Female law professor testifies: abortion not a social good worth taxpayer funds

On January 9, 2014, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing on H.R. 7, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” The bill was given a hearing by the pro-life subcommittee chairman, Arizona Republican Representative Trent Franks.

National Right to Life News Today reports that H.R. 7 would “permanently prohibit subsidies for abortion and health insurance coverage of abortion in federal programs – both within longstanding federal programs and within the health care law signed by President Obama in 2010.” If passed, the legislation would cause elective abortion insurance coverage in the Affordable Care Act to cease.

The subcommittee heard testimonies in support of H.R 7 from Helen Alvare, a pro-life professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, and Richard Doerflinger, associate director and secretariat of pro-life activities for the United States Conference of Catholic bishops. An opposing testimony was given by Susan Wood, associate professor of health policy and of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University.

I found Helen Alvare’s testimony particularly compelling. Alvare is a brillant and accomplished woman. Along with being a professor of law at George Mason, she is chair of the Task Force on Conscience Protection of the Witherspoon Institute, chair of the Catholic Women’s Forum, a consultant for the Pontifical Council of the Laity in Vatican City, an advisor to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and an ABC news consultant. In 2012, Salon magazine called her “birth control’s worst enemy” in regards to an article she wrote against the HHS contraception mandate.

In her testimony concerning H.R. 7, Helen made two key points. Her first point was that American lawmakers and citizens don’t subscribe to the belief that abortion is a public good meriting funding. Secondly, she made it clear that abortion is not a part of any genuine “women’s health” agenda according to the federal government’s own statements.

For her first point, Alvare expressed that abortion is understood by lawmakers and citizens to be different from all other programs and projects that receive federal funding. She stated that the federal budget is devoted to things like national security, health care, education, and safe food and drugs. The budget supports things that protect and cause the American people to prosper and grow. She made the case that abortion is something the government shouldn’t support by quoting the Supreme Court justices who acknowledged it as the “purposeful termination of potential human life.” She believes that the Court got its biology wrong when it referred to the unborn as potential human lives instead of what they are – actual living human beings. She quotes Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in Gonzales v. Carhart who said abortion “extinguishes life and kills.”

Secondly, Alvare claims that the federal government is “decidedly uncurious” about the role abortion plays respecting women’s health. She says the Center for Disease Control doesn’t require mandatory reporting by the states and doesn’t have complete or standardized data on abortion. She lists major government health initiatives for women that don’t raise the subject of any health “need” for abortion or abortion funding.

Alvare also references a study by the Rand Corporation that reported attitudes on abortion over decades. According to that study, women are a few percentage points more pro-life than men, the less educated are more pro-life than the educationally privileged, and the poor are more pro-life than the wealthy. This data is especially relevant in light of the the arguments of those who support abortion because they claim it’s a needed service for the poor and underprivileged.

Watching Alvare’s video testimony filled me with hope. It’s inspiring to see an educated, passionate woman who refuses to make peace with abortion and isn’t afraid to tell the government, “Abortion is not a social good deserving of federal funding, let alone funding in the name of women’s health or well-being.”

  • Nemain Ravenswoods

    Religion has no place in what a woman does with her body. If the Catholic church had their way there would be no birth control practiced at all.

    • Drew Belsky

      Pro-abortion playbook, pg. 55: “When flummoxed, holler about religion. Context optional.”

      • JDC

        They waited until pg. 55? What’s on the first 54 pages?

        • Drew Belsky

          The phrase “It’s MY BOOOODY,” but with a lot more vowels. Like, a LOT more.

          • Basset_Hound

            Just a collection of insults.

          • MarcusFenix

            Not even the good ones. I can fart out better insults. ;)

          • Basset_Hound

            Good one, Marcus

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            What’s after pg. 55?

      • DianaG2

        {Pro-abortion playbook, pg. 55: “When flummoxed, holler about religion. Context optional.”}

        Wow. That is so true!

        Thanks.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      What do you think about religious people who support abortion and secular people who oppose abortion?

    • Basset_Hound

      Shhhhhh! Don’t tell commentator and columnist S. E. Cupp who’s pro-life and atheist.

      • DianaG2

        . . . . . . .as are many pro-lifers

    • DianaG2

      Uh . . . . Because the Catholic Church has the same political and secular power it once did in the Middle Ages in Europe??

      Everybody knows that, right?

  • MamaBear

    Excellent secular legal arguments. However, the fact she is Catholic will mean the pro-abortionists will not consider her entitled to an opinion.

    • Basset_Hound

      I remember seeing her back in the 90’s on William Buckley’s Crossfire show. She shredded Susan Estrich and three other pro-aborts. Back in those days Arianna Huffington was pro-life as well.

  • Sharon Diehl

    I, for one, don’t give a damn about what catholicuckoos think. I do give a damn about keeping them and their “buybull” and every other religious wingnut out of my vagina and uterus.

    • Drew Belsky

      “Catholics out of my uterus! But pay for my birth control!”

      This gets dumber every time it’s said. We’re approaching a black hole of dumbness.

      • Griffonn

        The “let live” part of “live and let live” is harrrd!

      • Sharon Diehl

        Re: approaching a black hole of dumbness: Some of us sure are, Drew, honey. Maybe you’re fine with dehumanizing, demeaning Republican legislation aimed at women, but I am not.

        There is the “miscarriage bill” in Utah, sponsored by Teathug Carl that makes having a miscarriage a crime unless the woman can prove it occurred naturally. Exercise and miscarry? Trip down those stairs and miscarry? Throw her in jail! Honey, doctors don’t know half the time why a healthy woman miscarries. Georgia and Mississippi are poised to pass similar legislation. Then there is the “Woman As Livestock” bill in Georgia, sponsored by Teathug Terry England, who wants to force women with a stillborn fetus to go to term with it because by dang, the cows and pigs on the farm do. Mark Obenshain, Teathug NC, wrote a bill to make women report their miscarriages to the police within 24 hours, or go to jail—at least that stupid bill died, plus Obenshain lost his election bid as Virginia’s attorney general. Very catholicuckoo Ken Cuccinelli, who wanted to ban IUDs, close women’s health clinics, and voted for personhood bills, went down in defeat in his bid for governor. One of the worse assaults on women’s health was HR 358, also known as the “Let Women Die” bill, passed by the Rethug-held House in 2011, which would have allowed a religious hospital to refuse a life-saving abortion to a hemorrhaging woman in the emergency room. We would have been like Irish catholic hospitals, in which Savita Halappanavar was allowed to die from a partial miscarriage and sepsis, rather than perform a life-saving abortion. My country is not a theocracy, and my Democratic vote will help keep it from becoming one.
        , wrote a bill to make women report their miscarriages to the police within 24 hours, or go to jail—at least that stupid bill died, plus Obenshain lost his election bid as Virginia’s attorney general. Very catholicuckoo Ken Cuccinelli, who wanted to ban IUDs, close women’s health clinics, and voted for personhood bills, went down in defeat in his bid for governor. One of the worse assaults on women’s health was HR 358, also known as the “Let Women Die” bill, passed by the Rethug-held House in 2011, which would have allowed a religious hospital to refuse a life-saving abortion to a hemorrhaging woman in the emergency room. We would have been like Irish catholic hospitals, in which Savita Halappanavar was allowed to die from a partial miscarriage and sepsis, rather than perform a life-saving abortion. My country is not a theocracy, and my Democratic vote will help keep it from becoming one.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          You might want to read this reply over. When you realize what’s wrong, edit it. Don’t worry, happens to me all the time. And if someone really is trying to make honest miscarriages by accident a crime unless the mother can prove otherwise, I agree, that’s idiotic.

          • Sharon Diehl

            re: edit: done:

            Your “honest miscarriages” sounds like Ron Paul’s comment that he would allow women an estrogen shot if they are pregnant from a “honest rape”. [big roll of the eyes here].

            Any of the names and bills I’ve given can easily be googled. There are politicians who are so dumb that they have declared that there is no need for an abortion ever–Joe Walsh, R IL, comes to mind. My mother watched the debate between Tammy Duckworth and Deadbeat Joe, and my 85 year old mom said she could hardly wait to vote against that idiot man. You mentioned ectopic pregnancies, of which there are over 100,000 a year in the U.S., but there is preeclampsia, placental disruption, gestational diabetes, any number of conditions that can cause a pregnancy to quickly go wrong.

            So naive, Andrew. Because of personhood bills passed in red-held states, women have been thrown in jail for miscarriages. I could go on and on with examples–
            “Melissa Rowland gave birth to twins, one was stillborn. She was arrested on charges of criminal homicide, based on the claim that she had caused the stillbirth by refusing to have a c-section two weeks earlier. Michelle Marie Greenup–arrested for second degree murder because she had a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks–because she had received a Depo-Provera shot.” Over 400 women in the past several years have been incarcerated for miscarriages.

            You think the pro-choice movement is just about abortion? Nope, it’s about maintaining women’s basic civil rights to their own bodies against the onslaught of the religious rightwingers. .

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            To start with, again: not all right wingers are religious.

            Second, a lot of things can go wrong with a pregnancy, but that doesn’t mean doctors shouldn’t try to save both mother and child as much as possible. Also, since humans are genetically wired for nothing to go wrong, most complications are at least partly preventable.

            And finally, I’m not Ron Paul. When I say “honest,” I mean genuine. Also, even you have to admit the possibility that the mother is either directly or indirectly responsible for a miscarriage, or the “miscarriage” being in actuality intentional, and only called “miscarriage” for attention/pity/legal benefits that may come with it. However, the genuinity should probably only be in question if the circumstances seem suspicious.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “humans are genetically wired for nothing to go wrong”: What is the basis for this statement? At least I gather you’re a supporter of evolutionary concepts and not a creationist wingnut–most of the extreme anti-choice people I’ve run into are also literal bible humpers.

            No, sweetie, a woman is not directly or indirectly responsible for a miscarriage–that’s as inane as one bible humper who simpered at me that “miscarriages occur because mommies don’t love their babies enough”. There are accidents like falls, but as I stated elsewhere, most of the time doctors don’t know why a perfectly healthy woman has a miscarriage.

            Andrew, from all your comments, you know nothing about a woman’s reproductive system (not surprising since by your name I gather you lack a uterus), and I have gained the impression that you are just another misogynist.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Creation or evolution doesn’t matter. Either way, it’s normal for pregnancies to go OK. And I didn’t say women are responsible for miscarriages, I said pregnancy complications are partly preventable.

            And actually, I’m also a “literal Bible thumper.” And no, I’m not a misogynist. If I were, I’d support abortion for the irresponsible sex without consequences. Inasmuch as I’m a virgin, I’m not interested in irresponsible sex. I respect women, I just oppose intentionally destroying unborn children. See my comment above about liberal sexism.

            Like I said above, liberals can’t make coherent, intellectual arguments. Attempts to be coherent lead to emotion/impulse/indulgences based arguments, attempts to be intellectual lead to word salads.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Good Lord, you believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, that Adam and Eve romped in the Garden of Eden with dinosaurs, and that fossils were laid down in the Genesis Flood???? (snicker, snicker).
            If so, I am definitely going to bed. I am not going to waste my breath.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The Bible doesn’t say the Earth is 6000 yrs. old. You believe that genetic mistakes, sex, and dying can manipulate chromosomal layout, turning slime into civilizations by accident, and in dating methods that aren’t provable with strict empiricism? (Urinates himself howling with laughter) You realize Darwin’s earliest opponents were paleontologists who said that fossils couldn’t prove evolution, and they still haven’t found proof in the fossil “record?” Darwin’s response was to the effect of “Start looking!”

            By advocating abortion, bullying Catholic antiabortion proponents, slandering Republicans without adequately defending Democrats, and “snickering” at my beliefs, you’ve already wasted more than enough breath.

          • PJ4

            You’re making fun of someone’s religious beliefs??
            Really?
            That’s disgusting.
            What the f*&% is wrong with you?
            Again.. the true tolerance of the Lib Thug shining thru
            You sad sad woman.
            Stop making agnostics and atheists look bad!

            Andrew, we’re not all like her! I PROMISE!!!

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yeah, my comment just below might offend you, Mary Lee, and others. Sorry for that, only trying to offend Sharon.

          • Sharon Diehl

            At my age, Andy, it’s hard to be offended by anything anymore. I just roll my eyes.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You left out your slandering, bullying, bigotry, demagoguery, incoherence, irrationality, unintellectuality, nonfactuality, PTSD, abortion complex, and paranoid delusions. You accuse the Right of intolerance and bigotry, but somehow you’re the one who A. makes fun of people you don’t agree with without apologizing, B. doesn’t even try defending her paranoid delusions with a coherent, rational, intellectual argument, and C. blows off legitimate challenges to your paranoid delusions with nicknames, pet names, eye rolling, slogans, and ignoring what your debate opponents asked you to address. Can I finally hear your thoughts about atheist or agnostic or nonreligious antiabortion proponents, such as PJ and Mary Lee, please?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: nonreligious antiabortion proponents: What about them, sweetie? Elsewhere I already posted that I see two “belief systems”:
            (1) A woman owns her own body. (Democratic platform).
            (2) The government owns a woman’s body. (Republican platform).

            Anyone who wishes laws to prevent women from exercising their basic civil rights to their own bodies, I lump into the pro-big-government-up-women’s-uteruses. I can rephrase: my morality dictates that the living breathing woman should not be stripped of her civil rights and lowered to a 3rd class status behind a man and a fetus for something that only has a potential for life. Does that answer your “question”?

            I own my body and nobody will make any decisions over it except me. Luckily, though, I live in a blue state, and since I’m educated and well employed, I will never be under any mandate by a religious Rethug. I will always be able to go anywhere for whatever medical care I require. I want that freedom for all women. I always encourage students/women to get an education first, and to be able to take care of themselves first, and then they will never ‘have to’ depend on a man to take care of them.

            Honey, I can’t see where I’ve ignored what people ask…perhaps they either don’t understand the answer, or vehemently disagree with it. Hmmm, or I’ve been busy elsewhere and missed all the enquiring minds.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Simplistic morality based on appearances, too? There are several pro-life Democrats on this website. Does that complicate your worldview enough to make you use your brain?

            And no, you haven’t answered my question. Antiabortion proponents that are nonreligious and/or liberal/Democrat: I tolerate and respect them for having a more self-consistent and science-based worldview than your average, run-of-the-mill secular pro-choice liberal Democrat. I disagree, but I can easily see the values that drive them to be left-wing about everything except abortion. Do you hate them? Respectfully disagree? Make fun of them? Here’s a hint: don’t answer that, you’ll offend–nope, wait, never mind. You seem to love being offensive. Next question: how does your liberal worldview that usually is at least superficially pro-underdog and pro-tolerance fit in with your slandering, bullying, and paranoid delusions about people whose politics you don’t agree with?

            Potential? An unborn child isn’t “potentially” alive, he or she’s alive. Also, incidentally, he or she has unique DNA, different from that of the mother, and therefore, not just a tissue, a clump of cells, or another organ, but a whole other organism. He or she’s in a temporary symbiotic relationship with the mother. You know what symbiosis is? A biological relationship of mutual dependence. You know what a lichen is? A symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi. Which one is only “potentially” alive, the algae in question or the fungi? There’s a kind of bird that has a symbiotic relationship with rhinoceroses: they peck bugs off the rhinos’ backs for food. They only “potentially” alive too? Saying we should kill off that species of bird so the rhinos have “control over their own bodies?” Do you think we kill the said algae or the fungi so the other one can have “control over their own bodies?”

            And while we’re on the subject of killing organisms for autonomy, does this warrant destroying the entire welfare system, leaving millions without food, shelter, or money? I’d like to keep the money I earn. I’d prefer to simply help people get jobs by encouraging laissez-faire economics, but if you can kill an unborn child for bodily autonomy, I can leave millions to starve for paycheck autonomy.

            And being paranoid is one thing, but ignorance? If you vote Democrat, you support big government. That’s the basic idea of being Democrat, and why some Democrats are open to the idea of being antiabortion: supporting big government doesn’t mean you hate kids enough to get rid of them before they’re born. Want small government? Vote Republican.

            And if you can’t see where you’re ignoring arguments people make, I’ll tell you like Darwin told the paleontologists: start looking.

            Education? Let’s see what you know. Pop quiz, only Sharon Diehl may answer questions.

            1. How long does it take a zygote to divide into two new cells?

            2. When does the unborn human become a blastocyst?

            3. When does the heart start beating?

            4. When do the arms and legs get formed?

            5. At which point does the child have his or her own unique DNA, different from that of the mother?

            6. Which aspects of personality are believed to be genetic and/or prenatally determined?

            7. What do most pregnant women say they’re going to have? A. A clump of cells B. A tissue C. A fetus D. A pregnancy E. A baby F. None of the above G. Both A and C H. All of the above

            8. Does a baby born prematurely have rights as a person, or is it simply another fetus?

            9. When is the zygote implanted into the uterus?

            10. How many loaded questions did I ask?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andy, honey, go to the Mayo Clinic website if you want answers to your technical reproductive questions. I do.

            Elsewhere I did post a sentence about DNA because either you or someone else said the same thing about “unique DNA”. Every living thing on this earth has its own DNA; do you think that the genetic makeup of an organism automatically grants it special rights? Are you unaware that 60-80% of embryos never imbed in a uterine wall and are flushed from sexually active women during menses (John Opitz, Presidents Council on Bioethics, 2008)? Gynecologists state that half of those embryos, had they imbedded, could have developed into viable fetuses. March of Dimes estimates that half of embryos that do imbed in the uterine wall, resulting in pregnancy, end in spontaneous abortion. That’s a miscarriage, sweetie.
            Ergo, it seems that a god/he/she/it/whatever doesn’t particularly care about the “unborn” and aborts millions and millions of ‘potential babies’ with their own “unique DNA”. It would also appear that abortion is a routine natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system. Yet if a woman chooses to abort an embryo or fetus at the same gestational stage as a natural abortion, she’s a murderess?

            Andy, dear, to quote a statement by lawyer/blogger Christine: “Stop with the pandering bullshit about “small government.” Because no person who seeks to require government officials to be involved in litigation over the fertility of the uteruses of all of the women who reside in their jurisdictions can credibly claim to be a proponent of small government.”
            I’ll keep my Democrats…or as someone else called them, Democraps..still far better for individual liberty and real “small government” than the Repugs.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            If such and such a percentage of zygotes get flushed, it’s by accident. Pro-lifers oppose deliberately killing the unborn for any reason other than medical circumstances leaving no other choice. Also, we have death because humans chose to do what’s wrong. If God’s will were being carried out on the Earth, neither abortion nor miscarriages would exist. Also, in sex, only one egg gets fertilized. How does the 60 to 80% of “embryos” idea work? Hint: embryos are what the unborn is called at the 2-cell stage and thereafter.

            Let’s see who really supports small government. Democrats support raising income taxes, increasing welfare programs, increasing government agencies, increasing government spending, increasing government regulations on the economy, taking away people’s guns, and affirmative action programs, which are all big-government policies. Republicans oppose all of those policies.

            There were several scandals in March involving the Obama administration. It was discovered that the Department of Justice was watching journalists, the NSA was spying on people, the Obama administration gave guns to Mexican drug cartels, and the IRS was targeting conservatives. And we all know about Gosnell. Never a word about any of the above from the liberal mainstream media, except for Fox News and the conservative alternative media. Also, I don’t have to mention Bill Clinton, do I?

            If you think the Democrats support small government and Republicans support big government, you’re deluded. Just another aspect of your paranoid schizophrenia, I’d conclude.

          • Basset_Hound

            So I guess one can’t be “educated and well employed”, and be pro-life, right? Talk about bigotry!

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Um, were you commenting on what I said or what Sharon said?

          • Basset_Hound

            Sharon, to address even more of her self-righteous preening.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Okay. Just wasn’t sure. :)

          • MamaBear

            You know, there is so much we still do not know in science, and there is so much in the Bible that is either symbolic or written from God’s perspective, not ours (with God one day is as a 1000 years), that when people start to argue for literal 24 hour days in Genesis OR argue that the Bible has to be wrong because we don’t know exactly how it all fits together, that it is very foolish for us to be adamant that either side is wrong. I would not be surprised if in someday we find that the real problem is merely our limited understanding.
            The point of the first chapters of Genesis is that God was in the beginning and spoke it all into existence, that man is uniquely in the image of God (he has an eternal soul that is meant for fellowship with his Creator), and that man has failed to meet God’s standards.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That’s all true, but until Daniel Defoe published Robinson Crusoe, fiction and mere mythology was written in a poetical verse. Prose meant history that was to be taken seriously. If the story in Genesis 1-11 was meant as no more than symbolism, then it wouldn’t be in a prose narrative, it’d be poetry.

          • MamaBear

            Andrew,
            I purposely did not use the word mythology, although I mentioned symbolism. Personally I do think Genesis is history that we just can’t understand yet. People forget it says God spoke everything into existence, only in the case of man did He actually directly form His creation. We have no idea how long God’s days are, He is eternal. We do not know if everything appeared instantly when God spoke, or if it took developed in stages? Was Moses writing dictated words or did God show him the beginning as John was shown the end and told to write what he saw? The book of Revelation is not in poetry either, nor is it myth, yet there is a great deal of symbolism and much we do not understand.
            A few years ago, scientists proved through mitochondrial DNA that we are all descended from one woman. They caught the connection to Genesis and called her Eve. What else is there we just don’t know yet that will tie together science and the Bible? What else is there that we just do not understand?
            This I do know, God created all. Mankind is created in the image of God, has a soul, and those first humans fell to temptation. That is why our world has so much wrong with it. Jesus came, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected and is our Lord and Savior.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They also proved with Y-chromosomal DNA that all males are descended from the same guy, and they gave him the name Adam. It just sounded a bit like the people who try to interpret Genesis to fit in evolution. No offense intended. :)

          • MamaBear

            None taken. I don’t think so. The scientists said they were not looking to prove Genesis, admitted the dates would be waaay off. They were not creationists. I think one said they picked the name Eve for cultural reasons or something like that. I became aware of it because of the science interest of a certain young person in my life, who I was having regular discussions about Genesis and science with.
            I am neither a scientist or theologian. But, I do know that without a point at which man chose sin, we would not have needed a Savior.
            That same young person came to me several years later and told me he was finally convinced Adam and Eve were real because of what he read in Romans. So these days, I still don’t understand our discussions, but they are about theology instead of science.

          • PJ4

            Not offended ar all :-)

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, dear, every damn year here in Colorado we have to beat back the creationist Republicans, who introduce petitions and bills, to force creationism into our public school science classes. “Teach the controversy! Except there is no “controversy”. The religious folk can’t get it through their heads that their bible isn’t a science textbook.

            Maybe you are fine with dumbing down your kids with silly fundamental religious beliefs, but I am not. If you want your children’s heads filled with the idea of dinosaurs romping with humans, go to a backwards church, home school with some of Bob University’s laughable “textbooks”, and visit the Ken Ham Creation Museum in Kentucky….where, by the way, Bill Nye, the Science Guy, is going to “debate” with Ken Ham in February. I personally think it’s a foolish thing to do; it gives oxygen to goofball ideas.

            I know not everyone is a geologist, but I assure you, dinosaurs did not coexist with humans–their bones are found in entirely different age rocks.

            PJ, you quite right in that I have no tolerance for pride in ignorance, nor the fanatical desire to spread that ignorance throughout our education system.

            I can work within different belief systems. At Colorado School of Mines I ran a seminar on Creationism and Science because we have so many middle east students in Petroleum. The muslims from Oman, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, etc. told us that yes, they accepted that the earth was 4.5 billion years old and that the lower animals evolved, but Adam and Eve were kicked out of heaven 10,000 years ago and put on earth. Students from more secular Turkey, however, accepted that all life forms evolved. This is important– one has to have a grasp on biostratigraphy because types of ores and fossil fuels are found in certain age rocks–to do mineral exploration you need the tools of evolutionary biology.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Pro-life atheists and agnostics beware: I am about to defend Creationism. No offense intended, just putting my personal views on the matter as articulately as I can. I will deliberately dodge direct discrediting of anything and instead focus on defending my doubt of evolution and the possibility that the Bible is at least worthy of respect. Inasmuch as this is a political thread, it is to be acknowledged that my main intention is to explain and defend my religion, not shove it down anyone’s throat. I acknowledge that Creationism is a religion-based position, and all my arguments will include the possibility of other interpretations as much as I can make them do so.

            First, Sharon, PJ is agnostic.

            You, Sharon, and I agree on something. I have never thought of the Bible as a science textbook. History, theology, philosophy, biography, social commentary, and prophecy, but not science. That does not negate its claims as pertaining to the origin of the world. Such a topic cannot be answered by “science” in the strictest sense.

            Which is more complicated, the human brain or an advanced computer? I’ll let you cheat: it’s A. The human brain is so complex it isn’t even completely understood yet. The computer is a lot simpler, and it was designed by intelligent beings. It is simply an extension of that principle to suppose that the human brain was also designed. Also, inasmuch as we don’t fully understand the human brain, that implies that the designer is more intelligent than us.

            Of all the various laws of nature, only one has effects on everything: the law of chaos, death, and running down. Organisms die, stars go out, matter and energy become increasingly inaccessible, civilizations collapse, measuring one property of a particle changes another property, pollution happens, meltdowns happen, wars happen, disease happens. Most of the nearly 7 billion people in the world are, however, not directly impacted by most of the above. So many million, maybe, but probably not in the billions. Despite the chaos, evil, pain, irrationality, and death, there is order, goodness, pleasure, rationality, and life. Such things are held by Creationists to come from God. The other things are held to be consequences of human sinfulness (we all can agree about that, at least, even if we identify different perps).

            Furthermore, it is held by said Creationists that God is the ultimate basis of morality and human rights. He designed the world, we believe, therefore it is He who assigns value to animals, humans, and the environment, each in differing amounts. We can all agree that in a choice between a bus full of children, a trailer full of horses, and a truck full of solar panels, it’s the kiddos that we’d try to save first, horses second, solar panels third.

            As for the fossil record, it could be proof of a global Flood that had effects on layers of sediment. The Bible says that not only was there a heck of a rainstorm, but also that the “fountains of the deep” opened. This could refer to seismic activity.

            Dating methods revolve around knowing half-lives. Some of the radioactive materials used for dating are held by evolutionists to have half-lives in the millions or billions of years–not provable with strictly empirical science. Even C14 is held to have a half-life of 5760+/-40 years. I acknowledge that supposed lengths of half-lives are based on mathematics.

            Dinosaurs walking with humans? Possible. At Glen Rose, Texas, a fossilized human footprint was discovered next to some fossilized dinosaurs. Creatures like the Loch Ness Monster, Champy, and Ogopogo, if proven to exist, might suggest that humans and dinosaurs were alive at the same time. There are legends and myths about dragons in cultures all over the world, and all myths and legends have some truth in there somewhere. Perhaps after the Tower of Babel, when there was little to no culture or civilization, the people who wandered the face of the globe had run-ins with dinosaurs, and killed them when they could, so they all died out by the time civilization returned in full force.

            The Bible itself has never been conclusively proven with strictly empirical evidence to be fraudulent or corrupted. Archaeology, in fact, has a habit of proving something the Bible says to be right.

            And lastly, as I have already stated, the age of the Earth is not stated in the Bible, and the numbers from which it’s calculated could be interpreted to mean as many as several thousand years more than what’s popularly assumed.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Now there’s one problem…”He” instead of “She”….

            Sigh. Here we go. No, dinosaurs walking with people is not possible…unless you’re an evolutionary paleontologist who is lobbying to merge Class Aves (birds) with Class Dinosauria (dinosaurs) because you view modern birds as direct descendants of therapods. Then, lo, we have seagulls and humans walking the modern beach sands together.

            Glen Rose is a formation that is over 100 million years old. Recognizable ancestral human bones are found in 2.2 million year old rock, and around 250,000 years ago, homo sapiens, i.e., modern humans, developed. Note the immense geological time gap.

            Dinosaur trackways of various degrees of preservation are found at Glen Rose. There are no human footprints–that is a debunked creationist claim…and locals have admitted to carving human footprints into fossil-bearing slabs to sell to tourists.

            Check out online articles about the Glen Rose Formation, “Paluxy River Man Track”, and especially the Dinosaur Valley State Park in Texas.

            “The family of George Adams, the man who originally made the claims [human footprints], later admitted it was a hoax. “My grandfather was a very good sculptor,” said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family who found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks. She explained that in the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by making moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils.The fossils brought $15 to $30 and when the supply ran low, George Adams, Zana’s grandfather “just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_Valley_State_Park

            Re: morals: I have no desire to go around killing people. I work with charities. It feels good to help people…and animals. All of my dogs and cats have been from shelters. Why would one need a “god” for being kind to one’s fellow’s humans and creatures? Especially a god who would demand of “his” followers to kill their children (i.e, Abraham and Isaac), or order infants and women be slain (Numbers 31:15-17; Hosea 9:16; Hosea 13;16; oh, too many to type here). Nope, I have my own morals.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Selling unauthentic fossils? Duh. When a perceived major event happens in a particular place, there’s obviously going to be a tourist industry, and selling souvenirs is a must. Even if the event is shown to be fraudulent/unimportant, there’ll still be tourists.

            Glen Rose may be a hoax. The other side has the Nebraska Man, the Java Man, the Orce Man, the Neanderthals, the Piltdown Man, the Archaeopteryx, the Brontosaurus, the peppered moth experiment, the Scopes Monkey Trial (if you didnt already know, it was a histrionic ploy made by some people in Daytona, Tennessee), and Haeckel’s embryonic drawings. I think we’re even.

            You still haven’t addressed my other arguments in that topic–dragons in mythology which may imply humans coexisting with dinosaurs, and the possibility of Ogopogo, the Loch Ness Monster, and Champy being surviving plesiosaurs (the water-dwelling version of dinosaurs).

            You say that the fossils in question at GR, TX are so many millions of years old, but I made an argument casting doubt on dating methods that you haven’t addressed.

            By the way, thanks for calling me a Creationist, it’s a fine release from Rethug, wingnut, sweetie, honey, Andy, dear, rape-drooling Republican, nutjob, misogynistic Bible-thumper…of course, the last person I interacted with who indulged in name-calling called me “slutboy” and Adan’s “buttbuddy,” despite the fact that I’m straight, virgin, and single, so you’re at least slightly more accurate than that person.

            Got your own morals! Where from? MSNBC? Obama? School?…PBS Kids?

            No desire to go around killing people? You support abortion. Care to contradict yourself again?

            Charity, helping animals, helping people…you sure are braggy. Trying to cover up guilt? You’re a paranoid schizophrenic with PTSD and an abortion complex. You support killing people before they’re born and bully them and condescend to them when they disagree. You’re not motivated by altruism. You said “and animals” more emphatically than the preceding sentence. Care more about animals than about humans?

            Why would one need God to be a good person? I don’t know. PJ and Mary Lee don’t. I need God because He is the only one who can truly love me for me. I only need to be a human to be a good person.

            Abraham? God was testing him. Midianites? They convinced God’s people to worship prettied up pieces of rock and wood and do sexually immoral deeds. If they’d spared the kids, the kids’ lives would have been ruined. Hosea 9:16? You interpret a possibly symbolic prophecy as a literal command? Hosea 13:16? Ever thought that might be a prophecy of the abortion industry? Ever did a Google Images search for “abortion?” I exed out a couple seconds after looking at the first picture. Killing children? You support abortion, so you’re just as guilty. Any other awful arguments you’d like to make?

            None of what you said complicates my faith. Cultural ethics is like science in that it always progresses in ways consistent with the original ideas. The commandment against killing in Exodus 20 eventually became the command to love your enemies of the Sermon on the Mount, the commandment against adultery became the command to not even look at women with lust. What complicates my faith is Helen Thomas. I nearly used a printoff of her face as a Halloween mask.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            As an afterthought, what paleontologist in his or her right mind thinks birds are descended from therapods? Therapods are classified as saurischian (lizard-hipped) because the pelvises of them resembled those of modern-day lizards. If an evolutionist wants to make a case for birds being descended from dinosaurs they should argue for them being from hadrosaurs–they’re both ornithischian (bird-hipped) and bird-shaped.

          • Sharon Diehl

            http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html
            Simplest reply: Therapods had clavicles like their avian descendants. I had the privilege of attending a lecture at Colorado School of Mines by Yale paleontologist J.H. Ostrom in 1995 (be still my beating heart); he went into great detail on the morphological similarities of the therapods, specimens such as Archaeopteryx, and modern birds.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Archaeopteryx turned out to be a mistake. And there’s still the pelvis to deal with. Also, not every theropod necessarily had a clavicle. Theropods were shaped like birds, but so are kangaroos, seals, and walruses ( not identical but pretty similar). Shape doesn’t prove common lineage.

          • PJ4

            Your futile attempts at sounding remotely intelligent are not working.

            Just because you get your knowledge of dinosaurs from Barney doesn’t mean we all do.

            What are you so scared of?

            If you truly believe that there’s nothing real in creationism then you wouldn’t be so scared of it.

            There’s nothing wrong with teaching something that’s opposed to your own views.

            You sound like a scared little kitty.

            Again.. I’m agnostic .. but your attacks on creationism make me want to embrace Christianity. Congratulations on that one.

            I don’t fear creationism so I couldn’t give a rats ass if it’s taught.

            I avoid the dumbing down of my children by not sending them to public school. All of them are in very elite private prep schools. Unfortunately, even without the creationism in the curriculum US public schools are a waste of time. Third world counties have a better public school system than we do and it’s only getting dumber with Common Core (I bet you’re a supporter of that)

            PJ, you are quite right in that I have no tolerance for pride in ignorance, nor the fanatical desire to spread that ignorance throughout our education system.

            Yet all you’ve demonstrated is your ignorance, bigotry,fanaticism and misogyny.
            Good one.

            Oh btw, it might surprise you to know that the “father of the big bang theory” is a father
            Fr Georges Lemitre, phd and physicist

            Guess what the evil church did when he discovered it?

            They gave him the title of monsignor. That means he got promoted for his discoveries in science.

            I have no idea who Ken Ham is nor do I care. Have fun with that.
            I dated a Catholic geologist once… he was great in bed.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            MmmmHmmm…good to have you back in the game, Princess ;)

          • Rebekah

            I understand that you do not believe in creationism. That is your right. However, I would ask you to explain to me how the genetic code came about without the aid of any intelligence. How can a code that we are just beginning to understand have evolved? How can information come into being of its own accord? That is like saying that a bunch of random lines evolved, without the aid of any intelligence, into the alphabet we know today. If you can prove to me that such a thing can happen, I might give evolution some credence. If not, I would have to say that some intelligence is at work in the world.

          • Sharon Diehl

            There is a website called http://www.talkorigins.com that I like; it was created to answer the “questions” (i.e., objections) of creationists and “intelligent designers”. There is even a page devoted to ‘genetic code’ because it is a common question/objection from creationists. If you want to know the technicalities of DNA making proteins, or RNA, do go there.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB180.html

            Evolution does not teach that there is no god/goddess/it/whatever, which I am assuming you mean by an “intelligence”. Evolution is a basic biological tool to explain genetic variations within a population, how new species arise, or how adaptations occur. So, at its simplest, evolution describes the changes in genetics of populations over time. It’s not a belief system like a religion. Evolutionary processes are basic to the study of modern biology–we can observe it occurring today–such as in the evolving resistance of weeds and insect pests to pesticides, or disease-causing bacteria to antibiotics. Genetic manipulation is used to make fisheries more productive, or used to determine whether a species can be brought back from near extinction based on available sex and genetic variation. We have a new flu vaccine every year because viruses evolve in order to survive; therefore, every year we have to develop a new vaccine to combat the new strain. Evolutionary processes are used in predicting threats/problems of genetically modified crops (GMOs). Tracing genes enabled scientists to track sources of diseases, such as HIV. These are all examples of using evolutionary biology.

            Rebekah, if you want to believe in an invisible telepathic intelligence, that is your right, too. It just doesn’t belong in a science classroom; put it into a comparative religions class or some such.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            You dodged her question. She asked, in essence, how you reconcile a complex, orderly universe that can be understood rationally with a worldview that states that the universe wasn’t designed by a rational being. Evolution doesn’t necessarily say there is no God, but evolution, broadly speaking, is the idea that the universe and the things therein happened by accident, and is based on not believing in God. Therefore, God and evolution are still mutually exclusive.

          • PJ4

            She’s good at dodging questions

          • JDC

            I suppose everybody has to be good at at least one thing.

          • PJ4

            Haha yes!
            But as Calvin pointed out she’s also good at “missing the point”
            :-)

          • JDC

            Wow, two skills! Clearly this one’s ahead of the curve. :)

          • Basset_Hound

            One also has to admit there are false accusations of rape. Ask the Duke lacrosse team. And yes, I can almost hear the screeching, venomous reply coming now.

          • Griffonn

            A SART unit I was once required to get a training from estimated that ten per cent of their cases were deemed false accusations – that is, the physical evidence contradicted their testimony.

            They claimed that it’s depressingly common for females to self-inflict injuries and claim rape.

          • PJ4

            Well.. according to this crazy chick.. all PIV is rape.

            This should give all pro lifers who are in favor of a rape exception pause.

            http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

          • Basset_Hound

            My God! And they accuse “buybul thumpers” like me of “hating sex”. I’ve never read anything so degrading of a beautiful expression of love in my life. What a vicious, unhappy person! One time, I stated that I would be in favor of a “rape exception” ONLY for women who had promptly gone to the ER for emergency treatment and DNA evidence collection, and I got skewered by a pro-abort for THAT. As Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland…”words mean what I say they mean, nothing more and nothing less”.

          • Griffonn

            I think we should outlaw abortion but enable any woman who wants to, to have the baby extracted at, say, 22 weeks – if it survives, she can pay child support; if she is a rape victim, she can have the option of not being told if it survives or not, safe in the knowledge that if it did survive, it is to be adopted.

            Problem solved.

          • PJ4

            It’s like a covert way for feminist to slut shame without a back lash.

          • Basset_Hound

            Never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, I can see your point. Thanks PJ….

        • PJ4

          Hmmm…. where to begin “honey”?

          Let’s start with you reading the actual bills and not the crack pot headlines/spin of the left wingnut Libthugs such as Rh, Jezebel, Mother Jones et al.

          It’s quite obvious from your twaddle that you will believe any exaggeration that your gods Libthugs over at the extreme Leftie sites tell you.

          Do you people ever have anything original to contribute?

          I mean really, EVER?

          Ok…first up, your false claims on UT’s pro life bill:

          There is the “miscarriage bill” in Utah, sponsored by Teathug Carl Wimmer that makes having a miscarriage a crime unless the woman can prove it occurred naturally. Exercise and miscarry? Trip down those stairs and miscarry? Throw her in jail!

          You need to do your homework. Wimmer was not a Tea Party candidate. http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/67328/carl-wimmer#.UtatCv2u0ds

          You’ve already lost credibility. Here’s a list of all Tea Party candidates just incase you need it. It may come in handy.

          I don’t even need to go on from here, but then where would the fun in proving how much pro aborts lie, be?

          Next point: The Miscarriage Bill:

          Wrong again my sweet. (I’m seeing a trend here)

          This bill was solely introduced because a pregnant women . had paid a stranger to beat her up to cause a miscarriage.

          Yes, she paid for domestic violence so he was not allowed to be prosecuted because the judge ruled that it was the same as an abortion.

          But that makes people like you happy.

          You would probably give the guy who beat her up a blow job for his heroic services to this woman.

          Don’t deny it. You know you would.

          Again. Do. Your. Homework.

          Read the actual bill.

          No where in the bill does it mention that if a woman exercises (btw I exercised during all 3 of my pregnancies) or accidentally falls down the stairs that she should be thrown in jail.

          Admittedly, it was a bit of a knee jerk reaction but so was the bit of anti-gun legislation following Sandy Hook so fair’s fair, right?

          As a matter of fact,it specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion.

          http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14429070

          You people encourage domestic violence

          You people encourage women returning to their abusers and you people would cover it up all in the name of your religion of abortion.

          OK.. on to the next lie:

          Then there is the “Woman As Livestock” bill in Georgia, sponsored by Teathug Terry England, who wants to force women with a stillborn fetus to go to term with it because by dang, the cows and pigs on the farm do.

          Again, Terry Englad is not a Tea Party member.

          http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/31952/terry-england#.Utaxnv2u0ds

          Again. Do. Your. Homework.

          The poor guy misspoke, and you people rename an entire bill after him?

          Imagine what would happen if we did that every time Obama misspoke or every time Biden put his foot in his mouth…

          Here are the provisions in the bill that scare the pro aborts:

          ‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–

          (A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;

          (B) require or provide such training;

          (C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or

          (D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.

          You can read it yourself here:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text

          Lila Rose says it best:

          First, this section is saying that the health care provider or agency cannot receive federal assistance funds to perform or refer for abortions. (hip hip hooray!)

          However, it is not forbidding states or local municipalities from funding them themselves. It is not denying privately funded insurances to cover abortions either.

          Do you know of any physician or institution that would just let a woman, man, boy or girl, citizen, resident or illegal alien die, no matter the circumstances?

          You’re blatantly saying doctors and medical personnel will just stand there and do nothing for the dying woman.

          Conscience clauses currently exist in Federal and State laws, and women are not dying “on the floor”.

          Pro-Life means respect care and protection for all life, not deeming one more worthy than another.

          On the issue that women would not be able to pay for services “even with their own funds”. The Bill is not denying ALL doctors and medical personnel never-ever perform abortions.

          It prevents an imposition of Choice on those who for any reason would rather not.

          It is more a prevention to impose the religion of abortion on those who don’t believe in it.

          http://liveaction.org/blog/whats-so-bad-about-hr-358/

          Pro lifers need protection from people like you.

          You would force your will on others. You would force a doctor to dismember a child even if a woman’s life was not in danger.

          You are a lib thug of the highest nature.

          Next lie:

          Mark Obenshain, Teathug NC, wrote a bill to make women report their miscarriages to the police within 24 hours, or go to jail—at least that stupid bill died, plus Obenshain lost his election bid as Virginia’s attorney general.

          Here we go again… I’m getting tired of repeating myself… but you’re just such a well of misinformation that it’s inevitable.

          Again… not Tea Partier.

          During his run for attorney general in 2013, Obenshain was criticized for a bill he introduced in 2009 which would have required women who had miscarriages without medical attendance to report it to authorities within 24 hours.

          Obenshain explained that he introduced the bill as a knee-jerk reaction to the case of a Virginia woman who
          threw her dead newborn baby’s body into the trash and was trying to create a bill to allow law enforcement to prosecute a woman in that specific circumstance.

          However, the legislation that emerged “was far too broad, and would have had ramifications that neither he nor the Commonwealth’s attorney’s office ever intended,” and after being unable to resolve the problem of women potentially being prosecuted for miscarriages, he withdrew the bill and stated that he is “strongly against imposing any added burden for women who suffer a miscarriage, and that was never the intent of the legislation.

          The bill didn’t die as you put it…after meeting with NARAL and PP to try to resolve the issue he withdrew it himself and apologized.

          Apparently, that’s not good enough for you people. You’d rather the heroic 20 year old be given a medal for disposing of her dead child in the proper way.

          Very catholicuckoo Ken Cuccinelli, who wanted to ban IUDs, close women’s health clinics, and voted for personhood bills, went down in defeat in his bid for governor.

          http://www.lifenews.com/2013/09/05/washington-post-falsely-claims-ken-cuccinelli-wants-to-ban-birth-control/

          We would have been like Irish catholic hospitals, in which Savita Halappanavar was allowed to die from a partial miscarriage and sepsis, rather than perform a life-saving abortion.

          Hmmm.. so you’re going to use ONE death in Ireland as an excuse to justify killing millions of babies in utero.

          Really?

          So does that mean that if a woman dies during legal abortion we can ban abortion?

          That’s exactly your logic.

          I should remind you that Ireland is still safer than the US for a pregnant woman to give birth.

          And the MMR in Chile went down after they banned abortions.
          http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

          You would raise hell over Savita and exploit her death but these women be damned: Tonya Reeves or Kristin Gilber or Jennifer Morbelli or any of the countless women who have died at the hands of abortionists post Roe v Wade.

          Here’s a list of just a few: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/deaths/legaldeaths.htm

          If it were up to the lib thugs, every abortionist would be a Gosnell.

          • MarcusFenix

            Niiice.

          • Basset_Hound

            Straight thru the uprights from 64 yards.

          • MamaBear

            Wow! You sure haven’t lost your touch. Excellent!

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Damn…Somebody’s still on top of her game :)

          • Basset_Hound

            Here’s a teeny detail you left out… Cuccinelli came within three points of winning and might have been able to pull it off if the Establishment had thrown him some help, and had Christie decided it would make him look uncool. Yet Christie had time to be besties with Obama….but I digress.

          • Sharon Diehl

            It was a surpisingly close race…Cooch lost to a very unpopular Democrat. I actually thought Cuccinelli would win…but a majority of single women and men turned out to vote Democratic. It gives me hope for the upcoming elections that extreme rightwingers will go down in defeat.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I think you’ve put a stake in this person’s arguments. Now, of course, I need to factor pro-aborts nonfactuality into my theory that with pro-aborts, coherence and intellectuality are mutually exclusive.

          • JDC

            Pure pwnage. I love it!

          • Sharon Diehl

            1. Yes, PJ sweetie, Wimmer seized upon the case of the 17 year old girl, who hired a man to beat her up in hopes of miscarrying, to introduce the Criminal Homicide and Abortion Revisions Act, i.e., popularly known as the “miscarriage bill”, so that women having miscarriages caused by an “intentional or knowing act” (and originally had the word “reckless”) could be prosecuted for murder. Wimmer removed the word “reckless” (e.g. falling down stairs) to assure that the governor would sign it into law. Don’t be naive, PJ–Wimmer wrote this bill as a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. Wimmer has stated that his goal is to make abortion illegal, which is your goal also. The bill treats women as presumptive criminals.

            http://www.alternet.org/story/145966/meet_the_man_behind_utah's_new_law_criminalizing_miscarriages

            As for Teabagger (and Glen Beck) affiliation, his Facebook site claimed: “I am involved in the Tea Party and 912 movements.” Gee, I believed his own words.

            2. Re: Terry England: Misspoke?!? I watched the video. The man compared farm animals giving birth to dead young to women with stillborn fetuses! He wanted to make it illegal for a woman with a stillborn, and or inviable fetus, to abort it after 20 weeks. He is just another example of a know-nothing Repug politician, pretending to be a doctor, sticking his nose up women’s private parts.

            http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/12/442637/georgia-rep-compares-women-to-animals/

            Gee, so sorry for describing Terry England as a Teapartier…he apparently just appeals to a “Tea Party base”. I shall flagellate myself with the noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

            Side note: PJ honey, Lila Rose is an idiot to the pro-choice community—she is known as Liar Rose. I’m sure there are vocal pro-choice women whom you despise….and I bet I’m nearing the top of that list. Abortion isn’t a religion, dear, it is a medical procedure…a common life-saving procedure for over 100,000 women per year in the U.S. who experience ectopic pregnancies and other complications of pregnancy….and for women who determine that it is not in her best interests to remain pregnant.

            2. Mark Obenshain has Tea Party credentials with a Tea Party Patriots Federation endorsement. He is just like Carl Wimmer, an opportunist to write any bill to take away a woman’s reproductive rights. Like Cooch, he supported personhood bills to strip pregnant women of their rights to their bodies, claimed that ‘morning after’ pills are abortion pills and wanted them banned from the James Madison University health center, voted for shoving unnecessary transvaginal wands up the nether regions of women
            seeking abortions, and is homophobic (walked out of the legislature rather than vote for a gay judicial nominee). But then…you support all this misogyny and religious twaddle, and I don’t.

            PJ, more women die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth in this country than abortion. http://jezebel.com/way-more-women-still-die-from-childbirth-than-abortion-1284664170

          • PJ4

            Yes, PJ sweetie, Wimmer seized upon the case of the 17 year old girl, who hired a man to beat her up in hopes of miscarrying, to introduce the Criminal Homicide and Abortion Revisions Act, i.e., popularly known as the “miscarriage bill”, so that women having miscarriages caused by an “intentional or knowing act” (and originally had the word “reckless”) could be prosecuted for murder. Wimmer removed the word “reckless” (e.g. falling down stairs)

            I think you’ve mischaracterized it as the “miscarriage bill” it should be the “illegal abortion bill”

            I’m well aware of what the bill says (and said), I actually do my research unlike lib thug robots like you.

            Again, have you scheduled the BJ you’ve planned for the hero who beat the girl up?

            I know you think he’s a hero for what he did.

            If paying someone to beat you up is not reckless behavior, I don’t know what is.

            Don’t be naive, PJ–Wimmer wrote this bill as a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. Wimmer has stated that his goal is to make abortion illegal, which is your goal also. The bill treats women as presumptive criminals. Why didn’t the girl originally just seek a legal abortion? Because 97% of Utah’s counties do not have an abortion provider.

            I’d rather be naive than a misogynist such as yourself.

            Stop hating yourself just because you’re a woman.

            It’s sad.

            Men and women are different.

            Our brains are wired differently.

            Stop trying to fight evolution.

            If Wimmer’s goal is to abolish abortion then he’s a true hero.

            You on the other hand are a Might-Means-Right-Lib Thug Feminazi.

            The bill doesn’t’ treat women as presumptive criminals, that’s just your left wing nut job take on it.

            Not my fault you can’t look at something objectively

            That’s the problem with Liberalism: everything is subject to one’s feeeeeelings and there’s no objectivity.

            Terry England: I watched the video too.

            And he apologized for what he said.

            Shouldn’t that be enough?

            Nope

            Pro aborts aren’t satisfied with the blood of babies they want the blood of the men and women who try to save the babies too.

            He wanted to make it illegal for a woman with a stillborn, and or inviable fetus, to abort it after 20 weeks.

            Ok.. can you hear yourself? I mean really.

            You need to stop reading the lefty nuts on the internet… wait.. you’re one of them.. never mind.

            If the child is stillborn, or non viable, what is there to abort?

            The child is already dead. Therefore no abortion of any sort is needed.

            Please study biology before you come back to comment.

            You’re misinformation is giving me a headache….

            You’re just another example of a DemoRat who know’s nothing about her own biology or embryology or gynecology but insists she does because she has a vagina. So….default.

            Side note: PJ honey, Lila Rose is an idiot to the pro-choice community—she is known as Liar Rose. I’m sure there are vocal pro-choice women whom you despise….and I bet I’m nearing the top of that list. Abortion isn’t a religion, dear, it is a medical procedure…a common life-saving procedure for over 100,000 women per year in the U.S. who experience ectopic pregnancies and other complications of pregnancy….and for women who determine that it is not in her best interests to remain pregnant.

            You can call her whatever name you want.

            The truth hurts, I understand.

            She’s unearthing some of the atrocities committed by PP and other abortion mills and it infuriates you.
            I understand.
            If I were on the losing side and aging at the same time I’d be upset too.
            It’s ok sweetie.. you’ve always got a shoulder to cry on over here. :-)

            Sorry, you’re right, abortion isn’t a religion, it’s your sacrament. Silly me! I’m going to need to borrow that noodly appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster when your done.

            A medical procedure isn’t something that results in the brutal ending of another person’s life.

            Medical procedures are life saving.

            No one has the right to determine who is worth of life and who is not.

            What don’t you get about that?

            The bodily autonomy of the child is being violated. 65% of those babies are girls. Why is that ok with you?

            Women killing little girls just because they’re girls. Yes.. that’s a feminazi utopia, isn’t it?

            He is just like Carl Wimmer, an opportunist to write any bill to take away a woman’s reproductive rights

            again…..reproductive rights means you have the right to reproduce even if you’re a moron.

            It does not mean that you have dominion over the life of the child you carry. No one has the right to end another’s life. Not the state. Not a woman. Not a man. NO one.

            It’s not rocket science sweet child of mine.

            Like Cooch, he supported personhood bills to strip pregnant women of their rights to their bodies,

            As opposed to you supporting stripping a baby of his or her right to their bodies, right?

            claimed that ‘morning after’ pills are abortion pills and wanted them banned from the James Madison University health center

            Perhaps it’s because of this

            http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/11/plan-b-problem-pregnancies
            or this: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629610001505
            or this:

            http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/03/15/More-abortions-in-Sweden-despite-pill/UPI-61001363369704/#ixzz2mMGxIiWG

            and not just one of your silly conspiracy theories.

            voted for shoving unnecessary transvaginal wands up the nether regions of women seeking abortions

            Ah, so you’re opposed to the standard practice and procedures of PP and NARAL?

            Bet you didn’t know that, did you?

            You do realize that an ultrasound is necessary in order to perform the abortion right?

            I mean, you can’t be that ignorant, can you?

            I mean, really???

            The only objection you people have is that now showing the woman the picture of the baby is mandatory.

            It’s so scary to see that isn’t it? It’s terrifying to hear the beating heart of the child you’re about to kill…right?

            Why would you want a woman to be fully informed?

            and is homophobic (walked out of the legislature rather than vote for a gay judicial nominee).

            Everyone is entitled to their own opinions

            Careful, your tolerance is showing.

            But then…you support all this misogyny and religious twaddle, and I don’t.

            You think only men can live in dignity and women can only live in dignity insomuch as she mimics a man….and I’m the misogynist???

            RIght.. I’m bisexual and agnostic… so wrong again

            Do you ever get tired of being so judgement and wrong? Just wondering.

            PJ, more women die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth in this country than abortion.

            Sadly the US has fallen behind. It is a very sad thing and something of which I”m quite aware.
            Ireland and Chile where abortion is illegal have a much lower rate of MMR. Perhaps if we abolished abortion things would get better for mother and child.
            It’s been demonstrated in other countries…. ah well..
            It took 100 years to abolish slavery… so…

          • Sharon Diehl

            Where to start, PJ, sweetie, in response to that long vitriolic rant.
            .
            Re: “I know you think he’s a hero for what he did.” No, dear, the man who beat up the 17 pregnant girl is a money-grubbing criminal.

            Re: ultrasounds: Yes, ultrasounds were and are used to confirm a pregnancy and placement; especially in the ‘old days’, when women had to wait until at least 8 weeks into a pregnancy to obtain an abortion because of poor technology. Now with improved ultrasound technology, a woman can obtain an abortion at 4 weeks. Here comes the “however” part: it is once again naïve to think that these mandated transvaginal ultrasounds aren’t meant to be cost and time impediments for women to obtain abortions. Mandates (1) require the physician, who is to perform the abortion, must also perform the ultrasound, which is normally routinely done cheaper by a nurse or technician—so a woman must pay for two days of a doctor’s schedule because (2) there is the unnecessary mandatory day wait between the ultrasound and abortion procedure (and before you object again, not all abortions require a two day process in which the cervix first needs to be widened). Low-income women will have to take several days off of work, plus come up with anywhere from $500 to $1000 dollars (rent and food money).for the doctor’s time.

            Ultrasound images do not change women’s minds about abortions—making women come up with the bigger bucks and time investment is the way patriarchal Rethugs are trying to keep women from exercising their basic civil rights to make medical decisions about their own bodies and lives. This is evident because after much backlash in Virginia, they did away with the transvaginal ultrasound and Okayed an abdominal ultrasound….as long as the monetary and time constraints were retained. It’s still all about “control”.

            This entire rabble rousing back and forth can be summarized:
            (1) You can’t imagine why a woman would have an abortion; I can.
            (2) You support taking away a woman’s personhood and giving it to an embryo and/or fetus; I support a woman’s basic civil rights to her body.

          • PJ4

            Where to start, PJ, sweetie, in response to that long vitriolic rant

            oh sweetie, stop using big words. You’re just embarrassing yourself. Really.

            Re: “I know you think he’s a hero for what he did.” No, dear, the man who beat up the 17 pregnant girl is a money-grubbing criminal.

            You just described Planned Parenthood and all abortionists. Wow.. I guess you can be taught.

            Deny it all you want, but I know deep down inside, you want to give him a BJ for his services as an abortionist.

            If ultrasounds don’t change women’s minds about killing their child then why are pro aborts such as yourself.

            So what if the doctor has to do it? In many enlightened liberal utopias of Europe (Belgium France German etc) a woman has to wait a week before the killing her child and the killing has to take place in a hospital.

            Why are you complaining about 24 hours and a few regulations that keep the clinics clean?

            You’re right though… it is all about control.. of a child’s body by the mother.

            You support taking away a woman’s personhood and giving it to an embryo and/or fetus; I support a woman’s basic civil rights to her body.

            You’re either lying or are willfully ignorant.
            My guess is the latter.

            Pro lifers support the personhood of both the woman and the mother. We do not pit the child and mother against one another. That is pure evil.

          • MarcusFenix

            ” in response to that long vitriolic rant.”

            As if anyone else on the page has the corner market for vitriol. Don’t try to walk back on the idea that we’re all just meanie-head poopy faces full of piss and vinegar, and you’re somehow this model of logical purity above the fray. Far from it. In fact…the very fact you were responded to at all was because of that very thing. Own it.

            “Re: ultrasounds: Yes, ultrasounds were and are used to confirm a pregnancy and placement; especially in the ‘old days’,”

            Old days, as in last week or so. They still do them, routinely, for multiple reasons including pregnancy. Even I believe the trans-vaginal ones might be unnecessary, but the process itself is still needed since doctors don’t buy stock in crystal balls or other mediums to magically know what’s going on inside another person’s body.

            “Now with improved ultrasound technology, a woman can obtain an abortion at 4 weeks.”

            Correct. So, what’s the problem with doing them again, other than just general disagreement? That women shouldn’t be made to confront a choice they’re making? That they shouldn’t have *all* of the information about what they’re doing before they do it? I thought you were all about choice…and making good choices comes with having as many facts as possible. Wonder if you’ll try to wiggle out of that inconvenient caveat or not. But moving on.

            “Mandates (1) require the physician, who is to perform the abortion, must
            also perform the ultrasound, which is normally routinely done cheaper
            by a nurse or technician”

            Well, there’s a problem. When you go to a doctor for anything, you still routinely need to see the doctor anyway. Regardless of whether he is in the room 2 minutes or 20 minutes, you still pay the same cost for the visit, treatments, etc (with whatever variance there may be in cost by way of insurance coverage).

            Secondarily…if pro-abortion supporters keep saying that it’s a choice for women and their doctors…wouldn’t you at least agree that you should actually *see* the doctor during the process? I mean, that seems only natural in this case. You’re not there just so the nurse can take your weight and height, or check blood pressure. Acting as if seeing a doctor for what your side touts proudly as a “medical procedure” (that -should- be done by a doctor) is some undue burden falls squarely into the realm of being patently absurd. Please, make up your mind. Either your side want to make the decision with your actual doctor, or your side doesn’t. You’re arguing semantics, not to mention derailing the very argument you and your side makes about it being a choice between those very individuals.

            Reminds me of deconstructing your business post too…you seem to have a bad habit of trying to argue 2 sides at the same time, and representing neither of them well.

            “(2) there is the unnecessary mandatory day wait between the ultrasound and abortion procedure”

            You act as if having to wait an extra day is some massive and undue burden. We allow 3 days for lemon laws with regards to something as simple as buying a car…why should we ignore any time frame where medical procedures are concerned, which have life changing and permanent results? If you’d consider a used car purchase more than something like this, then there are more important problems going on than just a time frame.

            ” Low-income women will have to take several days off of work, plus come
            up with anywhere from $500 to $1000 dollars (rent and food money).for
            the doctor’s time.”

            Ah, the time honored “what about the poor?” argument. Somehow, this massive and insurmountable burden could possibly have been beaten with a 2 dollar condom and 10 dollars for a month of birth control pills. That we should make people pay for (what 98% of the time is) their folly isn’t some undue burden. If someone is in a position where saving up 500 dollars before 20 weeks have passed is some ludicrous and impossible notion, then perhaps they should have reconsidered that choice before acting like 12 dollars was in the same boat? I mean, if food and shelter are in question, perhaps an examination of priorities are in order. You’re starving, you don’t have a place to live…but you’ve got time, energy, and the mental wherewithal to go have unprotected sex without considering the very basics of survival? Seems like a priority problem to me.

            “Ultrasound images do not change women’s minds about abortions”

            Except in cases where they have. You’re free to check this site out, and others, dedicated to that very thing. I know it’s tough, but I think you can manage. Having to come face to face with the actual choice being made, rather than it being some nebulous and abstract item is how it should be. If someone is going to get an abortion, then they should fully understand the choice and its ramifications. Unless you believe that people should just make this kind of decision like they do choosing a pair of socks, or that they should do it sans all of the facts and factors involved. Do you routinely tell people to make choices half-arsed, with only some of the facts? Bet that’s great advice to be giving out.

            “making women come up with the bigger bucks and time investment is the
            way patriarchal Rethugs are trying to keep women from exercising their
            basic civil rights to make medical decisions about their own bodies and
            lives.”

            Or…and maybe i’m spitballing, but…it’s a way for society to not have to pay for a procedure that at least half of the country disagrees with, and making the person who actually is getting the prodecure pay for their own treatment. There’s no infringing of civil rights, anymore than a bank asking you to pay your loans on time, or asking you to buy your own food, is some gross infringement that MLK would balk at outright. If you wish to pay for people to have abortions, by all means do so. But asking others, who have objections for whatever reason, to also shoulder than burden is an imposition from *your* camp. Don’t make it out to be something it’s not. There’s also the idea that places like the EU have already stated that abortion is *not* a right, but…that’s a different conversation altogether.

            We could go on about how it’s also not just the mothers’ life involved…but this is a longer post already and likely, it’d not be worth much time really.

            “It’s still all about “control.”

            It’s actually all about making sure that the right choice is made. It’s about a person taking a minute, while they may be in an emotionally charged state, from making a permanent mistake (abortion) from a temporary problem (pregnancy). Please, make the argument that having a child is some lifelong deal, to which I can counter adoption. It’s not, if the woman chooses it not to be. There are a few reasons you could try and get around that too, but I assure you they’d fail as well. You’re welcome to try, though. I’ve got plenty of time, and no shortage of ammunition for the conversation.

            In the end, it’s about more than just some control paradigm. It’s about trying to prevent one horrible and permanent lapse in judgment being made after one already occurred. Unless, of course, you do believe that two wrongs make a right? I’d invite that discussion too.

            “(1) You can’t imagine why a woman would have an abortion”

            Actually, we can. 74% of women state that they don’t want to interfere with their lives or schedules. Almost as many state that they don’t want to care for a child as another reason. Notice the statement is “don’t”. Not “can’t”. They choose not to, rather than not being able to actually do so. I’m sure it’s not slipped past you that women doing the very thing which creates a pregnancy, only to somehow magically not want the child to start with…that whole part of the subject is well within your realm of understand.

            For all of your mewling on the subject, the idea that you can’t see the reason why people object to abortion, and therefore basing comments like you do above on such a view, never comes into focus. We can imagine why 98% or more of people get them.

            Selfishness. Greed. Lack of empathy for a life they created. The “I wanna do what I wanna do” mentality, akin to any 6 year old you can point out. We most certainly -can- understand why women get them. It’s our objection to that very thing, and to the reasons, which creates opposition. Of course, you already knew that right? I figured you were just being obtuse for a few days on end, to prove a point.

            “(2) You support taking away a woman’s personhood and giving it to an
            embryo and/or fetus; I support a woman’s basic civil rights to her body.”

            Whoops. Another logical misstep. No one is advocating taking personhood (or really much of anything else) from women. Tell me, how exactly would someone strip you of your personhood? I would surmise you have no idea what that sentence actually means, but it’s on some talking point memo and you just had to textually vomit it up for all of us to see. No one is advocating (or, really…could, in fact) take your personhood (or whatever mass equivocation you hold that term up with) away. Giving rights to another life, waiting to be born, and so on isn’t stripping anything from anyone. Please feel free to throw in some tripe about bodily autonomy, or argue personhood and its equivocating term usage from pro-abortion supports to justify a flawed model. But providing defensive measures to the most vulnerable of lives isn’t about taking rights from someone..it’s about giving rights to those who don’t have them. You could at least be honest about that part.

            For all of your criticism, your appeals of emotion, consequence, or even spite are all fallacious and worthless. Mainly, they’re boring. Your creative exercise in verbal futility should have ended long ago.

            And by all means, please use some of your lovely mocking words. As a Southerner, they not only have little effect on me…I can respond with them almost as if they were a comma in sentence.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “Giving rights to another life, waiting to be born, and so on isn’t stripping anything from anyone.” Oh, yes, it does, honey. I wouldn’t want to disappoint you, Fenix, sweetie, so a definite YES on the important topic of “bodily autonomy”. A woman is entitled to make any and all decisions concerning HER body….and personhood laws are, indeed, attempts to take away a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy. Feel better that I have lived up to your expectations? I can go further, your idea, or anyone else’s idea, of a “god” does not belong in a woman’s reproductive health decisions, or family planning.

            I posted elsewhere stories of pregnant women arrested for miscarriages, arrested for seeking abortions, or have their bodies taken over by the state–the Marlise Munoz case, for example, is in all the news. There is the older case of Angela Carder, who became critically ill during her pregnancy, and the hospital who had been treating her actually hired a lawyer to represent the fetus and force a c-section. Both fetus and woman died. The c-section was cited in the autopsy as a factor in cause of death. Now this is scary stuff, honey, to us ladies who believe in that all important “bodily autonomy” that you sneer at.

            There is no way to give “personhood” to fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses without taking away the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman. I am pro-her-choice because I firmly believe it is up to the individual woman to determine what is right for her; her reasons are hers alone. Non-pregnant people, especially male politicians, have no say in a woman’s right to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Let’s see, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 50 million women per year abort pregnancies, whether in a developed country or undeveloped, legal or illegal, if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Oooo, let’s drag all those murdering women into court for killing those zygotes, embryos, and fetuses; even the ones who are pregnant from rape, because “god” was there at that intended rape, giving out little blessed gifts–yes, I’m being quite sarcastic. Recall Richard Mourdock, R IN, who called a pregnancy from rape a gift from god…bleah…save me from such malicious gods and their gifts.

            Of course, I can see why you object to abortion; you worship the fetus above the rights of the living breathing woman. That’s fine for you; don’t have an abortion. But I, and the 55% of women who voted Democratic in the last national election, object to laws that take away our rights to make medical decisions over our own bodies. I just got a flyer in the mail–it declares that there is a “Voice For Choice: Republican Majority for Choice”. Whoa! The flyer goes on to state that there is a pro-choice Republican community that is “coming out of the shadows” and will fight against the “anti-choice attacks on individual liberty”. Awesome. There is hope for the Republican pParty yet! I’m going to write them a letter of support as soon as I stop babbling…or “mocking” here.

            Re: medical procedure: California is making abortion more accessible–a woman doesn’t have to see a doctor there–a woman can go to a trained nurse practitioner, a nurse midwife, or physicians assistant…because abortion is a safe medical procedure.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Re: “Giving rights to another life, waiting to be born, and so on isn’t
            stripping anything from anyone.” Oh, yes, it does, honey.”

            Please, honeychild…do tell. What rights are stripped away from you in such an abhorrent fashion? You kind of forgot to mention those.

            ” I wouldn’t want to disappoint you, Fenix, sweetie, so a definite YES on the important topic of “bodily autonomy”.”

            Sugarplum, all you have to do is ask, right? Our own Calvin took care of that for us, just one month ago. He says it just fine right here.

            http://liveactionnews.org/as-their-arguments-dwindle-pro-aborts-circle-the-tumblrs-around-bodily-autonomy/

            “A woman is entitled to make any and all decisions concerning HER
            body….and personhood laws are, indeed, attempts to take away a
            pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy.”

            She is. She exercised the right to making the decisions *for her body alone* when she chose to engage in acts that caused her to be pregnant. Outside of rape, there’s no force applied. Once she decided to go down that road, it stopped being *just* her life and body. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that, other than it doesn’t really go with your argument. Calvin did the rest for me, so there’s that.

            What about the bodily autonomy of a 5 month old fetus in utero? They have a right to have their body too, or is it just inconvenient for that to be the case?

            “I can go further, your idea, or anyone else’s idea, of a “god” does not
            belong in a woman’s reproductive health decisions, or family planning.”

            So, you’re injecting God into a discussion where it’s not been invoked. It’s almost as if you *need* that in the discussion, because otherwise all you have are some appeals to emotion, consequence, or spite. I’m not talking about God, religion, or anything else. I’m pretty sure that was obvious, and I don’t need to embellish your cravings for attention in that department. I can argue just fine on my own, without His immediate assistance. Glad you can too.

            “I posted elsewhere stories of pregnant women arrested for miscarriages,
            arrested for seeking abortions, or have their bodies taken over by the
            state–the Marlise Munoz case, for example, is in all the news.”

            Yes, and while each of those cases may have bearing, each is also individually fact dependant and doesn’t, in total, support your conclusion. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. For example, you included the example as a positive for your side as PJ pointed out, where the woman paid someone else to beat her for abortive ends. The problem is her method. Her case, like others you state, don’t support your argument. The Munoz case, for example, as has been argued repeatedly here and elsewhere, is a sad and unfortunate event. There is more than enough sympathy to go round. But the fear the father has about the rather large and looming question marks involving the circumstances don’t somehow trump the idea that the child may be born just fine. The argument that she could have been on the floor for 20 minutes is just as valid, by virtue of the facts, as it was she was there for 10 seconds. There’s no way to know, but erring on the side of irrational behavior doesn’t solve anything. He’s scared…and hell, we all would be. Letting base fear and paranoia scare you into permanent options, such as what’s being considered, is basely irrational and not something we’d tell someone to do under any real circumstance.

            Further, the “taking of bodies by the state” occurs more often than you know, for reasons that directly affect the lives and health of groups as well as individuals. The state, by mandate, is implored to act in the best interests of it’s citizens and (generally speaking) in the health of all involved. Somehow, that part gets left out of the equation.

            “There is no way to give “personhood” to fertilized eggs, embryos, and
            fetuses without taking away the constitutional rights of the pregnant
            woman.”

            Personhood is sticky, and from pro-abortion supporters is a term of equivocation. We’re not trying to give out SSN’s to every 6 week old fetus, or extend voting rights, and so on. The idea of personhood is a misnomer outright, because trying to compare a child in utero to a grown adult is awkward and factually incorrect. As I tagged someone else with earlier…your argument for personhood is simply a word game to tip the scale in your verbal favor, without first acknowledging that what is found in utero is both alive *and* human. Using that as a simple starting point, it’s not an intellectual leap to say that wanting to defend the most vulnerable and helpless of humans is something laudible. By injecting the “personhood” angle (which, everyone does because it’s an easy term…for some reason, people choose to use it and then don”t understand it), and then twisting the description around…your side tries to skew the logic. It won’t work here.

            Incidentally, what constitutional right is being taken away? You’ve yet to actually outline that.

            “I firmly believe it is up to the individual woman to determine what is right for her; her reasons are hers alone.”

            Except you conveniently neglected to include the rights of the life she also willingly created as a result of her own willful actions. She’s determining whats right for more than one life at that point (and if you want to inject the father’s perspective, the family involved, etc…it enlarges that proportion). She did make a choice, sans force, from the start. The life she created in the process isn’t given the same courtesy and is treated as nothing more than human waste by pro abortion supporters.

            “Let’s see, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over 50
            million women per year abort pregnancies, whether in a developed country
            or undeveloped, legal or illegal, if a woman doesn’t want to be
            pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

            If I don’t want to get robbed, I don’t stuff my wallet full of cash and head to the bad part of DC either. Logical conclusions to actions are never part of the equation, sadly, for abortion supporters. People who don’t want to be pregnant have an array of options to not be. It’s not complicated.

            “Oooo, let’s drag all those murdering women into court for killing those
            zygotes, embryos, and fetuses; even the ones who are pregnant from rape,
            because “god” was there at that intended rape, giving out little
            blessed gifts–yes, I’m being quite sarcastic.”

            Since it doesn’t fit the current understanding in legal circles, then we can’t. Are you implying that somehow that is something I believe, because you’re making a huge (and rather false) assumption. Abortion is the destruction of life, pure and simple. Whether or not it fits the legal definition of murder is for the courts, and isn’t part of our discussion. If you want to go that route, we can…but it’s silly and time consuming for something that ends in one large circle. Now, if we push the point of viability with regards to those factors…the law has evolved somewhat to include that as part of various homicide laws. That is a different story, and one accepted as part of law in a fair number of places. Past that, it’s semantics on your part.

            “Recall Richard Mourdock, R IN, who called a pregnancy from rape a gift
            from god…bleah…save me from such malicious gods and their gifts.”

            He was also denounced for his comments, by myself included. He’s welcome to believe that, as is anyone else…but the comment was hurtful to victims of sexual abuse and likely should have been kept to himself. His freedom of speech, however, doesn’t stop at the point where you find yourself offended. We don’t need to agree *with* him, to give him leeway with regards that he *can* say it.

            “Of course, I can see why you object to abortion; you worship the fetus above the rights of the living breathing woman.”

            That’s a massive intuitive leap, one you’re completely wrong about, and just more projection and obfuscation on your part about your opponents. The fact that you cannot directly challenge most of what I said with a fact that holds water, much less doing so sans sarcasm, is rather telling. I object to abortion because I believe life has value. The life of the mother has just as much value as the chlid she created. You seek to put people into a tidy box where if they believe abortion is wrong, that we’ve somehow elevated a fetus to some lofty station. Its, quite frankly, asinine to believe that. We can, however, believe that if all life has value, that defending live that cannot defend itself is worth the trouble. If you could see why I object to abortion, the second half of that sentence would never have made it to the keyboard. Project your ideas elsewhere, please.

            “But I, and the 55% of women who voted Democratic in the last national
            election, object to laws that take away our rights to make medical
            decisions over our own bodies.”

            Ecological fallacy, plain and simple. Not all of those 55% believe abortion should be on demand. If you can show that all of them do, then please feel free to demonstrate it with proper stats. That’s like saying everyone who voted Democrat is also against the death penalty. On the other hand, there are groups like this, which go against your assertion:

            http://www.democratsforlife.org/

            Whoops. Looks like not everyone is in the same boat…a common mistake you continually make.

            “I just got a flyer in the mail–it declares that there is a “Voice For
            Choice: Republican Majority for Choice”. Whoa! The flyer goes on to
            state that there is a pro-choice Republican community that is “coming
            out of the shadows” and will fight against the “anti-choice attacks on
            individual liberty.”

            That’s great. Good for them. I don’t really care about Republican ideals specifically. I’m not a Republican. If that’s what they want to do, then they’re within their legal right to do so, and you can support them if you choose. No one is going to stop you.

            The fact you somehow believe that all pro life people must be Bible thumping Republicans (or, whatever other label you choose to lump with those) speaks volumes about your direction and projection on the matter. If you don’t like religious people, or a specific political group, that’s fine. It’s a massive distortion to assume, believe, or try to lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same box. It doesn’t work. It undermines your own argument.

            “Re: medical procedure: California is making abortion more accessible–a
            woman doesn’t have to see a doctor there–a woman can go to a trained
            nurse practitioner, a nurse midwife, or physicians assistant…because
            abortion is a safe medical procedure.”

            Not that California is known for its huge amounts of sanity at times, but…that’s fine too. If the legislature enacted that as law, then people are free to challenge it and go through the process. But citing a single state to bolster a nationwide argument, in this specific instance, doesn’t wash. Pulling teeth is a safe medical procedure, but the dental assistant isn’t the one primarily doing it. The dentist would be the responsible party. You bypassed my point about arguing both side of the fence in lieu of this particular fact about California. If you’re going to argue that it’s between a doctor and the patient, then sidestep the doctor in favor of “just whoever happens to be at the office”…then make the distinction or own up to the problem. Either way works fine.

            Secondarily, while legal abortion isn’t killing tens of thousands of mothers every year, it’s safety is a matter of contention. Other things listed as medically safe cause all sorts of problems. The fact that it doesn’t cause a high rate of mortality doesn’t make it some panacea or perfect solution. Infertility, infection, and other complications can arise from what you consider a safe procedure. Safety, in the case of your argument, is a cherry picked stat about mortality most likely, and doesn’t include the actual problems with it, because that would make it less safe by nature, and thereby undermine your argument further.

            For the record though…abortion may be “safe”, but when done properly results in at least the loss of one life. Safety is absolutely relative in that case.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: (1) Once she decided to go down that road, it stopped being *just* her life and body. I’m not sure why you can’t grasp that”, (2) “Except you conveniently neglected to include the rights of the life she also willingly created as a result of her own willful actions.”

            *Facepalm*. Fenix, sweetie, sexual intercourse is not solely for the purpose of procreation–that’s definitely a catholic clergy fallacy if you wonder why I mention “god”. Nor is sexual intercourse a contract for pregnancy–I don’t know why you can’t grasp that fact. The zygote, embryo, fetus before viability, does not have any “rights”…SSN or not.
            The government, or catholic clergy, or fundamentalist christian groups, or just plain ole grumpy people, cannot force married couples to bear children; they cannot force women, single or married, to become or remain pregnant if they have engaged in sex.
            Your statements imply that you think if a woman has sex, she is agreeing to becoming pregnant….no, she is not. Honey, like catholic clergy, you are saying that every sexual act has the potential for pregnancy, so the woman should bear an unplanned child as punishment for having sex…? Doesn’t work for non-catholics, or non-believers, or those of us who think compulsory pregnancy is unenforceable and certainly contrary to the woman’s individual freedom of choice.

          • MarcusFenix

            “*Facepalm*. Fenix, sweetie, sexual intercourse is not solely for the
            purpose of procreation–that’s definitely a catholic clergy fallacy if
            you wonder why I mention “god”.”

            You should keep your palm there, for your own sake. I’m not making a claim that sex can’t be fun, or that it’s just for the purpose of making babies. Why would you assume that was the case? Is context and proper English beyond your Geology class? You’re right, it’s not a contract for pregnancy, but in case your parents never gave you the birds and the bees talk, having sex carries with it the possibility of becoming pregnant for women. I know you at least can grasp that much. You mention God as a way to try and marginalize someone that disagrees with you, as a way to pigeonhole them into whatever set of values you personally try to ascribe them. Sadly, its not true, terribly inaccurate, and a sad way to try and argue. No points for you there.

            “The zygote, embryo, fetus before viability, does not have any “rights”…SSN or not.”

            Why, you’re right. So, at least you know we’re pushing for something that’s not already granted, because we believe it should be. I know you can keep up with at least that part of the conversation.

            “The government, or catholic clergy, or fundamentalist christian groups,
            or just plain ole grumpy people, cannot force married couples to bear
            children; they cannot force women, single or married, to become or
            remain pregnant if they have engaged in sex.”

            Sugar pie, I’m sorry that Catholics have rubbed you the wrong way, forcing you to project for years on end. Hell, I’m not a fan of them myself. I just refrain from blaming them for everything. You’re right, there is no “force” involved. There’s no roving packs of machine gun toting men, dragging pregnant women out of their homes and tying them down to give birth for 9 months.

            “Your statements imply that you think if a woman has sex, she is agreeing to becoming pregnant.”

            Or, you could have gone with what was said….that sex can cause pregnancy. The act carries with it the chance that such an event can occur. Logical conclusions, and all that. More projection and shoving words into someone elses mouth, when the words that were there sufficed.

            “Honey, like catholic clergy, you are saying that every sexual act has the potential for pregnancy,”

            Sweetness, it does. Unless you’ve had surgury to remove your ovaries, you’re sterile, or for some other reason cannot actually get pregnant through the act of sex, then yes…medically, scientifically, and via just plain common sense one must concede that sex can cause a pregnancy. Why repeat the obvious?

            ” so the woman should bear an unplanned child as punishment for having sex…?”

            Punished? I didn’t advocate a jail term for the crime of pregnancy. I’m not saying flog everyone who dares go get pregnant. What punishment are you referring to, since I didn’t say there was a crime involved and certainly not a reparation to make. Explain.

            “Doesn’t work for non-catholics, or non-believers, or those of us who
            think compulsory pregnancy is unenforceable and certainly contrary to
            the woman’s individual freedom of choice.”

            Well, that’s fine. Outside of forced implantation, there’s no compulsion for her to get pregnant from the start. If you remove the force component, she exercised her free will over herself at all times. Notice how you refuse to allow for the fact that she’s not making a decision just for her anymore…and replacing it with some “issue of force” red herring.

            Of course, you’re all for women (and men, really) making better choices right?

          • MamaBear

            Sharon, some things have nothing to do with religion. They just are facts. Everyone should know from middle school on that sex between a man and a woman can result in pregnancy. Every form of birth control has at least a slight chance of failure, and if you are adult enough to have sex, you ought to be adult enough to understand that. Consequences are not the same as punishment.
            I take a little orange pill every day. It has some nasty side effects and I am on multiple other meds to handle them. I also get painful monthly injections (didn’t know they actually could poke a needle in you that big and they STING!) They are to prevent any rogue cancer cells from establishing yet another colony somewhere else in my body. If for some reason, these drugs fail someday, and there is another recurrence, my oncologist will not be punishing me by putting me back in chemo or radiation. It will just be a consequence, not a punishment.
            Fortunately, pregnancy has a natural ending point – birth! Most women do well and after 9 months of some moderate discomfort, have the baby and totally recover. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I am talking about healthy women and ELECTIVE abortions here. At what point an abortion may be medically needed should be a separate conversation from elective abortions.) There are even some health benefits, including reduced cancer risk.
            Everything we do in life has consequences. That does not mean the consequences are punishment. Some things in life just are what they are.

          • PJ4

            Stop! You’re making WAY too much sense for her.
            You’re going to give her a headache.

          • PJ4

            You’re implying that carrying another life is a punishment.
            It’s not.

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, when you have someone who can’t admit that humans procreate and thereby propagate other humans…well, then a simple fact check isn’t going to help them. ;)

          • Basset_Hound

            Sex for “procreation only”. Now it’s MY turn to /*facepalm!

            I guess THAT’s why my evangelical pastor preached a four week sermon series on the Song of Solomon (a book in the ‘buybul’ ABOUT sexual intimacy). Not only that, but he opened Week One with THIS video..

            I’ll have to admit I never heard of these guys before, but the rest of their stuff is hilarious. They sound a lot like Hall and Oates.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            As I pointed out above, it’s not just the Catholic clergy who have observed some kind of link between intercourse and pregnancy. And, until I see clear and convincing evidence that storks are responsible for the delivery of infants, I too will be subscribing to the sex/pregnancy hypothesis, however controversial that theory may be.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “Your statements imply that you think if a woman has sex, she is agreeing to becoming pregnant….”

            Pregnancy may not be objective when one is having sex (it’s never been the goal when I’ve done it), but pregnancy is a direct and foreseeable outcome of the decision to copulate. Thus, there is a duty to care for any subsequent lives that are created as result of that decision.

            Similarly, deciding to operate a motor vehicle carries a risk that you will unintentionally hit a pedestrian. You may not have intended to hit a pedestrian, but doing so was the direct and foreseeable consequence of your decision. Therefore, you now have a duty to aid the person you struck. Just like an unintended fetus, the pedestrian is only in this predicament because of actions that you choose to undertake.

            “Honey, like catholic clergy, you are saying that every sexual act has the potential for pregnancy…”

            Pretty sure it’s not just the Catholic clergy who’ve noticed that there appears to be some kind of causal link between sex and pregnancy…

            “…so the woman should bear an unplanned child as punishment for having sex…?”

            No more than child support payments are intended to serve as punishment for a man. In both cases, the reasoning is that it is wrong to deprive an innocent person of her or his life and that parents owe a certain standard of care to their children.

          • PJ4

            California is making abortion more accessible–a woman doesn’t have to see a doctor there–a woman can go to a trained nurse practitioner, a nurse midwife, or physicians assistant…because abortion is a safe medical procedure.

            Thank you Ca for inadvertently crushing a Pro abort meme.
            “Abortion is between a woman and her doctor”

            NOT
            ANY
            MORE

            heh.

            Now it’s between a woman and who ever is qualified
            That leaves the door wide open for: between a woman and a law maker… especially if said law maker happens to be a pro life PA, Nurse Midwife, or Nurse Practitioner.

            LOVE IT

          • MarcusFenix

            Again, logical conclusions aren’t the strong suit of our opponents. It’s not like they consider anything farther ahead than the nose on their face.

          • PJ4

            so true.
            And logic is so lacking in Sharon’s banshee rantings.
            Notice how she conveniently never commented on the new way of slut shaming. (PIV is always rape)

            It’s ok when it comes from the crazy feminazi side, just not from the religious

          • Calvin Freiburger

            “Where to start, PJ, sweetie, in response to that long vitriolic rant.”

            Massive projection and a complete lack of self-awareness: more hallmarks of a fanatic.

          • MarcusFenix

            Without those, all we’d hear is some garbled insults and nonsensical rebuttals and position statements.

            Oh. Wait. Never mind. Carry on.

          • PJ4

            Re: “I know you think he’s a hero for what he did.” No, dear, the man who beat up the 17 pregnant girl is a money-grubbing criminal.

            You realize you just described abortionists and Planned Parenthood, right?
            Oh the irony.

          • Sharon Diehl

            No, sweetie, when I went to Planned Parenthood for health care in my early working days I got a gynecological exam, pap smear, breast exam, and general wellness test.
            Nope, nobody beat me up…I did almost get bonked on the head by a wild-eyed sign-waving fanatic as I headed down the sidewalk, but a “f*ck-off” took care of that.

          • PJ4

            Again, you missed the point.
            Abortionists and PP are paid to kill babies. Just the way that guy who beat up the pregnant girl was paid to kill her child.
            Not rocket science sweetie pie.
            Just the facts.

          • Sharon Diehl

            No, sweetie, I am not missing your obvious dislike of Planned Parenthood. I, however, do value the health care services they provide, and I support everything they do. Not every Planned Parenthood clinic performs abortions, but they all supply health care for low income people, both women and men. Those are facts, too.

          • PJ4

            Right
            Next you’re going to tell me that PP is the ONLY source of health care services for low income men and women And that PP does mammograms
            And that PP doesn’t cover up statutory rape

            Or that Sanger wasn’t a racist eugenist

            Of course you believe that

          • PJ4

            “…..and I support everything they do”

            really? even this?

            http://gazette.com/article/143700

            and

            http://www.childpredators.com/CoverUp.cfm

            see.. you do want to legalize pedophilia

            You’re a sicko
            Are all pro aborts as sick as you?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Accusations fly fast and furious between the polarized camps, sweetie. I don’t think that every Crisis Pregnancy Center tells falsehoods like some do–that condoms are porous and don’t protect a person from sexually transmitted diseases, or that women who take birth control pills get breast cancer, or that an abortion causes mental problems like those suffered by Vietnam vets, when the American Psychological Association states that abortion is usually psychologically benign.

            Just as there are some idiots in Crisis Pregnancy Centers, I’m sure there are some idiots in Planned Parenthood clinics. The presence of idiots here and there does not diminish my support of the organization. Same with the Democrats; I don’t like the drone program that kills innocents; I don’t like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement; but I dislike the policies of the Republican party even less, so the Democrats will continue to receive my vote…and Planned Parenthood will continue to receive my support for their reproductive health care for low-income people, education on human sexuality and access to contraception,and family planning.

            I looked up the case you mentioned of the girl and the soccer coach; the girl had given the clinic the phone number of the coach, John Haller, not the phone number of her parents. Planned Parenthood was sued because they had done the “minumum” under the law and had not confirmed who they were speaking to.

            Re: “Are all pro aborts as sick as you?” I don’t know, PJ, honey, you can always visit a Planned Parenthood site and ask them if they are ‘sicko pro-aborts’. I’m sure you’ll get a polite answer.

          • PJ4

            or that women who take birth control pills get breast cancer

            http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

            From the National Cancer Institute (that you’ll be sticking to )

            A number of studies suggest that current use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) appears to slightly increase the risk of breast cancer, especially among younger women. However, the risk level goes back to normal 10 years or more after discontinuing oral contraceptive use.”
            and
            “Oral contraceptive use is associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer; however, this increased risk may be because sexually active women have a higher risk of becoming infected with human papillomavirus, which causes virtually all cervical cancers.”

            or that an abortion causes mental problems like those suffered by Vietnam vets, when the American Psychological Association states that abortion is usually psychologically benign.

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pcn.12067/abstract

            Just incase:

            Abortion and subsequent mental health: Review of the literature

            Carlo V. Bellieni MD*,

            Giuseppe Buonocore MD, PhD

            Article first published online: 16 JUL 2013

            DOI: 10.1111/pcn.12067

            “The risk that abortion may be correlated with subsequent mental disorders needs a careful assessment, in order to offer women full information when facing a difficult pregnancy. All research papers published between 1995 and 2011, were examined, to retrieve those assessing any correlation between abortion and subsequent mental problems. A total of 36 studies were retrieved, and six of them were excluded for methodological bias. Depression, anxiety disorders (e.g. post-traumatic stress disorder) and substance abuse disorders were the most studied outcome. Abortion versus childbirth: 13 studies showed a clear risk for at least one of the reported mental problems in the abortion group versus childbirth, five papers showed no difference, in particular if women do not consider their experience of fetal loss to be difficult, or if after a fetal reduction the desired fetus survives. Only one paper reported a worse mental outcome for childbearing. Abortion versus unplanned pregnancies ending with childbirth: four studies found a higher risk in the abortion groups and three, no difference. Abortion versus miscarriage: three studies showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to abortion, four found no difference and two found that short-term anxiety and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term anxiety and depression were present only in the abortion group. In conclusion, fetal loss seems to expose women to a higher risk for mental disorders than childbirth; some studies show that abortion can be considered a more relevant risk factor than miscarriage; more research is needed in this field.”

            Hears a napkin… there’s a lot of egg on your face.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Condoms are rubber. Rubber does have tiny, microscopic holes, yes. They do protect usually, but not always.

            Nobody except ignoramuses ever said abortion or birth control causes cancer. They do put women at higher risk, but aren’t always causally related to abortion/birth control/contraceptives.

            Induced embryonic/fetal death is abnormal, inasmuch as we are genetically wired to be reproduction-accommodating. Since carrying the child to term is normal, your body treats miscarrying/abortion as traumatic. Inasmuch as most human psychology is primarily based on genetics, this traumatic event does negatively impact the psyche.

            The APA is not too trusty, I think. In the 1960’s or ’70’s they started selling a board game called Racism: The Board Game. It was exactly like Monopoly but characters were made to receive less money and spend more money if they were “black” (in-game).

            Family planning? PP sells contraceptives and does abortions! That’s not family planning, that’s family avoiding! CPC’s and adoption agencies do more family planning than PP, especially in the way of helping people plan for a family.

    • Basset_Hound

      Then how about keeping your vagina and uterus out of our wallets. Buy your own birth control and shut the Fluke up.

      Better yet, keep your vagina and uterus out of the decisions executives of a corporation make on how to insure their employees.

      • Sharon Diehl

        Bosses aren’t doctors, Basset, honey. I pay for my portion of health insurance premiums out of my paycheck. I agree with Adam Sonfeld of the Guttmacher Institute:

        “This is not about forcing people with ‘a religious objection to contraception’ to ‘purchase it for others.’ When your boss contributes to your health insurance premiums, it’s no different than when he pays you a salary or provides you with sick leave, or contributes to the Health Savings Accounts… Rather, your boss is compensating you for your work, and how you make use of your salary and benefits should be your business, and yours alone. No boss should have the right to impose his religious beliefs on your private actions.”
        So according to you, Jehovah Witness employers should be able to deny their employees life-saving blood transfusions? Christian Scientist employers can tell their employees to just pray diseases away? Snort.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          Individuals can make their own health decisions, but making someone else pay for it isn’t fair for whoever is getting the money they earned taken away from them. And can you stop putting words in people’s mouths, and then bullying them for those words that they didn’t say? And stop carrying things to extremes, it makes you look melodramatic. I realize that that’s not separable from you being a pro-abortion Democrat, but I’ve seen donkey party pro-aborts argue more convincingly than you do. All I’ve seen you do is bully, rant, and misinterpret pro-lifers so far.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andrew, sweetie, you may accuse me of extremes, but you do the same in calling pro-choice people pro-abortion. No, dear, it is pro-choice. I am all for wanted pregnancies and wanted healthy babies.
            Like you, I am definitely for individuals making their own health decisions; yep, woman are entitled to make any and all medical decisions over their own bodies…so you must be pro-choice, too.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They don’t support choice. With the pro-abortion movement it’s either the fetus dies or the living baby ruins his or her mother’s life. If pro-aborts supported choice and reproductive freedom, they’d advocate alongside abortion the following: lifelong abstinence, abstinence until marriage, contraceptives without abstinence, keeping the baby, and finding a couple to adopt it. Most pro-aborts malign all the above options for a 57 Heinz variety of excuses–er, reasons. I can support or tolerate most of those choices, I only oppose abortion. Abortion isn’t a health decision, it’s the murder of a human with the potential to help the world. Also, I might add as an afterthought, for some reason pro-aborts seem to always get around to saying something to the effect of, “Make abortion legal and use taxpayer money to fund it or all women everywhere will be impregnated by their sexually abusive dads/uncles and either have mutual hatred with the kid or die trying to stick a hanger up her lady part!” And lastly, the pro-aborts get angry when Republicans pass government regs on abortionists and abortion clinics, regs that will prevent another Gosnell. Why’s that? Don’t they care about women and want them to be safe? Or are they worried that some abortionists and clinics will be booted for not meeting standards, causing abortion numbers to drop? And why do they tell women that they’re nothing without abortion? Margaret Thatcher was something significant without abortion. Finally, why do they never condemn pro-abortion men who treat women like sex slaves? Face it, you support abortion, not choice, and I oppose abortion, not choice. There are plenty of choices that I’m OK with that don’t require killing people, and pro-aborts don’t like them, apparently.

          • MarcusFenix

            Actually, Andrew has the right of it.

            Pro, as in being for, and well..abortion.

            If you want to talk about choice, I’d love to see some coverage of folks such as yourself, or Planned Parenthood since you support them, with adoption drives to help find children a loving home. How about the last time that PP ran a local benefit to assist the CPC’s in the area (or set one up, if there isn’t one).

            Notice how every other “choice” gets left off the table? Kind of hard to give into the idea of choice, when you are only presenting one real option.

          • Basset_Hound

            If you noticed, Whining Wendy offered the excuse that all the CPCs in her area were “unscrupulous” (as if PP isn’t?)

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, now that i’m in the same area….i can check the veracity of those comments out for myself. I’m sure no one will mind me proving it one way or the other. ;)

          • MarcusFenix

            Just so you know that I haven’t been sitting on my laurels about this particular bit of the post…

            https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&q=crisis+pregnancy+center+near+20164&fb=1&gl=us&hq=crisis+pregnancy+center&hnear=0x89b6384f20fb61ad:0x5bfd0cf0a55864c,Sterling,+VA&ei=vgTYUufGOMussQTKsICADg&ved=0CKEBEMgT

            That is a link to each CPC within about a 50 mile radius of where I am outside of DC. I do plan on making calls, or visits if possible, and seeing the truth for myself.

            I’ll keep you posted.

          • Basset_Hound

            I’m looking forward to it. I’m sure you’ll be a lot more objective when we hear from you than Wendy. I always love it when someone nails her in her duplicity.

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, I started by doing some web crawling and checking out sites for what was on the list. The first one I clicked was this particular site:

            http://www.freepregnancytest.org/PGC_Community_Ministries.html

            That’s their outreach program. Notice the inhuman, horrible, ghastly things they do.

            They provide assistance the homeless and the poor.

            They help provide funds for covering utilities.

            They provide temporary housing/relocation, and also help pay for rent for those they service.

            They provide services for teens to help get away from gang related activity.

            They provide free medical care for the expecting mother, including the initial visit and pregnancy test, services afterwards, all of the above services, and then gifts and items for the child after they’re born.

            HOW UTTERLY HEARTLESS AND $H!TTY OF THEM TO DO THAT!!! (sarcasm off)

            That’s one site. Another one, for those wanting secular assistance, was http://birthright.org/en/

            There looks to be afew of those around. For reference, their service list and Philosophy:
            http://birthright.org/en/our-services
            http://birthright.org/en/our-philosophy

            How cruel and disgusting. They claim not to judge people…that’s terribly dehumanizing, isn’t it? They offer any help the person needs, and tailor it to their specific situation. Abysmal, I say. Worst of all, they’ve been in operation for over 45 years, and have chapters in the US, Canada, and (gasp) Africa.

            What mongrels!

            (ok, sarc really off this time)

            So far, I see some religious groups and some secular, though I haven’t combed through all of the listings. I haven’t seen anything that was crazy, but again…it’s just off their website. First of the week, I’m going to make calls. I’ll find an appropriate place to post those, or shoot you an email with the info.

            As I personally expected, I’m not seeing some far-off, whimsical place where all of these negatives are happening. I believe that trend will likely continue. If someone else has info that counters this (and it’s not just an anecdote, but actual information)…i’d be interested to hear that too.

          • Basset_Hound

            Marcus, I hope you’re saving your conclusions in an MS Word file to utilize the next time Wendy staggers out to peck one of her “CPC’s are manned by baby-snatching religious nuts but I’m just trying to be objective and tell both sides” diatribe.

          • MarcusFenix

            Actually…yes.

            One copy on the desktop, one copy on my Google drive. ;)

          • Basset_Hound

            GOOD!

          • MarcusFenix

            Even better…when i’m done, I’m going to break them into ones that are secular and ones that are religious, and have each breakdown per place in that fashion.

            I’m kind of getting bored though…I’ve posted things for some of our more prolific posters to respond to, and nada. It’s like they don’t want to discuss things with me. <_<.

            I wonder why. *snicker*

          • Basset_Hound

            Maybe because they don’t like having someone publicly hand their hindquarters to them in a bag.

          • MarcusFenix

            But wouldn’t the special gift wrapping and bag work be kind of a bonus? I mean, it IS free, afterall.

          • Basset_Hound

            OK, make it a Nordstrom’s bag.

          • MarcusFenix

            I will freely, and almost proudly, admit I know nothing about handbags, or higher fashion in general. I’ll take your word that this particular bag is of some quality. :)

          • Basset_Hound

            I don’t know very much about handbags either. Nordstrom’s is a very high dollar department store.

          • MamaBear

            Nordstrum’s is out of my league, too. But, after I get reconstruction, I think I will treat myself to a shipping trip there as their fitters are supposed to be the best and I think the “new girl” should be entitled to at least one time with getting spoiled with the best.

          • Basset_Hound

            Maybe you should switch to EXCEL. That way you can sort and filter by categories.

        • MarcusFenix

          At the same time, whenever you gain employment, you also have other items to consider, of which your boss does in fact have sway.

          If you commit a crime, not related to your job or done against your employer…you can still get fired. If it’s not from the missed work time having to deal with court, or being in jail, then it might just as well be moral turpitude. Employers aren’t comfortable with having a thief around…and just because they didn’t rob the business somehow isn’t increasing the confidence the boss has for that person.

          Primarily, businesses in the US are privately owned. With the obvious exceptions of large corporations, Businesses with less than 20 workers make up almost 90% of the business base in the US.

          http://www.sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

          Using the idea that a business is run by a private individual, or even akin to Hobby Lobby, what gives you the right to demand a benefit from them that they choose not to provide? They already provide you with income for the work you do, as you’ve already pointed out. Using your own argument…if those items are your personal choice, why would you then demand someone else provide it to you? If those items are “your business, and yours alone”…then asking someone else to cough up the funds suddenly makes it *their* business. You’re not going off on your own and making an endeavor to obtain that coverage separately. You’re involving someone else in the process..the same person who *already* compensated you for the work you performed and offers insurance and other items of *their* *choosing* as a benefit for their employees. If they are offering the benefit, then the level of such benefit should rest on the provider (in this case, the employer), and not with the person demanding they cover their “personal business”.

          The rest of your arguments above…massive levels of projection, ad hominems, and tripe. Not worth going over.

    • Andrew J. Corrales

      The words “catholicuckoos” and “wingnut” count as bullying. If you’re going to pretend to be morally superior to antiabortion proponents, then at least make it convincing. And if us antiabortion proponents are going to keep our morality-based beliefs out of your reproductive parts, then can you keep your self-indulgence beliefs out of your son or daughter’s rights?

      • Sharon Diehl

        “Catholicuckoo” is the nicest word I can use, Andrew, sweetie, born of personal experience. I was in a hospital prep room, uterus perforated by an IUD, pregnant, in danger of hemorrhaging to death, pelvic inflammatory disease, and or deformed fetus, awaiting an abortion because I was unwilling to risk bleeding to death by trying to go to term, The hospital had already annoyed me because the admin demanded my husbands’ signed “permission”…yeah, right, was it his body that was spot bleeding?! A nurse who identified herself as catholic to me said she would not assist me because she disagreed with my decision….yeah, right, I’m going to be a martyr for her sillya$$ religious beliefs. Another nurse reported the catholicuckoo for harassing me, and my very angry [female] doctor dismissed the nutjob on the spot. The sane nurse had a big smile on her face when she whispered to me that the doc had told the nutjob to stay away from all her patients and that she would never work for her again. Naturally, this incident galvanized me to become a pro-choice activist. The husband and I have been told we’re murderers by religious busybodies; we’ve been told we should have been sterilized…as if our life decisions have anything to do with the “buybull” impaired.

        I’m not claiming to be morally superior, Corrales, dear. I just very, very strongly believe that women own their own bodies, not a bunch of religious wingnut politicians and their constituents. My charity dollars go to Planned Parenthood; my vote goes to pro-choice Democratic candidates.

        • Andrew J. Corrales

          One person’s experiences do not define objective truth for everyone. Individual experiences are subjective and the memory may be corrupted. If the pregnancy was ectopic, I do not condemn you and neither can any other antiabortion proponent, legitimately. However, tolerating ectopic pregnancy abortions does not warrant supporting unnecessary abortions motivated by lack of responsibility, and being condemned by less “dear” or “sweetie” antiabortion proponents does not warrant giving all antiabortion proponents labels and negative stereotypes for their beliefs. Not all pro-lifers are Catholic, not all Catholics oppose abortion. Also, some Democrats are pro-life.

          Not claiming to be morally superior? You’re putting Catholic antiabortion proponents in a box and giving them unfavorable comment because you think they’re wrong on a moral issue. That’s moral indignation to a T. And since you’re complaining about their condemning attitudes, you’re no better.

          Before I go on, I would like to clear something up. I am about to say something really offensive, so hey, pro-life Democrats! No offense meant to you particular people.

          The case against the Democratic Party: They’re the guys who voted to secede in 1860, and they supported the Deed Scott decision, and they opposed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, and the Civil Rights movement, and they lost us the Vietnam War. The Republican Party was founded for the express purpose of abolishing slavery, and supported all those amendments and the Civil Rights movement.

          Furthermore, today the Democrats seem to support leaving Americans defenseless, stupid foreign policies, increasing the amount of annoying busybodies in the world, race-baiting, turning women into sex trophies, releasing murderers and crazies, and enraging people with melodramatic portraying perceived minority demographics as victims to make a voting bloc. They also seem to like taking away your money and mine to pay for what usually amounts to legal infanticide. The fact that there are antiabortion Democrats means they’re getting better, but they always have been, and probably still will be for some time, the party of treason and tyranny.

          If you respond by slandering Republicans, keep this in mind: whatever slanders you make, you will have to have some proof of it. You can’t just “feel” Republicans are wrong. Republicans don’t get ideas from feeling, and that argument won’t work on them (neither will the “some people disagree with you!” shiitaki mushrooms). Republicans get ideas based on perceived objective morality: what’s right and wrong no matter what you believe or feel. Accusing Republicans of this and that is just Democrat histrionics unless you can back it up.

          Finally, obviously, I don’t think either “dear” or “sweetie” are descriptors merited by my response. Try “haranguey jack***.” I’ve been called worse, and less accurate things, so I won’t be offended.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andrew, dear, elsewhere I posted a few of the downright misogynist dangerous laws, written by religious Republicans, aimed at controlling women’s sexuality, fertility, access to contraception, and denying their basic civil rights to make medical decisions over their own bodies.

            Sweetie, you do recall the 2012 election, don’t you, and all the rape-drooling Republicans who went down in defeat–Paul Ryan, who stated that rape is just “another method of conception”; Richard Mourdock, R IN, who called a pregnancy from rape a “gift from god”; ignorant Todd Akin, R MO, who thinks a woman has a magical uterus that can repel sperm from a rapist; Rick Berg, R ND, who wants to throw women in jail if they have an abortion, even if the pregnancy is a result of rape; Tom Smith, R PA, a pregnancy from rape is like having a baby out of wedlock–lo, they are all Republican conservatives. I could list ever more of these misogynist bible-thumping Republican politicians and their disgusting statements–Terry England, R GA, who sponsored “The Woman As Livestock” bill to force a woman with a stillborn fetus to go to term with it, because by dang, the cows and pigs on the farm do. Carl Wimmer, Utah, passing legislation to make miscarriage a crime unless a woman can prove it occurred naturally. It’s stupid, stupid legislation like this that drove 55% of women to vote Democratic in the national election.

            Yes, there are some dumba$$ Democrats who think that women are chattel and cattle…such as the ones in the Rethug-held House, who supported HR 358 in 2011, the “Let Women Die Act”, which would have let a religious-affilitated hospital refuse a life-saving abortion to a hemorrhaging woman. This is another matter of concern–catholics buying up rural hospitals and imposing their dogma on the doctors and nurses. The most well-known recent U.S. case of such abuse occurred at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, AZ. A medical nun, McBride, authorized a life-saving abortion for a pregnant women suffering from pulmonary hypertension (pregnancy complications are not limited to ectopic pregnancies, honey). The woman’s life was saved…much to the dismay of local bishop, Olmsted, who excommunicated the nun and stripped the hospital of its religious affiliation. Outrage ensued, and McBride was reinstated.

            The Republican party of today is not the same party it was during the time of Lincoln. Through the years, the Republican and Democratic ideals have reversed, My paternal grandparents were Goldwater Republicans–although my paternal grandmother always said that it doesn’t matter if a poltician is a Democrat or Republican because they’re all crooks.

            Re: legal infanticide: talk about histrionics and melodrama.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Let’s see. After one and a half centuries of hating black people, the Democrats arbitrarily decided to change their minds…only because it was popular at the time. Inasmuch as race-baiting is still helping them use black people as a voting bloc, they still do it. When race-baiting stops working for them, they’ll ditch it. Any perceived racism in the Republican party is pure slander. Republicans aren’t motivated by patriarchal white supremacism. There are dumb Republicans, but that doesn’t warrant stereotyping or slandering them. I’ve heard the Dem and Rep switch shiitaki mushrooms before, and I’m still waiting for someone to use facts to prove it. The Republicans will always be the party of liberty, patriotism, and morality.

            Legal infanticide? A perceived truth. A baby is a human not old enough to walk, talk, or use the toilet, especially if biologically dependent on the mother. Unborn humans fit the bill. And they’re not a part of the mother’s body–different DNA from the mother. Also, geneticists and psychologists are believing more and more in the theory that personality is at least partly determined by genes, which means all humans have personalities from conception. On top of that, obviously an unborn child has human DNA, so after stating A. a fetus is a baby, B. a fetus is human, C. a fetus has a personality, and D. a fetus is a separate entity and not simply part of the mother, there is no more reasonable conclusion than that unborn humans are people and have at least the right to be alive. Abortion denies this right, therefore, abortion is murder.

            The pro-aborts can only argue against the above conditional reasoning by means of slandering, exaggeration, slogans, excuses, word salads, and inventing rights and freedoms that aren’t enumerated in either the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, the Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence. They have no coherent, intellectual arguments that are consistent with the above listed documents.

            If that’s not convincing, here’s the ultimate test of what’s right and what’s wrong: try explaining your opinion to a five-year old in explicit, understandable terminology without getting a negative reaction and without ruining the child’s life, and on top of that without confusing the child.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andrew, sweetie, gynecologists/doctors are aware that 60-80% of fertilized eggs, i.e., embryos, never imbed in a uterine wall and are expelled from sexually active women during menses. Note: Not just one unfertilized egg a month is flushed from women during menstrual flow; so many people have this simplistic notion of a woman’s reproductive system. Gynecologists estimate that half of those embryos that do not imbed during that magical window of 6 to 12 days could have been viable fetuses had they burrowed their way into the uterine lining (President’s Council on Bioethics, John Opitz). Furthermore, March of Dimes estimates that half of all embryos that do imbed undergo spontaneous abortion, i.e. the medical term for a miscarriage. Sexually active women are often unaware they have conceived and aborted, and don’t think it unusual if there is a heavy period or clumping. Ergo, abortion is a natural bodily process in a woman’s reproductive system, yet the TeaTaliban wish to make having a miscarriage a crime—as I’ve already listed several examples elsewhere. So, a god/he/she/it/whatever can abort millions and millions of viable embryos and fetuses, yet you consider it “legal infanticide” if a woman chooses to abort at the same gestational stage as a natural abortion? It’s illogical.

            As for this DNA argument, all the millions and millions of embryos and fetuses that are lost in natural abortion processes–from embryos just not implanting to miscarriage–all had their own “unique human DNA”, so what is the point of your comment? You think that the genetic makeup of an organism automatically grants it special rights? I think the living, breathing woman walking this earth deserves her rights to her own body—and it is her body, honey. You think a pregnant woman shouldn’t have any rights? That’s TeaTaliban stuff.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Accidental death of the unborn isn’t the intentional denying of a human’s right to be alive. It’s called “miscarrying.” And inasmuch as, like you conceded, all unborn offspring has unique DNA, different from that of the mother, half derived from the father, it isn’t a part of her body, strictly speaking. And the Tea Party focuses more on fiscal issues than social issues. T.E.A.: Taxed Enough Already. If they insist on opposing something about abortion, it’s making people pay for it via an income tax.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Sharon, I admit that this isn’t really germane to the topic at hand, but I wanted to offer some helpful thoughts on your rhetorical skills. You have a habit of employing affectionate vocatives like “sweetie” or “honey” and then following them up with angry slurs. You might not have noticed, but by doing this you come off as being a little unstable.

            You’ll gain more credibility if you stick to the facts when presenting your arguments and avoid both insults and diminutives altogether. Indeed, such an approach won’t just improve your debate performance–it may win you more friends in your personal life as well.

          • MarcusFenix

            I thought she’d taken some massive dose of pills and then watched “Gone with the Wind” a few hundred times back to back. I could be wrong.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Adam, sweetie…oh, wait…you don’t like that….I’ll try something else…Adam, silly goose, it keeps me from using swear words. Now if you want to read real slurs and witness “unstable” people, just visit a “pro-life” Facebook site such as Abolish Human Abortion, or the National Pro-Life Alliance sites, where members routinely shriek murderer at women who identify themselves as pro-choice, shrill that pro-choice people are going to burn in hell (they know because they are christian warriors and speak to god all the time), and screech that women who have had abortions (even ones who have been raped) should be shot, hung, or torn limb to limb. So…so…”pro-life” of them.
            I have presented “facts”…(it is soooo hard not to say “dear”!)….I’ve presented laws written and passed by Republicans aimed at controlling the behavior of women. The pro-life movement is not about saving those fetuses; it’s all about controlling women’s behavior. Contraception is particularly noxious to religious clergy and conservatives because of its equalizing significance–contraception allows women to live like men–with personal dignity, to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to constantly worry about unintended pregnancies altering their lives.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “Adam, sweetie…oh, wait…you don’t like that….”

            Actually, I don’t mind affectionate words. After all, it’s been my experience that when a woman is calling me “sweetie,” it usually means that she’s feeling particularly amorous. You’re among some very good company when you me address with such terms–of that you can be assured. I was simply pointing out that following up “honey” with a barrage of insults makes you sound a little odd.

            “The pro-life movement is not about saving those fetuses; it’s all about controlling women’s behavior.”

            We are indeed interested in saving fetuses. As a former fetus, I’m quite passionate about helping others of my kind. I’m not interested in controlling women however, but if I were, I’d take some lessons from the abortion industry–they’re experts at it.

            http://liveactionnews.org/how-to-wage-a-real-war-on-women-lessons-from-the-pro-abortion-crowd/

            As many as half of the women who get abortions report being pressured into having them, with some facing violence when they refuse. Roxanne Fernando was stabbed to death when she refused her boyfriend’s demands for an abortion. As the second link shows, her case was far from unique.

            http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/12/04/why-we-need-a-public-debate-on-roxannes-law/
            http://www.publiceye.org/ark/reproductive-justice/articles/forced-abortions-america.php
            http://afterabortion.org/2012/the-many-faces-of-coercion/

            Child abusers certainly like abortion–it helps them to cover up their crimes. In 2006, John Blanks took his daughter in for an abortion when he impregnated her. Sexual predator Adam Gault did the same thing with his young victim. As I documented in article below, clinic staff in both cases were only too happy to turn these girls back over to the men who abused them.

            http://liveactionnews.org/planned-parenthood-helping-others-control-body/

            Practitioners of gendercide also favor abortion on demand, at least insofar as they demand that their wives get abortions. In some cultures, sons are preferred over daughters, and it seems that the North American abortion industry has been only too happy to indulge this deadly preference. According to a report from a Canadian medical association, Canada has become “a haven” for those seeking to have their daughters sliced up and sucked out. Planned Parenthood appears to have no qualms about this, as Live Action has recorded Planned Parenthood staff agreeing to abort unwanted daughters. I’ve said it before: Planned Parenthood believes in helping girls… to come out in pieces.

            http://www.economist.com/node/15606229
            http://www.liveaction.org/gendercide/
            http://liveactionnews.org/rhetorical-object-lessons-four-ways-to-improve-your-game/

            Finally, abortion is a huge boon to all around douchebags. Thanks to in part to the feminist movement, these fellas are able to sexually denigrate women and then conveniently abort their resulting children. Tucker Max said that he’s taken so many “sluts” to Planned Parenthood that they should name a clinic after him. When Christian McQueen authored the “10 Slut Commandments,” he stressed the importance of taking a “slut” in for an abortion should she be found with child. Judging from the language used at the website he writes for (www.returnofkings.com), this principal isn’t limited just to “sluts.” Apparently it also applies to “bitches,” “skanks,” and “whores” in equal measure.

            http://liveactionnews.org/tucker-max-and-meghan-murphy-when-opposites-attract/

            So there you have it–by supporting easy access to abortion, you are enabling abusive men to control their partners, sexual predators to cover up their crimes, genercidal patriarch to dismember their daughters, and misogynistic sleazebags to “pound out ho’s.” That’s an incredibly depressing position to be in. If you did feel amorous before, then I expect that the feeling has now subsided.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Adam, sweetie, liveactionnews is a religious bias site; I take articles from this site with a grain of salt—no, with a whole teaspon of salt. Ewww…I sure get tired of that salt diet.

            From an article on domestic violence from the National Organization for Women:
            …a disturbing phenomenon well known to police, health advocates and experts on battered women: [a] leading cause of death for pregnant women is homicide. “Violence in intimate relationships is all about power,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. “There are fewer times when you can have power over a woman than when she’s pregnant. She’s vulnerable. It’s an easier time to threaten her.” Yep, I agree, Adam: men can be foul creatures. Abortion is not what leads to violence–it is men.

            Honey, you’re against abortion….I can tell from the long incoherent rant. I also gather you also have no respect for independent free-thinking women who enjoy sex. Rethugs keep saying there is no “war on women”…just “sluts” who use contraception. Women’s sex lives are their own concerns and choices. “Sluts” to the GOP are women who refuse to be bullied, subjugated, or silenced.

            Does your misogyny extend so far that you are fine with women dying from complications of pregnancy, hmmm?

          • Basset_Hound

            Ummmm…Sharon, sweetie…you mean like THESE guys….

            http://www.returnofkings.com/12436/the-10-slut-commandments

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “I take articles from this site with a grain of salt—no, with a whole teaspon of salt.”

            So instead of challenging the facts in those articles, you just ignore them altogether. I guess it’s an attractive approach if you’re not really into reading.

            “Yep, I agree, Adam: men can be foul creatures”

            Some of them are indeed foul, like the one who stabbed pro-life demonstrator Faye Arellano as she stood peacefully holding a sign.

            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-life-activists-knifed-severely-beaten-during-attack-by-knife-wielding-m

            “Abortion is not what leads to violence–it is men.”

            The facts show that violence is often used by men to coerce women into getting abortions they don’t want. By making abortion a no-questions-asked affair, you’re doing these men a huge favor.

            “I also gather you also have no respect for independent free-thinking women who enjoy sex.”

            I have no idea how you gathered that–such women make up the bulk of my social circle. Why don’t you ask PJ4 about her level of sexual enjoyment? I warn you, however, that you might find yourself getting a little jealous…

            “Rethugs keep saying there is no ‘war on women’…just ‘sluts’ who use contraception.”

            I’ve been involved in the pro-life movement for some time, but I’ve never heard words like “slut” or “whore” spat out with as much venom and contempt until I came across the “bro-choice” crowd. Like you, they favor unrestricted access to abortion. The reason for this is simple: it lets them prey on intoxicated ladies or practice infidelity, all the while knowing that they can get an easy out by pressuring a woman into having an abortion.

            Fans of this approach include Christian McQueen, author of the aforementioned “10 Slut Commandments,” Tucker Max (he once said that South Florida and a Planned Parenthood waiting room are both full of slutty whores), and Nils Parker. By the way, if you liked Christian’s article, then I invite you to check out one by fellow RoK contributor Emmanuel Goldstein entitled “5 Ways to Bully Fat Sluts on A Date.” These are your allies, and I’m sure they appreciate all your help.

            http://www.returnofkings.com/12436/the-10-slut-commandments

            https://twitter.com/sarahkliff/status/187214341370679297/photo/1

            http://www.returnofkings.com/18328/5-ways-to-bully-fat-sluts-on-a-date

          • Basset_Hound

            Adam, sweetie, you forgot to mention that “slut” and “whore” are some of the milder invectives Wonderful Enlightened libs hurl at conservative female pundits and politicians. Ask Michelle Malkin, who was at the top of Playboy’s list of conservative women they wanted to “hate f***”. Ask Sarah Palin. They entertained themselves with images of her being beaten and brutalized.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Thank you for addressing that oversight, Basset. It’s true that I failed to mention the time honored tradition of hate fucking. Being a misogynistic, troglodyte, conservative hate-monger, I have the backwards notion that sexual intercourse should be paired with feelings of love (or at the very least, an absence of malevolence), and so it’s natural that I would have forgotten to mention that practice.

            Thankfully, we have still pro-choice icon Playboy magazine around to remind us that it’s perfectly acceptable to advocate rapey behavior towards women–as long as those women are conservatives, anyway.

          • Basset_Hound

            As a brainwashed, self-loathing buybul thumper, I appreciate your comment.

          • PJ4

            Does your misogyny extend so far that you hate yourself for being a woman and only find your worth in the ability to kill your child to be like a man?

          • Calvin Freiburger

            The barrage of “sweeties” and “honeys” and “dears” seems to be a pretty good sign that Sharon actually doesn’t feel all that confident in her position. Her vicious, dishonest fanaticism is getting stronger pushback than she expected, so she feels the need to lay on the condescension extra thick.

            Funny how defenses of babykilling are almost always accompanied by other character flaws…..

          • PJ4

            I’m temporarily back.. hope that’s ok? :-)

          • DianaG2

            Hey, we have to take what we can get, right?

            Nice to see you, kiddo.

          • PJ4

            Thanks! Good to be back… even if it’s just for a bit.

          • JDC

            Seriously, stay for as long as you want.

          • PJ4

            aaaah thanks!

          • DianaG2

            Absolutely. Well, a little PJ is better than none.

            :-)

          • Basset_Hound

            She also probably didn’t expect to find that not only are we not intimidated by her insults, but we’re having quite a bit of fun among ourselves at her expense.

          • DianaG2

            LOL, yes, that’s the best part, isn’t it?

          • PJ4

            Why do you want to live like a man?

            It’s interesting that you think only men have personal dignity.

            You are deeply misogynistic.

            I’m so so sad for you honey bunches of oats.

            Your misogyny is so deep rooted that you don’t even realize how much you hate yourself for being a woman.

            I can only guess that you’re over 50 because its usually the older more dried up feminazis who want to be just like men.

            You chicks think that being equal to men is being a man.

            Do you need a sex change maybe?

            That could work.

            I’ve got a very good friend who is transgendered.
            He’s so much happier without his “lady parts”
            Maybe you would be too?

            to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to constantly worry about unintended pregnancies altering their lives.

            oh no, according to femenazis like yourself, PIV is always rape and never for pleasure.

            Didn’t you know? This is the next generation of non-religious slut shaming

            http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

            ENJOY baby girl!

          • Basset_Hound

            Geez, I’m a dyed in the wool “buybul thumper”. I enjoyed sex sooooo much more once I found a man who I KNEW would stand with me and our child if I had become pregnant before we were married. And I can enjoy sex so much more now because I KNOW my husband loves me, and is NOT going to trade me in for a 35 year old divorcee.

            PS – Couldn’t post earlier. He had a really tough day at work. I gave him a BJ to make him feel better.

          • PJ4

            NIce! Did that this morning! I kinda owed him though :-)

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            Basset and Princess–I want to sincerely thank you ladies for helping to fight the liberal stereotype that we pro-lifers are somehow anti-sex prudes. I’m sure both of your men are very grateful that you’re committed to helping the pro-life movement in this VITALLY important way.

          • PJ4

            I try. :-)

          • Basset_Hound

            Wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean know what I mean.

          • Basset_Hound

            And trust me…keep your friendship alive and the lines of communication open. Then when your kids go off to college, you can jump hubby’s bones (and his boner) during “prime time”, and not have to worry about making too much noise.

          • PJ4

            I trust you!
            We have a policy of never saying no to each other in bed…or in the car, or at a movie theatre or at a bathroom in a restaurant… :-)

          • DianaG2

            OMG, BH.

            ROFLMAOOOOOOO!!!

          • Basset_Hound

            Psst…..Jaz honey….she’s in Colorado. Must be all that legal weed. :-)

          • PJ4

            haha.. well I’m in LA..and ..well.. oh never mind..

          • PJ4
          • Basset_Hound

            “allows women to live like men–with personal dignity, to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to constantly worry about unintended pregnancies altering their lives.”

            And why, pray tell do I have to “live like a man” and pass my body around to anyone who gives me the time of day to have “personal dignity”?

            Why do I have to treat a natural function of my body (the ability to reproduce) like a disease to have “personal dignity”.

            Why do I have to have the ability to destroy the lives of my unborn children and treat them like chattel and property to have “personal dignity”? This sounds more like tyranny to me!

            Why is it that I can’t possibly be expected to exercise some degree of SELF-CONTROL and to think of how having sex with someone now will affect my life in the future…to evaluate the man’s character, his level of responsibility…my economic situation and the likelihood of the relationship continuing BEFORE I drop my pants? Do I have to have no more ability to control my drives than an animal in heat????

          • Griffonn

            Feminism sells the myth that women = bad, that being a man (or at least manlike) is a prerequisite for liking yourself.

            Odd that it’s named “feminism”, since they seem to despise the idea of femininity or femaleness.

          • Basset_Hound

            I’ve noted that for YEARS. They are some of the most bitter, vitriolic people I’ve met in my life.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Basset, dear, you don’t “have” to do any or all those things. Ah, if only every girl or woman is as smart as you and makes all the right decisions in life in a perfect world.
            You can’t control the sexuality and fertility of other women. You can try to educate them.

          • Basset_Hound

            But Sharon, sweetie! Your side utilizes popular culture to put forth a veritable drumbeat of messages to girls starting in middle school that “sex is cool..everyone is doing it…it’s the way to be popular” while at the same time holding up for ridicule teens who actually WANT to make smart choices. They’re either emotional cripples or they’re too ugly and socially inept to find partners. When a group wants to actually GIVE teens the tools to face up to peer pressure and to think in terms of putting aside temporary pleasures for long term goals, those of your ilk scream like scalded dogs that they should be shut down.

          • Griffonn

            I remember when, as a parent, I protested a show that was aimed at kids showing threeways as glamorous and cool.

            I was roundly ridiculed as a “prude” and worse.

            This is the real reason abstinence-only education will never work: because the left will do anything to undermine it. They are dedicated to seeing ever younger children sexualized. They do not WANT parents to have the power to protect their children from pedophiles.

          • PJ4

            That’s because they eventually want to legalize pedophila
            It is after all, according to many, a sexual orientation

          • Basset_Hound

            That’s why they’ve got their bony tentacles deeply around the Girl Scouts and why they have battered and bullied the Boy Scouts to the brink of submission.

          • DianaG2

            As far as Abolish Human Abortion goes: — I absolutely agree with you. I have nothing to do with them. They’re anti-Catholic bigots

            “shriek murderer at women who identify themselves as pro-choice, shrill that pro-choice people are going to burn in hell (they know because they are christian warriors and speak to god all the time), and screech that women who have had abortions (even ones who have been raped) should be shot, hung, or torn limb to limb. So…so…”pro-life” of them. ”

            I don’t think you really know any pro-life people, if you have seen or heard such things happening.

            Most likely, these are stories that you have heard from your pro-abort friends.

            .

          • DianaG2

            ” . . . you come off sounding a little unstable.”

            And substance-impaired?

          • DianaG2

            You’ve already said these things before. Others have explained why such “arguments” are not.

            I don’t see anything new here.

          • DianaG2

            “The pro-aborts can only argue against the above conditional reasoning by means of slandering, exaggeration, slogans, excuses, word salads, and inventing rights and freedoms that aren’t enumerated in either the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Bill of Rights, the Amendments, or the Declaration of Independence. They have no coherent, intellectual arguments that are consistent with the above listed documents.

            “If that’s not convincing, here’s the ultimate test of what’s right and what’s wrong: try explaining your opinion to a five-year old in explicit, understandable terminology without getting a negative reaction and without ruining the child’s life, and on top of that without confusing the child.”

            Amen. God bless, Andrew.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            TY

          • PJ4

            well at least none of them sound like this liberal UK chick..

            Bet you love her… she’s a pro abort just like you!

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10418682/Rape-victims-should-have-moral-responsibility.html

            Some rape victims have a “moral responsibility” for their fate, a leading barrister has suggested.

            Barbara Hewson, a human rights and civil liberties lawyer, made the comments as she attacked the “ideology of sexual victimisation” which she said has come to dominate discussion of rape.

            She also expressed doubts over the “long term damaging effects” of rape and criticised the view that the offence was “morally absolutely unambiguous” with the victim “utterly innocent” and the “victimiser … utterly guilty”.

          • Basset_Hound

            But God forbid that anyone suggest that a woman can minimize her chances of being raped by NOT getting passed out drunk at a party. The feminoids screech like cats fighting in the backyard.

          • DianaG2

            “A medical nun, McBride, authorized a life-saving abortion for a pregnant women suffering from pulmonary hypertension (pregnancy complications are not limited to ectopic pregnancies, honey). ”

            Didn’t someone already respond to this, above, on this same thread?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Oh, and I do agree that not every religious person is a forced-birther. There is The Christian Left, there is the group “Catholics For Choice”, and the Young Women’s Christian Association has come out as pro-choice. I’ve had ladies from Catholics For Choice tell me they’ve been shrieked at that they are not ‘real’ catholics and that they’re going to hell by their unstable brethen.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Okay. What are your thoughts about secular antiabortion proponents?

            Also, there’s a reason religious right wingers have a low opinion of Christian liberals. Back in the early 1600’s when the KJV was translated, the word for liberalism was “folly” and Christian liberals were given the affectionate nickname “hypocrites.” Today, if I call liberals fools, I get mobbed by all flavors of liberals and polite moderate Christians, but I still have some permission to call Christian liberals “hypocrites.” And they’re the only ones who contest that. And the Bible is clear on the variety of hypocrite that does lip service to Jesus without actually following Him. The biblical word for that specific brand of hypocrite is “Nicolaitan.” Jesus himself said He hates their practices (fortunately for them, he hates the sin but loves the sinner, and died for even them too).

          • DianaG2

            Catholics for Choice is not a Catholic group.

            And, yes, of course, they’re not faithful, practicing Catholics. (They’re not Catholic at all. See above.) But, nobody has to “shriek” anything.

            And, we’re not “unstable” just because we choose to be obedient to the Magisterium.

        • MamaBear

          Sharon,
          By using name-calling, you are seriously undermining your credibility. “sweetie.” And name calling and put downs do indeed say that you are assuming airs of superiority.
          If you are a competent adult and were conscious, your husband did not have to sign permission for your treatment at any hospital in the US. It would have put them at legal liability. I have been a guardian for an adult. I had to produce a copy of the medical power of attorney every time! Only exception is in emergencies where the patient is clearly incapable of signing permission themselves. Then they accept a signature from next-of-kin or spouse. So, “dear,” either you were unconscious, thus not an actual witness of what was happening, or you are prone to perhaps dramatizing your “facts” a wee bit, “dearie.”

          • Sharon Diehl

            No, sweetie, I quite recall my fury at being in the lobby of the hospital, which demanded my husband sign me in.
            Which name calling, honey? Like Andrew calling pro-choice folk “pro-abort”? I’d call them pro-women’s rights.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Let’s see who’s really sexist.

            Liberals oppose eating unhealthy and support Hollywood, the people of which advocate being sexually attractive, especially for females. This has the unpleasant effect of causing more young women to starve themselves (anorexia nervosa) or scarf-and-barf (bulimia nervosa). The “bro-choice” movement seems to view abortion as a way to turn women into sex slaves, and pro-aborts tell women they’re nothing without abortion, and when arguing with antiabortion proponents, assume all women support abortion. They then accuse pro-lifers of being patriarchists. They don’t advocate abstinence (despite its proven ability to make men respect women), which means they assume all women want sex. Politicians of all political parties cheat on their wives, but Republican ones usually either let their reputations get scarred with divorce, or they apologize. The Democrats never do either, and will go out of their respective ways to lie about it, or commit other crimes to cover it up. Finally, the 19th Amendment, which gave women suffrage, was introduced by a Republican and supported by Republicans–and opposed by Democrats. As an afterthought, female Republican politicians get more fire from the Left than male ones. I think the winner of this contest is obvious.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Goodness, Andrew, honey, those are a lot of Rethug suppositions about “liberals” and quite laughable. I don’t know where this “Hollywood” crap comes from.
            Teaching abstinence is fine, it’s the only way to fully prevent STDs and pregnancies, but along with abstinence, solid sex education should be taught, as well as contraception, and how to use it. Guttmacher Institute statistics show that abstinence-only states, like Texas, have the highest teen pregnancy rates.
            Let’s look at some recent Republican activity:
            1972, Rethugs fought against selling birth control to single wmoen until the Supreme Court made it available to all.
            1974, Rethugs voted against the Equal Credit Act that would allow women to apply for their own credit cards and mortgage loans.
            1978, Rethugs voted against the Pregnancy Act, allowing employer’s to continue to fire pregnant women.
            1980, Rethugs voted against allowing women to report sexual harassment in the work place.
            2012, Rethugs voted against Equal pay for Equal Work for Women.
            1994 and 2012, Rethugs voted against the Violence Against Women Act, which helps victims of domestic violence and rape.
            I’m going to bed; lot’s to do tomorrow. Just start screeching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and I’ll get back to you later.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Single women don’t need birth control. Isn’t that obvious?

            The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Pregnancy Discrimination Act are both unnecessary after the 14th and 15th Amendments and the Civil Rights Act if 1964.

            The Violence Against Women Act is also unnecessary. No demographic needs its own whole DOJ section.

            Also, can you prove that all “Rethugs” voted against every single one of these bills, motivated by sexism? Or are you just assuming the worst about people you don’t agree with withou seeing what they’re really concerned about? At least when I do it, I can back it up.

            Hollywood? Teaches young women to sexualize themselves, happens to be chock full of Obama-supporting liberals. Benghazi isn’t relevant, you’re just expressing more shiitaki mushrooms.

          • MamaBear

            Civil Rights Act of 1964, introduced jointly by Republicans and Democrats. It was heavily filibustered against by a series of DEMOCRATS! Breakdown of support by party: Republicans for it – over 80%, Democrat support – a little over 60%. The version passed had actually been watered down to gain more Democrat support. Signed by President Johnson, a Democrat.
            Wonder how much of the rest of her history is that off? I don’t have time to check the rest, but maybe someone else will later today. But, I was absolutely sure I would hit pay dirt if I checked the Civil Rights Act out.
            By the way, those states she refers to as having higher teen birth rates, also have higher teen marriage rates. Some people think there might be a connection there, but apparently nobody is gathering statistics on how many births are to married teen mothers vs. single teen mothers. The HS girl who faces unplanned pregnancy alone is a very different situation than the young woman who marries right after HS graduation and starts a family right away.

          • Basset_Hound

            MamaBear, I know that teens who are from rural areas do take on a lot more responsibility in caregiving, and in managing the family’s resources than do teens from cities and suburbs. The article from National Review that I linked to also hypothesized that a breakdown in marriage among low income women also contributes to this trend.

          • Basset_Hound

            Andrew, just in case you’re interested, here’s a link on the Violence Against Women Act from IWF that you might want to paste in your list of resources.

            http://www.iwf.org/blog/2787750/There-Are-Real-Reasons-to-Oppose-VAWA

          • Basset_Hound

            ” Guttmacher Institute statistics show that abstinence-only states, like Texas, have the highest teen pregnancy rates. ”

            There’s several fallacies afoot in the Guttmacher report.

            1. The assumption that EVERY school district in EVERY “red state” teaches “abstinence only”. They don’t. Many teach “comprehensive sex ed” which has a track record of proven failure going back more than 40 years.

            2. The group “teens” included the whole demographic swath from girls who turned 13 yesterday to young women who will turn 20 tomorrow. Once you break the data down into specific age ranges, you find a different story. At the high end of the age range, you have women who have been out of high school for as long as two years. This corresponds to a rise in non-marital births to less educated women in the 18-26 age range, and indicates a collapse of marriage in low income communities, rather than a failure in abstinence programs.

            http://nationalreview.com/corner/193768/teen-pregnancy-bogus-problem-bogus-solution/robert-rector

          • Griffonn

            got a double post somehow (glitch)

          • Basset_Hound

            Griff, Heritage Foundation has done several studies comparing various abstinence programs with each other and with “comprehensive” programs.

            http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/01/abstinence-education-effective-in-reducing-teen-sex-comprehensive-sex-ed-not/

            In another piece, they pointed out that girls who delayed their first sexual experience were also more inclined to higher levels of academic achievement…

            http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2010/02/empower-women-teach-abstinence

          • Griffonn

            The point I’m trying to make is that we won’t get a truly accurate reading on abstinence-only while we ignore a huge, relevant variable: the stigma being deliberately attached to abstinence by those who actively wish to see sexualized children.

          • Basset_Hound

            Good point, Griff. I totally agree.

          • MamaBear

            I know among the young people who were friends with my kids, the ones who waited for sexual involvement were the ones who went on to college or career training. I watched bright young ladies turn down scholarships to stay with their “baby daddies,” or even ones who did not have babies, give up opportunities to move in with losers, or sometimes a series of losers.

          • Basset_Hound

            When my daughter was in high school, she knew pregnant teens in her AP classes. She’s also seen a girl who was a very close friend in middle school move in with a drug dealer.

          • MamaBear

            Even when our schools teach “comprehensive birth control,” we parents need to take responsibility for teaching the right values. Sadly, many parents leave it all to the schools.

          • MamaBear

            Edit – that was supposed to be “comprehensive sex education.”
            Freudian slip maybe?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Nah, I think it’s actually probably priming.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Exactly, MamaBear. Putting off sexual involvement and getting a solid education is so important for young women. I quite agree. My college roommate was a mathematics major; she was/is a smart cookie. But she dropped out of school after two years to get married (I don’t know how much her catholocism was a factor or not) and start producing daughters. Her husband wanted sons; but after the fourth daughter and bleeding more after each birth, she had her tubes tied (bad catholic!).
            She is divorced now and was laid off during the recession–she believes because she was the IT who didn’t have a college degree. I see her struggle with part time work to keep going, and she can’t afford to retire any time soon. But she does have four lovely daughters.

          • MamaBear

            I’ve seen a lot of women drop out to marry, most worked out well, but unfortunately sometimes like your friend, it didn’t. Whether a woman wants a traditional lifestyle of stay-at-home-mom, or career, her education is important. As my otherwise very old-fashioned daddy told me when I was young, “A degree is better than life insurance. I don’t care whether you use it or not. Because if you have it, you and your kids will never go hungry, even he leaves, gets hurt, or dies.”
            When my oldest daughter wanted to marry while still in college, we had a talk with both of them, that her degree would be his top priority, no matter what his career opportunities or if babies came. She married her junior year as soon as he graduated and got a job. She now has degree, career (part-time by choice), baby, and they are both very happy.

          • Griffonn

            It’s also important to note that there are other variables that cannot be weeded out.

            That is why I think it is bogus to compare abstinence-only today (where it is ruthlessly undermined by teachers, the media, and lefties everywhere) to abstinence-only rates from the days when people actually believed that children deserved to be protected from premature sexualization.

            Anyone who says abstinence-only “can’t work” has to explain how come it did work, for most of human history and in most of the world.

            Then consider media products – not just the overt ones but the less overt ones (count the negative stereotypes of abstinence and religious belief in films like Footloose – I don’t have a more recent example because I stopped watching that garbage long ago) – and try to imagine how many of those stereotypes kids have absorbed.

            Abstinence-only has been shown to work if it is separate from those negative stereotypes. Kids do not want to be associated with icky Christian types, because liberals have done their best to make abstinence = religion = uncool.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            They recently did a remake of Footloose. The preview was on the movie Courageous (I think), if you can believe it.

          • PJ4
          • Sharon Diehl

            The problem with quoting periodicals is that I can reference, say, a “liberal bias” publication like Atlantic Monthly, whereas you cite National Review, which has a “conservative bias”. This thread on LIve Action News certainly has a religious conservative bias, and I roll my eyes whenever someone quotes articles from this site…which is how I originally ended up commenting on this thread.

            We all have our favorite sources of data, what we view with suspicion as suspect data, and our biases.
            For example, there is a catholic-based article at http://www.foryourmarriage.org/whats-not-wrong-with-low-income-marriages/, which counter argues that there is a collapse of marriage in low-income communities not because marriage is less valued, but because of basic economics and lack of resources:
            “True enough, the rate of new marriages has declined and divorce rates are higher in lower income communities. But “whatever the reasons for the increased vulnerability of low-income marriages, low-income populations do not value marriage less than those with higher incomes,” the Trail-Karney report says. In fact, it concludes, “people with lower incomes experience relationship vulnerabilities that fall largely outside the realm of the relationship itself – and outside the realm of most interventions that aim to improve marriages. In light of that, efforts by policymakers to strengthen marriages are going to need to confront directly “the economic and social realities these couples face,” the report says.”

            If you do not consider the Guttmacher Institute to be an unbiased source of data, which I do, you can feel more comfortable with the conservative counterpoint at: http://www.lozierinstitute.org/

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Yes, both sides twist the truth. It turns into a contest of which truth is truer with less twisting. There are only liberals around because liberal ideas are popular with irresponsible kids who don’t bother to learn about issues, they’re more worried about what their friends think than they are about being well-informed. Being conservative sucks genitalia. Pretend to be a conservative for a minute. You simply want individual liberties, a law based on patriotism and morality, and for politicians to be held accountable by the people, but you watch the TV and everything offends you. Nothing surprises you, in that the world reinforces your beliefs and values all the time, but it seems that nobody cares to learn from their mistakes, if it means they don’t get their petty demands. You try to teach them better, but they don’t listen, and return your speaking with slandering, bullying, slogans, incoherence, black-and-white morality, and irrationality. They idolize people who are otherwise useless or destructive to society, because they either look good or they sound good or both, and it’s these celebrity politicians who wind up doing the most damage. They’re neurotic about offending everyone except you. Conservatives aren’t popular, so being one means you’re probably not just saying what your friends tell you to say. You’re probably speaking from research and/or experience. When allowed to speak, you have a remarkable ability to win arguments with liberals, which to them warrants the slandering etc. I can tell you from personal experience that that is what conservatives think, feel, and go through. It is conservativism that is truer with less twisting. We aren’t paranoid racist sexist homophobic religious gun-toters, we’re patriotic Americans who beIieve in what our country was founded on, improving it in ways consistent with what those founding principles are, and passing those principles down to posterity. We’re not bigots, the slanderers just don’t like hearing ugly truths that we have already come to terms with.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Ahem, I can certainly be considered “liberal” because I am a pro-choice person. You can hold one of two beliefs: You should own your body, or the government should own your body. This is the true definition of pro-choice versus pro-life. Pro-life is pro-government, as witnessed by all the examples I’ve listed elsewhere of Rerthug politicans passing laws to control women’s sexuality, fertility, and making miscarriage a crime. Keep your religious conservative government out of my uterus.

            I am also a stauch patriot because what better country for a woman to get an education and be able to take care of herself and plan her own future. You must have discourse with saner “conservatives” than I do because I have had just the opposite experience–Democratic candidates speak to my values, not “conservatives” who shriek that I’m going to hell because I don’t worship or believe exactly as they do in the “buybull”. The “conservatives” at Facebook sites such as National Pro-Life Alliance, or Babies Are Murdered Here, or Atheists On The Slide (you get the idea) are full of those homophobic, religious, gun-toters that you suggest don’t exist within your realm.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            That comment is full of bullying and slandering. You prove my point. You’re a patriot? You’re in the party that has dumb foreign policies. Facebook right-wing extremists? Most FB users are kids. Of course kids are irrational and take things to extremes. You’re an adult doing it, so you’re no better.

            There are four beliefs about abortion: either you hate all kids for any reason, or you hate your kid for a selfish reason, or you personally love your kid but respect other peoples’ rights to hate theirs, or you love your kid and everybody else’s too. And there are three less violent alternatives to abortion: abstinence, contraception, and adoption. If pro-aborts support choice so much, why do they malign those three alternatives and portray keeping the baby as a lose-lose situation?

            I spoke from my head and my heart about what I know for a fact conservatives think, feel and go through, and you, other than providing facts and reason in a polite manner to have me reconsider, maligned it with your liberal slandering, bullying, stereotyping, slogans, and demagoguery. Taste of your own medicine? Most liberals I argue with are either incoherent, irrational, or both.You are no exception. It took you an hour and a half to reply, and you didn’t make a good argument.

            You have strong emotional investment in the subject at hand (abortion), and you bully and slander me and other antiabortion proponents while nicknaming us things like “sweetie.” All my observations so far point to a fragile affect attempting to sublimate some personality flaw with passive-aggressive behavior. This, combined with your paranoid delusions about those who wish to protect humans sitting peacefully and innocently in their mothers’ wombs, leads me to conclude you’re not mentally competent to successfully debate politics. You are comorbid with PTSD and mild paranoid schizophrenia, as well as an abortion complex. The ego is attempting to sublimate these conditions by means of political discussion, so it won’t mess with your personal life.

            I love science and how it predicts effects, so I predict that you’ll respond to me with more incoherence, paranoid delusions, irrationality, nonfactuality, and plain bullying. Feel free to make a coherent, intellectual argument that gives antiabortion proponents’ characters the benefit of the doubt, it would really prove me wrong. As it is, your arguments only make sense if you ditch faith in human nature and abandon the value of human life. Well, you probably hang out with liberals, so I can kinda see why, but why impose your misanthropy on others through politics?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andy, dear, your four beliefs about abortion and kids are just that…YOUR beliefs…not mine…or anyone else’s that I know of.
            Nice vocabulary, sweetie.
            Pro-choicers are all for contraception; it’s the religious rightwingers, such as yourself, who think that sex is only for procreation in a married state, or that the ‘morning after’ pill is an abortifient.
            I don’t impose my “misanthropy” on others, honey. I vote to defend women against the misanthropy and downright misogyny aimed at women by Republican polticians and their constituents.
            As enlightening as these conversations have been, I have family to attend to. TTFN

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            See? I was right. You replied with more of your irrational, unintellectual, paranoid, and/or incoherent delusions. You have used zero (0) facts and zero (0) reason to try to win me over. You didn’t even directly address any of my intended main points. Also, I frequently hear antiabortion proponents advocate contraceptives for purposes of sexual responsibility, and exactly zero (0) antiabortion proponents I know of think contraceptives are the same as killing unborn babies. If pro-aborts like contraception so much, why dont they advocate that instead of abortion? Why do they even consider abortion necessary? Do they not believe contraceptives work? Why can’t they just advocate keeping one’s pants on until one intends to reproduce?

            And those aren’t my particular beliefs, they’re all the particular beliefs hypothetically possible for someone to have. The first is rare but there, the second circumstantial but unfair, the third ludicrous. The fourth is based on being prohuman.

            Finally, why is it that when you talk about an unpleasant personal experience (in this case, a pregnancy complication) that led you to be a liberal (by the way, it only proves you to have PTSD), it’s “choice,” but when I talk about an unpleasant personal experience (in this case, being bullied and slandered by liberal classmates and contacts for my opinions) that led me to be a conservative, it’s “misogyny?”

          • MarcusFenix

            You expected facts or rational discussion? HOW DARE YOU! /sarc off

          • Basset_Hound

            Wow! So according to Sharon Sweetie “wingnuts” like me believe that sex is only for “procreation in a married state”. So according to her “logic”, I should make my husband move into one of the other bedrooms and lock myself in the master suite at night. Although I’m married (and want to stay so) I’ve had a tubal (nasty contraception) and have been through menopause.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Funny….you rail against the evils of religion, but you display all the characteristics of religious fervor at its worst. You proclaim a zealot-like certainty in views you utterly fail to substantiate on logical grounds, you viciously and hysterically spew dishonest caricatures of the beliefs and motives of people you see as heretics, and you refuse to make the slightest effort to better understand ideas you’ve clearly never known in any form other than the straw-men your prejudices twist them into.

            Face facts, Sharon: you’re a bigot.

          • Basset_Hound

            Don’t worry Calvin. Expect this thread to expand to more than 300 comments worth of her spewing.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Yes, indeedy, Calvin, I am against the “evils” of religion (big roll of the eyes) because I am a firm supporter of the separation of church and state. I think our elected officials should spend their time worrying about our economy, creating jobs, and keeping out of fruitless middle east wars.
            But for some reason, so many of them are absolutely consumed with telling women what they cannot do with their bodies, what contraception should be banned, redefining rape, shoving big government and transvaginal wands up a woman’s nether regions, banning all abortions even when a woman’s life is at stake, defunding Planned Parenthood, and eliminating programs that were originally put in place to help reluctant mothers.
            Yep, women are dangerous creatures, cold-blooded killers, and too stupid to make their own life decisions (yes, sweetie, the last sentence is sarcasm).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Can you prove with facts and reason any of the above? I can prove otherwise: Democrats support raising income taxes, government regulations on the economy, raising the minimum wage, and workers’ unions, which, even though they help people, they still make corporationscorporations more likely to fire people, file for bankruptcy, get bought by another corporation, or shut down; all the above destroy jobs. That’s why blue states scare away small businesses, which are America’s source of consumer freedom: small businesses just starting out can’t handle the various ways governments interfere and tell them what not to do. Just look at Detroit. Several decades without a Republican mayor and it’s a ghost town.

            And if unborn children actually are part of the woman’s body, then wouldn’t that make abortion a form of self-harm or masochism?

            And how is the war on terror fruitless? Ever noticed that after 09/11/01, the next major terror attacks were in Benghazi on 09/11/12 and in Boston on 04/15/13–after Obama had been President several years? 09/11/01 was the only major terrorist attack when Bush was President; there have been 2 with Obama. Apparently Bush did something right.

          • MamaBear

            Unborn children are clearly NOT a part of the mother’s body. They have their own unique DNA. They have their own circulatory system, including their own blood type. In fact until fairly recent advances, mixing of mother and baby blood was sometimes a serious medical disaster for both, as in RH incompatibility. They have totally separate nervous systems. Any mother who has ever had their unborn child decide to kick nonstop at 2 am, can tell you that one. And at 9 months, which could not happen were the baby merely an extension of the mother’s body, the baby is born.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Not that I was expecting anything less idiotic, but not only did you not actually respond to my point, you seem to have not even comprehended it. It’s as if all you saw was that the word “religion” shows up, without bothering to even read anything that came after. It’s just another manifestation of your rank bigotry.

          • PJ4

            She excels at “dodging the question”
            And projection too

          • Sharon Diehl

            I’m a bigot against organized religion? Or I’m a pro-choice bigot?
            I must have lost your question or point amongst all your eloquent verbiage.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            Both.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I’d say she was a pro-death bigot, not a pro-choice one.

          • Part138

            But we’re supposed to be in uteruses when we pay our taxes, aren’t we?

          • Basset_Hound

            Thank you for your courtesy, but the fact is, the Guttmacher Institute ignores numerous key factors in the effort to draw their initial conclusion.

          • Mary Lee

            Oh Basset, sweetie! You weren’t kidding, honey! This troll is just too much, honey! Sweetie, I have never seen such a verbal cassoulet of slogans, excuses, slurs, condescension, and out-and-out lies, honey!

          • MamaBear

            Which name calling?
            wingnut
            rape-drooling Republicans
            Catholicuckoo
            buybull
            misogynist Bible-thumpers
            nutjob
            And I am sure I missed a few!
            Perhaps they asked you husband to sign because your “fury” had you mentally incompetent.
            I’ve been on both sides – the caregiver (elderly parent – strokes) and the patient (cancer). Unless your loved one has that medical power of attorney, they will shove paperwork in front of you between throw-ups with your spouse standing right there. And as soon as the doctors determine your parent is permanently incapable, they will have you meeting with their legal people at the hospital to get you that medical power of attorney to cover themselves, so once the life and death emergency is passed, they can still have someone to sign everything.
            Women’s rights are the right to vote, hold public office, own property, work for equal pay, equal access to education. All values that every pro-life person in the country supports. You, my dear, are for abortion, therefore pro-abortion.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Yep, all good accurate descriptors.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Which proves you’re a bully and a bigot. You’re not giving the Right the benefit of the doubt–you’re just parroting what your friends/teachers say/said.

        • MamaBear

          “Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weakest argument and they know it.” C. R. Anderson

        • PJ4

          Your uterus was perforated by your IUD?
          Does that make you feel betrayed honey?

          Come on sweetie, you can share your feelings with us…

          I noticed you didn’t mention whether or not the hospital you were in was Catholic.
          Interesting.
          I call BS on you.

          I never needed my husband’s signature or consent on anything and I delivered all 3 of my babies (including a an emergency C section) in a Catholic hospital

          Had better care there that I did at Cedar-Siani

          You must be so proud that your charity dollars go towards covering up statutory rape and returning victims to their abusers.

          Good for you! I bet you want to legalize pedophilia too.

          http://www.krem.com/news/local/Police-issue–130313963.html

          http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-07-2989305045_x.htm

          http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/22/police-want-records-in-planned-parenthood-statutory-rape-case/

          • Basset_Hound

            Good for you! I bet you want to legalize pedophilia too.

            Jaz, sweetie…did you notice the article you posted from the UK Telegraph? There were three “related links”, and one of them threw out that very idea….

          • Sharon Diehl

            No, PJ, sweetie, I don’t feel betrayed. Contraception fails. I’m an adult, and I take the risks in life. This IUD I was using was the Dalkon Shield, and it had apparently been taken off the market because there were reports that 35 women had already hemorrhaged to death by trying to go to term. I’m not much a risk taker.

            Re: BS: My memories are being at the admitting desk and my husband signing papers, not me. It was a long time ago, sweets, but some events just imprint in one’s head.

            From talking with the college-age daughters of friends of mine, IUDs are more popular now than birth control pills because they’re cheaper, and they last for years.
            I’m proud, honey, because my charity dollars go to help low-income men and women afford contraception and get basic health care. Get hysterical all you want about accusing me of unfounded things, but no, I’m not into legalizing pedophilia. I’m into women having all civil rights to their own bodies. Simple as that.

            I really feel for the family of Marlise Munoz, who wanted to turn off life support according to her own end-of-life wishes, but the state of Texas is keeping her body going–because heck, women are just walking sacs of growing medium…or brain-dead sacs of growing medium.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “I really feel for the family of Marlise Munoz, who wanted to turn off life support according to her own end-of-life wishes, but the state of Texas is keeping her body going…”

            Uh-huh. So when this child is born, your birthday message will be, “It’s really too bad that the state didn’t let you die.” Perhaps you could pitch that idea to Hallmark for a new line of gift cards.

          • Basset_Hound

            Adam sweetie, do you remember the twins that were born last year under similar circumstances in Michigan? They struggled at first but they’re better now.

          • PJ4

            No, PJ, sweetie, I don’t feel betrayed. Contraception fails. I’m an adult, and I take the risks in life. This IUD I was using was the Dalkon Shield, and it had apparently been taken off the market because there were reports that 35 women had already hemorrhaged to death by trying to go to term. I’m not much a risk taker.

            Oh sweet sugar plum fairy Sharon I was being facetious. So sorry you missed that my dear.

            All the same, I’m sorry to hear that your spading didn’t go the way you intended. What was that you said about Republicans? They think women are like cattle? I guess it’s the same when Libthugs encourages women to spade themselves like a cat or a dog. If you weren’t a risk taker you would not have tried to get yourself spaded in such a way. Everything comes with risks.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against birth control, but I don’t depend on it like most women of you ilk.

            I’m much more creative in bed than that…and I happen to know my own body. Of course you don’t encourage that. I know.

            Re: BS: My memories are being at the admitting desk and my husband signing papers, not me. It was a long time ago, sweets, but some events just imprint in one’s head.

            Oh my love, if your that old, then it would have been at any hospital, not just a Catholic one. Silly girl…. that’s just how it was way back then.

            side note: HAH! I knew you were old and wrinlkey! I can tell by your rhetoric.

            From talking with the college-age daughters of friends of mine, IUDs are more popular now than birth control pills because they’re cheaper, and they last for years.

            Oh no, you! Spawned!! The world is not a better place because of this. You just ruined my day. :-(

            Ah well pro lifers are outbreeding you guys 10 to 1. We’ll be an abortion free nation before long. Hopefully Libthug free too. At least you’re kind is a dying breed… that is some consolation.. if very little.

            IUD are more popular because your life saving bc pills are a group 1 carcinogen, cause fish to mutate and as just recently increase a woman’s chances of getting glaucoma… but.. such are the risks one is willing to take to get laid… then… hey!

            btw…. IUDs are a big cause of ectopic pregnancy… bet you love that.

            I’m proud, honey, because my charity dollars go to help low-income men and women afford contraception and get basic health care.

            My charity money goes to CPC’s. I hope that irritates you. I’d have the satisfaction of knowing that you’re irritated and I’m helping to save lives.

            When was the last time your charity raised money for women to keep their child? Offered child care? Paid a bill for the poor family?

            I didn’t think so.. all they do is spade and neuter women and kill babies.

            Good on you.

            Get hysterical all you want about accusing me of unfounded things, but no, I’m not into legalizing pedophilia. I’m into women having all civil rights to their own bodies. Simple as that.

            You obviously didn’t read the links I provided. I’m not surprised.

            PP is guilty of covering up statuary rape and handing over children back to their adult abusers after their precious $400 has been collected. There is an on going investigation in OH and a few other states. Just google it as I’m quite tired of doing your homework for you.

            Pro lifers are into babies in utero having civil rights to their own bodies too… simple as that.

            I really feel for the family of Marlise Munoz, who wanted to turn off life support according to her own end-of-life wishes, but the state of Texas is keeping her body going–because heck, women are just walking sacs of growing medium…or brain-dead sacs of growing medium.

            Oh I’m so glad you brought this one up!

            To pro aborts/anti birthers such as yourself once the mind is gone (brain dead) then there is no person.

            SO now.. you people are willing to grant personhood to a brain dead woman just so the result is a dead baby.

            Her end of death wishes never accounted for “what if I’m carrying another life, then what should happen?”

            So now in essence, you feminazis are actually suggesting that a man (her husband) make the reproductive “choice” for a woman. *gaps* Really? Men can only step in when a woman is brian dead and only when it’s to kill the child, right? amirght?

            I recall you saying that men have no say in a pregnancy.

            Oh it fills me with glee to see pro aborts wrapped in their own conundrums. YES!

            She’s brian dead. There is no more person. Whats the harm in keeping a cadaver alive so that new life can live? You don’t want the woman’s legacy to live on? What if the that new life is a girl? That would make you crazy sexist.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/brain-dead-mom-gives-birth-to-twins-while-on-life-support/

            look! no lawyers needed. And the woman’s legacy will live on!

          • Basset_Hound

            PJ, the verb to describe the neutering of a female dog or cat is spay. The human equalivent is a complete hysterectomy. I asked the vet about that several years back.

          • PJ4

            Thank you dear!
            Will edit when I’m home

            Also doesn’t change the fact that bc neuters women like cats and dogs :-)

          • Sharon Diehl

            Spading? Yes, I do enjoy gardening very much.

          • PJ4

            Oh haha
            Good play on a typo
            I guess that makes you oh so clever!
            (Yes that was sarcasm)

          • Sharon Diehl

            1. Using birth control is not being “spayed”, dear. I have no idea what this sentence of yours was about.
            A woman’s self worth is not dependent on being virginal, or on being sexual.
            2. PJ, sweetie, women don’t have to behave like a man…(shudder)…I seem to have to keep repeating myself–women are entitled to their basic civil rights to their own bodies…just like men. In 2011 there weren’t over 1,100 pieces of legislation aimed at controlling men’s bodies….just women’s bodies. I happen to think that is totally absurd.
            Yep, I’m old and “wrinkly” (ahem….just a note on another one of those pesky little typos of yours….I know you’d like to know for future reference). I fought for women’s rights to their own bodies in the 1970’s. Now I find myself fighting for them again with the Grandmothers For Reproductive Rights…along with my own fabulous mom.
            I had to smile at your “out-breeding” statement; pro-choice people are parents, too, honey.

          • PJ4

            Using birth control is tantamount to being neutered. There’s so much you don’t understand. I’m not surprised you have no idea what I was talking about.

            Allow me to quote you.

            “-contraception allows women to live like men–with personal dignity, to enjoy sex for pleasure, and not to constantly worry about unintended pregnancies altering their lives.”

            And there you have it…unless a women lives “like a man” she has no personal dignity.

            Your words
            Not mine.

            “In 2011 there weren’t over 1,100 pieces of legislation aimed at controlling men’s bodies….just women’s bodies. I happen to think that is totally absurd.”

            Wrong again, but if I counted everything you were wrong on I’d have a small fortune by now.

            No.. over 1,100 pieces of legislation were aimed at freeing the unborn from the tyranny of the woman and pro aborts.

            Unborn babies have bodies too.

            Is is the woman’s body that leaves the abortion mill in several pieces in a biohazard bag?

            Is it the woman’s body that get’s thrown in the trash?

            No.

            We are protecting the bodily autonomy of the child. The child you and people of your ilk would love to see in the trash can.

            I fought for women’s rights to their own bodies in the 1970’s. Now I find myself fighting for them again with the Grandmothers For Reproductive Rights…along with my own fabulous mom.

            I knew you were an old bat.

            Could tell from your twaddle and medieval rhetoric.

            Again… why hide behind the facade of “reproductive rights”

            Call it what it is. You want the right to kill your own offspring. Why do you people always have to mask your true intentions? Is it because you actually know how heinous an act abortion is?

            Reproductive rights means you have the right to reproduce even if you’re a moron.

            There is nothing productive or reproductive about abortion. It ends a life.

            I had to smile your statement “pro choice people are parents too honey”

            We are still outbreeding you.
            We have more children than you people because we don’t believe in ending their lives even if they are unplanned.
            This new generation is a much more pro life generation.
            We will abolish abortion just like our ancestors abolished slavery.
            Too bad you won’t be around to see it sweet cheeks.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Pj, silly goose, it is absolutely ridiculous to say that using birth control is neutering. Birth control allows women to space out their pregnancies and plan their children, so that they’re not pregnant all the time. Honey, not every woman wants to pump out kid after kid after kid like Ms. Dugger, whom you must obviously admire.
            Since birth control became more widely available in 1960, the number of women in college has risen from 35% of all students to 57% of all students on campuses. Birth control has led to more educated women…not in your case obviously, dear, but for most women. Availability and use of birth control has also been shown to reduce abortions.
            A NBC NewsWall Street Journal poll shows that 70% of people in the U.S. support keeping abortion legal and that they do not want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Perhaps in saying that the “tide is turning” you are looking at different polls, such as ones that predicted Romney would win in the last national election.

          • PJ4

            Not every woman needs to be dependent on a group 1 carcinogen that pollutes the water and mutates fish to control her fertility Since the pill became more widespread guess what else is on the rise?
            http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/human/cancer/cancerincidence.htm Abortions have also increased since 1960

            Dear Silly old bat!
            You’re under the impression that women cannot go to college and have babies at the same time How sad for you
            My! How limiting you are on your fellow women
            Just goes to show how deep set your mysogyny really is

          • Sharon Diehl

            Misogyny is spelled with an “i”, sweetie.

            PJ, honey, maybe you’ve breezed through college taking care of kids and taking tests and keeping a husband happy, but I’ve seen it wear people down and marriages fail, especially at the graduate level. I trust you’re not suggesting that young women routinely do both at the same time, but just being your usual argumentative self.

          • PJ4

            Pardon me,
            I’m not the best speller after a few glasses of wine

            I trust you’re not suggesting that women are too weak to handle getting a graduate degree and balancing a family and children I didn’t even have a husband when I got my degrees but I had a son and support from my local CPC
            While it wasn’t easy, it can be done.
            It’s women like you though that would have tried to keep me down.

            Shocking (from the ignorance you’ve been displaying) that you have a doctorate in anything (save for victimhood) but I’ll take your word for it I guess they’re giving out phd’s the way they give out Noble Prizes nowadays (or even way back when you were in college).

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, silly goosie, how in the world would I or any other woman keep you down, or why would anyone even try? Education is so important; nothing should get in the way. Through graduate school, outnumbered by the guys, we ladies tended to form our own study groups because we knew how to support one another.

            Honey, just because you’re a fetus worshipper and fine with GOP politicians sticking their noses up your vagina, doesn’t mean that other women who object are “ignorant”. Take Texas a$$hat, Louie Gohmert, who works so hard to pass laws to force women to give birth to inviable fetuses rather than be able to abort. At a congressional hearing on an abortion bill to ban the prodedure after 20 weeks, he told a woman, who at 21 weeks had aborted an anencephalic fetus–(no brain function, honey)–that she should have given birth to “make sure”. You see, sweetie, or you don’t see, that there are those of us who wish to make our own medical decisions, and do not care for bible-humping politicians to take that right away from us.

            LIke Gohmert, Terry England, R GA, who I discussed elsewhere, is just another goofball who wants to force women to give birth to severely disabled or stillborn fetuses. England, as you recall, since you defended him so vociferously, was the idiot who compared women to farm animals.

          • PJ4

            Oh dear sweat (ding)Batty

            It’s women of your ilk that believe that we are too weak to both have a family and get our education.

            Well, if I’m a “Fetus worshipper” then you must be a death worshipper. Heh.. you see this is why I question your education and your intellect. Your inane and stereotypical name calling (I’m only returning the favor dear batty… one good turn deserves another)

            You’re not very good at debate and keep repeating the same thing over and over again regardless of how many of us have proved you wrong.

            Gohmert was right.

            How many times have doctors misdiagnosed or been wrong? Imagine if I killed my baby because she had a very high chance of being born with down syndrome like the geneticist said? Yikes! (not that I would just because of genetic disorder… I don’t believe in eugenics)

            And what do you have against anencephalic babies?

            A few of them have lived up to age 2.

            Who are you (or any woman or any doctor for that matter) to suggest that they are less worthy of life?

            You are a Libthug of the highest magnitude.

            Your motto is Might Makes Right.

            Even the Canadians are more respectful of little anencephalic babies!

            http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/anencephalic-newborns-as-organ-donors

            In case you “can’t open the link” here’s an excerpt

            “Use of anencephalic infant organs for transplantation gained widespread publicity in the late 1980s after the Loma Linda Medical Centre reported a successful newborn heart transplant using a Canadian anencephalic infant, ‘Baby Gabriel’, as the organ donor. In 1989, Loma Linda reported a study [6] of 12 anencephalic infants who were supported with intensive care measures for one week to facilitate declaration of brain death. Successful organ donation did not occur from any of the infants. The study authors concluded that anencephalic infants could not be used as organ donors without legal and medical changes to regulate brain death and organ donation. At the time of the writing of this statement, these changes have not occurred.

            Infants with anencephaly require the same respect for life given to other human beings.

            As with other newborns, the standard medical criteria and ethical principles for organ donation and transplantation must be applied to anencephalic infants when they are considered as potential donors. Organ donation may only be considered if the anencephalic infant has satisfied the criteria for brain death or somatic death as applied to other human beings. Physicians should ensure that the same ethical standards applied to other organ donors are used for infants with anencephaly.”

            Just because a child has not yet made it to “viability” does not mean that he/she is the property of the mother. We are not even apart of our mothers.

            You, sweet (ding)batty, don’t understand that once a child is in his/her mother’s womb he/she is not some “medical decision” but a human being just as deserving of life as you or I.

            How dare you impose your will on these babies!

            England apologized but keep dragging his name up since it’s about the only thing that justifies your gruesome position.

            Not sure why you can’t get it through the “educated” little head of your, but abortion has nothing to do with religion. It’s about the civil rights of the child.

            His or her right to life trumps everything else.

            No one has the right to unjustly or whimsically take someone else’s life.

            Even liberal Europe has recognized (not once but twice) that no one has the right to abortion.

            here’s the first time:

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/25/european-parliament-rejects-abortion-human-right/

            and the second time:
            http://regator.com/p/262668158/liberal_activists_angry_european_parliament_rejected_declaring_abortion/

            Just incase you “can’t open the link” google “Abortion is not a human right”

            Abortion is a barbaric medeaval practice. No one deserves to have their skulls crushed, disremembered and then vacuumed out of their mother’s womb.
            No one.

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, honey, we totally disagree. I think Gohmert and his ilk and supporters are flaming idiots. Yep, I repeat myself–you may be perfectly fine with giving away your rights to make medical decisions over your uterus, but I sure am not…nor or other pro-choice women.

            Re: “Just because a child has not yet made it to “viability” does not mean that he/she is the property of the mother.” Nope, we totally disagree. The woman has all medical rights to her body; if she doesn’t want to carry a severely disabled or stillborn fetus, it is up to her to be informed of all choices and decide what to do for herself…because a nonsentient fetus is not going to do the thinking for her.

            Re: “Just incase you “can’t open the link” google “Abortion is not a human right”: Um, sweetie, the United Nations disagrees. They issued a report stating that countries that restrict access to contraception and abortion are violating a woman’s human rights.

            Re: “How dare you impose your will on these babies!” My dear zygote zealot, yep, those of us who believe in bodily autonomy will impose our will on all cells, organs, and any other aspects of our sexual and reproductive health.
            See you at the voting booth, honey.

          • PJ4

            Yep, I repeat myself–you may be perfectly fine with giving away your rights to make medical decisions over your uterus, but I sure am not…nor or other pro-choice women.

            Oh silly (ding)batty

            Yes we disagree.

            You don’t understand human fetal development, but I do.

            We are a “bunch of cells” for less than two weeks.

            The woman has all medical rights to her body

            Right, to her body, not the body of the child.

            Glad you admit you’re an eugenicist though. Most of your ilk would never admit that..

            As to your twaddle about a still born baby…. well it’s just that… twaddle and no more.

            because a nonsentient fetus is not going to do the thinking for her.

            Nonsentient, you mean like Marlise Munoz?

            So now you’re bigoted against the non sentient.

            Might does not mean right batty honey.
            You’ll never be right about that.

            Um, sweetie, the United Nations disagrees. They issued a report stating that countries that restrict access to contraception and abortion are violating a woman’s human rights.

            Um, (ding)batty,

            1. Who cares about the UN, but

            2.” Pro-abortion forces have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours in the past twenty years and they have not advanced their agenda even a single syllable past what they got at the Cairo Conference in 1994.”

            http://www.lifenews.com/2014/01/02/abortion-losing-at-the-un-activists-fail-to-get-un-to-call-abortion-a-human-right/

            My dear zygote zealot, yep, those of us who believe in bodily autonomy will impose our will on all cells, organs, and any other aspects of our sexual and reproductive health.

            My dear ding(batty) death zealot

            Yep, those of us who know that the right to life is the ultimate right without which no other right can be granted will also impose our wills to save those who have no voice.
            Slavery would still be legal if it were up to people of your ilk.

            If you want the government out of your vagina then you’d oppose O Care…and forcing employers to pay for what goes in your vagina, but of course you’re a hypocrite… so…

            Yes, see you at the voting booth.

          • PJ4

            heh… right.. it’s complete torture not to be able to kill another human being. (yes I read the silly article)
            That’s the feeling you have towards me I guess.
            It’s torture that you can’t crush in my skull, dismember me and then have me placed in a biohazard bag because I’m going to stand in your way and stick up for those of us who have no voice.
            You’re sick

          • PJ4

            Not sure if this comment posted as I did it from my phone so I’m going to post it again.

            Apologies if you already got this:

            Not every woman needs to be dependent on a group 1 carcinogen that pollutes the water and mutates fish to control her fertility

            Since the pill became more widespread guess what else is on the rise?

            http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewScience/human/cancer/cancerincidence.htm
            Abortions have also increased since 1960

            Dear Silly old bat!

            You’re under the impression that women cannot go to college and have babies at the same time

            How sad for you

            My! How limiting you are on your fellow women

            Just goes to show how deep set your mysogyny really is

            Since birth control became more widely available in 1960, the number of women in college has risen from 35% of all students to 57% of all students on campuses. Birth control has led to more educated women…”

            Women would have gotten to the this point without the pill as well

            Oh and in your case even birth control couldn’t help you get a better education

            This poll says the tides are turning

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx

            And this

            http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3575551

            And this

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/americans-abortion-views-steady-amid-gosnell-trial.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

            Your poll is outdated and expired, just like you.

          • Part138

            Has anyone seen any evidence that the Duggar family has ever started a trend? I know I haven’t.

          • PJ4

            I’m sure you’re not going to view this.. but I”m posting it anyway. The tides are turning.

            I hope you watch till the end.. but I doubt it.

          • MarcusFenix

            “A woman’s self worth is not dependent on being virginal, or on being sexual.”

            Yet, you make negative comments regarding Andrew in that same regard. Is it because you hate me, because you are hypocritical, or because like always can’t keep your own narrative straight? Could there be another reason why you’re fine with such a course of action, when you’re the one calling the scenario, but for someone else you can use it as a punchline.

            Please, continue being ridiculous AND contradictory. It only serves to drive more nails into the coffin with which your left foot is already firmly placed.

          • DianaG2

            The Dalkon Shield has been illegal in this country for , ca 40 years, right?

            The government sent all the left-over devices to third world countries, so that poor women can use them.

          • MarcusFenix

            Something I just didn’t bother to point out before, because well…the rest of your stupidity was slightly distracting.

            You said this:

            “Re: BS: My memories are being at the admitting desk and my husband
            signing papers, not me. It was a long time ago, sweets, but some events
            just imprint in one’s head.”

            There’s only one really big problem with your recollection..but it’s ok, it happens to the best of us old folks.

            If you’re uterus is punctured/perforated, and you’re sitting in a massive amount of pain, or you’re bleeding and in massive amounts of distress, which would be normal……then they’re not going to have you doing paperwork.

            Your husband would have been the natural and logical candidate to do paperwork. He would have been the one consider “of sound mind” in the event, because of your condition. It stands to reason that, for both common sense AND liability reasons, that he would have done the paperwork while you were involved in the emergency. It’s not like they got you on a gurney, wheeled you to the ER, and would shove papers in your face.

            Your memories, as they are…seem to have the faulty projection component. There is a logical, non-civil rights reason as to why things played out the way they did.

            You could, of course, counter that they should have given the papers to you, but then you’d have to concede that what was going on with you is about 10 steps below what you considered as important or as an emergency, and was something along the lines of a chipped tooth. So, either the course of action taken was right, under guidelines and just plain common sense…..

            Or (actually, in context…i’ll say AND)…

            You’ve blown your own memory and its event massively out of proportion to tell a specific and misleading narrative. If the problem itself isn’t the culprit, then your recollection about your husband and his involvement is…and by your own statements regarding the issue, you would be wrong.

            Yet again.

        • DianaG2

          I also vote, even in tiny little, local elections, and my charity dollars go to pro-life organizations.

      • MamaBear

        Her foul mouth and confusion of women’s rights with abortion is an insult to all those 19th century and early 20th century ladies who worked so hard to get genuine women’s rights.
        My Baptist grandma, a proud member of the first generation of women to vote, would have washed her mouth out with homemade lye soap while preaching her double sermons on the evils of modern-day sacrificing your children to Baal (AKA abortion) and on how to speak and behave as a lady.

        • DianaG2

          Your grandma sounds like she was quite a gal, Mama!

          I wish I could have known her.

    • DianaG2

      Always obsessed with the lower chakras, like many pro-aborts.

    • DianaG2

      No interest in any part of you.

  • PJ4

    Alright ladies and gents, I’m back for just sec only to expose the low information voter known as Sharon Diehl

    Missed you guys! but I can’t stay…
    –Jasmine–

    • MarcusFenix

      You could at least stop by long enough to throw a few back, talk about the weather, ya know…the easy stuff. ;)

      • PJ4

        Point taken :-)

    • Basset_Hound

      Been a sad weekend at our house. Glad to see you back for a bit.

      • PJ4

        Oh no!! What happened??

        Good to be back

        I almost came back to do battle with that tool Bob Seidensticker

        He makes me want to embrace religion all over again.
        :-)
        But you Calvin, Mary Lee Mamabear and Andrew did really well and it’s like over 200 comments now :-)

        • Basset_Hound

          Ah yes. I had a feeling it was you who was Adam’s friend.

          We put the dog in my profile pic down. She was almost 15 and had been declining for the past year. I was the one who took her to the vet. I don’t see how women can have an abortion and say “yeah…no biggie”. I mentioned it on Bob Bottomfeeders thread but it was deep down.

          • PJ4

            oh no! sweet Basset, I’m so sorry!!!!
            That’s terrible.
            My condolences dear. I know that dogs can be apart of the family.

            Who can understand the mind of a pro abort really?

            Yes, Adam was talking about me :-)

          • Basset_Hound

            What was so heartbreaking was that there were pieces of her mind that were very much intact, even though she had been getting senile. The last two hours of her life were spent in absolute terror, and there was noting I could do to help her. She HATED the vet’s office so much, and even after the first round of anesthetic hit, she tried to leave.

          • PJ4

            oh poor thing!!! :-(
            So sorry dear!

          • Basset_Hound

            She’s in a better place. Hopefully underneath a pile of kids in Heaven who want to pet her.

          • DianaG2

            definitely

        • MarcusFenix

          see, I go away for a bit and miss all the fun :(

        • DianaG2

          Yeah, what a putz, huh?

          Sheesh!

      • PJ4
        • Basset_Hound

          Oh yeah, it’s very informative.

      • DianaG2

        Because of Greta? Or did something else happen?

        Either way, soo sorry, BH.

        • Basset_Hound

          Just Greta, thanks. Miss the dog. Don’t miss the poop in the house or the muddy feet.

    • Sharon Diehl

      Different interpretation of information, PJ sweetie, not low information. Different world views; different life experiences; different age levels, no doubt.

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        No, it’s low information. You haven’t used facts apart from personal assumptions and negative stereotypes.

        • Sharon Diehl

          Ah, Andy, sweetie, I have used “facts” as to why I’m one of those dang liberals who respects a woman’s rights to her own body. I can keep harping on it.

          I don’t care for old fogey male GOP politicians who support the rape culture in this country by “redefining” rape. Todd Akin, R MO, (if it’s a “legitimate rape”, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”) and Paul Ryan (rape is just “another method of conception”) joined forces to try and block Medicaid funds to pay for a low-income woman’s abortion from a rape–it had to be proven as a “forcible rape”. Sweetie, these males may think that there is an “unforcible rape” that exists, but never one that I’ve heard of.

          I’ve already stated my disgust at the House Republican HR 358 bill, the “Let Women Die Act”, that would have let religious hospitals deny a life-saving abortion procedure for a woman, or even transport to a facility that would provide that life-saving abortion to the woman. Now, honey, this is up-front, in-your-face blatant misogyny. Why in the world would I support a political party that thinks so little of a woman’s life?

          I’ve also listed state bills that make miscarriage a crime–which PJ defended in one her long harrangues. Like Utah, Georgia Rethugs are also trying to make women who miscarry into felons, demanding that the burden of proof is on the woman of “no human involvement whatsoever in the causation” of their miscarriage…or be prosecuted under the death penalty (Franklin bill HB1….Franklin died soon after introducing this bill…God must have ‘called him home’ for his stupidity).

          Republicans in Indiana put forth House Bill 1210, to force doctors to lie to women, such as that abortion causes breast cancer. No, it does not.
          Do you really want me to keep listing and describing the over 1,100 bills that have been written in the past few years aimed at women’s reproductive parts? There are no jobs bills…just South Dakota House Bill 1217 that requires “spiritual” counseling for women who seek abortions. There is Louisiana House Bill 587 to criminalize abortion as “feticide”, making no exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the woman. Iowa House File 2298 is an attempt to also criminalize all abortions, with no excpetions for rape or life of the mother, and women who miscarry should face criminal investigation. Etc. Etc. Etc.
          I find the Republican party insulting towards women, and totally obsessed with demeaning them, and taking away their right to medical privacy and medical decisions. This is important to me…I’m a woman…this is important to the other women in my family.

          • PJ4

            And we’ve already proved that you’re wrong about everything you thought was right.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: the rape paragraphs: Honey, if a crazy woman is walking down the street naked, it is not an invitation to rape. If a woman is drunk and sleeping it off on a bed, that is not an invitation to rape.
            Is the person who wrote that drivel saying that men can’t control themselves and will rape whatever is available in front of them? I don’t think so, sweetie. Most men have more decency and control than that.

          • PJ4

            Sweetie.. I never said that… nor does the chick writing the article.
            The “rape culture” is a fiction made up by feminazis for whatever reason

          • DianaG2

            Of course.

            What does that have to do with abortion?

          • DianaG2

            if a crazy woman is walking down the street naked, it is not an invitation to rape.~~~~

            Perhaps, but it may be an invitation to an involuntary outpatient commitment hearing.

          • PJ4

            You lost me at “rape culture”

            another Lib thug myth.

            There is no rape culture… it’s something feminazis made up.

            For example rape is rape… except when it’s not.

            http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/2013/10/15/alleged-rape-recorded-on-instagram-twitter/

            here’s something that might make your head explode as it’s full of logic and reason.

            Just take a deep breath and read:

            http://totalsororitymove.com/stop-crying-rape

            here’s an excerpt just in case you’re too lazy

            “We’ve created a culture where it is completely acceptable for girls to get drunk, make bad decisions, and then take it all back. There is no ownership, no responsibility, no acceptance of one’s own mistakes.
            This culture that we now live in, this societal acceptance of regret and unaccountability — it’s wrong. We’re creating a mockery of the real victims of sexual assault, the ones who are violently attacked. The ones who didn’t willingly take the shot, drink the drink, and climb into bed. We’re discouraging them from stepping forward. We’re preventing police officers from taking them seriously and district attorneys from pressing charges. We’re creating a world where all females are victims and all men are attackers — and that is simply not the case. Perhaps there is a gray area. Maybe something does, in fact, exist between the spectrum of rape and a consensual one-night-stand. But that doesn’t mean that every drunken hookup is the result of a violent attack. That doesn’t mean that women can go into a situation knowing good and well what will happen, and then take it back when the sun comes up. It simply doesn’t work like that. Something has got to give.”

            I find the DemoRat party insulting towards minorities and women.

            They demean them and use them as tools. Lib thugs are totally obsessed with making women into sexual objects and killing babies.

            Libs thugs are obsessed with making other people pay for and perform said killings against their own will.

            If anyone dare go against a lib thug they are immediately labeled raaaaacist or sexist and can be fired from their job.

            You are the perfect example of the misinformed Libthug DemoRAT

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, sweetie, perhaps it’s because I’m an “old bat” and have an old computer, but most of your links do not open. I’ve tried to post links, and none of them open. Please give me a one sentence summary….or a long ramble…whatever.
            Here is what I read:

            From a May, 2013 Jezebel article: “…in 1997, scientists sighed, put on their science hats, analyzed data of 1.5 million women in Denmark and found no link between pregnancy termination and breast cancer. Nonetheless, the myth persisted, and in 2002, after a public bicker battle, the National Cancer Institute convened a group that involved “geneticists, epidemiologists, oncologists, and other experts” to determine thrice and for all, if abortion and breast cancer were linked. Once again, no link.”

            From a National Cancer Institute factsheet:
            “These newer studies examined large numbers of women, collected data before breast cancer was found, and gathered medical history information from medical records rather than simply from self-reports, thereby generating more reliable findings. The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.”

            Are your articles from 2013? Post a sentence that can be googled. I just looked up ncregister.com—a RELIGIOUS site?!…National Catholic Register…like I’m going to believe anything from a biased bible-humping site! I’ll stick with info from the National Cancer Institute, honey.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Because evolution forbid that America should have an amendment that states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And Mother Nature save us if they should be right about some things! GYAAAAAAARGH!

          • PJ4

            Probably both.The first link was a meta analysis published in a medical journal called

            A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females

            “Conclusion

            IA is significantly associated with an increased risk of breast cancer among Chinese females, and the risk of breast cancer increases as the number of IA increases. If IA were to be confirmed as a risk factor for breast cancer, high rates of IA in China may contribute to increasing breast cancer rates”.

            The second link was a published Indian study with the same results

            “like I’m going to believe anything from a biased bible-humping site! I’ll stick with info from the National Cancer Institute, honey.”

            Like I’m going to believe anything from a biased abortion humping site like Jezebel!
            I’ll stick to the latest published studies that the cancer institute hasn’t caught up to yet.

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, honey, I only have a doctorate in geochemistry, not medical biology, but I’ve written and reviewed papers for peer-reviewed journals, and believe me, crap does get published.

            I went to read this article, and I just grimaced. It is not a report on original research data. From what I understand, it is a statistical study on data culled from questionaires and interviews with women. I will need to search for input on this article, and I’m headed to bed right now. There is a rebuttal at RH Reality Check titled “How Deeply Flawed Studies on Abortion and Breast Cancer Become Anti-Choice Fodder”.

            http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/01/09/how-deeply-flawed-studies-on-abortion-and-breast-cancer-become-anti-choice-fodder/

          • PJ4

            I went to read this article, and I just grimaced.

            Yes, that happens when one’s beliefs are challenged.

            I also cited 2 other studies.

            There is a rebuttal at RH Reality Check titled “How Deeply Flawed Studies on Abortion and Breast Cancer Become Anti-Choice Fodder”.

            lol!

            Like I’m going to believe anything from a biased abortion humping left wing nut job site like RH

            Very funny! That’s like you taking anything from a conservative site seriously. Too funny!
            Thanks for the joke. I needed a laugh this morning.
            Oh btw… I bet I could find an article on the internet titled “How Deeply Flawed Studies on Abortion and Mental and Physical Health Become Pro Abort Fodder”

          • Sharon Diehl

            I read in the comments section on the article that other scientists questioned the ‘questionnaires only study’ because of a lack of cohorts and controls.
            Sweetie, you may willing to dismiss the American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, World Health Organization, and the United States National Cancer Institute, who uniformly from their own studies concluded that there is no causative link between abortion and breast cancer, but I trust the independent research outcome of these institutions.

          • PJ4

            These studies are brand new.
            One out of India where aborting is good and wholesome and out of China where abortion is mandatory.
            Doesn’t seem like they have a pro life agenda.
            You have to have the courage to face your fears dear (ding)batty. You might be wrong.
            How long was the APA (and the rest of the medical community)wrong about gay people? Years and years.

          • PJ4

            I only have a doctorate in geochemistry, not medical biology

            Clearly then, you’re out of your league here.

            We’re not talking about quartz.

            This is Embryology 101, a subject on which you obviously have no grasp.

            Allow me to quote some embryology text

            Just so we’re clear, you can put away your histrionics on this because these are standard texts at any university and not religious books.

            “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.”

            “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

            Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

            “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.”

            T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

            “Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a ‘moment’) is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte.”

            Ronan O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

            No religious zealots here!

            Just specialists in their field.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if most of these doctors are not of the religious persuasion

            http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

            From “The Facts of Life” (Norcross, GA: Human Development Resource Council), 2:

            “[At 9 weeks the baby has] already perfected a somersault, backflip, and scissor kick.”

            Look at the humanity of the twins in utero at just 14 weeks.

            http://phys.org/news/206164323-twin-fetuses-social-womb.html

            It’s devastating to be the survivor of pair.

            Look what your sacrament of abortion did to this woman. It killed her twin.

            http://www.claireculwell.com

            She’s not the only one.

            Here are survivors of a most barbaric practice

            http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com

            or google abortion survivors

            Abortion has devastating effects.

          • MarcusFenix

            “There is a rebuttal at RH Reality Check titled “How Deeply Flawed
            Studies on Abortion and Breast Cancer Become Anti-Choice Fodder”.

            “.like I’m going to believe anything from a biased b̶i̶b̶l̶e̶-̶h̶u̶m̶p̶i̶n̶g̶ liberally slated hitpiece site!

            FIFY.

            Something I would point out, when using the stats about China, that you may have not bothered to consider. While the information warrants critical review and should be explored at depth, and the reporting should be closely scrutinized…..

            the fact that you’re dealing with a country that has approximately 600 million women didn’t escape your logical gaze, did it, oh sweet scrumpet of mine?

          • MarcusFenix

            See, this is what I mean.

            “From a May, 2013 Jezebel article:”

            You then go on to say this:

            “Are your articles from 2013? Post a sentence that can be googled. I just looked up ncregister.com—a RELIGIOUS site?!…National Catholic Register.”

            So, she should accept -your- biased article, but you shouldn’t bother with hers? I mean, you could be more one sided honey angel, but it would take some effort.

          • Basset_Hound

            PJ, I’m going to copy the Sorority link to my resource list. It’s an excellent article. I’m sure this woman is going to get skewered in her comment section. I KNOW she would be called all kinds of vile names if she should post this on mommysh*t.

          • PJ4

            Yes please!
            Oh… guess what dingbat claims she has a doctorate in geochem.
            From her idiotic stereotypical rhetoric no one would have guessed.
            She just sounds like a drone who only reads Jezebel, RH, and Mother Jones. You know… stuff that agrees with her and is in her little comfort zone.

          • Basset_Hound

            “Oh… guess what? Dingbat claims she has a doctorate in geochem. From her idiotic stereotypical rhetoric no one would have guessed. ”

            Have you noticed how often this seems to come up?

            The rape article was interesting. It seems that feminoids want the right to lob this nuclear bomb into a man’s life whenever they see fit, but don’t want a man who may be wrongfully accused to have any recourse to reclaim his life or reputation.

          • Sharon Diehl

            How often does what comes up, sweeties? That pro-choice people are largely well educated? Yep, all the chemists, geophysicists, and other geologists I work with are all pro-choice….and most have children.

          • PJ4

            Well since we’re basing this on the amount of people you personally know:
            All the embryologists, marine biologists, physicists (2 in my own family, what can I say, we’re Asian) nurses (5 in my own family) and doctors I know are pro life Does that make it even?

            You see, not all of us who make it through college are as brain washed and indoctrinated as you and your narrow band of science pals

          • Sharon Diehl

            At work, I shared your comment that made me laugh the other day–about “we’re outbreeding you!” People hooted, and one lady quipped that we better run home and tell our husbands to “get busy!” So, ahah! Your plot has been revealed! And the pro-choice contingent are ready to jump into bed and meet it!

            As an aside, The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is finally, more loudly, speaking out against all the Republican efforts to pass ‘personhood amendments’ and curtail women’s health care, and they include accesss to abortion as part of that necessary health care, as well as unfettered access to contraception.

          • PJ4

            Likewise, the people I’ve told about you just shook their heads at your absolute ignorance of fetal development.
            One wanted to know if you had your doctorate in Assclownary.

            I wasn’t aware that they allow octogenarians to still work. Thought you were retired.

            As an aside, the ACOG has an abortion agenda. They can try to stifle the civil rights of the unborn all they want. I believe Gosnell was a member of the ACOG, so you’re definitely in good company my dear.

            The AAPLOG American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (albeit a smaller group) quite disagrees with such barbaric practices.

            Unfettered access to contraception yes (as long as no one else has to pay for it of course).
            Abortion, no.
            No one has the right to take another person’s life of for convenience.
            Don’t know what you don’t understand about that.
            It’s not rocket science.

          • Basset_Hound

            I read somewhere that she took over Professor McGonagall’s position as Headmistress at Hogwarts.

          • PJ4

            bwahahahahahaha

            Basset, can I tell you how much I love you???

          • Basset_Hound

            Sure…I don’t mind.

            DER FEEWING IS MUTUAL

          • DianaG2

            same here

          • Sharon Diehl

            It pays very well, too.

          • DianaG2

            Huh? don’t get it.

          • Sharon Diehl

            I assume I’m the replacement as headmistress at Hogwarts.

          • DianaG2

            Ok, thanks :-)

          • Sharon Diehl

            My dear sweet old mum is the octogenarian, honey, who is living to vote another Democrat into the White House. I did just retire, dear; now I have more time to escort at Planned Parenthood. But, I am an Emeritus, once a scientist, always a scientist.
            An Assclownary is what they hand out to creationists, sweetie.
            Re: convenience: PJ, my dear, you have no knowledge of another woman’s circumstances, or why she requires, or wants an abortion. It is the height of arrogance to presume to know the lives of other people and that you can tell them what is morally right based on your ideologies.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            There is nothing new under the sun, not even what I just said. Circumstances, there are only three that are considered excuses for abortion: sexual crime, inconvenience, and medical emergency. Inconvenience is dumb. Killing an unborn child because he or she’s inconvenient is the real height of arrogance. Sexual crime, it’s a horrible thing to happen but should the offspring get killed for the crime(s) of his or her father? Medical emergency, only if there’s no other choice.

            Making fun of those who disagree with you again? I don’t think the Creationist is the one being an a**clown right now.

            Moral relativism? There’s no evidence to suggest that it’s real. Everyone who accepts it acts like it’s absolute, which contradicts the whole idea. It is impractical–does moral relativism tell us to punish murderers or release them? Moral relativism is no more than an excuse to do what is wrong. What’s right is right all the time, save in an emergency in which there are no options other than someone getting killed, and what’s wrong is wrong, about as frequently and with the same exceptions.

            You keep pretending to respect others’ beliefs/ideologies, even when their ideologies induce them to do what is wrong, so what do you think about those whose ideologies induce them to harm others? If relativism is true then you should stop making fun of religious people who shove religion down others’ throats and start tolerating it.

          • DianaG2

            No, it is the height or arrogance to kill a little unborn guy or gal because she or he is inconvenient.

          • PJ4

            It is the height of arrogance to presume to know the lives of other people and that you can tell them what is morally right based on your ideologies.

            It is the height of arrogance to presume to know the lives of other pedophiles and rapists and that you can tell them what is morally right based your ideologies.

            Your words
            Not mine.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “pedophiles, serial killers and rapists”….no, dear, these words are all yours.

          • PJ4

            Again, you missed the point.

            Your words your logic (or lack thereof)

            Deal

          • MarcusFenix

            “My dear sweet old mum is the octogenarian, honey, who is living to vote another Democrat into the White House.”

            So, blindly voting by party lines is some wonderful virtue? I mean, if you’re going to admit your bias comes directly from your mom, I suppose that’s fine.

            “An Assclownary is what they hand out to creationists, sweetie. ”

            Actually, we hand that degree out to whomever happens to not know what they’re talking about and talk out of their ass. Kind of like you. You certainly qualify for Emeritus in this case.

            “Re: convenience: PJ, my dear, you have no knowledge of another woman’s
            circumstances, or why she requires, or wants an abortion. ”

            Sadly….and not like you’d notice because it would involve facts and data….but we actually do know.

            74% state directly that they obtain one because don’t want to upset their schedules or personal lives. How would we know that, unless the woman who sought/is seeking the abortion told us? Those are stats from pro-abortion supporters such as Guttmacher. Unless they’re wrong and screwing up their own numbers, then you’re kind of forced to deal with the stats at that point…something you fail to do regularly.

            Over 70% also state they don’t want to deal with a child due to costs. More stats that contradict your asinine idea that “we don’t know their circumstance”.

            So, now that we’ve started clearing up that large intellectual misstep of yours, lets focus on what’s really going on, outside of your narrow world view. If you believe your own sides’ numbers there…are you not forced to conclude that greed, selfishness, and a lack of empathy for a life that was created by the very mother looking to snuff it out is at play? If not, then please detail *why* those are wrong and what really is at work. I know you’re busy, but with all of your stunning revelations and background knowledge of this subject, that should be an easy task.

            “It is the height of arrogance to presume to know the lives of other
            people and that you can tell them what is morally right based on your
            ideologies.”

            So, people who find something morally objectionable, and backed with science and philosophy of all types to substantiate the view, should stand back and allow you to do whatever you want….because you just want them to? The height of ignorance, as you’re so intimately familiar, is the level of apathy, misinformation, lies, distortions, and personal attacks you have to level at people to arrive at your conclusion.

            Because the sword cuts both ways, honey cakes…you likewise don’t have the right to impose your lack of morality and sensibility on others without their ability to respond. You have no right, as it were, to inflict a lack of decent human standards on someone else, and then bitch and complain when they argue back. For example, I could point you to the 1989 paper of Marquis, which rejects abortion as entirely immoral. Do you have a response to that? Are you even aware of such an argument? Likely not, since you’d have no real response in the morality department.

            You, Sharon, on this subject, are morally bankrupt. We won’t even go into the contradictions you’ve spewed out, or your projections and fallacies regarding the stances of people who disagree with you. Your lack of moral substance on anything mentioned here so far is what drives your asinine and misanthropic arguments.

            Again, as i’ve said repeatedly…you are more than welcome to back up anything you say with facts. You actively choose not to. That choice is up to you.

            Conversely, you presume your sentiments over lives that cannot argue for themselves and have no way of defending their position. Would not the height of arrogance be to presume what is right for their lives, because of your own morally bankrupt philosophy? You agreed above that there is “life”….so please explain what right you believe exists whereby it is morally and directly alright to kill those who are innocent?

            You don’t have an answer to those. You never did, and never will. Please, keep spewing the same crap over and over, as some dogmatic monologue to cling to a position you can never defend, with a practice you can’t argue your way past as anything *other* than immoral.

            You’re done.

          • Sharon Diehl

            My dear Medeval character Fenix, a woman can have whatever reason she wants to to have an abortion; it’s her body. You may call it “convenience”, but if a woman says she can’t afford a pregnancy at this time, she and/or her partner can’t afford it. A woman’s ‘reasons’ do not matter to busybodies; if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant. I’ve presented many ‘facts’ here, honey. Some folks just don’t like them. I’ve already stated that WHO data estimates that over 50 million women PER YEAR GLOBALLY obtain abortions. That’s quite a tidal wave of women who will decide for themselves what they need or want in this life.

          • MarcusFenix

            “My dear Medeval character Fenix”

            Isn’t a bit early to be hitting the bottle? The character you’re referencing has no connections to a medieval time period, whatsoever Even a cursory Google search would have revealed that much. See, this is what i was talking about earlier, with regards to failure. But, let’s not dwell on the obvious.

            ” a woman can have whatever reason she wants to to have an abortion; it’s her body.”

            So, you don’t deny that it’s selfish and shows a complete lack of empathy for human life? Also, it’s not just “her body” and her life anymore, but…those are just inconvenient caveats for you, right? I mean, you pulled some verbal prestidigitation before, but didn’t really substantiate it with an argument, and said “oh, well, they can because…they can!” Since you’re sharing this with your colleagues, the least they could do is help you to get it all correct first. You bypassed the autonomy/more than 1 body argument with “because!”, and really nothing more.

            You, of course, have already read what I gave you for homework last time…Marquis’ paper on the immoral nature of abortion, right? So, what are you using to refute that? Nothing, like usual. Let’s not have facts, or logic, get in the way of your error-based narratives.

            If you want, I can link that for you, again.

            I can link Calvin’s logical rebuttal to your autonomy argument, as well as several others, if you want a refresher.

            “but if a woman says she can’t afford a pregnancy at this time, she and/or her partner can’t afford it.”

            So, you’re pullling the “they’re really poor” card. Let’s see here. Let’s play “Name Sharon’s Fallacious Argument!” Can you guess which of these your argument is based on? Is it…

            A.) An Appeal to Poverty fallacy
            B.) An Appeal to Consequences fallacy
            C.) An Appeal to Pity fallacy
            D.) An Appeal to Emotion fallacy

            I’ll let you pick one of those. Feel free to actually post a rebuttal that somehow removes any of those from play. There’s a few more, but…isn’t 4 fallacies for the same argument enough?

            ” A woman’s ‘reasons’ do not matter to busybodies; ”

            What does that really mean? Her reasons don’t matter to anyone else, or..just to people who disagree? And what magic wand do you wave to make them suddenly “not matter”. I would think that this requires some explanation, but like usual, you swoop in, drop a non sequitur, and then run out.

            ” if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

            Let’s play a word game for a moment. You, and your friends, tell people “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one.” Now, I’m going to let the pendulum swing back the other way. If you don’t want to get pregnant, don’t do things that get you pregnant.

            Now, please bring your usual mewling about how nasty, misogynistic, and backward thinking that might be…I’ll be happy to point out that i’m literally using your own argument so…imagine how that all plays out in the end. If the “don’t get pregnant” statement there is repulsive and vile…imagine how it sounds the other way around. You can’t just have your argument all roses and sunshine, while the other half is horrible. They both use the same pattern of logic, which is to say none at all. Own it.

            “I’ve presented many ‘facts’ here, honey. Some folks just don’t like them. I’ve already stated that WHO data
            estimates that over 50 million women PER YEAR GLOBALLY obtain abortions.
            That’s quite a tidal wave of women who will decide for themselves what
            they need or want in this life.”

            50 million people, banked against 7 billion others…is a drop in the bucket statistically, not a tidal wave. That doesn’t change the moral or social aspects of the issue, but it’s not like there were 1.2 Billion abortions last year.

            Let’s be honest. 50 million out of 7 billion is a whopping 0.714 percent. If you want to be precise and remove men, so as to include only those who are female and can (now or in the future) have an abortion, then your “tidal wave” goes to an astronomical 1.4 percent or so. But…there’s another problem with your statistic, which you likely overlooked because it doesn’t suit your flawed narrative.

            You think that quoting a specific stastitic from WHO is some panacea to the massive distortions and logical missteps your “arguments” create, but… how about those abortions, which in cases are forced, from China…remember, there’s 600 million women there, where the practice of forced abortion is incredibly well documented. That’s almost double of the entire population in the United States, in just females there alone. Those forced abortions are counted in your stats…and they’re also not a “choice” made by the woman. See, you quote stats, but have no actual context for them. You don’t have a clear grasp of the thing you’re debating, but prefer to flounder about as if you’ve got the upper hand.

            For all of your statistics quoting and “facts”…you’ve yet to rebut a *single* thing I’ve said with any logical argument. Nothing. Not one. Ever. You come back with “oh, we’ve got bodily autonomy”. and then place some idiot mocking laugh that’s used by 12 year olds, as a reply. The bodily autonomy argument has already been busted, but keep using it. Please. You’ve come at this from every angle except one that requires proof and fact. You’ve used emotional baiting and pleading that doesn’t actually win an argument to justify your case. It hasn’t worked, it won’t work if you keep doing it over and over, and you’ll end up in the same position because of it.

            You argue about a meme regardling life..the very same meme you use right before, in order to prove your “arguments”. Is your argument, in total, that it’s ok to destroy life for whatever reason? A woman who is poor, to use your example, is justified in killing her kid? Take that case in Texas, about the mother strangling her week old child. To you, that should be morally and socially acceptable. I mean, its purported that she’s poor, so its ok, right?

            I’m of the mind that you are calling out for help. You’ve been so stuck on Bitter for so long (starting with your busted narrative about religion and your husband, as shown elsewhere on the page), that you’re addicted to the stupid. You’ve clung to views that you can’t articulate properly, can’t argue in a valid way, can’t help but contradict almost immediately, and that don’t really hold up to any level of scrutiny…because really, you just don’t know any other way. You’re calling out for help, hoping someone, somewhere, can smash the bubble of blinding idiocy in which you find yourself, so you can be free to see the world apart from the Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome you’ve had for so long. You don’t want to be known as the “crazy dog lady who hates kids” at the end of the block anymore. You want to be told you’re wrong…hell, you NEED it, because there’s so few other ways to explain your drive here. You keep coming back, time and time again, only to have your arguments rejected for so many reasons. It’s as if you like it. I don’t have a problem with telling you that you’re wrong, and I can prove it all day, as I’ve been doing. I know i’m fun to talk to, but certainly there’s a limit, right?

            *starts soft, instrumental piano music*

            But, Sharon. There’s hope. Hope for a brighter tomorrow…and lets face it, everything will be brighter when you pull your head from between your butt cheeks. I promise. Just, lay down the crazy arguments for a minute, and consider anything you’ve said with an eye towards *proving* your own argument, rather than *feeling* it (or projecting it, as is the case). Try looking at the arguments your opposition has given you, with their logical content and robust eye for being scrutinized. There is help, Sharon, and it’s just one single posting away. Be free of stupid. It doesn’t have to control you. Not anymore.

            *piano music fades out*

            Will you at least try that for me, my plum-flavored strumpet? Can you actually use logical reasoning and facts that support claims, and not use busted arguments and silly drivel to drive your answers? I know you can….it just might take time. We have time, Sharon. It’s not too late to set aside failure, and embrace something new. Please, don’t disappoint me.

            Or do. I can keep this up indefinitely, in either case. If you want to debate something that relies on facts and actual arguments, then like any good Obama supporter knows, SI SE PUEDE! I’ll wait for that. In fact, go grab all your coworkers too. I’ll discuss this with all of them and you, versus just me. Certainly, a handful of Ph.D’s and scientists can tackle just one regular guy on the internet and win, right?

            I’ll wait. I’ll even set aside the ad hominems and snark, and come at this fresh. I don’t mind giving you a few days to think about that, since i know you’re astonishingly busy.

          • PJ4

            Bwahaahahaha

            Love it!

            She does sound like a damsel in distress just waiting to be rescued

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Dangit, Marcus Fenix, stop making rebuttals that make me think I’m watching a football game! Hey, Disqus people, can you make it to where I can upvote this comment more than once?

          • MarcusFenix

            Sorry, I’ll try to interject more feelings and unsubstantiated claims into things, if it’ll make it more enjoyable.

            (Aside….I look at this conversation with Sharon as more like the Tyson/Spinks fight. And no, i wont bite her ear.)

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            It’s enjoyable now! Especially Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome. LOL

          • Basset_Hound

            Do the same tactic the trolls do. Create multiple Discus accounts and become a sock puppet.

          • MarcusFenix

            If they can’t answer one of me, the level of whining with more than that would be astronomical. Though funny. :)

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “Isn’t a bit early to be hitting the bottle?”

            I don’t think inebriation explains it–I wrote my last three articles while completely wasted on oxycodone following a back injury but I didn’t show the same predilection for logical fallacies.

            I think it more comes down two things: 1) a willingness to take innocent life, and 2) a need to justify said willingness.

          • MarcusFenix

            I can follow…sometimes, with my pain management issues, I’ve had to write things while not completely 100%. Mostly, I was guilty of repetition in writing and some bad typo issues. :)

            You’re right though. Sharon herself says life is life, and clearly doesn’t need a reason if one wishes to snuff that life out for convenience sake.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            It’s true that she doesn’t seem to need a reason to justify it to herself, but she appears astute enough to recognize that most people find the idea of convenience-killings to be at least distasteful. This explains her need to repeat pro-abortion boilerplate like, “A woman’s ‘reasons’ do not matter to busybodies; if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant.”

            She (and others like her) understand that it’s important to normalize this mindset because the ethic behind it is anything but normal.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “normal”. I’d say that since 50 million women per year worldwide choose abortion, I’d say that yep, it’s a pretty normal mindset.

          • PJ4

            Female child slavery is about 3 million a year, just in India…
            http://abcnews.go.com/International/daughters-sale-indias-child-slavery-scourge/story?id=20540368&page=5

            just in case google:

            “Daughters for Sale: India’s Child Slavery Scourge”

            There are an estimated 27 million adults and 13 million children around the world who are victims of human trafficking. So, I’d say that yep, it’s a pretty normal mindset.

            http://facts.randomhistory.com/human-trafficking-facts.html

            goggle 55 Little Known Facts About Human Trafficking

          • MarcusFenix

            Actually, remember our 2.68% stat (which, if you account for forced abortion in places like China, would chip that even farther down).

            Something happening 2% of the time or less isn’t anywhere considered normal. It would be pushing well into the “uncommon” range. In any setting, 2% is considered a rather large minority. It wouldn’t be “normal”…it would be closer to an anomaly than normalcy.

            Emeritus, indeed.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Fenix, dear, the medieval referred to your time-period of thought.

            Honey, I know you think that the instant sperm fertilizes an egg that POOF!, there is a fully formed and functioning human being, ready to be born….but no; it’s not. You are free to conduct your own reproductive life as your conscience, or mythological religious beliefs, dictate. You have no right to force all women to follow your own narrow path.

            Now, just how have the abortions of those estimated 50 million women per year affected your life personally? How did any of these women’s abortions alter your life at the personal level? If they haven’t, I suggest that you grasp the fact that abortion is a personal matter between a woman and her partner. You call the woman “selfish”? Honey, women are pragmatic; we will base our decisions on our experience, wants, and needs. Get over yourself…you, too, Adam.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Fenix, dear, the medieval referred to your time-period of thought.”

            But that’s not how it’s phrased. I would think someone in academia would be able to clearly articulate the difference. Of course, you could be walking the comment back, which would be par for the course, but past this…if you believe the argument is of that nature, then you’ve failed to understand it (along with not being able to refute it with logical reasoning, which further underscores an issue on your part).

            “Honey, I know you think that the instant sperm fertilizes an egg that POOF!, there is a fully formed and functioning human being, ready to be born….but no; it’s not.”

            You’re right. It’s not. It’s the beginning stages of human life, just as every one of us here experienced. Here, you are either willfully miscatagorizing an argument to knock it down, which is straw-manning, plain and simple..or, you’re simply ascribing to me some line of thinking that clearly I don’t have because it makes your argument easier. Had you comprehended anything we’ve talked about, you’d already know this line of thinking you are trying to saddle me with is not only incorrect, but not what I’m arguing. You, once again, fail to make an argument…at this point, you’re not even making an argument with me…you’re using mass generalizations and projection, when it’s easily demonstrated that what you’re asserting isn’t the case. Nice try, but no.

            “You are free to conduct your own reproductive life as your conscience, or mythological religious beliefs, dictate.”

            Not that I needed your permission, but….since you’ve touched on it, what ARE those beliefs? We’ve not discussed them, I’ve never talked to you about them, and they aren’t part of the conversation. Please, tell me more about myself. I’m dying to know.

            Another bad non sequitur from you.

            “Now, just how have the abortions of those estimated 50 million women per year affected your life personally?”

            If you want to know…I was with a woman that aborted a child we conceived. So yes, the issue does carry at least some personal weight with me. I can certainly describe how it feels from this end of the spectrum, and how her uncaring attitude about it created a rift between us that never was fixed. That, however, is anecdotal, but to answer, yes. It did, in fact, have a personal effect on me in that case. It didn’t, as in your case, *create* my viewpoint. I was already pro-life at the time. It didn’t necessarily reinforce my belief that abortion is wrong. I came to that conclusion via logical processes. Past that, you’re

            Notice that you injected something wrong….how it affects me “personally”. You’re simply throwing out a red herring to solicit a specific answer. You would already know that 50 million abortions don’t affect me “personally”…as in that they’re all somehow biologically mine. In total, it’s just another attempt at creating an argument from thin air, based on another one, and then dismissing it. It doesn’t work, yet again. I don’t have to personally have been involved in a case where 50 million women had an abortion to have an idea about it, formulate an opinion, or have empathy for those involved. Your argument, again, is a failure.

            “If they haven’t, I suggest that you grasp the fact that abortion is a personal matter between a woman and her partner.”

            So now that i’ve established that I can relate to that, does it somehow negate the rest of your argument? Curious if that’s the case. It wouldn’t negate my ability to rationally decide the issues involved otherwise, but I wonder if you believe my personal experience suddenly trumps your argument.

            “You call the woman “selfish”? Honey, women are pragmatic; we will base our decisions on our experience, wants, and needs.”

            Perhaps there was a miscommunication at school one day.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfish

            Notice that it says this: chiefly concerned interest, advantage, etc, especially to the total exclusion of the interests of others.

            Yes, I call her selfish, honey. By definition, the practice of abortion is one created from an aspect of apathy towards other human life (which you already agree is the case, with respect to life) and selfishness. When 74% of people say they get an abortion because they don’t want to change their personal lives or schedules…what other term supplants “selfish”. It fits, rather perfectly, and explains the mindset specifically. Dress it up however you like, but words do have meaning and implications. You then follow it with this:

            “Honey, women are pragmatic; we will base our decisions on our experience, wants, and needs. ”

            Wants, eh? So, when someone puts their own wants (or even needs, really) ahead of the very life they helped create…what other term than selfish fits? I’ll let you ponder that one.

            You might like the excuse of pragmatism, but it doesn’t dismiss the selfish or apathetic nature of the claim, and that’s all it is. An excuse, to once again side step the point at hand.

            Also, I don’t see Adam commenting here. If you want to argue with Adam, you can respond to him. He’s a big boy, he can handle his own arguments.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “I was with a woman that aborted a child we conceived.”
            I trust that since that time you have made sure that any woman you’re involved with has the same delicate sensibilities and positions that you have. Dialogue does so much to avoid misunderstandings.

            Honey, I’m 62 years old and have pondered much in this life. You make “selfish” out to be a bad word?! It’s about time women were as selfish as they want to be–and they can be with the availability of contraception and can plan their families and lives. if they want to have children, have children. Don’t want children, don’t have them. In either event, I hope the woman has a male partner who is on the same page.
            Honey, the number one reason I’ve read as to why people seek abortion is that the woman can’t afford a child. I think that’s a damn good “selfish” reason.

          • MarcusFenix

            “I trust that since that time you have made sure that any woman you’re
            involved with has the same delicate sensibilities and positions that you
            have.”

            I’ve dated women with many different ideas and attitudes. If you spend your life looking for someone who agrees with everything you think and believe, you’re going to be lonely for a long time. Apart from that, Confucius once stated that he had no need for people who agreed with him all of time. We need people who challenge our sensibilities and world view…we don’t need puppets and sycophants. If you do, and don’t see a problem with that idea…then so be it. It’s sad and shallow, but yours to decide upon.

            “Dialogue does so much to avoid misunderstandings.”

            To put this in its proper place, you’re correct. Such dialogue with the woman in question, not a month before, was about marriage ideas and having kids. What a difference 30 days apparently made. There is a difference between “dialogue” and “lying”. Folks like me make that distinction, and dislike it when one is, in fact, the other.

            Moving on.

            “Honey, I’m 62 years old and have pondered much in this life. You make “selfish” out to be a bad word?!”

            Let’s look at this from a different angle. When does the term “selfish” come into play as being some positive, awesome thing? The word itself is negative. It carries with it a negative connotation. It’s not something that is morally or within reason a neutral idea, such as “consequence” can be without positive or negative aspects. Selfishness, by definition, is negative. It’s laughable that you even try to paint it as a good thing.

            Let’s come at this another way too. If the 1% folks you Dems hate are so guilty of being selfish with their money..are you now going to advocate they keep it, because being selfish is awesome and good? Explain that for me, because I’d love to know how people being selfish in one way you like is better somehow than in another where you vehemently disagree.

            ” It’s about time women were as selfish as they want to be–and they can
            be with the availability of contraception and can plan their families
            and lives.”

            Or, they could do that with an eye towards not being selfish, but rather just well informed on the matter. I don’t have to exhibit selfish traits to want to know more about something or somehow make proper choices in life. Sorry, this argument doesn’t work either.

            ” Don’t want children, don’t have them. In either event, I hope the woman has a male partner who is on the same page.”

            We’ve busted the “don’t want X, don’t do Y” thing already, but yes…having someone that is on the same general page as you helps. I’ve dated someone who was pro-choice, but we also agreed about what would happen should we find ourselves with a child. We were on the same page, with respect to the situation, AND didn’t agree about a public policy statement. Sorry if that interrupts your narrative, as anecdotal as it can be, but…it’s there and you asked.

            “Honey, the number one reason I’ve read as to why people seek abortion is
            that the woman can’t afford a child. I think that’s a damn good
            “selfish” reason.”

            According to Guttmacher (and the stats you’ve linked earlier…i believe. If not, they’re easy to find there since you read it often), that is the number two reason, behind “Don’t want to change my life/schedule”. It’s close, but it’s not number one.

            You believe it’s a good reason, but why? What logical or moral reason do you believe that it’s such a good thing? If a person is in a position where they can’t afford a child, and yet engage in acts while carry the chance of such an event happening, then what does that say about their mentality? If they’re the ultra-poor, as you’ve made claim to previously….then if they’re starving and living out on the streets, what line of thinking made them come to the conclusion that preventing a pregnancy wasn’t important? I mean, food, water, shelter, abortion….that’s not the list of survival items people usually look to when trying to decide their best course of action while in poverty. It does show a complete lack of anything resembling even a modicum of common sense, but past that, you’re (once again, i’ll add) making a misstep.

            The Appeal to Poverty is a fallacy, up front. Address how you can work around that in our argument here. Or, are you appealing to Emotion? Or Consequence? Or Appealing to Pity. All of those are logical fallacies. Either one of them you choose to engage with reference to your argument puts you backwards, not forwards.

            I’ll ask directly. Do you have even *one* logical argument to make for -anything- you’ve said? Just one. We can start there.

          • MarcusFenix

            “I trust that since that time you have made sure that any woman you’re
            involved with has the same delicate sensibilities and positions that you
            have.”

            Don’t worry, my crumb cake of condescension, you’re not even close to offending me. You don’t have the wherewithal to get close. If my sensibilities are so delicate, then how come you can’t overcome them, or even effect them? I mean, with all your logical arguments, valid points, non-fallacious thinking….

            Oh. Yeah. Silly me. I’ll wait though. Maybe, somewhere, you actually have one. But after what, 8 days or more, you’re batting zero.

            The childish condescension was old a week ago. Now it’s just sad. I don’t mind debating you sans the side comments, but if you’re going to keep it up, that’s fine too. Just don’t expect delicate. Besides, at 62, aren’t you a bit old for that kind of childish way of thinking?

          • PJ4

            Honey, I know you think that the instant sperm fertilizes an egg that POOF!, there is a fully formed and functioning human being, ready to be born.

            No pro lifer I know has ever said that.

            Did you read that somewhere or is that just something you worked on for your degree in assclownary?

            How did any of these women’s abortions alter your life at the personal level? If they haven’t, I suggest that you grasp the fact that abortion is a personal matter between a woman and her partner.

            Again, let’s talk about the human trafficking numbers.
            How do any of these sex slaves alter your life at t he personal level?
            Lets’ break it down even further.

            How did any of the dead children at Sandy Hook alter your life in any way?

            How does a rapist raping a woman (not you) alter your life in anyway? Shouldn’t we keep things between the woman and her rapist?

            How does a transexual child being bullied in school alter your life in anyway? Should we just keep it between the bully and the transexual? Why get laws involved? How does it impact you on a personal level?

            How does anychild being bullied in any way impact your life?

            How do murder victims alter your life in anyway?

            Please… do tell. If they haven’t, I suggest that you grasp the fact that sex trafficking, rape, child bullying murder is a personal matter between the parties involved. Mind your own damn business.

          • Basset_Hound

            So I guess Josh Brent’s personal decision back in 2012 to drive home from a nightclub with friend and Cowboy teammate Jerry Brown Jr. should have been a decision between Brent and the bartender, right?

          • PJ4

            Well, it didn’t impact her life directly, so of course she doesn’t care about it.
            Silly Basset Honey! ;-)

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “You have no right to force all women to follow your own narrow path.”

            I would never attempt to force anyone into following my narrow path of lifting weights, attending law school, and dating intelligent and shockingly beautiful romantic partners. I’m just asking that they not kill their children.

          • PJ4

            hahah

            BOOM!

          • MarcusFenix

            OH. One other thing.

            Since Roe v. Wade, it’s estimated that 55 million abortions have been performed in the United States. That was 41 years ago this week. So let’s do some math, shall we?

            You cite the WHO as saying there are 50 million per year worldwide, approximately. That means, that since Roe v. Wade was passed there are approximately 2,050,000,000 abortions that have been done. To show my work, 50 million times 41. Simple.

            Now, if there are 55 million here in the US in that time frame, it means that, percentage wise…the US makes up 2.68% of all abortions for that same length of time. To show my work, 55 million is 2.68% of 2 billion, 50 million. Still simple.

            I would connect this back to the comment made about places which coerce or even force abortion, such as China, and refer you back to your statistic for further review. You didn’t link the statistic you quoted, so…maybe it’s able to dispute this fact, but you certainly didn’t.

          • PJ4

            you know….for a geologist…she’s pretty bad at math :-)

          • Sharon Diehl

            Searching again for the 2011 data; could only find the 2008 data offhand. “According to WHO, every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day.”
            http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
            As I stated elsewhere, the data is to demonstrate that if a woman doesn’t want to be pregnant, she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, we’re using the same set of statistics, both from the WHO and Guttmacher. I’m not arguing the veracity or right/wrong aspect of the stats. Unless there is a good reason, I don’t need to dispute them. The numbers don’t seem terribly out of place. If they’re wrong, then we can revise the argument because of it.

            The data doesn’t demonstrate that, as much as you’d like. I would point to those numbers, and then point you back to the discussion we just had about it…specifically, about China and it’s known practice of forced abortion. It’s not a logical misstep to believe that a country with 600 million women and that has a forced abortion policy is not only going to invalidate your argument prima facie, but that it in fact undermines it to a degree. Those abortions are not because women didn’t -want- to be pregnant. There’s no choice there, but those are included into the stats you give. They should be omitted, for those reasons. In this respect, your assertion does not fit with the actual numbers, and would need to be examined because of it. Your argument doesn’t find support in this case that it would need to be valid.

            Also, I’d point out that women who don’t want to get pregnant, and yet find themselves in that position, don’t naturally or automatically default to abortion. your side (foolishly, at times) argues the “consent isn’t permanent” idea. Past the idea that such an argument has also logically been busted, the same desire to not be pregnant at the time it occurs doesn’t mean that lack of desire to stay pregnant remains permanently. The proverbial door swings both ways, and doesn’t really explain anything.

          • PJ4

            Apparently, you never tire of being wrong.

            You still have not answered Marcus’ question regarding forced abortions in China. (and here and in India and well, around the world really)
            Do you think the WHO data removed those numbers?
            Is a forced abortion to you, “a women who doesn’t want to be pregnant, not being pregnant”?
            Why will you not face this question?

            What are you afraid of? Perhaps that your figure would actually decline when looking at it in that light?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “you likewise don’t have the right to impose your lack of morality and sensibility on others…”
            Silly goose, it is not pro-choice people who are writing and passing laws to take away a woman’s right to her body….it is not pro-choice people who are imposing their moral standards on others…it’s not pro-choice people who wave bibles around and tell others to live by their interpretation of a dusty old book written by a bunch of barbaric men. Honey! It’s people like you, PJ, Andy, Diana, who want YOUR idea of morals and delicate sensibilities imposed on all womenkind through ridiculous laws.
            Don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple as that.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Silly goose, it is not pro-choice people who are writing and passing laws to take away a woman’s right to her body..”

            Silly goose, it’s not pro life people who are refusing to give even a nod to the idea that humans in their most vulnerable stages of development are worth anything…even after your “life” comments…nor is anyone removing a right that women have.

            You’ve claimed we don’t understand your arguments. This post of yours clearly shows you don’t understand a very basic premise. We understand it just fine, AND reject it. We’re not trying to -take- a right from someone. More than anything, we’re advocating that human life has worth, and that all human life deserves protection. We’re not taking anything..we’re giving it to another life and leveling the playing field for all.

            “it is not pro-choice people who are imposing their moral standards on others..”

            Again, wrong. you quite are, in fact. Whether its your own moral view of the matter, or the absolute lack of morals involved…you’re pushing an agenda. How do you not even acknowledge something as simple as that?

            “it’s not pro-choice people who wave bibles around and tell others to
            live by their interpretation of a dusty old book written by a bunch of
            barbaric men.”

            Neither am I. We’ve not even touched religion as a reason. You are aware there are secular pro life groups, just as there are religious pro choice groups. If you want to keep throwing religion into the ring, you’re simply missing a point that’s being made, AND you’re trying to ascribe religious value to an argument we’re having where it doesn’t apply at all. That might work if I was quoting Scripture, or telling you how God is this and that….but that’s not the case. Why bother injecting something like that which doesn’t apply? It simply makes your arguments false because of it, and ridiculous to boot.

            “Honey! It’s people like you, PJ, Andy, Diana, who want YOUR idea of
            morals and delicate sensibilities imposed on all womenkind through
            ridiculous laws.”

            You’re welcome to that opinion, of course. But the inverse is true as well, and you simply can’t see the forest for the trees. You want *your* morals (or again, the lack thereof) imposed on others who believe differently. In this case, you’re advocating a position believed to be logically and morally incorrect. What makes your viewpoint better, or any different in contrast, than its inverse? Nothing. no points there either.

            “Don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Simple as that.”

            I addressed this argument before. I’ll simply apply the same point here as I did there. You didn’t respond to that logical point, so…I have to believe either you didn’t read it, didn’t understand it, have no answer for it, or some other conclusion. The statement itself is vapid and solves nothing. I’ll allow my previous rebuttal stand until you can address it otherwise.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: “You want *your* morals (or again, the lack thereof) imposed on others who believe differently.”
            Fenix, sweetie, good grief…pro-choice is not imposing their morals on anybody–because pro-choice people are not passing laws to regulate other people’s sexuality, fertility, access to contraception, or interfere with another person’s medical decisions. We’re trying to protect ourselves from those who do!!!
            It’s about time the Democrats have pushed back against all the idiotic laws passed in red-held states that chip away at women’s rights to their bodies. I hope that Blumenthal’s bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, will send a message to the Rethugs that pro-choice women are not going to back down and will stand behind Roe v Wade.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Fenix, sweetie, good grief…pro-choice is not imposing their morals on
            anybody–because pro-choice people are not passing laws to regulate
            other people’s sexuality, fertility, access to contraception, or
            interfere with another person’s medical decisions.”

            Sharon, sweetie…you’re using a potato/poh-tah-to argument. Not very hard hitting. They are imposing a specific set of values or morals (or again, the lack) on others who disagree with their immoral or apathetic viewpoint. You’re asking others to simply “let it slide”, and for no reasonable or logical point of view. They are, in fact, imposing those ideals on other people. You simply can’t get away from that, no matter how much obfuscation, distraction, or hand wringing you do on the subject which changes that variable. You can own your side of the debate, at least, right?

            “We’re trying to protect ourselves from those who do!!!”

            I find this telling. We just had a posting between us about selfishness. Here you go, justifying that position for me. Thanks! You’re trying to get something for yourself and keep it. We’re trying to extend it to all human life. We’re giving something, you’re clutching at it because you want to do what you want to do, just because….remember how broken that argument has already been shown to be? You lose here again, but bonus points for helping show my argument to be valid.

            ” I hope that Blumenthal’s bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, will
            send a message to the Rethugs that pro-choice women are not going to
            back down and will stand behind Roe v Wade.”

            We’re not really arguing politics. You’ve done so with others here, and that’s fine…but I could care less about Republican or Democratic agenda, based on party. If a Dem does something of merit, that’s fine. If not, then so be it. Same works both ways. Are you just injecting it as a means to somehow give yourself more gravitas, as if I’m some card carrying Republican. You’re once again, as usual, fishing in th wrong pond.

            That’s fine. You should support your position. But you have *yet* to do so from a logically reasoned perspective. You’ve yet to offer a single argument that refutes me, without using some massive load of fallcious rubbish. If you want to support a position, the first thing you do is making sure it’s the correct one…AND you can support it. You *feel* you’re correct, but that’s all bluster and no substance.

          • DianaG2

            “One wanted to know if you had your doctorate in Assclownary.”

            OMG, ROFLMAO!!

            I can barely breathe, laughing so hard.

          • Calvin Freiburger

            You mean this ACOG?

            http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/07/when_kagan_played_doctor.html

            Figures that’s what a hack “scientist” like you would consider authoritative.

            Seriously: do you think you still have a snowball’s chance of convincing anyone here you’re not a fanatic?

          • MarcusFenix

            Well, if Kagan can just make up science facts outta thin air…why can’t Sharon, right?

            My personal definition of fanactic: A person who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their original goals.

            Sharon’s efforts are now into the range where scientific notation of numbers are required, akin to notations regarding distances in deep space.

          • DianaG2

            roflmaoooo!!!

          • MarcusFenix

            Your education, honey child. I mean, goodness me, my sugar plum fairy of love, how could that not have been clear?

            “That pro-choice people are largely well educated?”

            As if somehow, pro-life people are not? The litany of educated people who support that position at least rivals the list of those who do not. If it were a contest, it wouldn’t be one you’d have some hands down victory in, my lovely.

            “Yep, all the chemists, geophysicists, and other geologists I work with are all pro-choice….and most have children.”

            Other than the fact that such a statement is purely anecdotal and slightly unimportant (I mean, you could work with 1 person from each of those disciplines and claim to have some “majority” on the matter), how many people do you know outside of the quarry who don’t believe what you do? It’s just as easily (albeit anecdotal as well) to counter that out of all of the college professors I know, at least 70% are pro life. Several who are publicly pro-choice do it simply to not rock the boat, but don’t agree with pro-abortion policies across the board.

            You’re just wasting time here with this line of questioning/reasoning.

          • DianaG2

            Love ya, Marcus!!

          • MarcusFenix

            Thanks. :) With folks like Cupcape Sharon here, there’s just so much love that you can’t help but get a little of it on you.

            Then, you need a mop and a bucket of bleach to get it off. ;)

          • DianaG2

            Yes :-)

          • Guest

            lol

          • DianaG2

            I’m sure some are pro-life.

          • PJ4

            Oh and don’t forget, according to the feminazis ( not buybull thumpers) all PIV is rape

            http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

            I’ve noticed your refusal to comment on this subject.

          • Sharon Diehl

            I had to look up “PIV”…I”m not up with the latest acronyms. Particle Image Velocimetry? Peak Invesrse Voltage? Personal Identity Verification? Pig Influenza Virus? Peripheral Intravenous Catheter? Stop me when I hit it! Post Implementation Verification? Ah, this looks promising–Penis In Vagina.
            Honey, I can’t open up your link, but it’s probably something too stupid to even commment on since the more than 7 billion people on this earth were most likely conceived by the normal process of penile penetration.

          • PJ4

            it was written by a chick from your feminazi camp.
            So yes, it’s pretty stupid.
            But it’s newest and most disturbing trend of slut shaming.

            She deems that all penis in vagina sex is rape.
            It’s too bad you can’t open the link you would have enjoyed it.

          • MamaBear

            PJ, Sharon,
            OK, my social contacts are kids, my grown children and their friends (who are careful what they say around old-fashioned fuddy-duddy me), and a bunch of middle-aged “Bible-thumpers,” as our anti-religion antagonists would put it. And I did not have to look PIV up to figure it out!
            And the link worked for me, but I couldn’t stomach reading more than a few sentences.

          • PJ4

            Oh I think Sharon just likes using big words.
            It makes her feel very doctorly
            =)

          • MarcusFenix

            You know, i read this again just now. Her last comment on PIV…likely, it’s been decades since that’s happened, hence why it’s “promising” AND wholly unfamiliar to her. ;)

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Let’s see. The Republican people don’t trust their politicians, so I won’t attempt to defend individuals you mentioned. Laws? There’s always more to any given law than what either party voted for. I remember one election year in Oklahoma a state question, if voted “yes” on by a number of people, would have funded schools but put in more casinos. All these laws you complain Republicans voted against, they were probably voting against such-and-such an aspect of said law you didn’t notice that they had legitimate reasons to oppose. Just because you like a law and others don’t doesn’t mean the others are completely stupid/evil. Really, as an adult you should know better. See, this is why I think you’re a paranoid schizophrenic. Despite every single piece of evidence to the contrary that you haven’t rebutted, you continue to insist that if someone disagrees with you even 1%, it makes them 100% stupid/evil/ignorant/combination thereof. That’s not only a paranoid delusion, it’s also black-and-white morality! I’ve seen several liberals argue better than you! Can you please admit that morality isn’t black-and-white so I can start respecting you better?

            If a fetus is a part of a woman’s body, then abortion is self-harm, and therefore sad and to be prevented through counseling. As it happens, an unborn child has different DNA from the mother, therefore is a distinct entity. Therefore, abortion is murder and is to be made illegal.

            Ever seen Law and Order: Special Victims Unit? It’s a show about a team of detectives who investigate sex crimes (which seems to be any crime involving women and/or minors, as far as I can tell, if it’s disturbing enough). Overpowering a woman and forcing her to have sex isn’t the only form of rape. Sex with minors is also a form of rape in that the minor is not considered to be old enough to have sex, for instance. Also, polygamy, incest, and sex with a drunk/wasted/comatose/paralyzed woman are also forms of rape. Women and girls can be rapists, men (and boys) can be rape victims, and there can be homosexual rape. Some rapists brainwash their victims into thinking it’s mutual or similar (especially if the perp’s an abuser who knows the victim closely). Also, some women cry “rape” just because they stop liking the boyfriend or thought the sex was awful, so yeah, you can’t blame Republicans for wanting to make the matter of rape easier to deal with.

            And people in different states making pro-life laws? So? A political group is gonna advance its cause. You pro-abort Democrats keep trying to make pro-lifers pay for something they think is wrong. Much like if Hitler came back and tried to make Americans fund the Holocaust. I think we’re even.

            I once saw a meme that said, “Don’t say ‘grow some balls,’ they’re weak dangly things. Vaginas are better. Those things can take a pounding.” May I propose that any woman who’s given birth is stronger than any man? And pro-aborts think giving birth is a bad thing? You couldn’t tell otherwise from how they argue. Childbirth is womankind’s claim to being stronger than men. Abortion does nothing more than take from women it that makes them worthy of every man’s respect.

            Misogynists who use women as incubators are rare in that most men don’t want kids until they have such-and-such a thing to make them better for it, and this particular kind of man is liable to be as much of a deadbeat philanderer as the other varieties of misogynists. The main kind of misogynist is that which uses women as sex toys, and they’re pro-abortion. Most antiabortion men are okay with accepting the biologically normal consequences of sex, so they’re not just interested in exploiting women for sex. Pro-abortion men aren’t okay with said consequences, because they only want women for sex.

            When an average, run-of-the-mill abortion happens, the woman accomplishes nothing except having let a living being be killed who was doing her no deliberate harm. Only her boyfriend benefits, because he doesn’t gave to pay child support. And it’s not like she can claim to be better than that selfish guy, because she was too weak to go through nine months of discomfort followed by several hours of intense pain, and she was too selfish to be a good mother to her son or daughter. Abortion is manifestly antiwoman.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Your opinions are yours, Andy. I have different ones. If my opinions are boring, do go talk to those other liberals who argue better than I do. I need to go do more useful things in my life….my husky wants to have her butt scratched.

            I’ve commented on this DNA thing elsewhere–“unique DNA” does not bestow special rights; Sexually active women eject embryos by the millions; those millions and millions of embryos with “unique DNA” that never imbed in a uterine lining go Whoosh! They land on tampons and pads. I don’t see catholic or other clergy holding funerals for women’s hygiene products.

            Honey, this Hitler stuff from the pro-birth crowd is getting old. There is no comparison between a megalomaniac who wiped out ethnicities to an individual woman making a decision about her own life.
            Andy, dear, you have accused me of seeing things in black and white. No, people with a different opinion aren’t evil…there are people on this thread who have talked about their dog. I love dogs.
            Re: rape: From your paragraph, even though it was about a T.V. show, I see that you do understand that rape happens and that women are not rampant liars.
            I have also stated that the World Health Organization estimates that over 50 million women round the globe, every year, obtain abortions; that is legal and illegal, developed countries and undeveloped. You think those 50 million women, living the best life they can, give a damn about what you think?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The “others think different” shiitaki mushrooms isn’t a valid argument. To start with, I realize that. Secondly, you haven’t put up a good defense. The fact that you disagree doesn’t mean you’re right. You’ll have to prove you’re right.

            “Embryos” landing on tampons and pads aren’t embryos, they’re ova. Ova are egg cells that haven’t been fertilized yet (that fact means that they’re not distinct entities). Where the heck were you educated?

            Hitler? Irony detected: he was pro-life for Aryans and pro-abortion for everybody else. Us American conservatives are pro-life for everybody. Which reminds me, the Public Religion Research Institute states that most black people and Hispanic people think abortion is wrong, Google Maps proves that most places with high populations of black people and Hispanic people have few abortion clinics, and the Rand Institute/Institution (can’t remember which at the moment) proves that poor people and uneducated people are more pro-life than rich people and educated people. However, according to the .com website ProtectingBlackLife, most abortion clinics are near black and Hispanic neighborhoods. They even have a Google Map to prove it.

            All that begs the question: since black people and Hispanic people don’t want abortion, and according to liberals, can’t pay for it (they’re the ones who say most minorities are poorer than white people), why are most abortion clinics near those neighborhoods? They’re not making money off the locals! And they certainly aren’t there by accident. It’s rich white people that are the most fervent lovers of abortion. Why not abortion clinics bear rich white neighborhoods? Are rich white people racist or wussy? Both?

            When you’re position on abortion is roughly equivalent toto that of Hitler in a manifest, provable way, it’s time to reconsider.

            And if you don’t see things in black and white, prove it. Concede that some Republicans are good/smart/similar. If you don’t then I’m right. And you can’t legitimately accuse me of hypocrisy, I’m willing to acknowledge Democrats and liberals I think are actually good/smart.

            I want saying rape doesn’t happen, I was saying there are different kinds of rape, including false rape and unreported rape. Keep up.

            No I don’t think they care. That doesn’t make abortion less wrong.

          • JDC

            “Google Maps proves that most places with high populations of black people and Hispanic people have few abortion clinics”

            Then later:

            “most abortion clinics are near black and Hispanic neighborhoods.”

            Which is it?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Both. In the southern places of the United States, there are high populations of black people (SE) and Hispanic people (SW). This region has few abortion clinics. The few there are are mostly near black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Outside this region, most abortion clinics are still near black and Hispanic neighborhoods. The only difference is that outside the Black Belt and Hispanic Belt (that’s what I’ll call the region with a lot of Hispanic people, for brevity) there are more clinics, and less black and Hispanic people.

          • JDC

            Okay, thanks for the clarification.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            NP.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andy, honey, I’ve tried to explain this to you twice, but it’s not sinking into that creationist head of yours. NOTE: If a woman is sexually active, eggs may become fertilized and develop into embryos–BUT MOST of these embryos–60-80% of them–millions and millions, honey–do NOT imbed in the uterine linings of women and are therefore expelled…onto tampons and pads. Half of these lost embryos are viable and could have developed into fetuses. I said this before to you…a sexually active woman’s monthly period does not just contain one unfertilized egg–it may contain embryos and even fetal tissue. Half of all embryos that do imbed in a uterine wall undergo spontaneous abortion–a woman may experience an exceptionally heavy period and not know that she has been pregnant. This is why the religious concept of “life at conception” is so ridiculous. Does ‘god’ endow a soul upon each and every one of those millions of embryos that never make it? Does “god’ change his/she/its/whatever mind when a pregnancy spontaneously ends?

            Here is a paragraph from testimony from the Presidents Council on Bioethics from 2008:
            “Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we’re talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows.”

            Get it, sweetie? Embryos and fetal tissue are lost all the time from our ladies’ reproductive parts and land on female hygiene products. Abortion of embryos and fetal tissue is a routine natural occurrence.

            Here’s another: quote from Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government professor, also a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics:
            “If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions…”

            Re: “Where the heck were you educated?” At the University of Colorado and the Colorado School of Mines, honey–universities where the only place you’ll learn about creationism is in a course on comparative religions.
            I’ve noticed that there is a paper on the web that is easily accessed: Ord, T., 2008, The Scourge: Moral Implications of Natural Embryo Loss: The American Journal of Bioethics, v. 8, no. 7, pages 12-19, 2008. I laughed my way through it when I first read it–it has real data, but yes, the author does poke fun at those who confer full humanity and moral status on an embryo. This paper will explain to you the natural abortion of zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo and/or fetus.

          • MarcusFenix

            What I find amazing is that you somehow can’t, or won’t, process the logical difference between what occurs naturally (and sans almost any knowledge by the woman involved) to the premeditated, knowingly undertaken act of abortion. It’s as if you can’t somehow see a difference between the two. More to the point, I would argue that you *don’t* want there to be a difference between the two, so you can attempt to use such a weak argument against others who might fall prey to such intellectual rubbish.

            For someone who has received matriculation documents from at least 2 degree-granting institutions, such critical thinking and logical conclusions should be easy for you. Either you’re woefully, or willfully, ignorant, and all of the Harvard papers in the world won’t bridge the gap between your intellectual leaps as to somehow make them all fit together.

            Of course, this same flaw, sweetie cakes, is the same reason you never replied back to me earlier. Having to eat your own crap sandwich of an argument is likely never a pleasant experience.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Fenix, honey, life is busy…my least priorities in the day are responding to argumentative emails, as I’m sure you also have a life outside of plotting how to keep women from having rights over their own pregnant bodies.

            I see a range of beliefs within the forced-birth camp. There are those of you who are against abortion at all costs, even if it means the mother dies because the fetus is all worshipped–catholic clergy certainly fall into this camp, but there are non clergy who are just as insanely rabid. This is why Savita Halappanavar died from a partial miscarriage and sepsis in an Irish catholic hospital. This is why a medical nun, McBride, was excommunicated when she authorized a life-saving abortion for a pregnant woman dying from pulmonary hypertension at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Az. The local bishop, Olmsted, was very displeased; damn, didn’t gain a martyr to the “cause”.

            There are forced-birth people who are fine with abortion for those women who were impregnated via rape or incest–yes–they would “allow” that ‘deserving’ woman an abortion. That’s really a pro-choice position. Can’t have that, so we get all these memes shrilling a life is a life; you can’t tell an embryo from rape, from a wanted embryo, so the heck with what the woman wants, she should be forced to be a slave brood mare to a rapist or incestuous uncle, whatever. This takes away the basic civil rights of the woman.

            Harp on “life” all you want, dear. Protoplasm defines what life is–a sperm is life, the woman’s egg is life; the two coming together is life. A naturally expelled embryo or fetus is life; an unnaturally expelled embryo or fetus is life. What matters is the life of the living, breathing, woman, who is walking this earth, in ownership of her body. She makes any and all decisions concerning her body. Shrill all you want to that “No! It’s not her body anymore when she gets pregnant!” Ah, nope, it’s still HER body, honey. We have this basic difference in world view. As much as you dislike the words “bodily autonomy”, bwahahahah, we ladies have it.

            Sweetie, why should my or any woman’s civil rights be dictated by what you believe? You’re stating that it is no real loss if a woman naturally aborts and never knew they were pregnant in the first place; yet if a woman chooses to abort that same embryo at the same gestational stage as a national abortion, why, it’s a damn castastrophe! It’s murder! The woman is evil! Yada, yada, yada.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            So you concede that unborn humans are alive? Doesn’t that give the mother the moral obligation to let the baby live? If it’s alive and has human DNA, it’s a human life, and has the right to be alive. No, an unborn human isn’t a part of a woman’s body. It has different DNA from the mother. It’s a distinct entity. The right to be alive is the basis of justice. At conception we are unique living human beings with the beginnings of a personality, and with vast potential to do something great for the world. We carry this potential, and this uniqueness, with us all our lives. Only when we are dead do we lose either. Abortion is the deliberate killing of a unique, living human being, therefore, abortion is murder. Not only that, but it destroys that potential. If all the children aborted since Roe had been let live, there’d be more taxpayers–Social Security would not be in such a big mess! The national debt wouldn’t be so high! We’d also have more scientists and doctors–cancer or AIDS might both have permanent cures! I’m Republican, I don’t usually go for big government, but I would support a program to teach philosophy and causality to pro-aborts. Most of their arguments amount to outdated pseudoscience, slogans, oversimplifications, bullying, slandering, and paranoia. None of that is exactly Plato/Socrates/Aristotle/Zero/Epicurus material. As an afterthought, how does the character of the father or the circumstances of conception make an unborn human? You say that pro-lifers’ opposition to killing a baby conceived in rape is an excuse, but I fail to see what makes it wrong. Unborn children are unborn children no matter who the father is or what he’s done. Even children conceived in rape have the potential for–dare I say it–greatness, and no less than otherwise-conceived children. We should not punish the child for the father’s crime(s). It is not for an individual to define life or its value. Life and the definition and value thereof are absolute.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andy, honey, the world looks forward to your treatise on dinosaur cladistics. Do give it your all and remain a virgin, so you can concenrate on this monumental task. The evolutionary gene pool will be grateful.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Actually I plan to marry and reproduce someday. I think I’ll stick with my current plan to get into psychology. Now inasmuch as you didn’t attempt to win me over with facts or reason, and only endeavored to insult me, I conclude that you have no arguments.

          • DianaG2

            It’s an honor and a privilege to be a virgin or to be called a virgin. Imagine all the nasty diseases and stupid, drunken suffering you have avoided.

            Only an incompetent, infantile frat boy would think otherwise.

          • DianaG2

            Ugly.

            Stupid.

            Nasty,

            Repulsive.

          • MarcusFenix

            As an aside, while it might be spiteful and totally a personal attack…

            Anyone else look at Sharon’s picture, and have to look at it a few times to make a distinction between which is her and which is the dog?

            Maybe it’s just me.

          • DianaG2

            lol

            I wasn’t meaning that she is personally nasty, ugly, etc., — but her words. The ones she wrote.

            As if virginity were some sort of disease?

            Au contraire

            I do see your point, though :-)

          • MarcusFenix

            Yeah, it’s totally a cheap shot, i admit…albeit it a funny one.

          • DianaG2

            Agreed, Marcus. Thanks for breaking it down more distinctly that I ever could have.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Re: Savita Halappanavar:
            “DUBLIN — A miscarrying woman who died in an Irish hospital should have had her blood poisoning detected much sooner and been OFFERRED AN ABORTION to improve her odds of survival, an experts’ report concluded Thursday in a case that is forcing Ireland to modernize its abortion laws.

            “If it was my case, I would have terminated the pregnancy,” Dr. Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, a London professor of obstetrics and gynecology who led the seven-month probe, said.

            …the lead investigator described [the case] as “a cascade of mistakes” overshadowed by officials’ refusal to remove the fetus until its heart stopped beating.

            The report found that doctors placed too much emphasis on measuring the fetus’ heartbeat and too little on investigating why Halappanavar’s white blood-cell count was jumping…”
            Yet red-held states are pushing for fetal-heartbeat laws.

          • MarcusFenix

            Fair enough. Let’s go at this one.

            “”DUBLIN — A miscarrying woman who died in an Irish hospital should have had her blood poisoning detected much sooner”

            The very statement you use right off the bat justified my previous claim that the main issue involved was medical malpractice and incompetence. They should have caught those things sooner, and the very report from authorities that investigated gave that as conclusions 1 and 3…that the staff mismanaged the case with regards to her health and that she was misdiagnosed AND then had the condition (sepsis) treated improperly. The fact it was a Catholic hospital is an afterthought at that point…the actual problem was malpractice and lack of professional medical staff doing their job.

            “The report found that doctors placed too much emphasis on measuring the
            fetus’ heartbeat and too little on investigating why Halappanavar’s
            white blood-cell count was jumping…”

            You also fail to account for the law, passed in 1992, in Ireland…whether the law is correct or not is a different argument, and one that I believe should have been had much sooner. It might have saved Savita’s life, in that case. She should have been granted an abortion, under the circumstance, and you’ll find sparingly few who believe otherwise.

            You’ll notice a few things. We both agree this case was mismanaged across the board, and the event was heartbreaking and avoidable. We already agree that in cases where the life of the mother is at stake, that an abortion to save her is an appropriate and moral course of action.

            The fetal heartbeat laws aren’t at fault, so much as shoddy interpretation, which was at the heart of Savita’s case as well….a specific fetal-heartbeat statute that doesn’t clearly and specifically allow for an abortion in cases like this would be logically and morally incorrect.

            The remainder of your conclusions and use of the story, however, to paint the picture differently as I’ve outlined still stand unchallenged.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Fenix, honey, life is busy”

            Not so busy, angel cakes, to have kept you from other argumentative emails though.

            “s I’m sure you also have a life outside of plotting how to keep women from having rights over their own pregnant bodies.”

            Ahh, deflection AND projection, with a healthy dose being wrong yet again. I knew I could count on you!

            “I see a range of beliefs within the forced-birth camp.”

            Past this, you launch into this odd diatribe about things, which really didn’t have a bearing on what was being said. I know it’s hard to stay on topic, but you would save some of your precious time that’s in such short order by not going off the rails.

            “Harp on “life” all you want, dear. Protoplasm defines what life is–a
            sperm is life, the woman’s egg is life; the two coming together is life.”

            I’ll remember you agreed with me, after having told me I was wrong, etc. Good to know you’ve kept that consistent too.

            ” A naturally expelled embryo or fetus is life; an unnaturally expelled embryo or fetus is life.”

            See, here is where you start going down the path of being wrong. Your college education, since anything past common sense can, that there is a marked difference between a natural biological process versus one that requires a doctor, the administration of drugs, and the implementation of equipment and tools. By your same logic, me being able to pee is exactly the same as having a catheter run up my urethra and then being giving drugs that force me to urinate. One of those happens multiple times a day. One of those does not, and I’m sure it doesn’t take 4 years at a degree-granting institution to know which is which.

            “Sweetie, why should my or any woman’s civil rights be dictated by what you believe?”

            Why do you believe your “civil rights” trump that of your own offspring? What belief gives you moral superiority over anything, or anyone else? Notice you never actually address that question. Whoops.

            “You’re stating that it is no real loss if a woman naturally aborts and never knew they were pregnant in the first place yet if a woman chooses to abort that same embryo at the same gestational
            stage as a national abortion, why, it’s a damn castastrophe!

            Not exactly. Your penchant for idiotically twisting things around hasn’t changed though. The first is unfortunate, but likely happened without anyones knowledge. The second is a purposed act that 98%+ of the time is done out of selfishness, greed, and a lack of empathy for human life.

            Also, you argue that one of them was happening before the woman got pregnant. Are you saying women go to abortion clinics *before* they get pregnant too? Because that would be slightly awkward. Notice how that while both of those situations end in a life lost, only one of them had to occur because of destructive intervention on the part of the person.

            “It’s murder! The woman is evil! Yada, yada, yada.”

            We argued this point earlier, but you clearly stuck to your ideological guns and keep saying stupid crap. That’s awesome…I do appreciate you being ridiculous AND predictable!

          • MarcusFenix

            Oh, and here’s another secular point of view regarding your bodily autonomy argument. Have fun trying to work around this too.

            http://prolifephilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/08/bodily-rights-arguments.html

          • PJ4

            She may pull the “sorry the link won’t open” line on you

          • MarcusFenix

            Maybe, but you’d think such a successful person would have at least the cash to buy a newer computer, or have someone fix it.

            Here’s a hint for her. Just type the initial part of the address and go to the actual site. The history of what’s posted is on the right hand side. ITS MAGIC! ;)

          • PJ4

            Fenix, honey, life is busy…my least priorities in the day are responding to argumentative emails, as I’m sure you also have a life outside of plotting how to keep women from having rights over their own pregnant bodies.

            Yes sweet pea, life is certainly busy…. But none of us expected you to have a life outside of plotting to destroy the bodily autonomy rights of our offspring

            
I see a range of beliefs within the forced-birth camp. There are those of you who are against abortion at all costs, even if it means the mother dies because the fetus is all worshipped–catholic clergy certainly fall into this camp, but there are non clergy who are just as insanely rabid.

            I see a range of beliefs within the forced death camp. There are those of you who believe that abortion should be allowed right up to the moment of birth, while others see no reason why the “right to choose” shouldn’t extend beyond the womb as well. Indeed, it’s not just figures like Kermit Gosnell and Peter Singer (the clergy of your movement) who embrace infanticide–take a look at what Lisa Lapot Snow, deaconess of the Church of Planned Parenthood, has to say:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-defending-infanticide/2013/04/08/36e44294-a061-11e2-9c03-6952ff305f35_story.html

            This is why Savita Halappanavar died from a partial miscarriage and sepsis in an Irish catholic hospital.

            This is why Jennifer Morebelli died from a late term abortion she suffered at the hands of Carhart at a secular abortion worship center.

            His license was never revoked for killing her. It was dubbed an “accident.”

            *As a side note, Catholic doctrine dictates that abortion may be necessary only to save a women’s life, so these guys are really guilty of medical malpractice… has nothing to do the Church.*

            http://blog.secularprolife.org/2012/11/what-does-savita-halappanavars-death.html?m=1

            This is why a medical nun, McBride, was excommunicated when she authorized a life-saving abortion for a pregnant woman dying from pulmonary hypertension a t St. Jo seph’s Hospital in Phoenix, Az. The local bishop, Olmsted, was very displeased; damn, didn’t gain a martyr to the “cause”.

            This is why Abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s license was not revoked when Semika Shaw died at his hands, as it might have meant coming “between a woman and her doctor.”

            Rather than risk committing such an offense, the authorities opted to wait for Karnamaya Mongar to also die before belatedly taking action.

            We have your local archdiocese, the ACOG in PA, to thank for this unsupervised practice (again, you are in good company) as they did an excellent job of helping to keep the government out of our bodies. When it came to the job of keeping women out of an early grave, however, the results were a little more mixed…

            Oh and to address the “life saving abortion” the nun authorized, here’s what a neonatologist specialist had to say about it:

            “Dr. Paul Byrne explained that with pulmonary hypertension, an abortion, although it may relieve some of the stress on the heart, may also make the situation worse due to the stress of the abortion procedure.

            Dr. Byrne also explained that the literature on the condition indicates that there have been successful interventions for pregnant women with pulmonary hypertension that have enabled both mother and child to survive.”

            There are forced-birth people who are fine with abortion for those women who were impregnated via rape or incest–yes–they would “allow” that ‘deserving’ woman an abortion. That’s really a pro-choice position.

            There are forced-death people who believe in eugenics, and they can’t stand to see minorities or people with disabilities do either of two things:

            1. Give birth.

            2. Survive until birth.

            This mentality explains the case of one Christin A. Gilbert. Christin had down syndrome and became pregnant after being raped. She wanted to keep the baby but her mother coerced her into getting an abortion. Apparently Chistin didn’t deserve to have that bodily autonomy your side likes so much. And now, thanks to the “health care” administered by Dr. Carhart, Christin doesn’t have anything at all: she’s dead.

            Of course the good Bishop doctor wasn’t prosecuted, as that would involve removing a “choice provider” from the community. No, Dr. Carhart has been lionized in a documentary about his “efforts” on behalf of women.

            Sadly, not all of his former patients were available to comment on Dr. Carhart’s unique style of care…

            Can’t have that, so we get all these memes shrilling a life is a life; you can’t tell an embryo from rape, from a wanted embryo, so the heck with what the woman wants, she should be forced to be a slave brood mare to a rapist or incestuous uncle, whatever.

            Can’t have an abortionist report that a victim is being abused, which is why Planned Parenthood is quite happy to kill the baby and then turn the child back to the man who brought her in (IE the abusive uncle or father or brother). They’re guilty of covering up statutory rape in several states, including WA CA AR IN OH and are facing lawsuits because of it.

            This takes away the basic civil rights of the woman.
            Harp on “life” all you want, dear. Protoplasm defines what life is–a sperm is life, the woman’s egg is life; the two coming together is life. A naturally expelled embryo or fetus is life; an unnaturally expelled embryo or fetus is life.

            Embryology and accurate human fetal development to a pro abort is like garlic to a vampire.

            They will go on an on about how every cell in the body is “living” but refuse to acknowledge that and entire little person is present in utero. Life is a continuum that starts at fertilization. That’s from the most basic text on embryology that one would find at any university in the US–not from the Bhagavad Gita or Mahabharata or any other sacred book.

            However, no amount of research and facts is enough to convince the pro abort that he or she is wrong.

            They are willfully ignorant of fetal development in order to stifle the civil rights of the unborn and perpetuate the superiority of the woman.

            Let’s not forget the sexist pro aborts who believe the best reason to abort is to suppress the birth of another girl in the world.

            Oh and the homophobic pro aborts who would abort if the baby would turn out to be gay. After all, the same people who would abort their daughters aren’t in the market for a gay son, either. Do you ever find that it’s a struggle to work with the Taliban wing of your movement?

            My favorite is the “I-personally-wouldn’t-have-one-but-I -couldn’t-stop-someone-else-from-it-Pro-Death-Camper

            These are the real cowards. They see the evil and destruction of abortion but refuse to intervene.

            That’s like saying “I personally don’t believe in female circumcision, but I can’t impose my own beliefs on other cultures… they should be allowed to do as they please and making it illegal will only mean that women will die so let’s keep it safe, and legal.”

            What matters is the life of the living, breathing, woman, who is walking this earth, in ownership of her body. She makes any and all decisions concerning her body. Shrill all you want to that “No! It’s not her body anymore when she gets pregnant!” Ah, nope, it’s still HER body, honey. We have this basic difference in world view. As much as you dislike the words “bodily autonomy”, bwahahahah, we ladies have it.

            What mattered in 1859 was the life of the white master who paid for his black slave; the slave was the master’s property.
            Obviously, the slave had no right to his/her body because in the eyes of the law, he/she was nothing but a piece of property. The black slave existed for the benefit of the master and could be disposed of should the master become displeased or the if the slave became inconvenient.

            How old were you when you first became a fan of Nathan Bedford Forrest, sweetie? You’ve done an excellent job of applying his thoughts.

            Oh… and the last but not least are the pro death campers who are the priests doctors that will force the abortion on the woman even after she’s changes her mind.

            A women changing her mind on killing her offspring in the secular Church of Planned Parenthood where you offer up your tithes is forbidden.

            http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/planned-parenthood-sued-by-colorado-springs-woman-who-claims-they-did-an-abortion-without-anesthesia

            Just in case you “can’t open up the link” google Ayanna Byer. She too died from sepsis (just like Sevita!), and baby parts left inside her.

            *Another side note… for a doctor who makes pretty good money as you claim, one would think you could afford an up to date computer that opens up links.

            No one else is having such computer drama.*

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “As much as you dislike the words ‘bodily autonomy,’ bwahahahah, we ladies have it.”

            Really? It sounds like these ladies didn’t have it:
            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/think-forced-abortion-doesnt-happen-in-america-think-again

          • PJ4

            Heh… oh she won’t even read the link because its’ from lifesitenews
            She only reads “articles” from jezebel, rh and mother jones.
            It’s her only source of info…. .obviously.

          • DianaG2

            Standing ovation, PJ!!!

            This comment is actually making me cry.

            I luv ya.

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “I luv ya.”

            Well of course–how could someone NOT love the way that Jasmine puts the facts on display?!

            Oh…right.

          • PJ4

            aaaaaw thanks guys! :-)

            LOL..

            oh… right. :-)

          • DianaG2

            NP, dear.

            Yes, unfortunately :-(

          • DianaG2

            LOL.

          • Sharon Diehl

            PJ, dear, fanatical antis have taken Carhart to court twice to try and close his clinic down and have him tried for murder; he has repeatedly found to be innocent…because GASP!, he is.

            I saw a photo that Operation Rescue circulated, purported to be an aborted fetus from Carhart’s clinic (photos despite HIPPA laws?), and they declared that they were going to send the image to every member of Congress. I certainly hope they did because the fetus quite obliviously had severe cranial abnormalities. Of course, you, Operation Rescue, Louie Gohmert, other idiots champion forcing a woman to birth an inviable fetus against her wishes, or better judgment, or health reasons. It is up to the woman–her CHOICE–whether or not to go to term with an inviable fetus.

            Honey, slavery is denying women the right to decide for themselves when and whether to bear children.

          • PJ4

            Sharon sweetie, fanatical pro aborts have made Savita’s death into mountain. They blame the Catholic church and they blame the no abortion except to save a woman’s life policy of Ireland. When in fact it was medical malpractice. But *gasp* it had nothing to do with Ireland’s abortion laws! As a matter of fact, the doctors were acting against it.

            Carhart on the other hand escaped prosecution twice by a stacked jury.

            Those women died needlessly because of the abortions he administered.

            So essentially what you’re saying is the that only Savita’s death matters because it furthers your agenda

            The death of the other 2 women is just a normal casualty to you in your your anti-life, eugenic, Might Means Right cause.

            You’d justify Gosnell if you could.

            I saw a photo that Operation Rescue circulated, purported to be an aborted fetus from Carhart’s clinic (photos despite HIPPA laws?),

            Yes, that’s what happens when the bodies are dumped in the dumpster behind the “clinic” despite HIPPA

            And according to you, dead babies are not deserving of HIPPA anyway, so your point is moot.

            It is up to the woman–her CHOICE–whether or not to go to term with an inviable fetus.

            It’s up to no one to decide who is worthy of life and who isn’t.

            Not a man not a woman not the state.

            No one is forcing a women to become pregnant. No one could care less what women do their with their “own” bodies.
            But once she is carrying a child, it’s not just her life. It’s someone else’s life. A life to which she has no right to end—just as you have no right to end my life as inconvenient as I may be to you.

            Honey, slavery is denying women the right to decide for themselves when and whether to bear children.

            Honey, slavery is denying the humanity of the unborn in order to dispose of their bodies.
            The child in utero is no more the property of the mother as a black man was the property of a white man

            No one cares about when a woman gets pregnant.
            It’s the resultant child we care about.

          • DianaG2

            ” . . . yet if a woman chooses to abort that same embryo at the same gestational stage as a national abortion, why, it’s a damn castastrophe! It’s murder! The woman is evil! Yada, yada, yada.”

            Nice straw woman argument.

            How about the entire concept of helping abortion-minded moms to allow their babies to live?

            That’s what they really want anyway. Sixty to 80 percent of moms who have aborted say they did it because they felt coerced.

            So, what’s wrong with helping them keep their little unborn guys and gals?

            Or, is it really just that you want as many abortions as possible to happen?

            Because, if so, that wouldn’t really BE about CHOICE, would it? It would be about promoting abortion.

            That would be a whole different conversation.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Diana, dear, are your statistics from life action news?, or a reputable source?

          • MarcusFenix

            If you’re going to ask that, sweetie cakes…be ready to do so from your own end too. Just saying.

          • DianaG2

            “What I find amazing is that you somehow can’t, or won’t, process the logical difference between what occurs naturally (and sans almost any knowledge by the woman involved) to the premeditated, knowingly undertaken act of abortion.”

            ~~~

            So many folks fall off the cliff into the Pacific Ocean while walking in that area — what difference does it make if I push them off?

          • MarcusFenix

            To her, nothing. It’s just “life” happening.

            Of course, anyone with two firing neurons and a grasp of basic decency ( and law, mind you) might see it differently.

            Just more rationale about why Sharon is completely out of touch with anything resembling reality.

          • DianaG2

            Yes, I see. I think she’s been tipping the bottle a little, to boot.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Diana, honey, if someone has to answer that latter question for you, you need help with a moral compass.

          • MarcusFenix

            Something you’ve failed to note, in this case, Sharon. She’s mimicking the same contextual argument that you are about abortion. Yet, you point out that she’s the one who needs to adjust their moral compass?

            Consistency, Sharon…consistency. It, along with clarity and reason, are your friends.

          • PJ4

            On a side note, I’ve got some very exciting news. Well.. it’s not that new anymore…

            2 years ago, Nancy Keenan, then president of NARAL stepped down.

            Why?

            ” out of concern for the future of the pro-choice movement — and thinks she could be holding it back.
            Nancy Keenan will retire as president of NARAL Pro-Choice America at the end of the year. (Sarah L. Voisin – WASHINGTON POST)In recent years, Keenan has worried about an “intensity gap” on abortion rights among millennials, which the group considers to be the generation of Americans born between 1980 and 1991. While most young, antiabortion voters see abortion as a crucial political issue, NARAL’s own internal research does not find similar passion among abortion-rights supporters.

            and from Newsweek:

            Keenan is distraught that they are losing the abortion debate among young people. This distress was illustrated by her story of getting off the subway at Union Station in Washington, D.C. only to be greeted by a “swarm” of pro-life activists gathering for the 37th Annual March for Life.

            “‘I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,’ Keenan recalled. ‘There are so many of them, and they are so young.’ March for Life estimates it drew 400,000 activists to the Capitol this year. An anti-Stupak rally two months earlier had about 1,300 attendees.”

            Doesn’t’ it make you just ecstatic that it’s the old people who are so passionate about abortion and the youth is more concerned with abolishing it?

            I know.. makes me happy too. :-)

            Please read the good news for yourself.
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/exclusive-naral-president-nancy-keenan-to-step-down/2012/05/10/gIQAn85PGU_blog.html

            and

            http://www.sba-list.org/suzy-b-blog/analysis-“why-young-voters-are-lukewarm-abortion-rights”

            Oh and this: led by young women in the fight to gain equal rights of the unborn

            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/21/hagelin-march-for-life-and-pro-life-movement-now-l/?page=all

            I know I just made your day.
            You are most welcome dear Honey Booboo

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            LOL I didn’t think she was that ridiculous. However, I see your point and now you owe actual Honey Boo Boo an apology. JK :)

          • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

            “Keenan has worried about an “intensity gap” on abortion rights among millennials…”

            Well, I guess you can only get so excited about turning children into medical waste…

          • PJ4

            Not so for our elderly Honey BooBoo..
            She won’t tire of human babies as medical waste.
            It’s the highlight of her day.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Fenix, honey, you fail to grasp that abortion is a women’s reproductive rights issue. A woman’s personhood does not end should a woman become pregnant. A woman has basic civil rights to make medical decisions about HER BODY. Abortion is a natural routine process in a woman’s body, from rejection of viable embryos, to spontaneous abortion of fetal tissue. This is a free society, so Gasp!, women are free to determine the direction of their lives.

            Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, yet goodness, woman are still having babies. But you guys act like women are going to stop having children unless they are forced to.

            Re: “you somehow can’t, or won’t, process the logical difference between what occurs naturally (and sans almost any knowledge by the woman involved) to the premeditated, knowingly undertaken act of abortion.” Ah, Fenix, dear, so it’s no loss to you if a “natural” abortion occurs; but if a woman chooses to abort at the same gestational stage as that ‘natural’ abortion, it’s “murder’!, mayhem!, the sky is going to fall! The woman is a whore! slut! evil!
            I’m not impressed.

          • MarcusFenix

            “Fenix, honey, you fail to grasp that abortion is a women’s reproductive rights issue.”

            Sharon, honey, I don’t. We’ve been talking about this issue for quite some time. I’ve made comments about reproductive rights and other items during the course of this long and drawn out process. You don’t like them, but can’t reject them with an actual argument anywhere. Saying that you believe I don’t understand it is simply a case of you being obtuse and pejorative. Nothing more.

            “A woman’s personhood does not end should a woman become pregnant.”

            No, it doesn’t. No one here is making the case that it does. In fact, it’s been stated several times that such a thing is quite correct. Why beat a dead horse? No one disagrees that *personhood* for the woman ends or has some contractual limit. You’re not making a point here either.

            “A woman has basic civil rights to make medical decisions about HER BODY.”

            Certainly. Again, another point no one here really argues. At this stage, though, interjecting HER BODY in caps is nothing more than a straw man. You don’t even attempt to logically argue the actual point made, which is that there are 2 human lives involved. When I made the comment about superiority versus your choice, you sidestepped that in favor of this. Notice how that becomes a commonplace issue with you…I make an argument, you straw man it, side step it, and answer with unimportant or already agreed on items, as somehow having the upper hand. It doesn’t.

            ” Abortion is a natural routine process in a woman’s body, from rejection
            of viable embryos, to spontaneous abortion of fetal tissue.”

            Correct. While unfortunate, you’re still using a straw man. Address it directly, stop trying to end-run around the problem. If a woman spontaneously aborts 2 days after sex, she never knew she was pregnant. I’m not arguing that it’s good or bad because it’s natural…but i am arguing that it does happen (routinely, even) in biological processes with humans. But you’re comparing that process to the medical one, when they’re nothing alike. One of them happens, especially in the stages you’re quoting, without the woman’s knowledge. The other requires doctors and nurses, the introduction of abortion inducing drugs, and surgical instruments in some cases. The two examples you’re putting together are nothing alike, yet you falsely do so. The comparison, and it’s moral implications, are not equal between the two, and you treat them as such. It’s an Inconsistent Comparison fallacy, of which you’ve been guilty more than once now.

            “This is a free society, so Gasp!, women are free to determine the direction of their lives.”

            Correct…but you’ve already admitted earlier that a fetus is “life”. So, are you saying that women have the right to destroy that life, because they just want to? Notice that carries 2 inherent problems. One, it’s unjust because of such a situation, and two, it’s contradictory to the pro-abortion movement as a whole. They want to distinguish that a fetus isn’t, in fact, alive or human. You’ve said it is on several occassions, and then say it’s ok for a mother to kill her own offspring because she chooses. You can’t have it both ways, regardless of how much a professional fence sitter you are.

            “Abortion has been legal for over 40 years, yet goodness, woman are still
            having babies. But you guys act like women are going to stop having
            children unless they are forced to.”

            Yes, they are. Other than this being silly and really having no place, it’s a straw man yet again. No one is “Acting” like women aren’t going to have kids unless someone steps in and does something.

            “” Ah, Fenix, dear, so it’s no loss to you if a “natural” abortion
            occurs; but if a woman chooses to abort at the same gestational stage as
            that ‘natural’ abortion, it’s “murder’!,”

            First, I’m not going to let you slip the “murder” comment in, for two reasons. One, I never said it, so you’re putting words in my mouth. Secondly, it’s an equivocation argument (another fallacy, go figure that!), which you’re going to try and tie in the legal definitions of murder and other items to this, in trying to run around the argument in a big circle. Abortion doesn’t fit the legal definition of murder in earlier stages. It’s legal status, on the other hand, doesn’t disqualify it as having achieved the result of taking a life. You *already* agree that there is “life”…and that you’re ok with killing that life for your own reasons of apathy and selfishness. You could own that, rather than try to play word games or straw man the argument farther, but you choose not to do so. That’s on you.

            Also, as you’ve pointed out to me and several others with regards to the gestational issue….they’re not the same. You’re the one who has repeatedly told people to go back and read about the subject, then fail to be consistent with your own information.

            Also, never once, *ever*, have i said a woman who gets an abortion is a slut or a whore. Not a single time in my life has that phrase even been uttered, or thought, towards a woman getting an abortion, much less typed here. Do I think it’s morally wrong? Yes. Do I think there are better approaches and ways to deal with a situation than the wholesale destruction of life? Yes. But I’ve never associated “sluts” with abortion. That’s just incorrect on it’s face, certainly not how I think or speak about the matter, and nothing more than an ad hominem to misrepresent a position you have, to this point, provided logical rebuttals against totaling a whopping ZERO.

            “I’m not impressed.”

            You shouldn’t be. You’ve yet to make a single argument that worked, wasn’t based entirely on a fallacy or your own projection and misanthropy, and wasn’t easily refuted without me having to straw man you.

            Don’t be impressed. Be embarrassed and ashamed that you’re getting logically outmaneuvered by some random guy on the internet who doesn’t have your lauded Emeritus status anywhere.

            You’re welcome to logically rebut any of this….but after over a week of this, you’re just rehashing the same broken and invalid arguments. Repetition doesn’t really make you right.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I can see she’s not exactly back with with a vengeance…

          • MarcusFenix

            I would have preferred it, had she come back with a vengeance. At least then, she wouldn’t have come back empty-handed.

          • PJ4

            you fail to grasp that abortion is a women’s reproductive rights issue.

            You’ve failed to grasp that no one, not even women have the right to end another person’s life.
            Heck, even the lib thug utopia of Europe won’t recognize abortion as a human right…. twice.

            What part of no one gets to decide who is worthy of life and who isn’t do you not understand?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Again, “menstrual flows” and “tampons and pads” implies menstruation, which doesn’t happen when pregnant. And what happens, precisely, to the other 20 to 40%? Why are we even talking about percents? What I learned in school was that only 1 egg gets fertilized at conception. Clarify.

            Also, miscarrying is not the same as abortion. Abortion is deliberate. And what does God have to do with anything? He gave humans free will, humans chose to sin, the consequence of sin is chaos, the consequences of chaos are pain and death. God doesn’t cause problems, and He spends most of His time working through us to fix problems. If miscarrying happens, it’s an accident. Inasmuch as most humans aren’t cooperating with God in the strictest sense, our problems remain, and things can happen that were designed or planned by nobody. Miscarrying is an accident, therefore, stop blaming God.

            And are any of the people you quote professional embryologists? And what commentary do you have for sexually inactive women?

          • Sharon Diehl

            Andy, honey, you are dense.
            Re: “What I learned in school was that only 1 egg gets fertilized at conception.” Sweetie, you have this simplistic notion of reproduction. Once a month, if an egg(ova) is not fertilized, it gets ejected in menstrual flow. Now pay attention, dear, if that egg(ova) becomes fertilized, it can ALSO be ejected in menstrual flow. If an egg(ova) becomes fertilized and travels its widdle way along the fallopian tubes, it does not automatically burrow its way into the lining of the uterus and become a ‘pregnancy’. There are millions of women trying to get pregnant–and millions and millions of fertilized eggs, i.e., embryos, that are rejected and landing on women’s hygiene products–bypassing the uterus and not resulting in pregnancy. All those millions and millions of embyros have their own ‘unique DNA’, but there they are, languishing on tampons and pads. And, yes, dear, the gynecologists and other professionals mentioned above state that half of those rejected embryos could have developed into viable fetuses had they imbedded in the uterine lining.

            Note: a miscarriage is correctly, medically termed a “spontaneous abortion”. So, yes, a miscarriage is an abortion…but as you and others may shrill, an induced abortion is “murder”, whereas a natural “god-driven” abortion is just okey-dokey and fine-and-dandy. Other pro-fetus folk I’ve talked with have said: “It’s GOD! He can take life as he sees fit!”

            Honey, you’re the ‘god’, ‘god’, ‘god’ person…there are so many ‘gods’ out there, though, I get confused as to which ‘god’ you’re talking about as you dance around.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            I don’t need to be criticized for having “simplistic notions of reproduction” by someone who turns the matter into “die, fetus! or live and ruin your mother’s life, parasite!” do I?

            And can anyone prove empirically that zygotes can get flushed? And would public schools deceive me? That’s where I learned the one-egg rule.

            And you can speak uselessly about semantics, pragmatics, and denotations all day. Induced abortion is still murder. Spontaneous abortion is still accidental. God and accidents are not mutually exclusive. Humans chose the pain, death, and chaos of the world when they chose to sin. No amount of linguistics will change that.

            And if you don’t know which God I’m talking about, that’s not my fault. I fail to see how I could have made it clearer. I’m talking about the God who became the man Jesus Christ, who died an awful death for our respective benefits and a few days later returned to life just to prove He could. How is that confusing? Do you think I’ve been talking about Allah? Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? Amaterasu? Osiris? Zeus? Odin? …Elvis Presley? Don’t tell me you’re one of those people who think all religions are the same.

          • DianaG2

            Very nicely done.

          • Guest

            And there are NO “old fogey” Democratic politicians???

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Can you define “old fogey?”

          • Sharon Diehl

            Yes, Diana sweetie, there are definitely idiotic “old fogey” Democrats–especially the 15 Democratic congressMEN who voted for HR 358, the “Let Women Die Act”, which would have let pregnant women facing emergencies, in which an abortion would save their life, would be allowed to die if a religious hospital refused to treat them.

          • PJ4

            Oh jeez… quite with the histrionics.
            It’s was dubbed the “let women die act” by crazy feminazis like you.
            In the real world, that’s not what the bill stated.
            It is a protection from people of your ilk who want to force your beliefs on other people

            Stop with the exaggeration and lying…
            I guess if you don’t have that you don’t have anything, so… you’ve officially been disarmed.

          • Sharon Diehl

            Rep. Lois Capps (a feminazi, no doubt, by your standards PJ): “H.R. 358 creates a loophole which would allow hospitals to circumvent the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a law that has saved many lives. EMTALA was established to ensure that when a patient arrives at a hospital in critical condition — particularly women in labor — the patient will be stabilized, regardless of her ability to pay. ….

            However, H.R. 358 carves a radical and uncalled for loophole into this law. It would allow providers to refuse emergency care for women even if their lives are endangered by their pregnancy. Incredibly, the hospital could even refuse to give a referral.”

            Why is the GOP is so obsessed with a woman’s reproductive life? They criminalize miscarriage; want to ban the morning after pill for rape victims; redefine rape to “forcible rape”, creating some sort of standard that some women derserve help, and others do not; require rural clinics that perform abortions to meet the standards of an outpatient surgical centre. No histrionics or lies, honey, just plain facts; the GOP is obsessed withi my lady parts.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Still carrying things to extremes and stereotyping Republicans, I see. Has it ever occurred to you that the mistakes of some individual Republicans may not represent the ideals of the entire Republican party? Why is it that pro-abortion liberals are the only group to alienate and pass judgment on people who don’t agree with them for being “intolerant?” On another note, isn’t it a good idea, even for pro-aborts, to hold abortion clinics to the same standards as other kinds of clinics? Isn’t that the most practical way, for now at least, to prevent another Gosnell? After all, if you sincerely care about women, you wouldn’t want them to be in danger of sickness at a clinic of all places, and if an abortion clinic must close for not meeting such standards, then that’s one less place to put women in danger of abortion-related infections. Do you care more about women or about higher abortion numbers? Both parties should agree on this. The GOP can support it for its effect of making abortion clinics close, the Dems can support it for its effect of making abortion more “safe, legal, and rare.”

          • PJ4

            Sharon, Sharon Sharon, oh sweet (ding)Batty,

            Haven’t we been through this before?

            You really need to stop depending on anti-life propaganda site headlines for your news.

            Rh and Jezebel and nutty Leftwing Libthug sites.

            For a women of such supposed higher learning it is amazing to me that you allow others to do your research for you. Is that how you received your phd, via plagiarism and other people’s research?

            Good thing it wasn’t this stuff.

            Capps is wrong.

            Read the bill for yourself

            It allows no such loophole or provision to allow women who are in need of “a life saving abortion” to die.

            (however, in most cases both baby and mommy can be saved)

            What HR 358 does do:

            Completely eliminates federal funding of abortions (with the exception of course for your rape and incest concerns)

            And it protects doctors, nurses and other health care providers from people of your ilk that would force them to perform elective abortions against their will.

            Why is the GOP is so obsessed with a woman’s reproductive life?

            They’re not. They are interested in saving the lives of the unborn and keeping women’s reproductive lives out of the pockets of the American tax payer.

            Its Libthugs like you who want everyone to pay for your good time who tries to involve gov’t in the bedroom.

            <They criminalize miscarriage; want to ban the morning after pill for rape victims

            Oh jeez… we’ve been over this but….. apparently you’re a very slow learner.

            1. They don’t want to criminalize miscarriage.

            2. They want to prevent illegal abortion.

            You are certainly good at twisting someone’s intentions
            Are you happy the guy who beat up the girl in UT wasn’t able to be prosecuted?

            I’m sure you are.

            want to ban the morning after pill for rape victims

            We’ve been over this one too… and I’ve sited several studies about it’s ineffective qualities. but let me guess:

            Your well paying doctor salary hasn’t allowed you to afford an up to date computer that can open any of the links I’ve provided, right?

            (incidentally no one else is having your computer drama)

            1. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00498.x/abstract
            or google
            THE EFFECTS OF INCREASED ACCESS TO EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION ON SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE AND ABORTION RATES

            2. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2013/03/15/More-abortions-in-Sweden-despite-pill/UPI-61001363369704/#ixzz2mMGxIiWG
            or google
            More abortions in Sweden despite pill

            3 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167629610001505

            or google
            The impact of emergency birth control on teen pregnancy and STIs

            4. http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/11/plan-b-problem-pregnancies
            or google
            Morning-After Pill Disappoints, On To Plan C: More Effective Methods

            Plan B also discriminates against big girls but I’m sure you Libthugs revel in fat shaming.

            redefine rape to “forcible rape”,

            Wait, so when Woopie Goldberg was defending Polanksi and redefined rape (she said; “but it’s not really rape rape” when describing what he did to a 13 year little girl) it’s ok, but when someone sticks their foot in their mouth and then apologizes for it, it’s still a crime?

            Wow you people are such hypocrites.

            creating some sort of standard that some women derserve help, and others do not

            You mean like how you people create this false standard that somehow some babies deserve life and others don’t?

            require rural clinics that perform abortions to meet the standards of an outpatient surgical centre.

            That’s not from the GOP, that’s form the American College of Surgeons:

            http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-46.html

            Core Principle #8 – Physicians performing office-based surgery may show competency by maintaining core privileges at an accredited or licensed hospital or ambulatory surgical center, for the procedures they perform in the office setting. Alternatively, the governing body of the office facility is responsible for a peer review process for privileging physicians based on nationally recognized credentialing standards.

            It’s you people who want to exempt abortion clinics form these standard.
            Why?

            You see?
            All you people have are hyperbole, histrionics and lies.
            You’ve been exposed. Just plain facts

            the GOP is obsessed with my lady parts.

            As I recall, it was the DemoRats who compared voting to losing one’s virginity (for a woman, not a man)
            and the DemoRats who encouraged women to vote with their “lady parts”

            And judging from your picture all the money in the world would not be enough to have anyone (let alone the entire GOP) be “obsessed” with your lady parts.

            Cheers love!

          • MarcusFenix

            Yet, for some odd reason, you believe that only Republicans can be against abortion.

            How utterly naive…yet unsurprising.

          • DianaG2

            That isn’t true.

          • Part138

            And there are absolutely no “old fogey” Democratic politicans???

      • MarcusFenix

        “not low information”

        Says the woman who, below, would have us believe in Spontaneous Generation.

        Sorry, but your ideas regarding information were debunked as early as the 17th Century. Your information is only about a handful of centuries out of date.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

        • PJ4

          Just like her!

        • Sharon Diehl

          Fenix, honey, you’re a fruitcake. No one believes in spontaneous generation. Check out abiogenesis and the syntheisis of amino acids.

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            The main difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation is that the latter’s slightly more plausible. It can’t, however, be proven by strictly empirical means beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. And inasmuch as you keep insinuating that the unborn are objects, not organisms, and that they spontaneously become organisms at birth, you might as well believe in spontaneous generation.

          • MarcusFenix

            Except, sweetie cheeks, where you basically are advocating it below. I mean, you could have answered that particular post, but chose to come here and drop this one instead.

            Let’s face it. Your pseudo-arguments are failures. Your presentations on them are failures. Your attempt at snark is a failure. Your arguments are built on ideas you can’t back up, can’t articulate properly, and barely can get out without contradicting yourself on later.

            Please, tell me that *this* is not the best you can come back with. Answer what whats below, with relation to this post, if you think you can somehow regain this lost sense of being correct.

    • DianaG2

      OMG :-(( Sorry, Princess.

      Hope to see you soon, dear?

  • RonaldoFearsEboue .

    Abortion=crime stoppers

    • http://liveactionnews.org/author/adam-peters/ Adam Peters

      Should we execute adults without trial as well? If you believe in killing people in order to prevent them from committing crimes in the future then abortion seems like a weak half-measure…

      • Andrew J. Corrales

        There’s also that people will commit crimes anyway, and abortion also kills future heroes, inventors, wise people, and law-abiding citizens.

        • Basset_Hound

          People like Steve Jobs. In his autobiography he mentioned that his birth mother could have aborted him.

          • MamaBear

            People like Joseph Mohr who wrote the lyrics of “Stille Nacht” (Silent Night).

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            Silent Night? Holy Night!

          • MamaBear

            Yep! The same! His daddy was a soldier who left Salzberg never to be heard from again. He was raised in poverty by a single mother. A local priest noticed he was bright and made sure he got an education. Not surprisingly, young Joseph followed his mentor’s footsteps and became a priest himself.
            I thought this real story sounded better than most fiction, so I am working on a children’s book. Amazing how God can take a tragic beginning, a fatherless child, and use it for something good, the world’s most beloved Christmas carol. How many more tragic beginnings are out there that have brought good into the world?

          • Andrew J. Corrales

            My favorite such tragic beginning is that of Jesus Christ. A king killed a bunch of kids to get rid of Him. Good thing he failed. I wonder if pro-aborts cope with this story by thinking of all those deaths as really late-term abortions. JK :)

      • MarcusFenix

        As an aside…

        If we were to start executing people for the crime of rampant stupidity…the lines for every thing we hate (grocery shopping, the post office, DMV) would evaporate instantly. ;)

    • PJ4

      Another Freakonomics believer.
      Newsflash: his theory has been debunked.

  • http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-second-hand nrgldussp

    Mr Cooper said the track days were an annual event and around 20 of the club s members attended this year. [url=http://www.picketreport.com/support.php?p=true-religion-womens-jeans]true religion womens jeans[/url] Sharma’s autobiographical novel is essentially an exploration of how a family copes with devastating adversity. That he is able to do so with emotional intelligence and great flashes of humour makes this a poignant and a compelling read. n [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-taschen-günstig]louis vuitton taschen günstig[/url]
    and its sister hospital Mercy Gilbert racked up nearly [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=oakley-holbrook-polarized]oakley holbrook polarized[/url] “We’re able to restore a little bit of the programs over the last several years,” Robbins-Meyer said. “But again, I want to make sure everyone understands that we’re not rich.”
    Washington DC [url=http://danielecerioni.com/supporto.php?p=pochette-louis-vuitton-outlet]pochette louis vuitton outlet[/url] More important, the new proposal — which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday and would be opened to public comment if approved — asks for input on whether broadband Internet should be reclassified as a public utility. d [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=military-oakley]military oakley[/url]
    5. Pour liquid ingredients over the bread cubes. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate for one hour. [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=schal-louis-vuitton]schal louis vuitton[/url] 05/07/2014 06:27:54 PM PDT
    n In Vladimir Serov’s vast 1947 painting, “Lenin Proclaims Soviet Power”, Stalin was initially shown standing behind Lenin but was later removed. Only a cloud of smoke from his pipe is still visible. [url=http://danielecerioni.com/supporto.php?p=portafoglio-louis-vuitton-outlet]portafoglio louis vuitton outlet[/url] How does the law define shokushitsu? [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=military-oakley]military oakley[/url]
    Among the more unique entries this year was “Society’s Demise,” which featured , 12, of Trumbull, buried in the sand before a headstone holding her cell phone. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-wallet]michael kors wallet[/url] Commencement speeches are notorious for giving advice. I have tried to avoid going too far down that road. But in the spirit of , the nation’s first warner-in-chief, let me say: http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-stuttgart
    Drodriquez Williams, 22, of Jackson, is charged with two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Police said Williams swerved toward a patrol car when officers passed him. Police chased him, but terminated the pursuit. Williams was later arrested, authorities said. [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=gefälschte-louis-vuitton-taschen-kaufen]gefälschte louis vuitton taschen kaufen[/url] Others in the group left off included defenders Edgar Castillo, Michael Orozco and Tim Ream; midfielders Brek Shea, Benny Feilhaber, Jose Torres and Daniel Williams; and forwards Herculez Gomez and Juan Agudelo. j [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-handbags-on-sale-outlet]michael kors handbags on sale outlet[/url]
    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends health care delivery through such multidisciplinary teams, among other tools, to help health care systems lower costs while continuing to provide the best possible care for each patient. Care teams that include nurse practitioners and physician assistants are proven to alleviate demand for physicians without increasing their supply, according to 2013 , a nonprofit research and analytics institution. [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-koffer-outlet]louis vuitton koffer outlet[/url] “Hemingway was probably the most prominent American to make Cuba his home, and I think the people of Cuba to this day cherish him and love him,” said Yari (“Crash,” “The Illusionist”). “And hopefully this film will become an addition to that component of bridging this gap between two cultures and two peoples that have drifted apart.”
    As a theologian and pastor I often hear from those who oppose me. And while I may disagree with their positions, their arguments have often caused me to go back and re-think mine. Either I become more assured as a result of re-examining the evidence, or I come to better my own position by making need adjustments. Either way I am better off! [url=http://www.picketreport.com/support.php?p=true-religion-beanie]true religion beanie[/url] With Okubo it s maybe quicker to explain why I hadn t chosen him until now, said Zaccheroni. He s a player with experience and a nose for goal, and someone who is capable of creating chances at any time.
    Northern California boasts some of the world’s greatest music festivals, including Outside Lands, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass and of course Monterey Jazz. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-wallet]michael kors wallet[/url] • So including the two shots on goal in Monday’s third period, that’s five shots over the Ducks’ past two third periods. The Ducks need to support their young goaltender with a better offensive push than that.
    Who saw this coming? Almost everyone. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-flats]michael kors flats[/url] Russia’s mixed messages
    y Law Firm: PRO SE. Case No. 4:14-bk-6213. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-sale]michael kors sale[/url] May 8, 2014
    “He acts so holy,” Sterling said. “He made love to every girl in every city in America, and he had AIDS, and when he had those AIDS, I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him, I hope he could live and be well. I didn’t criticize him. I could have. Is he an example for children?” [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-purses-cheap]michael kors purses cheap[/url] The school’s record holder in every significant passing category, most notably career and single-season marks for passing yards and touchdowns, Fales heads to Chicago to compete to be a backup to entrenched, but injury-prone starter Jay Cutler. r [url=http://danielecerioni.com/supporto.php?p=neverfull-louis-vuitton-outlet]neverfull louis vuitton outlet[/url]
    On [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=cheap-oakley-military-sunglasses]cheap oakley military sunglasses[/url] So not only is the Batmobile going to be in the upcoming film, but it seems that fans will get to see the iconic vehicle in all of its glory tomorrow. While this film already has its naysayers awaiting to criticize everything about film, even those critics have to be excited to to see the reveal of the Batmobile. In any case, fans can only imagine what the Batmobile looks like under the tarp. Perhaps we get that answer tomorrow as more on this new Batmobile is revealed.
    p The 18-year-old passenger suffered the full impact of the crash but was able to walk away. He was pretty upset … [It is] an incredibly terribly sad business, Dr Thompson said. [url=http://www.picketreport.com/support.php?p=true-religion-hoodies]true religion hoodies[/url] Some in the industry are concerned that the trouble facing GM is making other automakers overly cautious. r
    Estelle reported the situation to the commission himself, the filing said. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-tote]michael kors tote[/url] Location: San Francisco, CA [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=cheap-oakley-sunglasses-outlet]cheap oakley sunglasses outlet[/url]
    The dentist with a British accent was then attacked for decision to make dumplings with pork fillet (not fatty enough), then switching to duck and then finally calling dumplings Pot Stickers. [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-outlet-online-sale]michael kors outlet online sale[/url] Green said he did not want to make the match all about Thurston. j [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-geldbeutel]louis vuitton geldbeutel[/url]
    To help, here are some tips from the Weight-control Information Network (WIN), a national information service of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, part of the National Institutes of Health: [url=http://www.adonim.de/tragen.php?p=louis-vuitton-gürtel-herren]louis vuitton gürtel herren[/url] Filed Under: , , City:
    Here’s what else he had to say about working with McGuinness, why he decided to lump all three plays together and his musical influences: [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=gascan-oakley]gascan oakley[/url] x [url=http://www.442ndrct.com/support.php?p=michael-kors-sneakers]michael kors sneakers[/url]
    I think they are trying to bring more kid-friendly things to the area, Mulligan said. [url=http://www.abolgokh.com/support.php?p=cheap-wayfarer-sunglasses]cheap wayfarer sunglasses[/url] If you use a lot of data and want to avoid overage fees, your best bet is to turn off data roaming and buy an unlimited pass for citywide Wi-Fi instead. One company, Boingo, offers one-month unlimited mobile Wi-Fi access for two devices at more than 700,000 hot spots worldwide for $7.95. This is a recurring subscription, so if you want the service for only a month, you have to cancel, but there s no fee for doing so. You can see city maps with hot spots at Boingo.com.