Home - List All Discussions

How do you spot a phony prolifer?

Is it really possible?

by: yoda

Well, yes and no. Some of them are very slick, and impossible to spot. Others, however, are quite obvious.
The obvious ones describe themselves as prolife, and yet they oppose the criminalization of abortion. That is a contradiction in terms, since the term prolife is defined as being in favor of the criminalization of abortion.
Another way to spot them is when they tell you that you should accept any and all who come here to this forum and tell us that they are prolife, that we should not question anyone's status no matter what they actually say. Even if they advocate keeping abortion legal forever, we are told by the phonies that we should accept them as "prolifers". A phony has a vested interest in getting you to accept other phonies. They want to destroy our movement from the inside.
Another way is that they will tell you that it's not as bad to kill an unborn child as it is to kill a born child. That's a "dead" giveaway.
Another way is that the will tell you that in order to save babies, we must make friends with the proaborts so as to get them to join our social group. And of course, that means never telling them that they are supporting the killing of babies, or anything else that might "upset" them. They will tell you that being opposed to the killing of unborn babies is not enough, you must also make the proaborts like you. They will say that you cannot fight abortion unless you convert proaborts by being friendly to them. They will say that you can't fight abortion unless you stop saying that every abortion kills a baby..... in other words, you must stop telling the truth.
I'm sure we could make a lot more "friends" like that. But friendship on their terms is worse than having them as enemies, IMO.

reply from: 4given

An enemy of the unborn is no "friend" of mine. Seems there have been far too many exception posters. Pro-lifers don't support elective abortion. I read somewhere recently, a supposed pro-lifer stated that they "would never impose my morals on my child.." I wish I could find it. How do you impose morals on a child? As parents, one is responsible for guiding their child. Children understand without hesitation that it is not okay to kill other human beings- especially innocent babies. It is through corrupted influence and a hardened heart that such depravity takes hold. My questioin is how does one "impose morals" on those that lack moral standard or sensibility?

reply from: yoda

If a parent can't teach their child moral values, from whom will they learn them? From their peers? From their teachers at school? From a minister they see once a month?
That's just plain sad.....

reply from: Faramir

If you disagree with yodavater for more than three posts you are a "pro abort."

reply from: faithman

Sounds about right. Yoda is a pretty good judge of wolf flesh, no matter how many skinned sheep have been sacreficed to cover them up.

reply from: Faramir

An abortion unjustly denies life to a human.
Anyone who see that, wants it to stop, and is willing to support laws and legisltors who will stop it, and who opposes laws and legislators which support abortion rights, is prolife.
To be civil to a "pro abort" is not necessarily to "make friends" with him, and it certainly does not imply agreement with the position the "pro abort" has about abortion. (I put "pro abort" in quotes because it is a stupid made-up word).
To use the prolife cause as an excuse to be high and mighty, to slap others around, and otherwise be a jerk, is really very sad and pathetic. I suppose those who do that, even though they are exploiting the cause and the babies, are still prolife, but they need to grow up and stop being weenies.
They may not intend to hurt the prolife movement, and I won't go so far as to say they are phonies, but they sure make prolifers look stupid and mean, and I don't think that helps the babies, IMHO.

reply from: yoda

No need to name names here....... if you see their posts, you will know them.

reply from: yoda

Sounds about right. Yoda is a pretty good judge of wolf flesh, no matter how many skinned sheep have been sacreficed to cover them up.
All one has to do is read what I wrote in the original post. If anyone disagrees with those specifics things, I don't think they are prolife by any means.

reply from: faithman

Sounds about right. Yoda is a pretty good judge of wolf flesh, no matter how many skinned sheep have been sacreficed to cover them up.
All one has to do is read what I wrote in the original post. If anyone disagrees with those specifics things, I don't think they are prolife by any means.
But you have to understand, that this scripture has been deleted from the neo-lifer Bible:Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Mat 7:15 ΒΆ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

reply from: Banned Member

Perhaps when they say extraordinary things like this.

reply from: yoda

I agree, Augustine. That is not a prolife sentiment by any means.

reply from: churchmouse

Well I think sometimes its ok to call someone out. We need not apologize for our postions. And if they are truely pro-choice and proud of it, they wouldnt care. They see nothing wrong with abortion, if they are pro-choice.
If I might add that they also compare the human life in the womb to that of an animal.

reply from: yoda

I agree with all that, but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. I posted it to start a general discussion of what I think are ways to recognize who is actually with us and who is only pretending to be. No names are needed for that purpose, in fact they would just get in the way and divert this into a shouting match at this point.
Any posts that match the criteria I set out can be considered NOT to be from a prolifer, IMO.

reply from: Kero

I very much agree with the first post, and have (unfortunately) have had my fair share of that sort.

reply from: yoda

Thanks. Welcome to the forum, btw.

reply from: carolemarie

It doesn't make me prochoice to say that women shouldn't have to die so the baby can live. That is up to the woman to decide, not the rest of us. She has the right to lay down her life if she decides to do that. She also has the right to not do that. This is her choice, not anyone elses to make.

reply from: nancyu

No need to name names here....... if you see their posts, you will know them.
As I thought, you can't provide names.
in this thread: carolemarie and faramir definitely.
vexing and churchmouse, not quite sure.
edit: I don't think you last two are phony, but not sure if you're pro life either.

reply from: Faramir

No need to name names here....... if you see their posts, you will know them.
As I thought, you can't provide names.
in this thread: carolemarie and faramir definitely.
vexing and churchmouse, not quite sure.
edit: I don't think you last two are phony, but not sure if you're pro life either.
I not only oppose abortion for any reason, but oppose the use of any form of contraception. Abortion should be criminalized.
Of course those statements could be a pretense, and I suppose someone who is smart enough to see that abortion really is illegal is smart enough to see through it.
So what was the clue that tipped you off, nancyu? That I don't kiss the behinds of faithman and yodavater like you do 10 times a day? Or that I would save a drowning "pro abort" instead of watching her die as you would? Or that I don't call the "pro aborts" nasty names, which shows that I really don't love babies? Or maybe I don't seem to be concerned about the scanctity of life like your buddy?
I am torn between being hurt or wearing this proclaimation like a badge of honor.

reply from: yoda

I can, but I don't want to. And you can't make me.

reply from: abc123

What would you say if a mother had her newborn baby take a bullet for her by using the baby as a shield from a gunmen. Hey it was me or my baby, my life is more important than my childs, I'm willing to do alot for my child but not die?
A mother and father are called to LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES for their children not vice versa.......
John 15:13 - Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
Being a Christian means laying down your life for others. I truly don't believe you have dealt with the death of your 3 babies you aborted....you still believe that what you did was the RIGHT thing to do and wouldn't change it if you could because you feel YOUR life is more important then those 3 lives were! If you do not believe that EVERY life is worth saving than you are pro-choice. This is a pro-choicers exact stance...we get to choose who lives and dies.

reply from: Faramir

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.

reply from: yoda

A good mother and father would not even have to be told this.......

reply from: faithman

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.
She has made nothing clear, and her words are constantly conflicted. But you have yet to find a baby killer you wouldn't defend over a pro-lifer yet.

reply from: Faramir

How often does it happen where it is one or the other?
But if a man's wife is in the hospital and she is unconscious and he has has only two choices--to save his wife or the baby she is carrying, could he be faulted for saving his wife, especially if he has several children at home depending upon her?

reply from: abc123

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.
So you believe that truth is hate....
Proverbs 27:6 - Faithful are the wounds of a friend,But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.
I will tell someone the truth every time, because true repentance comes from a wounded heart. True repentance is not going to come from an enemy like you who want to make the unrepentant 'feel good' about themselves instead of telling them the truth. Your kind of Luv is not Love at all but truly hate!

reply from: Faramir

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.
So you believe that truth is hate....
Proverbs 27:6 - Faithful are the wounds of a friend,But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.
I will tell someone the truth every time, because true repentance comes from a wounded heart. True repentance is not going to come from an enemy like you who want to make the unrepentant 'feel good' about themselves instead of telling them the truth. Your kind of Luv is not Love at all but truly hate!
You have no corner on "the truth."
She said she regrets her abortions. She didn't have to share that information, and any decent person would let her alone about it. You are not God and cannot see her heart. There is no reason to not take her at her word.
I don't think anyone should feel good about themselves if they aborted. They should be sorry. But it's not up to you or me to continually beat them over the head about something that is now between them and God.
You're using your Bible as a way to hit someone over the head and not as a means to dispense truth or love.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't think that there is anything wrong with someone sharing the information that they had an abortion. One who regrets abortion can be a powerful witness to the pro-life movement. I think that it becomes a problem when that person is unable to categorically condem abortion because they allow their own personal feelings, and perhaps their own unreconciled feelings of guilt about abortion. God may have forgiven the person for their abortions, but have they forgiven themselves? And if they have not forgiven themselves can they ever speak freely and honestly about abortion without conditions? Once you are forgiven you cannot keep rationalizing possible exceptions to abortion because you somehow feel that any condemnation of abortion is a condemnation of yourself.
Ones own personal experiences with abortion should never lesson what we know to be true about aborion and what we are able to express about abortion, even and especially if they have had an abortion themselves. -Me

reply from: Faramir

CM had abortions and she regrets them and that should be the end of it.
I am in disagreement with her about contraception and religion, but my disagreement and my perceived errors in her thinking do not give me the right to dredge up her past and use it against her.

reply from: yoda

Well said. It's like saying "I did it, so it must not be sooooo bad, after all.

reply from: Banned Member

It's not the end of it if that is the reason she continues to argue that there are abortion exceptions and that woman should be legal and moral immunity when they have taken the life of a human being. Many women regret their abortions. Many do not or have not made the conscious connection between their abortion and its negative consequences in their life. Abortion take the life of a human person. For many, it's just not enough to say sorry.
If on the other hand her abortions are not the reason that she makes the exceptions and offers immunity I would simply suggest that she has a weak ethical and moral constitution and that this makes her a poor proponent for life.
If she wants to help women deal with the abortions they have had fine, good enough. But if she is going to stand in the way of the truth and make exceptions and exonerate the guilty, than she needs to go into another line of work.
I don't buy this business that it's not the woman's fault and that someone else must be blamed for abortion. In my own opinion, I believe that CM is still trying blame someone else for her abortions other than herself. The real long and the short of it is; she thinks that if she blames women for their abortions and that are guilty for having them, than that she must also be guilty of her own abortions. I believe that she refuses to accept that acknowledging her own guilt in her abortions is a condtion for speaking out against other womens abortions. But for her, as long as they are not guilty, she is not guilty. That makes her a poor witness in the defense of life.
I don't say these things to be mean or hateful, only that this is what her words reveal here in this forum.
As a priest of mine once said if sin is come to be viewed as mere personal idiosyncracy attributable to outside circumstances, than sin simply would simply cease to exist at all. If we say that we have no sin, than we call God a liar.

reply from: faithman

I case you haven't noticed, we are not the ones who made her abortion history public information. She did so to try and put herself in a position beyond reproach, from which she could snipe at others, and then play the victim when they respond. Then idiots like you try to use specific staments as general ones. I, nor any other IAAP folk, are "against" the post abortive in general. I know several that are powerful witnesses in saving babies. But they don't use thier history as a weapon to silence others they disagree with, nor do they smuggly talk down to others, or use their "experiance" as an issue that gives their voice more weight in any discussion. she is the only post abortive woman I know who would fight personhood for the womb child so that future killer mom's get a free walk. Niether do any of them use pro-abort rhetoric on a reagular basis to devalue the interest of the womb child in favor of killer mom. This issue is first last and always about the womb child. To dilute that message with personal agenda, makes you the deadly enemy of the womb child. Some of us have joined in the fight to be a voice for those who do not have one. Any attempt to silence us in favor of killer mom will most assuredly garner you a fight. Don't like it to bad. We are not beholding to killer mom's, or those who defend them no matter how much slander you want to throw our way. In case you haven't noticed, we really don't care what you think.

reply from: yoda

Sad, but true. There can be no compromise, no surrender of any part of the truth in the struggle to save babies from the abortionist.

reply from: Faramir

Well said. It's like saying "I did it, so it must not be sooooo bad, after all.
This is yodavater at his "best," demonstrating his very "subtle" style of bullying.
This is a total mischaracterization of a post-abortive woman.
And if he wants to see why this forum is so often "derailed" he need go no further than to look in a mirror.

reply from: Banned Member

Does unreconciled guilt about ones own abortions interfere with that persons ability to be a pro-life witness?
Answer the question Faramir.

reply from: yoda

4 score and 7 minutes ago, Fartnomore set forth to make yet another personal attack on the poster with whom is so obsessed with that he follows him from thread to thread.... sad, indeed.......

reply from: Faramir

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?

reply from: yoda

Shhh....... s/he thinks that was MY quote and is attacking me.... s/he might realize it was a quote from your post now!

reply from: Banned Member

Obviously.
Does unreconciled guilt about ones own abortions interfere with that persons ability to be a pro-life witness?
Answer the question Faramir.

reply from: Faramir

I have not been involved in any abortion situation, and I am in agreement with CM and with Fr. Pavone, and many other Catholics, and many other prolifers, including the owner of this forum, that women should not be punished. Are we all of a "weak ethical and moral constitution," or just the ones that you select?
She has the right to her opinions, and she has the right to be wrong about some issues, without her past being thrown at her continually.
If you want to be fair and compassionate, you will deal only with her ideas, and not try to use your disagreement with her ideas as a means to personally attack her.
And she is out there doing prolife work right now--saving babies. Stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

reply from: yoda

There will be a slight pause while Fartnomore thinks of a way to blame this one on me..........

reply from: Banned Member

At least for the sake of argument...
Could unreconciled guilt about ones own abortions interfere with that persons ability to be a pro-life witness?
An answer? Anyone.... anyone?

reply from: yoda

Absolutely, Augustine.
It can and probably does weaken one's resolve to denounce the very act of abortion.

reply from: Faramir

Let's see...she is involved in prolife work and has counseled women about abortion and has talked some women out of abortions, thereby saving babies.
Carolemarie has saved babies from abortion.
Seems like if she has any guilt, she has put it to good use.
Or should those babies instead have died, since you need to find out whether her guilt is "reconciled" or not, and whether she had any business doing prolife work?

reply from: faithman

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?

reply from: Banned Member

At least for the sake of argument...
Could unreconciled guilt about ones own abortions interfere with that persons ability to be a pro-life witness?
Think. Don't emotionally react. Answer the question as the question is written.

reply from: abc123

What is she asking to forgiven of if she doesn't belief she is guilty of anything.....she doesn't believe it was her fault she aborted. It is the fault of others, she needs to take responsibility for her actions. I know other post-abortive women who would give anything to have the child they aborted back. She has stated that the killing of an unborn child is different than killing a 10 year old. So in CM's eyes the born child along with the mothers life is worth more than say an unborn child. Maybe the unborn child is 3/5ths of person until it is born. What a lie. Hey that is what the slave in the 1800's were worth.

reply from: yoda

Good luck getting a straight answer, Augustine.

reply from: Banned Member

If a child is 9 days old, that means that 10 days ago, it was legal to kill them.
I defy anyone to explain to me how the unborn child is different from the born child.

reply from: abc123

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.
So you believe that truth is hate....
Proverbs 27:6 - Faithful are the wounds of a friend,But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.
I will tell someone the truth every time, because true repentance comes from a wounded heart. True repentance is not going to come from an enemy like you who want to make the unrepentant 'feel good' about themselves instead of telling them the truth. Your kind of Luv is not Love at all but truly hate!
You have no corner on "the truth."
She said she regrets her abortions. She didn't have to share that information, and any decent person would let her alone about it. You are not God and cannot see her heart. There is no reason to not take her at her word.
I don't think anyone should feel good about themselves if they aborted. They should be sorry. But it's not up to you or me to continually beat them over the head about something that is now between them and God.
You're using your Bible as a way to hit someone over the head and not as a means to dispense truth or love.
Faramir,
Regret is way different than repentance. An adulterer regrets getting caught; but doesn't mean that they truly repented and are forgiven.
An post-abortive mom can regret what they did but still be okay with the fact that they did it. That is not repentance and without repentance their is no forgiveness.
The bible is meant to bring one to repentance; the law of God brings men to repentance which will despense the truth; and loving someone enough to tell them the truth is love.

reply from: Faramir

Yes, I think such a person is in danger of becoming so rabidly prolife that she neglects herself and her family.
She needs to understand that God forgives and she can get on with her life in a reasonably normal manner, like the rest of us sinners do.

reply from: faithman

Here is the prob with your question. One needs to feel guilt before it can be reconciled. The "witness" from this baby killer, is always for baby killers. In act, word, and deed, her issue is always killer mom. There are many post abortive that come here, and fight for the womb child, and we never know their abortion history. The way I know is because I have had them PM me and ask how I would feel about them if I knew they had abortions in the past. They do not try to use their history as a tool to give their voice more wieght simply because they have killed children in the past. Most who are truely ashamed of their past wrong doing, do not flaunt it in front of people to make themselves the star of the show. They join in with the rest of us to win personhood for the womb child so that the child will be protected from killers.

reply from: yoda

You know, the "Karen Black" method of protesting abortion teaches that it is all about the woman, not the baby. The idea is to cajole, pander, befriend, compliment, and generally appeal to a woman's self-interest, rather than talking about that insignificant little tyke she's planning to kill.
Carried to it's extreme, this approach would seem to work best by simply offering cash bribes to women approaching an abortion mill. Why not take up a collection and offer each woman total financial support for 18 years if they have the baby? Why not have a bunch of new cars parked at the front of the mill and offer the keys to one to each woman?
Sure, some women will respond to such bribes. But we don't have that kind of money, do we?

reply from: nancyu

...which means you are pro choice.

reply from: nancyu

That statement is cruel and entirely out of line, since she made it clear she regrets her abortions.
She has made nothing clear, and her words are constantly conflicted. But you have yet to find a baby killer you wouldn't defend over a pro-lifer yet.
Carolemarie has said she is just fine with her past. She is forgiven, so there is no need to worry about her emotional health.

reply from: Faramir

Her past is not an issue and how she feels about it is nobody's business.
Dispute her arguments if you don't like them.
To continue to speculate about her abortions and how she feels about them is pointless and cruel.

reply from: faithman

Listen jerk, she is the one who brought it up. She is the one who made it public knowlege. No one is "speculating" here. We merely comment on what the baby killer has posted. Whats pointless and cruel is yours and hers attitudes towards womb children.

reply from: Jameberlin

Actually, i said it. I said it in a response to a picture of a pregnant woman who had "MY BABY IS PRO-CHOICE" written on her belly.
By impose, i meant FORCE. I would NEVER, and i COULD NEVER FORCE another person to accept MY MORAL VALUES.
I never said i wouldn't teach my moral values, or guide my children with their moral values, i meant i would never IMPOSE my moral values, or CLAIM TO KNOW WHAT MY CHILD WILL THINK WHEN THEY ARE ADULTS.
You took what i said out of context, didn't bother to understand why i said it, and perverted it to mean something completely different.
Your selective intelligence astounds me.

reply from: Faramir

Listen jerk, she is the one who brought it up. She is the one who made it public knowlege. No one is "speculating" here. We merely comment on what the baby killer has posted. Whats pointless and cruel is yours and hers attitudes towards womb children.
Yes and another poster here apparently admitted he once did time in prison. And you have no problem calling him "convict" when it suits you, even though it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.
CM admits to her abortions to help the post abortive and to warn those considering abortion. She does not use her history as a way to bolster her arguments, but you and your club of bullies use it as an excuse to smack her around whenever you disagree with her.

reply from: carolemarie

What would you say if a mother had her newborn baby take a bullet for her by using the baby as a shield from a gunmen. Hey it was me or my baby, my life is more important than my childs, I'm willing to do alot for my child but not die?
A mother and father are called to LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES for their children not vice versa.......
John 15:13 - Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
Being a Christian means laying down your life for others. I truly don't believe you have dealt with the death of your 3 babies you aborted....you still believe that what you did was the RIGHT thing to do and wouldn't change it if you could because you feel YOUR life is more important then those 3 lives were! If you do not believe that EVERY life is worth saving than you are pro-choice. This is a pro-choicers exact stance...we get to choose who lives and dies.
If I had access to a time machine, I would go back in time and not get pregnant. I would get saved at 12, sparing myself much misery. If I get to pick what I would change, that would be it.
But there isn't a time machine and I can't go back. We live in the now.
I have been healed by God, so I am not going around crying over a decision that was made many years ago. That would be pointless and would be saying that Jesus's sacrifice for me wasn't enough. It was enough. And I walk in freedom now. I don't know why that seems like such a hard concept to understand...I am prolife, I admit that I was wrong and I have moved on. Forgetting what lies behind, I press on to the upward call of Christ Jesus....
However, If a woman's life is on the line, she has a right to choose to live. The death of the baby isn't a planned thing, it is an unfortuant side effect of trying to save her. Guess what! That makes me mainstream prolife, like 98 percent of prolifers. I give you 2% of the nut jobs who think women should be forced to die so a fetus can live, and that Paul Hill is a hero for killing abortion providers. I wouldn't be suprised to find those that hold the first position support the second.

reply from: Jameberlin

Yes, Augustine, it could, and often does... I know a few people who suffer from unreconciled guilt, and it's not pretty later in life.
But it's not for us, to decide when anothers guilt has been reconciled. If Carolemarie (who's intentions i'm assuming people are still debating) is at peace with her past, and she finds it within herself to be a pro-life witness, we might safely assume she's actually come to terms with her past sins.
*edited to include that last paragraph

reply from: carolemarie

Does unreconciled guilt about ones own abortions interfere with that persons ability to be a pro-life witness?
Answer the question Faramir.
Does being self-rightous interfer with a person's ability to be a prolife witness?

reply from: carolemarie

It's the Karen Black method of SIDEWALK COUNSELING. Not protesting. You may go there to protest. Sidewalk counselors are not protesting anything. We are reaching out to women to help them. Two totally different mindsets and two totally different things. We talk to the women. You don't. Yet, you seem to think you know how to talk to them from your vast non-experience of doing so.
And yes, it is about the woman. If you want her not to abort, you need to reach her, not the baby. Why that is such a difficult concept to wrap your mind around is beyond my ability to understand.

reply from: Jameberlin

I like how the whole pro-life movement is a club to some people. They sit there on their high horses and claim they know what is in people's hearts, they devote precious time and energy into debating the pro-life...ness of other people, when they could be doing something. Actually doing something!
I don't believe there is a conspiracy here, i don't believe that abortion supporters are secretly out there, infiltrating our ranks and destroying our efforts. NINJA ABORTION SUPPORTERS!! oh, puh-lease!
The validity of one's claim to be pro-life or not isn't relevant to the calling of another! If you're pro-life... GREAT! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! HELP THE CAUSE!!
If it's more important for some people to sit here and argue the stance of others, i suspect those people are using the pro-life movement as a means to support their own private agendas (condemning others) rather than actually truly being pro-life.

reply from: carolemarie

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.

reply from: Faramir

I don't think such a person can witness to anything but himself or herself. A person like that is impotent as far as being an advocate, and only proves himself or herself to be a bodily orifice, which does nothing at all to help babies, but does earn a few pats on the back from fellow orifices.

reply from: Jameberlin

I'm not sure you can. I'm not sure why anyone would want to present themselves as such insincerely (other than the occasional troll who does so for kicks, which I do not view as a serious threat to the prolife movement), and I certainly fail to understand why any prolifer would obsess over what I consider to be such a trivial issue, and one that I realize I have no control over even if I felt I had a legitimate reason to devote my time and energy to such a concern...
amen.

reply from: nancyu

It's really quite easy.

reply from: yoda

Ah, so you don't support laws against murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc., etc.??
Because IF you do, then you are "FORCING" your morals on any who would like to do those things......
So, you'd prefer to just let people do those things if they want to, right?

reply from: yoda

Wow.... can you and Karen ever forgive me?
Understood. You're not protesting, because you're not upset about anything that's going on there, right?
At no point in my post did I suggest how you should talk to anyone, did I? Reading my mind again?
Understood. In fact, I think you could reach her even better if you tried to bribe her with a new Cadillac, couldn't you? Or how about a new house? Hey, tea and chocolates aren't going to get it, you've got to raise your offer!
Seriously, I already covered that. Why don't you read my whole post once in a while?

reply from: yoda

Right! And there is no such thing as the Mafia/Cosa Nostra, right?
Well, that's what any member of the Mafia will tell you, anyway.

reply from: faithman

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.
Let's see, you admit to murdering three children, you have vowed to fight personhood if fututre murders don't go free, you use pro-abort rhetoric to devalue womb life and justify your "youthful mistake". Then you have the arrogance to call yourself pro-life because you do a few "good works" that exalt the interest of the murderous mother over the womb child. I don't need to do anything you say, nor do I care what you are tired of. Anmd I don't care to grow up if it means I would have to be a phony like you. A baby killer is a baby killer whether you like it or not. And the last time I check, I have the freedom to post the truth, just like you do to post your self deluded crap. Don't like it to bad for you. Feel free to leave anytime. The forum would be much better without your kind anyway.

reply from: Faramir

She's trying to stop women from aborting, for god's sake. Why would she try to stop them if she didn't think it was wrong?
How in the world could yodavater have an issue with THAT and why would he use that as a reason to bully her?

reply from: Faramir

In what way do they bribe? Someone clue me in, please. (I'm not responding to yodavater directly, since he has me on ignore, sort of).
Also, he has misrepresented what she has done for POSTabortive women. She has been involved in giving out gift bags to those who abort (AFTER first trying to persuade them to NOT abort), which include tracts and information that can lead them to counselors, as well as a bible, and tea and some chocolate.
She believes that the post abortive woman needs to be treated with love and compassion and not be kicked to the curb. By treating them with love and respect, they just might help her find healing, and might prevent another abortion.
For the newbs here, I am not speaking for Carolemarie who is capeable of speaking for herself, but she is often bullied by faithman, yodavater, and nancyu, and often mercilessly, and being so outnumbered on a forum where abuse is not moderated, I like to offer my support from time to time.

reply from: 4given

Actually, i said it. I said it in a response to a picture of a pregnant woman who had "MY BABY IS PRO-CHOICE" written on her belly.
By impose, i meant FORCE. I would NEVER, and i COULD NEVER FORCE another person to accept MY MORAL VALUES.
Can any of us?
You are right. I couldn't find the post. You never did say anything about teaching or guiding your children. You have a lot of faith in your children, huh? I am certain that my children will not grow up and into pro-choicers. It doesn't work that way.
Actually I took what you wrote, unable to refer to the original post. Perhaps you should be more clear when you post something as absurd as "I would never force morals on my children.."

reply from: carolemarie

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.
Let's see, you admit to murdering three children, you have vowed to fight personhood if fututre murders don't go free, you use pro-abort rhetoric to devalue womb life and justify your "youthful mistake". Then you have the arrogance to call yourself pro-life because you do a few "good works" that exalt the interest of the murderous mother over the womb child. I don't need to do anything you say, nor do I care what you are tired of. Anmd I don't care to grow up if it means I would have to be a phony like you. A baby killer is a baby killer whether you like it or not. And the last time I check, I have the freedom to post the truth, just like you do to post your self deluded crap. Don't like it to bad for you. Feel free to leave anytime. The forum would be much better without your kind anyway.
It would be great if you would post the truth. Try that for a change....Quit being a liar.
I don't like a bill you like? That makes me prochoice? It means I think you are wrong...not that abortion is okay.
A phony prolifer is one who supports murder, like those who support Paul Hill's actions. One rather like you.....
Do you call Cheri (on Marks show) a babykiller? She no longer is what she once was. Neither am I.

reply from: nancyu

An easy way to spot them is to look for them saying things like you are "hateful" towards women. Or if they accuse you of "bullying"
You know what they say, it takes one to know one, and pro choicers are the ultimate bullies and the ultimate in hatefulness, when they could care less if abortion stays "legal" for another 100 years as long as they can continue to look like heroes for convincing one or two to *choose* to let their child live. Meanwhile thousands per day are still being slaughtered without mercy.

reply from: yoda

Yep, and when they follow you all around the forum making snide, nasty personal remarks about you, that's another sign.

reply from: Faramir

Of course there is no way he would know, is there? He has everyone on "iggy" except his yes men and those he likes to knock around.
But that proves nothing about whether someone is prolife or not. Yoda is not the center of this forum or the prolife movement, though he IS a legend in his own mind.

reply from: cracrat

Me
Faramir
Not sure who he's getting at here
CarolMarie
Yoda really is an arse isn't he?

reply from: Agape

I think you can spot a phony prolifer when someone says that they are against abortion except in certain cases like rape, incest, etc because then it's hypocritical.

reply from: Faramir

Frequent demonstrations of that fact seem to be his hobby.
Maybe it's his form of recreation.
At any rate, I can't call someone a "phony" unless there is an intent to deceive.
There have been some who call themselves prolife, who really don't fit the definition, and I could not agree that they are prolife, but they are not "phonies" because there is no pretense--just that they have mistakenly given themselves that label.
Mormons call themselves Christian, but do not fit the definition from the perspective of most mainstream Christians, but that does not mean they are "phonies," because they are not intending to deceive. They are mistaken, but are not pretending to be something they are not.
A true phony would be someone who is secretly prochoice but posing as a prolifer.
And in Mr. Yoda's mind, that is unfortunately anyone who does not accept everything he says as if it came from God himself.

reply from: carolemarie

Doesn't that depend on why they are saying that?
I think we need exceptions for life of mother, rape and incest so we can pass the bills. I dont think they will pass without them. So the questions becomes do we allow exceptions to save the other 98% who would die?
It isn't being a fake prolifer to advocate saving the greatest number possible, rather than holding out to have a pure law and allowing many to die.
In fact, it is a mainstream prolife position to work on incremental gains till we can pass a bill banning all except life of mother.

reply from: Agape

Doesn't that depend on why they are saying that?
I think we need exceptions for life of mother, rape and incest so we can pass the bills. I dont think they will pass without them. So the questions becomes do we allow exceptions to save the other 98% who would die?
It isn't being a fake prolifer to advocate saving the greatest number possible, rather than holding out to have a pure law and allowing many to die.
In fact, it is a mainstream prolife position to work on incremental gains till we can pass a bill banning all except life of mother.
I get you, but I wasn't thinking of passing laws. Compromising to pass a law and compromising your values I think are different. There are professed prolifers who make exceptions for rape and incest and I think they are misguided.

reply from: carolemarie

Sure, but that doesn't make them not prolife. It makes them wrong about something. They still oppose abortion.
Most people who support exceptions do so because of someone they know or a situtation they have experienced.

reply from: yoda

Good points.
Unless one of us is a legislator, we won't be passing any laws anytime soon. So, we don't need to compromise our principles, that's what politicians are for. We need to stay true to our principles, and get as much as we can out of the political process.

reply from: yoda

Technically, it does. The don't conform with the definition of that term in the dictionary, because there are no exceptions listed in the dictionary.

reply from: carolemarie

well the dictonary isn't the final word on anything.
prolife means opposed to abortion.

reply from: Agape

Then if someone is not opposed to abortion, such as people who think exceptions are okay, then they are wishy washy and just aren't prolife. They are "prolife when I think it's okay to be prolife" or "prolife when it doesn't make others uncomfortable" or "prolife only to the point where legislation will get passed".
I could say that "most people who support choice do so because of someone they know or a situation they have experienced". Does that mean that abortion is okay now?

reply from: carolemarie

Then if someone is not opposed to abortion, such as people who think exceptions are okay, then they are wishy washy and just aren't prolife. They are "prolife when I think it's okay to be prolife" or "prolife when it doesn't make others uncomfortable" or "prolife only to the point where legislation will get passed".
I could say that "most people who support choice do so because of someone they know or a situation they have experienced". Does that mean that abortion is okay now?
People support exceptions because they think being forced to carry a rapist baby to term is to horrible of a thing to do to a woman who has been raped. They think forcing a 12 year old incest victim to carry a baby to term is too traumatic for them. That is why they want exceptions. They have compassion for the victim of the crime....that doesn't make them prochoice.
They may be wrong but they are still prolife.
They believe that the woman should be able to protect her self from further pain and suffering.

reply from: Agape

Then if someone is not opposed to abortion, such as people who think exceptions are okay, then they are wishy washy and just aren't prolife. They are "prolife when I think it's okay to be prolife" or "prolife when it doesn't make others uncomfortable" or "prolife only to the point where legislation will get passed".
I could say that "most people who support choice do so because of someone they know or a situation they have experienced". Does that mean that abortion is okay now?
People support exceptions because they think being forced to carry a rapist baby to term is to horrible of a thing to do to a woman who has been raped. They think forcing a 12 year old incest victim to carry a baby to term is too traumatic for them. That is why they want exceptions. They have compassion for the victim of the crime....that doesn't make them prochoice.
They may be wrong but they are still prolife.
They believe that the woman should be able to protect her self from further pain and suffering.
Then they say she can choose because they wouldn't make her have an abortion or do one way or the other, and they are prochoice. It's factually true; they epitomize the definition of prochoice at that junction. Prolife respects the baby period and if you start throwing in conception situations then it becomes less about the baby and more about the mother and the conception.
Look, the mother isn't going to die who was raped or a victim of incest (generally speaking) but that baby is definately going to die. I'm not a callous person but prolife doesn't switcheroo around when some people are uncomfortable with it.

reply from: Jameberlin

Agreed.
Abortion will never be able to erase the abuse either, there are women who get pregnant from rape, have abortions, and feel even worse. Either way, it's a reminder of the abuse, only with the addition of abortion, it becomes guilt at being abused, and guilt at ending the life of another victim. Children born from rape are victims.
Some women who get pregnant through non-abusive means, also feel horrible and guilty, for them their pregnancy is a reminder of whatever it is they're lamenting... But this is no reason to end the life of a child, if one applies one standard to women feeling terrible about rape pregnancies, they should extend that to women who feel terrible about non-rape pregnancies.. IMHO.

reply from: carolemarie

Then if someone is not opposed to abortion, such as people who think exceptions are okay, then they are wishy washy and just aren't prolife. They are "prolife when I think it's okay to be prolife" or "prolife when it doesn't make others uncomfortable" or "prolife only to the point where legislation will get passed".
I could say that "most people who support choice do so because of someone they know or a situation they have experienced". Does that mean that abortion is okay now?
People support exceptions because they think being forced to carry a rapist baby to term is to horrible of a thing to do to a woman who has been raped. They think forcing a 12 year old incest victim to carry a baby to term is too traumatic for them. That is why they want exceptions. They have compassion for the victim of the crime....that doesn't make them prochoice.
They may be wrong but they are still prolife.
They believe that the woman should be able to protect her self from further pain and suffering.
Then they say she can choose because they wouldn't make her have an abortion or do one way or the other, and they are prochoice. It's factually true; they epitomize the definition of prochoice at that junction. Prolife respects the baby period and if you start throwing in conception situations then it becomes less about the baby and more about the mother and the conception.
Look, the mother isn't going to die who was raped or a victim of incest (generally speaking) but that baby is definately going to die. I'm not a callous person but prolife doesn't switcheroo around when some people are uncomfortable with it.
So you are saying tough luck for the incest victim. She will just have to suck it up. 12 year old raped children can just suck it up too.
If someone waivers and says, well maybe in that situtation there should be an exception, that means they just are not prolife....

reply from: 4given

CM- So you are saying "touch luck" to the unborn victim of incest?

reply from: nancyu

Try to be honest with yourself. Is it that you don't believe a law will pass without exceptions? Or do you, yourself want the exceptions?
With this exception, does the mother get to decide what constitutes her life being in danger?

reply from: Agape

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.

reply from: yoda

Telling a child they should not kill their baby is telling them to "suck it up"? You consider that an imposition?
Yes, it does.
"Exceptions" kill babies. Why doesn't that register with you?

reply from: yoda

I agree, Agape. IMO, all abortions are wrong.

reply from: faithman

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.
That has been the whole prob from the beginning. She could really care less about the womb child if it meant it got in the way of killer mommy's aggenda. Abortion is murder. All involved should be charged with murder. Then it is up to a jury of 12 to decide what should be done about it. Any thing less keeps all womb children vunerable to being killed by serial killers.

reply from: nancyu

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.
Let's see, you admit to murdering three children, you have vowed to fight personhood if fututre murders don't go free, you use pro-abort rhetoric to devalue womb life and justify your "youthful mistake". Then you have the arrogance to call yourself pro-life because you do a few "good works" that exalt the interest of the murderous mother over the womb child. I don't need to do anything you say, nor do I care what you are tired of. Anmd I don't care to grow up if it means I would have to be a phony like you. A baby killer is a baby killer whether you like it or not. And the last time I check, I have the freedom to post the truth, just like you do to post your self deluded crap. Don't like it to bad for you. Feel free to leave anytime. The forum would be much better without your kind anyway.
It would be great if you would post the truth. Try that for a change....Quit being a liar.
I don't like a bill you like? That makes me prochoice? It means I think you are wrong...not that abortion is okay.
A phony prolifer is one who supports murder, like those who support Paul Hill's actions. One rather like you.....
Do you call Cheri (on Marks show) a babykiller? She no longer is what she once was. Neither am I.
You would fight a bill that would save babies' lives "tooth and toenail." That is not a lie, and your reasons for fighting it are purely selfish. This is not just "a bill" either. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is a bill that would grant legal personhood to unborn children. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is the bill you would fight unless you can get a written guarantee along with it that no women will be punished for disobeying the law that says it is illegal to murder persons.

reply from: faithman

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.
Let's see, you admit to murdering three children, you have vowed to fight personhood if fututre murders don't go free, you use pro-abort rhetoric to devalue womb life and justify your "youthful mistake". Then you have the arrogance to call yourself pro-life because you do a few "good works" that exalt the interest of the murderous mother over the womb child. I don't need to do anything you say, nor do I care what you are tired of. Anmd I don't care to grow up if it means I would have to be a phony like you. A baby killer is a baby killer whether you like it or not. And the last time I check, I have the freedom to post the truth, just like you do to post your self deluded crap. Don't like it to bad for you. Feel free to leave anytime. The forum would be much better without your kind anyway.
It would be great if you would post the truth. Try that for a change....Quit being a liar.
I don't like a bill you like? That makes me prochoice? It means I think you are wrong...not that abortion is okay.
A phony prolifer is one who supports murder, like those who support Paul Hill's actions. One rather like you.....
Do you call Cheri (on Marks show) a babykiller? She no longer is what she once was. Neither am I.
You would fight a bill that would save babies' lives "tooth and toenail." That is not a lie, and your reasons for fighting it are purely selfish. This is not just "a bill" either. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is a bill that would grant legal personhood to unborn children. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is the bill you would fight unless you can get a written guarantee along with it that no women will be punished for disobeying the law that says it is illegal to murder persons.
There is a difference in justifiable deffence, and cold blooded murder. CM cold bloodedly murder three deffenceless womb children for financial reasons. So I don't think a confessed murderer has any moral ground to talk about anybody else. The serial killer pot calling the justifiable kettle black. It would be laughable if three womb children hadn't died, and then had their memory trampled under foot with perverted spirituality.

reply from: abc123

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.
When we start making 'exceptions' that is when the waters get muddied. It all starts with a little exception then all of sudden the dam breaks and the floods come rolling in. A baby conceived in rape or incest is not the one who should be punished for this sins of the father. (Deuteronomy 24:16 - Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin.)
An abortion mill then becomes a place of refuge for the rapist when the child whom holds evidence in the form of matching DNA with the rapist is dismembered and killed then thrown away like a piece of garbage. Now all evidence is gone and the father can go on with his life worry free!
You see what the exception of the mother clause has brought to the surface right? Mom is sad....kill the baby, mom is strung out on drugs....kill the baby, etc, etc.......
Isn't this the same way that Satan brought sin into the world?
Genesis 3:1-4 - Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die!
So Eve was deceived by the serpent just as many 'pro-lifers' are being duped by the same serpent! If we make just this 1 eensie weensie exception we'll put a stop to most abortions.
Most of you probably know the rest of the story.....sin entered the world, the entire world embraces sin (except Noah), Noah builds a boat and preaches repentence for 120 years, nobody listens, it rains for 40 days and nights, the earth is a big ball of water, everyone drowns except Noah and his family and the animals on the ark.......
God is the giver and taker of life; not us. When a mom aborts her child she is trying to take the place of God, when the DC sniper shot his victims he was trying to take the place of God, when "pro-lifer's" begin to say who can live and who should die (rape/incest babies) then that same pro-lifer who is "against" abortion is trying to take the place of God by saying they get to pick which babies die at the hands of abortion!!!!

reply from: Faramir

We can't make an exception for rape without contradicting the most important prolife arguments.
But...if legisators out of some sense of political pragmatism see that outlawing abortion with some exceptions is a way to start, would it be wrong to support such legislation?
We should strive to end ALL abortions, but if we start with 90% or more, is that a bad thing?
Wouldn't saving over 90% of the 3,000+ who will die today by abortion be a good thing?

reply from: faithman

No one has "vowed" to fight such ledgislation, now have they? We have werely made the point that that is not the goal. The goal is establishing equality thru personhood. That is a goal that phony lifers said they would fight. We are not fighting incrementalism. We are merely pointing out what a waist of time most of it is, when we should be focusing on Personhood for the womb child.

reply from: Agape

The topic is "phony prolifer" and those who think exceptions are okay fall into that category, not what kind of legislation would you support.

reply from: faithman

No one has "vowed" to fight such ledgislation, now have they? We have werely made the point that that is not the goal. The goal is establishing equality thru personhood. That is a goal that phony lifers said they would fight. We are not fighting incrementalism. We are merely pointing out what a waist of time most of it is, when we should be focusing on Personhood for the womb child.
You voiced opposition to Constitutional Amendment in order to prohibit abortion on demand....
That is a half truth, and you know it. All that is needed is for the life at conception act to be passed. An amendment is unnessisary, and a potential danger to the constitution.

reply from: faithman

No one has "vowed" to fight such ledgislation, now have they? We have werely made the point that that is not the goal. The goal is establishing equality thru personhood. That is a goal that phony lifers said they would fight. We are not fighting incrementalism. We are merely pointing out what a waist of time most of it is, when we should be focusing on Personhood for the womb child.
You voiced opposition to Constitutional Amendment in order to prohibit abortion on demand....
That is a half truth, and you know it. All that is needed is for the life at conception act to be passed. An amendment is unnessisary, and a potential danger to the constitution.
What "half" is untrue? Do you, or do you not oppose a Constitutional amendment to prohibit abortion on demand? You imply opposition simply be declaring it to be "a potential danger to the Constitution..." The "danger" is that the Constitution (which has been ruled to deny protection to the unborn) would be altered to protect the unborn. What rights are you so afraid of losing that you would be willing to sacrifice the lives of possibly millions of unborn children rather that risk losing them?
Please clarify...We want to know if you are, bt your own standards, a "phony prolifer."
Listen, if you want to do this again, we can do it again. You are a stupid phony and continue to twist words into what was never said. An amendment is unnessisary to end abortion on demand. The life at conception act is just a s constitutional, takes far less time, and does not make the constitution vunerable to the secular humanist globalist that could use a contitutional convention caused by trying to amend the constitution, to totally obliterate the constitution, and turn us over to the pro-abort one world government of the UN. Why do yopu hate womb children so much that you advocate what would take decades more to pass, and could quite possibly destroy the very instrument that we have to save them? You have no standards, and do not have the right to proclaim what others standards are. You are a lying 5th collum phony. And all you do is tell half truths twisted into lies.

reply from: faithman

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question...Why are you afraid to give us a clear answer?
It is not a simple yes or no question, and I have exsplained myself several times. You just don't like my answere because it prove what a willingly ignorant fool you are. You would rather advocate a direction thart would prolong the slaughter , because of your ego. I have exsplained it very clearly. An amendment is unnessisary, 10 times harder to pass, and indangers the very instrument of government we have to stop the slaughter. An act of congress is all that is needed. I advocate the quickest, and constitutionally safest way to stop the slaughter. Your question is dishonest as usual. My answere is very clear. What isn't is why you clearly refuse to accept a very clear answere.

reply from: carolemarie

I don't believe the bills will pass without the exception clauses.
I personally think that a baby conceived by rape or incest should live. However, I do realize that the majority of people disagree with me on that. And I understand why they feel that way. I have a great deal of empathy for sexually assualted children/women.
Life of the mother is automatic exception because it is her choice how much risk she wants to entail.

reply from: carolemarie

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.
So too bad little girl---you have to have this baby....that is your answer? Gee, the lack of concern for the female is amazing. Are we merely incubators?

reply from: carolemarie

I disagree with her on some issues, and she doesn't bring up her abortions to give her arguments any more weight, and I've never seen her do that with anyone.
Do you have any examples?
Just about every post she has put on this board. There is no help for you, because you arte willingly blind. Very rarely if every do either one of you send time actually defending the womb child. Both of you waist time and space promoting personal aggenda. This is about the womb child [remeber them]. All you want to do is defend killers over those who are being killed. Then you want to get your BVD's in a bunch when folks see thru you and call you on it. 3 are dead at her hands, no matter how much false mercy sugar syrup you want to pour over it, and millions more will die if killer carole gets her way. Nothing will change because thwe interest of the woman will be exaulted above the interest of the little person in the womb. Murder is murder, and some of us are actually advocates for the true victims. Killer moms already have advocates over at Planned Parenthood. I don't think we need to make room for them at the table of womb child advocacy, when all they want to do is undermine the trruth behind lies, and pretence of victimhood. Why do you and CM hate the womb child so much that you would defend them being murdered?
You really need to quit calling me a killer. I am tired of it, it is pointless, and slander. I am prolife, and have been so for the last 13 years, actively sidewalk counsling and working at a pregnancy help center. So where do you get off calling me names? Just because I don't agree with you? Are you arrogant enough to believe that anyone in the prolife movement who disagrees with you isn't really prolife? Grow up.
Let's see, you admit to murdering three children, you have vowed to fight personhood if fututre murders don't go free, you use pro-abort rhetoric to devalue womb life and justify your "youthful mistake". Then you have the arrogance to call yourself pro-life because you do a few "good works" that exalt the interest of the murderous mother over the womb child. I don't need to do anything you say, nor do I care what you are tired of. Anmd I don't care to grow up if it means I would have to be a phony like you. A baby killer is a baby killer whether you like it or not. And the last time I check, I have the freedom to post the truth, just like you do to post your self deluded crap. Don't like it to bad for you. Feel free to leave anytime. The forum would be much better without your kind anyway.
It would be great if you would post the truth. Try that for a change....Quit being a liar.
I don't like a bill you like? That makes me prochoice? It means I think you are wrong...not that abortion is okay.
A phony prolifer is one who supports murder, like those who support Paul Hill's actions. One rather like you.....
Do you call Cheri (on Marks show) a babykiller? She no longer is what she once was. Neither am I.
You would fight a bill that would save babies' lives "tooth and toenail." That is not a lie, and your reasons for fighting it are purely selfish. This is not just "a bill" either. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is a bill that would grant legal personhood to unborn children. http://lifeatconceptionact.com/ is the bill you would fight unless you can get a written guarantee along with it that no women will be punished for disobeying the law that says it is illegal to murder persons.
I am for a bill that bans abortion. Just like you, I can support the bill I like best.
And yes, I think the personhood bill will be defeated and if not, it will be overturned by the Supreme Court. So its a waste of time IMO
I like the S. Dakota abortion ban, which outlaws performing abortions.

reply from: carolemarie

My opinon exactly! I think the best option would be a constitutional amendment to ban abortion period. That is the best way to end abortion.

reply from: faithman

My opinon exactly! I think the best option would be a constitutional amendment to ban abortion period. That is the best way to end abortion.
That is where you are dead wrong, like you were when you killed three. We don't need an amendment to stop abortion on demand. All that is needed is a life at conception act. Congress already haS THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT WITH OUT AN AMENDMENT. Besides, there is no way an amendment could make the acceptions you say you want. If personhood is ever established, then all laws governing the slaughter of the born would cover the murder of the womb child. But there in is why you advocate an amendment. You know it is very hard to pass, and while the years role by, your fellow baby killers go free.

reply from: carolemarie

No, that isn't how it works, despite your delusion.
If personhood passes, the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to it.
The Supreme Court decides if a law is constitutional, not state legislatures.

reply from: faithman

The very language of roe already agrees with me, and the 5th section of the 14th amendment already gives congress the authority to act. According to the 3 article section 2, the constitution also agrress with what I am saying The congress sets the aggenda of the court, not the other way around. You are the delusional one, and only offer your opinion, while I have offered what the constitution actually says. "With such exceptions , and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". the court is under congress, not the other way around. A life at conception act passed by the federal congress, and signed by a president is all that is needed.

reply from: Agape

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.
So too bad little girl---you have to have this baby....that is your answer? Gee, the lack of concern for the female is amazing. Are we merely incubators?
You don't understand; the topic isn't "do you have empathy" it's what is a phony prolifer. If you make exceptions for one, since the end result is the same in all abortions regardless of the conception, you are condoning abortion and golly, that is not prolife. Either all abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong, how can you be on the fence?

reply from: faithman

See, you've already done it-you've diverted the focus from the baby to the circumstances of it's conception. Now since you've made that the focus, all circumstances of conception are up for debate now because you've applied your individual moral code to the specific situation. So a 12 year old was raped and it could be just awful for her to be pregnant. Could be the same criteria for an X-year old or a mentally retarded adult who consented to sex but doesn't understand pregnancy.
See?
All abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong.
So too bad little girl---you have to have this baby....that is your answer? Gee, the lack of concern for the female is amazing. Are we merely incubators?
You don't understand; the topic isn't "do you have empathy" it's what is a phony prolifer. If you make exceptions for one, since the end result is the same in all abortions regardless of the conception, you are condoning abortion and golly, that is not prolife. Either all abortions are wrong or no abortion is wrong, how can you be on the fence?
Oh gosh!!! You haven't learned yet. Emotion trumps fact. And if you insist on upholding fact it makes you a hater.

reply from: carolemarie

I am not saying that abortion is good or right in that scenerio.
I am saying that that is why people want exceptions. They feel terrible for the victim here and don't want to make it worse. They are prolife, they are just blinded by compassion for the girl.
So calling them phony prolifers is inaccurate. Rape and incest are only at the most 2% of the abortion cases. Why concentrate on that 2% and ignore the other preventable 9%?

reply from: faithman

Emotionalism is what made abortion on demand legal in the first place. I don't think anyone is saying that they will not celebrate babies saved. but niether does that mean that some will stop fighting until all babies are protected from legal murder.

reply from: nancyu

My opinon exactly! I think the best option would be a constitutional amendment to ban abortion period. That is the best way to end abortion.
Really? Even if it means women will be jailed for having them, and birth control might be banned?

reply from: carolemarie

A constitutional amendment to ban abortion will simply ban performing abortions.
BC will not be outlawed and women will not be jailed.
That is the position that the main portion of the prolife movement supports.

reply from: Banned Member

Abortive women should be jailed. Those that procure and pay someone to kill a human being, are guilty of of murder.

reply from: Faramir

You don't understand the definition of murder. There must be an INTENT to kill a person, and often there is no such intent.

reply from: Banned Member

When abortion is illegal, the law would define that the unborn is a person. To procure an abortion would legally be intent to kill a human person. Intent means initiating actions that cause. What is abortion if not the act of killing a person?

reply from: 4given

You don't understand the definition of murder. There must be an INTENT to kill a person, and often there is no such intent.You can't be serious. What is an abortion? Would a woman make an appointment and go through with an abortion with the intent of preserving that child's life?
In my opinion they are guilty of solicitation to commit murder.

reply from: Faramir

When abortion is illegal, the law would define that the unborn is a person. To procure an abortion would legally be intent to kill a human person. Intent means initiating actions that cause. What is abortion if not the act of killing a person?
Whatever it is, the intent makes the difference between murder and manslaughter.

reply from: nancyu

I am quite clear on faithman's position. And I agree with it. There's nothing to clarify. An unborn child is a person. That's the fact, that's reality. Murdering persons is illegal already. Whatever it takes to convince the rest of the world of this is fine by me.
We will see which happens first. Is any one of us clairvoyant? I want this to end the quickest and best way possible. The life at conception act looks the most promising, and simplest way to me, but it's in the hands of the Congress either way.
You CP haven't clarified your position, though. Why do you think the amendment is the way? Because it takes longer? Because you are unhappy with the Constitution as is? What would the amendment, that you would support, say?

reply from: Agape

I know why people want exceptions. I am not lacking empathy. I'm pointing out the logic and fact that if they support abortion in any situation, then they are not prolife. They just aren't! They have put the circumstances of conception on the pedestal instead of the human being growing.
It doesn't matter if the number is five million or two. If you support abortion for one, then you are not prolife.

reply from: faithman

I know why people want exceptions. I am not lacking empathy. I'm pointing out the logic and fact that if they support abortion in any situation, then they are not prolife. They just aren't! They have put the circumstances of conception on the pedestal instead of the human being growing.
It doesn't matter if the number is five million or two. If you support abortion for one, then you are not prolife.
Do you insist that the very rare life threatening pregnancy must be carried to it's natural end (the death of both mother and child) without interference? If not, you want "exceptions," and by the standards you impose, are a "phony prolifer."
I don't understand why it's such a big deal to "expose" those who disagree on certain aspects of this issue and attack them. I don't really see you doing that directly, but you seem to be encouraging those who engage in such self righteous posturing to some extent. These people are beating a dead horse here. CM will not likely change her views, so select posters are simply attempting to punish her for that. I disagree with Carole on this point, but I acknowledge that she still opposes legal abortion, and I appreciate that. This is a "war" that can only be won by winning people over to our side, certainly never by attempting to alienate anyone.
I suggest we get our priorities in order here.
You can make all the suggestions you want, but you still are a phony and Cm is still a baby killer, and both of you have abandoned the womb child for ego and self promotion.

reply from: carolemarie

That is so funny, coming from a man who calls Paul Hill a hero for gunning down an abortion provider. You are the phony prolifer on this forum since you support Paul Hills actions in gunning down innocent people.
I am not a babykiller and it is extremely inaccurate to say that I am. I do not perform abortions, advocate for them or support that idea. In fact, I work to stop abortion, which is usually seen as being prolife, outside of Bizarro World where you must reside....

reply from: nancyu

Oh, really? So would you mind telling us what rights he is so afraid of losing that he would oppose a constitutional amendment, even if that meant abortion on demand continues legally? You answered the question clearly on another thread. Was it so hard? Since you understand his position so clearly, perhaps you could explain why he is so evasive...Oh, and you certainly prove yourself to be hypocrite in not condemning him as you do CM, and for not hounding him to answer the question in the same way you trailed after CM insisting she answer yours...
Congress' only recourse to over rule the SCOTUS ruling on abortion is to amend the Constitution. That is the "quickest way," since a bill to end abortion will never pass. Congress can not pass a bill that defies our current Constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS.
You must be kidding...We already went through all of this, and I certainly made my position clear. Yes, I'm unhappy with a Constitution that doesn't protect the unborn. We need an amendment to correct that. The wording in the Life at Conception Act would do quite nicely, or we could simply insert the words "born or unborn" where the word "person" appears in the 14th amendment.
I get it. You're buying into Fboy's idiocy, right? You think I'm an evil "humanist" who can't wait to get my hands on the Constitution so I can sell this country to the "devil," right? Listen, dear, you're taking instruction from, quite possibly, one of the stupidest men alive who is still capable of logging onto the internet unassisted. (I assume he's doing it unassisted.) Give me a break...
I'm not taking "instruction" from anyone. I agree with what he says about most things. I have no position regarding humanism one way or the other, except that the original manifestos included unlimited rights to abortion. That is evil in my opinion, so I agree with him there, again. If I disagree with him on anything I'll take it up with him. I haven't found anything yet, except his grammar and spelling, and I have taken that up with him, so there. That is extremely minor compared to advocating an organization that KILLS BABIES.
You are the one who should worry about who YOU are taking instruction from.

reply from: faithman

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: Agape

I know why people want exceptions. I am not lacking empathy. I'm pointing out the logic and fact that if they support abortion in any situation, then they are not prolife. They just aren't! They have put the circumstances of conception on the pedestal instead of the human being growing.
It doesn't matter if the number is five million or two. If you support abortion for one, then you are not prolife.
Do you insist that the very rare life threatening pregnancy must be carried to it's natural end (the death of both mother and child) without interference? If not, you want "exceptions," and by the standards you impose, are a "phony prolifer."
I don't understand why it's such a big deal to "expose" those who disagree on certain aspects of this issue and attack them. I don't really see you doing that directly, but you seem to be encouraging those who engage in such self righteous posturing to some extent. These people are beating a dead horse here. CM will not likely change her views, so select posters are simply attempting to punish her for that. I disagree with Carole on this point, but I acknowledge that she still opposes legal abortion, and I appreciate that. This is a "war" that can only be won by winning people over to our side, certainly never by attempting to alienate anyone.
I suggest we get our priorities in order here.
Sorry I missed this.
I am not familiar with the backstory of "CM" or any drama related to this since I just joined the forum.
The thread is "how do you spot a phony prolifer" so I added my two cents that if you condone one abortion, you must condone them since the result is the same time after time after time. I'm not trying to 'expose' anyone, but if you feel that insecure in your beliefs that's your problem.

reply from: Agape

Sorry I missed this too! Looks like I missed it twice, and I humbly apologize; I didn't mean to make you think I wasn't answering the question.
No. Modern medicine should be available to help those in need.

reply from: Agape

Sorry I missed this too! Looks like I missed it twice, and I humbly apologize; I didn't mean to make you think I wasn't answering the question.
No. Modern medicine should be available to help those in need.
I see. You make an exception for the life of the mother. So, you're not "prolife?"
I never said I was.

reply from: Faramir

This thread has been derailed and so far nobody has come up with the definitive answer, so I will provide it.
The correct answer to the question and the orginal poster is that any prolifer who disagrees with him or who criticizes him is a "phony prolifer." Such a person will likely earn the further distinction of being called a "pro-abort," unless he is in a particularly good mood, and in which case might be more affectionately called a "bortie."
I don't think this is a fair way to disagree with opponents, and I believe those who are experts in logic refer to this technique as the "arrogant a**hole fallacy."


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