Home - List All Discussions

Just so I know what page I am on

I need some clarification

by: Jazzy95

Hello everyone. I am new here.

I am noticing some language and wording in posts that is leaving me a little confused. I would like to ask for some clarification so I can figure where I stand in this big picture. Which is an ongoing struggle for me anyway when discussing this topic.

There seems to be a difference between Pro-lifers and anti-choicers. How so? And is there a difference between Pro-choice and anti-lifers(if there is such a thing)

reply from: yoda

Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion

pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

reply from: Hereforareason

Hi Jazzy. welcome

Terminoligy can get pretty confusing. You may call yourself one thing only to find someone else with different point of views calling themselves the same thing. It can be confusing.

For where you stand, here are the basics on the issue.

Do you believe abortion should ever be an option?
If yes, should it be on demand or only in rare cases that the mother's life is at stake?
If you believe abortion should never be an option, how would you act too a woman who has, or is going to get an abortion?

By the way, are you from IC?

reply from: bobinsky

Amber, see your private topics. (This sounds a little strange, doesn't it?)

reply from: Hereforareason

Yah. Don't worry I check it every now and then. But there's nothing there now so I think it takes some time to load or something.

Amber

reply from: bobinsky

Jazzy, I differentiate between pro-lifers and anti-choicers because they ARE different. Pro-lifers care about the woman and the fetus and even if they do not agree with a decision a desperate woman may have made, they do not turn away from her, they do not judge her or condemn her because of a decision only she could make. I work with some wonderful pro-lifers at the clinics I volunteer at and they are selfless, usually Christians - TRUE Christians like Amber, and I guess I could add you to that group along with Yodeman - who know that the world isn't black and white and that sometimes people do things for reasons only that person is aware of. But these pro-lifers care about the woman before, during and after the termination of a pregnancy. These people spend little time looking at pro-life sites and spewing facts from biased sources because they're too busy caring about the women involved. These pro-lifers are, IMHO, some of the most wonderful people in the world. And I use Amber as an example because, even if she is adamantly anti-abortion, I know and she admits that she would never, ever turn away from a woman in need, even if that woman had aborted a fetus. Amber is young, 18 or 19, but she has the wisdom of the ages when it comes to caring about all people and she's able to see the value in the woman who's carrying the fetus.

Anti-choicers are people like those on this board, who care about a fetus and nothing else. They deal in empty rhetoric and throw around the word "morality" like they own it. They are the ones who say that a woman who dies from an abortion - legal or not - got what she deserved. They are the ones who stand outside the women's reproductive clinics and scream "whore" and "baby killer" and tell the women they're going to hell. Needless to say, these people are not "pro-life". These are the people who kick and shove and spit and trip and threaten the escorts and the women they are protecting. And as I said in another post, anti-choicers want to force their morals and their beliefs on everyone else because, doggonit, they know best. But you pay enough attention to these forums and what these people say, and you find that some of them have stories where they availed themselves of the need for reproductive choice but want to take away that same option from others. Can you say hypocrite?

reply from: yoda

pro-life adjective against open access to abortion: in favor of bringing the human fetus to full term, especially by campaigning against open access to abortion and against experimentation on embryos http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736610

Main Entry: an·ti·choice Pronunciation: "an-ti-'chois, "an-"tI-Function: adjectiveDate: 1978: ANTIABORTION
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=antiabortion

(But of course, you're an expert on those two words, since you're a proabort.)

pro-a·bor·tion adjective - favoring legal access to abortion: in favor of open legal access to voluntary abortion http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861736813

reply from: Allizdog2000

Pro-Lifers use just as much rhetoric as the Pro-Abortionists, and their is no such thing as ownership to "morality" you either have it or you don't . Most Pro-Lifers wouldn't say a woman whom died from and abortion deserved it, but if a Abortion "Doctor" got shot, then I would say he or she got what they deserved.

It's a hot issue, See the escorts as grim reapers or see them as heros on the front lines of the Abortion issue, either way, the escorts are leading women to the abortion mill, and children to be murdered. Those groups like Army of God would be better suited being Right-Wing political groups rather than Pro-Life groups.

Pro-Lifers want to End Abortion. This forum isn't about homosexual marriage, Gun Control, Tax and Spending Governments, the War in Iraq, the War on Terrorism. It is about Putting Abortion to an End. Making it illegal.

Pro-Life means wanting to protect children from conception to birth. Pro-Life American means wanting to ban abortion in the United States. Pro-life doesn't mean forcing morals and beliefs on other people.

reply from: yoda

Accurate observation, Alliz, but you know they have no positions to defend on abortion, so they must change the topics to one of personal criticisms of their opponents....... that's all they have.

reply from: ChristianLott

No doubt.

You can't 'murder' a murderer.

Anyway, I'd like to know how Jazzy feels about the 100 abortion pictures at the top of this site.

And excuse Bobinsky for the excessive blather. She wants your confidence so she can rule you.

reply from: sarah

Accurate observation, Alliz, but you know they have no positions to defend on abortion, so they must change the topics to one of personal criticisms of their opponents....... that's all they have.

Good point, Yoda. And we have people wondering why communications break down! Stunning.

reply from: sarah

Truer words were never spoken, CL. Good observation!

reply from: bobinsky

Wrong. Pro-life means caring about the woman along with the fetus. I noticed you didn't bother to mention the woman's role because, to you anti-choicers, the woman doesn't matter. Only the fetus matters. So don't make the mistake of calling yourself "pro-life" when you're not: only one of the lives matters to you. You're actually more pro-fetus, which doesn't sound so bad, does it? Being pro-fetus or anti-choice, which is what you really are, does mean that you force your morals and beliefs on other people, and you manifest this by attempting to take away the option of reproductive choice. Quite simple.
Let me use an analogy: I am vehemently anti-alcohol (not the rubbing kind; the drinking kind). In my mind, alcohol has caused untold misery and damage and death to families all over this country. If alcohol were abolished, prohibited, banned in this country, I would celebrate. Since I am anti-alcohol, for good reasons, do I have the right to tell others that they cannot or should not drink? Do I have the right to take away their right to partake of alcoholic beverages? Should my beliefs about alcohol supercede the rights of citizens of this country to engage in a legal activity, in which, I might add, many people have been killed, addicted, etc. because of drinking?
Amber, the only Christian on this board that I'm aware of, is truly pro-life in that she cares about ALL lives involved. She doesn't believe in abortion - she's very against it, but she's also aware, if you've ever taken the time to talk to her and get to know her, that while she can attempt to persuade a woman into continuing the pregnancy rather than aborting, ultimately the decision is the woman's to make. She is aware that she cannot force her morality onto other people. She can only do what she can and work to change what she doesn't like. Now how come she can understand this but you people can't?

Speaking for myself, here, Alliz, I watch you anti-choicers use spurious, outdated "facts" and "information" from biased websites. This kind of garbage is the empty rhetoric you AC's are famous for. You know that if you consulted unbiased, neutral websites - and there are hundreds of them out there, the facts would not support the AC positions, so you resort to manipulation and outright lies to "inform" women about abortion. The last time I looked, lying was considered a no-no in the Good Book. When did you AC's change the rules? There have been several anti-choicers on this board, CL is one of them, who agreed that a woman who died from an abortion got what she deserved. How do you call this position "pro-life"?
Also, shooting a woman's health care provider is murder. How can agreeing with this position be "pro-life"? The two positions are irreconcilable, so in reality, you cannot be "pro-life" because then you would care about ALL lives, not just the fetus. You could refer to yourself as pro-fetus.

You bet it's a hot issue. Clinic escorts, who shouldn't even be necessary except for the stupidity and hatred of anti-choice zealots in this country, keep the women entering the clinics safe from these nasty "pro-lifers". No clinic escort sees him/herself as a "hero". Actually, we see ourselves more as sitting ducks, thanks to you loving "pro-lifers" and your bombings and murders. Yeah boy, you're as loving a group as I've ever seen.

You know what's ironic, Alliz. Us pro-choicers who work as clinic escorts, and the abortion providers and those who work at the clinics wear bulletproof vests, per the advice of law enforcement, because we never know when one of you "pro-lifers" will take one of us out. I've NEVER seen an anti-choice protestor wearing a bulletproof vest at a clinic protest. You know why? Because AC's don't have to worry about being killed by a pro-choice person. It's the pro-choice people who have to worry about being killed by the so-called "pro-lifers". Seems kind of backwards. If you people were really "pro-life", there'd be no need to worry. But we all know you're not.

reply from: yoda

Why do you keep rambling on and on about "what prolife means"? You can't read the definitons I posted? You're in a special class of people who ignore dictionaries and decide for themselves what words mean? And since you're a proabort, who cares what you want the word to mean?

reply from: megan

Hi I am also new. I have just read all this discussion of terms and it seems a big deal on this board. Why? What is the focus on terms for? Just wondering. To me it seems possilby a distraction from the real issue (abortion). If someone opposes abortion what difference does it make what they call themself or what others call them. Is'nt the important thing where they stand not what they're called or call themself? I can see it is an important topic for this board but I am just wondering why and whether the people who oppose abortion find this a distraction? To me the most important thing is where do we draw the line, not what do we call people who draw it at certain places. I call myself pro-life but anti-abortion works just fine as well. I am against the death penalty also so maybe that means it is ok that I use pro-life? I see there is at least one person here (Tam) who wrote that she is pro-life and meant for all life. I don't know if I go as far as that but I do think people should be protected by laws. This is one place different terms are used alot because "people" doesn't always include unborn people but to me it does. Anyway I have been reading and planning to join but it seemed kinda crazy and I didn't want to get involved but now I can't help myself but to ask why all this focus on the words and not the actual act? Because it is the act of abortion that I think is important to focus on. I agree with the idea that it is violence and child abuse and should be stopped. I think a law against it is the best way to stop it so that is why I vote pro-life. Well thanks for listening. I hope no one hates me right off the bat.

Meg

P.S. I tried to make a private topic but I can't tell if it is working. I can respond to myself, that is a good start. But I can't figure it out, if anyone knows send me a p.m. thanks, meg.

P.P.S. I wanted to say why I am against the death penalty and that is because people do change for the better and if we can say some people should wait 9 months for a baby so the baby won't have to die then we should also say the taxpayers can wait a life sentence rather than jumping the gun and just killing someone. I definitely believe in punishing the guilty but just that it's wrong to take people's life. Ok that's all for now.

reply from: sarah

Hi Meg, and welcome. Not to worry, no one is going to hate you! Just for some context these boards were not always so "testy", so to speak. But, we're all looking for a way to re-gain the peace that once was the norm. So, I hope you'll hang in here with us!

Terminology in general is very important. Words are powerful and convey any message we're trying to make.
Perhaps you've heard of Dr. Bernard Nathanson? He was one of the originators of what is known today as NARAL. He and his cohorts knew part of the battle would be in terminology.
Here's something he has said on the subject:

The original abortion-rights slogans from the early '70s – they remain virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the "pro-choice" movement to this day – were "Freedom of choice" and "Women must have control over their own bodies."

"I remember laughing when we made those slogans up," recalls Bernard nathanson, M.D., co-founder of pro-abortion vanguard group NARAL, reminiscing about the early days of the abortion-rights movement in the late '60s and early '70s. "We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these slogans today are very, very cynical."

Besides having served as chairman of the executive committee of NARAL – originally, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, and later renamed the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League – as well as its medical committee, nathanson was one of the principal architects and strategists of the abortion movement in the United States. He tells an astonishing story

The article can be found on World Net Daily from Jan. '05.

It was a marketing war, and they knew how they framed that war could ultimatley decide it's fate.
It's not a new tactic, as pointed out by the author of the article, David Kupelian

__________________________________________________

Sorry, can't help you there.

I am pro death penalty for the most henious crimes. However, I must say you make a good argument.

reply from: Skippy

No doubt.

You can't 'murder' a murderer.
Was that an attempt at irony?

All right, for giggles, let's assume abortion is murder. The reality is, the law doesn't support randomly gunning down people you think have commited or might commit murder. Even murderers are entitled to a trial by jury, and a sentence handed down by the court system.

The Paul Hills and James Kopps of this world tried to subvert the legal system. They, themselves, commited murder by taking the life of persons not imminently about to commit an act of murder. "Imminent danger" is required in order to use deadly force. Not danger yesterday, or danger an hour from now, but danger RIGHT AT THE MOMENT.

Look at it this way. If your best friend tells you he's been hired to do a hit on some guy's wife for the insurance money, what do you do? Shoot him, or call the police?

reply from: bobinsky

Yoda, I was asked a question by another poster and I responded. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. No skin off my teeth. If anyone else posts definitions of something and you don't happen to agree with those definitions, you feel free to ignore those and choose which definitions you DO agree with, so your posting definitions is meaningless.

reply from: ChristianLott

Bobinsky:

Ah, don't get an abortion and you won't have to deal with that chance. Women die from abortion and it's your fault. Babies die from abortion and it's your fault.

reply from: ChristianLott

Skippy!

When the police are part of the mob and this jerk is a seasoned hitman - you do what's right.

Anyway, I hope you change. Eternity in Hell is a hefty price to pay for ignorance, but it happens.

reply from: bobinsky

No, Skippy, that was his attempt at stupidity, and as you can see, he pulled it off very nicely! Don't waste your breath discussing legalities with these people; they know only black and white: they're right, everyone else is wrong. They own morality.

You fail to understand the intricacies of the anti-choice movement, Skippy. The laws concerning murder don't apply to them. They can murder at will and it is completely justified, while the rest of us have to abide by the law. So the Paul Hills and James Kopps and Eric Rudolph's of this world are seen as heroes. And if you've ever read Rudolph's manifesto, which was released by his attorney after he took the chicken's way out of pleading, you'll see a lot of similarities between what the anti-choice zealots say and what Rudolph wrote in his manifesto. There's not a whole lot of difference between them. But Kopp and Hill and Rudolph are leaving behind a LEGACY, a precious LEGACY of murder. And this is what's important to the AC's.

Okay, I'll bite: is there a time frame involved? Is there time to get tot he police or must an instant decision be made? Does the friend have any evidence against the best friend besides his statement? What if the best friend is just bragging?

reply from: ChristianLott

Go ahead and try. It's the least you can do.

reply from: Amy

Hello Meg and all...

I agree with quite a bit of what you stated, Meg. Well said. I also do not support the death-penalty...perhaps for other reasons, however. I do not support the 'right' to an abortion in any instance. The fact that abortions performed due to endangering the life of the mother is applicable in (approx) about ohhhh .(point)-zip% of the time is partially the reason behind that...abortion certainly has it's casualties...but also because I believe every life has value and there is no such thing as an unwanted child. I also believe that abortion does nothing short of turning women in to political pawns by way of having them detach from their most innate predispositions (nuturing/motherhood) and turn them in to murderers.

That being said, while I don't believe you can spit face-to-face at a woman who has made that unfortunate choice...unless they are serial...you certainly don't have to support the action in any way. Someone else said one could not 'judge' which is quite ridiculous...it is human nature to judge. It is your actions in HOW you judge that will define you. Being loving and supportive (not of the abortion but of her plight) of a woman in such a precarious situation should always be the first stance...that, however does not mean one should not judge or disagree with that choice. I do believe there are those people...those 'pro-choice', if you think that term applies, I don't...that make it very difficult to have reasonable debate on the topic with. They say a person should hold their beliefs...only so far as THEY want them to...and if it differs from theirs they call them hypocrites or extremists. The most hysterical minded will condemn Christians for holding a strong pro-Life stance, which I find highly questionable. Christianity by definition means one would necessarily be adamantly against abortions so...for want of a better term...DUH! I mean, seriously, how surprising is it to find that Christians would value life, especially of innocents who are not even being given a chance to be loved and make their mark in/on the world?

Per your last comment, I guess I understand the want to put to death some of these horrendous people (eg charles manson), however, I think, as you do...I would choose life in prison. Hard labor...for their benefit since it can't be good for those people to just be sitting in a little cell being non-productive even in support of their own lives. Have them farm land for their own food, do laborous chores etc. But in the matter of an innocent and wondorous child? It should always be a choice of life.

Anyway, I was glad to read your opinions on such an important issue.

reply from: Amy

I don't intend to defend anyone who shoots an abortion doctor. I would put it to you this way, however. There are those that would throw themselves in the way of a bullet to protect a child...or those that would harm another who is necessarily harming children. Now I am not trying to to make an analogy as much as I can understand...NOTE: not support...why someone would think that stopping someone from killing a child is acceptable in any method they can find. There are many people in this country who believe a child is as viable at 2mths gest as they are at 2 yrs, 20 yrs etc.

I don't know about anyone else, but I can almost equate this issue to the killing fields saddam left behind. I can well understand someone wanting to just skin that man after digging up the mass-graves of tens of thousands of children with bullet-holes in their little skulls. I, then, don't find it terribly shocking that there are some people who are just as offended and angered by the tens of thousands of little shredded bodies that leave abortion clinics.

Of course, that someone would allow their anger to have them shooting someone down is simply not acceptable in any sense. Organizing and gaining a strong political voice on this issue will prove the most gain in stopping the heinous act of aborting innocent children. Well, that and appointing USSC justices that will strike down that incidiously flawed ruling roe v wade.

reply from: Amy

"She is aware that she cannot force her morality onto other people. "

I know the whole "forcing morality" thing is a hot-button for you but it is certainly not valid in any real sense. This is a civil rights issue at it's very base. The question in most certainly whether and entire class of lving human beings should be deprived of their basic right to life on the basis of age and 'place of residence', if you will.

Mayhap the real question is, who says it's acceptable or a right that a 'mother' or a defender of the abortion procedure to impose THEIR morality on an unborn child? And fatally at that.

Also, the Ten Commandments forbid murder and stealing. You'll find that the laws of EVERY civilized nation do as well. Do those laws then impose religious *gasp* morality? Yeah...I don't think so. So what's next? Are you going to start calling everyone who finds abortion abhorrent 'bible thumpers"? Thanks for being so predicable.

reply from: Amy

Hello Jazzy...

I am pretty new as well...to actually posting anyway.

I think it was Meg who said it doesn't really matter what term one wants to use. I believe it relies more on what your actual stance is...which, of course, can never be derived from two-word or hyphenatied definers by someone else who is trying to throw off your footing on what your feelings are on the topic.

Pro-choice is a misnomer. What's the choice really? And who's choice is it or should it be? To be more exact wouldn't the supposed 'pro-choicers' be, in fact, pro-death? I mean death is what actually occurs, right? Even if you believe the child is not independently viable at the point of the abortion...it's still living in it's current enviroment and dead when the procedure is completed.

I have to admit the first time I heard the term 'anti-choicer' was in this forum. To be honest, it made me giggle. So somehow if a person does not support a woman's right to kill their child that means they are completely apathetic to the woman as a whole? That's a wholly ridiculous premise. Besides, it's not the woman's life at risk for the VAST majority of the cases. In EVERY case where abortion is performed it IS the child's life that is immeniently at risk. I've yet to hear a single case where choice was given to that being at risk...and as someone else stated...I would almost bet the farm that child would not choose being ripped to shreds and disgarded in such an undignfied way.

So...terms are pretty irrelavent...well, they seem to work for those people trying to find an attack stance...but that hardly qualfies them for any sense of import.

If any were to apply...since we are debating the abortion issue...I would imagine pro or anti abortion would define ones stance pretty clearly. I don't know about the whole shades of gray thing...I typically don't waffle on important issues very much. I don't think it benefits anyone to loose sight of your absolutes in life...and we're all allowed them. I don't think people should be mean...just resolute.

reply from: Skippy

I've been discussing abortion on-line since al gore didn't invent the internet back in the early eighties. Matter of fact, I may have started the first internet abortion debate, when I, on the then newly hatched Opinion board, called for Carnegie-Mellon's anti-abortion group to lose their student activities funding for having, amongst their protest signs, one that said "CMU Is Pro-Life". (Sorry, guys, but you KNEW that was a no-no.)

I give you this background as a prelude to telling you the following: There's nothing new under the sun. I've seen the terminology debate thousands of times, and I'm going to boldly posit that no one is trying to be accurate or descriptive in the words they use to describe their opponent. Terms like "pro-death" have one purpose and one alone, which is to get a rise out of the other side.

So I suggest that instead of wasting precious brain cells in an endless and endlessly whiny argument about who likes to be called what, we simply label one side the Hatfields and the other the McCoys, and be done with it. Or perhaps the Jets and the Sharks would be cooler.

*snap*
*snap*
*snap*

reply from: yoda

Welcome to the board, megan. You hit the nail right on the head. Generally any discussion on terms is started by a proabort who wishes to create a distraction, because they don't want to discuss abortion.

megan, we have way too much wasted talk going on about changing the definitions of the terms, as you mentioned. To try to alleviate that, I posted the dictionary definitions of the usual terms found in an abortion debate. Those are what experts in the field say most people understand when they hear the terms, so that is how we ought to use them here. "Prolife" has nothing to do with capital punishment, war, self-defense or any of the other "distractions" that proaborts bring up. It means those who do not favor open access to legal abortion on demand.

reply from: yoda

I have a friend who says "I personally am against shooting abortion doctors, but who am I to tell someone else not to". What do you think of that?

reply from: yoda

I'm sure you'll now point out the post in which I did that, right? NO? WHY NOT??

reply from: yoda

Kewl. Care to take a bet on how many will go along with that? We'd be better off just using whatever terms come to mind, as long as they're not profane, IMO. I mean, if the opposite of "prochoice" is "antichoice", then the opposite of "prolife" is "prodeath" or "antilife", right? After all, wouldn't a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?

reply from: bobinsky

Meg, what would you say to all those kids in foster care who've been waiting years to be adopted? That they really ARE wanted, but just not as much as tiny newborns? How would you explain this to these kids?

We just got done discussing "generalizations" in another thread. You are incorrect in assuming that all women are or want to be nurturers and/or mothers. This is just another one of society's "roles" that it attempts to force on women.

Well, I imagine you would find it quite surprising that there are many Christian groups for choice, so your generalization about Christians doesn't quite stand up. And as far as all those innocents, again I'm interested in what you would tell those kids in foster care why other children - babies - are wanted and they are not. Do you work in foster care?

reply from: bobinsky

Oooh, are we gonna rumble? I say we go for the Hatfields and McCoys. Has a nice ring to it.

reply from: bobinsky

It most certainly is valid, and you would feel the same way if someone were attempting to force their morality down your throat, like christians do when someone challenges any of their "god-given" rights. As far as a civil rights issue, go back to law school. A fetus has no civil rights. Read the Constitution. That "class" of human beings is entirely reliant upon its location for survival. Remove it from its location, it won't last long. If the owner of the location wants the space freed up, for whatever reason, she has that right. Kind of like real estate law.
This country is ruled by the laws of the Constitution and any and all other federal, state, county and municipal laws. The Bible has nothing to do with this country's laws. Even if you close your eyes really tight and wish as hard as you can, it still won't be true.

No, because not every who disagrees with abortion is a religious extremist or a fundie. There are athetists who don't believe in abortion, and they certainly can't be called "bible thumpers" since they're too intelligent to base their views about life on a book of mythology. In this nation, as I said above, neither the bible nor the 10 commandments are the rule of the law. Tough but true. You can't force a child to honor his/her parents; you can't jail or stone someone who has committed adultery; people in this country are free to covet their neighbor's lawns, swimming pools, whatever, and it's not against the law; anyone can honor a graven image 'til his/her eyeballs pop out. So, obviously the 10 commandments don't carry a lot of weight as a rule of law in this country. There are non-Christian countries, cultures that've never read the bible and don't believe in the 10 commandments, that have laws against murder and stealing; obviously, christians don't have a lock on morality.

Well, it's pretty easy to figure out what the choice is and who makes that choice, since only one of the beings has the capability to reason and make decisions. And pro-choice is most certainly the best name for those of us who believe as we do: a woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy, or continue the pregnancy and keep the baby or give it up for adoption. These are choices. You anti-choicers believe the woman has no choice but to continue the pregnancy. Not a lot of choice involved there. The terms fit.

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” - Thomas Jefferson

reply from: chooselife

Meg, what would you say to all those kids in foster care who've been waiting years to be adopted? That they really ARE wanted, but just not as much as tiny newborns? How would you explain this to these kids?

We just got done discussing "generalizations" in another thread. You are incorrect in assuming that all women are or want to be nurturers and/or mothers. This is just another one of society's "roles" that it attempts to force on women.

Well, I imagine you would find it quite surprising that there are many Christian groups for choice, so your generalization about Christians doesn't quite stand up. And as far as all those innocents, again I'm interested in what you would tell those kids in foster care why other children - babies - are wanted and they are not. Do you work in foster care?

Bobinsky - just because someone calls themselves a Christian org does not make them one. You can find all sorts of groups supporting various disgusting things in the name of Christ. I would challenge that if you truly are a Christian there is no way that you could support abortion. Most churches denounce the "churches" and "pastors" that serve on the board of PP. Mainly the Unitarian church, United Church of Christ, some United Methodists. These are groups that dissent on many issues from the "normal" church (as understood by most when speaking of churches). These churches are not teaching biblical values and have instead twisted scripture and rely more upon worldy teachings. Concerning foster care - I have a friend who just got married to a great guy that I work with. She literally grew up in foster care. Her childhood was not easy but she is a fantastic woman and has a lot to offer the world and is now happily married. Foster care is not the worst thing that could happen to a child. I would agree that it is not ideal...but certainly there are far worse fates.

Concerning motherhood - i have been trying find an article about a recent survey of motherhood. Almost 90% of the respondents said motherhood was one of the best things that ever happened to them. We were designed to be moms. This is why we have a uterus, birth canal, ovaries, etc. I have to agree with Amy. I think women are becoming anti-motherhood because of society....not the other way around. As the mother of 3 I can tell you that society certainly is not catering to me. I can't tell you how many rude comments I receive in a week when someone sees my 3 boys and then sees that I am pregnant. I think society is trying to force women into being men. Motherhood is rarely forced on a woman (except in cases of rape, incest, etc.). It seems that you are saying women should be able to have as much sex as they want without taking any responsibility for this choice that they made. It seems to me this is comparable to the people that want to eat McDonald's everyday and then sue McDonald's because they had a heart attack. Most thinking adults know that sex can result in a pregnancy just like most thinking adults know that eating a Big Mac everyday is not good for your body. They were not forced into motherhood...they made a choice to engage in an activity that has the potential for creating a baby. All this to say that I think the term "forced" is not really proper here.

reply from: chooselife

Since none of us like quotes out of context lets add the lines immediately preceding and following this line.....

The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

reply from: Amy

Mandi...

That was so well said...I am impressed and enheartened. There is so much thinking that is done in such an askew manner...turned upside down and around to fit an agenda. It's always a pleasure to read someone who is honest, resolute, and articulate.

I completely agree with your assessment of the modern-day challenges women face. Feminism on it's face is an excellent ideal. Women should be held in high-esteem and respected for the wondorous things we bring, lovingly, to society and those around us. It is when we are given directives contrary to being women that it throws us for a loop. I am not a man...I think they are also wonderful but I don't want to be one...don't want to compete with them. Let them be the men...I want to be the woman. We don't look like men...we don't act like them...feel like them...smell like them...and quite honestly, thankfully don't think like them.

When we start pointing the finger of some kind of a blame game it simply proves to dis-empower all concerned...both men and women. On top of that it certainly does not benefit our most precious charges...our children. We are supposed to compliment each other. But the new feminist movement has turned everything in to some kind of competition...unfortunately no one is winning. Women are not empowered by tearing down men. This idea that 'it's all the man's fault' is absolute claptrap.

Well you know...you caid everything that really needs to be said so let me just add one thing. Women are so much better then ever thinking abortion is a viable and reasonable solution to anything.

reply from: Hereforareason

Hey Mandi, you don't seem to have PM allowed. Was that on purpose?
Where did you find that quote by the way?

Thanks!
Amber

reply from: bobinsky

Choose, this forum thrives on taking quotes out of context. Who're you kidding?

And yes, let's use the entire quote Jefferson made, because, as you know, Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian. He rewrote the Bible because he wanted to get all the "crap" out of the way and focus on Christ's life and his works. He believed most of the bible to be useless mythology. Have you seen Jefferson's version of the bible? Quite interesting and a quick read.

Jefferson's statement, and I know you've already figured this out, is not exactly a compliment to Christians, or at least those who called themselves Christians, and you are right in that the entire quote is quite applicable to many on this forum who believe themselves to be 'christians". I thank you for clarifying this.

reply from: bobinsky

Hey, tell your friend to knock himself out. Hopefully he's not complicit in the crime, but ya' never know. I am personally against many things, but I don't have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do.
I personally dislike alcohol - I despise alcohol - because of the problems it's caused this society, and I'd like to tell one of my friend's husbands he shouldn't drink, but it's not my place. He's hurting himself and their family and it angers me, but again, until the next time he passes out in our front yard in his underwear, there's not a damned thing I can do. And this bugs me. But so far, knock on wood, he doesn't drive when he's been drinking. He always gets a taxi or calls for a ride.

reply from: Amy

"Meg, what would you say to all those kids in foster care who've been waiting years to be adopted? That they really ARE wanted, but just not as much as tiny newborns? How would you explain this to these kids?"

Excuse me...but it was I, and not Meg who said that. I also stand by that comment completely. Our foster care system is the shambles it is because it makes money and keeps state employees working. There are couples...even single adults...all over this country who would thankfully welcome these children. It does not behoove a system that feeds off the suffering of these children to actually place them...you know...do their jobs. Once they do this they are no longer needed.

"We just got done discussing "generalizations" in another thread. You are incorrect in assuming that all women are or want to be nurturers and/or mothers. This is just another one of society's "roles" that it attempts to force on women."

It was not a 'generalization' at all. Every study ever done on the subject makes the same claim...women have an innate sensibility to nurture and mother. Are there exceptions? Of course. The percentages are so low it's hardly something to base the whole of womanhood on...it's hardly a cohesive enough supposition to use in the support of having women abort their own children. Honestly, do you want to support someone who says...you know...I don't really feel like changing diapers today so I think I'll just throw my child out the window? Of course, the symantics are age...there are those that believe a child holds just as much value and import when 2 mths gest as they do at 2 mths postnatal...hence the great debate. So no surprises there, certainly.

Anyway, I digress. No, not ALL women want to nuture and/or be mothers. Definitely a very high most...but not all. And you think we should change common decency and responsibility expectations based on such a minute percentage? How about those women have their children adopted so those women more adept at nuturing and loving are allowed to do so? Is that too humane for you? Too logical and reasonable?

Again, and as the other poster has said to you...nuturing is an INNATE fuction to the female condition. Force? Hmmm...I've never met a woman who was forced in to motherhood. I have known and do know, however, women who feel they were forced in to aborting their children and suffer unfairly both emotionally and physically for it. The biggest difference would be...and let's leave out rape for now, although I believe one should see the gift of a child even in such circumstances...when a woman is 'forced' in to giving birth to a child there are caring and compassionate alternative choices to be had. Adoption...close...semi-open...completely open. Having a family member raise the child until the mother is in a stable situation. All kinds of alternatives. When a woman is 'forced' or advised or given the directive that abortion should be considered because she's more important than any other life...abortion is a, pardon the pun, dead-end choice with NO alternatives...no going back...final and absolute.

"Well, I imagine you would find it quite surprising that there are many Christian groups for choice, so your generalization about Christians doesn't quite stand up. And as far as all those innocents, again I'm interested in what you would tell those kids in foster care why other children - babies - are wanted and they are not. Do you work in foster care?"

No human being who follows the dictates of Jesus...a Christian...supports abortion. That is a societal influence and not logical to the teachings of Christ...in fact...not a Christian action or belief. Yes, I have been intimately involved with the foster care system from both sides. What do you tell them? You tell them they have a chance to be the finest person they can be...they have a chance...and that's the truth. You cannot tell that to aborted children. I am sorry you see no value in children who struggle...or women for that matter.

reply from: chooselife

Amber - I thought I had PM's allowed. I went back to my profile and it said they were on. Not sure what happened. I found that quote in a debate forum. Interestingly they were debating whether or not Jefferson was a deist. As a way to bring more clarification to some of Bobinsky's comments on Jefferson I will post the following commentary that I came across:

Thomas Jefferson, as we all know, was a skeptic, a man so hostile to Christianity that he scissored from his Bible all references to miracles. He was, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation tells us, "a Deist, opposed to orthodox Christianity and the supernatural."

Or was he? While Jefferson has been lionized by those who seek to drive religion from public life, the true Thomas Jefferson is anything but their friend. He was anything but irreligious, anything but an enemy to Christian faith. Our nation's third president was, in fact, a student of Scripture who attended church regularly, and was an active member of the Anglican Church, where he served on his local vestry. He was married in church, sent his children and a nephew to a Christian school, and gave his money to support many different congregations and Christian causes.

Moreover, his "Notes on Religion," nine documents Jefferson wrote in 1776, are "very orthodox statements about the inspiration of Scripture and Jesus as the Christ," according to Mark Beliles, a Providence Foundation scholar and author of an enlightening essay on Jefferson's religious life.

So what about the Jefferson Bible, that miracles-free version of the Scriptures? That, too, is a myth. It is not a Bible, but an abridgement of the Gospels created by Jefferson in 1804 for the benefit of the Indians. Jefferson's "Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted From the New Testament for the Use of the Indians" was a tool to evangelize and educate American Indians. There is no evidence that it was an expression of his skepticism.

Jefferson, who gave his money to assist missionary work among the Indians, believed his "abridgement of the New Testament for the use of the Indians" would help civilize and educate America's aboriginal inhabitants. Nor did Jefferson cut all miracles from his work, as Beliles points out. While the original manuscript no longer exists, the Table of Texts that survives includes several accounts of Christ's healings.

But didn't Jefferson believe in the complete separation of church and state? After all, Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Conn., in which he cited the First Amendment's creation of a "wall of separation" between church and state, is an ACLU proof-text for its claim that the First Amendment makes the public square a religion-free zone. But if the ACLU is right, why, just two days after he sent his letter to the Danbury Baptists did President Jefferson attend public worship services in the U.S. Capitol building, something he did throughout his two terms in office? And why did he authorize the use of the War Office and the Treasury building for church services in Washington, D.C.?

Jefferson's outlook on religion and government is more fully revealed in another 1802 letter in which he wrote that he did not want his administration to be a "government without religion," but one that would "strengthen … religious freedom."

Jefferson was a true friend of the Christian faith. But was he a true Christian? A nominal Christian – as demonstrated by his lifelong practice of attending worship services, reading the Bible, and following the moral principles of Christ – Jefferson was not, in my opinion, a genuine Christian. In 1813, after his public career was over, Jefferson rejected the deity of Christ. Like so many millions of church members today, he was outwardly religious, but never experienced the new birth that Jesus told Nicodemus was necessary to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

Nonetheless, Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.

Most intriguing is the manner in which Jefferson dated an official document. Instead of "in the year of our Lord," Jefferson used the phrase "in the year of our Lord Christ." Christian historian David Barton has the proof – the original document signed by Jefferson on the "eighteenth day of October in the year of our Lord Christ, 1804."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state "must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." Judging from the record, it looks like the wall some say Tom built is, in fact, the wall Tom breached.

The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU's worst nightmare.

reply from: Amy

So what bad would happen if you did say something? What if your saying something made a big enough impact that he stopped drinking? I don't understand why people are so concerned about what they should say and do nothing to put themselves on the line for another human being.

If I were you I would say something...that man just might hold you in high enough regard to get a light-bulb moment...and if not...your girlfriend might.

reply from: Skippy

Oooh, are we gonna rumble? I say we go for the Hatfields and McCoys. Has a nice ring to it.
All right. We'll be the McCoys, and the yodavatar/tam/christianlott side can be the Hatfields. Beats the hell out of those nails-on-the-blackboard semantic debates. If anyone asks why I'm calling them Hatfields and myself a McCoy, I'll just point them to this post.

(I'm bummed there won't be any cool dance numbers, though.

*snap*
*snap*
*snap* )

reply from: Amy

LOL...why do 'deists' always claim to know better then a historical figure with much of their own writing on their strongly held religious faith?

His writings focused squarely on the text of Jesus's word...not that he was throwing out the entirety...but that he felt he could do the best work for the people using the word of the Lord in exact form. It drove his principles and actions in a very personal and private way. Well, that's if the man himself is to be believed...you may know better then he.

Jefferson's statement was in the highest regard of Christians...it was an idea to weed out the psuedo's from those who actually followed The Word.

You know...it's a known and rather childish tactic to question the faith of another person and put them on the defensive and shut them up. Faith does not mean a person should be devoid of all fault...devoid of all opinion. Faith is a very personal issue and there are many more fine Christians then there are those that would use the teachings of Jesus to the detriment of others...which you seem to have a penchant for. Very sad.

reply from: Skippy

I have a friend who says "I personally am against shooting abortion doctors, but who am I to tell someone else not to". What do you think of that?
I think that your friend is entitled to believe whatever he wishes, and say whatever he wishes As long as he doesn't have personal knowledge of any crime that anyone is intending to commit, he's in neither a legal nor an ethical thicket.

reply from: bobinsky

And Mandi, I will counter, very respectfully, that just because you don't agree with a group's beliefs does not make that group wrong. We are, specifically here, talking about pro-choice groups.

Good for her. But I still would like to know how someone who believes that every child is wanted would explain the facts to these kids in foster care, especially the younger ones.

There is a difference between biologically bearing a child and devoting at least 18 years, actually the rest of your life, to being a hands-on mother. And most men have penises, but this doesn't make them father material in the least. It simply means they can procreate if they're fertile.
I know many women who have uteruses, birth canals and ovaries who have absolutely NO desire to have children and be mothers. Women are realizing that they have other choices than motherhood, and luckily, in this society, they can avail themselves of the choices. ALL women are special, not just mothers. To assume that motherhood vaults a woman's status over others is rather arrogant, IMHO.

Oh, Mandi, this society caters to families with children in every aspect. People with children get tax breaks, special rates on buying stuff. The list is endless. This society actually discriminates against the childfree or childless.
As far as comments made to women with many or several children, this is one of my pet peeves. This is as much nobody's business as the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Ann Landers or Dear Abby had a good column several years ago about snappy comebacks to obnoxious idiots that comment on the number of children a family has. Of course I can't remember any of the comebacks, but they were good. You should be allowed to punch these idiots in the nose.

reply from: bobinsky

Mandi, can you please post the cite information from where you retrieved your Jefferson info? Thanks.

reply from: chooselife

And Mandi, I will counter, very respectfully, that just because you don't agree with a group's beliefs does not make that group wrong. We are, specifically here, talking about pro-choice groups.

If someone claims to be a Christian and supports abortion I would counter with the following (taken from Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life). Since I am speaking of spiritual matters I find it completely appropriate to quote a priest.

1. The Bible teaches that human life is different from other types of life, because human beings are made in the very image of God.

The accounts of the creation of man and woman in Genesis (Genesis 1:26-31; 2:4-25) tell us this: "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27).

The word "create" is used three times here, emphasizing a special crowning moment in the whole process of God’s making the world and everything in it. The man and woman are given "dominion" over everything else in the visible world.

Not even the original sin takes away the image of God in human beings. St. James refers to this image and says that because of it we should not even speak ill of one another. "With [the tongue] we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings who are made in the image of God . . . This ought not be so, brothers" (James 3:9-10).

The image of God! This is what it means to be human! We are not just a bunch of cells randomly thrown together by some impersonal forces. Rather, we really reflect an eternal God who knew us from before we were made, and purposely called us into being.

At the heart of the abortion tragedy is the question raised in the Psalms: "Lord, what is man that you care for him, mortal man that you keep him in mind? . . . With glory and honor you crowned him, giving him power over the works of your hands" (Psalm 8:5-7).

There is the key. Not only did God make us, but He values us. The Bible tells us of a God who is madly in love with us, so much so that He became one of us and even died for us while we were still offending Him (see Romans 5:6-8). In the face of all this, can we say that human beings are disposable, like a car that becomes more trouble than it is worth? "God doesn’t make junk." If you believe the Bible, you have to believe that human life is sacred, more sacred than we have ever imagined!

2. The Bible teaches that children are a blessing.

God commanded our first parents to "Be fertile and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). Why? God Himself is fertile. Love always overflows into life. When the first mother brought forth the first child, she exclaimed, "I have brought forth a man with the help of the Lord" (Genesis 4:1). The help of the Lord is essential, for He has dominion over human life and is its origin. Parents cooperate with God in bringing forth life. Because this whole process is under God’s dominion, it is sinful to interrupt it. The prophet Amos condemns the Ammonites "because they ripped open expectant mothers in Gilead" (Amos 1:13).

"Truly children are a gift from the Lord; the fruit of the womb is a reward" (Psalm 127:3).

3. The Bible teaches that the child in the womb is truly a human child, who even has a relationship with the Lord.

The phrase "conceived and bore" is used repeatedly (see Genesis 4:1,17) and the individual has the same identity before as after birth. "In sin my mother conceived me," the repentant psalmist says in Psalm 51:7. The same word is used for the child before and after birth (Brephos, that is, "infant," is used in Luke 1:41 and Luke 18:15.)

God knows the preborn child. "You knit me in my mother’s womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Psalm 139:13,15). God also helps and calls the preborn child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother’s womb you are my God" (Psalm 22:10-11). "God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).

4. Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent.

This flows from everything that has been seen so far. God’s own finger writes in stone the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and Christ reaffirms it (Matthew 19:18 - notice that He mentions this commandment first). The Book of Revelation affirms that (unrepentant) murderers cannot enter the kingdom of heaven (Revelation 22:15).

The killing of children is especially condemned by God through the prophets. In the land God gave his people to occupy, foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did, however, as Psalm 106 relates: "They mingled with the nations and learned their works…They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed" (Psalm 106:35, 37-38).

This sin of child-sacrifice, in fact, is mentioned as one of the major reasons that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people taken into exile. "They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire…till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight" (2 Kings 17:17-18).

Notice that this practice was a religious ritual. Not even for "religious freedom" can the killing of children be tolerated.

5. The Bible teaches that God is a God of justice.

An act of justice is an act of intervention for the helpless, an act of defense for those who are too weak to defend themselves. In foretelling the Messiah, Psalm 72 says, "Justice shall flower in his days…for he shall rescue the poor man when he cries out and the afflicted when he has no one to help him" (Psalms 72:7,12). Jesus Christ is our justice (1 Corinthians 1:30) because He rescued us from sin and death when we had none to help us (see Romans 5:6, Ephesians 2:4-5).

If God does justice for His people, He expects His people to do justice for one another. "Be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful" (Luke 6:36). "Go and do likewise" (Luke 10:37). "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). "Love one another" (John 15:17).

Abortion is the opposite of these teachings. It is a reversal of justice. It is a destruction of the helpless rather than a rescue of them. If God’s people do not intervene to save those whose lives are attacked, then the people are not pleasing or worshiping Him.

God says through Isaiah, "Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings…Your festivals I detest…When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood! Wash yourselves clean…learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow" (Isaiah 1:13-17).

Indeed, those who worship God but support abortion are falling into the same contradiction as God’s people of old, and need to hear the same message.

6. Jesus Christ paid special attention to the poor, the despised, and those whom the rest of society considered insignificant.

He broke down the false barriers that people set up among themselves, and instead acknowledged the equal human dignity of every individual, despite what common opinion might say. Hence we see Him reach out to children despite the efforts of the apostles to keep them away (Matthew 19:13-15); to tax collectors and sinners despite the objections of the Scribes (Mark 2:16); to the blind despite the warnings of the crowd (Matthew 20:29-34); to a foreign woman despite the utter surprise of the disciples and of the woman herself (John 4:9, 27); to Gentiles despite the anger of the Jews (Matthew 21:41-46); and to the lepers, despite their isolation from the rest of society (Luke 17:11-19).

When it comes to human dignity, Christ erases distinctions. St. Paul declares, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave or free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).

We can likewise say, "There is neither born nor unborn." Using this distinction as a basis for the value of life or the protection one deserves is meaningless and offensive to all that Scripture teaches. The unborn are the segment of our society which is most neglected and discriminated against. Christ Himself surely has a special love for them.

Good for her. But I still would like to know how someone who believes that every child is wanted would explain the facts to these kids in foster care, especially the younger ones.

Bobinsky - as a lawyer surely you can appreciate the red tape involved in trying to adopt a child. These children are wanted and we make it very difficult if not impossible for them to be adopted into homes. Is this not why thousands of couples go oversees to adopt where the laws are much friendlier?? I would challenge you to explain to a sibling (especially the younger ones) why it was okay for he/she to be born but not their brother or sister who was aborted. And then try to explain that they were the "wanted" child while the other was the "unwanted" child and then what happens when the "wanted" child begins to feel "unwanted"...... explain why they should not be in fear that they too will be killed. Or just try explaining to a child in foster care (especially the younger ones) that they would have been better off being aborted since they are obviously unwanted (as demonstrated by them being in foster care). Most of the kids I know that are in foster care are not there b/c they are unwanted...they are in there because they have parents who are on drugs, or abusive, or gravely ill, etc. and there was no family to take in the child. And part of the reason they stay there is b/c we give these parents every chance to get their lives back on track. Which is why some kids go back and forth from their parent's house to foster care.

There is a difference between biologically bearing a child and devoting at least 18 years, actually the rest of your life, to being a hands-on mother. And most men have penises, but this doesn't make them father material in the least. It simply means they can procreate if they're fertile.
I know many women who have uteruses, birth canals and ovaries who have absolutely NO desire to have children and be mothers. Women are realizing that they have other choices than motherhood, and luckily, in this society, they can avail themselves of the choices.

I absolutely agree. If you don't want children get sterilized, or use condoms, or foams, jellies, etc. But if you are pregnant you already are a mother.

ALL women are special, not just mothers. To assume that motherhood vaults a woman's status over others is rather arrogant, IMHO.

I am not sure how I stated that motherhood vaults a woman's status over other women. I would agree that ALL women are special....I just happen to include the unborn women in that category as well.

Oh, Mandi, this society caters to families with children in every aspect. People with children get tax breaks, as we should since our children grow up and contribute to Social Security, the economy, etc. Rich people get tax breaks, people who drive enviro friendly cars get tax breaks, this hardly is akin to catering special rates on buying stuff HAH!! When was the last time you checked prices at Babies R Us?? If there are special rates out there that I am missing please inform me!! What exactly can I get at a special rate b/c of my kids?? Certainly not my health insurance, or my car, or my house, electric bill, gas bill, water bill, etc. (the list is endless)

The list is endless. This society actually discriminates against the childfree or childless.

Please provide an example other than the 1,000 buck credit I get for my child (which I more than spend in a couple of months on them). Trust me...the childless are coming out ahead on this deal (monetarily).

As far as comments made to women with many or several children, this is one of my pet peeves. This is as much nobody's business as the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Ann Landers or Dear Abby had a good column several years ago about snappy comebacks to obnoxious idiots that comment on the number of children a family has. Of course I can't remember any of the comebacks, but they were good. You should be allowed to punch these idiots in the nose.

This I will WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with you on.

reply from: chooselife

I was citing a commentary by D. James Kennedy. Now I am guessing that you will not consider him a reliable source so I will ask you to please state what you disagree with and we can go from there. Or maybe we could just save a lot of time and ask Sue Yu who seems to have a good grasp on historical info. She may know better than us where to look to verify info in dispute.

reply from: Skippy

I need to take issue with this comment. I knew from the age of five that I didn't want children. When I became sexually active at twenty-two, I pleaded with doctor after doctor for a tubal ligation. It took years, dozens of doctors, and the intervention of a lawyer, to get sterilized. So PLEASE don't make quips about permanent birth control as if it's something you can just ask for, and get.

Had my birth control failed, I would have aborted without hesitation. I did everything right. It was the medical establishment that let me down.

reply from: yoda

The medical community makes lots of mistakes. How does that justify killing your own child?

reply from: yoda

Hmm...... he says that he wouldn't execute a condemned serial killer himself, but he doesn't want to tell the government (or anyone else) not to. How's that sound?

reply from: yoda

He also say he wouldn't execute a condemned serial killer himself, but he doesn't want to tell the government (or anyone else) what to do. Does that sound reasonable?

reply from: bobinsky

I was citing a commentary by D. James Kennedy. Now I am guessing that you will not consider him a reliable source so I will ask you to please state what you disagree with and we can go from there. Or maybe we could just save a lot of time and ask Sue Yu who seems to have a good grasp on historical info. She may know better than us where to look to verify info in dispute.
Mandi, I merely asked for the citation. I want to read for myself, just as you did. As you know, context is important. Also, Kennedy is an anti-choice person and his take on anything will be skewed. I have read several great biographies of Jefferson, and I want to compare what Kennedy says to what is written in these biographies because it's not coming together. I guess I'll search for the site myself.

reply from: chooselife

I was citing a commentary by D. James Kennedy. Now I am guessing that you will not consider him a reliable source so I will ask you to please state what you disagree with and we can go from there. Or maybe we could just save a lot of time and ask Sue Yu who seems to have a good grasp on historical info. She may know better than us where to look to verify info in dispute.
Mandi, I merely asked for the citation. I want to read for myself, just as you did. As you know, context is important. Also, Kennedy is an anti-choice person and his take on anything will be skewed. I have read several great biographies of Jefferson, and I want to compare what Kennedy says to what is written in these biographies because it's not coming together. I guess I'll search for the site myself.

Bobinsky - honestly I do not remember what site I found it on. I had about 6 different sites pulled up with Jefferson info. I did post the entire article so the context of the article is there. Kennedy is a minister...so as a Christian he is pro-life....but I am not sure how that would skew a commentary about Jefferson that had absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I could say that because you are not a Christian that you have no reason to be talking about what makes a Christian and what does not (as in the case of Jefferson) because your take is skewed. Just like I can't really tell a Muslim if they are/are not properly following their religion because I am not a Muslim. I would assume that D. James Kennedy has studied Christian theology at a much more in depth level than you thereby making him more of an expert of what constitutes a Christian and what does not, IMO.

reply from: Amy

"It most certainly is valid, and you would feel the same way if someone were attempting to force their morality down your throat, like christians do when someone challenges any of their "god-given" rights.'

Ok, I will give you that Bob. A slight change however, if you don't mind. People like you have such weak and are so lacking in morals...so it would be that lacking I take issue with...on this topic and a vast number of others. You, in the broad sense, seek to strip people of pride, a sense of responsibility, honor, integrity...leaving them mallable to a me-me-me mentality that is easily controlled by base desires. It's a known tactic of those that would brainwash others...look it up. If you instill a monolithic movement devoid of personal responsibility then none can require any to societal responsibility...now can they. Effectively they would simply have to shut their mouths or their base need might be taken away from them...so everyone gets to do whatever to whoever without answering for or having expection of...unless of course you can find a way of making a frivilous lawsuit and sue the sh*t out of them. But then that's never about having a person TAKE responsibility, rather how to get out of it. You people are afraid of morals because they create responsible thought in the individual...that in itself will mark your time of relavancy exceedingly short.

You seem to find some great joy in making women murders of their own children...yet you then expect anyone to believe you give those same women a moments thought after-the-fact. Incredible. Does it not matter to you the thousands of women who suffer severe emotional trauma due to that 'choice' you keep harping on? Or don't they count? Apparently not as they are cast to the side and I've heard it said by pro-abortionists something along the lines of...well they made their bed so let them lie in it, the whiners. How very compassionate of you. Does it not matter to you the thousands of women who are left barren or faced with years of infertility treatment due to the barbaric act of aborting? I guess they are just more pawns in your need to control. Let's not mention those who die from complications or commit suicide...they were just weak huh?

Here's a news flash for you. You do not champion women in any way. You promote control of women and create coulda-woulda-shoulda talking points. That you people think so little of a woman to say she has no control over her body, actions...that she can't make a choice BEFORE the issue of murdering a life that she created, that she carries and nutures within her own body...is deplorable to an extreme. Even Sanger knew BIRTH CONTROL was at the base of reasonability...putting aside her premise to control the population and weed out the 'sickly, infirm, and inferior races.'

I've heard it said that the only women who truly support the act of abortion are man-haters, narcissists, and lesbians. One with a decided social agenda and two mental illnesses.

"The Bible has nothing to do with this country's laws."

You know, the framers said, during the drafting of the Constitution, the laws were based on Judeao-Christian values. I'll take their word over yours, thank you very much.

"You anti-choicers believe the woman has no choice but to continue the pregnancy. Not a lot of choice involved there. "

The basis for being against abortion is to uphold all life. That is hardly anti-choice. Rather, those that defend the right for the existence of and continuation of life believe choice begins with responsible action. Something you seem not to have a very firm grasp on. I believe women are smart, loving, compassionate, strong creatures that are fully capable of making reasonable choices that do not include shredding the bodies of their children...you apparently think much less of them.

As for the rest of your blathering...I don't intend to address your obvious emotional issues with religion. The fact remains that written directive from the framers at the time of the drafting were steeped in Christian values. Your fears on religious morals are an aside best dealt with by trained professionals.

reply from: megan

Meg, what would you say to all those kids in foster care who've been waiting years to be adopted? That they really ARE wanted, but just not as much as tiny newborns? How would you explain this to these kids?

Well, I imagine you would find it quite surprising that there are many Christian groups for choice, so your generalization about Christians doesn't quite stand up. And as far as all those innocents, again I'm interested in what you would tell those kids in foster care why other children - babies - are wanted and they are not. Do you work in foster care?

I am confused. It seems to me you are responding to something Amy wrote? But the questions are asked of me. I guess I can give my opinion about it--I think foster care is not perhaps as bad as you think? I certainly think it is preferable to death. I do not work in foster care, but I think it is a reasonably good system and if I had a lifestyle conducive to raising children I would also consider taking in some foster kids and/or adoption. Right now however I am in no position to raise a child. I think it is best if I don't get too much into my personal life but I'll just say my job is very demanding and leaves little time for family life. I have seen some situations where a foster family is abusive but I have also seen plenty of abusive "real" families. Abuse should never be tolerated and abortion is not a preventive for child abuse, it IS child abuse. Anyway I know the questions were not really for me but I hope it's ok that I jumped in.
Thanks,
Meg

reply from: megan

Sorry, I guess Amy already responded to these questions (they were for her anyway). I just wanted to comment about the foster care system. I said it was a good system; Amy said it is in shambles--who is right? Well, it is a good system but it also has some serious issues that need to be resolved. I just feel that those issues in the foster care system do not make it a bad system and do not justify abortion.

AMy that is really beautiful. I am glad someone like you is involved in the foster care system, and what you tell those kids is just right. They have a chance to be whatever they want. They could be president--who knows. They have a chance.
Meg

reply from: megan

Oooh, are we gonna rumble? I say we go for the Hatfields and McCoys. Has a nice ring to it.
All right. We'll be the McCoys, and the yodavatar/tam/christianlott side can be the Hatfields. Beats the hell out of those nails-on-the-blackboard semantic debates. If anyone asks why I'm calling them Hatfields and myself a McCoy, I'll just point them to this post.

(I'm bummed there won't be any cool dance numbers, though.

*snap*
*snap*
*snap* )

Hey skippy you are still focused on terminology but I just wanted to ask again do you support abortion for all 9 months? I am not sure, maybe you sort of answered this, but I don't know what you think. Sorry if you already posted the answer to this. Thanks, Meg.

reply from: megan

Hi Mandi, what you say about foster care is very important. Most kids in foster care are not "unwanted"--the system gives their parents a chance to be able to take care of them. It is a wonderful thing that we have such a system. And it also works if the parents just don't want to take care of their child for selfish reasons rather than being unable to take care of a child for other reasons. But you wouldn't tell a child "you're not wanted." Never! There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Just because one person doesn't "want" the child to exist doesn't mean everyone on the planet agrees that child should never have been born. As long as even one person "wants" a child, the child is not unwanted. We're talking about a living child here. Even in the womb that is a living child. "Unwanted" is a term that hides the true meaning which is "ok to kill this one". It isn't, though. It isn't ok to kill that child. Just my 2 cents.
Meg

reply from: bobinsky

Meg, I did indeed get you and Amy mixed up as far as that comment was concerned. I apologize for this.

I agree with you about foster care - there are the outstanding foster parents and then there are those who are in it only to get the little bit of money the state pays for caring for these kids. It's a sick world. I guess my point is that while anti-choicers are so concernred about a fetus and think that, rather than aborting, a woman should put the child up for adoption, there are already so many children waiting for adoption. Why not take care of these kids first? What I want to see from anti-choicers, who claim that every child is a wanted child, is that they care as much about these foster children needing adoptive homes as they do about feti. And I do not see this. They claim that every child is a wanted child. If this is a case, there would be no kids sitting in foster care. They'd be with loving, adoptive families. But this isn't the case. If even one "pro-lifer" took in one foster child for adoption, this would solve the problem.
I believe it was Salspua who mentioned that instead of adopting here, many people go overseas to get the babies they can't get here. Again, I ask why, when there are children here waiting for loving homes? Yeah, it's entirely the adoptive parents' choice, but perhaps if people believe women should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to delivery, potential adoptive parents should be forced to choose for adoption from the children already here and available.

reply from: chooselife

Hi Mandi, what you say about foster care is very important. Most kids in foster care are not "unwanted"--the system gives their parents a chance to be able to take care of them. It is a wonderful thing that we have such a system. And it also works if the parents just don't want to take care of their child for selfish reasons rather than being unable to take care of a child for other reasons. But you wouldn't tell a child "you're not wanted." Never! There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Just because one person doesn't "want" the child to exist doesn't mean everyone on the planet agrees that child should never have been born. As long as even one person "wants" a child, the child is not unwanted. We're talking about a living child here. Even in the womb that is a living child. "Unwanted" is a term that hides the true meaning which is "ok to kill this one". It isn't, though. It isn't ok to kill that child. Just my 2 cents.
Meg

Meg - Please do not misunderstand. I in NO WAY believe any child is unwanted. God created each child and for each child He has a purpose and a plan. I do not believe that God makes mistakes therfore every child is a gift to be treasured. My challenge to bobinsky was to have her explain the pro-abortion logic to a child (as she challenged us to explain to a child in foster care that they were wanted). I find this whole "wanted" and "unwanted" bit to be sickening, cold, calloused, and justification for murder. I am disheartened at how children have become diseases in our society. We prevent AIDS...we prevent cancer....we prevent heart attacks....we should not prevent children. A person who creates a child is not sick...they are doing what they were designed to do. The Bible says to medicate the sick, yet millions of women medicate themselves with BCP, to in essence make themselves sick, by deeming themselves infertile.

reply from: yoda

And if the "anti-choicers" did "take care of these kids first" to your satisfaction, would you then change your stance on abortion? OF COURSE NOT!

So why not admit that your colossal whine is just an attempt at distraction by personal smear?

reply from: Amy

"Sorry, I guess Amy already responded to these questions (they were for her anyway). I just wanted to comment about the foster care system. I said it was a good system; Amy said it is in shambles--who is right? Well, it is a good system but it also has some serious issues that need to be resolved. I just feel that those issues in the foster care system do not make it a bad system and do not justify abortion."

Hi Meg...

I guess I should have been more clear. The 'shambles' aspect I was thinking of was how they keep these children in the system when there are families wanting to adopt them...my own personal belief and that of a lot of people with any experience in foster care is they do this to save their jobs. So perhaps I should have said the social workers in the foster care system...yes? Sorry about that.

You're right...every person has the chance to be what they want...someone who touches the lives of others in a powerful and positive way even in their simple acts of kindness. How do these pro-abortionists tell these children, if not in fact then in deed, that they are worthless because they've had to struggle in their lives? How do they achieve the same affect on women who find themselves in a situation they might not have chosen out of hand? You see, their tact is to constantly tear down instead of uplift. It's a shame...and it has unhappy consequences...and not only don't they seem to care...they seem to revel in it.

reply from: chooselife

Boy...it would seem to me that you only think women with unwanted pregnancies should get "choices" -- so let's make it even more difficult for the kind hearted souls that want to adopt and then it will make it easier for us to talk of "unwanted" children, which will allow us to get even more loose abortion laws.

reply from: megan

Hi, no problem about mixing up Amy and me.

As for taking care of the kids waiting for adoption? Of course they are being taken care of--that's the "care" in foster care. They are fed, clothed, taken care of. They may never be adopted. That doesn't destine them for unhappiness by any means. When I say every child is a wanted child it seems you didn't understand my meaning? You say if this were the case there would be no foster care needed--the kids in foster care *are* wanted. That's why they're being cared for by foster parents who *want* to care for them.
Meg

reply from: megan

Hi Mandi, what you say about foster care is very important. Most kids in foster care are not "unwanted"--the system gives their parents a chance to be able to take care of them. It is a wonderful thing that we have such a system. And it also works if the parents just don't want to take care of their child for selfish reasons rather than being unable to take care of a child for other reasons. But you wouldn't tell a child "you're not wanted." Never! There is no such thing as an unwanted child. Just because one person doesn't "want" the child to exist doesn't mean everyone on the planet agrees that child should never have been born. As long as even one person "wants" a child, the child is not unwanted. We're talking about a living child here. Even in the womb that is a living child. "Unwanted" is a term that hides the true meaning which is "ok to kill this one". It isn't, though. It isn't ok to kill that child. Just my 2 cents.
Meg

Meg - Please do not misunderstand. I in NO WAY believe any child is unwanted. God created each child and for each child He has a purpose and a plan. I do not believe that God makes mistakes therfore every child is a gift to be treasured. My challenge to bobinsky was to have her explain the pro-abortion logic to a child (as she challenged us to explain to a child in foster care that they were wanted). I find this whole "wanted" and "unwanted" bit to be sickening, cold, calloused, and justification for murder.

Mandi, I was agreeing with you! I think it was just not understood by everyone. I think perhaps I wasn't clear enough. *Someone* wants every child. Sometimes it's a foster parent, sometimes an adoptive parent, sometimes a biological parent, sometimes a relative, sometimes a kindly stranger, etc. I think I need to be more clear perhaps.

reply from: bobinsky

No, but I might have a more favorable opinion of those who say they are "pro-life" and then proceed to care only about the life of a fetus. By pro-life, you are referring to all life, but this doesn't come through in your posts.

reply from: megan

Hi Amy,

You're quite right about that. It definitely needs the wheels greased. I agree with you!

I just also want to say I really like your posts.

Meg

reply from: Amy

Oh Bob...you're unreal.

"If even one "pro-lifer" took in one foster child for adoption, this would solve the problem. "

Are you trying to now say that not one person who is anti-abortion is a foster parent? Ok that's just flat out crazy rhetoric.

And no, Salspua never said someone should not adopt here and go out of the country...the comments were how the system makes it not only difficult but financially impossible for many people to adopt in this country.

Quite twisting...believe it or not but people can actually read/reason. You don't seem to know how to play fair...or even normal.

reply from: bobinsky

Mandi, I did not miss the point. There are a variety of reasons kids are in foster care. There are many kids in foster care whose parents have signed away all rights to the kids and these children are available for adoption, but they sit there year after year. Why? There are many adoptable kids in foster care. 54% were reunited with their parents and this is great, if the parents are ready for the responsibility. What about the 46% of kids left? I work with foster care and I know there are children who sit in group homes year after year, waiting to be adopted and it never happens. Do you think I make this up because I have nothing better to do? These are facts.

No pro-choice person that I know of would consider these children better off dead. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

A lot of adoptions involving wealthy people boil down to nothing more than baby selling. The highest bidder gets the baby. But then again, why not? Children are a precious commodity and people have to expect to pay for what they want. I didn't make the rules or the laws. As I said, there can be lots of red tape, but if a person is patient, then good things can happen.

I didn't say a woman had a gun to her head when a child was conceived. After the child is conceived, the woman should have a choice about the situation. We simply disagree on this point.

Mandi, you live in a country that allows women to have as many children as they want - you have a choice to procreate as many times as you wish. Would you like the government to step in and tell you you have too many children and you need to stop procreating? No, because it's none of the gov'ts business because you have a right to privacy with your own body. This is part of the freedom of this country. Women who face unwanted/unplanned pregnancies should also have choices with the freeoms granted in the Constitution with respect to their own bodies.
There are kind-hearted souls that become adoptive parents everyday in this country. It doesn't happen by miracle, it happens by law and by a child being available for adoption and the parents wanting that particular child. Even if people are not wealthy, if they are patient, they will find a child for adoption. There are ways around everything.

reply from: Amy

"You're quite right about that. It definitely needs the wheels greased. I agree with you!"

LOL...well Meg sometimes I almost think some of them need the clock-cleaned...but I'm the non-violent sort so I'll just keep to expounding on my views.

"I just also want to say I really like your posts. Meg"

Thank you very much Meg...and I yours. You appear to have a very gentle way...your words are warm and comfortable.

reply from: Amy

"A lot of adoptions involving wealthy people boil down to nothing more than baby selling. The highest bidder gets the baby. But then again, why not? Children are a precious commodity and people have to expect to pay for what they want. I didn't make the rules or the laws. As I said, there can be lots of red tape, but if a person is patient, then good things can happen"

Whooo back the truck up. So now people that actually have the money to adopt in a system that requires upwards and more than $50k per adoption are participating in 'baby selling'? If that is what it costs these families have no other option then to pay it, go elsewhere that the costs are markedly lower, or simply give up their dream of loving and raising these children.

Ok...well your attitude towards children is astonishing...now you view them as a commodity? "The highest bidder gets the baby...but then again, why not? Children are a precious commodity and people have to expect to pay for what they want." That is a horrendous mindset...not to mention the contradictions. You say there are all these unwanted children and then say they are a precious commodity people have to pay high dollar amounts to 'get'.

And since you didn't answer me before...or at all...I'm beginning to think you're afraid of me Bob ...what exactly is it that you do...first you were an atty with the ACLU, then you counsel women on abortion 'choice' (sorry I giggled with I put that 'choice' in there), now you work with foster care in some capacity as well? Oh and let's not forget the whole friendship thing with controversial, and insane, professors. Dang but you're one busy woman aren't you Bob? I'd say to quite an unbelievable extent...but that's just me. Maybe you shoud write a book about all your journey's...or perhaps just answer my question.

Thanks ever so.Text

reply from: Tam

Mandi, I did not miss the point. There are a variety of reasons kids are in foster care. There are many kids in foster care whose parents have signed away all rights to the kids and these children are available for adoption, but they sit there year after year. Why? There are many adoptable kids in foster care. 54% were reunited with their parents and this is great, if the parents are ready for the responsibility. What about the 46% of kids left? I work with foster care and I know there are children who sit in group homes year after year, waiting to be adopted and it never happens. Do you think I make this up because I have nothing better to do? These are facts.

Making something up because you have nothing better to do? I'm sure you'd never dream of it...

No pro-choice person that I know of would consider these children better off dead. I'm not sure where you got that idea.

Where did we GET that idea? Give me a break! What twisted illogic do you have to employ to make such a ludicrous statement? That is your whole stupid argument in a nutshell: those kids would be better off never being born. Since the kids in question already exist, the only way to avoid their being born is to kill them in utero. What part of this do you not understand, or do you try to deny? Is this a semantic issue, that you feel they aren't "REALLY" alive so can't be "REALLY" dead or something? Is there ANY science WHATSOEVER backing up this nonsense? I thought not.

A lot of adoptions involving wealthy people boil down to nothing more than baby selling. The highest bidder gets the baby. But then again, why not? Children are a precious commodity and people have to expect to pay for what they want. I didn't make the rules or the laws. As I said, there can be lots of red tape, but if a person is patient, then good things can happen.

Yeah, wait about 9 months and there should be a baby available...oh wait, only if the mom doesn't kill him or her first. Why is there a baby shortage, again?

I didn't say a woman had a gun to her head when a child was conceived. After the child is conceived, the woman should have a choice about the situation. We simply disagree on this point.

She has so many choices it's almost dizzying. The choice that shouldn't be available to her, however, is to kill her child--any more than that choice should be available to her after the child is born.

They do have choices about their own bodies. It's the bodies of their children we're talking about. Surely you don't think abortion destroys the WOMAN'S body, do you? (Well, if you read Lime 5 you might see some evidence of that happening, but usually it's just the child's body that's destroyed.)

reply from: Tam

Amy, Amy, Amy...what can I say!!? I was away for the weekend and I come back and your posts are making my day. This is nothing more nor less than a love letter. If not for a few rather obvious differences from my own posts, I'd be surprised no one was accusing you of being me. In other words, YOU ROCK. May I just say:

Welcome, Amy!

reply from: Tam

Megan, that is an EXCELLENT point!! What is an "unwanted" child? Is it a child whose parents don't want a child right now? Or don't want that particular child? I don't think so. I think you are right--there are no unwanted children, because there is no child on the face of the earth that NOBODY would want.

And by the way, welcome to the forum!!

I'm editing this because I felt bad that I didn't put enough bells and whistles on it after my effusive welcome to Amy directly above it. So, this is for you, Meg:

Welcome, Megan!

There, now I feel like you've been welcomed appropriately!

reply from: yoda

If you thought about it for A MILLION YEARS, you could not come up with something that we care LESS ABOUT than your opinion of prolifers....... did you know that? Your idiotic spam about us fills this forum up like toilet paper in a septic tank........ are you proud of that?

Hey, if ALL YOUR LIES ABOUT US were 100% gospel truth..... would that make abortion any better?

Or do you just get your jollies trashing people?

I pick option #2.

reply from: sarah

Just when you think you've heard it all, bobo actually calls children a "commodity". Oh, she tries to dress that all too revealing word with "precious". But, like the old saying goes, you can dress a mule in a horse's harness, but it's STILL a mule.

Her mentor, MS would be very proud. Not to mention all those former slave owners. It takes quite the twisted mentality to equate humans with a product to be bought and sold.

What else can one say, but to echo what Amy has said...."Holy Smokers"!

reply from: Amy

What a wonderful welcome Tam...thank you very much.

I've been getting a bit of a complex here...I mean I try to use Bob's directive of the whole 'spade' idea, put on my best typing skills, heck I even cleaned my monitor...and I get nothing...one response I think where she told me she didn't care what I thought about her...about four times. And now, shockingly she won't answer any of my comments or questions. I tell you, some people's children! *sigh*

I've read some truly wonderful words this weekend while you were gone, Tam. By the way, I hope you had a very nice time. There is so much intelligence, compassion, sweetness, humour, and selflessness coming from the majority of these posters. It does my heart good to know such solid minds fight the good fight in the want to protect our innocent children. Not only that but some of them are downright fiesty!!!

All the pro-life posters I have read are keeping me knee-deep in homework...well and yodeman who I am not quite sure about yet. Anyway, lots of great points and information that has me running all over the internet to read further on different things. Sarah is quite sharp, indeed, as are they all. I will endeavor to keep up.

Thanks again...and I would welcome any comparison as a compliment.

"YOU ROCK"

Yeah...don't we all though? Sh*t, come on all you 'anti-choicers' (as Bob would say)...Group Hug!

reply from: sarah

To coin a nice phrase..."Amy, Amy, Amy", you're not playing by bobo's rules. It's either kiss up or shut up with her...sheesh! You either play "nice" or she takes her ball and goes home. Of course, added to that rule is the little fact you must igonore all insults from her, they ONLY count if they come from you.

She's the "quintessential" pro-abort.

But, look at it this way, you got a clean monitor out of the deal! That's about the best anyone has got so far!

reply from: Tam

What a wonderful welcome Tam...thank you very much.

I've been getting a bit of a complex here...I mean I try to use Bob's directive of the whole 'spade' idea, put on my best typing skills, heck I even cleaned my monitor...and I get nothing...one response I think where she told me she didn't care what I thought about her...about four times. And now, shockingly she won't answer any of my comments or questions. I tell you, some people's children! *sigh*

Yes, I gave her too many chances, myself. A mistake I did not repeat with American Pie ( "Singin' Bye, Bye, Miss American Pie! Drove her Chevy to the levy ... singin' this'll be the day she got banned! Why it took so long I don't understand..." )

Oh, it wasn't vacation or anything. I should be so lucky! I'm just really busy and never had time to get online.

Yes, Sarah is my best friend here. Well, I guess maybe it's a tie between Sarah and yodavater. And I have some other good pals here, like Scooby and Amber--and I know you're going to be one of my favorites, if you stick around (don't let the nonsense burn you out--it's one thing to be running all over the internet to inform yourself, but it's another thing to let the turkeys get you down).

Thanks!

Awww.... yeah! ((((((sarahyodavaterchooselifemom5amytamscoobyborisnavynatec4lshiprahmegtobinoallizdogchristianlottprolifejediterryforlifemom2whosayspoppadellajessinpghalexandra))))))

reply from: Tam

To coin a nice phrase..."Amy, Amy, Amy", you're not playing by bobo's rules. It's either kiss up or shut up with her...sheesh! You either play "nice" or she takes her ball and goes home.

Sarah, we should be so lucky. I say she drops the ball and stays around to pretend she can't see the ball.

reply from: sarah

I guess she doesn't actually go home, Tam. Your analogy was much more to the point.

reply from: Amy

Yes, well we've got the bat...and the ball gets no where without the bat.

reply from: Tam

I just want to say thanks to Amber and Meg, without whom I would probably never have figured out the private topics. Meg asked me if I had ever figured it out, but I hadn't. Then Amber helped Meg, and Meg helped me, and now if anyone else is having trouble, feel free to ask me, because I've got the hang of it now! Thanks, both of you.

As for the death penalty: I like your thinking on that, Meg. I'd much rather wait and have waited in vain for a "bad guy" to become a "good guy" than to kill a "potential good guy" while he's still a "bad guy"--just as I'd rather wait and have waited in vain for a "fetus" to become a "baby" than to kill a "potential baby" while she's still a "fetus". It's the same sort of logic and it works for me. In fact, the odds of a "bad guy" becoming a "good guy" are MUCH, MUCH lower than that of a "fetus" becoming a "baby"--in fact, to everyone without an agenda of abortion to support, a "fetus" IS a "baby" already--just an unborn one, that's all.

Hey Meg. Just wondering, while we're on the subject of other life issues than abortion--how do you feel about meat, animal testing, fur, etc? (There's a whole thread -- somewhere -- about this, but just curious, it's always nice to see someone else on here who opposes the death penalty.)


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