Home - List All Discussions

Why would anyone who calls himself pro-life deny personhood to the unborn?

Just wondering....

by: nancyu

Granting personhood to the unborn is all a decent pro lifer can ask. Whether the punishment be lenient or harsh. Regardless of possible consequences, such as hurt feelings of post abortive mothers, and of those who supported a woman's "right to choose" (to kill a baby).
Personhood should come first. Battles over punishment should come second.
IMHO okay, IMNSHO

reply from: sander

That's all we ask. Is it too much to want to see the babies recieve what God has all ready imparted to these little ones?
Even the founding fathers reconzied the unborn as our "posterity".

reply from: nancyu

Everyone's little sunshine.
I Like your sig

reply from: sander

Sue gave it to me, and how true!

reply from: nancyu

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KdgOtlPcXgA&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ouwa2AW4Okk&feature=related

reply from: Faramir

They've already been granted personhood in the religious and moral sense, at least by the Catholic Church.

reply from: sander

Cute baby!
I use to sing that song to my grandaughter when she was a little baby!
It's been on the backburner for 15 years, I'll pull it out when the new grandbaby gets here!
Sue gave me another sig, I'm saving that one!

reply from: nancyu

They've already been granted personhood in the religious and moral sense, at least by the Catholic Church.
That's good, now if only the laws would follow.

reply from: carolemarie

Nobody opposes personhood.
What people have issues with is how that will work out. Decently crafted legislation actually gives thought to the how to's. You have to answer the hard questions or the support for your bill will die and you will not get it out of committee. There will be objections and you have to be ready to answer those questions.When they debate your bill, they will ask the questions that you seem to think are non-important, implementation of a law is crucial.

reply from: carolemarie

Come again?
The personhood part of the bill nobody has a problem with that I know of.
The problem comes in how that will play out in enforcement. Those things are debated in committee hearings and if you don't have an answer your bill will die. It will never go to the floor for a vote.

reply from: nancyu

The answer to that, is that there is no answer. Only time can answer these questions. Personhood, or no personhood. It's just as simple as that.
The fear of what the answer may be is what makes people oppose personhood. And oh yes there are many of you who do.

reply from: teddybearhamster

that's all well and good but it doesn't help until they are granted personhood by the law. nancy is 100% right.

reply from: carolemarie

The issue isn't personhood.
When a bill is introduced, it gets assigned to a committee. They hold hearings on the bill. That is when the ramifications of a bill are discussed. They hold hearings on these things. If you can't answer the questions, the bill either dies or as amendmends added to address those concerns. The people on the committee vote on if that bill even goes to the floor.
You have to answer the questions if this bans birth control and if it jails women as well as other questions others may have. You can't just say let the chips fall were they may or the bill simply dies in committee.

reply from: yoda

Maybe, and maybe not, it's too early to tell. I think what the intent of the question used as the title of thread is to ask why anyone would say that they would oppose personhood for the unborn unless certain specific exceptions (jail time for mom, and BC) were included in that bill when it was written.
Why would anyone flat out say they could not support, and would oppose a personhood bill with no exceptions?
Is it not true that most criminal matters are best left to the individual states, rather than made a part of a federal act?

reply from: nancyu

The issue isn't personhood.
When a bill is introduced, it gets assigned to a committee. They hold hearings on the bill. That is when the ramifications of a bill are discussed. They hold hearings on these things. If you can't answer the questions, the bill either dies or as amendmends added to address those concerns. The people on the committee vote on if that bill even goes to the floor.
You have to answer the questions if this bans birth control and if it jails women as well as other questions others may have. You can't just say let the chips fall were they may or the bill simply dies in committee.
If you were presenting this personhood bill for consideration how would you answer these questions?
If it were me I would simply demand personhood for the unborn. These ARE human beings, they are persons. That is the question: Are they persons or are they not? The ramifications are ts in my opinion.
Is it only a person if the mother isn't punished?
Is it only a person if we are allowed to kill it with bc pills or IUDs?
I'm asking you, now. You are the comittee I'm presenting this to. Is an unborn child a person or isn't he?

reply from: cracrat

Yes it is.
Now as the commitee I'm asking you:
Is a mother who drinks/smokes/takes drugs during pregnancy guilty of assault of this person?
Should there be a coroner's investigation into any and every miscarriage to ensure no foul play?
Are pregnant women to be prevented travelling abroad so as to ensure no 'unfortunate accidents'?
If by her actions a pregnant woman induces a miscarriage unintentionally, is she guilty of manslaughter/3rd degree murder?
Whose life is worth more when dealing with tragic cases of one dies or both die?

reply from: nancyu

Yes it is.
Now as the commitee I'm asking you:
Is a mother who drinks/smokes/takes drugs during pregnancy guilty of assault of this person?
It's up to the justice system to decide
Should there be a coroner's investigation into any and every miscarriage to ensure no foul play?
It's up to the justice system to decide
Are pregnant women to be prevented travelling abroad so as to ensure no 'unfortunate accidents'?
It's up to the justice system to decide
If by her actions a pregnant woman induces a miscarriage unintentionally, is she guilty of manslaughter/3rd degree murder?
It's up to the justice system to decide
Whose life is worth more when dealing with tragic cases of one dies or both die?
It's up to the justice system to decide
But I was asking CM.
Is it a person, or isn't it?

reply from: carolemarie

The issue isn't personhood.
When a bill is introduced, it gets assigned to a committee. They hold hearings on the bill. That is when the ramifications of a bill are discussed. They hold hearings on these things. If you can't answer the questions, the bill either dies or as amendmends added to address those concerns. The people on the committee vote on if that bill even goes to the floor.
You have to answer the questions if this bans birth control and if it jails women as well as other questions others may have. You can't just say let the chips fall were they may or the bill simply dies in committee.
If you were presenting this personhood bill for consideration how would you answer these questions?
If it were me I would simply demand personhood for the unborn. These ARE human beings, they are persons. That is the question: Are they persons or are they not? The ramifications are ts in my opinion.
Is it only a person if the mother isn't punished?
Is it only a person if we are allowed to kill it with bc pills or IUDs?
I'm asking you, now. You are the comittee I'm presenting this to. Is an unborn child a person or isn't it?
You have absolutely no idea of how this actually works do you?

reply from: nancyu

The issue isn't personhood.
When a bill is introduced, it gets assigned to a committee. They hold hearings on the bill. That is when the ramifications of a bill are discussed. They hold hearings on these things. If you can't answer the questions, the bill either dies or as amendmends added to address those concerns. The people on the committee vote on if that bill even goes to the floor.
You have to answer the questions if this bans birth control and if it jails women as well as other questions others may have. You can't just say let the chips fall were they may or the bill simply dies in committee.
If you were presenting this personhood bill for consideration how would you answer these questions?
If it were me I would simply demand personhood for the unborn. These ARE human beings, they are persons. That is the question: Are they persons or are they not? The ramifications are ts in my opinion.
Is it only a person if the mother isn't punished?
Is it only a person if we are allowed to kill it with bc pills or IUDs?
I'm asking you, now. You are the comittee I'm presenting this to. Is an unborn child a person or isn't it?
You have absolutely no idea of how this actually works do you?
Were these questions too difficult for you?

reply from: galen

Nancy.. i'm going to put my 2 cents in here...
I don't think that CM is denying personhood... I think that she finds the task of getting the question past commitee something that most people do not think about when posing the question of personhood.
This is the point of your misunderstanding I fear. You may have an all or nothing brain... but I assure you the leaders that vote on these laws do not.
Maybe listen with ears that really hear what she has to say...blindly turning away because someone does not agree with you does not help your cause...
You are not a parent scolding a child with an 'because i said so' .
this whole post is getting you nowhere and it seems to distract you from learning how to get yourself into a postition where you might do some good.
IMHO

reply from: yoda

Mary, I think you maybe have not read all the preliminary conversations that led up to this "controversy". There is indeed a basis for this question in those conversations.

reply from: nancyu

Thank you Yoda.
I think I'm going to have to start one of those "quit harassing me" threads.

reply from: nancyu

Nancy (in the opinion of some) harassing CM

reply from: nancyu

Nancy (in the opinion of some) harassing CM

reply from: carolemarie

It isn't that easy to get something passed. I personally think the bill needs to have an amendment or clause saying that it doesn't apply to birth control. And my reason is obvious----American's are not ready to do that. You will not be able to pass that bill if that isn't addressed. I don't like the jailing of women. I find it counterproductive to the goal of passing legislation that will outlaw abortion. You can bet the pro-choice side will testify against your bill citing both of those things. Not to mention all the other issues that will come up. What about rape and incest and the life of the mother? Those are all hot button issues and need to be addressed. You have to have an answer BEFORE you try to get people to vote for it.
There are other issues that surround this bill that I haven't thought of but trust me, the other side will think of it.
I think it would be easier to take S. Dakota's approach and ban abortion, they will have the usual exceptions for rape incest and life of the mother. And they will probably get it passed. It is a pro-woman bill and is being promoted as such.
I dont work on bills that I don't think will pass. It takes a lot of time and energy and work to get good legislation passed. I am not willing to waste my time when the bill has serious flaws. And I have watched everything I listed and more happen on prolife and other legislation. A bill I helped write was shot down in committee, and I thought every possible angle was covered. I have testified for many bills and been asked tough questions....you have to be ready for that if you are interested in winning.
Politics is rather like sausage making. All kinds of compromise goes into it because you have to give in on points to get it passed.
I hope that clears up my position.
And keep in mind even if this bill gets passed, the federal court could declare it unconstitutional, and issue an injuction stopping it from going into effect. And during that time, the other side would work like crazy to repeal it. The less objectional you make your legislation, the more of a chance you have of getting it passed.

reply from: galen

Mary, I think you maybe have not read all the preliminary conversations that led up to this "controversy". There is indeed a basis for this question in those conversations.
-----------------------
No i've read them... I just have a diffrent understanding of what CM has said than you do.. obviously.
Nancy---
I have NOT harrassed you.. just offered my opinion.. if what i'm doing is harrassing you then what you are doing is harrassing CM.

reply from: nancyu

Carolemarie. I only asked a simple question to you. Is an unborn baby a person, or isn't it?

reply from: nancyu

Mary, I think you maybe have not read all the preliminary conversations that led up to this "controversy". There is indeed a basis for this question in those conversations.
-----------------------
No i've read them... I just have a diffrent understanding of what CM has said than you do.. obviously.
Nancy---
I have NOT harrassed you.. just offered my opinion.. if what i'm doing is harrassing you then what you are doing is harrassing CM.
I know you're not. And I apologize if I appear to be harrassing CM. I would just like her to answer a simple question, since she did respond to my thread. She just didn't answer my question.

reply from: nancyu

And to any who would like to answer the same question: Is an unborn child a person, or isn't an unborn child a person?
I think it's a pretty simple, straightforward question.

reply from: yoda

Then you must have skipped the one in which she explicitly said that she opposed any personhood bill unless it contained two exceptions.
But no matter, if she has changed her mind now, all is well again......

reply from: yoda

In every sense of the word except the (rarely used) legal sense, EVERY human being IS a "person". And the legal sense has only existed since Roe, and only because of Roe. When Roe goes out, that will go out too.

reply from: sk1bianca

as far as i could understand, the difference between human and person only exists in the laws (PLEASE correct me if i'm wrong!). and it means that it's not enough to be a human, you have to be a person to have certain rights. or is it because of these rights that someone turns from a human into a person?
this might sound stupid, but it's a bit confusing to me (having a bit of trouble with english ).
besides the unborn children, are there any other categories of humans that are not considered persons? (slaves, in the past?)
i'm asking because here, in romania, we don't make any difference between person and human.

reply from: carolemarie

I never said an unborn child wasn't a person. It is obvious that they are people not fish.....

reply from: yoda

Nor does anyone else in the civilized world.... except for proaborts.

reply from: yoda

True, but you did say you would oppose any bill that grants them personhood unless it contained two particular exceptions.

reply from: nancyu

I thought this would answer your questions. This is from http://abortionno.com/Resources/abortion02.html
HUMANITY DEFINED
There is, of course, a consensus in the scientific community that human life begins at the instant a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm. The widely used medical textbook The Developing Human, Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th Edition, Moore, Persaud, Saunders, 1998, states at page 2 that "The intricate processes by which a baby develops from a single cell are miraculous .... This cell [the zygote] results from the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being ...." At page 18 this theme is repeated: "Human development begins at fertilization [emphasis in original] ...."
PERSONHOOD DEFINED
"Humanity," however, is quite different from "personhood." As seen above, the humanity of the unborn child is a matter of objective science. Personhood, however, is a legal status which society can confer upon or withhold from a class of human beings as a function of the subjective values which inform our "politics." In the medical ethics text entitled Abortion, Medicine and the Law, 4th Edition, Butler & Walbert, p.18, Facts On File, 1992, personhood is discussed in the context of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, supra: "... [T]he Court specifically repudiated the claim that fetuses are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment ...."
We, therefore, know when life begins but we must decide at what point in the development of that life, we, as a society, will confer rights of personhood, the most fundamental of which is the right to not be slaughtered. The competing developmental points at which society might grant personhood include fertilization of the ovum, implantation of the blastocyst, viability of the fetus (ability to survive outside the uterus), birth, or the passage of some period following birth (in his book Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, 1993, Professor Singer of Princeton University, shockingly advocates the denial of personhood until one month following a child's birth).
So terms such as zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, adolescent, adult, etc. merely describe arbitrarily defined stages in the biological development of a human life. But the inclusiveness with which we extend rights of personhood defines our collective morality. Are we greedy or generous? Are we brutal or compassionate?
PERSONHOOD SELFISHLY LIMITED
Dominant societies have traditionally been selfish in the way they grant personhood. Ours is no exception. When a vulnerable group gets in our way or has something we want, we tend to define personhood in terms which exclude them. Indians got in the way of Westward settlement so we said they were subhuman to justify taking their land. We wanted the uncompensated work product of blacks so we said they were subhuman to justify taking their freedom. Unborn children have gotten in the way of our "liberation" so we say they are subhuman to justify taking their lives.

reply from: nancyu

CM do you consider an unborn child a "person" in every sense of the word?
And I have another question if you don't mind? Do you agree with this by Teresa18?
Sorry to keep picking on you CM, but inquiring minds want to know.

reply from: sander

Oh good, an easy question.
Yes, an unborn child is a person.

reply from: nancyu

Oh good, an easy question.
Yes, an unborn child is a person.
See how easy that was!

reply from: sander

But the inclusiveness with which we extend rights of personhood defines our collective morality. Are we greedy or generous? Are we brutal or compassionate?
In order for a proabort to answer these questions in the affirmative, they have to de-humanize the womb child, look at them as "sub-human" as the article said. They justify themselves as generous and compassionate because when answering they're thinking of only the mother. It's the height of selfishness.
Which puts them on par with slave owners and those who took land from the Indians.
It's interesting yet sickening how history repeats itself...killing the unborn is just the same old same old, the latest victims are the most defensless yet.

reply from: cracrat

There are examples of people appearing to have less value than other people and people having less value than animals but I'm unaware of any other instances where a person is not a person in the eyes of the law.

reply from: sander

Oh good, an easy question.
Yes, an unborn child is a person.
See how easy that was!
I love acing a test! And I didn't even have to study!

reply from: nancyu

I was gonna give you a star, but I could only find suns.

reply from: sander

Well, a sun seems most appropriate anyway, seeing that "I'm everyone's little sunshine".

reply from: nancyu

That's what I was thinking.

reply from: carolemarie

True, but you did say you would oppose any bill that grants them personhood unless it contained two particular exceptions.
Because a bill without at the very least those two exceptions that bill will never get passed....why would I support a fatally flawed bill and why would I support a bill that hasn't worked out the particulars? Those things are pivotal.

reply from: carolemarie

CM do you consider an unborn child a "person" in every sense of the word?
And I have another question if you don't mind? Do you agree with this by Teresa18?
Sorry to keep picking on you CM, but inquiring minds want to know.
I don't agree with Teresa on this, simply that isn't how legislation works. When you introduce a bill you have the penelties attached to it. You don't say--oh, well figure it out later....
Already answered the previous question. Unborn babies are people. That is why I am prolife

reply from: nancyu

But if an unborn child is a person the penalties for killing it should be the same as for killing other persons. Are they PERSONS?
You know what I am asking, and no, you have not answered it. That is why I doubt that you are pro life. You sound more pro choice to me. You think abortion is wrong, but you don't think your self or anyone else has the right to tell other people what to do. Right??
Is it that you can't fight for a personhood bill, because you don't understand what you are fighting for?
Or is it that you won't fight for a personhood bill because you do understand what you are fighting for?

reply from: yoda

Why wouldn't you let the legislators decide what they can pass, and what they can't, instead of telling them what they can pass? Is it true that you wouldn't want a bill without exceptions even IF it could be passed?
Because almost all criminal laws contain a range of punishments, not a specific "one size fits all" punishment, and judges and/or juries decide which one is appropriate for the individual before them. Why would you want to tie their hands and forbid them to make that decision?
To whom? It seems to me that you ought to let the politicians and legislators decide what details are "pivotal" to the passage of any particualr piece of legislation. You're not a legislator, are you?

reply from: yoda

No, you say "We'll put in a range of punishments, and let the judges and/or juries figure out how to apply them to individual defendants.
But you want to eliminate even the possibility of judges and/or juries assessing ANY penalties to women who abort, you want them to have a free pass, right?
And do you still feel the same way as when you told FMan that "we women who have had abortions will never let a law pass that would punish women for having abortions"?

reply from: cracrat

I don't get that bit either. Laws can't work retroactively, they tried it in this country. They came up with a whole passage in an Anti-Terror Bill preventing protests within a mile of Parliament to stop Brin Haw's stop the war camp. The high court just laughed at the government when they tried to put it into practice with respect to him. I can't imagine the situation would be so different over your end within the most draconian piece of legislation in living memory.

reply from: yoda

Okay, maybe I didn't phrase that very well, no one suggested retroactive punishment, she merely said that women who had already had abortions would never let a bill pass that would punish women in the future for having them.

reply from: cracrat

Okay, maybe I didn't phrase that very well, no one suggested retroactive punishment, she merely said that women who had already had abortions would never let a bill pass that would punish women in the future for having them.
Oh, ok. Why wouldn't they?

reply from: nancyu

Okay, maybe I didn't phrase that very well, no one suggested retroactive punishment, she merely said that women who had already had abortions would never let a bill pass that would punish women in the future for having them.
Oh, ok. Why wouldn't they?
That is the question of the day.

reply from: yoda

You'll have to ask carolemarie.

reply from: carolemarie

Yes, I think 55 million women are going to be very uncomfortable with legislation that jails women who are choosing the same thing they did. While they may tend to support legislation that ends abortion, they will resent and vote against anything that makes them feel guilty. They will be more likely to see that as punishing women rather than ending abortion. I think it is a wrong tactic, as I have said 1 billion times on this board. My position has remained the same, punish the abortion providers, take the money out of abortion and it will end.
I phrased it much more hatefully to f-man because he was making me really angry with his constant word twisting and hate speech.

reply from: carolemarie

I tell other women not to have abortions all the time. I actually talk to them at the abortion clinic and the pregnancy help center and have for 13 years. I have no problem with helping them find a way to do what is right.
I have testified for legislation that I believe in and will continue to work to see that good laws are put into place.
I see a lot of problems with this bill and I wouldn't support it in the form you are presenting it. Not when there is good legislation that can get passed and accomplish the same thing.
I

reply from: faithman

And we say a million times you are just plain wrong, and ultimately the enemy of the womb child because you think they are second class to the ones who kill them. I have twisted no words, and why does it not suprise us that you use the borthead tactic of hate speach accusations. But people are beiginning to see thru your treachery. The same treachery that killed three.

reply from: 4given

Here is an honest statement. Guilt implies wrong doing and a conscience. Why isn't the guilt and regret enough to deter other women from those things? Why is the guilt so much that the unborn would suffer the same further? Why is there guilt after repentance? Do you believe in repentance and remission? Or just forgiveness? I am curious, not trying to add to the conflict here btw. And I also believe that the focus should be on what we can do to get this bill passed, rather than the what-if's when it is. (By stating that, I don't think the "guilt" of the mother should once again rob the child of its protection or voice.)

reply from: nancyu

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?

reply from: sk1bianca

thank you very much for your answers. it's strange that the law makes such differences between humans and persons. there's no REAL, biological difference.

reply from: sander

The powers that be know that there is no difference, but how else could they pass such a murderous law without making up a distinction. It's sad that so many people use this as an excuse to kill the unborn.

reply from: survivor73

absalutly. person hood must come first. to believe that the child of God in the whomb is anything but a person, would be stating and confirming that they are pro-choice. as pro-liffers it is our job to get the pro-choicers to understand that it really is a child in the whomb. and every one of those children were hand made by God and deserves the respect and dignity that all human life desrves.

reply from: yoda

1. Personhood by itself will not mandate punishment for anyone. That will be up to the states.
2. No one can predict precisely how anyone will vote on any subject. Look at how many times the pollsters have been wrong about political races, and you're not even a pollster.

reply from: yoda

I agree, guilt is not a bad thing. In fact, like you say it is a sign of a good thing.
Whether or not women will deliberately vote against something because they fear it will cause them to feel guilt is pure speculation, IMO. An honest woman would not feel guilty about something just because of some bill that was passed after their actions, IMO, because they would already know if what they had done was wrong and the bill would not change that knowledge.

reply from: yoda

I think those are very important questions, and I hope the get the attention they deserve.

reply from: Faramir

I misunderstood what you said about "guilty" the first time I read this, like those who responded to it. At least I think I get what you mean now.
They would feel guilty for wanting to jail women because they empathize with them and understand the forrces involved that led to the abortion, and see, like the mainstream prolife movement, that seeking jail time for the woman is not a good way to go.

reply from: nancyu

And she killed 3 babies, and that makes me mad.
Perhaps you should bring back stoning? Just a thought....
And hey, make your personhood law retroactive! After all, murder is murder. Where is the justice if you don't? We did it at Nurumburg (didn't accept the excuse that killing Jew's was legal). If you don't advocate for the punishment of all the killers, you are letting them get away with killing babies. Why should those who killed babies and committed genocide get away with it?
How unprolife of you.
You really think so? You might be on to something there.

reply from: cracrat

You are a horrible horrible person. I love you because you are human and have not yet wronged me but all the same, I'm curious as to what God's judgement of you will be.

reply from: yoda

If you can interrupt your nasty insults for a minute, consider this:
I think those are very important questions, and I hope the get the attention they deserve.

reply from: sander

If you can interrupt your nasty insults for a minute, consider this:
I think those are very important questions, and I hope the get the attention they deserve.
Where are the thou shalt not judge police on this board?
I'm sure cracrat has made an infraction in telling Nancy she's horrible.
Not that he's worthy to tie her shoes.
But, I thought fair is fair, after all.
Since nobody has bothered to answer the important question, I will.
If she self aborts, oh then she is most certainly an abortion provider and should face the consequenses of murdering her own child.

reply from: nancyu

You are a horrible horrible person. I love you because you are human and have not yet wronged me but all the same, I'm curious as to what God's judgement of you will be.
I will be sure to let you know.

reply from: sander

You are a horrible horrible person. I love you because you are human and have not yet wronged me but all the same, I'm curious as to what God's judgement of you will be.
I will be sure to let you know.
LOL!
Oh, spare me...
but, really...where's the thou shalt not judge police when ya need them?

reply from: nancyu

You are a horrible horrible person. I love you because you are human and have not yet wronged me but all the same, I'm curious as to what God's judgement of you will be.
I am a horrible person? Look at what CM wrote?? "make your personhood law retroactive..." If she is pro life, why wouldn't she want unborn babies to be recognized as "persons"? Do you see anything wrong with this picture??
Look, something has to be done to make this stop. These are human beings who are being killed. Maybe it will take something this drastic to wake people up. Throwing stones would be much kinder than allowing this holocaust to continue.

reply from: nancyu

You are a horrible horrible person. I love you because you are human and have not yet wronged me but all the same, I'm curious as to what God's judgement of you will be.
I will be sure to let you know.
LOL!
Oh, spare me...
but, really...where's the thou shalt not judge police when ya need them?
Really though, all of this bullying is really starting to get to me!

reply from: jihad08

Its simple: When you separate the unborn from the mother , your motives are bad ones. I am aware of how adamantly you are opposed to giving any kind of regard to the mother. without empathy for the mother, your not going to get anywhere in your fight for the unborn. The unborn and the mother are"one" Im not talking about mere "hurt feelings". We live in a society and a culture that has no inherent respect for life. As Im writting this, millions of children and babies have suffered and died during the US occupation of Iraq. What are your plans for the millions of unborn children that will be born if Roe is overturned?Are you going to take some of them in, and take care of them? If not, shut up.

reply from: carolemarie

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.

reply from: 4given

I am still battling scars. I trust in healing, but still have scars that with time and age, don't fully fade. I have forgiveness and grace and mercy- but the scars still remain. He is still working on me though.. I want God to heal me without scars!

reply from: cracrat

You're advocating stoning people to death. Probably one of the worst ways of executing someone available. Doesn't your constitution outlaw cruel and unusual punishments?

reply from: nancyu

You're advocating stoning people to death. Probably one of the worst ways of executing someone available. Doesn't your constitution outlaw cruel and unusual punishments?
No I'm NOT!!! Are you insane???!!!!
I am advocating legal "personhood" status for the unborn. It is an idea whose time has come. It is the best option for mother AND baby. With personhood status, the interests of the mother would be balanced against the interests of the baby.
But if anyone (especially pro life) is holding back support for personhood for fear of women being punished, I suggest they just keep fighting it for a few more decades, just let those dead baby photos get circulated around the www. a few more million million times and see what happens.

reply from: nancyu

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.humanlifeamendment.info/
Then scroll down and click on the little "listen" links on the right side of the page.

reply from: nancyu

absalutly. person hood must come first. to believe that the child of God in the whomb is anything but a person, would be stating and confirming that they are pro-choice. as pro-liffers it is our job to get the pro-choicers to understand that it really is a child in the whomb. and every one of those children were hand made by God and deserves the respect and dignity that all human life desrves.

reply from: nancyu

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
You are pro choice.

reply from: faithman

Only a person without a conscience heals without scars. The scars are the lesson learned. In this case, the scars are three dead womb children who have been victimized at least twice. Once when killed by abortion., Second when their killer dishonors their memory as a "youthful mistake. And third when their killer vows to fight equality thru personhood, because future killers may get the justice all killers deserve. No matter how many times they want to twist words, and make this issue second in consideration behind a personal agenda, every true pro-lifer knows that equality thru personhood is the final goal. Equality thru personhood is our destination, and only the real ones will take it all the way home. I never start fusses hear to "convert" anyone, but to expose the false ones you can never trust. Anyone who has an agenda other than equality thru personhood is the enemy of the womb child. I fight for them, and no body else. My total loyalty on this issue is to the womb child. Personal agendas are just as deadly to the womb child as Planned Parenthood, and rot pro-life from within.

reply from: carolemarie

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
You are pro choice.[
What makes me prochoice, not agreeing with you?
There are better choices than abortion, and helping people make them is hardly prochoice.

reply from: carolemarie

He can and He does. I don't know what you are battling and what scars you are referring to, but this is the God of the Universe we are taling about! He is the only one who can heal without scars. Man heals with scars, Jesus takes those away.

reply from: carolemarie

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?
Of course I would say that! As I have said 1 billion times to you in this thread....it doesn't follow we need to jail the moms or to ban birth control! What about the life of the mother and rape and incest? These things are deal breakers in our country and you are going to have to address them or your bill will die. I stand by the statement your bill has flaws and without addressing them it will never pass. I wouldn't support it the way it is now.
Now you are entitled to think otherwise, and work hard to promote it...but don't tell other prolifers that we are not prolife if we don't agree with you.

reply from: nancyu

He can and He does. I don't know what you are battling and what scars you are referring to, but this is the God of the Universe we are taling about! He is the only one who can heal without scars. Man heals with scars, Jesus takes those away.
There are those who would prefer you suffer indefinitely for your sins. I do not think every Christian on this forum has derived the full benefit of the Biblical story in which Christ allegedly said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." It would seem some view their own sins as less significant than the sins of others, and there is an air of self righteousness that abounds on this forum.
My advice to you would be to learn to overlook the flaws in the reasoning of others. If you are at peace with your "maker," their opinions should be insignificant to you...
Very good advice and very true.

reply from: nancyu

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?
What would your answer be?
Of course I would say that! As I have said 1 billion times to you in this thread....it doesn't follow we need to jail the moms or to ban birth control! What about the life of the mother and rape and incest? These things are deal breakers in our country and you are going to have to address them or your bill will die. I stand by the statement your bill has flaws and without addressing them it will never pass. I wouldn't support it the way it is now.
Now you are entitled to think otherwise, and work hard to promote it...but don't tell other prolifers that we are not prolife if we don't agree with you.
Of course you would say what? That an unborn child is a person only under certain conditions?
Is this the bill you would support?
"The term 'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization.
Unless that human was conceived as a result of rape or incest.
As long as women won't be punished for ending the life of that human
Otherwise, it isn't a person."
Can you see how illogical this is? It is a person, or it isn't a person. There is no in between.

reply from: sander

He can and He does. I don't know what you are battling and what scars you are referring to, but this is the God of the Universe we are taling about! He is the only one who can heal without scars. Man heals with scars, Jesus takes those away.
Jesus didn't take away His own scars. Perhaps a scar left behind is a great reminder of the healing and where He has brought us from.
But, if you have scripture to back up your claims, I'm open to learning and having my mind changed.

reply from: carolemarie

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?
What would your answer be?
Of course I would say that! As I have said 1 billion times to you in this thread....it doesn't follow we need to jail the moms or to ban birth control! What about the life of the mother and rape and incest? These things are deal breakers in our country and you are going to have to address them or your bill will die. I stand by the statement your bill has flaws and without addressing them it will never pass. I wouldn't support it the way it is now.
Now you are entitled to think otherwise, and work hard to promote it...but don't tell other prolifers that we are not prolife if we don't agree with you.
Of course you would say what? That an unborn child is a person only under certain conditions?
Is this the bill you would support?
"The term 'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization.
Unless that human was conceived as a result of rape or incest.
As long as women won't be punished for ending the life of that human
Otherwise, it isn't a person."
Can you see how illogical this is? It is a person, or it isn't a person. There is no in between.
For the life of me, I don't know why I bother, but here ONE MORE TIME...
An unborn child is a person.
It doesn't make it not a person if there are exceptions for rape and incest or if your bill calls for jailing those who perform abortions rather than those who obtain them and your bill states that this will not be interperted to ban birth control devices.
But it is your mythical bill, so find someone to introduce it somewhere and go work on it, if your so hot for it.
I will continue to work on bills that I believe can pass.

reply from: faithman

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Are you dense? What would you answer be?
to THIS question:
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?
What would your answer be?
Of course I would say that! As I have said 1 billion times to you in this thread....it doesn't follow we need to jail the moms or to ban birth control! What about the life of the mother and rape and incest? These things are deal breakers in our country and you are going to have to address them or your bill will die. I stand by the statement your bill has flaws and without addressing them it will never pass. I wouldn't support it the way it is now.
Now you are entitled to think otherwise, and work hard to promote it...but don't tell other prolifers that we are not prolife if we don't agree with you.
Of course you would say what? That an unborn child is a person only under certain conditions?
Is this the bill you would support?
"The term 'Person' or 'Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization.
Unless that human was conceived as a result of rape or incest.
As long as women won't be punished for ending the life of that human
Otherwise, it isn't a person."
Can you see how illogical this is? It is a person, or it isn't a person. There is no in between.
For the life of me, I don't know why I bother, but here ONE MORE TIME...
An unborn child is a person.
It doesn't make it not a person if there are exceptions for rape and incest or if your bill calls for jailing those who perform abortions rather than those who obtain them and your bill states that this will not be interperted to ban birth control devices.
But it is your mythical bill, so find someone to introduce it somewhere and go work on it, if your so hot for it.
I will continue to work on bills that I believe can pass.
For killer caroles info, the life at conception act is not mythical. It has been introduced by Duncan Hunter. It has gained more suport everytime. Killer carole is not going to work anything but her baby killing jawls. Just keep working for what is right. We will get it someday.

reply from: 4given

To whom are you advising?

reply from: nancyu

Yes we will. And I am calling out anyone who would not support this exactly as worded:
"Persons' shall include any human from the time of fertilization."
as a "false pro lifer" And I don't care, if that makes me self righteous and morally superior to you, Concerned Parent, Carolemarie and Faramir!

reply from: yoda

Many people who identify themselves as prochoice say exactly the same thing. They say that abortion is one choice, but there are others that are better.
Just recognizing abortion as a one of the "choices" places you in the realm of "prochoice".

reply from: yoda

Maybe not in so many words, but in actual effect it would.
It would declare that there is a certain category of human being that may be killed without punishment, something that cannot be done to any other "person".

reply from: sander

Maybe not in so many words, but in actual effect it would.
It would declare that there is a certain category of human being that may be killed without punishment, something that cannot be done to any other "person".
Careful, you'll be labeled as an "extrimist".
Seriously, I never thoguht I'd see the day when wanting personhood and ALL it entails by law, be an extreme view.

reply from: carolemarie

Many people who identify themselves as prochoice say exactly the same thing. They say that abortion is one choice, but there are others that are better.
Just recognizing abortion as a one of the "choices" places you in the realm of "prochoice".
????
I think it's placing me in the camp of recognizing reality. Abortion is currently a choice. The people I deal with are considering abortion. I help them find better choices.

reply from: Faramir

Many people who identify themselves as prochoice say exactly the same thing. They say that abortion is one choice, but there are others that are better.
Just recognizing abortion as a one of the "choices" places you in the realm of "prochoice".
Except that she doesn't see abortion as an acceptable choice.
She OPPOSES abortion.
She wants it to be illegal.
Her words have been taken out of context and twisted so you can have an excuse to slam her and call her prochoice, as if she approves of babies being killed--which she does not!
Unleess you can demonstrate that she allows for abortion as an acceptable choice, your comment is way out of line.

reply from: yoda

Have you started speaking for her now? If so, then you ought to just copy her post, right above yours, instead of giving it your "spin".
Or are you saying she isn't capable of speaking for herself? I've found her to be quite capable of doing that, but apparently you haven't, right? Are you a family member, or a close personal friend of hers, maybe? What is it with you trying to speak for her?

reply from: yoda

Abortion is not an acceptable choice for me, so I will not call it a "choice". That is the language of those who support it's legality.
Adoption and/or raising your own child are not just "better choices" to me, they are the ONLY moral choices, and therefore I choose not to even recognize abortion as a "choice" to be made.... just like I don't consider infanticide a "choice".
Legality does not determine morality for you, does it? So even if infanticide is illegal, you could still call it a choice because some women do consider it, and some actually do it.
Do you consider infanticide a "choice"? If not, why not?

reply from: Faramir

Have you started speaking for her now? If so, then you ought to just copy her post, right above yours, instead of giving it your "spin".
Or are you saying she isn't capable of speaking for herself? I've found her to be quite capable of doing that, but apparently you haven't, right? Are you a family member, or a close personal friend of hers, maybe? What is it with you trying to speak for her?
I don't mind when I get single out and ganged up on if someone offers support. I don't mind at all.
I'm doing for her what I would want for myself.
She not only has to deal with you accusing her of being prochoice, but with faithman calling her a killer ten times a day, and with nancyu doing likewise, and with a whole bunch of others standing around with their hands in their pockets enjoying the show.
So, I'm helping to even things out a little. There's nothing wroing with that. With so many coming down on her, she might not be able to keep up with them all, and I don't mind helping out.
But if I'm wrong, I'll withdraw my comment. Do you have some evidence that she supports abortion as an acceptable choice?

reply from: yoda

I have a lot of evidence that she can speak quite well for herself, and has not asked you for any help, at least publicly.
That's all I need to know. I don't need to debate YOU about HER positions.
If you want to debate positions, speak for yourself, not for others.

reply from: Faramir

I have a lot of evidence that she can speak quite well for herself, and has not asked you for any help, at least publicly.
That's all I need to know. I don't need to debate YOU about HER positions.
If you want to debate positions, speak for yourself, not for others.
I've seen you play these games before, and with yours truly.
You have unfairly labeled her as "prochoice."
She can deal with it or not, as per her choice.
I'm pointing out your false statement about her for the record, and to expose your unfair tactics, and subtle personal attacks.

reply from: yoda

No, you're trying to speak for her, plain and simple. Why she puts up with that I'll never know, probably. I wouldn't.
What you are doing is a lot like a gorilla beating it's chest with it's fists....

reply from: sander

No, you're trying to speak for her, plain and simple. Why she puts up with that I'll never know, probably. I wouldn't.
What you are doing is a lot like a gorilla beating it's chest with it's fists....
Good golly, miss molly...that's all he's done from the start...."point".
And precious little "pointing" in the direction of the proabort.
Same old same old.

reply from: Faramir

No, you're trying to speak for her, plain and simple. Why she puts up with that I'll never know, probably. I wouldn't.
What you are doing is a lot like a gorilla beating it's chest with it's fists....
And you continue to evade the point raised.
Do you have evidence that carolemarie supports abortion as an acceptable choice?

reply from: yoda

I will not debate carole's positions with YOU as long as she is able to speak for herself, period. You may think you are her father, her caretaker, or her spokesperson, but until I hear that from her you are just beating your chest like a zoo gorilla.

reply from: carolemarie

Abortion is not an acceptable choice for me, so I will not call it a "choice". That is the language of those who support it's legality.
Adoption and/or raising your own child are not just "better choices" to me, they are the ONLY moral choices, and therefore I choose not to even recognize abortion as a "choice" to be made.... just like I don't consider infanticide a "choice".
Legality does not determine morality for you, does it? So even if infanticide is illegal, you could still call it a choice because some women do consider it, and some actually do it.
Do you consider infanticide a "choice"? If not, why not?
All actions are choices. Your recognizing something or not is beside the point. Choose life or choose death, implies you make a choice....

reply from: nancyu

Have you started speaking for her now? If so, then you ought to just copy her post, right above yours, instead of giving it your "spin".
Or are you saying she isn't capable of speaking for herself? I've found her to be quite capable of doing that, but apparently you haven't, right? Are you a family member, or a close personal friend of hers, maybe? What is it with you trying to speak for her?
I don't mind when I get single out and ganged up on if someone offers support. I don't mind at all.
I'm doing for her what I would want for myself.
She not only has to deal with you accusing her of being prochoice, but with faithman calling her a killer ten times a day, and with nancyu doing likewise, and with a whole bunch of others standing around with their hands in their pockets enjoying the show.
So, I'm helping to even things out a little. There's nothing wroing with that. With so many coming down on her, she might not be able to keep up with them all, and I don't mind helping out.
But if I'm wrong, I'll withdraw my comment. Do you have some evidence that she supports abortion as an acceptable choice?
There is plenty of evidence in this very thread, for anyone who cares to go back through and reread it. Do you have evidence of us calling her killer carole 10 times a day?

reply from: Faramir

No, you're trying to speak for her, plain and simple. Why she puts up with that I'll never know, probably. I wouldn't.
What you are doing is a lot like a gorilla beating it's chest with it's fists....
Then tell me for my sake why I should regard Carolemarie as a prochoicer instead of the prolifer she claims to be.
I have not seen her ever advocate abortion as an acceptable choice, but you've seen more of her posts than I have. Have you seen her say such a thing?

reply from: nancyu

Maybe not in so many words, but in actual effect it would.
It would declare that there is a certain category of human being that may be killed without punishment, something that cannot be done to any other "person".
Careful, you'll be labeled as an "extrimist".
Seriously, I never thoguht I'd see the day when wanting personhood and ALL it entails by law, be an extreme view.
Especially not by people calling themselves "pro life!"

reply from: sander

It's delusional to believe one is pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest. That's simply a pro-choice view with exceptions.

reply from: nancyu

You may be right, but I happen to think that maybe there are 55 million + 1 women, who don't believe in the "right to choose" (to kill a child,) who are very uncomfortable with legislation that states that unborn babies can be killed for the sake of the convenience of another.
55 million + 1 women who believe that a woman who chooses to kill her child should be punished.
55 million + 1 women who don't care if these women feel guilty about it.
55 million + 1 women who resent the 55 million who say "it is my body, my choice" because that body is required to protect and defend another innocent and otherwise defenseless human life.
I also think and believe that many of these 55 million + 1 are post abortive women who are remorseful, and repentant enough, that they wouldn't care about feeling guilty, because they already do.
Please answer this: What would even be the point of passing a law against abortion that would require the support of those who are for abortion? That would be illogical wouldn't it? How does it make sense that the perpetrator of a crime should have a say in crafting the laws against that crime?
And this: If you don't believe that abortion is wrong for the woman, why is it wrong for the provider? It's wrong, or it isn't wrong, make up your mind. What if the woman self aborts? Is she then an abortion provider? What if the woman walks into the clinic? Isn't she helping to provide that abortion? Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If abortion is wrong, than both the abortion provider and the person who procures the abortion is wrong. If the woman isn't wrong to obtain an abortion, then neither is the provider. You can't punish one, and not the other.
It seems obvious to me that you haven't fully come to terms with your own past actions. I'm not sure what your idea of repenting is or if you even believe in the concept.. But to me, repentance comes from having a complete understanding of what you did to yourself, your children, and to society. I'm not saying you have to agree with me about what is right or wrong with regard to aborting. I just wish you could be truthful with yourself about it. You don't really think abortion is that bad, do you? Not unless it somehow harms the mother? If you had come to terms with it, I don't think you would be having such a hard time saying that an unborn child is a person, in every sense of the word, entitled to the same protection, of the same laws, that you and I are.
Carolemarie, if you were asked to testify before this committee, this committee which is going to decide whether or not to outlaw abortion, and you were asked by this committee:
"Is an unborn child a person?"
What would your answer be?
Are you dense or something???? I keep saying that unborn babies are people, are you hard of reading??
And I am perfectly fine with my past. I regret those decisions. I have repented and God has forgiven me and healed me without scars. I am perfectly fine and blessed and happy. I have a great adopted son and life is pretty great. I fully understand exactly what I did, which is why I try to help other women make better choices.
Quit putting words into my mouth. I have never said abortion was okay.
Straight from the horses mouth which I put no words into. And notice she didn't answer any of my questions.
She sounds alot more like pro choice than pro life to me. But that's just the opinion of a horrible, horrible self-righteous morally superior person who can't get off her high horse to get over herself.

reply from: yoda

Some actions are totally unacceptable to me, therefore they are not "choices" in my eyes.
And to characterize abortion simply as a "choice" that is not as good as another choice seems to me to legitimize it. Sure, many women see it that way, but I would hope that a prolifer would not.
Are we not different from them?

reply from: Faramir

Some actions are totally unacceptable to me, therefore they are not "choices" in my eyes.
And to characterize abortion simply as a "choice" that is not as good as another choice seems to me to legitimize it. Sure, many women see it that way, but I would hope that a prolifer would not.
Are we not different from them?
Is he really that confused, or does he have a desperate need to paint a prlifer as a "pro abort"?
Somebody explain this to me, please.

reply from: yoda

Straight from the horses mouth which I put no words into. And notice she didn't answer any of my questions..
Maybe it's just me, but I just can't get past that "better choices" phrase.... as if abortion wasn't so bad, but there are "better" choices.... it just sticks in my craw.

reply from: Faramir

Straight from the horses mouth which I put no words into. And notice she didn't answer any of my questions..
Maybe it's just me, but I just can't get past that "better choices" phrase.... as if abortion wasn't so bad, but there are "better" choices.... it just sticks in my craw.
Yodaveter is very confused.
She is dealing with women who are on their way to making a bad choice. What she has to offer--keeping the baby--is a "better" choice to make--is it not?
It's certainly not a worse choice.
Funny that he is so intent on maligning someone who is out there saving babies.
Why would he want to discourage that?

reply from: nancyu

Straight from the horses mouth which I put no words into. And notice she didn't answer any of my questions..
Maybe it's just me, but I just can't get past that "better choices" phrase.... as if abortion wasn't so bad, but there are "better" choices.... it just sticks in my craw.
I know what you mean. It's sad really, they are pro choice and they don't even seem to realize it.

reply from: yoda

That's the impression that I get.

reply from: nancyu

To churchmouse:
I am sorry for calling you stupid. I was in an irratable mood yesterday. Just please stop saying that abortion is legal. It is only legal if it does not kill a child.

reply from: sander

Nancy,
There's a Scripture that says we are to call those things that are not as though they were!
I see your point from that persceptive and that's why I agree. No matter who has (even the government) put their seal of approval on the murder of the innocent, God has not. The SCOTUS got it wrong, they have denied nature and nature's God as well as the U.S. Constitution.
The child in the womb is a person. Abortion is murder.

reply from: nancyu

If only everyone could hear and understand this as well as you do.

reply from: sander

I have no problem with saving 9 vs. 10. None. But, I will keep on fighting to save the 10.
I have never opposed any pro-life legislation that has come up, and never will. Even if it doesn't contain everything I believe the baby deserves, even if there's no personhood. I would NOT fight such legislation.
On the contrary there are some here that would fight legislation that does NOT include exceptions, how pro-life is that, really?
CP, I'd like to see your well thought out post done from the perseptive of fighting legislation that does not include exceptions.

reply from: joe

Only a person without a conscience heals without scars. The scars are the lesson learned. In this case, the scars are three dead womb children who have been victimized at least twice. Once when killed by abortion., Second when their killer dishonors their memory as a "youthful mistake. And third when their killer vows to fight equality thru personhood, because future killers may get the justice all killers deserve. No matter how many times they want to twist words, and make this issue second in consideration behind a personal agenda, every true pro-lifer knows that equality thru personhood is the final goal. Equality thru personhood is our destination, and only the real ones will take it all the way home. I never start fusses hear to "convert" anyone, but to expose the false ones you can never trust. Anyone who has an agenda other than equality thru personhood is the enemy of the womb child. I fight for them, and no body else. My total loyalty on this issue is to the womb child. Personal agendas are just as deadly to the womb child as Planned Parenthood, and rot pro-life from within.
You're not concerned about their "scars." You want to keep the wounds open so you can poor salt in them....
You just cannot keep your mouth quiet. If you do not understand what his point is you seriously have some issues to deal with first.

reply from: sander

Critique on approaches, notwithstanding, there is still something seriously wrong when one is prolife yet will actively oppose/fight legislation that does not include exceptions.
We should all be on the same page, if those who will continue to fight for ALL the babies can live with compromises as to save some, then those who oppose legislation without exceptions must "hold their principles above human life", IMHO.

reply from: carolemarie

What matters is winning.
Without exceptions, bills do not get passed.
Watch the personhood bill in Colorado.
Watch it die.
America is pretty much pro-choice or at least evenly divided.

reply from: sander

Yes, we know. We've heard you say that and we've also heard you say that you would fight against any legislation that would not include excepetions.

reply from: carolemarie

There is a difference in fighting against legislation and working to get a friendly amendment added to a bill. I know you actually do understand the difference between those things.

reply from: faithman

And watch baby killing numb skulls like you take glee in it as the babies die, and you fool some that you are actually pro-life. Person hood is the goal no matter how many "crompromises" delay the day when womb children will have equality thru personhood.Everytime one of the bills is introduced, it gains more suport. Even though they may not pass now, they speed up the proccess. Stupid baby killers like you never win in the end. Personhood will win because it is right.

reply from: carolemarie

And watch baby killing numb skulls like you take glee in it as the babies die, and you fool some that you are actually pro-life. Person hood is the goal no matter how many "crompromises" delay the day when womb children will have equality thru personhood.Everytime one of the bills is introduced, it gains more suport. Even though they may not pass now, they speed up the proccess. Stupid baby killers like you never win in the end. Personhood will win because it is right.
I am neither a babykiller or stupid.
I cannot help it that this bill will not pass. I am not the one wasting everyones time with it. I am supporting legislation that can pass now. That saves lives now.
Apparently, the people in Colorado don't know that they live in a very liberal pro-abortion state. That is why they can't get the bill introduced in the state legislature and they have to resort to I and R to get the bill on the ballot. Except that they don't have the votes to do this, so it is going to die.
If I was stupid, I would be supporting this bill that is doomed.

reply from: nancyu


Why? would anyone who is pro life...

reply from: sander


Why? would anyone who is pro life...
It's a conundrum.

reply from: yoda

You know, Mother Teresa is one of my true heroes, and I'm not even Catholic.
She said something about winning that has stuck with me through thick and thin..... she said "We are not called to win, but to be faithful".
Makes sense to me. Winning or losing is not up to us, but staying faithful to the babies is.

reply from: sander

You know, Mother Teresa is one of my true heroes, and I'm not even Catholic.
She said something about winning that has stuck with me through thick and thin..... she said "We are not called to win, but to be faithful".
Makes sense to me. Winning or losing is not up to us, but staying faithful to the babies is.
Mother Teresa was right about alot of things and she was right about this too.
We're called to do our best and personally, as a Christian, I'm to leave the outcome to God.
The bible says, "one plants, one waters and it's God that gives the increase."

reply from: Faramir

If I could throw in a couple MT quites, too:
Spread love everywhere you go: first of all in your own house. Give love to your children, to your wife or husband, to a next-door neighbor. Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness: kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile, kindness in your warm greeting.
Small things, done in great love, bring joy and peace.
Let us not be satisfied with just giving money. Money is not enough; money can be got; but they need your hearts to love them.
Let no one ever come to you without leaving better and happier. Be the living expression of God's kindness: kindness in your face, kindness in your eyes, kindness in your smile.
The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
It's not how much we give but how much love we put into giving.
If you can't feed a hundred people, then feed just one.
If you judge people, you have no time to love them.
I would rather make mistakes in kindness and compassion than work miracles in unkindness and hardness.
I have found the paradox that if I love until it hurts, then there is no hurt, but only more love.
I do not pray for success. I ask for faithfulness.
We can do no great things -- only small things with great love.

reply from: jujujellybean

lol that happens a lot here, huh? lolol......

reply from: nancyu

You know, Mother Teresa is one of my true heroes, and I'm not even Catholic.
She said something about winning that has stuck with me through thick and thin..... she said "We are not called to win, but to be faithful".
Makes sense to me. Winning or losing is not up to us, but staying faithful to the babies is.
Mother Teresa was right about alot of things and she was right about this too.
We're called to do our best and personally, as a Christian, I'm to leave the outcome to God.
The bible says, "one plants, one waters and it's God that gives the increase."
Good points Yoda and Sander.

reply from: sander

I hadn't heard this one until today, I think it will become my favorite. It sounds like a paraphrase of, "God loves a cheeful giver" and the better translation of that Scripture is, "God will not be without a cheeful giver".
In one of my Bible study classes our teacher once said, "Mother Teresa is probably the happiest person on earth" as he was teaching on "It is more blessed to give than recieve".
She lived the reality of that Scripture.

reply from: yoda

I hadn't heard this one until today, I think it will become my favorite.
Yes, that is one worth remembering. It puts me in mind of the story of the widow's mite. Her pennies were small, but put into the plate with great love.
She would never "win" any giving contests, but her heart was as big (or bigger than) as any who put in gold coins.

reply from: nancyu

Bump...and with this bump comes a challenge to the CM defenders of the world. Show me one post in which carolemarie said "an unborn child is a person"
Show me one post that shows me that she supports full legal personhood for the unborn child in the womb.

reply from: faithman

Just so the word twisters don't find a loop whole to this challenge, we are talking equality thru legal personhood. That ALL laws that govern protecting the born child, will also govern the full protection of the womb child. No exceptions, and no compromises. Any law that says we save some, but at the end of the day allows one drop of baby blood to legally hit the the clinic floor, may be a small step in the right direction, but is not the goal. Equality thru established, uncompromised personhood, is the prize for personhood eyes. Either help to that end, or get out of our sight line. Don't stand in front of the personhood flame thrower, and then cry the victims song about getting burned. The only thing that should be left standing in this fight should be a protected, equal in personhood womb child. If it takes mean biggoted haters to get us there, so be it. Resolve cares not what you think about it. Resolve only cares that the slaughter stops. Style points are of no consideration. I don't really care how we get there, we just need to get to the sanctuary of protected personhood for the womb child. you either stand up for them, or you stand down out of the way.

reply from: nancyu

"The apostle Paul said, "So don't get tired of doing what is good. Don't get discouraged and give up, for we will reap a harvest of blessing at the appropriate time" - Galatians 6:9. Weeds (of pleasure) spring up quickly. Good crops (from hard work) grow more slowly and must be tended steadily, even before we can see anything sprout. It's only in time that we will enjoy the fruit."
http://alexanderwrites.blogspot.com/2008/06/delayed-gratification.html

reply from: faithman

Just so the word twisters don't find a loop whole to this challenge, we are talking equality thru legal personhood. That ALL laws that govern protecting the born child, will also govern the full protection of the womb child. No exceptions, and no compromises. Any law that says we save some, but at the end of the day allows one drop of baby blood to legally hit the the clinic floor, may be a small step in the right direction, but is not the goal. Equality thru established, uncompromised personhood, is the prize for personhood eyes. Either help to that end, or get out of our sight line. Don't stand in front of the personhood flame thrower, and then cry the victims song about getting burned. The only thing that should be left standing in this fight should be a protected, equal in personhood womb child. If it takes mean biggoted haters to get us there, so be it. Resolve cares not what you think about it. Resolve only cares that the slaughter stops. Style points are of no consideration. I don't really care how we get there, we just need to get to the sanctuary of protected personhood for the womb child. you either stand up for them, or you stand down out of the way.

reply from: Faramir

She's obsessed with CM like faithman is.
It's weird.

reply from: faithman

Just so the word twisters don't find a loop whole to this challenge, we are talking equality thru legal personhood. That ALL laws that govern protecting the born child, will also govern the full protection of the womb child. No exceptions, and no compromises. Any law that says we save some, but at the end of the day allows one drop of baby blood to legally hit the the clinic floor, may be a small step in the right direction, but is not the goal. Equality thru established, uncompromised personhood, is the prize for personhood eyes. Either help to that end, or get out of our sight line. Don't stand in front of the personhood flame thrower, and then cry the victims song about getting burned. The only thing that should be left standing in this fight should be a protected, equal in personhood womb child. If it takes mean biggoted haters to get us there, so be it. Resolve cares not what you think about it. Resolve only cares that the slaughter stops. Style points are of no consideration. I don't really care how we get there, we just need to get to the sanctuary of protected personhood for the womb child. you either stand up for them, or you stand down out of the way.

reply from: nancyu

I want to convince her to change her views. If her eyes and heart are open to Christ as she claims, she should have no problem begin convinced.
This is the right thing to do.
If she is lying, then we will just keep persecuting her for the fun of it
pro aborts were put on this earth for our amusement. (They are not people)

reply from: Faramir

I want to convince her to change her views. If her eyes and heart are open to Christ as she claims, she should have no problem begin convinced.
This is the right thing to do.
If she is lying, then we will just keep persecuting her for the fun of it.
Is this really "passion for the unborn," 4given?

reply from: nancyu

Just so the word twisters don't find a loop whole to this challenge, we are talking equality thru legal personhood. That ALL laws that govern protecting the born child, will also govern the full protection of the womb child. No exceptions, and no compromises. Any law that says we save some, but at the end of the day allows one drop of baby blood to legally hit the the clinic floor, may be a small step in the right direction, but is not the goal. Equality thru established, uncompromised personhood, is the prize for personhood eyes. Either help to that end, or get out of our sight line. Don't stand in front of the personhood flame thrower, and then cry the victims song about getting burned. The only thing that should be left standing in this fight should be a protected, equal in personhood womb child. If it takes mean biggoted haters to get us there, so be it. Resolve cares not what you think about it. Resolve only cares that the slaughter stops. Style points are of no consideration. I don't really care how we get there, we just need to get to the sanctuary of protected personhood for the womb child. you either stand up for them, or you stand down out of the way.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

It's so wonderful to come back here after more than a year and see that you still engage in the kind of insults and infighting that has been weakening the pro-life movement for years.
Keep acting this way. You will never get a single law passed, let alone something as significant as a bill legally designating humans as persons from the instant of conception.
Such hatred and bickering I have never seen among anyone older than about 6.
Keep up the good work, F-Man. What a great man you are.

reply from: faithman

Is this quote meant seriously? Or is it sarcasm?
Either way, I take what I can get.

reply from: 4given

I want to convince her to change her views. If her eyes and heart are open to Christ as she claims, she should have no problem begin convinced.
This is the right thing to do.
If she is lying, then we will just keep persecuting her for the fun of it.
Is this really "passion for the unborn," 4given?
This is a personal conflict that doesn't involve either one of us. Nancy- go to your room!

reply from: Faramir

I want to convince her to change her views. If her eyes and heart are open to Christ as she claims, she should have no problem begin convinced.
This is the right thing to do.
If she is lying, then we will just keep persecuting her for the fun of it.
Is this really "passion for the unborn," 4given?
This is a personal conflict that doesn't involve either one of us. Nancy- go to your room!
It's not a "personal conflict."
It's a one-sided and regular attack.
That was why I made my previous post that you objected to. You said I was going "too far," but you had no problem with nancyu calling carole "scum" and a "murderer."
Is this what you call "passion" and concern for the unborn?
I see it as abusiveness to the extreme, and as the work of someone who is obsessed and hateful.
If you're ok with it, then when I finally call the men with the white coats for nancyu, I'll suggest they visit you too, because if you approve of this, you're just as much of a hateful kook as she is.

reply from: 4given

You are a liar! Your post of insults to nancy were on a thread that said nothing of the sort. I actually did not read where nancy had called her "scum". I don't believe that CM is weak enough to require your constant need to moderate what others post.
You are about to create a problem for yourself here. I suggest that you refrain from further "personal attacks". You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else here. I believe you are selling others short by implying that they need you to step in. It would be wise for you to address posters personally if you have an issue, as opposed to speaking about them. I have made my opinion known. It does not concern me. I respect what CM has done since her conversion. If I had an issue with her- I would address that. It isn't my business if another poster does. Nor is it yours.

reply from: GratiaPlena

Faithman and nancyu made it everyone's business when they decided to post insults to CM all over the forum instead of taking it to the private board.

reply from: faithman

That is simply not true. The killer of three could have kept her mouth shut about her murderous ways, and her oposition to personhood. She is the one who made this public, not us. She is the one who started the insults, by insulting our good sence that a serial killer of 3 is pro-life.

reply from: GratiaPlena

There are plenty of pro-lifers who have had abortions in the past. There are some on this site besides CM, actually.

reply from: nancyu

Then it should be obvious to you that we do not hate all post abortive women. We hate abortion.
There is nothing worse than a pro abort who pretends to be pro life, and the evidence is overwhelming that CM is pro abortion posing as pro life. She is fighting personhood for the womb child "tooth and nail" just like she promised she would. She even posted PP talking points which showed why personhood didn't pass, and she blames it on us for not making exceptions to personhood in cases of rape and incest.
How?? please, I beg you, tell me how there can be personhood with exceptions? This is what we already have. Children are persons unless they haven't been born yet. Well I'm sorry, but this isn't the goal. And if you're willing to stop there please tell me how is it that you are here speaking out against abortion from one side of your mouth, and out the other side, agreeing that the unborn aren't persons worthy of any more protection than they already are?
I'm sorry 4given, but I did refer to CM as "pro abort, scum" I apologize for my foul language, but I said what I felt and I still feel the same. If it is a matter of opinion whether the unborn are persons, then it is also a matter of opinion as to whether pro aborts are persons. My opinion is they are not. And one posing as pro life is even lower to the ground.

reply from: GratiaPlena

Then take it out in a private message. I think everyone who has come within a hundred foot radius of this board knows how you feel about CM, so I don't think "informing the public" is an issue at the present moment.

reply from: Faramir

You are a liar! Your post of insults to nancy were on a thread that said nothing of the sort. I actually did not read where nancy had called her "scum". I don't believe that CM is weak enough to require your constant need to moderate what others post.
You are about to create a problem for yourself here. I suggest that you refrain from further "personal attacks". You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else here. I believe you are selling others short by implying that they need you to step in. It would be wise for you to address posters personally if you have an issue, as opposed to speaking about them. I have made my opinion known. It does not concern me. I respect what CM has done since her conversion. If I had an issue with her- I would address that. It isn't my business if another poster does. Nor is it yours.
I didn't constanty moderate her. Most of her hatespeech goes unapposed by everyone including me.
I just pointed it out that time, and you felt a need to defend her. So you did what you are telling me not to do.
I quoted for you at least once where she called her "scum," but you don't have to look far to see posts like that coming from her. They are habitual.
I will bring it up from time to time as I see fit, since this is practically an "anything goes" board, and your attempts to moderate me will not be successful.
And why not make it my business if I see a prolifer acting like a hateful nutcase? It reflects poorly on the rest of the prolifers who are largely sane and compassionate.
And it's not just about CM. Just yesterday she told juju off and told her she is "not a prolifer."
I don't care if you don't "step in." That was not the point. The point is as far as you are concerend that you DID step in to defend nancyu.
You are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
You DO step in to defend others. But for some reason you are anxious to defend the abuser and not the abusee.

reply from: nancyu

Then take it out in a private message. I think everyone who has come within a hundred foot radius of this board knows how you feel about CM, so I don't think "informing the public" is an issue at the present moment.
I most certainly will not take it up in a private message. I will say what I think.
Apparently everyone on this board hasn't yet figured out that personhood for the unborn is what we are fighting for IF we are fighting abortion.
Now I'm not talking to CM, I'm talking to you. Why are YOU here?

reply from: GratiaPlena

Then don't whine when others get involved with the things you post on a PUBLIC board...
To make my voice heard.

reply from: nancyu

Then don't whine when others get involved with the things you post on a PUBLIC board...
To make my voice heard.
I'm not whining, and I can't hear your voice, could you speak up a little.
Are you in support of abortion, or just in support of carolemarie?

reply from: GratiaPlena

I'm certainly not in support of abortion, but you can go ahead and think whatever you want about me. Doesn't affect me one bit

reply from: Faramir

Then don't whine when others get involved with the things you post on a PUBLIC board...
To make my voice heard.
I'm not whining, and I can't hear your voice, could you speak up a little.
Are you in support of abortion, or just in support of carolemarie?
How anyone could praise THIS as someone who has passion and concern for the unborn is beyond me.
If she keeps going as she's been going, she'll soon be calling everyone here a "pro abort," except of course for her fellow haters.

reply from: faithman

And this is what stupid people like you don't seem to get. It has nothing to do with that at all. None of the others have point blank said that they would fight personhood, nor have they made the laim excuses that CM has. Not a single persohood advocate has said they are against ALL post abortive women. What we object to is anyone who would stand in the way of personhood for any reason. Now you can join the crowd of the dishonest, and twist all your mistruths against us as you like. But that is the truth of it whether you like it or not. It is about the womb children, not the serial killer of 3.

reply from: Faramir

You're contradicting yourself big time.

reply from: 4given

Wrong. You went overboard with the insults on a random thread. Nancy doesn't need to be defended. It would help if you understood why she posts the way she does. I was trying to help you out with that, based on my own challenges as well as experiences. The pro-life community is quite diverse- some more "hardcore" than others- as I am sure you realize.
I actually do not post or read here everyday. We have been quite busy with other activities.
Good. Likewise I will. And you think too highly of yourself to think that I have an interest in moderating you. I find it to be an irritation actually.
Fair enough. I am not sure how sincere you are. In fact many of your posts are in reference to Yoda, nancyu, CM or Catholicism.. Not too many about abortion. Do you interact much in regard to the issues? Or are you more concerned with the behavior of other posters and feelings? It is difficult to tell.
Again nancyu does not need to be defended. I am fairly confident that she is capable. What needed to be addressed was your hateful and disrespectful post. (again on a random thread-)
Well given the fact that you were the "abuser", it is obvious that you are quite wrong. Whatever personal issue you have with some of the posters here- that is your issue. This isn't about Nancy or CM or anyone else- It is about your inappropriate remarks- and also that you brought up her daughter.

reply from: 4given

Exactly. This troubles me as well.
No need to apologize to me Nancy. Carolemarie is the one that was disrespected.

reply from: faithman

Exactly. This troubles me as well.
No need to apologize to me Nancy. Carolemarie is the one that was disrespected.
You can not disrespect a creature of darkness. They did that to themselves by killing 3, and then defending those who do the same. Over and Over again this phony agrees with Planned Parenthood. Maybe they gave her frequent stirup miles on the 3rd one, so she feels she needs to advertise for them. You simply can not disrespect something that has no respect, nor deserves any. "Pro-abort scum" is pretty tame for someone who is lower than earth worm urine.

reply from: GratiaPlena

I'm just going to let this one speak for itself

reply from: RiverMoonLady

The more I read on this forum, the more I am convinced that a group which spends most of its time on insults and silly fights between each other has little chance of doing a darn thing to increase respect for life.
Apparently, many of you respect life when it applies to "pre-born" "womb children", but adults aren't worthy of your respect in the least, even when they agree with you.
There are a number of Pro-Life leaders (female) who have had 6 or more abortions, yet nobody calls them killers, *****s, murderers, etc. Are you even aware of these women?????
I always thought the teachings of Jesus and the Bible included forgiveness for the sins of the past when a person is truly sorry and repents. I must have been reading the wrong Bible all these years.
Some of you - Faithman especially - disgust me.

reply from: faithman

Glad to be of service. But you "choose" to ignore what the problem is. It has never been about the post abortive. It is about this particular post abortive who uses pro-death rhetoric, Denies personhood for the womb child because killer mommy dearest wouldn't get a free walk, and would rather protect the killer than the ones they kill. All issues you have chose to ignore. If your bible says you are to sacrifice the innocent so you can lavish "mercy" on evil aggressors, then yes, you are reading the wrong bible.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Some of the so-called christians on this forum are the most hateful, angry, and mean people I've ever met online. But don't take my word for it; I'm a heretical pantheist!!!
Anyway... If I were a pro-lifer, I would certainly push for unborn-personhood. Even as a moderate pro-choicer I believe in the worth of the unborn. I would even consider and agree to naming a fetus a person past week 20, definitely. I think abortion past that stage isn't ethical unless it's for severe deformities or maternal danger.

reply from: Faramir

I agree. And pantheists are capeable of correct observations.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I agree. And pantheists are capeable of correct observations.
*Chuckle*

reply from: yoda

There is no "group". We are simply a collection of individuals who post here.
All adults? Are you saying all adults are disrespected here?
If so, why do you stay?

reply from: yoda

Your "generosity" is way too little, way too late.
You have no authority, nor support in the academic community for arbitrarily awarding the label "person" as you see fit.
That term has historically been used to refer to ANY and ALL human beings, which category absolutely includes unborn human beings.
So save your "generosity" for some other class of "sub-humans" you feel charitable towards.

reply from: nancyu

Speaking only for myself, I have GREAT respect for most of those here who are pro life. I have very little, to no respect for pro aborts who don't recognize the unborn as "persons" I refuse to recognize them as "persons" therefore they don't require any respect.
Those who say they are pro life and refuse to recognize the unborn as persons have even less of my respect. They are mindless wads of tissue filled with snot, so what's to respect?
Whether or not they agree with me is not even relevant.

reply from: yoda

But what do you really think about them?

reply from: nancyu

Only a person without a conscience heals without scars. The scars are the lesson learned. In this case, the scars are three dead womb children who have been victimized at least twice. Once when killed by abortion., Second when their killer dishonors their memory as a "youthful mistake. And third when their killer vows to fight equality thru personhood, because future killers may get the justice all killers deserve. No matter how many times they want to twist words, and make this issue second in consideration behind a personal agenda, every true pro-lifer knows that equality thru personhood is the final goal. Equality thru personhood is our destination, and only the real ones will take it all the way home. I never start fusses hear to "convert" anyone, but to expose the false ones you can never trust. Anyone who has an agenda other than equality thru personhood is the enemy of the womb child. I fight for them, and no body else. My total loyalty on this issue is to the womb child. Personal agendas are just as deadly to the womb child as Planned Parenthood, and rot pro-life from within.
You're not concerned about their "scars." You want to keep the wounds open so you can poor salt in them....
Well, you know they say that salt is a disinfectant, and aren't Christians supposed to be the "salt of the earth"?
(skiddles)


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics