Home - List All Discussions

Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation Technologies.

..Human Cloning, Evil Science, also Legislative destruction of Roe v. Wade

by: DocQuack

Hello everyone!
Apologies for making a shameless plug on this forum for another forum, but my forum deals with a very specific issue of Pro-Life and is non-competitive with here. The page deals with future dark technologies of the womb which are just over the horizon and threatening the unborn infant, not just in the womb, but outside of it.
Live Fetal Extraction -- as being pursued globally -- potentially contributes to Human Cloning evils and a great variety of other abuses to human life. At the same time, this emerging assault upon life also provides us ample opportunity to further fight over the unborn and to possibly destroy Abortion with legislation surrounding it.
Your input and moral perspectives are critical. Response from the on-line Pro-Life community has been pathetic to date, apathetic, and rather cowardly considering the number of visitors we do have. You cannot hide from these matters. Whether you agree with my position on the issue (which is not fully formed and truly seeking your guidance) or not, you'll have to face the technology sometime. It's just down the road.
Thank you,
Project EXCALIBUR
https://excalibur.110mb.com

reply from: DocQuack

Having had some clerical input of great value lately and the chance to survey the thoughts of some pro-lifers, my finding is that a great many are scared of the idea and rightfully so. Some have been confused and think I'm pushing for the technology. Others find me wishy washy on it.
The forum was established to help me decide if I would support the technology or not; To help take in ideas and considerations we may not be seeing.
* I like the idea of potentially saving millions of babies with it someday.
* I don't like the idea of morally compromising on abortion to allow non-lethal pregnancy termination, but, compared to butchering babies and losing them to murder, I'll take an incubated baby!
* If good priests and bishops are afraid to decide upon the issue, that should tell us something right there. It's a major moral consideration well beyond the education and capacities of the average American. It's something more for clerics, judges, and lawyers to mull over but something pro-lifers will need to decide upon once presented more clearly.
* IN CASE IT HASN'T BEEN CLEAR ENOUGH, I DO NOT SUPPORT SOFTENING UP ON THE AGENDA TO OVER-TURN ROE V. WADE BY SUBSTITUTION WITH THIS TECHNICAL CRAP.
* THE IDEA IS THAT OVERTURN OF ROE V. WADE IS OUR PLAN A STRATEGY. I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO HAVE A PLAN B -- CONSIDERING HOW THE RNC BACKSTABS CONSERVATIVES AND PRO-LIFE.
* FINALLY, THE BEST MOTIONS IN WAR TEND TO BE BY MULTIPLE PRONGS OF ATTACK. THE ISSUE OF LIVE FETAL EXTRACTION & INCUBATION DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED BY US IN ORDER TO LEGISLATIVELY MANIPULATE IT TOWARD THE FURTHER DESTRUCTION OF ABORTION. THE VERY FACT IT EXISTS, GROWS ALL THE MORE DAILY, AND SOON THREATENS TO ABUSE HUMAN LIFE ALL THE MORE......MEANS WE MUST LEGISLATE MORE IN REGARD TO THE PERSONHOOD OF THE INFANT IN THE WOMB AND OUTSIDE OF IT.

reply from: DocQuack

....35 views of this and you militant on-line yappers have not one stinkin' comment?!!
Cowards!!!!!!!!!!
Like that, you'll never defeat Abortion!
...Also, I fully realize that such an idea deviates from existing anti-abortion strategy and may seem to detract from it at first. But, should you find that the RNC has only backstabbed us; Should you find that it becomes impossible to overturn Roe v. Wade for decades to come due to RNC betrayals and decisions of the Supreme Court.... then, the Project EXCALIBUR idea won't seem so bad.
...The forum was started to kick around some ideas and considerations about how to best apply this strategy so that it compliments anti-abortion agendas, not detracts from them. But, the silence of pro-lifers on the matter has been mostly deafening, cowardly, and disgusting.
See you around.

reply from: RedTaintedRose

"live fetal extractions" you mean like C-section births? Those are live fetal extractions..are you suggesting a artificial womb? as in extract the fetus and implant it into artificial enviroment staged to mirror a womb?
How does this tie into cloning?
Your arguements are unclear.

reply from: futureshock

I don't understand this part:
I don't like the idea of morally compromising on abortion to allow non-lethal pregnancy termination

reply from: DocQuack

Hi Rose,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. It gives me a lot of opportunity to adjust things to be more clear to people in the future.
Did you visit the forum? It would help if I knew that. Much of what you ask is explained on the front page. At the same time, about 50% to 60% of those visiting don't seem to understand what I'm getting at, though it is explained with even pictures on the site. I can't tell yet if I'm not explaining things clear enough or it their casual attention as Internet lookies loos is behind that. Others fully understand what I'm getting at, but sometimes we've had to correspond some. Another part of that is because questions like you're tossing at me are just known to me and not ones I thought of addressing at the time. I thank you for the commenting and here we go....
C-SECTIONS?
Yes and no. I'm talking about that a little and maybe not, too. The reason for that is because, if we keep C-Section as the requirement, the Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation strategy as a means to destroy abortion won't sell so well with women. They'll say, "How dare you deny me an abortion and require that I be butchered up!!" (It's okay to butcher their babies, but, oh no, no surgical extractions of the infant). And doing so does raise possible complications and risks to the mother. So, C-Sections should be avoided if this technology is to be able to compete with and crush Abortion someday.
How do you do that? Get in there with a catheter, bypass the umbilical cord, keep the baby alive, and then induce artificial labor at every phase of pregnancy. If you can take the infant as an embroyo and grow him to baby or if you can pull him out late term and have a saved baby -- without cutting up the mama -- then, we have a good thing. Cervical dilation and every tactic under the sun -- maybe even squeezing and jumping up and down on Mama's belly -- might be required, but best to avoid cutting. If cutting, I'd suggest less intrusive operations and maybe just a little slit to the uterus enough to aid in extraction of larger infants. But, it's always better to flex human tissue out of the way than to slice it up.
ARTIFICIAL WOMBS
Yes, absolutely. From embryo to late term abortion baby, they're going to need advanced neo-natal care more so than anything which presently exists. This is going on right now in foreign countries. Fetal goats are being extracted and grown outside the womb, but their survival rates have been poor due mostly to a need to engineer the machines better. There are issues of nutrient feeding, proper blood nutrient and waste levels, fetal temperature, and all these natural things that being in mama provides are lost. It's very hard for premie babies to even make it. Any advances made in this realm go straight to keeping the ultimate in low birthweight babies alive: the embryo.
There are even mad scientists out there trying to clone tissue onto artificial placentas and they're growing human and animal embryos on them as we chat. This is done under the guise of giving mankind all sorts of artificial womb baby-making luxury options. In many respects, it's actually Pro-Baby (and certainly would be propagandized that way) until you realize the darkness of it all.
Just like artificial fertilization and dumping unwanted embryos....they don't care. It brings up all sorts of other bioethics questions. Society's devaluing of the natural mother?
Non-maternal wombs can be made from machinery (which is the most easy to work with and modify), but there is talk of implanting humans into other animal wombs. Genetics quacks have been trying to blend human embryos with animal in order to embed that hybrid infant onto animal placenta walls. Again, another bioethics outrage which forces further Pro-Life legislation as a direct function of technology's development!
As for my own suggest, you might like this: Earlier I kicked out the idea that it might be possible to butcher up millions of the nation's unwanted dogs from the pound in order to make some sort of hybrid biological/ machinery contraption capable of growing the unwanted infant. I love doggies, but I would gladly butcher my own beloved doggy in order to recover just one baby from an abortion clinic. I laugh that the PETA twits would freak out. I laugh the Dr. Evil laugh that we would be saving millions of infant lives by implanting our little lambs in the clothing of a wolf for a change. No more wolf among us in sheep's clothing; Just lambs among us in wolf clothing! :-)
...But, fortunately, for Man's Best Friend, they probably don't make all that reliable or suitable an incubator. Too inefficient. Too ugly in lab work to slay millions of cute doggies or keep them alive only for incubation. You'd need a massive dog breeding or other livestock production facility just in order to pull it off so that it could compete with Abortion. So, to do that, biomechanical engineering and machinery makes the most sense. Machinery can be mass produced to reliable standard each time. Machinery, though needing much refinement, would be the most suitable artificial womb. And, in early stages, there would be health problems for the infant due to loss of the natural womb. But, technology will better perfect things in animal research and then, finally, they'll do it all the more in humans.
I think we can expect that, since the biotech industry pushing for such things only has commercial agendas and doesn't give a hoot about long-term health of the infant, initial technologies would be sloppy.
Initially, they'll only care about growing the infant to larger size -- big enough to provide spare parts and research materials for living humans. Somewhere along the line, they'll modify the infant and tell us it isn't human anymore. They'll blend DNA with a monkey or gorilla, and say, "See, that's no human. We can kill it. We can use those body parts for organ transplants and tissue culture, though. We can save and enrich many human lives with this! (One of the reasons I don't accept saving life as the end-all moral high ground here -- even that of the aborted infant).
I don't really think biotech is interested in modifying their technologies to generate a happy, healthy baby at full consciousness. They might want the baby's body basically functional, but they're not interested in long-term health (which would require extra modifications and medical tactics to pull off well -- such as taking cultures from the mother in order to innoculate the infant with beneficial bacteria found in breast milk; Something that would be lacking among machinery made into wet nurse).
HOW DOES THAT TIE INTO CLONING?
Well, cloning you can do by duplicating the embryo, but then what? You put it in a pitri dish and it'll die eventually. So, you feed it. You take away waste products. You start to grow it. This is incubation which serves medical research.
From there, depending upon how you want to go, you can stem cell clone tissues and organs. Or, grow a full baby. If you're going to grow a full-sized baby, you just kill off some of the brain tissue and tell people it's "brain dead" (like Terry Shiavo). Therefore, they're not human. They can be killed. No sweat. No biggie. Or, as I said earlier, you just blend that embryo with a gorilla, or chicken, or frog....and whalah...it's no longer human. No longer has a right to life.
These technologies all overlap as merely the same, old demonic Caduceus in modern times. It doesn't tie in at any single point to Human Cloning. It ties in everywhere! :-(

reply from: DocQuack

Okay, let's say you're all for this newfangled idea of mine....
"Yippie!!! Wooo hooo!!! What a wonderful idea!!! We can destroy Abortion with it. We can save maybe over a million infants per year in the United States by getting the courts to rule that the only acceptable means of pregnancy termination shall now be Live Fetal Extraction, Incubation, and handover of the living, unwanted infant to a National Adoption Program. Wow!! What a wonderful idea!! Let's do it!!!"
Hang on!! Wait a second! Think about it. You're then saying that sex without responsibility is socially acceptable. You're saying that Pregnancy Termination is morally acceptable in modern times, but only that you may not kill the infant by archaic Abortion methodology of the last 40 years. Even if you're not saying that and declare fully to the contrary, by action and ruling of law...that's what you're doing because actions speak louder than words.
So, is that morally acceptable compromise in order to save millions of infants and forever crush the murder of legalized abortion? I would be all for it, but subject to moral constraints and legal restrictions.
First, I wouldn't want this kind of Pro-Life strategy winding up as our Plan A. "Okay, cool. Let's give up on over-turn of Roe v. Wade and pursue this wild, new idea!"
I think it best as your football punt and "Hail Mary" pass, not your primary offensive moves. It belongs as Plan B when the RNC screws us among continued betrayal. And, it belongs maybe as a second prong of attack -- maybe just a diversionary move. Maybe just a means of dividing the Pro-Abortion enemy's energy and resources among more fronts while squashing them. Wave with the left hand, draw them out into positions of instability, and sucker punch with the right -- further weakening of Roe v. Wade. How can there be a medical right to privacy between a woman and her doctor which bypasses the Right to Life and personhood of the infant in light of such technologies? The very fact such evil exists and goes on inside the womb thanks to Science forces Congress and Senate to redefine and clarify the whole Roe v. Wade argument.
My argument is that you don't have to support Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation as an Abortion Alternative, but we ought to at least use it to further weaken the Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion cause. It is to kill their cause with the very dark technology they pursue. It is to hang those pukes with the demonic rope they sell us.
And I see only great good things to it ...if done right. I also see great evil further sprinkled in the world -- by our very own hand -- in pursuit of such things. It is to "play God". It is a very powerful double-edged sword that cuts through everything, so named Excalibur. It can only really be properly swung by our greatest of Presidents and I know not where to find such a man yet.
...The strategic and technical issue in general I think can be tuned to be compliant with God, but the Devil is certainly in the details and there would have to be a lot of moral input and tweaking of the scheme and technology in order to make it holy and not something in the service of Hell. The wicked will certainly steal ideas, tactics, and technologies from it but we didn't do that. They would do so anyway as technology proliferates.
...To me, the issue is much like the creation of nuclear energy. It's dual use. It can be used to enhanced and save human life; To keep this nation and our allies strong. Or, it can be used against us. It can be used to destroy most the world. Incubating mere babies may not seem anywhere near on par with nukes, but, as a demonic principality, I'm pretty certain dominion over the science of Life is much higher rank in Hell than dominion over things of war and power. Tools and toys and gods of war are not anywhere near as beloved to the Devil as playing God himself. Things we often do as good men in all the best of intentions do have a way of paving the road to Hell.
To at least prevent that some and protect my own soul -- and going back to your question -- I don't think such a new strategy should be placed as any form of substitute for the agenda to outlaw Abortion and over-turn Roe v. Wade. If we accept Pregnancy Termination with Incubation of infants as the new Abortion Alternative and the only acceptable law of the land over this next century, we are simply condoning Pregnancy Termination by our actions. That's the way it is now until the strategy is better refined and tweaked away from that. That's why I opened the forum. There are things to think about which I don't presently see. Things to think about which none of you see. Over time, an idea like this can be refined into something very powerful that is entirely moral and fully capable of destroying Abortion. But, the when and the how and under what restrictions remain to be seen.

reply from: DocQuack

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/dc8d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Artificial Wombs
Will we grow babies outside their mothers' bodies?
By Gretchen Reynolds | August 2005
A fetus lives in a world of bubbles. In its earliest days, it's shaped like one. Later, it floats in one - the squishy, enveloping amniotic sac. And eventually, if all goes well, the fetus releases one bubble of fluid, then another and another, like smoke signals, as it puckers and swallows and floats in the womb. It was the bubbles that first convinced Hung-Ching Liu two years ago that a baby might actually be grown outside its mother's uterus. Liu, the director of the Reproductive Endocrine Laboratory at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility in Manhattan, has become, almost accidentally, the nation's premier womb-maker. Beginning in 2001, her lab started growing sheets of human tissue composed of cells from the endometrium, the lining of the uterus. This engineered tissue, which used starter cells donated by infertile patients, was meant to bolster the clinic's in-vitro fertilization success. A layer of endometrial cells is, after all, the ideal platform on which to nurture an embryo, a medium almost as good as mom would have made.
But the tissue, a single layer of cells stretched across a cell culture within a plastic petri dish, was gossamer-thin. "We'd hoped the embryos would implant on this tissue," Liu says, "so we could learn more about the mechanisms of implantation. But they could not." The growing embryos would break through the tissue, smack against the petri dish and, like a tree whose roots hit rock, die.
So Liu added layers, tissue atop tissue, until she had a three-dimensional model, essentially a freestanding uterus. Embryos could attach to this engineered tissue. They could burrow in, sending out shoots of blood vessel. They could take in nutrition and give out waste. They could divide, differentiate, and thrive.
Which led at last to the bubbles. In 2003, in an experiment that hasn't received as much attention as one might expect - perhaps because Liu hasn't published her results, due to her qualms about how those results will be received by politicians, activists and desperate would-be parents - a mouse embryo grew almost to full term in one of Liu's artificial wombs. It moved. It breathed. It bubbled. "And not just one bubble," Liu says. "We saw bubble, bubble, bubble."
She may also have glimpsed, in that moment, the far-out future of human reproduction, vitreous and shifting. Thanks to her research and others', man-made mouse wombs could be a reality within a decade - and a stepping stone to artificial human wombs. Eventually, these baby incubators could supplant natural ones. Conception could be clinical, and birth bloodless. Gestation could be detached from motherhood, and a fetus could be viable from the instant that sperm and egg fused.
Or not. Days after cheerfully percolating, Liu's rodent fetus died, deformed and contorted, more seahorse than mouse, a developmental freak. The same thing happened to the next fetus she implanted, and the one after that. "Making babies is more complicated than we imagined," Liu says. "And we knew going into this that making babies is very, very complicated."
Liu, 63, is a short woman with full cheeks, a rounded middle and smooth, unlined skin who bustles along the corridors of her lab like a cartoon teapot. She is, by any measure, maternal, with two grown sons. Twenty-one years ago, Liu, then an assistant professor, joined the first team in the U.S. to have produced a test-tube baby. Now she and her partners can boast an enviable success rate. In the past several years, about 40 percent of the couples that came to her group conceived, and in 2004, the center's 10,000th IVF baby was born.
Her artificial-womb work was a natural outgrowth of the IVF efforts and is motivated by the same ache. "I see so many women who want their own baby so badly," she says. Among them are women whose embryos have failed to take hold and grow and who might benefit from her current research.
Liu's artificial womb is a surprisingly simple construction. She created it after researching the making of artificial skin and adapting those methods. First she and her co-workers mold a base, a womb-shaped matrix of collagen and chondroitin, substances that are biodegradable. Over time, they dissolve, leaving only the endometrial tissue that is placed over the matrix. Each womb is shaped like a section of the mammalian version it mimics: The artificial human mold is bowl-shaped; the faux mouse womb is a doughnut-shaped section of a mouse's tubular uterus.
In the beginning, Liu used endometrial cells donated by some of the clinic's female patients to grow human tissue. Then she added human embryos left over from IVF treatments, donated by other patients. These zygotes implanted and started to grow. But after they had gestated for 10 days, Liu ended the experiments, well short of viability. Under current federal regulations, two weeks is the limit for human fetal growth in the lab. "So we switched to an animal model," Liu says with a shrug. In 2002 she and her colleagues started making mouse wombs and growing mouse embryos inside them.
In outline, the gestation process seems straightforward. Sperm and egg meet. An embryo implants. Between them, mother and baby build a placenta and an amniotic sac. Fluid builds up around the growing embryo. Hormones move in and out. Nutrition, blood and oxygen pass through the placenta. Waste products are removed. There's a gentle hum of maternal heartbeat and digestion. It's like a well-modulated, high-end aquarium.
Except, of course, that it's not. The actual sequence of events is exceedingly intricate. Miss one minor step, delete a gene expression, add a dribble too much or too little of a single hormone, and you'll wind up with a baby who is dead or monstrous or, in what may be a blessing, both.
Artificial wombs have figured for generations in fiction, feminist theory, abortion debates and even the wistful imaginings of women far advanced in pregnancy. In Brave New World, the 1932 book by Aldous Huxley, babies grew in tubes. In 1970 Shulamith Firestone wrote in The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution that artificial wombs should be developed to free women from "the tyranny of their sexual-reproductive roles." More recently, the exhausted working-mother heroine of the novel I Don't Know How She Does It assures a younger female colleague that she, at least, will be relieved of the tedium and career-torching effects of pregnancy, thanks to emerging baby-in-a-box technology. Science has been playing catch-up to these fantasies: In 1963, researchers put miscarried fetuses in oxygen chambers and added a watery fluid. It didn't work.
The closest approximation of an operational machine-womb was created about five years ago. In experiments at Juntendo University in Tokyo, an acrylic box was filled with a liquid similar to amniotic fluid. A goat embryo, removed by cesarean section after four months of normal gestation, was placed in the chamber and its umbilical cord hooked to tubes connected to an artificial placenta. Most of the kids died, but a few survived up to three weeks, reaching full term for a goat. None was without deformities or lung problems. The experiments are no longer under way.
Which has left the field to Liu. She and two of her colleagues, both men, have been refining their artificial womb bit by bit. They're developing liquid formulas that are incrementally closer to the fluids within an actual mammalian uterus, although developing the perfect mix of blood, hormones and proteins - and precisely adjusting it during the course of a pregnancy - is so far impossible. Minuscule differences in amniotic fluid have been found, in other labs' experiments, to produce notable differences in the resulting offspring.
In Liu's most recent experiment, she surgically implanted one of her artificial mouse wombs in an adult mouse, and the fetus inside lived about 19 days. (In earlier experiments, fetuses survived in external wombs for up to 17 days. That's roughly equivalent to 37 weeks of human fetal development, although fetuses appear to develop slower in artificial wombs than in real ones.) But invariably, each mouse embryo, more than 150 to date, died. One reason, Liu believes, is that the snaky vines of blood vessels that should link the tiny bodies to the womb's surface wither or fail to develop at all. Starved of blood, the embryos shrivel.
To rectify this, Liu's colleague Weidong Wang has been studying the expression of a gene, called murine AGPAT, that seems to stimulate blood-vessel formation within the womb. If you block that gene, the embryo can't implant fully and grow, which may explain why some women - in whom this gene is missing or malfunctioning - miscarry. Force the gene's expression, on the other hand, and you get a jungle of blood vessels, a fecund clot of veins. The work may have implications for cancer treatment. Block the gene's expression, and you could disable a tumor's ability to create new blood vessels for itself, causing a slow self-strangulation. "There's overlap between research into fertility and oncology," Wang says. "The beginning of life and the end of life. We deal with both in this lab."
The people most invested in the creation of an artificial womb may not be the scientists. Members of the Raelian cult - who also claim to have cloned a baby - announced in 2003 that they had developed a Babytron (their word) that could incubate human embryos from conception onward. No evidence exists to support either of the group's audacious claims.
More seriously, some abortion foes, to support their fight, have seized on the potential of external gestation. As they point out, Roe v. Wade relies to a large degree on the nonviability of the aborted fetus. Forty states and the District of Columbia have restricted abortion after approximately 24 weeks of gestation, at which point a baby could survive birth. An artificial womb would vastly extend the period of fetal viability. In theory, an embryo could survive outside its mother's body from the moment of its conception. Some anti-abortion activists have said that women should therefore be required to incubate aborted fetuses in artificial wombs.
Bioethicists worry that another subset of women will employ fake wombs for convenience, to avoid stretch marks and weight gain or to prolong Hollywood careers. Some radical feminists see the man-made uteruses as a way not just to free women from pregnancy but to rid the human race of females completely. If sufficient ova were banked, they say, men could have an artificial womb surgically implanted and bear children themselves.
Clearly, the most logical and worthy use of artificial wombs would be to help couples who cannot conceive but wish for a genetically related baby. But even in that case, the rationale for an artificial womb is murky. "We have a perfectly safe, workable alternative," says Thomas Murray, the president of the Hastings Center, a bioethics think tank in Garrison, New York. "We have surrogate mothers." An infertile woman might be squeamish about having someone else carry her issue, another body exchanging blood and emotion with her child. "But," Murray continues, "if someone insists on an artificial womb, if they want to create a biologically related baby so badly that they are willing to risk having that baby be severely deformed, it's hard for me to see the moral good in that."
Janet DiPietro is the world's leading expert on what it's like to be an embryo. A developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University, she is one of the few scientists to have closely studied the womb as an ecosystem. In recent experiments, DiPietro and her colleagues attached monitors to the skin and belly of pregnant women. They had expected to find that the child within responded to its mother's moods. Earlier research had shown that fetuses react almost instantly to changes in maternal position or emotions - with stillness. DiPietro speculates that this is the way the fetus learns to understand its mother and her body and how she reacts to noise and other stimuli.
But in work published last year, she found that the instruction is hardly unilateral. Fetuses teach their mothers, too. "We found that the fetuses were moving when the mothers weren't even aware of it, and were giving the mother a little emotional jolt. They were, in effect, training her to pay attention to them." Since much of this movement comes at night, they were also giving her a foretaste of sleep deprivation, apparently knowing deep within their DNA that she might as well start getting used to it.
"The fetal environment is more than just hormones," DiPietro says. "You can't simply add titrates of this or that hormone or protein and re-create the womb." An embryo gestating outside its mother "will wind up being different than that same embryo [would be] had it developed the natural way."
Women who have borne children understand this instinctively. Any woman who has lain in the dark watching a heel-shaped bump move across her belly knows that a sensibility is growing within, that the child is becoming itself even while still a part of her. The success of adoption shows that this interaction isn't necessary for parental bonding. But is it essential in certain immeasurable ways to the infantile brain and body, to a baby's later ability to touch, attach, and love?
As Liu pursues the science of hormone levels and gene expression, she too worries about the ineffable. In 2001, after her earliest experiments with human zygotes were publicized, she was inundated with calls from infertile women begging to become test subjects. Overwhelmed by the response and by her own unwonted realization that, as she says, "this work could have great social impact," she halted the artificial-womb experiments for a full year, resuming only after reaching certain decisions.
"I don't want to make a womb for the convenience of women who don't want to be pregnant," she says. And she declines to discuss the uses that anti-abortion groups might make of her results. "I want to make a womb that would be a replacement organ," she says, that would be implanted in a woman whose endometrial tissue was donated, that would fully re-create the rich, dark wilderness of a healthy female reproductive system.
But as we all know, intentions don't mean much once an innovation is released. Liu thinks she and her team should have a viable mouse womb in 5 to 10 years. A human model will take longer - "10 years, maybe, or a little more," she says, assuming that restrictions on fetal testing are lifted or eased. "It could take as much as 50 years, but I'm very hopeful that this is possible." Her voice is soft. "It will be helping a life, a baby, helping parents. Those are good things, and that's all I can be thinking about right now."
--------------------
Gretchen Reynolds lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and is mother to a son, Max. This is her first feature for Popular Science.

reply from: Wrench

Here is how I feel about fetal extraction / artificial womb technology:
Assuming that such technology would lead to illegalization of (or at least greater restriction on) abortion, I would have to ask the fundamental question: Why? Does a fetus earn its status as a protected human being based on its location or based on its fundamental status as a human being? If abortion would be wrong because "the fetus could otherwise survive" in an artificial womb, doesn't that mean its right to life would depend, not on its intrinsic humanity - in other words, its rights are alienable.
The thing is, I do not believe that artificial womb technology / live fetal extraction would eliminate, or even reduce, abortions. Many women choose abortion not because they don't want to be pregnant, but because they want to control the body of the fetus. Many of them, when asked to consider adoption, say, "I couldn't give someone else my baby!" The primary words are "I" and "my," not "someone else" and "baby." It's about control, not freedom from pregnancy. They don't want their children to live.

reply from: DocQuack

Say, thanks for that argument. I just heard that the other day from another woman active in Pro-Life and, being a man, it is not really something I considered much. Too selfish and insane it is, but modern women tend to be EDUCATED THAT WAY BY SOCIETY.
There, the only countermeasures I can suggest are:
1) Propaganda operations and education to the contrary by society.
2) Then, there's simply the rule of law.
I believe that well over half the support for Abortion comes more from the silence of men than women. If the men are fully converted against abortion, I really don't think the vote of Pro-Choice women would be that powerful against it -- especially if propaganda operations fracture their will to fight and divide their cause.
The women are a unique probem, however. I am age 35 and, though living in the People's Republic of California gives me a view saturated in Liberal kook women, I'd have to say I rarely meet a woman who isn't "Pro-Choice" in my generation and younger. The younger generation has a minority of prolifers, but they are militant and nice to see. I think renewed propaganda ops among youth would be required and those prolife youth around the country are key. So, that's one dimension.
Any such program to save babies would need to unleash many prongs of propaganda assault nationally. Information on the psych impacts of Abortion for the woman to consider. Priest for Life abortion imagery is one of the most powerful things. You'll notice I use that already on my pages for propaganda agenda, but it's all sloppy and quickly thrown together.
I will need to think about that issue more. There's an old book I want to finish reading from 1970 called Abortion: Law, Choice & Morality. I oddly found it in an old truck at a junkyard all beaten up, smelly, and oily but it has many arguments against abortion back when the fight in this country first began. I want to study it for any things which may have been lost between then and now -- as often evolution into the future tends to be more of a regression. Between propaganda war of the Left and Right, a lot of the intellect against Roe v. Wade from when people were not yet even imagining how far we would sink is buried in that book. Should be an interesting read.
Would you please think about this issue more, too? Copy and paste this stuff into our forum? Add your ideas on it over time.
Control, control, control, you say? Hmmmm.... Therefore, to destroy Abortion, we must somehow give these women control over the Fetal Extraction, Incubation, and Adoption process. The same as they need control when engaging the abortion alternative of adoption that presently exists.
What kind of control can we substitute? Oh, first, the control of Free Will. To decide upon and control the outcome of a human life. That can be argued to them as a mighty control. And we could put other types of control into such a program: Her selection of adoptive parents among a waiting list? Naming of the infant? Tending to the incubated infant until it is full term as a wet nurse? Maybe she'll want to keep it after all? Maybe she can pick between open or closed adoptions and still be part of the child's life if she wants to and the adoptive parents agree? There are many control substitutes that could be rendered. Of course, it'll be a tougher sell to pregnant women running around in their phallic SUV high horse vehicles.
Hmmmm.... the I, I, I and me, me, me factor? That is, by far, the hardest one. They've been reared a lifetime as spoiled brats. Paris Hilton mindsets very common. So, how do we convince Paris Hilton not to abort her baby? To look at it as a person? As someone else whose fate they can control to a positive outcome? Yes, women love to talk of "empowerment". Suzie Orman speaks of "empowering women!" We need to, therefore, "empower women to control the giving of Life to the child."
...I'm thinking also, if they don't do it already among these Abortion Alternative/ Adoption programs, one thing that would help is for pro-life mothers with newborns and toddlers to mentor young girls away from the abortion clinics.
I think nothing would help change a woman's mind more at an abortion clinic and make her less selfish than to be swarmed by children and toddlers. Not just this abortion imagery and poster stuff protesters do, but kids standing in line waving to the girl. Priests and pastors picketing, but having always a live baby or toddler to present right on the spot.
"Here, cuddle this kid. Kiss this baby! Look at this butchery picture! How can you do that to another person and a cute kid like this." All the better if a toddler and the kid can talk to them: "Please, lady!! Don't kill the baby." Devious stuff like that would be required, certainly. It would put the living child in her face. When carried in the womb, they cannot see it. Out of sight = out of mind. The child has to be back in sight. Any child will do. The kids need to tug on their heart strings and maternal instincts. Where the laws won't let protesters blockade abortion clinics, then have little children simply run up and hug a woman -- delivering her a teddy bear to hug while aborting and also some literature and certainly photos of the butchery. That last moment of contact with a sweet kid is enough to break them down mentally. The literature and imagery is sucker punch. The minute they change heart, the pastor or laity have to be right in there ready to snatch her and propagandize away.
"I could not give away my baby after carrying it so long!"??? Hmmm... I'm not sure that statement is one of womanly selfishness. To me, it sounds more like, "I want to keep my baby, but have no means of doing so. No husband. I'd be shamed among friends and family."
There are always two forms of communication: what people say on the surface and then what they really mean. What do they really mean there? "I couldn't give someone else MY BABY."
Hmmm....My Baby. My Baby. My Baby!! That might just be the psychological warfare key. We need to somehow reshape that in their head to "I cannot kill MY BABY, MY BABY, MY BABY". That and, "I would like to keep MY BABY and, if I cannot keep MY BABY, then I will CONTROL who I give it to and the circumstances of how I adopt MY BABY out."
It needs to become a slogan. It needs to become a propaganda mantra just like these KGB-Est leftists do to us in the "mainstream" media. All that "for the children" crap. All that codespeak that echoes and warps the mind: Gravitas!! Gravitas!! Gravitas!! Sustainability! Sustainability!! Diversity!! Diversity!! Tolerance!! Tolerance!! Pro-Choice!! Pro-Choice! Pro-Choice!! Make no mistake about it!! Make no mistake about it!! Make no mistake about it!! Compassionate Conservative!! Compassionate Conservative!!! It's all about Compasson! Compassion!! Compassion!!! Social Security Lockbox!! Lockbox!! Lockbox!! Infrastructure!! Infrastructure!! Infrastructure!! Social liberal, economic conservative!! Economic conservative!! The Environment!! Environment! The Environment!! Global Warming! Global Warming!! Global Warming!!
Hmmm...My baby!! My baby!! You cannot control MY BABY!! I control MY BABY!! I EMPOWER MY BABY!! I am woman, hear me roar! :-)
I SAY MY BABY IS SUSTAINABLE!!
MY BABY IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!
MY BABY IS RECYCLABLE!!
HAVING MY BABY IS PRO-CHOICE!!
ADOPTING MY BABY IS PRO-CHOICE!!
MY BABY WILL FIX GLOBAL WARMING! :-)
MY BABY HAS GRAVITAS!!
I CHOOSE TO TOLERATE MY BABY!!
MY BABY SHALL NOT BE DIVERSIFIED AND BUTCHERED!
I WILL NOT KILL MY BABY!!
I LOVE MY BABY!!
IT IS MY BABY!!
YOU CANNOT CONTROL MY BABY OR BODY!!
I CHOOSE TO HAVE MY BABY!!
...Yes, I think the protest signs need to be altered to read more personal to the woman in an I, I, I and me, me, me control-freak sort of way blended with all other tactics.
In any case, I think this matter could be resolved with effective propaganda war and much more slick marketing campaigns. Probably the problem with them to date is that they are not properly understanding the enemy's mind.
Who is the enemy?
1) Men first of all. I write about this elsewhere -- in my open letter to Tom Tancredo on the forum. It is the selfishness of men which tolerates abortion. We can destroy that. It's not too difficult. If the baby's incubated and adopted, they don't care. Men are not so attached.
2) The woman's will to fight. This is what needs to be destroyed. It's that Choice and CONTROL / SELFISHNESS issue you mentioned, indeed.
...Thank you very much. That is why I started the forum. That is not a perspective on the enemy I considered. I have been absorbed in other areas of the issue.
TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION:
Why? Does a fetus earn its status as a protected human being based on its location or based on its fundamental status as a human being? If abortion would be wrong because "the fetus could otherwise survive" in an a[/I]rtificial womb, doesn't that mean its right to life would depend, not on its intrinsic humanity - in other words, its rights are alienable.
I see your point there. You're saying, if I'm understanding it correctly (and I'm sleepy here), that why should the Right to Life be different just because we can soon extract the infant? Why should it be any different from what it is right now when we cannot extract and incubate the infant?
I have no answer for that right now. I'm tired, but the Right to Life is simply an inalienable right. See all this new legislation they're pushing in regard to the fetus feeling pain? Does it matter? Life begins at the moment of conception. Whether and embryo or pain-feeling fetus, the analog of your argument is that arguing for the pain issue as a means of chipping away at Abortion somehow nullifies the dignity of the embryo. I think maybe so right now. I dunno. Gotta think more on that when more awake.
My view is that the infant has a right to life. Period. If the woman absolutely refuses to carry her baby and wants an abortion no matter what...I would like to see the new law of the land allowing only Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation as her allowed method of pregnancy termination. Then, off to Adoption for the baby. To me, that has nothing to do with Roe v. Wade. It is lovely to me because it doesn't require the overturn of Roe v. Wade which may prove impossible for decades at this rate.
I would not want this Fetal Extraction & Incubation thing to overpower existing Abortion Alternative/ Adoption push because you'll get a healthier baby in the natural womb. It would be a major technical undertaking to produce a healthy infant from an artificial womb. Possible, but difficult. These twit scientists pushing artificial wombs won't know how to do that because they don't care about the infant's long term health. They see it as a spare body parts factory. Others are on some delusion to give women a kind of pregnancy luxury separate from surrogate motherhood, but it all boils down to biotech $$$ interest.
I don't really think your question there applies -- at least not as I am thinking in regard to a legislative push on the matter. I don't see the fetus "earning" a protected status here. It's a status we are failing to protect right now. The fetus is a person. The personhood argument is the best way to establish legally that that infant is an American citizen inside the womb and entitled to full rights to life and liberty just like anyone else. The dark technology of artificial wombs comes for us whether we like it or not. Whether we intend to establish an artificial womb program in order to snatch infants away from the abortion clinics or not doesn't matter to me too much. It doesn't bother me because the second prong of attack on Abortion is that the very existence of such dark science forces us to legislate and judge more in regard to the personhood of the infant in the womb.
What I'm talking about is taking the war behind enemy lines; Going on the offensive for a change. Using the enemy's force and momentum against himself. The Devil is rushing to attack us here with new Science. We can sit and wait. We can let him attack us on our ground of his choosing and his timing. Or, we can attack him on his ground, at our choosing, by our methods, and on our timing and terms.
I paint this Project EXCALIBUR thing as a double-edged sword because it is. Here I am in the odd paradox of being a pro-lifer thinking maybe the best way to destroy Abortion is to take this technology, advance it all the more, and stick it right in your face as the most dark and sinister thing. These demonic scientists are pushing it while telling you how wonderful it will be; How many good things they can do for "humankind" with it. I'm thinking we should don their uniforms, get behind their lines, speak their language, and play hell with their system. That's what I'm doing now a little bit. I'm advocating for the dark technology so that you Pro-Lifers will do something to control it and harness it to the destruction of Abortion. I want this Fetal Extraction, Incubation, and Artificial Womb issue hijacked by us and flown the way we see fit -- crashed into that skyscraper that is Roe v. Wade. Just like the 9/11 bad guys did, you gotta infiltrate, take control of the machine, and guide it.
Whatever it is that I wind up pushing regarding it here, it will always be flawed and somewhat evil because to interfere with natural pregnancy and childbirth is a sin. It is to "play God". It endangers the infant a bit. It is not morally the same as just carrying the child by natural means. Whatever the case winds up to be, I think we destroy the Devil's advance best, not by waiting for his attacks, but by getting behind him and pushing him into the fight sooner than he was prepared to do. The technology of artificial wombs is not yet compete. It's here. It's growing. It's hidden from public view. Screaming and raging against such things doesn't cut it. But, if we just open up a little, animal lab and state flat out that we intend to push the technology like devils all the more until it does exist.....then, you guys have to fight me. :-) Here I am as Dr. Evil scheming to making artificial wombs all the more real. The best way to destroy this madness is to just build it, you see! To just do it. To contribute to the cause of animal fetal extractions and incubation; To make Live Human Fetal Extraction & Incubation more possible and sooner than the biotech world was counting on.
And, you see, even if that is still a way off, raising the issue and possibility now makes it more real; More threatening; More in the present; More fought about. It backs the personhood fight of the infant that goes on now. It prevents the Devil from sneaking in on us.
I don't really care if artificial wombs become possible 5 years from now or 30. All I see is that the possibility it CAN become reality within maybe 10 years means we should push it to be reality sooner than it is able to entrench as acceptable. The enemy is not ready to fight over it while we are. Their forces are weak and scattered on the issue. With a suitable attack, we can drive even the research in foreign nations into the underground rather than open acceptability. We can make all such research and work here in the states entirely taboo to even touch if done right. Once you crush that dark side here, then you leave it only allowed as an Abortion Alternative.
I'm starting to ramble here, but mostly the whole issue raises discussion on infant personhood IN THE WOMB and also OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. These two Right to Life "locations" are not separate. They're one and the same. The artificial womb issue is an EXTERNAL womb matter, but I see it as the most beautiful means of INDIRECT ASSAULT in establishing personhood INSIDE THE WOMB.
Near 40 years now we've been trying to establish personhood inside the womb and losing. Now, technology forces us to define personhood for the brain dead, incubated infant OUTSIDE THE WOMB. The ability to extract and incubate the infant at all phases of pregnancy from embryo to late term fetus forces us to then look INSIDE THE WOMB and judge exactly when that embryo becomes a person. Since there is no solid line other than at the very moment of conception and the issue of artificial wombs potentially grows humans artificially from the embryo, then personhood must be established AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. Simple as that.
I'm not saying we have to do it or build such a program. I don't care as long as more babies are saved and preferably all of them. Whatever destroys the murder of abortion the most is dandy by me. I'm saying it's a good fight to pick. It's a battle we can actually win for a change. The strength of our position is such that it doesn't bother me a bit to talk strategy in the open for Liberals to hear. And, if we fail to do it, their hearing of it will inflict fear and panic among their forces all the more. It's a fight we're going to have with them at some point. I just say the time is now when they're most weak, most vulnerable, not ready to fight, and basically in an embryonic stage of technology birth. ;-) You let that demonic infant that is artificial wombs grow into an adult and the fight becomes harder. Abortion and butcher that little dragon now, I say. Whatever we score against that beast, we can at least greatly wound it before it exits the womb and that will help to destroy Abortion eventually and considerably sooner. Whatever good is done there will save millions of lives someday soon.
Goodnight.

reply from: DocQuack

Hey there WhackJob! :-)
I don't get your question. Got anything in specific?

reply from: futureshock

Okay, let's say you're all for this newfangled idea of mine....
"Yippie!!! Wooo hooo!!! What a wonderful idea!!! We can destroy Abortion with it. We can save maybe over a million infants per year in the United States by getting the courts to rule that the only acceptable means of pregnancy termination shall now be Live Fetal Extraction, Incubation, and handover of the living, unwanted infant to a National Adoption Program. Wow!! What a wonderful idea!! Let's do it!!!"
Hang on!! Wait a second! Think about it. You're then saying that sex without responsibility is socially acceptable.
What difference does it make what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
Like what? And why would you have moral constraints and legal restrictions?
Why not? Is it because it takes away a consequence of sex, namely pregnancy?
You are condoning pregnancy termination without the demise of the embryo. What's wrong with that?
How do you feel about the HPV vaccine? SHould it be illegal because it tkaes a consequence away from having sex?
Also, I tried to go to the link in your original post but couldn't. Is there another link maybe? I do want to read your site.

reply from: DocQuack

Okay, let's say you're all for this newfangled idea of mine....
"Yippie!!! Wooo hooo!!! What a wonderful idea!!! We can destroy Abortion with it. We can save maybe over a million infants per year in the United States by getting the courts to rule that the only acceptable means of pregnancy termination shall now be Live Fetal Extraction, Incubation, and handover of the living, unwanted infant to a National Adoption Program. Wow!! What a wonderful idea!! Let's do it!!!"
Hang on!! Wait a second! Think about it. You're then saying that sex without responsibility is socially acceptable.
What difference does it make what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom?
* Well, it's not my business what two people do or the specifics and I am certainly nobody to crusade against fun sin! But, as a society, there are other chains of sin attached to us -- outside of just unwanted pregnancy -- where rampant sex without responsibility and outside of marriage is encouraged. By tolerance of it; By society not being forefully against is....we encourage it.
* What other problems are there? STD spread, for one. Cultural breakdown exactly like the Greek and Roman republics among rampant orgies. You don't even have to argue the religion and sin of it. Then, there's also the devaluation of women (and us men, too). Continued spread of the whole I, I, I and me, me, me culture. Instant gratification culture, etc. Just look at Hollywood and all its dysfunctional stars. We don't see anything or know anything about their numbers of abortions and diseases. You can bet that it's there, but you don't see it much. But, do we want our country to be exactly like what you see to Hollywood as a culture?
* Pope John Paul II had a tremendous youth following while actually lecturing them about Love, Sex, and Responsibility just like a good father and grandfather they were often lacking. One of his chief arguments was basically that, if you love someone, you have a sense of responsibility for their well-being and keep that as the yardstick. Sex outside of marriage, though tempting to us all, is counterproductive to love and marriage overall because it doesn't care much for the other party. Pretty soon, the girl is pregnant. Her boyfriend takes her to an abortion clinic. In many cases, he pays for the abortion, sticks around until she's doing it, and he's often gone out the door -- never to be heard from again -- without even giving her a ride home. That's if he is even "gentleman" enough to pay for her abortion and give her a ride to the clinic. Most tend to just have sex with the woman and dump her eventually.
* As selfish men, we should consider that this is bad, overall, for society in that it creates millions upon millions of bitchy, man-hating women (and often rabid, lesbian feminists) if nothing else. They are our responsibility as a whole and they're pissy because nobody's loving them. And men are not loving them because we're drunken in the culture of sex, sex, sex fed to by media. IT IS WE MEN WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ABORTION THE MOST. WE'RE THE ONES PRESSURING THE GIRLS THE MOST TO PULL OFF THE PANTIES!!!! Granted, there are aggressive women these days, but most of that is based in desire for male attention, insecurity, and other pscyh factors related to the failures of men as fathers, boyfriends, etc.
Like what? And why would you have moral constraints and legal restrictions?
* Well, let's say you have this Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation possible right now and that's your new abortion clinic. There has to be some law which says that infant is a person in the womb. That you can't just kill it and transfer it over to a Human Cloning Facility. "Oh, whoops! Our scissors accidentally went through its skull. Sorry about that. Nope. The fetus is not viable. Therefore, it has been handed over to the stem cell and organ harvesting facility."
* The artificial womb technology I think should be specified as allowed for nothing other than Abortion Alternative and saving infants while ALL other forms of artificial wombs need to be banned. Maybe there are some rare cases where the technology might be acceptable, but I doubt it. Further discussion will bring that more to the surface.
* Concurrently, I don't think any of this should be used in substitute for the existing agenda to overturn Roe v. Wade or establish personhood in the infant. That may sound wishy washy out of me. You hear me pushing for it and also not pushing for it. You hear me talking about substituting it for Roe v. Wade and also not substituting it. How can that be? What kind of politician double-speak is that?
To me, it's not a forked-tongue politician thing. It's called the multi-pronged strategic advance. If you are going to invade a heavily defended castle (Abortion, society's love of it, the law's upholding of it), you don't do too well by the direct attack (which has been the strategy for 40 years now). It's like those olden days fights where lines and lines of disciplined soldiers would just march honorably into battle and shoot at each other like falling tin soldiers. At some point, you have to wake up and realize that the objective is to win while exerting the least energy; While using the enemy's energy and resources. It's about domination of areas, not specifics. It's about never fighting along the direct or expected path. And where your operations cannot be kept secret, your tactics and energy have to be all the more overwhelming -- divided among multiple fronts which force the enemy to divide their own defenses. And, instead of going on the offense, you attack with the left arm, then retreat, then allow them to stretch out their lines. With the other right arm, you attack, then retreat, stretch out their lines, and hit again with the other left arm. Over and over -- attack, retreat, draw into division and unstable positions, reflank, unleash of the other prong, attack again, retreat, reflank. You hit them at their front and at their rear at the same time. You drive them into chaos like that, but then retreat and get them where you want them. Then you use those two arms to hit from the sides they had to abandon in order to defend those first two fronts. Eventually, you're inside the castle and behind their defenses. Division, panic, hysteria, total conquest. And before you do any of that, you offer them peace before the battle. You offer them reasonable surrender terms (like this Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation) as preservation of "Choice". Thereby, the enemy's will to fight is fractured. He won't fight as hard because he understands you to be a reasonable enemy, not some Christian Right fanatic trying to tear down sin (just yet). As they do with us, we must understand it's a long-term war and can only be won with each little battle and ground gained. Incremental approaches to victory with wins and losses here and there while only the last battle ever really counts.
* It's a war. It needs to be fought as such and by warfare maxims. There are doctrines of motion which make men and armies like inhuman gods in a fight. Then, there's just the average savage throwing sticks and stones, and screaming away in futility and a lost cause. Where the enemy is great, strong, and well-ordered this often appears demoralizing and impossible to conquer, but not so. That means the Great Dragon here is slow to move, slow to defend, unable to respond and adapt the way we little forces do. And Pro-Life is not that little an army at all. It's stronger than this minority dragon of baby gobblers we face. The wicked just have always had the battlefield luxury of no scruples. They play by a devious book, but that's the only thing which carries them and it only goes so far. Here, we have to transform our weaknesses to a strength and their strengths to a weakness. We have to become like Sir Francis Drake's small and rapidly maneuverable cutters against the Spanish armada. Small locally, divided, independent command and functions, but operating by a clear doctrine and strategy. Every pro-life region a plundering pirate ship hellbent on recovering babies as our treasure
And, like anything, there have to be rules of war, moral rules of engagement; What behaviors of our cause and the end goals are acceptable or not.
We have to form the Grand Strategy, Strategy, and the Tactics. A good quote on that I like: Strategy is "the determination of the basic long-term goals and objectives [ENDS] of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of action [WAYS] and the allocation of resources [MEANS] necessary for carrying out these goals." (Alfred D. Chandler in 1962)
The very affair of Grand Strategy formation is a philosophic and moral endeavor at the core; The vision which men are happy to die over. The second level is mere strategy (the ways). Third level are the tactical areas -- the means, applications, and specific motions. All of these are governed by the first.
The exact way to move is not a rigid one. There are no set rules. Generally the indirect and suprise attack is best, but that is not always possible, so the motion must transition to that. For example, if you are going to fight a 6 foot tall, 200 pound man charging at you, you don't charge him. You go in appearing stupid; Appearing to have your center of gravity up high and to move slow. You just stand still while conserving your energy -- like a matador against an angry bull. You hold out the red cape and simply step aside. At the last moment, you get in low, adjust course, take out the knees, deliver a single strike, and never crash into the man at all. His own energy you use against him while conserving your own. He gets up wounded and rushes you again like a stupid bull. Again, you mislead, misdirect, and mystify him while tossing him to the floor wounded. When on the ground hurting, you make the kill and move right along. No fancy karate moves and all that Bruce Lee energy expended. Just graceful motion. Study the way of the Aikido masters. Jujitsu moves. Aikido in particular. It's not about thinking or planning. It's about feeling, sensing, adapting, and moving for that fulcrum position in a fight at all times. It is exactly like the fighter pilot in a dogfight; In "the fishbowl" against many bogies. You cannot have a clear strategy against that random swarm. It's all about flexibility and being good at your forms and moves; All about sensing spherically and instantly having your mind and spirit flow to the optimum position at all times. The enemy gets behind you. No big deal. Just like carrying out a barrel roll to retake the 6 O'clock position, you reposition like he wasn't expecting and use his previously offensive position as now your kill opportunity. Down at this tactical level, it's about flow, timing, and adaptation while keeping that way of powerful motion. There are fuzzy overlaps at times, but all pertains to the arts of war. Whether it be business, politics, or any form of conflict, there is a way to move in a fight and there are ways to lose a fight.
The Liberal understands these concepts, but has little personal experience in their application. It's an academic theory to them blended with their other thoughts. They enter into Zun Tsu and old Nazi warfare doctrines at best because the Allied philosophies at the higher level of Grand Strategy are abominable to them; Abominable because they deal with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all the world. The other doctrines and philosophies deal with the maintenance of tyranny and the state. They are powerful in strategy and tactics from shared doctrine, but they are weak at the level of Grand Strategy, and so their forces never have full will to fight -- just like you saw in the first Gulf War with Saddam's forces so quick to surrender.
They are weak because evil always sews widespread resentment with each advance, growth, and conquest. The more our enemies grow, the weaker and more divided they grow. The more that Great Dragon gobbles up the world, he grows fat, lazy, stubborn in his ways, and slow. The bigger and taller he is, the harder he falls as our Goliath so that we only need cast pebbles here and there at him, but at key points and with key timing. Anyhow, everything about the prosecution of war is a moral endeavor. That's the part our enemies forget and it is exactly why their Grand Strategy and all fruits thereof never fight and conquer like we do. What I'm talking about is the very difference in color between the Allied forces of WW2 and all seen to the Axis Powers; The difference between our present military and all these other savage mobs of the world. People out there and the Liberals in particular marvel at what a great "general" that Bin Laden is, but he has only exercised competent Strategy and Tactic, not Grand Strategy. And he has compromised any suitably moral platform that would have ever put him on historical par with a great Saladin. He is no Saladin at all; Just a mere savage with some sneaky tricks.
The grand moral scheme to things is the binding glue, momentum, and sanity of any national cause and army.
Why not? Is it because it takes away a consequence of sex, namely pregnancy?
* Pretty much answered that above.
You are condoning pregnancy termination without the demise of the embryo. What's wrong with that?
* It's a suitable Strategy and Tactic to apply in winning, but it makes for a poor Grand Stategy without serving subsidiary to the moral of Sex and Responsibility as virtues of the state to be cultivate, not forgotten or overturned. If we pursue the vision of artificial wombs alone as a means to destroy Abortion, then we may end up winning the battle only to lose the war and the Republic anyhow.
How do you feel about the HPV vaccine? SHould it be illegal because it tkaes a consequence away from having sex?
* Well, you're now overlapping into areas of Quackery found on my www.MolecularDyne.com site and also outlined on my MySpace page at www.MySpace.com/104848262.
* I have a very different perspective on vaccines than most people, so it would not be fair to use that as an analog. See, I think most vaccines should be illegal or at least optional. I believe modern vaccines need to be greatly redesigned before they are effective again.
I'll just give you my quack perspective: Modern vaccines tend to be much like a medicinal tattoo in that you are injecting subdermal in order to cultivate an immune system response. They are convenient and do have efficacy. But, for industrial, commercial, convenience, and profiteering sake... these are not as effective or as safe as older and even more ancient vaccine tactics used to be. One is that we are using insane preservatives -- such as Mercury -- in vaccines. There are links to the whole anti-Mercury in vaccine causes and the Vaccine Awareness Project on my MySpace page. In communications among youth with cancer -- kids in their mid 20's -- I've surveyed some and found that most often had good diets, okay lifestyle, not much drugging, or any medical problems. But, what do they often have in common? Unbelievable repetitive vaccination that I can't even imagine in my Generation X. Vaccine frequency pushed upon them by the mommy state and HMO's since birth which people age 40 and above can't even imagine. One cancer-ridden kid told me casually, "Oh, I don't understand why I have cancer so young. I ate well. I never had any problems. My annual shot sheet was always up to date." I'm sitting there boggle thinking, "Annual shot sheet?! What the hell?! These kids nowadays need a full sheet just to keep tabs on how many vaccinations they've had when I don't even remember when I had one last?!!" It's something I've seen in cancerous dogs, too. It's something D.V.M.'s are seeing in cancerous dogs all over the country. Cancer and other chronic ailments as a direct function of excess vaccination. But, they want to push more upon us. They want to even HPV vaccinate male babies to prevent them from contracting HPV through oral sex!!!! If that isn't Liberal-led insanity, greed, and pure evil in a nutshell, I don't know what is!
* Oh, yeah. I don't "feeeeeeeeel" anything in regard to vaccines. I think they are nuts! There are good vaccines, however. Among my National Readiness Report (Continental Quack Command) at the MDyne site or off my MySpace page, I talk about things the average American can do to combat plague warfare in the absence of any medicine. It's called the Blood Autonosode trick. Off my MDyne site, if you go to the Human Case Studies link, you'll find some Multiple Myeloma cases. There's a "PT001" or "ML" case summary and some links. If you click on them, you'll find my testing of the Blood Autonosode -- or what's called Autologous Vaccination or Analogous Vaccination. Homeopathy is a root of modern vaccines. Dr. Hahnemann is actually the father of modern vaccines, but credit went to others. The lines are blurry because vaccination and homeopathic remedies are very close cousins, but conventional chemistry and M.D.'s fail to understand the physics of it while the whole New Agey hippy world behind it is still trying to figure out the physics, too. I have a long sublink on both pages in regard to the best I can figure, at the moment, regarding the mathematical physics behind it. My front page on the MDyne site also includes a rough overview of my experimental findings in regard to its efficacy. It works. It's a sound medical science, basically. We do understand in fuzzy fashion why the medicine works. We know in great detail how to apply the remedies, but there are many problems with the way the modern practitioner is schooled and practices. All that is in my "What is Homeopathy?" article. It's applications to cancer are also in my "How Well Does Classical Homeopathy Cure Cancer?" link. That covers the statistics to one of the top, foreign anti-cancer quacks in the world and areas where his methods need future improvement.
* As far as HPV goes, I see no reason to even try preventing it. If these idiot physicians would just deal in properly eradicating the symptoms, the disease does go away. That's the core doctrine Dr. Hahnemann gave us. The most profound medical law any physician in the history of the world has ever passed Mankind: "Cessat effectus cessat causa!!" Cure the effects of disease (in full and properly, not just suppressed symptoms but eradicated symptoms), and you CAN (not always will) cure the disease......without even needing to know a damn thing about the disease. We need not know its name because the true disease pattern in men has no name. It is a complex, tangled ball of symptom and pathology string which cannot ever be named, reduced, and classified as that ancient devil, Rome's Galen, so pushed in the world.
* Before you cringe as a Conservative or Christian at the Hippie word of "Homepathy" that I invoke, I will only state that you should study why Mother Teresa chose it, prescribed by it, and loved it as her favorite form of medicine for the poor in India. I would tell you to go read the old book of the infamous Conservative, Michael Savage (Dr. Michael Weiner), called The Complete Book of Homeopathy which he wrote long ago as a Liberal. Quasi-Liberal Dr. Andrew Weil had a book 20 years ago called Health & Healing where it enjoyed the first chapter of that book. My MDyne site has oodles of information and links on it -- more than most people can digest in weeks and weeks of reading. My Myspace page has a shorter summary for the younger generation often unable to read. It's always been the favored medical system of the U.K. Royal Family for good reason. Here in the states -- where our commercialism dominates too much -- it is taboo medical subject and quackery; Very propagandized against. In other nations and the Third World, it just common place medicine; Like going to a doc of Oriental Medicine who just knows strange stuff from a totally different world and needs very little Conventional Medicine support other than in emergencies and some things.
* .And that's about my total opinion on the HPV issue or any modern vaccines. They suck!!! When vaccines were great was in ancient China's variolation methods. Cooked germs blown into the nose. By that manner, you tap the immune system at the nasal passages, the mouth, the throat, the GI tract Peyer's Patches (core of immunology) and all before direct exposure to the immune system at a blood and tissue level. They are shorter-lived, but much more effective vaccines. Stuff you can do in the field when exposed to terrorist bio attack and actually save more lives than with any of this modern crap. That and the Blood Autonosode trick can hold a lot of ground against Plague Warfare without even using drugs. That, some homeopathic remedy. Some Vitamin C tactics. Some adrenal support. Reduction of exposure risk, and, poof, you protect the continent very well. If one studies things, more deaths tend to come from Government eradication and vaccine efforts -- such as with Spanish Flu -- than if the people just tend to themselves.
Also, I tried to go to the link in your original post but couldn't. Is there another link maybe? I do want to read your site.
* I'm not sure why. Works for me here. The links are all below my signature now, though.
Talk to you later!

reply from: michelle6887

I've thought about this possibility before, and I came to a startling and saddening conclusion...it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
It would be shot down by pro-aborts lock, stock and barrel. Why? Because abortion is not about not being pregnant; it's about power, and selfishness, and control over human life. Abortion is the pathetic last resort of women to feel superior to men. As long as women still "need" legal abortion in order to wield some semblance of power in society, it continues to serve as proof that we still have a long way to go. It's almost as if we've resorted to holding our fetuses hostage in order to get the upper hand in a negotiation. A gun to a child's head suddenly gives a person the power of God, and all of those around the hostage-taker bow in (mock) deference until the situation is resolved. We all know that the respect shown to a hostage-taker is false; a means to an end. The ultimate result is not that the hostage-taker has earned any real measure of validity, but only that she has succeeded in lowering herself even further.

reply from: futureshock

Well, believe it or not I do agree with a lot of what you said here. (Some of your replies are a little too long for my attention span, though.)
Here is my problem with the pro-life/anti-consequence free sex stance:
You have rightly identified the guilty party as the MEN, but making abortion illegal punishes the WOMEN. Illegal abortion does nothing to stop men from pressuring women into sex. We have a history to prove this. If abortion is illegal again, NOTHING will change in the rampant sex culture. The only difference will be women will be punished by being FORCED to go to the back alley/black market for their abortions.
I agree that men have to stop the sick pursuit of having sex with everyone they possibly can. Women have to be made stronger so they can resist the pressure, also.
There have got to be different remedies for this situation than outlawing abortion, because that will do NOTHING to solve the downfall of our culture problem, and it will only lead to increased sufferring of women.

reply from: DocQuack

Hi Michelle,
Gotta keep it unusually short tonight. Not trying to sound terse.
I agree with all that. I think they will try to shoot it down, but cannot. Eventually, as the issue of artificial wombs becomes reality (regardless of anything I'm pushing with EXCALIBUR and I really have no technical interest in artificial wombs; Just the issue)...as it becomes reality and transforms to human cloning evils exactly like you see presented on my excalibur front page.....then, people will be outraged and will do something. I believe the average American is a lugnut (to state that without vulgarities on this website), but that their heart is not that wicked. There's nothing altruistic about detesting it and you can even hate babies, too. It's just that, if Science will do that to babies, soon they'll do it with adults. Just a few extra tolerances and we'll be like Red China -- rounded up, shot in the head, and used for the organ transplant industry. At some point, Americans will rise up. It's an issue of Freedom. Doesn't matter what the People or women want if the law is changed and ruled upon. Remember, we've been wanting abortion banned since 1970, but haven't gotten our way and our opinion would seem not to count. Eventually, we will turn those tables and the opinion of all these baby gobblers won't count for decades to come.

reply from: DocQuack

Hi Future Shock,
Again, not to be terse but I'm hungry and have dinner burning over. Just two things to say, for now:
1) If you wouldn't punish WOMEN for the sins of MEN by forcing them to have back alley abortions , why ever would you punish the most innocent and helpless of all human beings: the unborn infant?
2) There would be no need for back alley abortions if the future of artificial womb technology allowed those very same women to simply deposit their premie babies into a National Incubation & Adoption Program. A woman in another thread was talking about how doctors are wanting to kill her terminally ill, fetal grandchild (terminally ill being an issue of great question among most the M.D. quacks anyhow). There, they want to induce labor and kill the infant. I'm talking about getting in there with fiber optics, bypassing the umbilical cord, snipping it and attachment to life support, and then the very same induced labor. No cutting of the woman. D&C clean up in most cases. No greater "back alley" risk than those faced among existing abortion clinics. Only difference is that the baby is alive, not murdered. In the early days of such a program, such a woman's case would be an excellent and moral test case of the technology. The program wouldn't be trying to interfere with natural pregnancy. It would be a rare case where the comfort and health of the mother was at risk; A case where even transfer to the artificial womb might do better for the baby. So, you extract and incubate it. The issue of the child's kidney problems and chronic disease you can try to clean up -- with more proper medical practice -- once in the incubation chamber. If it dies, it dies. You at least tried. You remove the discomfort and pregnancy risks to the mother. There are scenarios where the technical application would prove moral outside the abortion issue. But, by the artificial womb pursuit, you eliminate this "back alley" argument of women.
..Only reason for women to seek out back alley abortions in future times would be because they actually enjoy killing their babies as Michelle pointed out. But, you don't negotiate and talk down with hostage takers. That's a Liberal idea entrenched among modern police departments and television cop shows for drama. If you get a hostage taker within your crosshairs, you make the kill. That's that. They're in violation of the law. They're a felony in progress. Lethal force is acceptable in the squashing of felonies in progress -- even just bank robberies. All enforcement of the law boils down to an issue of a gun to one's head -- even if that be just being stopped for a traffic ticket. We need to simply remove the gun women place to the infant's head and put it back at their own.
...Oh, one more thing. The whole dangerous back alley abortion thing is the biggest crock the feminist movement ever played on the public mind. Yes, there were coat hanger abortionists, but that's crazy. I could tell you of oodles of safe ways and obscure, old poisons to abort a child and induce labor from embryo to late term. But, I don't talk about those quack tricks because people would use them and I would rather see such women die off while trying to murder their babies. Coat hanger, back alley abortions are mostly a propaganda myth. There are modern ways of doing it regardless of whatever the law ever states. You cannot prevent women from having abortions simply because the law forbids it. That's like thinking people don't speed or do drugs just because illegal. All you can do is discourage it by establishing a penal system for such things. The issue of abortion being more than abortion itself and critical to our own freedoms as Americans....that's where making it illegal protects us all. Banning abortion will do nothing to stop abortion. It will just change our soul as a nation and make it no longer respectable along with other future abuses of human life.
Gotta run!

reply from: futureshock

I wasn't talking about using fetal extraction at all.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Well, believe it or not I do agree with a lot of what you said here. (Some of your replies are a little too long for my attention span, though.)
Here is my problem with the pro-life/anti-consequence free sex stance:
You have rightly identified the guilty party as the MEN, but making abortion illegal punishes the WOMEN. Illegal abortion does nothing to stop men from pressuring women into sex. We have a history to prove this. If abortion is illegal again, NOTHING will change in the rampant sex culture. The only difference will be women will be punished by being FORCED to go to the back alley/black market for their abortions.
I agree that men have to stop the sick pursuit of having sex with everyone they possibly can. Women have to be made stronger so they can resist the pressure, also.
There have got to be different remedies for this situation than outlawing abortion, because that will do NOTHING to solve the downfall of our culture problem, and it will only lead to increased sufferring of women.
What difference does it make what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom?
We are all intimately intertwined, whether one believes it or not. Our actions affect others. A man and woman can create a child. A man or woman can pass diseases to each other, then to others in the future. What a man or woman does in the bedroom can negatively impact others; such as when a third party (the child) is killed. Society may have to take on financial responsibilities for the offspring if dad doesn't fulfill his required role to provide. The Bible says we are all part of one body. We have responsibilities that come along with sexual activity. What could affect a society more than how men and women regulate their sexual activities? Should it all be "free sex" with government picking up the child support financial tab, educating the kids, government provided homes or families for the kids that show up. Men and women need to accept responsibility for their roles. They must be responsible.
As for future shock; that name reminds me of the reality we will be seeing. The Bible says that if men work together and become one unified people, there is nothing they cannot do. Ultimately, men can unravel all the physical mysteries of the universe. Men can obtain the knowledge to do anything with or to physical matter. The potential of unlimited advances in technology makes one fear for the Doctor Quacks of the world. The Dr. Frankenstein story was years ahead of it's time. Men are ethically challenged and will make poor choices.
The good news is that God gave man just 6 days in which to do his work (a day is a thousand years per the Apostle Peter). http://www.jpost.com says we've been at our work 5,768 years (date at top of Jerusalem Post). Solomon says it is an evil work being done under the sun. Hopefully, we will not have to see too many more of man's atrocities before the Government of God is installed on this earth to replace the kingdoms of man. Then good and correct decisions will be made. Not long after Adam and Eve seized decision making authority, their rulership led to death (Cain killed Abel). Men have done a dismally poor job of managing on his own. The Bible says man's path (his society and governments) can end in only one place; death. If men were to rule past 6000 years he will cause the extinction of "all flesh" on this planet. God says He will have to cut the time short to avoid men destroying all life, it seems we will not fully complete our sixth day of work, we are hurtling towards death too quickly. God promises that His Government will lead to peace and an ever expanding society. Men will be co-inheritors with Christ and rule the universe. The meek shall inherit the earth. The universe's governmental headquarters will be in Jerusalem. Jesus will rule from Jerusalem during the Sabbath (men rest from their work, it will be Christ's thousand year Millenial reign). After the rebellion is put down, even the Father will come to dwell with men.

reply from: DocQuack

Future Shock, sorry. Maybe I misread what you were saying.
So, God's Law? What is your position on this whole fetal extraction & incubation thing? What do you suggest for keeping it most moral? Should we pursue it as a technical means to recover babies the world is trying to abort? Should we just use it as a political platform to further squash Abortion & Roe v. Wade? Both? What?
To keep from being a mad Dr. Frankenstein, one has to solicit moral and theologian consideration. I am warning you of the advance of an army of Dr. Frankensteins just over the horizon. I don't care to be part of them, but we have to resist and do our best to conquer them. The alternative is to roll over like docile sheep and that's not compliant with Scripture, either.
What do you suggest?
Thanks.

reply from: yoda

Very well and eloquently stated, michelle. Thank you.

reply from: faithman

The scripture tells us that it will get worse and worse the closer to the end we get. Secular humanist have done a great job of infiltrating mainline christianity, and promoting the doctrine of passifism. Then there is the hidden agendas of the hirelings that feed their guts on the gold of the well meaning. The best a christian can do in these times, is make sure of their relationship with Christ, and share His message with others. When both parties are selling us out to secular humanist globalist, their is not much chance that America will last much longer. It is getting to the point that only an armed revolution would stop the evil that has high jacked our republic. That is the main reason for the push of passifism in the governmant controlled churches. A dosile people will go peaceful into the ovens like a whole herd of 1940 polish jews. Our founding fathers would have been numbered with the "right wing wackos" if they were alive today. Where are the men who would rather die a free man than live under the oppression of despotism?

reply from: DocQuack

Hi Faithman,
I agree. At the same time, St. Peter was predicting the end of the world would be at hand nearly 2000 years ago, too. Scripture says none know the time other than God. Pope JPII said we were living now in the Revelations 12 period. But, how long will that last? I know not. Could be tomorrow. Could be 2000 years more. What bothers me most about Christianity today is that, where not pushed into pacifism, you get everyone praying for a cowardly Rapture. "Oh dear Jesus. Zap me away from the place! Beam me up, Scotty!" Oh, maybe he'll take some, but I don't wanna go. I haven't done enough good down here yet. Haven't earned my place and rank in Heaven yet. You rapture me away and -- like the aborted infant -- I'd be deprived of my chance to fight evil!!! It's almost a sneaky pacifist doctrine in itself. Very bothersome to me.
At the same time, taking up arms against our corrupt government would be like Mossada Jews against the empire, skills, and technology of Rome. Silly. I understand the faith is seeded and grown upon the blood of martyrs, but we're not supposed to seek that out. I mean, if you come for me with a SWAT team for just speaking my mind and healing the sickly, my first reaction is to die fighting and shooting. But, I don't want to shoot my cop buddies out here. If they want to arrest me, they can just call me and I'll come in. Knock on my door like Gestapo, pepper spray my doggy, and I'll shoot away -- happy as can be to at least whack a few before they take my corpse. But, that's not what I would do if Grace had the better side of my temper.
I still believe it far too soon for any kind of Christian uprisings and that's exactly what our Liberal enemy wants. Armed uprisings don't do anything but promote armed squashings and devious propaganda against the unruly sheep. You saw it at Waco, with Tim McVey, and all these other "Christians" going crazy. That's not sane Christianity. The Government, corrupt as it is, does still represent us. The military, broken and corrupted in many places as she is, is still composed of Americans. The generals are sometimes leftists, but are as Conservative and usually Christian as any. There are secular-humanist Conservatives and among the powerful think tanks, too.
The push is New World Order, absolutely, and I don't think there is anything we can do about that. In fact, my own screwy Catholic church pushes for it -- among both Conservatives and Left. The only thing I think we can do is conspire to make that agenda of Global Federalism into an American-owned and Christian world for as long as possible. Empire Christendom rebuilt; The Holy Roman Empire all over again while these devils push to build the Secular Roman Empire. And it must eventually fall to the devil.
Among Catholic prophecy of the old popes and saints, there has always been the expectation of a Great Monarch of that last empire. The last Christian king before the devil rules the world for a time. A Frenchman at that?!! Hah!!! :-) Talk about prophecy of the Devil!!! :-) But, who knows!
I think we will destroy Abortion in this country eventually. It must be. Even the Devil's talk among the occult's progeny makes prophecy of America lasting unto the end of the world. Maybe not an America we understand today, but the Great Republic dream all the same. She cannot die; for we are the only ones dreaming of Liberty and that is something the enslaved masses will always fight and dream over among a world gone evil. Further, where this country unifies under an agenda of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness delivered to the most innocent, that will put our dream immortal again and fully in-line with Christ. As the world grows evil, we'll again be that only shining light on the hill that the enslaved world looks to for leadership. We have departed from that dream in the last 40 years, but it can be recaptured.
I believe the country will see occupation by her enemies for some time in my generation. Much of the country I expect to be lost. I don't really expect any seriously armed revolutions until the enslaved people -- in conjunction with what remains of our military -- fight together. The man who leads us out of those dark times like a George Washington or King David reborn.... I believe that's our Great Monarch. Where he is, I dunno. I suspect he's probably a little baby we have yet to rescue from the abortion clinics. Just a little orphan we have to raise. I think we will crush abortion in this country by the time that man is old enough to fight or at least greatly do so. And I'm sure all the world will keep growing to evil and hamming away at us from within and without. The churches will grow more wussy. But, our David there will have to arise. And I believe he will take this issue of abuses against human life -- in this country and globally -- and use that like Lincoln used the slavery issue to fuel the dream and the fight. That man I think will be our Supreme Allied Commander just like Ike, and later our finest and last Commander-in-Chief. A bright sun of the Republic he'll be. If he were somehow American and of French blood (which most Anglos are anyhow due to intermarriages) and in command of all the Allied world, he'd fit the prophecies exactly. If the prophecies be all b.s., dark times will force such a man to fill that vacuum. With him, we would have the death of the Great Republic, but gladly so and into Armageddon we would go. I dunno, though. Prophecies are a dangerous thing.
Hang onto your guns, Faith Man. It's not the time to fight or die. This country exists just about 7 days away from her destruction by plague warfare. We could lose well over half the military in a week to a month. Over half the countrymen (hopefully mostly Liberals as the cities burn). All that Islam is capable of doing to us right now if they had competent leadership. They'll go quiet for a time and then attack us later, I think. That in conjunction with alliances they make with our enemies in Europe and Asia. I think it will take the near loss of this country and considerable occupation with everythin seeming to be lost for many years before God gives us such a great king. Like Washington, in victory, the man won't want a throne, but I suspect our follies in managing republic coupled with other considerations will actually have the people preferring an emperor who rules with the advice and consent of the governed. They'll redesign things and the good man will carry us only to hand it all over to the devil. Whether that be a king I see in my lifetime and gaze upon as an old man or one who comes centuries from now, that's the President I serve. The singlemost reason we need to save babies is only so we don't lose him in the world. I believe that man would use his power to deliver Liberty to as much of the world as he could. It would be a losing cause against any Devil-incarnate, indeed, but the resistance itself saves many souls. He would understand that concept.
He'll come. He has to. Until then, any armed uprisings of the people would be simply poorly led and doomed to failure. You cannot rebel against Rome. But, this man would be a great general of our Rome along with what remains of our legions and Government and law fully behind him. He would be like our General De Gaul. He would move like Washington and General Lee. The average sheep in the field doesn't know how to do that or command great forces like that.
Anyway, that's my take on it. I think we'll have crushed Abortion before he turns up, though. That'll really piss of the Devil, and so he'll renew his attack upon Americans along different lines. For now, there's no reason to attack us like that because the Dragon already gobbles us up. It's when we make him choke on those babies, shoe him away, and wound the monster that he'll come back enraged. Then, he'll be wounded again and chased away. Then, he'll come back again. Same ol' story since the beginning of Time. All we can do is wound him and squash him down. :-)

reply from: DocQuack

Faith Man,
Phew! It's a long read, but here's a national security briefing and Pro-Life political strategy document that I recently posted to Tom Tancredo's forum and sent today to Duncan Hunter's office. If you guys agree or disagree, maybe you should call in to let them know how you're feeling and how you'll vote. I've tried to summarize how Conservatives are -- as best I've been able to gather the pulse -- and you, along with many others, seem to fit that bill. Gotta run! Talk to you guys later.
URL http://projectexcalibur.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?t=19

reply from: DocQuack

Hey Michelle,
I've been thinking some on this notion that women kill their babies out of control, selfishness, and because they like to do so -- also as a means of holding the infant hostage and getting back at men, etc.
But, it hit me today that that's a very general, tar-brushing statement. That's like saying ALL women are dog-faced feminist Nazis. Or, ALL men are pigs, etc. Usually, statements with ALL are not accurate.
So, I'm wondering, do we have any statistics and polls regarding the attitudes of women and why they have abortions? We have lots of stats on abortions, but has anyone ever studied their statistical reasons with honest -- not just the professed reasons. You seem to be expressing the radical feminist notion, those notions embedded among women, and those notions which compose the selfish me, me, me generation. But, these are the vocal pro-abort voices. The rest have always seemed to me mostly just drunken Pro-Choice sheep. They want their sex without responsibility and not to be forced to carry a baby, I think. I have no stats in that regard. Just my overall sense of things. Most women are not militant baby killers, in my view.
You ever watch these goofy women on that TV show, The Bachelor? Most women having abortions fit about that mindset and demographic, I think. They're not militant murderers; Just me, me, me and stupid. "Oh boo hoo. He didn't pick me, me, me,. I, I , I tried so hard. Oh boo hoo. I wanted the handsome man. I though I was going to get married, get a house, and have children." The chicks here force me to watch that crap and we were laughin because I heard one sniffling last night: "Oh, boo hoo, I wanted the house. I didn't get the millionaire. Oh boo hoo."
Add in a little hanky panky there and it can quickly become for women of my generation:
"Oh boo hoo. He used me. He won't marry me. He left me, etc." ; "Oh boo hoo. How am I going to take care of this child?" ; "Oh boo hoo. This will ruin my life. Me, me, me."; "Oh boo hoo. My friends will all mock me and destroy my vanity." ; "Oh boo hoo. I won't seem so smart to people anymore. They'll say how stupid I was." ; "Oh boo hoo. I have been essentially raped and violated. I have to get this growing thing out of me. Oh boo hoo."
The list of reasons we could run on and on and selfishness and vanity would certainly be in the equation, but I really don't think baby-gobbling is part of their mindset overall. That's why Abortion leaves such psychological scars upon women. They let their emotions, and selfishness, and vanities lead to murder. They need to be taught to get over that and to hatch out those babies as a way of recovering their dignity and pride; And to prevent further psych damage. But, baby-gobbling really doesn't strike me as their thing. It's the feminazi agenda, but not that of the average oh boo hoo woman. I heard it last night: "Oh, boo hoo. I didn't get the man. I didn't get the house. I DIDN'T GET TO HAVE CHILDREN." Among all that vanity and selfishness, "I didn't get to have children."
Other women I have known who had abortions -- I know one ditz girl who had two and is still single -- oh, they sob and sob over those dead babies still. They justify it. They don't want to admit to it as murder, but, deep down, they know it was. It's a shame; A deep guilt; A deep wound. It's rejection by men coupled with having been turned into a murderer, and they don't mean to be that way.
I believe that would measure as the case for the masses among any stats taken -- at least for my Generation X. Probably also considerably into Generation Y. If so, that would tell us that it is not a hopeless thing to convert America's baby gobbling women to something else. They're clearly pliable mentally. They're in need of not being so hurt and wounded. They need something that soothes them; Something that gives them control in a different way; Something that gives them pride while wounded like that; Something that is selfishly appealing to them. Substitute that and I think it possible.
That and we just keep making war abroad, but for the sake of true plunder of oil and natural gas reserves. We drill in Alaska and offshore. We take all that plunder and offer baby-keeping subsidies to pregnant women. Give them larger welfare checks. Hell will it. When you get a pregnant girl saying: "Wait a second! You mean, if I keep this baby, I get to be well-paid and to just stay home from work the whole time? That and I'll get some recovery time off, too. Cash payments from the Government? Payment from private adoption firms, too. So, I just go on a vacation for awhile and nobody would even knowI was pregnant? I just hatch out my baby, hand it over to adoption, and go about my life? And I'll even have some cash leftover to buy some new shoes, a new purse, and some new clothes? Okay."
...Most would be tempted by that.
In the olden days, I had a very strict great grandfather. He was called "don", actually. Not a Mafia don; Just a Spanish one. So strict was he that his girls were running around sneaky, wild, and a few -- including my own granny -- wound up pregnant before marriage. My granny kept her child and didn't care what people thought. My grandfather married her anyway and they had more kids. My other aunts were notorious for being set away by him. They'd go to the states with a growing belly, hatch out their kids, and give them up for adoption. Or, they'd just leave and not come back so nobody was shaming the family. Like that, there's the wound of having had the child and given it up, but happiness that it lived and grew well. Not a single one of them would have ever thought of murdering their babies, though. They had the same, ol' single mother sob story but just no baby-gobbling allowed.
I still believe most women are like that. They're not drooling fanged baby-gobblers. Women like that rarely have the opportunity to get pregnant --- at least not with any children we ought to care about -- since no sane man would touch them with a ten foot pole!! :-) The rest I believe are just Paris Hilton-like women or like that boo hoo one television last night. Just babies having babies. Statistically, they're just teenie boppers to twenty-somethings. Usually still have their childhood teddy bears and stuffed animals on their bed. Mostly just hurting little girls well screwed and now pregnant. They need womanly psych help and in-the-field counseling to keep those babies. And I believe it their instinct to do so. They're so "oh boo hoo" in emotional instability nature that they can be bent in our direction under good propaganda efforts. They're warm-hearted and broken-hearted, but not baby-gobblers.
Has anyone ever statistically counted that, though? I will search my old book for some numbers from the 1960's on that.

reply from: yoda

Ask, and ye shall receive..... and from Planned Barrenhood, no less:
(The numbers indicate how many women out of 1,160 and how many out of 1,900 listed that particular reason)
TABLE 2. Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion, 2004 and 1987
Reason 2004 1987 (N=1,160) (N=1,900)
Having a baby would dramatically change my life 74 78*
Would interfere with education 38 36
Would interfere with job/employment/career 38 50***
Have other children or dependents 32 22***
Can't afford a baby now 73 69
Unmarried 42 na
Student or planning to study 34 na
Can't afford a baby and child care 28 na
Can't afford the basic needs of life 23 na
Unemployed 22 na
Can't leave job to take care of a baby 21 na
Would have to find a new place to live 19 na
Not enough support from husband or partner 14 na
Husband or partner is unemployed 12 na
Currently or temporarily on welfare or public assistance 8 na
Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems 48 52*
Not sure about relationship 19 na
Partner and I can't or don't want to get married 12 30***
Not in a relationship right now 11 12
Relationship or marriage may break up soon 11 16*
Husband or partner is abusive to me or my children 2 3
Have completed my childbearing 38 28**
Not ready for a(nother) child† 32 36
Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant 25 33*
Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child 22 27*
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion 14 24***
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus 13 14
Physical problem with my health 12 8**
Parents want me to have an abortion 6 8
Was a victim of rape 1 1
Became pregnant as a result of incest <0.5 <0.5
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
">http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs...ull/3711005.pdf
And here's a "non-proabort source":
--rape 0.25 % (0.1-1 %) --incest 0.03 % (<0.1 %) --physical life of mother 0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %) --physical health of mother 1.0 % (0.1-3 %) --fetal health 0.4 % (0.1-1.0 %)-- mental --health of mother depends on criterion (0.1-17 %) "personal choice" 98% (78-99 %)
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility(32 %) --economic(21-28 %) --to avoid adjusting life(16 %) --mother single or in poor relationship(12-13 %) --enough children already (4-8 %) http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
c:\windows\personal\abortsurvey.doc

reply from: DocQuack

Thanks, Yoda! :-)
Some thoughts have me.... if consider, will you. :-)
Those stats actually coincided just perfectly with this post I wanted to make. I'm skimming that book, Abortion, Law, Choice, and Morality. Haven't decided yet if it's of a Liberal agenda, but it's most certainly not on the Pro-Life side; Not exactly on the Liberal side, either. It appears to be mostly a secular, sterile look at the issue from detailed, ethical dimensions. A little too conehead analytical and wishy washy for my taste at this point, but many good points to extract.
In line with those stats, the author quotes a Helene Deutsch that: "the treatment of the pregnant woman by society depends chiefly upon the value that society ascribes to the blessing of children; this value varies at different periods and in different countries."
He goes on to make a key point: "A host of investigators of pregnancy have found that fear is a constant element in almost all pregnancies." (p. 53).
Now, if you look at those Pro-Abort stats, they're nearly all fear-based. Fear we know is also un-Godly.
From an Oriental Medicine/ ancient quack psychological & physiologic model of much greater simplicity, utility, and elegance than all this modern psychobabble we know several things in Paper/Rock/Scissors form of the old sages:
1) That there are 5 primary emotions: Joy, Worry/Overthinking, Sadness, Fear, and Anger. That the emotions do flow clockwise in that pattern from Joy, to Worry, to Sadness, to Fear, to Anger, and back again to Joy.
* * This is called Five Element Theory. It's at the root of acupuncture and at the core of Oriental medical ways. The shape is a Pentacle and does relate to much voodoo, but just sprinkle some Christian pixie dust about it and pencil a Cross atop it. The demonic problem with such a view is that their religious and psychological ways try to make men seek a "zero state" of coldness and no emotion. They try to make us "balanced" and lacking in eccentricities which make us unique, individual, and prone to Liberty in society. You follow this ancient, voodoo head shrinkery too much and pretty soon your culture becomes oddly melancholy, tolerant of communism, and content to butcher babies and destroy human life willy nilly. All because emotional excesses are bad, bad, evil, evil. You create a culture of basically Vulcans and Mr. Spocks. But, Mr. Spock is also a wise man who makes key points worth listening to at times and he has curious ways of often great utility to adapt.
What can we learn from the ancient Orient's observations on human emotion?
2) That all Anger is based in Fear. We're angry as Christians and Pro-Lifers and Conservatives most the time. Why? Because we fear loss of the country. We fear a variety of Liberal encroachments destroying our way of life.
What regulates the emotion of Anger? Sadness. There's a paper/rock/scissors relation. The clockwise flow of emotions are the promoting cycle. The control emotions criss cross. Sadness is the control emotion of Anger
That sounds kinda goofy until you think about it. When someone really ticks you off, you grow angry. It is impossible to engage in Christian forgiveness when governed by Anger. But, if you have Sadness/Pity for that person, all of a sudden the Anger is quenched. Christian forgiveness becomes possible. You'll have to go over your lives and incidents of doing that to see there is truth to it.
3) And, Anger subsided flows to Joy. Joy lost then flows to Worry/Overthinking. (That's why a lot of the best nerds in history had sad childhoods. Worry/ Nerdy nature flown into from childhood Joy lost; Nerdy nature flown into from control of fears. Fears leading to anger. Often passive-aggressive streaks; Sometimes just pure aggressive.) We fear what we do not understand, and so we naturally try to understand things. Some of the most fearful people are very intelligence which is why much of this Liberal elitist intellectual crap is based in fear, poor upbringing, anger at society, etc, etc. The Liberal is not always a coward deep down, but they're often emotionally out of balance which leads to functional madness.
4) Worry/Overthought flows to Sadness. Sadness is counteracted by Joy (sometimes just false Joy -- such as brokenhearted women engaging in sex and false romance continually in trying to keep a bad relationship functional; Or bad marriages which seek out various false joys -- material acquisitions, another child, another pet. Anything to provide false joy to hold in check the sadness.) As that emotional energy flows to Fear, the Worry/Overthought factors kicks in. Then, it flows to Anger.
...It's all very dynamic daily in acute fashion and also chronically among predominant emotional patterns to people at deeper level.
In any case, what's that got to do with the pregnant woman?
Well, let's look at it from a dating perspective.
Joy acquired -- "Oh goodie goodie. I have met the man of my dreams. He's so cute. He's so sweet. He buys me flowers. I think I'll take off my panties for him on, oh, maybe the 2nd date so doesn't think me a tramp and will marry me. We're gonna live happy ever after. We're gonna get a house. We're gonna have a white picket fence. I'm gonna have an SUV. He's gonna work real hard and get me a maid. I won't have to cook or clean. I'll keep my career and we'll acquire nice toys. A giant house. We'll put off having children for a few years and get a couple dogs or maybe a cat. Oh, goodie, goodie. I am in love. I am happy in sex."
Worry/Overthought -- But, then the initial romance wears off. Suddenly it's: "Hey. What's with this guy? He's not chasing me so much anymore. My dream is at risk. Why?! Am I not romantic enough? What am I doing wrong? Maybe it's him? Maybe we need couples counseling? Maybe I need to get him a present for our one month anniversary. He forgot our 1 week anniversary already. What's with him?! Selfish, no good, SOB!!!"
Sadness -- Often, it's a: "Oh boo hoo. That no good SOB left me pregnant and hasn't even called me back. Oh boo hoo." Tremendous heartbreak. All energies geared up for romance, love, etc -- all just cycled through to Worry and then to Sadness.
Fear -- After that initial realization that there is no hope. The guy ain't gonna marry you. That and all your "friends" will mock you. Family will call you stupid. That and many other fears, fears, fears lead to the choice of Abortion.
Anger -- There's also a partial flow into Anger anytime you're already in Fear. There's no solid boundary line between the emotional domains. So, what Michelle noted is true. The fetus becomes a symbol of manly rape of women. The fetus potentially becomes a source of anger and hatred where the offending man is removed from the picture. I dont know how true that holds, but the baby is taking all the blame and wounds, certainly. There's a lot of energy from Fear and Anger being directed at an innocent infant.
Joy -- Then the fetus is butchered. There's a temporary feeling of relief and continued chasing of false joys which later lead to exponential decay into madness. Or, they flow into a variety of psych scars from the abortion.
Well, so my comment would be that, if recognize Fear as the predominant emotion behind Abortion with Anger as also a secondary issue, we can trace all of that back to Sadness and a brokenheart. Thus, perhaps propaganda efforts at women at the abortion clinic level need to be focused more on a Joy of Pregnancy -- any kind of pregnancy -- program?
Joy cultivated counters Sadness.
Thought/ Analysis/ Intellectual and truthful presentation counters Fear.
Sadness counters Anger.
Therefore, Joy of Pregnancy and saving the infants needs to be cultivated.
Therefore, abortion alternative elements need to argue the infant's case to these women devoid of any emotion and fully truthfully. Guiding them through to keep that baby among their CONTROL of their decision. Gotta keep that selfishness and vanity factor working in our favor.
Finally, Sadness, Sadness, Sadness. Sadness over the plight of the butchered infant must be cultivated in shielding babies from all that brokenhearted womanly wrath. They need to see the results of abortion -- as abortion imagery does. But, they also need to see living children, I think -- and to feel that Joy while it is argued to them. Some of the best propagandists on behalf of the infant would logically be toddlers pestering them before they walk in abortion clinic doors.
Well, just a thought. Perhaps we would have more victories at the abortion clinic level and among marketing campaigns by a focus upon Joy, Joy, Joy of pregnancy and babies. Not just "I am a person" stuff. It's got to be even more powerful that "Babies, what a wonderful Choice!" That was a Joy statement. I am a person is closer to anger and hostility -- establishing guilt among them, not Joy of pregnancy.
We need field-level people almost as Joyful about pregnancy as some of these television evangelicals. I think you have to stick the propaganda in their face. No angry protests outside clinics which only further cement their fears and angers. Maybe just silent prayer and Christian fellowship sort of stuff. Abortion picket signs with Joy of pregnancy slogans, Happy MOTHERS AND BABIES together in the images, not just images of smiling babies. You gotta have the Joyful Mother displayed -- something for them to envy and want. Right next to that, the butchered baby images -- all in their face. Pictures speak louder than words. Slogans and mantras echo deep in the mind. But, they have to be more positive on pregnancy and supportive of baby-keeping by society.
MY BABY IS SUSTAINABLE!!!
MY BABY IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!!
MY BABY COULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT!!
AMERICA WANTS MY BABY!!
THE WORLD NEEDS MY BABY!!!
CHOICE OF MY BABY IS THE GREATEST THING I'VE DONE!!!
MY BABY IS AN ASSAULT UPON MEN!!!
MY BABY NEVER BREAKS MY HEART!!!
MY BABY NEVER DUMPS ME!!
MY BABY NEVER FAILSTO CALL ME!!
MY BABY DOES WANT TO MARRY ME!!
KEEPING MY BABY IS ROMANTIC!!
MY BABY NEVER CHEATED ON ME!!!
MY BABY COULD CHANGE THE WORLD!!!
MY BABY COULD SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING!!! (Oh, yuck, but use it!!)
HEROES KEEP THEIR BABIES!!!
BABIES ARE SUNSHINE TO A BROKEN HEART!!!
MY BABY IS SO WONDERFUL ANYONE WILL ADOPT HIM!!
MY BABY IS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!
MY BABY COMPLETES ME!!
MY BABY ERASED A BROKEN HEART, FEARS, AND ANGER!!
....Cheerful propaganda designed to pull upon their selfishness, worries, sadness, fears, and anger. Short slogans that penetrate deep into the mind. And you have to infect those minds before they even reach the abortion clinic doors. Highway billboards. TV ads, radio commercials on the teenie bopper stations. Propaganda war and literature, not just at the abortion clinics, but mostly on the schools and colleges. At the airports before they vacation off to drunken Cancun. On Florida beaches during Spring break. Outside schools on the sidewalks. Outside nightclubs. Nothing mean-spirited; Just Pro-Baby/ Joyful Baby-Keeping propaganda.
Where'd I read it? I think it was some interview with a former abortionist. He was talking about how the billboards regarding, "Babies, What a wonderful Choice!" really ticked them off and wounded them most. That's because they were positive, Joyful Pregnancy related. They penetrated the enemy mind deeper than any other thing because both the abortionists and the women exist in Sadness, Fear, and Anger. Counter that with Joy and Thought, and you destroy their cause best.
...Enough rambling for tonight! :-)

reply from: masturbationkills

Until society begins to value the sperm and egg as they do the embryo, things will only get worse.
Rampant masturbaion is evil, and it kills human life.

reply from: yoda

True, and some of their reasons are actually based on fear of physical harm. Others, however, are based on such shallow things as fear of inconvenience, fear of loss of affection, fear of loss of economic status, etc.
Those kinds of fears arise out of, and are given superior consideration by, pure greed and selfishness..... not fear of physical harm.

reply from: yoda

Nobody's buying it, dude, haven't you noticed?
We care about actual human beings, not reproductive cells. But then, you probably think this is all very funny, right?

reply from: DocQuack

Hi guys. Just a quick note and then I gotta go:
This morning, in follow-up to some of those earlier propaganda thoughts, I drafted up some suitable Pro-Life propaganda images and slogans for potential protest posters, poster presentations, slide shows, TV ads, etc. Tossed up to a new webpage.
URL http://excalibur.110mb.com/propaganda.htm
Enjoy!

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Nobody's buying it, dude, haven't you noticed?
We care about actual human beings, not reproductive cells. But then, you probably think this is all very funny, right?
A sperm and egg are not separate living human beings. An embryo is a separate living human being. The DNA (blueprint for the human being) is being executed in the embryo stage. (God has written the blueprints; DNA)A human being is rapidly being assembled based on the blueprint after conception (fertilization of the egg by the sperm). The assembling of the baby is based entirely on that unique individual's characteristics written into his/her cells. At fertilization you have a new separate living human being. The contract has been signed and a new entity created. That person has rights. It is too late to rip up the legal contract after it's been executed; to do so is unlawful...it's murder.

reply from: yoda

Your ideas might have a more receptive audience if you didn't use the word "propaganda" with reference to prolife images and slogans.

reply from: DocQuack

Hi Yoda,
Yes, I agree. There are a few reasons why I often choose my words like that:
1) I'm so sick of all this P.C. society trying to regulate my words. Thus, I often use words like "savage" instead of "indigenous peoples", etc.
Savage didn't used to be such an offensive term. It was never racist. It applies to white and non-white folks closer to the original, natural Man. The dumbing down of our culture, however, has forgotten that. In history, some have used it in a negative tone. Tone makes the big difference. Being a savage myself, I invoke my liberty to use it as I see fit just like blacks with the N word.
2) Then, there's "propaganda". That's a personal word to me. It's a psychological warfare word. I relate to people who are legendary among this country's psy ops programs and I don't like that the word is now given a negative connotation. Propaganda operations are a legitimate form of war. The average person these days considers it to be based in lies and deception of some form. But, that's just Black and Gray Propaganda. White Propaganda is based in mostly truth. Often, you lie best with the truth! Often, you conceal truths best with the truth! Sometimes, the greatest of secrecy is preserved entirely in the open and 99.9% truthfully. In any case, propaganda is the art and science of spreading information to further your cause.
I freely admit to having a biased cause, you see. I am biased in regard to saving babies and I really don't give a damn what logical arguments people make to the contrary. Therefore, I would be lying to present myself as "fair and balanced"; As an open-minded listener; As a spreader or both sides of the story; Both sides of the Abortion perspective. That book I'm finishing up does that. It's a secular-humanist, academic look at Abortion from both sides. It's very rational. Very logical. Very taking into account all sides of the story. And, it's basically like these Republican wussies who waffle on the issue of Abortion due to a variety of other considerations. "Listening to the concerns of women" and all that crap. It's soft. It lacks aggression as an enemy of Abortion. If I were working at the field level of snatching pregnant women away from the abortion clinics, I am not the kind to present myself as some open-minded and overly reasonable sort. I tell them flat out the way I see things and I don't profess to be in the middle or un-biased. I tell them that I am a biased propagandist of my cause and I make my propaganda truthfully convincing. The truth is "MY BABY...MY best CHOICE ever" might not turn out to be the truth. Kids grow up to be brats, criminals, scum. We are lying to them with any kind of sloganeering, and so we might as well call it what it is. It's propaganda -- the spread of convincing information designed to further the cause. The objective is to turn the enemy, nullify her will to abort, nullify man's will to tolerate abortion, and encourage a Joy of Pregnancy culture. There's not all truth to it. There are lies to some degree, certainly. But, that's irrelevant to the needs of the cause. I'm just a good, little Nazi, I suppose. :-)
Same when I'm dealing in "ecumenism" with people of another religion. I don't try to find so much common ground. Water down Christianity in order to meet in the middle somewhere. I don't sit around yapping about daisies and the world trying to come off intellectual and reasonable as a Christian. It's my religion. I don't have to be reasonable on it. Faith is not exactly a sane thing. There's just no arguing with the Liberal. Been there, done that. When you're dealing with the possessed, sometimes all you can do is just back off and pray for them. Logical debate only turns to heated hatred if pursuing that road enough. When we seek the conversion of a pagan, you can't talk to them about Jesus and secure a conversion so well. Some of the skillful PROPAGANDIST ministers and priests out there are able to sway them with love, Gospel, and all that. But, sometimes, they convert and it's not a true or full conversion because the act of Man is too much behind it. Prayer for them works best. They all want to sit down, talk about their pagan religion, try to find some common ground, come off as respectable, etc. We're supposed to be ever-compassionate, wussy Christians and say, "Oh, how wonderful that is. How spiritual you are. How nice it is that you've just been seeking the truth all along. Now, let me tell you about what we consider truth regarding this Christ story. And I by no means intend to offend you or devalue your 'faith tradition' in any way." That's a crock of s@$t, and we know it. They know it. A pagan is a pagan. I'm not going to call them "polytheistic" in order to "value" them because I honestly don't. At the same time, I am stuck with friends and family I love who uphold various non-Christian religions. None dancing around a Pentagram or praying to horned gods, thankfully. The ones who don't fit in that category and uphold at least a more sane, great religion -- Buddhism, Hindu mostly -- I leave as they are. I don't want to offend them, truly. The other, new kinds pagans can burn in Hell for all I care, frankly. I'm not all about Christian love. I'm not that good a Christian. I speak my mind as it is. I try not to b.s. people. It makes me many sincere enemies; Makes me sincere friends.
Anyhow, that's why I use the word and I have considered someone would call me on it eventually. Or, would you prefer I call it to "raise awareness"?! :-) Yes, let's just "raise awareness" about babies. Awareness, awareness, awareness. Isn't that creepy how it rings in your mind, Yoda?
Let's try some others on you:
Sustainable, sustainable, sustainable. Aren't babies ever so sustainable, Yoda? :-)
Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance.
Diversity, diversity, diversity.
For the children. The children. For the children.
Social liberal, economic conservative. Social liberal, economic conservative.
Social security lockbox. Lockbox. Lockbox.
We're gonna repair the "infrastructure". Infrastructure. Infrastructure.
We care for "the environment". The environment. The environment.
Yoda, don't you know babies are bad for Global Warming. Global Warming. Global Warming.
Babies have too much gravitas in the world. Gravitas. Gravitas. Gravitas.
You are getting sleepier. Sleepy. Sleepy. Sleepy.
At the count of three, you shall talk like a Liberal using very intelligent-sounding words spoken by mostly zombified idiots. You shall become a mindless parrot of the state. A parrot. A parrot. This has been taught to you by the old KGB through their Est hippies who took up Public Relations, Speechwriting, and Political Advising.
Yoda, don't you know it's all about changing your words? The words. The words.
It's all about propaganda. Propaganda, propaganda, propaganda.
Aren't you a Compassionate Conservative yet? Compassionate Conservative. Compassionate Conservative.
Make no mistake about it....Make no mistake about it....Make no mistake about it. ....The words are creepy. They echo, echo, echo.
They are propaganda mantra, mantra, mantra. They infect the mind like a catchy commercially designed tune for Lay's potato chips. "No one can eat just one.....Hooo! No one can!!! Hoo hoo! No one can eat just one. Hoo hoo! No one can!!" Like M&M's they are, but they melt not in your hand, but rather melt the mind!
Come on, Yoda! Don't you care about the poor and "underserved"....the underserved...the underserved.
Don't you care about the single moms....single moms...single moms? Odd, isn't it, that all single moms are to be worshipped? We are to no longer socially distinguish between the widow or the divorce -- mothers acceptably single -- but we are to worship all "single moms" and mix up those who had infants out of wedlock at the same status of a widow or woman who left an abusive husband
That's because the words are designed to make you forget; To forget, forget, forget. They are cultivated to destroy your ability to think, to think, to think.
The new words for propaganda are to be mandated as only "dialogue" or "discussion" or "raising awareness". You may not pick from any other three, Yoda. It is forbidden. You are not to engage in propaganda. This is forbidden. It is allowed only to the Left, but, of course, that is always "fair & balanced", "dialogue", and "discussion". The objective is to "sensitivity train" you into not having propaganda while making you "open-minded" and much less "mean-spirited" so that you will absorb their thoughts and mantras.
You must be educated, Yoda. Educated, educated, educated. Educated by these flunkie twits who cannot even teach our children to read and write to 3rd Grade levels in the school systems. Why? Because they don't like evil "standardized tests". They like to just sit children around daily and play games while teaching them about pagan religion or how to be the ever "activist" and "lawmakers" as a career path. Yes, lawmakers. Lawmakers. Lawmakers.
More lawmakers on Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice. Pro-Choice. It is not murder, you know. It's a choice. A choice. A choice. They are not babies. They are just zygotes, zygotes, zygotes and fetal tissue, tissue, tissue.
You are getting sleepier, Yoda. Sleepy. Sleepy. Sleepy. Never speak their cursed words, Yoda. They are like the spells cast by witches of the covens. Once you start speaking them, you become them. You start sounding like them. You nullify your mind to sensing them. If you don't speak like them, they hate you. They repel at the very sound of your words because they cannot handle the truth anymore. They like being lied to; They like being seduced. The zombie or sleep walker does not like being awakened from his sleep. They grow into rage and violence, but you wake them all the same by not speaking the words, too. You wake them by boldly using the anti-words; The anti-Jabberwocky. You wake them by speaking our English language again as it used to be, not as the neo-socialists have designed it to be.
Once you let them choose your words, it is only a matter of time before they are able to dictate your thoughts and their expression. All that from those who push for and hide under the protections of "Free Speech".
It is all propaganda, Yoda. Men just like to lie to themselves and others that it is not, but it is! It is. It is. It is. :-)
Therefore, MY BABY....MY BABY....MY BABY. MY CHOICE....MY CHOICE....MY CHOICE.
MY BABY ....never broke MY heart. MY BABY ...never broke MY heart. MY BABY...never broke MY heart.
MY BABY...does want to marry ME. MY BABY...does want to marry ME. MY BABY...does want to marry ME.
MY BABY....MY best CHOICE ever. MY BABY...MY best CHOICE ever. MY BABY...MY best CHOICE ever.
MY BABY...needs ME. MY BABY ...needs ME. MY BABY...needs ME.
...The lie repeated enough eventually becomes truth! And these are mostly truths we spread. Over 90% truth, certainly. Truth designed to pull upon the key emotions. Truths designed to crack open, infect, and turn the mind and heart, not to melt them. Truths designed to wake up and liberate the enslaved and insane. Therefore, they can be the most effective of white propaganda efforts, not gray or black. But, all the same, it is propaganda and sloganeering. It is a marketing campaign on behalf of babies and Joy in Pregnancy and Motherhood. To call it by any other name is to lie more than the majority truths we try to spread and it is to water ourselves down into Liberalhood. :-)
Well, so those are my reasons. Hope that better explains things there.

reply from: faithman

Great post!!! I don't feel quite so all alone now.

reply from: yoda

Here's the thing: I agree with you about PC buzz words and such, which is why I love that little "Buzz-Word Bingo" game you can play while listening to a speech... are you familiar with it? But on the other hand, as you yourself say, the word propaganda does have a negative connotation.... and that will probably continue to be a fact for sometime to come. So, it may be that you won't be able to be effective at BOTH changing the perception of that word and saving babies at the same time.
Now, if that is the case, which is more important to you.... changing our perception of that word, or saving babies?
No, I'd prefer simpler, more common expressions, like "express your opinion", or "spread the truth", or "speak up for unborn babies".
That is a major part of the proabort agenda, yes. I fight it constantly by using my "secret weapon", the online dictionary. It's actually quite effective, judging by the pain and consternation I seem to cause among the proaborts by it's use.
I prefer the term "poor choice", myself.......
Yes, that is the central principle of Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobels, and it is the sort of thing most people think of when they hear the word "propaganda".
Yes, it explains a lot. But the bottom line, IMHO, is that the use of the word "propaganda" will cause a negative reaction 99% of the time. If the rehab of that word justifies that reaction, IYO, then that's your decision.

reply from: DocQuack

Hmmm...you make a very convincing argument, Master Yoda!
Oh, the trouble with knowing everything and always winning is that you can't ever be wrong! :-) Often, I have to lose my arguments in order to keep friends and keep an agenda going. Don't go griping about my word, "agenda", now! :-)
Would you settle for the reasonable compromise at "Pro-Baby Marketing Campaign"?
...I don't like all that "spreading the truth" stuff because that's somewhat of a lie. You don't like my "propaganda" term. Pro-Baby/Pro-Life "Campaign" still has the fighting/ warfare connotation. Pro-Baby Marketing has a commercial scent, but we are trying to sell babies, here! It's probably closer to the truth in that it also is a political push for office, power, power to a cause, etc.
So, would you settle for "Joy of Motherhood Campaign"? Occasional blatant use of the phrase, "Pro-Baby Marketing? And, the issue of "Pro-Baby Propaganda" discussed more in private. You're turning me into some corporate softy here, but I came here to solicit the opinions of this "focus group" and refine the ideas. Lemme stick my finger to the wind and take a poll on it.
...You guys okay with that revision of the Pro-Baby language? I shall revise it from there. See, I'm no tyrant! :-)

reply from: DocQuack

Oh, no, I'm not familiar with Buzz Word Bingo. How's it go? Thought I was among only a handful who knew the old KGB/Est codewords.
Speaking of codewords. You never answered my question awhile back. Who is this "Siggy"? Sigmund Frued?

reply from: yoda

Thank you, but I'm just an apprentice.
Wouldn't know, I've never fit into that category.
I'd settle for letting you use any term you want to, but if you mean do I think that would be less objectionable to most prolifers, the answer is yes.
Not if the speaker sincerely believes that what he/she is saying is true, no.
Again, I think that's less objectionable.
Anytime you're going to attend a lecture/speech where you expect a lot of "PC Buzz words" to be used, you and your friends can make a bingo sheet with those buzzwords in place of the usual numbers. Then every time the speaker uses one of them, you get to put an "x" on that square. First one to get a solid line of them yells out "Bingo".
Actually I did, you must've missed it. Siggy is a particularly disgusting proabort poster who never gives a straight answer to any question, but who always manages to stays on the side of killing babies.

reply from: DocQuack

...Well, "Campaign" and "Marketing" it is, then. Thank you for guiding me to better linguistics there.
...I like this Bingo thing! Gonna have to try it sometime with the evening news.
I'm curious. Have you seen any statistical differences between Lefties and the DNC speeches versus RNC muppets and their yapping? Any new codespeak we haven't picked up on yet?
"Infrastructure" is one of the latest ones that comes to mind. Maybe we should play an on-line game here on that? See who can identify the next, new propaganda word! Maybe even keep a running thread on it? They keep recycling the same ones over and over, but, now and then, they add new ones to the list.
It does descend from Mr. Gobbels, indeed. Flowed from old Nazis, to Argentine Nazis, to crypto-Nazi Hippies of Est also mixed up with Stalinists of KGB. Led to corporate seminars, sensitivity training, and all this crap we have today. The guys and gals often writing speeches were simply indoctrinees of those methods. Doesn't mean they're treasonous in most cases, but some certainly are. Others -- nestled among the RNC -- can even be pretty Conservative and Pro-Life, but some demonic twits once schooled them. And I don't really believe they're invoking enemy propaganda methods in order to further our good cause
The problem I have with crap like that coming out of the RNC and White House is that, when you engage in propaganda of Gobbels style, you're basically positioning yourself as an enemy of and liar to the People. The smarter ones know it. It's too much of this "strategery" b.s. As we talked about, the People of our side are more content with "Marketing" and "Campaign" with majority truth and even truth regarding oversight of truths (white lies mentioned frankly). They resent attempts to propagandize them, lie to them, and manipulate them -- particularly with these creepy words and sloganeering. Well, at least that's how it goes for the awake, Conservative base. The rest of the sleeping country actually does seem to enjoy it and move as zombies with it. So, the more you do it, all the politicians do is alienate their Conservative base. We then don't show up to vote for them. Soon, Hillary is your President. Of course, that might just be the best thing for restoring energy, defiance, and heart to the Conservatives and the Pro-Life cause.
...I dunno. I dunno. If the President ends this war now, we might just have Hillary as President. If he drags it out a little more and even escalates things, the People might just be reluctant to change kings during wartime. We might have an RNC candidate in Office; A Conservative, too. Congress and Senate would stay Liberal, however. The Conservative cause would further sleep and die. As I've said before, if the RNC keeps feeding me b.s., I will cast a protest vote for Hillary, not some 3rd party guy. I'll vote for her knowing the Devil in office again would restore zeal to our Resistance, Conservatives in Legislature, and I figure they'll hold in check when she tries to take the world into a kind of Girl Power quest for World War III and conquest of the world. She might just be the best thing for Conservatives! :-)
Don't go figuring me for some devious propaganda operative of the Left now. My own vote remains with Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and John McCain -- whichever of those three I'm allowed to vote on in the end; If not then, maybe another if they get more militant on Pro-Life. If none of them are outspoken enough in regard to the babies, then I'll vote for Hillary, indeed. Better to have a militant baby gobbler in power as our hated queen than wishy washy and faded aggression "Conservatives". If they can't see the baby issue as the most important thing for the country, I'll vote for Hillary if only because she will make Americans and the RNC better defend the babies. It's like this Live Fetal Extraction & Incubation thing. When it's in your face as evil, it promotes reactionary defiance. When it's just out of sight, it's out of mind. The closet Liberal RNC in power only has the neo-socialist takeover and their propaganda words more out of sight, and out of our mind. Best thing for the Conservative movement in decades was Bill Clinton in office! I actually kind of miss him and, God help me, I must be going mad. :-)

reply from: DocQuack

...Ah, the signature of a professional propagandist, indeed!

reply from: yoda

My impression is that the Dimocrats prohibit anything vaguely prolife in their speeches, and the RNC guys kind of keep it neutral, since there are both kinds in their party.
The only chance that a Republican candidate for president would not be "outspoken" would be Rudi Julliani. And his chances are fading fast.
I like the ones you mentioned, except for Hildabeast. I'd rather embrace Michael Jackson than vote for her.... and believe me, I don't want to be within 100 miles of Michael Jackson. I'd also add Fred Thompson to your list of "the good guys".

reply from: faithman

Snicker snicker, hildabeast. Snicker snicker, thats a good one.

reply from: DocQuack

Hildabeast! I like that one, too.
Fred Thompson? I dunno much about him. Been hearing some on him. Been seeing him in my Pro-Life news blurbs. Guess I don't trust him as an actor. Then again, Ronald Reagan I loved. I'm a "single issue" kinda voter these days. The more militant they are on Pro-Life, the more I like them. If they're wussy or quiet on it, I don't like them. I don't like them because, if they don't have the courage to speak up for the most innocent and helpless of Americans, they won't have what it takes to fight against any other agenda the neo-comm's push with us.
Say, FAITH MAN!!
I've been meaning to ask you. In one of your earlier posts, you mentioned something about bogus Pro-Life organizations. I think you called them "hirelings". Could you expand on that some? If you don't want to name any names, I'd appreciate a list of some passed in private. Or, post your experience with them here in the open.
I've seen this bogus Pro-Life crap among my Catholics, too. Very sincere ones at all levels, but others sort of slack off on the issue of Abortion. It usually transitions to Catholic Socialism in regard to the poor, the under-served, anti-war, anti-death penalty, stewardship of the all-sacred environment, etc where the pinkos invade it. Gone then is any interest in the babies. It happens slowly. There's an element of enemy alliance, penetration, infiltration, and corruption going on, indeed. Others just get cozy, enjoy partial respectability, and sort of water down over time.
I haven't really seen that too much because one of my favorite old priests was this hard-core Irishman way up there in the American Pro-Life movement; Buddies of guys who have been arrested for picketing clinics, etc. Rabble rousing Catholic sorts. Deeply "controversial" folks like these Priests for Life guys with all their "morbid" and "insensitive" pictures of feminist gobbled babies.
But, you'll find that perhaps somewhere around 60% of "Catholic" women of my younger generation in this country are actually closet pro-aborts. I don't have good poll data on that; Just initial observations and limited poll data over a small window. They don't like Abortion. They just like it as an option. They don't want we meanie men dominating their wombs, etc. They're into all this global Catholic Socialism and push for a "progressive" Church. They're into the "underserved", feeding the homeless, the environment, and all that jive. That's understandable among Catholicism which is a global institution spanning many poor nations. But, the lefties get in there, make a bleeding-Sacred Heart Hippy of Jesus, and then totally wash over the baby issue as irrelevant.
I have seen Catholic charities go that direction and take focus on less controversial issues. You know, same ol' story: Be of the world; Be loved by the world. Tell people and do what people want to hear. Hold out your charity racket hands. Pick pockets. Design for yourself a cushy job. $100k to $200k/ year salaries to such "charity" directors. Money mostly spent on continued money raking and institutional bloating very much like the colored-ribbon medical causes.
Among Catholics, these non-controversial charity things become rather trendy. Pat-me-on-the-back sort of stuff. "Oh look at me. I'm running a marathon for this or that cause."; "Oh, look at me. I'm so wonderful. I haul turkey in my luxury SUV on Christmas and Thanksgiving to these poor, uneducated, unwashed masses. Yup, I'm all saved now. I'm saintly. I'm all covered. See you filthy bastards next Christmas! "

reply from: DocQuack

Man, I gotta change this avatar. That dude looks like some flaming metrosexual!!!

reply from: DocQuack

Holy cow! I take it you guys have seen the avatar selection to this site. Is this place run by closet Liberals or what?! Are they using Liberal-made software or what?!
Geez, I can only pick from a female doctor or a cut & butcher surgeon. The cop icons are all black guys, so I might as well go with the dreadlock dude. There's a comical P.C. array to those icons and it's either I become the dreadlock black guy, some inanimate object, maybe go with the clown, or stick with this defaulted metrosexual freak boy with the candy ass hairdoo. What the hell?! You think I should go with dreadlocks for awhile? :-)

reply from: yoda

Hey, pick the old man, so I won't be the only old geezer here!

reply from: faithman

I have exstensively posted what I mean. It gets tiresome reposting. If you can't find what ypou are looking for, then PM me a question.

reply from: DocQuack

Hey, Yoda. No, I don't wanna be an ol' coot yet! You like my dreadlocks? Decided to change my race and hairdoo. The Liberals on here who miss this brief post must now instinctively pander to me, you see! :-) Totally screws with their minds to hear stuff like this coming from a rastafarian kinda dude, me thinks! :-)
Faith Man, what's up? You drinking from the wrong end of the bottle tonight? Liberals beating away at you too much today? I can't read through your 3,305 posts! Holy cow. At least give me some keywords to search for here in your past posts. A thread title? A particular topic it was under. Geez!

reply from: DocQuack

Oh, Faith Man. Sounds like you be needin' to just chill, man. You wanna hit of my doub? Lemme know and I'll roll you a bit of my medicinal MJ. We'll smoke some Doc Quack wonda herb. Don't worry. Be happy, man. It's alright. Everything's jammin', my bro. Just go wit da flow. We'll crank up some tunes and cruise for some ho's.

reply from: faithman

Thanks for the offer, but I have a wife which I love very much, who keeps me home and about as high as I care to get.

reply from: yoda

That particular avatar was used by a rather unpleasant fellow a while back, so my initial reaction was ........ UGH!
But maybe it will grow on us.........???

reply from: DocQuack

I particularly enjoy this dreadlock hairdo. It will be interesting to see how being of another race softens Liberal aggression towards my posts while throwing "bigoted" Conservative users off a bit. They'll likely miss this discussion of my icon change. Of course, the Liberals have not attacked at me much nor have the Conservatives. So, it appears I am a wussy pooh middle grounder! Very disturbing. Being against "medicinal" MJ, I also enjoy this new Rastafarian attachment to my Doc Quack identity. Hmmm....maybe later, I shall even become a woman here and propagandize from a woman's perspective about baby-keeping. That might be fun. Maybe I'll do like some of these supposed Pro-Lifers lurking the forum, but pretend to be a Pro-Abort and then try to weaken their position. But, that's time consuming.
Yo! Faith Man. Just chill wit me, my Christian bro. You know you wanna hit of dis holy MJ I gots 4 u! :-) It's pretty quackadelic, my man. I'm startin' 2 see rainbow flags already on da wall. I hear dem voices in ma head now and dey be tellin' me baby gobbling ain't good. Baby gobbling bad, bad. Bad, man. Bad. We gotta do sum hip hop and rap out a tune to save sum babeez. Show dem babeez some luv, man. Maybe hook up wit da Snoop doggeez doggy style and toke a little mo holy moly MJ. We den be jammin' out an cut a nu CD. We be repreeeeeezentin' dem babeeez Snoop style. Wuuuuuurd!!! :-)

reply from: DocQuack

Yo! Yo! Mo fo's! Listen up to my rappin wit sum ho's.
We say baby gobbling ain't no good, cuz God knows!


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics