Home - List All Discussions

Worth Repeating

Quotable Quotes here...

by: Shenanigans

You've really taken a liking to that picture.
I'd like to know, what did the photographer do? Did he shoo away the vulture thingie? Did he pick that child up in his arms and feed him? Or did he just take the picture and smuggly walk away thinking he'd made a difference? I do recall you or someone saying he'd topped himself, why was that, I wonder?
And the real tragedy is creating a society where it appears more merciful to kill a child, then to bring her into this world. WHat is it 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? People whinge about not being able to get a second merc, or how they ahve to sell their beach house in Miami, meanwhile, there are children in this world who will go hungry tonight as people throw out perfectly good food, or eat more then they should.
If that baby had never been born, then what? The town he lives in will still be poor, the dirt barren, the cows dry, the people uneducated.
Aborting these children is like putting a bandaide on someone's severed femoral and then bragging about how you helped somoene to all your friends. Meanwhile, the person bleeds out when you're off getting your non fat soy latte with cinnemon and a blueberry and white chocolate muffin.
As for quotes: I don't know with what weapons world war three will be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones"

reply from: nancyu

Some of us just don't happen to believe that keeping children out of the world, or killing them once they are here, is the best way to solve the world's problems. How does opposition to abortion and birth control mean that we don't care about children such as this one?
How do you know what became of this particular child? Maybe he has been rescued and has been leading a wonderful life since then. How do you know that this particular child would prefer never to have lived?
Do you think that killing all of these starving people is the best way to eliminate starvation in the world? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe your thinking is a little convoluted? Or would that just take a little too much effort on your part?
I mean considering your bloated size, as a tick that is about to explode...

reply from: Shenanigans

How to solve the world's problems: feed the homeless to the hungry.

reply from: nancyu

You can't answer the questions so you sling mud. (not very muddy mud either, it sort of slides right off) Do you really think posting this hurts my feelings? Is there something evil in this paragraph that I missed? Something more evil, say, than killing poor people to eliminate poverty?

reply from: galen

The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.
Mother Teresa

reply from: faithman

Insted of soilent green, it would be soiled green.

reply from: nancyu

snicker...I love this one!

reply from: nancyu

Worth reading:
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9611/george.html
"Any government which refused to recognize human rights, or acted in violation of them, would not only fail in its duty; its decrees would be wholly lacking in binding force." -- Pope John XXIII
"fundamentally democracy is a 'system' and as such is a means and not an end. Its 'moral value' is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behavior, must be subject." -- Pope John Paul II
Abortion and euthanasia are crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. -- Pope John Paul II
If the Constitution really did abandon the vulnerable to private acts of lethal violence, and, indeed, positively disempowered citizens from working through the democratic process to correct these injustices, then it would utterly lack the capacity to bind the consciences of citizens. Our duty would not be to "accept a common mandate," but to resist. Pope John Paul II
From the article:
The refusal of the courts over more than twenty-three [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36...]years to reverse Roe v. Wade must, then, be accounted a failure of American democracy.

reply from: nancyu

The exact moment of death might be debatable, but there comes a time when we are certain someone is dead, such as if their head is chopped off, then it's not debatable that that poor individual is dead, or if a body is stiff and cold.
But if there is doubt, we alway give the benefit of the doubt that the person might be alive and might be able to be helped, don't we?
It might be debatable that life begins at the moment of conception, but it's not debatable that a human person emerges from the womb, and it's not debatable, imho, that it was substantially the same thing a few hours before that, so therefore I don't think it's debatable that a human person begins before it is born.
If we are not certain when that person begins, then it makes sense to err on the side of life, in the same way we would if we saw a man lying in the street. We wouldn't start covering him with dirt until we were absolutely certain he was dead. We would not debate whether he is alive or not, and if the one who wins the debate says he's dead, we immediately bury him, when we have nothing to lose by waiting a few hours or even a couple days if we have no medical means to determine whether he is alive.
If it's "debatable" that the fetus is a person, then why should not the assumption be in favor of life. We know for certain that it is likely to become a person in a very short time. Why risk that we could be killing someone?

reply from: ProInformed

You've really taken a liking to that picture.
I'd like to know, what did the photographer do? Did he shoo away the vulture thingie? Did he pick that child up in his arms and feed him? Or did he just take the picture and smuggly walk away thinking he'd made a difference? I do recall you or someone saying he'd topped himself, why was that, I wonder?
And the real tragedy is creating a society where it appears more merciful to kill a child, then to bring her into this world. WHat is it 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? People whinge about not being able to get a second merc, or how they ahve to sell their beach house in Miami, meanwhile, there are children in this world who will go hungry tonight as people throw out perfectly good food, or eat more then they should.
If that baby had never been born, then what? The town he lives in will still be poor, the dirt barren, the cows dry, the people uneducated.
Aborting these children is like putting a bandaide on someone's severed femoral and then bragging about how you helped somoene to all your friends. Meanwhile, the person bleeds out when you're off getting your non fat soy latte with cinnemon and a blueberry and white chocolate muffin.
As for quotes: I don't know with what weapons world war three will be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones"
Shenanigans - spinfibby has no genuine concern for that child.
she/its ONLY interest in such tragedies is exploiting those victims as excuses to defend the abortion industry KILLING THOUSANDS of innocent babes per day.

reply from: ProInformed

You can't answer the questions so you sling mud. (not very muddy mud either, it sort of slides right off) Do you really think posting this hurts my feelings? Is there something evil in this paragraph that I missed? Something more evil, say, than killing poor people to eliminate poverty?
Choicists don't defend killing poor people (or rather babies that might maybe be poor someday or some days in their life if they weren't killed before or immediately after birth) because they are trying to solve the problem of poverty.
It's not at all difficult to detect the hatred choicists like spinfibby spew about their victims while trying to pass it off as compassion.

reply from: ProInformed

In the warped mind of the choicist cultists the 'compassionate' response to such an atrocity goes like this:
'oh goody - something we can exploit as an excuse to defend killing thousands of innocent unborn babies per day - while pretending we're 'helping' to prevent abuse'
The choicist mentality is to give the abusers a 'safe/clean/private' place to go to when they commit the fatal violance against their victims.
As long as so many citizens continue to get away with KILLING while pretending that's 'compassion' societies problems will continue to get worse.
You don't cure poverty by killing poor people just like you don't cure racism by killing black people.
Choicists claiming they are killing babies because they supposedly care about those babies maybe someday becoming poor or abused makes no more sense than the KKK pretending they are 'helping' or 'caring' for black citizens when they have a lynching.

reply from: ProInformed

You've really taken a liking to that picture.
I'd like to know, what did the photographer do? Did he shoo away the vulture thingie? Did he pick that child up in his arms and feed him? Or did he just take the picture and smuggly walk away thinking he'd made a difference? I do recall you or someone saying he'd topped himself, why was that, I wonder?
And the real tragedy is creating a society where it appears more merciful to kill a child, then to bring her into this world. WHat is it 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth? People whinge about not being able to get a second merc, or how they ahve to sell their beach house in Miami, meanwhile, there are children in this world who will go hungry tonight as people throw out perfectly good food, or eat more then they should.
If that baby had never been born, then what? The town he lives in will still be poor, the dirt barren, the cows dry, the people uneducated.
Aborting these children is like putting a bandaide on someone's severed femoral and then bragging about how you helped somoene to all your friends. Meanwhile, the person bleeds out when you're off getting your non fat soy latte with cinnemon and a blueberry and white chocolate muffin.
As for quotes: I don't know with what weapons world war three will be fought, but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones"
Amen. BTW the pro-abort Jay Leno's of the world choose to buy more cars than to help the children of the world (KILLING babies is NOT helping them).
Spinfibby and her choice cultist clan don't really care about the children they exploit as an argument to kill babies. They probably are glad to find stories of such victims so they can use them to excuse their abortions. They depend on children being victimized so they can continue to justify 'abortion rights'.

reply from: ProInformed

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
Excuse me? I've never had an abortion. You CHOSE to have an abortion.
My wish was that the child in the picture had never been conceived.
Do you depend on children being victimized so that you can justify the abortion you wanted? Does it make you "glad?"
Liar - I was lied to and told that I had to have an abortion for medical reasons, that both my baby and I would die anyway if I didn't abort.
And unlike you Roe-bots I actually really care about children and therefore do volunteer work to help children.
And even IF you've never had an abortion, you most certainly apparently DO have some sort of vested interest in defending the abortion industry instead of defending the women, eh?

reply from: yoda

Don't bother, Pro. Anyone who has read two words on this forum knows the source of that slander, and disregards it.

reply from: yoda

How about this one:
"Having an abortion doesn't mean you're no longer a parent, it just means you're the parent of a dead child".
(I stole that one from the TeamSarah site.)

reply from: yoda

Or this one: "Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race." Margaret Sanger, "Woman, Morality, and Birth Control", New York Publishing Company, 1922

reply from: ProInformed

Too bad more people don't take the time to read the racist and eugenic garbage Sanger wrote before handing over their donations to PP.

reply from: yoda

Worth repeating.........

reply from: ProInformed

Holocausts are worse than war.
Holocausts being committed legally are even worse than independent illegal acts of killing.

reply from: 4choice4all

Attitude is Everything. Dr. Tiller

reply from: galen

February 1997 - National Prayer Breakfast in Washington attended by the President and the First Lady. "What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Mother Theresa

reply from: JPRice

http://www.jillstanek.com/cartoon%206-7%20Gary%20McCoy%20larger.jpg

This cartoon is a real keeper! Worth Repeating! From MSNBC.

reply from: Banned Member

Men of conscience should agonize over this situation. Men of war, may , or may not win a war. Men of peace, who are provoked to the fight always win. that is a principal of the Universe. Unfortunantly, men of peace have been dooped by false leaders that the fight is never right. It is always right to stop evil aggression with proper force. Until men of peace take back this truth and stand with enough force to depose the evil aggression that has high jacked our institutions, we are doomed to tyrany, and despotism. Our founders knew that, repelled evil aggression, and gave us the greatest republic the world has ever known. If we don't stand up soon, we deserve to loose it. -Faithman

reply from: sander

I don't know that the dirty little proaborts ever dare show their faces in this thread...too much truth and all that.
They may, I don't know....haven't read each page...however, the following is good to know.
By MC3:
4Choice4All:
When you stated that, "I thought the board was about creating dialogue on both sides..." it became clear that you are operating under a large (and false) assumption.
To begin with, the pro-life position is one founded in a moral principle and, as we've seen demonstrated here on many occasions, the amoral nature of those who support legal abortion renders them immune to arguments based on morality.
Having recognized that fact many years ago, I adopted two philosophies under which I continue to operate. The first one is that those of us in the pro-life movement are soldiers in a war that people like you are waging against the unborn. The second is that the goal of war is not to convert the enemy but to stop them.
For these reasons, this forum was not created to win over you or anyone else. It is meant to be a venue for pro-lifers to communicate with each other, share ideas, and stay informed. If a bunch of naïve dunces and half-hearted pro-lifers want to join you around the campfire and sing Kumbaya, or share some sort of "Oprah Moment" with you, that's their business. But never conclude that it is the goal of this forum. For the majority of us here, our only interest in people like you is in stopping you and in doing so as quickly as possible. We live with the awareness that for every day we shorten this holocaust, we save over 3000 defenseless babies from the goons and cowards at your death camps. That, and only that, is our focus.
With that established, you need to just accept that you are allowed on this forum only to serve as foils for our amusement and as exercise to keep our skills sharp. If such an arrangement is acceptable, stay. If not, I'll repeat what I have said to others before. Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out.

reply from: sander

CDC,
Great minds think alike!

reply from: sander

With that established, you need to just accept that you are allowed on this forum only to serve as foils for our amusement and as exercise to keep our skills sharp. If such an arrangement is acceptable, stay. If not, I'll repeat what I have said to others before. Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out.
Makes me teary eyed....them words are just bee-utiful.

reply from: Faramir

Sander and Jesus love you, "dirty little pro-aborts." This is her way of expressing it. Don't take it badly.

reply from: JPRice

You point at everyone but the abuser of the French language, joueravecfou shows he is ignorant and bigotted. Boy, we sure want to read what you write! <Snicker>

reply from: 4choice4all

If I would've read that when I first arrived I would've left and thought, hmp...how strange...and just left. No sweat...this is far from the only board that discusses abortion. But yeah, what an ego maniac,lol. Most of the prochoice side and all the "faux" lifers talk circles around the militant poop loving foot soldiers. No wonder you are playing defense...and will continue to do so. Talk about a rag tag group of soldiers...inept and ill prepared are too kind of words to use. This is your war? you are the soldiers? It's the equivalent of the chubby security guard that wears his uniform and mace while he plays war like video games in his mom's basement while sucking down 64oz quicktrip refills of mountain dew before beating it to the Megan Fox/Transformers poster and falling asleep....alone and dejected...in his own wet spot. Poor sad pathetic little foot soldiers......oh...that post was rich!!

reply from: sander

"If I would've read that when I first arrived I would've left..."
You're not only a death monger, you're a stupid big tease.
I love how you vile little wretches trying to pass as normal, moral humans, had to come to this thread and just go off on Mark....my, how he does get under your skin...LOL!

reply from: Faramir

What about the blood stained teeth?

reply from: 4choice4all

Actually I was responding to Mark...and that's little tease, and only to FM...because he likes it. Sander dear, you act like a jealous girlfriend....can't stand someone paying your man FM all this attention?? hiss hiss

reply from: CDC700

Ah, so to be worth a damn one has to come slidin' out the birth canal? Funny, I know quite a few people who've taken that trip that I wouldn't throw a bucket of piss on if they were on fire. Yes unborn children have no rights, two hundred years ago the same could have been said of you.

reply from: faithman

Ah, so to be worth a damn one has to come slidin' out the birth canal? Funny, I know quite a few people who've taken that trip that I wouldn't throw a bucket of piss on if they were on fire. Yes unborn children have no rights, two hundred years ago the same could have been said of you.
UHHHH, try less than a hundred years ago. Womens right to vote was won in the 1920's.

reply from: ProInformed

A message from MC3:
"4Choice4All:
When you stated that, "I thought the board was about creating dialogue on both sides..." it became clear that you are operating under a large (and false) assumption.
To begin with, the pro-life position is one founded in a moral principle and, as we've seen demonstrated here on many occasions, the amoral nature of those who support legal abortion renders them immune to arguments based on morality.
Having recognized that fact many years ago, I adopted two philosophies under which I continue to operate. The first one is that those of us in the pro-life movement are soldiers in a war that people like you are waging against the unborn. The second is that the goal of war is not to convert the enemy but to stop them.
For these reasons, this forum was not created to win over you or anyone else. It is meant to be a venue for pro-lifers to communicate with each other, share ideas, and stay informed. If a bunch of naïve dunces and half-hearted pro-lifers want to join you around the campfire and sing Kumbaya, or share some sort of "Oprah Moment" with you, that's their business. But never conclude that it is the goal of this forum. For the majority of us here, our only interest in people like you is in stopping you and in doing so as quickly as possible. We live with the awareness that for every day we shorten this holocaust, we save over 3000 defenseless babies from the goons and cowards at your death camps. That, and only that, is our focus.
With that established, you need to just accept that you are allowed on this forum only to serve as foils for our amusement and as exercise to keep our skills sharp. If such an arrangement is acceptable, stay. If not, I'll repeat what I have said to others before. Don't let the door knob hit you in the ass on your way out."

reply from: nancyu

I raised my right hand and swore to uphold and protect the constitution, as well as persons under it, in the United states Coast Guard. I joined the Coast Guard because I am a man of peace, and believe in recueing those who are in trouble. We learned life saving in the water, a very high degree of first aid, and advanced fire fighting. All of those skills still serve me to this day, and though I no longer am in the service, I still take my oath seriously. We were commissioned inter national firemen/emt's. But our training did not stop there. We were also trained in the use of 45 auto pistals, and M16 rifles. We were also commissioned as inter national policemen. Men of peace does not mean that we are passifists. It means that we believe that people should be able to live unmolested by evil aggression. We learned very clearly that the only way to repell evil aggression is with suffcient force to deture or repell. I am not cavalier about the taking of life. It is very grievious action to take. All action should be taken to avoid such situations. But if you see an innocent person in immenent danger, you don't think about it, you do your duty to protect them. If that means the aggressor looses his/her life when suffecient force is used to stop them, then that is on them. Don't put yourself in that position and it won't happen. As a trained recuer , I truely morn for the lost life/soul of Tiller the ex-baby killer. But the protector side of me rejoices that an evil aggressor will not suck the brains out of another skull of a womb child. If that makes me a hate mongering extremist, so be it. If you find yourself in danger of evil aggression, and I am around, I would instinctively react, whether you would agree with it, or not, or if you would thank me or spit on me for being "mean". That is simple the way I am made. The abortion issue has literally busted my heart into little pieces. I have failed the innocent miserably of my duty to them. CP is absolutly right. As far as this issue is concerned I am a coward, and have allowed the phonies of pro-life to influence my dereliction. So I have done my best to infasize the recuer side of me with IAAP. But I will never condemn Scott Roeder for using enough force to stop an evil aggressor from sucking the brains out of childrens skulls. Now you bortheads be sure and send this post to the FBI. They took a very simular oath as mine. And they are just as cowardly in not stopping the evil aggression against the womb child. I could really care less what anybody thinks about that. Personal conviction is not based on what pro-death scum thinks about it.
-faithman-

reply from: 4choice4all

backpedal....backpedal.....lol

reply from: CDC700

You are obviously a control freak - and with an abusive streak at that. No wonder she wanted to have an abortion, who would want for their children to have a father like that?
When you, dear 'loving father', put your body, health, life, job and everything else at stake so you could gestate and give birth to a baby, THEN you will have the same right. Until then you better find a woman that you can control or don't procreate.

reply from: nancyu

This is just plain funny.

reply from: nancyu

You are obviously a control freak - and with an abusive streak at that. No wonder she wanted to have an abortion, who would want for their children to have a father like that?
When you, dear 'loving father', put your body, health, life, job and everything else at stake so you could gestate and give birth to a baby, THEN you will have the same right. Until then you better find a woman that you can control or don't procreate.
Indeed CDC what a "control freak" you are! Insisting that your child be allowed to be born! How selfish and "misogynistic!
Un be leivable
I'm convinced. Rosalie is not human.

reply from: faithman

You are obviously a control freak - and with an abusive streak at that. No wonder she wanted to have an abortion, who would want for their children to have a father like that?
When you, dear 'loving father', put your body, health, life, job and everything else at stake so you could gestate and give birth to a baby, THEN you will have the same right. Until then you better find a woman that you can control or don't procreate.
Indeed CDC what a "control freak" you are! Insisting that your child be allowed to be born! How selfish and "misogynistic!
Un be leivable
I'm convinced. Rosalie is not human.
I think even the petree dish rejected her. Gives creedence to that whole primordial ooze thing though..... INTELAGENCE DENIED!!!!!

reply from: sander

You are obviously a control freak - and with an abusive streak at that. No wonder she wanted to have an abortion, who would want for their children to have a father like that?
When you, dear 'loving father', put your body, health, life, job and everything else at stake so you could gestate and give birth to a baby, THEN you will have the same right. Until then you better find a woman that you can control or don't procreate.
Indeed CDC what a "control freak" you are! Insisting that your child be allowed to be born! How selfish and "misogynistic!
Un be leivable
I'm convinced. Rosalie is not human.
I don't think there could possibly be anything more ironic on the planet then someone like rosalie calling CDC a control freak.
The women who think abortion is fine are the biggest CONTROL FREAKS ever to walk on earth....EVER!
Nothing or no one compares to actually killing another human being, albeit tiny, so your life isn't interrupted.
About the rosalie non human thing...yep, have to agree.

reply from: Rosalie

Of course itis. No one, and especially no 'pro-life' abusive sociopath has the right to demand anything when it comes to me, my reproductive rights or my family.
Because in case you haven't noticed, a fetus would be in MY body. And my body is not subject to anyone else's wishes and demands except for mine.
You can insult and threaten me all you want, that's all you are capable of doing anyway.
This is never going to change, regardless of your hysterical fits, insults and threats.
Your lack of intelligence and maturity is truly striking. All these insults and threats make you seem more and more desperate and miserable. So by all means, keep going.
You are nothing else but sociopaths and terrorists.

reply from: sander

Of course itis. No one, and especially no 'pro-life' abusive sociopath has the right to demand anything when it comes to me, my reproductive rights or my family.
Because in case you haven't noticed, a fetus would be in MY body. And my body is not subject to anyone else's wishes and demands except for mine.
You can insult and threaten me all you want, that's all you are capable of doing anyway.
This is never going to change, regardless of your hysterical fits, insults and threats.
Your lack of intelligence and maturity is truly striking. All these insults and threats make you seem more and more desperate and miserable. So by all means, keep going.
You are nothing else but sociopaths and terrorists.
You are truly disturbed and think nothing of making things up out of thin air....seek mental help...you won't be sorry.

reply from: yoda

Especially Cecilia, she's totally into control. And she won't answer any questions about it.

reply from: sander

Especially Cecilia, she's totally into control. And she won't answer any questions about it.
Naturally she won't answer...she's in "control" of everything, especially the things that make her stand out as a hypocrite.

reply from: 4choice4all

Controlling your own body does not make you a control freak...it makes you a mature responsible adult. It isn't lost on anyone that some of you don't grasp that.
And controlling your gestation by ending a pregnancy is no more "controlling the fetus" than turning a man down for sex is "controlling a man". You are merely making decisions for your body.

reply from: faithman

Especially Cecilia, she's totally into control. And she won't answer any questions about it.
He is the best kind of control freak. It is called pest control. Death scancs need to be controled.

reply from: yoda

Actually, I can say as a man that being turned down for sex isn't usually a fatal action, like abortion is. So that's a rather strained comparison at best.
Anytime you kill anything or anyone, you are controlling them to the ultimate extreme extent.
That you will not admit that is very, very telling.

reply from: 4choice4all

The fact that something dies is secondary to the decision to control your own reproductive system. What if the same man threatened to kill himself if you didn't put out? What if he followed through? You are not responsible for that death merely because putting out would've prevented it. You still control your own biology....anyone elses life be damned.

reply from: yoda

"Something"?
Is that what you usually call an innocent human being? "Something"?
And the fact that you are KILLING SOMEONE is not "secondary" to anything.

reply from: yoda

Ninety five percent of all abortions are done on healthy women with healthy babies, there's no self defense involved in them.
And there is no such thing as a "potential someone". That's just your pseudo-intellectual way of trying to demean unborn human beings.
I get your drift...... your happiness is worth the lives of any number of defenseless human beings.

reply from: CDC700

DEEP THOUGHTS: By Rosalie




Here's to you kid!

reply from: nancyu

You are obviously a control freak - and with an abusive streak at that. No wonder she wanted to have an abortion, who would want for their children to have a father like that?
When you, dear 'loving father', put your body, health, life, job and everything else at stake so you could gestate and give birth to a baby, THEN you will have the same right. Until then you better find a woman that you can control or don't procreate.
Indeed CDC what a "control freak" you are! Insisting that your child be allowed to be born! How selfish and "misogynistic!
Un be leivable
I'm convinced. Rosalie is not human.
I don't think there could possibly be anything more ironic on the planet then someone like rosalie calling CDC a control freak.
The women who think abortion is fine are the biggest CONTROL FREAKS ever to walk on earth....EVER!
Nothing or no one compares to actually killing another human being, albeit tiny, so your life isn't interrupted.
About the rosalie non human thing...yep, have to agree.
Just thought up a new word to describe pro aborts -- birth-control freaks.-- waddya think?

reply from: sander

As long as it has "freak" to describe them...it works for me.

reply from: faithman

The kind people who have given us this free forum, have poured their very lives, and treasure into a powerful documentary called MAAFA 21. I believe the cost is going to be $20. Please seriously consider buying a copy, as well as sending what you can for copies to others. Life talk had several clips from it, and from just what I saw, It will be one of the most powerful projects in pro-life history. Do what you can. We owe MC3 so much, and could never hope to repay his kindness and suport for IAAP. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE consider this request, and do what you can for this project.

reply from: ProInformed

Exactly!
I was once a choicer myself - when I didn't know the truth.
Oh I sneered at the truth on the few rare occasions I came across it as a choicer,
because it was presented as something to sneer at by the media and I seriously did not suspect that the government would legalize what the pro-lifers said was going on...
But when I really did learn the truth, when it was being presented to me without the filter of the media bias, with references, and from some sources not connected with either pro-choice or pro-life organizations...
I did NOT continue to defend the abortion holocaust.
While showing the truth to most people will cause them to stop defending abortion, there really are people who support abortion, knowing what it is.
While most people already say they don't support the reasons most abortions are done (they are just not aware of the current legal status or are apathetic uninvolved), there really are some people who support abortion on demand for the entire nine months of pregnancy even when both the baby and the mother have no physical health problems.
This isn't the first time in human history when cultures have knowingly, openly supported evil holocausts or slavery, so why should there be any pretense that nobody knowingly supports evil today?
Of course we'd all prefer to believe that sociopathical selfishness and cruelty is extremely rare - that it's just those child abusers and murderers we hear about on the news. But the truth is whole societies can become so infected, so devoted to, sociopatical notions that they become 'normalized' and accepted. And those acts of evil, not committed by lone lunatics, but endorsed by the society as 'legal' and 'acceptable' are really the greater evil, how the really horrifically huge holocausts happen.
There is either a naive belief, or a pretense, that if opposers of evil would simply talk nice to the committers of evil, they would leave their victims alone.
That is not how slavery was ended, not how the Nazi holocaust was ended, and it might not be how the abortion holocaust will be ended either. That is not to say that for some choiciers simply showing them the truth in a polite way won't sometimes be enough to get them to stop killing babies, or to stop defending baby killing.
But it is incredibly naive to think that will work on the choicists who are downright dedicated to defending baby killing. They aren't going to give up abortion and the lifestyle it enables them to have any more likley than most slaveholders willingly gave up the plantation lifestyle that slavery afforded them. The Nazi's would not have stopped on their own either (even if they were asked nicely to stop). There really are times that people have to be made to stop committing evil, when others in society have to tell them to stop, preferably by passing laws making their evil actions illegal.
When new choicist posters come to the forum they typically chant choicist slogans and hurl false accusatons and insults at pro-lifers. There can be some argument made as to how those newbie choicist posters should be responded to most effectively. But since most of those choicist newbies never bother to actually read or respond to the pro-lifers here, they just cowardly chant & run, sort of like they just drove by sporting a choicist bumper sticker, it is not an opportunity for any sort of dialogue or debate to take place anyway. How the pro-lifers choose to respond to them is not even an issue. The pro-lifers don't 'drive away' the choicist posters who never intended to read or respond to the pro-life posters in the first place.
And any choicist who has been posting in this forum for months and years on end is obviously not in the category of persons who can be reached by polite reasoning and being shown the truth. They've been told and shown the truth already, they aren't ignorant or ammoral, they are deliberately and immorally defending baby killing. It really doesn't matter much whether or not such choicists are talked to nicely or not because their fanatical devotion to baby killing, their negative stereotyping of pro-lifers, and their hateful attacks on pro-lifers, are something they have no intention of stopping - period.
There are people who will go right on killing babies even if/when abortion once again becomes illegal, just as their are child abusers, rapists, and murderers even though those evil acts are illegal. And just as no amount of talking nice will stop those evil deeds, legal or illegal, if the perpetrators really want to commit them, simply believing that nice-talk will stop evil is just plain dumb.
But it's not just that the pro-lifers are ceing criticized for the words they use, for 'name-calling'... There is an attitude that evil can supposedly be opposed and stopped by agreeing with the evildoers that what they are doing should not be criticized, not called what it really is! The notion that evil-doers can be stopped from deliberately doing evil if we are careful to never make them feel ashamed of the evil deeeds they do, or the selfish motives they have for doing evil, THEN we can be effective at convincing them to give up doing evil. Um - WHAT?!?
Again, that might actually work with some small percentage of people - after all there were some former slave-owners and there are some former abortionists who did convert.
But is anybody really so naive to believe that ALL the slaveowners and ALL the Nazis would have stopped what they were doing eventually if everybody just talked nice to them, never condemned what they were doing?!?
If so then why isn't it proposed then that THE way to oppose rape is to make sure the rapists never feel criticized, never get called names, never are made to feel shame, huh? What about post-natal child abuse? Does anyody here think that THE way to protect aleady born children from child abusers is to not call child abusers names, not say anything that might upset them or make it sound as if we are disgusted by them?
It's as if some of the posters here truly believe that calling somebody who kills innocent babies a derogatory name, is worse than killing babies.

reply from: nancyu

Exactly!
I was once a choicer myself - when I didn't know the truth.
Oh I sneered at the truth on the few rare occasions I came across it as a choicer,
because it was presented as something to sneer at by the media and I seriously did not suspect that the government would legalize what the pro-lifers said was going on...
But when I really did learn the truth, when it was being presented to me without the filter of the media bias, with references, and from some sources not connected with either pro-choice or pro-life organizations...
I did NOT continue to defend the abortion holocaust.
While showing the truth to most people will cause them to stop defending abortion, there really are people who support abortion, knowing what it is.
While most people already say they don't support the reasons most abortions are done (they are just not aware of the current legal status or are apathetic uninvolved), there really are some people who support abortion on demand for the entire nine months of pregnancy even when both the baby and the mother have no physical health problems.
This isn't the first time in human history when cultures have knowingly, openly supported evil holocausts or slavery, so why should there be any pretense that nobody knowingly supports evil today?
Of course we'd all prefer to believe that sociopathical selfishness and cruelty is extremely rare - that it's just those child abusers and murderers we hear about on the news. But the truth is whole societies can become so infected, so devoted to, sociopatical notions that they become 'normalized' and accepted. And those acts of evil, not committed by lone lunatics, but endorsed by the society as 'legal' and 'acceptable' are really the greater evil, how the really horrifically huge holocausts happen.
There is either a naive belief, or a pretense, that if opposers of evil would simply talk nice to the committers of evil, they would leave their victims alone.
That is not how slavery was ended, not how the Nazi holocaust was ended, and it might not be how the abortion holocaust will be ended either. That is not to say that for some choiciers simply showing them the truth in a polite way won't sometimes be enough to get them to stop killing babies, or to stop defending baby killing.
But it is incredibly naive to think that will work on the choicists who are downright dedicated to defending baby killing. They aren't going to give up abortion and the lifestyle it enables them to have any more likley than most slaveholders willingly gave up the plantation lifestyle that slavery afforded them. The Nazi's would not have stopped on their own either (even if they were asked nicely to stop). There really are times that people have to be made to stop committing evil, when others in society have to tell them to stop, preferably by passing laws making their evil actions illegal.
When new choicist posters come to the forum they typically chant choicist slogans and hurl false accusatons and insults at pro-lifers. There can be some argument made as to how those newbie choicist posters should be responded to most effectively. But since most of those choicist newbies never bother to actually read or respond to the pro-lifers here, they just cowardly chant & run, sort of like they just drove by sporting a choicist bumper sticker, it is not an opportunity for any sort of dialogue or debate to take place anyway. How the pro-lifers choose to respond to them is not even an issue. The pro-lifers don't 'drive away' the choicist posters who never intended to read or respond to the pro-life posters in the first place.
And any choicist who has been posting in this forum for months and years on end is obviously not in the category of persons who can be reached by polite reasoning and being shown the truth. They've been told and shown the truth already, they aren't ignorant or ammoral, they are deliberately and immorally defending baby killing. It really doesn't matter much whether or not such choicists are talked to nicely or not because their fanatical devotion to baby killing, their negative stereotyping of pro-lifers, and their hateful attacks on pro-lifers, are something they have no intention of stopping - period.
There are people who will go right on killing babies even if/when abortion once again becomes illegal, just as their are child abusers, rapists, and murderers even though those evil acts are illegal. And just as no amount of talking nice will stop those evil deeds, legal or illegal, if the perpetrators really want to commit them, simply believing that nice-talk will stop evil is just plain dumb.
But it's not just that the pro-lifers are ceing criticized for the words they use, for 'name-calling'... There is an attitude that evil can supposedly be opposed and stopped by agreeing with the evildoers that what they are doing should not be criticized, not called what it really is! The notion that evil-doers can be stopped from deliberately doing evil if we are careful to never make them feel ashamed of the evil deeeds they do, or the selfish motives they have for doing evil, THEN we can be effective at convincing them to give up doing evil. Um - WHAT?!?
Again, that might actually work with some small percentage of people - after all there were some former slave-owners and there are some former abortionists who did convert.
But is anybody really so naive to believe that ALL the slaveowners and ALL the Nazis would have stopped what they were doing eventually if everybody just talked nice to them, never condemned what they were doing?!?
If so then why isn't it proposed then that THE way to oppose rape is to make sure the rapists never feel criticized, never get called names, never are made to feel shame, huh? What about post-natal child abuse? Does anyody here think that THE way to protect aleady born children from child abusers is to not call child abusers names, not say anything that might upset them or make it sound as if we are disgusted by them?
It's as if some of the posters here truly believe that calling somebody who kills innocent babies a derogatory name, is worse than killing babies.
This is a great post pro informed.

reply from: CDC700

BTTT, very well put! This belongs on the top! over 12 hours and no response from the baby killers. You shut them the hell up!

reply from: nancyu

Well it could be that they haven't finished reading it yet.
Oh. Okay, we'll all go home now...come on clones. 4choice says we're wasting our time here...
btw 4 choice: We are not "trying to convince society that a fetus deserves the same right as born human beings"
We are saying that a fetus IS a human being.
(And no one has a right to intentionally kill innocent human beings.)

reply from: galen

"Alveda King, his niece, a minister and a former college professor, asks: "How can the 'Dream' survive if we murder the children? Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother. The mother decides his or her fate."

reply from: faithman

MC3 : To My Pro-Lifers Friends:
I trust that this thread has shown you why this forum was not intended to win anyone over but as a venue for pro-lifers to communicate with each other, share ideas, and stay informed.
Look, our enemies are as aware of the biological, medical and scientific realities of the unborn as you are. Don't be deceived by what they say here. They know as well as you and I know that abortion takes the life of a living human being. But that does not guide their thinking. The fundamental problem is that the position you and I have taken is based on morality and these are amoral people. Their sole guiding principle is self-interest. In their world view, concepts like right and wrong and basic human decency have no relevance.
It is also important to keep in mind that those who are so devoted to abortion that they would join a forum to defend it, will never change their minds regardless of the arguments you make. Further, the exceptions to this are so rare as to be functionally non-existent. That is why they are allowed to post here only to serve as foils for our amusement and as exercise to keep our skills sharp.
I say these things to you because I want you to have the right mental attitude when engaging these people. I don't want you to take them on with the belief that logic and sound arguments will cause them to come around. If you do, the only thing you are guaranteed to take from the experience is anger and frustration. And that does not help the victims.
So enjoy the exercise, but always remember that our mission is not to convert the killers but to stop the killing.

reply from: yoda

Yeah, it's exactly like that.
And the irony of it all is that "baby killer" is only a "derogatory name" if you in fact do not kill babies, and do not help someone else to (by speaking out in support of killing babies).
Otherwise, it's simply a job description, and/or a statement of responsibility.

reply from: faithman

YUUKI: Yes, the womb, the cradle of youth. The warm safe place we live out our first nine months of life. NOT a butchery. NOT a slaughterhouse. Thanks Yuuki, for one of the best posts every published on the forum. Simple direct truth.

reply from: sander

Originally posted by Faithman:
The bible is not pro-american slavery. The scripture talks of indentured servatude, and makes provision to set all indentured servants free every so often. No where in scipture does it allow for a man to "own" another as sub-human chatel. The kind of slavery practiced in America was based on evolution, not scripture. Lest you forget scum bag, It was primarily Christians that populated the abolition movement. Only christians infected with secular humanist evolution, praticed and promoted the kind of slavery we had here. It was your side that treated people as sub human beast of burden, and from this was birthed the modern abortion movement. You use the exact excuses to kill womb children, that you used to own people. And it is the exact same kind of true bible believers that with stood slavery, that now stand against abortion. Let us just hope that it won't take a bloody civil war to end this latest human rights tragedy. It is you who try to mis-use scripture to justify the slaughter of innocent womb children, just like your predasesors mis-used it to justify the owning of slaves.
Great and truthful rebuttal, Faithman.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for 4c4a.
She's been forewarned and had the truth presented so often, that God will require much from this one.

reply from: sander

Originally posted by: sander
Just because you make this crap up doesn't make it true..
Originally posted by Dr. Yoda:

reply from: nancyu

Sander, what'll you do when you run out of signature space?

reply from: nancyu

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe V. Wade has deformed a great nation"
Mother Teresa

reply from: nancyu

If the Church truly believes all of these things why won't She intercede on behalf of people such as Paul Hill, Scott Roeder, etc?
Any ideas Faramir?

reply from: nancyu

The internationally renowned Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics in the Faculty of Medicine of Paris, and Director of Medical Research for The Michael Fund, was an ardent foe of the March of Dimes.
Speaking against eugenic policies of the March of Dimes, Lejeune said,

reply from: Banned Member

'It may be a surprise to some that in our country the poor are often singled out to have their babies aborted. Language is manipulated but the message is clear: if you want a richer, fuller life you need to kill your children. What a sad, horrific message in a culture which still has many living souls that successfully made it through the depression of the 1920's and 30's. How short sighted can one be?' -Father Benedict Groeschel

reply from: Banned Member

Better poverty than death. I grew up poor Spinwiddy. Murder is not compassion.
America spends more money that any other in the country in the world on diets and weight loss programs.
Don't even waste you time to crying about America's poverty.
America is very often materialistic, lazy, indifferent and fat.

reply from: sander

Aw, you went and smacked her down with facts again....
Poor sptiwad, she's such a glutten for punishment.
As if anything she ever writes justifies the murder of innocent babies in and just out of the womb.

reply from: sander

I love it when Augustine gets under spitwad's creepy skin!

reply from: CDC700

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<~
...And you're poor and uneducated, just like your mother. And just like your mother, if you were a single parent, you'd have nothing to offer a child besides a wanting and chaotic upbringing - which your kid would then impart on some other poor innocent.
Wow, you must have hit a nerve Augustine!

reply from: Banned Member

People very often confuse education with learning. There is much education in America and very often little learning. America can be a nation of worker scholars if they only desire to reach out to the knowledge available. Knowing what is right and wrong is wisdom. Education very often is indoctrination, by the godless relativists of academia. Being knowledgable no longer need be an entitlement of the elite. I would provide a home of stability and learning to my children, with a resume that includes more than indoctrination and sexual exploits.

reply from: Yuuki

I didn't grow up rich either Augustine, yet you and I are very, very different. Why do you assume your upbringing is the only way you can live? Why do you cling to that? Many people overcome poverty.

reply from: faithman

Oh hey. Thanks
I always Give honor to whom honor is due.

reply from: nancyu

The abortion of a human being is the killing of a human being. A human being is a human person and should have all the rights and blessings of being a human person including full and equal protection under the law from people who would kill them. Abortion is the conspiracy to end the life of a human being. Those responsible would and should be held legally responsible. Justice need not be blind to circumstances and conditions under which such an act occurs, but justice should never be rendered impotent merely to placate persons who abuse their claim to mercy. Compassion does not mean that the guilty should be allowed to walk free.
--Augustine--

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7026&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7118&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: BossMomma

You can't answer the questions so you sling mud. (not very muddy mud either, it sort of slides right off) Do you really think posting this hurts my feelings? Is there something evil in this paragraph that I missed? Something more evil, say, than killing poor people to eliminate poverty?
As if you don't sling your share, child exploiters posing as pro-lifers shouldn't be throwing stones at a woman who is child free and donating to charities selflessly.

reply from: 4given

Nancy, I am quite sure he was referring to BOUND4LIFE. I do not agree with his overall opinion of them (me as a leader)- esp. harsh IMO in regard to Lou Engle. He said this "Bound4Life believes that the way to end abortion is not through dialogue, political action, or peaceful resistance. Instead they insist that God solve atrocities through "massive corporate prayer and fasting" .." I agree that hearts and minds are changed through massive prayer and fasting- as well as a steadfast presence at the clinics. He is in a way trying to divide the pro-life community, which obviously he alone cannot. There are countless divisions that I don't quite understand. Esp. in regard to the Personhood Initiative. But I will move on. I do agree with JC on one point; the graphic or any display is not welcomed to a BFL prayer gathering. My sons wore Survivors and other t-shirts to the Supreme Court when we did a B4L protest. I find the live womb and aborted images to be of great value. Not everyone will be changed by prayerful silence. It is important that the groups join together, regardless of differences. All agree that the unborn are worthy of the same rights as you and I, right? Right?! And so I thought..

reply from: nancyu

Nancy, I am quite sure he was referring to BOUND4LIFE. I do not agree with his overall opinion of them (me as a leader)- esp. harsh IMO in regard to Lou Engle. He said this "Bound4Life believes that the way to end abortion is not through dialogue, political action, or peaceful resistance. Instead they insist that God solve atrocities through "massive corporate prayer and fasting" .." I agree that hearts and minds are changed through massive prayer and fasting- as well as a steadfast presence at the clinics. He is in a way trying to divide the pro-life community, which obviously he alone cannot. There are countless divisions that I don't quite understand. Esp. in regard to the Personhood Initiative. But I will move on. I do agree with JC on one point; the graphic or any display is not welcomed to a BFL prayer gathering. My sons wore Survivors and other t-shirts to the Supreme Court when we did a B4L protest. I find the live womb and aborted images to be of great value. Not everyone will be changed by prayerful silence. It is important that the groups join together, regardless of differences. All agree that the unborn are worthy of the same rights as you and I, right? Right?! And so I thought..
Right! And that is "worth repeating" (so I will)
(well, to be a little facetious, maybe not all rights, like, they can't vote. But they are entitled to the same protection of laws against murder as all other persons because that is what they are after all.)
Thank you for your perspective, 4given. Without knowing his intended target with that quote, I tend to agree with it as a general statement. I think there are some people a little to anxious to be nice, and keep forgetting about the baby! Know what I mean?

reply from: 4given

I do know what you mean and I agree.

reply from: yoda

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7118&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
LOVE that quote!!

reply from: 4given

"It seems that those who are advocates for infanticide are so devoid of a moral base that they believe that human life has no inherent worth, and so narcissistic as to impose a supreme value on their own lives, a condition that allows them to carry out their abominable deeds against the unborn." Keith Shedron

reply from: nancyu

From epm.org
54 Babies
Posted in: Standing for Life
By George F. Will
CHINO HILLS, Calif.: Where Route 71 crosses over Payton Drive, at the bottom of the steeply sloping embankment, two boys, who were playing nearby, found the boxes. The boys bicycled home and said they had found boxes of "babies."
Do not be impatient with the imprecision of their language. They have not read the opposite Supreme Court opinions. So when they stumbled on the boxes stuffed with 54 fetuses, which looked a lot like babies, they jumped to conclusions. Besides, young boys are apt to believe their eyes rather than the Supreme Court.
The first count came to a lot less than 54. Forgive the counters' imprecision. Many fetuses had been dismembered-hands, arms, legs, heads jumbled together-by the abortionist's vigor. An accurate count required a lot of sorting out.
The fetuses had been dumped here, about 30 miles east of Los Angeles, on March 14, 1997, by a trucker who may not have known what the Los Angeles abortion clinic had hired him to dispose of. He later served 71 days in jail for the improper disposal of medical waste. Society must be strict about its important standards.
What local authorities dealt with as a problem of solid waste disposal struck a few local residents as rather more troubling than that. They started talking to each other, and one thing led to another, and to the formation of Cradles of Love, which had the modest purpose of providing a burial for the 54 babies.
The members of Cradles of Love-just a few normal walking-around middle-class Americans-called them babies, and still do. These people are opposed to abortion, in spite of the Supreme Court's assurance in 1973 that abortions end only "potential life." (Twenty-five years later the Supreme Court has not yet explained how a life that is merely "potential" can be ended.)
Some will say the members of Cradles of Love, who are churchgoers, have been unduly influenced by theology. Or perhaps the real culprit is biology. It teaches that after the DNA of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum a new and unique DNA complex is formed that directs the growth of the organism. It soon is called a fetus, which takes in nourishment and converts it to energy through its own distinct, unique organic functioning, and very soon it looks a lot like a baby.
Anyway, theology or biology or maybe their eyes told the members of Cradles of Love that there were some babies in need of burials. So they asked the coroner to give them the fetuses. Then the American Civil Liberties Union was heard from.
It professed itself scandalized by this threat to . . . what? The ACLU frequently works itself into lathers of anxiety about threats to the separation of church and state. It is difficult, however, to identify any person whose civil liberties were going to be menaced if the fetuses were (these are the ACLU's words) "released to the church groups for the express purpose of holding religious services." The ACLU said it opposed "facilitation" of services by a public official.
The ACLU's attack on the constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion failed to intimidate, and in October the babies were buried in a plot provided at no charge by a cemetery in nearby Riverside.
Each baby was given a name by a participating church group. Each name was engraved on a brass plate that was affixed to each of the 54 small, white, wooden caskets made, at no charge, by a volunteer who took three days off from work to do it. Fifty clergy and four persons active in the right-to-life movement carried the caskets. Each baby's name is inscribed on a large headstone, also provided at no charge. Fifty-four doves, provided at no charge by the cemetery, were released at the services.
The ACLU trembled for the Constitution.
We hear much about the few "extremists" in the right-to-life movement. But the vast majority of the movement's members are like the kindly, peaceable people here, who were minding their own business until some of the results of the abortion culture tumbled down a roadside embankment and into their lives.
Which is not to say that this episode was untainted by ugly extremism. It would be nice if the media, which are nothing if not diligent in documenting and deploring right-to-life extremism, could bring themselves to disapprove the extremism of the ACLU, which here attempted a bullying nastiness unredeemed by any connection to a civic purpose.
Permissions: Feel free to reproduce and distribute any articles written by Randy Alcorn, in part or in whole, in any format, provided that you do not alter the wording in any way or charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. It is our desire to spread this information, not protect or restrict it. Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: by Randy Alcorn, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 39085 Pioneer Blvd., Suite 206, Sandy, OR 97055, 503-668-5200, www.epm.org, www.randyalcorn.blogspot.com
Eternal Perspective Ministries, 39085 Pioneer Blvd., Suite 206, Sandy, OR 97055
Phone: 503-668-5200 I Email: info@epm.org
©2008 Eternal Perspective Ministries. All rights reserved.

reply from: yoda

What IS the "difference", Ms Einstein?

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2009/04/pastor_walter_h_1.php
Walter Hoye

reply from: nancyu

At the same time a new cultural climate is developing...
"At the same time a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and - if possible - even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems."
~ Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, no. 4 ~

reply from: nancyu

"All persons of good will need to understand the clear and present danger with which the US is being menaced by the health reform proposed by the Obama Administration. Abortion will be multiplied, the U.S. will move ahead on the road towards euthanasia, conscience rights will be in jeopardy: but what is worse, the United States would start moving towards a tyrannical, socialist government that would be the source of all sort of moral evils."
~ Msgr. Ignacio Barreiro Carámbula, American Health Care Reform - A Good End Does Not Justify Evil Means, August 20, 2009 ~

reply from: nancyu

"If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves."
~ Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate ~

reply from: nancyu

From the website of the Sisters of the Gospel of Life:
'We now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues. We have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those.'
- Senator Tom Coburn (U.S.A)

reply from: leftsfoil

A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it.
Frank Lloyd Wright

reply from: bozo

"Testing understanding" is not necessarily arrogant and is a way for the "tester" to learn," as well as for the "testee," or if more than one, the "testees" to learn.
If you showed me your plans for a security system and I pointed out what I thought to be flaws, or if I questioned a few of the ideas, it doesn't mean I'm a crook or that I want you to be robbed, and it doesn't mean I'm arrogant. If you show me why my concerns are invalid, I've learned something. If my questioning causes you to rethink some of your ideas, and possibly make some changes, then you've benefited, and possibly have a more secure system.
Now if I say "hey dummy, your plan stinks," then maybe you have a case for arrogance.
Anyway, I will ponder what you've posted but at this time will concede only one point, that I'm an "intelligent person."
Henceforth, please give me the benefit of the doubt that my "testing" is done in good faith with the hope of learning or edifying, and please do not take personal offense if you find that you are occassionally one of my "testees."
BEEP BEEP

reply from: yoda

No, that's just the thing..... s/he probably hasn't learned to lie yet.

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4r6YCUtxfs

reply from: saucie

leftsfoil
Executive Member
Posts: 292
Joined: 08/19/2009
Originally posted by: QueenJAnd this line of thinking directly contradicts the tenets of the pro-choice movement - the most basic of which is the desire to see that any woman who finds herself pregnant should be able to make her own CHOICE from ALL of the available options.

reply from: nancyu

Discussing our current POTUS:

reply from: nancyu

An oldie but a goodie:
http://www.markcrutcherblog.com/index.cfm/2007/10/11/On-the-Trail-to-Rodham-and-Gomorrah

reply from: Rosalie

Sounds funny from you since you've just confessed you can't wait to start killing pro-choicers.
So are you really hoping to start murdering people you disagree with?
What about our children, are they fair game, too? Or are you going to specialize only in turning them into orphans?
Depends on how far the acorns fall from the death scum tree I guess....
Because everyone should know that this is what the true face of 'pro-life' looks like. Fanatical, murderous, misogynist terrorists.

reply from: saucie

Sounds funny from you since you've just confessed you can't wait to start killing pro-choicers.
So are you really hoping to start murdering people you disagree with?
What about our children, are they fair game, too? Or are you going to specialize only in turning them into orphans?
Depends on how far the acorns fall from the death scum tree I guess....
Because everyone should know that this is what the true face of 'pro-life' looks like. Fanatical, murderous, misogynist terrorists.
LOVE IT, LOVE IT when we hit a "fanatical, murderous, child terrorist" nerve!
Did I say I just LOVE IT????

reply from: Rosalie

Sounds funny from you since you've just confessed you can't wait to start killing pro-choicers.
So are you really hoping to start murdering people you disagree with?
What about our children, are they fair game, too? Or are you going to specialize only in turning them into orphans?
Depends on how far the acorns fall from the death scum tree I guess....
Look! It's the so-called "pro-lifers" expressing their desire to kill pro-choicers AND their children.
This is what "pro-life" really is. Everyone should know.

reply from: Rosalie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.

reply from: saucie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!

reply from: nancyu

Worth repeating.........

reply from: Rosalie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!
Then why aren't you outraged at the fact that other "pro-lifers" support it? Hmmm?
And yeah, keep deluding yourself that you hit a nerver. You didn't. You're just okay with death threats to pro-choicers and their children... I can see why, after all, you call yourself "pro-life".

reply from: saucie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!
Then why aren't you outraged at the fact that other "pro-lifers" support it? Hmmm?
And yeah, keep deluding yourself that you hit a nerver. You didn't. You're just okay with death threats to pro-choicers and their children... I can see why, after all, you call yourself "pro-life".
First, prolifers don't support it, liar.
Second, you're right, I didn't hit a "nerver", but I sure hit a huge NERVE! HA HA---it's been grand.

reply from: Rosalie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!
Then why aren't you outraged at the fact that other "pro-lifers" support it? Hmmm?
And yeah, keep deluding yourself that you hit a nerver. You didn't. You're just okay with death threats to pro-choicers and their children... I can see why, after all, you call yourself "pro-life".
First, prolifers don't support it, liar.
Second, you're right, I didn't hit a "nerver", but I sure hit a huge NERVE! HA HA---it's been grand.
Well, at least three of the so-called pro-lifers on this board do, as can be seen by their DIRECT QUOTES. So the only liar here is you. Not to mention that you ignored my question... as I expected you would because you hardly ever answer anything. That's something you don't even seem to be capable of.
And wow, I mistyped a word! Yeah, that's something only people who didn't even make it through 5th grade can laugh at. I have never seen any mature adult do that.

reply from: saucie

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!
Then why aren't you outraged at the fact that other "pro-lifers" support it? Hmmm?
And yeah, keep deluding yourself that you hit a nerver. You didn't. You're just okay with death threats to pro-choicers and their children... I can see why, after all, you call yourself "pro-life".
First, prolifers don't support it, liar.
Second, you're right, I didn't hit a "nerver", but I sure hit a huge NERVE! HA HA---it's been grand.
Well, at least three of the so-called pro-lifers on this board do, as can be seen by their DIRECT QUOTES. So the only liar here is you. Not to mention that you ignored my question... as I expected you would because you hardly ever answer anything. That's something you don't even seem to be capable of.
And wow, I mistyped a word! Yeah, that's something only people who didn't even make it through 5th grade can laugh at. I have never seen any mature adult do that.
I take it all back, I didn't hit "A" nerve, I hit a massive nerve!
I fully realize proaborts are some of the laziest people on the planet, but use the quote function or the backspace key and stop taking up so much forum space.

reply from: ProInformed

"...unimpeded and massive atrocities are worse than war. ... It is as though you come upon a gang molesting an elderly woman. You have no idea whether intervention will save her or just double the casualties. All you know is: this cannot be left unopposed. I must try.
-John Piper"

reply from: ProInformed

Originally posted by: Augustine
When we kill the mouse we lie to him when we present him with free food on the trap.
Are we forcing the mouse to take the bait, or are we coercing him with a lie?
In the great scheme of things the lies that the abortion industry tells are far more perverse than if they simply forced woman to abort because by lying they actually lead the woman into making the choice themself.

reply from: nancyu

You didn't hit a nerve. You just support violence towards pro-choicers and their children. Yeah, I bet you really LOVE it. I have no doubts about you liking that.
Liar, never have supported any such thing.
But, I am over the top thrilled that I've hit a huge nerve!
Thanks for the great laughs....you made my day!
Then why aren't you outraged at the fact that other "pro-lifers" support it? Hmmm?
And yeah, keep deluding yourself that you hit a nerver. You didn't. You're just okay with death threats to pro-choicers and their children... I can see why, after all, you call yourself "pro-life".
First, prolifers don't support it, liar.
Second, you're right, I didn't hit a "nerver", but I sure hit a huge NERVE! HA HA---it's been grand.
Well, at least three of the so-called pro-lifers on this board do, as can be seen by their DIRECT QUOTES. So the only liar here is you. Not to mention that you ignored my question... as I expected you would because you hardly ever answer anything. That's something you don't even seem to be capable of.
And wow, I mistyped a word! Yeah, that's something only people who didn't even make it through 5th grade can laugh at. I have never seen any mature adult do that.
I take it all back, I didn't hit "A" nerve, I hit a massive nerve!
I fully realize proaborts are some of the laziest people on the planet, but use the quote function or the backspace key and stop taking up so much forum space.
Poor rosalie...she just doesn't get the humor. It almost makes you feel a little sorry for her.

reply from: nancyu

please don't kill the innocent. don't kill your child. don't pay another person to kill your child. don't pay another person to kill any child. don't encourage anyone to kill any child. as a parent, protect your child. as a caring human, protect innocent children. don't support those who kill children. tell the truth about abortion. tell the truth about the murder of children in the womb. my own sister once came to me in desperation--(she was single, a student, broke, jobless and we were struggling to keep the rent paid)--with an unwanted pregnancy--with no one else to confide in--she asked me what i thought she should do--being the older sister, i knew she looked up to me and thought highly of my thoughts/opinions and suggestions--i told her "first of all, KEEP the baby." that was 10 years ago--i now have a 10 year old niece that i adore--she is a proud big sister to 3 younger siblings and is loved and looked up to by numerous younger cousins. i could've encouraged abortion--but God.
--sweet--
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=7722&enterthread=y

reply from: Banned Member

The word insidious comes to mind.

reply from: nancyu

You own the halls of government in the same way that your termites own your house's foundation and your cockroaches own your kitchen.
They'll do their dirty work until either the whole place collapses or they'll be irradiated by the true owners, the American people. It's a race of sorts.
By the way, your cockroach buddies have just lost control of the senate.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=8243&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: nancyu

The exact moment of death might be debatable, but there comes a time when we are certain someone is dead, such as if their head is chopped off, then it's not debatable that that poor individual is dead, or if a body is stiff and cold.
But if there is doubt, we alway give the benefit of the doubt that the person might be alive and might be able to be helped, don't we?
It might be debatable that life begins at the moment of conception, but it's not debatable that a human person emerges from the womb, and it's not debatable, imho, that it was substantially the same thing a few hours before that, so therefore I don't think it's debatable that a human person begins before it is born.
If we are not certain when that person begins, then it makes sense to err on the side of life, in the same way we would if we saw a man lying in the street. We wouldn't start covering him with dirt until we were absolutely certain he was dead. We would not debate whether he is alive or not, and if the one who wins the debate says he's dead, we immediately bury him, when we have nothing to lose by waiting a few hours or even a couple days if we have no medical means to determine whether he is alive.
If it's "debatable" that the fetus is a person, then why should not the assumption be in favor of life. We know for certain that it is likely to become a person in a very short time. Why risk that we could be killing someone?
It simply amazes me that faramir came up with this one. I'd say one of the best of all time!

reply from: nancyu

Today at 4:11pm
January 29, 2010
"Today, Scott Roeder was convicted of killing George Tiller. George Tiller was an abortionist. George Tiller killed more than 10,000 human persons. Today, a jury decided in 37 minutes that Scott Roeder was guilty of murder. 37 years after Roe V Wade, the highest court in the United States of America still does not believe that abortion is murder. I find that as difficult to accept as the fact the actions of Scott Roeder ultimately saved lives. I am glad that George Tiller is no longer performing abortions. As for myself, like so many others who are dedicated to preserving human life, it is difficult to know how to feel about any of this.
George Tiller was not any other abortionist. He called the subjects of his abortions babies. George Tiller admitted what the law will not admit, that abortion kills an unborn human person. He admitted that he liked the work that he did. Tiller's own records show that he performed abortions so that women could go to proms, attend weddings, and in one instance even to go to a rock concert. That was the extent of Tiller's compassion for the unborn human person and the extent to which he was willing to exploit both women and unborn children for his own gain. And his exploitive nature was generational. Tiller's own father performed abortions for a living. Illegal abortions.
George Tiller was killed on a Sunday while at church. Tiller openly claimed that he was doing what God wanted him to do. He would doubtless have been performing abortions on Monday and Tuesday and on every other day of that week and on every other week of the year. George Tiller killed babies for a living. To accept that Scott Roeder took the law into his own hands, you must accept that George Tiller killed human persons for a living. The court that sought justice for George Tiller were reluctant even to allow the jury to hear that George Tiller performed abortions. A defendant in America has the right, no matter how guilty, to testify in court to a jury as to the nature and motive for his actions.
I do not advocate what Scott Roeder did. I wish that he had not done what he did. But I remember that George Tiller did what the monsters of the Nazi regime did for years in killing those persons they deemed unworthy to live, those they deemed unfit even to exist so that they took it upon themselves to exterminate them. And so they killed them in the same cool collected manner that George Tiller performed abortions all these many years. That Tiller even offered the mothers of those children he killed the chance to be with the deceased testifies to the evil of the act. The scope and depravity of what Tiller did and how he responded to the death he caused with his own hands is nearly beyond human comprehension.
It should have been representiatives of the law that entered that church that Sunday morning, or his place of work or any other place, to arrest George Tiller for the deaths of thousands of unborn human persons who he himself publically admitted to killing. If you believe that the unborn child is equal to the child born, you must believe that what George Tiller did for a living was the same as any other murder for which he should have been tried and convicted. George Tiller was a criminal by any moral and legal standard. The nature of his actions were clear to any person of conscience. His actions should have exposed him to the law and should have made him accountable to the law.
I am not glad that George Tiller is dead. But I am glad that this monster is not performing abortions any more. It's a strange place to be in the world for a person on conscience to know that the world is a little bit safer unborn child because George Tiller is no longer in the world. I pray that the people of this nation will soon awaken to this human atrocity and end this disaster of human moral failing before another 50 million human persons are dead. I pray that this nation finally moves to end abortion in all its forms before another desparate man acts out in violence in the name of justice.
It's astonishing that people should have to even consciously consider whether a person who admits to killing 10,000 human persons should be answerable before the law. It's amazing that a man who kills thousands could present himself in a place of Christian worship before a God who tells us that we are all made in His image. The shockig act of abortion happens a thousand times in a thousand places every day in the United Sates of America. If only people could muster the same shock and disapproval for what happens every day in American abortion mills as they have for one death in a Kansas church on a Sunday morning."
Brian Hudon

reply from: Banned Member

Nancy, what do you see in this piece? There is no advocation of violence. Tiller performed abortions. Scott Roeder killed George Tiller and was rightly convicted of murder. There is no connect between believing that George Tiller killed babies with abortion and the idea that Scott Roeder had any right to kill George Tiller.

reply from: LexIcon

http://prolifequotes.blogspot.com/
Excerpt: "If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves."
~ Pope Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate ~

reply from: nancyu

Brian, I don't advocate violence. So (surprise surprise) that is not what I'm looking for. What I see in this piece is passion and love and defense of the unborn child, and everything else falls into place. You've lost that. You don't care anymore. Whether another 3000 are butchered today no longer seems to concern you. All you care about (maybe all you've ever cared about) is making a name for yourself.
If you believed in what it means to defend a child, you would know that Roeder was WRONGLY convicted of murder, because killing to defend even one child is not murder. Roeder defended the lives of many many children who are alive today because Tiller is not. You know that, you just don't care.

reply from: Banned Member

Roeder committed murder.

reply from: Banned Member

I never wanted Roeder to do what he did. I never wanted anyone to do what Roeder did. I did not want George Tiller to be murdered. If you ever believed that I supported such an action as Scott Roeder committed, you sadly mistook me for someone I am not.

reply from: Banned Member

In the great scheme of things the lies that the abortion industry tells are far more perverse than if they simply forced woman to abort because by lying they actually lead the woman into making the choice themself.
I would now rather say...
In the great scheme of things the lies that the abortion industry tells are far more perverse than if they simply forced woman to abort because by the lies they tell they lead the woman to believe she is actually making the choice herself.

reply from: nancyu

I can't help but believe that you would not say that, if he acted in defense of born children.

reply from: Banned Member

Scott Roeder did not kill to defend children. He killed George Tiller because in his mind Tiller represented abortion. Roeder killed out of hate. Moot point anyways, since murder is not how you defend unborn children. I do not support what Roeder did and I do not support his alleged reasons for doing so.

reply from: LindaMc

Never grow a wishbone, daughter, where your backbone
ought to be Clementine Paddleford
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human
freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed
of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger
Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you
equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you
take it. -Malcome X
Beware the temptation to swim with the sharks. You may
avoid being devoured; but sooner or later, you will
drown. -mine

reply from: LexIcon

Love just makes it a safer place. ~Ice T

reply from: sweet

"Finish the sentence.....a women's right to choose what? To kill her baby. That's why they never want to finish the sentence."
~Maria

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6770&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: nancyu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a05J8w1vmtI&feature=player_embedded

reply from: nancyu

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6770&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
...
-------------------------
People that support abortion are narrow minded, morally frail, passively cruel, constitutionally weak, emotionally impaired and are in every way, humanly disadvantaged.
Siggy just hates babies!
I AM A PRO-LIFE PERSON!
Edited: 05/16/2010 at 11:33 PM by Augustine
...snake in the grass...worm on the ground...

reply from: B0zo

That's fine, but who are you going to get to do this?

reply from: nancyu

* By Jennifer Hartline
* 5/24/2010
* Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)
What is the word to describe a baby, aborted at 7 months, being placed in a box with cotton wool stuffed in his mouth and sent to the furnace of a crematory -- alive? We are living in our own age of ongoing death camps, complete with furnaces where the unwanted, the imperfect, the sick, the powerless, the silent ones go to be eliminated. Some say narratives like mine here are full of exaggeration. How else can we describe the nefarious act of discarding a human being like garbage?
What is the word to describe a baby, aborted at 7 months, being placed in a box with cotton wool stuffed in his mouth and sent to the furnace of a crematory -- alive?
What is the word to describe a baby, aborted at 7 months, being placed in a box with cotton wool stuffed in his mouth and sent to the furnace of a crematory -- alive?
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - Sometimes there just isn't an adequate adjective.

What is the word to describe a baby, aborted at 7 months, being placed in a box with cotton wool stuffed in his mouth and sent to the furnace of a crematory -- alive?
Horrifying? Not even close. Shocking? A paltry description. What is the word?
Evil. Depraved. Malevolent. Wicked. Those words are a good fit. This unspeakable evil took place in China's Guangdong Province. Just as this baby was about to be thrown into the fire, the mortuary worker heard him cry. The worker was startled by the sound and stopped to open the box and discovered the baby moving, choking on the cotton stuffed in his mouth. The worker cleared his mouth and the baby breathed peacefully.
The child was rushed back to the hospital from whence he'd come earlier that day labeled as medical waste. But doctors there refused to treat him. They left him in the lobby. They confirmed hours later that he was dead (they made sure this time) and sent him right back to the funeral home to be cremated.
Those who champion abortion will say that narratives like mine here are full of exaggeration, inflammatory language and highly-charged, emotional terms. But tell me, please, how can we adequately describe the nefarious act of discarding a human being like garbage sent to the furnace?
How is it inflammatory to describe the medical "procedure" whereby a baby is stabbed at the base of the skull, her brains literally sucked out of her head, her skull crushed and then removed from the birth canal? Or the process by which she is burned with chemicals, dismembered with forceps, stabbed in the heart with a lethal injection, or forcefully sucked out of the womb?
Those are simply the facts. It sounds inflammatory only to those who are liars and killers.
The language of liars and killers is far more ambiguous. Words like "choice", "rights", and "reproductive health" have an empowering and clinical ring to them, while they hypnotize a self-centered, hedonistic culture. "Fetus" is uttered callously as though it means something less than a human being. To the liars and killers, this is their vernacular, and it is persuasive and deceiving.
The heartless destruction of our children is monstrous, and those who accomplish it forfeit their humanity piece by piece. A human being has an innate instinct toward compassion, toward basic kindness unless that instinct is smothered by hate. No one kills babies out of love. A person only ignores a helpless, dying baby, as the doctors in China ignored that beloved child, because he has surrendered his heart to hate and death. A person rips a baby out of the womb and inflicts death only because he himself has surrendered to the spirit of death.
There are no other ends on the road of abortion; only hate, death and the utter loss of the soul.
To the advocates and administers of abortion in America, I dare you - defend the death of this Chinese baby. Explain the correctness of his murder; justify his torture. You must. It cannot matter at all to you where, when or how this baby died. All that matters is that he is dead, finally. The means to the end are irrelevant, if "choice" is sacrosanct. You already demand the right to dismember, burn, stab, suction and decapitate "it." You must now go the next step and demand the right to use whatever means necessary to achieve the objective of death, whether in or out of the womb.
The time has come to admit what you're really saying, what you're really demanding - the right to violently extinguish another human being simply because you wish it. Your rhetoric may sound clever to you, with all its vague and generic descriptions of the baby in the womb, but the truth is never disguised, and every human heart not already atrophied by hate and death knows the truth. Abortion does not terminate a pregnancy. Abortion terminates the baby.
You are not heroes of choice or bodily autonomy or freedom or women's rights. You are cheerleaders for and distributors of death. You are pirates who plunder the womb and profit from the killing of children.
Basic human decency and compassion demanded that those Chinese doctors help to save that poor baby's life. But to the abortion militia, compassion and decency are smote by their mythical yet inviolate "right to choose."
America, listen up. What happened in China is the only and inevitable destination of our country as long as we embrace the evil of abortion. In fact, we know for certain that we know for certain that we are already arriving at that ...
(Page 2 of 2)
destination. Babies who have the audacity to survive their abortion in this country are left alone on instrument tables to die, or thrown away like trash. Our Born Alive Infant Protection Act (how can such an act of legislation even be needed?!?) is ignored and unenforced. Don't think it doesn't happen in America.
It is inevitable that more and more babies will be thrown away, having survived their murder attempt, and left to die, or put in boxes and shoved into the furnace. There is only one objective to the cause of abortion: death. Once a taste for death has been acquired, it is never satisfied. It demands more blood, and more blood, and it is never enough. There is always another restriction to be lifted, another speed bump to level so that the road of "choice" is fast, unobstructed and easily traveled.
We are living in our own age of ongoing death camps, complete with furnaces where the unwanted, the imperfect, the sick, the powerless, the silent ones go to be eliminated.
There is only one cure and His name is Jesus. His innocent blood was shed to forgive the sins of every soul, even the depraved sin of abortion. There is mercy for us, America, if we will choose life. There is prosperity and healing and happiness and abundant grace for us if we will turn away from our sin and seek His face.

If we do not summon the courage to admit what we have done, what we continue to do, if we do not beg God's mercy, the road we are on will surely lead to destruction. The only question is, what will it take to change our course?
-----
Jennifer Hartline ishttp://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=36663&page=1 a grateful Catholic, a proud Army wife and mother of four precious children (one in Heaven). She is a contributing writer for Catholic Online. She is also a serious chocoholic. Visit her at My Chocolate Heart."
- - -
Deacon Keith Fournier asks that you join with us and help in this vital mission by sending this article to your family, friends, and neighbors and adding our link (www.catholic.org) to your own website, blog or social

reply from: nancyu

You don't say! AUGUSTINE himself considered this WORTH REPEATING. Imaginate that! Wonders never cease!

reply from: B0zo

"The clarity of our own convictions never means we despise, demonize, or shut out other people."
Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

reply from: nancyu

Good one...I hope Augustine reads it.

reply from: B0zo

Good one...I hope Augustine reads it.
Good for others, but not you? Or do you agree with it?
If you do, you shouldn't be calling me a snotrag. That's not really "demonizing" but it's kind of nasty.
I would be happy to have a civil dialogue with you, and would be happy to overlook your rudeness and start over.

reply from: Banned Member

Good one...I hope Augustine reads it.
Father Frank Pavone does not condone murder. Scott Roeder is a justly convicted murderer.

reply from: nancyu

Good one...I hope Augustine reads it.
Father Frank Pavone does not condone murder. Scott Roeder is a justly convicted murderer.
What does that have to do with anything? Doesn't even address the post.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

The prolife pretend to miss sarcasm just as easily as they pretend to see no difference between born and unborn.
We do see a difference between born humans and preborn humans. One has been born, the other hasn't. One is (rightly) protected by law against murder, torture, and other things while the other is (wrongly) unprotected by law for awhile.
A quote that fits pregnant women perfectly"
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Emerson
While I'm not so big on the whole "God" thing, he has a point. Either you're for life or you're against it.

reply from: nancyu

The Passenger by Gina Schlesinger
There once was a woman who was on a long journey. At a stop along the way, she saw a man who was a friend of hers. Holding his hand was a little child. In her pleasure to see the man, the woman ignored the child. They decided to share part of the journey together, so they embarked in her car. The child came along, but the woman did not notice.
After a while the woman and the man decided to part ways, and she made a minor detour and dropped him off. When she had driven a short distance, she noticed that the child was in the car.
To circle back and try to give the child to the man could be arduous or impossible. So the woman had to make a choice. She could make a nine mile detour in her trip and leave the child with someone who could care for it. Or she could lean over, open the passenger door, and shove the child to it's death. After wrestling with this difficult decision, she finally chose to do the latter.
A police officer witnessed the child being crushed by the wheels of the woman's car, but he did not give chase. He did not try to get the woman's license plate number. He did not try to revive the child. He simply called the trash collector to cart the body away.
This used to be illegal. In an earlier day, if a woman found herself in this situation she would have to take a short but dangerous back-road detour to kill the child, and possibly killing herself in the process. But no more. Today the highest Court in the land of the states that a woman has a free choice to keep or kill an unwanted passenger. Because after all - it is her car.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

A quote from 11(?) years ago that I found. It's just as true today as it was then.
"Any genuine pro-life stance, and certainly ours, rejects all forms of unloving, all forms of hatred or violence." - Archbishop Lipscomb (its from some presentation)

reply from: B0zo

Did he say if it's ok to call someone a "scanc"?

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

Did he say if it's ok to call someone a "scanc"?
The word "scanc" never came up in what I read of it (I skimmed through, liked that quote, but didn't decide to read through the whole thing).
What does calling someone a scanc have to do with that quote?
And calling someone a scanc can be a form of "unloving" or "hatred" so it would kind of be against that. Then again, in the right circumstances, and to the right person, that can be a compliment.

reply from: B0zo

Any coward can talk tough about "12 gauge justice" from the safety and comfort of his home, while some other schmuck rots in jail for it.
--B0zo

reply from: Shenanigans

I think Sun Tzu would disagree.
Then he'd go sharpen the points on his mace.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

Source of quote: http://www.jillstanek.com/aborted-alive/induced-labor-a.html

reply from: nancyu

Well for starters they tell women that abortion is 'safe', 'safer than childbirth', when the truth is at every stage of pregnancy performing abortion surgery is dangerous to the mother and more risky than natural, non-invasive, non-surgical methods of delivery. Also, the abortion industry opposes mandatory reporting requirements of abortion-caused complications and deaths, the reporting is VOLUNTARY. AND what morbidity/mortality they do bother to report can be falsely attributed to the more general category of pregnancy/childbirth - yup they very same category they point to as being less safe than abortion for comparison purposes. So they not only fail to report all abortion-caused complications, but they also report some of them as being caused by childbirth instead of abortion.
Then there are all the complications that don't show up until maybe years later when the woman who had the so-called 'safe' abortion, that they were ASSURED would not cause them any problems infuture pregnancies, has trouble getting pregnant, staying pregnant (miscarriages), has to have an unwanted C-section instead of natural birth, or their baby has a higher chance of health problems...
Even WITH the voluntary reporting leeway and with abortion complications being falsely reported as childbirth complications, the statistics still show that having had even one first trimester abortion in the past increases the risks and complications in future pregnancies.
I was told this by the staff of a birthing center, a labor coach, several nurse-midwives, several ob-gyn doctors, prenatal class instructors. I didn't believe them at first but as a member of a C-section prevention organization and as a student in a specialized prenatal class for women wanting to avoid unecessary C-sections, I was given handouts revealing studies and statistics that showed a link between abortion and complications in future pregnancies. And the birthing center that I had wanted to give birth at told me that having had just one first trimester abortion put me into the higher risk category so I would most likely be referred to the nearby hospital instead.
Of course, being pro-choice, I at first simply refused to believe any of that 'propaganda'... but most of the people giving me this info were not anti-abortion, just very strong advocates of women being given access to info about childbirth and anything that might affect their pregnancy and delivery. These were the people who told me about my legal right to Informed Consent. Most of them used a handout from the International Childbirth Education Association (not an anti-abortion group) explaining what Informed Consent is.
I didn't really believe any of what they told me for a couple of years... not until my second living baby had to be delivered by C-section too... The birthing center let me continue to have prenatal, postnatal, and general gynecological appointments with them even though it was by then obvious that I would have to go to the hospital for childbirth instead of being able to give birth at the birthing center.
One of their pro-woman policies was to allow us patients full access to our medical records. When you showed up for your appt. they basically handed you your complete folder to look through while you were waiting.
That is how is how I found out that the doctor who performed my first C-section had noted that there was extensive scarring on the inside walls of my uterus caused by the abortion instrument. I had 5 miscarriages during the years I was trying to get and stay pregnant. I was told they were most likely caused by implantation problems because the pregnancy tests showed very low levels of the hormones needed to sustain pregnancy, the hormones that kick in with implantation. The urine pregnancy test sometimes said I was not pregnant but a blood test would say I was. The inside of my uterus was so scarred by the sharp-tipped suction device that it was difficult for implantation to take place and for the placenta to stay attached.
Then I found out that the reason I had to have C-sections was because my cervix would not dilate at all. They tried induction when two of my daughters were born because even though I was already in natural labor, I was not dilating at all. But even with induced labor on top of natural labor, I could not dilate. And the cause of my cervix not being able to dilate at all was the abortion. I found out that first trimester suction abortions can and should be done in a way where the cervix is gradually dilated over a period of time... BUT that abortionists didn't do it that way because they prefered the assembly line way of quickly and forcefully dilating the cervix and having the whole abortion over in a matter of minutes. My cervix had scarred from the damage of such a forceful and fast dilation and scar tissue isn't flexible enough to allow dilation during labor and delivery.
OK, despite my devotion to 'abortion rights' and my previous trust in the 'pro-choice' groups and clinics I was beginning to get a bit bothered by all this...
Yet STILL I needed to believe that SURELY that clinic I went to was just one bad apple... that overall abortion clinics cared about women and told them the truth...
Nope - I found out the clinic I went to was part of a chain that was a member of the NAF which supposedly meant it was certified as being one of the better/safer clinics, meeitng the NAF's high standards... I even tried contacting some pro-choice groups and clinics, naively thinking they would assure me that what had happened to me was indeed very rare and not the sort of thing normally tolerated. I started the phone conversation with assuring them that I was pro-choice and that the clinic I wanted to report was not their clinic, beliving they would care about what had been done to me and would make sure other women weren't being treated that way. Nope - I was cussed at, laughed at, and presumed to be a 'religious fanatic anti-abortionist' even though I assured them I was just a woman who'd had an abortion that was now having complications I'd been assured didn't exist (and an atheist too). One place even told me they were going to report me as 'theatening' and 'harrassing' them (um I had never called them before and the one phone conversation with them lasted less than 2 minutes)! I was genuinely upset and was finding out that those 'pro-choice/pro-woman' groups and clinics didn't care one bit.
BUT I STILL did NOT want to contact any anti-abortion groups! NO WAY was I gonna do that!
So I talked to a lawyer who specialized in medical lawsuits. He wasn't anti-abortion but he warned me that inside an abortion clinic the patient protection right of Informed Cosnent did not apply. And that even if I could absolutely prove what I had been told (and not told) by the clinic counselor, I could not currently win a lawsuit based on Informed Consent against anyone employed in the abortion industry! Plus he said that I probably wouldn't get anywhere in a malpractice lawsuit either because of the statutes of limitiation AND because (his words) the abortionist didn't have to have done anything wrong to cause my medical problems - that even if the abortion was done correctly those complications were likely to occur BECAUSE abortion is an inherentaly risky surgery! He also warned me that the response I got from calling a couple of pro-choice groups and clinics would most likely be the same sort of response I could expect if we went to court. He compared it to a rape trial where the defendant's lawyer attacks the woman's character, credibility, and motives. He said he'd never heard of any cases where women won in cases against abortionists based on Informed Consent being denied. BTW I was not the least bit interested in a monetary reward from that abortion clinic - I wanted to make sure they were stopped from doing the same thing to other women.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3417&STARTPAGE=10&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule


That means, that the states are free to "intimidate women into continuing pregnancies" for other reasons... Like to avoid killing people.
The usual Pro-Choice type of quote. Although, most people I've talked to who have had abortions did say it was to end the pregnancy not kill the child.

So, it's cruel to let people live, and kind to kill people... I've heard that concept from some pro-abortion people before.
The future of children is discounted "at a very high rate"by abortion and that makes this a "culture of poverty".
Isn't it illegal to steal things and people? Too bad that can't be used against evil people like the staff at that abortion clinic.
Every medical procedure I've had, the doctors asked right before starting if I was sure I wanted to go through with it. The same standard should be used by abortionists.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life of the mother" - Alan Guttmacher

reply from: faithman

Even the baby killers know the truth....

reply from: nancyu

Yea, and then they should ask the child if he is sure he wants to go through with it, too.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

Even the baby killers know the truth....
Yeah, alot of them just have a habit of denying the truth.
Yea, and then they should ask the child if he is sure he wants to go through with it, too.
And after the baby doesn't consent, the woman shouldn't be allowed the abortion.

reply from: nancyu

Shenanigans on Judy Brown:

Shenanigans on Abby Johnsong:

reply from: nancyu


Shenanigans on Abby Johnsong:
No double standard THERE.

reply from: TreeHuggerzRule

The person did say people have a right to make money... That stayed the same...

reply from: nancyu

The person did say people have a right to make money... That stayed the same...
True. But with a slight change in emphasis to show approval for one, but not the other.
"...people have a right to make money, but..."
to "people have a right to make money don't they?"
Two different attitudes toward two different people, if you're asking me.

reply from: faithman

http:// http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=216128235653&v=info http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html http://www.ehd.org/index.php http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com http://www.popularsovereignty.org/spectop9.html http://personhoodeducation.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cliff-zarsky-personhood-brief.pdf http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j214/yodavater/IamaPerson2.jpg

reply from: nancyu

It is justified to use force to stop evil aggression. It is the only justified use of force as a matter of fact. For almost 40 years tiller the killer committed evil aggression against womb children. He showed absolutely no sign of quitting. This kind of behavior drives men of conscience to action. Whether you like it or not, those are the facts. I am not going to wipe main stream pro-life bowel movement crap on Scott Roeder. Yes! I fully intend to honor him. Because I intend to do all I can to protect abortionist from men like him. There are many more like him in this country. Men of conscience. Men who raised their right hand, and swore an oath to the constitution itself, not to those who have high jacked it's institutions. Men who realize that evil aggression must be met with enough force to stop it. Thats right martha, I intend to dedicate my life and treasure to protect low life baby killing scum bag abortionist, from the men of conscience. Just retire abortionist. Simply retire, and you will not have to worry about one of the many thousands of scott roeders popping up in your review mirror. That is the silver linning in the Wichita storm. Reguardless of whether the PLMSBM has the courage to honesty look at it. Abortions in Kansas are at a 20 year low. No abortion in Wichita. The propaganda arm of the abortion mafia [other wise known as the media] Are out bemoaning all over the place, that it is getting harder to recrute new abortionist. The main reason is, they don't want a career path that involves flack jackets, and bullet proof glass. I don't have to recrute men of conscience. I don't have to start an organization. Men of conscience have a spine of steal. They have the courage of conviction to uphold the principal of the use of force to stop evil aggression. Whether you believe the way they do matters not. The blather on this forum matters not. What matters to them is the fact that tiny persons are being slaughtered. And they took an oath to secure the Constitutional blessing of life to preborn Posterity. They do not care about the $50,000 bounty the freedom hating papist pavone has offered up to rat men of Conscience out. Nor are they afraid of hot air wind bags like flip the switch Benham, who are willing to execute them. The issue is life. The issue is evil aggression must be met with enough force to make it stop. Despotism must never be indulged. And it won't be. So the thing is this. I want to save abortionist from men of conscience. Please retire. this isn't about "vengance" . It is about defense. This isn't about past deeds, it is about right now. Just stop killing children, and the vast net work of nuts and kooks no longer presents a thret to you. Just simply retire.
~ faithman

reply from: nancyu

Of course itis......
Hmm, this an affliction I had never heard of before...

reply from: nancyu

Well for starters they tell women that abortion is 'safe', 'safer than childbirth', when the truth is at every stage of pregnancy performing abortion surgery is dangerous to the mother and more risky than natural, non-invasive, non-surgical methods of delivery. Also, the abortion industry opposes mandatory reporting requirements of abortion-caused complications and deaths, the reporting is VOLUNTARY. AND what morbidity/mortality they do bother to report can be falsely attributed to the more general category of pregnancy/childbirth - yup they very same category they point to as being less safe than abortion for comparison purposes. So they not only fail to report all abortion-caused complications, but they also report some of them as being caused by childbirth instead of abortion.
Then there are all the complications that don't show up until maybe years later when the woman who had the so-called 'safe' abortion, that they were ASSURED would not cause them any problems infuture pregnancies, has trouble getting pregnant, staying pregnant (miscarriages), has to have an unwanted C-section instead of natural birth, or their baby has a higher chance of health problems...
Even WITH the voluntary reporting leeway and with abortion complications being falsely reported as childbirth complications, the statistics still show that having had even one first trimester abortion in the past increases the risks and complications in future pregnancies.
I was told this by the staff of a birthing center, a labor coach, several nurse-midwives, several ob-gyn doctors, prenatal class instructors. I didn't believe them at first but as a member of a C-section prevention organization and as a student in a specialized prenatal class for women wanting to avoid unecessary C-sections, I was given handouts revealing studies and statistics that showed a link between abortion and complications in future pregnancies. And the birthing center that I had wanted to give birth at told me that having had just one first trimester abortion put me into the higher risk category so I would most likely be referred to the nearby hospital instead.
Of course, being pro-choice, I at first simply refused to believe any of that 'propaganda'... but most of the people giving me this info were not anti-abortion, just very strong advocates of women being given access to info about childbirth and anything that might affect their pregnancy and delivery. These were the people who told me about my legal right to Informed Consent. Most of them used a handout from the International Childbirth Education Association (not an anti-abortion group) explaining what Informed Consent is.
I didn't really believe any of what they told me for a couple of years... not until my second living baby had to be delivered by C-section too... The birthing center let me continue to have prenatal, postnatal, and general gynecological appointments with them even though it was by then obvious that I would have to go to the hospital for childbirth instead of being able to give birth at the birthing center.
One of their pro-woman policies was to allow us patients full access to our medical records. When you showed up for your appt. they basically handed you your complete folder to look through while you were waiting.
That is how is how I found out that the doctor who performed my first C-section had noted that there was extensive scarring on the inside walls of my uterus caused by the abortion instrument. I had 5 miscarriages during the years I was trying to get and stay pregnant. I was told they were most likely caused by implantation problems because the pregnancy tests showed very low levels of the hormones needed to sustain pregnancy, the hormones that kick in with implantation. The urine pregnancy test sometimes said I was not pregnant but a blood test would say I was. The inside of my uterus was so scarred by the sharp-tipped suction device that it was difficult for implantation to take place and for the placenta to stay attached.
Then I found out that the reason I had to have C-sections was because my cervix would not dilate at all. They tried induction when two of my daughters were born because even though I was already in natural labor, I was not dilating at all. But even with induced labor on top of natural labor, I could not dilate. And the cause of my cervix not being able to dilate at all was the abortion. I found out that first trimester suction abortions can and should be done in a way where the cervix is gradually dilated over a period of time... BUT that abortionists didn't do it that way because they prefered the assembly line way of quickly and forcefully dilating the cervix and having the whole abortion over in a matter of minutes. My cervix had scarred from the damage of such a forceful and fast dilation and scar tissue isn't flexible enough to allow dilation during labor and delivery.
OK, despite my devotion to 'abortion rights' and my previous trust in the 'pro-choice' groups and clinics I was beginning to get a bit bothered by all this...
Yet STILL I needed to believe that SURELY that clinic I went to was just one bad apple... that overall abortion clinics cared about women and told them the truth...
Nope - I found out the clinic I went to was part of a chain that was a member of the NAF which supposedly meant it was certified as being one of the better/safer clinics, meeitng the NAF's high standards... I even tried contacting some pro-choice groups and clinics, naively thinking they would assure me that what had happened to me was indeed very rare and not the sort of thing normally tolerated. I started the phone conversation with assuring them that I was pro-choice and that the clinic I wanted to report was not their clinic, beliving they would care about what had been done to me and would make sure other women weren't being treated that way. Nope - I was cussed at, laughed at, and presumed to be a 'religious fanatic anti-abortionist' even though I assured them I was just a woman who'd had an abortion that was now having complications I'd been assured didn't exist (and an atheist too). One place even told me they were going to report me as 'theatening' and 'harrassing' them (um I had never called them before and the one phone conversation with them lasted less than 2 minutes)! I was genuinely upset and was finding out that those 'pro-choice/pro-woman' groups and clinics didn't care one bit.
BUT I STILL did NOT want to contact any anti-abortion groups! NO WAY was I gonna do that!
So I talked to a lawyer who specialized in medical lawsuits. He wasn't anti-abortion but he warned me that inside an abortion clinic the patient protection right of Informed Cosnent did not apply. And that even if I could absolutely prove what I had been told (and not told) by the clinic counselor, I could not currently win a lawsuit based on Informed Consent against anyone employed in the abortion industry! Plus he said that I probably wouldn't get anywhere in a malpractice lawsuit either because of the statutes of limitiation AND because (his words) the abortionist didn't have to have done anything wrong to cause my medical problems - that even if the abortion was done correctly those complications were likely to occur BECAUSE abortion is an inherentaly risky surgery! He also warned me that the response I got from calling a couple of pro-choice groups and clinics would most likely be the same sort of response I could expect if we went to court. He compared it to a rape trial where the defendant's lawyer attacks the woman's character, credibility, and motives. He said he'd never heard of any cases where women won in cases against abortionists based on Informed Consent being denied. BTW I was not the least bit interested in a monetary reward from that abortion clinic - I wanted to make sure they were stopped from doing the same thing to other women.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3417&STARTPAGE=10&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

reply from: xnavy

nancyu is not a terrorist

reply from: nancyu

"I am at once a physician, a citizen, and a woman, and I am not willing to stand aside and allow this concept of expendable human lives to turn this great land of ours into just another exclusive reservation where only the perfect, the privileged, and the planned have the right to live.- ~Dr. Mildred Jefferson~

reply from: nancyu

"The average man on the street knows that Christians are against abortion. If the millions of Christians in this nation alone stepped out, it would cause quite a stir. But all is quiet on the western front. Our passiveness tells the world that we don't really believe what we say we believe. If we did, we couldn't stand to live in the midst of these murders without doing anything about them. Have we simply "adjusted our theology" to accept these acts of violence? If our God is real, then why haven't we met the challenge of the enemy?
Our lack of action implies consent. Agreement. All talk but no action. No threat to the enemy. God says, "Thou shall not murder." We act like either He didn't actually say it, or if He did, He didn't mean it."--(Abortion: Attitudes for action by Melody Green)

reply from: AndersHoveland

"Abortion on demand has, in my judgment, contributed significantly to an environment in our country in which life has become very cheap."
- Robert Casey, Democratic Party Senator
"The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between."
- Mother Teresa
"Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness."
- Alveda King
"Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
- Abraham Lincoln

(so much for the "it's my uterus!" excuse! Pro-choice women claiming it's their body so they can do whatever they want to the human being within is no different than the slave masters who tried to use the property rights justification to deprive the individual in question of his human rights)


2014 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics