Home - List All Discussions

Ok seriously..

Why the beef with contraception?

by: BossMomma

I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out the logic behind pro-lifers against birth control. What is the problem? Obviously if no child is concieved no child can be aborted. Isn't eliminating abortion the goal here? Taking away contraceptives is totally self defeating. If you are anti-birth control, why?

reply from: AshMarie88

Yea, precisely. I'm not against birth control. Actually, my parents have been bugging me to go to a gyno and get a checkup and get on birth control, and my mom made me an appointment today for January... I don't have a personal problem with birth control, I've done my own research and compared it with what other pro-lifers say about most being abortive.
Some scare me, however, in the sense that there are a couple that possibly could make a woman infertile. That's the only thing I'm concerned about getting on it. I'm already hoping I'm not infertile so when I want kids someday, I can have them.

reply from: AshMarie88

"... The 1 1/2-in.-long (38 mm) coils--which are like pen springs but smaller and softer--contain fibers that irritate the tubes and prompt scar tissue to grow into and around the tiny loops. After three months, the Fallopian tubes are blocked, preventing eggs from reaching the uterus to be fertilized."
Oh yes... that's SO safe... not.

reply from: yoda

There are some forms of "birth control" that are suspected of making the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation, and thus are in effect the moral equivalent of abortion.
Other than that, I am okay with contraception that does not have any such effects. But of course, I'm not religious.

reply from: Nulono

I agree with yodavater entirely.

reply from: BossMomma

What's the problem with making the lining of the uterus unreceptive to implantation? The majority of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed out naturally.

reply from: yoda

Because if they are fertilized, then the lining of the uterus will normally be receptive. If it is not (because of a birth control pill), then the zygote will die because of that pill. And a zygote is no less a human being than a one year old child.

reply from: ChristianLott2

http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

reply from: carolemarie

That is the problem with personhood legislation. If life is declared to begin at conception, then birth control pills would be banned.
Supposedly they have a third mechanism that works to stop an embryo from implanting so it starves and dies.
Nobody knows if it actually happens or if the other two mechanisms are working. And with all the women who get pregnant on the pill, it mustn't work to well.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No they would NOT have to be banned because there is no solid proof of this "third" function.

reply from: lycan

http://www.aaplog.org/?page_id=226 you can read if you want more information. It directs you to articles arguing for and against the alleged abortifacient properties of the pill.
I'm just a lay person talking, but the impression I get from reading those articles is that it's highly questionable that BCPs cause abortions by affecting the endometrial lining, because the newly conceived human being is able to implant in more hostile environments such as ectopic pregnancies or http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5809&STARTPAGE=6&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear. The way they affect transport through the Fallopian tube could be another story, however, at least in the case of progestin-only pills and "Plan B".
The IUD is believed to be abortifacient because it actually inflames the endometrium and not just makes it thinner. As further evidence that the IUD is more likely to be abortifacient than pills is that if the objective is emergency contraception (or however you want to define it), the IUD is much more effective in this respect. See http://www.aaplog.org/?page_id=210, http://www.arhp.org/crc/emergency.html, http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=9323&enterthread=y&STARTPAGE=7, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception#Intrauterine_device_.28IUD.29_for_emergency_contraception

reply from: Carifairy

Actually.. The IUD does not cause inflammation. This is a widely held misconception. Inflammation can be tested and observed on U/S and through hysteroscopic exam..as a side note.
The copper IUD actually pools copper ions into the uterus. Copper is a massively potent spermicide, and causes destruction of the sperm.
Copper as a spermicide is not a new invention, this has been widely known for nearly 100 years

reply from: Carifairy

From Webmd
# Copper IUD. Copper is toxic to sperm. It also makes the uterus and fallopian tubes produce fluid that kills sperm. This fluid contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins.1
We are learning new things every year, as more women are using IUD's, and mroe studies are being done to better understand their action.
Older IUD's, due to their shape and nasty bacteria wicking string , like the dalkon shield, DID cause some pretty evident inflammation. We are learning that newer IUD's do not cause these exact same responses..

reply from: CharlesD

Not to nitpick too much, but in reality such legislation would not really change the reality of the situation; it would simply recognize what already is the case, that every human being is a person. We don't need to declare that life begins at conception because science has already declared that. All we can do is recognize the fact. Good laws don't create reality but merely recognize it. Life begins at conception and an unborn child is a person, regardless of whether or not the law recognizes it or not.

reply from: yoda

And since they DON'T KNOW if it actually happens, why would they "ban birth control pills"?

reply from: yoda

Precisely.
And honest recognition of that fact is the only decent thing we can do in that regard. Anything less than that would be the abandonment of the unborn on our part.

reply from: Carifairy

Yoda~
I hope you do not mind my answering..
I really doubt that BC pills would ever be made illegal.. With that being said.. Some people are of the mindset that she should always er on the side of caution. So even if the risk was only 1%, BC pills should still be illegal.
Some people do have that mindset. I do not believe that in general we are at any risk of losing our contraceptives.

reply from: carolemarie

Not to nitpick too much, but in reality such legislation would not really change the reality of the situation; it would simply recognize what already is the case, that every human being is a person. We don't need to declare that life begins at conception because science has already declared that. All we can do is recognize the fact. Good laws don't create reality but merely recognize it. Life begins at conception and an unborn child is a person, regardless of whether or not the law recognizes it or not.
Lots of the supporters of this legislation have said it would ban hormonal birth control. If you define life begining at conception, then anything that would interfer with the fertilized egg (or hurt it) would be murder.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Me either - so personhood it is!

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Is this new coil less expensive than tubal ligation? It sounds like it is less invasive (not requiring surgery.)
Why all the objections to it as a form of permanent birth control?

reply from: faithman

Not to nitpick too much, but in reality such legislation would not really change the reality of the situation; it would simply recognize what already is the case, that every human being is a person. We don't need to declare that life begins at conception because science has already declared that. All we can do is recognize the fact. Good laws don't create reality but merely recognize it. Life begins at conception and an unborn child is a person, regardless of whether or not the law recognizes it or not.
Lots of the supporters of this legislation have said it would ban hormonal birth control. If you define life begining at conception, then anything that would interfer with the fertilized egg (or hurt it) would be murder.
What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: sheri

There is evidence that HBC causes abortions.http://www.polycarp.org/
I know this is a long, hard to understand write up, but as prolifers we have an obligation to study this and find the truth. I have looked into this for years and my conclusion is that the pill does have the capacity to take life. If you are prolife and would like to look into an alternative to the pill go to NFPandmore.org This is a natural way of preventing pregnancy that will not introduce any harmful chemical into your body.

reply from: sheri

In responce to the original question, I oppose Chemical forms of BC because they have the capacity to kill the newly conceived child. Besides that they can cause breast cancer for the woman using it (did you see the latest study showing the 26% up-tick in breast cancer in Prempro users? Prempro is a estrogen/progestone combo that replaces hormone in menopausal women.) Also, as CP would be quick to point out (what ever happened to CP?)I oppose it on realigious grounds, I am Catholic.
When you have a better alternative in NFP, why would you choose an option that everyone admits AT LEAST carries the potential to kill your child?

reply from: faithman

Most BC is chemical warfare against a woman's body. Diabetes is also caused by BC pills. Heck, the advert industry has to post the side effects of this stuff on the TV. Stroke, heart attack, Bleeding. Yeah, step right up girls. Destroy your health so you can slut around. WHAT A DEAL!!!!!

reply from: BossMomma

ROTFL, Some of the comments were so juvenile. Someone even implied that the coil goes into the penis, that'd encourage that abstinance most pro-lifers love so much.

reply from: BossMomma

Hell I concieved while on a BC shot and my bf was wearing a spermicidal condom. That sucker broke and my shot failed so I got pregnant..with TWINS. I got through my mom's BC pill so I guess we are just fertile mertles.

reply from: scopia19822

As a Catholic I believe that for my fellow Catholics all artificial forms of BC are wrong. This belief is not binding to non Catholics. The Church teaches that all sex outside of marriage is a sin, however within the confines of marriage a couple can plan their family or delay having children by using NFP. In this method it takes the cooperation of both man and wife to work. It does not place the burden of contraception exclusivly upon the woman. It is also dual functioning, if one wants to avoid pregnancy you simply avoid sex on the fertile days. If you want a child then on the fertile days you have as much wild monkey sex as possible. The Church does permit a woman to use the Pill if she has a medical condition like myself to regulate her cycle or suppress her periods.
From a secular POV I have no problem with an adult woman deciding that she wants to go on BC as long as she is made aware of all of the risks and side effects. I would however like to see IUDs and the Patch took off the market because having read about the side effects of the Patch and the death of women from blood clots and heartattacks related to Patch use. The IUDs can perforate through the uterus and can cause death if not surgically removed. It can cause permanant infertility due to uterine scarring and PID. Not to mention that it can cause prolonged and painful periods and uterine bleeding. IMHO a woman would be much safer to go with a barrier method than hormonal BC or IUDS.

reply from: yoda

Yes, that is my moral opinion, as well. But as you say, it's not likely to ever become law, and it's certainly no reason to oppose personhood for the unborn.

reply from: yoda

And yet, there is no scientific consensus that HBC does that. So how would the opinions of those who support personhood suddenly become law?

reply from: faithman

And yet, there is no scientific consensus that HBC does that. So how wold the opinions of those who support personhood suddenly become law?
Killers like CM can't take that chance. She is just hidding her true aggenda behind this issue. The fact of the matter is that she wants to protect her killer sistas from future justice. Her other tact is calling anyone a woman hater if they dare disagree with her. But she is all good with moms who kill their born children going to jail, it is just the killers of the womb child like her she wants to protect from the justice for all who slaughter innocent life. SSSSOOOOO according to her own standard she is a woman hater.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Lol! It's genetic I think; some women just don't respond to birth control and remain fertile.

reply from: Banned Member

Birth control? The very name suggests the intent; to stop the birth of a live child. Now obviously what birth control does is not as dramatic as that, but what it does often control, or rather stop, is conception. However what much so-called birth control does is cause a forced miscarriage, aka; abortion. I think that that which causes the death of a conceived human person could be made illegal. That which prevents conception from taking place in the first place, while I am opposed to it, would certainly never be made illegal. I would go into the long winded reasons why I am opposed to contraception is wrong, but I think that I'll keep working on explaining to people why killing live conceived babies in the womb is wrong. Truth will prevail.

reply from: Carifairy

"Birth control" is kind of a 'slang term'..
Technically the term is 'Hormonal contraception'. Birth control is kind of an easier way to say it.
Contraceptive pills actually DO stop ovulation, and without an egg we do not have fertilization.
Condoms certainly do NOT have any type of effect that should be considered negative as far as contraceptives are concerned.

reply from: BossMomma

Sometime BC just doesn't work, like in my case which is why I'm glad sterilization exists. I'm 27 and soon to have my third child, I do not want to risk pregnancy in my 30's.

reply from: sheri

If HBC stops all ovulation, how do women still get pregnant on the pill? Break through ovulation is a fact, and when it happens it is hit or miss whether or not the child will be able to implant in an uterine lining that is much thinner then it is meant to be when ovulation occures naturally.

reply from: scopia19822

"If HBC stops all ovulation, how do women still get pregnant on the pill? Break through ovulation is a fact, and when it happens it is hit or miss whether or not the child will be able to implant in an uterine lining that is much thinner then it is meant to be when ovulation occures naturally."
I am on the Pill for heavy painful and prolonged bleeding and the FNP at the health department that it does cause the lining of the uterus to thin and that is why lighter periods are listed as an advantage of the Pill. If the lining is not thick and ripe it will be hostile to a fertilized egg, hence it will not implant.

reply from: scopia19822

"Condoms certainly do NOT have any type of effect that should be considered negative as far as contraceptives are concerned."
I am allergic to latex and it causes me to swell and severe itching and burning in that very delicate area.. That is why Lambskin and polyurithan condoms are on the market. they are just not as highly effective as latex.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

It's technically contraceptive control, idiot.
NO hormonal birth control has been proven by ANY reputable research to cause ANY kind of miscarriage.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

The intention is to stop ovulation but sometimes it doesn't: Usually when the WOMAN messes up with taking it properly.
I will repeat the following:
If a woman ovulates, during a natural or hormonally controlled cycle, it prompts her body to thicken the uterine lining.
Pre ovulation, the lining of a women on and off of hormonal birth control are the same. The ONLY reason a woman on birth control's lining would stay thin is if she were NOT to ovulate.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

She didn't say "latex condoms" she said condoms in general, of which lambskin and other kinds of condoms are a part of.

reply from: BossMomma

Heh, I've been getting everything I can't have for Christmas. Thus far I have 4 bottles of my favorite Merlot, six boxes of Queen Anne Chocolate covered cherries, A box of Bourbon balls and, a bouquet of chocolate roses all from well wishing family and friends who seem to forget I'm a gestational diabetic. Last year I got nothing but bath sets and was like..do I stink or something?!

reply from: Banned Member

I was referring to "birth control" as a general term including even such things as the "morning after" pill.
That which stops life is immoral and against the will of God at any rate.
Birth control says to me that a person is not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions, or that they want to cheat nature to use another person for their own pleasure, or that two people want to use each other. Two people consenting to something that is wrong, does not make it right.

reply from: BossMomma

I was referring to "birth control" as a general term including even such things as the "morning after" pill.
That which stops life is immoral and against the will of God at any rate.
Birth control says to me that a person is not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions, or that they want to cheat nature to use another person for their own pleasure, or that two people want to use each other. Two people consenting to something that is wrong, does not make it right.
As opposed to getting used as a breeding animal just so one can enjoy an orgasm?

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm
51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion.
Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion.
67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.
· 88% of abortions occur during the first 6 to 12 weeks of pregnancy.
· 60% of abortions are performed on women who already have one or more children.
· 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.
· 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").
Abortion Statistics - Demographics
· Age - 52% of women getting an abortion are younger than 25 years old and 19% are teenagers. The abortion rate is highest for those women aged 18 to 19 (56 per 1,000 in 1992.)
· Marriage - 51% of women who are unmarried when they become pregnant will receive an abortion. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.
· Race - 63% of abortion patients are white. African-American women are more than 3 times as likely to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.5 times as likely.
· Religion - 43% of women getting an abortion identify as Protestant & 27% Catholic.
Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children.
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
· 2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

reply from: BossMomma

That's why we have birth control folks, prevent conception and you prevent abortion.

reply from: Banned Member

WE HAVE BIRTH CONTROL SO THAT PROSTITUTES CAN KEEP UP A GOOD BUSINESS WITHOUT ANY INTERUPTIONS. WE HAVE ABORTION SO THAT PROSTITUTES CAN KILL THEIR BABIES AND THEN WHINE ABOUT HOW PRO-LIFERS ARE NOT COMPASSIONATE ENOUGH TOWARDS THEM WHEN THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT KILLING THEIR BABIES!

reply from: Banned Member

I'm 35 and never had sex. I am abstinant. Can you say that you murdered your babies CarolMarie? Just say it and be honest about who you are and what you have done. Say that you murdered your babies! You will never be committed to helping the unborn until you do!

reply from: BossMomma

You're denying your future children life! Repent you killer of potential life!

reply from: Banned Member

ABORTION DOES NOT KILL POTENTIAL LIFE, ABORTION KILLS REAL LIFE!

reply from: BossMomma

Abstinance kills potential life, get out there and get laid, do your reproductive duty!

reply from: Banned Member

Abstinance preserves integrity and decency! Abstinance speaks of character and respect for ones own self and for others. I respect myself and respect women. I will not simply use them for sex, or allow them to use me for sex. I will speak the truth always and everywhere!

reply from: 4given

Indeed it does.
I will speak the truth always and everywhere! ..

reply from: Carifairy

Religion is PERSONAL.
If two people, married or not, wish to use each other for pleasure, then by all means be my guest. They are certainly not harming you..Or YOUR way of life.. No one else's sex life affects YOUR abstinent life, or the life you choose to lead. Other people being promiscuous or enjoying sex does not force you to do the same, it has absolutely zero affect on you at all.
""""· 43% of women will have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old (this statistic includes miscarriages in the term "abortion").""""
No, that stat does not include 'miscarriages'. Miscarriages are not ELECTIVE abortions..Two totally separate things.
1 in 3 women will have an actual ABORTION in her lifetime. That is an accurate stat.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

From a source that you all will not consider 'biased'.
Likelihood of abortion:
An estimated 43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion.
It does not say "miscarriages' falsely called abortion...etc... It says ABORTION.

reply from: Nulono

Actually, "conception" was redefined a implantation specifically so such methods could be called "contraceptives".

reply from: yoda

There is no such thing.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Well, Augustine, that is one of the STUPIDEST posts you have ever made!
I would venture to guess that VERY FEW prostitutes use any birth control other than condoms, which also serve to prevent the spread of disease.
There are literally millions of women who are NOT prostitutes who use birth control simply because they DO NOT WANT TO GET PREGNANT at that particular time in their lives. And quite a few of them are MARRIED.
Where the heck do you live, Reno NV??? At least half the prostitutes in my area are MEN. And of course prostitution is legal. Yet, birth control is very popular (except among the Amish and Mennonites) and there are not a lot of unwanted pregnancies. Why not? Because the Amish and Mennonites want LOTS of kids to work on their farms, and the rest of us simply plan our children, or have as many as we want and don't want accidental pregnancies.
Find a good wife, Augustine, before you drive all the decent women away with your extremely warped views of sexuality.

reply from: yoda

Again, Augustine, consider the source........

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Oh, do you agree with his post? Surely you're not that stupid. I thought Augustine wasn't stupid either, until that particular post.
But maybe the two of you know a lot of prostitutes, and that's how you came up with the idea that prostitutes are availing themselves of abortions left and right.
I wouldn't know. I have never even met a prostitute, but apparently you both have many in your circle of acquaintances.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I was referring to "birth control" as a general term including even such things as the "morning after" pill.
The morning after pill is contraceptive control. Its ONLY proven and intended function is to prevent ovulation. Period. It is NOT meant to prevent implantation, and it does not do so.
I sure hope you realize that millions of your sperm die every single day.
So, people who drive in cars should not use seatbelts, because this means they are not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions.
ANY safety procedure at all should never be used. Lead in paint? Not a problem; because removing lead paint means the children not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions. No condoms. Oh! No washing your hands before surgery, because that means the doctor and patient not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions. No washing your hands after going to the bathroom. No washing your food. NO SAETY PROCEDURES at all because it means you not capable of dealing with the consequences of their own actions!!

reply from: ChristianLott2

You're denying your future children life! Repent you killer of potential life!
You really hit the limit on stupidity this time boss.

reply from: lycan

I've respected much of Augustine's choices, until he said what he did to CaroleMarie in that post.

reply from: Carifairy

Funny... Legal prostitutes in NEVADA always use condoms..
Since prost. has been legal in Nevada, and there is mandatory WEEKLY STD testing, not a single STD has been found.
If these condoms are preventing STD's so well, one would assume they do the same for pregnancy.
Many prostitutes also use birth control, I would imagine..

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Condoms and birth control work well when the woman AND the man are part of the equation - especially for condoms.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You're denying your future children life! Repent you killer of potential life!
You really hit the limit on stupidity this time boss.
No, Augustine hit the limit years ago I'm sure, since he's been stupid ever since I've known him. BossMomma is simply dishing his stupidity back at him.

reply from: yoda

I think he just said out loud what many of us who know the history here were thinking, but not saying.

reply from: yoda

And yet..... you are so certain in your opinion that you call us "stupid"...
Really, when one calls other people stupid for their opinion on something that THEY THEMSELVES ADMIT that they know NOTHING ABOUT.....
What does that tell you?

reply from: Carifairy

So.... When someone seeks to turn their life around, to share her story with other's in hopes to encourage, they are now sunbject to ridicule instead if love and acceptance?
I get that you are an atheist yoda, so it is not necessarily a 'spiritual' matter for you, but still..
People have pasts.. I would hate to think that when anyone 'looks' at her all they see is a 'past'.

reply from: carolemarie

A good portion of prostitutes keep their children. They are more likely to have the baby then to have an abortion. Abortion is more common in the commercial sex trade because of the nature of the people involved (high risk behaviors, emotional trauma etc...)

reply from: carolemarie

I am honest about who I am. I am a born again Christian. I stand outside of abortion clinics and help women choose life! And I have done that for 13 years, plus working on legislation and in a pregnancy help center and doing post abortion recovery classes.
What do you do, just talk? I already am committed to women and their children.

reply from: yoda

No one here has been ridiculed by me, except maybe you. I ridicule statements that I consider ridiculous, no matter who makes them. Do you not know the difference?
Still what? Do you think that morality is any less important to me? If it were, I surely would not be here now. BTW, I'm agnostic, NOT atheist.
So would I. I would also hate to think that just because someone has confessed their past here, they get a "pass" to say anything they want to, without fear of a response from those who disagree with them. Do you really think having a "past" makes your statements immune here?

reply from: Carifairy

Abortion is more common in the commercial sex trade because of the nature of the people involved (high risk behaviors, emotional trauma etc...)
True.. Sex trafficking and teen sex trade victims are more likely to have (forced) abortions. They are also unfortunately very likely to have STD's, health problems, and other serious issues.

reply from: Carifairy

Yoda~
"""So would I. I would also hate to think that just because someone has confessed their past here, they get a "pass" to say anything they want to, without fear of a response from those who disagree with them. Do you really think having a "past" makes your statements immune here?"""
I am not saying that anyone deserves a 'pass' at anything that is 'said' or expressed...not at all..
I just notice that carolemarie is often 'picked on' unprovoked'.. It seems that this is a result of her mentioning her 'past', a past that she is sharing in order to help others.

reply from: yoda

Some people have a longer memory than others, but I wouldn't say that there wasn't ever any provocation. I'm not going to dwell in the past myself, but I'm not going to get into how other people deal with their feelings about the slaughter of the unborn, but I'm sure you would not understand that anyway. Some of us do have strong passions about the slaughter, and you of course take part in it so you must defend it.
I handle such matters by PM when I feel the need to, I have found that it does no good at all to air your grievances in public, it simply inflames people. And we get plenty enough of that.

reply from: yoda

I thought you said you were taking a break from protesting/counseling?

reply from: Teresa18

I'm opposed to birth control because I'm a Catholic, and the Church teaches it is immoral. The Church teaches that sex should be both unitive and procreative. It is a man and woman uniting before God in the covenant they made on their wedding day. They give fully to each other; they become one and are open to new life God gives. Couples can use NFP or abstain from the sexual act during the time a woman is fertile. It is healthier for the woman because it is natural, and she doesn't have to worry about side effects from birth control.
Contraception cheapens the gift of life. It treats life as an ailment that must be prevented, in some cases by deliberately causing a woman's body to malfunction. Contraception reduces sex to a mere a pleasurable act, separated from it's unitive and procreative functions in marriage. It makes it easy for one person to use another as a sexual object. Life is an undue burden that gets in the way of that pleasure. It's a part of the self-gratification culture that exists today.
This is from the Catechism:

reply from: carolemarie

I did.
Now I go about once a month because I have school and the other ministry to run. I still do post abortion outreach and all that. I still help the crisis center. I am just not at the clinic every week.

reply from: 4given

I agree.
Teresa, have you met Augustine?

reply from: Banned Member

Somtimes I feel like I have more in common with a 4th century Bishop than a 35 year old living in the early years of the 21st century.

reply from: 4given

That very well may be true. You are an honorable man and worthy of far more respect than what is extended here.

reply from: Teresa18

LOL! Both being Catholic, our views are similar.

reply from: 4given

Well in many more ways than faith alone..

reply from: Teresa18

My view is based on my faith, though.

reply from: yoda

We could all learn a lot from Augustine, by his example alone.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yeah! If we all becone ignorant, obnoxious blowhards like Augustine, no one will have sex with any one of us - thus curbing the number of abortions in America.
Yeah true, but I'd weep for the species...

reply from: yoda

You know, an insult from spinny is worth a thousand compliments from a sane person.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Oh? There are SANE people here? Could have fooled me . . .

reply from: BossMomma

Oh? There are SANE people here? Could have fooled me . . .
Hey! WTF am I? Chopped liver?

reply from: Rosalie

It is a counter-productive display of anti-women, freakishly controlling and bigoted attitude. It's simply people thinking they have the right to force their (religious) views on other people and attempt to control women's reproductive choices and their lifestyle.
So everyone who does not conform to your religion is a prostitute?
The term religious freedom is lost on you, right?
Honestly, it's hard for me to believe that people like you still exist. Thank God your kind is dying out.
You're nothing but a sad fundie with no life at all who can do nothing about his sexual frustration but quote the outdated fan fition and insult and name-call women and couples who know true love and/or who enjoy sex, because you are jealous and envious of all of them. No wonder no one loves you.
She is attacked in nearly every thread by faithman and his cronies. That you ignore it is just so typical for your kind of "pro-lifer".
I love how all of you fundies treat sex as thought it was something horrible, as thought pleasure was unacceptable, as thought this was the 17th century.
Maybe you've never gotten laid aside from when you wanted to conceive a child, or maybe you have a really bad experience and that's why you cannot understand, accept or respect that people have sex for many other reasons than procreating.
I find the way you are trying to cheapen sex, love and relationships of others because they are not in agreement with your PERSONAL religion absolutely outrageous and wrong.
That very well may be true. You are an honorable man and worthy of far more respect than what is extended here.
There's nothing respectable about that person.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

For most of mankind's history, in nearly every culture, sex has been considered natural and healthy, even when marriage was not part of the relationship. It is only in the reign of terror known as Roman Catholicism that sex has become dirty, forbidden and the cause of much guilt.
Remember, these are the folks who are sooooooooooo guilty that they believe newborn babies are sinners due only to Adam and Eve's "original sin." How sad to dump such an unfixable burden onto a tiny baby!
I always have and always will avoid this cult of male-dominated, sad, guilty people. How on earth can a woman live comfortably inside a cult ruled by virginal, celibate men ruled by another man who believes he is God's infallible emissary??

reply from: Cecilia

I think that is a very insightful thing to think about yourself. You view women the same way.
I love how all of you fundies treat sex as thought it was something horrible, as thought pleasure was unacceptable, as thought this was the 17th century.
Maybe you've never gotten laid aside from when you wanted to conceive a child, or maybe you have a really bad experience and that's why you cannot understand, accept or respect that people have sex for many other reasons than procreating.
I find the way you are trying to cheapen sex, love and relationships of others because they are not in agreement with your PERSONAL religion absolutely outrageous and wrong.
Very nice quote from you BossMomma. I think many prolifers with this attitude towards sex have been indoctrinated into religious beliefs that sex is all bad unless you make a baby to raise to tithe to the church and that their bodies are shameful.
I believe a 35 year old virgin is not virgin by choice but it is more convenient and less embarrassing to say so. There is something wrong with 35 year old vrigin who is so vindictive against women. My gut says some pathology is at work here.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And what the heck is up with the prostitute obsession? I could really read a lot into that if I thought about it for a long time . . .

reply from: socratease


Can you give an example of Catholic doctrine describing sex as "dirty and forbidden"?
Catholicism does not say newborn babies are "sinners" but that they have inherited the stain of Orginal Sin, and this is "fixable" by Baptism.
What is your basis of saying this "cult" is ruled by the "sad" and "guilty"?
Do you understand what "infallibility" means regarding the Pope?
The reason men and women can live within this "cult" is because they believe it to be of God and believe it to be the means of their Eternal Salvation.

reply from: sheri

You "ladies" sound a bit threaghtened by the Catholic church, I think you should look into our reasoning a little more before you rain down judgment on us. You do realize that abortion is a deaply personal issue for Augustine? I am sure you can empathize with the post abortive women in your camp and understand why they are so rabidly prochoice, try putting yourself in the shoes of the other party, the preborn baby, and understand that if your life had been threaghtened with abortion how very much against it you would be.

reply from: socratease

The ignorance in this statement is astonishing.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

THREATENED??? Oh, hell no. Seriously, I thank God daily that I was born into an Anabaptist Protestant family.
With 2 exceptions, every person I know who was born Catholic has left the Church forever. Mostly they are men, too. Boy, do they ever open up and have a good time after that fear of guilt is gone!

reply from: sheri

Astonishing because you would not think anyone would so openly flaunt their ignorance. Have they never heard of John Paul II? or read any church teaching at all?

reply from: Cecilia

The ignorance in this statement is astonishing.
Really. Then you need to get out more. Or read this thread -posters say sex only for procreation, sex for any other purpose is shameful and punished by "eternal death", Catholic church says birth control bad so it must be.
If that is not idiotic doctrination then the my foot is green.

reply from: sheri

Open up? Care to expond on that? They became sexually licentious you mean.

reply from: socratease

So Anabaptists get to have orgies and stuff, and it's ok to fornicate? I can see why some would want to be in your church, if that's the case.
I agree that it is hard to be a Catholic sometimes. There are all kinds of temptations in the world that can lure someone out of the Church and cause them to "open up and have a 'good' time."

reply from: sheri

ASTONISHING, have you ever heard of Paul VI? Do you know what Humane Vitae is?

reply from: sheri

educate yourself, then come back and apologize for your untrue statements.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

reply from: Rosalie

Exactly.
That was me who said what you quoted, not BossMomma.
But if it's not, they're sinners even though they've never done anything. What a wonderful religion... NOT.
If it doesn't, why do so many catholics put it this way and cheapen sex between unmarried people by insulting the act AND the people?
You, "lady", have no idea what you're talking about, once again.
Speaking AGAINST certain religion doesn't mean that 1. we are not educated enough about that religion (for all you know we/I could've been a Catholic most of my life), 2. that we are threatened by it. I disagree with what the religion and people following it preach and therefore I say what I think about it.
I know enough about Catholicism and I always call it as I see it. If you don't like it, too bad. Your religion is not automatically exempt of critisim just because it's YOUR religion.
If my life was threatend with abortion, I wouldn't care because I wouldn't have the capacity to know that I exist, that anyone/anything else exist etc. Please don't be ridiculous.

reply from: sheri

No, if you make silly untrue claims you do not know enough about the subject to condenm it. You may very well have been a catholic all your life and yet still know very little about the realigion you were born into, just because your born amish doesnt mean your born with the ability to make bread.

reply from: Rosalie

Really? Do you read this board at all? I was reacting to claims of "christians", I was not making anything up.
Isn't it just like a "pro-lifer" to ignore that fact, though.

reply from: sheri

For prolifers to ignore? Surely you jest! You people cant even admit that our pictures of abortions are real, you argue that the preborn are not capable of feeling pain, you propose that abortion is the epitomy of modern medicine and damned near, the cure for the common cold and then you tell US to face facts. Im begining to think you wouldnt know a fact if you tripped over it.

reply from: Teresa18

I love how you refer to me as a Fundamentalist when I have made clear that I am Catholic. Learn the difference.
I never said pleasure was "unacceptable". Sex is pleasurable. I said it should be unitive (uniting a husband and wife together in their covenant they made with God) and procreative (this means open to the possibility of the gift of life). A couple can use natural family planning, or avoid sex during the times a woman is fertile. Sex is still unitive and open to life in times where a woman is not fertile, but the chance of life being concieved is much less likely. Perhaps you ought to read what I posted from the Catechism.
I'm saving myself for marriage.
I'm not the one cheapening sex, love, or relationships. If everyone in the world followed the Catholic Church's policy there would be no instances of random hookups where people use each other for sex, no out of wedlock birthrate, no abortions, no STDs, and stable families.

reply from: Teresa18

I've never heard tell of such a thing. I'm just a Catholic. Period. I strive to follow the teachings of the Church. The term Fundamentalism, which has now been generalized by liberals, used to refer to a group of Protestants.

reply from: Rosalie

Yes, way too many "pro-lifers" ignore everything and anything that doesn't fit their agenda.
That's because they're not. You have NO real medical evidence and you clearly have no idea that it's not difficult to doctor a photo. When you have REAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE from medical journals and respectable, unbiased sources (meaning MEDICAL and not affiliated with any pro-life organization), show me. It won't change my pro-choice stance, though.
Well, they are in the third trimester. Not in the first trimester, when 98% of abortions happen.
Have you ever heard of this magical thing called cerebral cortex?
What? LOL
You are aware that abortion has been around for centuries, right?
Someone should make a drinking game out of this ... you people just lie all the time, how do you do that?

reply from: Rosalie

I love how you refer to me as a Fundamentalist when I have made clear that I am Catholic. Learn the difference.
Learn to read, Theresa. There's a difference between a Fundamentalis and fundamentalist, religious person.
FUNDAMENTALIST
(n) fundamentalism (the interpretation of every word in the sacred texts as literal truth)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=fundamentalism

This is what I was refering to. Please learn the difference.
You sure act like that.
How do you know?
I suppose no one ever told you to not shove your religion down other people's throats?
You are most likely not aware of the fact that 1. not everyone is or wants to be christian, 2. religion is your PERSONAL choice and you are NOT allowed to force it on others.
If I were to choose a religion to follow the way YOU do, Christianity wouldn't be it. It wouldn't be even in my top ten. I don't think it's a good religion at all - some basics ARE good but it's completely outdated and you people twisted it into a disgusting cult. No, thank you. Now it's YOUR turn to learn that there's a LOT of people who do not want your religion. Keep it.
THAT is your choice and your business.
Oh yes you are.
You wrote:
Contraception cheapens the gift of life.
...
Contraception reduces sex to a mere a pleasurable act, separated from it's unitive and procreative functions in marriage.It makes it easy for one person to use another as a sexual object. Life is an undue burden that gets in the way of that pleasure. It's a part of the self-gratification culture that exists today.
The "facts" you are claiming it are lies that you are parroting just because you are fanatically following your religion and are absolutely unable to respect those who don't and their choices. You basically have no idea what you're talking about but you feel you have the right to judge, condemn, insult and cheapen people who don't give a crap about your religion as well as their relationships and sex.
You're like a she-Augustine. He does the very same thing, for the very same reason.

reply from: Teresa18

Ok. Fundamentalism still refers to a group of Protestants, but the term has since been generalized.
I never said it.
Anyone who has had sex ed knows that.
How am I shoving it down your throat? I am discussing my views on faith on a message board. In yet another classic display of liberal "tolerance", you consider that to be shoving it down you throat. We all know you liberals are only "tolerant" of those with whom you agree. You aren't tolerant of opposing beliefs, with an emphasis on those of Christians. That's why there is such support by liberals of the Fairness Doctrine and Hate Crimes laws. You guys can't even stand to HEAR Christian views different than your own that stand in the way of your liberal agenda. While often saying you have no religion, liberals share many of the same ideals as secular humanists. It's ok for you guys to pedal your secular humanist agenda across the nation, but it's not ok for Christians to do the same.
I never cheapened sex, love, or relationships. I said contraception does that.
I believe the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth and is absolutely correct.
Romans Chapter 1
I have expressed what my faith teaches and I believe to be correct. Just because you aren't Christian, doesn't mean you haven't judged, condemned, and insulted conservative Christians who disagree with your liberal, secular humanist ways.
You also failed to address this point:
"If everyone in the world followed the Catholic Church's policy there would be no instances of random hookups where people use each other for sex, no out of wedlock birthrate, no abortions, no STDs, and stable families."

Thanks!

reply from: BossMomma

Thanks!
lol maybe you two should meet some day, Augie might just score before he becomes the 40 year old virgin.

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.youtube.com/user/LiveActionFilms
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood is covering up for would-be 31 year old rapists!

reply from: Teresa18

There's an age gap there. He's older than me.

reply from: BossMomma

There's an age gap there. He's older than me.
Age doesn't make too a difference as long as your legal.

reply from: sheri

C, watch this video, then let me know how its been doctored and also how it should be improved to make it look more like an actual abortion where the child dies a nice clean painless death.http://www.abortionno.org/

reply from: BossMomma

Funny, all I saw was a vagina and forceps, no body parts. For all you know she was having a dead fetus removed, you know, fetal demise happens.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Abortion? There's no such thing!

reply from: Rosalie

That's why I made sure I did not capitalize the "f". I thought you knew what the word means, but I was clearly wrong.
Is pleasurable sexual activity unacceptable outside marriage?
Then you should also know that it's not always pleasurable and that the pleasure depends on many factors.
You are shoving it down my throat by judging condemning other opinions, lifestyles and religions than your own. That's NOT okay, never was, never will be.
I absolutely tolerate and respect your religion and your beliefs. Believe it or not, there are many Christians in my life - thankfully, none of them resemble certain bigots who post around here. But I will NOT tolerate you fanatically trying to get everyone to live by them and insult them, their relationships or their lifestyle if they don't do it.
Which is a lie you say only because you have been brainwashed by your religion.
And you ARE cheapening sex, love and relationship of those who use contraception and love each other as much as those who don't. You're nothing but a fanatic.
And I think it's crap. And contrary to what YOU think, your opinion has no more weight than mine.
False, because morality is not exclusive to any religion, least of all to Christianity. There's nothing wrong with random hookups, out-of-wedlock births and abortions and one parent families or homosexual families can be just as stable as what you claim to be the only stable family model (two-parent, male-and-female).
The rest of it is just life. There'll always be good and bad things. That's how it works. I don't know how old you are but you SHOULD know that.
That wasn't a compliment and it's frightening that you are proud of something like that.

reply from: yoda

That's right, there's no such thing as abortion, no babies are ever killed, in fact there is no such thing as a baby.
There now, we've settled all the issues.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Thanks. It's all cleared up now.

reply from: Rosalie

Who exactly said that there's no such thing as abortion?

reply from: scopia19822

"Which is a lie you say only because you have been brainwashed by your religion."
I left religion in my teens and engaged in casual sex, hook ups etc and maybe it is because of the way I was raised or maybe just my nature. But the meaningless experinces I had made me feel cheap and used. I was left feeling empty emotionally. I believe that sex is a spiritual and emotionally charged experince. In the Catholic Church sex between a husband and wife is considered a form of prayer. When I first met my husband was the 1st time I ever had a true multi orgasm experinece, because it was sex with someone that I loved and not a mere "hook up" I value quality over quantity. I think that people should wait to have sex until they are adult and not until they meet a person they truly love. Sex should never be out of lust, to do so is to cheapen what should be a wonderful experince between two people that love each other. I believe that sex should be in the confines of marriage, but do not feel it is my place to judge those who do it outside the confines of marriage. I leave that to God. I was raped and sodomized 2 years ago when my husband and I were seperated. I now find sex repulsive and cant do it without reliving that experince. I wish that I could be able to enjoy a fulfilling sex life with the man I am married too. I dont ever want to have sex again because of what happened to me. Any woman that has a man(or woman) that truly loves her and has a fulfilling sex life should consider herself doubly blessed.

reply from: 4given

Funny, all I saw was a vagina and forceps, no body parts. For all you know she was having a dead fetus removed, you know, fetal demise happens.
Sure. So you think the actual technique (abortion) would be done any differently on a live baby?! Seriously. I am surprised by your recent claims. You aren't slow by any means. Please explain.

reply from: scopia19822

"Funny, all I saw was a vagina and forceps, no body parts. For all you know she was having a dead fetus removed, you know, fetal demise happens."
I clearly saw limbs Boss. Even if the fetus was already dead that is a very undignfied way to remove it. The child should be removed intact. It looked to me to be a 2nd trimester abortion, where the forceps were pulling the child limb from limb. Which was the type of abortion that was done on me. I am shaking right now as I type this to think this is the horrible death my daughter had. What pain she must have suffered... I do believe that fetuses feel pain, their nerves are alot closer to the skin. I now have a graphic image of what went on while I was knocked out. My ex was probably out in the waiting room jerking off the whole time. I fear I will not sleep tonight as I will not be able to get that bloody image out of my mind.

reply from: Teresa18

Sex is for marriage.
People have faith and beliefs which are posted on discussion forums such as this one. The owner of this forum is Christian, and a lot of Christians post here. Faith and beliefs differ. Obviously I believe my faith and beliefs are right or I wouldn't hold them. I believe there are faiths and beliefs that are wrong. I am citing what I believe, and you can't stand it because I disagree with you. This is typical of liberals. You are only tolerant of those with whom you agree, even if you try to claim otherwise. If you feel my faith and beliefs are insulting, that is your problem, but I am forcing no one to do anything by citing what I believe. You have been very insulting of Christians and pro-lifers here, thinking that Christians should shut up; yet it's ok for you to promote your secular humanist beliefs here, condemning and insulting those who you disagree with.
I am saying that sex is to be an unitive and procreative (open to life) experience between a man and a woman. The man and woman give fully of each other before God, solidifying the covenant made on the wedding day. Contraception distorts sex. A couple can't fully unite before God and be open to life.

I believe in absolute standards of morality, so I disagree that every faith and belief is equal. There is an objective truth. Something can not be both right and wrong at the same time.
Appeal to age is a common liberal ad hominem which is irrelevant to this conversation.
Of course you didn't mean it as such, but I took it as such.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

So Anabaptists get to have orgies and stuff, and it's ok to fornicate? I can see why some would want to be in your church, if that's the case.
I agree that it is hard to be a Catholic sometimes. There are all kinds of temptations in the world that can lure someone out of the Church and cause them to "open up and have a 'good' time."
Orgies?? Fornication??? Honey, do a little research on Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, Amish, etc. Most Anabaptists are so strict that women wear long dresses and head coverings!
I'm not going to poke a hornet's nest by going into what we are taught about the Roman Catholic Church. Let's just say we don't care one whit what the Pope (or any Church official) has to say about ANYTHING because we do NOT recognize those men in the same way you do.

reply from: BossMomma

Funny, all I saw was a vagina and forceps, no body parts. For all you know she was having a dead fetus removed, you know, fetal demise happens.
Sure. So you think the actual technique (abortion) would be done any differently on a live baby?! Seriously. I am surprised by your recent claims. You aren't slow by any means. Please explain.
A fetus who has died some time ago may have begun to decay making the body too soft to remove intact. It may well have been an abortion but you don't know, all you see is an abortion procedure. I know that pro-lifers use those videos for the shock value and so I take it with a grain of salt.

reply from: Rosalie

Sex is for marriage.
As far as your religion/your private decision is concerned.
You did not answer my question, though. Is pleasurable sexual activity unacceptable outside marriage? Yes/No.
And?
Well, thanks for stating that, Captain Obvious.
It is useless to debate with you because you are not listening AT ALL. You are prejudicde and you are applying your prejudice and hatred on me and my opinion, without actually knowing anything about me of my beliefs. Fanatic.
That's not how it works, Theresa. Either Christians and pro-lifers will treat me right and I'll do the same in return, or they won't but in that case you can't expect me to be respectful towards you.
YOUR RELIGION DOES NOT GIVE YOU A FREE PASS TO INSULT OTHERS, TO JUDGE OTHERS OR TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THEM.
Someone did a good job making a fanatic who does not think for herself out of you.
Try to use your brain next time, instead of parroting the brainwashed crap all the time.
So let me make a comparison right there.
The people who attacked us on 9/11 believed the same. They believed THEIR religion is the only true way to God, that all other beliefs are wrong, that their beliefs are superior.
They've only taken their self-righteousness and fanaticism it a few steps further than you have. Other than that, your line of thinking is exactly the same.
Wrong. It would be ad hominem if I used your (supposed) age to insult you. I did no such thing. I only said that I'd hope you are old enough to understand that life consists of good and bad moments and they're all important.
Iff you actually listened to what I am saying instead of looking for an insult, you'd realize that. Or your reading comprehension may be out of whack.
Naturally.

reply from: Teresa18

If sex is for marriage, than yes.
It seemed like a concept you were having trouble grasping.
Listening, to you, would be me shutting up and accepting your beliefs. Speaking of prejudiced, I could say that you are prejudiced towards pro-lifers and Christians. You are a liberal, pro-abort fanatic.
I merely cited my beliefs. You were the one that took up issue with them. You are the one who is not kind to Christians and pro-lifers here. Just because you are not religious, doesn't mean you have the right to attack Christians.
How about you address my points instead of getting into personal attacks from Liberal 101.
A FEW steps?!! LMAO!

reply from: yoda

You know what Lib says: "Some people just deserve to be attacked". You and I must be in that category.

reply from: BossMomma

You know what Lib says: "Some people just deserve to be attacked". You and I must be in that category.
Well when your constantly up someone elses ass you can expect them to jump up yours in return.

reply from: ChristianLott2

she's psycho. I'd just ignore her.
Merry Christmas (eve) everyone

reply from: yoda

Curiously, that isn't how she tried to "justify" her attacks at all. She didn't say "s/he has been attacking me", she just said "some people deserve to be attacked". If she HAD said that someone had been attacking her, then we could've asked "where?", but she didn't say that.
And I know this is a complicated concept, but attacking someone's ideas and/or statements isn't exactly a justification for a personal attack, IMHO.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You know what Lib says: "Some people just deserve to be attacked". You and I must be in that category.
Well when your constantly up someone elses ass you can expect them to jump up yours in return.
I've never tried to really justify my attacks, and my comment above wasn't meant to "justify" my attacks, just explain them. I don't want to justify myself. Because those people constantly DO try to justify themselves; I'm better than them by being truthful and fessing up to it. They will weasel out of it any way they can, it's hilarious to watch!! "I'm not insulting her, I'm saying the truth!" If I call someone fat, it may be true but it's still insulting!! Most of the time they're NOT saying the truth, or are only spouting opinions that they CONSIDER fact.

reply from: 4given

Oh goodness. You said "her". Does that mean you were attacking Teresa?!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Huh? Nope, I have the good habit of actually saying the name of the person I'm insulting. You can be sure that if I want to insult you, I'll make it very clear. That way we can't have any of this "she said, he said" nonsense.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Originally posted by: LiberalChiRo
May I ask your age?

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that's the impression I got..... you didn't feel any need to justify your attacks, you were just saying that they were going to be happening, and they were the fault of those you attacked, so we might just as well expect them. And, of course, that there was nothing anyone could do about them.
Isn't that about right?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yeah, that's the impression I got..... you didn't feel any need to justify your attacks, you were just saying that they were going to be happening, and they were the fault of those you attacked, so we might just as well expect them. And, of course, that there was nothing anyone could do about them.
Isn't that about right?
Justifications are just excuses. I don't need excuses because I'm not trying to get away with anything.

reply from: 4given

Well if you have a habit.. yawn.
Agreed.

reply from: yoda

Just as I thought.... when you attack someone, it's always their fault.
Must be nice.

reply from: nancyu

What's the problem with making the lining of the uterus unreceptive to implantation? The majority of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed out naturally.
And many people die naturally, so what is wrong with murdering them?

reply from: nancyu

Personhood legislation recognizes the unborn as persons. That has nothing whatsoever to do with banning birth control.
That is the problem with you. That perceived threat to birth control is more important to you than respecting and saving lives.

reply from: nancyu

Not to nitpick too much, but in reality such legislation would not really change the reality of the situation; it would simply recognize what already is the case, that every human being is a person. We don't need to declare that life begins at conception because science has already declared that. All we can do is recognize the fact. Good laws don't create reality but merely recognize it. Life begins at conception and an unborn child is a person, regardless of whether or not the law recognizes it or not.

reply from: nancyu

It's technically contraceptive control, idiot.
NO hormonal birth control has been proven by ANY reputable research to cause ANY kind of miscarriage.
You're the idiot, you idiot. You totally missed the point of his post. Did he say contraception killed a child? No he did not. Reread it dummy.

reply from: yoda

What? You're actually asking a LIBERAL to take back a bad name she called someone?
Didn't you read where she explained how it's always the fault of the person she's calling the name?

reply from: BossMomma

What's the problem with making the lining of the uterus unreceptive to implantation? The majority of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed out naturally.
And many people die naturally, so what is wrong with murdering them?
Apples and oranges dear, there is a far cry between murdering someone and not allowing an egg to implant. 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are flushed out of her system naturally, with your line of thinking who knows how many "babies" each of us has lost.

reply from: scopia19822

"Apples and oranges dear, there is a far cry between murdering someone and not allowing an egg to implant. 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs are flushed out of her system naturally, with your line of thinking who knows how many "babies" each of us has lost."
One is an act of nature the other is not.

reply from: BossMomma

Would it make that big a difference?

reply from: scopia19822

"Would it make that big a difference?"
To some who believe like I do that life begins at conception it can. I personally dont have a problem with giving the MAP to rape victims, I dont really per se have a problem with barrier methods used on fertile days if a married couple wants to have sex and avoid a pregnancy just as long as they dont use it on the infertile days.Although I personally would never do so.

reply from: BossMomma

Well, not everyone believes as you do. I'd rather a pregnancy never take place than someone allow the egg to implant, a heart and brain to develop then have an abortion and truly destroy a child. In the event of say, rape, I see no reason why a woman should be forced to allow implantation and pregnancy when she didn't even concent to the sex that may or may not have resulted in fertilization.

reply from: scopia19822

"Well, not everyone believes as you do. I'd rather a pregnancy never take place than someone allow the egg to implant, a heart and brain to develop then have an abortion and truly destroy a child. In the event of say, rape, I see no reason why a woman should be forced to allow implantation and pregnancy when she didn't even concent to the sex that may or may not have resulted in fertilization."
My beef with the Hormonal birth control is not that is causes "abortions", but of the risks and side effects that go along with them. Blood clot, stroke and heart attacks are should be enough to deter a woman from taking the Pill if she does not have a medical problem and needs it to relieve bleeding or regulate her cycle.. Not to mention if a person has a history of depression or aniexty it can worsen the symptoms. I dont like the IUD either because it can perforate through the uterus causing a woman to bleed to death if not surgically removed, it can also cause infection to the reproductive organs and cause permnant infertilty. I would like to see the IUD and the Patch taken off the market. We have seen too many women die of blood clots alone among Patch users, there was a class action law suit in place among those who were injuried by it or relatives of those who died.

reply from: BossMomma

Heck look at what I went through in pregnancy, either option has it's risks.

reply from: scopia19822

"Heck look at what I went through in pregnancy, either option has it's risks."
Everything has risks, but I never have understood why anyone would want to put a "medication" in their body to make it not work the way it supposed too like in the case of the Pill or other hormonal methods or a foreign object in their body if they have nothing wrong with them. If one wants to prevent pregnancy their are safer methods available like the diaphragm, condoms, spermicide or the cervical cap.

reply from: BossMomma

The diaphragm, condom and, cervical cap are foreign objects just the same.

reply from: scopia19822

"The diaphragm, condom and, cervical cap are foreign objects just the same."
Yes but they stay in the body for only a short time, just like a woman who uses a tampon during her monthly periods. The IUD stay in for as long as a decade and can only be removed by a doctor. Barrier methods are for short term use and when took out of the body unless one has an allergy to latex no long term adverse side effects.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't understand why you should be at all concerned with sexual lives of other people or "have problems" with how they choose to conduct their sexual and reproductive lives.
Well, if you don't want to take these risks, do not use hormonal birth control. Problem solved.
Why would you even try to have a say in this for other people? Just because you wouldn't do it no one should be able to? It's not your body, it's not your reproductive decision. It's none of your business.
Because there are many other reasons why women use birth control. Because wanting to prevent unwanted pregnancies is a valid reproductive choice and you have no right to say whether one should have it or not, just because you don't like the particular method.
What's this obsession with sexual lives of others?

reply from: Rosalie

Well, and I think that's not right. But I'm not trying to urge you to have sex outside of marriage. And that's the difference.
Lie. You're just looking for a reason to attack me.
No. Listening to me would be just that - listening to me. I am not trying to change what you believe, I'm trying to get you accept that there are more religion than yours, that your religion does not give you the right to attack, judge or insult people. That's all it means. Anything else is just your fanatical delusions.
Yes, I take up issues with fanaticism. That's not a bad thing. And I have been trying to explain to you the difference between a person of faith and a fanatic but you obviously don't understand that. You don't see the difference at all because you've long since crossed the line.
I would also like to inform you that disagree with what a religion preaches and how it treats people does not mean that I'm hating the followers of this religion.
That's just another thing you cannot grasp.
Why should I address your anti-women doctrine? You clearly have no problems with blind submission to an assume authority of the Christian Church, no matter how misogynistic and wrong it is. I do, that's why I would never follow it and would never advise anyone to follow it.
Yes, a few steps. Your way of thinking is the same. Or do you deny what you said before? That your religion is superior to all others, that your way of living life is the only good one and that only through YOUR religion one will be able to live good life and be granted after-life? Do you want to deny that? Do you also want to deny that this is exactly what the terrorists think? Because if so, you're a liar.
she's psycho. I'd just ignore her.
Merry Christmas (eve) everyone
You just don't like what I have to say so you're trying to insult me and degrade me. I'm used to this kind of treatment from people like you, that's the usual way you treat people you disagree with.

reply from: yoda

Would it make that big a difference?
A heart attack is an act of nature. Being shot in the heart is not.
Do you not see the difference?

reply from: BossMomma

Would it make that big a difference?
A heart attack is an act of nature. Being shot in the heart is not.
Do you not see the difference?
Sure I see the difference, but again it's apples and oranges. Making one's uterus unreceptive to implantation so that a pregnancy is avoided totally different than allowing life to take root, grow and develop a heart, body and, mind then having it killed.

reply from: yoda

Kill "it" now, or kill "it" later, it makes no moral difference.
It's still killing an innocent human being.

reply from: BossMomma

Kill "it" now, or kill "it" later, it makes no moral difference.
It's still killing an innocent human being.
No, it is allowing a fertilized egg to pass out of the body.

reply from: yoda

First, in human terms, there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg".
When the human egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg, it becomes a human zygote.
Second, whether or not it implants has no bearing on it's nature or it's identity. It remains true that the identity of the developing human being is still of the species Homo sapiens sapiens at all stages of development.
Being a member of that species, it cannot be other than a human being.

reply from: BossMomma

First, in human terms, there is no such thing as a "fertilized egg".
When the human egg is fertilized, it is no longer an egg, it becomes a human zygote.
Second, whether or not it implants has no bearing on it's nature or it's identity. It remains true that the identity of the developing human being is still of the species Homo sapiens sapiens at all stages of development.
Being a member of that species, it cannot be other than a human being.
Right, and the zygote has the opportunity to implant or not, if not the zygote passes out of the body during the period as are 80% of human zygotes. Women are not brood mares, we are not baby making machines and have the right to make ourselves either receptive to pregnancy or not. With your line of thinking childless couples going through IVF are murderers, thousands of embryos are destroyed just to bring life to a few. Without a heart, without a brain life exists only on a cellular level.

reply from: yoda

Honestly, I can't figure out what the natural success rate for implantation has to do with the intentional killing of pre-implantation babies. Lots of born babies die of SIDS too, so does that make infanticide less immoral?
You have the legal right, yes. So?
Creating way more embryos than you plan to implant, and then leaving the "excess" to die is immoral, IMO, and equally wrong as "murder". It's like giving birth to ten kids and saying "But I'm only going to keep the best looking one". Killing electively is killing, period.
That's the level your life exist on, too. All animal life is on a cellular level.
There's nothing moral about electively killing a human being before it has a chance to develop it's organs. It's still killing. It's still wrong.

reply from: BossMomma

Honestly, I can't figure out what the natural success rate for implantation has to do with the intentional killing of pre-implantation babies. Lots of born babies die of SIDS too, so does that make infanticide less immoral?
You have the legal right, yes. So?
Creating way more embryos than you plan to implant, and then leaving the "excess" to die is immoral, IMO, and equally wrong as "murder". It's like giving birth to ten kids and saying "But I'm only going to keep the best looking one". Killing electively is killing, period.
That's the level your life exist on, too. All animal life is on a cellular level.
There's nothing moral about electively killing a human being before it has a chance to develop it's organs. It's still killing. It's still wrong.
Some animals, if the conditions are not right can reabsorb a fetus thus killing it, polar bears have this ability. Since you compare human life to animal life why do you not demand that we stop the polar bear from 'killing' these babies? Pre-implantation babies? Skin cells can be cloned to reproduce human life yet we shed our skin cells daily and without thought. What is the difference? You are grasping at straws and you are failing.

reply from: yoda

Are you now claiming that polar bears consciously do that? Or that some women consciously, intentionally do that? Or is that just another distraction?
Skin cells, and all other differentiated cells, must go through a special process to allow them to reproduce and grow into mature human beings. Without going through that process, they are just differentiated cells, they are not growing human beings. That is the difference.
I think you are looking in the mirror on that "grasping" thing, and that "failing" thing too. You cannot evict human zygotes from membership in the human race by speaking disrespectfully of them and/or going on and on about their size and lack of development. They are still human beings.

reply from: BossMomma

Are you now claiming that polar bears consciously do that? Or that some women consciously, intentionally do that? Or is that just another distraction?
Skin cells, and all other differentiated cells, must go through a special process to allow them to reproduce and grow into mature human beings. Without going through that process, they are just differentiated cells, they are not growing human beings. That is the difference.
I think you are looking in the mirror on that "grasping" thing, and that "failing" thing too. You cannot evict human zygotes from membership in the human race by speaking disrespectfully of them and/or going on and on about their size and lack of development. They are still human beings.
Then go picket an IVF clinic and save some snow flake babies. I'm not grasping or failing to hold a rational argument for hormonal birth control, I am arguing with an irrational individual.

reply from: faithman

What the bortheads, and the false pro-lifers do not understand, is that there is more to life than this physical world, and our physical bodies. Our bodies are merely the containers of the precious substance Called life. Life has to have that container to express itself in the natural world. Even if the container is flawed, it still makes it possible for the miracle of life to be expressed. Our common value is not found in the container, but what is contained. The life of a womb child is equal to the life contained in all of us. The only legitimate breaking of this container, is if it has the compunction to smash other containers without cause. When you take way the ability to express life, you loose the great privilege to express your own. Evil aggression must be subdued, or no container can have any security from unjust breakage. To take away the possibility of this wonderful spark of life to be expressed, makes this world a darker place, and the rest of us containers a little more impoverished, and alone. Though the womb child is a small container, it does not lessen the value of the life it contains. If fellow containers do not value the life of the womb child container, then they have placed their personhood container in great jeopardy. Anyone who does not see that womb children are fellow human containers, containing life of equal value to their own, is a self destructive fool, drunk on the power to kill, and must be stopped for the sake of the rest of us life containers. It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.

reply from: yoda

We all have to pick our fights according to our resources, and set our priorities. Right now I don't have the resources to do that.
When all else fails, make a personal attack. So typical, and so sad.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Well said!
Yet Faithman is the first to insult women. An insult means the person you are addressing is lesser than you; clearly, faithman doesn't walk the walk.

reply from: yoda

What does that have to do with what he said, and what I agreed with?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

What does that have to do with what he said, and what I agreed with?
He said he believed that everyone was equal, yet he insults people, which means he thinks they are in fact not equal to him.
Yes, what he said in that one sentence was wonderful and lovely, but because I do not agree with how he usually delivers his opinions, nor the way he treats others, nor many of his other opinions, I cannot in right faith quote him. I'm sure Obama has said at least one thing you agree with, but I think it's unlikely you'd ever quote him either

reply from: yoda

No he did not. That's just your "interpretation".
Actually, I would not hesitate to do so.
Truth has no father, no mother. When it is out there, it is silly to reject it because you don't like it's origins. It's like rejecting a child of rape because of it's origins.

reply from: Teresa18

I can't force you to have sex inside of marriage; I can only say that I believe it the morally right thing to do.
Yep, you got me.
I realize there are other religions and belief sets, but this is adiscussion board. I am here to discuss my religion and beliefs and why I believe they are correct. If you take it as an insult that people disagree with your beliefs, perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a discussion board. You have a disdain for Christianity and pro-life beliefs, but you think you have a pass because you are a liberal atheist. Liberal atheists always believe that they have the right to promote their beliefs but Christians don't. When Christians do it, it's "fanatical", "imposing", "insulting", "judging", etc.
The Church isn't anti-woman. Being opposed to abortion and birth control does not make one anti-woman.
I believe my religion is correct. I believe the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth on matters of faith and morality. I believe that if one follows the Church, one will go to heaven. The Church teaches that God is the ultimate judge and will judge each person when they die. People that aren't Catholic can go to heaven, as God will judge what's in their hearts. The Church doesn't use violence to promote religion and force others to believe. Christ taught we are to share his teachings. Some will follow. Others won't. That's free will.
The Catholic Church is a very charitable organization. Many of their services help women. Look here:
http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1174

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No he did not. That's just your "interpretation".
I'm not sure how else to interpret: "It is the life in us that makes us equal, not our degree of ability to express it.". It seems pretty obvious to me that if you are alive, you are equal... That's what he was saying. What do you think he was saying?
Does anyone else feel I interpreted Faithman's words wrong?
Actually, I would not hesitate to do so.
Truth has no father, no mother. When it is out there, it is silly to reject it because you don't like it's origins. It's like rejecting a child of rape because of it's origins.
Would you quote Hitler? I wouldn't; not in a positive light.

reply from: faithman

What does that have to do with what he said, and what I agreed with?
Don't ya just love it when folks put words and thoughts in your head? If you were to actually read the piece, and quit putting a personal spin on it, you can see that I make a distinction between the container, and what is contained. We are equal in value as far as the life contained. But we are diverse ion ability to express it. A low life killer scanc is equal in value as far as life is concerned, to a good virtuous mom. One desides to spend her life currency giving life, and raising the next generation,while the other spends it slutting around and murdering the womb children they helped create. Then there are those who pretend to be pro-life, while devalueing the life inside a womb child at every turn. I do not place more value on the life of either as I have been falsly accused of doing. I believe that life of both mother and child are equal. That is a given. What I judge, which the scripture clearly teaches that we should, is the actions we take when we spend our life currancy. Killer scancs selfishly spend their precious gift of life, taking the same from others. When you take the gift of life from another, the only thing of equal value to repay the debt, is your own. Of course some are so open minded that their brains have fallen out, and have lost the ability to reason, or think logicly. All they can do is paint everything with the broad strokes of general statments, dipped in the pigment of womb child blood. But thats just me...

reply from: yoda

That all innocent life has the right not to be killed electively. It's very simple, it has nothing to do with equal rights, sensitivity training, or gender equality.
I have quoted him before, to make a point. There is no need to put a "light" on a quote, just quote the words. Words stand on their own, divorced from their source.
Try it sometime, just consider the words that someone says, and not the origin of the words. It might give you a whole new outlook.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, that makes it easier for them to attack you. After they've put words in your mouth, they attack those words AND you. Real convenient for them.
Posters seem to get carried away by their emotions a lot on this forum, and I think her hatred for you is more important to her than what you were saying, so she ignored your words and just went after you.
On the other hand, sometimes I think that you and I do that also. We're only human, after all.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That all innocent life has the right not to be killed electively. It's very simple, it has nothing to do with equal rights, sensitivity training, or gender equality.
Of course not... why should I expect such understanding from Faithman?
I have quoted him before, to make a point. There is no need to put a "light" on a quote, just quote the words. Words stand on their own, divorced from their source.
You do have to SOURCE your quotes, otherwise it's just plagarism.
I've been through too much higher education to do that. They pretty much beat into my head that plagarism is bad.
Also, as an artist I have a strong desire to understand a piece of work (writing/speeches even) in context to the person/place/time they were made. So much of modern art has been about ignoring context, and that really bothers me. Context is extremely important; without it, we may get the wrong impression of an event or person. Misjudging someone or something can be very dangerous. That's why I refuse to look at things out of context.

reply from: yoda

Because he is devoted to saving unborn children?
No, you do not. You can put quotation marks around it, without naming the author. In some cases, that might be preferable, in fact.
It's not plagarsim if you don't claim it's your own words. And you're way too proud of your "higher education", btw. Come down to earth some time.
What do you get when you educate a fool? Give up? An educated fool.
You're so intent on not agreeing with me on anything that you have shut your mind down and locked it up tight.
There are many, many "sayings" that do not need "context" to get their message across. Like my sig, for example. It would be just as true without MT's name, and just as easily understood.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Because he is devoted to saving unborn children?
It's no good to help one person and condemn another. That's not being pro-life, that's being selectively pro-fetal-life.
No, you do not. You can put quotation marks around it, without naming the author. In some cases, that might be preferable, in fact.
Not in any professional discourse it wouldn't.
It's not plagarsim if you don't claim it's your own words. And you're way too proud of your "higher education", btw. Come down to earth some time.
Of course I'm proud of it; I am part of the educated minority of Americans. Knowledge is power.
What do you get when you educate a fool? Give up? An educated fool.
You're so intent on not agreeing with me on anything that you have shut your mind down and locked it up tight.
There are many, many "sayings" that do not need "context" to get their message across. Like my sig, for example. It would be just as true without MT's name, and just as easily understood.
Sigh, and more insults... And yet you wonder why I am so intent on disagreeing with you.

reply from: yoda

Oh, so you would never condemn a child killer, while helping the child he is trying to kill? You'd kiss up to the child killer, right?
Is that what you think this is? Are you getting paid to post here?
You're a bit more than "proud", you are arrogant about it.
No, there was not a one in there. What name did I call you?

reply from: scopia19822

"Of course I'm proud of it; I am part of the educated minority of Americans. Knowledge is power."
I find this statement to extremly offenisve, just because a person does not have a college degree does not make them uneducated. Nothing wrong with being proud of your hard work and earning that degree, but that does not make you better than us. My paternal grandfather has only a 5th grade education and he is smarter than alot of people with their precious college degree that are not even worth the paper He is a farmer a simple person of the land, but one cant be a successful farmer this day and time and be a dummy.I have a high school diploma and 2 years of college. I consider myself to be a very educated person and most of what I have learned I learned myself by reading books. I am very good at history, in my junior year of high school I scored the highest in the county on the American History part of the SOL tests. I scored a perfect score. Sorry to burst your bubble Liberal, but you are not a privaledged member of the educated elite in America.

reply from: BossMomma

True, I've never been to college yet have an excellent education. There are plenty of inmates in my unit that have college degrees yet they still weren't smart enough to stay out of prison. Furthermore it is not enough to be educated, if you do not use the information you have been given education amounts to nothing.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Oh, so you would never condemn a child killer, while helping the child he is trying to kill? You'd kiss up to the child killer, right?
What I meant is that I do not walk around and call people names because of what they support or what they have done. It doesn't mean I support them or agree with them or even like them.
Is that what you think this is? Are you getting paid to post here?
Professional doesn't mean paid. And I surely thought this was something more than just children chatting on the playground. We are - for the most part - adults here. We should act like them. Name calling is not mature.
You're a bit more than "proud", you are arrogant about it.
Yeah, I am. *shrug*
Here's a hint to all of you: you're not going to make me feel bad about being educated. It's not going to happen. I'm not even going to bother to respond to all of your "I'm offended because you're proud that you're educated!" comments. I don't need to explain myself. You're taking it the wrong way because you want to, so nothing I could possibly say would dissuade you.
No, there was not a one in there. What name did I call you?
Well, just in this post you called me arrogant. It's an insult, whether it offends me or not. You called also me a fool in the post previous to this. Are you simply unaware of the fact that you toss around insults so easily? Are you unaware that the things you say can be considered insulting?

reply from: lycan

I just read an article yesterday that the "virginity pledge" some teenagers have been taken can backfire because they're less likely to use protection if they do start having sex. http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20081229/virginity-pledge-doesnt-stop-teen-sex

reply from: scopia19822

"Here's a hint to all of you: you're not going to make me feel bad about being educated. It's not going to happen. I'm not even going to bother to respond to all of your "I'm offended because you're proud that you're educated!" comments. I don't need to explain myself. You're taking it the wrong way because you want to, so nothing I could possibly say would dissuade you. "
Nor should you not be proud to be educated. My mom has a bachelors degree in criminal justice with a minor in psycology. I know only too well how hard she worked to get that degree. But she is now working in a gas station for mininium wage. But she does not lord it over others that she is better than them because she has a college degree. I value education highly and hope my son goes to college, but there are many well paying occupations that dont require a college degree, but do require a certificate and vocational training. Auto mechanics and plumbing are 2 examples. But you are not part of some " educated minority" of the American population that is what you said that is offensive. Having a college degree doesnt not always equal intelleigence and educated nor does not having one mean uneducated and unintelligent. You are no better than me or anyone else. I have a 141 IQ and Im proud of that but I dont go and lord it over others whos IQ may be less.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Having an education means something good, and I hope you realise that. You say it does, yet then go on to say you're offended by that very concept - because that's all I'm trying to express here. Unintelligent people can't get through college - at least none I've met. Intelligent people can become educated without going to college, but that still means you're educated. You're still in the educated minority and that's a good thing. I don't recall "lording" about it, but it seems every time the fact that I'm intelligent gets brought up it turns into some weird "you're evil for being proud of being smart" thing. It's seriously strange.

reply from: nancyu

Scopia didn't say that educated people are evil.
You are evil because of how you view yourself as superior to others because you are educated. There are all types of education honey, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Remember, the Nazis were educated too.
Education gives you information, it doesn't tell you how to put that information to a proper use. You behave as though your education is complete, and you no longer have to think. If your education is combined with a sense of morality' a sense of understanding how human beings should treat one another, a sense of caution and self examination, constantly asking yourself if you are using your education in a way that helps your fellow man, or hurts them, then what you have is more than an education. Then what you have is wisdom. That is what you should be seeking.
Anyone can buy an education, wisdom is a gift from God, and I don't think He's given you yours yet.

reply from: faithman

Scopia didn't say that educated people are evil.
You are evil because of how you view yourself as superior to others because you are educated. There are all types of education honey, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Remember, the Nazis were educated too.
Education gives you information, it doesn't tell you how to put that information to a proper use. You behave as though your education is complete, and you no longer have to think. If your education is combined with a sense of morality' a sense of understanding how human beings should treat one another, a sense of caution and self examination, constantly asking yourself if you are using your education in a way that helps your fellow man, or hurts them, then what you have is more than an education. Then what you have is wisdom. That is what you should be seeking.
Anyone can buy an education, wisdom is a gift from God, and I don't think He's given you yours yet.
Not being used anyway...

reply from: Rosalie

Scopia didn't say that educated people are evil.
You are evil because of how you view yourself as superior to others because you are educated. There are all types of education honey, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Remember, the Nazis were educated too.
Ding dong, we have a winner.
You are educated = you MUST be a Nazi.
LiberalChiRo - it's nothing but envy. You were not flaunting your education, you have just made a point that you are educated. Good for you. So am I and education is undoubtedly a good, important thing. Education does not hurt people, ignorance does. To say that you are evil or a Nazi just because you are educated and proud of it just perfectly demonstrates how the majority of "pro-lifers" here think. It also perfectly demonstrates why so many of other people, even outside this debate, cannot take them and anything they say seriously.
Be proud of being educated and thankful that you have made it work and was able to achieve education. It will open a lot of doors for you. Good luck with anything you decide to do and do not let the envious, ignorant idiots make you feel ashamed of your achievements.

reply from: scopia19822

"Having an education means something good, and I hope you realise that. You say it does, yet then go on to say you're offended by that very concept - because that's all I'm trying to express here. Unintelligent people can't get through college - at least none I've met. Intelligent people can become educated without going to college, but that still means you're educated. You're still in the educated minority and that's a good thing. I don't recall "lording" about it, but it seems every time the fact that I'm intelligent gets brought up it turns into some weird "you're evil for being proud of being smart" thing. It's seriously strange."
You still dont get it Liberal. Many people who are "book smart" can make it through college very easily. But book smart doesnt mean one is intelligent. You are saying that only a minority of the American population is "educated" the rest are just uneducated illiterate idiots. There is no elite group of the "educated minority" in America, I dont know where you got that idea from. I was not offended that you are proud of your hard work and getting your degree, I was offended by you saying that only a minority of the American population is educated and you happen to conveniantly be a member of this elite minorty. You were implying that you are better than other because you went to college. That is not true, nobody is better than anyone else.

reply from: nancyu

Scopia didn't say that educated people are evil.
You are evil because of how you view yourself as superior to others because you are educated. There are all types of education honey, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Remember, the Nazis were educated too.
Ding dong, we have a winner.
You are educated = you MUST be a Nazi.
Ding dong, that isn't what I said, now is it.
If you're going to quote my post then either use "..." to indicate that it is not my entire quote, or post the entire quote.

reply from: Rosalie

You kind of have. It was not appropriate to mention Nazis AT ALL. It made no sense and it was absolutely uncalled for.
I think that all of you who drag the Nazi argument here, in any form, are incredibly stupid and uneducated about what actually happened in WW2. No educated, intelligent person would ever be able to use these terms the way you people use them.
And please don't tell me how to quote. Considering how 90% of you is unable to delete excess quotes or shorten your quotes so you'd specifically reply only to statemens you want to reply to instead of the entire post, I don't feel this is your place at all. I quoted what I was replying to. Anyone can scroll up and read the rest of your post.

reply from: scopia19822

"You kind of have. It was not appropriate to mention Nazis AT ALL. It made no sense and it was absolutely uncalled for."
And whom are you to tell people what to post? It is historical fact. Most of the Nazi high command were college educated.
"I think that all of you who drag the Nazi argument here, in any form, are incredibly stupid and uneducated about what actually happened in WW2. No educated, intelligent person would ever be able to use these terms the way you people use them."
The Nazis killed off people who they deemed inferior or subhuman. The Jews, gyspies, homosexuals, the mentally ill , the mentally retarded, the physically disabled etc. In America we are doing the same thing with unborn children who I have heard described by choicers as potential life, a clump of cells/tissue , non persons non human etc. Sounds very similar to the Nazi rhetoric that justified the slaughter of millions of people in addition to the 6 million Jews that were killed.Since 1973 there have been 50 million abortions equal to the number of people that Stalin and Hilter combined had killed in the concentration camps and the gulochs in Russia. I am 26 years old and 1/3 of my generation has been killed off. Abortion in America is another form of genocide.

reply from: Rosalie

And again, you prove your lack of intelligence and education.
If you had a damned clue you'd know that genocide is a systematic killing of a racial or a cultural group (http://www.google.cz/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dgenocide&usg=AFQjCNFgDqBzIr32pKgKmbpyhNCRGF0m-g) and therefore even your incomplete, choppy information are not enough to make an actual link. Not only fetuses are no racial or cultural group but no one is trying to systematically exterminate all fetuses.
I find this so incredibly insulting but I guess I shouldn't because it just speaks volumes about your ignorance.

reply from: yoda

I think that most of us can agree that it is offensive for someone to talk about their own education as if that made them smarter, or better, or more authoritative on every subject.
There's an old saying that comes to mind: "Those who blow their own horn do so because no one else will blow it for them".

reply from: Rosalie

I think it's very strange that education is being frowned upon on this forum. I wonder why.

reply from: scopia19822

It is not education that is being frowned on but the arroganc. Liberal seems to think she is apart of a "educated minortiy" and the rest of us are just uneducated illiterate idiots.

reply from: Rosalie

Being proud of being educated is not arrogance.
And NO ONE is saying that someone without a degree is an idiot.

reply from: scopia19822

And there is no educated minority in this country.

reply from: yoda

If you would not call a pedophile a pedophile, then you are supporting them, yes.
And yet you agreed with that. Curious.....
Actually I did not. I asked a question about educating a fool and answered it. I never said it applied to you. YOU made that conclusion.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Scopia didn't say that educated people are evil.
You are evil because of how you view yourself as superior to others because you are educated. There are all types of education honey, and it's not necessarily a good thing. Remember, the Nazis were educated too.
Ding dong, we have a winner.
You are educated = you MUST be a Nazi.
LiberalChiRo - it's nothing but envy. You were not flaunting your education, you have just made a point that you are educated. Good for you. So am I and education is undoubtedly a good, important thing. Education does not hurt people, ignorance does. To say that you are evil or a Nazi just because you are educated and proud of it just perfectly demonstrates how the majority of "pro-lifers" here think. It also perfectly demonstrates why so many of other people, even outside this debate, cannot take them and anything they say seriously.
Be proud of being educated and thankful that you have made it work and was able to achieve education. It will open a lot of doors for you. Good luck with anything you decide to do and do not let the envious, ignorant idiots make you feel ashamed of your achievements.
I know, isn't it crazy!? And by the way, to everyone else, I did not say "Scopia called me evil", I said that this was the feeling I got every time my education was brought up.

reply from: yoda

Then why do you keep bringing it up?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I have not known an unintelligent person who has graduated from college.
Only a minority of Americans have achieved Higher Education, and I'm talking just a Bachelor's Degree. 29% of Amercians on average. This means I am among the educated minority. I didn't make this up so if facts offend you, take it up with the US Census Bureau.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011196.html

I'm not saying that people who don't go graduate college are stupid or "lesser" than me, but everyone keeps assuming I am. You always go on the defensive right away. Why do you think that is? I have a piece of paper proving I am intelligent.
Why don't you? Why don't more Americans? Sure, cost is a factor for some but let's face the facts: Not everyone is highly intelligent. In fact, highly intelligent people are a minority. Most people have average intelligences. And there is a minority population that is lower than that. So over all, if you are highly intelligent, you are smarter than MOST people in America. Now you can choose to be offended by that fact, or you can choose to be proud of it.
Does being highly intelligent make you inherently "better" than someone else? Of course not. I never said it did. In fact I've known some people of average or lower intelligence who are far better people than others who are smarter than them - such as the Nazis, since we're talking about them.
Being highly intelligent is not a horrible thing. Having a degree means I have a piece of paper proving how smart I am, and yes I am very proud of that. It will allow me to get better pay and better job opportunities. I learned a lot about the world in college, about different people and places - though the bet things I learned were self-reliance. I greatly expanded my thinking and I wouldn't have had those opportunities if I hadn't gone to college.
But please, continue to tell me how arrogant I am for being proud of the hard work I put into my education. I'm $20,000 in debt by the way, but fully capable of paying it off by 2018 because of the job I got by having a bachelor's degree. I couldn't PAY out of pocket for my education, I had to take loans and grants just like everyone else. I worked hard in highschool to have good grades and get a scholarship to college.
Are there people who do not go to college who are highly intelligent? DUH. I never said that if you don't go to college you aren't highly intelligent. However, going and graduating certainly proves that you are, and that proof gives you many benefits and opportunities.
I actually think that the way our higher educational system is set up right now is terrible. There need to be more tech/apprenticeship schools out there so people who don't necessarily want to be a biologist or a teacher or whatever, can still learn a trade at a higher level than BOCES (a training degree program my highschool had). We need electricians and plumbers and mechanics and other SKILLED workers. My brother is a mechanic and I would never call him unintelligent. He fixes jets for the airforce for god's sake!! Sometimes he gets talking in mechanical jargon and he may as well be speaking greek to me. He's extremely smart. Did he graduate college? No, but he did graduate from several Tech schools and that's just as good IMO.
So that's my continuing rant on education and intelligence. Not all intelligent people go to college, but if they do, their degree proves their intelligence and provides them with great opportunities. A Tech school achieves the same thing. ANY kind of higher education is great.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Did my education "make" me smarter? Yeah, that's the whole point of getting educated. Does it make me more authoritative on EVERY subject? Certainly not, but I don't ever recall claiming that it did so you're just pissing in the wind.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I AM part of the educated minority. Blame the US Census if you dislike that fact.
However, I NEVER said that you were uneducated, illiterate, or idiots. So stop lying.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, there is. Blame the US Census if you hate facts.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If you would not call a pedophile a pedophile, then you are supporting them, yes.
And yet you agreed with that. Curious.....
And I also mentioned that just because I agreed with it didn't make it any less of an insult.
Actually I did not. I asked a question about educating a fool and answered it. I never said it applied to you. YOU made that conclusion.
Oh don't play word games. You know exactly what you meant.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then why do you keep bringing it up?
I don't even know why it got brought up in this thread to be entirely honest. I normally bring it up when people accuse me of being stupid.

reply from: yoda

And yet no one did......
So what does that tell you?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And yet no one did......
So what does that tell you?
That you need to go back and find the post where this nonsense started if you want an answer to your question, because I really don't care why it got brought up.

reply from: scopia19822

"AM part of the educated minority. Blame the US Census if you dislike that fact.
However, I NEVER said that you were uneducated, illiterate, or idiots. So stop lying."
You say that only a minority of Americans have a Bachelors Degree and that means that only a minority of the population is educated? One does not have to possess a college degree to be educated or intelliegent. I and I daresay most of the American population is educated we just are not in possession of a college degree. There are many different venues in which to acquire an education. I am more of an independent self taught person. I do best by getting the book and reading it. Nobody on here is trying to make you feel bad because you have a college degree, but you most certainly are coming off as a narcissist because you have one and are conveying by your posts that you believe you are better than most of the American population. I will concede that you are in the minority that holds a bachelors degree, but that still does not make you a member of the "educated minority". Most of the American popuulation are "educated" but dont have a degree.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Higher Education is a phrase directly referring to college, yes. I did not make that phrase up. However, I did not mean it to say that ONLY people with bachelors are highly educated, as I explained in explicit detail in my latest post. Go back and read it.
Also, again, if you don't like what I said, blame the US Census.

reply from: yoda

Hey, do us all a favor and just QUIT TALKING about your "education", please?
I'm sure we'd all love to read a book about it, but not here on the forum.

reply from: Rosalie

Why should she? Does it piss you off that we are educated and you are not? If so, do something about it and stop trying to make other people ashamed of being educated.

reply from: scopia19822

"Why should she? Does it piss you off that we are educated and you are not? If so, do something about it and stop trying to make other people ashamed of being educated."
Do you know personally how far Yoda went in school? Then who are you to say he isn't educated? Liberal has a tendancy to consider herself superior to others in all matters of life, not just education. I consider myself to be a very educated person with an IQ of 141 which is only 9 point away from genius, but that does not make me part of some elite group of the American population. I am no better than you or anybody else, that is the message I have been trying to convey to Liberal, but she is too hard headed or too wrapped up in herself to grasp that concept.

reply from: Rosalie

I don't know how far he went in school but I don't know what else should I think of people who attack others for being educated.
Why are you people against education and people being proud of their degrees?

reply from: scopia19822

"Why are you people against education and people being proud of their degrees?"
I am hardly against education, as I believe that knowledge is power. If I was an Athiest I would still be prolife because of what I have learned in Biology, Anatomy and Physiology, and what I have read about on fetal development as well as the pictures I have seen of babies in the womb. I can base my prolife stance clearly on scienctific fact alone. It is because of educating myself on matters of fetal development that being prolife is logical and proabortion illogical.
As far as Liberal goes I am glad she is proud of her hard work and her degree she has every right to be, but she doesnt have the right to consider herself superior to those who dont.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I'm certainly not superior to a child in 2nd grade, but I also do know more than people who don't have any kind of higher education, whether in a tech school, college, apprenticeship, etc. If you stop after highschool and that's IT, I'm sorry but I probably know more than you do. If you're older than me you probably have life-skills I don't have, and I'm not debating you may have more wisdom in those subjects than I do. But basic knowledge of things in general? If you don't continue your education, if you don't continue learning, then you just plain don't know as much.

reply from: faithman

Did my education "make" me smarter? Yeah, that's the whole point of getting educated. Does it make me more authoritative on EVERY subject? Certainly not, but I don't ever recall claiming that it did so you're just pissing in the wind.
It doesn't make you smarter at all. Just makes you an educated dumb a$$. You prove that with almost every post!!

reply from: Rosalie

Can you concentrate? We are talking about education now.
YOU think she's doing that. That's all it is. If it's because of you're jealous of her achievements, I have no idea.

reply from: scopia19822

"Can you concentrate? We are talking about education now. "
Yes RoHO I can concentrate, the question is can you?

reply from: lycan

This may seem a strange thing to say, but in my younger days it was probably too easy to get into a four-year college, at least in California. Looking back, I would probably have handled things better if I hadn't gone into college right after high school, maybe gone to a two-year college first, and then following up with a 4-year place. Because of this I feel money spent on education should first be spent on such things as ROP (Regional Occupational Programs) before going to the colleges.

reply from: Rosalie

And I obviously can concentrate. You obviously can't since you seem to be unable to come up with a relevant reply, all you can do is try to insult me again.
May I ask why are you calling me a whore?

reply from: Banned Member

Please explain to me how contraception prevents abortion? The purpose of contraception is to prevent conception. The purpose of abortion is to kill conceived life in the womb. Contraception, given away and sold in the matter that it is, merely encourages, in my opinion, promiscuity.
Contraception at the very least creates the sense of being invulnerable to the possibility of conception. Contraception merely replaces abortion but in no way makes any kind of pronouncement on the rightness or wrongness of abortion. Planned Parenthood is certain to point at that if contraception fails people always have the option of abortion.
As I see it however the person that has used contraception has already conceded that sex and conception creates new human life in the womb and if they subsequently have an abortion, they cannot claim that they didn't know they were having a baby!
People have abortions to not have babies in the same way that they use contraception to not have babies. They have a common end. But it cannot be said that contraception in any way stands in opposition to or condems abortion as a practice.
Planned Parenthood could just as easily tell people that they should wait until they want children before they have sex. That would be conceding that sex has a purpose and contraception and abortion a moral component. For Planned Parenthood and those that support abortion, there is no conclusive morality, only cause and effect with any possible outcome of human affairs being just as equally valid as any other outcome.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

By preventing conception, you prevent an unwanted pregnancy, which means you prevent the basic situation that would make a woman want to abort.
Helping women choose life once they are accidentally pregnant is wonderful, but isn't it better to prevent the whole thing in the first place? Yes, it is. It is always better to prevent accidents than to heal broken bones.

reply from: Rosalie

And I obviously can concentrate. You obviously can't since you seem to be unable to come up with a relevant reply, all you can do is try to insult me again.
May I ask why are you calling me a whore?
Any comments, Scopia?

reply from: scopia19822

"Any comments, Scopia?"
No I have said all I care to say to you. And I was not calling you a whore, I dont care who or how many people you sleep with. When I called you roho the thought that orginally came to mine was that little song that goes "yo ho ho and a bottle of rum" It was on the Rugrats movie my son was watching at the time.

reply from: Rosalie

Riiight.
More lies from you. I'm not surprised.
I wonder what your consicence and your religious leaders would say about you calling other women whores.

reply from: scopia19822

"Riiight.
More lies from you. I'm not surprised.
I wonder what your consicence and your religious leaders would say about you calling other women whores."
Giving all of the things you have said about me who are you to judge me? I dont call women whores, I was a whore and will always be a whore because of my past. So what would you want me to call you Xena Warrior Princess?

reply from: ProInformed

http://prolifeaction.org/providers/appleton.htm

reply from: Rosalie

I have never, EVER called you a whore, slut or anything like that. Ever. Or are you going to lie again? And you DID call me a ho. Twice.

reply from: scopia19822

"And you DID call me a ho. Twice."
If that is what I intended to call you, I would have called you a whore, not a ho straight out. You have called me anti woman when nothing can be further from the truth, you even went so far as to critiasize my choice of modest dress to comply with what I feel are the tenets of my religion. That is only something an immature teenager would do. If I was so anti woman I wouldnt give to CPCs and battered womens shelters as I would think if she got pregnant she should live with her "sin" and suffer. If her husband beat her it is because she is being"disobediant". I would not be lobbying to have marital rape in my state redesignated a sex crime instead of simple domestic assault as the husband has a right to excercise his conjugal rights anytime with/without protest. I would not also be lobbying my legislators on the local, state and national level to protect pregnant women or women of childbearing age from discrimination by employers, I would not be writing asking that women be paid the same as a man for doing the same job. That is what a prowoman means looking out for the interest of women, not lobbying for them to have the right to kill their child so they can feel equal and liberated.

reply from: ProInformed

The ignorance in this statement is astonishing.
Of course it is because choicists have been indoctrinated into believing that anybody who behaves in a mature, responsible, loving, non-violent manner regarding sex must be some sort of prude or religious fanatic... never mind the fact that there are people who abstain from having 'casual sex', and from using artificial birth control, for common sense reasons having nothing at all to do with religion. I started using NFP before I became pro-life, partly because I didn't like using dangerous and expensive drugs and devices, preferred more natural, healthy, and free alternatives. I was an atheist so it had nothing at all to do with 'religious indoctrination'. One of my pro-abort atheist sisters also started using NFP too.
And it is the pro-abort pretenda-feminists who act as if being female is something to be ashamed of, who view normal, healthy female biology as if it were a disease or defect to be treated with drugs, devices, and surgery, who think they can only feel proud and 'empowered' if they 'control' or basically 'fix' their female biological capabilities.
Sheesh - some pro-aborts are SO indoctrinated and closed-minded that they are unable to think outside the stereotypes and lies THEY have been told LOL.

reply from: Hosea

53% of the women who had abortions DID use contraceptives. Contraceptives fail. They give a false feeling of safety. A person using s contraceptive may feel they did the responsible thing so they should n't have to be pregnant so they deserve an abortion. That is one theing that is wrong with te contraceptive mentalility.
Natural Family Planning which is approved by the Catholic church is 98% effective when used properly. A couple needs to abstain for 7-10 days per month on average. If they don't abstain during that time they know they may need to come up with another baby name. It is a different mentality.

reply from: lycan

Where did you get these statistics?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Some of those stats are available on Guttmacher. Others you have to look for because mainstream research on NFP shows it to be a terrible option, whereas private research shows it to be nearly 100% effective.

reply from: scopia19822

''Some of those stats are available on Guttmacher. Others you have to look for because mainstream research on NFP shows it to be a terrible option, whereas private research shows it to be nearly 100% effective."
Of course the Guttmacher and even the pharmacy companies are going to say that NFP is ineffective because it would cause them to loose profits on the sale of contraceptives. It is the same thing with the pharmaceutical industry and vitiamins/supplements.

reply from: Rosalie

Can you stop lying at least for a while or is it really pathological and you really cannot help it?
And doing something for women does not make you pro-women at all. It's just another term you don't understand, just like feminism. You don't absolutely get that, either, and you'd rather keep your lies than learn something new.

reply from: scopia19822

"Can you stop lying at least for a while or is it really pathological and you really cannot help it?
And doing something for women does not make you pro-women at all. It's just another term you don't understand, just like feminism. You don't absolutely get that, either, and you'd rather keep your lies than learn something new."
Are you omnipotent Rosalie? Are you some human "truth" machine? So if doing something for women to help ease their lot isn life isnt prowoman than what is. Femininism as I understand it in its origins is what was practiced by Susan B Anthony and others like her. All of the early feminist rejected abortion as antiwoman and saw it as a tool that men could use to keep women as 2nd class citizens. These early feminist did more to advance the plight of woman far more than any of the so called modern feminist ever have.

reply from: Rosalie

No, and I never said I was. Is that just another thing your mind just made up?

Again, you are proving you know nothing about feminism. I told you in the other thread - if you really want to know, I will elaborate. But I won't bother if all you want to is repeat your crap over and over and do not take into consideration what other people say at all.


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