?

            What did I have for breakfast?

            Do you see my dead aunt?

            Is she the one giving you all this information about me?

            Please do tell.

            The least you can do is give them honest answers. Educated answers

            I do. And I’d love for you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt otherwise. You’re a clairvoyant aren’t you?

            Undoing the damage CPC’s cause gets old.

            I agree, undoing the damage PP causes gets pretty nasty.

            AZ anyone?

            http://www.worldmag.com/2014/05/did_planned_parenthood_help_arizona_rapist_go_free

            Talk to them all you want but quit lying to them to get them on your side.

            I don’t lie to them.

            Oh, and if you would like to educate me further, I am all ears.

            What’s the point?

            You’re already the resident know-it-all.

            Or are you just sooo to much, like, smarter then i am

            What are you, 10?

            In fact, i really would love to hear some more untruths that you tell them.

            You’re not in luck sweetie because I don’t tell untruths.

            What’s your favorite horror story?

            I have a few…

            The Exorcist

            The Ring

            Murder House (AHS 1st season)

            Night of the Living Dead (1968 version)

            You?

          • sagefemme

            I read the AZ story. You dont throw away a system that does a lot of good when mistakes are made, you fix them. And the Lila Rose thing was not proof except that if you ask a question enough times, enough ways you will finally get the answer you want to publicize. It was not real revealing.

            So, you don’t believe any research that doesn’t support your views. What do you tell your clients? You haven’t said anything about what you tell them. Your very adamant about the fact you dont lie and you give them educated answers then what do you say?

          • PJ4

            So, you don’t believe any research that doesn’t support your views

            Did I say that?

            No I didn’t

            What do you tell your clients? You haven’t said anything about what you tell them

            I tell them the truth

          • sagefemme

            ME : <>

            YOU : <>

            I showed u research and you didn’t believe it. In fact, i know you know how to look things up. So, you could clearly find other studies. Mortality and morbidity numbers are pretty clear.

            You don’t have to believe them but you shouldnt withhold information from a vulnerable pregnant mom.

          • PJ4

            1.you need to brush up on your html
            2. You seem pretty hell bent on telling me what to do

          • sagefemme

            Oh, im sorry, i don’t have maids and nannies. I work all day then come home to take care of my family and home. I don’t get time to spend on the computer all day experimenting in cut and paste techniques.

            Your right, i shouldn’t suggest you do things different for the sake of a vulnerable woman. You’re much to happy in your own little world telling them whatever YOU deem appropriate. Keep your head in the sand it seems to work well for you.

          • PJ4

            Sounds like you’re jealous (and slightly bitter) of people who do

            I don’t have a lot of time either
            I learned on high school
            Duh

            You don’t even know what I’ve said
            You just keep in assuming

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i don’t know what you say because you never said it. So either you don’t counsel or you don’t want to admit what your slant is. That’s fine with me. I can just imagine from the way you talk here.
            Yes, i was learning long division in high school if you haven’t already figured that out.
            As far as a maid goes, i already said i don’t care about them , I’ve had maids. Nannies are their to do moms work cause she either works a lot or she doesn’t want to do it. Sorry the truth hurts. I’m not bitter, in fact, my children have solidified that decision for me over and over again. Maybe yours won’t but regret can suck.

          • PJ4

            I just love watching you writhe over what I say or don’t say
            It’s fun to see you assume over and over again– I mean you’re just so good at it
            In fact, that’s about the only thing at which you seem adept

            I learned long division in grade school–it’s not hard to figure out what you don’t know

            All your harping, does make you sound bitter
            You can say you’re not, but your rants say otherwise–truth hurts doesn’t it ?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i rant, you post. I assume, you observe. I stereotype, you state the truth. I know nothing about evidence based medicine, you know what studies are the only good ones. I am an extremist, you are just someone who would never offer any other option but having the baby. I’m bitter and you are just a casual poster rolling through aimlessly.
            Maybe you should just stop posting if i infuriate you so. Im sure your hubby said it a thousand times.
            Oh and the last time i writhed was when i had post surgical pain. Your so called “truth” is just comical to me. But its hard not to notice that i am getting under your skin.

          • PJ4

            The first half of your post is 100% accurate
            And then you get to the fantasy part at the “maybe you just stop posting” mark

            You don’t infuriate me, you sadden me and no..it takes much more to get under my skin.
            I’ve had to deal with much more vile pro aborts than you–you’re actually a breath of fresh air compared to most of them.
            Yes that was a back handed compliment, but a compliment nonetheless

          • sagefemme

            Ha ha…funny. That’s a nice pat on your back for the ‘first’ part. Hehehe…still chuckling at that one ;)

            Don’t waste your time feeling sad for me. I am totally grounded and been that way for a long time.

            And it’s ok to compliment an opposing team. Shaking hands and saying good game is just being a good sport. ((shake))

          • PJ4

            Sure you’re grounded….unfortunately, your comments don’t reflect this “totally grounded” thing of which you speak.

          • sagefemme

            My comments reflect it perfectly. You just refuse to see it because it would …ahhh…mean im grounded. It’s ok.
            I have never faltered or retracted anything. I stand behind my comments so what meaning of ‘grounded’ are u missing ?

          • PJ4

            Just keep telling yourself that—over and over again
            I’m sure your feeeeeelings will eventually turn it into reality
            /sarc

          • sagefemme

            Oh, im sorry, does the word ‘feelings’ strike a nerve ?? You have been on this a lot. I’m beginning to think your feelings aren’t what sparked you to have a child. That maybe the fact that science or a pro life stance is the reason you carried your pregnancies to term ? I’m sensing a mom was not what YOU intended but what science and humanity dictated. I guess you should feel a little satisfaction for your cause. Maybe because someone forced you to have a child you are bitter and therefore can’t stand the thought of someone being able to move on with their lives. Hmmmm…it’s beginning to make sense now.

          • PJ4

            You’re completey delusional now
            It’s a bit funny
            My first pregnancy was what you people would call “unwanted”

            You make s lot of stuff up—it’s beginning to all make sense now

          • sagefemme

            That’s what i was referring to. Your first pregnancy was unplanned and unwanted and you were told that you didn’t want to kill a bitty baby and that your life would be great once you had that baby.
            Now I’m wondering if there’s regret for no one considering YOUR feelings. Maybe thats why you are so critical of feelings being involved.

          • PJ4

            LOL, no one told me anything.
            Just because you’re susceptible to suggestion (and the women who come see you obviously are) doesn’t mean all of us are.
            I knew that I had no right to end his life. Just like, no matter how you want to, you cannot end mine.
            Does it make you bitter that you cannot end my life? Are you bitter that the law doesn’t take your feeeeeeeelings into consideration that you cannot end the lives of people with whom you disagree? That explains a lot about you.

            I’m not critical of feelings being involved.
            I’m saying.. your feelings do not determine some one else’s humanity.
            You’re comprehension skills are lacking

          • sagefemme

            No, sweetie, my comprehension is just fabulous.
            You saying that i wanna “end your life” is just you grasping at straws. You can try to make me sound psychotic but it’s working against you.

            “Susceptible to suggestion” to you. Informed consent to me.

            Again, MY feelings don’t matter – it’s HER feelings that matter. Her feelings determine her view and handling of humanity. Are you sure your listening ?
            Example : if Andrea Yates FELT her kids should live then they would be. Right ??
            She didn’t read some scientific article on the humanity of killing. She did it because she FELT like it.

          • PJ4

            No darling your comprehension is not fine.

            You can’t even understand a simple comparison.

            Instead your petty nature takes it personally.

            You can try to make me sound psychotic but it’s working against you.

            I’m sorry, I don’t have to try to make you sound psychotic,

            You’re doing just fine on your own.

            “Susceptible to suggestion” to you. Informed consent to me.
            You can package it anyway you like dear. It’s still wrong.

            Example : if Andrea Yates FELT her kids should live then they would be. Right ??She didn’t read some scientific article on the humanity of killing. She did it because she FELT like it.

            *sigh*

            Ok… let me try to make this as simple for you as possible.

            Why. Is She.In.Jail?

            Because. Her.Feelings.Did.Not. Have. Any. Bearing. On. Whether. Or.Not.It.What.She.Did.Was.Objectively.Wrong.

            Do. You.Understand?

            The. Fact. That. She. Didn’t. Value. Their. Lives. Has. No. Bearing. On. The. Fact. That. She. Should.Not. Have. Killed. Them.

            Is.That. Slow. Enough. For. You?

          • cargosquid

            Well…. perhaps she was just late in “deeming” them to be children. Under sage’s criteria…deeming the to be children is the criteria.

          • sagefemme

            Oh, i see now, it’s not your comprehension slowing you down, its your self- centeredness. Your point was made and acknowledged 5 posts ago. I just disagreed and you took that as me not understanding you. Do you just scan the posts for a high 5 or an “i agree” ??
            Ok, here it is :
            Andrea Yates felt it was ok to kill her kids (subjective)
            99.9% of the rest of the population does not feel its ok to murder children (subjective)
            The law states you will be prosecuted if you murder. (Objective)

            She still killed her children and ended up in jail, even though she FELT that what she did was right. The OBJECTIVE standpoint, or any other persons feelings did not matter in her making the decision, her FEELINGS did.

            Next :
            A women has an unwanted pregnancy she wants terminated (subjective)
            You and other pro lifers think its wrong (subjective)
            It is legal, her body, her pregnancy, her choice and it is her right to do so (objective)

            Seee..same logic/comparison. I was just trying to show you that YOU don’t get to determine what is OBJECTIVE for another person. You can make that determination for yourself but the fact remains if YOU wanted an abortion YOU could have one – the fact that you don’t is only determined by YOUR feelings of what YOU determine as right or wrong.
            So, in conclusion, feelings ARE the determining factor in these life changing decisions.

          • PJ4
          • sagefemme

            Because of this :

            <<>

            The abortion providers are not the ones to blame if the woman goes to a different facility afterwards. Hospitals need to have accurate reports also.

          • PJ4

            Sorry, because of what?

            And I’m glad you’re not trying to argue the fact that abortions related injuries and deaths are very under-reported

          • sagefemme

            Regardless of whether they are under reported , it doesn’t make it the abortion providers fault. Vaccine related injuries are also unreported. So what ? It’s still safer.

          • PJ4

            You’d defend Gosnell is he did t get convicted

            I thought you were an anti-vaxer

          • sagefemme

            Hmmm… is that an assumption or another incidence of you not paying attention?
            What about “illegal” and “after the first trimester” don’t you understand. Let me try one – Hows that black market breeding baby selling going ? I mean they still have their babies and give them up so you must be ok with that, right ? Geez

            Yes, i am an anti vaxer. So what ?

          • PJ4

            Now you’re not even making sense

          • sagefemme

            *sigh* oookay, I’ll spell ot out for you. Gosnell performed illegal, late term abortions. If you were paying attention, you would know i dont support that. So, to make my point i asked about the black market breeding baby selling. You know, because you dont care about anything else but having the baby so of course you would support something like that. Clearer now ???

          • PJ4

            Well you’re slightly more coherent now
            See what happens when you cool the rage and take time to think about what you write?
            You still need to work on your sentence structure and grammar
            Here, this might help :

            https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gv0H-vPoDc

            You’re welcome

          • sagefemme

            This is a forum, not school. Its (<~~ irritating, huh??) called Speak n Text. I dont (<~~ouuu, another one!!) have time to do anything else but read for clarity. Which for you doesn't seem to matter anyway.
            So, maybe, while I'm listening to Weird Al you need to do some comprehension lessons because you get so wound up you can't pay any attention to what's being said. That would do you much better than (<~~yikes! ) stressing yourself out over my irrelevant misspellings and grammar (<~~got it !!)

            Psstt….you also don't want to be THAT poster….you know, the one who tries to deflect from the content and only points out the typos and sentence structure. ….jus sayin (<~~~ spelling intended)

          • PJ4

            LOL, yes, and it’s obvious you didn’t do too well in school.

            This is the first time I mentioned it though… just because I thought you should know.
            Makes you sound uneducated and it’s hard to take you seriously.

            Sorry.
            I know, I know, the truth hurts.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, its so obvious i didn’t do well in school. Those Master degrees are pretty easy to get as long as you don’t have to write papers n all.
            I sound uneducated? ? Guess that makes you about a grade school level.
            And you don’t have to take me serious, if typos are the reason you want to use to not post then have at it.

          • PJ4

            Your comments are getting weaker and weaker–almost as though you’ve run out of things to say

          • sagefemme

            Oh, then i guess I’m catching up to you cause you ran out a long time ago.

          • PJ4

            Lol
            No I didn’t
            But I appreciate your effort with the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I routine
            It’s very…entertaining

          • Thomas

            Got to ask how is black market adoption relevant to abortion Sage? Are you arguing that because black market adoption is a real dilemma – that somehow supports the legality of abortion?

            Attempting to make a causal statement here is making you look totally not credible. Can you defend a premise that abortions reduce black market adoptions? I didn’t thinkso. Show some logical ability Sage, for at least once :)

          • sagefemme

            Here’s some logic, Thomas, why dont you, for always, read previous posts before you comment ?
            Ok, since you didn’t bother to stick with the thread, I’ll explain….again.
            A poster, in her infinite pro life wisdom, assumed that i support later term illegal abortion. She stated it as such, she didn’t ask, she just posted as if i condone the actions of an illegal late term abortionist. I contradicted her and pointed out that me condoning abortion in all fashions would be like her, as a pro lifer condoning any activity (“black market baby-selling ” being the chosen activity ) as long as the baby is born.

          • Thomas

            I looked upthread and this is what I saw from you:
            _____________________________

            sagefemme PJ4•10 days ago

            Because of this :

            <<>

            The abortion providers are not the ones to blame if the woman goes to a different facility afterwards. Hospitals need to have accurate reports also.
            _________________________________

            Face it Sage – in your mind no abortion provider is TO BE BLAMED FOR ANYTHING, right? (your words). It’s safe to conclude thus, that you would support an abortionist such as Gosnell just from that post. You did not have to be concrete about what you support as inferences are there for us to know where you stand.

            You do also realize that the biggest obstacle to “tracking trends in public health” (your words above) is the abortion lobby’s fight and refusal to drop the ridiculous TRAP defense, which you no doubt support and which is the true culprit in obscuring the gathering of data. State’s are slowly biting into that unreasonable abortionist defense mechanism, as you most likely know from seeing how these “clinics” disappear from the landscape lately.

            Lastly, there was absolutely no reason for you to perform that dance with the arrows and equal signs and quation marks – that’s sophomoric you know.

          • sagefemme

            No, my words did not state that an abortion provider is not to be blamed for ANYTHING. If you are going to quote me get it right. The full sentence states that you can’t blame an abortion provider for underreported stats if the person goes to another facility after the procedure and THAT facility doesn’t report it as a complication of an abortion.
            And, no, absolutely is it NOT safe to conclude, especially since my words stated that i absolutely DIDN’T support ILLEGAL, LATE TERM ABORTION. So, again you were wrong, i didn’t infer anything. I made it perfectly clear where i stand.

            Again, those words were taken from an article. You said you went back and now it’s doubtful because you are referring to a cut and pasted portion from the article cited (which, btw, was the result of a cut and paste that i had no time to edit out all the extraneous symbols…. very sophomoric of YOU to not even be able to discern that)

            Yes, clinics are closing from lack of funding not lack of safety or need.

          • Thomas

            Check this out (I am not including this as a link to bipass moderation)

          • sagefemme

            I do not have a problem with them making it mandatory for MDs to have admitting privileges. No one is saying complications don’t happen. Unfortunately these laws are set up not to help women but to stop abortions from happening. For decades pro life lawmakers have tried countless ways to stop abortions from happening by restricting access. It’s been pretty impossible to undo Roe v Wade so they try and back door it.
            No provider is going to go blindly into another law “designed to protect” women. As smart as that law sounds it would be filled with restrictions that are more designed to stop abortions rather than improve safety.
            As a homebirth midwife i was faced with the same dilemma. As prudent as it seems to have admitting privileges the restrictions would just be designed to drive home birth numbers down despite the choice and documented safety, so we fight against any more laws. Sounds counter productive but that’s what anti choice legislators have done to us.
            Therefore, without the admitting privilege granted they won’t ever have a clear and accurate account of how many complications are from the procedure and how many from the provider.

          • Thomas

            Unfortunately these laws are set up not to help women but to stop
            abortions from happening. For decades pro life lawmakers have tried
            countless ways to stop abortions from happening by restricting access.

            Total BS. Admitting privileges mandate is devised to hold abortionists to the same standards as ambulatory facilities. Abortionists claim to be “doctors” after all, don’t they??? The reason is women’s safety because abortionists are actually quack “doctors” who are only interested in squeezing as many abortions in the day as a possible without regard to any focus on complications and “addressing” them beyond the walls of the “clinic.” How many times has a woman hemorrhaged or had some other serious complication during or post an abortion and the “clinic” would not ensure any follow-up and acted only to conceal? These cases are out there (many have resulted in death) but you choose to ignore them under the guise of “restricting access.” Pro-aborts at all cost desire to avoid accountability and that is a game not worth playing. Capisce!

          • MamaBear

            The birth center my daughter used has admitting privileges for the midwives. If something goes wrong and a woman has to be taken to the hospital, no time is wasted in admitting her as everything is prearranged, and the midwife accompanies her throughout her hospital birth.
            One time when I had my dad at the GP, she said he was having heart problems and needed to be hospitalized. She had admitting privileges. Dad was picked up by ambulance at the GP’s office, and was immediately admitted to the cardiac ward of the hospital and his care taken over by the appropriate specialists.
            Admitting privileges make a difference in all branches of medicine. If abortionists want to claim to be legitimate women’s health care, they need to be under the same rules as the rest of medicine.

          • sagefemme

            it is BS, BS that they want to hold an abortion provider to more than other ambulatory facilities. Plastic surgeons, GI docs, OBs and others can all do outpatient procedures that are more invasive with only courtesy privileges. I perform home births with only ‘back up’ requirements. So, to single out AB clinics is just trying to back door outlaw it. As a midwife i deal with hemorrhage of a larger magnitude with just as great a complication risk. We can handle it and so can the AB docs. When it is too great we transport just like they do. Sometimes hemorrhage happens after the acute phase and we always warn that, although rare, they may need to seek medical help after we leave or the next day. Birth hemorrhage and risk is far greater than AB risk.

          • MamaBear

            The Arizona story was about the rape and assault of eighteen under-aged girls! EIGHTEEN!!!
            PP could have stopped about a third of them.
            PP is a mandatory reporter and should have the license of that facility revoked and the rest investigated. All medical personnel and teachers are mandatory reporters if we know of abuse of minors. The state would not have hesitated to jerk my teaching credentials if I had failed to report any kind of abuse of a child.
            Because PP convinced the mother not to report, failed to report it themselves, and discarded evidence, there were young girls raped after that could have been protected, 5 or 6 out of the 18.

          • sagefemme

            You’re right but, again, you fix the problem, not throw the whole system away. That was one clinic with the equivalent of one days patients. In no way was it right, but you don’t stop going to a gyno because one guy in one state in one clinic was inappropriate.

          • MamaBear

            There have been multiple complaints from across country, over a period of years, of failure to report rapes of minors by PP. They always get out of even being investigated. Probably all that blood money that goes into campaign contributions.
            And when one GYN was inappropriate, I sure the heck stopped going to him, even if he was the only GYN in town!

          • sagefemme

            Yes, they have gone thru many changes in policy and education since then in response to all those issues

          • MamaBear

            The Arizona situation was only 2014.

          • sagefemme

            Oh, i didn’t look at the date. I assumed it was when the whole Lila Rose thing went on. We are usually kept informed of all those things for patient information but since i haven’t worked at PP in a couple years i wasn’t aware of this instance. I know our surgi-centers went thru some changes some years ago due to this kind of stuff.

          • Mitzi

            Those are good scary movies. Annabelle scared me for days

          • PJ4

            Omg, did you see The Conjuring???
            It’s sooooo good.
            Love. It.

            Doh! I left out: The Exorcism of Emily Rose.

            That one sent child down my spine.

          • Mitzi

            Yes I was very pregnant at the movies when I sawthe conjouring that one scared me first lol I love scary movies even if they give me nightmares. Yes Emily Rose! When they fall asleep and the guy wakes up to find her like a pretzel on the floor!

          • PJ4

            OMG!! YES!!

            I love horror and the Occult—been studying for a very long time :-)
            My husband isn’t so keen on horror, but my oldest and I love watching horror together. :-)

          • Eponymous1

            I love scary, but hate gruesome.

          • PJ4

            Oh same here!
            Not into Halloween or Friday the 13th style movies.

          • PJ4

            Right now, we’re watching Grease.. I know it’s a venture from my regular horror.. but I do love this movie. :-)

          • Paul

            Hey PJ, your back in my feeds!

          • Mitzi

            An oldie but a goodie

          • Shep Schultz

            Well, sorry I missed you. Will catch up on your upvotes next time I see you public.

          • Peter Gibson

            Don’t mean to interrupt, but Jeez! The conjuring creeped me out for days. That’s the one with the doll yes?

          • PJ4

            It started off with an interveiw about Anabelle, but the focused mainly on the house in CT
            Anabelle is pretty scary too

          • Paul

            Yup, sometimes life sucks.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, life sucks – first your birth control fails – then someone forces you to carry a baby for someone else. Gotta love communism. Wait ?? Wasnt i the one being called a nazi ??

          • Paul

            Again the false argument. no one is forcing anyone to do anything. Is the threat of law enforcement forcing someone to starve because you will not let them steal?

            And I called you no such thing. Hello! we are different people.

          • sagefemme

            No, you did not call me a Nazi but others here have. Sorry it sounded that way.

            But if you don’t allow abortion to occur then essentially you ARE forcing her to carry that baby to term. It would be like if an animal rights group was able to outlaw putting animals to sleep. That would be forcing someone to keep an animal alive against the owners better judgment. If you dont allow a process to intervene then you are essentially forcing their hand to deal with the alternative.

          • Paul

            That is absolute BullSh!t.
            I never said I would never allow abortion to occur. I am a realist and have no power to “don’t allow it” If you cannot converse with me without twisting what I say into things it clearly is not then I have your measure and have no further reason to continue the dialog.

            “Essentially forcing” is not force. Quit saying it is. It is silly.

          • PJ4

            But Paul, she’s so good at twisting words.
            Take a look at what she’s accused me of saying.
            She’s a psychic.
            Let her do what’ she good at doing–other than baby killing

          • Paul

            That isn’t my way.

          • sagefemme

            “essentially forcing” is not forcing ? Ok, so for Paul purposes, lets remove the word ‘essentially ‘ then you’re left with FORCing. So explain that please.
            And if you don’t want to continue the dialog because you’re used to women cowering before you then i totally understand. Its best you continue with dialoging with those like minded individuals here. Makes the debate easier for you.

          • Paul

            I have time and time again pointed out that this delusion of force you have is yours, I can’t explain that.

          • sagefemme

            Of course you cant explain it, Paul. Explaining it would make it a real phenomenon. You know, kind of like physics, if you block one route you force it to take another. We can’t have any realness in the debate, just Paul-isms.

          • Paul

            Desperately looking for content in reply……Please wait, all of our representatives are currently busy but we do care about your opinion of us……Click.

          • sagefemme

            Oh yes, always good to hang the phone up when the opposing party disagees. So much easier than fighting. Good call.

            (Wonder how many opposing parties lasted past the ‘delusions’ and ‘loss of fluids’ rhetoric. )

          • Paul

            There was literally nothing in your reply to the previous post to respond to. Even less in this one. Completely vacuous nothing. Do you get paid by the line?

          • sagefemme

            Paul, you couldn’t find something to respond to if you wrote it yourself.

            What happened to “click” ?

            Dont worry. It’s ok, you’re not the first person to claim ignorance to get away with having to find a legit argument. Funny how others are reading my posts and responding. So catch up or sit the race out, it’s that simple. Your game ain’t original.

          • Paul

            Pretty full of yourself. It’s OK, everybody needs a hobby. Do their responses validate you? Was there something you needed?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, and your hobby is trolling.

            I get all the validation i need everyday from the people that surround me in real life. I don’t need it from a forum.

            What do I need ? Hmmm… you to make sense or stop trolling and polluting my inbox.

          • MamaBear

            You dare compare pregnancy with an STD!
            As for nausea, very few women have nonstop nausea for the whole 9 months. In fact most women feel pretty good through the majority of pregnancy.
            I’ve been pregnant three times. I’ve been through many other things in life a lot harder than pregnancy, including currently being indefinitely on meds that cause nausea. (My oncologist considers nausea a minor side effect.)
            When you listen to pro-aborts’ drama, you wonder how the human race ever survived, much less reached a population of billions. But, even before modern medicine, the majority of pregnancies were healthy. Today in the US, only about 650 women die per year from pregnancy related causes, including abortion deaths. That is only 650 out of over 4 million pregnant women. Your odds of surviving a car accident are far worse.

          • sagefemme

            I do dare. Have you ever had a vaginal or belly itch that lasted months?
            And “pro-aborts” dont encourage drama. We are just realistic. Pregnancy isn’t always a cake walk. Yes, it hurts me to tell a woman her ‘ailment’ will last until delivery. But that’s whats reality. It’s what we do for our babies.
            I’m not familiar with the drama you speak of but it’s entertaining. :)

          • MamaBear

            By drama I mean how hyper-dramatic pro-aborts are.
            If you have an itch you can scratch, you are LUCKY!!! Thousands and thousands of women deal with permanent pains and itches after mastectomies. (They used to claim they faded away, a John Hopkins study showed when nothing can be done, women stopped complaining. One of my anti-cancer drugs made my vagina so dry and painful, I almost was unable to walk. (Current drug causes mouth sores.)

          • PJ4

            Hahah yes, I was thinking drama queen too!

          • MamaBear

            Really difficult pregnancies exist, I’ve known several and no doubt you have, too. Every mom was fine after the baby came.
            I did have one dear friend who was told not to get pregnant, and we lost her because she could not take her medicine while pregnant. I understand there are new safer drugs for her condition now where women no longer have to risk their lives if they want a baby. I blame abortion for her death because there was such a shortage of adoptable babies in her area, she decided to take the risk.
            I feel that they are devaluing and disrespecting the women who do have real pregnancy related problems by their childish exaggerations and whining about normal pregnancies.
            Comparing pregnancy with STDs? There are no words for the depravity of that!

          • PJ4

            Maybe she Gary’s alter ego

          • Mr. G.

            Are you suggesting that instead of having an abortion, women should be patted on the head and told, “There, there, dear. Other people have health problems and physical discomfort too.”?

          • sagefemme

            I guess ‘ hyper drama ‘ can exist on both sides. And i have had experience with those god forsaken cancer, RA and MS diseases with my patients, family and friends . The impact on the quality of life is great and sad. I wish you well in dealing with it.

          • MamaBear

            Thank you.

          • cargosquid

            See…look at that/
            You agree that there is no connection other than fluid transfer.

            The fact that the baby is totally dependent upon the mother does not make the child any less an individual.

          • sagefemme

            The fetus can’t survive without its very own designated mother. So, they can never be separated. Even doctors will save the mother first.
            So, is your argument about the word or the concept ? Either way …..

          • cargosquid

            Babies survive all the time thanks to medical miracles.

            They cannot survive, typically, but they are STILL separate individual persons.

            Please….point out ANY portion of a fetus that is also a portion of the mother.

          • sagefemme

            The placenta – its embedded into the uterus. Like a scab embedded on a cut. With out the uterine wall of the mother the fetus would not survive – even with a miracle.

          • cargosquid

            Sooooo…

            That doesn’t mean that the fetus is not a SEPARATE being.

          • sagefemme

            It cannot BE anything separately. Its like splitting you brain into their 2 SEPARATE halfs, they can only function properly if joined together.

          • cargosquid

            What part of no physical connection did you miss?

            The fetus is a separate being that depends on the mother. Said baby will not be able to survive on its own for YEARS……so if you are using the dependency on the mother for survival argument… your logic states that they aren’t separate for years.

            Why is this so hard for you to understand? It is bio 101. There is NO actual connection other than fluid tranfer within the placenta. The fetus is not an actual part of the mother….just INSIDE the mother.

          • sagefemme

            Ahhh….last i checked …Bio 101 expert that you are. The mother and baby are separated at birth. The newborn can then be dependent on someone else besides the mother. Isn’t that how the whole adoption thing works. You. Give. The. Baby. Away. At . Birth. Come on now. ….
            Hahaha something DEPENDANT INSIDE of you is not part of you ?? your liver is a not a separate dependant a part of you ???

          • cargosquid

            The point is that you stated that the baby was a part of the mother due to life support. That was all.

            STILL waiting for you to provide the bio 101 statement that shows the baby is NOT a separate being on life support in the mother.

            Again…. TWO individuals.

          • Paul

            With different DNA, a legally accepted means of telling one individual from another.

          • sagefemme

            See, thats the thing, separate OR individual, without the accompanying life support your nothing. So is your point that the life support is the deciding factor or the individual /separate thing ?

          • cargosquid

            The life support does not matter……the baby is a separate being from conception. Thus…. any woman that is making such decisions is making a decision about another being. Thus….the irony of using the word…sanctity.

          • sagefemme

            How could life support not matter when the very existence of the fetus depends on it. And with your thinking the fetus then gets all the deciding power over another being – the mother.

          • cargosquid

            The life support does not matter in the definition. You are being willfully obtuse.

            The fetus is a separate being. I said nothing about “deciding.” I only mentioned the biological fact that this isn’t only about the mother’s body. THAT is a lie. Any decisions are including the life of another living being.

          • sagefemme

            No I’m not being obtuse. I’m just not giving you the answer you want. Separate is not equal. You cannot have one without the other. If you don’t want a woman to abort then take her seperate fetus and try to give it life support yourself. It won’t work, therefore they can’t be separated.
            And you did say something about deciding. You used the word “decision” to be exact. It implies the need to make one.

          • cargosquid

            You are the one being defensive about the decision.

            Go back and read my original statement.

            All I said was that there was a separate being. THAT fact merely throws your narrative that its all about the woman’s body into disarray. I did not bring up any other controversy about abortion. Deciding is the very issue. A woman DECIDES to have an abortion. But the fact is that she is deciding for TWO individuals.

          • sagefemme

            Ok, lets take the woman’s body out of it. Now the newborn is separate. Who decides for it ?

          • cargosquid

            Whoever is the guardian of said child. Could be the mother, father, or third party, since you stated newborn. Newborns have legal rights.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, whoever is deemed the guardian. That can only occur with a third person if the mother deems it. Unless the mother harms the baby then she would be the one to say. At that point the newborn can live off someone else. And yes, harm to a newborn is different than harm to an embryo because an embryo cannot be separated and cared for by someone else.

          • cargosquid

            Or if a court deems it.

            But your statements about newly born children do not affect the fact that any decision still affects a separate being inside the mother. A living being.

          • sagefemme

            You wanted to take the woman’s body out of the decision. I was making the point that the woman is the one making the decision so you can’t take her out of the equation. The embryo cannot make the decision so therefore it falls on the mother

          • cargosquid

            No I didn’t.
            SHE has to make the decision. I even stated that openly. I stated that SHE has to take the fact that there is a separate living being into consideration. THAT is all I said. I didn’t even say that she shouldn’t or couldn’t have an abortion anywhere in my statements to you.

            I just pointed out that it is not ONLY the woman’s body that is involved and that IF she chooses abortion, she has to acknowledge the fact that she is making a decision that involves another living being.

          • sagefemme

            Any woman coming in for an abortion knows its an embryo /fetus/baby. I don’t let them think it’s ‘just a ball of cells ‘ . I have models that i show them. The same models i show women coming in for a prenatal appt. Usually the girls asking about what it looks like they are on the fence. They have made a mistake and just want it to go away. That whole ‘separate living being’ is not going to make a difference whether i say it or not. They know it can’t be separated with out being terminated. It’s like telling them if they continue they will end up with a baby. They already know.

          • martin

            I am pro-abortion ,but there is a lie to say that the fetus is not a human being.

          • PJ4

            You know Martin, I may disagree with your way of thinking vehemently, but I have a lot of respect for you.
            You are not afraid of what you believe in .

            Kudos.

          • sagefemme

            The fetus survival depends on only one person, without it ….death. You cannot separate what is completely dependant. Yes, it is a fetal human – no argument there.

          • PJ4

            So, you think that the dependent don’t deserve life due to the whim of the stronger person

            Interesting

          • sagefemme

            Yes, if the one and only stronger person doesn’t want to host its dependence then yes. And before you get in the disabled rhetoric, save it cause someone else can always care for them – it doesn’t HAVE to be the mother. We wouldn’t force a mom to take care of a profoundly disabled child – they can out him in a home for someone else to do it.

          • PJ4

            Lol, you jump to so many conclusions about what you think I’m going to say

            But, just as I thought…every pro abort is a solid believer in might=right

          • sagefemme

            Wait ??? Is that the pot calling the kettle black ?? Stereotype much ??
            First off, been down that road. Blah, blah, blah. ..should we off the disabled because they are weak, innocent, no quality of life. ..yeah yeah heard it all before. Don’t act like you weren’t going there. Otherwise you wouldn’t have used the word “dependant ” and “stronger”. Just because we don’t care for women the way YOU think we should doesn’t make us any less compassionate. In fact, we are more so, we see it all ways, you only see one.

          • PJ4

            Actually I wasn’t going there.
            But please continue to tell me what I’m thinking and feeling.
            It’s quite entertaining.

            You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?

          • sagefemme

            Oh, I’ll tell you. YOU continued to tell me i was stereotyping. Then you stereotyped me.
            Clear enough now, dearie? ? Sorry, you couldn’t see it. I wouldn’t want you to put forth the effort to read it again and pay attention – you know, with your easy life, maids and daycare, and all……

          • PJ4

            Yes dear, I know…I was giving you a dose of your own medicine
            Clearly you missed that part

            And I don’t do daycare

          • sagefemme

            Lol….really ? That’s a good tactic. When I do it, call me out. But when you do it, its ok because your just retaliating. Ok, what are you 17 ? I raised 5 teenagers – i heard it all.

          • PJ4

            Yes, it’s a good tactic, I agree.

            Thanks

            I raised 5 teenagers – i heard it all.

            Would you like a medal for that?

          • sagefemme

            Nope, having 5 well adjusted kids and grandkids are enough. Why would i want a medal for doing the right thing? No pat on the back needed for completing the job you started.

          • PJ4

            In your world the Wes should be subject to the wil of the strong
            Thank you for confirming your sub human views

          • sagefemme

            Yes, im sub human because i help woman. So, you are above me because you adopted babies ?? Or volunteer?
            Let me tell you a little about my sub human ways – while you were soliciting and handing out free stuff, i was lobbying for womens rights in Austin and DC. You want to breastfeed in public…yes, that was us. You want to choose vaccinating or not ? Yes, us too. Oh, how about the right to have your baby at home ? Yes, that too. So, your right to carry a pregnancy or not, will always be considered. Because as hard as it to believe a baby is not always a blessing in every home.
            This is a women’s issue, not religious, not fetal. And as sad as infertility is, i wont stand by and assist the forcing of women to have babies for those who can’t or dont want to. Failed birth control is not a good enough reason to turn your womb into someone elses property. Pushing the adoptive approach, although it sounds sweet is doing just that.

          • PJ4

            Your rant is unwarranted
            Btw…Ive never stood around handing out free stuff and fliers
            This is civil rights issue
            Every child has a right to their own life–location notwithstanding
            I won’t stand by and allow you to kill babies just bc they’re an inconvenience to their mother

          • sagefemme

            Oh i see, my rant is unwarranted because you are to busy or to good to volunteer your time when there’s not a possible baby involved.
            Don’t worry. While you’re soliciting babies, ill be lobbying for your rights.

            Yeah, i kill babies….whatever helps you sleep….. And you prey on vulnerable women to get you and your fake perfect family another trophy baby.
            Oh and im sorry to inform you late in the game – babies are an inconvenience. Unless you have maids and nannies.
            I need to ask – do you inform your victims at the CPC that you have that luxury ??
            Civil rights? Really? Bleeding heart much?

          • PJ4

            LOL, calm down little lady! Drama much?
            You really shouldn’t let your anger control your comments.
            Pro tip: an orgasm a day, keeps the anger aways.

            I’m not soliciting babies–you’re killing them.
            I don’t need you to lobby for my rights.

            I see you have a problem with people who have maids and nannies. Do you want to take about it? Maybe get it off your chest?

            I don’t hide anything from the women I’ve helped. Many have them have been to my home.

            Yes dear. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it–the right to your life is a civil right.

            Again… I don’t prey on vulnerable women, you do.
            Clearly you cannot see past your own hypocrisy
            You get paid for killing babies, I don’t get paid to help save them from your scalpel.
            You are a sick woman.

          • sagefemme

            Yes this is dramatic exchange for sure. But i dont have to calm down cause i am calm. I’m just responding to you the way you respond to me. And im glad to see you have a little passion about orgasms – see, now you should try one for him on your knees.

            Really? You don’t need me to lobby for your rights ? Why ? are you a lobbyist now too ? I suppose your rights just appeared. Or do you just go with the flow and then complain when someone tells you what to do. Homebirth and breastfeeding weren’t always protected. I guess if you don’t have a need to exercise those rights then who cares about them. Your personal desires/needs are evidently so much more important than others.

            Not hiding your lifestyle and material goods are not what I mean. Hiding or lying about facts is what im talking about. See, i am a medical professional, i don’t get to insert my viewpoint and my viewpoint only. I have to abide by informed consent. I have to give all evidence based fact whether i agree or not. CPC people can insert and say whatever they want to accomplish their goal. Sure, if a girls on the fence about abortion don’t think you don’t pull out your best adoption story and your worst abortion story. Please. Im not stupid
            The only one you are accountable to id yourself and what you want. Must be nice. I’m held to much higher standards and ethics and I take that very seriously.

            I don’t have an issue with maids but nannies are a mom replacement so no, why have kids or adopt them if you had no intention on raising them yourself ? They are children, not trophies for photo ops.
            Yes, women have civil rights too, the right to stay pregnant or not, since you don’t need anyone lobbying for you, I wouldn’t expect you to understand that concept.

            Again, I don’t get paid for offering abortion and the only thing I’ve used a scapel for is excising a cyst. Just so we are clear about the money issue – one more time…..

          • PJ4

            Yes this is dramatic exchange for sure. But i don’t have to calm down cause i am calm.

            You’re obviously not. You sound enraged.

            I’m just responding to you the way you respond to me.

            No you’re not.

            Really? You don’t need me to lobby for your rights ? Why ? are you a lobbyist now too ?

            I never said I was.

            I just don’t need you.

            I don’t have an issue with maids but nannies are a mom replacement so no, why have kids or adopt them if you had no intention on raising them yourself ? They are children, not trophies for photo ops.

            I do raise them.

            Having help isn’t a bad thing.

            Yes, I agree, they’re children not trophies for photo ops.

            Again, I don’t get paid for offering abortion and the only thing I’ve used a scapel for is excising a cyst. Just so we are clear about the money issue – one more time…..

            You do abortions for free??

          • sagefemme

            Enraged? Over a debate forum? Naw, my skin’s thicker than that. This is nothing but entertainment for me.

            You may not think you dont want me to lobby for your rights but to me your rights are just as important as any other womens. Sorry, you don’t have a choice on that one. Im out there doing my part.

            I have done my share of freebies, yes. I also worked for a salary, all services were included. I got paid no matter if they got it or not. Counseling is free for them all the time.

          • Mary Lee

            Martin, I may disagree with you, but I do respect your honesty. Would that all those who support abortion rights were honest, too.

          • PJ4

            100% agree with you there Mary Lee!!!

          • PJ4

            “Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual

            Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            What was that?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I notice that SageBrush is not responding to your facts and evidence, PJ4. I’m in shock.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, the process of reproduction is amazing. So, even if we change the word it still doesn’t change the fact that the fetus is nothing without its host mother. They cannot be separated. So this “unique individual ” is unique in that it needs a host to survive.

          • PJ4

            We cannot survive without our host Mother Earth either

          • sagefemme

            You’re right, and she took my last pregnancy – so shes pro-abortion too ???

            Wait, if shes pro-abortion then she must kill every baby…..but she doesn’t. ..hmmmm… how could that be ?? She’s selective, she chooses. Sounds more pro-choice to me.

          • PJ4

            That’s odd.. I don’t remember saying that she was… do you?

          • sagefemme

            Oh, i see. It’s only the way you see it. Okay, maybe you been in to many volunteer positions to understand. You said “you can’t survive without our host mother earth”
            Got it? Now picture Mother Earth deciding to take my pregnancy away. Bye bye baby. Not my choice, it was Mother Earths choice. Sorry, did i give you the impression you had a say ? Soooo….using YOUR analogy – mother earth selected to take my baby. Therefore she is pro abortion. Get it?

          • PJ4

            Mother Earth isn’t some kind of god.
            She didn’t take your pregnancy away.
            That was just chance.

            Btw, I’m truly sorry for you loss.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, it was chance. I do appreciate your sympathy, thanks. :) But for me i was actually relieved. I was too old and was on birth control. In fact, my sisters and my daughters and i have the Irish fertility curse. 3 of us got pregnant on birth control more than once. Everything from condoms to IUDs. Abortions have been a necessary evil for our family on rare occasions. (No, not all were aborted, some were kept, one was adopted out) Without the abortion option very unnecessary life choices would have been made. Looking back, and im being 100% honest with you, no pro- anything, just 2 women speaking honestly, the only outcome that caused regret was the adoption. And not by the birth mother, by the adopted child. She laments that she we didn’t make room for “her” in our big family. She feels like she was just given away. :(
            I was at her birth, i met her parents, i helped choose her parents, i watched her grow up and she knew about all of us from the start and the reasons why she was given up (it was an open adoption ) . She had a great life and wanted for nothing. Yet the loss of connection with her birth family left a hole in her. Despite that she assumed her position back in our family at 18 she still feel like she missed out. Breaks my heart.

          • PJ4

            That is sad.
            Sorry to hear that.
            This is the first exchange in which you’ve not been derisive, snarky and obnoxious.
            I appreciate that.

          • sagefemme

            i did start out that way. The internet protects our identities and we are able to share in raw form. We are all still real humans at the end of the keyboard. All with stories and experiences like everyone does. Sometimes it’s good to get out feelings you wouldn’t share in person.

          • PJ4

            Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual. —Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)

            It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception. —Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School

            Fertilization
            an act or process of making fertile: as a: an act or process of fecundation, insemination, or impregnation b: the process of union of two gametes whereby the somatic chromosome number is restored and the development of a new individual is initiated
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/fertilization

            Sorry, you were saying?

          • sagefemme

            Christ, didn’t we settle this already? ? Call it an individual all you want – it still cannot survive separately! Even if it could – it still doesn’t make it YOUR choice !

          • PJ4

            You the child in the womb isn’t an individual , I was just making sure you realized you’ve been proven wrong by medical texts and other doctors. You don’t have to lose your temper because I caught you in a falsehood.

            Even if the child is apart of the mother, she has not “right” to kill her child.

          • sagefemme

            I’m not losing my temper dear, but your incessant posting because you figured out how to find a key word is getting old. Yes, it was a doc that used the word individual. Yay. Like i said calling the fetus an individual doesn’t make it any less dependant on the mother. You didn’t catch me in a falsehood, nomenclature is not really a medical research phenomenon unless you are trying to name a drug. So essentially finding the word ‘individual ‘ isn’t much different than finding the word embryo or fetus.
            And a mother does have the right to end her pregnancy. It’s her body. Just like she has the right to chemotherapy. Who are you to make her suffer ??

          • PJ4

            I’m not losing my temper dear, but your incessant posting because you figured out how to find a key word is getting old.

            Lots of things seem to getting old for you.

            Perhaps you just need to get out more?

            Yes, it was a doc that used the word individual. Yay. Like i said calling the fetus an individual doesn’t make it any less dependant on the mother.

            Did I say it did?

            You didn’t catch me in a falsehood, nomenclature is not really a medical research phenomenon unless you are trying to name a drug.

            Yes I did.

            And now your throwing a tantrum all over the place–like my 3 year old.

            And a mother does have the right to end her pregnancy

            Not if it kills the baby, no.

            It’s her body

            The child has a body too, location notwithstanding

            Just like she has the right to chemotherapy. Who are you to make her suffer ??

            A child in the womb isn’t like cancer.
            Who are you to help her kill her kid?

          • cargosquid

            Did she just equate pregnancy to cancer?
            A fetus to a cancer growth?
            Wow.

            We’ve found another eugenicist. Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

          • PJ4

            Why yes, yes she did just equate a child in the womb to cancer.
            This why it’s my belief that all we have to do is let these pro aborts do the talking.

            They’ll change hearts over to the pro life side quicker than we can. :-)

          • cargosquid

            Works the same way with the gun control bigots.

            The more they talk, the more they lose.

          • Paul

            Yup she cares about them so much that she can appreciate that not letting them live will improve their life.

          • sagefemme

            Cancer, has a potential. Who are you to interfere in its destiny ?

            And i get out enough just fine, remember? I raised my babies. But then again i expect that kind of advice from an expert like you, what with all the dating you do.

          • PJ4

            Cancer is not a living human.

            Try as you mast to shame me for being madly in live with my husband, it wont work.
            Again, I’m sorry you had no passion and romance in your marriage when you were raising your kids.
            It’s really a shame

          • sagefemme

            My gosh, you have come full circle. Remember, me talking about how i love to please my man is how this all started. Yeah, remember? ? I was the mysoginist because i took care of my man.

            And for the record, I’ve had more romance and passion, AND child rearing hours going backwards then you could ever think of having.

          • PJ4

            Nope, haven’t come full circle at all

            More that I could ever think of having, eh?
            Sure…..uh huh

          • sagefemme

            Yes, lets see. I’m older, with more kids, no nannies and grandkids = more child rearing hours. But then again, thats just simple numbers, and we already know if the numbers don’t go in your favor you just choose not to believe them so, yeah, uh huh.

          • PJ4

            Well you are older

            And since under reporting doesn’t matter to you–you just take numbers that agree with your position

          • sagefemme

            Ah…yeah. Again, things go under reported all the time. I take numbers from evidence based medicine. Studies have shown over and over with control groups that abortion is safer. These aren’t just from previously recorded numbers.

          • PJ4

            Ok
            What are the studies that had control groups?

          • sagefemme

            I meant ‘controlled’ groups (obviously you can’t have a ‘control group’ in these studies) :)

            The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States
            Raymond, Elizabeth G. MD, MPH; Grimes, David A. MD

            Obstetrics & Gynecology
            February 2012
            Vol. 119 – Issue 2, Part 1: p 215–219

            The methods include limited populations and the results show a significant increase in pregnancy complications vs. complications from abortion. They have also done studies just from viewing vital statistics numbers.

          • PJ4

            This is exactly the study to which I was referring.

            1. Both are abortionists and have at one time worked for PP

            2. Again, the numbers are skewed because the reporting isn’t accurate–regardless of whose fault it is
            3. Serious health complications arising from abortion which threaten the life of the woman are usually handled by hospital emergency rooms, not the abortion provider. Despite being the result of physical complications of the abortion procedure, these abortion-related deaths are reported as maternal deaths.

          • sagefemme

            1. Abortionists typically do studies in their chosen field, psychologists do studies in their chosen field, surgeons do studies in their chosen field etc…

            2. The results are not skewed otherwise after all these years there would have been studies to disprove the numbers.
            Ms. Coleman, the psychologist, has had a whole article written on how her studies were debunked.

            3. Those deaths would not all be classified as maternal deaths without some indication to early /late termination. They would be weeded out of the numbers.

          • PJ4

            1. After all these years? The study only came out maybe a year and a half ago and yes it’s been refuted

            2. There’s a whole article debunking the debunking of Dr Colenam’s research

            3. Not true

          • sagefemme

            <>

            And those studies were based on years of research but access to them online costs money.

            Can i see where these years of studies have been refuted ?

            (This cut and paste screwed up too but im in a hurry…sorry)

          • PJ4

            I have no idea what that is.
            Sorry.
            It looks like something the pro abortion Guttmacher tried to put out as real though…. they like to do that a lot

          • sagefemme

            Priscilla Coleman’s research was also called into question and reviews were published by the same BMJ that originally published her work.
            You can’t ignore reports that you claim are from a “pro-abortion” slant, but then praise a study done by an obvious pro -lifer. Well, i guess you can but it wouldn’t hold much merit

          • PJ4

            Actually I never praised her
            That was all your assumption

          • sagefemme

            Riiight. Its ok. Yes, you never asked about whether i thought the BMJ was reputable and showed me her work??. Whatever.

          • Mitzi

            Hahaha good one

          • No one is a “pro-abort'”.

            Tucker Max sure is. Check out the following exchange from his second best seller, Assholes Finish First. You can find it on page 333 under the chapter “Tucker Bax: Baby Killer.”

            —We were ready to fuck, but like an idiot, I was out of condoms.

            Tucker: “I don’t have a condom.”

            Girl: “I’m not on the pill.”

            Tucker: “Aren’t you pro-choice?”

            Girl: “What? I mean, yeah, but I am not going to purposely use abortion as birth control!”

            Tucker: “What a waste. Why support Roe v. Wade if you’re not going to use it.”

            This is also the same guy who said, “Due to the potent combination of my sexual recklessness and the slutty nature of some of the girls I have
            slept with, I have accumulated enough stories and anecdotes about abortion that they could name a Planned Parenthood clinic after me.”

            No one encourages anyone to terminate their pregnancy as one would try to corrupt someone by offering them an illegal drug or other temptation.

            Abusers do it all the time–it’s an effective way to destroy evidence and dodge child support. And for them, “encouragement” often involves more than just words.

            Joseph Minerd thought that way–he was convicted of using homemade explosives to murder his pregnant ex-girlfriend, Deana Mitts, after she refused to have an abortion. Also killed in the blast was Mitts’ 3 year-old daughter. http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2002/Pa-Men-Gets-Life-For-Firebombings/id-154f7d5446a665b04600c8d1c231ae7a

            Shamari Jenkins was also murdered after she refused her boyfriend’s demands for an abortion. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338710/Man-begged-friend-kill-girlfriend-refused-abortion.html

            Hawa Gabbidon died the same way. http://www.wbtv.com/story/19014776/murdered

            Tanner Hopkins’ girlfriend is alive, but that’s just because her boyfriend wasn’t much of a marksman. He opened fire on her in drive-by shooting following her clinic trip refusal. http://www.whio.com//news/news/local/pregnant-woman-shot-babys-father/nZyFF/

            Tasha Rossett’s boyfriend preferred to cut his way out of an unwanted pregnancy; the 23 year-old woman was found dead with a slashed throat after she argued against aborting their child.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/surrey-man-convicted-in-2005-murder-of-pregnant-lover-1.1357452

            Leah Diver found herself on the wrong side of her boyfriend’s knife too. The reason? You guessed it–refusal to abort. She did survive, although the multiple stab wounds probably didn’t make it easy. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/08/19/teen_held_in_pregnant_womans_stabbing/

            Nathanael Plourde beat his pregnant girlfriend to death as a result of her reluctance to abort. http://www.canada.com/cityguides/toronto/info/story.html?id=16c6d45c-7ef1-4068-bd8f-65838bbd9132

            Katelyn Kampf was tied up and shoved in the back of a car for her trip to the clinic.http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/09/18/maine-parents-charged-with-kidnapping-pregnant-daughter/

            And Shaniesha Forbes was smothered with a blanket and then set on fire after refusing to exercise her “right to choose.” http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maine-man-accused-killing-shaniesha-forbes-thought-pregnant-article-1.1345779

            Keep in mind that these cases are likely just the tip of the iceberg since we don’t know how many more women just give up and agree to an abortion because they knew they’ll face violence if they refuse. We also don’t know how many are subject to financial pressure, loss of their home, or threats against friends and family members.

            Of course, pro-abortion violence doesn’t just come in the form of murder–rape is a popular past time as well. Specifically, child rapists use abortion to cover-up their crimes, thus allowing them to continue. It worked for Gary Cross–he got Planned Parenthood to refer his 13 year-old
            step-daughter for a late-term abortion, thus hiding the evidence of his crimes. When she got back, the abuse resumed. http://archive.lifenews.com/state3469.html

            Timothy Smith took a similar approach: http://liveactionnews.org/lawsuit-planned-parenthood-sent-teen-back-to-sex-abuser/

            As did John Blanks Jr.: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/12/08/state-5726//2007/0

            Dito Adam Gault: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/08/02/charges_added_in_alleged_abduction/

            Denise Fairbanks alleged in her lawsuit against Planned Parenthood that she was specifically told clinic staff that she was being brought in by her incestuous father. While they didn’t report what she said, they did abort her child and thus help cover up the crime. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/21/planned-parenthood-forced-to-settle-suit-failed-to-report-child-rape/

            You can also find a list of 50 additional cases here: http://www.childpredators.com/

            So as you can see, for some people the “pro-abort” label fits.

            If a person is ill equipped to adequately raise and care for a child, then they should have the choice to not.

            They do have that choice–it’s called adoption. In fact, there’s currently a shortage of adoptable infants in America with long lines of couples: http://parentprofiles.com/

          • sagefemme

            Really? Tucker Max is your poster child for an example of pro-aborts??
            And using REAL murderers to further make your point doesnt count either. Normal people don’t go around advocating for abortion – thats the point. Crazies aren’t normal people.
            As far as adoption – thats not the answer. Adopted kids have issues from being given up. Your just trading one problem for another.

          • Paul

            And aborted kids don’t have issues? I have always wondered about the idea that the Pro-life people don’t really CARE about a baby once it is born but pro aborts CARE about the quality of life a baby might have experienced if it was allowed to live.

            Cognitive dissonance much?

          • sagefemme

            Not really, but at least you agree that pro- lifers could care less about the quality of life just that there is life. Here’s the thing, most woman who seek abortion know exactly what kind of life they can provide for their prospective child. How are a bunch of screamimg strangers supposed to know better ?
            As far as the issues of aborted fetus’ – thats just a new kinda crazy.

          • Paul

            Wow. You cannot even consider my ideas without misrepresenting them. Read it again, I made no such agreement. Nothing in your post responds to anything I said. It is counter-point without substance.

          • sagefemme

            Aborted fetus issues – check
            Pro-lifers not caring about the future of the child – check
            Pro-abortion caring about the quality of the childs future -check

            With the exception of the misunderstanding it looks like i addressed all your points.

          • Paul

            Yes you did. Thank you.

            The only difference is that your care is valid and the straw-man care you define as ours is not. It’s just so darned obvious. It is not remarkable that you tout your own morality while dismissing your invention of another’s. Don’t you see what you have just said?

            “Pro-abortion caring about the quality of the childs future -check”

            This isn’t about women’s rights, this is clearly eugenic euthanasia. That your care for their future justifies ending that future. They have been judged unworthy.

          • sagefemme

            If its so darned obvious then why haven’t I heard any stories about the after care ? The care i give IS valid. These women seek me out, i don’t advertise. These women have done a lot of thinking way before they call on me. And for the record, MY morality has nothing to do with these womens choices. I just respect that each one of us comes from a unique place.
            Eugenic euthanasia? Wow, I’m just helping women in my community, not trying to to change the whole world. I don’t have time for that.

          • Paul

            Are you really using the “Don’t shoot me, I’m just the piano player” defense? And for the record we *were* talking about your beliefs and now you hold up these women as shields? This isn’t about them, this is about what you said.

            “Pro-abortion caring about the quality of the childs future -check”

            A care that results in the cared for ones death is euthanasia. Two paths were open: live or not live. Not live was chosen as an act of caring? Your point was made irrespective of the mother. OWN IT.

          • cargosquid

            Appears to be the same “We had to destroy the village to save the village” mindset.

            I’ve had people tell me that children should be aborted for their own good, because their life might be hard…..

          • Paul

            I’ve heard that so many times. I think it’s a snarky deflection, “Well since you don’t really care….”
            If it wasn’t so disgusting it would be merely idiotic.

          • cargosquid

            The scary par is that I don’t think it IS snark. They’re serious. They think that its an improvement. Right from the eugenics playbook.

          • Paul

            You might be right but I can’t bear to consider it. Everybody has a blind spot. Mine is that I do not want to believe in casual evil. History forces us to see things we do not want to see. Sometimes, history sucks.

          • cargosquid

            I completely believe in casual evil.

            Thus I’m becoming a history teacher and perhaps enlighten the new minds……

          • sagefemme

            My point was made BECAUSE of the mother. This is what i own – because you guys dont get it. We are not pro abortion we are pro CHOICE soooooooo yes, its all about the mom and HER choice. Me, myself, wouldn’t have an abortion because i couldn’t do it. But i wouldn’t bottlefeed or vaccinate or put my baby in daycare. THOSE are MY choices. The beauty about being pro choice is that i get to embrace ALL choices. I have delivered babies happily for women who don’t believe in abortion. I don’t care what they believe. I don’t have to agree, i am there for THEM. If a woman comes to me and tells me she can’t provide a good life for her baby, i believe her. I don’t have the resources to help every woman that comes thru my door. I give her what she tells me she needs for HER life. That’s just being practical. Noone can adopt or pay for every possible abortion. Why are we so wrapped up in impossibilities when we can strive to help a few.

          • Paul

            I don’t question your motives or ideals, I disagree with what you do and say. Why you do it isn’t really important to me if what you do is in error. The ends don’t justify the means and the intent doesn’t excuse the act.

          • sagefemme

            And i would say ‘error’ is in the eyes of the beholder. If i see a bottlefeeding mother, i disagree with that act. But if what you’re saying is true then it doesn’t matter that she is on chemo and lost one of her breasts. She is still wrong in her actions because her reasons don’t matter ?

          • Paul

            That is sophistry, pure and simple. A deflection. You are conflating practical reasons with motives and ideals. Do you consider this an honest form of dialog or just point scoring?

          • sagefemme

            Why do you ask ? Because you have nothing to say in return that can deflect it back to me ? Does the dialog so closely reflect your last statement that your confused about its meaning ?

            You decided what i do is an error in your book no matter what my reasons. I say, your definition of error is different than mine. Example stated.

            So you kill a man because he was on top of your 6 year old trying to penetrate her – you kill him. The intent was to save her but the act was murder. Sounds like an error to me so you are the one in the wrong. Practical reasons, motives. Certainly not idealistic, unless your intent is to gently stop him, share a beer and the nearest shrink.

            No, its not point scoring – i dont need to do that. No deceit intended. But you know im right. Error is in the eye of the beholder.

          • Paul

            You cannot discuss it without dishonestly misstating my post. I never made any judgement about your reasons. you are just justifying yourself with a self-manufactured outrage. It’s called playing the victim card.

            Your emotion filled responses are only deflection. Why does the rape of my 6 year old daughter have to be brought into this? In the repulsive scenario you invented the perpetrator would die because it was time to die. whether it was murder or justifiable homicide would be for a court to decide. A process you don’t acknowledge as relevant for the death of child at any time before birth.

            Once again, I don’t give a rosy rats a$$ if you intend to be deceitful while you continue to be deceitful. You are a troll, mangling fact, another’s words and reason for your ossified ideology. That you choose do do it here makes you an operative.

          • sagefemme

            There is no emotion Paul. Just life.

            Obviously you mis read my analogies as emotion. I was just using real life scenarios. You disagree with me no matter what i say. You deem it so it is so. I didn’t misstate your post. You said what i did was in error. Thats your OPINION. Was i wrong or am i still missing it ?

            Its called question marks, not outrage. Trust me, nothing you say could ever make me waste that much energy.

            Deceitful – thats also your opinion. So accuse me of being a troll. Im not mangling anyones words just answering your post to me. Problem is, your not getting your intended reaction. Sorry. You won’t. If this forum is for pro life people to just stroke each others egos then stroke on.

          • Paul

            You just can’t help it. You actually seem to think you are honest and act with integrity.

            Yes, you misstated my post.
            Yes, I said you are in error. And yes, it is my opinion. And yes, I answered your direct question, something you seem to be incapable of.

            And you are a troll regardless of what I might be. The two things are unrelated. Was there something else you needed?

          • sagefemme

            No, thank god.

            I AM honest and act with integrity. Since you mean absolutely nothing to me or the women i serve, thats what i will leave with. That and the fact that i have said more in one post than you did in 17.

            Love the arrogance. I’m a troll cause Paul says so. Thank god nobody but you gives a crap. Your posts are just fodder for me to laugh at.

            Your best bet is to keep stroking the others’ pro life philosophy, because this way you won’t get frustrated.

          • PJ4

            If its so darned obvious then why haven’t I heard any stories about the after care ?

            Perhaps because you refuse to listen

            http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/03/pro-lifers-love-fetus-but-they-dont.html?m=1

            http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/

            http://www.lifenews.com/2015/01/20/how-can-abortion-activists-say-pro-lifers-dont-care-about-kids-after-birth-when-they-kill-them-before/

            Now go ahead and tell me how this is invalid because they are from pro life source and it violates your the sense of comfort you get from you sacred stereotypes.

          • sagefemme

            I don’t discount charity work. I know it makes my stance easier to stomach because you think im a bad person all around. I went thru Catholic Charities during my first pregnancy when I contemplated adoption. The problem i have is that the charity stops once the baby comes. Then the girls are told that the free stuff ends when the baby is older. They are then directed towards thrift shops and churches. Is that a quality of life ?? As long as the baby was saved from abortion who cares that they live under a bridge?
            I don’t typically do stereotypes but i dealt with pro lifers a lot. Yes, they tend to be the same mindset and dont respect the women – even the ones coming for pap smears!

          • PJ4

            And that is where you are dead wrong.

            It does not stop after the child is born.
            Often times it doesn’t stop until the mother is able to support the child on her own.
            If it wasn’t for the free daycare at the local CPC, Id have never finished college and stared a job.

            You need to look beyond your stereotypes of pro lifers.
            Would you be happy if I judged all pro aborts by this guy?

            http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2006-12-14/news/hey-diddle-diddle/

            or this guy?
            http://newsok.com/controversial-oklahoma-city-area-abortion-doctor-arrested-after-undercover-investigation/article/5374338

            or this guy?

            http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/abortionist-arrested-after-woman-bleeds-to-death-73425602.html

            or this guy?

            http://www.nbc24.com/news/story.aspx?id=1120908#.VPPqFSlWKTB

            or this Gosnel.

          • sagefemme

            Ok, enough with the stereotypes. These are actual cases i talk about. There’s enough reality I’ve dealt with, i don’t need to make things up.
            There are bad docs in every field. We just had 2 arrested for taking medicare funds from my elderly patients. Just like there are bad pro lifers who kill doctors and blow up clinics. I dont judge by a few.

          • PJ4

            You obviously do judge many by a few
            You’ve proved it all over this page

          • sagefemme

            Thats why i said enough. You are not that high and mighty that you haven’t done it yourself. Try “just like all pro-aborts” or “typical pro-abort” or starters.
            So lets agree that we either both are or are not and be done with it.

          • PJ4

            Ok
            Let’s do

          • PJ4

            Callous regard of the child in the womb–check

            Pro aborts not caring about the future of the child–check

            Pro abort not caring about the quality of the child’s future–check.

            Pro lifers volunteering their time, money and energy towards mother and child before and after birth–check .

          • sagefemme

            So now your just slinging words ? Or just cant think of your own posts ?
            I have high regard for the fetus in the womb – otherwise I wouldn’t do what i do.
            And make sure you check off baby stalker. Yes, we have a term for you too.

          • PJ4

            Nope, just showing you ridiculous you sound
            Baby stalker?
            I guess it’s better that baby killer–that’s what you do

          • Mitzi

            Lol PJ I didn’t know you were a baby stalker. I’m not sure how

          • PJ4

            Lmao, I know!!
            Keep reading her tripe
            The best is yet to come!!

            Oh btw, I have an actual stalker…click on my profile to see my feed
            It’s hilarious and a bit scary

          • Mitzi

            Oh I get it now…those babies your “stalking” are gonna make her big bucks. She wants you and all pro lifers far away so she can do what she does best.

          • PJ4

            Precisely

            But you’ve gotta check out my stalker
            She’s a hoot
            She spends all her time stalking my profile, taking screen shots of my comments and then blogging about on her pathetic little blog.
            She’s got no social life
            There’s also a prepubescent boy named Purr with multiple personality disorder who stalks my profile and memorizes my comments
            They’re trying to “trap me” in a lie
            Lol
            Oh it just can’t get an better
            All their shrinks know about me

          • Mitzi

            Lol Purr is male? Hmmm….I dunno it’s kinda creepy but then again they are pro aborts after all.

          • PJ4

            Heh
            I know
            Pro aborts are very creepy

            Um….maybe
            ER insists purr is a chick, but Ibe got my doubts
            Purr changes his name every few days
            Complete but job

          • Mitzi

            Oh my gosh PJ I don’t know how you do it. Your will is strong. Your stomach even stronger

          • PJ4

            Thank you Mizti

            I’ve decided to ignore them as much as possible

            I realize they’ve given me a lot of power over their otherwise empty minds
            I mean, they cannot stop going on and on about me

            It’s flatering, but…it’s also slightly scary

          • Mitzi

            Hahaha that’s true but your right. You don’t know how far they’ll go. Perhaps one day pro aborts will be obsolete

          • Mitzi

            Expect resistance?

          • PJ4

            Yup!

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i sound ridiculous because i don’t agree. Oh, and your name calling and WTF’s make you sound, what ? Intelligent ?

          • PJ4

            Nane calling?
            What name did I call you?
            And since when is “wtf” a bad thing to ask?

            I think you need some lessons in pop culture dear

          • sagefemme

            WTF ?? Yes, a bad thing when you are not acquaintances. Would you say it to your kids teacher ?
            Ahhh….does “mysoginist” ring a bell ??

          • PJ4

            If my kid’s teacher said something snarky to me in order to extract that kind of reaction, yes I would
            Thats not name calling, that’s making an observation

          • sagefemme

            Yes, asking ‘what you did’ was snarky. Ok, sure.

          • PJ4

            Yes, actually, it was.
            You never expected me to answer the way I did.
            Then you got mad because I didn’t fit into your narrow stereotype and started a whole rant and tantrum.

          • sagefemme

            Thats funny, no i expected you to do just that. This ain’t my first rodeo. I figured you probably worked for a CPC. And i knew you had a story to tell. I read a lot before i jumped on. It lets you know who’s on what side, the newbies, the trolls, the pontificators, the im-gonna-change- everyone’s – opinion, the passion-istas that think everything is an argument…etc..
            I shared and then left it open for you and instead of sharing back you took the nanny nanny boo boo WTF approach. When i was merely responding to your misplaced “pop culture” saying, you took it as a challenge to show you belong here. You wanted me to go off on a “rant” so you could prove to everyone i was a ‘typical pro-abort.’ You turned question marks into ‘rage’ and sarcasm into a supposed tantrum. I didn’t give you what you wanted so you invented it.
            As far as stereotypes go, i was just stating what goes on for real in the CPCs around here . Not what i “think” they do. So its truth, not stereotypes. And unless you have been in on a counseling for a woman contemplating an abortion its just conjecture and therefore its not accurate.

          • PJ4

            Thats funny, no i expected you to do just that.

            No you didn’t

            This ain’t my first rodeo.

            Yes, we’re all well aware of that

            I figured you probably worked for a CPC.

            And you figured wrong
            I don’t
            I volunteered at the CPC that helped through my own crisis pregnancy and I donate to them every month
            I haven’t been able to volunteer for some time though

            And i knew you had a story to tell
            Don’t we all?

            I read a lot before i jumped on. It lets you know who’s on what side, the newbies, the trolls, the pontificators, the im-gonna-change- everyone’s – opinion, the passion-istas that think everything is an argument…etc..

            Good for you
            *Pat on the back (that you’ll say you don’t want but really you do)

            I shared and then left it open for you and instead of sharing back you took the nanny nanny boo boo WTF approach.

            You said “Now, i would love to hear how you are helping the babies who weren’t aborted.”
            Which came off as snark to me bc I’ve heard this question from many a pro abort as a trap question

            Apologies if you didn’t mean it that way

            When i was merely responding to your misplaced “pop culture” saying, you took it as a challenge to show you belong here.

            Did I?
            Fascinating
            Tell me more about myself, Silvia Browne

            You wanted me to go off on a “rant” so you could prove to everyone i was a ‘typical pro-abort.’

            I didn’t want you to…you did that all on your own

            You turned question marks into ‘rage’ and sarcasm into a supposed tantrum.
            Nope, sorry

            I didn’t give you what you wanted so you invented it.

            Actually you gave me exactly what I was expecting–in no way do i want you people to act this way

            As far as stereotypes go, i was just stating what goes on for real in the CPCs around here .

            Really?
            Allow me to quote you:
            unless you have been in on a counseling for a woman contemplating an abortion its just conjecture and therefore its not accurate

            Not what i “think” they do
            So its truth, not stereotypes.

            Yes, the truth–no stereotypes
            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/11/denver-lawsuit-accuses-abortion-clinic-not-reporti/?page=all
            http://townhall.com/news/religion/2010/12/21/life_digest_judge_rules_planned_parenthood_center_broke_ohio_law;_

            http://humanevents.com/2012/03/05/calls-for-planned-parenthood-oversight-hearings-get-louder/

            http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2007/08/02/charges_added_in_alleged_abduction/

            There’s more, but, I’d like to know in which on were you complicit?

          • sagefemme

            “You said “Now, i would love to hear how you are helping the babies who weren’t aborted.”
            Which came off as snark to me bc I’ve heard this question from many a pro abort as a trap question”

            And this is exactly where it got twisted.
            You assumed a snark and then immediately stereotyped. Wasn’t fair, apology excepted.

            As far as those links are concerned, one won’t come up and one is about how they caught a rapist through DNA provided by abortion contents. That sounds to me like someone got the cops involved.
            The other 2 are examples of bad practices from bad people. I know non-abortion providing OBs that raped women in their offices. Does that mean all OB docs are capable of raping because they have naked womens genitals at their immediate disposal ??
            Assuming that i am complicit in any of that is the same as me asking you what abortion doctor you plan on killing or what clinic were you complicit in bombing.
            Yes, rarely women die from getting an abortion. Just as rarely women die from c sections and vaginal births. Does that mean you will never get pregnant again ??

            Oh, and that ‘Pat on.my back’ ?? Yeah, dont need it. I get it enough from the ladies i serve….which i know must eat you alive. In fact, my biggest fan is my daughter, without her AB she would be stuck living somewhere she didn’t want, raising a child by some boy she didnt love. In fact his parents and he are also grateful because he ended up in dental school. Shes now happily married with one planned sweetie and another unplanned on the way. Now tell me again how there are no happy AB stories ?

          • PJ4

            No actually it’s like you assuming that I’m lying to women because I’ve volunteered at a CPC–which you did.

            Those links i provided are just a handful of evidence against PP

            And no, it doesn’t “eat me up” that women are greatful to for helping them kill their babies
            Just like I’m sure it doesn’t “eat you up” that women have been greatful to me for helping them save their babies lives

            I’m sorry your daughter killed your grandkid because he/she came at an inconvenient time
            It’s not a happy ending for the child whose life was snuffed out for no reason other than existing

          • sagefemme

            I never assumed anything. I told you what the CPCs have done here, i gave real life examples. You lumped yourself in with them. Then you admitted you don’t believe in evidence based research. You never even offered up any kind of counseling methods or help that you offer so either you don’t do any counseling or you don’t have anything of substance to offer. I was actually interested. I was hoping things have changed.

            As far as my daughter goes – See, thats where you and i differ. I’m not selfish. I don’t have one solid view on abortion. You would NEVER offer that as an option because YOU, yourself would never do it. You don’t take the mother into consideration because that could mean a baby is NOT the right option.
            Sad? Not at all. For that one act (which was my daughters choice) we all got so much more in return. My daughter is happy. I wouldn’t change a thing and neither would she. I wouldn’t give up my sweet son in law and grandson to have the alternative.
            For one unknown life you would of wrecked 6 ? Yes, that is a good definition of selfish.

          • PJ4

            I never thought that one person could be so wrong on so many levels till I met you
            Thank you for proving me wrong
            You did not give me real examples you have me on your own words conjecture and heresay

            I never told you that I don’t accept evidence based research and I never lumped myself into anything
            Stop the lies already
            Goodness I’m beggining to see that most pro aborts have nothing to offer but lies and rhetoric
            You’ve really solidified that for me

            As far as your daughter goes..she killed her kid to get ahead in life and I’m the selfish one
            Wow
            Ok
            No, I wouldn’t recommend it, congratulations on getting one thing right!
            Just like Id never recommend rape, theft, pedophelia child abuse, domestic abuse etc….because I woukdnt do any of those things either

          • sagefemme

            And you know the examples i gave you weren’t real, how?

            Once again, you did say you still didn’t believe abortion was safer than pregnancy.

            I never told you any lies nor spoke rhetoric.

            If ‘getting ahead’ is going to school instead of being someones mother considered selfish than i guess it is. Clearly, we have 2 definitions of what selfish is.

            And the fact that you would never offer any other option than having the baby shows you are a typical pro lifer with an agenda of convincing moms that you know whats best no matter what her situation may be. Yup, i was right all along. I assumed correctly each and every time.

          • PJ4

            I don’t
            I have no evidence either way

            And if helping women is my agenda, then so be it–guilty as charged

            It just makes you so upset that I killing a baby doesn’t come into play

            I was right about you all along

          • sagefemme

            Make me upset ? I wouldn’t do what I do if i did. Anyway – its an embryo until the mother deems it a baby. Her choice.

          • PJ4

            No, sorry.
            Our humsnity does not depend on someone else’s feeeeeeelings
            It’s either always or never

          • sagefemme

            Really? So, that baby was yours until the mom decided it was hers. Right ? Same baby. You had momma feelings for that youngster until the mom decided (from her feelings ) that SHE wanted to be the momma.The reason it was painful was because of the value and feelings involved. It’s not always or never, it can change accordingly.

          • PJ4

            Omg
            It’s not about “mommy feelings” it’s about killing humans beings.
            Even if I didn’t have those “mommy feelings” Id have no right to kill the child
            You are simply deranged

          • sagefemme

            Yes, pregnancy is not ever about having mommy feelings. (???) I, myself am always a human being, you on the other hand, im not sure, because humans have feelings.
            Deranged? I’m deranged because i think feelings and value need to be involved in a pregnancy besides science? Wow, you’re messed up.

          • PJ4

            You kill babies for a living and I’m the one who’s messed up??
            That’s a laugh.
            NO
            Your feelings do not get to determine someone else’s humanity.
            Good lord woman, what is wrong with you???

          • sagefemme

            I “kill babies for a living”. Your a joke.

            And no MY feelings don’t get in the way of anothers choices. Sorry that it makes you crazy that i actually listen and care about others’ feelings when it comes to THEIR lives.

            Feelings DO determine each and everyone of our view of humanity. Yours yours, mine mine. I’m sorry you don’t agree but YOU dont get to tell someone how to feel about something. The fact that you don’t understand that means you’re the one with something wrong. You need to check your arrogant attitude

          • PJ4

            It makes me crazy that you kill babies? Yes.
            Does is make me crazy that you think you’re helping women? No.
            It’s sad, but it doesn’t make me crazy, but I’m sure you wish it does.

            Feelings DO determine each and everyone of our view of humanity. Yours yours, mine mine.
            You are the joke.
            If I feel that you’re not a person, does that make you lose your humanity?
            No.
            My feelings, your feelings have no bearing on the humanity of another human being.
            You’re crazy.

          • sagefemme

            I dont just “think” I’m helping women, i know i am. I don’t conjure up things in my head like yourself. Why would women come to me before and after on their own ?

            No, your feelings don’t validate me as a human, but they validate your dependents. How u feel about them determines their future. Otherwise child psychologists would have no jobs.

            A wise woman once posed the question, are children more valued because they survive longer, or do they survive longer because they are valued more ?

          • PJ4

            Oh you conjure up everything
            That’s really all you’ve been doing since you got here
            With you, if you don’t have facts, you make them up

            No, my feeling don’t validate my defendants
            If I were to wake up one day and decide that my kids were no longer human beings, because: feeeeeeelings, you think I could just kill them?
            You are a sick individual indeed

            Andrea Yates anyone?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i conjure up everything. Including where i worked, the patients i care for, the scenarios i described, the research i presented, not to mention my own personal family accounts.

            Again, pay attention gurl. Can your children think, feel and metabolize? Yes, so no, you cannot murder them and it be ok. But you can decide you hate them and go on talking down to them, neglecting them and damaging them with your feeeeeelings. Go ahead, tell your kids you hate them and see how that would affect them . Yes, feelings define our actions.

            Yes, you should learn something from Andrea Yates. She didnt want her kids and now look. Wait ??? Didn’t they say she tried to abort and hubby and grandma said “no!” ??
            Hmmm.. so all the siblings suffered and died because she was forced to have that last one. Wow, baby at all costs. Wish u could say that thinking about their little faces being held under water. :(

          • PJ4

            Yes, i conjure up everything. Including where i worked, the patients i care for, the scenarios i described, the research i presented, not to mention my own personal family accounts

            I’m not sure what to believe about you.. but then.. I really don’t care.. you don’t interest me in that way.

            As a specimen though.. you’re slightly amusing.

            Again.. you discriminate on abilities–duly noted.

            Yes, feelings define our actions.

            Only that’s not what we were talking about. Get the straw out of your mouth and pay attention lady.
            My feelings, your feelings do not validate anyone’s humanity.
            It’s not rocket science. Why can you not comprehend simple concepts?
            (I’ve noticed that this is a trend in many pro aborts–like I said, as a specimen your’e slightly amusing)

            Yates wanted an abortion? Really? Citation please.
            And you are just a sicko. You’d sacrifice the life of one of your kids for the rest instead of embracing all of them.
            Gross
            You’re no better than Yates

          • sagefemme

            I “discriminate on abilities ” ?? How is that ?

            Funny, you compare me to Yates. She should be YOUR hero. How many times did they force her to keep a pregnancy despite the SCIENTIFIC evidence that she shouldn’t have any more ? She is a perfect example of what happens if you are strict pro life and demand that all pregnancies should be carried through. You basically condone her actions by being pro life ‘ better to carry the pregnancy through and kill later when they can stuggle and fight ‘ then to abort. Talk about gross.

            Oh and the abortion thing came out around the same time the post partum thing came out. Someone tried to get the heat off them by saying they told her not to have another.
            There aren’t citations for interviews or articles, thats just speculation.

            As far as the feeling thing goes – guess if Andrea Yates valued her childrens lives they would still be here, huh ??
            Were they her FEELINGS that made her think she was a good mom for doing it ?? Hmmm.. i think so. So, yes, feelings do determine humanity.

            “Specimen” how cute. I’m flattered actually.

          • PJ4

            I “discriminate on abilities ” ?? How is that?

            In your own words: Can your children think, feel and metabolize? Yes, so no, you cannot murder them and it be ok.

            This implies that if they cannot think, feel or metabolize it’s ok to kill them.

            How did can you be?

            Um.. I didn’t compare you to her.. I said you were no better. Pay attention granny.

            How many times did they force her to keep a pregnancy despite the SCIENTIFIC evidence that she shouldn’t have any more

            Zero– unless you have more than speculation or guess work… which of course you don’t.

            She is a perfect example of what happens if you are strict pro life and demand that all pregnancies should be carried through

            No she’s not. She’s a perfect example of how feeeeelings do not dictate another person’ humanity.

            However, this woman is a perfect example of what happens if when a country is pro “choice”.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/09/13/canadian-mother-strangles-newborn-gets-no-jail-time-and-judge-defends-infanticide-by-comparing-it-to-abortion/

            You basically condone her actions by being pro life ‘ better to carry the pregnancy through and kill later when they can stuggle and fight ‘ then to abort.

            Nope. You’re basically condoning her action by saying that she would not have if she could have taken her child apart in the womb as opposed to drowning them.

            In a pro life world, neither would have happened. She would have gotten the help that she needed and all her kids would we alive.

            You’re the angel of death here, not me.

            You’re the one who believes lives of babies are mere commodity.

            You’re the one who believes that feelings determine humanity.

            If it did… then murder would not be illegal. It would just “depend on whether or not the perpetrator thought the victim was human”

            Oh and the abortion thing came out around the same time the post partum thing came out. Someone tried to get the heat off them by saying they told her not to have another.
            There aren’t citations for interviews or articles, thats just speculation.

            Again… that’s all you seem to have… speculation.

            “Specimen” how cute. I’m flattered actually.

            As you should be.

          • sagefemme

            Man, you are about as arrogant as they come. Does your family have to fight for mirror time with you around ??

            The fact that you do not see the detriment of increased infanticide and abandonment as a possible side effect of restricted abortion shows how limited your brain capacity is. You would rather attend a newborns funeral or, better yet, pretend it didn’t happen, then to accept the right to an abortion. You would rather throw cheap “granny” shots then to admit that Andrea Yates – and her familys – prolife views played a key role in those children’s deaths. You would rather see her kill a handful of children then to abort one. You are either a complete liar or a complete sadist.

            Oh and i am most definitely better than Andrea Yates – my 5 kids are still living, moron. And yes, they presented Andrea and her family with scientific evidence that she shouldn’t have any more children. So your “zero” argument for forced pregnancy is just that – “zero”.

            Yes, a complete dependant is very different than s separate being. If you cant cut the cord and live than your abilities are in the hands of the host.

            With your type of thinking your uterus should be available for rent. I mean you shouldn’t determine worth on abilities, right ? If your uterus works than you should carry someones baby that can’t. Refusal would be discriminating and therefore wrong. Why is a grown woman any less entitled to your uterus than you think a fetus is ?

            And again, sorry girlfriend, YOUR feelings don’t get to determine humanity. I know it hurts when you can’t be right all the time, but I’m sure there’s another pro lifer who can high five you on some other common point.
            Just think of me as the ‘granny of your reality’

          • infadelicious

            Sometimes a mother deems it a baby as soon as she finds out she is “with child”. Someone who does not want the baby can “deem” that it is not and have it killed, er i mean have the embryo destroyed. That’s ridiculous.
            Now , if the mother who first says it’s a baby then decides she doesn’t want it can she RE-deem it so it’s not a baby and then continue on her merry way to Planned Abortionhood? Nice that you can declare a woman gets to say it’s a life or not. Absolute barking mad you are.

          • cargosquid

            upvoted just for the use of “Absolute barking mad you are.”

            What a great phrase.

          • Jed

            That’s an example of why Infa is a National Treasure.

          • infadelicious

            Thanks. it seemed to fit…;-)

          • sagefemme

            That’s what i mean. If you are planning a pregnancy it’s deemed a baby from the start. If not then it’s : just what happened, unwanted, my exes spawn, mistake etc…. If a baby is unwanted forcing pregnancy is only gonna make it worse. To change abortion rates/reasons you would have to change sex. Probably not gonna happen. The best you can do is hope for is education and easy access to birth control.
            And absolutely the woman gets to deem it. Why shouldn’t she ??
            If someone told you to abort because they felt it was a hardship or something might be wrong with the baby wouldn’t you go tell them to shove it ? Why is that different?

          • infadelicious

            At this point you’re merely embarrassing yourself. Have you considered psychotropic drugs? They might help you.

          • sagefemme

            Whats embarrassing is you not thinking the mother has a right to choose whether to be an incubator or not. Guess i could take those drugs and try to live in your fantasy land where everyone thinks alike and everything has a happy ending.

          • cargosquid

            Still a separate being.

            So…if the mother decides that it is an “embryo” all the way to term……. then its not a baby?

            Okay then.

            It is AMAZING how you try so hard to avoid the fact that a mother has to decide to kill a living being to have an abortion.

            If you support abortion, stop lying to yourself and others and own up to it. Be proud of it. Margaret Sanger was.

          • sagefemme

            It’s ok, so what if its ‘living’? its still not a baby until the person its living off deems it so. I’m sure you’re for adoption – so when does the baby/fetus/ embryo become someone else’s? ? Right, when the birth mother deems it. You can’t have it both ways.
            I do support abortion as a choice and I’m damn proud of it !

          • cargosquid

            “its still not a baby until the person its living off deems it so.”

            Wow. Really? Again…when the mother deems it so? So….all the way to delivery…the mother can NOT deem it a baby? She might be in trouble if she tries to abort a baby at 34 weeks…or 35…

            Your denial is just AMAZING.

            So you support abortion as a choice. Okay. OWN IT. Own the fact that you support a process that kills a living human and go with it. DEFY the “moralists.” Your choice is more important.

          • sagefemme

            No, if the mother gets to 34 weeks she has decided to carry the baby. Please, exaggeration just makes you look stupid.

            I don’t deny anything. I OWN that i feel abortion is a choice. No, again, its not MY choice to make. It is up to the woman to make that decision. The one who is going to use her body to sustain and carry it. The one who will be vomiting, eating, gaining, waddling, laboring, pushing, planning for that baby. Or did you so conveniently forget that there is an actual living, breathing, thinking person on the other end of that umbilical cord ? Of course you don’t think of HER because thats just to real.

            YOUR denial is just amazing.

          • cargosquid

            You are the one exaggerating. YOU stated that the baby isn’t one UNTIL SHE DEEMS IT SO.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, and at 34-35 weeks she has deemed it so. Shes decided to continue the pregnancy and by doing that she has decided to have the baby. You carry to the third trimester you have made the choice. Do you think she wonders if it’s a litter of puppies inside her ??

          • cargosquid

            I don’t know. Based upon the comments of some the pro-abortion people on this thread, I don’t think they feel that anything inside them is worthy of consideration at all.

          • sagefemme

            I take an aspirin every day in consideration of my heart, i eat a good diet in consideration of my brain and muscles, they are worthy of my consideration because i want to be around a lot longer then my relatives. So, even though its easier to think we are masked, green, vile monsters doing the devils work, we are actually real people who just believe differently.
            I try my hardest to not base my view of all pro lifers as bleeding hearts standing over their whimpering dog saying “you shouldn’t have run out in front of that car” or “i dont want to murder you so lets just deal with your busted legs and crushing injuries ” or “i know you would rather have a life of running and playing outside, but trust me, you will be totally ok with not being able to walk and me carrying you outside to pee” .
            The thought that someone would torture an innocent animal like that in the name of being pro life is heart breaking. So, i just imagine that pro lifers allow some flexibility like us pro- choicers.

          • Mitzi

            So you don’t support late term abortions?????

          • sagefemme

            No, why ? Does that not play into your green-eyes-monster theory. Sorry, can’t get your rant on on this subject.

          • Mitzi

            Rant? Says the abortionist who’s been complaining for days and days to pro lifers on a PRO LIFE website. We know why were here. Do you? Are you lost? And the reason I ask (yes most of us have reasons behind our actions) is because I’d like to know why not if not?

          • PJ4

            Oh she’s lost alright
            lol
            Honestly it’s quite horrifying that she’s in the health care industry
            Nurse Rachett anyone?

            Oh and Gary went and got himself banned
            Ugh
            You know he did that on purpose

          • Mitzi

            Lol yes I heard it was about time

          • PJ4

            lol, I know!
            They are positively obsessed with me and some others. I saw all of that.
            Warning though, do not post in Er’s blog, she will have access to your pertinent info if you do. And she has integrity
            Haha, I don’t mid this sagefemme she’s good for a laugh.
            She keeps having to tell people over and over that her kids are well adjusted… but then 2 of them had abortions (or maybe one of them had 2? I can’t figure out what she’s trying to say half the time) and she had to ‘kidnap’ one of her grandkids from her daughter.. .
            Yeah.. that’s real well adjusted.
            LOL
            No wonder she has to keep telling herself us that over and over again.

          • Mitzi

            Lol Gary is like the spy well was. But it was just a random comment about where you live and now they’re going crazy over it it’s a bit psychotic. Exactly! I was just thinking that. Her post about how perfect her family and kids are and then whining about their abortions. This is unreal. I still think she might be Gary (or one of his personalities) she always ends her post with choice blabber tho lol it’s about choice blah blah blah

          • PJ4

            Haha, yes, he loves reporting my every move to the rest–he makes a good minion
            And yes, they are psychotic
            That’s really the only fitting word for their obsessive natures

            Yeah, a bunch of us think she’s Gary’s alter ego
            lol

          • Mitzi

            Lol they’re gonna be on you like white on rice

          • PJ4

            Hahaha!
            Yup
            Honestly, I don’t knowvhow they lived their lives before me
            They’re so desperate

          • Mitzi

            I think they are so pro abortion when they hear of someone opposing death on unborn babies they writhe in pain

          • Mitzi

            I think Gary and the dried up raisinette have a thing lol eewwwwww

          • MamaBear

            Gary told his “widdle friends” he could return anytime he wanted with a new IP and e-mail, so we need to stay alert.

          • JDC

            I have a feeling that they’re going to have to ban him several times over.

          • MamaBear

            Y’all will be happy though that my latest scan results show I’ll be around a while longer. New treatment is working! Ya-Hoo!

          • Griffonn

            That’s great! Congratulations

          • JDC

            Awesome!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Outstanding, congratulations, MamaBear! God wants his best warrior to stick around a while longer – my weekend is made!

          • Mitzi

            Yes I saw that it’s kind of strange for someone who doesn’t care what pro lifers at LAN think, to go out of his way again just to be able to post here

          • Mitzi

            Someone’s a bit hurt with Calvin lol still whining over there

          • MamaBear

            ER invited me at one time to post on her blog. So that would give her access to my info, huh? Knew there was a catch! Good thing my instincts, commonsense, whatever told me not to do it.
            I love how these pro-aborts are such experts on raising kids! ((head shake)) And marriage, too!

          • sagefemme

            Are you mad because I am disrupting your perfect-think-alike-high-five little pro life community? ?
            Sad, i teach my kids it’s easy to have and share an opinion with like minded people. It’s giving and sharing your opinion in the face of adversity that gives it weight.

            But it’s ok, i understand the weight of adversity is weighing hard on your shoulders.

            Why am i here ?? Because i am always interested in what new garbage propaganda pro lifers pass out in the name of truth and ‘evidence’. And as usual, you guys never fail to disappoint, in my 17 + years on these forums its still the same old crap. Soooo, honestly, it’s pure entertainment for me. It helps me pass the time between patients AND (get this) makes me realize how much i help those in need. Whoaaa…betcha didn’t see that one coming !!

          • Mitzi

            Yeah yeah whatever if it’s garbage then you must like dumpster diving lol don’t you have a husband or someone to tend to?

          • sagefemme

            Dumpster diving is a small price to pay to keep my patients educated.

            Don’t worry, my man is and always will be well taken care of, I only need one hand to type – leaves me another hand and a mouth if need be ;-) You should try it sometime.

          • Mitzi

            Ha no thanks I don’t need sex advice from you and please refrain from telling us about your body parts and what you do with them. Unnecessary and disgusting.

          • sagefemme

            Ahh…you were the one telling me to go take care of my man. I thought you wanted details ;)
            And womans body parts are not disgusting. Maybe that’s some of the problem. You think they are only for reproduction. I think there is a poster on here who would call you a mysoginist of she thought thats what you meant. :)

          • Mitzi

            I didn’t say women’s body parts are disgusting I said I don’t need to know about yours. I just want you to find something to do that will keep your time so your not here just yelling obscenities and such. I am not a mysoginist I just don’t care to know bout your body parts or what you do with them. Ever hear of TMI?

          • sagefemme

            Yes, and i just offered TMI when you asked about my man.

            Obscenities? To whom ??

            Oh and thanks, that’s sweet of you ;) but i have plenty to do with my time.

          • Mitzi

            Oh good gracious I didn’t “ask about your man” it’s like your putting a show for us all about your life none of us care to to know anything about.

          • sagefemme

            I am not doing anything for show. You asked, i told. (“dont you have a husband to tend to?”) Pretty simple – dont ask a question if you don’t want an answer to it.
            The whole thing about my man was brought up to another poster anyway. It was your buddy PJ who thought she would be cute and throw out the mysoginy comment.

          • Mitzi
          • sagefemme

            How sweet of you to think you know what is “worthwhile ” for me. :) How bout this. Stop reading and replying. I know you somehow feel forced because that’s your nature – to be forced, or force others. That’s the beauty of CHOICE . You don’t HAVE to do it.

            P.S. the caps are for emphasis (in case you forgot )

          • Mitzi

            I don’t have to stop reading or replying to anyone I will do so when I feel like it. Your the one that’s been babbling on and on like an old rerun your not saying anything relevant to the article…but your right you have the right to voice your opinion so I will end this like this.

          • Mitzi

            Pssst…I think shes just a fan of the word “deem” lol

          • Paul

            Quit holding up the human shields. If you participate, it is your judgement, not the mothers. If it turns out to be a mistake, it is your mistake, not the mothers. I know it would be useful to give these women an indulgence. You hiding your morals behind their “Deeming” is despicable.

          • sagefemme

            So someone wants bigger tits – its the surgeons fault ? You want your teeth whitened, its the dentists fault. ?
            Since when did elective procedures become the responsibility of the practitioner? Or is that where the whole “the hot coffee burned me so its someone elses fault ” defense ?
            No personal responsibility for anyone. My morals are MY morals. I don’t tell other’s where there moral compasses should point. That’s just plain arrogance.

          • Paul

            You want your cotton picked- its the slave masters fault?

          • sagefemme

            Wow …you finally understand. We wouldn’t want women to be enslaved to breed for the pro-life massas’. Good point.

          • Paul

            Congratulations, you just made it to full-fledged absurd.

          • sagefemme

            See, you didn’t think your own analogy could be used against you. Hahaha

            Gotcha – oh and maybe one day you’ll be able to move up to my level of absurd. It’s a fabulous place !!

          • williamdiamon

            Hi Paul, is this what you meant?

          • Paul

            It will work! We have a group of people who have set up a secure private place to socialize, exchange info and basically just relax with out hair down. We’d like to see you there. If this interests you, go back and post a lot further back in my history and I’ll outline it. No pressure or agendas, just a respectful loose association of the similar minded. Up-vote this once read

          • williamdiamon

            Interesting that it’s called an embryo and not considered a life in the case of an abortion, yet in the case of murder, it is considered a life.

          • Mitzi

            Hahahahaha this one takes the cake! Who cares about science! Such life and death changing situations should be made with feelings! PJ my hats off to you once again I don’t know how you do it this ones one of the extremes.

          • PJ4

            Thank you Mitzi, I do what I can
            Dunno if you noticed, but her grammar is actually the least of her problems
            Lol

          • Eponymous1

            Hey! You’re back!

          • PJ4

            See my email :-)

          • Mitzi

            I almost don’t believe it’s too ridiculous lol maybe it’s just a lonely pro abort trying to get his kicks.

          • PJ4

            Or maybe it’s just a sock puppet.
            I’m not convinced she’s a real person.
            No one can claim to do abortions and deliver babies and be that dumb.
            Right?

          • Mitzi

            Right! I’ve read her comments about family and taking care of her kids and then going on and on about how it doesn’t matter it’s the woman’s choice just pro choice blabber….it’s deluded. Or she’s one of those pro aborts that don’t care about facts only euphemisms. Choice choice choice

          • PJ4

            I know… do you love how she’s trying to shame me for having date night with my husband?
            LOL

          • Mitzi

            Lol yes I read that it’s hilarious. You wanna go out for the night without your kids? Evil! You wanna have your kids aborted for whatever reason? Great. By the way there’s nothing wrong with date night lol sheesh

          • PJ4

            I know… she’s just ridiculous.
            But that’s a good point!
            Date night : bad
            Killing your baby: good.

            LOL

          • Basset_Hound

            Especially if the daddy ends up in dental school. I guess every young couple who decided to get married and parent their baby together ended up living in a leaky double-wide, right? Every woman who gets pregnant in college automatically has her brains turned to excrement so that she can’t ever attend classes or take exams again, even if she chooses adoption. Of course she can avoid this if she has an abortion…or two…or three…

          • PJ4

            LOL, I know.. I love how pro aborts feel that women are too weak to have their cake and eat it too.

          • MamaBear

            Actually, I’m beginning to think a lot of young adults today would do well to go through a few hard times temporarily. Or work for a while in a low income area or better yet in a third world country. Just long enough to learn to be able to appreciate the less material things in life and learn contentment does not come from designer clothes, new cars, and oversized houses. Maybe if they valued real relationships over things, there would be more marriages and fewer abortions.

          • Basset_Hound

            I know that when my daughter spent a week in Chihuahua between her freshman and sophomore year she realized how trivial the “earthshaking problems” some of her high school friends were having actually were.

            It does seem that there is a whole generation of self-centered snivelling brats who’ve been told the world revolves around them and their feeeeellllingsss… I guess it all got started when people who grew up in the Depression bent over to compensate by indulging their kids.

          • MamaBear

            I suspect the biggest thing was when the gospel of self-esteem replaced the old-fashioned teaching of right and wrong. Feeeeeelllling good became more important than being good.

          • Griffonn

            Some pseudopagan in my current feed was arguing that her “religion” says do no harm…but of COURSE she supports a woman’s right to choose !! 1!!

            You can’t make this stuff up.

          • MamaBear

            No, you can’t. People like that are totally blind to the moral dissonances of their views.
            They are like the “religious” pro-abortion/pro-assisted suicide advocate, despite his constant bragging of his superior form of “Christianity,” responded to my metastatic recurrence with he supported my right to kill myself. The less enlightened Bible-thumper Christians offered prayers.
            You just can’t make this stuff up.

          • Mr. G.

            My mom was a teen during the Depression. I remember a conversation with her when she was in her early 80’s – somehow the pro-life / pro-choice debate came up. She asked me where I stood. I told her that I was somewhat outspokenly pro-choice. Her response: “Well, you’d BETTER be.”

          • Mr. G.

            Who knows – they might value their marriage so much that they realize there’s more to married life than popping out babies and there would be more abortions.

          • MamaBear

            Do you really HATE babies that much?
            It sure sounds like it, even to a lot of more moderate pro-choicers!

          • Mr. G.

            Not being interested in having babies does not require hating them. There are only 24 hours in a day. I can fill all of them without ever thinking about a baby even once.

          • Mr. G.

            Your imagination sure does run wild – characterizing not even giving a baby a thought as “hate” is pretty disgusting if you ask me.

          • Eponymous1

            Bad wife, romancing husband. Very, uh, naughty?!

          • PJ4

            hahahahaha

          • Eponymous1

            I know, right?

          • sagefemme

            Hey, Mitzi, i hope to your god that you never are faced with life or death decisions in regards to your loved ones. But if you are, remember to call PJ so she can give you the scientific, thought out answer. We wouldn’t want you to think/feel when you are asked to put your dog to sleep or pull the plug on your grandma/mother.

            If im an extremist because i take someone’s feelings into consideration then “Hello, my name is Lorry, I’m an EXTREMIST- and damn proud of it – because i care about you AND your feelings.”
            (Yes, my real name – now I’m a real person)

          • Mitzi

            Yeah because abortion is the same as putting a dog to sleep. In those situations I would still prefer to keep fighting on and encourage my loved ones (dog included) to stay strong and positive. Obviously you support euthanasia seeing as how you have no problem killing unborn children…surprise surprise

          • sagefemme

            Wow, you are a heartless, souless creature!!
            You should really relax your views and read some other pro lifers posts. At least if their beloved pet got hit by a car, probably wouldn’t survive the very expensive surgery and definitely would never be able to walk again, subjecting his family to years of watching him suffer while they struggle to take care of him….i would hope they would at least consider the less cruel alternative.

            I get it, your a sadist, huh ? Life at any cost, pain shows everyone how dedicated you are. You’re sick. At least i got a clearer picture of what kind of person you are.
            *shaking my head*

          • Mitzi

            Oh no a pro abort thinks I’m a sadist

          • sagefemme

            Yeah i bet you’re lol’ing. Cause you know your all about the suffering of others. It proves your point, makes you feel whole. Are you just pissed because you tried to turn someone on to adoption or keeping their baby, only to have them NOT listen to your pompous azz and make the decision thats right for them ? Man, that must burn you up thinking about all those independent, self-thinking women marching heads up into the clinic who never asked the great Mitzi what they should do. Must be hard to have all the answers and have no one give one good crap what you think. Tsk,tsk….i must warn you as a health care professional, narcissism can be dangerous to your health.

          • Mitzi

            You know lol is just for that moment when your laughing so much you put it real quick right? Do you go around asking people did you lol like in real life? Yes I love to make people suffer so I tear them apart piece by piece. Oh wait that’s you. Nice try. Seriously all your posts have the same dumb lines about how I’m so cruel and heartless do you do that on purpose so I can point out what a giant hypocrite you are? Or is that all you got? Either way it’s getting real old, no pun intended. yes I agree narcissism can be bad for you it also can make you think things that are NOT real. The only pompous donkey around here is you and you know it (no offense to donkeys) your just upset pro lifers in a pro life website keep coming at you so you try to stand strong and hold your ground. Lady give it up and take a nap. You need it.

          • sagefemme

            Wow, that was a lot of effort expended for a na nanny boo boo post.

            You should really be spending that time with your kiddos teaching them about the horrors of abortion or how to chastise people for their mistakes. You know it will be a fun day when your perfect kid comes to you pregnant after all your perfect raising with a little blessing newborn for you to raise while she goes off and has a great time finishing up her teen years. You think you got all the amswers don’t you? I have 2 good friends who thought the same thing. Now they are raising their grandchild while the kid they thought they were gonna ‘teach consequences’ to are out hanging around with their teen friends. Poor little Mitzi asked to babysit her 16 year olds kid then perfect daughter never came home for 3 days cause she needed a “break”. Not to mention when she is home she lets grandma perfect Mitzi do all the work. Hmmm…lets see, how do you make your teen mom that you raised so well be the mother YOU expected her to be ?? NOT babysit? Then little Missy just takes junior to her buddies house while they party. Hmmm ..not good for perfectly saved grandbaby blessing, huh ? What a perturbation, Mitzi….whats a perfect grandma/mom to do now ?? Oh and don’t forget, in the end it’s little Missys kid so if u get mad at her for not doing well she can take junior and you won’t see them again. OMG – doesn’t REAL life just suck ???

            So, I think I’m ok here laughing out loud thinking of your naivete raising your perfect daughters blessing baby with you thinking “where did i go wrong?” Or “i don’t want to raise another baby!” Lol…..mean while MY perfect grandbabies are being raised by their PERFECT mothers and I’m here on vacation, kid-free, on a treadmill, in a luxury hotel, typing posts on a forum to pass my infinite spare time. Ahhhh….so good to be me ….lolololol

            Oh, but don’t worry, if you decide raising your grandkids is not what you want to do when you are “old”, then we at the clinic have the backdooor reserved for pro lifers just like you. We call it the “perfect people entry”
            Lololololol.
            Oh, and yes, for the record, don’t worry, if your daughter chooses to abort I would treat her with all the decency, caring and respect i give all my teen moms. She’s in good hands ;-)

          • Mitzi

            Lol wtf is a na nanny boo boo anyway your wasting too much of my time here so I’m gonna have to part ways. Your not even talking about the article here anymore.i understand your kids came home pregnant as teens in high school but that’s not my fault. I’m kinda tired of hearing about it. Maybe you have unresolved issues with your kids. So go deal with that with them. It’s not my problem.

          • sagefemme

            Thank god, good riddens. Best to stick to your perfect life in your perfect world. I can see a taste of reality is to much to bear. Sorry for popping that cherry. Buh bye.

          • Mitzi

            Oh shut the hell up already your an embarrassment to women/grandmothers/mothers/doctors and human beings everywhere. Act your age not your shoe size.

          • sagefemme

            I can’t figure it out yet. Am i an old lady or little kid ?
            Thought we were being civil ?

          • Mitzi

            Yeah I thought so too but you won’t stop with all the trash talk…..I don’t even know why your still posting to be honest?

          • sagefemme

            Asked and answered, again.

            And hun, once again, why don’t you go back a couple posts and realize that you calling someone an “old bag” is considered ‘trash talking’ no matter what high school you went to.

          • Mitzi

            Perhaps I’d stop calling you names if you’d stop calling me hun. Neither one of us is at that age anymore especially you seeing as how you love to talk about how smart and grown up you are perhaps you should be the bigger person and stop. Either way I’m done I have nothing else to say to you that I alredy hadn’t…

          • Mitzi

            Shut the f#%^ up you old bag no one cares what’s going on with your life. Why are you bashing on me when your kids are the ones going sex and getting pregnant in high school? How is that my fault? Oh I get it you don’t want to looking a shitty mom so your gonna talk a lot $#%^. Hey I didn’t tell you to tell us all about your and your family’s drama. Take a hike grandma.

          • sagefemme

            Wait a second. YOU’RE the one who told me how much better of a mother you would be to prevent your daughter from getting pregnant. YOU’RE the one who made a joke about my daughters decision to abort and wanted to know if i told my other grandkids.
            Not to mention calling me names like pompous donkey, old geezer etc… So, dont dish it out if you can’t take it.

            And the only thing i ‘blamed’ you for is not realizing that the scenarios i presented were real life scenarios and not made up to make a point.

            So, re read you own posts because no, this grandma obviously is not the only one talking s*!t

          • Mitzi

            Ok lady my point is this is just a waste of time. Now seeing as how I’m younger I was in high school no less than 10 years ago so I’ve had my share of s#%^ talking and don’t look forward to it now that I’m a parent. If you feel nostalgic and would like to rekindle those old days of trash talking and cussing please find someone else. The site is pro life. We are anti abortion. You knew that coming in. Looks like your the one that needs a tough shell if you wanna be here.

          • sagefemme

            You just repeated your “point” the last 3 posts. Whatever it was. You can’t even decide if I’m too old, acting to young or if you are the one to young or to old.

            Remember : I am not the one calling people names, as you are. If i want to participate in a pro life forum i certainly don’t need YOUR permission. And obviously my skin thickness is fine. You are the one who can’t decide if you want to reply to me or not. Trust me, when this isn’t fun for me any longer i will jump off myself. Until then, i will keep posting as i please and you are able to do as well.

          • Mitzi

            Yeah I know I’m tired of just repeating which is why I’ve siggested you fun something else to do. I don’t see the point or purpose of you being here. Your really just wasting your time. I don’t remember saying you needed my permission as I said earlier your not saying anything of importance or relevant to the article at hand….the conversation has taken a turn for the worse not that it was good to begin with. Your the one acting childish with your arrogant posts. Why are you still replying to me?

          • sagefemme

            Then stop repeating. And thank you for your concern but if i want to “waste my time” isn’t that MY choice ??

            Imagine, MY posts are the childish and arrogant ones. But hey, if that’s the case than you should look at it this way, maybe i could learn something from your many insightful, intelligent, well thought out posts ?? Teeheehee

            I guess I’m replying to you cause….ahhh….you keep replying to me. If you don’t dig the banter you can stop. That’s YOUR choice.

          • Mitzi

            Your the one repeating first. You keep saying the same stuff for like 2 weeks now. What is the point of that? I’m just refuting your very strange logic. Finally your getting it

          • sagefemme

            The point of repeating my pro choice views ?? Wow, what a well thought out question. I guess cause we are in an abortion/pro life forum ?? Yes, and capitalization is a way of emphasizing a word. Glad i could clarify that for you. I thought you young folks had this whole internet etiquette down……my bad.
            Yes, CHOICE, is a good thing. I know you don’t think so. That is until a choice you want to make is threatened.
            Oh and human being. Yes, it is my right to stop another human being from utilizing MY (<~~~see…. for emphasis??!!) body to serve it's purposes.

          • Mitzi

            Nope. At this point your just repeating blabber you stopes discussing abortion about a week ago. Since then you’ve been going on and on about your life…irrelevant to the article. Yeah I know your outing emphasis on your capitalized words. It’s just annoying now and pointless. Capitalizing words won’t make them be heard anymore than they are already as lower cased words. No I’m not up to date with the Internet I don’t spend all day long texting and sending selfies sorry. I have a life outside my phone I can’t just sit in front of a screen writing lol like others. Well it’s a good thing your done reproducing then.

          • sagefemme

            We are still talking about abortion dear. Remember you forcing your fellow humans to reproduce? ?

          • Mitzi

            No were not sweetheart for the last seventeen posts you’ve been talking about yourself.

          • sagefemme

            Oh and P.S. i will go take a nap….after my run and swim. Thanks for the suggestion. Those are the perks of MY kids being independent and doing what’s right for them. Have fabulous blessed day !!

          • Mitzi

            Oh get over yourself we lol know your at home slaving away cleaning again no one cares….

          • sagefemme

            Nope, housekeeping comes and cleans our room while we are out shopping and sight seeing. I only clean when I am home. :)

          • Mitzi

            I’m sorry but the last part just gets me

          • sagefemme

            I do that because unlike you i don’t need to hide behind a keyboard. I am who i am online or in person. I don’t share my views with some people to their face because I care about their feelings. I don’t lie so if they ask they probably won’t like the answer.
            Degraded ? That’s a funny choice of words for someone who has no problem working hard to degrade me.

          • Mitzi

            Wowza you just keep getting worse and worse. You make that witch in hensel and gretel look like granny from the looney toones. Your callous selfishness astounds me. No wonder your an abortionist you were complicit in your own grandchilds death. Watch knocked up I know you’ll hate it cuz it’s two young people having an unplanned child while getting to know each other but it might do you some good. Katherine Heigl’s mother sounds so much like you except in the end she realizes she was wrong and embraces her new grandchild. It’s absolutely awful someone could think like this. A grown woman. Atrocious.

          • sagefemme

            What astounds me is your callousness in regards to my daughter. She is a great person who has become a wonderful loving mother. Does she not count ? Would you tell someone to their face that some unborn embryo is worth more than the person in front of you ? I’m glad to hear how you care about others. Thank god you are nothing to me and my family. This is exactly why i have an issue with the pro life movement. Nobody ever considers the mom unless she REGRETS her decision, then they are all ears waiting to say “we told you so” . No one ever thinks that maybe, just maybe it was the RIGHT decision to abort.
            So, let me ask you this, since you seem to have all the answers. How do i counsel my other daughter. 1 abortion, another unwanted pregnancy she kept (he is almost 5 years old) and another AB – she made it clear to me that she never wanted to and still doesn’t want to be a mom. Her boyfriend and his mother convinced her it was the best decision. Now, what? Sure she loves him but does he get what he needs from her as a mom ? No. So, a lot of that falls on us, the grandmas. Is that fair to anyone ? If they considered her feelings they wouldn’t be battling over him while he hears and sees everything. I wouldn’t of been in a position to ‘kidnap’ him because they were harboring him so she couldn’t see him. This is not a movie with a happy ending, this is real life. This us what happens when you convince someone who is not ready or doesn’t want to have a baby to keep an unwanted pregnancy.

          • Mitzi

            Its amazing how selfish you can be. Who’s saying anything about your daughter? No one days she had to keep the child god forbid you suggest adoption (that other scary a word) but then again how would you profit from that right? Kid gets to live no blood $$$ for you. Your daughter was “mature” enough to have sex sdhe should be mature enough to deal with the consequences instead of having mom make the whole scary situation go away. You could have gone a different way and shown your daughter courage and explain to her what her actions caused and perhaps she would’ve learned a valuable lesson. That child was as much a baby, her son or daughter and your grandchild ad the ones you’ve allowed to live. That’s gotta be an interesting story when your rekindling sweet family moments with your grandkids huh grandma? One of you was an inconvenience for mommy so grandma did what she does best lucky for the rest of you, you came at the right time and didn’t have to be sacrificed. Nope I definetly wouldn’t tell a woman to her fave that the unborn baby is worth more than she is. I’d say they are both equal and were not barbarian s so let’s act like a civilized people and respect each other. I know that’s insane to you.

          • sagefemme

            You’re right, you never said anything about my daughter. To you the only thing that matters was an embryo with an uncertain future. You always want to point fingers about how “I” don’t ever think of the baby. I think of both actually. Meanwhile you constantly stick your head in the sand and pretend the mother doesn’t exist or has a brain. To you she should just be a willing incubator. And don’t “god forbid” me. First, you have absolutely NO IDEA what transpired between us. I gave her REAL answers and in the end it was HER choice. She came to me with her decision. I told her i was her age when i got pregnant with her, that i barely finished high school, that i couldn’t go to college til my 30’s and that i couldn’t help her raise the baby because I, myself was still in school and raising her 4 siblings. We could barely afford them let alone a newborn. Should i have lied ? Oh as far as adoption, she said she didn’t want to be like her aunt that gave up her baby and had to watch her grow thru pictures. So, did i leave out anything? Besides the lies about how babies are a blessing, sugar and spice and everything nice, and she should give up her life for a baby with no father ? Wow, you are a heartless, souless mother if thats how you would handle it.
            Again, i didn’t profit off my daughters’ abortions. One went to a clinic and the other was free at my home. So, try as you might with your “blood money ” comment, it doesn’t bother me. In fact if you asked both of them they would tell you countless times how grateful they were and what better place they are in. You don’t have to believe it, i don’t care.
            Oh, which reminds me. What pro life advice to i give the one that regrets HAVIN the baby ? You never answered that. I am fresh out of pro life advice for her.
            Oh, and FYI, talking about me telling my other grandkids about my daughters decision is the epitome of disrespect.

          • Mitzi

            Clearly I have to beore thorough when explaining things out to you o just don’t have all the time in the world to type out a bunch of essays but I’ll do my best. Your daughter isn’t the one being aborted and neither is every other woman looking to get an abortion so forgive for having concern for the person ACTUALLY being aborted. You already admitted it yourself whatever the woman decides you blindly follow without thinking. I could care less what “transpired” between you and your daughter and that’s something your gonna have to live with…with eyes closed apparently. “Real answers” don’t mean jack your obviously used to lying to women on a regular basis what’s one more right? And this ones your own kin should be easier. You just tried to scare her off with threats of not helping her your the one that didn’t care for your daughter and fellow woman. And of course adoption wasn’t an option as it goes “if I can’t have you no one can.” And nope I happen to have a whole lot of soul and I’m a terrific mother sorry you can’t see that your used to degrading women and turning them against their own children. No $h!t those comments don’t bother you your used to killing unborn babies, if that doesn’t bother you nothing will. Perhaps if you spent less time murdering babies you’d be able to give women a bit more hope at a future with an unexpected pregnancy. Hahaha I love how you answered that real nice referring to the unwanted aborted child as “my daughters decision” it’s always smart to keep people in the dark about the truth. Yes it is incredibly disrespectful only some of your grandchildren were “deemed” worthy of life.

          • sagefemme

            Wow, you poor thing. Where did you get all that information? ProLifers-R-us propaganda? ? Amazing how you can turn the truth into whatever you want it to mean.
            So then lets play this out since you are such a great mother (whose kids are probably under 10)and pro life know-it-all ….. what should i have done ? Or maybe since,again, you are so perfect and live a perfect life, what would YOU have done if/when your 17 year old daughter comes to you and tell you shes pregnant by a boy she barely knows and she actually doesn’t even like him.
            You said you don’t care less about what transpired so lets put the shoe on YOUR foot and tell me where ‘I’ went wrong. You’re obviously trying to show/tell me in no uncertain terms that im so wrong on all levels, so teach me. Im open.

            Especially since the ONLY point you seemed to pick up on was the fact that i wasn’t going to be able to sacrifice her siblings well being and my next years in school to take care of HER baby. (Please don’t tell your kids you would rather raise a grandbaby than to finish raising them – it might have some negative connotations )

            YOUR DAUGHTER : mom, i have to tell you and dad something and it’s not good. Remember Bobby ?
            YOU N HUBBY : yes, the nice boy you broke up with a while back ?
            YOUR DAUGHTER : yes, he was nice but he liked a friend of mine better but thats ok i wasn’t really that into him.
            YOU N HUBBY : oh ok, you’re young, there’s lots of dates in your future.
            YOUR DAUGHTER : well, this is about my future, im pregnant. ….
            (to be continued ….your turn)

          • Mitzi

            Ok let’s go over this again I’ll try to slow down I know the average pro abort has the attention span of a housefly but come on I’ve already said this about 10 times. The fetus. Seperate from the mother. Inside mother but separate person. How he get there? A man and a woman had sex and that’s how you make a baby. Yes my kids are under 10…how does that matter? Oh that’s right I have to be an old geezer abortionist to really understand life. D’OH! To begin with I am gonna do my best as a mother so MY teenage daughter doesn’t come home pregnant one day. If it happens I won’t sugar coat a dam thing nor will I leave her to fend for herself and I absolutely will not encourage her to kill another human being she helped create. She’ll have to learn the lesson the hard way. But instead of already dealing with that even at the young age my children are I teach them about consequence and being responsible for their own actions. Oh yeah and how to avoid having to deal with said consequences in the first place. What you could have done? Damn well in my opinion you could have had your daughter own up to her responsibilities and deal (actually deal) with her consequence instead of making it go away so she can go back to her happy go lucky teenager lifestyle. Perhaps I’m old fashioned (I know funny right) but I believe kids will learn to be responsible when you make them deal with their own problems….themselves. But obviously somehow this would fall on you because you can’t make your teenage daughter take responsibility. That’s a ridiculous scenario and bobby happens to be my brothers name so it’s all around weird. She broke up with him a while back and now she’s pregnant. And why add the friend thing? Anyway I would let my daughter know what all the options are. I would tell her the truth about abortion (probably way before she’s a teen actually) adoption and parenting. But before it gets to that point I’m gonna take things a different way so my daughter is well informed about sex.

          • sagefemme

            You can act like a snotty little brat all you want but truth is, yes, you have to be old and have teenagers to understand teenagers D’oh. Really ? Ahh… do you think i never talked to my kids about consequences of sex, responsibility , adoption and abortion BEFORE this happened? Geez, you’re delusional. I took her for birth control for chris sake. She knew all about sex. I’m a midwife. She watched her sister be born. Watched countless videos of birth and we were very open. Trust me, you may think you are soooo much more progressive but my kids knew way more than their counterparts. She asked ME to take her for pills.

            The fact that you think its a ridululous scenario and won’t give an answer shows that you are too wrapped up in the “im a young mom who knows so much more than any other old mom – my kids are gonna be perfect ” yeah, let me know how that works out for you. That’s the scenario my ex and i were presented with. Sorry, its too real for you but that’s what happened. You don’t want to add to it because that would make the scenario too REAL with REAL people. It’s ok, stay in your daycare, ballet class, PTA mom world as long as you can. It’s tough out here.

            The friend thing was how it happened. Geez….its not all about you Ms. Perfect.

            For the record, my daughter DID own up to her mistake and paid the consequence of having an unwanted pregnancy. She made the decision to have an abortion. AFTER she was told all the options. Again, sorry the real world is too intense for you.

            Yeah…..as far as seperate goes – the key word there us INSIDE. A little difficult to be seperate when you HAVE to live inside someone.

          • Mitzi

            As for your other daughter it really sucks that your basically using her as a poster child for the perfect target for abortion. It’s like your saying your first daughter made the right choice by killing her first unwanted baby and as a result is so incredibly happy with her cookie cutter life. The second daughter had a baby after her first abortion but didn’t want to be a mother and for some reason took on the role still and now she’s living a miserable life. And! It’s as if your suggesting her son should have been aborted so he wouldn’t have to deal with his parents issues. If she didn’t want children and didn’t have him aborted like the first why didn’t adoption ever cross your daughters mind? My nephew is and has been shared since he was 5 months old. I feel for him because he doesn’t have a stable place to call home. He has autism so everyday is a struggle for him. His parents have been fighting all his life he is now 8. But instead of wishing he had been killed in the womb so he wouldn’t have to have a hard (or harder than most) life I do my best to be there for him and help him through everyday challenges he must face. This is not survival of the fittest. If we begin to view or fellow human beings as weak links or enemies then we might as well destroy ourselves because soon none of us will be deemed good enough to live the prosperous life were lucky to have.

          • sagefemme

            Wow, your bitterness with reality is so apparent – i almost feel sorry for you.

            Using my daughter as a “poster child for abortion” ? Man, you will go to any length to not see that MAYBE having an unwanted baby was NOT a good idea. Or that my older daughter has no right to be happy and live a great life with no regret.
            Yes, adoption crossed both my daughters mind but they didn’t choose it. In fact we tried to adopt him out a couple years ago but she changed her mind. I’m guessing adoption may have been a good idea for your nephew instead of the stuggles he faces but that’s just my opinion. And dont tell me it doesn’t cross your minds too.

            Honestly, i don’t really care if you don’t believe my daughters made the right decision or not, i just hope maybe the next time someone is faced with a life changing decision you may stop and think that THEIR decision just may be the best one.

          • Mitzi

            Oh no dear don’t feel sorry for me I see the light I made the right decision dor myself and my children. Feel sorry for yourself and all the people you’ve affected who can’t change what you’ve helped them do. Hey your the one plastering your daughters’ “decisions” online to justify abortion remember? If my brother and his girlfriend has chosen adoption I would have respected it and supported it although it hurt to know my family was not with me at least he’d be alive with a family. And like Ive already told you decision and choices not my problem unless that decision you make harms someone else other than that I’m pro choice

          • sagefemme

            Wait a minute did you just say that YOU made the decisions that were the RIGHT ones for YOU and YOUR family ?? Are you sure ? What made you think you could make decisions for yourself and your family and then blatantly condemn others for doing the EXACT SAME THING? Oh, yes, i forgot, your arrogance makes you think that – do as i say, not as i do.

            I can’t help but wonder how you would feel if your BROTHER and his GIRLFRIEND chose abortion ?? Would you hate and disown them ? Would you gather your babies together and have a nice memorial for their cousin tell them the sad horrors of grown up life that their uncle is a wicked murderer that didnt allow their baby cousin to be born ? Hmmmm…that life, man, it can be so sloppy can’t it ? Funny, i almost think you would relish the opportunity to horrify your children .

            As far as me putting out my daughters business, i tell her all about my forums and what she did, she doesn’t care and hopes that it will make others think twice before damming and shaming others who choose it. That there is life after abortion and ….wait for it. …it CAN be a great one.

            I don’t justify abortion i justify choice.

            Guess what? I didn’t choose abortion with her, even though it would have been the easy way out, because I, ME,MYSELF did not WANT to abort. Imagine that a pro -choicer who didn’t choose abortion !! Oh wait, no surprise, thats THE definition of pro-choice now, aint it ?

          • Mitzi

            Um…yes yes I did say that. Are you just gonna dictate back to me everything Ive already posted? What was right was for me to take responsibility for my actions. Hence “the right thing to do” boy your slow. Obviously I’d be bothered by it I do happen to know people who have had abortions (shocking). Kinda late but you eventually got around the the “shaming” part of your pathetic argument. No I don’t shame people for aborting their children. Nope “pro choice” means pro abortion. Next.

          • sagefemme

            I will only repeat back contradictions, you can be sure about that. Especially when you say crap like the “right thing to do” . Right for who ? Where ? When ? For Mitzi, in Mitziville, in Mitzi’s life ??
            So, since we are on the subject on what the “right thing to do” is, what do you feel about day care, nannies, breastfeeding and getting vaccinations ? Tell me what “the right thing to do” is in those mothering choices?

            And yes, don’t lie about the shaming – you have at least 3 prior posts shaming my daughter for her choice. If your gonna na nanny boo boo at least don’t lie about it.

          • Mitzi

            Ahh shut up na nanny boohoo lol

          • PJ4

            I wouldn’t of been in a position to ‘kidnap’ him because they were harboring him so she couldn’t see him.

            Oh yes your kids seem very well adjusted…
            /end sarc.

          • sagefemme

            Ahhh…Ms. I Don’t Pay Attention…. Now, lets try this again. It was “THEY were harboring him because SHE wanted to see him” What part of that indicates MY daughter was the problem ??? Sheesh……

          • PJ4

            The part where she was with a dude that wouldn’t let her see her kid

          • sagefemme

            Ah, it’s called a Break Up. Or do break ups and divorce with custody issues not happen in your fantasy world ?

          • PJ4

            Again, you’re the one who has to keep telling yourself and everyone how “well adjusted” your kids are

            Sounds like you’re really trying to convince yourself
            No one else is fooled

          • sagefemme

            Man, your poor kids. Please don’t tell them if they experience a break up in the course of their lives they will not be considered as stable or well adjusted. *smh*

            Funny, she seemed well adjusted when she moved out of his house, got a job and moved on because at 27 years old he has only held a job for about 2 months total and sits around and does drugs and drinks all day.

            Yes, leaving him is the epitome of NOT being WELL adjusted. Damn, you can really sound silly when you talk sometimes.

            Also, i married my high school sweetheart too and it ended in divorce 24 years and 5 kids later so you better watch, you may be living your own non-well-adjusted life too someday.

          • PJ4

            Not my poor kids.. your poor kids..
            You have to keep telling yourself how well adjusted they are..
            It;s like being a lady.. if you have to tell someone you are.. then you’re not.

          • Mitzi

            Lol Oh PJ

          • sagefemme

            No, it’s more like a resume. You can’t list a job you haven’t worked at. Since my kids are adults i can say that. Unless you think that college educated, happily married, working, raising kids, independent and being productive is not a good definition of well-adjusted ??

          • PJ4

            Sorry but it just sounds like your trying to convince yourself of these “job descriptions”

            I don’t really care

          • sagefemme

            How cute. When you don’t have a come back. You say “i dont care”.
            What are you ? Like, um.. … 15 ??

          • Mitzi

            Wow. AB? Is abortion that long of a word you can’t write it all out? It’s only 8 letters long

          • sagefemme

            I’m sorry, was using it 6 times above not enough ?
            It was a long post and i was in a hurry. Does me writing AB change my thinking ? Nope, not a bit. In fact, here – abortion abortion abortion abortion. Better ?
            Now keep looking, you will probably find some typos and mis-uses of other words due to time constraints.

          • Mitzi

            Well in a previous post I noticed you referred to it as “AB” several times and that was the only one out your very long lost you decided to abbreviate in some way. But you’ve made it more than clear right now you are capable of writing the word abortion. Sorry my mistake

          • sagefemme

            No prob. Its also a medical abbreviation too so it rolls off my tongue easier.

          • The only thing that makes Tucker Max unusual is the fact that he’s rich and famous. Aside from that, there are plenty of guys doing the exact same things that he does. Google the phrase “how to talk a girl into having an abortion” and see what comes up–you’ll find advice like this:

            You need to channel your inner cold, unforgiving, unapologetic asshole nature, as nothing less will suffice. You must not ask, but rather tell her to get an abortion because if she refuses this child will be a bastard. Explain to her in no uncertain terms that you will not be a father to this child.

            These are the guys that you’re making life easy for.

            http://www.returnofkings.com/16089/how-to-convince-a-girl-to-get-an-abortion

            And using REAL murderers to further make your point doesnt count either.

            You don’t think it counts to their victims? How about to the women who gave into pressure and aborted rather than risk violence? Those are all women that the abortion industry is doing little to protect.

            Adopted kids have issues from being given up. Your just trading one problem for another.

            That’s not what this girl thinks–she’s quite happy that she was given up for adoption rather than aborted. Are you going to tell her that she would be better off dead?

            http://liveactionnews.org/a-college-freshman-proves-that-life-is-a-gift-whether-its-planned-or-not/

          • sagefemme

            Tucker Max is just taking advantage of the fact that the battle of the sexes was finally won by men. He’s just doing what any guy would do in a sea of casual, consensual sex. Women have become nothing but willing pieces of ass for any male that asks. Of course, they are going to have some pregnancies as a result. My cousin subscribed to his philosophy to get as much a** as possible . You know the whole “be a jerk to her and she’ll sleep with you” mentality. Unfortunately its works all to often. Feminism and free love has damaged our society and our dynamics. I actually had a woman on here call me a mysoginist for cleaning my house, making dinner and pleasing my man ! Wow…. Sad the day when house and home become optional places for women. I’m proud to be female and I take pride in what i do as a woman. Honestly, there is probably a rare man who would say he would want his wife doing anything else.
            Anyway, as far as me protecting women. How can I protect them if i can’t see what needs protection – according to you theres threats if they don’t do it – do you think not having abortion available is going to magically make them NOT be threatened?
            If i sold guns how could i take responsibility for what its used for if im not made aware of it ? The solution is certainly to NOT sell anymore guns.

          • sagefemme

            Thanks for the articles, i went back and read both. Interestingly enough they actually supported my previous posts. We have got to make women understand that abortion is not meant for birth control and casual sex, booty calls, one night stands, f*k buddies, drunk parking lot bl*w jobs, getting strange. etc… are NOT relationships and they do nothing but damage society. Don’t blame Tucker Max – the women had to eventually consent. They weren’t raped. They gave in. They never learned the art or benefit of saying no.
            As far as adoption, yes, of course there are good stories, just like there are good post AB stories, and post keeping -the-baby stories. I don’t disagree with you on that.

          • Sandra

            I don’t know anyone who opposed ‘birth control of any kind’ except for Catholics. What we pro-life opposed is the after-morning pills. Big difference because that is abortion.
            Plus, if a pregancy is inconvient then just terminate? How about adoption? Why is it better to kill than to give an innocent child a chance to life like you and I? You people make no sense.

          • sagefemme

            The morning after pill is NOT abortion. It prevents pregnancy and will not terminate. And really…. adoption is not the answer.

          • Sandra

            sagefemme, using the word “not” does not make for a good argument. You can’t elaborate? Or you are just brainwased into saying these things? To a pro-life the morning after pill is abortion because the baby is already forming. And as for adoption, is there something evil in that compared to murdering a child? If there is then you need to get your head examined.

          • sagefemme

            I can elaborate on facts, not brainwashing, unless you consider higher education ‘brainwashing’.
            The mechanism of action for the morning after pill is to prevent ovulation the same as birth control does. You can take it if your pregnant and it will do nothing.
            Adopted children do have issues. I know a lot of them and yes, it causes a lot of issues
            No matter how much they are wanted by another family doesn’t negate the fact that another gave them away.

          • Sandra

            The purpose of birth control pills is to prevent a pregnancy from occurring but the morning after pill is to stop a pregnancy that already occurred. The egg doesn’t last and is going to die anyway but a fetus is growing for the next 9 months. Then for years afterward live outside of the womb. That is why we call it murder to prevent the organism from taking its natural course. Also, the birth control pills prevent the egg from meeting the sperm, it even stop the ovulation of the egg. But the morning after pill stop the zygote(baby) from attaching to the wall of the womb so it get killed.

            As for adoption, you are basically saying that children with issues don’t deserve love and care. That is Nazi thinking and you know the results of that. And conservatives think it is evil and selfish to abort instead of giving that child a chance. Accidents do happen and circumstances do happen so a woman should feel safe enough to give up a baby instead of being prosecuted for it or condemned. But abortion is never the answer. To me it is demonic. IF a woman have a conscious and a sense of right from wrong then she would live with a lifetime of guilt for killing her child but with adoption she would feel that she gave her child a chance with another family who have the capacity to care and love that child . How is that not better?

          • sagefemme

            Sandra, its better to have the facts then to follow propaganda. It’s on medical neutral literature. Prevention of ovulation = no egg = no baby. Trust me, i know. Birth control taken regularly will work in different ways in addition to preventing ovulation.
            Funny, how you think its about the issues the kids have. So, you only think of the fetus/baby according to its value to someone else ? Interesting. That to me is more of a control issue then the stupid Nazi crap you guys equate me to. At least i think of what kind of life the child will have. You only think about who gets to keep the cute little baby. Very selfish. You act like adoption is a cure all. It’s not that easy for all involved except, like i said, who gets the cute little baby.

          • Sandra

            I don’t even understand your question where you said “So, you only think of the fetus/baby according to its value to someone else?” If I am not misunderstanding your question then I am going to think you are from another world because it makes no sense what this have to do with control. I grew up feeling unloved and not given proper attention by my parents. They were extremely immature and my mother have extreme ADHD issues. Yet, I met loving, mature people in my life and wished that I was adopted. Some people are not capable of love, including women but there are others who have a lot of love to give. So in other words maybe adoption is not for you but it is another person. That is the beauty of the world. The diversity of people where we are weak in something, you will find someone else who is the opposite. As for me, I actually have some disabilities that I was born with and I really wish that I was adopted by a couple that could have done a much better job of loving me than my parents did. I have even heard of those who prefer to adopt special needs kids over the normal ones. Don’t bother asking me to explain that. The point is that I want to live in this world but I also wanted to be loved. If the parent is not capable of giving that then there are others that are. But don’t take a child possible chance to experience that either just because those loving people don’t exist.

          • sagefemme

            Sandra, not sure if my last reply went thru. I was just meaning that adoption usually only considers what value the the baby has to someone other than the mother expecting to give it away. The control portion was having someone tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy /baby. Adoption isnt for everyone, especially when there are special circumstances. I loved reading your story and it kinda made me sad to hear your feelings. Family is so important to ones life and i hope you have found away to nurture that part on your own or create one :). Children should be a blessing to all but unfortunately that’s not always the case. I embrace that not everyone shares my views and I’m ok with that. I don’t have a need or a want to change them. I only want to make a difference in the women’s lives that I serve no matter what their story is.

          • Sandra

            You are right. Adoption is not for everyone. In fact, having children is not for everyone but it doesn’t change the fact that every person deserve a chance to live. I was pro-choice before I had kids but after having kids I became pro-life when I was reminded that even your flesh and blood have a mind of their own. I don’t even agree with some of my family members politically, culturally, etc. yet we share the same genes. I see three very different people in my kids too. Very different viewpoints, personalities, etc. They are great kids because I taught them right from wrong and so on but yet they have their own dreams. Even dreams that I would never consider or even want anything to do with. Like my oldest want to be an art teacher. That is the last thing I would ever want to be but it is my responsiblity to encourage her in pursuing her dreams. Not discourage her like too many selfish and lousy parents do who expect their kids to fulfill the dreams of the parents. The point is that people are soo complex and diverse and that is why I respect every human being as a unique individual, including each child growing in a mother’s womb. Even though we disagree I do have to remind myself that you come from a different experience in life.

          • sagefemme

            Funny, i was pro life til I had my kids. I contemplated an abortion at 16 but decided i couldn’t do it. Then, for the reasons you mentioned, i changed. After having kids i realized that the work that goes in to nurturing and raising them is a lot ! Then i start hearing stories from different women with different lives. I want the best for all children so why force the job of nurturing our future in the hands of someone who cant or doesn’t want to.
            Watching my adult children i know that i couldn’t stand for a mom to not encourage a child and support them in what they wanna do. I love being a mom and being a grandma (Mimi :)) is just as good !

          • Truth

            Would you be surprised to learn that the morning after pill is actually just two regular birth control pills? The only reason it is marketed as a separate pill is because taking two regular tablets can sometimes cause nausea. The preparation of the plan B pill makes the nausea a little less intense.

            In fact, when a woman misses a pill she is instructed to take two pills the next day. That’s the same as taking one plan B pill. Plenty of anti Plan B proponents have been taking Plan B without even knowing it.

            Likewise, Plan B is not even effective if the woman is already pregnant.

          • Lakes Region Guy

            Well, actually Margaret Sanger was apparently.

          • Eponymous1

            “There are also situations where the termination is necessary to save the life of the mother. ” Outside of ectopic pregnancies, never the case.

            And, name for me anyone who opposes birth control for others? Catholics don’t believe in it for themselves, but I’m not of ANYONE ANYWHERE advocating denial of birth control as a public policy. Not “abstinence” programs, that try to promote sexual abstinence among the young and unmarried, but to actually oppose birth control of others. They’re out there? Where?

          • Paul

            Many of the cases they cite as being threatening to the life of the mother are actually valid. My wife developed “Pre-eclampsia” where her blood pressure shot up to stroke inducing levels. The Solution was to remove the baby. We chose Cesarian, an abortion where the baby lives rather than being killed. Other than the example you gave of ectopic pregnancy, I can’t think of a single one that requires the death of the child.

          • Charles A. Hake

            No sane or moral system of ethics elevates one person’s mere convenience (or, in this case, inconvenience) over the very LIFE of another human being, pre-born or otherwise. Yes, situations can certainly be tough with an “unwanted” pregnancy, but NOTHING—other than the endangered life of the mother—trumps the right to life of the individual. (Cf. the Declaration of the Independence.) And nothing, other than the endangered life of the mother, justifies abortion. “Choice” begins in the bedroom.

          • martin

            No one is a “pro-abort”

            —————————————
            I am pro-abortion.

          • wineinthewater

            Generally, I find “pro abortion” to be nothing more than counter productive polemics. But, some people are pro abortion. They have allowed their vigor over their pro choice stance to twist it. And of course, I think it is more than fair to call organizations like Planned Parenthood pro abortion. They have repeatedly demonstrated an advocacy for only one choice in the matter, the voice they make a profit off of. Whether it is “counseling” that amounts to convincing, an almost complete absence of adoption and pregnancy support referrals, advocating sexual practices that increase the likelihood of an unplanned pregnancy, or focusing on lower efficacy contraception and even distributing low grade contraception (see the fiasco over the high failure rate of PP condoms), I think it is fair to say that PP is pro abortion.

            And while it is true that not every abortion is retroactive birth control, the vast majority are. The most generous research places abortions due to rape, incest and health of the mother at 5%. Most researchers puts them at 1-2%. That means that almost all abortions are effectively being used to bs stop or replace birth control.

            And it shouldn’t be surprising to find that many pro life people oppose birth control. Even the pro abortion Guttmacher Institute’s research shows that the introduction of birth control into a population increases the number of abortions and those numbers continue to rise as birth control becomes more pervasive. It is only once that birth control reaches a saturation point that abortion rates begin to decline. But even then, they settle into a rate higher than when birth control was introduced. Despite propaganda to the contrary, birth control increases the number of abortions. And this shouldn’t be surprising. The prevalence of birth control breaks the sex-baby connection in the sexual practices of the society. And since no form of birth control is 100% effective, even when used properly, a birth control saturated society is going to be faced with a lot more unwanted pregnancies. The simple reality is that more birth control almost guarantees more abortions, so you can hardly blame some pro-life people for not favoring it.

          • Isabel

            I agree that the less government would mean a more moral, peaceful, prosperous society and there would be much few abortions as a result.

          • Mitzi

            Zing

          • PJ4

            LOL!
            Yes indeed, Mitzi, yes indeed.

          • hicusdicus

            You can now collect a penny or not. I am not really sure of what you are saying

          • Mitz

            I’m saying that pro aborts refuse to acknowledge the fact that they support abortion. I don’t therefore I’m anti abortion. Or pro life.

          • PJ4

            When did someone order to have the clowns sent in?
            I think this hicusdicus dude thinks he’s some sort of comedy relief.

          • hicusdicus

            You sound like you could use some comedy relief. You are fighting a losing battle. No matter what they say Humans do what they think is best for them in spite of the fact that it is not. I wish they would come with a test to see if a fetus has a sense of humor I would adopt all of them.

          • Basset_Hound

            Good God. It looks like another LiveAction thread has turned into the Mos Eisley Cantina…

          • PJ4

            Lol, yes.
            He thinks he’s amusing
            The best thing to do is just pretend he’s not there

          • PJ4

            Oh…on a completely different note, did you send Adam an email?

          • Basset_Hound

            Yes.

          • PJ4

            Excellent!!
            I’ll tell him to send it then

          • kristy

            im pro abortion. i am pro choice. i believe that you can not tell me what to do with MY body. as that baby..yes that is also MINE!

          • Charles A. Hake

            Really? Rumor has it that, by law, the government can tell you not to ingest illegal drugs into that body of yours, your protestations of it being “My body” notwithstanding. It would appear that the law does indeed allow someone—namely the government—to tell you exactly what you can and cannot do with your body.

          • sagefemme

            Injesting illegal drugs can bring harm to other citizens. Having a baby or not having a baby isn’t considered a harmful choice.

          • Catherine Bird

            As long as you are responsible enough to PREVENT conception of said baby by using contraceptives. There are 16 methods available. Not using them, or ensuring they’re effective (by adding condoms) is IRRESPONSIBLE, and kills babies. THAT’S “harmful.”

          • asuffusionofyellow

            The only problem with that is that birth control is the launch pad for abortion. The prevention of conception is the other face of the prevention of birth.

          • Kipco

            You cannot crusade against abortion and be against birth control as well. Birth control helps to prevent the need for abortions. You know what they say about an ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure, right?

          • asuffusionofyellow

            Yes, you can. I just did. I think you’re trying to say it violates logic, which I don’t agree with. The assumption is that we all agree that babies can be a problem, either because of overpopulation or because of personal circumstances. Another assumption is that sexuality exists for pleasure and babies are merely a byproduct of sexual behavior. I don’t accept either of those assumptions, and the assertion that birth control “prevents” abortion is purely pernicious.

          • Kipco

            I am of the belief that UNWANTED babies can be a problem. It is also a fact that more sex takes place for pleasure than for procreation throughout the average person’s life. While the base biological function of sex is reproduction, demonizing or shaming sex for pleasure is ridiculous. Birth control absolutely helps prevent abortion by preventing unwanted pregnancies which lead people to consider having an abortion. I don’t accept the notion that sex for pleasure is an aberration that deserves to be debased because of puritanism or a personal squeamishness surrounding it.

          • Anonymous

            I believe that the UNWANTING is more problematic than the babies.

          • Isabel

            If your mindset is that pregnancy and children are diseases with no value to society. Some of us are evolutionary biologists however and we know that making babies is what life is all about on this planet. Any other assertions about what humans and animals “ought” to be doing are based more on FAITH than science and reason.

          • martin

            You can not pretend that killing the fetus does not harm it.I am not against abortion even if it involves killing the fetus. (for reasons presented in another posts ).To be pro-abortion ,but anti-legalization of drugs is morally inconsistent.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Except for the baby. Abortion kills babies. Guess you forgot about the innocent defenseless ones, huh? Think God will forget about what you do to them?

          • Kipco

            He isn’t real, so no.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Prove it! You made the assertion, so prove it. The burden is yours.

          • Kipco

            Sure….where is he?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Burden is on you. Asking a question is not supporting an assertion.

          • Charles A. Hake

            The heavens declare the [very] glory of God, for those who have eyes to see it, Kipco. These are matters of faith—neither provable to nor unprovable by close-minded skeptics—and you obviously have no faith in the God of the universe. Arguing with you is futile until your heart is changed and your eyes “opened.” May God so bring it to pass, despite your rejection of Him.

          • Kipco

            Um, no, it’s more I have no faith in the God that man has created. The Bible is the product of the hand of man, it did not fall from the sky. I know everyone says it was written by those “inspired by God”, but that’s not enough for me to hang my hat on…sorry.

          • Charles A. Hake

            You are indeed right, Kipco, for as we are told in II Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”

            Yes, all scripture is inspired by God, literally, “God-breathed.” It is not the work or product of mortal men; it is the Word of God Himself.

            Again, we are back to matters of faith, which you, by your own admission, lack in God, or as you say, “in the God that man has created.” But for those of us who do believe, who have been touched by God with life events and happenings that can only be explained by the presence of a superior Being, it is not at all difficult to believe and accept that an all-knowing, all-seeing God has no trouble supervising the writing of His holy Word through the ages, insuring that His thoughts [only] are placed in the minds of, and ultimately upon the pages before, those He chose as the instruments of this marvelous process of transcription.

            If God can create the universe, speaking it into existence (and those who have faith believe He did exactly that), is “breathing” His Word into the hearts and minds of men, and thus into their divinely inspired writings, a difficult task? Not in the least.

          • Anonymous

            Oh is that all it takes to prove that something doesn’t exist? Look around and not see it?

            On a related note, I’m starting to see why peekaboo is such an entertaining game for children who haven’t learned object permanence. They must be thinking “Oh my gosh, mommy’s face just disappeared! And now it’s back! And now it’s gone again! And now it’s back!”

          • Kipco

            Right…children also enjoy fairy tales, as do adults who believe in an invisible man who lives in the sky!

          • Anonymous

            As it happens, psychologists have discovered that telling children they’re being watched by an invisible princess makes them act more selflessly and less likely to cheat on a test. You can find a similar effect in adults by sticking posters of eyes on a wall, which biases the adults to contribute more money to a free-but-pay-as-you-wish unattended coffeepot in an employee lounge.

            Which suggests to me that people who genuinely love and fear God really are more likely to act selflessly and morally than people who believe God will forgive sins without also punishing them. (Or anyone else convinced that they really can get away with XYZ.)

          • Kipco

            A true test of character is how you behave when you think no one is watching. If you cannot be a decent human being without the feeling of ethereal supervision that is also grading your performance and putting it on your permanent record, what does that say about you? The idea that people of faith have a monopoly on morality or some sort of moral high ground because of it is laughable.

          • Anonymous

            A true test of character is when one is presented with information that goes against one’s preconceived ideas. If human nature is such that we genuinely are more decent when we feel we are under ethereal supervision; and if you are given knowledge of this, that you have a psychological bias that you can exploit for your own betterment, and if you then refuse to swallow your pride enough to accept the crutch, what does that say about you?

            (It suggests you don’t think the bias’s effects are worth having.)

            The idea that people of faith have no monopoly on morality is neither necessary nor sufficient to reject the idea that we should exploit our psychological biases.

          • Kipco

            I threw away my crutches long ago. What you are saying here is that it’s OK to perpetuate a falsehood and basically manipulate people as long as it produces a favorable result, and I don’t buy that. If you cannot be a decent human being without some sort of crutch, then that is a sign of weakness. Not being a jerk isn’t remarkably difficult and you shouldn’t need a crutch to achieve this.

          • Anonymous

            You say it’s a sign of weakness. But weak relative to what? Weaker than the average human? (Because I have had it up to here with “decent” people who aspire to be no better than their neighbors. I think people should aspire to be the best they can be, even if that requires them to act indecently in public. What would that say about you if you disagreed?)

            Are you a weak human being if you cannot fly by flapping your arms? What if you flap them really, really hard? Asking someone for a hang glider to help you fly instead of flapping your arms would not be a sign of weakness. It would be a sign of intelligence. No great sign, but a sign nonetheless, a sign that at least you have the capacity to see the limits of what humans can do alone, and are humble enough to reach for what will take you beyond yourself.

          • SoCal-Ex Dem

            What if hes is real? Are you going to arrogantly argue with God about your right to kill babies.

          • Kipco

            I have not personally been involved in a situation where a pregnancy where i was one of the responsible parties has been terminated, therefore it isn’t about MY rights, specifically, it’s about keeping government out of people’s lives and their doctors offices. The reproductive choices of people you will never meet are none of your business and I will do whatever I can to see that continues.

          • Muawiyah

            Hmm, and so you are an enemy of Obamaccare!

            What a surprise.

          • Your god doesn’t exist.

          • Charles A. Hake

            Except for the aborted baby, sagefemme.

          • martin

            Rumor has it that, by law, the government can tell you not to ingest illegal drugs into that body of yours, your protestations of it being “My body” notwithstanding.

            ————————————–
            Laws who prohibit drugs are immoral.

          • Catherine Bird

            Laws aren’t people, so you refer to them as “that,” not “who.”

            Only sins are immoral, which are the breaking of laws (God’s). Ruining your body by taking drugs (all drugs do it, not just those that are illegal) is a slow suicide, which is immoral, because it kills the body.

            Let’s not forget that it’s the intoxicated who harm–or kill–innocents by their irresponsible behavior (i.e., driving under the influence), which they then claim they are ‘not responsible for, because they were intoxicated.’ Unfortunately for the intoxicated, if they cannot behave responsibly while under their choice of intoxicant, then they ought to be declared ‘irresponsible’ and unable to be responsible adults, by society.

            As for ‘your body’ belonging to you, please read my response to Kristy, above.

          • martin

            Only sins are immoral, which are the breaking of laws (God’s).

            ———————————————–
            I do not believe in God .I am an atheist.So,I can not agree with the christian morality promoted by the social-conservatives.As a socially libertarian ,I believe that the only immoral actions are those who infringe on the right to life ,liberty and property.Taking drugs does not destroy any of these rights.You do not have the right to destroy the life of another person ,but you have the right to destroy your life.

          • Kate

            Hi Martin,

            So are you saying you are pro-life? I think that’s what I’m hearing you say, but just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.

          • martin

            No,I am not.It is true that I said in the previous post that generally you do not have the right to destroy the life of another person ,but in the case of the pregnancy, it is morally permissible for the pregnant woman to kill the fetus in order to defend her body autonomy.

          • Kate

            Oh, wow did I get that wrong. I’m sorry. Thank you for clarifying that.

            My mom has expressed similar thoughts about that, but she doesn’t like to talk about it because we have different perspectives where life issues are concerned and she doesn’t like conflict so I don’t delve too deep.

            So then what you are saying then is that one person does not have the right to destroy the life of another person after a certain point, however before that point is reached it would be okay? What is that point after which it would not be okay?

          • Isabel

            I think this is inconsistent with the basis of Libertarianism, which is the Non Aggression Principle. The fetus is alive and therefore has a right to its own autonomy. It is not an aggressor against the mother. It is not violating her rights. It is simply growing and existing in its nature. To say the fetus violates a woman’s “autonomy” shows either a lack of understanding of what autonomy means or what it means to be pregnant.

          • Isabel

            I think this is inconsistent with the basis of Libertarianism, which is the Non Aggression Principle. The fetus is alive and therefore has a right to its own autonomy. It is not an aggressor against the mother. It is not violating her rights. It is simply growing and existing in its nature.

            To say the fetus violates a woman’s “autonomy” shows either a lack of understanding of what self governance means or what it means to be pregnant.

            When you get on a bus with another person you are going to possibly have to wait for that other person to get off at their stop before the bus will take you to yours. You can not throw the person out of the bus, effectively killing that person either directly or indirectly. Bad analogy, I know, but I am libertarian too and abortion is aggression., no way around it.

          • martin

            When you get on a bus with another person you are going to possibly have to wait for that other person to get off at their stop before the bus will take you to yours

            —————————————————————————–
            It is a mistake from a libertarian to not make the difference between body and property.

          • Paul

            It’s an equal mistake when a libertarian makes an arbitrary distinction moving a person from the body category to the property category.

          • Charles A. Hake

            Incidentally, abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, more commonly known as murder, libertarian notions of “non aggression” notwithstanding.

          • Charles A. Hake

            “To defend her ‘body autonomy'”?? At the expense of the preborn baby’s life? You’ve got to be kidding! What kind of a system of ethics/morality is that, allowing the mere convenience/inconvenience and “body autonomy” of one human being to trump the very right to life/existence of another human being???

          • Charles A. Hake

            Morally permissible? At the expense of the baby’s very life? According to whom? Some notion of “body autonomy” trumps the very right to life of a nascent human being, foreknown and designed by God at conception (Jeremiah 1:5) and imbued with an everlasting soul? The mere convenience/inconvenience of one human being (as well as her “body autonomy”) should trump the precious right to life of another human being? What kind of a system of ethics/morality is that??

          • Sabel

            I am libertarian too and as I see it Abortion violates the Non Aggression Principle because the fetus is existing in its nature in the only space it can inhabit. Left to its nature it continues growing and expanding its “consciousness”. It is not an aggressor against the mother therefore what right has she to violate its right to live?

          • martin

            It is not an aggressor against the mother therefore what right has she to violate its right to live

            ———————————————————————–

            First of all,the right to life is not the right to be kept on life support by destroying the body autonomy of a person.As Murray Rothbard argues: “no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body”.Sure ,you could come with the same argument as Calvin and to say that the woman is responsible for the fetus’s dependency .But if she refuses to help the fetus ,the fetus will not be in a worse off situation compared to the situation prior dependency(non-existence).So,she has no duty to privide help to the fetus.Another objection could be that even if the woman has no positive duty to assist the fetus ,she has at least a negative obligation to not kill it ,because abortion is not letting die or eviction ,it is killing .So ,abortion would violate the non-agression principle.But the non-agression principle is not absolute.If you support small government and not anarchy ,you already compromised your non-agression principle.Personally,I have some sympathy for the evictionism theory of Walter Block.I believe that not only letting die is permissible in the case of abortion ,but also killing ,if it is the only method to disconnect the fetus from the mother ‘s body and if the burdens involved in pregnancy are too great for the pregnat woman.

          • wineinthewater

            I would say that death is considerably worse situation than non-existence. And I think it is a *very* important point that, except for the rare exception, the woman creates the situation and the dependency. Therefore, your conclusion of permissibility for letting die or killing does not follow.

          • martin

            I would say that death is considerably worse situation than non-existence

            ————————————————————————————
            Ok, but that does not show why the woman should be obligated to extend the life of the fetus.

          • martin

            And I think it is a *very* important point that, except for the rare exception, the woman creates the situation and the dependency.

            ———————————————————————————
            I have already discussed about this argument with Calvin.If this situation of dependency can not be considered worse off than the anterior situation ,and if the fetus received a benefit from the woman(it received life),there will be no compensation for the fetus.And in ordinary situations when a person is responsible for another person being dependent on him for survival(e.g.a drunk driver hits another person) ,the person must restore the person to the anterior better condition.But the fetus will be in a better sitution compared to the state prior dependency if it is helped ,what would be unjust enrichment.

          • wineinthewater

            I will start by saying that I don’t think that legal principles such as unjust enrichment really apply here. Life is not a material gain, not an enrichment. But let’s go with the framework because I think it is still revelatory. There are two responses:

            Modern medicine defines pregnancy as beginning with implantation. So, there is a period of independence between conception and implantation. The fetus is a living human, happily dividing its cells under its own stored cellular energy. Dependency occurs with implantation. If the woman is responsible for returning the child to her “anterior state,” then the state she must be returned to is one of independent life, in which case killing her is certainly not a just option.

            Or if you do not accept this, you can look at it another way. Even though they are both states of non-existence, a child who has been killed is certainly worse off than one that never existed. Deprivation of life is arguably the worst harm that can befall a person. Life is a prerequisite for all other goods. A child cannot truly be “returned” to her anterior state of no existence because that non-existence was characterized by never possessing life and never being deprived of life once possessed. Once the child has life, the only nonexistence available is characterized by the deprivation of life. In abortion, the child is not “returned to the anterior state,” she is placed in a much worse state. The child’s anterior state is no longer available. Until science gives us others, the only options are continued life or deprivation of life. Since deprivation of life is a great harm, then that leaves continuation of life as the only option. In which case, any “enrichment” is not unjust. The only unjust option is the deprivation of life.

          • martin

            fetus is a living human, happily dividing its cells under its own stored cellular energy

            ———————————————————————————-
            I am not an expert in biology ,but I believe the correct term to describe the human being between conception and the 8 th week of pregnancy is embryo and not fetus.

          • martin

            Dependency occurs with implantation.

            ——————————–
            Your argument implies that there is nothing bad for an embryo to die because it failed to implant.After all,it would be in a worse off position being implanted.

          • martin

            Dependency occurs with implantation. If the woman is responsible for returning the child to her “anterior state,” then the state she must be returned to is one of independent life

            —————————————————————————–
            Independent life means usually the ability to survive without someone’s help.Do you want to tell me that if it is possible to extract the embryo before implantation ,the embryo could survive without someone’s help?

          • martin

            Do you want to to tell me that the zygote or the blastocyst does not receive nourishment from the mother ?

          • wineinthewater

            “Do you want to to tell me that the zygote or the blastocyst does not receive nourishment from the mother ?”

            The child (embryo is correct at this stage of development, bridging both the zygote and blastocyst stage, but regardless of developmental stage, it is a human being and that is the most important thing) does not receive any nourishment from the mother until implantation.

            “Ok, but that does not show why the woman should be obligated to extend the life of the fetus.”

            The first argument is admittedly the weaker one. I was trying to formulate something to fit into the principle you were basing your argument from. But the second argument stands. The woman created the state of dependency. The only two courses of action
            available are to continue to allow the child to develop and live or to kill the child. Returning the child to her true anterior state is not truly an option. Considering that deprivation of life is a great harm, the most just alternative is to allow the child to continue to live. That there is not an easy and just solution for the woman does not relieve her of the obligations she created through her actions.

          • martin

            Ok,the embryo does not receive any nourishment from the woman,however the child is dependent on the woman’s body for development.

          • wineinthewater

            Fine, but that has no bearing on the second argument that I offered.

          • martin

            Yes,but it refutes your idea that the embryo has an independent life before implantation.If this thing were true,then the embryo could develop outside the mother ‘s womb.

          • wineinthewater

            Again, fine, but it has no bearing on the second argument.

            I offered two independent arguments. All of your comments have focused on the first. I have conceded the first as a weaker argument and asked you about the second. But you continue to comment on the first.

          • martin

            The only two courses of action
            available are to continue to allow the child to develop and live or to kill the child

            ———————————————-
            If abortion were just letting the fetus to die ,would you be opposed to abortion in this situation?

          • wineinthewater

            Almost every form of abortion requires the direct killing of the child during the process, not just “letting the child die.”

            Some people have proposed a solution of effectively delivering the child early and then “letting nature take its course.” However, this is morally indistinguishable from the above. It is still taking an action that results in the direct and unavoidable death (in the case of a younger unborn child) or significant harm to health and development (in the case of an older unborn child) of the child.

            At this point, “letting the child die” is not substantively different than killing the child, so I would still be opposed and my argument above still applies. If science progresses to a point where the child can be removed from the womb without death or significant harm, then we will will hopefully have another viable option.

          • martin

            The woman created the state of dependency. The only two courses of action
            available are to continue to allow the child to develop and live or to kill the child. Returning the child to her true anterior state is not truly an option.

            —————————————————————————————–
            So,do you believe that existing in a dependent state is worse than than non-existence?

          • wineinthewater

            Of course not. But your original argument made such a big deal about the child’s “anterior state” that I wanted to make sure that we were clear that killing the child does not actually return her to that anterior state, that her anterior state is no longer available, that sending her to a new state of nonexistence is not only quite different from her previous nonexistence but that it can only be accomplished by doing her a great wrong.

          • martin

            Of course not. But your original argument made such a big deal about the child’s “anterior state”

            —————————————————————
            Sorry ,it was my mistake.I wanted to say that if it can be proved that the fetus is in a worse situation than prior her actions ,then the woman has an obligation to help the fetus.However ,if the fetus is not in a worse situation than before and if it received a benefit from the woman(it received life) ,there will be no compensation for the fetus.

          • wineinthewater

            We don’t know because we don’t know what “pre-life” is like is like, if it is like anything. It’s a calculus that can’t be made, which is why we come back to my original point that this framework doesn’t really work. We may not know what “pre-life” is like, but deprivation of life is fairly universally considered a bad thing, especially when done unwillingly.

            So, the woman is certainly putting the fetus in a worse state by the action of abortion.

          • martin

            We don’t know because we don’t know what “pre-life” is like is like

            ———————————————————–
            Pre-life is the absence of life.Let s suppose that the fetus was made worse off by being brought into existence.It would not be logic to extend its existence.After all,if it is bad to exist ,then it is even worse to continue to exist.

          • martin

            Do you believe that a short existence is worse than not-existing at all?

          • wineinthewater

            I think my reply to your other inquiry applies here just as well.

            BTW, your attempt at Socratic dialogue through fractured, piecemeal, scattered comments is starting to get annoying.

          • martin

            then the state she must be returned to is one of independent life, in which case killing her is certainly not a just option

            —————————————————————————
            I think this argument fails because it supposes that it could have been possible for the embryo to live a very long time in a state of independecy and the woman did something wrong and made the embryo dependent on her.

          • martin

            I would say that death is considerably worse situation than non-existence.

            ——————————————————————————————–
            May you come with a further explication?

          • wineinthewater

            I think my other comment addresses it, we can continue there to keep things clean.

          • martin

            I would say that death is considerably worse situation than non-existence.

            ——————————————————————————-
            This argument would imply that it is immoral to bring people into existence ,because,finally ,everyone of us will die.

          • Anonymous

            Give me one rationale in favor of abortion that does not also apply to infanticide.

          • martin

            Laws aren’t people, so you refer to them as “that,” not “who.”

            ———————————————-
            Sorry ,it was my mistake.English is not my first language.

          • Charles A. Hake

            “Laws ‘who’ prohibit drugs…”? Don’t you mean “laws that prohibit drugs…” or “laws which prohibit drugs…”? (“Who” is a pronoun used to substitute for people, while “which” is more properly used to substitute for things rather than people. “That” can reasonably be used for either category, people or things.

            But to the point at hand: who, besides you and other libertarian-leaning folks, says that laws which prohibit drug [usage] are immoral? (I presume that you’re referring to illegal drugs, not OTC and prescription pharmaceuticals.) For the good and well-being of society, I am quite happy that the illicit use of certain harmful, mind-and-behavior-altering substances is illegal. And I find that to be an entirely morally defensible position to take on the issue.

          • martin

            English is not my first language.But ,even if my level of English is not very high(unfortunately),I know that “who”is a pronoun used to substitute for persons and “that”is a pronoun used to substitute for things.It was a mistake made because of the fact that I forgot to verify the grammatical correctness of my post.But ,anyway ,I am sorry.

          • Charles A. Hake

            You don’t need to apologize, Martin, especially if English is not your first language. No problem. I hope my words helped and didn’t hurt.

          • martin

            But to the point at hand: who, besides you and other libertarian-leaning folks, says that laws which prohibit drug [usage] are immoral?

            ——————————————————————————
            I bet you consider yourself a small-government conservative ,but in the same time you want to ban prostitution ,drugs ,pornography and abortion.

          • Charles A. Hake

            You’re darned right I would tend to favor those bans, Martin, and I make no apologies for my stance. It is not inconsistent with my other views (and this is where you are wrong), as I make no pretense of being a “small government conservative.” Rather, I am simply a Christian conservative, concerned foremost about preserving, with the government’s help/enforcement as is reasonable, the values and institutions that made America great. And those values and institutions sprang directly, and with God’s blessing, from the Judeo-Christian moral system upon which America, unlike any other nation before or since (with the arguable exception of Israel), was founded.

            Check out the writings of America’s founders, including the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, and the innumerable pro-Christian quotes offered by Washington, Adams, Madison, Patrick Henry, among countless others (even Jefferson and Franklin), as well as the inarguably religious inscriptions found on many of the buildings and monuments in Washington, D.C. All clearly demonstrate the devout religious faith and devotion of many of our Founding Fathers, looking to God as they birthed this fledgling nation. As [President and statesman] John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other [type of people/nation].”

            Sexual licentiousness, in violation of our Creator’s design and intent for human beings, and as manifested in the practices of prostitution, abortion, and pornography that you mentioned, bring no honor—only shame—to any man, woman, or nation that indulges in them. Nor can such people or nations expect to enjoy the blessings of God. For the good of society, such sinful practices, as well as illegal drug usage, should be discouraged, as ALL of society is ultimately affected by the “individual” actions of those who indulge in such acts.

          • martin

            For the good of society

            ———————————————————
            As Margaret Thatcher said:”There is no such thing as society.”There are only individuals with their interests .So,the so-called “common good” or “good of society”is rather a socialist cliche.

          • Charles A. Hake

            As you surely must know, Martin, just because Margaret Thatcher (or a thousand like her) said something doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true. Neither she nor any other human is an oracle, God incarnate, speaking only absolute, infallible Truth. For every Margaret Thatcher you can cite making such a statement, I’m sure there are one hundred others I could quote that support the existence of society as a sociological unit (it is not a radical concept).

            Besides, I don’t know what context prompted Ms. Thatcher’s remark; could it be that she was condemning Marxist notions of the role of “society” (actually, individuals) to provide for others so as to benefit “the common good,” as in “to each, according to his need, from each, according to his means”? In that case, I would agree with Thatcher that we as individuals are under no obligation to allow, by government compulsion, our wealth to be socialistically re-distributed to those of lesser means for the sake of “the common good.”

            On the other hand, from what I remember about a conservative like Margaret Thatcher, I hardly believe she would disapprove of government laws that prohibit certain sins/vices, all because she believed that “there is no such thing as society.” Are you suggesting that Thatcher, for example, did not approve of prohibiting prostitution because “there is no such thing as society” being damaged by unfettered prostitution? Surely not!

            I feel rather certain that Ms. Thatcher not only recognized the existence of British “society” but also had a very healthy respect for it, to the point of seeking to protect and preserve it (and the common good), for future generations, by the policies she advocated and laws she enforced.

          • Anonymous

            As the Bulgarians say, “No one is above bread.” The common good, or good of society, consists simply of those needs which are encoded into the chemistry and psychology of every human alike. It is scientific fact, not socialist cliché.

          • martin

            It is not inconsistent with my other views (and this is where you are wrong), as I make no pretense of being a “small government conservative.”

            ——————————————————————————
            Sorry,I thought that you are the kind of American conservative who is for small government on economic issues ,but who is for big goverment on social issues and on foreign policy.

          • Charles A. Hake

            No need to apologize, Martin. But even if I were a “small government conservative” (on economic issues), I don’t feel that would be inconsistent with being for “big” government on certain other issues. Here’ why:

            As a Christian, I believe God ordained the institution of government to fulfill a certain prescribed role according to Romans 13. (Our Constitution roughly outlines that same role for the federal government.) We as humans may at times perceive that role to be limited or “small government,” and at other times to be what we’d call “big government.” In either case that role is simply God’s intended design for government regardless of how we may label it.

            Governments are instituted chiefly to “bear the sword,” i.e., to protect and defend its citizens from the evil acts of other citizens or nations. (Hence my support of “big” government in foreign policy/military matters for raising and maintaining various armed forces and defending our shores from invasion.) And when it comes to certain significant life-and-death “social” issues like abortion (murder of innocent human life made in God’s image) and traditional marriage (the foundational building block of any society and even of civilization itself, designed to allow children to be united with their biological parents, a role model from each gender), I also feel the federal government bears a responsibility, before God, to maintain the moral order He ordained at Creation—the same moral order upon which America was founded and which made her great . . . and which is slipping away from us alarmingly quickly now as we drift away from God.

          • martin

            I am quite happy that the illicit use of certain harmful, mind-and-behavior-altering substances is illegal.

            —————————————————————————
            Every individual should have the right to harm himself ,but to not harm others.

          • Charles A. Hake

            And you mean to tell me, Martin, that an individual who wantonly engages in behavior practices that bring harm to himself, doesn’t also eventually harm those closest to him, such as his spouse, children, siblings, and so on? And the more such individuals selfishly harm themselves within a society, the society itself is not also ultimately harmed?? (A society that contains many of such people certainly cannot function optimally, let alone thrive, excel, or continue.)

            No man is an island unto himself; we are all part of the whole. And our supposedly private acts, when repeated so as to become habitual, and especially when multiplied by countless others throughout society, cannot help but harm the society itself over the course of time. It has ever been thus.

          • martin

            No man is an island unto himself; we are all part of the whole.

            —————————————————————————————————
            That is rather a communitarianist view of morality and I consider myself an individualist.

          • Charles A. Hake

            A “communitarian” view of morality? I thought you may have recognized it as a quote by English poet and clergyman, John Donne. It is considered to be wisdom of the ages, your analysis notwithstanding.

          • Anonymous

            What does an individualist do when he is starving? Does he ask for bread?

          • Isabel

            As adults we do own our own bodies. There is a big difference between adults using drugs and committing aggression against an innocent fetus. Ironically it’s because we GIVE GOVERNMENT THE ROLE OF MORAL ARBITER IN OUR PERSONAL LIVES that abortion is federal law. Government is FORCE. The more you allow government to run our lives the more abortion, war, violence, injustice you will see.

          • Charles A. Hake

            Calm down, Isabel; I’m on YOUR side. In responding to “kristy” I was attempting to expose the fallacy of her notion that she can willy-nilly do whatever she wants with her body, including killing her own preborn child, simply because she claims that it’s “my body.” I don’t know how you missed my point, but I, too, am totally against abortion (except in cases, rare though they are, that the mother’s life might be in danger) and against illegal drug use as well. When it comes to laws that outlaw murder, theft, rape, etc., I am indeed glad that the government IS acting as a moral arbiter, for God has authorized it to “bear the sword” and do that very thing according to Romans 13:1-7 and I Peter 2:13-17.

            I will concede that governments can indeed be evil (I see the present administration as Exhibit A to illustrate my point) and thus institute evil policies, in which case we are to obey God rather than man (Acts 4:18-20)—which is why I oppose Roe v. Wade as a pro-life Christian.

          • JMellor

            Since when does the government making a law mean that something is morally right or wrong? The government has all kinds of stupid laws. Those laws are made by men. They are not perfect.

          • Anonymous

            There are people who say that it is morally righteous to follow the law simply because it is the law.

            This idea of a moral order to the universe derives from the idea that there can be physical flesh-and-blood people who stand as representatives of God’s law, and to whom we have certain obligations just as if those people were God Himself. This is prominent among Catholics, less so among Protestants.

            IMO, this idea is true, to a point. We do have obligations to the poor and needy, and those people do stand as representatives of God. “For whatever you do to the least of these you do also to me.”

            But until I see lawmakers who were, are, and will remain among the ranks of the least of these, I will not follow unjust laws. Only the sick need a physician.

          • Catherine Bird

            Hhhmmm, your Maker has a beef with your belief. God says, in 1st Corinthians 6:18-20, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man/woman commits are outside his/her body, but he who sins sexually sins against his/her own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

            In Leviticus 20:1-5, God indicates His wrath for those who sacrifice their children: “The Lord said to Moses, 2’Say to the Israelites: ‘Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children (in sacrifice) to Molech (a false god, aka, satan) must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. 3I will set My face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled My santuary and profaned My Holy Name. 4If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and htey fail to put him to death, 5I will set My face against that man and his family and will cut them off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.”

            For those who claim to be “Christian,” yet are willing to kill their own unborn children, or support the killing of unborn human beings for any reason:
            Hebrews 10:26-31 says: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgement and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the Covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? 30For we know Him who said, ‘It is Mine to avenge; I will repay,’ and again, ‘The Lord will judge His people.’ 31It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

            God said, in Genesis 9:5-6, “And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”

            Let’s remember, those who take lives are NOT gods, nor do they have the love of God in them. They damn themselves with their own sins.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Outstanding!!!

          • Mr. G.

            I could be wrong, but I’m not aware of any women who sacrifice their aborted fetuses to pagan gods these days.

          • Anonymous

            Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives this for “sacrifice”

            3a : destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else

            So, when women destroy their fetuses even for the sake of their own livelihoods, it is grammatically valid to say that they are sacrificing their fetuses to themselves.

            However, you are right. Women who sacrifice their aborted fetuses to themselves are not often considered to be pagan gods these days.

          • Paul

            No one owns another.

          • Pax Humana

            The Holy Scriptures disagree. You are either of YAHWEH EL ELOHIM or or Lucifer in the end, period, full stop.

          • Paul

            You don’t get out much, do you?

          • Mitzi

            I’m not sure what’s scarier that you see children as property or that your willing to kill your own children simply because they’re inside you at some point? Do you believe in infanticide?

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            A pro-abort=pro-“choice”-to-kill-an-unborn-human-being. Get that straight.

            Then stop indirectly telling moms to have surgical procedures that can even kill the moms and always kill their unborn babies which damages the moms bodies mentally.

            Wow, you sound just like a slave master, “as that slave…YES that [ni66er]is also MINE!!!”

          • Isavel

            Abortion violates the Non Aggression Principle because the fetus is existing in its nature in the only space it can inhabit. Left to its nature it continues growing and expanding its “consciousness”. It is not an aggressor against the mother therefore what right has she to violate its right to live? Abortion is like war: always ugly and usually unnecessary.

          • Pax Humana

            I can do that and what your body needs to do is to go into a kitchen and make some sandwiches until you quit acting like a spoiled and bratty child, Luciferian. Thank you.

          • Sagefemme

            No one is “pro abortion”. This term was thought up by pro-lifers to try to villianize anyone who believes that the only one who should decide to birth and raise a child should be their decision and their decision only. We can always turn the tables and say you are anti- choice ??

          • Please stop and think why you get so hyper-defensive about “pro-abortion.” Pro/anti-[policy] is the shorthand for basically every stance on every issue — in none of which do we ever see this kind of hand-wringing. People who support legal recognition for same-sex marriages never whine that being called “pro-gay-marriage” might lead people to believe they’re gay themselves or would force gays to get married. People who’d never personally own a gun yet support a broad interpretation of 2nd Amendment rights never throw hissy fits about being called “pro-gun.”

            Yet “pro-abortion” — which common sense tells us simply means one considers abortion valid or worth permitting/defending — makes the people who believe it uneasy.

            Three guesses why.

          • sagefemme

            The term in no way makes me me uneasy. So no guesses needed. I am totally ok with my beliefs. The reason I don’t agree with your philosophy on the label is that I am pro-gay marriage and pro-guns. ALL THE TIME. I am only pro-abortion when a woman chooses to have one. Otherwise I am pro-life. If i wasn’t i would have chosen abortion for my 5 pregnancies and would of encouraged my pregnant daughters and clients to get abortions. So the term, while functionally accurate for your cause, isn’t really truly accurate. Plus, the same argument can be made – whats so problematic with the word “pro-choice” ? Could it be the word ‘choice’ ? Hmmmm…. now whose the one feeling uneasy ?

          • You’re proving my point. That’s an awful lot of pedantic quibbling over how obsessive people might theoretically construe “pro-abortion” that the terminology for pretty much any other policy position is almost never subjected to. Why does “pro-abortion” inspire such a compulsive need to hand-wring? Why are you so opposed to simply using common sense in how you interpret the term?

            As for “pro-choice,” I might be more inclined to accept it if the other side extended us the same courtesy of calling us “pro-life” rather than various pejoratives like “anti-choice” and “forced birth.”

            Even so, “pro-choice” actually is misleading because (a) it obscures the major detail of the “choice” being the choice to kill, and (b) because, as political liberals, abortion tends to be the only issue in which pro-“choicers” actually come down on the side of personal choice.

          • sagefemme

            No, Calvin, i am not proving your point. You just want me to think i am. Talk about pedantic quibbling. You brought up the pro gay marriage and pro gun and i pointed out the difference. And yes, anti-choice suits your cause. You don’t want the mother to choose if she should carry a baby. That’s against ‘choice’ and she will be ‘forced’ to carry a baby she doesn’t want. What’s so difficult in understanding that ? Common sense, right ? And again, pro-abortion doesnt make me “hand wring” its just not accurate.

          • Amid all that complaining you didn’t actually refute anything I wrote; you just said nuh-uh a lot. I’m satisfied that most readers will understand what you’re refusing to.

          • sagefemme

            And what didn’t i refute to your liking ? The term pro abortion does nothing to me. Just because you don’t like my answer doesn’t make it wrong. Call me pro abort all you want, it changes absolutely 100% nothing, inside me or outside me.
            Now, i am pro abort, you are anti- choice. You don’t believe in a woman’s choice to abort so therefore the name fits.
            Okay, so does that satisfy your 2 paragraphs on that one point ?

            Trust me, i read back 4 posts…..that was your only point.

          • Kipco

            Because calling someone “pro-abortion” is their way of demonizing those who oppose them while calling themselves “pro-life” sounds more benevolent and pious. It’s messaging and perception management.

          • Paul

            Yes it is. And if you restrict that judgement to only one side of euphemistic enablement then your bias is showing.

          • Kipco

            As if I am the only one showing bias in this discussion…

          • Paul

            Really Kipco? Tu quoque ?

            If you expect a world without any bias you will undoubtedly exclude yourself from your own dream.

          • Kipco

            Bias is usually a belief or opinion less about actual information but more “gut feeling” as opposed to factual knowledge. Facts are not “biased” even though they may be unflattering to a person or group. Rejection or refusal to believe that which one can prove factually a better descriptor of “bias”.

          • Paul

            I almost fell for it. Just erased the dissertation on formal proofs. You acknowledge you were one showing bias in the discussion. I can live with that.

          • If merely saying someone is “pro” the name of the practice they’re defending is all it takes to constitute demonization, that kind of says it all….

          • ABOLISHabortionNOW

            “The term in no way makes me me uneasy.”

            Did you just stutter on your post?

            Didn’t think that was possible, what with editing and all.

            Yeah, the killing of unborn human beings clearly makes you uneasy.

          • sagefemme

            Interesting, can you make my stuttering and uneasiness more apparent? I cannot see it like you say.

          • Mr. G.

            Allow me to introduce myself – I’m also known as the (in)famous Gary that some suspect is the person behind your screen name – something about how our writing styles are so similar or something. Personally, after reviewing your comments, I’d say they’re no better at linguistic analysis than they are at making convincing arguments why women should be forced to have babies they don’t want to have. FYI: Calvin is the resident champion of pedantic quibbling on this web site.

          • sagefemme

            Ahh…Mr. G, its a pleasure to make your acquaintance. I guess it’s easier to think we are just one big green monster to defeat than a great many intelligent minds with intelligent opinions.
            So nows there’s 2 of us. Good, cause keeping up has been time consuming ;)
            Welcome back

          • Mr. G.

            How long we’ll be here is another question. This site has a history of banning pro-choice folks. Some (on both sides of the aisle) are amazed that I’ve lasted as long as I have. As best I can tell, you have to be an avid forced-birther to be able to get away with serious name-calling. That’s fine with me. I see resorting to name-calling as evidence that the person doing it knows their arguments are losing.

          • Mary Lee

            Oh give me a break. Drama queen much?

          • Mitzi

            Um yes

          • I like how despite your supposed towering intellect, it apparently hasn’t dawned on you that the fact that you’re still able to post freely here after all the crap you’ve pulled just miiiiiiight be a sign that our alleged “history of banning pro-choice folks” is bogus.

          • sagefemme

            Yeah, I noticed that on these kind of sites.It’s no longer that you have to be vulgar or rude, you just have to disagree to get banned. I guess if you ban everybody that differs in opinion from you are sure to win the argument. I’m here as long as I last , I guess. Like you said, when you run out of ways to be right then you start name calling. Well I can tell you there’s a lot of name calling going on so that must be a good thing, right? Haha

          • Mr. G.

            I have no illusions of breaking thru the crust of the true believers – pretty much everything I say has the casual, undecided visitor somewhere in mind,

          • sagefemme

            Yes, im right there too. Sometimes i enjoy the distraction of the attempted breaking of the crust tho. :)

          • Mitzi

            And yet your still allowed to comment here…..and still keep coming back despite all the hostility you’ve endured

          • sagefemme

            I’ve have yet to call anyone names that haven’t started with calling me one first. I guess pro life doesn’t always equate with professionalism.
            And yes, I am no stranger to hostility. You can’t be a teen mom and been where I’ve been without encountering that.

          • Mitzi

            Oh man what awful names did I call you that bothered you so? Ignorant? That’s not name calling believe it or not. Its an adjective it means lacking in knowledge or training. You refuse to admit simple facts probably so you can convince yourself what your doing isn’t wrong. That’s ignorant. Your choosing to ignore what’s right in front of you. Pro life equates with kindness sincerity and honesty. Just because you don’t hear pro lifers here praising your work to murder unborn children doesn’t mean were hostile awful people. Your saying you were a teen mom? That couldn’t be more backwards.

          • sagefemme

            Nothing you or anyone said here has bothered me. I was making an observation based on another post. For some reason you are suprised that I am “still allowed to comment here”
            And what simple facts am i ignorant in ?

            Why do you think im not honest and sincere? I allow woman to make their own choices, what is so wrong about that ?

            Yes, i was a teen mom – twice over. What do you mean that’s backwards? ?

          • Mitzi

            I’m not surprised your still allowed to comment. Obviously you haven’t used derogatory or vulgar comments hence your still here. I thought I made that clear in my post where you and abortionist Gary were whining about being banned from LAN but you were still allowed to comment…. So why the whining??? Who knowS. You were a teen mom most likely it was an unplanned pregnancy and here you are advising women not take the path you took which led to your children to be born alive.and again, it’s not bout choices it’s about abortion. Pro lifers are against abortion. Not choices. Unless there’s other choices that take someones life.

          • sagefemme

            I give my perspective on being a teen mom because it’s not always the best choice. I’m sorry I’m not a shining testimony to the pro life movement. Regardless of how much i love my daughter and grandson. Our lives would certainly be different. And i NEVER advised any woman to not have their baby because of my personal journey. I just tell them the truth. Both sides of the coin. How despite what i gave up it eventually worked out. Not everyone can be that lucky. I married her father and went on to have 4 more kids. That’s not common. So, I’m not going to lie to them.

            “Pro lifers are against abortion. Not choices”
            So, now you and the other pro lifers are in charge of what choices OTHER people can make ??? How very arrogant of you.

            Here’s a thought – if YOU don’t want an abortion – DON’T HAVE ONE. Pretty dam simple.

          • Mitzi

            Damn lady about time you throw those old overused pro abortion lines. But your right if I don’t like abortion I just won’t have one myself. Let’s apply that idiotic logic to everything else. Don’t like rape then don’t rape someone or get raped. Don’t like pedophilia then don’t watch children have sex. (Thanks PJ) but dont go forcing your views on rapists and pedophiles out there ok? You must be confused because the arrogance, ignorance and stupidity is all coming from your posts no offense

          • sagefemme

            Mitzi, you couldn’t offend me on your best day. In fact you have tried over and over to no avail. There are very few things that you could say that would shake me. So far, nothing…..
            That’s what laws are for. To protect others rights. You aren’t forcing a child to miss out on sex because you forbid sex with them. You are forcing a woman to carry a child against her will if you make a law to forbid her from doing it. Still the right ti choose.

            Haha…leave it to you to say that CHOICE is an ‘overused pro abortion line’ so friggin typical arrogant -we know what’s better for your life than you, don’t you know this ?? Hahaha

          • Mitzi

            Believe it or not my goal isn’t to offend you if that’s what your looking for your in the wrong place. The fact that you ended up as some ridiculous clown for entertainment was your own fault. I have no problem talking things out with pro aborts and pro lifers (anti aborts if you’d like) disagree or not. Since you got here all you’ve done is rant. Your the definition of rant. Perhaps your just bored and are looking for attention. Do you think I’m trying to take your rights? I never said you couldn’t voice your opinion. Just don’t have a cow when I voice mine. Well abortion is the only choice in against so when I hear “pro choice” I think I’m pro choice I love choices. Abortion, nope. Your supporting abortion. Is pro abortion really that far off for you?

          • sagefemme

            Your goal is NOT to offend me ? Have you read the posts that you trashed my daughters choice and tried to say i talked her into it by saying i wouldn’t babysit ?
            Pleeease, just own it girl. You are in the middle of a debate. Don’t sit there and act like your cool as fan while I’m pacing tapping out a response. Try to lie to someone who doesn’t know.
            You are the one who had a whole 2 paragraphs about how you didn’t like what i said. Cripes, next you’ll be pickin on my typos.
            And you have voiced your opinion, over and over and I am just countering your opinion with mine. Throw in some facts and you have…..a debate !
            So be truthful, you dont mind talking with pro choice people – as long as they see your way and come over to your side – quickly.
            You can call me pro abort all you want – doesn’t make sense since i didn’t abort 5 of my kids and didn’t encourage it with my family or patients or friends, but thats what i expect from an anti choice advocate.

          • Mitzi

            I wouldn’t have had anything to say had you kept your big mouth shut in the first place. But seriously I’m so over this and your drama. Clearly you need my attention cu you won’t go away so listen dear, whatever went on with your daughters those were their choices. Happy? Next time your In a forum think before you start spilling your baggage into strangers. Perhaps reactions and opinions will be different. Good lick

          • sagefemme

            Is this an invite only forum ?? I’m sorry i didn’t know you were the moderator. And you responded to me just as much as i responded to you so don’t act like the victim. We can all come and go as we please here. It’s called CHOICE which I have made it pretty clear that I am all for.

            I don’t need anyones permission to divulge my personal life. It’s not baggage. It’s LIFE. I wouldn’t put it out there if i didn’t want to. I am not looking for different reactions. It’s mostly pro lifers here. I come to share like everyone else. Sorry if it didn’t work out for you that way.

          • Mitzi

            Lol looks like you made a friend. A fellow abortionist at that. Yes you are a big green monster full of greed seeing as how you take out all your aggression on someone who any fight back. Very intelligent not at all brute force.

          • sagefemme

            The only aggressiveness i display at my job is when someone screams at my patients and tries to tell them what to do.

            And maybe Mr. G isn’t an ‘abortionist’ maybe he just doesn’t stand for people trying to interfere with personal choice.

          • Mitzi

            He is he’s already said so himself. Oh cut the $#%^ already with your euphemisms. Abortion. he just doesn’t stand for people trying to interfere with abortion. The “right” to kill unspoken babies. There I did it for you.

          • PJ4

            You are awesome :-)

          • Mitzi
          • sagefemme

            you say killing unborn babies, i say forced pregnancy. Its all the same, its all about choices. No one solicits women to come to the clinic. Its a voluntary elective act.

          • Mitzi

            Despite how you or I like to refer to it you are deliberately killing someone can we agree on that?

          • sagefemme

            No, i don’t kill anyone. I terminate a pregnancy. I would never say i murder people. If it was it wouldn’t be legal. As im sure you would never admit that you are deliberately forcing a woman to carry a baby against her will. That’s illegal also.

          • Mitzi

            And by terminating the pregnancy your killing someone. Whether you call the fetus a fetus or human or baby doesn’t matter your interrupting the natural process of pregnancy to kill the living being inside. If you can’t even admit what abortion is and what you do your ignorant. Therefore the “facts” your giving to your patients are lies and you helping them be ignorant as well. Dress it up all you want with your slogans and euphemisms its still abortion.

          • sagefemme

            When a girl asks if its killing and murder, i tell her if she feels that way then she needs to think it over more. Terminating is terminating, stop, done, over. It’s eliminating an embryo/ potential baby – no, you cant get it back if you have regret. No decision about an unwarranted pregnancy is without pros and cons. Those women get every question they ask answered honestly and appropriately. The only reason you want to believe it’s lies is because it’s not geared towards convincing them to stay pregnant. I’ve actually had women tell me they don’t care “they want it destroyed ” . Any woman in this predicament knows what they are doing. Trust me, they have thought about this long and hard before they ended up on my doorstep.

          • Mr. G.

            I assisted at several abortions and performed 3 under the direct supervision of a board certified ob-gyn when I was a clinical specialist in the Army – and, yes, they were done “off the books”

          • sagefemme

            High five !

            Are you still in womens health ?

            They actually sell the equipment at medical conventions. I contemplated getting a kit for myself. Kinda like gathering ammo just in case ; )

          • Mr. G.

            No,I don’t work in the field of physical healthcare any longer – my focus is on healing emotional wounding. I do, however, still volunteer as a patient escort and provide some financial assistance.

          • sagefemme

            Thats great work :) I was an army wife at one time and i remember our medic friend used to talk about his experiences in every type of field. Thats the good thing about the military – just get in and do it !

          • Mr. G.

            We figured you couldn’t do an honest day’s work without breaking some Army reg or other anyway, so WTF?

          • sagefemme

            How long ago was that ? I’m wondering if they are still like that. I’m from way back in the 80’s

          • Mr. G.

            I’m talking 1969 – I have no idea what the world of the all volunteer military looks like.

          • sagefemme

            Yeah, thats right. Things are different -says my son-in-law. I think we had it better.

          • Mitzi

            Double high five…I was wondering when someone was gonna start underground abortions.

          • sagefemme

            I would do it in a heartbeat if it was ever needed. I would be the modern day Vera Drake for sure.

          • Mitzi

            How is abortion needed? Needed like chemotherapy to keep cancer patients alive? Needed like an umbrella so your head doesn’t get soaked? Or needed like when you just need to have those new shoes you saw at the store?

          • sagefemme

            Abortion has, was and always will be a very much needed and sought after service. Just like those things you mentioned above.

          • Mitzi

            Abortion is the killing of an unborn child. Care to clarify how the death (torturous death at that) is needed?

          • sagefemme

            Because people are not going to stop having sex anytime soon. Because there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Because women should always have the choice on how their body is used. Because THEIR choice is none of YOUR business.

            Just like how a woman feeds her baby is a choice so should having the baby be.

            Choice – its a good thing.

          • Mitzi

            Your like a wall you refuse to hear what anyone else says. Choice is not a good thing when someone dies cuz of it. If it were about choice then there wouldn’t be any controversy and women would be free to make those choices. And I will make it my business as long as there’s people like you taking advantage of vulnerable women and their children.

          • sagefemme

            I’m not a wall, i just see things the way they are. An its an embryo. Products of reproduction. Dependant, non-feeling, not fully developed, non- thinking. So sorry you want to newborn-ize a being who looks EXACTLY like every other embryo. No discerning features at all. Potential doesn’t determine the future. Otherwise your kids would have a job waiting just for them in their chosen field because they have the ‘potential ‘ of completing college one day.
            You can try all you want but my wall, as you say are just pure hard real facts that you want to try to break thru with the words ‘killing ‘ and ‘babies’ . Sorry, you will have to give more real facts then a picture of a cute little baby being placed for adoption and everyone is smiling. Real life isn’t as pleasant as that.

          • Mitzi

            Embryo or fetus still a human being. Yes? You wanna call the fetus whatever you want doesn’t change the fact that’s a human being your killing. Yes it is killing. You wanna change that to procedure or health care you can do that too. Again, still killing. You know why? Cuz at one point he or she’s alive and then you do something to cause her or his death. If you don’t get it after this then your hopeless.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, you are terminating a potential baby, a human pregnancy, an embryo, products of reproduction, etc..etc whatever you want to see it as it is still not your decision to make. You cant force women to carry babies they dont want to. At one point they dont want to carry it and the next you are telling them they have to. Do you not get that ?

            Also, are u about quantity and suffering or quality and society ?

            Besides, good people murder dogs everyday, sometimes you just have to make tough life decisions.

          • Mitzi

            Ok I’m gonna make a leap here and be civil perhaps you’ll do the same. I can say what you’ve said as well call it product of conception blob of cells fetus you know that it’s still a human being right? And it’s wrong to kill human beings yes? We don’t even allow inmates on death row who’ve committes horrible crimes to die the way human fetuses die. As long as there’s people like you fighting for the right to kill innocent unborn human fetuses there will be pro lifers fighting back. You can disagree all you want but a fetuS is a human being and human beings should not be killed torturous deaths. And animals are not killed by dismemberment or suction out.

          • sagefemme

            Civil is fine with me.

            The embryo is not a whole human. It cannot metabolize or function on its own, therefore it cannot be afforded those things that a thinking, feeling whole human can.

            Murder of a fellow human is considered murder but an embryo is dependent on it’s host and the host has rights to decide its dependancy.

            As far as animals go. If you put a dog to sleep it still terminates its life. The process doesn’t necessarily determine in whether its ok or not. I know a lot of folks that shoot their animals rather than take them to the vet.

          • Mitzi

            Because the embryo/fetus doesn’t metabolize or function on its own ita not a whole human being? this is just your opinion of what qualifies a human being not actual fact. Are you saying people in a vegetated state or coma are not fully human as well? What qualifies a human a “whole human?” Abortion is murder. You may not be comfortable calling it that but it is. Again the fact that the fetus is gestating in the womb and can’t survive without its mother doesn’t mean it’s “termination” isn’t murder. I think your just trying to justify it again. Which you can do but this is not the way. What you should say is “I believe fetuses and embryos should be murdered in Their mothers wombs if their mothers deem them so even if they are human beings because they are unable to survive completely without their mother.” I m not a veterinarian so I can’t say how the process is for animals to be put to sleep but I’m sure their not ripped apart.

          • sagefemme

            No it is not my opinion. An embryo is not fully developed. It cannot breathe air, it cannot reason, it can not metabolize nutrients. The fact that we do those things makes us human to begin with. Therefore is is not a whole human. Humans in vegetative states and comas cannot reverse human form. They are still human. Termination is just stopping the formation of the embryo . Murder is taking a living humans life. Terminating a dogs life for the sake of its future is basically the same thing. Neither is murder.

          • Mitzi

            wow. An embryo is not fully developed no but it’s still a human being. From the moment of conception. The fact that it’s gestating in its mothers womb doesn’t make it any less human. Nor the fact that it can’t survive outside the womb. Where are you getting your definitions from? We are human because we are simply from the human species. Not based on our capabilities. That’s insane logic. Yes termination is the stopping of formation of the embryo but it’s also murder. Because it dies. Not of natural causes. Simple.

          • sagefemme

            Ok, then lets use your (strange) logic. Lets give the embryo full human rights. The same as any other living breathing one. Now, your young neighbor needs a kidney or he will die. Your daughter has 2, you are not a match but she is. It is now her responsibility to save him or murder him. You are ok with the forced surgery and loss of her kidney? Do you force her or murder him ?

          • Mitzi

            Why would my daughter be forced to donate her kidney to a stranger? This is a pathetic attempt to prove your point but by all means keep going.

          • sagefemme

            I thought your only point was that it was a “human being” . Now you are discriminating because its a “stranger” . So it’s ok to let someone die because you don’t know him ?
            Besides your daughter has 2 kidneys and you wouldn’t want that person to die because he couldn’t live without a kidney. He is, after all a separate human being who deserves to live, even if it’s dependant on someone elses kidney. That just doesn’t seem fair or right. You would deny him his right to live ?? You would rather him die because you’re to selfish to give him what he needs. Some pro lifer you are. Hypocrite.

          • Mitzi

            How you love to twist things around so it looks like your making a valid argument. I don’t blame you, in your line of work you have to make things seem a certain way so no one notices what you really do. I’m not “discriminating” strangers lol you wanna talk about discriminating? How about the babies you kill for choice? The reason they don’t get a chance? Um cuz mom said so….your so full of it I can’t take you seriously anymore. Not that I did in the beginning tho. But darn it I tried. Your the hypocrite with your tired out ol scenarios their pathetic. For one the fetus wasn’t just magically created so the mother should be held responsible for her actions which led to the baby needing her shelter and nourishment. And two were not obligated to donate organs to strangers so how you for that in there is beyond me but its a good laugh. Try again.

          • sagefemme

            Oh im sorry, was the word “stranger” throwing you off ??
            Ok its your cousin. He’s related to you. Family, ya know. Closer DNA. Now, are you going to let this family member, a fellow HUMAN BEING, die because you are selfishly denying him the life supporting body part he so desperately needs to survive ?
            Come on, you’re pro life. It’s your job to save lives where you can. It’s only a surgery. They aren’t even making you stay with him through recovery. Just give up the kidney. It’s the right thing to do. He didn’t ask to be sick.

            You can just admit it. It’s your/your daughters kidney, you dont have to let him have it. I don’t blame you, it’s your right to your body parts, no matter how someone else wants you to use it.

            Don’t resort to blowing it off as a “tired out ol scenario”. All I’m saying is that some other human needs your body part to survive. You can walk away as soon as he has it in his possession. Why shouldn’t you do it ? It’s just the right thing to do.

          • Mitzi

            Perhaps leave the metaphors and crazy off the wall scenarios to the experts. Again…..not the same thing. Did I cause for my cousin to need whichever organs your babbling about? If so then yes I’m responsible for his organ donation. Seriously you need to work on these. No it’s not my “job” to save lives your as ignorant s they come. I’m pro life because science (you remember science right?) tells us life begins at conception. It’s not about what I believe or “deem” worthy it’s about facts. And it’s about humanity. We as a people should behave civilized we are not barbarians every person should be treated equal. No one is worth more that includes the fetus. And the expectant mother.

          • sagefemme

            You should probably check with your other pro life friends about their definition of pro life. A true pro lifer will always side to protect a life. That’s why you don’t agree with assisted suicide either, right ? Or are you saying you are only a part-time pro lifer ?
            You can also just read the rest of your post to confirm.
            “Science” tells you that without a kidney your cousin will die, the only one he can have is a match, which your daughter is.
            “Every person should be treated equal ” so isn’t your cousin deserving of being treated as another ?
            Are you and your daughter “worth more” then he is ?
            “Behaving civilized” would mean not letting him die a painful death from kidney disease.
            Does it really matter how or why he got kidney failure ? Maybe it was from a car accident? Maybe he had diabetes or was an alcoholic. Why does his story even matter ? All that matters is that he needs your kidneys to stay alive.

            You can be a part time pro lifer, its ok. Pro choice works too.

          • Mitzi

            Ugh. Ok when did I say I wouldn’t protect a life? I don’t need to re read anything I know what I’m talking about and what I’m trying to get across so I’m alright. Lol I love the quotation marks around science, good one. If I choose to donate a kidney to my cousin or have my daughter do it then that’s our CHOICE (lol just had to) but we didn’t cause his need for a kidney. The woman creates the child through her own actions with someone else. You get it now? Why does his story even matter? Lol you know the topics abortion right? Wake up lady your gonna make up a bunch of deluded hypothetical scenArios don’t get mad when I want details. No one is forcing women to get pregnant and give birth. Pro lifers just want the child already alive to stay alive. Because I’m pro life I automatically serve every living being on the planet? Nope not how it works. Pro life does not mean to be a servant sorry your so limited and selfish with your thinking you automatically accuse pro lifers for not saving every life in danger. It’s so sad to hear a so called grandmother act like a snot nosed brat when she doesn’t get her way that’s just embarrassing. Get a life.

          • sagefemme

            Are you still in school or did you just not pay attention? Quotes are what you use when you “quote” somebody? ? Caps are for emphasis quotes are for quoting. I was using YOUR words…*sigh*
            Ok, lets move on.

            Pro choice just means it’s your choice on how and when your body is used.

            If you don’t think another human has a right to use your body part to stay alive then you shouldn’t donate. Even if that means the other human will not survive.

            Pregnant women have that same right. If they don’t want to donate their uterus to another human to live then it’s their choice.

            You can’t always prevent pregnancy even if you take precautions. Just like you can’t prevent kidney failure even if you take care of yourself.

            You would have to be living under a rock to think that needing a kidney, you being a match, and a life being saved by you donating yours is hypothetical.

            Forced ‘life saving’ is forced life saving no matter what the scenario.

            Ahh….yes, i have a great life, i don’t need another one ;)

          • Mitzi

            hmmm…did I say I didn’t know what quotation marks are for? Please don’t try to “educate” me I really value my life and my brain. No it’s actually entirely different. its not up to you who should donate or what their reasons are. Donating organs is completely different from pregnancy. I already explained why. That situation is not real therefore it’s hypothetical. I’m not even sure your coherent anymore. “Forced life saving is forced life saving..” Ummm….ok? No one is being forced to save anyone…..you know this right?

          • PJ4

            Apparently she didn’t pay attention in computer class when the teacher pointed out caps are no longer used for emphasis
            Lol

          • Mitzi

            Lol she probably forgets were online… Not face to face. Some people get so carried away

          • sagefemme

            Oh, no, no, no. You don’t get to change the rules. For 15 posts you drilled me about how the embryo is “a human being” (remember? “it’s a separate human” “look up the word human” “all humans are equal, etc..etc ) now youre saying it’s “completely different”? ?
            You want to force a woman to donate her organ to give another human life. How the heck is that different? So, no, you didn’t explain how it is different. I would like to hear your version again. The law shouldn’t force you to donate your organ just because you’re a match and the law shouldn’t force a woman to donate her organ just because she got pregnant. Looks like the same thing to me. Same scenario, different organ.

          • Mitzi

            I’m not “changing the rules” you really need to pay attention. Pregnancy and organ donation are completely different. You can choose to donate your organs out of your own free will to whomever you’d like. You don’t get to choose when how and why to donate your uterus to an embryo – unless your family planning or using IVF and such. I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference that’s apparent by now. Your right the law shouldnt and doesn’t force anyone to donate organs. The law also doesn’t force women to become pregnant.

          • sagefemme

            Women get pregnant from performing a human task. Sex/reproduction is a part of human natural human development. Interrupting that process is like interrupting a developing embryo. Unless you are prepared to tell me that we should only have sex when we expect to have babies ? Even an IUD which is considered a perfect use mechanism can result in a pregnancy. So, how do we control a sperm meeting an egg ?? It happens all the time whether we try to prevent or not. The law doesn’t have to force us to get pregnant but mother nature/the universe does. Un-planned and un-prevented are not always one and the same.

            As far as organ donation being different – im still not clear – how is donating an organ to sustain another humans life different than donating an organ to sustain another humans life ??

            You say one gets to choose but the other doesn’t – why is that ?

          • Mitzi

            I am not suggesting everyone abstain from sex until they’re ready to reproduce, I’m saying people should use contraception if they don’t wanna end up pregnant, use it religiously. And since contraception isn’t 100% effective accept the fact that pregnancy can and might occur and deal with responsibly by ensuring safety and responsibility of the life created. You just repeated the same thing…because the person in need of the organ is not dependent on completely on you and your organ. And the reason why they need it to begin with has nothing to do with you, you didn’t cause the need for it. The fetus did not show up on its own and demand your life support you invited it in and sheltered it and nourished it. After you were the cause of its existence you can’t just change your mind and demand for your “donated organ” back. Once I donate a kidney can I ask for it back?

          • sagefemme

            It’s not practical to think that in this day and time that anyone use birth control religiously. Even perfect use contraception has a failure rate. Is it fair to expect a college girl to accept a failure like a married woman? A child can be a blessing but it is also a burden. You can not expect every one who had sex to be ready for parenthood.
            As far as organ donation, it is the same thing. If a person needs a kidney they need it to survive. The embryo can show up despite the attempts to prevent it. Obviously if you are seeking an abortion you didn’t invite it there. It’s a mistake. You fix it and move on. So what if a sperm and egg met, its not the end of the world and it certainly doesn’t mean you have to give up 18 years of your life.
            And yes, you can change your mind, in both situations. Just that the one is easier to undo.

          • Mitzi

            I didn’t say it was practical I say it should be used religiously. Maybe it isn’t because abortion is there for irresponsible people who don’t want to deal with their consequences to fall back on. I don’t expect for everyone having sex to be ready for parenthood perhaps that’s a red flag to maybe not have sex in the first place. Yeah if a person needs a kidney they wait till they get one that matches whether from family or stranger. Either way it’s no ones official responsibility to provide for it. The fetus needs the woman’s uterus because he or she is already in there there was no choice for the fetus. Yeah you did invite it in by having sexual intercourse. Just because you may have taken precaution or don’t quant to be pregnant doesn’t mean pregnancy won’t occur. It’s a natural process…to sex.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, just disturbing a natural process. It’s not like it’s a huge phenomenon. Sperm n egg meet everyday. It’s like using botox to disturb the aging process. Why do we personalize it and make it such a big deal. Like every embryo is going to somehow change the future or miss out on something.

            Anyone who relies on perfect birth control use and the happy face when it fails is living in a fantasy. It would be hypocritical of anyone in this forum to say that they have ALWAYS used protection religiously and NEVER made an oops when it came to sex.

          • Mitzi

            It actually is a phenomenon. Millions of sperm all traveling together only (usually) will make it to the egg. It’s amazing what the sperm has to do to get there. Yes they do miss out on something…life. It’s not like they never were. They were and their natural process was “interrupted” by death. Unnatural death. I don’t remember saying we are perfect I’m saying we should act responsibly. We have all made mistakes, we’ve all had to make decisions concerning sex that’s not the point….we all know what the outcome of sex can be (even while using birth control) it’s not right that someone should have to die (a third party who had nothing to so with it) for someone else’s sexual needs.

          • sagefemme

            While the process itself is fascinating it’s certainly not extraordinary. It is most definitely easier to get pregnant than it is to prevent it. Like i always tell my patients – if you’re not preventing it, you’re planning it.
            As you can tell i don’t hold back, when i get those surprised looks after i say that I tell them if you are having sex without birth control pregnancy is more likely to happen than not. Even if i change a couple minds it is unreasonable to think it will happen across the board. People are not going to stop having sex. It’s that simple. They won’t be responsible because we make laws that force them to suffer the consequences. Then you are only subjecting an innocent baby to more irresponsibility. How fair is that to the living, breathing, feeling, knowing child ??

          • Mitzi

            Well I guess that your opinion. Your right we make laws that help them avoid responsibility. How fair is it to child knowing feeling already alive in his mothers womb to be put to death for his parents lack of education, responsibility and or resources? Because they can’t provide for the child, the child should be the one to be sacrificed? The more sensible logical solution would be to give the child up for adoption to a family that can provide him with all those needs.

          • sagefemme

            ….How fair is it to child knowing feeling already alive in his mothers womb to be put to death for his parents lack of education, responsibility and or resources? Because they can’t provide for the child, the child should be the one to be sacrificed? …….

            The only way a child would know this is if they were born and given up for adoption or suffered from the life provided.

            An embryo would have the luxury of never being exposed to knowing it wasn’t wanted and given away. (Which is one reason I’m not a staunch adoption proponent. )

          • Mitzi

            the fact the child is not self aware yet does not mean it’s alright to kill him or her simply because he or she’d never know. Is it ok to rape, mutilate no kill coma patients? It’s not like they’d know and they might never wake up.

          • sagefemme

            So better to grow the baby and let it suffer and be aware than to abort it when it doesn’t know a thing. Boy, you’re a real sadist aren’t you? ?

            As far as coma patients, again, they are born, breathing and have a past, present and future. Not the same at all.

            Would you rather a dog suffer needlessly in pain or put it to sleep ?

          • Mitzi

            Congratulations you managed to contain your name calling in your hed for about 2 or 3 posts but I knew you’d be back. Where to begin…. Ok why is the baby going to suffer? Who are you to decide how much another person suffers? What amount of suffering is enough for you to say let it live or let it die? How much living is required to be a person? What if a newborn has an accident and falls into a coma? Is he a person? He’s not really awAre and he’s just begun to experience. What kind of suffering is the dog experiencing?

          • sagefemme

            What needy person died today because you didn’t do the right thing ? Your choice just took away a life. You should be ashamed. You’re not pro life, you are more pro choice. Yes, hypocritical for sure.

          • Mitzi

            No one died today because of me lol this is hilarious now your making me a goddess

          • sagefemme

            Pro choice as long as YOU would make the same choice ??

            Choice is allowing a woman to decide what she wants to do with HER body. Carry a pregnancy or terminate. That’s pro choice. You can’t be both.

          • Mitzi

            Except I would never make the “choice” to deliberately kill someone. I never said I was both. I’m pro choice. Adoption parenting sterilization & abate once. Oh and birth control. I’m not pro abortion. Women having abortions are doing what they want with the baby INSIDE their body. Difference.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            If we lived in a world in which all children need regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, we would have no problem making that a legal parental obligation, since it then would be providing an ordinary level of care for your child, just like paying child support. After all, since we understand that freedom of speech does not give you the right to phone in a bomb threat, freedom of religion does not give you the right to deny life-saving medical treatment to your child, then why not acknowledge that bodily autonomy should not give parents the right to refuse to provide an ordinary (not extraordinary, which organ donations are in our reality) level of care to their children, especially if they are the only ones able to do so? To do otherwise is to make a fetish out of bodily integrity by treating it as more important than all other rights.

          • sagefemme

            Bodily control and privacy should be every persons right. That includes donating your uterus for the sake of another if you don’t want to. Being pregnant and raising a baby should not be taken lightly. Women die more often from pregnancy related causes then abortion related causes. So, you are essentially asking someone to put their life on the line, unwillingly, for another. No different than donating a kidney. Still a risk taken for another.
            Honestly, i don’t know of another ‘right’ that would trump individual bodily integrity.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Also, donating a kidney to someone, even your child is providing them with an extraordinary level of care. It does not begin to compare with providing them an ordinary, expected level of care. The only way that it would be an ordinary, expected level of care similar to gestating a fetus would be if kidneys could grow back after being taken out and if all children needed a kidney donation from a biological parent in order to survive. In that case I would consider parental kidney donation to be an ordinary level of parental care, the obligation of which should in that case outweigh the right to bodily integrity.

          • sagefemme

            Donating an organ is donating an organ. The only difference is you may be able to use your uterus again. A c section is a major surgery as is kidney removal. The toll pregnancy can take on your body is real and ever lasting. That makes it extraordinary. Then you have to take into consideration the raising and cost of the child for 18 years. THAT fact makes having a child more extraordinary than kidney donation. At least you can walk away if you survive the operation.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Last time I checked, no one is forcing anyone to raise a child for 18 years, adoption is always an option. Also, child support is mandatory for noncustodial parents, even if they don’t want to be parents. Forcing someone to give up a significant portion of their funds for 18 years to pay for a child is pretty major thing, especially since child support takes into account what you are capable of earning, not what you actually do earn. So in other words, if you decide to quit your high paying job to go to grad school, your child support will be based on your previous income that you were capable of earning. This seriously limits a parent’s life, especially if the parent is already low income. So, based on your logic of hardship=extraordinary level of care, we’d have to get rid of mandatory child support. Instead, I use the definition that most bioethicists use when discussing the ethics of providing/not providing certain levels of care. Extraordinary=unusual, something that most people don’t need. Ordinary=the things everyone needs to survive-food, shelter, etc. Donating a kidney now to your child is extraordinary, because most children don’t need it and therefore the average parent does not expect to provide that level of care. If we lived in a world in which all children needed that level of care, it would no longer be extraordinary, it would just be an expected, ordinary part of being a parent, and probably enforced by law just like child support, even though it causes hardship. Even in our world, a parent who lets their child die because they refuse to donate a kidney would be viewed as an aweful, evil person, and probably publicly shamed and face other negative consequences like being fired from their job, etc.

          • sagefemme

            Adoption is not as fairy tale as everyone makes it out to be. Ask any adopted child – even one that lived the best life and knew why their mom gave them away – the one thing they will always carry with them is that their own mother didn’t want them. They were rejected, unwanted and given away. Besides, now after someone forces a woman to carry an unwanted baby you expect her to give it up too ??

            Child support while sounding good, you and i both know it doesn’t always work out so smooth, no matter what the law states. I know a lot of children, wanted and unwanted, being raised without any support, or its a constant battle to keep getting it. Some life for a mom who was forced to keep a baby she didn’t want to begin with.
            I would consider donating a kidney as “ordinary” care since you can’t live without one. The same as expecting a woman to carry a baby and donate her uterus for a baby that will belong to someone else.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            In regards to adopted children, the ones I know realize that their mothers could not care for them and loved them enough to give them up to parents who could raise them
            . You are slandering birth mothers when you say that they don’t care for and want their children. The ones I know cared so much that they gave them up to people who could raise them. Let me ask you a question. If we lived in a world in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, would you support making that a legal parental obligation? Also, do you believe that our other rights are unlimited as well? For instance, do you think that freedom of religion gives you the right to discriminate?

          • sagefemme

            I am not slandering birth mothers. That’s my point it is incredibly hard and even tortuous to give up a baby. A lot of mothers have life long emotional issues from having to do it no matter what the reason. Also, the child more often than not has a lifetime of always feeling abandoned and unwanted deep inside. They may not always verbalize it but it is there. No one cares though about that aspect, they only want to see it as a solution in their own mind.
            The case about needing a fathers donations for s child to survive – that would strengthen my view on how important it would be to consider the future of the child and terminate before it has to suffer.
            Discriminate, how ? Hate or publicly? Because religious discrimination happens all the time in private.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Your arguments assume that the unborn are not human persons, and therefore it is okay to kill them. After all, you wouldn’t recommend killing a newborn to put it out of its misery.

          • sagefemme

            No, but isn’t it more humane to suction out an unfeeling embryo than a feeling, breathing developed newborn?
            It’s a completely different thing. A newborn isn’t dependent on its uterus anymore so the scenario changes.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            So, you could euthanasize a newborn painlessly. Would that make it okay? Also, do you believe that parents have a natural obligation to provide an ordinary level of care for their children, despite hardship? Do you think that bodily rights are absolute? If so, do you think that all other rights are absolute? For instance, do you think that freedom of religion should trump anti-discrimination laws and freedom of speech should trump laws against violent threats? If not, why is bodily autonomy the only right that is unlimited?

          • sagefemme

            So, you could euthanasize a newborn painlessly. Would that make it okay?
            Why in the world would you even think about doing something like that?

            Also, do you believe that parents have a natural obligation to provide an ordinary level of care for their children, despite hardship?
            If you decide to have a child it becomes your obligation as a parent to care for that child. Raising children isn’t easy, therefore it should be considered carefully before proceeding.

            Do you think that bodily rights are absolute?
            Yes, if you want to alter your body then yes, that should be your absolute right.

            If so, do you think that all other rights are absolute?
            Depends.

            For instance, do you think that freedom of religion should trump anti-discrimination laws and freedom of speech should trump laws against violent threats?
            Not all the time, you cannot always have absolutes in these areas because there are gray areas. We all discriminate to some degree but its to what degree that it interferes with anothers right. As a health care provider i can refuse to take a clients based on their lifestyle for safety reasons. I used to have a partner that wouldn’t take clients based on their religion. Was that right ? Not for me but it was right for her. To me, i am their health providers, not their spiritual leader. To her she couldn’t provide one without the other.

            The freedom of speech/threat scenario is an example of why you can’t have absolutes.

            If not, why is bodily autonomy the only right that is unlimited?

            Your bodily autonomy stops where mine begins. For the sake of this argument, the embryos “rights” stop where the mothers begins.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            One could just as easily claim that the mother’s rights stop where the embryo’s rights begin, and that the embryo has a right to receive an ordinary level of care from its parents, even if that infringes upon the parent’s bodily integrity, just like a customer has a right not to be discriminated against, even if it infringes upon the business owner’s religious freedom. If we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, would you seriously oppose a law making that a legal parental obligation in the name of bodily rights? You still haven’t answered as to why you think that bodily integrity is more important than the right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, i answered that question in the last post. I never stated that one right is more important than another. Rights are rights. The embryos stop at the uterus so therefore it loses if the mother doesnt choose to continue to donate her body, time and efforts. Your right to my business stops when, me, the business owner, feels you have crossed a line. Pregnancy is not “ordinary ” care. Raising a child is more ordinary than carrying it. Pregnancy has to be full time, raising kids doesnt have to be.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            You never answered my question. If we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, would you seriously oppose a law making that a legal parental obligation in the name of bodily rights? And according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, there are certain things that you, as a business owner, cannot discriminate based upon, even if you feel that the customer has crossed the line. Really, you underestimate how hard raising a child is. My mother, who has had multiple high risk pregnancies, still thinks that being pregnant is easier than raising the child, even if you have help with childcare. With pregnancy, your body largely does the work for you. With childcare, you have to make a conscious effort to care for the child.

          • martin

            If we lived in a such reality,then yes ,parents should have the right to let their children to die ,because parents should be obligated to make only reasonable sacrifices for their children,and this kind of donations does not represent a reasonable sacrifice.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Okay, why not? Even in our reality, a parent who refuses to donate bone marrow to their dying child is seen as a horrible person, even though it is unusual and extraordinary for a child to need that level of care. If every child needed that, how would providing that donation be an unreasonable sacrifice? It would not endanger the parent’s life, and it’s not like blood and bone marrow don’t regenerate.

          • Dutch Schultz

            So you would legalize child neglect. I hope you don’t have any children and you should consider taking the steps to never have any.

          • martin

            I have just answered an extreme scenario with an extreme measure.

          • Dutch Schultz

            Martin you are on dozens of sites defending all forms of abortion. Is their any time abortion is wrong and unjustifiable in your eyes. You claim abortion is the ultimate act of individualism. So murdering a human being out of their life seeming like à inconvenience to yours is “individualism”?

          • Dutch Schultz

            There not their…

          • sagefemme

            I didn’t answer it because we don’t live in an alternate universe so it’s irrelevant. It would be like me asking you of the embryo doesnt have a beating heart or can live outside its mother would you care if woman aborted. Getting me to say that we should force fathers to donate marrow on a regular basis doesn’t make your point.

            I am not the one who underestimates how hard raising a child is. That’s a big part of why i am pro choice. Just because you get pregnant doesn’t mean you are ready to parent a baby. It’s hard enough when you are ready for it. Pro lifers talk like babies are sugar and spice and everything nice and there’s never any hardships because the baby is so cute. Not true and very deceiving to use that to convince someone not to have an abortion.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            I acknowledge that raising a child is not easy. However, we don’t allow parents to kill or lethally neglect their children after they are born, even if caring for them is hard, because we understand that human life is more important. We don’t even allow fathers to legally skip out on paying for child support, even though the state could pay for the child, because we believe that parents should be responsible for caring for their children, even if it interfers with the lifestyle that they want to live. Again, all your arguments assume that the unborn is not human, and therefore killing them is permissible.

          • sagefemme

            I don’t assume anything. Fact is it is a human embryo. Who will turn into a baby, then a child, then a teen…who will need nurturing, housing, clothes, love, patience, money …etc… things that some people don’t have to give or don’t want to give. Why would you want a child to suffer ?

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Sagefemme, sometimes children are born into environments that turn bad only after they are born. I know of one such situation personally. My friend’s boyfriend became abusve after her son was born. Should it be permissible for her to euthanize her infant so that he doesn’t suffer? After all, you don’t want him to suffer do you?

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Okay, would you call Judith Jarvis’ violinist analogy irrevelant? Her scenario could never happen in real life, yet it is used all the time by pro-choicers to defend abortion. Furthermore, in my bioethics and philosophy classes, unrealistic scenarios are used all the time to explore ethical issues. Since we are all influenced by our biases, unrealistic scenarios allow us to break outside of those biases and truly see the ethical principles at stake. And yes, abortion would still be unethical if the embryo’s heart had not yet started to beat. If it could live outside the mother’s womb, then I would support her right to transfer it outside if the pregnancy was too much for her, because then doing so would not kill it.

          • sagefemme

            No, analogies are not irrelevant and certainly useful to help think things thru, debate or otherwise. The analogy of the violinist is a lateral analogy. You are ‘tethered’ to another being and the outcome /circumstances are made similar. In fact, i used a similar analogy of being a kidney match to a neighbor. The blood and marrow donations are expected from the father and marrow donations are not a constant and can be extreme.
            I think the Jarvis essay is a thorough account on the complexity and variety of all the biases and issues involved with this subject. Thanks for reposting, its been a while. :)

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            The Jarvis essay does not involve a parent child relationship where the parent was almost certainly responsible for causing the child’s condition. If you knew a parent who refused to donate bone marrow to save their dying child, what would you think of them? Would you view them as moral? The reason I thought up the alternate reality scenario in which every child needs that bone marrow on a regular basis from the father in order to survive is that it provides the closest analogy to pregnancy that i could think of, both in the parent-child relationship, the fact that every child needs this level of care, making it ordinary and expected, and the fact that only one parent of a certain sex can provide that level of care. Jarvis, on the other hand, presents a hypothetical case with a stranger who you do not have parental obligations towards, and the level of care required is unusual and therefore extraordinary.

          • sagefemme

            Yes, a parent who would not donate a kidney or marrow to save their child i would consider morally wrong. If marrow from a father became standard care then yes, it would be awful to let a child go neglected. If you choose to bring a child into the world then you are expected to provide the care it needs.
            I would think that the violinist theory is similar because neither mother nor father “know” the embryo until its born.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            If a father who does not have a paternal relationship with his child and in fact never consented to be a father refused to donate, especially if the donation was something that every child needed, would you consider him to be unethical? After all, he doesn’t really know the child and has no real relationship with it.

          • sagefemme

            No more unethical than a mom who doesn’t inform a dad that he will be a dad.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            So do you think that it would be ethical for the father to let the child die? Would it be ethical for him to try to get out of paying child support?

          • sagefemme

            If the father is needed to keep the child alive it would be wrong to let them die, of course. But if he places no value on that child for financial, emotional or bodily purposes then its his baby his choice. We can’t govern people’s feelings

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            So, are you saying that it would be ethical for him to let his own child die or it would not? I would like a straight answer.

          • sagefemme

            You got one – whats the problem ?

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            No, I did not get a straight answer from you. You said that if he places no value on that child for financial, emotional or bodily purposes then its his baby his choice. We can’t govern people’s feelings. But you also said that If the father is needed to keep the child alive it would be wrong to let them die, of course. So it sounds to me like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

          • sagefemme

            No, I said it would be wrong. My answer has nothing to do with his choice. My opinions do not govern the choices of others. That is one statement coming from the same side of my mouth.

            See, you can have a personal view that is different yet doesn’t interfere with anothers.

            I don’t have to believe in abortion to respect that others may need to make that choice.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Okay, so why do you believe that it should be legal for the father to let his daughter die by denying her an ordinary level of care? If the reason is bodily autonomy, would you say that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership or carrying weapons whatsoever because of the 2nd Amendment? Why do you think that bodily autonomy should be unlimited when no other right is? Don’t children have a right to receive an ordinary level of care from their parents?

          • sagefemme

            There are restrictions on gun ownership. Bodily autonomy is not unlimited. Pregnancy and birth is not ordinary or a right. It is a choice. Just like not everyone should be gun owners not everyone should be a parent.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            I am a bit confused by your reasoning. You acknowledge that bodily autonomy is not unlimited, yet if there are any limits on bodily autonomy, it would seem that a child’s right to recieve an ordinary level of care from their parent would be that limiting factor. I understand that not everyone should be a parent, and in a perfect world children would not be concieved to unfit people. But in reality, this happens. And unfit fathers are forced to pay child support all the time, despite the fact that other people could pay for the child’s upkeep. Since no one but the female parent can gestate the child, it seems fair to say that the female parent has a moral obligation to provide that level of care to her unborn child. And since all unborn children need that level of care, it makes it ordinary and therefore more reasonable to make it a legal obligation.

          • sagefemme

            Bodily autonomy limitations for almost 6 years verses what ? Even if marrow donations became the norm are you really advocating that someone should give up their bodily autonomy for 9 months, breastfeeding till weaning (because that should be a right for the newborn as ordinary care) then at least 3 years for the foundation with its real mother – ordinary care – then they could give it up. Hmmmm…so “ordinary” becomes at least 4- 6 years verses less than a day for what you are advocating for.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Infants don’t need to be breastfed in order to survive, much less only by the bio mother. At that point I think that bodily autonomy should take over. As for forcing mothers to take care of children they don’t want-there’s a reason why the state only requires child support from non-custodial parents who still have legal parental rights, but allows adoption if both parents consent, and custody to the parent who wants the kid if the other parent does not. It’s to prevent child abuse, and since the child does not have to be cared for by the bio parent in order to survive after they are born, I think that it is good policy. Notice that the non-custodial parent’s responsibility is not terminated-they still have to pay child support.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Also is it ethical for men who never wanted to be parents to try to get out of paying child support for a child that they never wanted in the first place?

          • sagefemme

            Depends. Women try to trap men all the time for child support. I don’t think it should be a given.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            So, do you think that mandatory child support should be abolished?

          • sagefemme

            No, thats what the courts are for. Some cases may differ.

          • martin

            Regarding the child support objection to body autonomy…I believe that if a woman carries the pregnancy to term against the man s will,then the man should not be obligated to pay child support.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Also, does the right to control your own body include the right to tear, mangle, dismember, or poison someone’s body? With the exception of RU 486 and labor induction abortions, all abortion methods have the potential to do exactly that.

            Well, when we do a suction curettage abortion, you know, roughly one of three things is going to happen during the abortion. One would be is that the catheter as it approaches the fetus, you know, tears it and kills it at that instant inside the uterus. The second would be that the fetus is small enough and the catheter is large enough that the fetus passes through the catheter and either dies in transit as it’s passing through the catheter or dies in the suction bottle after it’s actually all the way out. (Dr. Martin Haskill, Abortion Provider, in a testimony given in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S. )

            And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we’re making our initial grasps or if we’re using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we’re starting the procedure. It’s not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point.”

            “When you’re doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it’s floating free inside the uterine cavity…So it’s rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forcep to reach up to try to grasp something that’s freely floating around and is quite large relative to the forcep we’re using. So typically there’s several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally at some point either the instruments are managed to be place around the skull or a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…”(Dr. Martin Haskill, Abortion Provider, in a testimony given in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S. )

          • sagefemme

            Those descriptions are from later abortions. There is the option, even in the early stages to not have the catheter. At the early stage there is not the nerve development like in the late abortions. I don’t advocate for late term due to mothers negligence. As far as I’m concerned, if she hasn’t made up her mind by 12 weeks, then essentially she has, by negligence made up her mind. That is where my discrimination comes in. I have the right to refuse service at that point.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            You did not answer my question. does the right to control your own body include the right to tear, mangle, dismember, or poison someone’s body? Can you please answer it and explain to me why abortion methods that directly attack the fetus’ bodily should be legal in the name of the mother’s bodily rights?

          • GEIxBattleRifle

            Why yes you do if they’re dumping bio toxic waste into your body and using addictive hormones as well. Even mosquitos don’t do that when they attach themselves onto your skin to suck your body resources yet your free to kill them so the same thing can apply to the unborn human as well. There was another message I give you though this worksite counted it as a guest.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Interesting. What if the mother decides to take revenge on her parasitic fetus by disabling it instead of killing it? For instance, should it be legal for her to punish that “little parasite” by undergoing surgery specifically designed to disable it by removing its legs instead of killing it?
            After all, if all she wants is to separate her body from the fetus’, she could simply have premature labor induced. There’s no need to directly attack the fetus and kill it in order to terminate the pregnancy.

          • GEIxBattleRifle

            The unborn human is not a parasite but acts like one. There is no need for premature labor since its easier to abort just like it’s easier to kill a mosquito than just trying to shrug it off.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            So, if I’m understanding you correctly, the mother has the right to kill the fetus because it is a parasite, right? So do parents not have moral obligation to provide an ordinary level of care to their offspring? For instance, if we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, our society wouldn’t have any problem making that a legal obligation. While bodily autonomy is a very important right, so are freedom of speech and freedom of religion, yet neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion are absolute. Parents cannot use freedom of religion as a reason to deny their children life-saving medical care, and freedom of speech cannot be used as a defense for threats of violence. So why should bodily autonomy be absolute when no other rights are, and why should it override the very natural parental obligation to provide an ordinary level of care to one’s children, especially if one is the only one able to do so?

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            Also, would you call a 5 year old child who lives of her parents a moocher? Would you say that her parents have the right to kick her out of the house and deny her material support?

          • GEIxBattleRifle

            Is a 5 year old inside someone elses body sucking away at there body resources? Is a 5 year old human attached onto your body eating away at your body resources? The answer to both is not. They eat items like hamburgers and pizza.

          • Tullia_Ciceronis

            If we lived in an alternate reality in which all children needed regular donations of blood and bone marrow from their biological fathers in order to survive, would you seriously oppose a law making that a legal parental obligation in the name of bodily rights? While bodily autonomy is a very important right, so are freedom of speech and freedom of religion, yet neither freedom of speech nor freedom of religion are absolute. Parents cannot use freedom of religion as a reason to deny their children life-saving medical care, and freedom of speech cannot be used as a defense for threats of violence. So why should bodily autonomy be absolute when no other rights are, and why should it override the very natural parental obligation to provide an ordinary level of care to one’s children, especially if one is the only one able to do so?