Home - List All Discussions

Operation IAPA

Begins today April 21, 2009

by: nancyu

When will it end? Who knows, but at least 2 weeks for me.
I'm takin a break!

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UvZaWKgruk&feature=channel_page

reply from: nancyu

http://www.zenit.org/article-24556?l=english
Click link to read more.

reply from: Yuuki

What does IAPA stand for? Is it buried somewhere in the document? Not everyone is Christian so a Christian argument against abortion cannot be made into law and should not be pushed as a main argument. The church may have lovely things to say about respecting life but if, when pressured, they end up barking "because God says so!" they're not going to get any respect from the non-Christians.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J87E305gf0o&feature=channel

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uKCchuIjM&feature=rec-r2-sdig&et=1240295454.8

reply from: ChristianLott2

ok. I see it now. Ignore that pm.

reply from: Teresa18

What does IAPA stand for, Nancy?

reply from: nancyu

Explained in a PM Teresa.

reply from: Yuuki

And my butter is missing its wings!

reply from: ChristianLott2

Nancy, if Texas leaves the union at the very least Mississippi will also leave. Any others you can think of?

reply from: Faramir

What does IAPA mean?
I suppose being a "faux lifer" I will never be let in on it.
But I could guess.
I am peeling apples.
or
Idiots are people also. (I could understand why nancyu might want to remind others of that fact).
But I don't know for sure--just guessing.
What could it mean?

reply from: Faramir

OH NO!
I figured it out.
It means...
I AM PRO ABORTION
Sadly, I think that perhaps nanyu is a spy for Planned Parenthood.
Something doesn't quite add up about her, so I think there might be some good reasons to suspect she could be one of "them."
Keep an eye on that one...

reply from: nancyu

Hmmm...I don't think Maine would, but I might move to Texas if they do. Maybe if enough of us moved to Texas we could start a new country. We could call it pro life America!

reply from: nancyu

http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?threadid=184630&Messages=11
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090420134258AA9IohO

reply from: ChristianLott2

Sounds good. People who constantly fight should separate. It's not healthy or fair to prolong this.
There is Conservative America and Liberal America. We should draw the line and let people move to where they feel safe.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Wow. Look at all those people saying Texas nor any other state can leave the union. 'dem sounds like fightin' words!
Every state has a right to seceded. They should stop belly aching and start showing and proving. I'm sick of the bickering. Put up or shut up.

reply from: Faramir

What about Nutcase America?
They need their own space too. I wouldn't want you and nancyu to feel like you don't belong somewhere.

reply from: yoda

South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Utah, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe Alabama and Tennessee... ??

reply from: ChristianLott2

South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, Utah, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Missouri, and maybe Alabama and Tennessee... ??
We'll take it!

reply from: nancyu

Abortion permanently a crime in the Dominican Republic, pro-life victory comes with a vote of 167 to 32.
Submitted by Keith on Wed, 04/22/2009 - 15:43
SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic In response to recent efforts by international pro-abortion groups seeking to decriminalize abortion in the Dominican Republic,. legislators permanently enshrined the right to life for pre-born humans by rewriting the Constitution of the Dominican Republic with the words "the right to life is inviolable from conception until death."
The vote of 167 to 32 was held yesterday afternoon and served as a major victory to those working to protect all human life.
A pro-life coalition recently traveled to the Santo Domingo to raise awareness about abortion during the hearings of this bill. The young people in this coalition of organizations included Faithful Soldier School of Evangelism, Live Action San Jose, and Personhood USA.
The group joined with local missionary Dr Gene Antonio to distribute over 50,000 pieces of literature about abortion from Human Life Alliance.
"A true respect for human life is protecting it from the beginning, the dominican republic is ahead of america in building a society where all human life is truly respected." said Ignacio Reyes Director of Live Action San Jose
The group made a major impact by showing a graphic video of an actual abortion procedure on dozens of national television programs which broadcast to millions of Dominicans.
"We are thrilled that the protection of human life from the moment of conception is now established into the constitution in-spite of fierce international pressure to legalize abortion," stated Dr. Gene Antonio, Pro-life Missionary in the Dominican Republic. He continued "This overwhelming victory serves as an example to the other Latin countries fighting to protect life, that we can win and we must win because the lives of little people are at stake."
* Read more
http://www.personhoodusa.com/

reply from: 4given

UNICEF Calls for Legal Abortion
in Dominican Republic
By By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D. and Paola Ocejo
(NEW YORK - C-FAM) Despite direct intervention by a top United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) official, the Dominican Republic appears poised to adopt a new constitution that protects human life "from conception until death."
While Dominican lawmakers were debating the merits of such a provision and the nation's penal prohibition of abortion, Nils Kastberg, UNICEF's regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean, interjected himself, calling on Dominican legislators to consider liberalizing abortion so women would not be forced into "unsafe procedures." He also suggested they would be "hypocrites" unconcerned with the nation's higher than average teen birth rate. Kastberg made his unusual statements while visiting the capital of Santo Domingo at the end of March.
Rather than bowing to external pressure from UNICEF and pro-abortion non-governmental organizations, this week members of the bicameral constitutional assembly voted 167-32 to approve the proposed charter, including Article 30, which states, "The right to life is inviolable from conception to death." Another article would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Pro-lifers are considering the constitutional reform to be a fait accompli, though a second reading followed by formal promulgation by the President is also required. Support crossed party lines, with the opposition Partido Revolucionario Dominicano and Partido Reformista Social Cristiano and most members of the President's Partido de la Liberación Dominicana declaring their support for the right-to-life provision.
The meddling by Kastberg, a Swedish national, also brought to mind another pro-abortion Latin American intervention by UNICEF and other United Nations agencies. When Nicaragua strengthened legislation protecting the unborn in 2006, UNICEF joined agencies like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the United Nations Development Fund in signing a letter to the head of the Nicaraguan National Assembly that asserted - incorrectly - that the legislation violated rights contained in various international documents such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination, or CEDAW.
In addition, four Scandinavian countries, Holland and Canada signed the letter, with Sweden reportedly cutting over $20 million in foreign aid to Nicaragua as a result of the legislative reform, and Finland threatening to link continued aid to changes in Nicaragua's abortion law.
Despite its image as a benign agency dedicated to assisting children in the developing world, in recent years UNICEF has supported liberalized abortion. According to Douglas Sylva, a senior fellow of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) [publisher of the Friday Fax] and the author of a White Paper on the agency, UNICEF is "an opportunistic advocate of abortion rights." One longtime UNICEF watcher told the Friday Fax, "Where does UNICEF get the authority to interfere in the constitutional decisions of a sovereign state?"
When formally adopted, the Dominican Republic will join other Latin American nations whose constitutions explicitly protect unborn life, including Chile, Paraguay, and Guatemala. In addition, at least 10 Mexican states have amended their state constitutions to protect life from the moment of conception, including most recently, the Pacific coast state of Nayarit. The pro-life constitutional revisions in Mexico and the Dominican Republic signal popular reaffirmation of pro-life principles throughout the region.

reply from: nancyu

HOORAY! WAY TO GO DOMINICAN REPUBLIC!
Boooo Hisssssss GO AWAY UNICEF -- FAR FAR AWAY.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=74123607079&h=PXNv9&u=mGQ2b

reply from: ChristianLott2

Some of you may remember I sent some money to UNICEF a few years ago then learned they were pro aborts. They kept asking me for money after and I sent them a letter telling them what for. They sent me a form letter, a letter they obviously pre made for just such circumstances denying any involvement with the abortion issue.
Just goes to show what lying scum bags the pro aborts really are.

reply from: nancyu

You should send them a bill. Demand your money back. (postage due)

reply from: ChristianLott2

That sounds like a good idea.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20686.html
Tim Kaine, the Virginia governor and President Barack Obama's hand-picked choice as the head of the Democratic National Committee, infuriated abortion-rights groups Monday by signing legislation that gives abortion foes a long-sought victory.
Kaine brushed off intense lobbying by abortion rights supporters in Richmond to sign a bill that allows Virginia motorists to advertise their anti-abortion views by sporting "Choose Life" specialty license plates.
The revenue from the specialty plates would go to crisis-pregnancy centers, which many abortion-rights backers believe proslyetize against abortion and encourage women to keep unwanted children.
If Kaine were merely the governor of the Old Dominion, the move might have been less notable. Kaine - a Catholic who says he is personally opposed to abortion but pledged to leave the right to choose intact - won office in Virginia partly by seeking to reassure social conservatives.
But he is now on a national stage. And his decision could echo among women's activists who are among the most powerful financial supporters of the party.
"It is surprising that Governor Kaine would do this, but it's all the more surprising that he would do it as chair of the DNC," said Paulette McElwain, the president of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood.
McElwain exchanged numerous calls with the governor's office over the license plates and organized a grass roots effort that logged more than 2,000 calls to the governor's staff.
"We provided him with abundant information," she said. "We're terribly disappointed that he decided to sign it."
In Washington, NARAL/Pro-Choice America channeled more than 17,000 emails and 200 calls to the DNC urging Kaine to veto the bill.
"It is unfortunate that, even after receiving thousands of messages from Virginians and pro-choice activists across the country, Gov. Kaine has opted to sign a bill that advances a divisive political ideology at the expense of women's health," NARAL/Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan said in a statement.
The "Choose Life" plate was among a number of designs approved by Kaine, including one honoring the Washington Capitals professional hockey team. To request a plate, a group must get at least 350 people to prepay a $25 fee.
Kaine defended the move by pointing out that Virginia has a "long-standing program" allowing customized license plates and said that if Planned Parenthood applied for a plate he would grant it.
"I sign this legislation today in keeping with the Commonwealth's longtime practice of approving specialty plates with all manner of political and social messages," Kaine said in a statement.
"Furthermore, if Planned Parenthood - an organization that is already a recipient of state budget funds - or another similar organization ever chooses to seek a specialty license plate in Virginia, I believe the Constitution would require the state to approve that plate to protect against any viewpoint discrimination."
Virginia joined 23 other states that offer similar license plates.
"I think he knew that it is a really extreme position to oppose these plates," said Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia. "Certainly there was pressure from the base of the Democratic party."

reply from: yoda

"Kaine defended the move by pointing out that Virginia has a "long-standing program" allowing customized license plates and said that if Planned Parenthood applied for a plate he would grant it. "
Hmmm...... the man just doesn't seem to understand....... PP doesn't want a plate...... they just don't want prolifers to get one. They don't want anyone talking about abortion in public, period.

reply from: nancyu

Last Updated: Saturday, 30 April, 2005, 08:17 GMT 09:17 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Florida girl has abortion blocked
By Jeremy Cooke
BBC News, New York
Young mums pushing prams
Some say forcing a 13-year-old to give birth is illegal and cruel
A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision.
A state court granted an injunction which prevents the girl from terminating her pregnancy.
She is three months pregnant and had planned to have an abortion on Tuesday of this week.
The American Civil Liberties Union says it will launch an urgent appeal against the ruling.
'Too young to choose'
Florida's department of children and families intervened and took the matter to court, arguing the teenager, who is under the care of the state, is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision. Judge Ronald Alvarez in Palm Beach accepted that argument and has granted a temporary injunction and psychological evaluation, which effectively blocks her from terminating the pregnancy.
It is a case which, once again, plays into the heated and divisive debate about abortion in America.
The judge's ruling comes in spite of Florida state law which specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion.
The American Civil Liberties Union 's executive director in Florida, Howard Simon, said forcing a 13-year-old to carry on an unwanted pregnancy to term, against her wishes, is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is cruel.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500245.stm
This decision is correct but the reasoning isn't. It's not that she is "too young to choose" it is that it is "wrong to choose" at all.

reply from: nancyu

It sure is a nice day today.

reply from: nancyu

I suggest 21 days...
Did you ever see the movie "The Money Pit"?

Every time Tom Hanks' character would ask the workers when the house would be finished, the answer was always "two weeks" I thought that was kind of funny. When I ask myself "how long" I usually answer "two weeks." But three sounds even better.

reply from: ChristianLott2

I just don't know how much we can accomplish with a rabidly pro abort president other than call for state secession.

reply from: nancyu

...or we could all move to the Dominican Republic.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/abortiondoctors.cfm

reply from: nancyu

http://www.thecbc.org/redesigned/research_display.php?id=101
U.S. Senate Stem Cell Research Testimony
by Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D.
emb2.gif (12902 bytes)
Testimony of Nigel Cameron, Ph.D.
Given August 1, 2001 Before the United States Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
Hearing on Embryonic Stem Cell Research
My name is Nigel Cameron. I have worked for 20 years in bioethics, founded the journal Ethics and Medicine in 1983, and am currently involved in bioethics projects in both Europe and the US. It is a privilege to be invited to testify today.
Two great questions confront the human race at the start of the biotech century. The second, presently only on the horizons of our thinking and yet of incalculable import, will focus our growing capacity to design, determine, transform ourselves and our nature; the incremental progression toward the so-called "post-human" future. The first question is the one that confronts us today: whether we should use members of our own kind, Homo sapiens sapiens, in whatever stage of biological existence, for a purpose that is other than the good of the individual concerned; whether we should sanction the use of ourselves, in however early a form, as experimental subjects whose final end is destruction.
Let me offer four observations on our dilemma.
First, it seemed until recently to be widely agreed that human embryos should never be manufactured simply in order to be destroyed through experiment, however worthy the experiment. This principle is, for example, enshrined in the European Convention on Biomedicine and Human Rights, the one international bioethics treaty; and was memorably captured some years ago in a Washington Post editorial in the ringing phrase: "The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy them is unconscionable." Yet the Jones' Institute has brazenly announced that they have done just that. And as Charles Krauthammer's recent pro-stem-cell research piece notes, the cloning debate has focused the same issue. The chorus of support for Greenwood-Deutsch has been fed precisely by a scientific-industrial community eager to clone and destroy embryos for scientific-industrial purposes.
The problem, of course, is one of drawing lines; the challenge of consistency. May a line truly be drawn that will permit experimentation on clinically "spare" embryos, a line that will stand forever and in the face, we may expect, of mounting commercial and clinical opportunity that argues for their creation to order? That is of course the compromise that has been floated in various quarters, most notably and seriously by Senator Frist. The level of support for embryo cloning-to-order in Greenwood-Deutsch, and now the timely "ocular proof' of the Jones Institute, suggests the naivete of such policy hopes, since in the minds of most of those who lead the call for "spare" embryo research only there is only a modest distinction between this politic option and the Jones way. It is a distinction that falls far, far short of what the Post designated "unconscionable." It is not, as we might put it, that we believe that further dominoes will fall; they are falling all around us. For the logic of the experimental abuse of "spare" human embryos depends ultimately on so meager a valuation of the embryo itself that their creation-to-order is inevitable. If the embryo is at base object and not in any sense subject, what is to prevent it? It is reported that one celebrity recently announced here on the Hill and in defense of embryonic stem-cell research that the embryo is of similar moral standing to a goldfish.
Secondly, I do not propose to get drawn into the extensive debate surrounding the relative merits of embryonic and other, typically adult, stem-cells. Plainly, some and perhaps all of the good things that are prophesied to be the fruit of embryonic stem-cells may be attained using adult cells or other means. It is ironic, and to be regretted, that this debate has sometimes seemed to hinge on whether adult stem-cell work is likely to be as fruitful as the embryonic kind, as if the moral question, while of some weight, could be discounted by a certain evaluation of likely relative clinical outcomes. This is a profound moral debate about what we will and will not do to our own kind, for whatever alleged benefit.
Thirdly, I believe that we are losing sight of the middle ground. By that I mean that it is by no means necessary to take the view that the early embryo is a full human person in order to be convinced that deleterious experimentation is improper. There are many possible grounds for such a view - that we do not know if the embryo possesses full human dignity and should therefore be prudent; that the embryo possesses the potential to be a full human person and that such inbuilt potentiality entails profound respect, a view widely held and deeply threatened in this debate; or that membership in our species is enough to distinguish the human embryo from all other laboratory artifacts. Indeed, the widely held view that embryos should not be specially created for experimental purposes itself reveals a strong if undefined disposition to protect the embryo from abuse.
Fourthly, let me share my sense of dismay at the degree to which this debate has sometimes degenerated into an iteration and reiteration of the potential benefits of this kind of experimentation, as if those who oppose public funding for what they consider unethical research are either ignorant of or heedless toward disease and its sufferers. The celebrity argument is a sham, an attempt to short-circuit the moral assessment of means by the crass assertion of ends. It is an embarrassment to the cause of ethics in public policy.
For the question we face is distinctly ethical in character. At the heart of our conception of civilization lies the principle of restraint: that there are things we shall not do, shall never do, even though they may bring us benefit; some things we shall never do, though the heavens fall.
As we stand on the threshold of the biotech century, we could hardly confront a decision that is more onerous, since the promised benefits from this technology may be great. Yet that is of course simply to focus the moral question. If there are things that we should not do, it is easy for us to refuse to do them when they offer no benefit. When the benefit they offer is modest, the choice is still not hard. The challenge to morals and to public policy lies precisely here, where the benefits seem great. Yet it is here also that our intuitive respect for the early embryo requires us to pay a price. In a culture fixated with the satisfaction of its needs and the healing of its woes, it has become hard even to say that we shall never, for whatever benefit, experiment on our own kind? Shall we do evil, that good may come?
>>>>>>>>>>THERE ARE THINGS WE SHALL NOT DO, SHALL NEVER DO, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BRING US BENEFIT; SOME THINGS WE SHALL NEVER DO, THOUGH THE HEAVENS FALL.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.cbc-network.org/research_display.php?id=392

Banking On Life: A Gathering of the World's Leading Researchers
Banking On Life, a gathering of the world's leading researchers in the field of cord blood stem cell research and regenerative medicine, is coming to San Francisco on May 2nd.
With the Obama administration recently announcing its policy change on the issue of stem cell research and regenerative medicine, the questions surrounding this issue are many. Promising to deliver some answers, perhaps the most comprehensive one-day conference with cutting edge leaders from around the world will take place in the City by the Bay on May 2, 2009.
Hosted by The Center For Bioethics and Culture Network, a noted Bay Area institution, and Cord Blood Registry, a leader in cord blood banking, this conference will focus on bringing to light the potential future uses of stem cells for treatment of disease and their impact on medical care. Scheduled conference speakers are world leaders in their fields of umbilical cord blood stem cell research and regenerative medicine.
"This is THE place to be if you really want to gain an understanding of this issue. This conference will be the place to ask hard questions as we also explore the progress in regenerative application with cord blood stem cells," explains Jennifer Lahl, Founder and National Director of the CBC.
"If we can fearlessly address some of the questions surrounding the issue of cord blood stem cell research and regenerative medicine, we can put aside many of the stem cell research debates! This area of research is a place where we can all agree." says Lahl.
Cutting edge leaders from around the world in the field of umbilical cord blood stem cell research and regenerative medicine will be at the Sheraton Gateway - San Francisco Airport on May 2nd to promote, inform and educate attendees on up to the minute successes and advances in cord blood research. These key voices will convene to share information that will shape the future direction of progress in cord blood banking and advances in patient treatments.
"Bottom line is we all need to better understand this issue - and do a better job of raising awareness of the progress being made in this field and bank more cord blood," concludes Lahl.
Register now and join us May 2, 2009 for our Banking on Life Conference where you will:
* Learn from the leaders and experts in the field of cord blood research
* Network with others involved in cord blood banking
* Earn continuing medical credit for doctors and nurses
* Meet patient advocates working for those who will benefit from cord blood research and therapies

reply from: nancyu

http://contraception.about.com/od/hormonalcontraception/f/additionalways.htm
What if Hormonal Contraceptives Backfire and Ovulation Occurs Anyway?
By Dawn Stacey M.Ed, LMHC, About.com
Updated: February 26, 2007
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by the Medical Review Board
See More About:
* hormonal birth control
* ovulation
* conception
* estrogen
* progestin
Sponsored Links
Ovulation CalendarFree Ovulation Calendar and Chart Chart your way to conceptionwww.FertileDays.com/Calendar
Free Ovulation CalculatorFind Answers to Your Questions About How To Get Pregnantwww.whattoexpect.com
Free Ovulation CalendarFree Ovulation Calendar - Predict Your Most Fertile Time Of The Monthwww.Parents.com
Question: What if Hormonal Contraceptives Backfire and Ovulation Occurs Anyway?
Answer: Even if ovulation and fertilization occur, there are three other ways hormonal contraceptives prevent pregnancy.
Two of these additional ways occur pre-fertilization:
* Changes occur in the cervical mucous
* Decreased ability of Fallopian Tubes to move the egg toward the sperm
The final extra degree of protection happens Post-fertilization and has to do with the uterine lining.
* Estrogen generally initiates the thickening of the lining of the uterus in the first part of a female's cycle
* Progesterone then triggers the lining to mature
* Since either one or both of these hormones are being continuously supplied, the lining does not have the opportunity thicken enough to nurture a fertilized egg
This means that should an egg become fertilized, the effects of the hormones make the lining of the uterus less receptive to implantation.
A fertilized egg is a human being. Hormonal Birth control CAN prevent implantation. That means it CAN act as an abortifacient.

reply from: nancyu

Here, I saved the mudslingers the trouble of digging up dirt on the author of the above article:
Dawn, About.com's Guide to Contraception, is a published author and a former family planning specialist, health educator, and pregnancy options counselor for Planned Parenthood.
Experience:
Dawn is a licensed mental health counselor with 13+ years of counseling experience. She provided therapy on sexual health issues from resolving guilt over birth control use to making informed reproductive choices. She advised individuals and couples on relationship issues, sexual practices, fertility counseling (how to maximize getting pregnant), family planning and religious concerns over sexual behaviors. A majority of her work included counseling teenagers, teaching them how to use birth control and how to discuss it with their parents and partners.
Dawn also worked at Planned Parenthood where she had the opportunity to provide counseling on adoption, prenatal care, abortion and sex education as well as help clients find the right fit between their needs and their contraceptive method. She conducted pregnancy tests and provided options counseling. Dawn led workshops in her community on sexuality, contraceptives and STDs, and also facilitated reproductive health support groups.
Education:
Dawn is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in health psychology and holds degrees in both a Specialist in Education and a Master of Education in mental health counseling from the University of Florida in Gainesville. She is a licensed mental health counselor, a nationally certified counselor, and a certified HIV counselor. Currently, she is a college professor and writes columns in publications and newsletters on various mental health issues, including reproductive health, birth control information, and how to talk to your children about sex and responsible sexual choices.
From Dawn Stacey M.Ed, LMHC:
I believe that all individuals have the right to manage their fertility and should have access to accurate information. I understand the personal issues surrounding birth control use. Being mentored through Planned Parenthood, I have had the amazing chance to experience people's real-life struggles and joys in the area of reproductive health. I have been able to witness both births and abortions, so I can truly describe what to really expect during these times. I'm also trained in adoption counseling as an alternative to abortion.
I am well-versed (and continue to learn up-to-date information) on all available forms of birth control and emergency contraception. I am passionate about contraception and its importance. As an advocate, I would love to see everyone make safe sex choices and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions. I love educating people about their birth control choices and have true experience seeing, firsthand, how these decisions affect all of our lives.
So there you have it. What [certain people] consider "unbiased" are really pro aborts. And this one shows that hormonal birth control can act as an abortifacient; although she would never use that word.

reply from: scopia19822

"
Im so sick of arguing about the possible abortificent methods of the Pill. If you are opposed to it than dont use it! If you have moral/religioss objections nobody is forcing the Pill on you, dont use it. But this it trivial IMHO when you think of all the women who are pregnant and are contemplating walking into a an abortion clinic. That is where the main focus should be not on BC.

reply from: BossMomma

I encourage you to start packing immediately.
I'll pack for her.

reply from: scopia19822

I rather stay where Im at. I love it here!

reply from: Faramir

In theory, yes it could, possibly, but that has never actually been proved. The same is true of vitamin C and caffeine. So since all fertile women who are sexually active face a possibility that orange juice, tea, and coffee might have an "abortificient effect," is it wrong for them to use these products?
(Not really expecting a response here)
You know, as I've said before, I'm inclined to agree that it is not an abortifacient, and I'm inclined to think those who say it is need to do more than arouse a suspicion.
However, to play devil's advocate, do you know of anyone who will drink a cup of coffee or orange juice before having sex, hoping it will prevent a pregnancy?
The stuff is just not strong enough.
But what about hormonal bc? This stuff is really messing with Mother Nature. It interferes with normal and natural bodily functions. It's so powerful it really can prevent a pregnancy.
So if it can do so much to keep a woman from making a baby most of the time, why would it not also be so powerful to also destroy the baby that accidentally gets made? Why would it not be a whole lot more powerful than a cup of coffee?
When you take hormonal bc you're trying to fool Mother Nature, and I think you're old enough to know that it's not nice to fool Mother Nature. Something very nasty could happen if you try.

reply from: scopia19822

"You know, as I've said before, I'm inclined to agree that it is not an abortifacient, and I'm inclined to think those who say it is need to do more than arouse a suspicion. "
Whether or not HBC are abortificent depends on a persons religion and moral compass. Naturally a Catholic and other Conservatives consider it an abortifcent as it can prevent a fertilzed egg from implanting. Another person can say that it cant grow and form until implantation anyway would not see it as an abortifcent. Im inclined to agree with the latter. I love my Church, but some things about it I dont like. I agree abortion is wrong and that ABC is unnatural, however I could not tell a rape victim and I think these are the only people who should be able to get the MAP they cant have it.

reply from: Faramir

I do not as a Catholic have to see it as an abortifacient.
As a Catholic, ALL forms of birth control are immoral for me.
Whether or not one form is an abortifacient is an objective truth and has nothing to do with what I believe about it.

reply from: scopia19822

"As a Catholic, ALL forms of birth control are immoral for me. "
This is one reason I have contemplated leaving the RCC and joining the Orthodox. Have you ever seen the movie "Steel Magnolias" . Somebody like Julia Roberts characther should not get pregnant. Brittle diabetics, people with serious heart conditions it would be better for them to get a tubal than to get pregnant and abort. Marital relations could possibly be deadly. I dont support abortion under any circumstances, but I personally would rather see a woman get her tubes tied than to put her life in danger. If the couple wants kids there are alot of kids who need good homes.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2237499/posts
Plan B decision treats pregnancy as disease, U.S. bishops' official says
Washington D.C., Apr 24, 2009 / 04:15 pm (CNA).- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has made the "Plan B" contraceptive available to 17 year-old women without a prescription. One pro-life leader has warned the decision treats pregnancy as a "disease" and could put young women and newly-conceived human beings at risk.
The move follows a March 23 federal court order requiring the drug Levonorgestrel - also known as the "morning after pill"--be made available to girls 17 and older without a prescription. The U.S. government said it would not appeal the decision.
The drug aims to prevent pregnancy when used within 24 hours of sexual intercourse.
Deirdre McQuade, Assistant Director for Policy and Communications at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities, criticized the action in an April 23 statement.
Characterizing the decision as "court-driven," McQuade said it "flies in the face of common sense.
"Levonorgestrel is a powerful drug, taken in two doses over a 12-hour period. It is 40 times more potent than comparable progestin-only birth control pills (Ovrette) for which a prescription is required.
"Wider access to Plan B could endanger the lives of newly-conceived children, and will put minors at risk for unnecessary side effects, undermine parental rights, and contribute to higher STD rates," warned McQuade.
"Pregnancy is not a disease and fertility is not a pathological condition, so Plan B has no authentic therapeutic purpose, and can actually cause harm to women and their newly-conceived children," she said.
McQuade commented that though the FDA describes "Plan B" as a contraceptive drug, the manufacturer admits that it may also prevent an embryo from implanting in the womb.
"Since it takes several days for the growing embryo to reach the uterine lining and implant in the mother's womb, the child in his or her second week of life could die as a direct result of Plan B. This is properly understood as an early abortion."
Without a doctor's supervision, she said, many teens will be unaware of this possible abortifacient action and the other risks posed by the drug, especially when it is used repeatedly.
"Much to the surprise of the morning-after pill's early advocates, five years of research in Europe and the U.S. shows that increased access to emergency contraception has failed to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion," McQuade noted.
She said the drug's distribution has led to "greater sexual risk-taking" among adolescents, which leads to a higher rate of sexually-transmitted disease.
"In the unlikely event a teenager will bother to read the Plan B package insert all the way to the end, she will find sound advice: 'Of course, not having sex is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and stay free of STDs,'" McQuade said.
Under President George W. Bush the FDA delayed making any decision on the drug for three years. In 2006 it allowed behind-the-counter sales to those 18 and older who showed proof of age, but still required a prescription for girls 17 and younger.
The manufacturer of "Plan B," Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., may also market the drug to women 17 years and older after applying for and receiving approval from the FDA. The manufacturer had earlier sought to secure over-the-counter access for those 16 and older.
Barr was acquired by the Israeli company Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. in December 2008. Teva said sales of "Plan B" have more than doubled since it became available for adults in 2006.
Copyright @ CNA
(http://www.catholicnewsagency.com)

reply from: Shenanigans

Wisdom my arse! That whole thing is both morally repugnant, medically unsettling and an indication of the way women have fallen to very low depths indeed.

reply from: Faramir

There are some who have the mindset that abortion is "contraception plan b."
They will do whatever they can to avoid pregnancy with contraception, but when it fails, abortion is the next option.
Why would not such a person have no problem with a pill that would do the same thing, and have that intent when taking it? It's main job would be to prevent the pregnancy, but if that doesn't happen, the hostile environment it creates would kill what was conceived.
But this is all speculation, and reasoning about something that I know nothing about factually. I'm just saying "IF this, then that..." but I don't have a shred of evidence my "if" could be true. My point in disussing this hypothetical with you, is that IF it is an abortifacient, it COULD be much much more dangerous than a normal risk of living, which is why I objected to that comparison.

reply from: Faramir

In those cases then the person should remain abstinent and not marry.
In my own case, I've had to be celibate over seven years because of some health issues my wife has, and a pregnancy which at this time could be dangerous.
Neither contraception nor abortion is an option for us.
That's the breaks.

reply from: Faramir

Whether they would be "OK" with abortion is not the issue....
Once more, are you implying that only what is accepted in Catholicism (like swimming and driving cars, both of which pose a very real risk) are "normal," and therefore acceptable risks? Don't mention condoms again, good sir, since no one is implying they pose a risk, so they are not relevant to this discussion....
I think maybe you are not understanding me or I am not understanding you, or both.
This has nothing at all to do with religion or my own beliefs.
The big "IF" once more would be that the risk could be much greater than what anyone using common sense would call "acceptable."
I would call the risk of driving to town acceptable. I would call the risk of playing Russion Roulette UNacceptable. IF the pill is in the latter category, it would be too great a risk.
I wish you would take me at my word that I am not entertaining this hypothetical because of religious beliefs. My religious beliefs preclude all forms of contraception, and I am not stressing that any be made illegal, UNLESS, it could be proved that they are abortifacient, and I would think this would come well AFTER elective abortion would be made illegal, so we're discussing an issue that maybe our great, great, great, great grand children MIGHT have to deal with, but that's unlikely to come up any time soon in the real world.

reply from: scopia19822

"In those cases then the person should remain abstinent and not marry. "
So your telling me that a person should be not have the sacrament of marriage because they have a health condition that pregnancy and childbirth could fatal? They should be miserable for the rest of their lives and not be able to make a life with the person that they love? The Church seems to be put too much of an emphasis on celbacy if you ask me.

reply from: Faramir

I'm saying that if they want to be practicing Catholics and if they are afraid a pregancy would be unhealthy or deadly, they should abstain from sexual intercourse, unless they want to accept the risk of death. Contraception and abortion are not options for Catholics.
Abstinence for the sake of doing what is right does not necessarily mean "miserable for the rest of their lives."

reply from: Faramir

If it could be proven that HBC sometimes acts as an abortifacient, would there be a level (assuming the level could be proved as well) at which point you would agree the risk is unacceptable?
For example, let's say that every time fertilization occurs, that there is an implantation failure for every 2,000 occurrences. Would that be an acceptable level of risk?
But if it were higher--let's say 25% fail to implant--would that be an acceptable level of risk?

reply from: Rosalie

I'm saying that if they want to be practicing Catholics and if they are afraid a pregancy would be unhealthy or deadly, they should abstain from sexual intercourse, unless they want to accept the risk of death. Contraception and abortion are not options for Catholics.
Abstinence for the sake of doing what is right does not necessarily mean "miserable for the rest of their lives."
Sex is a wonderful and important part of a relationship/marriage, whether you like it or not. Anyone who sacrifices their relationship with someone he loves because the Bible says so is an idiot.

reply from: Faramir

I'm saying that if they want to be practicing Catholics and if they are afraid a pregancy would be unhealthy or deadly, they should abstain from sexual intercourse, unless they want to accept the risk of death. Contraception and abortion are not options for Catholics.
Abstinence for the sake of doing what is right does not necessarily mean "miserable for the rest of their lives."
Sex is a wonderful and important part of a relationship/marriage, whether you like it or not. Anyone who sacrifices their relationship with someone he loves because the Bible says so is an idiot.
Eternal life is more important than pleasure, and a relationship can be more than having sex. If the sexual component has to be temporarily removed, and the relationship is "sacrificed" or goes bad, then something important must have been missing (possibly real love?).

reply from: Rosalie

Maybe sex is just about 'pleasure' to you but it means so much more to me. I'm disappointed by the indifferent or flat out hostile attitude to sex so many 'pro-lifers' seem to have.
There is no proof of 'eternal life', that is just your belief - and of course, you have every right to hold such belief.
I just find it to be an absolutey stupid excuse for screwing up a relationship. Celibacy is not natural in human relationships, it IS damaging to human relationships, it is damaging to both parties involved and it is absolutely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with lack of love and everything to do with the fact that sex is a significant part of every relationship.
I don't care about what you call eternal life (I'm not interested anyway but for the sake of the argument, let's pretend that I am) if it means putting my family second. It is MY belief (that means so much to me as your christian beliefs) that putting your loved ones second is wrong.

reply from: Faramir

Maybe sex is just about 'pleasure' to you but it means so much more to me. I'm disappointed by the indifferent or flat out hostile attitude to sex so many 'pro-lifers' seem to have.
There is no proof of 'eternal life', that is just your belief - and of course, you have every right to hold such belief.
I just find it to be an absolutey stupid excuse for screwing up a relationship. Celibacy is not natural in human relationships, it IS damaging to human relationships, it is damaging to both parties involved and it is absolutely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with lack of love and everything to do with the fact that sex is a significant part of every relationship.
I don't care about what you call eternal life (I'm not interested anyway but for the sake of the argument, let's pretend that I am) if it means putting my family second. It is MY belief (that means so much to me as your christian beliefs) that putting your loved ones second is wrong.
I'm not indifferent or hostile to sexual activity.
I've shared my own situation, and I'm not happy about it, and I don't enjoy being called an "idiot" on top of it.
I'm not forcing my beliefs or practices on you or anyone else (with the exception of abortion, which I believe is an injustice to another person).
But those who choose to become or remain Catholics believe that there is no proper sexual contact outside of a marriage situation, and that contraception is immoral and intrinsically evil.
You don't have to buy it, and you're not bound by what we Catholics bind ourselves to, but I think you're going too far by calling me an "idiot" for doing what I can to be true to my faith in a difficult situation.

reply from: Faramir

Be celibate, with my blessing. I have also been celibate for some years now, by choice (diverting that energy to my workouts has done wonders for my physique). I still value my right to go out and screw whomever I choose, whenever I choose, for whatever reason I choose, and as many times as I choose (provided they are willing), however.
And I have not made any attempt to force my beliefs on you or anyone else.
I was simply stating what we believe and what we must do to remain true to our own faith.

reply from: Faramir

If it could be proven that HBC sometimes acts as an abortifacient, would there be a level (assuming the level could be proved as well) at which point you would agree the risk is unacceptable?
For example, let's say that every time fertilization occurs, that there is an implantation failure for every 2,000 occurrences. Would that be an acceptable level of risk?
But if it were higher--let's say 25% fail to implant--would that be an acceptable level of risk?
I'm not comfortable with telling others that they can not choose to engage in activities that carry some risk of harm to their children when those activities are not intended to harm anyone. Do you not understand that? I am not the one who is asserting that others may not take such risks. You are saying it would be wrong, not I, so it is incumbent on you to say what level of risk you deem acceptable.
There is a level of risk that I might refuse to accept, but I am not comfortable with a declaration that others must only take risks I find acceptable. Is that so hard to understand?
Once more:
If I think the risk involved with swimming or driving is too great, I am free to refuse to take those risks, but would it be acceptable for me to assert that you may also not take those risks?
I believe you failed to address this point. Are you unable to answer clearly? You seem to have responded that you find these activities to be "normal," and therefore acceptable. That is not what I asked you. Who gets to decide what is "normal" anyway? You? If BC is "normal" for me, why should you get to say it is unacceptable?
If I think the risks of driving or swimming are too great, I may not tell you you can't do them? But if you think the risk of HBC use is too great, you can tell me I can't use it?
I think there's a point at which the law could say an activity is too dangerous and could restrict a parent from letting his child be involved.
I don't have a definition of "normal" for you, but I think reasonable people would agree that riding in a car is an acceptable and necessary risk, and reasonable people would agree that swimming is a normal form of recreation, and that the risk is acceptable, and that reasonable people would agree that tossing a kid into a pool of sharks knowing he has a 50/50 chance of living through the experience is NOT an acceptable risk, and a child needs to be protected from a parent like that.
So, yes, there is a point at which reasonable people could say that you are exposing your child to an unnecessary risk and that you might need to be controlled, but exactly how that would be defined--I don't know. I just know that I would know it when I see it.

reply from: Faramir

I wouldn't.
I don't believe we can mico-manage a form of morality by force of law.
We can just do the "big things" like murder and theft.

reply from: Faramir

What was supposed to be several months has become seven years.
It was not something I wanted, and I was very grumpy about it in the beginning, but I have learned to live with it, and I found out that I actually would not die by being celibate.
I never would have believed I could have done it, and it's turned out to be easier than I thought it would be, once getting past the first few months.
I do miss the intimacy, but the feelings of "need" that I have sometimes are more of a wish to be like everyone else and not feel left out, as opposed to some kind of real physical need.
But I do wish it were otherwise. I wish things could be as they once were.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.crossroadswalk.org/

reply from: Rosalie

That's how I see it from many replies in this and other threads. It's just my opinion.
I don't know your situation, Faramir. And it's something too personal to discuss here. But I wonder if you can say honestly that celibacy did nothing to your marriage and that you were both happy with being celibate.
I know couples who decided to be celibate only from hearsay and NONE of these couples were happy. NONE of them. And it wasn't because of the lack of love, as you implied. It was because of the fact that one important part of their relationship was missing.
Sex is not only about pleasure. It's about bonding, it's about sharing the most intimate moments with your partner. Sure you can survive it but it will impact your relationship and you in a negative way.
I can absolutely understand having beliefs, believing in God(s), Goddesses, Nature, Yin&Yang... pretty much anything. But I love my child more than my own life. I put my family first, always. It's so deeply instinctual. There are many kinds of love but there is unconditional love and that cannot be topped by religion.
My family and forever will be the most important entity in my life. As I believe it should be. Placing an entity of your religious beliefs ABOVE your children, ABOVE your entire family - that's extremism to me. And it's terrifying, to be completely honest. I don't understand this mindset nor do I have any desire to understand it.
Do you put first God or your kids (I think you said you have kids?)?
I already know I shouldn't have asked that because I'm already creeped out by what I suppose your answer will be and I hope you'll prove me wrong.
You have no right to force your beliefs on anyone, period. But you would like to - with abortion and with homosexuality, too, because I don't believe you would ever vote FOR homosexual rights, would you? These are two examples of blatant discrimination that you excuse with your religion and think that the fact that YOUR RELIGION TELLS YOU TO makes it okay. But it doesn't.
You say that often and it really makes me giggle. Because once again, you apply your religious beliefs on relationships of others - when you have NO idea what is good for them. You only believe what your religion tells you and you do not allow even a THOUGHT that everything might be different from other people.
Contraception betters relationships and using marriage as the only example of a moral coexistence between two partners is a sexist anachronism.
There is so much ignorance and fanaticism in this statement and I feel sad for every couple who falls for this and sacrifices what's between them to extremism. Believing (in) something is one thing, using your brain while believing (in) something is another.
I don't think so at all. I think that's extremism and that's something I do not condone and will speak against. I'm sorry if it offends you, but that's how I feel.

reply from: Faramir

Makes perfect sense if god is just a fairy tale.
If, however, God is Creator and Savior, the being who created us, sustains us, and upon whom rests our eternal destiny, then He would certainly be the most important member of my family. Why not? How could I be bigger, better, or smarter than God?
This makes no sense to you, because you don't believe in God, and you believe anyone who does, is just being superstitious.
I'm an "extremist" for believing God actually exists, instead of believing in him like many believe in Santa.

reply from: Faramir

That's how pro-lifers feel about the person in the womb.
And it's hard to understand why it's not instinctual for those who desire abortion rights.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Shenanigans, I know you're prolife but that tag line is not.

reply from: Faramir

Shenanigans, I know you're prolife but that tag line is not.
It's called humor. Do you know what that is? She's making fun of them....

reply from: nancyu

Shenanigans, I know you're prolife but that tag line is not.
Not for sheep anyway...
I didn't get it at first either. You have to look at her link:
http://negare.deviantart.com/art/Abaaaaaartion-116091478
You do have a unique sense of humor, Shenanigans.

reply from: ChristianLott2

You do have a unique sense of humor, Shenanigans.
But her sig doesn't link directly to that picture.
Something can be said as well about the leftists aversion to US 'torture' methods while they protect the 'right' to yank a preborn limb from limb.
Meanwhile the jihadists behead every captured GI or journalist and post videos of it.
If I were in the military and they told me we couldn't extract information from our captives - why should I potentially risk my life and others to capture the sicko?
Take away our ability to get information from the terrorists and you take away any reason to capture the bastards.
If that's how the pacifist left sees logic, there's only one alternative -
Take no prisoners. Take no s h i t.
Kill 'em all.

reply from: Yuuki

Hypocrites.
Not all liberals are pro-choice. I'm not.

reply from: scopia19822

"I'm saying that if they want to be practicing Catholics and if they are afraid a pregancy would be unhealthy or deadly, they should abstain from sexual intercourse, unless they want to accept the risk of death. Contraception and abortion are not options for Catholics.
Abstinence for the sake of doing what is right does not necessarily mean "miserable for the rest of their lives."
You are a convert if I remember right, I was born and raised in the RCC and I love my faith. There is some things that Im not in agreement with. The Church seems to say that celibacy is the ideal for anyone and only those who are celibate can truly serve God. This would include the clergy, religious and celibate layman. Im in the Richmond VA diocese and in an article of the Catholic Virginian about 6 months ago was an article about a woman who became a "consecrated virgin". There was a big thing about her living a pure and chaste life while living in the secular world. This offended a lot of married people who are sick of being made to fel that marriage is a less honorable insitution than holy orders. That married non celibate people could serve God and the Church just as well. It seems sometimes that being married is just a step above being a fornicator and there is no other purpose other than to produce the next generation of Catholics. Im no longer a celibate married women,. My husband and I had agreed to do so for awhile because I needed help to overcome a rape from 3 yrs ago while we were seperated. Im slowly trying to disassociate the attack with sex. He has health problems so it not frequent anyway. I dont think that a person should have to give up the person they love and an intimant relationship because they have a health problem, in this case you will have some priests who wont condone it, but not comdemn a woman to get a tubal ligation. Thats the same thing as not allowing impotent people to marry in the Church. We are having some veterans come back from Iraq, just like in Vietnam that have gotten their manhood blown off. As it stands now even if his fiance loves him enough to still want to marry them, they cant marry in the Church because he cant perform the marriage act. IMHO that is cruel and wrong on so many levels, I have heard from my priests the argument that they cant be open to children, even if they agree to pursue adoption.

reply from: Faramir

Life can be cruel and life can be unfair. It's a fallen world, and we rarely experience "the ideal," and if we do, it's for a short time.
The Church is what it says it is or it is not.
If it is, then we cannot out-think God. Just because we think something ought to be a certain way, does not mean we can make up our own rules and exceptions.
The Church has a high regard for the married state as well as the religious life. Each has its place and one is not more important that the other, though I do think there's something special about those who have given up all thoughts of intimacy for the sake of the Church.
Because a pregnancy could be extremely dangerous, I cannot have a relationship with my wife at this time. Because contraception is considered to be a serious sin that goes against the marital act, we cannot use contraception. Besides that, it could fail, and abortion would not be an option.
I don't like our situation, but that's the breaks. I'm not going to make up my own relgion to suit what I want.

reply from: scopia19822

Faramir, saying that a person because they have a serious health problem should not marry or a war veteran being denied the sacrament of marriage because hes now impotent is beyond life isnt fair. The Church claims to have a high regard for the married state, but in practice I have to say that isnt the case. My patron saint is St. Gianna Molla not just because she chose to die for her child, but because she was a wife a mother an ordinary woman, not a religious sister or a celibate layperson. You and your wife do what you think is best for you. However sex in the context of marriage is not dirty and not just for producing the next generation of Catholics and its time the Church sees married people and familes as just as holy. I dont support priestly celibacy, if our Eastern Rite Priests can marry me why not the latin right?

reply from: Faramir

Do and say what your conscience dictates, scopia.
As I see it, you are making heretical comments, and speaking against the Church.

reply from: scopia19822

Call it what you will, I am not the only Catholic that feels this way, several in my parish share the same sentiments. The more I think about it I think I will leave the RCC for the Orthodox Church.. I have a right to speak out against the wrongs I think the Church is making. Would it have been heritcal of me to speak out against the child molesters they covered up for and are still covering up for?

reply from: Faramir

Call it what you will, I am not the only Catholic that feels this way, several in my parish share the same sentiments. The more I think about it I think I will leave the RCC for the Orthodox Church.. I have a right to speak out against the wrongs I think the Church is making. Would it have been heritcal of me to speak out against the child molesters they covered up for and are still covering up for?
You can and should speak out against someone in the clergy who abuses his power.
That's an entirely different story than publicly rebelling against Church doctrine.

reply from: ChristianLott2

abortion is the leading cause of death.
murdering the most innocent and helpless no less.
Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700
twice that of heart disease. look at how much money we spend on that. compare how much of nothing we spend on new mothers.
that's just the US, remember:
WORLDWIDE
Number of abortions per year: Approximately 42 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 115,000

reply from: BossMomma

Call it what you will, I am not the only Catholic that feels this way, several in my parish share the same sentiments. The more I think about it I think I will leave the RCC for the Orthodox Church.. I have a right to speak out against the wrongs I think the Church is making. Would it have been heritcal of me to speak out against the child molesters they covered up for and are still covering up for?
WTF? Scopia is speaking against the church? When did this come about?

reply from: scopia19822

"WTF? Scopia is speaking against the church? When did this come about?"
I will PM you.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.nrlc.org/Killing_Embryos/NRLCHousecloningwarning.pdf

reply from: ChristianLott2

Embryonic stem cells: Bill Clinton's double debacle
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2009/03/embryonic-stem-cells-bill-clintons-double-debacle.html

reply from: ChristianLott2

..and 'Doctor' Gupta never felt a need to correct the idiot. 2 million cheers for pro murder propaganda.

reply from: nancyu

from Jill Stanek's column:

reply from: nancyu

http://www.newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri121.htm
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/055555.html
SWINE FLU IN MEXICO: THE "NEW" BIRD FLU
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
April 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
We knew this was coming. Even though the bird flu hype was removed years ago from the nightly news, planning for the global pandemic and the development of pandemic flu vaccines has continued with little notice. Our government has instructed FEMA, made checklists for Homeland Security, given action plans to State and local authorities. These plans include methods and drills for global inoculation with a vaccine that will no doubt have the same deadly consequences as the Swine Flu vaccine in 1976.
My book, "FOWL,!" published in 2006, foretold the events that are now happening in Mexico. Reported death rates are skyrocketing, from 20 to 60 to 86, in a matter of hours. More than 1,300 others have supposedly become ill with "suspected" cases of the infection and reports are coming in from various States and Canada of swine flu. There are no sources or references given with these numbers; we have to take the word of CNN [and spinwiddy]. A short look back at plans that were put in place several years ago will confirm this is not a spontaneous eruption and the solution - global vaccination - has been in the works for quite some time.
History Repeating
Even though April 30, 1975 marked the end of the U.S. presence in Vietnam, young men across the country continued to sign up for the all-volunteer army. Just after the Christmas holiday in 1975, thousands of enthusiastic new army recruits reported to the barracks at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to begin basic training. However, by mid-January, many were complaining of flulike symptoms; a few had even been hospitalized.
One recruit reported to his drill instructor that he felt tired and weak. Given the option to rest, he opted instead to participate in a five-mile training march on a cold February night. Twenty-four hours later, on February 6, 1975, the 19-year-old Pvt. David Lewis of Ashley Falls, Massachusetts, was dead. Word arrived the following week from the CDC laboratory that his death was caused by an unusual influenza type A virus. Particularly worrisome was that four other samples taken from ill recruits at Fort Dix had also tested positive for influenza A virus - a type that had previously been detected only in pigs.
Within three weeks of Lewis' death - the only person ever confirmed to have died from swine flu on the entire military base - researchers and public health officials converged in Washington to persuade members of Congress to implement a costly new program to vaccinate the country. A nationwide campaign, launched with the urgency of a five-alarm fire, was started by the CDC which ramped up the vaccine production with millions of government dollars allocated to develop of a novel vaccine for mass vaccination.
The same five-alarm fire is happening today. This morning, April 26, 2009, the federal government declared a public health emergency, as the number of cases of swine flu in the U.S. rises to a mere 20, announcing the arrival of the long-planned for and awaited pandemic.
Pharma Protected
In 1976, the Federal Insurance Company advised Merck that all liability, indemnity, and defense costs associated with claims arising from the new swine flu vaccine would not be covered by its insurance plan. Having absorbed the embarrassment and the economic losses caused by the polio vaccine in 1955, the pharmaceutical industry and their insurance providers were determined that would not happen again.
This time, there are no worries. Drug companies have completely covered their tracks, and when reports of adverse event and deaths from the new swine flu vaccine start to roll in, they will be smiling all the way to the bank.
Flu shots were added to the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table in 2003, meaning, if anyone is injured, a claim needs to be filed through the Federal Court of Claims and it will be years before it is adjudicated. And that is just the basic layer of protection. All the drug companies have to do is whisper that this may be a "terrorist attack" and they are home free.
Before he was voted out of office in 2006, then-senator Bill Frist (R-TN), a physician, drove through a bill that gave drug companies more immunity than any bill ever passed by Congress. The legislation, referred to as "Division E" was tacked to a Defense appropriations bill during the final minutes of the congressional sessions before the Christmas recess. This bill provides at least four sweeping provisions:
1. Immunity from liability for all drugs, vaccines, or biological products deemed as a covered countermeasure against bioterrorism in the event of an outbreak of any kind. The proposal is not only limited to new drugs or vaccines developed under the umbrella of "bioterrorism" or "pandemic" protection. The proposal is so broad that it could include drugs like Tylenol, Advil...and would have applied to Vioxx.
2. Immunity for any product used for any public health emergency declared by the secretary of HHS. The authority to declare an emergency now rests completely in the hands of the secretary of HHS - an appointed, non-medical person who has no accountability to the general public. The president's hand-picked person that is part of his inner circle will have the power to mandate vaccines and other medications given to the American people.
3. Immunity from accountability. No matter what a drug company does wrong, they are protected. Even if the company's dirty facility created a batch of contaminated vaccines that resulted in death or injury to thousands of people, the drug company will not be held accountable.
4. Immunity from law suits. A person who suffers any type of loss will be prohibited from suing the drug companies. Vaccine manufacturers have immunity from almost everything, perhaps even murder. The bill provisions provide a mechanism for filing a lawsuit, but the language explicitly prevents frivolous suits by setting a standard for liability more rigid than any known standard of negligence.
In simple terms, if a claim is filed by a plaintiff it can go forward only if the injured party can prove that the company performed an act of "willful misconduct" resulting in an injury or a death. In other words, the injured party would have to prove the vaccine maker intentionally caused him harm.
Division-E goes even one step further. Unbelievably, even if a pharmaceutical company knowingly harms people, the company will be immune from legal prosecution unless the U.S. attorney general initiates "enforcement action" against the drug company in the name of the claimant. This means the U.S. government would have to go to bat for the injured party for the lawsuit to move forward, as unlikely as the current swine flu fiasco being an unplanned pandemic.
New Vaccines Ready to Roll Out
The swine flu outbreak is going to benefit one of the most prolific and successful venture capital firms in the United States: Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers. Share prices have already risen for two of eight public traded companies in the firm's portfolio of Pandemic and Bio Defense investments. BioCryst, up more than 26 percent, to $2.21 per share, and Novavax, maker of viral vaccines, escalated 75 percent to $1.42 per share on the first announcement of the swine flu outbreak in Mexico.
Novavax uses genetic information and "recombinant, virus-like particle technology" to rapidly engineer a vaccine. Its technology has only been through Phase II clinical trials but might be released prematurely. Novavax's CEO, Rahul Singhvi announced Friday, "There is an emergency authorization avenue that is available that would allow us to use the vaccine in an emergency without further testing." The Division-E provisions would protect the company from all liability.
In the fine print of the Division-E legislation, (available for download at www.DrTenpenny.com so you can read it for yourself), there is a suggestion that a massive, bioterrorist vaccination program could be "voluntary." Will the media make everyone aware of the one-line provision that potentially gives us the right to refuse?
Will government mandates override State exemption laws? The future is unclear but this has been suggested. Your personal rights are growing very thin and activism has never been more important. A quote by U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) says it all: "When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we, in essence, accept that the state owns our bodies."
Staying Healthy
Certainly, keeping yourself healthy and protected from all types of flu strains is a priority, now more than ever. Here are some suggestions:
. Good hydration with alkaline water: If you don't have access to an alkaline water machine, be sure to eat large amounts of alkalinizing, fresh vegetables and fruits such as broccoli, carrots, sprouts, avocados and berries. Here is a site with a great list.
. Sleep: Get at least 8.5 hours per night, every night. Sleep is often overlooked at the key to health. This is simple to do and best of all, it is free.
. Vitamin D: Much has been written on the importance of adequate vitamin D for resisting viral infections. Have your blood tested for 25-OH-vitamin D. Your doctor can order it or you can order it yourself through sites such as www.DirectLabs.com and www.LabSafe.com Your vitamin D level should be at least 50 ng/ml. It is safe to take at least 2000 IU of vitamin D3 per day. With summer coming, you can get your dose of D naturally from sunshine.
. Vitamin C: Humans don't store vitamin C and under stress, much more is required. Vitamin C is important for fighting viral infections. Take in at least 2000 mg/day for overall immune health.
. Vitamin A: This vitamin is one of the best supporters you can have in your cabinet. Mycel A drops given in juice are easy to take for children and adults of all ages. By taking 5,000 IU/day for 5 days is safe for everyone and will give your immune system a protective boost against all types of viral infections.
While these suggestions are not meant to be all encompassing, these some simple solutions for you and your family.
© 2009 - Sherri Tenpenny - All Rights Reserve
...and to presuade members of Congress to push Sebelius' confirmation through.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/03/what_is_the_dic.phpD ickey Amendment and why should I care?
When I talked to my mother today and she had never heard of the d ickey Amendment, I knew we pro-lifers had a huge problem on our hands. If a woman who has been fighting for pro-life issues for nearly four decades did not know what the D ickey Amendment was, I realized there was a lot of work to do getting the word out about this very important piece of legislation.
Let us start with some history. In 2001, President Bush allowed federal funds to be used for research on human embryonic stem cells. These funds were restricted to research on human embryonic stem cell lines created before August of that year. This executive order order did not outlaw embryonic stem cell research nor eliminate funding altogether. It simply meant that from that point forward no federal tax dollars could not be used to fund the research on stem cell lines created by newly destroyed human embryos.
On Monday, President Obama overturned this restriction. Now our tax money can be used to fund research on cell lines created by ripping open human embryos left-over from infertility treatments. Pro-lifers everywhere sent up a collective groan and then probably thought all was lost in the fight on protecting embryonic life. But, Monday's announcement is only a relatively small battle lost in a much bigger war.
President Obama, like President Bush before him, issued an executive order. This means that a future president could put the restrictions on funding back into place. So, senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) have introduced The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 to Congress which would allow for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research permanently. It would codify the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research into law.
Now here is where things get tricky. Obama's executive order and The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2009 only allow funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created from embryos left over from IVF treatments. Federal funds still cannot go to fund research that creates or destroys human embryos thanks to the D ickey Amendment. The D ickey Amendment prohibits federal funds to be used to create or destroy human embryos for research purposes. This Amendment was signed into law by President Clinton. Not even twenty-hours had passed after President Obama lifted the funding restriction, and already lawmakers and scientists were calling for theD ickey Amendment to be overturned. If the D ickey Amendment is overturned our recently unrestricted tax dollars would go to fund embryo farms where human life is created and destroyed as a research tool for scientists. It would also allow the federal government to fund the cloning of human embryos for use in research.
It is important to understand that this fight to protect human embryos is far from over. Please contact your representatives in Congress and President Obama and ask them to uphold the D ickey Amendment. Tell them you do not want your money to fund the creation and destruction of nascent human life.
For those of you who need a push here is the letter I have written:
Dear ..........
I am writing as a concerned citizen about the status of the D ickey Amendment. The D ickey Amendment prohibits the use of my tax dollars for funding research that creates and destroys human embryos. In the wake of the new policies on federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, I have read statements by lawmakers and scientists alike that call for the D ickey Amendment to be overturned.
If the D ickey Amendment is overturned my recently unrestricted tax dollars could go to fund embryo farms where human life is created and destroyed as a research tool for scientists. It would also allow the federal government to use my money to fund the cloning of human embryos for use in research. This would be unacceptable to me, my family and millions of other Americans who believe human life at all stages needs to be protected.
Please uphold the D ickey Amendment. Please do not allow hard earned American tax-payer dollars go to fund research on the youngest and most vulnerable of our species, human embryos.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Taylor
Here is a great comment on the article:
lj replied to comment from Spencer Brandt | March 18, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply
"If embryonic stem cell research was as promising as you'd like to believe, there wouldn't be any need to use federal tax dollars to fund it. The potential earnings would be astronomical and it would attract billions of investment dollars from private investors. The scarcity of investment funds is testimony to how exaggerated the promises of the research is.
Barak Obama is a millionaire, yet I've never read that he's invested his own money in ESCR."
(sorry I had to space the word to avoid the censors...)

reply from: ProInformed

"If embryonic stem cell research was as promising as you'd like to believe, there wouldn't be any need to use federal tax dollars to fund it. The potential earnings would be astronomical and it would attract billions of investment dollars from private investors. The scarcity of investment funds is testimony to how exaggerated the promises of the research is."
True.
The pro-aborts don't defend ESCR because they really care about cures anyway - the main value of ESCR to them is that it gives them another excuse to defend 'abortion rights' and their 'free sex' deathstyles.
They don't really care about victims of child abuse or rape either -
again they just claim to care because those problems provide excuses for them to defend abortion.
REAL cures and solutions would DEPRIVE the choicists (choice cultists) of their favorite justifications for killing THOUSANDS of innocent human babies per day.
So OF COURSE they are going to be opposed to the more successful, more moral forms of research!

reply from: ProInformed

...and to presuade members of Congress to push Sebelius' confirmation through.
Scary stuff - I have never had a flu shot and typically everyone I know except me gets sick from the flu every winter. It's not at all uncomom for dictators to use soem sort of crisis situation to expand their powers (and to reduce citizens' rights and freedoms)...

reply from: nancyu

Has it really been a week already!? Time flies right by when you're having so much fun!

reply from: ChristianLott2

We should make this permanent.

reply from: Faramir

I think I finally figured it out.
IAPA means...
Ignore All Pro Aborts
Of course in the somewhat "different world" where the orignal poster resides, a pro-abort could be someone she doesn't like because of the way he combs is hair, so don't feel too left out and don't assume you are automatically a a "pro abort" if you are feeling ignored.

reply from: Yuuki

Pppft I could care less.

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've started a club for all those ignored by Nancyu.
So for I've invited pro-aborts, Nancy's children, and the voice of reason.
You're welcome to join as long as you bring chips. ...And ice. We're running low on chips and ice.
I'll bring ice ^^

reply from: nancyu

We should make this permanent.
Not a bad idea.

reply from: Faramir

We should make this permanent.
Not a bad idea.
I think it's a FABULOUS idea.
Even better, I think nancyu, christianlott, faithman, and all others who enjoy their very special ways of expressing themselves, should start their own board.
I'll help set it up.

reply from: ChristianLott2

We should make this permanent.
Not a bad idea.
It's like a thousand pounds of idiot just left the room.

reply from: BossMomma

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've started a club for all those ignored by Nancyu.
So for I've invited pro-aborts, Nancy's children, and the voice of reason.
You're welcome to join as long as you bring chips. ...And ice. We're running low on chips and ice.
I'll bring ice ^^
I'll bring the beer, or do we prefer the hard stuff?

reply from: Yuuki

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I've started a club for all those ignored by Nancyu.
So for I've invited pro-aborts, Nancy's children, and the voice of reason.
You're welcome to join as long as you bring chips. ...And ice. We're running low on chips and ice.
I'll bring ice ^^
I'll bring the beer, or do we prefer the hard stuff?
I actually prefer vodka!

reply from: nancyu

We should make this permanent.
Not a bad idea.
It's like a thousand pounds of idiot just left the room.
At least!

reply from: nancyu

We should make this permanent.
Not a bad idea.
It's like a thousand pounds of idiot just left the room.
At least!
So, what's the future look like to you?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Our gov't just refuses to get it right. It wasn't great under Bush and now it's completely ruinous under Obama.
State secession was is and has always been the only way to protect ourselves. After 50 million abortions do you think a 10 trillion deficit will set them straight?
I'm skeptical.

reply from: spamcyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCyr1ugzxXM

reply from: spamcyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUTHtNaVTMI

reply from: spamcyu

You're a liar and you're not a person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s&feature=PlayList&p=1D20663B65C58F9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4

reply from: spamcyu

You're a liar and you're not a person.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s&feature=PlayList&p=1D20663B65C58F9F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=4
And you're a pro-abort.

reply from: Yuuki

And you're a pro-abort.
And YOU'RE talking to yourself.

reply from: nancyu

Our gov't just refuses to get it right. It wasn't great under Bush and now it's completely ruinous under Obama.
State secession was is and has always been the only way to protect ourselves. After 50 million abortions do you think a 10 trillion deficit will set them straight?
I'm skeptical.
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm
Texas Secede!
For an independent Texas Republic
www.TexasSecede.org

Q: Doesn't the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP]
A: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2] However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States..." (note that it does not state "...subject to the President of the United States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")
Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other "free and independent State") from the United States. Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government "experts" - including Abraham Lincoln himself - may have ever said).
Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that "All political power is inherent in the people ... they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper."
Likewise, each of the united States is "united" with the others explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [3]


Q: Didn't the outcome of the "Civil War" prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP]
A: No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4] Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]
The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used - even by governments (if unrestrained) - to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]
It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." [7]


Q: Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]

A: No. For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court's decision in Texas v. White:
"When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.
"...The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union ...remained perfect and unimpaired. ...the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.
"...Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union."
- Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)
It is noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.
What's wrong with this picture? Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were - see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in "readmitting" a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left. Both can't be logically or legally true.
To be clear: Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions - one, a judicially contrived "interpretation" of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission. If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot - a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.
This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.
Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself...
The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution - precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.
It's no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded. These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a "constitutional" argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.
An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served: presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).
Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states. No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.
The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.


Q: Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP]
A: Probably not (yet). Texans generally aren't the rugged, independent, liberty-conscious folks they once were. Like most Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. government's steady theft of their rights and property via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities.
Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.e., government) "education," today's Texans easily adopt the "politically correct" myths that litter the landscape of American popular opinion. Many don't even know what the word secede means, and believe that the United States is a "democracy" (hint: it's not)[8].
But public opinion and ignorance won't stop us from suggesting that secession is still a good idea for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided by the U.S. welfare/warfare state. By raising public awareness of even the concept of secession, we hope they might plant seeds that will some day yield a new resolve among Texans for liberty and self-government.


Q: How would Texas - and Texans - benefit from secession? [BACK TO TOP]
A: In many ways. Over the past century-and-a-half the United States government has awarded itself ever more power (but not the lawful authority) to meddle with the lives, liberty, and property of the People of Texas (as well as those of the other States).
Sapping Texans' wealth into a myriad of bureaucratic, socialist schemes both in the U.S. and abroad, the bipartisan despots in Washington persist in expanding the federal debt and budget deficits every year. Texans would indeed gain much by reclaiming control of their State, their property, their liberty, and their very lives, by refusing to participate further in the fraud perpetrated by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats.
By restoring Texas to an independent republic, Texans would truly reclaim a treasure for themselves and their progeny.


Q: Are any organizations promoting a Texas secession? [BACK TO TOP]
A: Yes. The following organized efforts exist for informing and unifying Texans around the causes of independence and liberty:
* Texas Nationalist (www.TexasNationalist.com) (formerly Republic of Texas), (President, Daniel Miller), functional as of 2007
* TexasSecession (www.TexasSecession.com) 817-453-5744
* United Republic of Texas (www.texas.freecountries.org) Yahoo Group: UtdRepTex, established 2005, functional as of 2007 (Combining the New Republic of Texas and Historical Republic of Texas) active as of 2008
* Texas Constitution 2000 calls on Texans to ratify a new constitution liberating Texas from the economic and statutory slavery of the U.S. government. Their website is http://www.tcrf.com
* Republic of Texas (www.texasrepublic.info) documents the annexation of Texas as a U.S. state as a having been a fraud in the first place, and reclaims the republic's sovereignty. Contact: trep777@dctexas.net
Outside of Texas, the Registry of North American Separatist Organizations lists a number of other states having active efforts towards secession.


Q: Why exactly are y'all selling this stuff? [BACK TO TOP]
A: Texas has a rich history of independent character. She was the first of only two US States ever recognized internationally as sovereign, independent republics (the other was Hawai'i), having won her independence from a heavy-handed despotic government (Mexico) that refused to honor its own constitution (sound familiar?).
We'd like to see Texans showing more public pride in Texas by displaying symbols of Texas' history and spirit of liberty - particularly various renditions of the Texas flag. That's the motivation behind TexasSecede.com, as well as our sister site, TexasFlagMan.com, which aims to be a source of affordable quality Texas flags, flag decals, and Secede decals, as a means of encouraging the public display of support for an independent Texas.



Notes
[1] See The Texas Constitution Online [RETURN TO TEXT]
[2] See the Terms of Annexation Online [RETURN TO TEXT]
[3] See the Declaration of Independence Online [RETURN TO TEXT]
[4], [5], [6] See Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson; The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; A Consitutional History of Secession by John R. Graham; Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey R. Hummel; When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams; Union And Liberty by John C. Calhoun; States' Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald [RETURN TO TEXT]
[7] See the Declaration of Independence Online [RETURN TO TEXT]
[8] See DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com for details. [RETURN TO TEXT]


© Copyright 2009 TexasSecede.org . Contact Us . TexasSecede! Blog

reply from: nancyu

I think we should make them secede from us. I want to keep our flag. They don't seem to care for it.
http://www.usflag.org/

reply from: yoda

I think it's interesting that Quebec twice voted on secession from Canada, and no deaths were reported in connection with either action.

reply from: ChristianLott2

It's only because the bureaucracy are cowards that secession didn't happen a long time ago. As for the flag - well, I'm more tied to my principals and ethics than I am to a symbol. I don't see the feds giving it up any time soon, no matter how many times Obama and his wife puke all over it.
Besides, they'll have to yank a star or two off it so it definitely won't ever be the same. Maybe the states who secede will form their own union.

reply from: scopia19822

Have you forgotten the Civil War? Succession did not work then and it will not work now. My home state of SC was the first to secede and fire the first shots of that war. If you want dont like the way things are in this country than you are free to leave and move somewhere else. I want to end abortion as much as you do, but breaking this country apart and God forbid blood spilling is not going to do it. Maybe if the people of this country would quit being so apathetic and get off their asses and quit voting in the same politicians year after year than maybe something could get done on a massive scale about abortion among other things.

reply from: nancyu

It's only because the bureaucracy are cowards that secession didn't happen a long time ago. As for the flag - well, I'm more tied to my principals and ethics than I am to a symbol. I don't see the feds giving it up any time soon, no matter how many times Obama and his wife puke all over it.
Besides, they'll have to yank a star or two off it so it definitely won't ever be the same. Maybe the states who secede will form their own union.
The flag is more than just a symbol for me. It is a symbol that stands for those principals and ethics to which I am tied. It shouldn't be perverted to be a symbol to stand for people who merely want to be "taken care of" by their government. If we go, we should take that flag with us somehow.

reply from: nancyu

http://movementforabetteramerica.org/

reply from: lukesmom

Would you PLEASE give sources for the schmidt you keep spouting off the top of your head?

reply from: lukesmom

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-two percent (32%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +1
Overall, 54% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

reply from: ChristianLott2

I'll keep my principals, they can keep their starless flag.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Remove Notre Dame from Catholic directory.
http://www.all.org/ndpetition/

reply from: lukesmom

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
By comparison, http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Americans are pretty fickle. Give Obama more time and I bet he drops too. It's inevitable for just about every president.

reply from: Faramir

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
You nailed me!
According to FOX news, the 70% figure is only the African-American community. Americans as a whole drop that figure to 58%
...However, that's still better than the 22% figure from a year ago.
Are you seriously going to brag about the approval ratings of a President who is still on his "honeymoon"?
Let's see where he is after 2 years in office.

reply from: nancyu

edited
Above is my list of "ignored users" (just in case anyone cares)
Although I never completely ignore anyone (except jourevecfou) keeping them out of my sight for the most part seems to make my forum life much more pleasant and productive.
Some people(?) apparently didn't read this part.

reply from: Faramir

It kind of defeats the purpose of a discussion board if you can't interact with someone who disagrees with you.

reply from: nancyu

Like I said...You are a liar. None of this is true. And you know it.

reply from: nancyu

It does. Doesn't it.

reply from: nancyu

I have no problem discussing things with people I disagree with. When they lie and manipulate, I have a problem interacting with those people.

reply from: nancyu

...assuming they are people.

reply from: sk1bianca

reasonable and rational people are ok with http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7754/08weeks01.jpg?

reply from: yoda

It kinda makes the words "reasonable and rational" meaningless, doesn't it?

reply from: yoda

There is a procedure for putting posters on ignore, and for taking them off, spinny. Did you think you had to stay on the list forever? Or do you just not really care as long as you get to call someone a liar?

reply from: Faramir

It does. Doesn't it.
Sometimes the opposition comes up with a good argument, and it's good to understand it and know how to refute it.
Also, sometimes the opposition is not wrong about everything.
I was totally opposed to ESCR before our discussion, simply because I thought I was "supposed" to be, but in examining all the arguments and in thinking about it, I realized that it does not have to be a bad thing necessarily. It could be done in ways that are legitimate.

reply from: carolemarie

I am insulted that i didn't make the ignore list.....

reply from: scopia19822

I am so honored to have made nancys list

reply from: scopia19822

What is a waste of time is your "faux lifer" list and Nancy publically posting her ignore list. Childish.

reply from: nancyu

It's funny that I get lectures on listening to other people from other people who don't listen to other people.

reply from: Yuuki

I don't have ANYone on ignore to my knowledge right now...

reply from: faithman

Don't have to. Everyone does already. Why would anyone care what a lying baby killer, faux lifer has to say?

reply from: Yuuki

Don't have to. Everyone does already. Why would anyone care what a lying baby killer, faux lifer has to say?
If you're talking to her, then clearly you don't have her on ignore. You human.

reply from: Faramir

Don't have to. Everyone does already. Why would anyone care what a lying baby killer, faux lifer has to say?
I listen to her, not that I agree with everything, but because she's humble, has shared the mistakes of her past to help others, and beause she has helped save hundreds of babies. She has proven to me that kindness is the best way to save them.

reply from: nancyu

It does. Doesn't it.
Sometimes the opposition comes up with a good argument, and it's good to understand it and know how to refute it.
Also, sometimes the opposition is not wrong about everything.
I was totally opposed to ESCR before our discussion, simply because I thought I was "supposed" to be, but in examining all the arguments and in thinking about it, I realized that it does not have to be a bad thing necessarily. It could be done in ways that are legitimate.
No it can't.

reply from: nancyu

Bump.
We can't end abortion. That is an unrealistic goal. Saying that is the same as saying we can end rape, or robbery, or murder.
Especially murder, because that is what abortion is.
What we can do is stop sanctioning it. Stop saying it's okay because the government says so. All I can do is to stop sanctioning it myself, and hope and pray enough people stop sanctioning it with me.
I also want the government to stop sanctioning it, but there is very little I can do to control the government either, except to cast one little vote every few years, and hope and pray that it's the right vote.

reply from: faithman

Being a self deluded monkey boy punk, I guess you know all about it.

reply from: Yuuki

Bullies are the ones least sure of themselves. Those who scream the loudest do it so they can hear themselves and no one else, just to make sure they don't her any other arguments. Their faith in their beliefs is so weak ANY argument could tip the scales.

reply from: faithman

Then quit yelling. You might accidentally learn something. Primerally that womb children are persons, and already protected by the constitution, despite what the secular humanist progressives say.

reply from: nancyu

Being a self deluded monkey boy punk, I guess you know all about it.
I'm willing to make a concession. If all pro aborts will admit that unborn children are persons, I will say that pro aborts are, too.
What a deal! Now that's a compromise (because anyone with a brain knows that pro aborts will never really be people) But I can be reasonable. I could compromise on that.

reply from: faithman

Being a self deluded monkey boy punk, I guess you know all about it.
I'm willing to make a concession. If all pro aborts will admit that unborn children are persons, I will say that pro aborts are, too.
What a deal! Now that's a compromise (because anyone with a brain knows that pro aborts will never really be people) But I can be reasonable. I could compromise on that.
Sounds like common ground to me. Isn't that what the criminal elect said we should all seek out?

reply from: nancyu

Being a self deluded monkey boy punk, I guess you know all about it.
I'm willing to make a concession. If all pro aborts will admit that unborn children are persons, I will say that pro aborts are, too.
What a deal! Now that's a compromise (because anyone with a brain knows that pro aborts will never really be people) But I can be reasonable. I could compromise on that.
Sounds like common ground to me. Isn't that what the criminal elect said we should all seek out?
Yup, yup. I think he did. I think he did.


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